Who is this Ron Paul?

[nittanyalum]

I'm so glad you came back on GC, EE-BO!

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Wait, seriously? Didn't Hillary participate in several stock schemes that made Martha Stewart's trading look like small potatoes? Besides this, her absolute lack of congressional record will certainly be a sticking point should one of the more experienced GOP candidates rise to the fore.

.

Care to explain the lack of congressional record a bit?
One could ask for just what you mean and/or looking for from her as well as any other current candidate.
Remember not all current or past candidates or POTUS even had Congressional records to show.
Just to help:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2...llary-clinton/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16123860/
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/can...y.clinton.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/youd...index.html#c=6
http://www.reuters.com/news/globalco...hillaryclinton

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by jon1856

Care to explain the lack of congressional record a bit?
One could ask for just what you mean and/or looking for from her as well as any other candidate.
Remember not all current or past candidates or POTUS even had Congressional records to show.

Jon -

Seriously, the newsbot.org bit is fine, but the above isn't English. At all. Say what you mean.

Here's a good example of what I'm referring to:
Voting record

Hillary has certainly showed up more than the average Congressman, but pretty much at average for a Senator. Look at the "NV" issues, though - some of the ones she rails against the most, which is certainly interesting. For instance, she has a perfect Appropriations record, but a very spotty record on the Budget, one area where she assails the current administration (and for the record, I think she's right - but the record speaks for itself).

Her ability to push things through, which would seem to be a part of being President, is not particularly special, as well:
See here.

She's average or worse at sponsoring, voting on or enacting bills, which should be a negative considering public opinion polls for Congress. For all of the shit that Obama gets for inexperience, Hillary hasn't exactly made the most of her time in Congress. This is what I mean by "Congressional record" - I realize she was there, Jon. I realize Governors and other officials get elected all the time. However, look at the record and tell me what I'm missing.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Jon -

Seriously, the newsbot.org bit is fine, but the above isn't English. At all. Say what you mean..

POTUS=President of the United States.
Now do you understand?
Your posted argument stated out with a comment about just one current candidates' apparent lack of a Congressional/Senate record.

I just tried or attempted to point out that not all candidates have/had a record to show.
Thus some of those elected to the office of President never had one.

As for the links; thank you.

And thank you for providing some to back-up some of your augment or POV.
However it would have been rather interesting to have posted that same link for all the other candidates as well.
For us all to be able to compare the rest of the group.

[southernfrat]

in the debate today clinton kept trying to cite her experience as first lady. the debate today showed that the only candidates worth a shit in the democratic party are obama and edwards (note that i will vote any other party before i ever vote democrat).

now on the topic of ron paul, he is blowing smoke. many of his stances and what he says he will do in office just will not work. personally i think he's a lunatic and if he wants to be on the ballot in november he needs to go to the libertarian party because republicans would never put him on the ballot. huckabee or romney (i still have my doubts about him) will be the republican candidate and hopefully next president

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by jon1856

POTUS=President of the United States.
Now do you understand?

I clearly understood the acronym, and for you to insinuate otherwise is condescending and douchey.

I was telling you that your sentence did not make any degree of sense to me, because of what I intended in my post. Wires must have been crossed - and I'll explain below:

Originally Posted by jon1856

Your posted argument stated out with a comment about just one current candidates' apparent lack of a Congressional/Senate record.

I just tried or attempted to point out that not all candidates have/had a record to show.
Thus some of those elected to the office of President never had one.

You're being too literal - I mean that her actual Senate record is sparse, spotty at best, and not indicative of any degree of involvement that would set her apart from Joe Average Senator (and in many ways, she comes in below par).

She doesn't have a good record in the Senate, even though she served - that was my point, not that it was some sort of awkward requisite for being President. Frankly, that final assertion would have been both asinine and literally wrong, so I'm not sure why you would think that was my point, but hey - my bad, I'll be more clear in the future.

Originally Posted by jon1856

As for the links; thank you.

And thank you for providing some to back-up some of your augment or POV.
However it would have been rather interesting to have posted that same link for all the other candidates as well.
For us all to be able to compare the rest of the group.

What?

Just like you said, not every candidate has a similar Senate experience to draw from, so "side-by-side" comparisons are a joke - not to mention that individual candidates should be examined for their own merits, unless you think the goal should be to elect the "lesser evil" candidate. Comparison is a beautiful thing for finding differences between the candidates, but it is not at all necessary for rational discussion. Sorry - feel free to find Mike Huckabee's veto record as Governor, if you think it's comparable . . . I don't. Meanwhile, I think Hillary's "skeletons" include her overblown Senate experience - hence, I pointed out proof of that. Life is easy, brother.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I clearly understood the acronym, and for you to insinuate otherwise is condescending and douchey.

I was telling you that your sentence did not make any degree of sense to me, because of what I intended in my post. Wires must have been crossed - and I'll explain below:



You're being too literal - I mean that her actual Senate record is sparse, spotty at best, and not indicative of any degree of involvement that would set her apart from Joe Average Senator (and in many ways, she comes in below par).

She doesn't have a good record in the Senate, even though she served - that was my point, not that it was some sort of awkward requisite for being President. Frankly, that final assertion would have been both asinine and literally wrong, so I'm not sure why you would think that was my point, but hey - my bad, I'll be more clear in the future.




What?

Just like you said, not every candidate has a similar Senate experience to draw from, so "side-by-side" comparisons are a joke - not to mention that individual candidates should be examined for their own merits, unless you think the goal should be to elect the "lesser evil" candidate. Comparison is a beautiful thing for finding differences between the candidates, but it is not at all necessary for rational discussion. Sorry - feel free to find Mike Huckabee's veto record as Governor, if you think it's comparable . . . I don't. Meanwhile, I think Hillary's "skeletons" include her overblown Senate experience - hence, I pointed out proof of that. Life is easy, brother.

The hazards and dangers of internet "conversation"
I think we are on same page.
I did a rather quick look at some of the other site and many of the records are just about equal to hers. However, as you pointed out, many other components to look at.

And as we are now finding out, many of the candidates have some sort of "skeleton" in their back ground.
Which does being it to, unfortunately, "the lesser of the evils" level. Or it at least adds that component to many of the
candidates

No one is perfect. While the US may have one of the better ways of electing officials, it too is not perfect.

[PeppyGPhiB]

If I recall correctly, the last Senator to be elected President was JFK. All of your arguments about Senate records is exactly why - Senators have voting records, Governors do not.

Huckabee scares the crap out of me, but that's because I tend to weigh social issue stances seriously. And Ron Paul doesn't have a chance, even with all of his crazy "Pauline" supporters. They're all over the place in Seattle, vandalizing public infrastructure with their crappy homemade signs. Stop it! Hillary is very intelligent and I used to love watching her interviews, but now she's gotten all politician-slick and it's totally turned me off. McCain is too old, I'm afraid, and even he is wavering on things he used to be so strong on. Giuliani is a phoney that has personal issues that make me seriously question his decency as a person.

You know what? I don't even care about "experience" anymore. NO ONE has the experience needed to be the Most Powerful Person in the World. The President is surrounded by advisors that can help in the experience category. At this point I'm looking for someone that's fresh, intelligent, of good character, and will inspire Americans again, someone that's not afraid of candor and who hasn't been spoiled by national politics yet. Frankly, someone that is different and will actually get young people in this country to care about politics again. So my support is behind Obama, who is the only candidate my Republican boyfriend also supports.

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Wait, seriously? Didn't Hillary participate in several stock schemes that made Martha Stewart's trading look like small potatoes? Besides this, her absolute lack of congressional record will certainly be a sticking point should one of the more experienced GOP candidates rise to the fore.

As far as competence, you're really short-shifting Romney - I don't personally like his social policies (and their inconsistency) and would shy away from voting for him, but I think he's clearly incredibly intelligent and puts on a solid (if not "businesslike") front, but only in scripted situations at this point. In terms of economic matters, I would probably take him over all the others - and that's with fully recognizing how lucky he got to gain the massive MA tax surplus when he balanced the budget there. And what are the skeletons there?

Also, I'm not sure the Mormon issue isn't a wash with the female issue, especially since the same kind of mentality will have problems with both, in my mind . . .

Hi KSig,

I am actually in the brokerage business. We don't deal in commodities, but I have some insight there. The kind of money Hillary made is small potatoes in that high stakes game. That story has been in press a lot, but the sole focus has been on the profit she earned based on a cash investment (which is also meaningless since in commodities a cash investment is most often used to secure or margin a far larger actual investment), and never has there been any substantive proof of wrongdoing. So I don't let that enter my mind.

Every candidate will have something that "looks" funny in their life if it is portrayed in a certain way- same would apply to any person on the planet.

And every candidate will at times "speak to the base" and get a little aggressive and superfluous with their language.

But Hillary has been noticeable restrained and intelligent when it comes to talking about Iraq and the Middle East. She understands that there are not easy solutions to this, and I think she has a great respect for the fact that she cannot make fast and easy promises with American lives, Israel's security, the flow of world oil supplies to us and our Allies and the long term future of a key region at stake. This is why she impresses me. She talks the rhetoric and does her thing, but she stops short of making irresponsible statements. PLUS she has a ready defense when she changes positions on something. This is key. "Flip-flopping" is not always a bad thing. She has been able to articulate a change in position on key issues based on the evolution of related events- and she is not afraid to do so. It is truly exciting to see someone that courageous.

As for the Mormon issue- Romney cannot win because he is a Mormon and deeply involved in the church.

The Mormon faith is a scary thing- and I am one of the majority of Christian believers who do not accept the Mormon Church as a legitimate denomination of the Christian Faith.

The Jeffords case is a key example. It took the Federal Government to track him down and arrest him, but never has much issue been made of the fact Jeffords got away with all he did with the blessing and participation of local police and court officials.

The Mormons own and control Utah- and like no other religion since the Catholics in the 1200s-1700s, the Mormons abuse the powers of State and local economic opportunity in order to shield and protect the most fanatical members among them. The Feds got Jeffords, but that town and many others have yet to be cleansed of goverment officials who support and participate in the statutory rape and molestation of underage women, and the abuse and abandonment of young men who pose a threat to town leaders marrying multiple women.

I would hire a Mormon to work at my company tomorrow and not think twice about it. I would shop at a Mormon store. I would visit Utah.

But a devout temple-worthy (aka temple-recommended) Mormon in charge of the most free and diverse nation in the world? Never.

There is a good reason why Romney does not utter the word Mormon and why he has done a lot of press conferences about "faith" and whether America can handle a President who is strong on "faith".

There is also a good reason why Pat Robertson- total nutjob that he is- endorsed pro-choice Giuliani over Romney.

In a recent poll, just over 50% of Americans said they would never vote a Mormon into office. I think the actual number is much higher because poll questions like that are somewhat intimidating to people who want to be fair despite their nagging concerns. This poll alone proves Romney could never win. There have been tons of Hillary polls asking if people would never vote for her under any circumstances- and she has never pulled the thumbs down like Romney does.

He has no chance and he never should. The Mormon Church is the only major faith in modern America that actively uses it influence to abuse the powers of State to protect religious practices that a free and intelligent society finds abhorrent. A man who is a follower of that faith has no business even thinking he is prepared to lead this country.

I challenge any Republican who wanted to impeach Clinton over an extra-marital affair to explain to me why a key national player in a religion that has actively abused the powers of State to protect child molesters should ever set foot in the Oval Office.

[EE-BO]

And, in the words of a great old Mad TV sketch,

I'M THROUGH!

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

Hi KSig,

I am actually in the brokerage business. We don't deal in commodities, but I have some insight there. The kind of money Hillary made is small potatoes in that high stakes game. That story has been in press a lot, but the sole focus has been on the profit she earned based on a cash investment (which is also meaningless since in commodities a cash investment is most often used to secure or margin a far larger actual investment), and never has there been any substantive proof of wrongdoing. So I don't let that enter my mind.

Every candidate will have something that "looks" funny in their life if it is portrayed in a certain way- same would apply to any person on the planet.

And every candidate will at times "speak to the base" and get a little aggressive and superfluous with their language.

But Hillary has been noticeable restrained and intelligent when it comes to talking about Iraq and the Middle East. She understands that there are not easy solutions to this, and I think she has a great respect for the fact that she cannot make fast and easy promises with American lives, Israel's security, the flow of world oil supplies to us and our Allies and the long term future of a key region at stake. This is why she impresses me. She talks the rhetoric and does her thing, but she stops short of making irresponsible statements. PLUS she has a ready defense when she changes positions on something. This is key. "Flip-flopping" is not always a bad thing. She has been able to articulate a change in position on key issues based on the evolution of related events- and she is not afraid to do so. It is truly exciting to see someone that courageous.

As for the Mormon issue- Romney cannot win because he is a Mormon and deeply involved in the church.

The Mormon faith is a scary thing- and I am one of the majority of Christian believers who do not accept the Mormon Church as a legitimate denomination of the Christian Faith.

The Jeffords case is a key example. It took the Federal Government to track him down and arrest him, but never has much issue been made of the fact Jeffords got away with all he did with the blessing and participation of local police and court officials.

The Mormons own and control Utah- and like no other religion since the Catholics in the 1200s-1700s, the Mormons abuse the powers of State and local economic opportunity in order to shield and protect the most fanatical members among them. The Feds got Jeffords, but that town and many others have yet to be cleansed of goverment officials who support and participate in the statutory rape and molestation of underage women, and the abuse and abandonment of young men who pose a threat to town leaders marrying multiple women.

I would hire a Mormon to work at my company tomorrow and not think twice about it. I would shop at a Mormon store. I would visit Utah.

But a devout temple-worthy (aka temple-recommended) Mormon in charge of the most free and diverse nation in the world? Never.

There is a good reason why Romney does not utter the word Mormon and why he has done a lot of press conferences about "faith" and whether America can handle a President who is strong on "faith".

There is also a good reason why Pat Robertson- total nutjob that he is- endorsed pro-choice Giuliani over Romney.

In a recent poll, just over 50% of Americans said they would never vote a Mormon into office. I think the actual number is much higher because poll questions like that are somewhat intimidating to people who want to be fair despite their nagging concerns. This poll alone proves Romney could never win. There have been tons of Hillary polls asking if people would never vote for her under any circumstances- and she has never pulled the thumbs down like Romney does.

He has no chance and he never should. The Mormon Church is the only major faith in modern America that actively uses it influence to abuse the powers of State to protect religious practices that a free and intelligent society finds abhorrent. A man who is a follower of that faith has no business even thinking he is prepared to lead this country.

I challenge any Republican who wanted to impeach Clinton over an extra-marital affair to explain to me why a key national player in a religion that has actively abused the powers of State to protect child molesters should ever set foot in the Oval Office.

Good post, EE-BO - you're probably the best poster on this site, post more homey.

I don't disagree with your views on Mormonism - in fact, I'm probably much more anti-Mormon, and my problems are based on their history of institutional racism, sexism and child abuse, but at the end of the day we reach the same conclusion: as a collective, they're nuts.

Interestingly, I could never vote for Romney for totally different reasons than his faith - mostly his abortion stance, which is laughable if you look at his record as a whole. I agree with your comment that flip-flopping is appropriate given an articulated reason, which is why Romney's moves on this stance just blow me away.

Also, I appreciate the insight from the finance world - honestly, my level of expertise is essentially "have dollars, call i-banking buddies, get the lay of the land, trust them for better or worse" . . . still, though, the grand jury portion of the situation blows me away, especially since it seems comparable to, say, Giuliani's marital issues, in that both were likely somewhat wrong and somewhat common for better or worse. I hope that makes sense.

[EE-BO]

I have not followed Romney much since I would never vote for him, but would you say he has flip-flopped in a bigger way than other candidates? I hear that about him, but have not really looked into it.

Thanks for your kind words otherwise. I post when I can. And I try to be careful about politics since I am always up for a good debate- but I can get a little excited at times, and Romney is definitely a hot button for me right now.

[Tom Earp]

Since it seems that the topic has moved from Ron Paul, I thought I might throw this in!


Subject: People in the White House


Views of past presidents offered by Capt. Dennis Keast (USAF, retired)
from his Air force #1 mission experiences and talking with Secret Services
agents involved in some of those missions....... Capt. Denny Keast flies for
UAL and flew many SAM's (Special Air Mission 's) for the White House.

**********************************************

I flew 4 Presidential support missions in the C-141 out of Dover
AFB, DE.. Two for President Johnson and two for President Nixon.
Johnson was a first class jerk and on the two occasions I flew for him,
if the Secret Service and their Liaison in the Pentagon hadn't
intervened, we would have had to stay on the airplane for hours while he
(Johnson) was off somewhere. Nixon never required that and the four (4)
stops we made with him he was cordial to the Secret Service and to me
and my crew.

We had a neighbor when I lived in DC who was part of the secret service
presidential detail for many years. His stories of Kennedy and Johnson
were the same as those I heard from the guys who flew the presidents'
plane.

Yes, Kennedy did have Marilyn Monroe flown in for secret "dates," and
LBJ was a typical Texas "good ole boy" womanizer. Nixon, Bush 41, and
Carter never cheated on their wives. Clinton cheated, but couldn't match
Kennedy or LBJ in style or variety.

The information below is accurate: The elder Bush and current president
Bush make it a point to thank and take care of the air crews who fly
them around. When the president flies, there are several planes that
also go, one carries the armored limo, another the security detail, plus
usually a press aircraft. Both Bushes made it a point to stay home
on holidays, so the Air Force and security people could have a day
with their families.

Hillary Clinton was arrogant and orally
abusive to her security detail. She forbade her daughter, Chelsea, from
exchanging pleasantries with them. Sometimes Chelsea, miffed at her
mother's obvious conceit and mean spiritedness, ignored her demands and
exchanged pleasantries regardless, but never in her mother's presenc e.
Chelsea really was a nice, kindhearted, and lovely young lady. The
consensus opinion was that Chelsea loved her Mom but did not like her.
Hillary Clinton was continuously rude and abrasive to those who were
charged to protect her life. Her security detail dutifully did their
job, as professionals should, but they all loathed her and wanted to be
on a different detail. Hillary Clinton w as despised by the Secret
Service as a whole. Former President Bill Clinton was much more amiable
than his wife. Often the Secret Service would cringe at the verbal
attacks Hillary would use against her husband. They were embarrassed for
his sake by the manner and frequency in which she verbally insulted him,
sometimes in the presence of the Secret Service, and sometimes behind
closed doors. Even behind closed doors Hillary Clinton would scream and
holler so loudly that everyone could hear what she was saying. Many felt
sorry for President Clinton and most wondered why he tolerated it
instead of just divorcing his "attack dog" wife. It was crystal clear
that the Clintons neither liked nor respected each other and this was
true long before the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Theirs was genuinely a
"marriage of convenience." Chelsea was much closer to her father than
her mother, even after the Lewinsky scandal, which hurt her gravely.
Bill Clinton did in fact have charisma, and occasionally would smile at
or shake hands with his security detail. Still , he always displayed an
obvious air of superiority towards them. His security detail uniformly
believed him to be disingenuous, false, and that he did nothing without
a motive that in some way would enhance his image and political career.
He was polite, but not kind. They did not particularly like him and nobody
trusted him.

Al Gore was the male version of Hillary Clinton.
They were friendlier toward each other than either of them
were towards former President Clinton . They were not intimate, so
please don't read that in. They were very close in a political way.
Tipper Gore was generally nice and pleasant. She initially liked Hillary
but soon after the election she had her "pegged" and no longer liked her
or associated with her except for events that were politically obligatory.
Al Gore was far more left wing than Bill Clinton . Al Gore resented Bill
Clinton and thought he was too "centrist." He despised all Republicans.
His hatred was bitter and this was long before he announced for the
Presidency. This hatred was something that he and Hillary had in common.
They often said as much, even in the presence of their security detail.
Neither of them trusted Bill Clinton and, the Secret Service opined,
neither of them even liked him. Bill Clinton did have some good
qualities, whereas Al Gore and Hillary had none, in the view of their
security details. Al Gore, like Hillary, was very rude and arrogant
toward his security detail. He was extremely unappreciative and would
not hesitate to scold them in the presence of their peers for minor
details over which they had no control. Al Gore also looked down on
them, as they finally observed and learned with certainty on one
occasion. Al got angry at his offspring and pointed at his security
detail and said, "Do you want to grow up and be like them?" Word of this
insult by the former Vice-President quickly spread and he became as
disliked by the Secret Service as Hillary. Most of them prayed Al Gore
would not be elected President, and they really did have private
celebrations in a few of their homes after President Bush won. This was
not necessarily to celebrate President Bush's election, but to celebrate
Al Gore's defeat.

Everyone in the Secret Service wants to be on First Lady Laura Bush's
detail. Without exception, they concede that she is perhaps the nicest
and most kind person they have ever had the privilege
of serving. Where Hillary patently refused to allow her picture to be
taken with her security detail, Laura Bush doesn't even have to be
asked, she offers. She doesn't just shake their hand and say, "Thank
you." Very often, she will give members of her detail a kindhearted hug
to express her appreciation. There is nothing false about her. This is
her genuine nature. Her security detail considers her to be a "breath of
fresh air." They joke that comparing Laura Bush with Hillary Clinton is
like comparing "Mother Teresa" with the "Wicked Witch of the North."

Likewise, the Secret Service considers President Bush to be a gem
of a man to work for. He always treats them with genuine respect
and he always trusts and listens to their expert advice. They really
like the Crawford, Texas detail. Every time the president goes to
Crawford he has a Bar-B-Q for his security detail and he helps
serve their meals. He sits with them, eats with them, and talks
with them.. He knows each of them by their first name, and calls them by
their first name as a show of affection. He always asks about their
family, the names of which he always remembers. They believe that he is
deeply and genuinely appreciative of their service. They could not like,
love, or respect anyone more than President Bush. Most of them did not
know they would feel this way, until they had an opportunity to work for
him and learn that his manner was genuine and consistent. It has never
changed since he began his Presidency. He always treats them with the
utmost respect, kindness, and compassion.

Please pass this on. It is important for Americans to have a true inside
understanding of their President.. And also the woman who is currently a
candidate for president..

And as some say, who can take over a Country as huge as ours and try to not only run it, but the world!

Try to hire the best advisers to help of course, but I wonder why so many have left lately?

Why has so many since and including Nixon been involved in so many dirty tricks and politics?

[MysticCat]

^^^^ I'd beware forwarding and posting emails like this one.

Snopes says that the jury is still out on whether it is legit or is a political trick, but Snopes seems to be leaning heavily toward political trick.

That said, there's a lot about it (including the notable absence of the Reagans) that makes me more than willing to sell my castle to anyone who thinks this thing is for real.

[jwright25]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Snopes seems to be leaning heavily toward political trick.

That said, there's a lot about it (including the notable absence of the Reagans) that makes me more than willing to sell my castle to anyone who thinks this thing is for real.

I was kinda thinking that too. Even though there are other "recollections" out there that more or less imply the same observations about these individuals, the thing that I question most would be that a current or former Secret Service agent would freely discuss these things. I guess it just seems to me that part of their "oath of office" would be that they never reveal anything about the people they are protecting or things they have seen.