posted on January 24, 2008 09:34:47 PM
Anybody but Hillary Clinton
**********************************
Just wanted to let you know about this new website that pays us up to 36% of the seller's fees whenever we buy something on eBay.
We can also get cash back at other retailers and earn extra cash when other people shop.
Just use the link below to check it out and let me know what you think!
posted on January 27, 2008 01:33:16 PM
Romney isn't going to get the nomination. The Fat Cat elitist republicans have depended on the blue collar religious right to win the past two elections - no way is the religious right going to get behind a Mormon.
I had a cleaning lady almost quit once (back when I had a REAL job) because she found a Mormon Bible on my husband's dresser (he picked it up out of curiosity on a biz trip to SLC - they leave in the rooms like Gideon). I explained what happened and she agreed to stay but ranted and raved and preached to me about the evils of Mormonism. She thought that a vote for Bush was a vote for putting God in the White House. Folks like that will NEVER vote for Romney. I've lost contact with her but I am pretty sure she's backing Huckaby this time.
-------------------------------------
posted on January 27, 2008 02:28:11 PM
Romeny is also too Wall street like which is not in vogue these days with the subprime debacle,
Plus he knows nothing of war and foreign policy.
*
Lets all stop whining !
posted on January 27, 2008 03:22:21 PM
Yes, we all must know about war. If we don't, we can elect another stubborn man to replace the one we have now.
The last time I checked, an army needs supplies, which costs money. As I recall the former Soviet Union attempted to run a military machine without an economy to provide the cash to support their military.
What with everyone mowing each other's lawns, and selling their possession's to each other, and the Federal Government cutting taxes, just how much is left to fund George Bush's fiasco in Iraq?
Perhaps now is the time to elect someone who is seasoned in business.
posted on January 27, 2008 06:52:43 PM
Lets turn the table -
say we do nothing about Iraq,and another 911 hit or multiple 911 alike flare up in different parts of the country while we huddle with each other making peace and love signs,then what would we say about -who is the guy we elected to the White House?
What is he good for?why do we elect him?
You cant be that naive to think war and business are not intertwined?Why did we and the Brits send soldiers to Gilbratar?
Why did we get involved in fighting the Vietnam war/
Why did we refuse to recognise Mao's regime ?
Take a look at the bygone glory of the British Commonwealth where the sun never set,look at then how much the Brits enjoy a higher standard of living?and look at them now ?
BTW I just read the UK debt debacle will be worse than ours,their consumer debt is 160% of their earnings.
We got ouselves into a situation we cant get out-it is easy to win a war,but the problem is occupation,our government grossly miscalcuted how difficult it is to manage the situation after the war was won.
posted on January 27, 2008 07:01:08 PM
If Romney wins ,he will still have to deal with the War ,just like Johnson after Kennedy!
just because he is from Wall Street does not mean he is going to do well ,me thinks Billy Clinton is the one who is much better in that dept and he was never on Wall street!
*
Lets all stop whining !
posted on January 27, 2008 08:16:22 PM
Electing an ex-warrior might not be a bad idea, they know the true cost of war. Last U.S. General elected as president was Eisenhower, one of the most under-rated presidents I can think of. In his farewell speech to the nation, he warned about what he saw as unjustified government spending proposals and continued with a warning that "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex... Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." Edited to add: he ultimately decided against fully supporting the French in Vietnam because he and his advisors envisioned the enormous cost this was to entail. During the dicey cold war, he saw money was best spent on domestic defensive measures, improving the highway systems so cities could be evacuated quickly.
[ edited by pixiamom on Jan 27, 2008 09:32 PM ]
posted on January 27, 2008 08:54:15 PM
I have to agree with my sis, anti-Mormons make Romney's nomination unlikely. Although I think Mormons make the best neighbors (when my ex injured his shoulder windsurfing, our lawn was mowed for a month by our next-door neighbor's teenager who refused compensation for it), I know more people who are prejudiced against Mormons than I know who are neutral to them. But then I faintly remember my small midwest town when JFK ran for president. People were dissuaded from attending his appearance in town, convinced that if he was elected, he would be obliged to answer to the Pope before the American people. He won by a hair.
posted on January 27, 2008 11:11:58 PM
Pixi--I didn't think much of Eisenhower; he seemed somewhat of a lightweight--until he warned about the military-industrial complex. That was courageous and so true! Follow the money, huh.
_____________________
posted on January 28, 2008 02:17:11 AM
Roadsmith, that is the traditional view of the Eisenhower administration. Look beyond to see what he didn't do - he didn't escalate the Korean conflict he inherited - he ended it. He listened to advisors and didn't commit troops to Vietnam. Although a conservative, he didn't end any of the "new age" initiatives, and extended social security coverage. He was a conservative, yet the USA prospered during his administration. I'm sure my opinion is shaded by my Dad's love of Ike, but we lived a very scary time during his administration and he seemed to walk the tightrope well.
posted on January 28, 2008 05:02:34 AM
Yes, Pisiamom...Eisenhower's comments about war were prophetic.
"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its stupidity."
"No matter how well prepared for war we may be, no matter how certain we are that within 24 hours we could destroy Kuibyshev and Moscow and Lenningrad and Baku and all the other places that would allow the Soviets to carry on war, I want you [a group of military officers] to carry this question home with you: Gain such a victory, and what do you do with it?"
"Here would be a great area from the Elbe to Vladivostok and down through Southeast Asia torn up and destroyed without government, without its communications, just an area of starvation and disaster. I ask you what would the civilized world do about it? I repeat, there is no victory in any war except through our imagination, through our dedication, and through our work to avoid it."
posted on January 28, 2008 06:20:30 AM
Pixiamom - you were 8 years old when Ike left office - any memory you have of him no doubt is through the eyes of our father (mom did not share this view). Many of the global hot spots that have been causing us problems for decades can point to covert CIA actions begun during his administration. Ike refused to grant a stay of execution for the Rosenburgs. Although he was instrumental in discrediting Sen McCarthy in 1954, he only took that action when the Senator said he was going to expose Communists within the Army. A lot of the problems in Viet Nam BEFORE the war can be credited to US intervention and financial backing of Diem during the Eisenhower administration.
posted on January 28, 2008 07:28:51 AM
Actually, my memories of Eisenhower are not what I drew on - it was my reading of his administration, i.e., Eisenhower, Soldier and President by Stephen Ambrose. Also Tom Selleck's depiction of him (what a hunk) left quite an impression.
Ditto!! I too would VERY much like to see Romney get the nomination.
