Bond...James Bond wrote:Ron Paul...what a silly goose.
Why? Which of his views are unconstitutional and/or out of line with what the Founding Fathers intended?
I was being sarcastic in relation to beasties post about the anti-mormon thing originating from his camp.
I don't think any of his views are unconstitutional...I just think they're unrealistic and would meet significant opposition if he were to attempt to implement them.
Not to mention that we've strayed so far from what the Founding Fathers intended that what they intended is almost entirely irrelevant to how America does business.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
Jason Bourne wrote:So ABC has back to back debates going on right now. Republicans are up.
So, question. Why if Romney got 25% and second in Iowa, won Wyoming today with 70% of vote, and may win New Hampshire but may get second to McCain, will he be considered down and out if he does get second?
McCain only got 12% in Iowa, and if he wins New Hampshire it will not be by much, so why would he be in and not out?
Pundits are rather silly at times.
Well, I am for Romney first and McCain next and I like McCain more and more. I would be ok with him.
And I like Richardson but the Democrats are too in love with Hillary and Obama that they are missing their best guy.
If Romney doesn't win New Hampshire tomorrow, I think he's in trouble. It basically means it's still anyone's race. Rudy is concentrating on Florida and CA. It's risky, but if he gets the votes there, it's going to lock him in a pretty solid position for the nomination. Here's for hoping. ;)
Jason Bourne wrote:So ABC has back to back debates going on right now. Republicans are up.
So, question. Why if Romney got 25% and second in Iowa, won Wyoming today with 70% of vote, and may win New Hampshire but may get second to McCain, will he be considered down and out if he does get second?
McCain only got 12% in Iowa, and if he wins New Hampshire it will not be by much, so why would he be in and not out?
Pundits are rather silly at times.
Well, I am for Romney first and McCain next and I like McCain more and more. I would be ok with him.
And I like Richardson but the Democrats are too in love with Hillary and Obama that they are missing their best guy.
If Romney doesn't win New Hampshire tomorrow, I think he's in trouble. It basically means it's still anyone's race. Rudy is concentrating on Florida and CA. It's risky, but if he gets the votes there, it's going to lock him in a pretty solid position for the nomination. Here's for hoping. ;)
Yeah. Romney and Hillary will both be in trouble. Obama's looking pretty strong at the moment.
(Hillary is just too shrill and whiney when speaking. That's my view anyway).
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
Jason Bourne wrote:So ABC has back to back debates going on right now. Republicans are up.
So, question. Why if Romney got 25% and second in Iowa, won Wyoming today with 70% of vote, and may win New Hampshire but may get second to McCain, will he be considered down and out if he does get second?
McCain only got 12% in Iowa, and if he wins New Hampshire it will not be by much, so why would he be in and not out?
Pundits are rather silly at times.
Well, I am for Romney first and McCain next and I like McCain more and more. I would be ok with him.
And I like Richardson but the Democrats are too in love with Hillary and Obama that they are missing their best guy.
If Romney doesn't win New Hampshire tomorrow, I think he's in trouble. It basically means it's still anyone's race. Rudy is concentrating on Florida and CA. It's risky, but if he gets the votes there, it's going to lock him in a pretty solid position for the nomination. Here's for hoping. ;)
I do not agree
If he comes in a strong second he will be fine still. Why does a second in Iowa, a first in Wyoming, and a second in NH put him in a wrose position then McCain who was trounced in Iowa.
I think it will still be anyone's race even if Romney wins NH>
By the way, I think Romney did quit well in both the debates this weekend and I think he mopped up Huckabee last night. The consensus was pretty muc that Romney won the debate. They had one group of like 35 undecided NH voters who after the debate were about 95% for voting for Romney.
If he comes in a strong second he will be fine still. Why does a second in Iowa, a first in Wyoming, and a second in NH put him in a wrose position then McCain who was trounced in Iowa.
I think it will still be anyone's race even if Romney wins NH>
By the way, I think Romney did quit well in both the debates this weekend and I think he mopped up Huckabee last night. The consensus was pretty muc that Romney won the debate. They had one group of like 35 undecided NH voters who after the debate were about 95% for voting for Romney.
I don't think that Romney is out of the running if he doesn't win NH, but I think he's in trouble. It's going to be harder for him to bounce back.
Romney did well last night, but so did Rudy and McCain. Rudy just hasn't dumped any money into NH. He's really not focussed on campaigning there.
I'm actually warming up to McCain, but I still think that Rudy would be a better candidate overall.
Bond wrote: Yeah. Romney and Hillary will both be in trouble. Obama's looking pretty strong at the moment.
(Hillary is just too shrill and whiney when speaking. That's my view anyway).
I agree about Hillary. I think that if the Democrats are smart, they will back Obama. He is a much more likable and articulate candidate. His foreign policy ideas are scary, though.
I don't think that Romney is out of the running if he doesn't win NH, but I think he's in trouble. It's going to be harder for him to bounce back
.
I think so too but you know I would not be surpsised to see this one go to the convention.
Romney did well last night, but so did Rudy and McCain. Rudy just hasn't dumped any money into NH. He's really not focussed on campaigning there.
I'm actually warming up to McCain, but I still think that Rudy would be a better candidate overall.
I like McCain and sometimes it is almost a toss up between Romney and McCain for me. Rudy, I don't know. I guess I wonder about a Mayor going straight to being president. Course NYC is bigger then a lot of states. So in a way he was like a governor. But Rudy, well, we have a saying in the Northeast-a republican from NY is like a democrat everywhere else. He is just not quite conservative enough. And you know while he did well on 9/11 I am not sure that parlays into some big qualification to lead on National security though he plays like it does. McCain has the best resume there and is that is one of the reason I like him so well.
liz3564 wrote:I think that if the Democrats are smart, they will back Obama. He is a much more likable and articulate candidate. His foreign policy ideas are scary, though.
What are his foreign policy ideas, and why are they scary?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Bond...James Bond wrote:Not to mention that we've strayed so far from what the Founding Fathers intended that what they intended is almost entirely irrelevant to how America does business.
You do realize that such a state of affairs is a bad thing, right?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Bond...James Bond wrote:Not to mention that we've strayed so far from what the Founding Fathers intended that what they intended is almost entirely irrelevant to how America does business.
You do realize that such a state of affairs is a bad thing, right?
Yes and no. I do not think the founding fathers could envision some of what we face, like radical Islamic terrorists. Thus a change in perhap military strategy. But yea, mostly it is pretty scary.
liz3564 wrote:I think that if the Democrats are smart, they will back Obama. He is a much more likable and articulate candidate. His foreign policy ideas are scary, though.
What are his foreign policy ideas, and why are they scary?
Didn't he say he wanted to bomb Pakistan? Or at least invade it to try to find Bin Laden?
"What does God need with a starship?" - Captain James T. Kirk
Most people would like to be delivered from temptation but would like it to keep in touch. - Robert Orben