Political Leaders -- Who's Hot and Who's Not?

1. 77

   Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

   Talk about whoever you want to. Someone who is impressing you these days? Someone who is blowing it bigtime? Someone you wish would shut up? Someone you are excited to see joining the freshman class in Congress?
   
   I will start.
   1. I am not happy that Nancy Pelosi  wants to be Minority Leader of the House again.
   2. I am impressed (but wonder about the motive) with Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana, is publicly refuting Romney's explanation that Obama won because of all the "gifts" he bestowed on minority groups.
   3. I am impressed that Rick Perry is standing against Texas seceeding from the United States.
   
   Your thoughts?

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      ^5 MM.
      
      I am really disappointed with Clint Eastwood. I think he should have had George W. Bush sitting in that chair at the NRC convention.
      

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         George W. Bush was sitting in that chair!
         Didn't you see him?
         

         replyreport
         1. 73

            Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            

            replyreport
2. 67

   innersmiffposted 11 years ago

   Who's hot: Ron Paul
   Paul's farewell speech to congress was an epic put down of the growing statist tyranny in the United States. There was more truth in this one speech than has been said in 200 years worth of Presidential addresses.
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … 03cWio-zjk
   
   Who's not: pretty much everyone else

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Innersmiff.  It is nice to chat with you once again.
      
      I can only conclude that your eloquent opinion as stated above was reached after having read every presidential address of the last 200 years.  Otherwise, we would have to agree your opinion is utterly baseless hyperbole.
      

      replyreport
      1. 67

         innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I don't believe what I'm saying is untruthful - perhaps a more accurate description would be "there was more truth in this one speech than has been said in any Presidential address I've heard" but that wouldn't have had the same impact.
         
         But you and I have different approaches to forum discussion. Every reply you make is like a doctorate thesis, whereas sometimes I just want to shake people out of their paradigms with some pithy observation.
         
         Or listen to the speech?

         replyreport
         1. 73

            Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Good evening, Innersmiff.
            
            I know. I know. Sometimes my observations come across as harsh but I continue to work on that.
            
            I often see smart and well-informed people with a propensity to abuse the truth and to sacrifice accuracy just to exaggerate the importance of their own opinions. Often the embellishments merely destroy their own credibility and achieve very little.
            
            Also, I thank you for over stating the quality of my forum comments. I’d say that just proves my point. 
            
            I still respect your ideas and I believe they can contribute much to the discussions here. I do welcome that and I look forward to our exchanges.
            
            Be well.
            

            replyreport
   2. 60

      Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yes what this country desperately needs is a doctor who doesn't believe in evolution    No thanks.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         That's the thing about libertarians Josak: one's personal biases make no difference to policy because one cannot force them upon the population.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Except where said libertarian is in a comfortable position to enjoy healthcare, a man who could never give birth to a child anyway and is also in a position to make his own working conditions and employers entitlements. Individuals from those echelons can use their vote to inflict their values on the rest of us. And they do.
            
            Consequently, your libertarian argument falls flat on it's face, it's not about liberty but about the enforcement of YOUR values on the populace. I know you don't see it as such, Innersmiff. But you are young, your life has not encountered every/multi dimensions yet.

            replyreport
            1. 67

               innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               This is another one of those "you can't have this opinion because you are not part of this particular minority/you are privileged, etc." arguments. How about you stop doing that and analyse what I'm saying from an impersonal perspective? Imagine it's not my argument but an argument.
               
               Why don't you people actually attempt to understand the principles of liberty before you start dismissing them? I had the intellectual honesty to read Marx before telling people why his ideas were incorrect, why can't you do the same with libertarianism?
               
               There is a bunch of stuff available for free at the Von Mises Institute website. Read anything by Murray Rothbard, 'Economics in One Lesson' by Henry Hazlitt, watch videos from Stefan Molyneux and listen to Lew Rockwell's podcasts.
               
               But if you refuse and go along with this tired statist line of argument I propose this: If by asking the government to stop blowing people up all around the world, spying on people, censoring people, stealing from people, prohibiting harmless substances, destroying economies, indoctrinating children, kidnapping children and abusing children, means that I'm forcing my values upon people, BRING IT ON! What's wrong with that?

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  You sound irritated, which leads me to believe that I've touched a nerve.
                  
                  This is another one of those "you can't have this opinion because you are not part of this particular minority/you are privileged, etc." arguments. How about you stop doing that and analyse what I'm saying from an impersonal perspective? Imagine it's not my argument but an argument.
                  
                  No one is saying that you can't have that opinion, you can have any opinion you choose. I'm asking YOU to analyse the perspective objectively, and impersonally. Imagine life in another mans shoes. Your argument in this regard comes across as limited. Yes, it's an argument, I've never disputed that, but it 's hardly multi-faceted.
                  
                  Why don't you attempt to understand the principles of liberty from perspectives other than your own. It can only be a real argument for liberty when those from all sections of society experience liberty. You waffle a lot about your liberty and how others don't have rights. You sound like a confused libertarian to me.
                  
                  Now calm down, you sound like a real adolescent. I have plenty of reading material at my disposal from a variety of sources, innersmiff.  You only ever focus on government, you never appear to venture beyond who's pulling their strings. That makes your argument come across as shallow, if not naive. Don't you want to deal with the root cause? Or would you rather whack moles?

                  replyreport
      2. 60

         Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         A doctor who must have studied biology and is incapable of accepting evolution isn't fit to tie his own shoes let alone lead a nation, it shows either a profound lack of intellect or an illogical attachment to faith, either way it's the last thing we need in government.

         replyreport
         1. 67

            innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            If you've ever bothered to honestly listen to any of what he says or understand any of the principles he stands for, you would realise that saying he has a lack of intellect is rather silly.
            
            In any case, I'd rather have a stupid man (listen to Paul's speech. He is one of the few politicians in congress who knows how to convey a point effectively) in office who doesn't facilitate mass murder and the road to serfdom than a smart man who does. I'll reiterate for you: personal biases that have nothing to do with liberty have absolutely no bearing on a libertarian's policy. The policy, which is the important thing, would not be affected if he believed in evolution nor if he believed that leprechauns created humanity. It's all irrelevant just so long as he respects each individual's civil rights, which he does. It's a similar idiocy to arguing that Obama is not fit to lead the country because he's a Muslim.
            
            The last thing we need in government is a war-mongering statist, and we've got one. Frankly, I'd rather have the Easter bunny.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               I reiterate someone who decides that evolution is some grand conspiracy or falsehood in the face of overwhelming proof lacks the capacity intellectually and the necessary grip on reality to lead a conga line let alone a country.

               replyreport