I consider myself a liberal, and this is most definitely *not* what I want. Please stop lying about my wishes and motivations.

:DL I wasn't talking about you or any regular joe voter on a personal level. But in my view, I believe the Democrat Party and liberals in government who seem to hold perpetual office wants people dependant on government programs in exchange for votes. Federally funded "everything" is a way to make that happen.

What's entertaining about your post is, I don't know how many times I've been told I want to "deny" people healthcare and want the elderly to die because I oppose Obamacare, how I "hate" gay people because I support Prop 8, I want to nuke everybody out of existence because I want a strong and viable nuclear deterrent and remain firm against further cuts, and I hope and pray for dirty air and water because I oppose legislation that all but guts our energy infrastructure and refuse to support pie in the sky energy schemes. All told to me by died in the wool libs. I made no such assertions against you.

Fair enough - I'd agree (with respect to both political parties) that the people in Washington are so far out of touch with the "real" people that they're in essentially a different country.

Please do say "the fat-cats running the Democratic party" instead of "liberals" -- the latter is a VERY broad brush and inaccurate besides. I'm certainly not a Democrat.

I'll add this comparison, too:

Democrats - want voters to benefit from and be grateful for social programs? ... in bed with rich Hollywood companies.
Republicans - want voters patriotic and grateful for jobs from lots of spending on "defense contractors"? ... in bed with said defense contractors.

Looking out for normal people: No one.

Didn't you learn from last time that it's all in your mind?:doh:
Oh sorry, last time you crazily said I was deliberately doing it not intentionally doing it.
Must make a mental note , don't use the big "post reply" button when posting a reply

Just checking: do you remember, that this "stimulus" crap was invented by previous administration? Yes. Its Republican invention despite how much they are fitting that to Obama only.

Steve meant (or at least I mean) that it would be really kind to keep that [QU0TE=Person X + numbers] in beginning of quote like this (with 0 replaced with O): [QU0TE=Tribesman;1816903]it makes you much more easier to understand.

Please? Could you do that? Btw what is point answering with "Post Reply" button if you are anyway going to quote someone? There is "Reply With Quote" and "Multi-Quote This Message" buttons available.

No intention to insult you. I would just like to understand your logic and your current quoting tecnique makes it (at least in long threads) unnecessarily work intensive.

Yes and last time he said I was deliberately deleting it.:doh:
Since it isn't there I cannot keep it and I cannot delete it.:know:

Because I read to the bottom of a topic and hit the "post reply" button if I am posting a reply in that topic.

Not at all, if I am responding with a quote then all that matters is the specific words I wish to address, whoever posted it is generally pretty irrelevant as it is often the actual statement that is being addressed not the person.

Okay, now I begin to understand, and apologize. You're manually quoting everything, which is lots of work. Do you really not have the "Reply With Quote" button in the lower right-hand corner of the post you want to reply to? That one quotes for you automatically.

I thought you were using that and deliberately erasing the link part. My bad.

Help us Ron Paul, you're our only hope! :rock: If only he looked like Brad Pitt. :D

Seriously. The only real conservative on the stage and everyone labels him crazy. :doh:

Well, in fairness, he was associated with some pretty weird stuff back in the day, which is largely what that perception seems to be based on.

Nothing he has said has been crazier than the actual effects of neoconservative policies since the 1980's.

When evaluating any of the nut jobs dumb enough to run for POTUS, it is important to remember that we elect a president, not a king.

Anytime any candidate for president states "I want to do abc", the first thing a citizen needs to do is determine whether the president has that authority. Pretty much anything outside the Executive branch he doesn't. Everything that involves the appropriation of money is beyond the president's authority.

So most of the time when a candidate for POTUS or even the POTUS himself says "I want to do ABC, what he really means is that "I intend to ask congress for permission to do ABC."

In my opinion, the number one requirement for POTUS is the ability to make the deals with congress. The POTUS asks congress, never tells. And congress always want' something in return. Politics is the art of making the deal. Nothing is free in politics and everything is negotiable.

So we take a candidate like Ron Paul. Some of what he says sounds, on the surface, pretty good. But would the president have the authority to make these Ron Paul changes? Frankly no. With few exceptions, any of these changes needs to be approved by congress. Much of the structure and operations of the government is dictated by legislation. Changes in legislation come from congress.

This is no accident. When the founding dads made this government, they did not want the president to have too many independent powers. And I think we can all agree that it is better for a president to have to deal with congress than have the king-like power to make sweeping changes.

Does Ron Paul have the experience and the connections to make the deal with congress? Doubtful, especially for some of his more "unusual" plans. In looking at Ron Paul's record in the house, he is more an independent acting politician as opposed to a team builder. I am not confident that Ron Paul has any political clout in the House no less the Senate. I have no confidence that Ron Paul can make the deal.

Sad as it might be, but Newton may, in fact, be the best qualified GOP candidate running. He has experience in making the deals. Now whether Newton can still make the deal in the 21st century congress has not been demonstrated. But he is one of the few candidates who has had experience in making the deal. The problem is that Newton's agenda does not match mine.

This has been one of President Obama's greatest weaknesses. He may or may not have had good ideas (we can all offer our opinions on that), but it seems pretty clear that President Obama is not all that skilled or experienced with "making the deal". Everything seems to be a fight, even amongst democrats. And yes, the President even needs to make deals with his own party's representatives. :yep:

Emotionally, we may want an political outsider as president. But perhaps we are stuck with the reality that an experienced senator/congressman who has the experiences in "making the deal" might not be the best bet.

As I have posted way too many times: The office of President of the United States is not an entry level job. It requires, in my opinion, the ability to "make the deal" with a friendly, neutral, or hostile congress.

Sounds like you want President Trump then.:hmmm:

Maybe we need to revisit the minimum requirments to be prez.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepre...resrequire.htm

which is ironic. I was taught in My history classes a Western Michigan University, that the puritans were actually somewhat lax in sexual practices, they didn't technically condone sex out of wedlock...but it was widely tolerated in society. this was during the times of the colonies BTW

but, hate me as you like, by my Girlfriend is a Muslim (and we get along great). And to be honest, she is much more lax than the proposed laws discussed in this thread

Those are the official technical requirements. Platapus is talking about what needs to be considered when selecting one to vote for. There is a big difference between what qualifies a candidate for entry into the office and what makes him qualified to do the job.

No I'm just saying, that maybe we need to raise the bar a wee bit.

Oh, as in write a new Constitutional Amendment? After getting Congress sold on the idea, deciding what new requirements are needed, getting it written, getting Congress to actually vote on it (and win), then getting two-thirds of the states to ratify it? Maybe, but not in our lifetimes.

Besides, if you open that door you'll also open up the possibility of it overriding the "No Religious Requirements" clause in the Constitution itself, and a lot of other interesting possibilities besides.

Are you ready for that?

Not really,:dead: It would probably die in the debate stage. It's a good thing we have the process we do, or they could change the Constitution at any whim. Maybe it's a bad idea, but the discussion won't hurt anything.:hmmm:

Why is that? We have I believe 6 constitutional amendments passed by congress but not ratified by the states. I don't see how a 7th would suddenly open the dam to more.

:har:You miss my point entirely. You might have heard the saying "I complained about having no shoes, until I saw a man with no legs". Yes all those things may be making your circumstances less than ideal, however compared to the rest of the world, you still have it good. Now that truly is reality.

BTW it's not Obama's economy. It is yours just as much as his. Government fraud and waste has been a staple of governments since the dawn of bureaucracy. Your collective consumption habits have as much to do with the state of the US economy, as any programs Obama has put into place in the last 3 years. Anyone else as president, now matter the political party, will do just as poorly as long, as you continue to do what you do now.

No-one can magically fix"crumbling" infrastructure without funds and where will they come from? Reducing the size of the government? Like that will ever happen. Government fat cats the world over know how to work the system to stay right where the cream flows.

Unless you learn from history, you don't learn anything. Do some reading on the 1899 and 1929 depressions and see what you can learn about how to get out of the mess you are in. It is not a new situation at all, just the players involved are new.

Doesn't mean you need to lower your standards to Mumbai slum level, but it does mean you may have to lower your expectations for a while.

Best of luck, because we are all going to need it.:03: