TexasCHLforum.com

tacticool wrote:

RockingRook wrote:I hope we take back our country in 2012 but I will not hold my breath.

On the military/imperial front, Obama isn't really doing anything Bush didn't do.

G26ster wrote:

texasmusic wrote:
I think his policy would work if and only if we still maintained the threat of swift and violent retaliation if we are attacked. He needs to be prepared to leave a place looking like 1946 Germany (or 16th century Germany) if someone breaches our borders again.

On Stossel last week, Ron Paul was reminded of his CPAC speech, where he said we should just pay 10% to the gov't as tax, and then "opt out" of all gov't services. When asked about how one would opt out of national defense, he basically said the Second Amendment was "all we needed." So I guess the "swift and violent retaliation if we are attacked" you speak of must be all of us firing our 1911's and AR's into the air and hoping the rounds travel thousands of miles to reign death and destruction on our attackers? Who is going to pay for an Army, Navy and Air Force needed for a strong and deterring national defense? The man makes no sense in this area.

hirundo82 wrote:

Ameer wrote:

hirundo82 wrote:ETA: By "sensible immigration reform" I primarily mean a guest worker program, not necessarily including a path to citizenship.

Why do we need unskilled guest workers when there's 10% unemployment?

If there are no jobs, they won't come--the poor economy has already cut down on the number of illegal border crossings. Provide a mechanism for them to come and work legally and let the market determine how many.

hirundo82 wrote:

loadedliberal wrote:If the Republicans can put up someone who is not insane I might be able to swallow a vote for a (R). i am losing patience with Obama on a daily basis he is not the Obama I voted for in 2008. With little chance of a strong primary challenger myself and (some) others on left may defect for a reasonable republican.

If the Republicans were to nominate a libertarian-leaning candidate(not Ron Paul) I think they would have a good chance of pulling in many from the civil liberties wing of the Democratic party. Concentrate on ending the wars in the Middle East, ending the drug war, reigning in the civil liberties abuses which have been propogated by both parties since 9/11.

Unfortunately, I don't think such a candidate has much of a chance in the Republican primaries.

Dave2 wrote:

loadedliberal wrote:With little chance of a strong primary challenger myself and (some) others on left may defect for a reasonable republican.

What do you define as "reasonable"?

hirundo82 wrote:

OldSchool wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:The past President's administration is what gets the future President elected. Think about it....

Except what is this President's forte (it sure has nothing to do with vision or management skills or leadership skills)? Think about it....

Obama's biggest strength in 2008 was that he was essentially a blank slate onto which his supporters could project any policy position they supported. Many of them thought, "He's a smart guy, so he must feel the same way I do about civil rights/war in the Middle East/gay marriage/etc."

He's no longer a blank slate, and has done a remarkably good job alienating his liberal base. If the Republicans nominate a non-insane candidate, Obama is beatable in 2012.