Get HuskerMax™ on your iPhone. Click here for details. Get tickets for all home and away games here.
Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 186

Thread: I'll hold my nose and vote for anyone who can beat Obama!

  1. #16
    All Big 10
    FLA4NEB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Central FLA
    Posts
    19,486
    Quote Originally Posted by ColoREDo View Post
    Paul would cause people to do that? Santorum maybe.
    You know we always here people (from both sides) threaten to bolt of so in so gets elected but nobody ever does...President Paul might do the trick...but I doubt it...anyway I am heading to Singapore or maybe NZ but only if Nebraska Football sinks into an abyss they can't get out of (I was pricing it out under Cally )
    I am Fred Lawrence Anderson and I approve this post.

  2. #17
    Blackshirt

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    15,655
    [QUOTE=FLA4NEB;877440]I think with a President Paul we would see the majority of Congress stand up to the encroachment of Executive power over the Legislative branch. I can easily imagine the response of many in congress as a President Paul pushes for what he has proposed.

    It is almost as if you have never noticed the ebb and flow of power in DC over the year between the branches of government. Not sure why you think you need to end every post directed towards me with a passive aggressive personal jab. Care to explain this strange compulsion??[/QUOTE]

    I don't think that electing Paul would automatically motivate the majority of Congress to "stand up to" or for anything, especially when he would be dealing with Dems in control of both the House and the Senate.
    I cried because I had no shoes until I saw a man that had no feet.

  3. #18
    Husker Fan

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    47,584
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPhoenix View Post
    I agree with this. There are about a thousand reasons why someone would vote for "anyone but Obama" that have ZERO to do with his color. If it was Hillary Clinton, they would be saying "anyone but Clinton". Are there some who won't vote for him cause he's black? Sure. But I think they are a very small percentage.
    Cancelled out by the tiny percentage that votes for him bccause he IS black.

    The OP's comment was rather stupid and ill-informed. To paraphrase the great george Carlin: Why vote against him cuz he's black when there are a milliion other reasons to vote against him?

  4. #19
    Red Shirt

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Not Chicago anymore
    Posts
    2,434
    The race card may play a role, but no different than in 2008. If someone had a problem voting for Obama in 2008 because he is black, it isn't likely going to have changed much. I mean, he's still black.

    I haven't decided who I am going to vote for. I'll wait for the circus that is the Republican primary to end and see how Romney handles debating Obama. I would be lying if I said I have been overly impressed with anyone the Republicans have managed to drudge up. If, by some chance, Santorum defeats Romney (fat chance), I will vote for Obama.

    On one hand, I don't think Obama has been a great president. I think he has done a good job on foreign policy, but that's about it. He pushed through a healthcare bill that doesn't the underlying problems and did so foolishly and haphazardly. The issue that required paramount importance was the economy and I just don't give him much credit in that arena. Plus, I am a strong proponent of tax code reform and some form of entitlement reform for no other reason than we have to. There aren't any other options. I just haven't seen enough from the Obama administration on those areas.

    On the other hand, I also am hesitant to reward the Republican party for basically being nothing more than a roadblock for the past four years. Even on issues like Senate appointment confirmations. Also, the Republican party is being pushed farther right than I am comfortable with. I don't identify with evangelicals and don't understand how someone can be for "small government", but then try to legislate someones personal choices. I also don't like the blind conviction, "my way or the highway" attitude displayed by certain members of the Republican party. To me, if you cannot fathom that you might be wrong, you aren't fit to lead because you cannot deviate decision making in the face of contrary evidence.

    So, to sum up, I'm probably going to be holding my nose at the ballot box this year.

  5. #20
    All Big 10
    FLA4NEB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Central FLA
    Posts
    19,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Warhorse View Post
    sure why you think you need to end every post directed towards me with a passive aggressive personal jab. Care to explain this strange compulsion??
    There was nothing passive aggressive about that jab And it was directed at you because you addressed me directly. If you don't want to spar don't get in the ring.

    I don't think that electing Paul would automatically motivate the majority of Congress to "stand up to" or for anything, especially when he would be dealing with Dems in control of both the House and the Senate.
    I think if Paul was elected and he pushed for what he is proposing Congress would push back and pretty hard. He is proposing not only limiting the power of future Presidents but also Congress in very large ways. I don't see Congress rolling over for that and if he uses executive orders and cabinet appointees to start dismantling what he can from the executive side of the table. I could see Congress challenge executive orders as well as pass laws the compel departments to stay in place.

    Congress has a lot more to lose in the small government equation and will fight harder (a cross party lines) to keep their power and control.

    (if you are going to continue to do that in line red bold commenting could you please learn how to do it without messing up the formatting tags...thank you.)
    I am Fred Lawrence Anderson and I approve this post.

  6. #21
    [QUOTE=Warhorse;877451]
    Quote Originally Posted by FLA4NEB View Post
    I think with a President Paul we would see the majority of Congress stand up to the encroachment of Executive power over the Legislative branch. I can easily imagine the response of many in congress as a President Paul pushes for what he has proposed.

    It is almost as if you have never noticed the ebb and flow of power in DC over the year between the branches of government. Not sure why you think you need to end every post directed towards me with a passive aggressive personal jab. Care to explain this strange compulsion??[/QUOTE]

    I don't think that electing Paul would automatically motivate the majority of Congress to "stand up to" or for anything, especially when he would be dealing with Dems in control of both the House and the Senate.
    It was directed at you because you asked the poster to clarify his post. Don't play a victim here...

  7. #22
    Husker Immortal
    CombatTargeteer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    132,710
    I've seen many crazy things on this board but for someone to attack Warhorse for a post is just insane. Give him a break.

  8. #23
    All Big 10
    FLA4NEB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Central FLA
    Posts
    19,486
    Quote Originally Posted by CombatTargeteer View Post
    I've seen many crazy things on this board but for someone to attack Warhorse for a post is just insane. Give him a break.
    Where did that happen?
    I am Fred Lawrence Anderson and I approve this post.

  9. #24
    Blackshirt

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    15,655
    Quote Originally Posted by FLA4NEB View Post
    There was nothing passive aggressive about that jab And it was directed at you because you addressed me directly. If you don't want to spar don't get in the ring. And that's NOT passive-aggressive? Can you just not help yourself?


    I think if Paul was elected and he pushed for what he is proposing Congress would push back and pretty hard. He is proposing not only limiting the power of future Presidents but also Congress in very large ways. I don't see Congress rolling over for that and if he uses executive orders and cabinet appointees to start dismantling what he can from the executive side of the table. I could see Congress challenge executive orders as well as pass laws the compel departments to stay in place.

    Congress has a lot more to lose in the small government equation and will fight harder (a cross party lines) to keep their power and control.

    (if you are going to continue to do that in line red bold commenting could you please learn how to do it without messing up the formatting tags...thank you.)
    A two-for-one special--you started and ended with a passive-aggressive jab but thanks for answering my question inbetween.
    I cried because I had no shoes until I saw a man that had no feet.

  10. #25
    Blackshirt

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    15,655
    [QUOTE=Big Red Rick;877566]
    Quote Originally Posted by Warhorse View Post

    It was directed at you because you asked the poster to clarify his post. Don't play a victim here...
    Sure I asked him to clarify his post but also wondered why he can't help but post some passive-agressive slap at me every time he responds to my posts. So far no answer to that. You seem to want to butt into our conversation so do you have an answer?
    I cried because I had no shoes until I saw a man that had no feet.

  11. #26
    Moderator
    redmachine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    7,643
    Quote Originally Posted by Warhorse View Post
    A two-for-one special--you started and ended with a passive-aggressive jab but thanks for answering my question inbetween.
    And yet one more "all about me" thread-hijack is complete.
    "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
    “Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you.” -- (Benjamin Franklin)

  12. #27
    All Big 10
    FLA4NEB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Central FLA
    Posts
    19,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Warhorse View Post
    And that's NOT passive-aggressive? Can you just not help yourself? ... A two-for-one special--you started and ended with a passive-aggressive jab but thanks for answering my question inbetween.
    Can you please explain what you mean by passive-aggressive.
    I am Fred Lawrence Anderson and I approve this post.

  13. #28
    Blackshirt

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    15,655
    Quote Originally Posted by redmachine View Post
    And yet one more "all about me" thread-hijack is complete.
    And yet another player piles on. Let's recap...I asked FLA4 why he thought he had constantly add snarky passive-aggressive comments when I merely asked for a legitimate clarification of a statement he made. You now make the second poster who has seen fit to jump in and add your own snarky passive-aggressive comments directed at me.
    I cried because I had no shoes until I saw a man that had no feet.

  14. #29
    Moderator
    redmachine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    7,643
    Quote Originally Posted by Warhorse View Post
    And yet another player piles on. Let's recap...I asked FLA4 why he thought he had constantly add snarky passive-aggressive comments when I merely asked for a legitimate clarification of a statement he made. You now make the second poster who has seen fit to jump in and add your own snarky passive-aggressive comments directed at me.

    [snark] [/snark]
    "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
    “Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you.” -- (Benjamin Franklin)

  15. #30
    Blackshirt

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    15,655
    Quote Originally Posted by FLA4NEB View Post
    Can you please explain what you mean by passive-aggressive.
    Google it because I am going no further with this conversation as we are headed right off the cliff of one of your silly semantic battles.
    I cried because I had no shoes until I saw a man that had no feet.







Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •