View Poll Results: Who will win the Iowa Straw Poll this Saturday?

Voters
7. You may not vote on this poll
  • Sam Brownback

    0 0%
  • Newt Gingrich (undeclared candidate)

    0 0%
  • Rudy Giuliani

    2 28.57%
  • Mike Huckabee

    0 0%
  • Duncan Hunter

    0 0%
  • John McCain

    1 14.29%
  • Ron Paul

    1 14.29%
  • Mitt Romney

    1 14.29%
  • Tom Tancredo

    0 0%
  • Fred Thompson (undeclared candidate)

    2 28.57%
  • Tommy Thompson

    0 0%
  • Other

    0 0%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 56

Thread: Who will win the Iowa Straw Poll this Saturday?

  1. #1
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    United States
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    902

    Who will win the Iowa Straw Poll this Saturday?

    The Ames Straw Poll, also known as the Iowa Straw Poll, will be held this Saturday in Ames, Iowa. For those not aware of this GOP fundraiser (i.e. the cost of a vote is $35), the candidate who wins the poll typically wins the Iowa Caucus and has a 50/50 shot of becoming the Republican nominee for President. Romney is favored; Giuliani and McCain do not plan to attend.

    Please note below your top three in order and the percent of votes the winner will receive. In celebration of this vote buying process, I will award 1 (one) reputation point to the Optiboard member who picks not only the winner but also the runner-up (provided there is no objection from the Optiboard Administrators). The first tie-breaker will go to the person or persons who pick the third place finisher correctly; the second tie-breaker will go to the person or persons who predict the percent of votes the winner will receive.

  2. #2
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    United States
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    902
    1) Mitt Romney 31%
    2) Fred Thompson
    3) Ron Paul

  3. #3
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    United States
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    902
    I guess I'm more interested in who will end up becoming the Republican candidate than the Republicans here are. Thanks for leaving me hanging guys!

  4. #4
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    United States
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    902
    Official results from Iowa straw poll
    MITT ROMNEY 4,516 VOTES 31.6%
    MIKE HUCKABEE 2,587 VOTES 18.1%
    SAM BROWNBACK 2,192 VOTES 15.3%
    TOM TANCREDO 1,961 VOTES 13.7%
    RON PAUL 1,305 VOTES 9.1%
    TOMMY THOMPSON 1,039 VOTES 7.3%
    FRED THOMPSON 203 VOTES 1.4%
    RUDY GIULIANI 183 VOTES 1.3%
    DUNCAN HUNTER 174 VOTES 1.2%
    JOHN MCCAIN 101 VOTES .7%
    JOHN COX 41 VOTES .3%
    14,302 TOTAL BALLOTS CAST

  5. #5
    sub specie aeternitatis Pete Hanlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Hickory Creek, TX
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    4,964
    Thanks for leaving me hanging guys!

    I've been watching and have been (somewhat) interested in the results... With the apparent demise of the McCain campaign, I'm more or less waiting to see which of the Republicans manages to muddle through the process without self-destructing.

    I don't give Romney much of a chance... its probably Giuliani's nomination to lose (and I bet he does).

    The only thing more pathetic than the GOP line-up is that of the Democrats, where the only worthwhile candidate will probably be swept aside by the Clinton campaign...
    Pete Hanlin, ABOM
    Vice President Professional Services
    Essilor of America

    http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74

  6. #6
    Master OptiBoarder Grubendol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Whittier, CA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,506
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin View Post
    Thanks for leaving me hanging guys!

    I've been watching and have been (somewhat) interested in the results... With the apparent demise of the McCain campaign, I'm more or less waiting to see which of the Republicans manages to muddle through the process without self-destructing.

    I don't give Romney much of a chance... its probably Giuliani's nomination to lose (and I bet he does).

    The only thing more pathetic than the GOP line-up is that of the Democrats, where the only worthwhile candidate will probably be swept aside by the Clinton campaign...
    Interesting perspective since I think that the candidate pool for the Dems is the most impressive they’ve set forward since the 60’s. I am fearful that Clinton’s money-corporate connections will buy her way in, but Edwards and Kucinich have some true honest to goodness liberal idealism which has been sorely lacking in the party for years now.

    And while Obama is a bit more of an unknown factor I think that he has the ability to lead with idealism and compromise at the same time. Something which we have seen neither of for longer than I can remember.


    As far as the Republican candidates, I think it’s a pretty sad field, honestly. McCain was something great, but when he started bending under the pressure of Bush in a desire to become the next president he lost his radical pragmatism and lost most of his supporters from the 2000 campaign. The debates for the Repubs have been a sad exhibit of competing on who loves God more and who wants to kill terrorists more.

    Giuliani’s outright lies that the Democratic debates haven’t been discussing “radical Islamic terrorists” is just laughable. He can claim truth because they haven’t used those specific three words to describe the terrorist and geopolitical problems of our day, yet all have discussed the problem of fundamentalism and the impact of globalization upon the growing factionization of all religions.
    www.opticaljedi.com
    www.facebook.com/opticaljedi
    www.twitter.com/opticaljedi
    __________________________________
    Prognatus ex Alchemy ad Diligo
    Eliza Joy Martius VIII MMVIII


  7. #7
    sub specie aeternitatis Pete Hanlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Hickory Creek, TX
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    4,964
    Wow, what a shocker- you like the Dem candidates and are disappointed in the GOP candidates (well, except for the one "non-Republican" in the field- but now that he's made a pathetic attempt at acting a little like a Republican you've lost any affection for him as well).

    Let me clarify by saying the candidates on either side with a chance of receiving the nomination are all disappointing (except for Sen. Obama- but he'll never receive the nomination).

    Tell you what- I'll reach out and suggest a Democrat ticket (well, I don't know if he's a Democrat anymore- since your left wing tossed him from the party) for whom I could see myself voting. Let's see if you can do the same on the Republican side...

    Senator Lieberman
    (Senator Fienstein - VP)
    Pete Hanlin, ABOM
    Vice President Professional Services
    Essilor of America

    http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74

  8. #8
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    United States
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    902
    Final results of Thursday's Illinois straw poll:
    1. Mitt Romney – 40.35%
    2. Fred Thompson – 19.96%
    3. Ron Paul – 18.87%
    4. Rudy Giuliani – 11.61%
    5. John McCain – 4.12%
    6. Mike Huckabee – 3.04%
    7. Sam Brownback – 1.08%
    8. Duncan Hunter - .65%
    9. Tom Tancredo - .33%

    From CNN: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...is-straw-poll/

  9. #9
    sub specie aeternitatis Pete Hanlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Hickory Creek, TX
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    4,964
    Okay, I will admit to having known little about Former-Gov. Romney. Having conducted a bit of research, I'm having trouble figuring something out...

    How in the world did someone who is so obviously socially conservative manage to win the governor's job in Massachussetts?

    If the person described at http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/can...tt.romney.html can manage to woo voters in what may be one of the top 5 liberal states, perhaps this guy has a shot at a nationwide election.
    Pete Hanlin, ABOM
    Vice President Professional Services
    Essilor of America

    http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74

  10. #10
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    United States
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin View Post
    How in the world did someone who is so obviously socially conservative manage to win the governor's job in Massachussetts?
    I don't know if it was a factor in voters' minds, but he was pro-choice at the time he was elected in 2002.

  11. #11
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    United States
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    902
    Here’s how the 266 participants in Saturday’s Alabama GOP straw poll fared:

    Ron Paul 216
    Mitt Romney 14
    Duncan Hunter 10
    Fred Thompson 9
    Rudy Giuliani 7
    Mike Huckabee 6
    Sam Brownback 2
    John McCain 2
    Tom Tancredo 0

    From Tuscaloosa News.com:http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/articl...15/1010/NEWS05

  12. #12
    Paper Shuffler GOS_Queen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Portland Metro
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    1,533
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin View Post
    Okay, I will admit to having known little about Former-Gov. Romney. Having conducted a bit of research, I'm having trouble figuring something out...

    How in the world did someone who is so obviously socially conservative manage to win the governor's job in Massachussetts?

    If the person described at http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/can...tt.romney.html can manage to woo voters in what may be one of the top 5 liberal states, perhaps this guy has a shot at a nationwide election.
    That's easy ... he flip flops on issues to suit his audience.

    And then, there's the dog issue ... http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...638065,00.html


    And, he's another puppet of the establishment who seems to actually believe the line "they hate us for our freedoms" as the cause of 9/11.

    Our country has made it almost a sport to meddle and interfere with the ruling governments of sovereign nations over the past 50+ years. Geez, maybe THAT has something to do with 9/11.

    Remember, he said he wants to double GITMO. Goody.
    Last edited by GOS_Queen; 08-19-2007 at 09:18 AM.

  13. #13
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    United States
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by GOS_Queen View Post
    And then, there's the dog issue ... http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...638065,00.html
    Do you think that particular lapse in judgment from nearly 25 years ago should be a factor in his candidacy?

  14. #14
    Paper Shuffler GOS_Queen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Portland Metro
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    1,533
    Quote Originally Posted by 1968 View Post
    Do you think that particular lapse in judgment from nearly 25 years ago should be a factor in his candidacy?
    Perhaps he's "grown" as a person ... but I think it shows lack of pre-planning ...

  15. #15
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    United States
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by GOS_Queen View Post
    Perhaps he's "grown" as a person ... but I think it shows lack of pre-planning ...
    It could have been worse. He could have driven off with the dog tied to the hitch!

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Only City in the World built over a Volcano
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    12,996
    What's your problem with the way he transports a barfing dog. At least he wasn't fighting them in a cage and and tortureing them to death. I don't think this shows any tendancy to miss-treat dogs on a regular basis. I don't think any of us haven't had little lapses in judgement on occasion.

    The nice thing is he is always calm even tempers and never rants, raves screiks or screams. Always seems to have level headed approach to all things. It may show a lack of passion, but it's something I would like to see in a chief executive.


    I can remember strangleing some baby birds once while I was in elemetary school. Crucifying some sort of bug. Despite my ultra right leanings I haven't turned into Hanibal Lectur. I am sure we all have worse acts in our past that we don't want to display and aren't proud of but what the hell it was dog that suffered no harm from this.

    What if he had been a tree hugger and burned a romantic fire in the fireplace.

    Or an Al Gore who flies on a private jet regularly.

  17. #17
    Paper Shuffler GOS_Queen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Portland Metro
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    1,533
    Quote Originally Posted by chip anderson View Post
    What's your problem with the way he transports a barfing dog. At least he wasn't fighting them in a cage and and tortureing them to death. I don't think this shows any tendancy to miss-treat dogs on a regular basis. I don't think any of us haven't had little lapses in judgement on occasion.

    The nice thing is he is always calm even tempers and never rants, raves screiks or screams. Always seems to have level headed approach to all things. It may show a lack of passion, but it's something I would like to see in a chief executive.
    My understanding is that the dog wasn't barfing ... the dog "lost control of his bowels" ... Romney stopped to wash off the fluids/solids/"particals" off the car and then continued on his way.


    I don't care for how he flip flops on issues - says one thing during one campaign and then another during the next campaign. I get the impression he is fake and almost plastic-like.

    You might say "Karen, that's how politics is ..." For me, I would like to see honesty, integrity, and a return to the constitution. I would like to see a candidate pick a stance on an issue and just keep to it! "this is who I am and this is what I stand for" ... I don't want a candidate who is bought by the establishment ... I'm sick of "politics as usual" ... really ... I am.

  18. #18
    Master OptiBoarder rinselberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA 94086
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    2,301
    Quote Originally Posted by GOS_Queen View Post
    [Mitt Romney] is another puppet of the establishment who seems to ... believe the line "they hate us for our freedoms" as the cause of 9-11. Our country has made it almost a sport to meddle and interfere with the ruling governments of sovereign nations over the past 50+ years. Maybe THAT has something to do with it ...
    That post is (regrettably) "Spexvet-esque" ... That "they hate us for our freedoms" is (IMO) indisputable. That "our country has made it a sport to meddle ..." is worth reviewing on a case-by-case basis, from the 1950s all the way forward to date. But when I see dudes packin' Korans and steering airliners into New York skyscrapers, it tells me that "they hate us for our freedoms"—and that they're only slightly perturbed (in comparison) about all that international "meddling" we've been up to over the years.


    Quote Originally Posted by GOS_Queen View Post
    [Mitt Romney] said he wants to double GITMO.
    I've no objection. We can start calling it "GITMORE" ...
    Last edited by rinselberg; 08-20-2007 at 07:44 AM.

  19. #19
    Paper Shuffler GOS_Queen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Portland Metro
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    1,533
    Quote Originally Posted by rinselberg View Post
    That post is (regrettably) "Spexvet-esque" ... That "they hate us for our freedoms" is (IMO) indisputable. That "our country has made it a sport to meddle ..." is worth reviewing on a case-by-case basis, from the 1950s all the way forward to date. But when I see dudes packin' Korans and steering airliners into New York skyscrapers, it tells me that "they hate us for our freedoms"—and that they're only slightly perturbed (in comparison) about all that international "meddling" we've been up to over the years.


    I've no objection. We can start calling it "GITMORE" ...

    I think I have mentioned it before but I'll do so again - I am a Ron Paul supporter ... While I have been reading the book BLOWBACK by Chalmers Johnson, here's what Ron Paulsays on the issue - more eloquently than I ever could.

    HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
    BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    July 14, 2005

    SUICIDE TERRORISM

    Mr. Speaker, more than half of the American people now believe that the Iraqi war has made the U.S. less safe. This is a dramatic shift in sentiment from 2 years ago. Early support for the war reflected a hope for a safer America, and it was thought to be an appropriate response to the 9/11 attacks. The argument was that the enemy attacked us because of our freedom, our prosperity, and our way of life. It was further argued that it was important to engage the potential terrorists over there rather than here. Many bought this argument and supported the war. That is now changing.

    It is virtually impossible to stop determined suicide bombers. Understanding why they sacrifice themselves is crucial to ending what appears to be senseless and irrational. But there is an explanation.

    I, like many, have assumed that the driving force behind the suicide attacks was Islamic fundamentalism. Promise of instant entry into paradise as a reward for killing infidels seemed to explain the suicides, a concept that is foreign to our way of thinking. The world's expert on suicide terrorism has convinced me to rethink this simplistic explanation, that terrorism is merely an expression of religious extremism and resentment of a foreign culture.

    Robert Pape, author of "Dying to Win," explains the strategic logic of suicide terrorism. Pape has collected a database of every suicide terrorist attack between 1980 and 2004, all 462 of them. His conclusions are enlightening and crucial to our understanding the true motivation behind the attacks against Western nations by Islamic terrorists. After his exhaustive study, Pape comes to some very important conclusions.

    Religious beliefs are less important than supposed. For instance, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist secular group, are the world's leader in suicide terrorism . The largest Islamic fundamentalist countries have not been responsible for any suicide terrorist attack. None have come from Iran or the
    Sudan. Until the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iraq never had a suicide terrorist attack in all of its history. Between 1995 and 2004, the al Qaeda years, two-thirds of all attacks came from countries where the U.S. had troops stationed. Iraq's suicide missions today are carried out by Iraqi Sunnis and Saudis. Recall, 15 of the 19 participants in the 9/11 attacks were Saudis.

    The clincher is this: the strongest motivation, according to Pape, is not religion but rather a desire "to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory the terrorists view as their homeland."

    The best news is that if stopping suicide terrorism is a goal we seek, a solution is available to us. Cease the occupation of foreign lands and the suicide missions will cease. Between 1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide terrorist attacks in Lebanon. Once the U.S., the French, and Israel withdrew their forces from Lebanon, there were no more attacks. The reason the attacks stop, according to Pape, is that the Osama bin Ladens of the world no longer can inspire potential suicide terrorists despite their continued fanatical religious beliefs.

    Pape is convinced after his extensive research that the longer and more extensive the occupation of Muslim territories, the greater the chance of more 9/11-type attacks on the U.S. He is convinced that the terrorists strategically are holding off hitting the U.S. at the present time in an effort to break up the coalition by hitting our European allies. He claims it is just a matter of time if our policies do not change.

    It is time for us to consider a strategic reassessment of our policy of foreign interventionism, occupation, and nation-building. It is in our national interest to do so and in the interest of world peace.

  20. #20
    One of the worst people here
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    8,331
    Quote Originally Posted by GOS_Queen View Post
    I think I have mentioned it before but I'll do so again - I am a Ron Paul supporter ... While I have been reading the book BLOWBACK by Chalmers Johnson, here's what Ron Paulsays on the issue - more eloquently than I ever could.

    HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
    BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    July 14, 2005
    SUICIDE TERRORISM

    Mr. Speaker, more than half of the American people now believe that the Iraqi war has made the U.S. less safe. This is a dramatic shift in sentiment from 2 years ago. Early support for the war reflected a hope for a safer America, and it was thought to be an appropriate response to the 9/11 attacks. The argument was that the enemy attacked us because of our freedom, our prosperity, and our way of life. It was further argued that it was important to engage the potential terrorists over there rather than here. Many bought this argument and supported the war. That is now changing.

    It is virtually impossible to stop determined suicide bombers. Understanding why they sacrifice themselves is crucial to ending what appears to be senseless and irrational. But there is an explanation.

    I, like many, have assumed that the driving force behind the suicide attacks was Islamic fundamentalism. Promise of instant entry into paradise as a reward for killing infidels seemed to explain the suicides, a concept that is foreign to our way of thinking. The world's expert on suicide terrorism has convinced me to rethink this simplistic explanation, that terrorism is merely an expression of religious extremism and resentment of a foreign culture.

    Robert Pape, author of "Dying to Win," explains the strategic logic of suicide terrorism. Pape has collected a database of every suicide terrorist attack between 1980 and 2004, all 462 of them. His conclusions are enlightening and crucial to our understanding the true motivation behind the attacks against Western nations by Islamic terrorists. After his exhaustive study, Pape comes to some very important conclusions.

    Religious beliefs are less important than supposed. For instance, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist secular group, are the world's leader in suicide terrorism . The largest Islamic fundamentalist countries have not been responsible for any suicide terrorist attack. None have come from Iran or the Sudan. Until the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iraq never had a suicide terrorist attack in all of its history. Between 1995 and 2004, the al Qaeda years, two-thirds of all attacks came from countries where the U.S. had troops stationed. Iraq's suicide missions today are carried out by Iraqi Sunnis and Saudis. Recall, 15 of the 19 participants in the 9/11 attacks were Saudis.

    The clincher is this: the strongest motivation, according to Pape, is not religion but rather a desire "to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory the terrorists view as their homeland."

    The best news is that if stopping suicide terrorism is a goal we seek, a solution is available to us. Cease the occupation of foreign lands and the suicide missions will cease. Between 1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide terrorist attacks in Lebanon. Once the U.S., the French, and Israel withdrew their forces from Lebanon, there were no more attacks. The reason the attacks stop, according to Pape, is that the Osama bin Ladens of the world no longer can inspire potential suicide terrorists despite their continued fanatical religious beliefs.

    Pape is convinced after his extensive research that the longer and more extensive the occupation of Muslim territories, the greater the chance of more 9/11-type attacks on the U.S. He is convinced that the terrorists strategically are holding off hitting the U.S. at the present time in an effort to break up the coalition by hitting our European allies. He claims it is just a matter of time if our policies do not change.

    It is time for us to consider a strategic reassessment of our policy of foreign interventionism, occupation, and nation-building. It is in our national interest to do so and in the interest of world peace.
    I brought this up in a thread last month. I was told that being able to carry a gun on a plane was the solution.

  21. #21
    sub specie aeternitatis Pete Hanlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Hickory Creek, TX
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    4,964
    I don't care for how he flip flops on issues - says one thing during one campaign and then another during the next campaign. I get the impression he is fake and almost plastic-like.

    Sounds like Romney is another John Kerry... the voters in Massachusetts must really go for the "plastic & waffling" type (well, that- and whatever type one would use to describe Sen. Kennedy).

    As for the dog thing, my first pet was an Irish Setter- so I'm inclined to think the man is simply an idiot for strapping a dog to the roof of a car (I mean, I could understand doing that to a cat, but... just kidding- sorta). Nevertheless, stories that are 25 years old tend to become a bit embellished (and to make them juicier, it seems certain aspects get left out). Not saying that's the case here, but I'm sure the Dems could come up with something better than a 25 year old story about tying a dog to the roof!

    So, out of the Republican candidates, one married his cousin, one is either a sadist or a complete idiot, and one is an actor. Given those choices, I'll go with the actor!

    As for Rep. Ron Paul, this thread has made me research some of the GOP candidates (thank you, 1968)...
    Rep. Paul on the issues:
    Taxes- favors lower taxes
    Sovereignty- considers organizations such as UN & NAFTA a threat to American sovereignty
    War in Iraq- sees it as an unnecessary entanglement in foreign affairs, started under false pretenses
    Abortion- pro-life, sponsor of HR300 (which would overturn Roe v. Wade)- interestingly, Dr. Paul is an OB/GYN
    Immigration- in favor of physically securing border, enforcement of existing laws, and against amnesty
    Privacy- against Patriot Act
    Property Rights- opposes "eminent domain" rulings, pro-landowner rights

    Actually, Rep. Paul seems to have a rather unique set of planks in his platform. When I look at each issue, I have to say I'm in pretty close agreement on most points. From a practical standpoint, his views on abortion and immigration will be used against him (to marginalize him as an extremist). In other words, Rep. Paul is too genuine to win a national election. The American public wants a candidate who muddles through issues, professing "moderate" stances, and pandering to whatever group s/he is addressing. Likewise, the Dems have some candidates who have actual and well-though out opinions- but they'll never win the nomination for that very reason.
    Pete Hanlin, ABOM
    Vice President Professional Services
    Essilor of America

    http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74

  22. #22
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    United States
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by rinselberg View Post
    That post is (regrettably) "Spexvet-esque" ... That "they hate us for our freedoms" is (IMO) indisputable. That "our country has made it a sport to meddle ..." is worth reviewing on a case-by-case basis, from the 1950s all the way forward to date. But when I see dudes packin' Korans and steering airliners into New York skyscrapers, it tells me that "they hate us for our freedoms"—and that they're only slightly perturbed (in comparison) about all that international "meddling" we've been up to over the years.
    As noted in the 9/11 Commission Report, Bin Laden's hatred of American policies and involvement regarding the Middle East led to his 1996 fatwa (aka "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places").

    Reference: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terroris...atwa_1996.html

  23. #23
    Paper Shuffler GOS_Queen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Portland Metro
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    1,533
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin View Post

    Actually, Rep. Paul seems to have a rather unique set of planks in his platform. When I look at each issue, I have to say I'm in pretty close agreement on most points. From a practical standpoint, his views on abortion and immigration will be used against him (to marginalize him as an extremist). In other words, Rep. Paul is too genuine to win a national election. The American public wants a candidate who muddles through issues, professing "moderate" stances, and pandering to whatever group s/he is addressing. Likewise, the Dems have some candidates who have actual and well-though out opinions- but they'll never win the nomination for that very reason.
    It's too bad that the American people "settle" for a candidate rather than picking someone they really believe in ... (I'm just as guilty of that in past elections - I admit that) ...

  24. #24
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    United States
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin View Post
    As for the dog thing, my first pet was an Irish Setter- so I'm inclined to think the man is simply an idiot for strapping a dog to the roof of a car (I mean, I could understand doing that to a cat, but... just kidding- sorta). Nevertheless, stories that are 25 years old tend to become a bit embellished (and to make them juicier, it seems certain aspects get left out). Not saying that's the case here, but I'm sure the Dems could come up with something better than a 25 year old story about tying a dog to the roof!

    So, out of the Republican candidates, one married his cousin, one is either a sadist or a complete idiot, and one is an actor. Given those choices, I'll go with the actor!
    The Democrats should hire you to put together a TV campaign slamming the Republicans! Regarding Romney, I don't think the Dems had anything to do with this one. I'm not certain but I believe the story was relayed to the Boston Globe by Romney himself. Although I will not vote for him, this story will not really factor into that decision.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin View Post
    Actually, Rep. Paul seems to have a rather unique set of planks in his platform. When I look at each issue, I have to say I'm in pretty close agreement on most points. From a practical standpoint, his views on abortion and immigration will be used against him (to marginalize him as an extremist). In other words, Rep. Paul is too genuine to win a national election. The American public wants a candidate who muddles through issues, professing "moderate" stances, and pandering to whatever group s/he is addressing. Likewise, the Dems have some candidates who have actual and well-though out opinions- but they'll never win the nomination for that very reason.
    On that last point, I assume that you are talking about Kucinich and Gravel. I thought it interesting that they were the only two to fully support gay marriage when the Democrats debated in Los Angeles a few weeks ago. Do the other Democrats truly oppose gay marriage, or were they simply making their position more palatable to the voting public?

    Although historically consistent with a conservative platform, Paul has already been marginalized as the extremist within the current crop of Republican candidates due to his non-interventionist foreign policy position. If Paul is the only Republican opposed to US involvement in Iraq and approximately one-quarter to one-third of Republicans are against US involvement in Iraq, then why is Paul not polling around 25 to 33% from Republicans? In other words, why are anti-war Republicans favoring Rudy McRomney-Thompson?

  25. #25
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    United States
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by GOS_Queen View Post
    It's too bad that the American people "settle" for a candidate rather than picking someone they really believe in ... (I'm just as guilty of that in past elections - I admit that) ...
    That raises an interesting question: Who do you think we would we get if the American people picked who they "really believe in"?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Iowa Retail Opticians
    By Debbie Larson in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-12-2006, 09:53 PM
  2. Straw Poll
    By John R in forum Just Conversation
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-03-2004, 10:16 AM
  3. Opticians and Associates for Des Moines, Iowa
    By Tim in forum The Job Board
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-09-2003, 04:24 PM
  4. Straw Poll
    By John R in forum Just Conversation
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-08-2000, 09:22 AM
  5. Finished Lab Tech. Needed/Iowa
    By PaulR in forum The Job Board
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-28-2000, 02:25 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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