The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: Badgersmilk on June 10, 2011, 09:47:49 AM
-
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ted-Nugent-for-president/178869296791 (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ted-Nugent-for-president/178869296791)
Why in the world not?!? :o
Heard Colbert mention the idea this morning.
But REALLY! What's the worst that he may ever possibly do? Give away hundreds of BILLIONS of $ to third world countries who know nothing of life but to try and kill their neighbors? Rob said money from OUR country leaving it's own infrastructure falling apart? Print cash as fast as the presses can roll it out collapsing the value of our currency? Use his office to take control of private enterprise? Bully / threaten other politicians who speak out against him into silence, or even voting FOR things they've long been against? The list just never ends when you look at all the things that Obama has done could go wrong.
But REALLY. WHY NOT? No worse could come of it. Things would CERTAINLY be entertaining. And ratings for his press conferences would eclipse even the super bowl!
How do we get him on a ticket? HE'S GOT MY VOTE! And nearly 15,000 others already according to facebook. ;D
With the way our polls work (I firmly believe the office it bought, not won). Place those 15K people in the right place at the right time and they could easily count as the majority in 3 million citizens. Lets do it!
-
The fact is the best man for the job wouldn't have it! Whether or not he is that man, he would be better then anyone we have had since Reagan!
-
I don't know if the world is ready for a first lady in pink spandex yet. (Although after Bruni, that might seem tame and hell, the Nuge himself isn't above wearing it). It would certainley make for a fun primary. ;D
FQ13
-
It would be nice to have a President that spoke his mind, didn't pull punches, and when interrupted during a speech responded with "SHUT THE F**K UP!!!"
-
Gonna get TAB's boxer's in a bunch,.... ::)
No President has sighted in their rifles on the East lawn of the White House since Teddy Roosevelt,......Hmmmmm,.....wonder if that would change?
;D
-
Gonna get TAB's boxer's in a bunch,.... ::)
No President has sighted in their rifles on the East lawn of the White House since Teddy Roosevelt,......Hmmmmm,.....wonder if that would change?
;D
its never going to happen, even if it did congress would just tell him to fook off. The POTUS need congress more then the congress needs the POTUS.
-
After Arnold and Jesse Ventura I'm not sure if it isn't inevitable we get a celeb in the White House. If I have to choose between Ted and Trump, its Ted every time.
FQ13
-
You forget that we have already had one, and it worked out pretty well.
-
You forget that we have already had one, and it worked out pretty well.
I was going to remark on this, butthe Gipper started as governor first and did a decent job. I'm sure he got the same crap Arnie did, but if you get two terms as governor of one of the largest states, you are no longer just a celebrity if you run for pres. Just my .02.
FQ13 who agrees with you that Reagan did work out. Not the saint some want to make him, but a way better than average job and one of the two best of my lifetime.
-
Actually, based on the results, Reagan sucked as President.
Sure, he was a great guy personally, But all of the problems we have in the Muslim world today with Al Queda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood are the direct result of Reagan's policies toward the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the rest of the worlds problem spots of the last 20+ years ( Bosnia, Somalia, West Africa, Dharfur, etc. ) are the indirect result of his forcing the Soviet Union to implode.
On the domestic front he didn't do so hot either, massive increases Govt in the name of the "War on Drugs", coupled with major infringements of Constitutional safe guards, increased the size of the bureaucracy, and increased Federal spending to pay for it.
In short, Ronny was another TR, love the guy, detest the results of his administration.
-
lets not forget ADA. the most anti biz bill ever passed.
-
Actually, based on the results, Reagan sucked as President.
Sure, he was a great guy personally, But all of the problems we have in the Muslim world today with Al Queda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood are the direct result of Reagan's policies toward the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the rest of the worlds problem spots of the last 20+ years ( Bosnia, Somalia, West Africa, Dharfur, etc. ) are the indirect result of his forcing the Soviet Union to implode.
On the domestic front he didn't do so hot either, massive increases Govt in the name of the "War on Drugs", coupled with major infringements of Constitutional safe guards, increased the size of the bureaucracy, and increased Federal spending to pay for it.
In short, Ronny was another TR, love the guy, detest the results of his administration.
I agree with everything you said except this. From the day I was born, until 1989, I was under the threat of nuclear annihilation in an exchange with the USSR. Reagan didn't defeat them, that was the work of a generation and their own flawed ideology, but recognized a rotten tree when he saw it and knew enough to give it a good kick. That buys him lots of points from me. If it weren't for that, I'd not be so generous.
FQ13
-
Reagan was the the right POTUS at the right time. Post Carter,......right or wrong lowering the tax rates, capital gains tax, walking out of the Russian consulate during Parastroyka, "Tear Down This Wall", spanking the childish MSM, and famously remarking:
"Before I refuse to answer any of your questions, I have a brief statement."
He was the right guy at the helm ar that time. No POTUS will have infallibility. But I'd take a Reagan today compared to what we have currently, in a New York minute.
-
Good, or bad. You guys do know Reagan based all his decisions on astrology. Right?
Astrology says we're all dead next year... :-\
-
I agree with everything you said except this. From the day I was born, until 1989, I was under the threat of nuclear annihilation in an exchange with the USSR. Reagan didn't defeat them, that was the work of a generation and their own flawed ideology, but recognized a rotten tree when he saw it and knew enough to give it a good kick. That buys him lots of points from me. If it weren't for that, I'd not be so generous.
FQ13
Your stupid FQ.
I don't know any kinder way of phrasing it.
During the "Cold War" Nuclear arms were held by 2 sides who used them as bargaining chips in their geopolitical maneuvering while keeping strict control over access to such weapons. We never gave nukes to unstable allies such as Turkey, and by the same token the Russians never gave them to Ho Chi Mihn, even when they deployed the missles to Cuba the remained under strict Soviet control, Castro never had any more say in their use than Willy Brandt had in the use of our nukes in Germany. Both sides cooperated in keeping them away from countries like Libya, Egypt, and Syria.
Neither side planned on direct confrontation as anything but an absolute last resort, both sides, on several occasions, pulled back to avoid direct confrontation between forces of the opposing primaries, ( US & USSR) which would have been the only case that would have lead to a nuke exchange.
The fall of the USSR, meant that restraining influence was removed from half the world. The result is nukes have turned up in the hands of such icons of stability as , Pakistan, Iran, and N Korea.
If that makes you feel safer it explains why you voted for BO.
-
Ok, where to start....... First we did put nukes in Turkey (though not under Turkish control), part of the settlement of the Cuban missile crises was our removing them after the Sovs removed the missiles from Cuba.
Secondly, while in retrospect a bipolar world held together by a policy of MADD looks stable, all it would have taken is one idiot, one miscommunication, one incident that got out of control and could have ended badly. Don't believe me? Try Kissinger, who ordered the military (orders that were accepted) to route any launch orders through him when Nixon was collapsing in '74. Sorry Tom, I don't share your benign view of things and won't refer to the Cold War as "the Good old Days".
That said, things are more complex now, but the principal of deterrence still works. The only difference is that there are more players in the game.
FQ13
-
Ok, where to start....... First we did put nukes in Turkey (though not under Turkish control), part of the settlement of the Cuban missile crises was our removing them after the Sovs removed the missiles from Cuba.
Secondly, while in retrospect a bipolar world held together by a policy of MADD looks stable, all it would have taken is one idiot, one miscommunication, one incident that got out of control and could have ended badly. Don't believe me? Try Kissinger, who ordered the military (orders that were accepted) to route any launch orders through him when Nixon was collapsing in '74. Sorry Tom, I don't share your benign view of things and won't refer to the Cold War as "the Good old Days".
That said, things are more complex now, but the principal of deterrence still works. The only difference is that there are more players in the game.
FQ13
Didn't I just use that example ? ::)
Hell, we wouldn't even share nuke technology with France, that's why DeGaulle pulled out of NATO.
Of course you do not share my view, you aren't particularly well informed about the behind the scenes activities of the Cold war, and you are , at best, naive in your understanding of current events.