In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Gingrich is too volatile to head lthe state department, IMO.
He has a brilliant political mind, but his crybaby routine after being forced to sit in the back of Air Force One, and his very recent childishness with Megan Kelly show him to be unfit for the job.
I would have thought his best fit would have been the strategist position rather than Brannon, because he has too much talent not to have a place. That place is not, IMO, as our face-to-face representative to the rest of the world.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
Mittens was a bad choice for pres and is a bad choice for any cabinet office. He can go the way of the do-do.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Dads3040
I have never understood the appeal of either of the Pauls. Both are a half step from loony, and have the charisma of sugarfree vanilla pudding.
It is because these two men take the Constitution seriously and actually believe in the concept of individual freedoms and liberties.
Not too many of that type in our Federal Government, as respecting the Constitution does not give you carte blanche to spend peoples' money for sound-bite populist and leftist pet projects, nor force through restrictive trade policies, surveillance policies, etc.
If you want a bigger than life personality, you probably will not find it in someone who advocates minimizing of the power of the office he seeks.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
Why not save the cost of a transition and just keep the current Secretary of State? That way there would be continuity. We'd save thousands just on not having to print new letterhead stationary. [;)]
quote:Originally posted by andrewsw16
Why not save the cost of a transition and just keep the current Secretary of State? That way there would be continuity. We'd save thousands just on not having to print new letterhead stationary. [;)]
Are you trying to catch a ban-hammer upside yo' head?
quote:Originally posted by andrewsw16
Why not save the cost of a transition and just keep the current Secretary of State? That way there would be continuity. We'd save thousands just on not having to print new letterhead stationary. [;)]
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Dads3040
I have never understood the appeal of either of the Pauls. Both are a half step from loony, and have the charisma of sugarfree vanilla pudding.
It is because these two men take the Constitution seriously and actually believe in the concept of individual freedoms and liberties.
Not too many of that type in our Federal Government, as respecting the Constitution does not give you carte blanche to spend peoples' money for sound-bite populist and leftist pet projects, nor force through restrictive trade policies, surveillance policies, etc.
If you want a bigger than life personality, you probably will not find it in someone who advocates minimizing of the power of the office he seeks.
quote:Originally posted by Dads3040
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
quote:Originally posted by Dads3040
Either Gingrich or Bolton would be preferable to Romney.
I saw Rand Paul whining about Bolton on TV this AM and threatening to withhold his Senate vote.
Thanks Kentucky, for electing that insufferable weenie.
Yea,...he really has turned out to be a putz.
I prefer Bolton for what it's worth.
I have never understood the appeal of either of the Pauls. Both are a half step from loony, and have the charisma of sugarfree vanilla pudding.
Chris, I thought you had an appreciation for constitutional advocates. How are either of the Pauls nut cases?
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Dads3040
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
quote:Originally posted by Dads3040
Either Gingrich or Bolton would be preferable to Romney.
I saw Rand Paul whining about Bolton on TV this AM and threatening to withhold his Senate vote.
Thanks Kentucky, for electing that insufferable weenie.
Yea,...he really has turned out to be a putz.
I prefer Bolton for what it's worth.
I have never understood the appeal of either of the Pauls. Both are a half step from loony, and have the charisma of sugarfree vanilla pudding.
Chris, I thought you had an appreciation for constitutional advocates. How are either of the Pauls nut cases?
I am not sure what term would be appropriate, but when I see someone who has warned of hyperinflation...since the early 80s, and publicly stated that he ran as the Libertarian candidate for president in 1988...without reading the Libertarian platform, I am not convinced of the man's grounding in good sense. When I add it to his isolationist predilections, his desire to leave NATO, and his ever-changing party affiliation, I don't think much of him. His son Rand is not much but a poor copy.
In line with his father's refusal to endorse the eventual R nominee, Rand 'endorsed' Romney in 2012...and then spent no small amount of effort criticizing him. Now after the Nov. 8 election, Rand goes on TV threatening to vote against Trump's cabinet picks if he doesn't think they align with his views. Both Pauls seem to value themselves and their opinions overmuch, and show little respect to the other members of a party they belong to...at least when convenient to them. The only reason Rand Paul was asked on the Sunday shows was that he is a reliable choice to be a supposed 'Republican' who will help the left/media criticize the Republicans, thereby providing the left/media cover. Personally, I find that somewhere south of principled and helpful.
And frankly, Don's strawman notwithstanding, I think there is some room on the personality spectrum to find someone with better communication skills and a higher ability to display some passion for what they believe prior to running into the 'bigger than life' personality problem.
"Isolationist"... now you're thinking like a leftist liberal. There is no good reason to be in wars all over the world, and I think you'll agree with that. That is/was both of the Pauls' positions. But that gets labeled isolationists by the unthinking media. Did they drag you in too?
As for NATO, frankly, I can't see much good in staying in it, can you? It doesn't sound like Trump likes it much either. One thing he's supported is "pay your fair share", which none of the nations do. If they did at least that, there might be some point to the alliance. But the ROEs they impose regularly get our troops killed. I have zero tolerance for that. Coupled with the free ride so many nations get just so we can have a share of their air space (after we beg and plead) and little more, and it's not something I can really support.
I didn't like Rand much for a long time. Still about 3/4 the man his father is. But he has come around in recent years.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
"Isolationist"... now you're thinking like a leftist liberal. There is no good reason to be in wars all over the world, and I think you'll agree with that. That is/was both of the Pauls' positions. But that gets labeled isolationists by the unthinking media. Did they drag you in too?
As for NATO, frankly, I can't see much good in staying in it, can you? It doesn't sound like Trump likes it much either. One thing he's supported is "pay your fair share", which none of the nations do. If they did at least that, there might be some point to the alliance. But the ROEs they impose regularly get our troops killed. I have zero tolerance for that. Coupled with the free ride so many nations get just so we can have a share of their air space (after we beg and plead) and little more, and it's not something I can really support.
I didn't like Rand much for a long time. Still about 3/4 the man his father is. But he has come around in recent years.
quote:Originally posted by bpost
The choice is less important than the Policy the Secretary is told to sell. Mitt has the charm to sell it across the globe. He is an honorable and quite successful man.
quote:Originally posted by Dads3040
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Dads3040
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
quote:Originally posted by Dads3040
Either Gingrich or Bolton would be preferable to Romney.
I saw Rand Paul whining about Bolton on TV this AM and threatening to withhold his Senate vote.
Thanks Kentucky, for electing that insufferable weenie.
Yea,...he really has turned out to be a putz.
I prefer Bolton for what it's worth.
I have never understood the appeal of either of the Pauls. Both are a half step from loony, and have the charisma of sugarfree vanilla pudding.
Chris, I thought you had an appreciation for constitutional advocates. How are either of the Pauls nut cases?
I am not sure what term would be appropriate, but when I see someone who has warned of hyperinflation...since the early 80s, and publicly stated that he ran as the Libertarian candidate for president in 1988...without reading the Libertarian platform, I am not convinced of the man's grounding in good sense. When I add it to his isolationist predilections, his desire to leave NATO, and his ever-changing party affiliation, I don't think much of him. His son Rand is not much but a poor copy.
In line with his father's refusal to endorse the eventual R nominee, Rand 'endorsed' Romney in 2012...and then spent no small amount of effort criticizing him. Now after the Nov. 8 election, Rand goes on TV threatening to vote against Trump's cabinet picks if he doesn't think they align with his views. Both Pauls seem to value themselves and their opinions overmuch, and show little respect to the other members of a party they belong to...at least when convenient to them. The only reason Rand Paul was asked on the Sunday shows was that he is a reliable choice to be a supposed 'Republican' who will help the left/media criticize the Republicans, thereby providing the left/media cover. Personally, I find that somewhere south of principled and helpful.
And frankly, Don's strawman notwithstanding, I think there is some room on the personality spectrum to find someone with better communication skills and a higher ability to display some passion for what they believe prior to running into the 'bigger than life' personality problem.
Yes!
Comments
Either Gingrich or Bolton would be preferable to Romney.
I saw Rand Paul whining about Bolton on TV this AM and threatening to withhold his Senate vote.
Thanks Kentucky, for electing that insufferable weenie.
You're welcome, Oregon. [:)]
quote:Originally posted by Dads3040
Either Gingrich or Bolton would be preferable to Romney.
I saw Rand Paul whining about Bolton on TV this AM and threatening to withhold his Senate vote.
Thanks Kentucky, for electing that insufferable weenie.
Yea,...he really has turned out to be a putz.
I prefer Bolton for what it's worth.
I have never understood the appeal of either of the Pauls. Both are a half step from loony, and have the charisma of sugarfree vanilla pudding.
That said if Trump nominates him and Congress approves him he gets the job.
Romney reminds me of John Kerry. 2 peas in a pod.
I think Gingrich would be a great Sec. of State.
He knows politics, articulate and smart.
Gingrich is too volatile to head lthe state department, IMO.
He has a brilliant political mind, but his crybaby routine after being forced to sit in the back of Air Force One, and his very recent childishness with Megan Kelly show him to be unfit for the job.
I would have thought his best fit would have been the strategist position rather than Brannon, because he has too much talent not to have a place. That place is not, IMO, as our face-to-face representative to the rest of the world.
Brad Steele
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
I have never understood the appeal of either of the Pauls. Both are a half step from loony, and have the charisma of sugarfree vanilla pudding.
It is because these two men take the Constitution seriously and actually believe in the concept of individual freedoms and liberties.
Not too many of that type in our Federal Government, as respecting the Constitution does not give you carte blanche to spend peoples' money for sound-bite populist and leftist pet projects, nor force through restrictive trade policies, surveillance policies, etc.
If you want a bigger than life personality, you probably will not find it in someone who advocates minimizing of the power of the office he seeks.
Brad Steele
Why not save the cost of a transition and just keep the current Secretary of State? That way there would be continuity. We'd save thousands just on not having to print new letterhead stationary. [;)]
Are you trying to catch a ban-hammer upside yo' head?
Why not save the cost of a transition and just keep the current Secretary of State? That way there would be continuity. We'd save thousands just on not having to print new letterhead stationary. [;)]
Why not outsource it to China or Russia?
quote:Originally posted by Dads3040
I have never understood the appeal of either of the Pauls. Both are a half step from loony, and have the charisma of sugarfree vanilla pudding.
It is because these two men take the Constitution seriously and actually believe in the concept of individual freedoms and liberties.
Not too many of that type in our Federal Government, as respecting the Constitution does not give you carte blanche to spend peoples' money for sound-bite populist and leftist pet projects, nor force through restrictive trade policies, surveillance policies, etc.
If you want a bigger than life personality, you probably will not find it in someone who advocates minimizing of the power of the office he seeks.
Amen to that, Don.
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
quote:Originally posted by Dads3040
Either Gingrich or Bolton would be preferable to Romney.
I saw Rand Paul whining about Bolton on TV this AM and threatening to withhold his Senate vote.
Thanks Kentucky, for electing that insufferable weenie.
Yea,...he really has turned out to be a putz.
I prefer Bolton for what it's worth.
I have never understood the appeal of either of the Pauls. Both are a half step from loony, and have the charisma of sugarfree vanilla pudding.
Chris, I thought you had an appreciation for constitutional advocates. How are either of the Pauls nut cases?
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Dads3040
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
quote:Originally posted by Dads3040
Either Gingrich or Bolton would be preferable to Romney.
I saw Rand Paul whining about Bolton on TV this AM and threatening to withhold his Senate vote.
Thanks Kentucky, for electing that insufferable weenie.
Yea,...he really has turned out to be a putz.
I prefer Bolton for what it's worth.
I have never understood the appeal of either of the Pauls. Both are a half step from loony, and have the charisma of sugarfree vanilla pudding.
Chris, I thought you had an appreciation for constitutional advocates. How are either of the Pauls nut cases?
I am not sure what term would be appropriate, but when I see someone who has warned of hyperinflation...since the early 80s, and publicly stated that he ran as the Libertarian candidate for president in 1988...without reading the Libertarian platform, I am not convinced of the man's grounding in good sense. When I add it to his isolationist predilections, his desire to leave NATO, and his ever-changing party affiliation, I don't think much of him. His son Rand is not much but a poor copy.
In line with his father's refusal to endorse the eventual R nominee, Rand 'endorsed' Romney in 2012...and then spent no small amount of effort criticizing him. Now after the Nov. 8 election, Rand goes on TV threatening to vote against Trump's cabinet picks if he doesn't think they align with his views. Both Pauls seem to value themselves and their opinions overmuch, and show little respect to the other members of a party they belong to...at least when convenient to them. The only reason Rand Paul was asked on the Sunday shows was that he is a reliable choice to be a supposed 'Republican' who will help the left/media criticize the Republicans, thereby providing the left/media cover. Personally, I find that somewhere south of principled and helpful.
And frankly, Don's strawman notwithstanding, I think there is some room on the personality spectrum to find someone with better communication skills and a higher ability to display some passion for what they believe prior to running into the 'bigger than life' personality problem.
As for NATO, frankly, I can't see much good in staying in it, can you? It doesn't sound like Trump likes it much either. One thing he's supported is "pay your fair share", which none of the nations do. If they did at least that, there might be some point to the alliance. But the ROEs they impose regularly get our troops killed. I have zero tolerance for that. Coupled with the free ride so many nations get just so we can have a share of their air space (after we beg and plead) and little more, and it's not something I can really support.
I didn't like Rand much for a long time. Still about 3/4 the man his father is. But he has come around in recent years.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
"Isolationist"... now you're thinking like a leftist liberal. There is no good reason to be in wars all over the world, and I think you'll agree with that. That is/was both of the Pauls' positions. But that gets labeled isolationists by the unthinking media. Did they drag you in too?
As for NATO, frankly, I can't see much good in staying in it, can you? It doesn't sound like Trump likes it much either. One thing he's supported is "pay your fair share", which none of the nations do. If they did at least that, there might be some point to the alliance. But the ROEs they impose regularly get our troops killed. I have zero tolerance for that. Coupled with the free ride so many nations get just so we can have a share of their air space (after we beg and plead) and little more, and it's not something I can really support.
I didn't like Rand much for a long time. Still about 3/4 the man his father is. But he has come around in recent years.
Lots of common sense in these statements.
The choice is less important than the Policy the Secretary is told to sell. Mitt has the charm to sell it across the globe. He is an honorable and quite successful man.
I think you are right.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Dads3040
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
quote:Originally posted by Dads3040
Either Gingrich or Bolton would be preferable to Romney.
I saw Rand Paul whining about Bolton on TV this AM and threatening to withhold his Senate vote.
Thanks Kentucky, for electing that insufferable weenie.
Yea,...he really has turned out to be a putz.
I prefer Bolton for what it's worth.
I have never understood the appeal of either of the Pauls. Both are a half step from loony, and have the charisma of sugarfree vanilla pudding.
Chris, I thought you had an appreciation for constitutional advocates. How are either of the Pauls nut cases?
I am not sure what term would be appropriate, but when I see someone who has warned of hyperinflation...since the early 80s, and publicly stated that he ran as the Libertarian candidate for president in 1988...without reading the Libertarian platform, I am not convinced of the man's grounding in good sense. When I add it to his isolationist predilections, his desire to leave NATO, and his ever-changing party affiliation, I don't think much of him. His son Rand is not much but a poor copy.
In line with his father's refusal to endorse the eventual R nominee, Rand 'endorsed' Romney in 2012...and then spent no small amount of effort criticizing him. Now after the Nov. 8 election, Rand goes on TV threatening to vote against Trump's cabinet picks if he doesn't think they align with his views. Both Pauls seem to value themselves and their opinions overmuch, and show little respect to the other members of a party they belong to...at least when convenient to them. The only reason Rand Paul was asked on the Sunday shows was that he is a reliable choice to be a supposed 'Republican' who will help the left/media criticize the Republicans, thereby providing the left/media cover. Personally, I find that somewhere south of principled and helpful.
And frankly, Don's strawman notwithstanding, I think there is some room on the personality spectrum to find someone with better communication skills and a higher ability to display some passion for what they believe prior to running into the 'bigger than life' personality problem.
Yes!