Jindal May Prove To be Republicans' Version of Obama

[Tyler Durden]

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/29/AR2008112901777.html?hpid=topnews[/url]

[JCnflies]

Could be. What little I know of, I like.

It's funny. I think the times almost pick the President as much as the people. Obama is about as close to the AntiBush as you can get, so he was a great candidate.

In 1980, Nixon and Jimmy Carter combined had sunken American pride so low the time was perfect for a persona like Reagan.

After the deceit and lies of the Clinton administration, the what you see is what you get candidate in Bush won.

Before knighting Jindal, or any other Republican, we are going to have to wait and see what effects Obama's actions cause. If he enacts some of his popular campaign promises that will adversely effect business and past history repeats itself, a business first economy strong candidate might be the most appealing. If Obama follows his instincts to a more open and collaborative foreign policy and the terrorists strike again, the people will clamor for a rough and tough, we'll do this alone if we have to candidate.

But if Obama's policies do lead to an economic rebound, if the policy he endorses stimulate business, if somehow, someway he fulfills his pledge to create a gov't that takes care of many of our problems without raising taxes on 95% of the population, and if we don't get hit by terrorists, it is very unlikely anyone will have the slightest chance to beat Obama.

There are some very attractive conservative candidates and which one is right for the times is too far away to tell.

You really get into scoping out the political future before much is done huh? You have made a number of "prophetic" type threads. I'll bet you are one of the crazy guys at the NFL draft:).

[Tyler Durden]

[QUOTE=JCnflies;2886226]Could be. What little I know of, I like.

It's funny. I think the times almost pick the President as much as the people. Obama is about as close to the AntiBush as you can get, so he was a great candidate.

In 1980, Nixon and Jimmy Carter combined had sunken American pride so low the time was perfect for a persona like Reagan.

After the deceit and lies of the Clinton administration, the what you see is what you get candidate in Bush won.

Before knighting Jindal, or any other Republican, we are going to have to wait and see what effects Obama's actions cause. If he enacts some of his popular campaign promises that will adversely effect business and past history repeats itself, a business first economy strong candidate might be the most appealing. If Obama follows his instincts to a more open and collaborative foreign policy and the terrorists strike again, the people will clamor for a rough and tough, we'll do this alone if we have to candidate.

But if Obama's policies do lead to an economic rebound, if the policy he endorses stimulate business, if somehow, someway he fulfills his pledge to create a gov't that takes care of many of our problems without raising taxes on 95% of the population, and if we don't get hit by terrorists, it is very unlikely anyone will have the slightest chance to beat Obama.

There are some very attractive conservative candidates and which one is right for the times is too far away to tell.

You really get into scoping out the political future before much is done huh? You have made a number of "prophetic" type threads. I'll bet you are one of the crazy guys at the NFL draft:).[/QUOTE]

Actually.. I haven't actually been out to Radio City for the draft, but that's because you can't do the research on the players as there names are called. :yes: I'm totally into minor league baseball. Jesus Montero.. remember that name.

[Buster]

[QUOTE=Tyler Durden;2886202][url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/29/AR2008112901777.html?hpid=topnews[/url][/QUOTE]


Yikes

[QUOTE]The record is still evolving, like the rest of him. But social conservatives like what they have heard about the public and private Jindal: his steadfast opposition to abortion without exceptions; his disapproval of embryonic stem cell research; his and his wife Supriya's decision in 1997 to enter into a Louisiana covenant marriage that prohibits no-fault divorce in the state; and his decision in June to sign into law the Louisiana Science Education Act, a bill heartily supported by creationists that permits public school teachers to educate students about both the theory of "scientific design" and criticisms of Darwinian evolutionary concepts.[/QUOTE]

[Tyler Durden]

One thing about Jindal though, he was a Hindu, but converted to Catholicism, and his real name is Piyush Jindal. I wonder how that will play with the Republican base, though I do believe he won big in Louisiana.

[Buster]

[QUOTE=JCnflies;2886226]
...After the deceit and lies of the Clinton administration, the what you see is what you get candidate in Bush won...

[/QUOTE]

After all that has happened does anyone still see the Clinton Administration in this light?

[Buster]

[QUOTE=Tyler Durden;2886234]One thing about Jindal though, he was a Hindu, but converted to Catholicism, and his real name is Piyush Jindal. I wonder how that will play with the Republican base, though I do believe he won big in Louisiana.[/QUOTE]

Governor Jindal won in Louisiana AFTER Katrina and AFTER the entire world thought of Louisiana government as a synonym for corruption.

[Tyler Durden]

[QUOTE=Buster;2886237]Governor Jindal won in Louisiana AFTER Katrina and AFTER the entire world thought of Louisiana government as a synonym for corruption.[/QUOTE]

All true, but he did a great job during and after Hurricane Gustav. I applauded him for canceling his keynote speech at the RNC, even via satellite. He'll easily get reelected. I obviously disagree with him on, well probably everything, but give credit when credit is due.

[url]http://www.jetsinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2730594[/url]

[Buster]

[QUOTE=Tyler Durden;2886239]All true, but he did a great job during and after Hurricane Gustav. I applauded him for canceling his keynote speech at the RNC, even via satellite. He'll easily get reelected. I obviously disagree with him on, well probably everything, but give credit when credit is due.

[url]http://www.jetsinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2730594[/url][/QUOTE]

I disagree

Hurricane Gustav hit the Louisiana as a category 2 (Jamaica and Cuba got hit when it was a 4). This was just 3 years after Katrina. After Katrina every government agency in Louisiana knew what they did wrong, what they did right and what they should do next hurricane. What I am saying is everybody and his brother knew what had to be done regarding a major hurricane in Louisiana and that was to evacuate New Orleans. My bookie could've run the Hurricane Gustav war room just as effectively as Governor Jindal did.

But you are right he will get a lot of political credit for it.

[PlumberKhan]

[QUOTE=Buster;2886232]Yikes[/QUOTE]

Yikes indeed.

[JCnflies]

[QUOTE=Buster;2886235]After all that has happened does anyone still see the Clinton Administration in this light?[/QUOTE]

I hear the left pin the liar tag on Bush. I don't think it is fair or accurate (but to be fair, neither you or I could know for sure.) About the only legitimate claim the left can point to is Scooter Libby's affair. And it seems the dust settles at Cheney's door. WMD? The left likes to say he lied, but the overwhelming evidence says he did not. The left's claim that Bush is a liar is a reaction to the nonstop liar screams at Clinton.

I saw a known leftist, Oliver Stone, talk about Bush. He feels Bush was far more a victim than a perpetrator of lies. His point is that Bush blindly accepted Cheney's advice.

Personally, I think Bush was overmatched and blindly loyal, particularly to Rumsfeld and Cheney. According to the eviddence, that is the most accurate characterization we can make. But don't take my word for it....... Stone was expected to portray Bush as a maniacal, devious sociopath. He could not do it ..........

Clinton, however, has mountains of proven lies. Bush's ineptitude should in no way impact or alter the facts of Clinton's presidency....... the good or the bad.

[JCnflies]

[QUOTE=Tyler Durden;2886239]All true, but he did a great job during and after Hurricane Gustav. I applauded him for canceling his keynote speech at the RNC, even via satellite. He'll easily get reelected. I obviously disagree with him on, well probably everything, but give credit when credit is due.

[url]http://www.jetsinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2730594[/url][/QUOTE]

a fair opinion giving credit to the other side where credit is due....... it's a beautiful thing:)

[VincenzoTestaverde]

[QUOTE=Tyler Durden;2886234]One thing about Jindal though, he was a Hindu, but converted to Catholicism, and his real name is Piyush Jindal. I wonder how that will play with the Republican base, though I do believe he won big in Louisiana.[/QUOTE]

Well if he becomes Jeb Bush's running mate in 2012 they'll probably get over it.

[Riggins44]

Love Jindal's stance on the very serious, but vastly underreported, illegal immigration mess. Unless it's suddenly changed, he so anti-illegal, he makes Pat Buchanan look like a liberal.

With that said, he might too "populist" to be a considered a legit presidiential candidate in our sham Democracy. Just doubt the neo-cons, globalist Dems and their corporate elite masters will allow someone like him to take control in our current one-party system. A total vapid yes-man like Lindsay Graham of South Carolina would seem more likely, unfortunately, from the suddenly left-leaning Republican's.

[Buster]

[QUOTE=JCnflies;2887235]I hear the left pin the liar tag on Bush. I don't think it is fair or accurate (but to be fair, neither you or I could know for sure.) About the only legitimate claim the left can point to is Scooter Libby's affair. And it seems the dust settles at Cheney's door. WMD? The left likes to say he lied, but the overwhelming evidence says he did not. The left's claim that Bush is a liar is a reaction to the nonstop liar screams at Clinton.

I saw a known leftist, Oliver Stone, talk about Bush. He feels Bush was far more a victim than a perpetrator of lies. His point is that Bush blindly accepted Cheney's advice.

Personally, I think Bush was overmatched and blindly loyal, particularly to Rumsfeld and Cheney. According to the eviddence, that is the most accurate characterization we can make. But don't take my word for it....... Stone was expected to portray Bush as a maniacal, devious sociopath. He could not do it ..........

Clinton, however, has mountains of proven lies. Bush's ineptitude should in no way impact or alter the facts of Clinton's presidency....... the good or the bad.[/QUOTE]

Clinton lied about getting a BJ from an intern while he was married. A blue dress was ruined and could never be worn again. This is a very common lie and a shameful thing to do.

Bush lied about Iraqis involvement in 911 and the Iraqis ability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction on the USA. This lie caused the USA to start a war in which thousands of Americans have died, tens of thousands of Iraqi's have died and a TRILLION DOLLARS of US taxpayer money was spent to execute this war. This is a lie only a few men can tell. Most men who were ever in the position to tell such a lie didn't because they knew how truly villianous this type of lie is. But Mr Bush and his administration did this.

Am I the only one who sees the difference?

[NoJokeJets]

[QUOTE=Buster;2890183]Clinton lied about getting a BJ from an intern while he was married. A blue dress was ruined and could never be worn again. This is a very common lie and a shameful thing to do.

Bush lied about Iraqis involvement in 911 and the Iraqis ability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction on the USA. This lie caused the USA to start a war in which thousands of Americans have died, tens of thousands of Iraqi's have died and a TRILLION DOLLARS of US taxpayer money was spent to execute this war. This is a lie only a few men can tell. Most men who were ever in the position to tell such a lie didn't because they knew how truly villianous this type of lie is. But Mr Bush and his administration did this.

Am I the only one who sees the difference?[/QUOTE]

Let's see, what was that bumper sticker I saw around 2004...?

I know!

'No one died when Clinton lied'

[adb280z]

[QUOTE=Buster;2886232]Yikes[/QUOTE]

That's the parts of the Republican party that I can't stand.

[JCnflies]

[QUOTE=Buster;2890183]Clinton lied about getting a BJ from an intern while he was married. A blue dress was ruined and could never be worn again. This is a very common lie and a shameful thing to do.

Bush lied about Iraqis involvement in 911 and the Iraqis ability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction on the USA. This lie caused the USA to start a war in which thousands of Americans have died, tens of thousands of Iraqi's have died and a TRILLION DOLLARS of US taxpayer money was spent to execute this war. This is a lie only a few men can tell. Most men who were ever in the position to tell such a lie didn't because they knew how truly villianous this type of lie is. But Mr Bush and his administration did this.

Am I the only one who sees the difference?[/QUOTE]

No, the Clinton's lied about the FBI papers. Clinton sold secrets to the Chinese. He didn;t inhale. McDougal didn;t spend forever in jail because Clinton didn;t lie. If there is one list that is seriously long, it is the Clinton Lie list.

Buster, to be taken seriously, you have to give some kind of balance to your opinion. Everyone knows Clinton lied like crazy (heck, for some it is part of his charm) Otherwise, you just drink the Kool Aid.

As for Iraq, WMD and lies. I am pretty sure we will never know for absolute sure whether Bush lied or not, but there is far more evidence that he was simply wrong moreso than he lied. And yes, we agree Bush blew it BIG TIME by going into Iraq.

[RutgersJetFan]

[QUOTE=Buster;2886232]Yikes[/QUOTE]

Yeah, they basically reworded their arguments from the Kitzmiller case and no longer are trying to encourage it as a science, but simply 'academic freedom,' which isn't surprising considering that ID and creationism proponents have masked their intentions before behind vocabulary.

Personally I think that as soon as someone steps up and challenges this, (which, from my understanding, the ACLU is already in the process of doing), it will probably be rendered unconstitutional to offer alternative explanations in this context with the supplementary materials they're putting together by the courts (though they might offer a ruling permitting non-supernatural, related explanations). To tell you the truth, it's very disapointing that someone like Jindal supported this, they've clearly masked their intentions in the hopes that they won't be found unconstitutional this round.

[CTM]

[QUOTE=Buster;2886235]After all that has happened does anyone still see the Clinton Administration in this light?[/QUOTE]

Ummm.. Yes...