I saw a few positive signs tonight with the GOP response

[dude58677]

If anything good came it's that the GOP response wasn't done by Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney. Jindal isn't Ron Paul material by any means but it is a move in the right direction.

[Zera]

Jindal converted to Christianity for political gain. That's all you need to know about that shitbag.

[dude58677]

Jindal converted to Christianity for political gain. That's all you need to know about that shitbag.

Well then I guess the GOP isn't improving. :mad:

[Bman]

Jindal converted to Christianity for political gain. That's all you need to know about that shitbag.

Can you confirm this?

And what Political gain would he get?

What would believing in the Christian God have to do with running for public office?

I find this interesting. Please, explain.

[phill4paul]

Every time they stood and gave applause pretty much told me all I need to know about either party.

[oilboiler]

I wish they picked Marc Sanford, but look -if this is the GOP message, back to their roots, it can only be a step in the right direction. He is no Ron Paul, but maybe we are being heard after all. We have to reach out a bit, but never give up our principles. Simple as that. The Titanic will not turn on a dime.

[slacker921]

Just remember this.. the GOP is the WAR party (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBIN5kYCPOA). You can be or do anything but you WILL NOT disparage either the War on Terror or the War on Drugs.

With that in mind you can see how Jindal is allowed to represent the GOP - he supports war.

[Young Paleocon]

Jindal is turning down 100 million out of 3.8 billion being given to Louisiana......he's such rebel.

[Join The Paul Side]

We can do better than Jindal. We don't have to settle for him or that pig in a skirt Palin.

[phill4paul]

Jindal is turning down 100 million out of 3.8 billion being given to Louisiana......he's such rebel.

Ohhh, that rogue. He's the new republican Maverick!;)

[blocks]

He was horrible.

[dude58677]

He was horrible.

I know, I retracted my OP in the third thread.

[acptulsa]

Went to the county convention last Saturday. Our U.S. Represenative made a speech. Last year, he said one throwoff line about financial responsibility in government and, even though I didn't believe him, I started clapping loudly. I was not alone. He paused and seemed to be surpressing a look of surprise, like when did that become an applause line?

This year half his speech was pandering to us. Considering, however, that the other half of his speech was pandering to the fads the old line RINO supporters are hyped about today, though, I didn't see any reason to take it to heart...

We need to not stop at holding their feet to the fire. We need to keep holding their feet to the fire.

[dude58677]

Went to the county convention last Saturday. Our U.S. Represenative made a speech. Last year, he said one throwoff line about financial responsibility in government and, even though I didn't believe him, I started clapping loudly. I was not alone. He paused and seemed to be surpressing a look of surprise, like when did that become an applause line?

This year half his speech was pandering to us. Considering, however, that the other half of his speech was pandering to the fads the old line RINO supporters are hyped about today, though, I didn't see any reason to take it to heart...

We need to not stop at holding their feet to the fire. We need to keep holding their feet to the fire.

I know, I retracted my OP in the third thread.

[jbuttell]

Just remember this.. the GOP is the WAR party (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBIN5kYCPOA). You can be or do anything but you WILL NOT disparage either the War on Terror or the War on Drugs.

With that in mind you can see how Jindal is allowed to represent the GOP - he supports war.

"the war party" ??? Where do people come up with this stuff? Considering all of the congressional support for Bush and the Iraq war leading up to the invasion by the democrats, I just don't understand where people come off saying stuff like this. Looking back through history and some of the largest wars, the democrats have a lot of blood on their hands as well.

[paulitics]

Jindal is turning down 100 million out of 3.8 billion being given to Louisiana......he's such rebel.

So mavericky of him.

[torchbearer]

Dude he was in High School born in America and his parents weren't practicing Hindus... I'm sure he went to Catholicism on his own, especially since he converted in High School probably not knowing he would be involved in politics.

he also changed his name from Piyush to Bobby.
He is ashamed of his heritage.

[Zera]

Jindal is turning down 100 million out of 3.8 billion being given to Louisiana......he's such rebel.

Actually, $98 million.

[Peace&Freedom]

"the war party" ??? Where do people come up with this stuff? Considering all of the congressional support for Bush and the Iraq war leading up to the invasion by the democrats, I just don't understand where people come off saying stuff like this. Looking back through history and some of the largest wars, the democrats have a lot of blood on their hands as well.

But the Democrats haven't been supporting or instigating military interventions since their inception, like Republicans have. Civil War, GOP supported. Spanish-American War, same (Mckinley, T. Roosevelt). WWI, Democrats supported (Wilson), but most Republicans joined in. WWII, Democrats supported/instigated (FDR), but most Republicans joined in. Korea, Vietnam, Democrats supported/instigated, Republicans extended (Ike through the long war 'truce' and Nixon through 'peace with honor,' which was also supposed to be a long term lingering deployment like Korea but Watergate gave him and Ford no leverage to leave troops there). Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, Iraq II, all GOP supported or instigated.

War on Drugs, Nixon instigated, Reagan expanded. War on Terror, Bush II instigated AND expanded. Republicans have been the main water carriers for the warfare state, especially since the Cold war years and following, to complement the Democrats instigating or expanding the welfare state. The opposition party ends up managing and legitimizing the intervention (domestic or foreign) pushed by the other party.

[Smoke the Liberty Tree]

he also changed his name from Piyush to Bobby.
He is ashamed of his heritage.

First a poster says that he changed from hindu to christianity for political gain, and now this?!

I am losing faith in this forum. To the first response, your are an idiot. Just because your born into a family that believes in something does not mean that you follow those beliefs as well. Even if he was a believer in the hindu faith and then switched, HE SWITCHED TO CATHOLIC. Very few leaders have made it high with that religion. I believe kennedy was the only president, and correct me if i am wrong but Biden is the first VP, and he isn't even a devout catholic. Just pure nonsense. Spare us your opinions and provide facts.

To the second, what makes you think he is ashamed of his heritage. Is there any proof of that? No there is not. That is your opinon. Just because someone changes there name does not mean they are ashamed of there heritage, they may just not like the name they were given at birth. Being in the south im sure he was teased about it, no doubt by people like you two, and so he changed it to Bobby, and yes in my opinion that was probably for political reasons.

To conclude, his speech was amateuresque. he read the beginning like a children's book on tape, but he finished well. if you have heard him speak publicly you know he is much better than what he did last night. Don't lose all faith in him. Also he did have to follow a Presidents first congressional address and one that is very talented at speaking to the public.

[speciallyblend]

Jindal is turning down 100 million out of 3.8 billion being given to Louisiana......he's such rebel.

yeah ,kinda of funny. what a joke really:) laughable

[jcarcinogen]

The Huffington Post is reporting that he "Lied about the Disneyland/Vegas rail and even went with his family to Disneworld the next day". GJ GOP.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-nickolas/after-lying-about-high-sp_b_169892.html

[tremendoustie]

I think we have an important role to play here. There are people in the GOP who are coming around, but there is also the "Bash the Ds" phenomenon, where as soon as the democrats take office all of the Rs suddenly remember their small government principles. Compare rush in the 90s to Rush during bush, to Rush now, and you'll see what he means. Miraculously, the guy seems to be quite libertarian when it's a D that's power grabbing or warmongering, and quite a statist when it's an R in power.

We need to do two things:

1. Get GOP members to admit Bush went against everything they're talking about. When they diss socialism, we need to point out that both Bush and Obama are socialist, and have been greatly expanding the power of the governemnt. This will help break people out of the "red is good blue is bad" paradigm, and get people to associate with ideas, not parties.

2. Let's hit the war issue hard. Small government means we can't police the world, and we can't afford it anyway.

[nbhadja]

Jindal is a POS big government neo con.

As a private citizen, Jindal voted for the "Stelly Tax plan",[44] a referendum named for former state Representative Vic Stelly of Lake Charles, which swapped some sales taxes for higher income taxes. Whether or not the "Stelly Plan" is giving the desired results is still hotly debated statewide. Early Republican challenger Steve Scalise challenged Jindal on his vote for this tax plan before Scalise dropped out of the congressional race in 2004. As Governor, Jindal initially opposed reforms to the Stelly plan that would result in over $300 million in tax cuts. He later agreed to the tax cut after the legislature appeared headed to eliminating the entire personal income tax which Jindal also opposed.[45] Talk show host Moon Griffon subsequently refused to air radio ads paid for by the organization Believe in Louisiana crediting Jindal for Stelly reforms saying "Now, they are taking credit for the biggest income tax cut in the history of Louisiana and I felt like it was a lie. To be real blunt, very misleading and it was an outright lie because he had fought hard against it".[45]

Jindal voted yes on making the PATRIOT Act permanent, voted in favor of the 2006 Military Commissions Act, supported a constitutional amendment banning flag burning,[46] and voted for the Real ID Act of 2005.[

Jindal supports the teaching of "intelligent design" in public schools.

However he has been criticized for this, particularily because while he publicly rejected the idea of the stimulus, he only turned down $98 million, accepting over $3.7 billion of the planned $3.8 billion.

[tremendoustie]

They both suck, both Rs and Ds start wars, and increase government.

The war issue is the key deliminator for GOP candidates, others include real fiscal conservatism including opposition to the fed, constitutional limits to government, and to a lesser extent opposition to the war on drugs.

I won't support any GOP candidate who is in favor of preemptive war. I won't even support one who doesn't pledge to bring the troops home, and stop maintaining bases overseas.

Let's make sure we don't get suckered into supporting a pseudo libertarian candidate, as many have in past elections. They MUST support small government in all facets. Otherwise, I'll write someone in if I have to. I will not support another Bush, who, if you'll recall, didn't sound all that bad in 2000.

[Aratus]

dare i do a three way or 4~way 2012 poll? lil' ol' aratus has held back from doing political polls
since barack obama put his hand on honest abe's 1861 bible... i feel i NEED to do an ARATUS poll

[paulitics]

Jindal is a POS big government neo con.



haha. :D

[torchbearer]

First a poster says that he changed from hindu to christianity for political gain, and now this?!

I am losing faith in this forum. To the first response, your are an idiot. Just because your born into a family that believes in something does not mean that you follow those beliefs as well. Even if he was a believer in the hindu faith and then switched, HE SWITCHED TO CATHOLIC. Very few leaders have made it high with that religion. I believe kennedy was the only president, and correct me if i am wrong but Biden is the first VP, and he isn't even a devout catholic. Just pure nonsense. Spare us your opinions and provide facts.

To the second, what makes you think he is ashamed of his heritage. Is there any proof of that? No there is not. That is your opinon. Just because someone changes there name does not mean they are ashamed of there heritage, they may just not like the name they were given at birth. Being in the south im sure he was teased about it, no doubt by people like you two, and so he changed it to Bobby, and yes in my opinion that was probably for political reasons.

To conclude, his speech was amateuresque. he read the beginning like a children's book on tape, but he finished well. if you have heard him speak publicly you know he is much better than what he did last night. Don't lose all faith in him. Also he did have to follow a Presidents first congressional address and one that is very talented at speaking to the public.

You should see the comments from people who know his family that live in India.
If I can find some online, I'll show you the proof he changed his religion and name for political purposes.

[torchbearer]

The articles I'm looking for are from 2007, india news release... hard to find.
But I did find his real name: Piyush Subhaschandra Amrit Jindal.

[torchbearer]

Ok, here is one article(not the one I was looking for)

http://simarprit.wordpress.com/2007/11/10/bobby-jindal-vs-india-more-pain-less-gain/


Bobby Jindal’s election as the Governor of Louisiana is much in News. Lot of political expressionists are debating about good and bad of Bobby being Indian-American or American-Indian, on many grounds.

To me Bobby can be the disruptive element in the Indian-American ecosystem. Indians in America can be seen as Preservers and Conformists. Preservers being those who have brought in the Indian Culture and ethos and are stitching the same to the American culture fabric, they are the ones who have gained, while being grounded in the Indian mould, they don’t see anything wrong in what their religion and culture stands for, they see a reason to pass it on to the next generations and even pass it on to others. ISKCON embraced lot of people from all ethnicity’s and religions to its fold of simple living and high thinking. Bhajan Yogi created a line of Sikhs - American Sikhs, with regular Gurbani Path and Yoga mix.

Conformists on the other hand condemn whatever they were “made with” in their desire to grow. Indian Culture, ethics and Indian Values hold no promise to them. They don’t stand for anyone except their very immediate family (that also maybe). They don’t stand by their parents, their language, their culture, their country of origin or anything else associated with it. They stand for their personal growth at all costs. They will give up everything in their quest to be an American. They want to conform at any cost. They want to be one of them at any cost. They try to follow Michael Jackson’s attempt to become white for that ultimate “I am White feeling”. Many refer to them as Coconuts, brown from outside and white from inside.

Americans don’t stand for these things, they value their heritage, they cherish what their fabric stands for they believe in gaining without loosing anything in the process. Bobby Jindal sees himself as a conformist, he has to conform. He has to stand at the extreme right of the rightists. He has to be a radical among the radicals. He has to become President of United States of America, whatever happens to the United States of America or anyone else doesn’t matter. It is He first and He last. To think that he believes in what he is saying is a very tough call. He is fairly well educated and intelligent to take many of those stands. So are those stands only for electoral gains, is he playing only the vote game? That’s a very scary thought, a person like Bobby getting at the helm of affairs only for the heck of being there, what beyond? Maybe another World War, maybe another imperialistic urge, maybe to rule the whole world? Hitler II?

What does Bobby mean to India. Americans would see Indians as Bobby clones, opportunists and self centered. World would see Indians as trying to dominate the world and push them down. Preservers among Indians would see him as a shame. Conformists among Indians would see him as an Icon. What worries Indians and India lovers is the last section. The conformists with Bobby get the tag of not only being legitimate, but they also get the tag of being torch bearers of change. Of-course they are the torch bearers of change, but what a change? Change from being passionate to being cold? Change from being liberal in religious views to the radical extreme of Catholicism? Change from being multi-lingual to being only American English speaking (or Spanish or any other language if it helps in fetching more votes)? Change from proactive thought process to a reactive thought process? Change from thinking for all to thinking for oneself?

Bobby as an Icon for Indian Americans is a pain for India, an enduring pain. This pain would dilute and marginalize the preservers, it will make them think - is it worth it all? The preservers would become more accommodating with conformists. Preservers would now need an Icon, a very powerful Icon to counter the magnate of Bobby Jindal. Indira Nooyi is one of them. She is one of the Forbes most powerful women of the world. What she has attained as a preserver is path breaking. Nooyi is a great Ambassador for Preservers, we need more Nooyis and we need them fast.

Preservers do good to the whole world, the conformists do good to themselves at any cost. A preserver is gain for the whole world, with a preserver’s success every one wins. With a conformist’s, everyone except the individual looses.

[torchbearer]

Another one(still not the one i'm looking for)

http://www.shashitharoor.com/articles/toi/jindal.php


The election of Bobby Jindal as governor of the US state of Louisiana has been greeted exultantly by Indians and Indian-Americans around the world. There’s no question that this is an extraordinary accomplishment: a young Indian-American, just 36 years old, not merely winning an election but doing so on the first ballot by receiving more votes than his 11 rivals combined, and that too in a state not noticeably friendly to minorities. Bobby Jindal will now be the first Indian-American governor in US history, and the youngest currently serving chief executive of an American state. These are distinctions of which he can legitimately be proud, and it is not surprising that Indians too feel a vicarious sense of shared pride in his remarkable ascent.

But is our pride misplaced? Who is Bobby Jindal and what does he really stand for?

There are, broadly speaking, two kinds of Indian migrants in America: though no sociologist, i’ll call them the atavists and the assimilationists. The atavists hold on to their original identities as much as possible, especially outside the workplace; in speech, dress, food habits, cultural preferences, they are still much more Indian than American. The assimilationists, on the other hand, seek assiduously to merge into the American mainstream; they acquire a new accent along with their visa, and adopt the ways, clothes, diet and recreational preferences of the Americans they see around them. (Of course, there are the in-betweens, but we’ll leave them aside for now.) Class has something to do with which of the two major categories an Indian immigrant falls into; so does age, since the newer generation of Indians, especially those born in America, inevitably tend to gravitate to the latter category.

Bobby Jindal is an assimilationist’s dream. Born to relatively affluent professionals in Louisiana, he rejected his Indian name (Piyush) as a very young child, insisting that he be called Bobby, after a (white) character on the popular TV show ‘The Brady Bunch’. His desire to fit in to the majority-white society he saw around him soon manifested itself in another act of rejection: Bobby spurned the Hindusim into which he was born and, as a teenager, converted to Roman Catholicism, the faith of most white Louisianans. There is, of course, nothing wrong with any of this, and it is a measure of his precocity that his parents did not balk at his wishes despite his extreme youth. The boy was clearly gifted, and he soon had a Rhodes scholarship to prove it. But he was also ambivalent about his identity: he wanted to be seen as a Louisianan, but his mirror told him he was also an Indian. The two of us won something called an ‘Excelsior Award’ once from the Network of Indian Professionals in the US, and his acceptance speech on the occasion was striking — obligatory references to the Indian values of his parents, but a speech so American in tone and intonation that he mangled the Indian name of his own brother. There was no doubt which half of the hyphen this Indian-American leaned towards.

But there are many ways to be American, and it’s interesting which one Bobby chose. Many Indians born in America have tended to sympathise with other people of colour, identifying their lot with other immigrants, the poor, the underclass. Vinita Gupta, in Oklahoma, another largely white state, won her reputation as a crusading lawyer by taking up the case of illegal immigrants exploited by a factory owner (her story will shortly be depicted by Hollywood, with Halle Berry playing the Indian heroine). Bhairavi Desai leads a taxi drivers’ union; Preeta Bansal, who grew up as the only non-white child in her school in Nebraska, became New York’s Solicitor General and now serves on the Commission for Religious Freedom. None of this for Bobby. Louisiana’s most famous city, New Orleans, was a majority black town, at least until Hurricane Katrina destroyed so many black lives and homes, but there is no record of Bobby identifying himself with the needs or issues of his state’s black people. Instead, he sought, in a state with fewer than 10,000 Indians, not to draw attention to his race by supporting racial causes. Indeed, he went well beyond trying to be non-racial (in a state that harboured notorious racists like the Ku Klux Klansman David Duke); he cultivated the most conservative elements of white Louisiana society. With his widely-advertised piety (he asked his Indian wife, Supriya, to convert as well, and the two are regular churchgoers), Bobby Jindal adopted positions on hot-button issues that place him on the most conservative fringe of the Republican Party. Most Indian-Americans are in favour of gun control, support a woman’s right to choose abortion, advocate immigrants’ rights, and oppose school prayer (for fear that it would marginalise non-Christians). On every one of these issues, Bobby Jindal is on the opposite side. He’s not just conservative; on these questions, he is well to the right of his own party.

That hasn’t stopped him, however, from seeking the support of Indian-Americans. Bobby Jindal has raised a small fortune from them, and when he last ran (unsuccessfully) for governor in 2004, an army of Indian-American volunteers from outside the state turned up to campaign for him. Many seemed unaware of his political views; it was enough for them that he was Indian. At his Indian-American fundraising events, Bobby is careful to downplay his extreme positions and play up his heritage, a heritage that plays little part in his appeal to the Louisiana electorate. Indian-Americans, by and large, accept this as the price of political success in white America: it’s just good to have “someone like us” in such high office, whatever views he professes to get himself there.

So Indians beam proudly at another Indian-American success story to go along with Kalpana Chawla and Sunita Williams, Hargobind Khorana and Subramaniam Chandrasekhar, Kal Penn and Jhumpa Lahiri. But none of these Indian Americans expressed attitudes and beliefs so much at variance with the prevailing values of their community. Let us be proud that a brown-skinned man with an Indian name has achieved what Bobby Jindal has. But let us not make the mistake of thinking that we should be proud of what he stands for.

[Smoke the Liberty Tree]

Ok, here is one article(not the one I was looking for)
]

Okay one halfway credible web source. I'll have to read more on that author. Still, until i hear him say otherwise, or immediate family of his say it was that, i will be skeptical. I do think he will end up being another McCain/Bush neo-con pusher as well, but i will not jump to conclusions to quickly. Appreciate the response though. Was an interesting read.

[jbuttell]

But the Democrats haven't been supporting or instigating military interventions since their inception, like Republicans have. Civil War, GOP supported. Spanish-American War, same (Mckinley, T. Roosevelt). WWI, Democrats supported (Wilson), but most Republicans joined in. WWII, Democrats supported/instigated (FDR), but most Republicans joined in. Korea, Vietnam, Democrats supported/instigated, Republicans extended (Ike through the long war 'truce' and Nixon through 'peace with honor,' which was also supposed to be a long term lingering deployment like Korea but Watergate gave him and Ford no leverage to leave troops there). Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, Iraq II, all GOP supported or instigated.

War on Drugs, Nixon instigated, Reagan expanded. War on Terror, Bush II instigated AND expanded. Republicans have been the main water carriers for the warfare state, especially since the Cold war years and following, to complement the Democrats instigating or expanding the welfare state. The opposition party ends up managing and legitimizing the intervention (domestic or foreign) pushed by the other party.

I'm totally baffled by your response. While I appreciate you laying out the wars and those who instigated/supported each of them...

Your initial statement "But the Democrats haven't been supporting or instigating military interventions since their inception, like Republicans have. "

Then you follow it up by stating multiple extremely large conflicts instigated by Democrats and/or the wars they've supported.

I can only guess you're trying to make the point that in the first century the Democrats didn't have as large of an involvement in acts of war. However, in this past century, which I feel is really more relevant if we're talking about today's politics, the Republican party is not anymore the 'war' party than the Democratic party. To say otherwise is a harmful distortion of reality.

:confused: