Ammo For Sale

« « Marmoset there’d be days like this | Home | Holder Calls for new Assault Weapons Ban » »

On Jindal

I like him. Saw him speak once and said I’d vote for him. But to those who think he’s the olive-skinned hope of conservatives, you can probably forget it. Advancing creationism in school, his supposed participation in an exorcism, and 100% pro-life aren’t going to play too well nationally. You see, everything that the media lied to you and told you Sarah Palin was, Jindal actually is. I don’t think he has a bright future on the national stage.

20 Responses to “On Jindal”

  1. Weer'd Beard Says:

    My exact thoughts. I think he’d overall be good for this country, but many of his faith-baised ideals grate with mine, and likely would be a problem with many centrist voters.

    I think Palin is a better package deal.

  2. retro Says:

    Americans should have learned from the 0bama debacle – there are no perfect candidates. None.

  3. Tam Says:

    No, but there are certainly “better” and “worse” candidates.

    For instance, I think a “Palin/Jindal” ticket would hand a “Jindal/Palin” one a stomping.

  4. IZinterrogator Says:

    “For instance, I think a “Palin/Jindal” ticket would hand a “Jindal/Palin” one a stomping.”

    What a coincidence. One of the bumper stickers on my truck is for Palin/Jindal, too.

  5. Mike Says:

    Wow. You say that like it’s a BAD thing.

  6. SayUncle Says:

    Good/bad aren’t the issue. the popularity of those positions are at issue.

  7. Phelps Says:

    Jindal is untouchable. The media is incapable of reporting the truth, so therefore he has a pass on all the normal smears.

  8. Less Says:

    Jindal is untouchable.

    Confused – I thought he didn’t believe in the caste system after his conversion…

    ;)

  9. Sun Tsu Nephew Says:

    How about a new political party, one that has the US Constitution at least in mind?

    One that doesn’t pander to every special interest group (left or right)? That understands the federal governments role is very limited? That isn’t in the business of being everything to everyone?

    How about a party that feels adults should be left alone, mostly. That religion is a private matter? That your religious beliefs (say, on abortion) are just fine but don’t apply to me?

    Just as the Republican party replaced the Whigs, it’s time for a new party to replace the Republicans…or the demoncrats.

  10. Tony Says:

    Re Sun Tsu Nephew;

    Why do you mention abortion as a religious belief. Isn’t it a biological and legal issue? We have laws governing the circumstances under which a human life can be taken, why are unborn children not covered by those laws? I don’t understand what religion has to do with it.

  11. Satanam in computatrum Says:

    “How about a new political party, one that has the US Constitution at least in mind?”

    Why? You want to split 1% with the Libertarians?

  12. Reese Says:

    “How about a new political party…”

    American’s are too apathetic, as we can see with the semi-failed attempts as the Green Party and the Libertarian Party. The other cog in the Political machine is Capital, and new parties don’t have enough of it to get a legitimate start.

  13. Dan Says:

    If Jindal did not have beliefs like being pro-life, then he would be useless as a conservative standard bearer. Contrary to liberal media belief, the wrong (i.e pro-choice) side has not emerged as the sole survivor of the ultimate culture war.

    Besides, if Barack got elected, anything really is possible in politics.

  14. Ron W Says:

    Sun Tsu Nephew Says:
    February 26th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
    “How about a new political party, one that has the US Constitution at least in mind?”

    Yes, that’s a good idea. I voted for the Constitution Party candidate, Chuck Baldwin, for President.

  15. Charle Says:

    Abortion is a MORAL issue.

  16. Duane Says:

    Holding out for Palin/Prateous

  17. TCK Says:

    How is ending the life an infant because it was ‘ruining your life’ any different than me grabbing a shotgun and shooting some people because ‘they were ruining my life’?

  18. Michael Says:

    TCK- because it’s not an infant. It’s a ball of cells that will eventually become an infant when it’s able to live outside the womb on its own.

  19. straightarrow Says:

    Yet even after it achieves the ability to do that, Michael, we still kill it.

    Now Michael, if left alone is there any chance that “ball of cells” would become a pony, or washer/dryer combo, or a parrot. NO? Then it must be a human infant in its infant’s infancy.

    And if it wasn’t alive would we have to kill it?

    Isn’t your argument the same as used by the Germans about the Jews, or the Americans about blacks and American Indians? You know the one, that they aren’t really or fully human. Man, you are keeping bad company.

  20. larry weeks Says:

    I think the Jindal beliefs are fine. Conservatives need to give the public a choice. Not try to be democrat lite. Reagan did and won, Gingrich did it with the Contract With America and won the house and senate back. We failed with McCain because he wasn’t enough different than either Bush or Obama.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills


blog advertising is good for you

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives