I went when I was really young. I think I mainly visited resorts and amusement parks.
Ron Paul
-
of many. :-D
-
the whole electoral college was a brilliant idea to make all states as competitive and equal as possible for the presidential elections. those who think otherwise just dont like losing all the time and want to change our system as it was intended just for the hope of a win.
this is a representatvie democracy, where all states are treated as equally as possible. you could just take all the populous areas and let them dictate terms to the rest of the entire country. i think not.
Obviously not all states are equals because there is quite a bit disparity in electoral votes.
Again, I repeat that states don’t elect the POTUS, PEOPLE DO. The balance you are talking about is in regards to Congress, not the President.
The electoral college is a decent system that needs replaced or fixing. That is all.
@Cmdr:
Two things.
1) The fact that Obama is not only running for President as a black man but is actually WINNING pretty much ends any argument that this nation is racist. If the NATION was racist, then he wouldn’t even be a contender. (There are individual racists, I will get to that in a moment.)
2) Bill Clinton has issued some pretty racist comments recently, he’s a democrat. Hillary Clinton also made some quasi-racist comments when she basically said MLK was a worthless rabble rouser and it was LBJ that did the real work. (AKA, it took a rich, white democrat to bestow upon the African-American community justice and liberty, because they couldn’t do it themselves.) Meanwhile, the Democrats have elevated grand wizards of the KKK party and various other white supremacists to power. If anything, Ron Paul, the Republicans and the Libertarians are the defenders of equality and justice and it’s the democrats that are the racists.
Oh please, put up some quotes. But you never do so you can keep making the ridiculous claims that is your modus operandi.
BTW, David Duke, Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, anyone using the term islamofascist, etc.
Racists can be found of any color, size, shape, or political party. I don’t think anyone has a monopoly on it, and stating so is absurd.
i also agree that if there are any racist minded people who think one race is inferior it is the democrats. every policy they have for minorities is put in to play by getting people to think that without this help these people couldnt achieve anything. thats racist.
That doesn’t make any sense at all. If Democrats were racist, why in the hell would the give handouts and advantage to the people they hate? Jesus, I would think you can come up with something better…
-
no it doesnt need fixing or replacement. the founding fathers knew what they were doing, and we are to be stewards for their vision.
not change it so a certain party has a better chance of winning. i can see right through that crap. and so would they. dont whine about it, find a way to win with it. dont cry over it and attempt to change it to unfairly suit your political desires.
jermo,
you get a diploma? FOR THEIR VOTES!!!
and the democrats have the ex GrandDragon of the KKK as their most senior member, and have refused to get rid of him since '84. they just wont. republicans wouldnt ever do that. think about it.
oh and ever republican who has said the n word is gone. every democrat who has is still there. think about that also.
-
islamofascist is not a racest statment, it is a statment that targets a group of people that combined a religion and ideal to make a dangorous combination.
it is a group of fascist that hide behind religion. if it was Christians doing the same and saying it was the will of God then there would be no one calling it racest or any thing else if it was refeired to as Christofascism (or some other idea of the same). there would still be thouse saying it’s wrong, but there always will be.
the only other way to group this radical group together would be in another name that would even be called racist like Islomic extreamist, or Islomic Terrorist, or some other name. the target of the name is a group with in Islam (not the whole group and i have never heard any one say that it targets the whole group except those opposed to it’s name) that is extream or fascist. -
islamofascist is not a racest statment, it is a statment that targets a group of people that combined a religion and ideal to make a dangorous combination.
it is a group of fascist that hide behind religion. if it was Christians doing the same and saying it was the will of God then there would be no one calling it racest or any thing else if it was refeired to as Christofascism (or some other idea of the same). there would still be thouse saying it’s wrong, but there always will be.
the only other way to group this radical group together would be in another name that would even be called racist like Islomic extreamist, or Islomic Terrorist, or some other name. the target of the name is a group with in Islam (not the whole group and i have never heard any one say that it targets the whole group except those opposed to it’s name) that is extream or fascist.actually they call those christians crusaders but whatever.
-
OK folks, watch the religion aspect. This is a Ron Paul thread in General Discussion, not a religious topic in the deleted Political Discussion area…
Only warning for this thread…
-
Jermo,
Go listen to a Bill Clinton speech. Especially the ones in regard to S. Carolina. It’s choked full of racist comments.
Islamo-Fascist is just a way to separate the loonies out to blow themselves up for their religion from the mass majority of Muslims who are sane and rational people. If the term applied to ALL Muslims, then you could call it racist.
And I agree with Balung. Let’s restore the election process to how the Founding Fathers wanted it!
That means the huddled masses don’t get to vote for President (Only the electoral college gets too). Only land owners can vote for Senators. And only those who can vote for the largest body of state government can vote for Congressmen.
You see, that’s the problem. You all complain about the electoral college when it’s your man who loses. But you don’t realize just how good you actually have it.
And I hope Ron Paul DOES run as an independent. It’s probably what he is going to do because its the only thing that makes sense for him not dropping out and saving his money for the next campaign. Then at least I’d have someone to vote for if McCain wins Tuesday that isn’t Hillary or Obama.
-
Jen, you need to re-do your American Civics history…
You have the original standards for both the House of Representatives and Senate wrong.
-
I have the standards themselves right. I may have the houses off. Though, I thought the congress was whomever the states allowed and the senate was land owners.
According to section II, it appears I was right. The House (Congress) was elected by the huddled masses (whomever the states allowed to vote for their own largest branch of government). And the Senate was elected by the land owners/state assembly. (Section III)
http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm
That’s what they have listed at the Senate’s own website. If anyone knows how to get elected, I’d assume it’s the Senators and Congressmen, eh?
-
Senators were chosen by State Legislatures. There is no mention of “land owners” in Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 1. This remained teh method for Senators until the 17th Amendment was passed in 1913.
Representatives were elected by the people (those qualified to vote under state law). Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 1.
-
I believe land owners were the only ones who could register to vote. So it ends up being nearly the same thing. Land owners could register to vote, they elected the state congress and senate, the state congress and senate (the state legislators) appointed senators and appointed members of the electoral college.
So my POINT stands. The point being that one should feel lucky they can cast a ballot and those ballots determine HOW their electoral college WILL vote for President. (I believe almost every state has mandated that electoral college members must vote the way the state/precinct votes in the general election. I’m sure some industrious ne’er do well will find some precinct in the bowels of American society that still allows the one or two electoral college members to dissent with the people, but by in large, I believe almost all of them have to vote the way their regions (precinct/state, whatever) tell them too.)
-
@Cmdr:
I believe land owners were the only ones who could register to vote.
That varied by state and commonwealth.
-
I think there has been more posted about the other candidates than the one on the title.
I do respect RP for his long-held stances.
It shows that he is more than a mere politician, a man of principal.
However, he is for troop withdrawals, so I can not vote for him.
With lives of our troops at risk half-way around the world, I prefer JM, who has been a steadfast supporter of our armed services.
One of the titles at stake is Commander in Chief of the USA, so other issues do pale in comparison. Troop withdrawals without mission objective achievement would force our allies to reconsider the current world order, it would also invite massive foreign lobbying on where our military resources get deployed, esp at election time.
-
One of the titles at stake is Commander in Chief of the USA, so other issues do pale in comparison. Troop withdrawals without mission objective achievement would force our allies to reconsider the current world order, it would also invite massive foreign lobbying on where our military resources get deployed, esp at election time.
I disagree.
We have no life or death situation, so it’s low on the totem pole. Domestic policy is always more important.
How can you protect a country if it’s in the dumps?Oh, and what exactly are those objectives?
-
Yes, Commander in Chief is a title at stake. However, the CIC has a Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State and a Joint Chiefs of Staff to advise him. POW experience isn’t exactly needed to make a good CIC.
As for Ron Paul, I only hope he is going to run as a Libertarian. If McCain gets the nomination, the Libertarian party can expect to pick up 60-80% of the Conservative Vote, in my most humble of opinions.
On the plus side, did you hear that Russia will be very “upset” if McCain gets the nomination? I thought that was interesting since it’s OUR president, not theirs.
-
McCain has been a bit of a hawk against the old KGB leadership currently in control of Russia.
I can see where Putin would not be pleased to see McCain in control of the US Nuclear Football (more importantly able to veto all that US cash keeping his country afloat…)
-
Hmmm… We have a chance to piss off the Russians here. :evil:
-
That’s actually kinda humorous. McCain wants to veto spending. When has he ever voted, since 2000, to reduce spending anywhere!?!
Honestly, I’d be working more at making Russia our second closest ally so that we can have a triumvirate around Europe and a staging ground on the other side of China.
Why? I don’t think the new nation of the European Union will be our ally much longer. They may not become our enemy, but I do not think we can trust them. (And yes, I do believe they will become one nation and lose their individual identities.) Likewise, I cannot trust China, not with their attitude toward people of faith and all the human rights violations they have - not to mention their desire to poison our children with lead.
So pissing off Russia may not be a good thing right now.
-
dangit jen, he was a pilot and a naval CAPTAIN. he has more experience than a POW and you know it. mitt will lose b/c someone like you supports him. dishonest to the core.
and we should continue to piss off russia. they dont deserve us not pissing them off. they have become fascists and the country as a whole doesnt care!
-
@Cmdr:
That’s actually kinda humorous. McCain wants to veto spending. When has he ever voted, since 2000, to reduce spending anywhere!?!
He voted against the Bush tax cuts specifically because they did not include corresponding spending cuts. That is a matter of public record.
Again, we are off topic on Ron Paul (who wants to trim about 1.5 trillion from the Federal Budget, knocking us all the way back to about the levels of the first Clinton Administration, as opposed to the $3.1 trillion of Bush’s current budget.)
FYI: President Bush has achieved something not done since Reagan… Doubled federal spending in just 8 years. Unlike Reagan who had a Democrat controlled house for all 8 years, Bush had Republicans in control of BOTH houses for almost his entire term in office.
Apparently we DO need a Ron Paul President who will use his Veto Pen in order to make ALL spending require a 2/3 override vote…
Pretty sad that THE MOST fiscal conservative President of the past 30 years has been William Jefferson Clinton…
Spending rose slower under Clinton than they did under Reagan, Bush 41 or Bush 43. And Bush 43 has actually surpassed LBJ for rate of spending growth, and is only slightly behind FDR (who had more than 3 terms in office to achieve HIS record).
Suggested Topics
