I went when I was really young. I think I mainly visited resorts and amusement parks.
Ron Paul
-
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).
-
Balung, this is your only warning for a personal attack.
Any repeats and I will recommend a month off ALL boards for flaming.
-
that wasnt even an attack on her. well not really.
-
that wasnt even an attack on her. well not really.
The way it was posted, it WAS a flame. It was aimed at a specific person, and it was intended as an attack.
Balung, you have a tendency to go overboard on PD. You are passionate about your opinions.
But on these boards, COURTESY is primary; and the flame and flame bait rules will NOT be broken without swift and severe consequence to the offender.
-
I stand by my statement. McCain is a more radical Bush. If you do not like what Bush has done, you will definitely not like what McCain will do.
They are both pro-Amnesty
They are both pro-Stem Cells
They are both pro-Choice
They are both pro-Environment
They are both pro-Big Military and the use of that militaryRon, unfortunately, hasn’t the slightest chance in hell of getting the Republican nomination. But if McCain does get it, Ron has an AWESOME chance of getting elected as the first Libertarian President in the History of the United States primarily because people like me, conservatives that is, will vote for Paul before McCain or Clinton. Heck, the polls even show that McCain’s supporters are primarily comprised of people who describe themselves as liberals. That should be a huge red flag right there.
Pauls supporters are primarily people who consider themselves conservative. (Same with Romney, btw.)
-
@Cmdr:
I stand by my statement. McCain is a more radical Bush. If you do not like what Bush has done, you will definitely not like what McCain will do.
They are both pro-Amnesty
They are both pro-Stem Cells
They are both pro-Choice
They are both pro-Environment
They are both pro-Big Military and the use of that militaryRon, unfortunately, hasn’t the slightest chance in hell of getting the Republican nomination. But if McCain does get it, Ron has an AWESOME chance of getting elected as the first Libertarian President in the History of the United States primarily because people like me, conservatives that is, will vote for Paul before McCain or Clinton. Heck, the polls even show that McCain’s supporters are primarily comprised of people who describe themselves as liberals. That should be a huge red flag right there.
Pauls supporters are primarily people who consider themselves conservative. (Same with Romney, btw.)
Bush Pro-Stem cells?
I guess his veto of that bill is irrelevant.
-
I was thinking the same thing Nuk…
-
Actually I don’t see the middle 3 choices coming from Bush Co.
-
Actually I don’t see the middle 3 choices coming from Bush Co.
That’s what I thought. And while you can group them together for the first and last one, I think they have very different motivations for those stances.
As for Ron Paul…I like him due to his outlook on certain issues (ending war on drugs, fiscal responsibility/cut in spending, civil liberties), but others turn me off (dumping issues to the states - good, but could cause quite a bit of chaos - nonintervention policy, scrapping many federal offices). So, while he represents different things, it’s still a trade off. And he seems to be a loon with his unconventional stances to just about everybody right or left.
-
As for Ron Paul…I like him due to his outlook on certain issues (ending war on drugs, fiscal responsibility/cut in spending, civil liberties), but others turn me off (dumping issues to the states - good, but could cause quite a bit of chaos - nonintervention policy, scrapping many federal offices).
How else could you cut spending without scrapping many federal offices? How else could you cut spending if you don’t change foreign policy?
You are right … there is a trade off. Less spending means less programs.
The way I look at it, there’s only so much a president can do: change foreign policy, veto bills, ect. Even though he wants to eliminate income taxes and cut federal spending, he cant do it himself. In fact, with a Democratic congress, he probably wont get anything done except change foreign policy. But I guarentee you this, spending will never increase!
Anyways, I love Paul.
-
As for Ron Paul…I like him due to his outlook on certain issues (ending war on drugs, fiscal responsibility/cut in spending, civil liberties), but others turn me off (dumping issues to the states - good, but could cause quite a bit of chaos - nonintervention policy, scrapping many federal offices).
How else could you cut spending without scrapping many federal offices? How else could you cut spending if you don’t change foreign policy?
You are right … there is a trade off. Less spending means less programs.
The way I look at it, there’s only so much a president can do: change foreign policy, veto bills, ect. Even though he wants to eliminate income taxes and cut federal spending, he cant do it himself. In fact, with a Democratic congress, he probably wont get anything done except change foreign policy. But I guarentee you this, spending will never increase!
Anyways, I love Paul.
Let me put it this way…I like that he wants to cut spending, but I don’t know what he would cut. I agree with him on his stances with Iraq and Afghanistan, so I guess that would be something there. And the drug war. But I just don’t know specifically where he would go.
And while bureaucracy is annoying and undesired, there may be offices that actually do some good. Would we be deregulating anything but slashing positions?
Don’t get me wrong, I like him more than I dislike him, and like him more than other candidates. But I question whether my vote would do any good going to him.
-
It depends on what good you think a vote can do … if you think a vote is only good if it’s the vote that breaks a tie, then more than likely, your vote will never be any good!
-
IMO
a vote to push a desired effect is best. what i mean is that say in the current situation with the R side, we have 3 guys who can win now. if you look and decide that one of the top 3 are no good and they are the leader (McCain in this case is leader) and you can live with one of the other two leaders then a vote for them is better. as it pushes with enough people one of the other two (or both) up high enough to cause an upset. (in effect a vote against the guy you realy don’t like)
but if the other two are not close enough to your desire then you should vote for who you wanted origonally as it atleast shows up as a vote for the guy and it shows people that atleast the guy you like got votes and it may push some of there issues up to the front more and at the least it will give a better canadent the next time around the knowlage that they are an important issue to them.in the R race as i see it, this is what i mean.
McCain is winning. if you think he is a horible choice you should look at the only other guys to have a real chance (Mitt and Mike). of them you look at there records/stance/and do some investigation to see how stances changed if they did. then you say, can i live with them? if one of them is better then you vote for them to atleast get them to the convention so that the convention has more choices and one atleast you can tolirate. BUT if you think that all 3 are too far off the mark for you, then you go to Paul.
i say this as it’s a sugestion of compermise IF you can adsept the compermise to give the compermise you want the best chance. it’s better to get IMO 70% then 50%. but if 70% isn’t good enough then don’t support the 70%, go for the 71+% even if it can’t win.
thats my 2 cents.
Suggested Topics
