Ron Paul

Jermo, in regards to cutting departments he is not for getting rid of federal programs, aka Education or FBI. He himself has stated they are a necessity in our society, he is for reducing their bureaucracy and unnecessary spending, which might require sticking it back in the power of the states since too much is at stake at a federal level. Handing things to the states doesn’t mean more chaos necessarily…

Another thing, I think what most people automatically think about him in regards to Foreign Policy is that he is going to leave our tail undefended for another attack, and reduce our military. He has never said that. Think of instead of 500,000 soldiers trying to find the one bee in 100 countries that will give us another “9/11” sting, he is going to stick 500,000 soldiers in ports, on ships, on borders, in aircraft, but only their and never to invade our personal privacy. Honestly I don’t know of a better system to fight terrorism. And of course the best way to cut spending…

GG

@Nukchebi0:

@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 military

Ron, 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.

President Bush was the first president in American history to FUND stem cell research.

He’s pro-stem cell research.

Thing is, as long as he does not cut Veteran’s Benefits or Military spending (which in my mind go hand in hand) then I don’t care what he cuts.

I hope Ron runs third party.  Because there is not a bat’s chance in hades that McCain is going to beat Hillary when the conservatives in the Republican party will not vote for him.  And that means that Conservatives have two choices in November, Hillary (not gunna happen) or sit out the Presidential vote this year.

If there was a time for a viable third party with a candidate known nationally (ahem, Ron) now is the time.

jen, you dont represent all conservatives.

i’d say i’m way more conservative than you, and i’m for McCain.  i got you beat conservatively on social issues, on foreign policy too.

Never said ALL conservatives.  I am, however, a representative of a LARGE SEGMENT of Conservatives.

Without this LARGE SEGMENT, McCain doesn’t stand a chance of getting elected.  Doubly so, if any of this LARGE SEGMENT votes for the other team.

@Cmdr:

President Bush was the first president in American history to FUND stem cell research.

He’s pro-stem cell research.

Umm…

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/19/stemcells.veto/index.html

i actually cant believe i’m saying this, but i’ll take the southerners support and thats all any conservatives need with a McCain/huckabee ticket to win the day.  let others waste their votes, but not many will against hillary.

only rush, hannity, ann colter, dr. laura, and other loudmouths care.  who cares about them anyways.  people with a deep desire to be told what to think?  i thought only dems did that with jon stewart, cnn, mtv, and hollywood.  i’m more of an o’reiley guy myself.

doesnt matter zero, so far jen just says things, the acuracy of the statements is secondary.

@Zero:

@Cmdr:

President Bush was the first president in American history to FUND stem cell research.

He’s pro-stem cell research.

Umm…

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/19/stemcells.veto/index.html

This just goes to show how bad the reporting is there:

President Bush:

Based on preliminary work that has been privately funded, scientists believe further research using stem cells offers great promise that could help improve the lives of those who suffer from many terrible diseases – from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer’s, from Parkinson’s to spinal cord injuries.  And while scientists admit they are not yet certain, they believe stem cells derived from embryos have unique potential.

Scientists further believe that rapid progress in this research will come only with federal funds.  Federal dollars help attract the best and brightest scientists.  They ensure new discoveries are widely shared at the largest number of research facilities and that the research is directed toward the greatest public good.

I also believe that great scientific progress can be made through aggressive federal funding of research on umbilical cord placenta, adult and animal stem cells which do not involve the same moral dilemma.  This year, your government will spend $250 million on this important research.

I will also name a President’s council to monitor stem cell research, to recommend appropriate guidelines and regulations, and to consider all of the medical and ethical ramifications of biomedical innovation.  This council will consist of leading scientists, doctors, ethicists, lawyers, theologians and others, and will be chaired by Dr. Leon Kass, a leading biomedical ethicist from the University of Chicago.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html

250 million dollars given to Stem Cell Research with the blessing of President Bush.

President Clinton NEVER gave even a penny to Stem Cell Research.  Before Mr. Clinton, there was no stem cell research to be done.  Not saying Clinton’s choice was bad.  But let’s not pretend that Bush was anti-stem cell research.

He was ANTI-Cloning from stem cells.  He is PRO stem cell research.

@balungaloaf:

i actually cant believe i’m saying this, but i’ll take the southerners support and thats all any conservatives need with a McCain/huckabee ticket to win the day.  let others waste their votes, but not many will against hillary.

only rush, hannity, ann colter, dr. laura, and other loudmouths care.  who cares about them anyways.  people with a deep desire to be told what to think?  i thought only dems did that with jon stewart, cnn, mtv, and hollywood.  i’m more of an o’reiley guy myself.

doesnt matter zero, so far jen just says things, the acuracy of the statements is secondary.

A)  Dunno about Rush, Ann, Laura or any other of the “loud mouths.”  All I know is that the Fox and Gallup polls BOTH show that voters who identify themselves as conservative do NOT want McCain.  Without these people, McCain will NOT win the White House and thus, Hillary or Barrack will.

B)  Again, you let your foot fly right into your mouth.  Why don’t you try and get some links and facts before you try to refute me?  Especially when it’s so easy just to go to the White House and get the actual speech where President Bush becomes the first President to fund stem-cell research.  A simple Google search also should spit out a few dozen links with the same speech.

yeah, stem cell research on non-embryonic stem cells.

the whole stem cell debate is about embryos vs. non embryos.

bush vetoed the ebryonic bill.  why would he care about non embryonic ones.  i am totally against using embryos but i’m totally for using other things.

you got it all mixed up……again.

I didn’t mix up anything.

I said President Bush was the first President in American history to fund STEM CELL RESEARCH.

If you thought he was signing into law that women could impregnate themselves and then sell the embryo to the US Government for research that’s your fault, not mine.  You need to learn to read what I type, not what you hope I typed.

no no no,

you put pro-stem cell in a category full of other things anathema to conseratives 2 pages back.  you made it seem anti-conservative to do such things.  so you made it look very bad.  thats how you giftwrapped it.

and the only bad one for conservatives is embryonic……so people sure thought thats what you meant b/c it wouldnt matter if he was pro-stem cells in other ways.  which it doesnt matter.

No, that’s how you read it.

And yes, it is generally considered Conservative to be anti-Stem Cell research on multiple levels.  Not just embryonic ones.  Just as I feel many conservatives, myself excluded, would have issues with parents being able to order the perfect child through genetic manipulation.

of course children shouldnt be modified.

but to cure terrible ailments, use all the umbilical cord waste anyone desires.  whats the harm in that?

i’m going to have to say you miss read her. i can’t see any conservaitve thinking that “They are both pro-Big Military and the use of that military” was a realy bad thing. ok maybe some, but not a lot.
also the enviroment is an issue that conservatives get nailed as being bad on when they are just as strong on it. (Teddy Rosavelt was a big supporter of our national parks, also most hunting liscenc’s pay for a large chunk of the wilderness maintance and clean up).

oh and on the point that some one said that one or two votes don’t matter. WA state, 2 years ago had a govornor race that was vary close. the Demacrate won, but only on the 2nd recount. count one had Deno Rossi (ya Deno is his first name) up by a few houndred votes. count 2 had him up by a mear 40 odd votes. count 3 had our winner (the Democrat) up by 120 odd votes. state judical system said that a 3rd recount would not be allowed even though as far as counts go, the Republican won the first two counts and the Demacrat only won the last count. how wrong i feel that is, isn’t relavent. what is though is had the first recount stuck, it would have been a close race, off by under 50 votes total.

Not posted as an insult Jen, but you are correct in that you represent a large chunk of Conservatives.  The large chunk in particular is often called “Dittoheads”.

Limbaugh has been Anti-McCain since the 2000 Primaries.  For the past 8 years he has never let up.  His listeners (who often call themselves “Dittoheads”) think as you do regarding McCain.

But other Conservatives do not agree with you, and I don;t consider them any LESS conservative for it.

ORIGINAL CONSERVATIVES RAN ON HUMBLE FOREIGN POLICIES. ORIGINAL CONSERVATIVES WERE VOTED INTO CONGRESS TO GET US OUT OF WAR. ORIGINAL CONSERVATIVES TALKED ABOUT REDUCING GOVERNMENT.

so tell me. how are we less conservative for voting Ron Paul? Besides that, I won’t vote for a man that runs off his veterancy (that is always an advantage, but not a necessity), I vote for him based on his actions and character…

GG

Domestically, Ron Paul is probably the best choice out there GG, but personally I want a guy who isn’t afraid to put me to work, and Ron Paul’s foreign policy is rather naive.

I’m not afraid to put you to work (You get a paycheck for it 8-)), but I at the same time I am not going to drop a dime for a foreign policy that does not directly benefit me in the long run, or you for that matter (and no I’m not going to immediately jump on the bandwagon that were protecting us here by fighting them their, I didn’t do that in March of '03; I actually disagreed with the Iraq war. I won’t do it now). I don’t really care if the Iraqi’s live or die, call me uncaring, un-compassionate, whatever you want, but if they are not willing to lay their lives down for their country which I would willingly do if my country was directly under attack then they don’t deserve our blood or treasure.

As far as the naive part, his foreign policy is based off of 1,000 years of numerous measurable actions compared to 7 years of fear connected to one horrible event, that has cost us in precious lives and a recessive economy. Personally that is what I call naive. Study Economics and World History. It is pretty simple to judge why what is happening is happening.

As I said before, he is not for sticking our head in the sand and forgetting about the world, or leaving our borders, ships, planes, airports, and soil undefended, he just goes about it in a different, IMHO more direct, way.

GG

In five years, Iraq will be just like Bosnia, everyone will have forgotten that we have a garrison there.  However, when trouble sparks and we need to react, we will have a base to start from.  I dont think anyone knows or remembers the precarious position we were in in 1989-90 when we mobilized for Desert Shield.  If Sadam had, we would have been in a lot of trouble.  Ever since then our military planners have looked for a way to avoid that situation.  Now we have that security.  That my friends is what the war in Iraq was all about.  My oppinion of course, take it or leave it.