adolph nuttin up :)
Ron Paul
-
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. -
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
-
@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.
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.
-
@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.
-
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.
Suggested Topics
