Ron Paul

[onesojourner]

What does every one think? I am just starting to research the candidates and he seems awesome. He seems to be preaching what I have been thinking for years: less tax, less gov control and not spending what we don't have.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPolitic al_positions_of_Ron_Paul&ei=TO4DR-b5CY6wgwL-vcD6Cw&usg=AFQjCNHAbYkygOzNg_Tce5j0pR4JNqrXPQ&sig2=-vSGjrQKXoK874Ei5xJtDQ

I have not really found much of anything I don't like about this guy.

[Peter123]

The only major problem I have with him is that he believes that if we leave everybody alone, they'll leave us alone. I personally think that's BS myself.

[boggs]

i think a few years of american isolationalism might not be a bad thing.

[Prem1x]

He panders to the 9/11 troofers. Kinda like Perot. Little too nutty to be president.

[EvanB85]

The only major problem I have with him is that he believes that if we leave everybody alone, they'll leave us alone. I personally think that's BS myself.

He panders to the 9/11 troofers. Kinda like Perot. Little too nutty to be president.

Couldn't have said it better myself. He will probably end up on the Libertarian ticket in the end. A little too idealistic; not very realistic; and his international policy is a joke.

[chart102]

is he pro choice? if so he wont get my vote.

[kid4now]

is he pro choice? if so he wont get my vote.

Ya Bush is pro life too. But I guess he figures let them be born then let them suffer with illness because helping under privileged children is to expensive! Dont kill a stem cell but let a human child suffer then die? He says 35 billion over 5 years is to much money to spend on health care for underprivileged children. Its ok to spend $2,000,000,000 (billion) per week in Iraq...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html

[kid4now]

.

[Peter123]

Ya Bush is pro life too. But I guess he figures let them be born then let them suffer with illness because helping under privileged children is to expensive! Dont kill a stem cell but let a human child suffer then die? He says 35 billion over 5 years is to much money to spend on health care for underprivileged children. Its ok to spend $2,000,000,000 (billion) per week in Iraq...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html

You do know that the bill he vetoed would have expanded that insurance program to cover families that can make up to $83,000 per year and "kids" up to 25-years-old don't you? And if I remember correct, it has no immigration status restrictions so that illegals can participate in the program.

I know, "but it's for the chilllldrrrennnn..." and it's "not faaiiirrrr..." :banghead:

[Emm]

You do know that the bill he vetoed would have expanded that insurance program to cover families that can make up to $83,000 per year and "kids" up to 25-years-old don't you? And if I remember correct, it has no immigration status restrictions so that illegals can participate in the program.

I know, "but it's for the chilllldrrrennnn..." and it's "not faaiiirrrr..." :banghead:

Exactly what I was about to say.....

it was just the first step toward socialized health care.

From what I remember from the Constitution the rights were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness....not free health care.

[Emm]

Ya Bush is pro life too. But I guess he figures let them be born then let them suffer with illness because helping under privileged children is to expensive! Dont kill a stem cell but let a human child suffer then die? He says 35 billion over 5 years is to much money to spend on health care for underprivileged children. Its ok to spend $2,000,000,000 (billion) per week in Iraq...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html

Also if you do your research there have more positive findings with adult stem cells than with embryonic stem cells.

I love how women preach about how the government should stay out of their uterus but they want them to control EVERYTHING else. Doesn't work like that.

[onesojourner]

The only major problem I have with him is that he believes that if we leave everybody alone, they'll leave us alone. I personally think that's BS myself.


I don't know that he believes that but think off all the resources we could use to secure things here if we weren't spending billions else where.

[Emm]

I don't know that he believes that but think off all the resources we could use to secure things here if we weren't spending billions else where.

I like some of his ideas as well....but he is a little too much for me.

If you listen to am radio check out Glenn Beck...he has been talking about Ron Paul ALL morning. Giving lots of info out on him.

[Waste Land]

is he pro choice? if so he wont get my vote.

I've always loved this topic.......Lets vote for pres depending on prolife/prochoice not the real issues of running the country.

I never understood the "anti prochoice" people. If you dont agree with it, dont do it. The rest of us will choose because thats their right as an american.

Same thing as a hippy taking over and you riding jetskis is now outlawed because they think its "wrong" or " Evil". I dont care if one involved life...same thing...banning of osmething based on personal opinion of whats moral/

BTW....the Amish said this internet thing your own is evil you are going to hell for living your wicked ways. Wait, you dont believe that though.......so its not much of a concern:thinkerg:

[Emm]

I've always loved this topic.......Lets vote for pres depending on prolife/prochoice not the real issues of running the country.

I never understood the "anti prochoice" people. If you dont agree with it, dont do it. The rest of us will choose because thats their right as an american.

Same thing as a hippy taking over and you riding jetskis is now outlawed because they think its "wrong" or " Evil". I dont care if one involved life...same thing...banning of osmething based on personal opinion of whats moral/

BTW....the Amish said this internet thing your own is evil you are going to hell for living your wicked ways. Wait, you dont believe that though.......so its not much of a concern:thinkerg:

Depends on what is important to you. It's the same as not voting for someone if they are for gun control....or someone that is for illegal immigration. Very simple actually. There are things that I am not willing to budge on when I vote....some you may not agree with..some you may. You and I are not going to decide on who we are voting for the same way.

[onesojourner]

I think it pretty much comes down to whether or not we want a real change. I think the Government has gone down the toilet in the past 15 years and I would like to see some new thinking in there. If we keep going the direction we have been we going the be consumed by the black hole of our debt. The dollar is going to be worth nothing. Thats a bad thing when we import almost everything.

[Emm]

Thats a bad thing when we import almost everything.


x2 --If (or when) we ever go to war with China we are screwed--in more ways than one.

[GDFL]

So if China ends up taking over the US and we become part of China, what do we call Chinese food restaurants? Food Restaurants?? :scratchchin::scratchchin: :no:

[Peter123]

I never understood the "anti prochoice" people.

Have you ever tried?

If someone believes, truely believes, that a six week old fetus is a concious being with a soul, a human, how could they not be offended and highly emotional about killing that "person"?

Let's just say they had a center in your city, that all of the people could drop of their pets (dogs, cats, birds, cavies, etc) if they didn't want them. Employees at the center would take them out back, crush their skulls with a sledge hammer and incinerate the bodies. Would you take exception to this and speak out, or would you just say it's the owner's decision? After all pets aren't humans and many people feel they're property to be done with as they please.

The dilemma for me is that I don't believe a three week fetus is a human, but a cluster of cells. However, I know for a fact that a six month fetus is a baby (just visit any neo-natal unit if you don't believe me). The question is, where does this change occur? Nobody can answer for sure.

Do you oppose third trimester abortions? How about partial birth abortions?

Babies are delivered early in the third trimester regularly, and many of them grow to be healthy happy children. So if a woman who has delivered a premature baby decides she doesn't want it, should she be allowed to go down to the premie unit and request a nurse to smother it? If not, what is the difference between that and a doctor killing it within the womb? Does passing through the vagina or being pulled out via c-section suddenly make a group of cells a baby?

As it stands at this moment, medical evidence leads me to believe that within the first trimester, a fetus is just a clump of cells. Although I believe it shoudl be the absolute last resort, I can go along with abortions at this point.

After a fetus enters the second trimester, I just don't know. And since I don't, I'd rather play it safe and say that abortions should not be preformed unless it's a "real" medical issue such as the baby has attached within the falopian tubes or is proven to be severly handicapped. For me, once the woman is in the second trimester, her emotional health should not be a consideration.

Now, how anybody can accept the though of a third trimester abortion or partial birth abortion is beyond me. That is murder, plain and clear.

Now if the "pro-choice" crowd would put real and reasonable limits on abortion, I could go along with them; however, I've only heard them chant "It's a woman's body, it's a woman's choice" never "Only abortion in the first trimester."

So, my final question to you WasteLand is do you feel it's a complete choice? Do you think that a woman should be able to abort a nine month fetus (baby)? That would be the ultimate "pro-choice" - the woman could choose whatever she wanted at any time.

[Peter123]

I think it pretty much comes down to whether or not we want a real change. I think the Government has gone down the toilet in the past 15 years and I would like to see some new thinking in there. If we keep going the direction we have been we going the be consumed by the black hole of our debt. The dollar is going to be worth nothing. Thats a bad thing when we import almost everything.

Amen brother.

[deblaster]

is he pro choice? if so he wont get my vote.

He is a pro life Libertarian.

[EvanB85]

Congressman Paul is certainly Pro-Life.

Here are the details to his platform:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

[yamaslut]

I'll tell ya who won't get my vote... Hillary Clinton

She completely lost ALL of my respect by going along w/ the Republicans and voting to make the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist org... That just gives :-):-):-):-) face a chance to attack Iran now...

We are so lame we can't even take out a country that has no army or navy...???

This country is really turning into a big joke, if you ask me...

I decided to not even vote at all anymore... It took me 34 years to finally do it and I'm done w/ this pathetic system of regurgitating POS rich guys..


sorry, but lately I am so fed up w/ the politicians in this counrty... ALL OF THEM not just the republicans...


Nancy Pulosi
Harry Reed

go kill yourselves, cause you have to be the worst thing to happen to the dems in a while...

[Emm]

sorry, but lately I am so fed up w/ the politicians in this counrty..



x2

[tor*p*do]

[QUOTE=Emm;355347]it was just the first step toward socialized health care. QUOTE]


And this is a bad thing?

We can spend a trillion to have socialized death in Iraq,
but our own people?
they dont get shiat!!

[The Penguin]

if you don't vote at all - don't bitch about what you get.

but I do agree with you about being fed up.

ppl are quick to point out Pres. Bush's approval rating of ~35%

how about Congress's approval rating of ~11%

and they claim to be in touch with what "the people" want?

baloney.

[The Penguin]

it was just the first step toward socialized health care. QUOTE]


And this is a bad thing?

We can spend a trillion to have socialized death in Iraq,
but our own people?
they dont get shiat!!
socialized *anything* is a friggin joke.

[Peter123]

It's really become to faces on the same coin.

I can't firgure out where to spend my energies - removing all the crappy good for nothing Republicans to replace them with crappy good for nothing Democrats or removing all the crappy good for nothing Democrats to replace them with crappy good for nothing Republicans.

Do I want a noose or a firing squad?

I'll tell ya who won't get my vote... Hillary Clinton

She completely lost ALL of my respect by going along w/ the Republicans and voting to make the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist org... That just gives :-):-):-):-) face a chance to attack Iran now...

We are so lame we can't even take out a country that has no army or navy...???

This country is really turning into a big joke, if you ask me...

I decided to not even vote at all anymore... It took me 34 years to finally do it and I'm done w/ this pathetic system of regurgitating POS rich guys..


sorry, but lately I am so fed up w/ the politicians in this counrty... ALL OF THEM not just the republicans...


Nancy Pulosi
Harry Reed

go kill yourselves, cause you have to be the worst thing to happen to the dems in a while...

[Emm]

[QUOTE=Emm;355347]it was just the first step toward socialized health care. QUOTE]


And this is a bad thing?

We can spend a trillion to have socialized death in Iraq,
but our own people?
they dont get shiat!!


Yes it is. It isn't your RIGHT to have "free" health care. Do you realize that Hillary Clinton's plan would cost more than the freaking Dept. of Homeland Security AND the Dept. of Education combined?!?

Sure it all sounds good....but that doesn't make it a good idea.

I wish for once people could have a discussion without pulling the Iraq war into it...war or not...it doesn't make a freaking iota of sense.

[Big Kahuna]

I'll tell ya who won't get my vote... Hillary Clinton

She completely lost ALL of my respect by going along w/ the Republicans and voting to make the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist org... That just gives :-):-):-):-) face a chance to attack Iran now...

We are so lame we can't even take out a country that has no army or navy...???

This country is really turning into a big joke, if you ask me...

I decided to not even vote at all anymore... It took me 34 years to finally do it and I'm done w/ this pathetic system of regurgitating POS rich guys..


sorry, but lately I am so fed up w/ the politicians in this counrty... ALL OF THEM not just the republicans...


Nancy Pulosi
Harry Reed

go kill yourselves, cause you have to be the worst thing to happen to the dems in a while...

If you dont vote, then you dont have a voice..........period.........

you dont like the candidate, then vote for someone who can make a difference......

Voting is your voice............

[onesojourner]

socialized *anything* is a friggin joke.

agreed.

[Peter123]

it was just the first step toward socialized health care.


And this is a bad thing?

It's a bad thing when you have to wait a few years for a necessary medical procedure.

Go ahead and socialize medicine for those that truely can't afford it, but leave those of us who can alone.


We can spend a trillion to have socialized death in Iraq,
but our own people?
they dont get shiat!!

Nobody is turned away from a hospital.

[The Penguin]

It's really become to faces on the same coin.

I can't firgure out where to spend my energies - removing all the crappy good for nothing Republicans to replace them with crappy good for nothing Democrats or removing all the crappy good for nothing Democrats to replace them with crappy good for nothing Republicans.

Do I want a noose or a firing squad?
Cluster bombs and claymores.

fragmentation grenades at least.

we're going for mass casualties here.

:drillsergeant:

[yamaslut]

It's really become to faces on the same coin.

I can't firgure out where to spend my energies - removing all the crappy good for nothing Republicans to replace them with crappy good for nothing Democrats or removing all the crappy good for nothing Democrats to replace them with crappy good for nothing Republicans.

Do I want a noose or a firing squad?


exactly.... I'll take the firing squad..

[yamaslut]

If you dont vote, then you dont have a voice..........period.........

you dont like the candidate, then vote for someone who can make a difference......

Voting is your voice............


Jacking off will make hair grow on your palms too.... come on BK :swordfight:


What if you are forced to chose between two people you completely dispise, it's not your right as a voter to not vote and express your displeasure w/ the system.???? I can not change the system by myself, but I can stop feeding it and if everyone did, we would not have that system anymore...

That's how revolutions happen baby and I'm :-):-):-):-)ing ready!!!!!!!!!!

Kill the families in the top 1% of this country and disperse the wealth amongst us all... we'll get this country back on course, real quick...

who's down????

[Emm]

exactly.... I'll take the firing squad..

firing squad is too quick.....Don't you want to make them squirm a little? :wall:

[yamaslut]

firing squad is too quick.....Don't you want to make them squirm a little? :wall:

more blood :fing02:

[Emm]

more blood :fing02:

Ahhhh...ok :biggrin:

[EvanB85]

Kill the families in the top 1% of this country and disperse the wealth amongst us all... we'll get this country back on course, real quick...

who's down????

Dude, seriously, ask the Soviets how that worked out. That is some pretty scary talk right there. I understand your frustrations with the government, but you have to look around and realize that we still live the best lives in the world. Could it better? Absolutely.

Just remember that there are more places than not in this world where you don't get a cool website to sit and bitch about the government. Appreciate what we have here, care about what you think can make it better. That's America.

[EvanB85]

I think the whole point here is that Ron Paul is a non-mainstream, relatively legit candidate. He won't get my vote, but if you really want to start shaking things up, he's a better bet than most 3rd party candidates. I would rather toss a vote at someone like this than not vote at all.

[yamaslut]

Dude, seriously, ask the Soviets how that worked out. That is some pretty scary talk right there. I understand your frustrations with the government, but you have to look around and realize that we still live the best lives in the world. Could it better? Absolutely.

Just remember that there are more places than not in this world where you don't get a cool website to sit and bitch about the government. Appreciate what we have here, care about what you think can make it better. That's America.

I agree totally... I was just freaking out...



you got to admit... that would really make a serious change in the way this country operates...

[Emm]

I agree totally... I was just freaking out...



you got to admit... that would really make a serious change in the way this country operates...

i don't know...kind of like taking out the crazies in the Middle East...there is always someone right behind them. There are always going to be rich folks...no matter what. The only ones that piss me off are the trust fund kids....the people that worked their a** off to get where they are get mad props from me.

[Peter123]

you got to admit... that would really make a serious change in the way this country operates...

Yeah, once you killed that 1% off, the people who are now at the top will probably be relocating real quick.

I guess that would be an incintive not to do to well.

-------

"Hey Bob, you did a great job this past quarter, we're giving you a raise."

"Huhhhh, no thanks, I'll just stay where I'm out. Actually, can you reduce my pay and I'll just cut back to 30 hours a week?"


------

"Larry, I've got good news and I've got bad news. The good news is we just got a contract for 50,000 of your revolutionary vacumn cleaner from Walmart but the bad news is your net worth just jumped from $10 million to $20 million, so we're going to have to kill you."

------

Of course I can see some benefit in California.

[yamaslut]

HA HA HA.....

come on dream a little

:headbang:


I know a special guy who qualifies for the list that lots of people would love to see dead... Guess who he is????

his name starts w/ a G and hes a master of the english language (well that last part was a lie) but he kinda looks like a monkey and is very stupid

[EvanB85]

At least in this country, the top 1% in general have earned it. Gates, Bufett, Allen, Jobs, Walton, etc... Those type of guys got to where they are because of smarts, hard-work, ingenuity, patience. Love 'em or hate 'em, they had ideas, people followed. Bill Gates is not the richest man in the land because the king gave his great great grandfather a large chunk of land and nifty title like Duke or Earl.

Hell, Warren Buffet started from scratch. Literally. There were rich people and there were poor people way before there were Republicans and Democrats.

[Emm]

HA HA HA.....

come on dream a little

:headbang:


I know a special guy who qualifies for the list that lots of people would love to see dead... Guess who he is????

his name starts w/ a G and hes a master of the english language (well that last part was a lie) but he kinda looks like a monkey and is very stupid

he doesn't have as much money as you think.not rich enough...but John Kerry ...John Edwards (especially since he is an ambulance chaser) those I would sign up for:bandit:

[yamaslut]

At least in this country, the top 1% in general have earned it. Gates, Bufett, Allen, Jobs, Walton, etc... Those type of guys got to where they are because of smarts, hard-work, ingenuity, patience. Love 'em or hate 'em, they had ideas, people followed. Bill Gates is not the richest man in the land because the king gave his great great grandfather a large chunk of land and nifty title like Duke or Earl.

Hell, Warren Buffet started from scratch. Literally. There were rich people and there were poor people way before there were Republicans and Democrats.

I guess there's something about people having billions of dollars while others have nothing that really disturbs me for some reason... and that's knowing all of what you said above is correct... Obviously I was not serious about killing the top 1% and I don't have the answers, but if life is about being happy and making a living arn't Bill Gates and types like him taking too much of the pie??? Like I said, I agree that he earned it (making ********ty software) and it was probably "legal", but just because it is w/i the law does it make it "right" or beneficial for the entire society... At some point things got off balance in this country and there has got to be a way to right that and get money back to the middle classes...

Does he need 10 billion dollars to be happy and live life 30, 100, a trillion???
At what point do you feel that a persons wealth should be limited??
Do you at all??
If not what would stop one person from eventually owning everything? (we are on are way to that)

I think our capitalist society needs more socialism, but then again I'm not a expert and I have no clue how to fund something like that, run it or make it successful...

[Emm]

At least in this country, the top 1% in general have earned it. Gates, Bufett, Allen, Jobs, Walton, etc... Those type of guys got to where they are because of smarts, hard-work, ingenuity, patience. Love 'em or hate 'em, they had ideas, people followed. Bill Gates is not the richest man in the land because the king gave his great great grandfather a large chunk of land and nifty title like Duke or Earl.

Hell, Warren Buffet started from scratch. Literally. There were rich people and there were poor people way before there were Republicans and Democrats.


The good thing is most of those people give away TONS to charities....things like that.

[EvanB85]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_and_Melinda_Gates_Foundation

Endowment of $33 billion. Largest charitable organization in the world.

Sorry, I can't help myself.

I'm definitely a Righty, and I consider myself pretty hardline conservative, but not necessarily a fall-in-line Republican. Whatever, to each his own. Like I said, that's America.

I firmly believe that the federal government's job is to protect our nation and it's interests abroad; create infrastructure (roads, airports, energy, etc;) take care of the least capable among us (NOT households earning $65K;) protect the constitution; and so on and so forth.

I don't know who the hell to vote for either. Franklly I'm pretty discouraged by the choices. But I try to remain positive, focus on the good, and engage in lively discussions trying to fix the bad :biggrin:

There's my nutshell.

[EvanB85]

By the way, this is October of 2007. We have 13 months before the elections. This is going to get really entertaining and ridiculous.

Anyone know if Chuck Norris would be interested in running?

[Emm]

I guess there's something about people having billions of dollars while others have nothing that really disturbs me for some reason... and that's knowing all of what you said above is correct... Obviously I was not serious about killing the top 1% and I don't have the answers, but if life is about being happy and making a living arn't Bill Gates and types like him taking too much of the pie??? Like I said, I agree that he earned it (making ********ty software) and it was probably "legal", but just because it is w/i the law does it make it "right" or beneficial for the entire society... At some point things got off balance in this country and there has got to be a way to right that and get money back to the middle classes...

Does he need 10 billion dollars to be happy and live life 30, 100, a trillion???
At what point do you feel that a persons wealth should be limited??
Do you at all??
If not what would stop one person from eventually owning everything? (we are on are way to that)

I think our capitalist society needs more socialism, but then again I'm not a expert and I have no clue how to fund something like that, run it or make it successful...

I understand what you are saying.....sucks to see people have so much when people have so little. I just don't think a persons wealth should be limited. You have to remember...MOST if not all of those people own large companies that give people like me and you a job. Look at Wal-Mart..can you imagine if someone stopped Sam at 10 stores...even 20 stores....tons of folks wouldn't have jobs. I may hate my rich boss but if it wasn't for jerks like him I probably wouldn't have a job.

One thing that is great about this country is even if you are born into a crappy life you can always make something out of it....if you try...there are ways. In socialized countries it just doesn't happen...or if it does it's not nearly what it could be. In those countries there is barely even a middle class...usually just dirt poor and the filthy rich. Most of those countries also have miserable unemployment as well. You just don't have the same chance that you do here.

:wink1:

[Waste Land]

Have you ever tried?

If someone believes, truely believes, that a six week old fetus is a concious being with a soul, a human, how could they not be offended and highly emotional about killing that "person"?

Let's just say they had a center in your city, that all of the people could drop of their pets (dogs, cats, birds, cavies, etc) if they didn't want them. Employees at the center would take them out back, crush their skulls with a sledge hammer and incinerate the bodies. Would you take exception to this and speak out, or would you just say it's the owner's decision? After all pets aren't humans and many people feel they're property to be done with as they please.

The dilemma for me is that I don't believe a three week fetus is a human, but a cluster of cells. However, I know for a fact that a six month fetus is a baby (just visit any neo-natal unit if you don't believe me). The question is, where does this change occur? Nobody can answer for sure.

Do you oppose third trimester abortions? How about partial birth abortions?

Babies are delivered early in the third trimester regularly, and many of them grow to be healthy happy children. So if a woman who has delivered a premature baby decides she doesn't want it, should she be allowed to go down to the premie unit and request a nurse to smother it? If not, what is the difference between that and a doctor killing it within the womb? Does passing through the vagina or being pulled out via c-section suddenly make a group of cells a baby?

As it stands at this moment, medical evidence leads me to believe that within the first trimester, a fetus is just a clump of cells. Although I believe it shoudl be the absolute last resort, I can go along with abortions at this point.

After a fetus enters the second trimester, I just don't know. And since I don't, I'd rather play it safe and say that abortions should not be preformed unless it's a "real" medical issue such as the baby has attached within the falopian tubes or is proven to be severly handicapped. For me, once the woman is in the second trimester, her emotional health should not be a consideration.

Now, how anybody can accept the though of a third trimester abortion or partial birth abortion is beyond me. That is murder, plain and clear.

Now if the "pro-choice" crowd would put real and reasonable limits on abortion, I could go along with them; however, I've only heard them chant "It's a woman's body, it's a woman's choice" never "Only abortion in the first trimester."

So, my final question to you WasteLand is do you feel it's a complete choice? Do you think that a woman should be able to abort a nine month fetus (baby)? That would be the ultimate "pro-choice" - the woman could choose whatever she wanted at any time.

You have TONs of killer points. Maybe I get carried away when I hear stuff about Pro-choice being so bad.

To answer your question; No, I agree with you. There should be a stopping point where you are allowed to stop a child birth for whatever reason, but not that damn far into it. If its a problem, it can be handled before it really starts not once its become "human" so to speak.

I just hear soooooooo many people talking about abortions and how they are so evil because its killing a soul/god's child etc. Basing everyone else's right to choose on THEIR PERSONAL beliefs(usually connected to religion)

I agree, Women need the right to choose but there should be a limit as to how far into the time it can be done. However, some people will say thats my belief. I will not let it however affect my choice of politics.

My choices will come from how they plan to run and better my country. What they do or do not thats seen to be evil on moral grounds. "Let god sort 'em out"

[yamaslut]

I understand what you are saying.....sucks to see people have so much when people have so little. I just don't think a persons wealth should be limited. You have to remember...MOST if not all of those people own large companies that give people like me and you a job. Look at Wal-Mart..can you imagine if someone stopped Sam at 10 stores...even 20 stores....tons of folks wouldn't have jobs. I may hate my rich boss but if it wasn't for jerks like him I probably wouldn't have a job.

One thing that is great about this country is even if you are born into a crappy life you can always make something out of it....if you try...there are ways. In socialized countries it just doesn't happen...or if it does it's not nearly what it could be. In those countries there is barely even a middle class...usually just dirt poor and the filthy rich. Most of those countries also have miserable unemployment as well. You just don't have the same chance that you do here.

:wink1:

all good points.... both you and Evan

I think we as a nation will never agree on what is REALLY important to us... I mean there are lots of things that people feel that are important, but its not there life ... Some people will vote based upon just religious things, some on economy... It's hard to go a direction when no one can figure out what way to go and what we should concentrate on... Dems have ridiculous plans and can't do anything right, republicans have completely abandonded their core by spending so irresponsibly and creating this horrific war... It's like two polarizing forces that just waste all their energy pulling back and forth and never really getting anywhere....

[Emm]

all good points.... both you and Evan

I think we as a nation will never agree on what is REALLY important to us... I mean there are lots of things that people feel that are important, but its not there life ... Some people will vote based upon just religious things, some on economy... It's hard to go a direction when no one can figure out what way to go and what we should concentrate on... Dems have ridiculous plans and can't do anything right, republicans have completely abandonded their core by spending so irresponsibly and creating this horrific war... It's like two polarizing forces that just waste all their energy pulling back and forth and never really getting anywhere....

I hear ya....

[Peter123]

Keep in mind that the vast majority of people who are rich (I mean rich, not well off) reinvest a large chunck of their money back into either their own company, other startup companies or the stock market.

Imagine if you basically capped how much money a person could have. They wouldn't invest it, they'd pull it and have it just hanging out waiting to spend. Who would invest (risk) their money for no chance of reward and only a chance of loss? No one. So the rich would make their fortune, shutdown their business and sit on it. Imagine what that would do to the economy, stock market and job market.

It's the same priciniple when you have huge capital gains taxes. Why would your risk $10 million when the most you could make would be 3%? Why put it in the stock market (which gives companies capital to expand their operations and hire more employees)?

Keep in mind that money and wealth are relative. Sure the rich are getting richer, but for the most part so are the poor. Who do you think has a better life, a poor person on welfare today or a poor person 50 or 100 years ago?

I know this isn't taken from the most unbiased site in the world, lol, but I'm taking it at face value until someone shows me some evidence it's wrong:

---------

http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg1713.cfm

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

* Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

* Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

* Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

-----------

So even if the divide in money is increasing, the quality of life of our poor is also increasing.

[Emm]

Keep in mind that the vast majority of people who are rich (I mean rich, not well off) reinvest a large chunck of their money back into either their own company, other startup companies or the stock market.

Imagine if you basically capped how much money a person could have. They wouldn't invest it, they'd pull it and have it just hanging out waiting to spend. Who would invest (risk) their money for no chance of reward and only a chance of loss? No one. So the rich would make their fortune, shutdown their business and sit on it. Imagine what that would do to the economy, stock market and job market.

It's the same priciniple when you have huge capital gains taxes. Why would your risk $10 million when the most you could make would be 3%? Why put it in the stock market (which gives companies capital to expand their operations and hire more employees)?

Keep in mind that money and wealth are relative. Sure the rich are getting richer, but for the most part so are the poor. Who do you think has a better life, a poor person on welfare today or a poor person 50 or 100 years ago?

I know this isn't taken from the most unbiased site in the world, lol, but I'm taking it at face value until someone shows me some evidence it's wrong:

---------

http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg1713.cfm

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

* Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

* Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

* Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

-----------

So even if the divide in money is increasing, the quality of life of our poor is also increasing.

Good points...also the top 25% of earners pay almost 85% of the taxes...top 50% pay almost 97% and the top 1% pay like 36 or 37 %

[yamaslut]

Keep in mind that the vast majority of people who are rich (I mean rich, not well off) reinvest a large chunck of their money back into either their own company, other startup companies or the stock market.

Imagine if you basically capped how much money a person could have. They wouldn't invest it, they'd pull it and have it just hanging out waiting to spend. Who would invest (risk) their money for no chance of reward and only a chance of loss? No one. So the rich would make their fortune, shutdown their business and sit on it. Imagine what that would do to the economy, stock market and job market.

It's the same priciniple when you have huge capital gains taxes. Why would your risk $10 million when the most you could make would be 3%? Why put it in the stock market (which gives companies capital to expand their operations and hire more employees)?

Keep in mind that money and wealth are relative. Sure the rich are getting richer, but for the most part so are the poor. Who do you think has a better life, a poor person on welfare today or a poor person 50 or 100 years ago?

I know this isn't taken from the most unbiased site in the world, lol, but I'm taking it at face value until someone shows me some evidence it's wrong:

---------

http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg1713.cfm

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

* Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

* Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

* Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

-----------

So even if the divide in money is increasing, the quality of life of our poor is also increasing.

those stats would make more sense if it was 1970, not 2007... I do agree w/ the fact that the poor and low income families spend there money on the wrong stuff... ie: 22" rims, expensive clothes, expensive vehicles, and the basic things that corporate america tell them they need to have to "keep up w/ the Joneses'... It's a vicious circle of the poor feeding the rich and the rich marketing to and brainwashing kids earlier and earlier so they can suck more out of them...

Look at Mc Donalds... perfect example.

I dispise the use of high tech marketing and psychological crap they pull on kids these days... I do not think a company should be able to market to childeren

[EvanB85]

Again, I think we can all agree on Chuck Norris. Who wouldn't vote for the Norris/MacGyver ticket?

[yamaslut]

Again, I think we can all agree on Chuck Norris. Who wouldn't vote for the Norris/MacGyver ticket?

why would he even need to run????
coudn't he just proclaim it??

he he he...

[Emm]

Again, I think we can all agree on Chuck Norris. Who wouldn't vote for the Norris/MacGyver ticket?


Yeah Macgyver could fix the budget with paper clip and an empty toilet paper roll :bigok: cause he is cool like that!

[Big Kahuna]

Mac could weld this country back together with a Battery and a Quarter.

[Emm]

Mac could weld this country back together with a Battery and a Quarter.

and all within 30 minutes

[EvanB85]

Now That's the Spirit.

[GDFL]

Chuck Norris could just look at the Federal Budget with an evil eye and the Federal Budget would chit it's pants and fix itself.

If Chuck Norris was President, he would jump out of welfare check envelopes and kick the people's asses until they found jobs.

[onesojourner]

I think we as a nation will never agree on what is REALLY important to us... I mean there are lots of things that people feel that are important, but its not there life ... Some people will vote based upon just religious things, some on economy... It's hard to go a direction when no one can figure out what way to go and what we should concentrate on... Dems have ridiculous plans and can't do anything right, republicans have completely abandonded their core by spending so irresponsibly and creating this horrific war... It's like two polarizing forces that just waste all their energy pulling back and forth and never really getting anywhere....


That is exactly why I am a big fan of this guy. He is a big supporter of state governments. Leave the decisions to the state and the people in the state. people living in Cali should not be deciding what people in Main are doing.

[yamaslut]

That is exactly why I am a big fan of this guy. He is a big supporter of state governments. Leave the decisions to the state and the people in the state. people living in Cali should not be deciding what people in Main are doing.

I will look more into his ideas.... thanks for the heads up on him.

[boggs]

http://www.newsandpolicy.com/news/2007/10/ron-paul-responds-to-union-leaders-accusation-that.html

By ronpaul2008.com | Ron Paul
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!

Any response to this paper's Friday editorial on my foreign policy position must rest on two fundamental assertions: first, that the Founding Fathers were not isolationists; and second, that their political philosophy -- the wisdom of the Constitution, the Declaration, and our Revolution itself -- is not just a primitive cultural relic.

If I understand the editors' concerns, I have not been accused of deviating from the Founders' logic; if anything I have been accused of adhering to it too strictly. The question, therefore, before readers -- and soon voters -- is the same question I have asked for almost 20 years in Congress: by what superior wisdom have we now declared Jefferson, Washington, and Madison to be "unrealistic and dangerous"? Why do we insist on throwing away their most considered warnings?

A non-interventionist foreign policy is not an isolationist foreign policy. It is quite the opposite. Under a Paul administration, the United States would trade freely with any nation that seeks to engage with us. American citizens would be encouraged to visit other countries and interact with other peoples rather than be told by their own government that certain countries are off limits to them.

American citizens would be allowed to spend their hard-earned money wherever they wish across the globe, not told that certain countries are under embargo and thus off limits. An American trade policy would encourage private American businesses to seek partners overseas and engage them in trade. The hostility toward American citizens overseas in the wake of our current foreign policy has actually made it difficult if not dangerous for Americans to travel abroad. Is this not an isolationist consequence from a policy of aggressive foreign interventionism?

It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationsists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example.

I do not believe that ideas have an expiration date, or that their value can be gauged by their novelty. The test for new and old is that of wisdom and experience, or as the editors wrote "historical reality," which argues passionately now against the course of anti-Constitutional interventionism.

A Paul administration would see Americans engaged overseas like never before, in business and cultural activities. But a Paul administration would never attempt to export democracy or other values at the barrel of a gun, as we have seen over and over again that this is a counterproductive approach that actually leads the United States to be resented and more isolated in the world.

[Peter123]

But a Paul administration would never attempt to export democracy or other values at the barrel of a gun, as we have seen over and over again that this is a counterproductive approach that actually leads the United States to be resented and more isolated in the world.

Although I agree with many of his points, I'll have to disagree with this one. We were extremely successful n exporting Democracy via the barrell of a gun, along with little boy and fat man, to Japan.

I'd venture to bet that it was the unbelievable carnage that we brought that changed the Japanese.

[onesojourner]

I agree that we can be successful at it but I don't think its our place. The only time I would support that (japan was an extreme circumstance) is if the people wanted that. Even then I think our support should be more supplies and that sort of thing. If people want to be free than let them. If they want to keep going how they are then let them.

[Prem1x]

How's Ron Paul still working for all ya Pauliacs?

Any of those bigoted newsletters a problem for any of you?

http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/?entryid=656

[Freestylin-FX1]

Anyone catch the one were THat minuteman guy is protested as a racist because of his views on immigration?? Kinda funny how "reclaiming our country" and "racism" seem to be the same thing to some ppl.

[boggs]

How's Ron Paul still working for all ya Pauliacs?

Any of those bigoted newsletters a problem for any of you?

http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/?entryid=656

NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist
Linder says Paul being smeared because he is a threat to the establishment

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Sunday, January 13, 2008


Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.

Linder joined Alex Jones for two segments on his KLBJ Sunday show this evening, during which he commented on the controversy created by media hit pieces that attempted to tarnish Paul as a racist by making him culpable for decades old newsletter articles written by other people.

"Knowing Ron Paul's intent, I think he is trying to improve this country but I think also, when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going to misconstrue that....so I think it's very easy for folks who want to to take his position out of context and that's what I'm hearing," said Linder.

(Article continues below)

"Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he's a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform," he added.

Asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded "No I don't," adding that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.

Dr. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years.

"I've read Ron Paul's whole philosophy, I also understand what he's saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him," said Linder.

"If you scare the folks that have the money, they're going to attack you and they're going to take it out of context," he added.

"What he's saying is really really threatening the powers that be and that's what they fear," concluded the NAACP President.

[Prem1x]

Racism is a catch-all accusation these days and I too have an issue with that.

But the articles posted under Paul's name range the whole spectrum of bigotry from racism, antisemitism and anti-homosexuality. I thought he was just a kook who believed in UFO abductions and 9-11 conpiracies. But Paul takes it to a (MAD TV voice) whole nuva level.

[Prem1x]

OK, so my initial reaction with anything from PrisonPlanet and Alex Jones is to chuck it out the window, but say this one black guy doesn't believe Paul is racist.

That means he just panders to racists by allowing this stuff to be published for 20 years? Is that better? It seems this Lew Rockwell is intimately linked to Paul and at least he stands by his bigotted views.

So, boggs, are you saying you are comfortable with all this and will continue to vote for Paul?

BTW it is the first tactic always used by Alex Jones is to deflect the issue by playing the victim card. Of course Paul is only being attacked because he is a threat to the "establishment". Maybe somewhat, or maybe Paul's a looney tunes too.