Now while i like Barack Obama, and believe he is a strong candidate. I would much rather see Ron Paul.
Anyone have any comments?
Posted by Stassi on Jun-04-2007 20:59:
Ron Paul is the man for the job.
Posted by fr0st on Jun-04-2007 21:07:
Why dont we talk about some of his Policies.
Posted by Stassi on Jun-04-2007 21:10:
quote:
Originally posted by fr0st
Why dont we talk about some of his Policies.
I would love to but I have to board my flight back to NYC in 5 minutes.
Posted by ReenTeenTeen on Jun-04-2007 21:17:
quote:
Originally posted by fr0st
Why dont we talk about some of his Policies.
if this guy becomes our leader: we're fukd.
Posted by fr0st on Jun-04-2007 21:18:
quote:
Originally posted by ReenTeenTeen
if this guy becomes our leader: we're fukd.
And why is it, what policy would lead us to chaos? And it if thats the most intelligent remark you can make, why mae any at all?
Posted by DJ Eco on Jun-04-2007 21:24:
quote:
Originally posted by ReenTeenTeen
if this guy becomes our leader: we're fukd.
He knows a thing or two about history... um... and pretty much everything else. He schooled the Republican party on what the Republican party is supposed to be about, but isn't anymore. I think intelligence in itself is something we need back in the White House, whether Dem, Rep, or Libertarian.
Posted by ReenTeenTeen on Jun-04-2007 21:29:
quote:
Originally posted by fr0st
And why is it, what policy would lead us to chaos? And it if thats the most intelligent remark you can make, why mae any at all?
dude, find another donor because I am not intellegent. (That man is just not intouch with reality.)
Posted by steven-neil on Jun-04-2007 21:35:
quote:
Originally posted by fr0st
And why is it, what policy would lead us to chaos? And it if thats the most intelligent remark you can make, why mae any at all?
if you think presidential candidates are picked because of their historical knowledge and various policies you are mistaken..
Posted by zachias31 on Jun-04-2007 21:40:
I like so much of what he says and what he stands for when it comes to foreign policy, rights to privacy, reducing spending and debt, etc. But things like choice and gay rights are deal breakers for me, and he's either on the wrong side or cops out when it comes to those issues.
Posted by fr0st on Jun-04-2007 21:48:
quote:
Originally posted by zachias31
I like so much of what he says and what he stands for when it comes to foreign policy, rights to privacy, reducing spending and debt, etc. But things like choice and gay rights are deal breakers for me, and he's either on the wrong side or cops out when it comes to those issues.
His personal opinion is against both abortion and gay marriage, but overall he believes it should be state decided and the goverment be decentralized. Which is something I can agree with, why should the federal goverment be able to dictate everything.
Posted by fr0st on Jun-04-2007 21:50:
quote:
Originally posted by steven-neil
if you think presidential candidates are picked because of their historical knowledge and various policies you are mistaken..
Ok Steven "Bomb them All" Neil.....
Posted by zachias31 on Jun-04-2007 21:50:
quote:
Originally posted by fr0st
His personal opinion is against both abortion and gay marriage, but overall he believes it should be state decided and the goverment be decentralized. Which is something I can agree with, why should the federal goverment be able to dictate everything.
I understand where his stance is coming from, but presidents nominate supreme court judges, and I need someone who I know will consider those issues when making the nominations.
Posted by fr0st on Jun-04-2007 21:54:
quote:
Originally posted by zachias31
I understand where his stance is coming from, but presidents nominate supreme court judges, and I need someone who I know will consider those issues when making the nominations.
The way he presents himself would be that he listened to the peope, rather than propagating his own personal agenda.
Posted by fr0st on Jun-04-2007 21:57:
Also niether of those issues are deal breakers for me. Long as hes not complete dead set against those issues,. I believe we have more pressing issues, like personal freedoms, public health, foreign policy, goverment spending, tax reductions etc.
Posted by steven-neil on Jun-04-2007 21:59:
quote:
Originally posted by fr0st
Ok Steven "Bomb them All" Neil.....
HEY DUDE...ITS LIKE BRITAIN..A PRESIDENT OR PRIMEMINISTER HAS TO HAVE A CERTAIN LOOK OR CHARISMA ABOUT THEM..AND YOU KNOW THAT.....WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME AMERICA HAD AN UGLY PRESIDENT...
Posted by zachias31 on Jun-04-2007 22:01:
quote:
Originally posted by fr0st
The way he presents himself would be that he listened to the peope, rather than propagating his own personal agenda.
Again, i get what you're saying, but I'm gonna go for the person who advocates for the right to choose and gay rights.
edit -- I want someone who agrees that those rights are under attack, and are part of a larger, scary moral majority uber christian way of looking at the world, which is just as dangerous as any other radical religious movement that people so easily jump on the bandwagon to condemn...
ok sorry, rant over.
Posted by steven-neil on Jun-04-2007 22:05:
quote:
Originally posted by zachias31
Again, i get what you're saying, but I'm gonna go for the person who advocates for the right to choose and gay rights.
im with you on that 100%..but whose that gonna be..and even though that is what we firmly believe in who's your choice,,cos they aint got a chance in hell....
Posted by fr0st on Jun-04-2007 22:08:
quote:
Originally posted by zachias31
Again, i get what you're saying, but I'm gonna go for the person who advocates for the right to choose and gay rights.
Again I fail to understand the logic behind that. Long as the canidate is for gay rights and is pro choice all in all, it doesn't matter their position or policies in other matters? I dont believe it should be a law that every state should have to accept. The same way i dont want pro life laws inacted in every state. There has to be some middle ground were both parties can agree.
Posted by steven-neil on Jun-04-2007 22:16:
quote:
Originally posted by fr0st
Again I fail to understand the logic behind that. Long as the canidate is for gay rights and is pro choice all in all, it doesn't matter their position or policies in other matters? I dont believe it should be a law that every state should have to accept. The same way i dont want pro life laws inacted in every state. There has to be some middle ground were both parties can agree.
I think that the USA as in England should have exactly the same rules and regulations in each and every state/county...
I agree with you to a certain extent JB cos i hate tactical voting..
Posted by zachias31 on Jun-04-2007 22:16:
quote:
Originally posted by fr0st
Again I fail to understand the logic behind that. Long as the canidate is for gay rights and is pro choice all in all, it doesn't matter their position or policies in other matters? I dont believe it should be a law that every state should have to accept. The same way i dont want pro life laws inacted in every state. There has to be some middle ground were both parties can agree.
Whether he thinks the federal government should have a say in these matters is a moot point, the fact is that the judicial branch is actively debating the issues and making decisions that affect all the states.
Example... I think abortion should be legal. Right now, those rights are being eroded via court cases. Therefore, I want the person who has influence over who the judges are to choose people who won't vote to outlaw it, make it less accessible, etc.
Does that seem illogical?
Posted by zachias31 on Jun-04-2007 22:20:
quote:
Originally posted by steven-neil
im with you on that 100%..but whose that gonna be..and even though that is what we firmly believe in who's your choice,,cos they aint got a chance in hell....
Most of the democrats don't want to repeal Roe v. Wade, and this year they've all got a hell of a better chance than in previous years.
quote:
Originally posted by steven-neil
I agree with you to a certain extent JB cos i hate tactical voting..
Lots of other issues are important to me, and i certainly wouldn't vote for a pro choice pro gay rights candidate who veered away from my stances on the war, or some of the other issues mentioned earlier. I don't blindly choose based on just these two issues. They just happen to be the ones that get me the most riled up.
Posted by steven-neil on Jun-04-2007 22:48:
quote:
Originally posted by zachias31
Most of the democrats don't want to repeal Roe v. Wade, and this year they've all got a hell of a better chance than in previous years.
Lots of other issues are important to me, and i certainly wouldn't vote for a pro choice pro gay rights candidate who veered away from my stances on the war, or some of the other issues mentioned earlier. I don't blindly choose based on just these two issues. They just happen to be the ones that get me the most riled up.
Whoever you vote for government wins...I will never ever understand politics in this country because so many different policies apply to so many different states...
I believe in gay rights and pro choice,,,however I also believe in the war,,so who would I vote for...
I also believe that the legal age to drink beer should be brought down to 18 and if you wanna have sex when you 16 then you should be allowed to(((unless you are my daughters))).....
I firmly believe that Amercans should take a look at how we are in the UK,,where homophobia and raccism are non existent and major crime is virtually unheard of...
Also I'm a firm believer that you should have some form of national health service whereby if youre sick you should be able to be treated without some kind of open wallet surgery...
Posted by madhattared on Jun-05-2007 02:06:
Ron Paul is correct on the issues. get with the times people.
Posted by steven-neil on Jun-05-2007 02:25:
quote:
Originally posted by madhattared
Ron Paul is correct on the issues. get with the times people.
maybe,,but the guy wont be president as long as you have a hole in your ass
Pages (2): [1] 2»
