Jenn
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by Jenn on Jan 2, 2008 14:43:31 GMT -5
Well he feels the abortion issue is a state not federal issue. The abortion issue is kind of a smoke screen anyway when you look at all the major issues facing us.
|
|
|
Post by Benji Duncan on Jan 2, 2008 14:51:58 GMT -5
Well, here are his exact words on the matter... www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/I actually agree with him that it should be a state and not a federal issue simply because the issue dominates federal politics too much and people too often vote for horrible candidates simply because of their stance on abortion. But when Paul uses statements like "The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty," I have to backpedal somewhat. If I support Ron Paul am I arguing that same thing? I certainly don't believe that. I believe the most important right is the right a person has over their body, which is the reason we want drugs legalized, correct? So his pro-life stance makes him kind of confusing to me ideologically.
|
|
Jenn
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by Jenn on Jan 2, 2008 15:01:26 GMT -5
Good point. I am pro-choice and I do have some philisophical problems with him. But I also feel he is not a liar just trying to get a vote. His opinion does come from a great deal of experience.
Other than this issue, his stance on foreign relations is something I feel this country needs. It is crucial and critical for us to discontinue our current behavior.
|
|
|
Post by Benji Duncan on Jan 2, 2008 15:04:55 GMT -5
And I agree with that.
Again, I think Paul is going to get my vote. But my support is different than my vote. For the right candidate I would be willing to offer my time to spread the word. Not sure Paul is right in that respect.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jan 2, 2008 16:38:56 GMT -5
So far, I'm slightly on John Edwards, but not uncompromisingly so.
I'm one that believes that a huge issue of American government right now is how the system caters the setting of nation policy to the highest bidder, and representation of the majority of people that make up America has been lost. John Edwards talks the best game with this issue, so that definitely has my attention right now. He's wooing Labor entities, too, and I'm from a family (and a state!) where those issues matter quite a bit, so that could have a lot to do with it, too. But, it's early in the race, and it's a marathon, not a sprint...
The point of the other Dem front-runners being black or women or having blue eyes or green hair or whatever matters little to me, in fact I'm kind of bored with it... I'm an "issues" guy, I guess, and I wish we could talk beyond all that. I perk up in listening when talk of ISSUES comes around (so wake me up when THAT happens...). I only bring it up because I don't want you thinking that my attention is on Edwards because he's a white man. As I say, his "manness" and "whiteness" have nothing to do with it, personally, so in the same breath, I wish to say that I don't want to be lumped in with that crowd that is looking at Edwards for only this reason (and they ARE out there, I know...).
The experience and qualifications thing is what I'm balking at most with Clinton and Obama.
Even that aside, though, Clinton is a pretty polarizing partisan figure right now. She made a lot of enemies on the other side of the aisle with an apparant step toward socialized medicine in 1993. The Repulicans, fair or not, have gone through great lengths to villianize her. Understand that, if she does get the presidency, all that doesn't go away very easily, and she is going to have to work with these folks to get things done. I have this suspicion that, as noble as her causes would be and with whatever political tact she can muster, it is going to be an uphill battle to get anything done beyond a political gridlocked state. It can translate to an ineffective leader, fair or not, I think. (Incidentally, medical care is SO foo'ed up in our times, that I think it's time for something to be done there, no doubt, and, I hope that some kind of effort is tried again having to do with this. Most of these ideas were good and right, it's just that we weren't ready for these ideas in America in the 1990's, but it just MAY have more legs in the 2010's... I hope this has not been given up!)
The Obama phenom facinates me as a watcher of American history. Only in complete politically dismal, low-faith times (like in the waning years of the W administration) could such an optimistic, charismatic person who seems to connect with so much of America's disenfranchised groups, but yet not really having the experience/qualifications goods, have a chance. IF Obama goes all the way, it will be an elemental sea change in the American presidency, almost like the breath of fresh air of Kennedy winning the White House in 1960 after eight years of Eisenhower. As I say, as a spectator of it, it will be an elemetal political shift and VERY interesting times, for the symbol of it alone. You have to admit that, at least. Hey, maybe given the presidency climate of late, maybe the time is just right for a little hope and promise!...
An interesting point having to do with charisma I'd like to bring up: I personally am not enamored with charisma. In fact, I'm kind of clueless about it and don't "get it". That goes for celebrityism in general, too. (You can probably gather that I myself am not charismatic...) But, admitting to all this, I'm smart enough to know that people FOLLOW charismatic people, and because of this, I believe this translates into effective leadership because things just somehow get done faster when they propogate their issues. Fair or not, the world works this way. So, while I don't vote for charisma directly, I definitely recognize that it is a very effective and utilitatian feature in a presidency, and it shouldn't be underestimated. And, out of all the candidates on the Dem side, Obama has the strongest hand with that. I really think that Republicans in general have "blown it". They were supposed to be the party of lean-and-mean government and lower taxes, but federal deficits explode on their watch. (One of Bill Clinton's legacies is in-the-black budgets, I'll remind you; Whoda thunk?...) Even many Rep party cronies can admit to their party "losing their way" on many of their key stances. If W's perfomance was much better, it just might have been able to save the day for them (much like how Regan's admin left a nice ramp for the election of Bush 1 in 1988), but, adding all this up, I don't think the Reps have much of a chance in late 2008. It could turn, as I say, but that's how I see it now. Reps have had a good amount of power for a long time, and, history will teach you that power corrupts. When it gets ridiculously out of hand, though, the pendelum swings the other way to give the other party a try for a while. That's how it works in America, and the pendelum swinging back to the Dems is almost predictably where we're at, now. (But to you Reps, don't worry: The Dems will eventually rise and "blow it", too, and the swing will come back your way one day; It's just a matter of how quick!...)
There. I hope I didn't offend EVERYBODY (although I seem to give it a good try, here!...). Sorry!...
|
|
Jenn
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by Jenn on Jan 2, 2008 16:58:54 GMT -5
Yeah Gene I see your point about Republicans blowing it. They have all blown it in my eyes. Reps and Dems are all really on the same team in bed with the media. The really scary thing to me is that anyone with a real "different" fresh idea is ignored. This only keeps that same people on the same team with the same agenda. These people need to be seriously talking about how we are going to clean up the mess we have made and no-one is doing it except Paul.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jan 2, 2008 17:16:59 GMT -5
I'm definitely watching the Ron Paul phenom. I have never seen such a strong "grass roots" thing going on with a candidate. The hip internet surfers seem to know all about it, but the converntional media is all but ignoring it, and Paul seems to be forgotten when it comes to doling out invitations for the latest televised debtes (or he chooses not to participate; I'm not sure...).
I'd love to see a strong showing of Ron Paul, since it gestures that something is elementally wrong with the mostly two-party system (and I think it's TRUE!...). But, I still can't get over that he's the 1988-Ross-Perot "throw-away" vote of this race that can't REALLY win.
But, it's early, as I say. Go Paul!...
|
|
|
Post by Benji Duncan on Jan 2, 2008 17:23:08 GMT -5
So far, I'm slightly on John Edwards, but not uncompromisingly so. I'm one that believes that a huge issue of American government right now is how the system caters the setting of nation policy to the highest bidder, and representation of the majority of people that make up America has been lost. John Edwards talks the best game with this issue, so that definitely has my attention right now. He's wooing Labor entities, too, and I'm from a family (and a state!) where those issues matter quite a bit, so that could have a lot to do with it, too. But, it's early in the race, and it's a marathon, not a sprint... The point of the other Dem front-runners being black or women or having blue eyes or green hair or whatever matters little to me, in fact I'm kind of bored with it... I'm an "issues" guy, I guess, and I wish we could talk beyond all that. I perk up in listening when talk of ISSUES comes around (so wake me up when THAT happens...). I only bring it up because I don't want you thinking that my attention is on Edwards because he's a white man. As I say, his "manness" and "whiteness" have nothing to do with it, personally, so in the same breath, I wish to say that I don't want to be lumped in with that crowd that is looking at Edwards for only this reason (and they ARE out there, I know...). The experience and qualifications thing is what I'm balking at most with Clinton and Obama. Even that aside, though, Clinton is a pretty polarizing partisan figure right now. She made a lot of enemies on the other side of the aisle with an apparant step toward socialized medicine in 1993. The Repulicans, fair or not, have gone through great lengths to villianize her. Understand that, if she does get the presidency, all that doesn't go away very easily, and she is going to have to work with these folks to get things done. I have this suspicion that, as noble as her causes would be and with whatever political tact she can muster, it is going to be an uphill battle to get anything done beyond a political gridlocked state. It can translate to an ineffective leader, fair or not, I think. (Incidentally, medical care is SO foo'ed up in our times, that I think it's time for something to be done there, no doubt, and, I hope that some kind of effort is tried again having to do with this. Most of these ideas were good and right, it's just that we weren't ready for these ideas in America in the 1990's, but it just MAY have more legs in the 2010's... I hope this has not been given up!) The Obama phenom facinates me as a watcher of American history. Only in complete politically dismal, low-faith times (like in the waning years of the W administration) could such an optimistic, charismatic person who seems to connect with so much of America's disenfranchised groups, but yet not really having the experience/qualifications goods, have a chance. IF Obama goes all the way, it will be an elemental sea change in the American presidency, almost like the breath of fresh air of Kennedy winning the White House in 1960 after eight years of Eisenhower. As I say, as a spectator of it, it will be an elemetal political shift and VERY interesting times, for the symbol of it alone. You have to admit that, at least. Hey, maybe given the presidency climate of late, maybe the time is just right for a little hope and promise!... An interesting point having to do with charisma I'd like to bring up: I personally am not enamored with charisma. In fact, I'm kind of clueless about it and don't "get it". That goes for celebrityism in general, too. (You can probably gather that I myself am not charismatic...) But, admitting to all this, I'm smart enough to know that people FOLLOW charismatic people, and because of this, I believe this translates into effective leadership because things just somehow get done faster when they propogate their issues. Fair or not, the world works this way. So, while I don't vote for charisma directly, I definitely recognize that it is a very effective and utilitatian feature in a presidency, and it shouldn't be underestimated. And, out of all the candidates on the Dem side, Obama has the strongest hand with that. I really think that Republicans in general have "blown it". They were supposed to be the party of lean-and-mean government and lower taxes, but federal deficits explode on their watch. (One of Bill Clinton's legacies is in-the-black budgets, I'll remind you; Whoda thunk?...) Even many Rep party cronies can admit to their party "losing their way" on many of their key stances. If W's perfomance was much better, it just might have been able to save the day for them (much like how Regan's admin left a nice ramp for the election of Bush 1 in 1988), but, adding all this up, I don't think the Reps have much of a chance in late 2008. It could turn, as I say, but that's how I see it now. Reps have had a good amount of power for a long time, and, history will teach you that power corrupts. When it gets ridiculously out of hand, though, the pendelum swings the other way to give the other party a try for a while. That's how it works in America, and the pendelum swinging back to the Dems is almost predictably where we're at, now. (But to you Reps, don't worry: The Dems will eventually rise and "blow it", too, and the swing will come back your way one day; It's just a matter of how quick!...) There. I hope I didn't offend EVERYBODY (although I seem to give it a good try, here!...). Sorry!... Given your criteria I would think you would support Dennis Kucnich. Edwards doesn't appear that strong policy-wise.
|
|
Gingy
Full Member
me and my Dad
Posts: 125
|
Post by Gingy on Jan 25, 2008 20:38:04 GMT -5
dennis kucinich.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Feb 12, 2008 8:13:59 GMT -5
Well, so far, using my binoculars from the stands and watching the horses go round and round, for the Reps, McCain is the front-runner nudging out Huckabee, and for the Dems, it's still too close to call between Clinton and Obama.
I could live with McCain as our president. I've never been in favor of an extremist of either side of the political spectrum for the big office, since the president often acts as a tie-breaker on edgy bills, so it's best that a self-thinking moderate sits in this seat. McCain is not a lockstep cronie to his party, and I'm impressed with that. He has the most congressional government experience of them all, he's admired, and he can definitely work with both sides of the aisle to get things done.
Huckabee is finding himself in the position as the staunch, traditional Republican candidate. He throws phrases around like he's the "real" Republican vote, and a vote for him is a rescue to save the whole party from McCain, and heavy use of the word "conservative" as a positive and "liberal" as a negative. After 8 years of W, this strategy just flat isn't going to work for him. Question is, when he goes down, will it take the whole Rep party down with him, or are the Reps going to wise up that the only chance they have in this political climate is to get behind a less conservative and more moderate candidate? McCain claims he can work over the squabbling and unite the party. We'll see if he's right. Will the Reps save themselves and "get it" in time? Is ANY Rep even going to matter in November? We'll see how this one plays out!...
It looks like Obama has a slight edge right now, but some states where it's suspected Clinton is favored haven't been counted yet, so it's still to close to call. It's sure looking like the eventual Dem ticket candidate is going all the way to the convention. I don't even have to verbally pump that up for the drama of THAT scenario!...
Vice presidential running mates make an interesting sidelight of all this, which is also to come.
Stay tuned!...
|
|
|
Post by Benji Duncan on Feb 17, 2008 14:07:50 GMT -5
Of any republican that has run for president in my lifetime, McCain is the most acceptable to me. I am glad as hell that he is going to win the nomination.
Still, I will vote for the democrat in the election. I hope it is Obama. I don't think Obama is exeptionally wise or even that great policy-wise but I have come to the opinion that he will be one of the greatest presidents ever. This is simply because for the first two years of office congressmen and senators will be hesitant to oppose him in fear of appearing racist, so Obama is going to pass tons of reform bills almost without opposition. Obama may very well change the federal government forever.
|
|
g
Full Member
Twice as fast as your ass
Posts: 101
|
Post by g on Feb 21, 2008 21:29:29 GMT -5
I SAY WE ABOLISH THE CONSTITUTION AND ELECT THE BACON THEN WE ANNEX NORTH MICHISAGN AND CANADA WILL BECOME DOMINATE PHEAR THE BACON
|
|
|
Post by mckillface on Feb 21, 2008 21:30:37 GMT -5
I VOTE FOR PALINDROMES.
SPARTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
|
|
g
Full Member
Twice as fast as your ass
Posts: 101
|
Post by g on Feb 21, 2008 21:33:34 GMT -5
I CANNOT SPELL PALINDROME
THIS IS NOT A SENTENCE; IT IS A PICTURE OF A SENTENCE
|
|
anvil
New Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by anvil on Feb 21, 2008 21:46:09 GMT -5
WE COME IN PEACE KIND EARTHLINGS WE WOULD LIKE OUR HOSE BACK IF YOU COULD JUST GIVE US OUR FUCK FUCKEDY HOSE WELL BE ON OUR WAY AND WE WILL ELECT EITHER THE BLACK GUY OR THE WOMAN OR THAT OTHER ONE WITH THE POINTY SHOES THIS IS NOT A PICTURE OF A SENTENCE THIS IS A PICTURE OF A PICTURE OF SOMEBODYS INTERPRETATION OF A SENTENCE
|
|