Slashdot Mirror
Best Presidential Candidate, Republicans
A few days ago we posted a story for you to discuss the best presidential candidates for Super Tuesday, but I figured it would be an interesting idea to try that again, but split the discussion into 2 halves. This is the Republican half — please only discuss the Republican candidates in this story. Huckabee, McCain, and Romney only.
No discussion over Ron Paul? What is this Fox News?
Why not Paul?
Yeah, why should we not mention Ron Paul? So much for "freedom of speech". Apparently this is not Finland.
Clicked pie.
When did Ron Paul drop out?
I thought Ron Paul was still in the race?
I 3 Huckabee.
Wait...
By a slashdot post-off, with the entire party submitting to the first poster.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
No Ron Paul?
Terrible.
Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
He's running on the Republican ticket.
I plan to vote for him in the Republican primary in my state.
But you've specifically disallowed his mention in the Best Candidates - Republican thread?
Quite an oversight, CmdrTaco. I would have expected better of you than of the typical CNN/Fox News media that have done their best to ignore him. I expected that from them. But from you? The one candidate that most values our freedoms? You specifically forbid us from discussing him?
*That* is lame.
Not that I'm a huge fan but if I had to vote for a Republican, I would vote for Ron Paul.
Did Ron Paul drop out?
I agree! Ron Paul ftw!
You had to leave Ron Paul out of the summary so all of his insane, techie fans could turn this thread into a giant flamewar, right? Right?
Incoming "Media Bias Against Ron Paul" anger in 5... 4...
You do realise that Ron Paul IS on the Ballot? He may not be very likely to win, but, by those criteria, Huckabee shouldn't be discussed either.
Romney: just a gut feeling about him and I can't really place it - he's way too smooth. And to be honest, being a Mormon creeps me out a bit (gold tablets from God?!?) - as much as a devout Christian, or anything else would.
McCain: I don't agree with everything he stands for (he's anti-abortion), but I love his attitude of fiscal conservativeness and straight talking.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Huckabee makes me nervous; he sounds like a dominionist.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
What is up with that?... Come on people. Ron Paul!! He needs more attention. Which candidate wants to get rid of the IRS? Which candidate wants to bring the troops back ASAP? Which candidate wants to abolish the federal reserve (which is neither federal, nor reserve)? Who wants to restore the republic, and the constitution? Who wants to stop policing the world? Come on, there is really only one good candidate... And that is RON PAUL!! Vote for McCain, and you'll probably be in another new war within the year. I think that was very low to limit the discussion of candidates. What happened to freedom of speech, expression, and the PEOPLE choosing their president?
The discussion about Ron Paul on the internet is very interesting. It seems Ron Paul fans are not fans of Occam's Razor, as many seem to think there's some massive conspiracy keeping Ron Paul away from the public discussion, when there's a far simpler explanation - he's not going to win - he's not even going to get close to being chosen, so any discussion about this losing horse is wasted effort. Normal "what about Ron Paul??!?!??" service resumed in 3, 2, 1...
The last I checked, he is in this race as a republican, has raised more money than Huckabee, and just beat him in the Maine caucuses.
"Deficits mean future tax increases, pure and simple. Deficit spending should be viewed as a tax on future generations, and politicians who create deficits should be exposed as tax hikers."
-Ron Paul
I'm not interested in discussing anyone but Ron Paul. For me the campaign is Ron Paul VS Other. I will vote for Ron Paul, period. I choose Ron Paul over Other. End of story.
I'm disgusted with CmdrTaco for buying into the corporate fascist mentality. Congratulations, you just lost whatever credibility you ever had. I'm tempted to stop reading Slashdot entirely.
Huckabee is nuts: http://youtube.com/watch?v=D08Dq_iNMRk
McCain knows jack shit about politics. He was asked an economics question in the last FL debate by RP and couldn't answer it.
Romney is a freaking warhawk.
Ron Paul is the only valid candidate.
one might die of old age in office one is a mormom (golden tablets - need I say more) one wants to edit the constitution to his religious beliefs I thought Ron Paul was running for president of the internet against Al Gore?
He is the only candidate who defends Federalism.
Ron Paul is still in the race, but has very few delegates. Barring unprecedented performance on Super Duper Tuesday he's got less of a shot than Romney, McCain, or Huckabee. That doesn't mean that he doesn't warrant discussion, though.
"Give away the stone, let the oceans take and transmutate this cold and faded anchor." - Maynard James Keenan
I'm just going to ignore the "No Ron Paul" discussion. He is the best candidate to vote for.
McCain
Pros: experience in Washington
Bush's Donor list
"Maverick" Reputation broadens appeal to moderates, independents
Negatives: Famous temper
Conservative base loathes him
"Washington Insider"
Senators rarely do well as President
Will hit funding bind (accepted Public Funding)
Romney:
Pros: Executive Management experience
Can rely on personal funds
Not a "Washington Insider"
Governors often do well as President
Negatives:
Reputatation for switching positions
Some will take his religion against him
Slick image
Huckabee:
Pros: Willing to look at new solutions (i.e. "The Fair Tax")
Negatives:
The entire "religious right" issue
Lack of broad appeal outside the evangelical right
Is it "The Best Presidential Candidate" or "The Presidential Candidate that has the Best Nomination Chance"?
The Best Presidential Candidate ~ Ron Paul
The Presidential Candidate that has the Best Nomination Chance ~ John McCain *sigh*
If you are in favor of strict gun control, vote for McCain:
http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm
If you don't want the constitution swept under the table with your guns, then vote for someone else.
The Ron Paul half and the non Ron Paul half.
First off, for those of you spouting Ron Paul nonsense, either you're mildly insane or have clearly not read more in depth about what the man really wants. Secondly, Romney gets flustered over someone asking him about his religion... which he can't explain with words other than "you're misinterpreting that"... how will he hold up in a much graver and serious situation? McCain sits more middle of the road and is clearly the only solid choice at this point.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Look. Ron Paul has some fantastic ideas...abolishing the drug war, his tech policy, etc...but come on. You cannot deny that the guy has a couple of screws loose. I'm all for getting government out of our lives as much as possible, but he is a complete loon.
I know, I know...the "he is going too far" label tends to be applied to revolutionary thinkers whose ideas just aren't ready to be accepted by the masses. I have nothing against "different thinkers"...I like that in a person. I would agree that he is just ahead of his time if many of his ideas weren't based entirely in a fantasy world.
Like I said, I'm all for getting the government out of our lives as much as possible, but what Ron Paul is suggesting is completely restructuring the entire nation, top to bottom. Who knows, maybe that is what we need...I just don't think that we need it in the way that Ron Paul is proposing that we do.
Living With a Nerd
you'll get further clarification tomorrow.
Huckabee is a creation of the media. Look at his donation totals plus after IOWA they stopped plastering his face everywhere and the Sheeple stopped voting for him.
Ignoring the missing option like we do in the Slashdot polls all the time..
Ron Paul I think is the best choice because it would be a return to someone who actually thinks that the Constitution is relevant to today as much as it was 200 years ago. He also wants smaller government, less intrusion into our privacy, bring the troops home and stop our "police the world" policies of interventionism. Yes, some of his supporters are a bit odd and can be zealot at times, but there are many others who are normal people who support someone who sticks up for their positions (just look at his voting record over 10-terms - he does not waver from supporting the constitution!).
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson
After my post above, I saw all the Ron Paul posts. WTF is my problem! - I'm not being sarcastic either!
That's our media for you - /. included! All I see on Yahoo, Google, and radio, (No TV anymore) are the above candidates for Republican. And when you consider that I pass a huge billboard for Paul all the time, I'm pathetic! I've been brainwashed by the media into thinking there's only 3 (Three) Rep candidates.
We as a country are in sorry shape if I'm the norm!
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
On that matter, neither does a current president who believes, "the jury is still out on evolution."
As modern-day Presidential Candidates go.... voters are stuck with choosing the greater of two evils, none of which can be called "Best". No sane and educated person would subject themselves to the rabid and vicious environment that is the USA Presidential Election process. Candidates certainly aren't doing it for the $$, so why are they running?
It may have been a good idea to leave him in to prevent the discussion from completely revolving around him anyway. Then again, it probably would revolve around him no matter what. This being the internet and all...
sEVOLashdot
-516
When did he get his jaw wired shut? And will it be unwired before the election? Sure makes him sound funny.
I expect that new faith-based engineering techniques are going to be what it will require to do the things Bush has proposed with respect to manned space flight. In the past we used to worry about interplanetary radiation, food supplies for a six year voyage, and reliable rocket engines. But the advances in faith-based engineering (mostly spinoffs of the faith-based Iraq war) have made it possible to seal up a couple of dudes in a steampunk diving bell and fire them at Mars from a cannon, confident of their eventual return.
The flag just makes more sense than the constitution. - Judas Gutenberg
...please only discuss the viable republican candidates in this story.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
He's the only Republican left, running. And who gives a flying rat fart if he's Mormon. It's quite unAmerican to put him to a religious test.
He obviously left out Ron Paul to get a rise out of the large libertarian contingent of /.ers. And it worked! IOW, YHBT, HAND.
I am a registered Republican, and I will be most likely be voting for Ron Paul next week, but let's face facts. He's not going to win, and votes for him are valuable only as an indicator of dissent. He has good views on war, small government, and the Constitution, but he's also a creationist wacko, plus either a lying racist or so atrociously lazy and irresponsible about reading papers before signing them that it's hard to trust him.
Unless a vast number of voters in Super Tuesday states have been systematically lying to pollsters, it's going to McCain vs Clinton. So, will Ann Coulter do what she promised, and campaign for Hillary?
See also: Who's Nuttier: Apple Fanatics or Ron Paul Enthusiasts?
I am not an American (I live north of the border) and I do not know much about the candidates in this race. However, I find it utterly bizarre and disturbing that religion take such a huge place in American politics. I don't think the faith of a candidate (or lack thereof) had ever been an issue in Canadian politic since I started voting 15 years ago. And I doubt it is different anywhere else in the West except the US.
In this light, how is Huckabee received in geek circle ? I like to think people in tech are, on average, smart and rational. Does he received any support from this crowd ?
:wq
I really have liked Ron Paul's ideas. He speaks to ideas and concepts that we all have hold in our hearts... Unfortunately Ron Paul is not going to be the candidate to beat Obama/Clinton. Those two loons are dangerous to our liberties. McCain is closer to meeting my ideals. He is a straight shooter and does what he says. I do not like people who want to hang themselves on the cross (Huckabee or Romney). This is not a theocracy.
Tisha Hayes
Not because we can't discuss him, but I've got other problems in my life.
Actually, by omitting him from the list, Taco ensured that nearly all of the discussion would be about Ron Paul.
Thanks, Cmdr Taco!
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Talks about and swears by the constitution. Thinks that free markets and true freedom will lead to prosperity. So do I, and lots and lots of other people. Fuck Romney, McCain, Huckabee. More government is bad, mmkay? Can't you see this...? Ron Paul is who I'm voting for, and you should be ashamed of yourself for excluding his name. You're as bad as Fox News and CNN. Die in a fire.
Dupe... oh wait...
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
he never had a chance to begin with, the obvious choice then is Huckabee, because he will treat people like they should be treated. Christans, as a general rule, will treat most people like they are equals.
In Soviet Halo, the game kills you (socially anyway)
I'll bite, since you're obviously waiting for this...
:) I'm not necessarily advocating a gun-ho approach to the world, but I note with cynicism that no leftist group has tried toppling these governments before the US did. Like I said, it's much easier for them to criticize governments that won't bash their skulls in.
The only people voting for Ron Paul are internet bots. His rating is so low it could actually be caused by the polling margin of error. The guy is a joke and his platform is a joke. I doubt he could garner more votes even running as a Democrat (which is what he should have done).
As for all the so-called people voting for Ron Paul: his ratings show how marginalized your views are. If you'd spend half the time and money you did on Ron Paul on Human Rights issues in the middle-east you would have actually made more of a difference in the world. Everyone is tripping over themselves trying to show they hate their government more than everyone else (apparently it's the "in" thing to do nowadays), and not just in the US. Meanwhile billions of women are being oppressed in the Islamic world and millions of them are being raped and killed in Darfur. What is being done about it? Nothing. Why? Because it's easier to criticize a government that won't bash your skull in then do the *real* work of criticizing middle-eastern dictatorships and make a difference where it counts. Anti-war activists say they're against war but their actions actually ensure that wars will get worse in the future. Yesterday they were protecting Saddam Hussein's right to torture his people. Today they are protecting Iran's right to wipe out Israel using nuclear weapons. Who knows what wonderful policy they'll dream up of tomorrow
In 2003, when Canadian journalist Zahra Kazemi was arrested, raped and then beaten to death in Iran where was the public outcry? How can you spend a week making noise about Zahra Kazemi and *years* making noise about the US government? That's not advocating Human Rights!
Professionally and intellectually, Mitt Romney is probably the most qualified presidential candidate the US has had in over a century. I'd have to hit the history books to figure out since when.
:-)
I say this because my group/company had done quite a bit of consulting work with Bain Capital many years ago. Having sat in a couple of meetings and presentations with him, and looking at what he has accomplished, I have a high degree of confidence in his ability and sincerity.
As for Mormonism: Well, it's not my cup of tea, but I've NEVER met a Mormon I didn't like
Quote="However, this hasn't translated to him even breaking into the double digits"
Hmmmm, IOWA, MAINE, NEVADA, Louisiana that is just off the top of my head. He has gotten Double DIGITS TONS. More states than Huckabee has or Fred Thompson and especially more than that FRINGE candidate Giuliani. There is this thing called the internet where you can read results of ACTUAL voting before you insert your foot in your mouth.
Ask yourself, IF George Washington, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were alive today. WHO would they vote for?
Quote="Crazy ideas"
Yeah the Constitution, REAL CRAZY. Thomas Jefferson called and he wants to Bitch Slap your momma for calling him a nutbag!
...but that might be because I'm not American and not in America.
I'm not sure that I'd vote anyway, both parties seem as bad as each other.
I'm so confused about how Ron Paul got his base. Surely, no one that's posted in favor of this dude here on Slashdot makes more than a million dollars a year so why do these folks continue to support him? All you have to do is listen to the dude talk and realy dive into his views to understand he's about zero government regulation. This guy fully supports robber barrons and all the evil that DOES TEND TO HAPPEN with little federal regulation. Humans are bad, local governments are bad, and without proper oversight this country will go to hell with the rich getting richer and the poor getting screwed. Ron Paul is George W. Bush on steroids. The only difference is that Ron Paul will keep the war in the states, and not in Iraq.
Huckabee is a nutjob (amend Constitution to meet "God's standards", wtf?), McCain is a sellout and vies with Romney for title of the Worst Flip Flopper On The Planet, and all three are warmongers when America is pretty damned tired of war.
And seriously, nothing is going to bring out the Ron Paul spambots like saying he's not invited to the discussion. And while Ron Paul is cookoo for coco puffs*, at least he isn't a fundie like Huckabee or a flip flopping asshole like McCain or Romney.
The Republicans only hope this year is that it will be Hillary v McCain. Her whole campaign is based on experience, which McCain blows out of the water. And she can't really attack him for flip flopping, when she's gone back and forth for drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, and for criticizing the Administration's foreign policy after voting for Kyl-Lieberman.
*Yes, Ron Paul is nuts. For example, how exactly is he going to move a $7 trillion economy back to the gold standard when there's less than $3 trillion in gold on the planet? Or how you'll be able to sue companies for the damage their pollution causes. Said companies will just use the cigarrette defense: how do you know is was my toxic waste dumped into the river that gave your wife cancer, and not the other three companies dumping into the same waterway?
I put a filter on my connection so that any time the words "Ron Paul" comes through, it is changed to "fringe lunatic reactionary". So far, I haven't missed anything.
I vote for none of the above
Ron Paul may be crazy, but at least you are not. Congrats for NOT repeating the blatantly wrong "Ron Paul is the only candidate who defends the Constitution". Now good luck convincing everyone else that an abstract organizational principle like "federalism" (at least the form Paul advocates for) is important enough to vote for, even at the expense of trashing our economy.
Nice to see that we can have a nice well-rounded discussion here.
Suffice to say, Ron Paul is my candidate of choice. I never thought I'd want to vote Republican after seeing this mess that was the Bush Administration, but now I want to see nobody in the White House other than Ron Paul. The other Republican candidates are either ridiculously dumb, scare or religious... or a combination of those. The Democratic candidates are better, but still nowhere near as balanced as Paul.
Nice one there, CmdrTaco
That's like saying: "Let's talk about the teams competing for the upcoming Superbowl. But only about the Patriots, the Redskins and the Cowboys."
The real question is not who is the best choice. It is who is attempting to control this election like the last two.
6 Months ago when it was a wide open field, McCain was just another great republican according to Hannity etc. Now suddenly he is a worse choice to Hillary? Liberal Mitt is suddenly the answer. Sounds to me like the Puppeteer is pissed he might get someone he can't control. Just who is this? Saudia Arabia maybe? Who's agenda are these "conservatives", and I use the term loosely, really pushing. I don't know about you, but I am heartly sick of amateur hour in Washington. The only thing professional done is Washington these days is how quickly our money is disappearing. McCain had the right idea 8 years ago, and it is even more right today.
It looks highly unlikely that anyone other than McCain or (less likely) Romney can win the nomination. If Huckabee were to withdraw, Romney would have a better chance. But it will probably be McCain.
Conservative Republicans have a dilemma. The candidates most aligned with the conservative base are unlikely to win a national election against either of the Democratic contenders. Would they prefer McCain to beat Clinton/Obama in a national election, or Romney to lose to the Democrats? So do conservatives want to make a point on principle and vote for someone who has no shot at winning? Or do they want to choose what would be the lesser of two evils in the long run? Despite McCain's highly questionable conservative credentials, he is a far better option for conservatives than either of the Democrats.
Despite his obvious popularity among heavy users of the internet, Ron Paul has no shot at the White House. National polls have his support in the low single digits. It's not going to happen.
About 100 posts in, and only opinions and "go this-or-that-guy!".
As a european I don't have a vote in this, but us europeans will have to deal with whomever you USians vote into office. That didn't turn out particularly well the last few times, so it'd be nice to know what we can expect this time.
Give some arguments please!
What policies does X support and why does Y think that's the wrong way to go?
It doesn't matter whether you like somebody's smile, what their F-ing religion is or how rich they are. What matters is what they plan on doing if they become president.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Best description of Ron Paul I've heard: Some things he says make a lot of sense, some things he says scare the hell out of me. He is way too radical to become president. He is also very weak on Iraq and national defense, which is scary because national defense is about the only thing our Government should do. Everything else should be private sector.
Fred Thompson was by far the best candidate in terms of his views on the issues. He still is the only candidate to share his opinions on everything, and he was the only candidate on either side that didn't switch his views just to win votes. He has believed the same things for years.
Huckabee raises taxes too much. Being a conservative means that you believe you spend money better than the government, and he doesn't believe this. No thanks.
Romney I like, but would never win a national election due to his faith. I'm an atheist, but I know a Mormon isn't going to win a national election any time soon. This is unfortunate because after Thompson I think he is the best candidate.
McCain is a senator, and I hate voting for legislators in a presidential election. This role does not allow you to demonstrate your leadership powers. Also legislators must become more moderate to appease the other side... I want a president who is going to have a clear stance on every issue.
Bottom line: I would rather have a president I disagree with on some issues but I know in my heart is strong and stubborn than someone who will change their views based on popular opinion. What is right isn't always popular, and what is popular isn't always right.
Honestly as long as anyone but Hillary wins I can still live on.
I like to think people in tech are, on average, smart and rational.
Are religious people stupid and irrational?you've turned this discussion into almost only about Ron Paul being left out.
Oh, and I already voted for him in the Iowa Caucus. And if McCain ends up being the nominee I may just right Ron Paul in the General election.
No, but it's not very hard to understand why religion is such a big issue with people.
Strong religious values are viewed as something people "just don't violate". Steadfast positions are valued in American politics because voters want to elect someone that they think has a reasonable chance at actually delivering on their elected platform, and if you change your mind right after you get into office, that's all down the tubes. So, people look at things like religious values as the values or morals in a person that aren't likely to change when they get into office.
Besides, the US is still a pretty religious country through and through. Lots of the religious conservative positions are things that resonate with people.
I'm not saying I agree with any of this (I think choosing a candidate for religious reasons is insane), but it's not that hard to imagine why someone would do it.
Disclaimer: I am a Democrat.
Ron Paul will drop out of the race when he gets busted on national television on the show "To Catch a Predator". He's one creepy looking guy.
"My car won't start. Better blow it up!"
I wonder if the Republican topic or the Democratic topic will get more discussion. That is, would /.ers rather engage in discussion of the left-leaning candidates more in-line with their political beliefs, or would they rather bash Republicans and pine over Ron Paul.
In general, faith is not an issue these days. America typically makes it an issue when someone is evangelical. In other words, it appears that they would base their decisions on the principles of their religion rather than on the technical merits (pros and cons) of the decision.
The other times when it is an issue is in "fringe" religion. By fringe, I mean it's a religion when it's more obvious to people that the religion is made up. As opposed to religions that are so old and established that's it's easier to forget their shaky origins.
If you are for more of the same ole, same ole, corporate greed candidate, Vote Rommey.
If you want someone in the White House who makes John Ashcroft look like a radical, Vote Huckabee.
If you pain is your pleasure, and love the thought of 100 years of wars, Vote for nutcase McCain.
If you would like to maybe just have a chance for a REAL change, Vote Paul.
But last but not least, like your Vote counts anyways.....
The MSM has chosen its candidate, the one hawked by the Brezinski crowd.
I wouldn't vote for any of them, but of the three I'd prefer whichever is willing to thoroughly and publicly exclude any neoconservative hawk from any position of power whatsoever.
Fuck that, Ron Paul is still a candidate in this race, and deserves to be discussed right along with the other candidates. If Slashdot is going to start with the kind of bias and selectivity we get from Faux News, then fuck Slashdot.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
I like to think people in tech are, on average, smart and rational.
Are religious people stupid and irrational? Yar...us religious folks be f'in loons... Is it so hard to believe that a Christian can vote with their head and not their Bible? O_oMy dad's friend is a good economist (he's hella rich and he used to be poor so he must be doing something right) and he makes a good point about republican presidents. The economy does its best when we have a democratic congress and senate (check), and a republican president (hopefully check). The whole concept lies behind democrats proposing a bunch of crap, and the president vetoing everything. Basically nothing gets accomplished, thus there is a major decline in pork legislature. With a decline in the corruption of the government, the economy thrives. Personally I don't vote. The candidates that are available on both sides are an offense (they're all cowards and anyone brave will never get voted in), and I don't feel like my vote counts when I hear so many people making judgments on how a candidate looks.
Help fight spam
I don't think the faith of a candidate (or lack thereof) had ever been an issue in Canadian politic since I started voting 15 years ago. And I doubt it is different anywhere else in the West except the US.
But your observations of the "last 15 years" do not paint a whole picture of the election history in Canada. Canadians are mainly driven by political convictions than faith based ones. That is not necessarily a good thing of course, because that school of thought has prompted us to elect cowards and communists like Pierre Trudeau, or schizophrenics like Jean Cretien and useless money mongers like Paul Martin. In America people believe that if a person is driven by a good moral foundation, that they will be strong, fair and withstand the political corruption. In Canada we don't care about personal values, because maybe there isn't any (I mean look at how Canadians still idolize Pierre Trudeau - a dirty playboy who spawned a whole generation of Cuban lovers and american haters). You are wrong in assuming that America stands out from the rest of the west in that prespective. Most countries have religious based parties that win elections (look at Germany). It maybe time Canada tried to elect a leader that has some values and a party that is less RED.
The phaomnneil pweor of the hmuan mnid. Fcuknig amzanig eh!
Ron Paul.
The feds have taken over everything, lets put them back in their place and start following the consitution.
I'm pretty sure McCain would dominate the zombie vote.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
And all I see is Ron Paul ,Ron Paul. Did the plane with Cain, Huckabee and Romney really crash?!?
their whole career is about comprimises and zero leadership, so that leaves romney and huckabee (both governors).
In Soviet Halo, the game kills you (socially anyway)
None of them would vote for Ron Paul. Why? Because they all knew that the Constitution isn't sacred.
http://www.mhall119.com
Politics?! In MY Slashdot?!
Are they planning to make the constitution open source or something?
As a resident of Arkansas, I can tell you the following.
1. Huckabee does not hold prayer meetings on the lawn. He administers. He is perfectly able to distinguish between his beliefs and the need for
administration. The schools are in much better shape now than they have been in the history of Arkansas. The roads are in better shape than ever.
2. When he came to office, there was a 200 million deficit. When he left office, in spite of doing all the above, there was an 800 million surplus.
This was true even though he cut taxes every single year he was in office. He balanced the budget every single year, as a good administrator should.
This has nothing to do with being a preacher. it is simply the mark of a good administrator.
3. His proposals for the rebuilding of American infrastructure, taxation, immigration, health care, etc, on the national level simply make sense.
Using nothing but his history as a benchmark, I can tell you that unlike 99% of other politicians, he does not talk out of both sides of his mouth.
He says what he believes and then stands behind it. It is my belief (obviously) that he is the best choice for American President.
Huckabee vs. Obama would be a fight worth watching.
Let us not forget that McCain isnt exactly scandal-free.
He was one of the infamous Keating Five who played no small part in bring about the savings & loan crisis.
That small debacle has ended up costing this nation $30 BILLION. It was very similar in nature to the current mortgage crisis.
Here this nation sits on the verge of yet another financial crisis of larger proportions and people are supporting putting one of the biggest screw-ups from the last time in the Oval Office
Been there, Done that, Sold the t-shirt to the next idiot in line
Try running a Jew in an Saudi election.
The limiting of the consideration of candidates to those who are likely to win is wrong, and does not produce the government of desired characteristics. We are asked to vote for the one who best represents our position. That idea - that we put forward the candidates that represents us the best is the fundamental construct of the representative democracy.
If we vote for who we think will win, then it is nothing more than a popularity contest, with the media controlling who is popular. If effect you become a proxy of the media. In order to keep the idea of a representative democracy working, we need to vote for who best represents our interests.
I remember a time when the internet was claimed to be a democratizing power. It was supposed to restore the power to the people. Now we are complaining that Ron Paul supporters are too vocal. I find it ironic that the tech savvy of us are now rejecting this democratizing power.
I am a Ron Paul supporter, and I realize his ideas might seem crazy, but they are based on sound numbers. All of the money collected in the personal income tax goes to pay for interest on the national debt. There is no reason why with a reduced federal government and responsible spending that we can't eliminate the personal income tax.
When Ron Paul talks about canceling or reducing these federal entities, it is important to note that these are longer term goals, and won't be accomplished in a day. When these federal entities go away, this leaves more money to you and your local jurisdiction (states) where your money can be put to better use rather than being spent on a federal bureaucracy with minimal effectiveness. Here's an example. My sister is a public school teacher. She gets to deal with "No Child Left Behind". She hates it because it amounts to no child is failed. The act does not provide for any better education, but it forces teachers to doctor the numbers to look like success is happening. This clearly is not right. But what do you expect from a government that aims to educate ONLY 10% of the kids in D.C.? (10% is the number they calculated to have an operational city (D.C.) in 20 years.) Any local jurisdiction would find that figure appalling.
The biggest problem with Ron Paul isn't his ideas. He doesn't go into enough detail for the masses to understand them.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Faith is not an issue? Whether some Republicans want to admit it or not, faith has been the biggest part of the Republican platform for years. Yes, you can argue that the evangelical fringe took over the party, but the party let it happen. Look at their stances on anything that remotely touches faith: stem cell research, gay marriage, faith-based initiatives, school vouchers, and war. Their platform on all of those issues are determined by the far right.
That's reason enough for me to vote against Republicans every time these days. If only we weren't stuck in a two party system...
I would be greatly in support of John McCain over any of the other Republican candidates, except for one thing. He's 71 years old. After two terms he'd be 79. It gives me pause. Even then, he's the Republican that has me excited.
I was recently discussing this at a political roundtable, and a WW-II vet rather pointedly told me that McCain was "too old," and I think this perception is common among moderates, and affects his viability. It certainly hurt Bob Dole in 1996. We're in for another round of "Depends" jokes if he is the nominee.
Despite that, against Hillary Clinton, McCain has my vote for President. Against Barack Obama, I'd have to seriously listen to the debates, but I still favor McCain at this point.
I think the best way to solve the mess in Iraq, and our country in general, is to elect a moderate Republican to repair the damage that radical, neo-conservative demagogues have done to both the office of the Presidency and the party in general. We need a President who will take the occupation/state building mission seriously, and not base his or her policy on impatience with the war effort in the general populace.
I think we were utterly mistaken in going into Iraq in the first place, but I ascribe to the "you break it, you own it" philosophy. I don't think any sort of withdrawal is possible, certainly not without passing the buck to the U.N. and Arab states to maintain regional stability.
On a final note, Ron Paul.
I'm glad his supporters think a President can save the country, and I'll admit that he is the only man up there who truly supports small government and true U.S. Constitutional values, but though zeal is commendable, it is naive to believe he can do anything to fix the problems in Washington. The President is quite hamstrung in most matters without Congressional support, and if Ron Paul were elected President, he would be persona non grata on the Hill, and therefore could get nothing done.
He has a compelling message, but no ability to affect many of the changes he discusses, much as the Democratic candidates cannot make good on their promises of universal health care without 60 votes in the Senate. It's all a bit daft for Presidential candidates to talk about anything other than executive policy and statesmanship. A Cult of Personality, without full political backing, cannot get things done in Washington.
He has a great message, but no sense of how those values apply practically to the Presidency. Indeed, sometimes it seems he has no common sense at all.
--
Toro
I heard Kim Campbell speak down here in the states and in discussion after her speech, she talked about how it was significant that she was the first non-Roman Catholic Prime Minister is quite some time.
I think part of that is that most of the Prime Ministers come from Quebec which is mostly Roman Catholic, but you also have Clark and Turner in there that are from the West, so it is significant.
This candidate looks presidential - somewhat like John Adams.
This candidate has Senate experience.
This candidate hews to many of the accepted neoconservative principles.
This candidate early on supported the Iraq war.
This candidate's nomination would galvanize the conservative voters.
Republicans, I present to you:
Hillary Clinton (R)
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Both parties are bullshit, enjoy the same head butting red vs. blue color game, sheeple.
Isn't it strange whenever the government is mentioned it's spoken of as something separate from us? Whatever happened to of, by, and for the people? Land of the free? Legalize marijuana, your (separate) government has stolen your human right to use an object of nature from you.
You will sleep on while red and blue sells you lies for another eight years.
A true Khanservative. A real Republikhan.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
just can't gather enough of the required momentdumb from those few remaining 'fans' of greed/fear/ego based warmongering megalomania eye gas? in fact, nobody's heard much of anything out of dick lately. let yOUR conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071229/ap_on_sc/ye_climate_records;_ylt=A0WTcVgednZHP2gB9wms0NUE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080108/ts_alt_afp/ushealthfrancemortality;_ylt=A9G_RngbRIVHsYAAfCas0NUE
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying
dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html
the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.
corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7
as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's lef
Congrats for NOT repeating the blatantly wrong "Ron Paul is the only candidate who defends the Constitution".
Gee, I seem to have missed which other candidates raised any objection to going to war without a declaration of war, which is a power that the constitution assigns to the congress. The congress is not permitted by the constitution to transfer that power to the executive, or to the courts, or to anyone else.
So, when did Huckabee or Obama speak up about that rather important constitutional matter?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
the choice between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich (oh, and another turd sandwich) given the choices, I guess McCain. *sigh* I really wish Ron Paul were on the list.
I don't see the relevance of posting stories about US politics on a science/tech. site with global readership.
Actually... Jefferson felt that the Constitution was sacred - thats why he hated himself for making the Louisiana Purchase.
Ron Paul letters. Google it.
Ok, I will discuss only the three prescribed candidates as mentioned in the header. I wouldn't want to break any Slashdot rules after all!
So, Romney... Negatives... Wants the federal government to continue to meddle with local education (No Child Left Behind; Department of Education), meddle with my right to own guns (Brady Bill; Assault Weapon Ban), amend the constitution over gay marriage, and mandate content filters on home computers. On the plus side, really nice hair.
McCain... Supports the Iraq war, wants to limit my right to support political causes (McCain Feingold), and wants to continue to grow the size of the government (Jan 8, 2008 report by National Taxpayers Union: $6.9B). On the plus side he must be in good physical shape because in the debate he said that he would "chase Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell."
Huckabee, the third and last of the ONLY THREE REPUBLICANS RUNNING. Wants the government to teach creationism in public schools. Grew the Arkansas government by 65% in just 8 years, and promises to continue jailing people who use (medical or other) marijuana. On the plus side: I giggle like a schoolgirl every time I say "Huckabee."
If only there was some other republican running - a FOURTH candidate, perhaps? Someone who opposes this insane Iraq war. Someone who has a decades-long record of NEVER voting to violate the constitution. Someone who would eliminate entangling alliances with foreign nations. A candidate that supports individual liberty above all else. A statesman and a gentleman.
Of course not, and I never said such a thing.
But I do think that choosing a candidate based on his religious belief *is* stupid and irrational.
:wq
Everyone says Washington is broken. He is the only one that seems to get upset about it.
When someone spends billions on pork projects, tortures prisoners, or mishandles a war there deserves to be some screaming.
I have a problem with a candidate that doesn't get emotional and has gotten used to "that just being the way things are".
With everyone else, I don't know if they are saying things are bad just because the polling numbers told them to say it.
I am going to quibble a bit.
You said senators don't usually do well as presidents, while governors do. That is incorrect. Senators don't usually do well as presidential candidates, whereas governors do, but as presidents, there is no evidence they are any worse. That said, the only presidents whose senate experience was important during their presidency during the last 75 years (basically the current era of politics began with FDR) have been Truman, Kennedy and Johnson.* Were they our best presidents? Maybe not, but they certainly weren't our worst. A governor has been the worst...I will leave him unnamed.
Now that said, there are extremely few senators who have been senators while running for president and have one. We all can remember recent losers like Kerry and Dole, and many others who have lost during primaries. Indeed, the only person who has gone directly from the Senate to the presidency during the time period mentioned above was Kennedy. The two others only got in by suriviving the death of their leader. During that same period, off hand I can think of Roosevelt, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II as governors who went directly to the presidency. It is extremely unusual for us to be in a situation where it is almost guaranteed that we will have two major candidates who are both senators (barring Romney or Huckabee).
*Nixon was also a senator, but only for a couple of years and 16 years prior to being president. However, even he was better than you know who.
The most amazing point was that the nation was designed to be non religious with most founding forefathers being vehemently against religion... Amazing how things can fall apart over 200 years.
The rest of the Republican candidates sure have a lot more screws loose than Ron Paul.
Not that Ron Paul isn't a nut job, but anybody who can go on national television and seriously deny they believe in Evolution is a total whack job religious nut case.
Oh but it's OK for Republican candidates to say they believe in silly ridiculous fantasies like Creationism, because the sheepeople who elect them believe in that bullshit, so the politicians are only pandering to their base -- they don't actually believe what they say.
No, Republicans wouldn't want to elect anybody who was remotely in touch with reality or who knew anything about science. Republicans live in a religious fantasy world, and their belief systems are such delicate houses of cards, that they can't tolerate evolution being taught in schools, otherwise their children will figure out their parents and churches have been feeding them bullshit, and they'll loose their faith. And wouldn't that be too bad.
Every Republican running for president is a TOTAL NUT CASE! So why is that a liability for Ron Paul?
-Don
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
Huckabee: Apparent Conservative. Christian. Willing to try new things, like redoing the tax system.
McCain: Gun-grabbing wimp, whose thinking doesn't line up with most Republicans.
Romney: Former governor of a gun-grabbing Liberal state. Mormon. Flip/Flopper. It is absolutely essential that my candidate by unquestionably Christian and Conservative. Huckabee is my current choice (though Thompson would have been better in some regards).
I could almost guarantee you that IF people in Muslim countries were allowed to vote, religion would have a major influence in their decisions, much MUCH more than here. Look, I even found a similarity between USians and Middle easternerrs.
I'm not checking my facts, but someone list some Muslim countries that ARE democratic. Hopefully, Iraq will remain one.
Ok, actually, I did go check my facts and found that Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Indonesia, Egypt and Afghanistan.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9481/muslim_democracy.html
Apparently there are more, chad, yemen UAE... etc.
Anyway, my point is I'd bet a paycheck that religion has a major part in their voting practices.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
Are religious people stupid and irrational?
Not necessarily, but fervent religious beliefs are a symptom of irrationality.
Because the other nut jobs are your standard nut jobs. They have ideas (i.e. evolution is false) that fall right in line with what you would expect by religious wackos.
Ron Paul is just plain crazy. It's one thing if you have a book and religion that has made you crazy...it's another thing entirely to be nuts on your own. That said, I don't actually feel that Ron Paul is as crazy as the other candidates...but listening/watching him speak just sets off warning signals in my head...I have nothing to base this on, nor do I have any examples to give you. He just makes me uneasy.
Living With a Nerd
Do you remember, in the last federal election, how Harper opened up the conservative campaign by saying that he'd hold a conscience vote on gay marriage?
At the time, it seemed like a stupid thing to do--the law's pretty settled, no one seems to want to re-open the issue again. After a while, it seemed smart. The Conservatives have a small, hardcore religious constituency that *still* wants to turn back the clock. By starting the campaign with a sop to them, he shut them up, and never had to mention it again. By the time the election had rolled around, the only people who remembered his promise was that constituency.
Now imagine that that small, religious constituency was ten times as big, and had recognizable leaders who proclaimed that any leader they'd support had to pass their sniff test. Imagine how the conservative party would have to be constantly kowtowing to them. Imagine the Reform and the Alliance parties duking it out for their support, each trying to bend over further than the other to promise bible-based policies and demonstrating religiosity.
That's why religion is such a big deal in American politics. The evangelical community is large and well organized, and no Republican wins without their support. They don't have to vote against you--if they don't like you, they can just stay home on election day. Part of Rove's genius in 2004 was to give them a red meat issue--gay marriage--to turn them out in record numbers.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
The Statue of Liberty is America's lawn jockey.
Interestingly, while the originating province of a candidate is indeed very significant in Canadian federal politic, I never heard any critics based on their religion. I think the fact that Kim Campbell would have discussed this in the US but never in Canada (that I can recall) is pretty significant. And remember she was never elected either.
Is Paul Martin Roman Catholic ? I don't even know.
:wq
Wow.
Every time I see someone saying "Ron Paul supports the Constitution!! Small Government eleventyone!", I want to bludgeon them about the head with the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Supremacy Clause, the GOP Party Platform, and then strap them to a chair so they can watch Ron Paul kill PBS, NASA, the EPA and HUD - to replace them with PTL, D.I. CSC, oil spills & smog, and serfdom.
Fifty years ago seems like a long time to y'all young people. Fifty years ago the federal government had to stop more than half the states in this Union from having laws on the BOOKS that prevented "coloured" people from being outside at night, from riding buses, from holding jobs, from marrying whomsoever.
The GOP and Ron Paul - READ THE PERSONAL AND POLITICAL PARTY POSITION STATEMENTS FFS and Don't Hold Strong Opinions about Things You Don't Understand.
Although I guess its a attempt at humour or something, but Giuliani even admits that Ron Paul won all the debates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1RuubKuvxQ&eurl
Some more Ron Paul videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0nJH6zB9VM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2962369311366680572
Watching the Republican primary play out, I am thoroughly amazed the Republican party can remain intact. Since McCain has emerged as the front-runner, it seems like half the party is threatening to stay home. It was even worse when Huckabee won Iowa and was picking up steam. I don't understand how the party can survive with so many factions that hate each other.
The fiscal conservatives despise Huckabee, the social conservatives despise McCain, the previously unheard of libertarian wing has found Ron Paul, and is despised by everyone, and likewise hates everyone else, for the most part. Romney gets dinged by everyone for blowing in the wind like John Kerry 2004.
Each group in the GOP feels slighted by the other. Fiscal Conservatives have had to watch government and spending grow out of control the last 8 years. Pro-lifers only have one candidate left in the primaries and he is fading fast. While McCain has always been pro-life, he has not been pro-life enough for them. His willingness to compromise on judges is heresy to them. Romeny has only been pro-life as long as he has been running for president. The 'minutemen' wing of the party has gotten no real action on their pet issue over the last 8 years, and have no one to look forward to in 08.
Regardless of who the nominee is, they will not come out the primaries clean, and will not have a good chance come November. The GOP is due for a cleansing and rebirth to become a more coherent party.
Let me preface this by saying I may be long-winded, and my grammar
sucks.
All week I've been battleing the flu, just hoping and praying that I would
be all right for Superbowl Sunday. I live in boston, the home of the
Pats, and of course the Sox. Since the beginning of the season, I've said to my
wife, my buddies, my family, "If the Pats go to the superbowl, we're spending it
at the Green Dragon and getting hammered!".
Now the Green Dragon, for the un-initiated is one of the
best bars in Boston, and the place that Paul Revere and the Sons of Liberty
used to kick back and have a couple of beers at. You can go there any day of
the week have some good food, great beer, watch the sport of your
choice depending on the season, and ogle some decent looking
lasses.
I get down to Government Center nice and early for the game. The wife and friends
are really excited for the game. As we walk up to the dragon we notice a guy in
colonial wear. Now I'm like o.k. he's ready for the superbowl! I myself am in a tricorne hat
and long-coat(couldn't find a decent powdered wig). We get in the bar, first thing I notice
is that not a single person is under 40. I'm not saying 40 is old, but for being
in a bar in Boston it is odd to find myself the youngest person there. The next thing I
noticed is that there is press evrywhere. I take this in stride since it is Superbowl
Sunday, and the Green Dragon is one of the best bars in Boston. Then notice that everyone
is wearing John McCain buttons. It suddenly dawned on me that the John McCain campaign
was holding an event at my favorite bar, on Super Bowl Sunday. Now I like and respect the guy
and all, but WTF. I've been planning this all fing year, and he had to go and ruin My Super Bowl
Sunday. And for giggles, people were'nt even really excited for the game. I was in a room
of really up-tight old people on the man holiday of the year.
Needless to say we booked it out of there.
We head down to the Purple Shamrock, which is about four-five doors down,
get a table and get ready for the game. We drink, watch the game(Definite dissapointment), play some
cards, get wasted, and watch our home team get beaten. After the game we decide to go back to the Dragon.
We get there, and the bartender decides to only serve the women folk. That's fine, maybe the guys have had
too many, however he didn't offer us water,tea, coffee, anything. The girls sit down have some beers.
The whole time the bartender didn't offer us a thing. I get fed up and told the wife I'm not giving
this guy any money, and for all I care he can sod off. After a few choice words with the bartender we
leave, and I can't decide whether I'm more upset that the Pats lost, or that The John McCain campaing
ruined the mood of my favorite bar. All I know is that even though I am a conservative, if McCain gets on
the ballot for the general election, I'd rather vote for Donald Duck holding a rubber D---ck.
EZReady
Candidates need $1bn to win, so they need lobbyists or mafiosios to support them. That means they make evil promises.
Both parties are sidetracked from the issues.
Neither party is addressing the real issue, which is the collapse of the United States into a third-world oligarchy, as predicted by Plato in "The Republic."
No one has a workable plan.
This worked really well with George W. Bush.
:wq
With Paul so highly unlikely, Huckabee is the only "change" candidate on the right. McCain is status quo, and neither he nor Romney can be trusted with a Dem congress. Obama is the only change candidate on the left. Maybe.
Think about it in those terms when you vote. Of course, whether or not you think Huck's M.O. of "change" is good or not...
As an aside, Huckabee is positioning himself now as the "compromise candidate" in a Republican convention, or as VP for McCain (McCain NEEDS him to keep the South on the right, or someone similar, particularly if Obama gets the nomination).
Clinton is the best - vote for her. She's Republican through and through... lol
It's about our desire to not have a president we deem insane. We don't like to think that our president might tell us that he is following a policy that is the bidding of God. "I need to invade a country. God told me to do it." Tell me that doesn't scare the living daylights out of you? Don't think it can't happen. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1586978,00.html
Well, religion is important in American politics because bullshit is one of the main things people are looking at. We can't be distracted with the real issues when there's petty bullshit to focus on.
The Republicans should return to their roots: fiscal conservatism and personal liberties.
What does that mean? It means:
McCain, Romney, and Huckabee aren't Republicans, they are people that are using religion and resumes to hijack the Republican party for their own ends. Ron Paul is closest to what Republicans ought to be, unfortunately, he doesn't temper his view of government with what is realistically achievable.
What the country needs is a moderate version of Ron Paul.
Because both Hunter and Paul have the same chance of winning.
Son of a famous politician, turned business executive, turned one-term republican governor, turned presidential candidate.
Of course I'm talking about George W. Bush. And Mitt Romney.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
I lost all respect for McCain when he surrendered to bush's will. That hug
McCain huggin bush
was like a little boy hugging his daddy. It was total surrender to a man who lied to him on the anti torture legislation, the war, the environment, and just about everything in between. He has surrender to a man who wants to destroy all McCain fought for.
The other candidates? Romney creeps me out big time. I'm not sure America can handle another authoritarian MBA as president. Huckabee wants to change our constitution to reflect his personal beliefs. Ron Paul is proposing changes most America would not accept. He takes them too far out of their comfort zone. His own party would not support his efforts. I do like the enthusiasm he has engendered among his supporters. We need more people involved in our democratic system.
photosMy Photostream
Well said! Being a Canadian myself (now living in the US) One individual you forgot to mention was Brian Mulroney, one person almost every Canadian hated, having the lowest approval rating of 11%. I believe theirs a lot to be said about religious beliefs. Most Americans (not all) tend to vote for individuals that have core values and beliefs that line up with their own. Considering that values are derived by some form of moral religious up bringing, it's not a surprise at how religion plays such and important part in politics.
Is there any republican candidate that will appoint a justice that uphulds church/state seperation?
There's only one vote difference at the moment, if Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts get another ally when Stevens (88) passes away the attack on government neutrality in matters of religion will really take of and affect everyone.
Given that this also affects every single minority religion, support for a secular state used to be stronger across party lines. Now it seems the support for the secular state has become a party divider which it shouldn't be.
Correction: Most of the founding fathers were strict adherents to a religion. They just didn't want there to be a state-sanctioned religion and crafted the Constitution accordingly. People who say that the founding fathers were "vehemently against religion" need to tone down the rhetoric and tone up the fact checking.
ASCII tastes bad dude.
Binary it is then.
Listen boys and girls, if your basis of voting for someone is that you dislike them less than the other guys, do everyone a favor and leave the voting to the adults that actually have a valid opinion about politics.
It's like a plague down here when it comes down to religion and politics.
... fiscal policy, foreign policy, education, scientific & tech. competition, healthcare, veterans affairs, crime reform, war on drugs, war on middle class, minimum quality of life in America, illegal immigration, the homeless ...
People look to the candidates religious affiliation first to make sure they swallow the same brand of 'God' that they do.
Rather than say look at things that matter. In no particular order
If people didn't look to the religious affiliation first, they actually have to think about what they want America to be. And more importantly, they'd start realizing that those in power, don't necessarily deserve to, nor should probably be there in the first place.
Correction. The estimation of all the gold ever mined in the world would be worth closer to $4 trillion on today's market value. ((2001 estimate of "all the gold ever mined" + modest production for 6 years) x current market value)
It's not who you are voting for, but who you are voting against. For as long as I can remember voting-wise, it's always been about choosing the lesser of evils, not someone I actually expect to do a decent job.
An I.T. motto in the hands of an idiot is a dangerous thing...
Which is precisely why I explicitly mentioned "the West" in my post above. I am not holding young democracies in developing countries to the same standard as the old one in industrialized countries.
And, yes, I do find the religious fervor in Middle-Eastern politic, and the existence of theocracies in this part of the world, deeply unsettling. I hope they'll grow of it, but I doubt they will in the foreseeable future.
But we are talking American politic here, right ?
:wq
Meh, I was more talking about faith as in which of the majority of flavors of Christianity you pick. As long as you are a catholic or protestant, this is not considered to be an issue in a candidacy. If you are of a "fringe" (I don't mean any special denigration in the term - I think all religion is bunk) like Mormonism or Jehovah's Witness, it will become an issue. Both of these religions are fairly "new" in historical terms and have traditions and history that separate their followers from the mainstream.
As long as you say your faith is a private matter, I think it doesn't hamper you too much in a Republican race. I think it's more of a hindrance to be very evangelical than it is to go the other way. Just look at Pat Robertson and Mike Huckabee. It's especially not a problem if you are the looking for the Democratic nomination. And once in the general election, it's not that huge of an issue anyway. As long as you don't give the impression that you're just giving lip service to religion and don't really believe in it. If they feel you are a Christian in name only, that gets you bad PR.
And yeah, I agree that the Republican's have their platform strongly influenced by the religious right. But I think working as a candidate within that party, you can get away with the faith being a private thing as long as you have bona fides in other areas of being a Republican. From what I've seen right now, most Republicans would love an alternative that just seemed more Republican, with the religious question being much less important than that.
For those who don't know, Pauline Kael was a famous film critic who (it is said) refused to believe that Richard Nixon could have beaten George McGovern, who lost in a landslide, because she didn't know anyone who voted for him.
well I think anyone who has even the slightest clue realizes Ron Paul is the best candidate out of everyone who even started for the presidential "race"
However this is not a race.. it is a choice of the media to elect who they want.. and that is obvious.
I generally find that the contents in one influence the interpretation of the contents of the other. That's sort of the definition of faith.
I am very much of the old thought of the best way to screw something up is to let government get involved. I would like to say that I openly support Ron Paul. After that I will take Romney as President. The other two are Democrats, just like Bush. You can't spend my money like it is going out of style and call yourself a Republican. I swear after this we just need to re-brand ourselves as classical liberals and look at the theories of Milton Friedman, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and others for the guidance of our party. The best way for the federal government to handle an issue is not get involved. Let the states decide and stop subsidizing everything. I have the hardest time twice a month knowing that my tax dollars are going to something I am at moral odds with. This lets a Peta member not pay for the meat industry, pro-life people not pay for abortions, and people that hate art not pay for an artist to create junk he can't sale.
Sic Semper MicroSoft
Based on my experience growing up in the South, yes.
Especially since the real Zombie, Kerry isn't running.
I was quoted out of context in my autobiography...
Frankly, after the disaster that was the last 7 years, the next time I vote for a republican I will be on a jury voting to convict his sorry a$$ and send it to jail.
Neener, neener, neener!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I can't speak for anyone else, but here's my view:
It doesn't matter much what a candidate holds as his or her own religious view. I do have some level of interest in the candidate's moral views, since those are likely to drive policy decisions (most people will not make a decision that they find morally objectionable), and it is common to conflate religion and morality since many people in this country see early exposure to religion as a driver of moral education, so that may account for some of the focus on religion.
But more important to me than the candidate's religion is the candidate's view on the role of his or her religion with respect to his or her duties in office. You can be a baptist, and govern your life and your family accordingly, and yet you might or might not impose that particular doctrine on the country through your role as president (or other office-holder).
If American politicians had a better recent-history record of keeping their religion separate from their politics (which I put in the "separation of church and state" bucket), then at least for me religion would be a non-issue. But when some candidates hold that their religious convictions should translate into law, it can't be ignored. Ideally anyone with that viewpoint would simply not reach office; in practice, given how badly the American implementation of a two-party (and some other guys who won't win) system limits choice, sometimes you just have to figure out whether a particular canddiate's viwes are acceptable to you even realizing that those views might have undue influence on policy.
People are fanatical about Ron Paul but too naive to vote more than once for him.
Romney is running scared "McCain is like Hillary".
Huckabee forgot the whole freedom of religion part in the constitution.
McCain isn't as conservative as Limbaugh or O'Reiley. (I actually consider that a good thing)
As a Massachusetts resident who witnessed Romney's term as governor up-close, I'm absolutely certain that he's the best candidate, and it has nothing to do with his just being a "hometown guy." Heres why:
Mitt inherited a multi-billion dollar deficit in his governorship and turned it into a half-billion dollar surplus by the end of his term. In so doing, he routed the deeply-entrenched Matt Amarillo (Big Dig bigwig) and crawled several miles up the asses of everyone with a hand in the project to get it completed in a reasonable amount of time, so the state could stop bleeding money into this massive endeavor. Meanwhile, his administration set up a subsidized health care program so pretty much anyone whose income is below or three times greater than the poverty line gets dirt-cheap health insurance from Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Because of it's affordability, it is now illegal to not have health insurance in Massachusetts. Let that sink in for a second: Pretty much anyone can get access to health care in this state because of his governorship. Health care crisis in America? Not here!
1, 2, 3, 4, 5... That's the combination on my luggage!
I like a lot of what Ron Paul says. Some of it may actually be workable. How he'd get it past the dinosaurs in Congress I have no idea. I'll still be voting for him in the primary if only as a yardstick of dissent. McCain will probably win the nomination. He's got way more experience and collateral than Romney. He's the "known choice" for Republicans, having been around for a while. He may well win just for being a comfortable choice for the uninformed. His stance on constitutional issues does nothing for me however. I would not discount Romney on the basis of his religion. Not many people here are old enough to remember when Kennedy was unelectable because he was a Roman Catholic. Tricky Dick being a Quaker never even came up. However, he's the biggest flip-flopper since Kerry. No surprise, they're both politicians from the same state. He signed into effect some of the most draconian antigun legislation while governor of Massachsetts and claims he's a friend of gun ownership and a lifetime member of the NRA. Yes, but only since 2006. I wouldn't trust him to stand in line behind me in the cafeteria, let alone run the country. Huckabee, while I like some of his positions on economy, immigration and constitutional issues, does have a base of the religious right. Which sort of makes his chances on par with Pat Robertson's.
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
To make it clear: I haven't seen a single nod of support on ANY technical board or from any engineers/scientists since Huckabee came on the scene. I don't live in the bible belt though, so they could exist, but I'd hazard a guess that most technical and scientific people are NOT for Huckabee.
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
Religion does take a central part in Republican politics, but I don't know that you could say the same thing about Democrats. On the other hand, it's true that the United States population is simply much more religious than many other first-world nations, so it's natural to expect religion to play a larger part in our politics.
Oh yeah, aren't they the ones that secretly came from the same planet as the Randroids?
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
Please note that smart and rational and possessing faith are not mutually exclusive. Last time I checked, no one has either proven or dis-proven the existence of a higher power or the supernatural. If you want to be really scientific, then you probably should be agnostic.
Well, as one of those right-wing neo-con theocrats, I would like to thank you for supporting a candidate (RON PAUL!!!1!!1!!one!!!) that believes in creationism, wants a constitutional ban on abortions, believes in prayer in schools, opposes gay marriage (or anything gay, for that matter), and wants to kick all the non-Americans out of the country.
Do you really know who you're voting for? I mean, not that I mind: I'm a Republican, so I can live with all of the above, even if some of them have strong kook-factor. I'm afraid, though, that most Ronulans are ignorant of any of his positions other than the war in Iraq, or you'd think twice about voting for him.
It's funny you should mention that. Our constitution quite explicitly states in Article VI,
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
(Emphasis added)
This worked really well with George W. Bush. Well what the hell does that mean? Did it work BAD? Where did it work BAD? I don't understand these one sentece responses.
The phaomnneil pweor of the hmuan mnid. Fcuknig amzanig eh!
"Are religious people stupid and irrational?"
Only when it comes to religious issues. The brain is very good at compartmentalisation. And this doesn't only apply to religion. A person can be smart and rational on many issues, but if you trigger the wrong emotions or subjects, they will turn irrational. Also, there are several types of irrationality.
Dogmatic irrationality - Religion, Ideologism
Emotional irrationality - Think of the children, Fear of death
Shock irrationality - Happens after: Terrorist acts, Natural catastrophies, Losing someone you love
Of those, dogmatism is the absolutly worst. Responsible for most of the violence and destruction throughout histroy. The other types of irrationality are more a target of being exploited by the first one. Someone who fears death, may be exploited by religion leaders that preach eternal life. Someone who is shocked by a terrorist act, might not react when idelogical laws are pushed through immediatly after.
Thank you for clarifying.
Unfortunately, Christians are largely gullible in matters of politics. "I'm one of you!" is often enough to win their vote...then they realize too late that Their Man(TM) doesn't walk the talk. Four years later they will fall for it again.
Honestly I think it's because Christian churches don't have enough worldview education. The secularists in society tried to drive religion from the public square (by passing laws against political speech in churches, etc) and in so doing, have created a generation of Christians that are ignorant of how to properly live our their faith in the public arena. You end up with all kinds of distortions, like taking personal mandates to help the poor, etc., and applying them to government. In some ways, the secularists created the very monster they feared!
Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. This clearly implies that there are separate spheres of activity in human life. Civil government should not try to regulate religion, and religion should not try to run the government. Some would say this means there is strict separation, but it is a religious text informing this position. This shows that religious views can (and should) influence political views--you cannot divorce one part of you decision-making ability from the others--but also that you cannot run the civil government as if it were your own household or even as if it were your church. They are distinct, and though the same principles can apply to all spheres, the implementation may be very different!
To anyone (especially Christians) who would like to gain a good foundation of what a comprehensive Christian worldview really looks like, I highly recommend The Truth Project by Dr. Del Tackett. In 12 1-hour lectures, he lays a foundation of how a biblical view informs and influences every facet of life by getting down to the very basics (what is Truth?) and building up from there.
Constitutionally Correct
> Yeah the Constitution, REAL CRAZY. Thomas Jefferson
> called and he wants to Bitch Slap your momma for
> calling him a nutbag!
Thomas Jefferson spent no time at the Constitutional Convention, as he was Ambassador to France while it was going on. When it was proposed, he was against it. When it was enacted, he helped establish the political party for people who had been against it, which was called the Democratic-Republican party, and became the Democratic Party (shades of the RepCongo/DemRepCongo switch!).
Thomas Jefferson, if alive today, would be a Democrat, and would loudly proclaim his support for Obama, while secretly ensuring his defeat by Hillary (probably by using Aaron Burr), because he was notoriously hypocritical.
> IF George Washington, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were alive today. WHO would they vote for?
Unless Abe Lincoln was also alive, they would all vote for Geo. Washington (Jefferson relucantly).
John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. parents. He moved to the U.S. in 1986 at age 44. 14 years later, he ran for President (2000). That's the minimum amount of time you must have residency in the U.S. Most countries require you to renounce your secondary citizenship by age 18. Did he?
"You must be the change you wish to see in others.: -Ghandi
"ENOUGH with the Ronulans"
:)
I prefer to call them Paulistinians
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
No, it goes to show how the media goes about shaping the news rather than reporting it. The media is completely out of touch with mainstream America that truly does resonate with Paul's "limited government" message, to the point that they preemptively decided he cannot possibly win and does not matter. For Paul to actually do so well (all things considered) results in cognitive dissonance...they cannot believe what they are seeing, and thus ignore (don't report) it.
Constitutionally Correct
Does he believe in evolution?
He might be a nice guy, but I want a president with views from this century, please (or even halfway through the last one...)
The complaint is as much about the concept of exclusion as anything. One of the points of a primary is to build consensus on a platform and debate issues, not just to choose a candidate. His movement has certainly raised issues and brought people to the party which used to be part of the core platform ("Free men, Free soil," anybody?) that haven't been discussed in years.
These issues obviously have active support, he has out lasted three other candidates, including two "first tier," and his block of delegates (completely different from the number of votes and based on separate caucuses where he is actually doing quite well) will affect the national convention which almost certainly will be brokered, and Huckabee has actually changed some of his rhetoric based on Dr. Paul's platform. The idea of excluding anybody in the race from the *debate* is idiotic, win or lose.
Even Giuliani supporters affected the issues and had a voice that needed to be heard. That's how a Republic (you know, "Republican") is meant to work, and that is why I support Dr. Paul's campaign as much as anything else.
First of all, Slashdot should be telling us who we can and can't talk about. Of course, this is one of the fundamental facets of liberalism (to which Slashdot fervently subscribes) - control of speech.
That said:
Romney: Would be a good President, and I hope would run it like a business that is supposed to have clean books and a balanced budget. He has flip-flopped on some issues, but his record of taking Massachusetts from deficit to surplus stands, and that is precisely what we need in the immediate term to combat the free-falling dollar and declining value of US assets across the world.
Huckabee: Just doesn't have it right in my mind. I am not inspired by his brand of religious evangelism, and am quite frankly scared of that kind of religious zeal threatening the separation clause. He also has no plan to improve the state of our economy on a global landscape.
McCain: Is not a republican by any stretch of the imagination
Paul: Is far more concerned with legalizing drugs than he is with coming to the amazing realization that, despite the fantasy land in which he lives where the US can be completely isolationist, the reality of the situation is that there are numerous kids in the sand box and they all have to play nice together.
Romney
I like the executive experience. I believe government should be run more like a business because businesses by and large have less waste. Their success actually depends on it, whereas government's does not. I like that he's a former governor, but the Mormon thing bugs me. I'm worried about voting for someone that believes God was once a man like us and that we will one day be Gods like Him. Also I dislike that he is in favor of gun control legislation, when the 2nd amendment clearly states "Congress shall make no law." Perhaps the biggest problem I have with Romney though is his flip flop on abortion. I'm pro-life, but he ran on pro-choice and then did not stick to it once he was elected. I understand he had a crisis of conscience once in office with legislation in front of him, but now I see him as the type of individual that could change a stance on virtually anything if the argument was persuasive enough.
McCain
The guy would make a good enough general, but a horrible republican nominee. He could not beat either Clinton or Obama. The country is sick of the war, and he wants to continue it and start new ones too. He's been accused of being less conservative than Clinton. He is one of the Democrats go to guys when they need a few more votes to push legislation through. Even on his understanding of the Iraq war he has flip flopped. http://www.gadberry.com/aaron/2008/01/08/mccain-vs-mccain/ Romney is much more electable, even with the Mormon thing.
Huckabee
He wants to take back the nation for Christ. I'm not sure that it ever belonged to Christ, unless he's talking about the Monarchy we lived under before the Revolution. He supports a 23% flat (fair) tax. While I understand a consumption tax, I disagree with a 23% federal tax while in my area we already have a 7.75% sales tax. That brings my sales tax up to 30.25%. Huckabee is even less conservative than McCain. Granted, he has no flip flopping on abortion, gay rights, etc, because those are religious viewpoints, he literally wants a theocracy. He wants to legislate morality. That just doesn't work.
Paul
He's the kind of man that founded our country. He wants to get rid of the massive amounts of government that slipped in during the last ~250 years. He wants to take us back to the time when elected officials were "serving". Unlike the other's running he actually is a conservative and doesn't change his positions. I honestly believe if there was no media bias that he would get more attention. I'm not sure if it's cause the FED gives money to media, or if the media enjoys their ability to lobby, or if it's something else If you look at his record on voting the major issues he has been consistent and right 100% of the time. It may not come out until later that he was right, for example on the Iraq war, but he has always made the right decisions.
I guess it's obvious I support Paul, but the facts are the facts, and I think it's about time we had a man like our founding fathers in charge.
Ron Paul
McCain is just for more of the same crap we've had for the last 8 years....
Huckabee is a religious zealot...
Mitt is just big business...
That's not quite right. Jefferson, one of the framers of the Constitution, felt that it should be a temporary document. In essence, he felt that we should follow the model that the French ended up with, with occasional revolts (political or violent, as necessary) to overthrow the existing form of government, to start over. He knew that a Constitution that was taken as sacred would eventually become hopelessly outdated, within about a generation. He'd be shocked that we treat it as sacred, and haven't thrown out the parts that are outdated.
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
Pierre a commie? I just love how you so transparently expose your greedy little anti-social authoritarian "mind" by labelling all the things you dislike using the most frightful to you thing you can come up with: "Red Commies!!! Booo!!".
I have news for you: you wouldn't know a commie if he were to kick you down and set up a farming collective on top of your ass. Here is a hint: Lenin was a commie. Chairman Mao was a commie. Trudeau was a socialist-leaning politician in one of the worlds most advanced industrial democracies.
And then there are these things about religious people having "values"...
What "values" would those be? The "values" of all those Catholic priests when they had their ways with all them fine young boys? Or those of that pastor down in the States found self-tied up, clad in two scuba rubber suits complete with flippers and a dildo up his ass? How about the "values" of all those TV "evangelists" scamming old ladies so they can afford their palaces, drugs and hookers? Would it be those "values" which cause these "pious" people to blow up abortion clinics? Or would it be those "values" which cause them start religious wars, all over the world, with frightening regularity, since times immemorial? Would it be the "values" of the oh-so-religious Spanish Inqisition of old, or the oh-so-religious Al Queda of today? Which of those vaunted "values" are you talking about?
Sure, because Harper's chanting the Communist Manifesto up in the Parliment every day is getting so tiresome, that and his insistence on collectivisation of all industry, surely?
(Note for non-Canadians: the present government of Canada is by all definitions centre-right "conservative" and our current prime minister, Steven Harper, is just about as "red" as John McCain or Mitt Romney down in the US. His ability to execute his personal conservative agenda is however tampered by the fact that Canada has a multi-party Parlimentary system and most Canadians do not find his policies very appealing, favouring centrist, or center-left approach - which the parent poster would probbaly describe as something along the lines of: "Soviets!!! Marxists!!! The commisars are comming!!! The commisars are comming!! Waaaah!!!" )
But of course none of what you said was really meant to make any sense, because that entire rant was all about one thing: you want a Dominionist religious fuck to be elected, who would promptly proceed to convert Canada into a theocracy where your kind would become dominant and be in a position to force your brain-rotting "values" on us all.
Now go bang your head on your Bible (or whatever "holy" book of nonsense managed to disable your cognitive circuitry) for a while until all of this registers.
This 'election' has gotten to a lot of folks. Most of the citizens of this country are general centrists, contrary to the popularized view the media and extremist pundits put forward. We, the majority of american's do not sit solidly in the left or right camp, nor do we want to. We got screwed last election, and assuming the media push to negate Ron Paul continues to be succcessful, we will be screwed this election. McCain... skerry stuff. Romney, scarier still... Huckabee, end of a nation, same with Hillary. Paul and perhaps Obama assuming a republican controlled congress are the only half way acceptable choices, and it may end up being an out of control Obama due to media injection of opinion in the sheeple mindset affecting congressional elections (face it, the current congress is dismal, more so than the one they replaced!!!).
Both John McCain and Mitt Romney are both anti-American-tech-worker. So I will never vote for either of them. I'm not sure about Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul, yet, but I am hopeful.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I don't think anyone should ever be excluded from debate, polls, etc., until after Super Tuesday. After Super Tuesday, start trimming down to those that have a snowball's chance or better. Until then, the media is deciding the primaries for you.
...write-in candidate Ronald Reagan (deceased and thus truly unelectable)...
...great distance...
...great distance...
I also wish for polling blackouts, until the last polls close in the "last state's latest polling location", whenever that is. As soon as all polls are closed, let us drink from the firehose of polling data. I wouldn't call this censorship. In fact, covering every sneeze with a "3% margin of error" affects the outcome (kinda sounds like Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle, a bit, but I digress). Let's go back to the spirit of the Secret Ballot, not just the letter...
Otherwise, the race is being shaped by CNN, Fox, Slashdot, whatever. Want an example of that? Why did Giuliani get to debate, when Ron Paul didn't? Giuliani got 0 delegates (until just before he dropped out) and often got very poor polling data. (Tom Tancredo didn't get invited, either, after awhile, but that's another story, and he dropped out early).
If the media has already told us who the winners and losers are -- starting with Iowa and New Hampshire (but to predict anything that early is utterly insane) -- then people start tending to vote for those that are "electable". Actually, until February 5 (this year's Super Tuesday), anybody's "electable".
You know, Super Tuesday has so many delegates, that mathematically anyone left in the race could win, however likely or unlikely. It's extremely unlikely, yet mathematically very possible, that Ron Paul could be facing Mike Gravel in November (now there's a long shot).
Am I glad that Giuliani's out? You bet! (If it were Giuliani vs. Democrat in November, I would have considered voting third-party for President).
Yet this isn't the prerogative of the mainstream press. This is the prerogative of the voter, or *should* be. Do I wish that Ron Paul was winning and that he had a fair shake, from the beginning? Absolutely. (It's too late, now. And, I know it's entirely probable that if he had a fair shake, that he'd still not be in first place, but that's another matter).
So, the media goes from reporting the news in an unbiased way (journalism), to making the news (editorial).
Unfortunately, since the media once again decided for us already (instead of just reporting the facts), and since we are faced with lousy "electable" Republicans, I'd vote in this order, based on who's left:
Ron Paul (but now cast as a loser in the media)
Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee (probably in that order)
John McCain
No, I'm not a "Ronulan" (except maybe in the Ronald Reagan sense) although I don't consider that an insult. He's just the best candidate this term, Republican or Democrat.
If it's such a low bar, then why do other candidates seem to have such a hard time clearing it?
He's not the best candidate ever, but he's the most experienced and the most conservative of the three.
Four More Years! Four More Years! Four More Years!
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
He is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Martin
There were issues with the Roman Catholic church when he made same sex marriage legal.
Comments are funnier over on the democrats article. I'm voting for them.
(don't mod me +1 Funny or my unique decision technique will be in shambles)
Atheism is a non-prophet organisation
"I am a registered Republican, and I will be most likely be voting for Ron Paul next week"
I don't understand why you're a Republican in the first place. You sound more like an outright Libertarian to me. If you're so passionate about Paul's positions, I'd say the GOP is the wrong party for you. We're never going to be an isolationist party again. We're not going to blame Israel for the world's woes, not complain about how the Jews are running Washington. While you're at it, do us a favor and take Pat Buchannon off our hands, too.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
with the exception of ron paul. mccain especially makes me wanna puke. literally i mean, i physically feel the urge to throw up when i see his face. dishonest bunch.
Read radical news here
"The economic collapse we are now experiencing makes the likelyhood of Paul running away with the Republican nomination increasingly likely as spring turns to summer."
If you actually think Ron Paul is going to "run away" with the GOP nomination, I'd say the greater liklihood is you losing your damn mind. Ron Paul will never get more than 10 percent of the GOP vote, and that's on his best day. He's been averaging more like 5 percent. He's running second place in a couple of small states, but that's it. Half of his positions contradict the GOP platform. Even in an election with many surprises, I'll guarantee that Ron Paul won't win Jack Shit. He may go on to run as a Libertarian Party candidate (which is where he belongs anyway), but he'll never even get a sniff of the GOP nomination, no matter what your fantasy is.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Sorry, missed the west part. All that typing for nothing.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
That was called "sarcasm". You didn't get it because your kind actually believes that George is a "good" human being, full of religious "values" you share with him, and thus could not possibly be the mass-murdering, thieving war-criminal fuck everyone else sees, who is to go down in history right next to the likes of Pinochet (also a religious "values" man). And this alone says much more about your nature then a million of "values" you can spout out from some moth-eathen religious gobledey-gook nonsense.
For your reference: George's religious "values" were played up during both of his elections. And "bad" does not even begin to describe the outcome.
This is bullshit, Taco. Ron Paul has every right to be up there. He beat Huckabee in several states. He beat McCain in others. Leaving him out is pure crap.
Not sure what is most annoying with the Ron Paul fanatics; that they agree to virtually everything coming out of his mouth, or that they believe that those of us not supporting him have no idea about his politics.
The difference is that Thompson didn't campaign, and Guiliani thought he didn't need to campaign until Florida. Meanwhile, Ron Paul's campaign and his supporters were frantically campaigning everywhere they could, and all they managed was minor percentages in the states that matter in our retarded primary/caucus system. Try putting things into context before your tell people off, please.
That's a good question. George Washington privately supported John Adam's efforts to arrest dissenting newspaper editors, one of whom died in jail. They were both for powerful federal governments, and Washington was known to strongly support a powerful executive. Franklin never wanted our version of a republic to begin with; he was aiming for a much more democratic system. Maybe. Jefferson probably wouldn't be going for any Republican candidate, but if he did, it might have been Paul, given his opinions on a national bank (which many founding father's supported) state's rights -- although how much of that was because of the Federalist's actions while in office is questionable, I think.
The Founding Fathers were not the sacred, allwise men who would all unanimously support your candidate. They were politicians and businessmen just like the ones we have today. They had violent and bitter disagreements. Adams, hated Franklin -- read his correspondence while he and Franklin were in France. Jefferson was too much of a coward to publicly speak up against Adams' policies while he was Vice President, even though he privately strongly disagreed with them (trying to start a war with France, the Alien and Sedition Acts, etc.
The more things change, the more things stay the same. The Founding Fathers were not some kind of Jesus Team. You shouldn't have to wrongly invoke them to lend credence to Ron Paul's political theory, which many of them would have been bitterly opposed to.
These guys don't increase their bid for you on the basis of how much you beg to be their little bitch.
Seastead this.
Known for drawing a hard line based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution, fiscal responsibility and libertarian ideology, Ron Paul is considered somewhat of a maverick - once described by current opponent John McCain as "the most honest man in Congress."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-treul/an-interview-with-ron-pau_b_71108.html
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul's Record:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about/
Alot of candidates in this race like others in each presidential race have promised change and many time and time again abandon promises and by doing so betray the American populace.
Regardless of issues you may have with Ron Paul he is by far the most honest of all the candidates and surely intends to do what he is talking about.
Remember to vote this coming November!
First, I'm going to say that I'm prepared for whatever anyone wants to say to or about me for this post. I for one am a Christian and a geek. I do not claim to be part of any Christian denomination, and normally speaking, don't really care for the Southern Baptist denomination that Huckabee is in. However, in my opinion, I don't see how you can have politics WITHOUT religion. Why? Because of the moral and ethical decisions that are required to be made. I have not always been a Christian. I spent a good 7 years or so as an Atheist/Agnostic, after growing up in a Roman Catholic household. During those 7 years, while I did not believe in God, nor did I really care to believe in him, I still maintained the ethics and morals that my parents taught me as a child. I didn't maintain them because I believed in God. I maintained them because they are good things to hold on to. Right now the USA, as much as I love this country, is heading to hell in a handbag. A part of it is because of Bush administration. However, another part of it is because of all of the far left wing liberals in this country. Because of them, the moral fibers this country was founded on are being cut. Take a look at some of the shit that has been going on in California lately, and for that matter, all around the US. I don't want a president who is going to be evangelical. I firmly believe in the freedom of religion. But, I do want a president who is going to use his faith and intelligence to help make educated decisions. And I know a lot of you people are going to say that because of his faith he's not intelligent. But let me ask you this. Can you say that ALL Christian morals and ethics are stupid or unintelligent? Now, given, someone can be moral and not religious. But keep in mind, that morals came from religion. And a lot of them from the Jewish and Christian based religions.
Muahahahahaha!
Mulroney!? Disliked because of religion?!!!
That is just precious.
Suuure, it was religion ... not the thievery, corruption, kick-backs, lies, the NAFTA sellout, Meech Lake etc and so on?
Nooooo. Religion!
For your reference, since your ex-Canadian status seems precluding you from getting news apparently, just the latest in the never-ending stream of filth coming from the direction of that "values" man: Mulroney is on the hook for $400k of bribe money he took in brown envelopes to facilitate "trade arrangements" while being Prime Minister. And the investigations are still rolling.
Aren't religious "values" grand, eh?
I can give you one data point, anyway. I like Huckabee for the FairTax proposal, but can't in good conscience support him. He has repeatedly trumpeted his religion by calling himself a "Christian leader," appearing on TV in front of a big white cross (and then saying it was an accident!), saying he wants to "change the Constitution to conform to God's standards," and most directly relevant here, saying he disbelieves in evolution and that when science and the Bible conflict, he'll go with the Bible because it never changes. (Never improves, that is.) Although I disagree with Romney's religious beliefs too, he has gone out of his way to downplay them as a political issue, while Huckabee has been making an issue of his own. Because I don't think there's reasonable room for disagreement at this point about the basic tenets of evolution, Huckabee's Creationist standpoint tells me that he's greatly mistaken about one of the core principles of modern science and that he either doesn't understand science, or chooses to ignore it. I don't want someone that mistaken about science to be in charge of national science policy, or in charge of the country. Unfortunately there may not be much choice on that matter, especially since I oppose the Democrats for other reasons, but I can at least stay away from anyone explicitly anti-science.
What I haven't seen in this election season is any significant mention of the space program -- no one saying "elect me and we'll scrap the half-effort Bush is making, and put a manned base on Mars in eight years." We could do it if we really wanted to, and anyone saying so would get my attention. What we have instead is vague promises of federally-funded science, not much to choose between from one candidate to another.
-Kris Schnee
High standardized test scores do not have to come from 'teaching to the test'. Maybe you're thinking of public schools? Home schooling succeeds when parents teach their children how to learn. Does this come from your actual observations?
On betfair.com, the world's biggest betting exchange (where odds are determined by the market, not by a bookmaker), Paul's odds for becoming the Republican nominee are currently around 110 to 1 while Huckabee's are around 130 to 1. Imo these odds are the most objective assessment of candidates' actual chances. Hence, excluding Paul from a debate while including Huckabee is a clear case of bias. I'm European btw, not gonna vote for any of these guys, just wanted to point this out.
The boots! No wait, the cape!
;)
Whoops - I got this discussion confused with the poll.
Too similar!
All of the money collected in the personal income tax goes to pay for interest on the national debt.
Wrong
You really need to find out more about Steven Harper. He is to Canada what Bush is to the US. He is the head of the Canadian Alliance, the Reform Party. They hijacked the Conservative party here and are trying to bring back "spritual" morality to Canada.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. John Tory just lost his bid as MP of Ontario because he was catering to Chatholic Schools.
Last but certianly not least, immigration here is insane and there are tons of religious people moving here all the time. Huge compounds devoted to different sects weilding the power of thousands of followers, you know they are involved with local politics if not federal.
Religion plays a huge part in politics here. I don't know why you're not noticing it but I sure do.
It may be impossible that a truly Christian individual be elected since politics and religion are separated more than science and religion are, It's more likely that a Christian would have to do things that counter their beliefs to be in politics, that they would never run.
Original poster... why leave Ron Paul out of your comments? What has he ever done to you besides fight for your liberty, fight for your taxes to be lower and fight against out of control spending in Washington so they don't waste your tax dollars. I hope your eyes can be opened one day soon as mine have. I see so much more clearly now that I stopped believing everything I see on t.v. ;-)
"As president, I will order an immediate review of our overseas deployments - in dozens of countries. The longstanding commitments we have made to our allies are the strong foundation of our current peace. I will keep these pledges to defend friends from aggression. The problem comes with open-ended deployments and unclear military missions. In these cases we will ask, "What is our goal, can it be met, and when do we leave?" As I've said before, I will work hard to find political solutions that allow an orderly and timely withdrawal from places like Kosovo and Bosnia. We will encourage our allies to take a broader role. We will not be hasty. But we will not be permanent peacekeepers, dividing warring parties. This is not our strength or our calling."
- George W. Bush
Thursday, September 23, 1999
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
You can't take the sky from me...
Yes, Paul is more relevant than some of the minor candidates, but one thing that gets neglected is that a number of us HATE him as a candidate.
While some of the positions he has seem sensible enough, his reasoning process (Libertarian principles) are almost complete polar opposites of mine. Yes, he could do decent things as a president (reduce executive power in particular), but I doubt those changes would be permanent. Instead, I would expect corporate interests to feed him lots of "deregulation" where they suddenly are permitted to go berserk and a level playing field is NOT first restored (i.e. with Net Neutrality where we gave away billions for nothing, they'd probably get "deregulated" so that they could continue to give us nothing while strengthening their monopoly positions).
Anyhow, while he has more support than many other "real" candidates, he has NO chance of my vote nor of the votes of about 90% of us. I should know. I already voted in the primaries, though it won't get counted until the 5th. I did NOT vote for Paul, nor would I unless the field was even worse than it already is.
When I read the following I can think of only one candidate that will work... Ron Paul...
You gotta be kidding!
Some of the history worst attrocities and murderous rampages of savage persecution and butchery of anyone not conforming to their twisted dark vision of the world were done by these Christian men. It was the Christian men who persecuted science and who propped up the feudal order. George Bush, a bona-fide war criminal, fancies himeslf a "born again" Christian. Adolf Hitler called himself a Christian and his armies sported "Gott mit Uns" on their belt-buckles.
A growing list of media blackout events has been, and continues to be documented at RonPaulTimeline.com. The greatest grassroots movement for a presidential candidate in history, being ignored by the media, is also being documented there. Some examples:
The reason that we get less-than-adequate choices for candidates year after year is because WE LET the media make the choices for us! If you don't believe this or don't understand why, then you're not really paying attention. With this article, Slashdot has proven that it is no better than any of the major news outlets, and the comments prove that Slashdot readers are as much sheeple as the rest of America.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Thanks for the correction. I will adjust my logic accordingly. For the record, Paul never said this, I just put it together, evidently hearing it from an incorrect source.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
This is the very reason we have a Republic, not a pure democracy.
Example: You are hiding in a secret basement with a few dozen of your closest friends and relatives. A baby starts crying as your enemy is searching the rooms above. What do you do?
If you hesitated answering, you shouldn't run a country. The answer isn't popular and sure as hell wouldn't be the view of the public.
MANY more example are documented at RonPaulTimeline.com
I'm justing waiting for one of the Republicans to man up and admit that it's time to get out of Iraq. That's something at least 60% of the electorate want (www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/the_war_in_iraq/iraq_troop_withdrawal). It should not be viewed as a partisan issue. The top two's support of Bush's Iraq policy is obstinate party loyalty and will be suicide in the general election.
Although the Republicans claim to be fiscally responsible, its just not the case. I still have trouble believing this chart. (www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html) It says to me that counterintuitively, the democrats are more fiscally responsible than the republicans. The Iraq war is waste of money. Our interests are not served by being there.
During the last debate, I noticed Romney and McCain smirking the whole time the 'nameless one' spoke. The 'nameless one' has some good ideas, but these two give ideas other than their own no credence. It's one of the flaws of Bush. Romney is a smart guy, but noone knows everything.
Huckabee has as much a shot as that other guy, so we don't need to talk about him.
I'll vote for "He whose name we shall not mention" while in the race. After that, I don't vote for anyone who wants to stay in Iraq.
That a candidate can raise he's hand and claim not to believe in evolution and still be considered a serious candidate is, frankly, shocking. He should have been laughed off the stage.
McCain is too willing to blatantly lie.
Huckabee is too far deep in the religious right.
My vote is to Romney, because he is the best to handle the recession.
It is both a party bias and a media bias. And your reasoning for voting/not voting for him is scary.
What you believe is clearly based on the misinformation that the media has (and hasn't) fed you.
Ron DOES talk about methods, but because of the media bias, you don't get to hear it, or you only get to hear a rushed, 30-second snippet of it. One simple example: how many times did the media talk to the other candidates about the president's economic stimulus plan and what they would do in comparison to Ron?
Show me one TV interview that was played equally as much where Ron was able to talk about his own stimulus plan. You won't be able to do it, but he DID publish one, complete with a list of bills that have ALREADY been introduced into congress to help him achieve that plan. And it's the only NON-tax-and-spend plan I've heard of yet:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/Prosperity
Then (I assume) you haven't seen charter schools, private schools under a decent voucher system, Montessori schools, or active homeschool groups (with shared activities and teacher/specialist swapping, shared seminars) in operation. I have, and the quality of education I have seen far outstrips what comes out of (most) public schools. The small underfunded private school I went to growing up ranked 3rd overall in the state. We regularly beat public schools in scholastic competitions and the high school had no idea what to do with us because we already had HS/Regents credit in a number of courses when we got there, freeing us up for APs in High School, even though I left two years early. When I got to college, a friend of mine was younger than I was, was homeschooled, and already had his AA. The charter elementary school my company was helping wire a few years back had phenomenal tech education and computer labs (they taught UNIX/Linux, basic programming). A small homeschool group I tutored medieval history for had eight-year-olds reading Virgil in the original. I am working on possible weed walks and field biology outings for a group here. There are more and I have yet to see one bad example, though I know there must be. A local public high school regularly graduates people who can't read more than road signs, and they get decent grades. That has been true before the current administration and I don't see it changing any time soon.
Are all private schools good? No, but they do have to compete and that puts them under a good deal of pressure, to rank well, educate well (get kids into good colleges), and keep costs down. For the most part, that process works. Public schools can dip into your wallet whenever they want. You have a chance of influencing that locally-- you directly elect your school board-- but your effect over the Department of Education is negligible.
I saw "best presidential candidate" and "republican" in the same sentence and just couldn't help but laugh...
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
"However, I find it utterly bizarre and disturbing that religion take such a huge place in American politics."
You're not alone, but that doesn't change the fact that for the vast majority of Americans, religion is very important to us, and has been from the beginning. Our Puritan roots are still pretty strong. Alexis de Tocqueville noted just how religion was ingrained into our national character. You wouldn't know it from reading slashdot, which has a heavy agnostic/atheist tint to it, but then again, slashdot isn't very representative of the general public in America. Something like 80+ percent of Americans identify with a religion, and over half claim to be devout, attending church on at least a semi-regular basis. To my knowledge, this is much higher than the rest of the Western world at present. You (and other slashdotters) may lament that fact, but we are what we are. I would never say to American slashdotters "if you don't like it, get out". It is a free country after all. But I also think its rather disingenuous to expect the rest of the country to change its identity, too.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I think that Romney Should get the Nomination. McCain is not a conservative and Ron Paul is scary crazy. He is just like Denis Cushinishsomething-or-other.
Either Romney Gets the nomination or I am with the voter above I will vote for Hillary she is a better conservative then McCain!!
All I'm saying, and I didn't want to make this a religious debate, that when you take a few people, compared to millions of people you don't hear of, to bias your point of view, is only destroying your point not enhancing it. What your doing is equivalent to pointing at a couple of bad apples and making the blanket statement that all apples are bad because of that couple!
Surprising to say the least. Seeing the general news media ignore Ron Paul is one thing, but Slashdot? I mean, Ron Paul has come in 2nd in two states so far, and just beat Huckabee in Maine. Is it really so hard to include all the official rep candidates, seriously, there are only 4 left, one more name to type can't be that hard. A little bit concerning...
It's like those stupid television debates where they just let Romney and McCain sing and go at each other for the whole duration and let Paul and Huckabee speak for two minutes. What ever happened to fair debates? Put the question out, and let each one answer in a allotted time. Does that make too much sense?
You are comparing the situation in the US with that in another country where, to the best of your knowledge, there might not be a democracy. You clearly have high exectations for your own country!
That you seem to think that Iraq is currently a democracy is quite telling, by the way...
I think our views are pretty much alike. I'm a registered Libertarian myself, but I think the "traditional Republican candidate" (as defined, perhaps, by Ronald Reagan?) and Libertarian views aren't all that far apart. (Probably, the main difference would lie in specific "individual rights" issues like drug legalization?)
The problem I see is, today's "standard issue Republican" seems to be all about a bigger, more powerful federal govt. with more rights to monitor, investigate and catalog citizens - and this mission of "squashing any and all terrorist threats" at all costs.
Given that, I just don't see a candidate *besides* Ron Paul I can give my vote to. This election, I'm just not feeling that concern about "making sure a lesser of the evils" is elected, because I see serious problems with any of the Republican or Democratic candidates in the running. I can't, in good conscience, cast my vote for someone with a political agenda so counter to what I feel this nation needs to get "back on track".
(I know this discussion is not supposed to go into Democratic candidates, but I have to digress for a second here and comment that Obama is running an "interesting" campaign right now. He seems to really be pushing that idea that a vote for him equates to a vote for "real change" in govt. Ironically, Ron Paul is the one proposing the REAL changes, not Obama. I have to wonder if Obama is sapping away a number of votes from Ron Paul with this strategy? I've talked to quite a few college students who are sold on Obama purely out of their distaste for the current state of things and his promises of upsetting the "status quo" if he's elected. Yet what real "change" is Obama planning to make? His policies pretty much mirror a traditional Democrat's promises. He's for some kind of national healthcare system, just as Hillary is. He's not talking of an immediate end to the war in Iraq, or a promise of repealing the Patriot Act. He's still proposing concepts that will surely raise all of our taxes during his presidency.)
McCain was one of the Keating 5 which, unless Clinton is the democratic nominee, is sufficient reason for me to vote against him.
Charles Keating bribed 5 Senators (aka The Keating 5) to carry legislation for him that relaxed rules on the Savings and Loan industry. The ensuing S&L meltdown in 91 was partially due to that legislation. The Senators kept their jobs while Keating went to jail. In my book, all of them should have gone to jail.
To make amends, McCain teamed up with Feingold to "keep money out of politics." Together, they crafted the McCain-Feingold act which didn't do a thing to keep folks like Norman Hsu and Tony Rezko from bundling huge amounts of money for favored politicians. What McCain-Feingold did do was muzzle advertising critical of incumbents which comes as little surprise as it was written by two long-time incumbents.
McCain might be able to beat Clinton but Obama would thrash him.
Abstinence in choice is simply letting someone else make that choice (and then living with it). Not that I don't understand the sentiment, but to be proud of it?
Quack, quack.
He can't possibly win. We know this because the news networks tell us the other candidates are more popular. So those other candidates must have better ideas, technically. Anyone who supports Ron Paul is irrational, and he and they should just quit.
... Just pointing out some slashdot hipocrasy here.
Just like everyone knows that Microsoft Windows is the most popular OS out there, and everyone who uses OSX or especially Linux or BSD are anti-social nutjobs. Oh, and of course windows must be better because it is more popular and that's what I see running on the computers when I go to Best Buy. Anyone who looks beyond the pretty Best Buy screens sure ie weird. Linux, BSD, and MacOS should just go away already.
I for one welcome our future monkeyboy press conferences.
I'll throw my $0.02 in here: IMO, Ron Paul is probably not going to be the next POTUS, but I have worked damn hard and donated a fair bit of cash to get him there anyway. If he does not win the Republican nomination, I'm writing him in.
The key point here is that the Paul candidacy has raised the Constitution, and the notion that government should be limited as a serious issue to hundreds of thousands of Americans who otherwise may never have considered these things.
I hope that, win or lose, these people continue the fight.
That's what Ron said when my wife spoke to him, anyway...
Part of the Second American Revolution!
There isn't enough gold (or silver) in the world to support a pure specie currency, even with a serious correction to the value of the dollar, so you are correct on that point. A gold-stabilized standard failed in the '70s for various reasons. Ron Paul and the economists advising him advocate a hybrid gold-stabilized standard where the laws forbidding trade of gold/silver specie are lifted and the specie-pegged currency competes with the fiat currency giving people a hedge against paper instability and stagflation like we are going into (and discourages runaway printing of new paper). There is apparently a bit more to it than that, but I am not an economist.
"At least Reagan presided over the fall of the Soviet Union, although he can hardly take a lot of credit for that."
That statement is stupid beyond imagining. He certainly didn't bring down the USSR by himself...he had help....the Pope's influence in Eastern Europe, the Solidarity trade union in Poland, Margaret Thatcher, the Soviet's own corruption...but for anyone to claim that he had little or nothing to do with the Soviets falling is just whackjob land. Do us both a favor, and skip on over to the Libertarians. Because even when Barry Goldwater was running, he didn't have the outright hostility to religion and projection of American power abroad that you do. And please, no bullshit about how the GOP used to eschew religion....this party has had religious enthusiasm since its beginnings. Bibles were sold at Barry Godlwater's campaign rallies to raise money. If that kind of thing makes you uncomfortable, you need to find another party. And if you're not a Republican in the first place, then you're just trolling here anyway.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I'm posting anonymously because I have mod points today
I don't see why this is necessarily a good idea. Simply by virtue of having children does not not make one an expert on how to educate children. Why not let the people who know about such matters make the important decisions.
I have read some of his campaign material, and I think the above statement is more than a little dishonest. He is trying to have his cake (he holds strong anti-abortion beliefs) and eat it to (by insisting it is a state rights issue).
Unless you (or your spouse) are teachers or administrators with real-world experience in such matters, your comments strike me as needless flamebait.
Like anything else in the world, you get what you pay for. If you want the lowest costs, you are going to get the lowest quality.
And you consider this to be a good thing?
A well-educated population is to everyone's advantage. I don't think you have thought this out particularly well.
No offense dude, but I am glad I live in a different country.
If this is a typical attitude, maybe it is true that neo-conservatives don't care about anyone other than themselves.
I just need to know. It seems Ron Paul has a powerful following among younger, technologically-savvy professionals. And these folks generally have a strong respect for science (I know, an unfounded assertion). But Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution.
For those of you supporting Paul, vociferously on Slashdot and other websites, how does that work? Doesn't that undermine some of his credibility?
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
"In this light, how is Huckabee received in geek circle ? I like to think people in tech are, on average, smart and rational. Does he received any support from this crowd ?"
No he doesn't. He receives support from religious radicals who mostly live in the southern US.
Wow, you touched off a decent fight here, didn't you? :-)
..." religious rhetoric everytime they answer a question. However, I'm not sure that much of the disdain many Canadians direct towards Harper isn't at least partly because of the social and religious conservatism of his party. They definitely try to appeal to a Christian conservative base and that is more successful in some regions than others, as what flies in Alberta probably won't work in Quebec for example, and there's a good reason large parts of Atlantic Canada often vote in stark opposition to the rest of the country. Harper definitely speaks a different language in Duceppe's neck of the woods :-)
I'm not sure it's entirely correct to say that religion is not a factor in Canadian elections. Sure, we don't print off big banners proclaiming our religious affiliations and our political leaders don't parrot the tired "Well, as a Christian with a great respect for family values and the sanctity of life and morals and bla bla bla
I think it comes down to our overall centre-left politics and to the regionalism inherent to Canadian politics. Generally, we tend to be more concerned with ascertaining whether their policies will make Canada a better country than what religious text they keep on their nighttable. What a concept.
He wants to move us back to the gold standard? I'm not going to spend the 3 paragraphs educating you on why that is so unworkable, chaotic and nonsensical as to prove that Ron Paul is out of his fucking mind for advocating it, please go take some economics classes and read up on the less sound-bitey and more policy wonky aspects of his policy. He's fucking nuts.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
McCain, Romney and Huckabee have all waffled and started puking platitudes when asked about waterboarding. The simple question for them is, "If waterboarding is NOT torture, then why are they doing it?" If we want a nation that is at least in appearance against torture, we need to avoid those candidates.
that's one thing that really does set him apart from the other candidates.
AFAIK, Fuckabee has close to 0% support in the geek-segment.
I want a pro constitution pro honest money pro limited government candidate. One who will end the war on drugs, One who will cut back the constant unrestrained growth of government that has happened over the last 60 years. Never once has the size of the federal government ever shrank. Never once has the amount of spending gone down. One who will get the Iraq war off our back, reign in the USA empire and bases all over the planet, one who will drastically reduce taxes AND spending, but not screw us over regarding the value of our money, and not load the future generation with 10 generations worth of debt.
Dammit. WTF is wrong with people? The fact that I don't even need to mention this candidates name should tell everybody everything that they need to know.
So the question becomes: Do you not believe that someones faith makes up a large percent of the total character of a person?
Huckabee seems more fun cause he laughs more.
Would I vote for someone that does not believe the same things I do, fundamentally? If they have one or two things different sure.. but I am talking something a large as faith. Belief in higher power, The Rastafarian Party, etc?
Make a list of things:
Abortion
Death Penalty
Stem Cell Research
Teen Pregnancy
War in Iraq
Tell me that all of those have nothing to do with Religion in the end.. and your position on it.
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
Then obviously you haven't been paying attention this last decade. I have two words for you: Stockwell Day. He was blasted by the lefty media on a daily basis on his evangelical Christian beliefs. It had no bearing whatsoever on his ability to lead the then-Reform party but the Liberals used it as a weapon and so rather than getting votes because he would govern with compassion and do what's right instead of what's politically expedient he was demonized as some religious nut who would turn Canada into a giant religious colony that would change taxes into tithes.
Keep in mind that no president governs in a vacuum. There are so many checks against the power of the president that it makes his faith irrelevant. His policies and his ability to lead are the question. And keep in mind that the greatest presidents in US history have NOT been Atheists, agnostics, or otherwise secular. So what makes you think that a person with strong faith and a clear idea of right and wrong wouldn't make a good president? Oh that's right... it's because the secularists need someone up there to justify their own free-for-all beliefs. Ironic, isn't it?
No candidate of these three has done all of these:
- Is a constitutionalist.
- Has never voted to raise taxes.
- Has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
- Has never voted for the Iraq War.
- Has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
- Has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
- Has never voted to raise congressional pay.
- Has never taken a government-paid junket.
- Voted against the Patriot Act.
- Votes against regulating the Internet.
- Voted against NAFTA and CAFTA.
- Votes against the United Nations.
- Votes against the welfare state.
- Votes against reinstating a military draft.
- Votes to preserve the constitution.
- Votes to cut government spending.
- Votes to lower healthcare costs.
- Votes to end the war on drugs.
- Votes to protect civil liberties.
- Votes to secure our borders with real immigration reform.
- Votes to eliminate tax-funded abortions and to overturn Roe v Wade.
- Votes to protect religious freedom.
If one of these three candidates has all of these qualities and has had these qualities throughout the entirety of their political career, please call me out on this and cite your sources so that I may read them and learn from my mistake myself.Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
I would like to answer (or attempt to) your question.
1. Religion plays a large part in American politics because this country was founded by fundamentalist Christians. It is ingrained into our nation's history. Too often though, I see this country becoming a theocracy instead of remaining neutral in the face of religious opposition. Many Christians would like to see this country become a theocracy, and with our current president, our national religion, Christianity, has almost become that, a national religion. Our founding fathers sought refuge from the oppressive British government because they had become a bloated, corrupt, theocracy. In short, as much as people hate to admit it (agnostic or devout), this country was founded by and corrupted by Christians. America is not a theocracy (Thank God), because it has been proven time and time again, that it does not work because everyone has different views on religion and how it should intertwine with politics and how people live their lives.
2. Please don't make the assumption that to be religious, is to disavow, rationality and intelligence.
3. Mike Huckabee, from what I have seen, is viewed by "geeks" as a fundamentalist Christian. Most (not all) "geeks" I know, oppose the illegal war in Iraq, but support removing the IRS (which is an unconstitutional organization). So, in short, like most Americans, we are split. Personally, as a "geek", who is a Christian (my father is a Baptist minister), I support Ron Paul, because his fiscal, second amendment, and defense views reflect mine. In second place for my vote is Barak Obama. I hope this clears it up a little, or maybe I just made it more clouded.
Thank You
"Also I dislike that he is in favor of gun control legislation, when the 2nd amendment clearly states 'Congress shall make no law.'" The Second Amendment actually reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Obviously, laws have been made and passed regarding ownership of guns and other arms. Many of these laws have been upheld by the SCOTUS; therefore, they are Constitutional. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I'm pretty sure it's illegal for you to own a nuclear bomb. This is not a response for or against Romney; I actually think you've summed up the candidates pretty well. But your wording of the Second Amendment needed correcting.
I'm not a human, but I play one on T.V.
9/11 was being planned while Clinton was in office. It was his destruction of our military that gave the terrorists an opportunity to strike. How many attacks anywhere near 9/11 have happened on our soil since?
In most of the western countries, being religious will only harm a candidate campaign, so it's not an issue. Yet, it is important. Blair said, lately, he hid the fact that he goes to church regularly, for political reason (and now, after he left the politic world, he can expose this fact).
Besides, what do you expect from a country putting "in god we trust" on their bills? I'm isrealy, the country has religious institutions, religious parties hold about fifth of the parliament, a government once fell (the parliament reelected) because some airplanes landed after sabbath started (it was 30 years ago), and yet personal belief is never discussed in politics. But in the USA, it seems as if personal belief is extremely important, perhaps because almost everyone there is religious to some extent. I assume that most isrealy politicians are atheists or at least religion will not be part of their decision making (except the publicly religious, about fifth of the parliament), and so nothing more should be said, in the USA, everyone are religious and it might interest you to what extent. It seems like it's been a major part in the current president's foreign policy.
As long as it was with chainsaws on top of a floating log.
I don't get it. McCain is a bad choice because he's "Not electable", but then you push for Ron Paul?
USAElectionPolls.com: Ron Paul
Rasmussen Reports, 1/22/08, Georgia, Ron Paul 12% Source
Rasmussen Reports, 1/29/08, Illinois, Ron Paul 10% Source
Non-Super Tuesday states:
Final Nevada Results, 1/19/08, Ron Paul 14%, Source
Final Iowa Results, 1/3/08, Ron Paul 10%, Source
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll, 12/11/07, South Carolina, Ron Paul 11%, Source
Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
Submitter must be new here. I found it amusing they'd try and restrict the discussion here like that because it only back fired, more than half the posts are about Ron Paul. I'm just glad I don't live in america :)
To a nail, every person with a hammer looks like a problem.
At the risk of talking on topic. How about tech issues?
Here are two sites take on tech positions for canidates.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/01/29/the-techcrunch-tech-president-endorsements-barack-obama-and-john-mccain/
http://www.itconsulting.com/features/technology-presidential-vote-candidate-positions-020507/
Not much support for net neutrality legistation on the republicain side.
As the conservative position of "let the market decide" is the general consensus. i'll let you decide wether thats pro or con for techies.
On the plus side making the internet tax free and keeping the fed out of cell phone bills is definately a strong republicain position.
What we can be sure of none of these issues are on the map for the canidates or the mainstream media - unless some brain cells fire
and the "it's the economy, stupid" people realize that tech is a huge driver of the current US ecomony.
So virtually no canidates are talking about these issues and only Ron Paul and McCain have any track record to look at.
I'm from Texas so I don't have much say. We're too late in the game to affect the republican primary and the state will go
republicain in the national election unless something drastic happens ie: Democrats come to Jesus, go pro-gun, pro-life, anti-tax, limited government
The GP lied about Pierre's politics.
You lied about the GP's politics.
You are both liars. And incompetent ones at that.
It shall be spread.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Most or all of these guys are not republicans. They're the Evangelical Big Business party. You can come up with a better name, I'm sure. If you guys would just split into two parties, you could get some actual Republican platforms to run with. Wouldn't that be great? Then we in the Democratic party could shove a who bunch of "centrist" (who fill the whole left when the Republicans got bought by the VERY big business (as opposed to just pro-business in general) slash televangelists consortium) and we could get some ACTUAL liberal platforms.
I'm not a Democrat. I just vote for them as the slightly lesser of two evils. Wouldn't you like to vote for someone you'd actually want in office?
We need a three-party system and YOU need a three party system.
CNN is projecting Maine's results, with Ron Paul at 19%.
Source
Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
>>He would be against straights marrying,
>>if it forced others to give them special treatment.
Last time I checked. Straights do get special treatment. The 2 main things are:
They can file jointly on their taxes.
They can also use each others health insurance.
This is why there needs to be a clear difference between "Marriage" (union recognized by a specific religion) & "Civil Union" (union recognized by the government).
I agree completely with your sentiments on Paul, except I cannot support him in the White House. As is mentioned in the Federalist Papers (kind of the liner notes to our government as drafted by the early patriots), the office of the President was never meant to wield the power that it does today.
In my interpretation, the office of the President is the only one-man branch of government simply because in some cases, snap decisions need to be made (under the laws set by Congress and the oversight of the Judiciary) when it is just not practical to convene the Congress. Military action is a good example, hence the reason for the Commander-in-Chief title. But snap military actions are supposed to be judged and authorized by the other branches, even if retroactively.
Diplomacy is also another reason for a one-man branch. It would be impractical to fly all of Congress to another country for a sit-down with another head of state. It would be equally impractical (especially at the time of the drafting of the Constitution) for Congress to convene to meet with a visiting dignitary and conduct any meaningful business.
But over the years, the office of the President (and some administrations more than others) have used their control of foreign policy and military action to dilute the power of the Congress and draw more powers for themselves. And that's bad.
Indeed, if powerful, persuasive and right-minded people were allocated to Capitol Hill, we would have a government far more representative of the people. I would like to see a lot more Ron Pauls on the Hill, but don't think he could do anything of any consequence in the big chair under the present government.
Of course the Presidential election is supremely important (precisely because the office has wrangled so much more power than it was originally intended to have), but we often fail to see that the Hill is equally, if not more important.
With that in mind (and to get this post a little more on-topic), I think that McCain is the best the Republicans have to offer.
Mitt is an open liar (claiming vehemently that no one affiliated in any significant way with his campaign was a lobbyist) and too deeply in love with corporate America.
Huckabee just plain scares me. It's people like him that cause America to confuse conservatism with right-wing theocracy. I have no problem with people openly being religious, praying, thanking God, etc., but this guy seems to want to make everyone fit into his Sunday morning routine. And I certainly don't find him charming or socially skillful enough to successfully relate to other heads of state.
Ron Paul will do more good as a voice for the people than as President.
McCain is a respectable (although I don't pretend he's squeaky clean) elder statesman, and one who can empathetically relate to others. He has nearly 80 years of diversified life experience in all kinds of situations. That is much more 'experience' than other candidates on either side can offer. He is an honorable man and one who takes respect very seriously. He has an awful temper, but that has not been a limiting factor in other administrations (ahem, Teddy Roosevelt). People accuse him of being a flip-flopper, but I think it's important that people have the ability to change their position when confronted with new/better evidence and arguments. Maintaining that the world is flat long after it was proven to be round just to avoid 'flip-flopping' would be dumb.
One of the biggest McCain issues for me is that I'm not entirely sure how ingrained he is with the Republican cronies we've seen over the last few administrations. I'm sure he lunches with them, I just need to know he's not in bed with them.
The other problem could be his choice of VP. The thought that Rice or Giuliani could be VP under an aging President scares the hell out of me. I don't think McCain is too old to be President, or that he will invariably die in office, but as an older man we can likely expect h
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
Again, thank you for your post and I wish you were mod'd higher!
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Yeah, lots of racists are supported by a president of the NAACP. Look it up.
Actually I support Huckabee and I do NOT live in the South (I'm from the West). I am considered a good researcher and science supporter. I think Huckabee has much to offer; HOWEVER, while he is being painted as "religious right" he is much more liberal than a typical republican (and definitely more so than most conservatives). I think he is a much better combination and would actually be palatable to a lot of progressives if they would get past erroneously viewing him as part of the religious right.
You're joking right?
Stockwell Day was regularily burned in the media for his religious view. (which was odd when you consider his foot-in-mouth disease gave the media a near endless supply of stupid things they could have kept harping on)
In both of the last federal elections the media has made a big deal about Harper not campaigning on Sundays. Not to mention the numerous people who claimed that Harper was going to change the country into a church run state.
While its certainly true that religion is not as visible in our politics as in the US, don't pretend its not there.
America is filled with a variety of religions and sects of religions, many in ideological conflict with each other. The US has never had a systematic state religion, and has had at least partial religious freedom since the 1600s.
Canada hasn't.
Why is there no humor label attached to this post? Ron Paul got 3rd place in Maine (the latest election) and 2nd in Nevada. We should discuss Hackabee instead? Honestly, if CmdrTaco wants to pull jokes, why not put the humor label?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
No, religion has taken such a large place in American politics because a small vocal minority (Evangelical Christians) has subverted the Republican party and uses that party to push their social views on everyone else.
In contrast, I disagree with John McCain on several issues (primarily in the area of corporate business incentives vs. lowered spending and de-federalization resulting in lower taxes) -- but he will probably get my vote in spite of the fact that he is also a Christian because he at least practices what he preaches -- fiscal conservatism, governmental responsibility, big-stick diplomacy (which in some ways is roughly the same as it was in Teddy Roosevelt's day -- "don't mess with the American citizens, lest we come stomp on yer heads"). Is he right? I don't know. But in the primary, he gets my vote.
In the general election? I don't know. Depends on whether or not he is nominated, and whether the other person I consider to be an honest candidate (Obama) gets through as well.
Bottom line? I support people with a reputation for telling the truth.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Not supposed to talk about democrats; but as far as I am concerned, it is either one republican or else it's a democrat. So I have to bring it up.
Given the opportunity, I will vote for Paul. If Paul isn't an option (not in the race when it comes time), I'll vote for Obama, mainly to avoid Ms. Clinton, who I think is even less presidential than the usual run of offerings. I'd like to see a woman hold the office just for the sake of the country having to admit that one can, but not *that* woman. Thankfully, the same applies to a black person, and plus, he's considerably less annoying than the other candidates. Maybe he'll do some tiny fraction of good. I doubt it, but one can hope. I think she would screw things up from day one.
There are only two arguments that make any impact on me. One is the one where people point out that Paul is a religious wacko; I agree, he is, but so are all the other candidates, and Paul has made it abundantly clear that he has no intent of subjugating me and mine to his religious outlook. That's about as much as you can hope for in a country where 80% or so of those polled respond by selecting "I'm superstitious." The other is immigration; I'm pro-unskilled-immigration and anti-"we are special because we have citizenship papers." People are people, and immigrants have a time-honored and useful place in our economy, from which they can leverage themselves up, or not, as opportunity and drive allow for. In the meantime, there are lawns to be mowed, kids to be watched, vegetables and fruit to be picked, and ditches to be dug, etc. Jobs which most pompous Americans wouldn't do for similar wages even if they were starving. So I am at odds with Paul here; but he is so spot-on with the rest of his outlook for governance that I'm afraid I'm going to have to overlook the whole immigration thing and hope his conscience will change his outlook on that issue over time.
Finally, I am of the opinion that 50 states doing 50 different things have a considerably better chance (50x!) of getting things right than one country, especially since the country itself has failed to do so and is going the wrong way at quite a distressing rate.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Any more bad assertions you'd like to make?
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
According to a few web forms asking me how I feel about issues, my best pick for my primaries is Ron Paul. For real. But as I expect he will not be getting the Republican party behind him, my second best republican pick is McCain on these web forms. (OK, one of them put Huckabee as my second R pick, but after seeing some of his super-religious stuff he wants ammended to the Constitution then he's out for me) So I'll vote Paul in the Primaries and expect to see McCain on the final election ballot.
But even though I'm registered R, I may find myself voting D in the finals. I like the oldschool R ideals of small government and things like that, but in recent years Dubya has tossed that ideal in the trash. Things my dad still uses as reasons to support the R party no longer seem to apply at all. Bush is for big government. I can see him and Cheney and friends taking our guns away someday. (I'm not a gun nut, but my dad is and this is one of the big reason's he uses to talk people out of going D, the other being that he doesn't want the Ds to turn America into a socialist state)
Even the other comment on this was modded 'funny'. I don't think people realize how much he is affecting this race.
What does FOX news show? The 'top 3' candidates: "Romney 51%, McCain 13%, Huckabee 8%" Paul got nearly twice the votes of Huckabee yet he doesn't even appear. Almost no mention is made of this anywhere. He is not allowed in debates even though he had more support than several other candidates that were invited. This is a case of the media making the news people. I can actually see why they might have the three people listed that had won other states, but even then I think a special note should have been made of Paul's strong showing.
What the republicans should be worrying about is Obama getting the democratic nomination while they should be praying for Hilary to get the nomination. I wouldn't vote for Hilary in a million years. There are only two candidates for real change in the race after Edwards dropped out, Ron Paul and Barack Obama. I expect Paul supporters to flock to Obama if he gets the nomination. Hilary is business as usual. Go to Obama's web site and read about the issues. Heck, go to all the candidate's sites and do the same. Obama is the one that actually thinks about the issues. He opposed the war when that was unpopular. The things Hilary says in her speeches now with 'hindsight' (I didn't know Bush would do this, etc) are exactly what Obama said in his speech against the war before he voted 'No'. Hilary will get advice and money from the same lobbyist groups that the republicans will. Obama and Paul let their intelligence and their conscience guide their decisions. If Obama gets the nomination and either Romney or McCain get the republican nomination then Paul supporters and many others that think of themselves as republican will flock to Obama and we will have a democrat in the whitehouse in '09'. If Hilary gets the democratic nomination then I will be throwing my vote away on some third party candidate just to help show that reform is needed in the election process to make them viable (more people would vote third party if the process wasn't setup so they were throwing their vote away).
Oh, Canadian. I thought for a second you were an illegal immigrant.
McCain is the flip flopper? Wasn't Rommney a pro choice pro tax republican until his miraculous conversion a few years ago?
McCain has stronger conservative credentials anyday.
http://saveie6.com/
Ron Paul supporters seem to think winning debates is the whole point of his candidacy. If you disagree with them they just argue some more. What we're having is an election and in an election, the voters get to pick someone. And it isn't going to be based on who scored more points. Most people have already written off Ron Paul for any one of a number of reasons, but for the true believers, The Debate Must Go On.
The Republican candidates left are the dud ones. McCain is too old (72), and Huckabee is too weird. Neither has any management experience. Romney is the best of the lot, and would probably do OK.
Both Edwards and Giuliani looked better than the three remaining candidates.
None of these men came out of the Bush administration. Coming from "Team Bush" is a political kiss of death at this point.
I agree with most of what you say. There has to be a balance between Federalism and States Rights. The Articles of Confederation failed miserably because they did not provide enough central government. There has to be a balance somewhere (whether it is ever or ever has to be "comfortable" is another argument), but we have far overshot it. I am religious, and I hope that my actions, when I am not royally screwing up, might interest others in my beliefs, but hitting people over the head with them is just not the way to go.
One of the few statements I disagree with is on immigration. A good chunk of my family were recent immigrants, but they came here legally, working hard and sacrificing to do so. As for most of the jobs you mention, I did many of them growing up to pay my way through school. I also worked the bunker in trap shoots, over 110F operating the machine. My dad did the same thing picking potatoes for 60 cents a day growing up. I have gutted chickens. I have dug ditches and hauled rocks. I have worked in a butcher shop. Good luck doing any of that now. You can't compete with the illegal immigrants for those jobs that were traditional for high school or college students on break or temp jobs while trying to land better employment. I'd do dirty jobs, but not if I have to break the law and can't pay even my (basic) rent, buy food, or get to the job and back, again, without breaking the law.
Shame on you. While I can agree that during the Civil War the power of the executive branch was used in a near tyrannical manner by Lincoln, it was also done acting in his capacity as commander in chief, against a do-nothing, partisan divided congress that wouldn't move a muscle to defend the idea of the Union without Lincoln basically dragging them kicking and screaming along with him. I have never been able to find find one instance where a current court of law would declare his actions as unconstitutional, let alone traitorous. If anything, Lincoln's biggest heresy in terms of modern political thought is that he couldn't figure out a way for the "Negro" population to become part of the white dominated culture of the day. After Lincoln was assasinated, and with the possible exception of Harry Truman who I am only so-so familiar with -- to my knowledge until JFK, RFK, and LBJ, no president really even tried.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
I'm not sure I understand your problem with the fair tax. You didn't give one, other than not wanting to pay a 30% tax. You seem to be missing that with the fair tax you take home your WHOLE PAYCHECK. To anyone that is working a mildly respectable job, this equates to taking home that ~30% of your paycheck that is currently being taken out for federal tax, Social Security, and Medicare.
In the end it equals out, with the exception that congress can no longer write in companies for earmark tax exemptions.
The difference is that Thompson didn't campaign, and Guiliani thought he didn't need to campaign until Florida
Both Thompson and Giuliani spent more time in Iowa than Ron Paul "frantically" did:
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/ia08/iavisits08r.html
The "not campaigning until Florida" decision wasn't some strategy that Giuliani had from the beginning, it was an attempt to lower expectations after it became obvious that he wasn't going to win Iowa no matter how much work he put in there. The only thing Giuliani's campaign thought was that conceding the Iowa race wouldn't look quite as bad as trying his hardest to win it and then losing anyway.
We're all sick of hearing about Ron Paul and the media doesn't want the 90%+ of us who are sick to death of Libertarians to shut off the TV. So the media is just responding to market forces :P
Besides, he'll be lucky to get even a few delegates. His followers are very noisy, but he doesn't have many votes behind him. Sure, he has more than some of the other nobody candidates, but that doesn't mean he's a somebody or that he's going to win.
Face it: most people don't want to speak up because of the rabid Ron Paul supporters. He's like a crazy uncle no one wants to be reminded of. We're trying to be nice here, but we REALLY wish you'd just cram a sock in it, okay? We don't agree with Libertarian "principles" because greed signifies a lack of them, we know that the Constitution doesn't really say half the crap you think it does, and we LIKE parts of the Constitution you want to ignore (the "general welfare" clause in particular). Of course we can all trot out our favorite historical figures to opine on what each clause means, but that misses the whole damn point of the Constitution: it was one gigantic compromise worked out and bargained for by a bunch of people who didn't agree at all in matters of government.
So please, give it a rest already, okay? There's no way in hell I'm voting for that guy and it's because I do know what he stands for. Honestly, I liked him MORE before I met his supporters, though it's Ron I'm voting against, not just the supporters.
While Paul is admittedly far-right, his policies are more in line with the historical republican platform than McCain's.
Wow, you've surely been reading your (public education forced) history books!
Shame on you.
No, shame on you for not researching Lincoln's traitorous nature deeper, and accepting history based on what the powers that be want it to say.
While I can agree that during the Civil War the power of the executive branch was used in a near tyrannical manner by Lincoln, it was also done acting in his capacity as commander in chief, against a do-nothing, partisan divided congress that wouldn't move a muscle to defend the idea of the Union without Lincoln basically dragging them kicking and screaming along with him.
Lincoln proved to Congress that he was a tyrant and a dictator. He deported a Congressman who disagreed with his interpretation of Presidential powers. Read up on it, it's amazing. He jailed hundreds of the PRESS who disagreed with him. Lincoln supported the laws in Illinois when he was a State politician that banned blacks from immigrating into the State. He was the worst president, provably.
I have never been able to find find one instance where a current court of law would declare his actions as unconstitutional, let alone traitorous.
Sure, because the current court of law takes its power from the dictatorial creation that Lincoln left in the wake of the War between States. I'd say that Roosevelt was worse in terms of destroying the Judicial branch, but Lincoln opened the door for him. See DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln" for an amazing amassing of Lincoln's own words in his hatred for the Republic.
If anything, Lincoln's biggest heresy in terms of modern political thought is that he couldn't figure out a way for the "Negro" population to become part of the white dominated culture of the day. After Lincoln was assasinated, and with the possible exception of Harry Truman who I am only so-so familiar with -- to my knowledge until JFK, RFK, and LBJ, no president really even tried.
Lincoln hated blacks. He wanted all blacks deported to Haiti or Africa. He believed blacks were sub-human, and didn't want them in Illinois. Lincoln never freed a single black, actually. His "Emancipation Proclamation" was written specifically to only free blacks in a country that he wasn't President in. His war was one of terrorism, raping and pillaging (see: Sherman's March to the Sea). He destroyed the powerful dollar by taking it off a metal standard, created one of the worst economic situations with his Greenback, and proceeded to jail thousands upon thousands of dissidents. He found an unconstitutional war (secession was a right held by many States that entered into the voluntary Union from the start).
The War between States was not about slavery, either. The primary reason to fight the war was so that Lincoln could tax southern states in order to provide the money for his corporate buddies to build "bridges to nowhere" type internal "improvements." Lincoln did this while an Illinois politician, raising billions in taxes to build canals that were never built (but the money spent), and other improvements that improved nothing.
He was a tyrant. As a person of mixed race myself, I would never believe that Lincoln freed anyone. He was racist, a criminal, and doesn't deserve the heralding and cheer that confused people give him.
Forgive me if I start swearing up a storm here but when in the name of gods green earth before 2007 did any of you in the party assume John McLame was a conservative? How about ever time I look at Flip Romney I see a sleaze bucket that blows in the wind.. he reminds me of Bill Clinton.
I voted for Bush twice I've always been a Republican and for god sakes I came to my senses. Our party is going to hell. We had two really good really conservative people in the race for president, Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul and we have ignored them both so we could vote for these jerk wads so they can give us total illegal amnesty, gun bans, and wreck our economy even further with their aimless runaway spending??! WHY?
Whats wrong with the Republicans anymore, have you all lost your minds? you all need to take a serious look at who you are supporting and why.. your all lucky Ron is still somehow in the race.. I still believe we will come to our freaking senses in a mass epiphany tomorrow and all vote for him while there is still chance to save this party.. and the Republic of the United States as we know it..
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
Anyone can sit back and vote no on everything. It is far tougher to assemble and organize a coalition of legislators that succeeds in actually changing things. McCain has done this numerous times. Paul has never, as far as I can tell from his record, even come close.
His votes tell a good story. But that's all they are. I've looked for any real change that he has captained, and I haven't seen anything substantial.
His supporters say that he has not had a good enough platform--put him in the White House and he'll use the veto to make the changes. But the fact is that a veto is only as strong as the coalition that backs it. If President Paul cannot succeed at the political maneuvering necessary to make Congressional Republicans follow his line, they'll simply make their own decisions and go around him. So far I have not seen any proof that Paul is adept at that sort of thing. What good are strong principles if he's not effective at implementing them?
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I'm not talking about tactical strategies here. The issue is abortion, and he should not have advertised one way when he actually believed another. I lump abortion with things like separation of church and state, gun rights, etc... These are the things a candidate should have resolved before taking the oath of office.
Of course things change, but there was no sudden surge of or outcry against abortions in Mass. No facts changed on abortion between the time Romney ran and the time he became pro-life.
If Ron Paul wins, no one will pay the income tax to the Fed which will stop future funding of wars.
I stand corrected about Stockwell Day. However, the guy never did get much airtime in my part of the federation (Québec), hence why I may have missed it. Back then, the Alliance was not very popular around here ...
:wq
After reading a lot of these comments I have 2 thoughts that I want to share:
1) Maybe I just didn't look deep enough.. but there has been little or no discussion about something that I consider to be a really important issue - Ron Paul is now the only presidential candidate that is *against* the Real ID act. That's a big deal for me. I definitely don't want a chipped and trackable national ID card that I am *required* to carry by law. That is so blatantly unconstitutional it's scary. I don't want to elect anyone that will be willing to give up our constitutional rights of privacy and citizenship anymore than they already have been. Actually fixing these issues we have now would be a plus (like the current lack of Habeas Corpus - "Wait, you're saying you can come into my house without a warrant and put me in prison for life without a trial? And it's legal for me to be tortured there??". Sure, maybe this will never happen to good, law-biting, non-terrorist citizens like you and me, but the fact that they can if they want to is way too much power. Same for the ID cards... what are the implications of a system like that?
2) The entire concept of "electablity" implies that the *media* has already decided who the winner of the elections will be and that our votes don't really matter unless we vote for the candidates they've selected. I understand that in the end it may seem that we have to chose the lesser of two evils and throw our vote to the most likely candidates so that our vote can have some semblance of meaning. However, not voting for who you believe in and instead voting for who you are told will be the winner is essentially allowing the media to elect our president (and of course they're voting for whoever brings them more money). Regardless of what the surveys and polls try to suggest, they are not the election, and the decisions aren't made until the actual votes are tallied. But even then, we've allowed a system to be put in place that actually devalues our voting power (Bush didn't win the popular vote, but he still became president), so maybe this is a moot point... In the end, meaningless or not, might as well stay true to our values.
Not only the conservatives can make a point on principle. Is that the same thing with Ron Paul.
And what about the Green party? In 2000 with Al Gore IIRC, they had the same thing. And what we got was W.
i would offer that if US politicians left their religion outside of the policy making, people would be less apprehensive about their faith. I think that Americans need to have a general moral barometer that is not solely based on religion. We don't need religion to know a legitimate war from an illegitimate one. Or religion to tell us how to handle illegal immigration, or Social security or illegal wire-taps. One should look at the rule of law, and on both sides of the political arena gauge whether its moral or immoral, not whether it appeals to one's own religion. To illustrate: I was in Mexico during the equivalent to the "state of the union" speech, and the president of Mexico spoke for close to an hour. Not one single mention of the word God or Jesus...this is interesting for two reasons: first this country is basically catholic - and thanking Jesus would have mirrored the sentiment of almost all the constituents, and yet he didn't. Second his party PAN, is the conservative one with close ties to the catholic church. Interestingly it is because of how imprudent politically it would be to flaunt that, that he refrained from doing so. In other words it seems like politics and religion can remain separate - at least in public addresses. That should be a nice first step for American politicians.
You have evidently been listening to the media about the Fair Tax. You should really investigate what it is before judging it. Try reading some of the economist analysis and what it really means. You can easily do some research on it by going to http://www.fairtax.org/
As for Huckabee? Do you honestly believe a president can force a theocracy down the throats of a nation? I'm pretty sure he doesn't believe that. However, he is shrewd enough to know where his base is and I'm sure that he plays up his Christianity to consolidate it.
Setting his threshold to 5, Sparky eliminated most of the trolls on /.
I don't have a large problem with the fair tax. I guess it comes down to a lot more business being done under the table. I've asked local businesses for their best cash price before, knowing that they might go under the table and discount me half the taxes. With the fair tax this kind of business would increase drastically. It adds a 23% difference to the already attractive dodging of business taxes and sales taxes.
Not only does the tax code need to be changed, but we need to have an amendment against an income tax, and we need to stop stifling our economy with such his tax rates. 23% of every dollar spent should not go to the federal government. Period.
You win or you don't. Right now Ron Paul is staying in to shift the debate, not to win. He is killing Romney's business voters. Watch him endorse McCain after he concedes.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
How would they get enough votes? The same way you get things past a Senate filibuster--by buying votes with earmarks and pet projects. The more votes you need from the other party to get a bill passed, the more pork you're going to need to load onto the bill.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I don't believe Huckabee would succeed in making us a Theocracy. I believe he would waste most of his political pull on religious issues though (with the exception of the tax code). After Bush and his 3 trillion budget we need a Republican that acts like a Republican and makes some serious changes. If he's busy throwing around his weight on religious issues how can he address the real problems?
Independent journalist Allan Nairn and American Conservative correspondent Kelley Beaucar Vlahos discuss a little-addressed facet of the 2008 campaign: many of the top advisers to leading presidential candidates are ex-U.S. officials involved in atrocities around the world.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/3/vote_for_change_atrocity_linked_us
[Most likely DemocracyNow can handle plenty of hits, but you never know... so here is the full transcript]
AMY GOODMAN: Presidential candidates are scrambling to win last-minute support in Iowa ahead of tonight's caucus. Thousands of reporters have also descended on Iowa this week, covering everything from Mike Huckabee's haircut to John Edwards's rally with singer John Mellencamp.
But little attention has been paid to perhaps one of the most important aspects of the candidates: their advisers, the men and women who likely form the backbone of the candidate's future cabinet if elected president. Many of the names will be familiar.
Advisers to Hillary Rodham Clinton include many former top officials in President Clinton's administration: former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former National Security Adviser Samuel Berger, former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. Senator Barack Obama's list includes President Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, former Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross.
Rudolph Giuliani's advisers include Norman Podhoretz, one of the fathers of the neoconservative movement. John McCain's list of official and formal policy advisers includes former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, General Colin Powell, William Kristol of The Weekly Standard, and former CIA Director James Woolsey. One of Mitt Romney's top advisers is Cofer Black, the former CIA official who now serves as vice chair of Blackwater Worldwide. Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter Elizabeth is advising Fred Thompson.
As for Mike Huckabee, it's not clear. In December, Huckabee listed former UN Ambassador John Bolton as someone with whom he either has "spoken or will continue to speak," but Bolton then revealed the two had never spoken. Huckabee also named Richard Allen, but the former National Security Adviser also admitted he had never spoken to Huckabee.
To talk more about the advisers behind the presidential campaigns, I'm joined by two guests. Kelley Vlahos is a freelance journalist in Washington. Her article on presidential advisers called "War Whisperers" appeared in The American Conservative in October. Investigative journalist Allan Nairn joins us here in the firehouse studio. We welcome you both to Democracy Now!
I want to begin by going to Washington, D.C., to our guest there, to the author of "War Whisperers." Talk about why you focused, Kelley, on the advisers of the presidential candidates.
KELLEY BEAUCAR VLAHOS: Well, it was becoming clear to me and to others here in Washington in certain circles that the advisers that were emerging for the campaigns, whether it be Democratic or Republican, were part of some seriously pro-establishment cliques. And I say "cliques," because there is really no other way to describe it. But these cliques generally can be categorized as not only pro-establishment, but more pro-interventionist, whether it be the so-called liberal interventionists on the Democratic side or your war hawks on the Republican side.
But what became clear is that the candidates weren't reaching outside of these establishment cliques and that they were getting no fresh ideas, no vision outside of these pretty standard parameters. And we thought--me and the editors thought it might be a good idea to explore a little bit under the surface about where these of advisers were coming from, in hopes of maybe deciphering where foreign policy might be going in the future.
AMY GOODMAN: Let's begin with Hillary Clinton, Kelley Vla
Shouldn't a Christian vote with their Bible? Certainly, it would be stupid to vote for the candidate just because he labels himself Christian. It is shameful so many made that mistake with Bush II. But if religion is more than just a hat you wear, shouldn't your beliefs strongly influence everything you do, including voting? As a Christian, I search for the candidate who will do the most good and the least evil. I want the candidate who will make the USA the kindest country possible, the candidate who will support life at every age (not just conception through birth!), and a candidate who will otherwise lead us in being the best country we can be. Just so, as a person with a disability I'd like them to support the repair of the ADA. As a citizen, I want someone who will support civil liberties in all their forms and restore those that have been abridged. I vote my beliefs, on a balance of all my beliefs, every election. Everyone should. If your beliefs are truly held, how can they not help you decide who to vote for? I haven't decided on way or another on Huckabee or any other candidate, but when I do it won't be based on his club membership card. It will depend on how well his platform and predictable performance matches up with my beliefs, biblical and otherwise, as compared to the other choices.
Ron Paul is my candidate even though I disagree with his stance on the war, he is the closest of who I am. What I find funny are the liberals who love Paul. He is the ANTI-LIBERAL, but I welcome their vote for my candidate. If I can't get Paul, then I go to Romney or Huckabee. If McCain becomes the nominee, I'll vote for Obama, atleast you'll know what you're voting for with Obama.
-------- Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. --Ozzy
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Does India count?
Faith means not having to plan. It means believing that your actions are guided by a higher purpose. Not planning is precisely where this administration went wrong.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
They watched all the debates. They heard what all the candidates had to say. They researched all the candidates positions. They voted, and all the other candidates' supporters had the same chance to vote at the same time, overwhelmingly in favor of Ron Paul having won the debates as *EVIDENCED* by the immediate poll results following each of the debates. Those who actually watched the debates and cared enough about what was said to text a vote or check a box on a website, as opposed to these being fed regurgitated second hand spun media propaganda, voted Ron Paul as the best Republican candidate.
The tide is turning. The credibility damage suffered en masse by the various old broadcast media outlets has never been higher in a shorter period of time. The internet will become more and more a valuable truly free market source of information distribution in the future, and as the magic 8-ball would say, as evidenced by the numerous dismissals of positive support as "spam", all signs point to Ron Paul.
Has a grass roots effort ever exposed more systemic corruption in the political system of the USA in shorter a time? The effort has already been a galvanizing success. From reporting other primary candidates dumping bought stacks of straw poll tickets, to the blatant media censorship and favoritism, to the biased propaganda agenda selected questions that differ per candidate, to the differing time allotments at so called "debates" (really, I think we will see in the future same question, same time limit, with shut off microphones at expiration), the groundwork has been set for radical positive change in the future. It portends extremely well for the future. How far Ron Paul goes in this primary process is just bonus icing on the cake. And how many slashdot readers and posters will be voting for Ron Paul in the Super Tuesday primaries tomorrow. I'll be one of them in Illinois tomorrow. Go *ME*!
"From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
The problem with Ron Paul is that despite his logical and well thought out policies (and they are excellent), he simply comes off as a weird old dude. He has no charisma and no sense of being a striking, powerful leader, which is what leads so many people here to drop baseless allegations like "Oh wow, that nigga be crazy" without having any evidence at all to back it up!
Seriously? Egypt? When was the last time they had a change of government because someone lost an election? Palestine is not currently recognized as an independent nation. You are probably right about Lebanon being a democracy, but with elections being constantly threatened by assassinations I am not sure that it can be claimed that they have a truly representative government. Afghanistan does not have a democracy. The president was elected in a manner similar to US original electoral college -- the local warlords got to pick who they all agreed on. I must admit I don't know enough about Indonesia, so you might be right about it. Chad, yemen, UAE are actually theocracies, so I don't know why you would bring them up. Interestingly, you forgot the most obvious one -- Turkey. It is certainly predominately Muslim and it is certainly democratic. They actually have a full separation of church (so to speak) and state.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Considering the decline in Christian religious attendance over the course of the 20th century (not to mention other religions gaining footholds in GOD'S COUNTRY) it sort of indicated that not that high a percentage people in the US want to hear what Preachers have to say. He's been backpedaling from when he was one and trying to play up how he's an effective Governor not a Priest. It's not sticking. He might as well carry a cross to his rallies and most of the people attending wish he would.
Fundies Only Fundies will vote for him, any other sort of Republican will run in terror.
By that mark, you can see the percentage of Fundies in the party showing their colors.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
...if Ron Paul were elected President, he would be persona non grata on the Hill, and therefore could get nothing done. Just based on the powers of the president that every sixth-grader knows about:1) He is commander-in-chief: he can tell the military to leave Iraq immediately.
2) He is head of the executive branch: he could order the justice dept to either charge all the people in Guatanamo, or let them go.
3) He can pardon: he could pardon every prisoner in the country who is in for consensual drug crimes ( this is something like 1/3 ).
4) He could nominate SCOTUS replacements who have read the constitution recently.
And that is just the obvious stuff. Then there are all kinds of obscure powers, such as directives and signing statements.
Then there is the ability to veto.
Indeed.
No politician who supports the hideous, free-speech-trampling,
McCain-Feingold bill can be considered conservative.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -- George Orwell
He is the most liberal Republican in memory. The only conservative value he has is for the war effort. He will never get the conservative vote. Being a nominee will split the party and destroy it. He should run as a Independent. I won't vote for him as a Republican.
For example, say you have an item that costs $10. Under the Fair Tax system, the government would collect $3 on tax on that item, bringing the total price to $13. You compute the tax rate from the total price so it comes out to 23%:
$3/$13 = 23%
The way you compute the tax rate on traditional sales tax is from the pre-tax rate, so a $3 tax on a $10 item would be 30%:
$3/$10 = 30%
If you want to combine what the Fair Tax would be with your existing sales tax, you'd be looking at a 37.75% tax.
Actually the straw polls for the media is entirely different than the delegates elected at the caucus. As of now, Maine, Iowa, Nevada, Louisiana - every caucus state - has not selected any national delegates. That won't be for awhile, months in some cases. Every state has different rules and some caucus rules are even odder than others. In most states caucus' elected delegates can vote for whomever they please at the county/state level later on. In many cases the actual percentage of delegates who were elected were different based on their voting slate than they were in the straw poll. Ron Paul and Hucklebee have great grassroot support and their delegate lists who were elected are very different than straw polls. What the media reports are estimates. I wouldn't be surprised for changes in the delegates once the caucus go through the full selection process. Unfortunately this isn't for months and by then the nomination is a fix. So winning a straw poll can cause a false media sensation even if they don't 'win' a states delegates. We can't make voting easy now ;)
Not discussing Ron Paul here is deeply sad. I expect the Slashdot crowd to be able to see past the glossing over of issues that the corporate media pushes and be able to see the importance of the battle of philosophies of government that the Paul campaign represents. The other 3 candidates are pretty generic politicians. They'll say whatever they think is most likely to get them elected. There are generic platitudes and dealing with as few issues in the most generic way possible and your typical political BS but no real substance there. In the meantime there are debates raging over philosophies of government, its just not being reported on so you don't hear about it much. For some reason actually covering politics, not politicians and political trivia is distasteful in American media.
In general Ron Paul's most controversial policy seems to be the one opposing the war and unfortunately he's not very charismatic about explaining why he holds his position. He mostly points to the constitution to defend his position expecting people to understand the reasons behind why the constitution says what it does, but that goes over most people's heads these days.
There are huge competing ideologies in our government right now and a Ron Paul candidacy shines an important light on a few debates we need to be having. They are uncomfortable topics for a lot of powerful people and so getting the debate started is difficult but its important enough that we Slashdotters should be behind it 100%.
My biggest issue with the government as it exists now is our foreign policies and how they keep pushing "Making the world safe for democracy" while, in practice, they do the exact opposite. Any action by us, designed to influence the government of a foreign country is an action that subverts and does damage to democracy. This goes for toppling, subsidizing, backing militarily, or any other type of support for any government, good or bad. Any time we do these things we do them either because they are in the best interest of Americans or because Americans think its the right thing to do. The problem is that this inevitably taints whatever outcome, good or bad, with the fact that it was, at least partially, a reflection of the interests of Americans not the interests of the citizens of that country. As democracy is only really democracy if the government is one that solely represents and acts upon the will of it's citizenry. Any government which is serving the interests of the US in any way, isn't really a democracy. All our meddling in other countries, no matter how well intentioned, undermines peace and security there. This is true, not just in theory, but it's visible in practice in almost every country the CIA has tried to advance the "American" agenda. The disasters they have wrought have killed millions and subverted democracy all over the world and very likely even here in the US. Our government shouldn't, and arguably doesn't have the authority to do these things and yet they keep happening.
Just look at the cold war for example: We were so worried about Russia spreading communism to the world that we were willing to commit atrocities to keep it from happening. Look a few years later and not only are they not trying to push communism on other countries, they've abandoned it themselves. Now.. instead of committing atrocities to save a bad thing from happening.. looking back all we really did was commit atrocities. In fact, contrary to the goal of making the world safe for us, these middlings have made the world a very unsafe place for us. This is the thing the war-mongers don't want people to see. They want you to see everything in terms of either we keep fighting until we win or we give up and they win. A battle of ideas isn't like that though. Often, the harder you fight the worse you make everything.
The 3 major Republican candidates are trying to sell me protection from nebulous bad guys who are out to get me. I'm not buying it. They are ending up using that power
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
Does anyone else take this as a deliberate flamebait article so that the only candidate talked about IS Ron Paul?
Nice social engineering CmdrTaco!
A: A Mainer.
Q: What do you call a person who lives in Maine during the winter?
A: A Mainiac.
Sorry, had to be said. ;)
I would prefer that there be no illegal immigration to this country. I would prefer that all immigrants be legal. Unfortunately, that can't happen with our current immigration policies. I think I read that with the current immigration quotas, the queue of people waiting to immigrate from Mexico and Central America is over 100 years.
I suspect that for most of these people, it's not that they want to break the law, they simply have no choice if they want to feed their families.
A Republican will be elected is if nobody else runs, GWB has been such a total mistake that people will need time to forget or find a Democrat that is as much of a failure to swing public opinion the other way!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
I have been following the US elections simply because US has such a huge impact on the rest of the world, The only candidate on both party's that i would vote for is Ron Paul.
I have watched the debates and besides being a media circus and joke, the only candidate that has even tried to bring up real issues instead of manufactured ones is Ron Paul. If I was a American I would vote for him.
Not being from Arkansas I have no prior experience with what he's done but I have to say that I like the way Mike Huckabee thinks and I like what I've heard about him and from him. He's one of the few Republican candidates to come out and say, hey, maybe Bush did jump in to Iraq a little too quickly. But unlike the democratic candidates or Ron Paul, Huckabee is still clear on the fact that we need to finish what we started.
I also sort of like that he gets attacked by Rush and Hannity for doing exactly what he says he's going to do. For instance, he raised the sales tax by 37%. What the actual numbers are I have no idea but that probably means something like 3.0% to 4.0%. He also lowered income taxes. Overall they're saying he thus "raised taxes" by 800 some million and only lowered them by 300 some million. But I assume they are talking about revenue there and to me it's totally consistent with his position that we need to lower or completely rid ourselves of income/production taxes and raise sales/consumption taxes to get the revenue the government needs to run. Huckabee is a fair-taxer, which I like.
Huckabee is also against the "school vouchers" program and his reasoning is quite interesting. He feels that giving vouchers to parochial schools could be used by an organization like the ACLU to try to claim that parochial schools were now receiving government funding and were thus subject to government rules. Instead, Huckabee would like to reduce the tax burden so that families could simply afford themselves to send their kids to alternative schools.
He's also an evangelical preacher and seems to be a rather moderate one. I myself am not an evangelical (much more traditional.. episcopalian if anything) but I like that Huckabee is a religious man who seems to know that religion has its place and government has its place. They are intertwined in principles and goals but one of our founding principles is that religion is not part of the state. Of course my brother the democrat doesn't like him because he fears a theocracy. I like him for the same reason though. That is to say I too fear a theocracy and also fear the government trying to take over the role of religion (i.e. the religion of atheistic government). I feel that Huckabee is definitely a supporter of separation of church and state and knows that religion has a place in people's lives for those who choose to believe.
The problem is that Huckabee has really screwed up by not going after McCain and instead only going after Romney. Both Huckabee and McCain have had the foresight to take on main-stream media issues like health care, education, and global warming. The difference I've seen is that Huckabee has moderate/conservative answers but McCain's answers seem to be to just bow to whatever the Democrats have proposed. Huckabee would have been a lot better off to leave the contrast between him and Romney implicit because it is obvious enough. And he should have contrasted himself with McCain because the difference there is subtle but I think very important.
So now I'm left in a situation where I'm voting 1 week after tomorrow. If Huckabee drops out, I'm going with Romney. If he gets enough in Super Tuesday to have a chance and he stays in the race despite the media pressure for him to drop out then I'm going with Huckabee, even if I think McCain might wind up winning. I'm not voting for Romney just to vote against McCain, even though I dislike him. It's a long shot but we'll see.
"Because his campaign is growing tramendeously. The polls don't say so..."
So how do you know?
Popular: McCain by 8 pts over Romney, 30 pts over Huck. Paul around 5% and some confused people for Giuliani and Thompson.
Delegates: Winner take all, so landslide by McCain. Romney does well in certain states. Romney drops out. Paul continues the crusade.
"Ron Paul is UNELECTABLE"
I fixed that for you. Nothing else you said matters, because that point is true.
And no, flaming me won't make Paul more electable. Nothing will actually, he can't win.
Depends on which fathers you speak about. Jefferson most definitely was against religion. Thomas Pain and Ben Franklin were also, and Washington may have been to some extent. Some of the others not so much. Others, such as Patrick Henry, were definitely pro-religion. You can pick and choose quotes from any of them to try to prove either argument.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
I would prefer that there be no illegal immigration to this country. I would prefer that all immigrants be legal. Unfortunately, that can't happen with our current immigration policies. I think I read that with the current immigration quotas, the queue of people waiting to immigrate from Mexico and Central America is over 100 years.
I suspect that for most of these people, it's not that they want to break the law, they simply have no choice if they want to feed their families.
It may be harsh, but their need does not mean we need to change our laws. Any society can only accept immigrants at a certain rate without destabilization. We have been fairly liberal with that in the past, but would go well past that today if we let everyone come, especially given that we have no more frontier to absorb them. I speak Spanish poorly; I started learning too late. My daughter will do better, but many people have not gone down that road at all. It takes at least a full generation for both society and the immigrants to adapt.
Part of the sacrifice my family made is that they could not all come at once, and some of them never came at all. They stayed behind when the Communists took over their country and we do not know what ever became of them. But that is not America's fault. The fact that America took any of us in at all, gave us a chance to start over, is a kindness. We were not owed anything. Charity and compassion is a good thing, but the idea of entitlement to that generosity is dangerous and mildly disturbing.
The better approach is to change some of our practices, like destructive trade agreements that wiped out Mexican farmers, change our approach to the drug war which will reduce the corruption and instability in their country, reduce the welfare state here that is part of the attraction. There are lots of ways to approach the problem without opening the flood gates. The same practices that will help them may also prevent us from going down the tubes, so there is much to gain by looking at the real problems. My family fled one country that let itself come apart. I don't intend to flee this one.
Someone with intellectual reasoning ability please mod the parent post up. As for me, do whatever you want: I've got more karma than you've got mod points.
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
That is, of course, total nonsense.
It is the typical dishonest attempt at the "Heads I win, Tails you lose!" all-time classic of religious "argument". If the tenets do not work, thats the fault of "bad apples", atheists, heathens, wiccans, Satanists, [fill-in-your-boogeyman-here], for the tenets are divinely true! And if they do work, that's because they are divinely true!!
Then there are fun facts such as this: If you take statistics of atheists you will find the crime rates much, much lower then those representative of members of any major religion. I am sure that one fits nicely with your argument...
Why? The reason of course being that most atheists lived in totalitarian states where the side-effect of everpresent surveilance/police aparatus was very, very low crime rate amongst the population.
Also speaking of "bad apples". Wasn't that witch hunt/burning business Christians so loved like a whole village enterntainment? Mobs of Good God Fearing Christians, in pretty much every village and town in Europe, roamed about in search of witches, not satisfied until some woman was on the stake. Fun for the whole family!
Oh and then are the religious wars, neighbours against neighbour, trying to see who can stake and disembowel more men, skin their wives and skewer their children. In the name of God!
And then all those "Bad Apple" Germans in 1930-40s, some 40 million of them....
And on and on and on ... "bad apples" one after another ... whole barrels of them .... rivers ... sea of bad apples ....
No I think finding "good apples" amongst Christians and other organized, power-hungry religious lunacies, amongst all that pig-headed, ignorant, bigotted, self-centered, hypocritical assholery is the needle in the haystack type of search indeed.
Exactly. If the law makes something reasonable and rational impossible, the law becomes irrelevant (and is probably obviously wrong.) This — sadly — is true for much of US law today.
The distinction between illegal and legal immigrant cannot rationally be made on whether someone has queued in an impossibly long line, or not. The legitimate concern we have is whether someone is contributing to society, or not. But you can't figure that out pre-immigration anyway. Those who think we can are those same people that are for creating an underclass of permanently guilty people for any particular infraction, and I have no sympathy with those people at all. If someone wants to come here, let them. Then leave them alone unless they step on the liberties of their fellow residents. Give them a chance to participate, contribute, etc. If they fail, ok, fine, send them back where they came from or have them work off any obligations incurred somehow.
But the current system assumes guilt and incompetence in a new situation prior to any such demonstration, and despite being a fairly consistent cynic, I just can't buy that. Innocent until proven guilty, then a fresh start when the price for the infraction is paid. The penalty should be proportional to the infraction. Anything else is barbaric.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
He's a kook because he's an honest man trying to succeed as a politician.
But he's succeeded: 10 terms in congress (so far) - with progressively increasing margins (despite being penalized in the pork brought back to his district for his opposition to earmarks). Broke the all-time presidential candidate contributor rake-in record last quarter (and he did it with individual contributions averaging around $100, not party, corporate, and PAC money.) Beating the media-anointed front-runner in several early primary/caucus states.
He's shown that an honest man CAN be a successful politician. And started a movement that is bringing OTHER honest players into the game. (Watch as the precinct leaders of his campaign start running for office. That is already being planned online. B-) ) Even if he misses the presidential nomination it won't invalidate his success to date.
If being so massively correct and successful makes him a "kook" then we need more kooks like that. (And we're about to get them, big time. B-) )
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Does 60% of all threads debating a person qualify them for "You can debate them" status?
I'm just saying this out of consideration for our mods who have a lot of -1 off topics to do, otherwise.
Democrats, Republicans, who the fuck cares? It's what the man says, his past actions that back up his words, and independent agreement with his ideas that matter.
For perpetuating the belief that political parties should be given any priority whatsoever when one is deciding on a candidate to vote for, I hereby name you a douchebag.
An Anonymous Coward called me a liar! Ah, what a blow! Straight to my heart! I am getting weaker ... lights are fading .... such a burden ... such a collosal, towering, monumental authority has weighted against me! Has life any meaning left after this!? Oh the horror! The terror! Oh will my epithaph say: "Here lies he who was called a liar by a cowardly Anonymous Coward"? Will the future generations bear this?! Will the planet Earth explode?! Will the Universe collapse upon itself because of this?!
Then again maybe not.
Seemed timely what with this topic, so I thought I'd post my Republican predictions for tomorrow that I blogged earlier today: I've seen a lot of good analysis of the Democratic Super Tuesday race thus far, but haven't really seen anything comprehensive on the Republican side. So, I decided to write one myself. I suppose most people are largely ignoring it, because the Democratic race is far more exciting right now with McCain being all but guaranteed of winning the nomination. But, let's see if that's really the case... The delegate count as of today sits at the following: McCain - 97 Romney - 92 Huckabee - 29 Paul - 6 (note, this includes the Maine caucuses, which Romney won over the weekend) So, there are 21 states that will be competing on Super Tuesday. Let's start with the WTA (Winner Take All) states. These are: Missouri, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Utah, and W. Virginia. Arkansas could be winner take all if someone wins greater than 50% of the vote, but I don't see that happening with Huckabee, so we assume it's not WTA. Of these 10 states, 3 of them are caucuses, Montana, North Dakota, and West Virginia. Montana (25 delegates) and North Dakota (26 delegates) look to be firmly in Romney's camp. More on West Virginia later. Of the other 7 WTA states, Romney will win Utah (36 delegates), and McCain will win New York (101 delegates), New Jersey (52), Arizona (53), and Connecticut (30). This leaves 3 states, Missouri (58), Delaware (18), and W. Virginia (Weird delegate system. They will hand out 18 delegates and then another 12 in a May 13th primary), which are very close. Missouri is going to be a tough one to call. Most of the latest polls show McCain with a slight advantage (3-5%), but both Romney and Huckabee are polling quite high. If enough conservatives move from Huckabee to Romney, Romney could be a surprise here. I'm going to keep this in the Too Close to Call column for now though. Delaware has only a single poll conducted in the last 3 months, and it has McCain with a 6 point lead over Romney with 10% unsure. I feel a little more comfortable giving this one to McCain, since Huckabee is only polling at 7%. Lastly, West Virginia, is a big unknown. I can't find a single poll for the state within the last year. Because it's a Caucus state, and caucus states tend to benefit those with the most money and organization, I'm going to give it to Romney. But, I really don't know about this one. So, after the 10 Winner Take All States, the count for WTA states would be as follows. McCain: 254 (New York, New Jersey, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware) Romney: 87 (Montana, North Dakota, Utah, West Virginia) Huckabee/Paul: 0 Too Close Too Call: Missouri (58 delegates) Now, we get into the "fun" states. Those that give proportional delegates based on percentage of vote. Unfortunately, the process is frustratingly different from state to state. So, I'm going to use a general rule of thumb, as follows, which will hopefully average out. The state winner gets all At-Large Delegates, State Party Delegates, and Bonus Delegates. The District Level Delegates are awarded to each candidate as a percentage of their total votes. So, for example, in California the state winner gets 14 delegates (10+3+1) and the other 159 delegates are split based on percentage. So, if McCain wins 50% of the vote, he'd get an additional 80 delegates. Romney with 25% would get an additional 40 delegates, etc... It's a little more complex than this, but for simplicities sake, I'm going to do it this way. I'll go in alphabetical order... Alabama (48) - 21 delegates are awarded by district and 27 to the winner of the state. McCain has a strong lead and should win this state, provided there isn't a max exodus from the Huckabee camp to Romney. I think there will be some, but not enough. McCain gets 27 for winning + 9 proportionally. Romney gets 6 and Huckabee gets 6. Alaska (29) - Caucus state with 26 going to the winner and 3 being split to winners of districts. Ron Pa
You are the second person I've heard from that understands Christ's teachings regarding mistreatment from others on such a level. The first was a former soldier. I spent the better part of two years trying to argue the point on an online Bible forum. Jesus said that His teachings would be hard to understand. They were hard enough for an oppressed people who wished freedom from their oppressors. It is harder still for a people who believe they are free and self-sufficient. "...it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich [i.e., self-sufficient] man to enter the kingdom of God."
As to sin as it's described in the Bible, don't let the messengers of Satan deceive you. As the apostles said, the followers of Satan would like nothing better than to convince you that nothing is evil so long as your intent is good. But how many millions of moral mistakes have been made using that logic?
Resistance is futile. Your technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. You will become one with the morgue
From most to least abhorrent, McCain (somebody flash a queen of hearts at him, see what happens), Romney (a true RINO from one of our Eastern Coastal People's Republics) and the Huckster (please, no more Arkansas governors).
I'll be voting for Dr. Paul, thank you.
More like, an enthusiastic support base. Even more like: A LARGE support base.
His meetup membership alone (groups + waiting list) is now 72.8% of the US troop strength in Iraq. And still surging.
With so many ACTIVE, internet-savvy supporters, mentioning his name in any forum indexed by Google creates a slashdotting.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I think most of us are SICK of the guy. And when I say "most" I mean all of us non-Libertarians. Libertarians can't possibly get sick of hearing about the man. Sorry, but he has no chance. I do know about him (in spite of the media mercifully not talking about him) and there's no way in hell I'd vote for him. Even though he has some sensible positions, he has plenty of nutbag positions that more than counteract the good ones.
Thankfully, he has NO REAL CHANCE of winning. Here, look:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/
* TOTAL DELEGATES
Needed to Win: 1,191
97 John McCain
92 Mitt Romney
29 Mike Huckabee
6 Ron Paul
But we're not through Super Tuesday, right? I mean, all those polls could be fixed, he *could* break the 10% support barrier somewhere! That might even win him double-digit delegates! I mean, he's doing better than some of the folks who have dropped out! That's good, right?
Why don't we put this in market terms. Libertarians supposedly understand money, right? Here's the kind of support he has:
Overall Fundraising Leaders
CANDIDATE TOTAL as of 09/30/2007
Hillary Clinton $90,935,788
Barack Obama $80,256,427
Mitt Romney $62,829,069
Rudy Giuliani $47,253,521
John McCain $32,124,785
John Edwards $30,329,152
Bill Richardson $18,699,937
Fred Thompson $12,828,111
Chris Dodd $13,598,152
Ron Paul $8,268,453
(provided by FEC)
Damn FEC! All part of a giant federal conspiracy! It's simply not possible that most people thing he's a nutbag but are too polite or scared to say that to his rabid supporters.
I mean, the man believes in the Constitution! And Mom! And Apple Pie! Voting against Dr. Paul is like hating freedom! The other candidates are all evil Socialists who care more about people being healthy and happy instead of things that really matter, like gold which they tend to call "my preeeeciousssss."
How could anyone hate someone like that?
Second posting -- first one, I forgot to use plain text formatting. Sorry about that.
I've seen a lot of good analysis of the Democratic Super Tuesday race thus far, but haven't really seen anything comprehensive on the Republican side. So, I decided to write one myself. I suppose most people are largely ignoring it, because the Democratic race is far more exciting right now with McCain being all but guaranteed of winning the nomination. But, let's see if that's really the case...
The delegate count as of today sits at the following:
McCain - 97
Romney - 92
Huckabee - 29
Paul - 6
(note, this includes the Maine caucuses, which Romney won over the weekend)
So, there are 21 states that will be competing on Super Tuesday. Let's start with the WTA (Winner Take All) states. These are: Missouri, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Utah, and W. Virginia. Arkansas could be winner take all if someone wins greater than 50% of the vote, but I don't see that happening with Huckabee, so we assume it's not WTA.
Of these 10 states, 3 of them are caucuses, Montana, North Dakota, and West Virginia. Montana (25 delegates) and North Dakota (26 delegates) look to be firmly in Romney's camp. More on West Virginia later.
Of the other 7 WTA states, Romney will win Utah (36 delegates), and McCain will win New York (101 delegates), New Jersey (52), Arizona (53), and Connecticut (30).
This leaves 3 states, Missouri (58), Delaware (18), and W. Virginia (Weird delegate system. They will hand out 18 delegates and then another 12 in a May 13th primary), which are very close. Missouri is going to be a tough one to call. Most of the latest polls show McCain with a slight advantage (3-5%), but both Romney and Huckabee are polling quite high. If enough conservatives move from Huckabee to Romney, Romney could be a surprise here. I'm going to keep this in the Too Close to Call column for now though. Delaware has only a single poll conducted in the last 3 months, and it has McCain with a 6 point lead over Romney with 10% unsure. I feel a little more comfortable giving this one to McCain, since Huckabee is only polling at 7%. Lastly, West Virginia, is a big unknown. I can't find a single poll for the state within the last year. Because it's a Caucus state, and caucus states tend to benefit those with the most money and organization, I'm going to give it to Romney. But, I really don't know about this one.
So, after the 10 Winner Take All States, the count for WTA states would be as follows.
McCain: 254 (New York, New Jersey, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware)
Romney: 87 (Montana, North Dakota, Utah, West Virginia)
Huckabee/Paul: 0
Too Close Too Call: Missouri (58 delegates)
Now, we get into the "fun" states. Those that give proportional delegates based on percentage of vote. Unfortunately, the process is frustratingly different from state to state. So, I'm going to use a general rule of thumb, as follows, which will hopefully average out. The state winner gets all At-Large Delegates, State Party Delegates, and Bonus Delegates. The District Level Delegates are awarded to each candidate as a percentage of their total votes. So, for example, in California the state winner gets 14 delegates (10+3+1) and the other 159 delegates are split based on percentage. So, if McCain wins 50% of the vote, he'd get an additional 80 delegates. Romney with 25% would get an additional 40 delegates, etc... It's a little more complex than this, but for simplicities sake, I'm going to do it this way.
I'll go in alphabetical order...
Alabama (48) - 21 delegates are awarded by district and 27 to the winner of the state. McCain has a strong lead and should win this state, provided there isn't a max exodus from the Huckabee camp to Romney. I think there will be some, but not enough. McCain gets 27 for winning + 9 proportionally. Romney gets 6 and Huckabee gets 6.
Alaska (29) - Caucus state with 26 going to th
I see a lot of Ron Paul supporters spouting a bunch of hyperbole about Ron Paul. While he's a good speaker, and makes his points fairly intelligently, most of his economic policies are downright stupid, and any real economist will tell you he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Libertarians are not who you should go to for economic advice. They paint the federal reserve as the source of all of our economic problems, and suggest going back to the gold standard. This is ridiculous. We had enormous monetary problems before the federal reserve came into play and we had a way of regulating the economy. However, if you hear Ron Paul tell it, things were all roses before the federal reserve, and the fed has done nothing but cause inflation. Inflation predates the federal reserve.
Ron Paul suggests the Federal Reserve causes inflation, but *his* plan is to have congress print money whenever they feel like it, as if *that* won't case the exact same problem even more so. At least the Fed is run by trained professionals with a long term interest in maintaining the stability of the banking industry and the economy at large. Congress is not qualified to determine how much money to dump into the economy, since they will just spend like crazy if they have the right to print money.
>1. Why is he running as a Republican?
>
>Because he embodies the true ideals of conservativism that the neo-cons have robbed from modern >Republicans.
Yes, the Republican party used to be the conservative party, and before that it used to be the *liberal* party. The name of the party means nothing, his views are not represented or sponsored by its members. The Libertarian party represents is more representative of his views at this point.
Ron Paul calling himself a Republican is like an ante-bellum southern Democrat calling himself a modern Democrat. Before the war Democrats were the social conservative pro slavery party, now they are not.
In any case, the neo conservative and libertarian economic policies are both equally stupid, so it's not like a return to 19th century economic policies would improve our situation.
>2. Why is he STILL running?
>
>Because he still has a good shot, the only thing holding him back is when news outlets don't >mention him at all. News outlets such as Slashdot.
This is a bunch of bullshit. Ron Paul isn't taken seriously because his views *can't* be taken seriously and because he does not appeal the the vast majority of voters.
The vast majority of voters do *not* want to end social security, do *not* want to end the FDA which is responsible for maintaining the safety of the food supply. Many people want a smaller more efficient federal government, including myself, but most people depend on the federal government for various services and do not want to see it dismantled.
Also, his policy that we get rid of the income tax and just have massive tariffs is stupid. I'm not saying that we should never have tariffs. However, the IRS takes in 2.5 trillion annually. This is not possible with tariffs. Even if we raised tariffs to the level where we could take in 2.5 trillion in one year, the next year we would have to raise tariffs again because trade would *decrease*. Small tariffs to spur internal industry makes some sense, but the kind of tariffs Ron Paul is talking about would *end* international trade and destroy this country. No country can survive with an isolationist policy in the modern world.
I liked how he talked when I've heard him, and I appreciated his opposition to the war and his willingness to buck the party line, but this guy is advocating economic policies that just don't make sense.
You are an asshat for omitting Dr. Paul. You know damn well taht he has a huge following among slashdotters.
Maybe if people would stop comming in illegally, then we could speed up the process for doing it legally. Do you really think they want to let in 10k people a year legally when there are already 100k comming in illegally? No, so they let in 1k.
America is a big place, bit its already getting full. Remember one of the bits of advice that the air stewardess gives in the planes? Put your own gask mask on FIRST. In other words, its hard to give a lifting hand when you are all at the bottom of the pit. Someone has to be at the top and STAY at the top. Im not trying to be cruel to immigration, but the system is getting over loaded and it has to stop before it gets better.
In regards to learning learning Spanish. Why do YOU have to learn a language to accomodate people comming into YOUR country? If they want to be accomodated into America, they need to learn English, not you Spanish. And Im not saying this as an American jerk who thinks w00T evry1 in teh W0rlD n44ds 2 lrn my language!!!111! I speak 4 languages, English, Russian German and Czech. IMO everyone needs to learn another language, but not because we need to accomodate all the illegals from Mexico by learning Spanish. You should have equal opportunity to learn French, German, Russian, Chinese, etc etc etc.
He broke double digits this past weekend in the Maine caucus, getting 19% of the vote. He trounced Huckabee, who only got 6%, yet Paul is supposed to be excluded from this discussion for some bizarre reason. More importantly, while he came in just a tad behind McCain in the Main "preference" vote, he beat the pants off him in the count of delegates to the state convention, getting 35% of 'em. (At least so far: A few small precincts haven't had their caucuses yet.) That will probably translate to a similar proportion of Maine's delegates to the national convention, again trouncing McCain in Maine. He's on the ballot here in Ohio, and I'm going to vote for him since I agree with him far more than I agree with any of the other candidates. Ditto with me here on the left coast.
That sort of thing could mean a big surprise tomorrow: California's Republican party changed the rules this year - from "winner take all" to "congressional district winner takes three". Ron Paul's campaign is apparently the only one to figure out that hitting all the districts is useful - and that heavily Democratic districts where political correctness and anti-war sentiment is rampant count as much toward the nomination as conservative districts dripping in Republicans.
Imagine how "Bring the Troops Home Now" Paul vs. "Stay For 100 More Years" McCain might play out in the state that brought you the Summer of Love, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and Nancy Pelosi.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I also worked the bunker in trap shoots, over 110F operating the machine. My dad did the same thing picking potatoes for 60 cents a day growing up. I have gutted chickens. I have dug ditches and hauled rocks. I have worked in a butcher shop. Good luck doing any of that now. You can't compete with the illegal immigrants for those jobs that were traditional for high school or college students on break or temp jobs while trying to land better employment.
Bear with me if I'm being naive, but is that currently a problem? The examples I always saw of traditional student jobs were as stockboys/cashiers (as well as doing deliveries if you had a car). Those bottom-rung jobs have paid well above minimum wage for many years, so my guess is that it's not that students "can't compete" for dirty jobs, it's that the hard working ones can get better jobs with little more than English fluency.
So what am I missing? Are my examples of better jobs really worse than digging ditches? (I suppose ditch digging can develop your work ethic and physique, whereas retail sales may just develop your misanthropy) Have I been looking at the unskilled job market in the wrong cities, or not recently enough?
Anyway, regarding Paul and immigration it's a question of principles. Someone who values freedom should have more respect for freedom of movement; even if someone can't vote or collect welfare here, if someone wants to sell or rent them a home here the government shouldn't get in the way. It's also a question of humility: a good politician should also have more respect and fear for unintended consequences. Not every job in America can be done by a non-American, but many of the rest can be outsourced regardless of whether or not you let the non-American inside US borders. The only difference immigration restrictions make in those cases is to ensure that a multinational corporation gets to take a cut as middleman.
Huckaby is a religious nut case not to say that the other ones are any better.
Romney is known here in Michigan for loving to outsource. He's loved by the ultra conservatives and hated by everybody else. Him being a mormon doesn't help. Wasn't he some sort of bishop at one time?
We vote for McCain in 2000 because we hated the push polls call from Pat Robertson for Bush.
I had to disable the ring tone on my phone so I would no longer have Pat Robertson's or Bush's phone calls. I was registered as independant so I would not be disturbed by anyone.
McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 50-100 years. He may be a hero to some but to many he is a neocon.
Only assholes on the republican side have any chances of getting nominated. The most offensive part of their campaign has to do with their sucking up to the fundies. The funny part is that they have no intention of delivering on any of their promises to those morons.
I wish we had less fundies as in Canada. This must be because of the separation of church and state in the constitution that this happened. In Québec where the state was controlled by the church, it acted as a vaccine against religion. If the fundies ever get their way here, in a generation or two religion will be a joke for most people instead of an important part of their life.
There was a funny one in Québec a few years ago in an election. There was a guy who was well on his way to become the prime minister. One day in a speech to some fundy group he said that he had been nominated leader of the liberal party by the hand of god. This sank his election and the PQ won in a landslide. For those who don't know, the conservative party in Québec is what is called the liberal party. From that day on he would be known as "La main de dieu" (The hand of god) in talk shows and stand up comedy. He started as one of the most popular politicians to a joke.
Torturing prisoners has done immense harm to Americas reputation, and made it difficult for Uncle Sam to preach human rights top others.
McCain is the only Republican candidate who looks like he wants to end this shameful chapter in Americas history.
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
"...please only discuss the Republican candidates in this story. Huckabee, McCain, and Romney only."
LOL. You are funny Taco.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
> Also I dislike that he is in favor of gun control legislation, when the 2nd amendment clearly states "Congress shall make no law."
No, that's part of the first amendment. And we've screwed it up by making all kinds of laws, but that's another matter. The second amendment doesn't mention Congress at all. When Libertarians trot out Ron Paul as the only guy who understands the Constitution, perhaps it would be a good thing to know what it actually says because it makes your endorsement into a mockery when you come out with a gaffe like that.
Worse, what's up with this next complaint? I don't support Romney for other reasons, but you say this, it worries me:
> I see him as the type of individual that could change a stance on virtually anything if the argument was persuasive enough.
I'm certainly against "reconsideration" if the "reconsideration" is insincere and nothing more than cold political manipulation for the purpose of gathering votes. But if the facts change, one SHOULD reconsider their position! To do anything else is beyond ridiculous.
I was born in Russia, lived in US, naturalized US citizen, now working in Ontario, Canada. I would like to take you to the last federal election in Canada where liberal party was bashing Steven Harper for going to church. Faith based schools were the main election issue in recent provincial election in Ontario, so stop this BS about "The US bizarre fascination for religion" and listen to something other than socialist biased Canadian media. I personaly like McCain, because he seems to be more straighforward, clear and simple, compared to wishy-washy Romney, leaving-in-the-dreamworld Huckabee and... what is the other guy's name? I cannot seem to remember...
Ron got 35% of those delegates, totally TROUNCING McCain. The state's delegates to the national convention are chosen at the state convention by a process that should preserve that margin.
(Note: Some of the smaller precincts - maybe 10% of voters - haven't had their caucuses yet. So the numbers may change slightly.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Too often we get caught up in the whole winning and losing motif when discussing the candidates. At this stage of the game, I think we would be better served by weighing in on the side of defining the issues, not the personalities. Candidates with no chance of winning will still get my vote if they stand for the things I deem to be important. Social programs come and go, the economy is better some years than others. What we cannot afford to lose, however, is our constitutional rights that have been abridged since Sept. 11. Tell me you respect the constitution and the rights of the people, and I will vote for you whether you can win or not. If enough people do the same, the other candidates will be forced to consider this issue also. It's not about the candidates, really, it's about having a good worthy country that allows its citizens to live their lives as free men in control of their own destinies as much as is possible while still remaining civilized and respectful of the same rights of others.
His record as a governor looks very solid, his proposals such as his "fair tax" are fresh ideas, and he definitely appears to be a Washington (and more importantly a Political Party) outsider. Except for the core religious right issues, his record as governor seems fairly moderate.
To be honest, if he wasn't a pastor, I suspect he would be doing far better in this election. It is the odd thing about religion in this country - Romney's record as governor doesn't match his current position on most issues, but he seems to be getting a free pass. Huckabee's record as governor is solid and matches his current positions, but the media only focuses on his religion.
But let's be honest for a moment, the elites of the Republican party who pushed Bush "because of his faith" are the same elites who are pushing Romney "because of his executive experience". The truth is, the elites push the UPPER CLASS candidates who they know will "take care of their own". As though the wealthiest Americans need any extra taking care of.
i like romney, he is slick and eh doesnt afraid of anything
eat the baby! eat the baby! can I be president now?
I did a scan of all the comments and "energy" was only mentioned **once**. This is the greatest issue of our time and of this election whether we recognize it or not. And the word was only mentioned ONCE!!!!!!!! No wonder we got "W" for a President... Ghawar, the world's largest oil reservoir is watering out. 70% of the top 100 oil reservoirs in the world are in decline. The world has to find 5 or 6 new Saudi Arabian size fields over the next 2 decades just to stay even. Oil Shale doesn't count because its "wax" (keratine) is embedded in solidified mud which means that its uneconomical to try to produce it. How many candidates are touting it as a energy savior? Do your homework!!!
If I had to list the top 5 issues of this election, they would be:
energy - how are these candidates going to address our energy needs? How are they proposing that we transition to a non fossil fuel economy? If we don't have energy, how are we going to make anything?
economy - There are over $500 Trillion Dollars in non secured derivatives out there. How are these candidates going to address a problem that threatens to take down the world economies and make the subprime mess look like a tempest in a teapot?
voting - Which one of these candidates will put in an Executive Order outlawing any voting method that does not produce a bonified paper trail?
education - It's evident it's lacking here!!!! Especially the thought process about what is really important. Candidates or issues. Until you identify the issues, you won't know who the candidates should be. ? - There isn't going to be any if energy scarcity is going to cause hyperinflation.
It's about time this country got its act together!!!
Maybe he's the candidate *you* have been asking for. He's definitely NOT the one *I* have. I do think he is either lying or dumb :), I do think he is associated with racism, think that taking the US out of Iraq *immediately* is not the right answer, and a 100% non-interventionist policy is wrong. I disagree with his positions in many other items (but don't have time to list all of them here/now).
As someone who doesn't follow politics much at all, I've been fairly exposed to this fellow thanks to Digg and general internet forum posts, he's a bit of an internet phenomenon.
I finally decided to watch some clips and interviews with the man, since some of the claims by the online supporters seemed exaggerated and ridiculous.
When I finally did watch a few interviews and did some reading my jaw basically dropped, he's probably the most logical, sensible politician I've ever heard in my life, I've never seen such honesty and what seems to be loyalty towards his country, the man just wants things to work right, he doesn't want to cock about with semantics and 'play the game' he wants to get things done.
I write this as someone from another country, but sadly too closely tied to US financials, media, politics, the US being a superpower influence all of the world, frankly I wish I could vote for this man and I don't bloody well vote in my country.
He's got my 'virtual' vote even if I can't damn well submit it.
Hopefully in 8/12/16 years, the internet will be much more powerful than it is now and television / media can't influence elections as much as they do now.
I truely believe if you sat down every single American and showed them just 10 minutes of media of this man, he'd win by a landslide but sadly, too few care or too few bother to go out and look for the information.
Well,the candidates in question might as well be Democrats as they have nothing so much different to offer that the same B.S. as any Democrat would.Too bad he didn't want to discuss Ron Paul who has shown a larger amount of support since money talks and B.S.walks.
Bottom line Ron Paul is tha man,but we aren't discussing that.Not P.C.(Clintonian concept)
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
While it's true that current prices put gold at around 3.5-4 trillion, if it reaches the inflation-adjusted high of the 80s gold would be closer to $2000 per troy ounce putting total gold value at 7.6 trillion. There is much reason to think it will reach this level: falling gold levels in Western Central Banks after years and years of liquidation and artificially suppressed prices (see GATA), increased demand for physical gold (esp. in the Middle East where they wouldn't know/care what an ETF was if it hit them in the face), inflation concerns, imminent currency and credit collapse, possible dollar hedging with gold by Asian and Russian Central Banks, etc, etc
You seem to be missing that with the fair tax you take home your WHOLE PAYCHECK. ...and you end up giving 30% of it back in taxes anyway. So what's the difference?
(Except that rich people would get more of a break than everyone else, of course.)
Ron Paul supporters have always stricken me as being more like the Ferengi than the Romulans.
The Romulans have way too powerful a national government and are very interventionist, seeing as they like to spy on and manipulate the Federation and everyone else. Basically, they represent stereotypical Chinese, just as the Klingons represent the Russians when Star Trek delves into politics.
Ferengi on the other hand value gold-pressed latinum above all else, idolize greed well beyond the point of absurdity, and have a very secular document that is completely sacred to them (Constitution vs. Rules of Acquisition), though they prefer to ignore any parts they don't like (just like a real holy book?).
I mean, when was the last time you heard a Libertarian trumpeting the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution? Hell, there's one Libertarian buried in this mass of threads who didn't know the difference between the first and second amendment. Of course, that's exactly the sort of person I'd expect to vote for Ron, so...
You want to back that statement up with an example?
Anyone care to explain exactly in what sense the parent comment is insightful? What is the insight it offers?
A candidate's religious views aren't the big issue. The problem is with the people they represent. The US constitution might be secular, but the elected officials that uphold its values tend to favor their voters more than their office. These votes come from people who hold "God's Law" above their country's. When a candidate puts their religious standing on the same pedestal as their voting record/experience in their campaign platform, they're probably going to act accordingly.
As a Yankee implant living in South Carolina, I don't want my president bending to the Will of my Southern Baptist neighbors.
Is it really true that Ron Paul does not believe in evolution?
How is waterboarding worse than being given a "swirly" as a kid? Worse things are done in our schools and it's called "bullying", but when similar techniques are used in a controlled environment so no harm will be done and in the interest of national security, it's called "torture"...
Seriously, you need to grow some balls and think about what "torture" really means. Also, how would you run an intelligence program? Offer everyone ice-cream and lollipops if they fess up?
It's OK to say waterboarding might be wrong, just try to keep things in perspective please. The claims of "torture" are ridiculous.
Can someone please explain to me why it is such an awful crime to change one's mind?
Why can't a candidate change their mind if the information they are provided changes?
Most of this country supported the war in Iraq when it began; now, hardly anyone does. They are all flip-floppers, right? Or could it be that they:
-Identified a problem
-hypothesized a solution or explanation
-tested their hypothesis against reality
-repeat
I don't support Romney (just for one example), but I think the criticism about his 'flip-flopping' regarding abortion is outrageous. The man has never been pregnant. He has ostensibly never been party to an abortion (with his wife, for example). Most people, I should hope, also never go through this experience. And then when he is faced with legislation regarding it, he looks within himself and changes his mind about it? Why wouldn't you want someone who is capable of absorbing new information, synthesizing new ideas, and acting on them?
Many of you use 'flip-flopper' as an epithet, yet Hate bush for running the country into this war. He was wrong in the first place. If he changed his mind, would you call him a flip-flopper? Or would you 'stay the course' in the interest of ego and stability? Would you rather be right or consistent?
I would like to know. I've changed my mind on many things over the course of my life. I'd hate to think that I'm less of a person because I can approach issues from new angles and change my way of thinking about them (hopefully for the better).
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
Sure he may be an underdog and long-shot candidate, but I don't think it takes a rocket scientist, much less the webmaster of Slashdot, to realize that McCain and Romney are both douchebags, the likes of which have not been seen since Bush II.
Shame on you for limiting discussion to only Romeny and McCain. Ron Paul certainly deserves to be discussed, even if he is a longshot.
John McCain: Has a reputation of being a maverick. He also has a reputation here in Arizona of ignoring his constituents to chase national media. He did a 180 on illegal immigration for the new presidential run. Look for him to govern like Bush, taking a stand on whatever looks popular at the moment. Look for policy changes weekly. I've voted for him as Senator. I probably won't be voting for him in the Primary tomorrow.
Mitt Romney: Governor of Massachusetts. One of the few who had the guts to stand up to Microsoft. His successor caved. He has changed his stand on abortion to further his political ambitions. The people I know from Mass all seemed to like him. Most of them, of course will be voting for the Democrat. Don't count him out in the General Election. He was after all, a Republican governor in Massachusetts, where Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than 3 to 1. His biggest minus seems to be that Baptists hate his religion. They'd rather have the devil. He suffers from the largest bias left in American politics. Probably won't win. Too bad, he represents the best traditional 'conservative' candidate in this race. he'd like to be another Regan.
Mike Huckabee: The man is a religious bigot. Probably one of the other kind too. Former governor of Arkansas. He's running as the anointed heir of the 'religious right'. Wasn't enough for Falwell, won't be enough for Huckabee. Look for him to give lukewarm support to whoever really wins. Floundering around right now trying to find something that'll appeal to people outside of his narrow group.
Ron Paul: Congressman. Former Libertarian Presidential candidate. Couldn't get more than about 5% for that party. Can't seem to get more than that from the Republicans either. Has a lot of support from the rabid fringes. His supporters though can't seem to talk to others without alienating them. You see that in the posts on Slashdot too.
Paul won't even pull enough to be a spoiler. Huckabee might. If the two could team up, They might be able to be power brokers. That is after all what Falwell wanted to do in 1980. Pat Buchannan did it too in the early '90's.
It doesn't look like either of the two front runners will have a lock by convention time.
Maybe by that time, some of the candidates will have moved beyond sound bites and begun to actually think about principles. Romney and Paul have some, at least. Paul blares his, for better or worse. Romney needs to do more to get them out. McCain needs to find some.
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
Funny indeed. That is where I am from, and never heard of that incident. Who was that ?
:wq
I strongly disagree with a lot of libertarian economic policies, but I don't think that your post gives their reasoning a fair hearing.
First, libertarians on principle oppose government involvement in monetarist policies, which implies getting rid of the federal reserve and the monetarist policies it administers. This has absolutely nothing to do with government spending, which is fiscal policy handled by Congress. I would imagine Ron Paul's fiscal policy would be some variant of pay as you go, following strong fiscally conservative principles. Getting government out of monetary policy probably isn't a good idea, but having people attempting to muddy the waters by rolling all of the issues together is also a crock of shit.
Second, Ron Paul advocates the repeal of the individual income tax, which accounted for roughly $1.04 billion of the $2.40 billion overall tax collected by the Federal Government in 2006. The balance is composed of corporate income taxes and other taxes, and in a cursory overview, I was able to find no evidence that Ron Paul opposes these forms of taxation. Excise taxes and a reduction of spending to 1995?-levels would account for the deficit. Tariffs are not a significant part of his tax plan, for the simple reason that the volume of international trade is not significant when compared to the size of the American domestic economy.
I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul, but my reasons don't have a lot to do with the half-assed hyperbole and half-truths you're spouting, and many of the issues he raises do have relevance to policy discussions today.
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
After the eight year disaster that we have just survived, I believe that we just cannot trust ANY Republican right now. Many of the candidates don't believe in evolution, they are nasty, vindictive messes. We need some time away from the hyper-religious far-right wing neo-con Republican nut-cases that have taken so much of our constitution away.
I have been away from /. for over three years for this very reasons-too many cointelpros clogging up the echo chamber. I'm sick to death of you all! You know exactly who I'm fingering, and I expect my excellent karma to go to crap. Go to Hell!
On the other hand, the poster is exactly right, but think of what YOU are expecting of a candidate: media support by Rupert Murdoc, one who is entirely in league with control systems. A "Tough" stance on "dem arabs". Dotters, if someone mistrated you as henously as we have their countries, with the hubris we have, THEY would be smashed to bits! Trivia(?): Did you know we went to war with England over a centralized bank note system? Googled:"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to then Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin, 1802
You want another depression? Go wiki it. Hyperinflation: caused by central banking systems inflating monetary systems. We have already experienced higher debt rates than the depression, due to the fact our money comes with inflation built in! Precious metals are taking flight against the dollar, and you want to argue who looks best in a friggin' flight suit???
You want continual war(McCain says 100 years) that drives debt up the wall??? War for what??? The Pentagon already "lost" over $4 trillion, an ammount that could set every American for life.
ALL of you are rearranging the deckchairs!! What do you THINK caused all the calamity??? Some guy in a cave? How are we supposed to become more safe by giving up all our liberties?? Oh, I know! "They hate us because of our freedoms[, so if we kill all civil liberties, they wont hate us anymore!]" Someone forgot the chapter on "Those who give up essential liberty for security deserve neither!"-Benjamin Franklin
As if anyone cares, most people cant tell who the Vice Pres is(Dick-"I live in Dubai!"-Cheney).
All I can tell is you want another corporate bought-off candidate! "Electable"
This is the last pearl I dare give the swine
"Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
-Frederick Douglass.
This mind intentionally left blank.
The KKK a bunch of sheetheads? You decide!
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. -- Mussolini
Huckabee is missing teeth and wants to replace the Constitution with the Bible. McCain is catering to illegals and wants to bomb the whole world into submission. Romney is a fast talking crook. Who's left?
So what am I missing? Are my examples of better jobs really worse than digging ditches? (I suppose ditch digging can develop your work ethic and physique, whereas retail sales may just develop your misanthropy) Have I been looking at the unskilled job market in the wrong cities, or not recently enough?
Yes, there's a lot of competition for many of those retail jobs, especially with employers reluctant to take seasonal help (except Christmas), especially in rural America, where there happen to be more immigrants too. Even "Do you want fries with that?" can be hard to get. Now, young folks that can't get those jobs just get food stamps and TANF which is one of the real horrors of illegal immigration-- ballooning entitlement programs (and not necessarily by the immigrants) and no way off them. (Not that immigration is the sole cause.)
Anyway, regarding Paul and immigration it's a question of principles. Someone who values freedom should have more respect for freedom of movement; even if someone can't vote or collect welfare here, if someone wants to sell or rent them a home here the government shouldn't get in the way. It's also a question of humility: a good politician should also have more respect and fear for unintended consequences. Not every job in America can be done by a non-American, but many of the rest can be outsourced regardless of whether or not you let the non-American inside US borders. The only difference immigration restrictions make in those cases is to ensure that a multinational corporation gets to take a cut as middleman.A Republic protects the community from the excesses of the individual and it also protects the individual from the mob. Freedom vs. private property rights. You have every right to express your opinion and disagree with me in public, but not in my home, like someone who stole my political sign out of my yard last night. My sign, my property, my speech. You don't like my candidate, put a sign on your own property. Same thing with immigration. I have the right to move to another state, but I follow that state's rules, I buy or rent a place to live. I don't party crash. We live here and we have the right to set rules around our home. Sometimes I wonder if the people who support freedom of movement to an extreme would feel the same if I moved into their house.
There are boundaries. We loosen those boundaries every day out of an expectation of courtesy and civility, but if they do not exist, chaos ensues. Many of these folks don't just violate our immigration laws, and it's not just a matter of legalizing them. There are illegal aliens here living a dozen or more to a house, well outside what our health or building codes allow (and they are awfully lax here). That's one of the ways they can work for so little. If I tried that, they'd take my kid. That's not a free market and that's not a civil society, and we can't sustain anything approaching a standard of living here under those conditions.
Now, if we got some breathing room, work on getting our industry back, anything more than service jobs, rebuild the economy, then, when the 'Boomers retire en masse, we'll need more immigrants and be better placed to handle them (legally) and maintain a standard of living. If white trash doesn't want to take a $10 an hour job (2007 dollars!) at that point and is displaced by a legal immigrant, let the shiftless bum rot. In the meantime, we have a lot of things to straighten out on both sides of the border and the refugee flood just makes it all the more complicated.
I agree with everything you've said, which is why I'm responding.
Of all the candidates, I agree with Ron Paul the most. I would have voted for Fred through, but he dropped out. However, there are a number of things that turn me off to Ron Paul.
1.) Politically, he's inept. You're supposed to dance with the elephant, not judo-kick it in the nuts.
2.) He wants to sacrifice the progress we've made so far in Iraq by pulling the troops home...yesterday. Uh Ron, maybe you should make that decision *after* being debriefed by the Pentagon once in office? Already, he doesn't sound like he'd make an effective "commander in chief" to me.
3.) He whines. Regardless of the fact he's philosophically and historically correct about how our government should run, being a whiner isn't exactly an endearing quality most people find likeable.
Life is not for the lazy.
First appearance after announcing run for Presidency? Alex Jones radio show. He's a kook. Deal with it.
McCain should drop out because his candidacy is entirely media-created. If the media played McCain's "100 years in Iraq" and "bomb, bomb, bomb iran" soundbites like they did Dean's Scream, he'd go away promptly.
The reality is that John McCain is a Psychopath. Most people get a sense of this, and he'll be routed in November should fortune favor the Democrats with his nomination. Even though polls show him ahead, polls also showed that Giuliani was a front runner. The old way of polling is no longer valid because there are so many more voters this time around.
McCain should quit now and quit wasting our time with his blather... Though I guess 'We the People' need him to split the Republican delegates with Romney, leading to a brokered convention and Ron Paul's nomination.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
The real question is who is a better leader for the Republic Party or will the Republic representative support the over all party agendas. This is how I see the choice. It is also where the Republic party is lacking, most of the US is as well, and its ability for the individual or group to think on its own as well as to set the differences aside to work together on the bigger issues/problems. Social Security was supposed to be fixed by this party along with other bigger issues. They are also stuck in the follow/dont think just do mode. On top of this, the party also lacks a plan for the debt. Until they make chances in the party, I dont see much possibility for any of the choices since they all seems to be agreeing with the parties choices or supporting Bush. At one point in time, the Republic Party was able to stand up to one of their own tell the President at that time to shove it.
I find it strange that the Republic Party would agree to continue borrowing money from other nations instead of standing on its own. They also should understand the value of solving the problems instead of pushing them off to another time; after all no business survives long with out making decisions, taking action, and from time to time reevaluating it decisions. This goes for the conservative side as well, we wanted to be our own nation so clearly we need to stand and relay on our own not continue to borrow/push off issues.
I agree entirely that the US needs to stop supporting economic and military processes that destroy livelihoods across the world. But that doesn't appear to be happening anytime soon, so for as long as the US is training paramilitaries and militarizes on how to oppress their own people, for as long as neoliberalism is ensuring that borders are open to capital, the borders should be open to people.
There is a pro-immigration slogan that is used, We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us. And if you're familiar with American history, you'd know that Mexico (Spain), Canada (Britain and France), and the British American colonial forces/United States all waged war on the native population of the Americas, and that later the US went to war with Mexico, and that people were displaced and large swaths of land annexed. US policy was to destroy indigenous culture: both military, economic, and social forces were brought to bare to attempt to destroy traditional ways. The reservation is the embodiment of this policy. Policies that aim to destroy a national or ethnic identity are defined by the United Nations as genocide.
I think a lot of people don't want to come to terms with the fact that a large chunk of this country wasn't found empty, rather, it was conquered, and it was cleansed. I bring this up for one reason: Most of the Latinos that I know have very significant indigenous American features. Yes, there are white Hispanics, the descendants of the settlers from Spain and elsewhere, but they are not the majority. The majority of Latinos, who are legally considered 'immigrants,' that I know are indigenous to the continent, including areas (recall that in desert areas, people are often nomadic) that are now annexed by the US. So, I ask you: who is the immigrant? who is the one being generous, and who is the one taking what's not theirs?
Recall that the US military was actively fighting (killing) the indigenous of this country through 1891, with the last notable massacre being at Wounded Knee at the end of 1890. My grandfather was born in 1893. Recall that native languages were generally unwelcome in schools (even on reservations) until 1990, when Bush I signed the Native American Languages Act into law. This isn't ancient history, it's today. It's now, it's our fathers, it's our grandfathers, and it's our great-grandfathers. And make no mistake about it - if wealth can be inherited and preserved for so long (Rockefeller's great grandchildren?) then so can liens, and one day, they will come due.
-bugg
Wehy ignore Ron Paul - he is a full fledged Republican candidate. You suck for trying to omit him.
I don't think he "can't" play politics, I just don't think he has that choice. His platform is pretty definitive.
Progress? Lots of insurgents have been killed but other than that what progress has taken place? I know someone is going to be upset and think I'm as insulting the troops efforts, but I'm truly not. I'm against the policy makers. The troops have done their patriotic duty and served gloriously, but when troops are given crap for orders and missions then their efforts are wasted. It is an unspeakable tragedy that we have spent 4000 troops lives and 1 trillion dollars on this promotion of an American empire. We are in a losing battle, if for no other reason than we can't afford it. I honestly see the only way to get out and save face is to elect Ron Paul. The world will see democracy still rules in America, and we would begin to regain our country's image. As Dr. Paul says, if mid-treatment you discover that you have made the wrong diagnosis then you don't continue with the treatment for the original diagnosis, but apply the treatment for the new one.
That being said I see your point about waiting to be briefed on the current situation.
I'll give you the whining, but not as much a Chucklebee.
Of course you're either joking or trolling. Anyway, if you hear some Ron Paul speeches, you know he refers to the constitution as "the best contract between the people and government written by men". He occasionally expands on that saying that nothing men writes is perfect, and slavery should had been abolished from the start.
My worst enemy gave me a copy of Windows for Christmas.
heh. He does answer like that on the 2-minutes answer debates. ;) I think more than winning, what he really wants is making his point across. Anyway, if you listen to some of his longer interviews on Iraq, he does say it could take some months to pull out of Iraq definitively.
My worst enemy gave me a copy of Windows for Christmas.
It doesn't scare me anymore than "I need to invade a country. I told me to do it."
Watch the Obamandingo MadTV video.
John McCain plans to take the Republican party to an era of bipartisanship (democrat light but anti abortion)
Mitt Romney wants the party to go to a Reagan 2 (lower taxes, more spending in the areas he prefers)
Mike Huckabee - see John McCain
Ron Paul wants the party do what Reagan said (get government out of the way)
I can't vote in this one, I left the republicans years ago www.lp.org
If people had brains they would vote for Dr Ron Paul.
From reading these posts you would think that Ron Paul was the only candidate running.
As the typical uneducated voter who only watches the news (and belives that is the best source of information)when i tune in too early for American Idol and who makes up the majority of who will be voting for president.
here is my rundown.
Huckabee. That preacher dude?
McCain. That old veteran dude.
Romney. Aint he that mormon dude?
Paul. That nutty dude.
As you can see , I am ready to make an informed decision on who will become president. rest assured, the future is safe
in my hands.
Haha I was going to say that :-)
Is one thing, but Ron Paul is talking about totally dismantling the federal government. He wants to get rid of:
1. The IRS. If you believe we can run a nation of 300 million people without an income tax, I have some property on the moon I'd like to sell you.
2. The FDA, which we need to keep the food supply safe. He argues that the food supply will self regulate... we notice that a bunch of people start dropping dead from eating food from a particular producer.
3. The EPA. He argues we can just *sue* to recover environmental damages... after the damage is already done. What he doesn't understand about he EPA is that it is *preventative* because once the damage is done, suing won't fix it.
Basically he wants to dismantle the most important institutions in the country, and make the federal government an entirely military affair funded by heavy tariffs. People tend to ignore these brain dead moves because he's a good public speaker, and because he does have *some* good ideas, like more responsible fiscal policy, just none of the ones listed above.
Also, his ideas about the constitution banning many important government institutions just isn't true. Some things like federal income taxation *we're* unconstitutional in the 19th century (wence most of Ron Paul's economic policies hail), but the constitution has been amended since then (see the 16th amendment of 1913). I think that what he often means is that some government agency is against the "spirit" of the original constitution. Unfortunately, many of the practices he opposes (see the above list) are vitally necessary to modern America considering the scale that we operate at now.
>Finally, we get a candidate who has a 20 year voting record on fiscal responsibility
>and supporting thee cconstitution and what is the response from slashdot? Ron Paul is kook.
Ron Paul isn't a kook for all of his *good* ideas. He has many good ideas, and you mentioned several of them.
Ron Paul is a kook because, like all kooks, not because of his good ideas, but because of his bad. And his bad ideas are *really* bad. Specifically he wants to dismantle pretty much the *entire federal government*.
He wants to abolish the IRS, the FDA, and the EPA. I can't take anyone seriously who thinks that we can run a nation of 300 million without those 3 institutions or something equivalent.
>Name one candidate who understands the monetary policy behind a fiat currency and
>WHY the Fed is destroying our currency.
That Ron Paul thinks the fed is destroying our currency is another reason why he is a kook. Ron Paul is trying to fight the fight that William Jennings Brian and others lost 100 years ago against the banking industry. The Fed is set up to preserve the banking industry. The banking industry preserves the economy, and by the transitive property the Fed preserves the economy.
The reason that modern nations use centralized banking (we were one of the later western countries to switch over to that model) is that the gold standard doesn't actually prevent inflation in the way that Ron Paul thinks it does, and that's why it is *Ron Paul* who does not understand "fiat" money as you call it.
First of all, the fed printing more money isn't the only, or even primary, source of inflation *contrary* to what Ron Paul has been spouting off about. If oil prices, food prices, or consumer good prices rise, we get inflation because consumers spend more money for the same goods, and employers become obliged to pay those consumers higher wages, which raises the price of consumer goods, etc, ad infinitum.
Inflation can also happen because of a trade imbalance, which is a big part of what is driving up inflation right now.
Second of all, if the Fed isn't in charge of printing money, do you know who *is*? Congress. The constitution gives congress the power to print money whenever it so pleases, which they handed over to the Fed (who are professional bankers and economists), because frankly congress isn't competent to do such a thing. Think about how much deficit spending we have a year (around 1/2 trillion I believe). If the Fed was eliminated, we would likely be *printing* all of that money without even the obligation to pay it back. Now, *that* would cause inflation.
What the fuck is a "far left liberal"?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
because businesses by and large have less waste
That's funny...
I will never vote for Romney, Huckabee, or McCain. Fools.
the Political Inquirer
Uh - Yes.
Everything you state is contradicted by other sources. For instance:
http://www.realchange.org/mccain.htm
Pay attention now - actual *sources* for their assertions are given, whereas your refutation contains none.
Been there, Done that, Sold the t-shirt to the next idiot in line
I should have been more clear - your refutation does not contain any authoritative sources - just a Slate article with unknown sources.
Been there, Done that, Sold the t-shirt to the next idiot in line
Positives: Libertarian platform generally makes sense
Negatives: Way, way, way wrong on the war in Iraq, and therefore unelectable. Also many other unworkable and/or dangerous ideas"
I'm so curious to know what you think Paul's position was regarding the war in Iraq, and what makes it so wrong.
I'm also curious to know about these nameless other "unworkable and/or dangerous ideas".
You seem to be having trouble articulating the details. Are these your own thoughts, or has someone else put these ideas in your head?
Here's Noam Chomsky's thoughts on Ron Paul. http://anarchismtoday.org/News/article/sid=74.html
That sort of thing; waterboarding, swirlies, etc.; puts a person in fear of something. The notion that swirlies aren't taken more seriously is the reason distraught kids shoot up schools. If you are kept against your will and put in fear of losing your life in order to coerce information, you have been submitted to torture. Ridiculous? the idiots running these places took PICTURES of prisoners being submitted to this sort of thing. It is the same as making someone stand in an iron maiden, or strapping them over a growing bamboo spike. Just because it is "safer" doesn't make it any less evil. Moreover, scaring answers from a prisoner with fear of continued pain or death just makes them likely to tell you whatever they think will get them off the hook, but not necessarily the truth.
Intelligence, not force, is necessary to get reliable information from a prisoner. You must have some knowledge of where they came from and what they were doing. Then give them a perceived method of helping the cause they are fighting for, not themselves. As a prisoner, an enemy combatant has likely given up on himself as a going concern. He will still likely die for his cause. Use what you know of him against him.
Your method of argument, "grow some balls" and "ice-cream and lollipops", tells me you are likely listening to the propaganda spouted by certain pundits and likely have put very little thought into this sort of thing yourself.
As for my lumping Mr. McCain in with the others in his party, I apologize. I think I've seen questions craftily avoided too much. Maybe the "Straight Talk Express" is still on schedule. I think I should go look at his website.
Correction. The current US Economy is closer to $14 trillion. (NY Times estimate for 2007)
Correcting your correction: others say the U.S. economy is overvalued by $7 trillion.
You can quibble all you want over GDP numbers, but the fact remains that the amount of wealth in the world vastly outstrips the supply of gold.