<p>The only people who get captivated by an obama speech are people who are to stupid to realize that when he speaks, there is absolutely no substance at all. If you listen closely to any of his speeches, he will only talk about CHANGE, MAKING A DIFFERENCE, CLEANING UP WASHINGTON. When he does speak on actual issues it is the usual socialist nonsense.</p>
<p>Anyone who thinks Mitt Romney is a good candidate. Watch this 01:06 video, just to see what a total jerk he is. YouTube</a> - Gov. Mitt Romney meets a medical marijuana patient--Oct. 6</p>
<p>1of42, how is disliking managed trade a dangerous step toward protectionism?</p>
<p>
<p>Mayor Giuliani has always separated his personal and religious views from his executive and legal duties, and the only view on the Gay Rights agenda he doesn't support is gay marriage, and I for one believe that changing a social institution that has been around for centuries when fair legal equivalents exist is just an unnecessary measure which causes and will continue to cause unwanted division.
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It seems pretty clear to me what he was trying to say was that it's the acts that people perform and not their orientation that matters. He could only be talking about intercourse here for the statement to make sense.</p>
<p>Ron Paul is more libertarian than anything.</p>
<p>And really, that's probably what we need, it allows for better micromanaging. When Katrina hit, everyone whined about how the federal government should help them, when it should have been a state job that maybe had some federal support. The governor was a dumbass and did nothing. And not just that, stopped things from getting done. </p>
<p>However, when the fires started in California, everyone started whining for the federal government, and Schwarzenegger said they didn't need federal help, the state would handle it.</p>
<p>Ron Paul sees it this same way. The federal government should be the big brother of the states, not the mommy that we ***** all our troubles to.</p>
<p>He's also very focused on the economics of the country, and even if his idea's aren't good, that focus will allow at least some change to be made.</p>
<p>Ron Paul Revolution!</p>
<p>
1of42, how is disliking managed trade a dangerous step toward protectionism?
</p>
<p>Because when Ron Paul says he dislikes "managed trade" he is referring to things like NAFTA - the best current bulwark against the protectionist sentiments that often sweep around certain parties.</p>
<p>While his libertarian argument against manged free trade may be legitimate, allowing one argument to breach the bulwark will allow others into the breach - and that cannot be good.</p>
<p>Aye, but the thing about being a superpower, is we get the shaft of most agreements. That's how it works with everything from NAFTA to the UN. </p>
<p>Cutting them is a step from taking that shaft away, creating jobs in America and stabilizing the economy.</p>
<p>If it's one thing history's taught us, it is this:</p>
<p>The strong do what they can
and The weak do what they must.</p>
<p>Ron PAul is obviously the best candidate.</p>
<p>I'm voting for Ron Paul, because our current system is broken and is in need of desperate repair before things get worse.</p>
<p>All you Ron Paul supporters absolutely need to vote in your state primaries and influence other people to come out and vote, otherwise he's still a long-shot candidate compared to Giuliani, Romney, and Huckabee.</p>
<p>Iljet10: The ron paul supporters are doing the most to get their candidate elected out of all the candidates. Of course we will be in for the primaries.</p>
<p>Fred Thompson for more reasons than I will be able to name here. But I will try anyway. Senator Thompson is the only candidate who is speaking from a common sense perspective on every single issue. Every Democrat is immediately eliminated based on the fact that they will not do anything to make this a safer country, and they all tell you so. Hillary is the only one that comes even close to recognizing the dangers we face Muslim extremists. And she, and her leftist pandering would also be rendered ineffective in fighting terror, as she and her husband illustrated during their first 8 year term. I ask you, who on the Democrat side has given us any indication they they will do anything to make us a safer country. Don't worry, I'll wait...John Edwards? Populist/socialist fool who is by any measure the scariest candidate running for President (free health care, free education, free my soul) Barrack Obama? One year in the Seante (2005-2006) and then he made up in his mind that it was appropriate for him to run for the most difficult job known to man. Mrs. Clinton? Let's say her last name was Evans. Would anybody even know who she was. What qualifies her to be anything other than what she is. Were she not married to a former President she would be a Dean at Wesleyan or something. So please, someone give me one outstanding thing about a Democrat that makes actual sense.
Now, back to Fred. He is the only person in the field with a common sense conservative record on taxes, fight the war on terror, social security, securing our borders, and prosperity in general. Being conservative is often misunderstood, at its root it is about the spirit of individuality. And all of the things that one can do to create a nation of individuals are being espoused by Mr. Thompson. The rest of the Republican front-runners have many instances of liberal governance that make me uncomfortable. So, it is with great pride that I am supporting Fred Thompson in 2008.</p>
<p>I'm sorry. What would Fred Thompson do to make this a safer country? I missed that Law and Order episode.</p>
<p>I assume everybody's heard about the Ron Paul moneybomb round 2?</p>
<p>Total</a> Raised: Dec 16th vs. Nov 5th</p>
<p>He has raised almost four million today, and there's still 7 hours left. Thoughts?</p>
<p>Amazing. The media is ignoring Ron Paul because they fear he can win. They can't ignore him once he wins new hampshire</p>
<p>Go RON PAUL!! YEAH!! The tea party money bomb should be much larger than the November 5th one... The media won't be able to ignore this!</p>
<p>Killing people who want to kill us, before they are able to is a simple concept that I think would be employed in a Thompson administration.</p>
<p>They attack us because we have been over there establishing bases and bombing them. It's called blowback. A non-intervening nation is a safer nation.</p>
<p>That is false. They attack us because of a hateful ideology based on them thinking their religion requires them to use force to convert others to Islam. It is a fact that they desire for Western cultures to be under Sharia law. All you have to do is listen to them. And this notion that if we leave people alone, we will be better off. Absurd. Woodrow Wilson showed us how foolish isolationism was. And the administration of Jimmy Carter is a perfect example of what happens when one employs pacifist politics against our current enemy. Enter stage left- IRAN. A safer nation is one that hits back and debilitates its enemy. A cursory glance at a list of all of the attacks brought upon us during the Clinton administration will show you how ineffective that foreign policy style can be, when contrasted with actually doing something. At no point in Clinton's administration did we go a 6 yr. stretch without attack, yet that's where we find ourselves right now. September 12, 2001 there was no doubt that we would be attacked again in a very short time. However, that has not come to fruition, no it is my judgment that this is due to confrontation, confrontation that the "peace at any cost Democrats" have tried to stop for political gain.</p>
<p>Sure we have no attacks on our own soil, but our armed forces are under constant attack in Iraq. Why don't these attacks count in your book?</p>
<p>I'm not invalidating your argument, in fact I think there's some merit to it, it's just that you can't say that we are in "peaceful" times right now, except on our own soil.</p>
<p>As far as I know, only 1 attack happened on US soil during the Clinton administration, and that was the first WTC attack.</p>