Presidential Election 2008 - Who are you voting for?

Student Lounge College Life
101

<p>


</p>

<p>That is a fantastically America-centric view. In fact, it's probably the most one-sided view of international affairs I've ever heard.</p>

<p>Let's put it this way: America has done more than its fair share of screwing other countries in its history. In fact, I would submit that if you look at the history of international agreements, America is almost always the victimizer, not the victimized.</p>

<p>Want some concrete examples?</p>

<p>America's ongoing influence in the IMF and the World Bank, through which it ensures that in order for developing countries to continue being able to take part in the process of development the countries must accept programs and terms of trade favorable to America (structural adjustment programs being the most pertinent here).</p>

<p>America's continual refusal to abide by trade agreements it doesn't like (the NAFTA Canadian softwood lumber dispute, for example).</p>

<p>America's continuing refusal to show good faith by reducing subsidies to farm industries (of which Europe is also very guilty), slowing down the subsidy lowering process and destroying many agrarian developing nations' economies.</p>

<p>The obvious others include many forced regime changes, assassinations etc.</p>

<p>I'm not saying America shouldn't be doing these things - obviously it looks a little immoral from a non-America perspective - but a country does what it must to remain powerful, influential and prosperous. All I'm saying is that it is absolutely and totally incorrect to say that America mostly gets shafted, and I don't know where you got that idea.</p>

<p>rcmiller: What? You say at no time in Clinton's admin. were there 6 attack-free years, counting I assume the attacks on American establishments on foreign soil. However, in saying that we are enjoying one now is to disregard the current and ongoing attacks on Americans in Iraq and elsewhere. Contradiction much?</p>

102

<p>Islamic radicals desire that their own lands be under Sharia law, and they want lands that used to be Muslim (such as Spain) to return to Muslim control. These radicals have always existed, but our presence over there has created more of them, and continues to create more each day.</p>

<p>Islamic radicals do not want to conquer the world. Their religion draws a clear distinction between the Muslim (dar al-Islam) and non-Muslim (dar al-harb) worlds. Ron Paul recognizes that Muslim radicals simply want their own lands to be free of outside intervention and for their own nations to strictly adhere to Sharia law.</p>

<p>Ron obviously does not support Sharia law and is not a Muslim. However, he believes it is none of our business what they want to do. If we stop being a "threat" to their plans in the Middle East, their hatred for us can diminish.</p>

103

<p>"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith but to become dominant."
-Omar Ahmed-President of the Council on American Islamic Relations</p>

<p>This is an example of how failing to realize that certain dangers exist will lead us down the road that the Europeans are going down. It isn't just France, all of the European nations are having to deal with making concessions to Muslims. It's a culture war, and they don't like our particular brand of culture.</p>

104

<p>rcmiller: So? Evangelical Christianity shares those exact characteristics: disapproves of mainline Western culture (which is currently pretty secular), wants to spread, would like everyone to lives under its religious law, etc. etc.</p>

<p>Obviously we have to be aware of the dangers. But these dangers are by no means exclusive to Islam, and Islam wasn't even the first religion to pose them. To the extent we must be aware, we must be aware of all radical religions, regardless of their label.</p>

105

<p>Ron Paul is hope for America, period.</p>

106

<p>Indeed. Maybe if we back away from our idiotic Wilsonian foreign policy that we have had blind faith in for nearly a century now, we'll be able to get things going properly.</p>

107

<p>Exactly. Democracy is great but we should not try and spread it through force. As Ron put it, how would America feel if China invaded our country and tried to spread their ideals? We would unite in objection, just as Iraqi groups are resisting our presence. We should spread democracy through good example. There is a difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. It's important to establish relationships and to trade with other leaders, but avoid entangling alliances.</p>

108

<p>I agree Ron Paul is definitely our best choice.</p>

<p>I am a Muslim and I would also appreciate it if you would refrain from referring to Islamic Law and religion without knowing the full history behind it.</p>

109

<p>Vote for Dennis Kucinich! He is the only democrate that didn't vote for the war in Iraq. Look at all his views on the Issues! He is way awesome. If I could I'd vote for him.</p>

<p>Killing is stupid. Peace is best. Get the facts before you decide something. Learn about fallacies. Don't be narrow minded and hypocritical. My philosophy for life. </p>

<p>Also look 7 generations into the future before you do something.</p>

110

<p>True or false: Islamic terrorists exist and would like to kill me as an American.</p>

111

<p>Only true if you take out the Islamic part. Terrorism is forbidden in Islam, as is suicide, as is killing innocent people, as is killing women, as is killing old men, as is killing children. I would prefer if you didn't call them Islamic, no matter what they claim to be.</p>

112

<p>There are still a decent number of clerics from what I gather in Islamic mosques that are influencing the youth to become terrorists. Now, do I think this is true Islam? Of course not, it's just the reality is that these people are choosing Islam to pervert for their own means.</p>

113

<p>Of course. And there are Christian radicals who bombed abortion clinics and shot doctors who provided abortions. Then there's the Inquisition, the Crusades... yadda yadda. Lots of people have committed atrocities "in the name of God" over the past few thousand years. I often wonder what God might think of someone who kills in her name - that whole "thou shalt not kill" thing doesn't seem to have an "except kill those who you think I told you to kill" clause.</p>

<p>Any religion's teachings can be easily perverted, because they're all based on what someone supposedly said God told them, 2,000 years ago. That's the fundamental problem with religion: it encourages blind faith in something someone claims God told them, instead of rational, critical thinking and self-evaluation.</p>

114

<p>There is not really a candidate I am crazy about yet.</p>

<p>At the moment I guess it would be between Barack Obama and Ron Paul. I want to like Ron Paul...but the whole gold standard stuff turns me off. A better explanation would need be provided why it would be good, and I have herd none. I know he isn't the most socially liberal candidate, but you can't have everything in one person. What I like about him is his stance for small government. To me an ideal government would be the smallest one possible with minimal interference to me. </p>

<p>Barack Obama...I need to look into him more.</p>

<p>Dennis Kucinich...I have been hearing he is good, but have no clue why. I need look up more about him as well.</p>

115

<p>None of the candidates make me interested, really.</p>

<p>I was a Deaniac four years ago - worked for his campaign as communications director for California Generation Dean, and spent Caucus Week on the ground freezing my buns off in Des Moines, Iowa. Fat lot of good that did...</p>

<p>Nobody in the current crop makes me excited enough to get off the couch, much less do what I did for Howard.</p>

<p>Ron Paul would be great if he was just about ending the Iraq War, and wasn't interested in dismantling the income tax, the EPA and the Department of Education, among other government programs. All you college-bound Ron Paul supporters know that he wants to shut down the Department of Education, right? He doesn't think the government should help college students pay for college. Every federal student aid program, gone, if Ron Paul gets his way. No Pell Grants and no Stafford, Direct, PLUS or FFEL loans. No federally-guaranteed loans at all. Just whatever the private sector throws at you - eat their interest rate or else.</p>

116

<p>I say that all those reason are the reasons Ron Paul is great. It is the Iraq War that is his flaw for me. The IRS needs to be done away with (FairTax anyone?), and government involvement in our lives should be minimal. But protecting Americans, on the front which the terrorists are now fighting us is vital. Agree or disagree with going in the first place, it is where the fight is now and we must pursue it. Dr. Paul has often left me awestruck at his refusal to recognize that we do indeed face a real enemy.</p>

117

<p>The FairTax... ugh. Don't get me started - just had that whole debate over on a frequent-flyer forum. ;) Regressive taxation which discourages consumer spending is not a prescription for economic success.</p>

118

<p>People think eliminating the department of education means that Ron Paul doesn't care about education. But what does the department actually do? I couldn’t find anything all too compelling, at least, nothing the states can’t or haven’t been doing on their own. Because education is almost exclusively managed at the state level, all this department’s main function is is to “formulate federal funding programs involving education and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights.” It exists to play the role of policing the states’ own education police and to distribute taxpayer money that the states would do themselves if the additional funds weren’t diverted to the federal government for that purpose to begin with. </p>

<p>In other words, nothing we can’t live without.</p>

119

<p>Right, every state's just going to magically set up their own Pell Grants and subsidized student loan bureaucracies overnight, with all the budget surpluses every state is rolling in right now. :rolleyes:</p>

120

<p>There is no single attack that can be launched against the FairTax of any merit. Regressive? The federal tax burden would be eliminated for lower income Americans via the prebate that covers the taxes to be paid on necessities. The only people not in favor are people in Government who would like for the power of taxation to remain in their hands. It'd be nice to see the power in PEOPLE'S hands.</p>

<p>It also doesn't discourage consumer spending, as once the embedded (the complete tax burden of everyone involved in producing a good or service) taxes are removed you are left with essentially the same price on goods. Not to mention you have more money to spend because you were given your entire check with which you can do whatever you wish.</p>

<p>Honestly it works. Just continue to throw out problems and I can continue to show you that you may be missing something. FairTax</p>