<p>Nice list knight...I actually read it all. Very interesting stuff. I realllllly dislike religious extremists and it REALLY turns me off of religion.</p>
<p>Gore/Obama '08! lol</p>
<p>but ya an edwards vice pres ticket would help us w/ southerners which would rock</p>
<p>obama has NO experience.</p>
<p>ron paul all the way!!!!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most of the answers can be found in the Audacity of Hope
It is impossible to assume that One man has all the answers
It was kinda hard to get legislation passed in a Replublican controlled congress and I know he's co authored a couple of bills ( don't know specifics right now)</p>
<p>Obama's moderate stance is what makes him most appealing to me. As a Christian, I believe in " morality" but I also refuse to let the conservative " morality" detract my attention from their plans for the poor and education and minority and the middle class. Futhermore, most americans aren't wholly liberal or conservation but a mixture of them both moderate.</p>
<p>Tritium Knight, a lot of those questions can be asked about most candidates-remember it's early in the race and as we near primaries every candidate will show his true color.</p>
<p>your post has made me think, and I will research this summer exactly what ALL the candidates stand for on all these issues.</p>
<p>For me, it's Obama in 08 as of now
[/quote]
I don't know why Obama has a "moderate" stance. From an economic perspective, he's probably the most left wing of all the major candidates.</p>
<p>Pfft...Ron Paul is a libertarian nut job...</p>
<p>^ With almost no support at all outside of the internet.</p>
<p>^ yeah, cause almost no one uses the internet these days :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Compare the number of bloggers to the normal population. Look at how many people actually support him in the polls and you will see.</p>
<p>Yea....he's getting beaten in the polls by a Republican governor of Massachusetts! MASSACHUSSETS?!?!?</p>
<p>I think he has a lot more support than you give him credit for. I think (hopefully) that some people are warming to the idea of a candidate that actually supports the constitution fully (for once). His ideas simply make sense, if you listen to them, and they are fair and reasoned. </p>
<p>Which is the reason he has been getting massive infusions of cash after each of the debates (even though he wasn't given much face time). If you look at the amount of cash each candidate has on hand, you'll see that Ron Paul's numbers have been increasing greatly, and he is up there with the so-called "front runners". </p>
<p>I personally can't believe anyone would support Giulliani, who can't answer a single question without referring to the fact that "he was at 9/11", or Obama, who can't give a straight answer to a question period.</p>
<p>Ron Paul supports civil liberties and understands the idea that those are some of the most important things we have as a people, and that suspending them in the name of "fighting terror" (which is impossible BTW, by its very nature) is simply wrong. He is a hurricane of fresh air in an otherwise dull and stagnant political field.</p>
<p>Blah...he lies..Banning Birth Citizenship would violate the constitution.
Ending trade agreements would be hazardous for our economy and disastrous for diplomacy.
He doesn't support abortion...so he believes the government should dictate what women do with their wombs.
He supported civil liberties by fighting against the Patriot Act...many other politicians did...so did the democrats.
His stance on war isn't that much different then some of the democrats. But, more isolationist. Being isolationist when we're the world's remaining superpower, ignoring China they're not there yet, is impractical.
If you read his stance on most issues he uses ad terroreum most of the time xenophobia. Alongside some very extrapolated speculation.
His ideas of cutting taxes and cutting spending is typical of most republicans and so are his policies of immigration except for banning birth citizenship... </p>
<p>The stances that make him different from the other republican nominees are horrendous to diplomacy if they do get enacted and even worse on our economy.</p>
<p>(I had a longer response but it go lost...:( )</p>
<p>Actually, ending birthright citizenship is not unconstitutional. If you consider the text, All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside, the part about being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means that you must be born to citizens to be considered a citizen by birth. Otherwise, "naturalization" is the means to citizenship. Read the text as it was written, not as the language reads in common vernagular today.</p>
<p>As for supporting civil liberties by fighting the Patriot Act, I'll first say that this is only one of the list of things he does to support civil liberties. Also, it seems to me that fighting something that casually destroys many civil liberties IS supporting those liberties :rolleyes: And second, he is one of only a very few who have fought it from the beginning. He didn't stupidly vote for a bill he hadn't read, like most of the rest of congress did.</p>
<p>It's subject to interpretation like most of the constitution. :P
No..it doesn't it means born to citizens of the United States. Naturalization is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Which is what the Thereof clause is to allow the United States to regulate the naturalization process.
If any attempts are meant to challenge that interpretation, which is the current one. You can expect the Supreme court to decide :P</p>
<p>Actually its the only thing on his list what he does for notable civil liberties for his website. Pfft...it's his party that doing the spying...He's attempting to distance himself from the sinking ship in an attempt to get elected. The first round for the Patriot Act if a notable majority of them voted against it, it would of been disastrous for their political career but, since he was republican they didn't use that against him for his reelection. I've seen his debates..Ron Paul is not to be trusted.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The first round for the Patriot Act if a notable majority of them voted against it, it would of been disastrous for their political career but, since he was republican they didn't use that against him for his reelection.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Haha thats a great way to spin it - I like that. Of course it couldn't possibly be that he actually didn't think it was a good idea and so didn't vote for it? Nah... I'm sure he was thinking about how "they wouldn't hold it against him" if he ran for president.
And its nice to know that the majority of congress is willing to abandon civil rights for their political careers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And its nice to know that the majority of congress is willing to abandon civil rights for their political careers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's a given... It's pretty obvious...</p>
<p>lol...good response...Can't think of anything at the moment...</p>
<p>
<p>Just out of curiosity.
</p>
<p>She ain't crunk 'nuff.</p>
<p>Do you guys even think Obama would get the majority vote just because he's black?</p>
<p>I really don't get y people use that as a defense. "He doesn't even have the majority of blacks!" OBVIOUSLY, there are SO many candidates! For one to have the majority of anything would be suprising.</p>
<p>Also it scares me when a candidate would blindly say "I'LL VOTE FOR ANYTHING THAT EVEN SLIGHTLY GOES AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION." That's scary. The constitution was written hundreds of years ago. I think that in this day and age we can use it as a strict guide compared to a say all-do all - only if it's written in the constitution type of thing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The constitution was written hundreds of years ago.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How is this an argument against anything? The Bible is several thousand years old... guess that thing's worthless then.
The constitution is not a time-specific document. It is completely relevant today because it talks about how government should be set up and it lays out the inalienable rights that people have.</p>
<p>I think we should be afraid of politicians who so blithely go against the constitution whenever it suits them.</p>
<p>I said we SHOULD USE it. What I also said is that we shouldn't blindly call something "bad" if it in someway violates the constitution that was written in a different time and may not have taken that specific case into mind. I think the constitution is great and love it. But Ron Paul votes for or against using it as his sole guide...which can be a little daunting to think about. I'm just saying that we need to look at the constitution a <em>little</em> more loosely than the time it was written...but still use it. -Which makes me also agree that that means he should be pro-choice!-. </p>
<p>The bible is a guide. It wasn't written in a vacuum which means it was written during certain times when things like slavery and the inequality of woman were accepted. Times have changed. It is merely a guide.</p>
<p>Hmm... it seems a bit contradictory of you to say that we should use it as a "strict guide", but then say that we shouldn't discount something if it goes against that "strict guide". You'd think if it was a strict guide, you would quickly discard something that goes against it, right?</p>
<p>Anyway, I do think it should be used that way, and I give Ron Paul props for having the balls to do it. Of course the framers of the constitution couldn't imagine all the specific cases that we would have today. Thats why the constitution isn't overly specific. </p>
<p>It does, however, lay out strict rules for us. For example, that free speech should not be abridged, and the right to own and carry arms should not be infringed. These are absolute rights that hold in all times and places, and the types of things that are included are not mentioned so that it can apply in all times and places. The framers had no idea there would be the internet or mass media that would allow speech and information to be distributed so quickly and easily. Does this mean that these things are not protected by the constitution? What if the ease of access to information causes problems for law enforcment or the government, etc.? Of course not - it is a fundamental right that trancends time. Similarly for arms - the framers had no idea what kinds of weapons we would develop. But they did know that the people need to be allowed to own and carry these weapons (whatever they are) for their own safety and for that of the country and republic. They didn't think there should be "reasonable restrictions" on weapons - the muskets and rifles they owned were the so-called "assault weapons" of their day - so they said such a right should "not be infringed", a very sweeping law that this particular right should not be legislated. </p>
<p>So really, the constitution needs to be followed to the letter if it is to have any standing at all. And considering that the constitution is the supreme and ultimate law of the US (meaning that all other laws get their legitimacy from it), it's probably a good idea to do so.</p>