| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/22/2008 05:26:55 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Originally posted by drewbixcube:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The same way the current president financed his War in Iraq; the national credit card.
He's counting on our kids to finance his party. |
I guess I'm just disappointed in the system. It seems that everybody running thinks that more governmental control is the key to "success".
I say if the federal government has screwed things up this badly in the past...why put them in control of more things? Why not give more power to the states and local governments? |
Not "everybody", just everybody available via the corporate media.
There is still one candidate who wants to eliminate big government and give the power back to the people. Sadly, "the people" don't seem to be interested in getting back their power.
BTW, this candidate is flush, with more money than any of the other Republican candidates and not one penny of debt. |
Actually I wouldn't even say the people are not interested it's that the vast majority of people form their opinions from big media and the candidate you are referring to (Ron Paul, I assume) as well as Kucinich get shut out in the coverage so it's like they are not even running. |
True..but...if people put as much effort into researching their candidates as they do finding pornography online or deals on ebay Ron Paul would be the Republican candidate, IMHO. |
|
|
|
02/22/2008 05:27:31 PM · #52 |
|
|
|
02/22/2008 05:28:16 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by metatate:
I've said it before in these forums - the party system is one of the biggest government conspiracies there is. I'm not even sure why Ron Paul ran as a republican instead of a third party (ie Libertarian)
Originally posted by rox_rox:
BTW, this candidate is flush, with more money than any of the other Republican candidates and not one penny of debt. |
|
Because he knew he would get screwed by the system, and running third party would destroy his career as a Republican Congressman. |
|
|
|
02/22/2008 05:29:49 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by metatate:
I've said it before in these forums - the party system is one of the biggest government conspiracies there is. I'm not even sure why Ron Paul ran as a republican instead of a third party (ie Libertarian)
Originally posted by rox_rox:
BTW, this candidate is flush, with more money than any of the other Republican candidates and not one penny of debt. |
|
I agree that the 2 party system is not the best. I also wish everyone voted in the primaries on the same day. |
|
|
|
02/22/2008 05:31:51 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by rox_rox:
True..but...if people put as much effort into researching their candidates as they do finding pornography online or deals on ebay Ron Paul would be the Republican candidate, IMHO. |
Edit: All present company excluded, of course;)
Message edited by author 2008-02-22 17:34:17. |
|
|
|
02/22/2008 05:35:41 PM · #56 |
Good point. But there's a group of republicans that believes the president should be religious and elect his judges based on one thing. Some believe combining theology and school is a high priority. There's also a large number up republicans that believe in the NeoCon philosophies that got Bush relected. I've talked to people that vote republican because they don't believe gays should get married. Ron Paul would not represent these people, would he?
Originally posted by rox_rox:
True..but...if people put as much effort into researching their candidates as they do finding pornography online or deals on ebay Ron Paul would be the Republican candidate, IMHO. |
|
|
|
|
02/22/2008 05:38:20 PM · #57 |
That scares me, the government has no place to tell us what to do in the bedroom. Gay, straight, or whatever.
Message edited by author 2008-02-22 17:38:48. |
|
|
|
02/22/2008 05:45:23 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by metatate:
Good point. But there's a group of republicans that believes the president should be religious and elect his judges based on one thing. Some believe combining theology and school is a high priority. There's also a large number up republicans that believe in the NeoCon philosophies that got Bush relected. I've talked to people that vote republican because they don't believe gays should get married. Ron Paul would not represent these people, would he?
Originally posted by rox_rox:
True..but...if people put as much effort into researching their candidates as they do finding pornography online or deals on ebay Ron Paul would be the Republican candidate, IMHO. |
|
Nope. I assume by "these people" you are referring to the NeoCon supporters. Despite the fact that he is very religious and does not support gay marriage, his first priority is protecting and preserving the Constitution; a document with which our current rulers are unfamiliar.
Message edited by author 2008-02-22 17:46:17. |
|
|
|
02/22/2008 06:06:50 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Originally posted by metatate:
Good point. But there's a group of republicans that believes the president should be religious and elect his judges based on one thing. Some believe combining theology and school is a high priority. There's also a large number up republicans that believe in the NeoCon philosophies that got Bush relected. I've talked to people that vote republican because they don't believe gays should get married. Ron Paul would not represent these people, would he?
Originally posted by rox_rox:
True..but...if people put as much effort into researching their candidates as they do finding pornography online or deals on ebay Ron Paul would be the Republican candidate, IMHO. |
|
Nope. I assume by "these people" you are referring to the NeoCon supporters. Despite the fact that he is very religious and does not support gay marriage, his first priority is protecting and preserving the Constitution; a document with which our current rulers are unfamiliar. |
True, he doesn't put his personal beliefs above the constitution. Imagine that.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2008 06:07:48 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Originally posted by metatate:
Good point. But there's a group of republicans that believes the president should be religious and elect his judges based on one thing. Some believe combining theology and school is a high priority. There's also a large number up republicans that believe in the NeoCon philosophies that got Bush relected. I've talked to people that vote republican because they don't believe gays should get married. Ron Paul would not represent these people, would he?
Originally posted by rox_rox:
True..but...if people put as much effort into researching their candidates as they do finding pornography online or deals on ebay Ron Paul would be the Republican candidate, IMHO. |
|
Nope. I assume by "these people" you are referring to the NeoCon supporters. Despite the fact that he is very religious and does not support gay marriage, his first priority is protecting and preserving the Constitution; a document with which our current rulers are unfamiliar. |
True, he doesn't put his personal beliefs above the constitution. Imagine that. |
Meaning, he's there to represent everyone, not just those who share his views.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2008 08:49:13 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by AndyMac24:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by AndyMac24:
I believe the Bush Tax cuts benefit those who make $250000 a year and more. But no tax cut or hike should EVER be permanent. It's just egotistical of Bush to want to leave a legacy other than war. |
Common misconception. EVERYONE pays less taxes thanks to the Bush tax cuts and because of the new 10% tax bracket, millions of low income families do not pay any taxes (their deductions out number their tax burden). |
I'll repeat, compare any money you've saved vs. the extra money you pay for living (i.e. gas, medical expenses, food, tuition) and you will find that the bush tax cuts mean NOTHING! It's just a way so people won't complain about all of the poor fiscal responsibility of this administration. |
I get it, the current administration is the reason for the price increase of everything, and they only cut taxes in 2001 because they knew they'd screw everything up and the tax cuts would hide the inflation they caused! And, if the tax cuts expire, costing me thousands of dollars a year, the price of everything will go down and I'll actually be better off.
And for the record, I'm much better off (tax cuts plus wage increases more then cover the increase of goods and services I consume) then I was 8 years ago, but I won't let the president take credit for that. That was all me.
Message edited by author 2008-02-22 20:51:06.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2008 03:58:05 PM · #62 |
Don't get me wrong - I'm completely on board with much of the Libertarian thinking. My point is that people vote for people based on "non-presidential" reasons IMO much of the time -
Meaning that if Ronn Paul doesn't directly appeal to these voters, he won't get their vote as unfortunate as that is. I'm certainly not saying this is the ideal situation. Personally, I would love to have Ronn Paul and Dennis Kucinich be the last 2 and those debates would be trippy to be sure.
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Meaning, he's there to represent everyone, not just those who share his views. |
|
|
|
|
02/25/2008 04:06:31 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by metatate:
Personally, I would love to have Ronn Paul and Dennis Kucinich be the last 2 and those debates would be trippy to be sure. |
Might even work better if they were on the same ticket ... ;-) |
|
|
|
02/25/2008 04:14:45 PM · #64 |
| The problem with the constitution is it is quite open to interpretation. Constitutionalists like Ron Paul, may be correct in their idea that we have added layer upon layer of tradition and interpretation to the constitution (much like the Bible), but they are incorrect in thinking we'd simply be better off without these layers. Like any document that is older than a few hundred years, issues have risen which were not contemplated. There is no passage in the constitution which says it's just fine to own a Magnum .357 with hollow point bullets and carry it around with you to the grocery store. There isn't even a passage in the constitution which declares a "separation of church and state". I can understand the Libertarian's urge to "get the government off my back", but I think overall those intrusions are likely more beneficial than harmful. |
|
|
|
02/25/2008 04:20:41 PM · #65 |
Anyone seen this yet? They are trying their best to badmouth Obama now... Hope he gets the nomination!
|
|
|
|
02/25/2008 04:40:03 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There isn't even a passage in the constitution which declares a "separation of church and state". |
There's that other whole can of worms (again). It's like saying that the line "Play it again, Sam" is not in the movie Casablanca! Technically correct, but the intent is there. Thomas Jefferson believed in that separation.
So did John F. Kennedy:
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute --
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish --
I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end -- where all men and all churches are treated as equal -- where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice --
Imagine one of today's candidates speaking so strongly!
Message edited by author 2008-02-25 16:40:16. |
|
|
|
02/25/2008 05:04:24 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There isn't even a passage in the constitution which declares a "separation of church and state". |
There's that other whole can of worms (again). It's like saying that the line "Play it again, Sam" is not in the movie Casablanca! Technically correct, but the intent is there. Thomas Jefferson believed in that separation.
So did John F. Kennedy:
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute --
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish --
I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end -- where all men and all churches are treated as equal -- where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice --
Imagine one of today's candidates speaking so strongly! |
They probably would if they were trying to be the first elected. In JFK's case, he was fighting against an anti-Catholic movement trying to block his election as the first Catholic president. I'm sure he'd believe in that sort of country - because its the sort of country he
required to get elected.
Consider Obama on racial tolerance, or Hilary on equal rights for women. Just their pet cause to advance their own positions, in all 3 cases. Not saying they are right or wrong, but that's why they are passionate about it. It might be enlightened self-interest, but...
Message edited by author 2008-02-25 17:05:39.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2008 05:08:02 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by citymars:
Imagine one of today's candidates speaking so strongly! |
They probably would if they were trying to be the first elected. In JFK's case, he was fighting against an anti-Catholic movement trying to block his election as the first Catholic president. I'm sure he'd believe in that sort of country - because its the sort of country he
required to get elected.
Consider Obama on racial tolerance, or Hilary on equal rights for women. Just their pet cause to advance their own positions, in all 3 cases. Not saying they are right or wrong, but that's why they are passionate about it. It might be enlightened self-interest, but... |
Sadly, Gordon, you are probably correct. However, it helps me to clarify that *I* feel strongly about it. :-)
|
|
|
|
02/25/2008 05:22:23 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There isn't even a passage in the constitution which declares a "separation of church and state". |
There's that other whole can of worms (again). It's like saying that the line "Play it again, Sam" is not in the movie Casablanca! Technically correct, but the intent is there. Thomas Jefferson believed in that separation.
So did John F. Kennedy:
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute --
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish --
I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end -- where all men and all churches are treated as equal -- where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice --
Imagine one of today's candidates speaking so strongly! |
So don't you just back up my point that while it isn't there in writing, it may be there in interpretation? What does Ron Paul say about this? If he is a strict constitutionalist, then he may say it isn't there. If he does say it is there, how is he any different from anybody else interpreting the constitution? |
|
|
|
02/25/2008 05:28:02 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by citymars:
Imagine one of today's candidates speaking so strongly! |
They probably would if they were trying to be the first elected. In JFK's case, he was fighting against an anti-Catholic movement trying to block his election as the first Catholic president. I'm sure he'd believe in that sort of country - because its the sort of country he
required to get elected.
Consider Obama on racial tolerance, or Hilary on equal rights for women. Just their pet cause to advance their own positions, in all 3 cases. Not saying they are right or wrong, but that's why they are passionate about it. It might be enlightened self-interest, but... |
Sadly, Gordon, you are probably correct. However, it helps me to clarify that *I* feel strongly about it. :-) |
Mit Romney was in similar shoes to Kennedy, but he turned his freedom of religion speech a different direction entirely. Romney tried to paint himself as qualified because he is a member of the believer camp, as if to say, "You can trust me to be president because at least we all believe in God." Of course, Romney had to appeal to the conservative wing (religious more than economic) of his party which was not a concern for Kennedy. Also evangelicals & atheists were not going at it during Kennedy's time in the way they are now.
Message edited by author 2008-02-25 17:36:48. |
|
|
|
02/25/2008 05:37:34 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by marttila:
Mit Romney was in similar shoes to Kennedy, but he turned his freedom of religion speech a different direction entirely. Romney tried to paint himself as qualified because he is a member of the believer camp, as if to say, "You can trust me to be president because at least we all believe in God." Of course, Romney had to appeal to the conservative wing of his party which was not a concern for Kennedy, and evangelicals & atheists were not going at it during Kennedy's time in the way they are now. |
I think the crux of the issue with JFK was the responsibility to do what the Pope says, as a Catholic. It is a bit different with other religions, with a less visible head official. It wasn't that he was religious, but the nature of his particular religion.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2008 05:42:09 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by marttila:
Mit Romney was in similar shoes to Kennedy, but he turned his freedom of religion speech a different direction entirely. Romney tried to paint himself as qualified because he is a member of the believer camp, as if to say, "You can trust me to be president because at least we all believe in God." Of course, Romney had to appeal to the conservative wing of his party which was not a concern for Kennedy, and evangelicals & atheists were not going at it during Kennedy's time in the way they are now. |
I think the crux of the issue with JFK was the responsibility to do what the Pope says, as a Catholic. It is a bit different with other religions, with a less visible head official. It wasn't that he was religious, but the nature of his particular religion. |
I'd really disagree in the case of Romney. The power the Mormon hierarchy is able to wield over their adherents is at least as strong as the Pope in catholicism if not stronger. |
|
|
|
02/25/2008 05:42:19 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There isn't even a passage in the constitution which declares a "separation of church and state". |
There's that other whole can of worms (again). It's like saying that the line "Play it again, Sam" is not in the movie Casablanca! Technically correct, but the intent is there. Thomas Jefferson believed in that separation.
So did John F. Kennedy:
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute --
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish --
I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end -- where all men and all churches are treated as equal -- where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice --
Imagine one of today's candidates speaking so strongly! |
So don't you just back up my point that while it isn't there in writing, it may be there in interpretation? What does Ron Paul say about this? If he is a strict constitutionalist, then he may say it isn't there. If he does say it is there, how is he any different from anybody else interpreting the constitution? |
Actually, I believe Ron Paul does not maintain the "strict wall" interpretation. When he has talked about the establishment clause I think he takes that (along with the rest) very literally to mean the government can't establish an official state religion. If I remember correctly, he believes the government has gone too far in limiting itself from any involvement with religious organizations. What is often forgotten in these debates is that the interpretive power of our laws was left in the hands of the courts and there is a huge body of judicial precedence we rely on for careful interpretations. |
|
|
|
02/25/2008 05:45:13 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'd really disagree in the case of Romney. The power the Mormon hierarchy is able to wield over their adherents is at least as strong as the Pope in catholicism if not stronger. |
Maybe, maybe not. But I think the issue was supposed to be resolved with JFK. That's all I'm trying to do - frame his comments in the historical context. He was arguing that you could be president and religious at the same time, beholden to multiple masters as it were. Otherwise the only option would be to only elect atheists. I wonder when that one will happen, before or after a black or female president ? :) Or maybe Dr Rice will roll both those firsts up in to one winner some day.
Message edited by author 2008-02-25 17:45:51.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2008 05:51:03 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'd really disagree in the case of Romney. The power the Mormon hierarchy is able to wield over their adherents is at least as strong as the Pope in catholicism if not stronger. |
Maybe, maybe not. But I think the issue was supposed to be resolved with JFK. That's all I'm trying to do - frame his comments in the historical context. He was arguing that you could be president and religious at the same time, beholden to multiple masters as it were. Otherwise the only option would be to only elect atheists. I wonder when that one will happen, before or after a black or female president ? :) Or maybe Dr Rice will roll both those firsts up in to one winner some day. |
LOL - Atheist president indeed. Not openly at least. That's a group that has good cause to cry "discrimination" with regard to being barred from high office due to their religious choice. Imagine someone perfectly qualified in every other way, but he/she is an atheist. According to the latest poles, that person lost at least half the country just on religion alone. |
|
