Presidential Primary.... (Hill: schools, to live, legal)

[New Hampshire]

Originally Posted by nicolem

I However it seems the only "conservatives" the Republicans care about are the Christian Conservatives. While I am a Christian- I have very little -if anything in common with the Christian coalition types.

There used to be a Conservative Party. U. S. Senator Jim Buckley of New York, National Review's William F. Buckley's brother, was elected senator on the Conservative Party ticket.

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts...?index=B001026

Conservative Party made a decision to have its rank and file become Republicans and use their numbers to move the Republican Party further to the right. Republicans and Conservatives have only in the last 20 years or so become synonymous. Republicans traditionally were for limited government and low taxes and didn't get into the social issues. Sounds like you want your party back!

Today's analogy would be the Libertarian Party advising its members to move to New Hampshire to influence politics here.

[New Hampshire]

Originally Posted by remember-voltaire

a good role model whether you agree or not with her politics is condi, now before anyone boils into rage on what she stands for then I will clear up what I mean

she grew up very poor, racism was rife where she lived and yet she studied hard at school and strived to be all she could be against all odds she did something with her life instead of whining about what the govt could do for her.(

Condoleeza Rice grew up as an only child of doting and protective upper-middle-class parents in Birmingham, Alabama, during segregation. Condi's schoolteacher mother taught Condi to stay within her own close-knit circle to protect her against racism. Condi was born in 1954, and the Rice family moved to Denver, Colorado, in 1967, where her father became Assistant Dean at the University of Denver, Condi's alma mater. Condi's mother also emphasized the importance of dressing well. Condi lived with her parents until her mother died, and then continued to live with her father until she moved to Washington, D. C. with President Bush. Condi's father has since passed away.

Although you can say that Condoleeza Rice is a role model, hers is not a rags-to-riches, pull-yourself-up-by-your bootstraps story. Condi did work very hard at her studies and whatever else she endeavored. She wanted to be a professional figure skater and worked hard toward that goal, but she realized that her talent would not take her that far so she concentrated on her studies and the piano hoping to be a concert pianist. She still plays classical piano for pleasure. In 2002 she accompanied cellist Yo-Yo Ma in concert on the piano for the National Medal of Arts Awards.

[New Hampshire]

Originally Posted by remember-voltaire

curious

why is oprah endorsing obama , she's never done this before, he has no experience at all, he's only on his second term.

Senator Clinton is only in her second term, Senator Edwards only served one term, President Bush never held national office, nor has Governor Huckabee, Mayor Giuliani, or Governor Romney...I could go on. The Constitution states a president has to be at least 35 years of age and born in the United States. All candidates of both parties qualify.

[nicolem]

Originally Posted by New Hampshire

There used to be a Conservative Party. U. S. Senator Jim Buckley of New York, National Review's William F. Buckley's brother, was elected senator on the Conservative Party ticket.

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts...?index=B001026

Conservative Party made a decision to have its rank and file become Republicans and use their numbers to move the Republican Party further to the right. Republicans and Conservatives have only in the last 20 years or so become synonymous. Republicans traditionally were for limited government and low taxes and didn't get into the social issues. Sounds like you want your party back!

Today's analogy would be the Libertarian Party advising its members to move to New Hampshire to influence politics here.

Yes- I would like my country and my party back

While it is true there are aspects of the Liberterian party that appeal to me-I disagree with them on important issues such as open borders and immigration, abortion and others. I also am not against police-in fact I am a strong supporter of police and law enforcement.

[MamaBee]

Originally Posted by nicolem

Yes- I would like my country and my party back

I agree. While I am a Christian I do not feel that this should be injected into politics. Just as I don't like those with liberal social views trying to force them on me, I don't like those with far-right social views trying to force them on me either. (Socialists to the left of me, fascists to the right)

Seems that many "Republicans" aren't for limited government anymore, they're not for protection of the second amendment, etc. These R.I.N.O.s (Republicans in name only) are way off from the intention of the Republican party. And for people like Huckabee...I guess all you have to do is talk about God and faith and that will get you elected.

I appreciate the quote Ron Paul made on Fox & Friends this week from Sinclair Lewis, “When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

[remember-voltaire]

see I didn't like that quote and thought it was way over the top though saying that I think ron paul is complete nuts and hasn't got a clue on international policy or even how he would implement his policies to congress.

I never bother with church but I do get annoyed by the constant bigotry towards christians, no way what is said about christians would they say about anyother group. after living in the south I have seen first hand just how much good christian groups do, charities etc, do I think it should be into politics ,no just look at islam and how religion and politics have messed up peoples lives, but someones religion should not i.e. romney stop them from being elected.


also someone said about experience

If; someone is going to hold the most important position in the world then i would like to have that person have some experience, not three years as a senator even bill clinton noted obama had only been a senator for one year before wanting to be president, then there's the voting backgrounds and it's hardly experience as his voting tends to be present instead or aye or neigh

[unknown stuntman]

Originally Posted by remember-voltaire

see I didn't like that quote and thought it was way over the top though saying that I think ron paul is complete nuts and hasn't got a clue on international policy or even how he would implement his policies to congress.

Voltaire is dead-on. Not buying the Paul hype for a second. Tried to ask some reasonable questions of the Paul worshippers, and they become very defensive- retorts about how I listen to the mainstream media and if I wasn't brainwashed, I'd know Paul's positions. Au contraire. I do anything but rely on the MSM, Fox included, for the brunt of my gathering of facts and stated positions. I've looked directly on Paul sponsored sites. The man is as clueless as a three leged feline trying to utilize his litter box. Paul is as guilty as any when it comes to beautiful sounding sound-bytes and not being challenged by the media. Paul supporters duck and evade the question when I confront them regarding his isolationist theories and what happens next when he "disbands Homeland Security". Pretty bold statement, you'd think there was a game plan, hey? And to think, he doesn't even address it on his OWN site!

Then I get the retorts as well of government waste and ineptitude, and how the US plays the role too much of world policeman. Geez, ya think? Unfortunately the world ain't that simple and while our foreign policy is a complete disgrace and hypocritical at times, it sure the heck isn't isolationism that has enabled the world to be far more harmonious and peace and sovereignty to persevere over the vast majority of developed countries. Paul isn't any less guilty of being that apt politican who utters the perfect soundbyte devoid of any insightful substantive plan. He would rather just call every one else a "Neocon" and let many of folks whoop it up and raise their fists given the current political climate.

I know Paul is the hot candidate now here in NH and certainly I do share common ground with Paul on plenty, but on a national scale, this guy is as big of a crock as the goofy Ross Perot and is the leftist-libertarian I can't stand: and I do vote Libertarian often times....he doesn't care about national borders and the illegal alien crisis, and his close ties to the ACLU in the modern day is a disgrace and anything but an example of a "Constitutionalist" despite what the ACLU goons claim they all are. Just as with the Hillarys of the world, careful to distinguish what sounds nice to the ears and what is reality.

[MamaBee]

I am a Ron Paul supporter. Not every candidate has everything you want. I agree that many of his positions are questionable. However, my main reason for supporting him is that, more than any other candidate, he is in support of liberty and states rights. (And yes, many Ron Paul supporters are loony...but so are fervent supporters of many candidates)

The Executive Branch cannot accomplish most things on its own; I think it would be valuable to have someone with the guts to veto spending, etc. from Congress in the White House.

[remember-voltaire]

getting rid of the homeland security, getting rid of the CIA when we need intel on other countries like china or islamic extremists who I might add have stopped future attacks , is certainly not needed, getting rid of the FBI etc getting rid of basically every govt group would be a disaster and even so has he not thought he would never get his bills, or anything done in congress as he's too far out on his ideas.

he thinks going isolationaistic is thinking islamic groups won't all of a sudden bother us is just plain naive I would think or he hasn't got any clue on international policy.
remember america stayed out of world war 2 until japan attacked, being alone in the world just doesn't work

says about we are in danger because of iraq well 9/11 wasn't to do with iraq as iraq was after, the world trade centre in 93 was attacked what was the reason for that, USS, cole, the kobar towers, embassies all happened before went into iraq. 13 years before 9/11 there was a group in chicago who lybia had talks with about killing people in america.

everytime I hear the man I just shake my head in disbelief and think he can't be serious surely

[MamaBee]

Originally Posted by remember-voltaire

getting rid of the homeland security, getting rid of the CIA when we need intel on other countries like china or islamic extremists who I might add have stopped future attacks , is certainly not needed, getting rid of the FBI etc getting rid of basically every govt group would be a disaster and even so has he not thought he would never get his bills, or anything done in congress as he's too far out on his ideas.

he thinks going isolationaistic is thinking islamic groups won't all of a sudden bother us is just plain naive I would think or he hasn't got any clue on international policy.
remember america stayed out of world war 2 until japan attacked, being alone in the world just doesn't work

says about we are in danger because of iraq well 9/11 wasn't to do with iraq as iraq was after, the world trade centre in 93 was attacked what was the reason for that, USS, cole, the kobar towers, embassies all happened before went into iraq. 13 years before 9/11 there was a group in chicago who lybia had talks with about killing people in america.

everytime I hear the man I just shake my head in disbelief and think he can't be serious surely

He's not an isolationist, he believes that we should be involved with all nations. However, if you look at the historical record (which is what he repeats during his speeches) it is our interference with other nations that leads us to trouble. We never would've been attacked in WWII if it weren't for our actions in WWI and our military support for Britain. All other wars in the 20th century were not declared by congress as is delineated in the Constitution.

He says that being in Iraq and entagling ourselves in the internal affairs of other nations is what gets us into trouble. This is a main reason why the terrorists began to dislike us...look at Iran. We supported the Shah that suppressed his people (just like we're currently doing in Pakistan). Our interference with Israel, Saudi Arabia, the entire region is getting us into trouble.

Change has to start somewhere; all the other candidates are for more of the same...tax and spend, encroach on civil liberties, expand the Federal Government, corporate welfare, etc.