Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I want you to know I researched this.
Ron Paul wants to make growing (hemp) by the GOVERNMENT legal.
I do not consider that conservative.
After seeing that Huckabee wanted everything I thought was perfect ..I found out that he intends to MANDATE A NATIONAL BAN ON SMOKING!!!!!..
VERY UNCONSTITUTIONAL WHETHER YOU SMOKE OR NOT!!!!
So I will not vote for him. I even wrote letters to him about it with no reply denying any such thing!!! Then I saw it on his platform..ahah!!! I knew it was too good to be true..though I really like Huckabee I fear greatly that his unconstitutionality would abound.
and the immigration ...
LOL you are completely contradictory. You think it is unconstitutional to ban smoking tobacco but it's crazy to legalize hemp?? Demonizing something like hemp is the reason people are getting fed up with conservative rhetoric...it makes no sense.
What has happened to this country? I thought people wanted change after ClintBush. I look across the political landscape and all I see are manipulative liars (Hillary), slimey adulterers (Giuliani), flip-floppers (Romney), and overrated governors (Richardson & Huckabee). McCain is the only one who actually seems like a President to me but he is far too much of an interventionist and wants to spend MORE on the War on Drugs (please, what a waste of time - legalize all drugs!). I saw Obama at a rally last year and I like him as a person, but I cannot bring myself to agree with universal health care and he seems to baby illegals. Thompson will need too many naps to get anything done. What does that leave us with?
RON PAUL 2008
Huckabee said he wanted to get rid of the IRS... thats all he needs to do for my vote.
Really? So how will he fund the large federal programs that he's not willing to fund? Through a consumption tax... which is just a way to ease us into a system where we have a consumption + income tax for federal taxes.
No thanks. I'd rather reduce spending considerably, and base judgements from there.
twojciac "consumption + income tax for federal taxes" - that's why the repeal of the 16th Amendment Income Tax is an important part of the OVERALL 'Fair Tax' plan.
That's also part of why I support Fred Thompson: his promise to "end the IRS as we know it" by implementing a simplified 'flat tax'. This seems to be much more doable than the Fair Tax in the short term. Fred said he'd sign the 'Fair Tax'.
I can tell you my vote will be for Mike Huckabee.
4.) He knows that we just can't pull all our troops out of a war (whether he believed the war should have been started or not, seems to be a non-issue at this point - it's been going on for years folks!). Analysts for the Middle East give concrete reasons why pulling all our troops out in a mass exodus would invariably destroy all middle eastern stability (no matter how tenuous it currently is) and would threaten America and others alike.
I would like to address #4 because I have yet to read proof that this is valid and sound. Sure on the surface it seems like a reasonable notion and indeed GWB and his Chief Advisors as well as the majority of the Republican Candidates don't want to admit that their support for the War over the years has been misplaced. They don't want to admit furthermore that their numerous votes to increase spending and to not name a deadline haven't been for naught. There are a lot of "reasonable notions" which have been put forth to the masses throughout history which have turned out to be completely false when data was analyzed. I trust my instincts and reason only so far... we're talking about a war which has been going on for many years, for which most of the other countries originally involved have already withdrawn their troops from, and for which most politicians in the US and abroad are in agreement is a waste of time and money.
I want to see the data if we're to continue. If indeed this is like the current threat of global environmental disaster, then I want to see concensus and discussion by intelligent/rational folks that the US should keep their forces in Iraq for an attainable goal.
What analyst materials are you referring to? What concrete "intelligence" has been compiled (and by whom) that says we cannot just pull our troops out today or even tomorrow? Lastly, if such materials exist - here's my thinking, why should the US bear the burden of having our soldiers represent 99% of those soldiers in Iraq going forward when there are plenty of armies in directly neighboring or nearby countries who could achieve the same mission, at much less cost, and under an international banner?
Last edited by belovenow; 12-21-2007 at 07:58 AM..
I would like to address #4 because I have yet to read proof that this is valid and sound.
What analyst materials are you referring to? What concrete "intelligence" has been compiled (and by whom) that says we cannot just pull our troops out today or even tomorrow? Lastly, if such materials exist - here's my thinking, why should the US bear the burden of having our soldiers represent 99% of those soldiers in Iraq going forward when there are plenty of armies in directly neighboring or nearby countries who could achieve the same mission, at much less cost, and under an international banner?
I really don't want to argue.. but just imo.. do you honestly believe anyone who's had their entire governmental system and country blown to smithereens, who have terrorists hiding among them, who have virtually no truly trained police force or military, and no economic stability to speak of, and whom have lived in complete Saddam or Saddam-type control since birth, can HONESTLY be expected to not completely implode if all troops, protection, training, safer government elections, help rebuilding, etc. were pulled out immediately?
It doesn't matter if any of us agree with whether the war should have happened, or not. All I know is that our country declared war on Iraq. From that day forward we accepted (whether unwillingly, is moot) to protect and provide for all the innocent citizens of that country to help them establish a FREE nation and have the same freedoms and rights that we do in our democracy today. The innocent men, women & children of Iraq didn't bring this war on, any more than the average American citizen did! A group of hateful, sadistic, twisted terrorists and their leaders and possibly a few currupt others did. Why should the innocents be thrown back to the wolves after we decimated the flimsy fence that stood between them and those viscious wolves in the first place?
I personally hate that American men and women (kids really) are dying over there, but you know what? People who join the military KNOW they might be called to duty in a war. I was a military member myself. IT SUCKS, but that's a fact of becoming one of the elite.
I'll get off my soapbox now. I don't have all your answers. I can't NAME you the analysts or scientists who know far more about Middle Eastern stability than you or I, or billions of Americans put together. Do some research.
i would support fred thompson but i do not think that he has the momentum to win the nomination.
If you want to support him than do. Don't base not supporting him because you don't think he can win. . Thats the problem with our elections. People vote that way, not by whom the want.
twojciac "consumption + income tax for federal taxes" - that's why the repeal of the 16th Amendment Income Tax is an important part of the OVERALL 'Fair Tax' plan.
That's also part of why I support Fred Thompson: his promise to "end the IRS as we know it" by implementing a simplified 'flat tax'. This seems to be much more doable than the Fair Tax in the short term. Fred said he'd sign the 'Fair Tax'.
RP said he'd sign the fair tax as well, saying it would be better than what we have now. But saying that you'll fight to repeal the 16th Amendment with the Fair Tax doesn't guarantee its action any more than Ron Paul's fight to eliminate it to replace it with no tax. But at least Ron Paul is looking to the root of the problem and that's our out of control spending.
Honestly I wish they'd all recognize that we shoudn't end the income tax just yet... let's drastically cut spending and get a 10 year plan together to pay off the national debt...then we can worry about cutting back on taxes. The silent tax of inflation is going to bury this country.
do you honestly believe anyone who's had their entire governmental system and country blown to smithereens, who have terrorists hiding among them, who have virtually no truly trained police force or military, and no economic stability to speak of, and whom have lived in complete Saddam or Saddam-type control since birth, can HONESTLY be expected to not completely implode if all troops, protection, training, safer government elections, help rebuilding, etc. were pulled out immediately?
I'll get off my soapbox now. I don't have all your answers. I can't NAME you the analysts or scientists who know far more about Middle Eastern stability than you or I, or billions of Americans put together. Do some research.
You seem quite agitated because I question the validity of your claims. As annoyed as you may be for my challenging your claims you ought to spend some time doing the research behind them. What you'd realize is that you unwittingly just reiterate what others have said, and likewise they did the same - it all goes to the source which quite frankly isn't reputable since it's a President and his Chief Cabinet Advisors (many of which have resigned) attempting to validate what most of us now know have been one mistake made after another.
All Huckabee has really stated is that he thinks the President and his advisors must know something the rest of us doesn't and that is why he supports being in Iraq. I think that's an ok thing for someone like you and I to assume... but he's someone who actually could and should find the real information before committing to spout the party-line in a campaign effort. The fact that he has done no significant research before taking a position on the Iraq war, inarguably one of the very top issues at hand this election, should cause pause to think.
As of today I haven't found any current/reputable/unbiased sources which describe how Iraq would mysteriously descend into chaos if the US withdrew its forces. In fact to the contrary, I can with little effort find sources which describe how the situation couldn't get any worse (for the Iraq people and the US soldiers alike). Today you have chaos with the US forces present... even in the "secured areas" of the capital there's bombs going off every day. Across Iraq the US has had little success quelling the insurgency - there's shootings and chaos everywhere. The US has also had zero luck training new Iraq military & police forces, and how quickly everyone forgets but nearly everyone the US has installed in Iraq government over the past 4 years has been assassinated. Here's a link to a well-written description of the current situation and a likely outcome of the US withdrawing:
http://bowman.typepad.com/cubowman/2004/08/why_dont_we_lea.html (broken link)
The Iraqi's themselves don't appreciate us being there - if you listen to veterans who have 'recently' come back (check out Youtube) you will hear this direct from them. None of the neighboring countries seem to want us there either. Do we owe the Iraqi people anything as you suggest? No. They had a cruel and oppressive dictator who's been removed for our own safety, the people's safety, and the safety of the neighboring countries. The people of Iraq now need to organize and rule themselves and no they will never accomplish that while we're there. You cannot force a nation into creation through military actions. You may be able to assist with advisors but that is an entirely different thing than that which is being done today.
The point of this thread is to describe who everyone supports and why. Perhaps it's two topics which unfortunately lead to some people feeling defensive and others feeling the need to weed out written misconceptions. That naturally creates conflict. Although I don't have answers to a lot, I do on occasion recognize bs when I see or hear it. When I see someone after all the evidence and history is laid out in front of them still support a mistake like being in Iraq, I feel the need to share my opinion. Perhaps my opinion will change tomorrow, but for now the overwhelming evidence is that the Iraq war is costing the US a ridiculously unsustainable amount of money and it has even greater costs for our military forces which are now having a very difficult time recruiting, retaining existing membership, and maintaining moral. This is not WWIII folks, this is just another Vietnam. We need to bring our folks home and in the future work to prevent this type of thing happening yet again.
Last edited by belovenow; 12-21-2007 at 01:20 PM..
I would support Hillary. I find her strong and she definitely will give the country a good ruling. She has the character and making of a strong woman. There is nobody without flaws but to win over them is the mark of good character
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
..
