Which Presidential Candidate Do You Support?

[clemsontigers23]

Which of these candidates do you support? Who do you absolutely refuse to vote for? Personally, I support Fred Thompson and John McCain, possibly Sam Brownback, and will absolutely not vote for Obama, Clinton, Giuliani, Mitt Romney, or John Edwards. I will be voting Republican unless it's a Republican I refuse to vote for, such as Giuliani.

I've done my research and Fred Thompson seems like the best choice. He is the most conservative candidate running and seems like a guy who will stand up for Christian morals and family values.

I've bolded the frontrunners.

Republican (read about the candidates here: http://www.politics1.com/p2008-gop.htm)

Sam Brownback
Newt Gingrich
Rudy Giuliani
Chuck Hagel
Mike Huckabee
Duncan Hunter
Alan Keyes
John McCain
Ron Paul
Mitt Romney
Tom Tancredo
Fred Thompson
Tommy Thompson
Virginia Algar
George B. Bailey Jr.
Edward Buck
Allen Bunch
Dr. Hugh Cort III (very Christian)
John H. Cox
Susan G. Ducey
Dan Gilbert
Ray Green
Bob Haines
Curtis Hayward
Millie Howard
Jerry Johnson
Donnie Kennedy
Mark Klein
William Koenig
John Kok
Elvena Lloyd-Duffie
Yehanna Joan M.M. Malone
Ray McKinney
Jim Mitchell Jr.
Fred Ogin
Doc Raven
Marshall Sanders
Jack Shepard
Michael Charles Smith
Richard Michael Smith
Keith Sprankle
Corrogan Vaughn
Virgil L.R. Wiles
Vern Wuensche
Michael Jesus Archangel (.....lol. I have to post this guy's biography)

STATUS: ANNOUNCED CANDIDATE. This gadfly candidate -- who also uses the name "Saint Michael Jesus the Archangel" (note: formerly named Philip Silva until he legally adopted the Archangel moniker in 1996) -- appears rather delusional. "From the time I was a little boy I knew I was God and Michael the Archangel, but I didn't dare tell anyone, not even anyone in my family because I knew that the devil, Satan, was going to try to murder Me, and indeed he did try, four separate times," he explains. He says he's a Vietnam War veteran who attempted suicide due to depression and paranoia. He also claims he later became a "a volunteer Secret Agent for the Central Intelligence Agency without pay." A former janitor, he is a self-employed "writer" these days. As for politics, he describes himself as a "radical conservative Republican" who recognizes "the fact that America is an official Theocracy." Archangel was arrested on attempted murder and other felony charges in March 2006. "As a matter of fact, he is crazy. Anyone in their right mind can see that," said the Sheriff who arrested him. You can find lots and lots of very long pages of his bizarre writing on his official website: ArchangelMichael.info (you've got to scroll down very far on the homepage to find the link to his Presidential campaign and his autobiography).


Democrat (read about candidates here: http://www.politics1.com/p2008-dems.htm):

Joe Biden
Hillary Clinton
Chris Dodd
John Edwards
Mike Gravel
Dennis Kucinich
Barack Obama
Bill Richardson
Roland Aranjo
Warren Ashe
Christina Gerasimos Billings-Elias aka Princess Christina Gerasimos Billings-Elias
Bob Boyer
Randy Crow
Laura Davis-Aaron
Phil Epstein
Michael Forrester
Dan Francis
Wrendo J.P. Godwin
Big Al Hamburg
Alfonzo Jones
John Joseph Kennedy
Karl E. Krueger
Tweezerman LaMagna
Lee L. Mercer Jr.
Sal Mohamed
Ole Savior
Jeff Thomas

[middletree]

Pretty hard to not vote for a guy named Big Al Hamburg.

I know it's a cliche to say this, but I am disappointed in pretty much all of them, and may, for the first time since I was old enough to vote, sit this one out. Last guy I voted for disappointed me greatly with many of his actions and choices, although I think he's an honorable man.

What's sad is that the Family Values party has as its front-runners, several divorced men and at least 3 admitted adulterers.

Ultimately, nobody has done a dang thing about abortion, no matter what their stance is. So I'm gonna vote for whoever offers to get rid of Daylight Savings time.

[Aaron]

If I was old enough to vote my choice would be Ron Paul.

[The Unknown Gomer]

I'd vote for Pat Paulsen. Or I would, if he were still alive.

Even dead, I'd be inclined to vote for him anyway. :D

(And all the young'uns are going "Who? Which party is he with? I don't see him on the list!" :P )

[Evanescence]

If I was old enough to vote my choice would be Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is an activist in the Truth Movement....

No talk about the Constitutional Party?

I'm voting for anyone who isn't in a secret society....

Oh, wait...that'd be none of them...:rolleyes:

[SmileyFreak1981]

I can 100% guarantee you I will NOT under any circumstance vote for Hillary Clinton...

No one at this point has my support, however, and frankly, I could care less...'til about this time next year.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

You forgot Christopher Walken! (Walken2008 (http://www.walken2008.com/))

I'm leaning towards Obama right now. But I really haven't done much research on most of the others yet, so that may change. I for certain will not vote for Hillary or Edwards, and I'm not too happy with the republican party at this point, so I may just not vote if I don't think Obama's good for the job. And if I don't vote, that means I'll have to refrain from complaining about politics for that term. That may be hard to do!

[Valpo]

to be elected president, you have to be slick in politics (which is why I wont be a politician, not that I cant be slick but bc it's all about selling your soul and being dishonest). Case and point, Obama has little experience and was made to look ridiculous by the Clinton Machine. The guy first says he's sitting down for tea and crumpets with our enemies, than says he'd invade Pakistan without a green light from the Pakastani Government. That's naiive and ridiculous, and Romney recently said that makes Obama go from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove all in the same week. Which I think was the best line of the campaign thus far. Obama has too little real time political experience to be elected, he will be outwitted and is being outwitted already. Aside from the political nonsense aspect I dont think he's a good choice, it is not wise to hold no bars talks with Iran, Syria, and North Korea. They use meetings to parade their own agenda. Also it would not be wise to attack Pakistan, but Liberals for whatever reason, as much as they say they dont care what others say and they stand up for what they believe in, feel like they have to prove they're tough guys (or gals).

[The Unknown Gomer]

Had a couple of Edwards promotional discs come into my possession in the last week or so, and it SOUNDS like he's saying all the right things, which is what his promotional stuff is supposed to do, I know.

But for those of you who are anti-Edwards, could you please explain why?

I've not made any voting decisions about anyone yet, so just looking for someone to fill me in on all the BAD Edwards stuff that his staff conveniently left off of his campaign DVD so I can get a more accurate picture of what the guy is all about.

[mat1583]

Ron Paul is an activist in the Truth Movement....

No he isn't. In interviews he has always denied involvement with the Truth Movement and has consistently said that he doesn't think the government was in on 9/11. Just do a quick google search. Truthers want to associate Ron Paul with their movement, but he does not want any association at all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mfuQK_zfqo (check it out at 3:35 )

I guess you know who I support :)

RON PAUL FOR LIBERTY AND FREEDOM!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG_HuFtP8w8

-washboard

[Evanescence]

I'm only voting Republican...they're the only true Christian people in politics who will make the world the Utopia, heaven on earth, God wants. We have to stop the evil Liberals. They will corrupt our children...

[rossid]

Paul had a DVD on all our cars at church a week ago Sunday.

Don't plan on going to the Iowa Straw Poll. I'm looking at Huckabee for the Iowa Caucus.

[Evanescence]

No he isn't. In interviews he has always denied involvement with the Truth Movement and has consistently said that he doesn't think the government was in on 9/11. Just do a quick google search. Truthers want to associate Ron Paul with their movement, but he does not want any association at all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mfuQK_zfqo (check it out at 3:35 )

I guess you know who I support :)

RON PAUL FOR LIBERTY AND FREEDOM!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG_HuFtP8w8

-washboard

HMm...interesting. That was rumor that I heard, thats all.

But, I will say that I believe there ARE politicians out there that do believe we were lied to, or worse yet, they know a LOT about it.

They'd never expose this...it'd be career suicide.

[Valpo]

I really like Huckabee, especially after he quoted Luther at one of the debates, but I do not know his electibility, so that is something I will look at further.

[clemsontigers23]

No he isn't. In interviews he has always denied involvement with the Truth Movement and has consistently said that he doesn't think the government was in on 9/11. Just do a quick google search. Truthers want to associate Ron Paul with their movement, but he does not want any association at all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mfuQK_zfqo (check it out at 3:35 )

I guess you know who I support :)

RON PAUL FOR LIBERTY AND FREEDOM!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG_HuFtP8w8

-washboard

Ron Paul is crazy. He says he'd abolish pretty much every government agency we have, including the post office, and the federal reserve. I know that might sound good, but the fact is he says he'd also abolish government agencies that help kids and such...I think UNISEF was the one he mentioned. He said he'd rely on corporations to give donations...like that's going to happen...

As far as abolishing the post office, he says he'd let FedEx and UPS fight it out for whoever delivers mail. I don't know about you, but that sounds like a REALLY bad idea to me.

Does anyone know anything about Fred Thompson? I think if he's going to enter the race, now's the time to do so.

I agree with Weasel...this would be my first chance to vote, but I might have to sit this one out as well.

[Valpo]

I'm gonna be honest I don't like certain things Ron Paul has said but for some reason he does intrigue me.

E maybe the reason the Truth Movement wants to align Paul with them is because he has been outspoken saying today's "americanism" brought on the attacks. I disagree with the premise of what he meant. But certainly we were attacked because we are Americans. And those people in al-qaeda despise America, I just think they would despise America of 1776 just as much as today because it comes down to fundamental islamic govt vs freedom, not so much that we're an obese country. But Paul is certainly allowed to hold that opinion. And washboard please clean up my post if I misrepresented Ron Paul's stance, I assume you know more about him than I do.

[freakysoccer]

i'm not old enough to vote yet, but, i will be by election time and i really don't know who i will vote for.

i do know i will NOT vote for clinton!!!!!!!!!

i just haven't really seen enough about the candidates to really know who i like. by the time the election rolls around i will probably be so sick of politics that i will not want to vote at all; mainly because by this time next year, all that the candidates will be doing is talking bad about the other candidates, and for that i won't like any of them. i just don't understand why they have to personally attack each other, why can't they try harder to hilight the good points about themselves.

[SonflowerGurl]

:eek: *panic*

We've only got 15 months to decide before the elections....

...well I suppose we have some primarys in Feb.

but a lot can change in a year.

McCain, whether you like him or not, is straightforward. He'll never get it because he has integrity.

[mat1583]

Ron Paul is crazy. He says he'd abolish pretty much every government agency we have, including the post office, and the federal reserve. I know that might sound good, but the fact is he says he'd also abolish government agencies that help kids and such...I think UNISEF was the one he mentioned. He said he'd rely on corporations to give donations...like that's going to happen...

Ron Paul did not actually say he would "abolish" UNICEF. You are probably referring to his appearance on the Colbert Report in which Colbert asked RP to raise his hands for Federal Gov't agencies he'd like to abolish. UNICEF is not actually a Federal Government agency, but a United Nations organization. It is funded in part by federal funds, which I agree with RP that it should not be. Private organizations, non-profit or not, have and will continue to provide funds for the care of children around the world. The US UNICEF committee, "works to advocate for the world’s children, increase awareness among the U.S. public of children’s needs and raise funds in support of UNICEF’s work."

I just went on a 2 week mission trip to Africa for the same reason, however, I went for a group called 100x missions ( http://100xmissions.org/ ). 100x missions is a private organization that does exactly what UNICEF does, but is led by Christians. I trust 100xmissions a 100 times more than I would any Federally funded organization. I'm willing to bet that 100x missions also does a much better job than UNICEF.


As far as abolishing the post office, he says he'd let FedEx and UPS fight it out for whoever delivers mail. I don't know about you, but that sounds like a REALLY bad idea to me.

A bad idea? FedEx, UPS, USPS, and other carriers already compete for the package delivery market. To say that letting the free market handle mail delivery is a bad idea is just as wrong as saying that it's a bad idea for them to handle package delivery - it's ridiculous. The benefit of a free market is the competition. What would happen today if the USPS raised postage to $5 a stamp and there were no other mail delivery services? If you send any kind of snail mail, you'd be in the hole.

-washboard

[TX3DFan]

In the end, in November 2008, I'll be voting for whomever is running against Clinton/Obama/Edwards (whichever one wins the primary) because I cannot fathom any 1 of the 3 actually atttempting to lead this country. It would not be a pretty sight, in my opinion.

I'm a red state, red blooded Republican, and proud of it. But that doesn't mean I love every Republican and tow the party line. I have been very disappointed in Bush for about the last year for many things, mainly the handling of the war. I was a huge Bush supporter until a year or 2 ago.

The bottom line for the Republican party, putting morals and Christian views aside, is that if they are to have any chance of getting another Republican elected to office and beat the Clinton/Obama/Edwards juggernaut is to appoint a moderate candidate that distances himself from the current administration and doesn't just spout the Republican party rhetoric. Frankly, I think the best candidate in that sense would be Rudy Guiliani. Yes he has a less than stellar past morally in his personal relationships, but he is the most moderate candidate that really truly stands a chance against whomever the Dems trot out next year. He may not agree with and uphold all the moral and Christian standards that I believe in, but I'd much rather he be the man in the oval office than Hillary.

I do think Fred Thompson could be a force to be reckoned with as well if he would throw his hat into the competition. In my opinion, Romney is just too conservative - similar to Bush and others, and McCain has burned too many bridges with other Republicans.

Just my $.02 (which probably isn't even worth the 2 pennies)

[danbos]

I will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. Probably not Obama either. I don't know who I will vote for, but if one of these makes it onto the ballot I'll be going just to vote against them.

[Parrot1965]

If Thompson officially runs, he'll get my vote. But I don't think any Republican stands a snowball's chance in Hades against the liberals, oops, I mean Democratic candidates, in the '08 race. I am concerned that Al Gore is considering a bid, or he's at least being encouraged to do so: http://www.draftgore.com/ There are other sites like this all over the internet. Kind of scary, kind of funny at the same time. But he could overtake Obama and Clinton if he does decide to run. The Bush-slammers are in for a major wake-up call when the US goes into the toilet with Gore, Obama or Clinton in charge.

[Parrot1965]

Pretty hard to not vote for a guy named Big Al Hamburg.

I know it's a cliche to say this, but I am disappointed in pretty much all of them, and may, for the first time since I was old enough to vote, sit this one out. Last guy I voted for disappointed me greatly with many of his actions and choices, although I think he's an honorable man.

What's sad is that the Family Values party has as its front-runners, several divorced men and at least 3 admitted adulterers.

Ultimately, nobody has done a dang thing about abortion, no matter what their stance is. So I'm gonna vote for whoever offers to get rid of Daylight Savings time.

You are absolutely right! I don't agree with the DST thing, though. Up here in Washington, it gets pretty dark pretty early in the fall and winter, and I need that extra hour of daylight! :cool:

[truster]

Hmmmm... Well, if I'm in the same position that I'm in now... that is, where I have no real information or exposure to information... I probably won't vote. Granted, last year I didn't vote because I waited too long to get a mail-in ballot, and I couldn't come into town any time that they were having early voting. Since I live 2.5 hours away from the county in which I'm registered (at the time of elections), it makes it kinda hard. :)

[Jason]

McCain, Huckabee, or Thompson.

[Aussie3rddayfan]

It's hard to understand the current political structure from the other side of the globe but I have heard the most on two candidates: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Hillary is certainly popular, and is in a very strong position (from what I understand) however I have not heard much about her policies and therefore which of them would be relevant and necassary for American society. Barack Obama on the other hand is somewhat different. He has alot more charisma and seems to be a very genuine down to earth man. Again, I not heard much of his policies (being an Aussie) but did watch a rather interesting and informative view on his character a few months back. He seems to be a good bet for the next president.

[The Unknown Gomer]

Hello!

*taps the microphone to see if it's working*

If nobody gives me any reasons to NOT vote for Edwards, I might just have to vote for him based on the fact that he's CUTE! And well, he's got that GREAT haircut! ;)

Seriously, I've only heard HIS side of things so far, which since they came from his campaign office, are all GOOD, naturally. Can someone please play devils advocate and tell me why I SHOULDN'T vote for him? I really want to hear both sides.

[middletree]

Because he got rich by being a personal injury lawyer. He's an ambulance-chaser. He has made a living out of convincing people that they are victims. The victim mentality has ruined our country in numerous ways.

[mat1583]

Can someone please play devils advocate and tell me why I SHOULDN'T vote for him? I really want to hear both sides.

Things he wants to accomplish that I do not agree with:

-Universal health care coverage through greater taxation of corporations, and then REQUIRING everyone to get health insurance.
-Raise the minimum wage. (Doesn't actually help the poor, increases inflation which lowers the value of the dollar and the value of unskilled workers.)
-Edwards will establish a national broadband map to identify gaps in availability, price, and speed and REQUIRE telephone and cable companies not to discriminate against rural communities in building their broadband networks. (A private company should be able to decide not to provide service in a particular area if it is not going to be profitable for them.)
-Prohibiting Banks from Discriminating against Rural America (Same as the cable companies.)
-Ridding Rural America of Methamphetamines (The war on drugs has wasted billions of tax-payer dollars, overpopulated prisons with non-violent drug offenders, and increased violent crimes by making it more difficult to get drugs. It has not accomplished it's main goal - decreasing drug use.)
-Edwards will strengthen the FDA and rebuild our food inspection system within the beefed-up agency, giving one regulatory body clear responsibility for ensuring the security and safety of the food we eat. (I believe private corporations should carry out food inspections.)
-Spending billions to fight global climate change (Global warming [or climate change] has become a religion among the politicians. While I agree that we should clean up emissions, the restrictions and forced alternatives bankrupt some companies and have strong economical impact.)

This is just a small list I went through on his site about the issues. I can explain these in greater depth if need be, but it may take a year or so. :)

-washboard

[WeaselInYerFoot]

This Ron Paul guy is looking more and more interesting. If he's as good as is shown in most of what I've read, then my vote may just change.

[lilmikey]

Mitt Romney has my vote. Guliani is to wishy washy, Mccain is a Rino(republican in name only)

[Yippy]

Pretty hard to not vote for a guy named Big Al Hamburg.

I know it's a cliche to say this, but I am disappointed in pretty much all of them, and may, for the first time since I was old enough to vote, sit this one out. Last guy I voted for disappointed me greatly with many of his actions and choices, although I think he's an honorable man.

What's sad is that the Family Values party has as its front-runners, several divorced men and at least 3 admitted adulterers.

Ultimately, nobody has done a dang thing about abortion, no matter what their stance is. So I'm gonna vote for whoever offers to get rid of Daylight Savings time.

This is pretty much how I've felt my entire voting life.

I have never liked any candidate or felt comfortable in any party. I've always voted who in my mind is the lesser of two evils. I can't even stand listening to politicians speak...

I do like DST, though.

[Evanescence]

This is pretty much how I've felt my entire voting life.

I have never liked any candidate or felt comfortable in any party. I've always voted who in my mind is the lesser of two evils. I can't even stand listening to politicians speak...

I do like DST, though.

My friend is running for Congresshere in PA against Joe Pitts. My friend is a down to earth, construction worker with very little experience in politics except for helping with campaigns in the Dem party. He recently told me that some of his constituents and party leaders (all career politicians) told him that the days of a "citezen politician" are long over with. The USA is a better place WITH career politicians and their endless connections. He and I disagree.

He's a DEM, pro-gun, pro sportsmen, pro farming, pro family...fairly conservative in my book. But, he's against big Govt, the current crisis with the relious right in the Rep party and pro abortion (with some limitations)

Here in rural conservative Lanc co, he'll have a tough time. But, our 6 term career politician Joe Pitts has a sad record....especially rubber stamping for the Pres and Rep party.

I told him I wont vote for him just 'cause he's a friend...nor will I do campaigning. I'll do it if he starts a 3rd party...:cool:

[Jason]

What's Daylight Savings Time? :D

[in hiding]

Would vote for: Ron Paul easily first choice, Huckabee and Romney.

would only vote for Thompson if he ran against hillary or obama.

Wouldnt vote for: Hillary, Obama, Rudy.

here's a good website that gives information on the candidates
http://www.vote-smart.org/election_president.php?di st=bio.php

[Evanescence]

I forgot about Guilianni (sp)

I'm afraid he too knows about the real story behind 9/11....

[The Unknown Gomer]

Because he got rich by being a personal injury lawyer. He's an ambulance-chaser. He has made a living out of convincing people that they are victims. The victim mentality has ruined our country in numerous ways.

Things he wants to accomplish that I do not agree with:

-Universal health care coverage through greater taxation of corporations, and then REQUIRING everyone to get health insurance.
-Raise the minimum wage. (Doesn't actually help the poor, increases inflation which lowers the value of the dollar and the value of unskilled workers.)
-Edwards will establish a national broadband map to identify gaps in availability, price, and speed and REQUIRE telephone and cable companies not to discriminate against rural communities in building their broadband networks. (A private company should be able to decide not to provide service in a particular area if it is not going to be profitable for them.)
-Prohibiting Banks from Discriminating against Rural America (Same as the cable companies.)
-Ridding Rural America of Methamphetamines (The war on drugs has wasted billions of tax-payer dollars, overpopulated prisons with non-violent drug offenders, and increased violent crimes by making it more difficult to get drugs. It has not accomplished it's main goal - decreasing drug use.)
-Edwards will strengthen the FDA and rebuild our food inspection system within the beefed-up agency, giving one regulatory body clear responsibility for ensuring the security and safety of the food we eat. (I believe private corporations should carry out food inspections.)
-Spending billions to fight global climate change (Global warming [or climate change] has become a religion among the politicians. While I agree that we should clean up emissions, the restrictions and forced alternatives bankrupt some companies and have strong economical impact.)

This is just a small list I went through on his site about the issues. I can explain these in greater depth if need be, but it may take a year or so. :)

-washboard

Thank you. At last some info about him that didn't come from his campaign office. :)

Although as I was reading through Washboard's list, the same phrase kept crossing my mind as I read some of the reasons -- "And that's a BAD thing?" Maybe I WILL end up voting for the guy, and not just because he's cute with great hair. LOL. ;)

[Andi]

The more I read about Ron Paul, the more I like him. I ran across this (http://www.christiansforronpaul. com/) website today.

I have not read any "bad" news on him.....has anyone here?

[WeaselInYerFoot]

The more I read about Ron Paul, the more I like him. I ran across this (http://www.christiansforronpaul. com/) website today.

I have not read any "bad" news on him.....has anyone here?

The only claim I've heard is about some articles written in a newsletter years ago that was under his name. The author of the article was a racist who made some far fetched claims about the L.A riot. But it's easily debunked as it wasn't his article, nor did he supervise the release of the newsletter. When he found out about the article he was pretty upset and supposedly fired the writer, but I haven't found any sources (as in the actual article), or Ron Paul's reaction to it.

Also, some will attempt to claim he's racist on the fact that he voted against awarding Rosa Parks a Gold Medal. This is true. He did. But he also voted against awarding a Gold Medal to everyone else. This was because it cost $30,000 of taxpayer money, which he deemed as unconstitutional. He then proposed to make the $30,000 payable by having everyone in the room chip in some money, he started by offering $100.

[clemsontigers23]

Ron Paul wants to get rid of most government agencies, including government assistance programs...a lot of people really need these, and for him to abolish most government agencies would create chaos and would basically create a "survival of the fittest" society where nobody helps anyone in need.

Most of us don't realize the seriousness of this because we have been pretty blessed, but we need these government programs in case we do fall on hard times.

[cheewiee]

But for those of you who are anti-Edwards, could you please explain why?

The man talks about two America's... One for the rich one for the poor... He is trying to come off like a populist crusader fighting for the poor, all the while spending 1,200 for a haircut...

The man is a hypocrite, the likes of which haven't been seen since the 1980's televangelist scandals....

[cheewiee]

to be elected president, you have to be slick in politics (which is why I wont be a politician, not that I cant be slick but bc it's all about selling your soul and being dishonest). Case and point, Obama has little experience and was made to look ridiculous by the Clinton Machine. The guy first says he's sitting down for tea and crumpets with our enemies, than says he'd invade Pakistan without a green light from the Pakastani Government. That's naiive and ridiculous, and Romney recently said that makes Obama go from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove all in the same week. Which I think was the best line of the campaign thus far. Obama has too little real time political experience to be elected, he will be outwitted and is being outwitted already. Aside from the political nonsense aspect I dont think he's a good choice, it is not wise to hold no bars talks with Iran, Syria, and North Korea. They use meetings to parade their own agenda. Also it would not be wise to attack Pakistan, but Liberals for whatever reason, as much as they say they dont care what others say and they stand up for what they believe in, feel like they have to prove they're tough guys (or gals).

If you look at the letter of what he said, then it looks nieve, not if you look at the intent...

What he was trying to say was that as President he would be willing to meet with those leaders whom we have deemed evil for whatever reason to open a dialogue, and I do think that it is a valid point, that the current administration hasn't much cared for dialogue with those nations they deem "evil".

In terms of invading Pakistan.. again when you look at just the words that were being said it seems crazy, but when you break it down to the point he was trying to make, he's right. Whenever we get close to Osama, he jumps across the boarder, and Muscharrieef (sp) doesn't have the gumption to hunt the guy down... So while in the game of diplomacy Pakistan may be an ally, in the brass tax sense of the war on terror, they are not.

[cheewiee]

.... And if I don't vote, that means I'll have to refrain from complaining about politics for that term. That may be hard to do!

Why is that?

If you refrain from voting because there is no one you believe worth voting for, and not simply flaking out and being lazy, you are being part of the political process. you are telling the political parties that neither candidate they nominated desirves your vote. And that you want a higher quality of candidates....

[in hiding]

Ron Paul wants to get rid of most government agencies, including government assistance programs...a lot of people really need these, and for him to abolish most government agencies would create chaos and would basically create a "survival of the fittest" society where nobody helps anyone in need.

Most of us don't realize the seriousness of this because we have been pretty blessed, but we need these government programs in case we do fall on hard times.

no one really thinks he'll be able to accomplish all of that, but what he will bring is a passion to keep the government small, a conservative principle. He'll work to keep the government fiscally responsible. He is not for the abolishment of welfare or assistance he is against FEDERAL government and welfare. He wants the states to have more control over the programs and take them out of the federal governments hands. There is a huge difference b/t wanting to end federal welfare by giving the states more control and ending welfare.

check out his stance on the issues http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

and to top it off he is a man of faith and principle who isn't a gazillionaire.

here's a better list at where he believes decisions should be made
http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=296
ndicate which level of government should have primary responsibility for the following services.
Federal 1) Border security
State 2) Civil rights enforcement
Local 3) Education
State 4) Environmental cleanup
None 5) Job training
State 6) Law enforcement
None 7) Low-income housing
State 8) Medicaid
Federal 9) Medicare
State 10) Welfare (AFDC)

[cheewiee]

The bottom line for the Republican party, putting morals and Christian views aside, is that if they are to have any chance of getting another Republican elected to office and beat the Clinton/Obama/Edwards juggernaut is to appoint a moderate candidate that distances himself from the current administration and doesn't just spout the Republican party rhetoric. Frankly, I think the best candidate in that sense would be Rudy Guiliani. Yes he has a less than stellar past morally in his personal relationships, but he is the most moderate candidate that really truly stands a chance against whomever the Dems trot out next year. He may not agree with and uphold all the moral and Christian standards that I believe in, but I'd much rather he be the man in the oval office than Hillary.

So then rather go for the best and most qualified candidate, the GOP should nominiate a "winnable" candidate?

This is exactly why our two party system stinks and is broke in my opinion. This we should win above all cost mentality has turned our democracy into simply a competition between two competing teams. You have on one side the Blue Team, who's mascot is a donkey and talks about things like Social Security and Health Care, and on this side you have the Red Team, represented by an elephant who like to tell you about National defense and lower taxes...

Our media have even supported this notion by coming up with nifty election night graphics that compare with score graphics from the NFL, and THEN you have Tim Russert with his best John Madden impression with his marker and dry erase board....:rolleyes:

[in hiding]

So then rather go for the best and most qualified candidate, the GOP should nominiate a "winnable" candidate?

This is exactly why our two party system stinks and is broke in my opinion. This we should win above all cost mentality has turned our democracy into simply a competition between two competing teams. You have on one side the Blue Team, who's mascot is a donkey and talks about things like Social Security and Health Care, and on this side you have the Red Team, represented by an elephant who like to tell you about National defense and lower taxes...

Our media have even supported this notion by coming up with nifty election night graphics that compare with score graphics from the NFL, and THEN you have Tim Russert with his best John Madden impression with his marker and dry erase board....:rolleyes:

exactly. The govt no longer wants to help the individual; they want to beat the other team. I bet that if the GOP put forth someone with good ideas etc... that person would have more of a chance of winning that we thought.

[cheewiee]

Right now looking at all of the frontrunners....

R-Guillani, Romney, (possibly Thompson)
D-Clinton, Obama, and Edwards

The two candidates that intrigue me the most are Obama and Thompson.

Obama is very charismatic, and charming... (could be genuine, could just be a really good politician). Of all the D's spouting out universal healthcare I think his sounds the most sane and responsible. So if he really is interested in shaking up our political system, then he will remain intriguing to me...

Thompson is very much out of the Reagan mold... I am concerned however that he is too conservative on certain issues, like immigration.... If he runs, I may consider flipping back to being an R from an I in order to vote for him in the primary...

The politican's I don't like...

Clinton.. She just seems to be power thirsty. I wish Debates were unscripted and candidates were hooked up to a polygraph machine with their results coming out on the TV... I think if Clinton was forced to do this you would see a very different candidate..

Edwards... Don't sit on your high horse and lecture me about the poor.... Don't tell me about the needs of hard working Americans while you are getting a haircut by a stylist you flew out from california to your NC home.... He's nothing more than a crooked ambulance chaser who rather than working to unify the nation has campained and promited this notion of "Two America's". Perhaps if he gets elected there will be two Americas.. and the one I live in won't be part of the one he is in..

Guillani... I am ok with people who believe that abortion is ok because a fetus is not a human life... What I don't get are people who personally believe abortion to be wrong, yet believe that a woman should have the right to choose. If you believe abortion is wrong there must be some kind of reason... (perhaps because you disagree with the taking of another human life). And if that is so I don't see how you could be willing to allow it to continue... I mean we could all agree that murder is wrong, but I don't have the right to choose to go kill someone now do I... Of Course he isn't the only candidate who holds this position... surprisingly most Democrats seem to share his view of abortion, including Obama.. perhaps that's why, while I see Obama intriguing, I don't necessarily think I will be voting for him.

Romney... I don't know enough about this guy... but something doesn't seem right..

The Darkhorse...

Al Gore... I really think that if Al Gore wants to be pres this is his election to lose..... I don't want him to be Pres... but if he were to Run, he would win... JMHO...

[clemsontigers23]

Ron Paul:

Don't ask, don't tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007)
Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
Rated 67% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

I agree with him wanting to get rid of affirmitive action, but to support gay marriage isn't very conservative. I want a candidate who will take a stand against the liberal pro-homosexual propaganda sweeping the nation right now.

Now take a look at his religious ideas...some are good but one in particular is interesting:

Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)
Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
Voted NO on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
Abolish the federal Department of Education. (Dec 2000)
Rated 67% by the NEA, indicating a mixed record on public education. (Dec 2003)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)

Why not allow prayer during the War on Terror? Considering how this war's going to be going on for quite a few years, by not allowing prayer during the war seems like there won't be any prayer at all for a very long time, so nothing really gets done.

[in hiding]

^^^
The reason he votes no on a lot of things is b/c he wants states to decide a lot of those issues; NOT the federal govt (here's his reasoning http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html) Here's his statement of faith also http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm

Again, I don't agree with everything the guy stands for, but I do agree that more power should be given to the states and to the individual. If you feel differently, that's fine. The nice thing with RP is that you know what is guiding his political decisions and he seems to be sticking to that rather than doing something based on which way the wind is blowing. my$0.02

edit: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul298.html
as for the war on terror and allowing student prayer etc... Why do we need the federal government to tell us that it's appropriate to do that?

[clemsontigers23]

edit: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul298.html
as for the war on terror and allowing student prayer etc... Why do we need the federal government to tell us that it's appropriate to do that?

The issue is teacher-led prayer. If a teacher tried to lead a class in prayer he/she would be fired instantly because people have twisted seperation of church and state into something that it was never intended to mean.

[cheewiee]

The issue is teacher-led prayer. If a teacher tried to lead a class in prayer he/she would be fired instantly because people have twisted seperation of church and state into something that it was never intended to mean.

So what if the teacher leading the prayer was say, Muslim. Would you be ok with a muslim leading your did in prayer to Allah? How about a jehova witness., or a morman? heck what if your kid's teacher is a catholic and wants to pray to mary ??? How about if your kids teacher is a wiccan and wants to lead your son in a prayer to a tree?????

I am completly ok with not allowing teacher let prayer in the public school system.

[Andi]

So what if the teacher leading the prayer was say, Muslim. Would you be ok with a muslim leading your did in prayer to Allah? How about a jehova witness., or a morman? heck what if your kid's teacher is a catholic and wants to pray to mary ??? How about if your kids teacher is a wiccan and wants to lead your son in a prayer to a tree?????

I am completly ok with not allowing teacher let prayer in the public school system.


I agree completely.

[mat1583]

Ron Paul:

Don't ask, don't tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007)
Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)

I agree with him wanting to get rid of affirmitive action, but to support gay marriage isn't very conservative. I want a candidate who will take a stand against the liberal pro-homosexual propaganda sweeping the nation right now.

I wouldn't call Ron Paul a conservative anyway. He's a Libertarian running as a republican, and he isn't afraid to admit that.

Ron Paul does not "support" gay marriage. In fact, he doesn't support any government benefits for married couples. This is aligned with the Libertarian view that the government should not be in the business of marriages. It should strictly be a religious affair, not the federal government's affair. No pun intended. Just because he votes "no" to constitutionally define marriage doesn't mean he supports gays. He's saying no to something that should not be defined by the government, which I agree with.


Now take a look at his religious ideas...some are good but one in particular is interesting:

Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)

Why not allow prayer during the War on Terror? Considering how this war's going to be going on for quite a few years, by not allowing prayer during the war seems like there won't be any prayer at all for a very long time, so nothing really gets done.

As someone else pointed out, they are not allowing teachers or staff to lead prayers or for students to lead prayers over the PA system. I think that he voted the right way. If we allow Christian prayers by teachers & staff & over the PA system, then we also have to allow Muslims, Mormon, satanists, etc. The church is separate from the state for a VERY good reason.

-washboard

[Andi]

Good info washboard. Thanks.

Andi

[in hiding]

The issue is teacher-led prayer. If a teacher tried to lead a class in prayer he/she would be fired instantly because people have twisted seperation of church and state into something that it was never intended to mean.

separation of church and state was meant to prevent the government from establishing a religion and not keeping religion from government and people have twisted it, but this shouldn't even be an issue. See cheewiee's response too.

[clemsontigers23]

So what if the teacher leading the prayer was say, Muslim. Would you be ok with a muslim leading your did in prayer to Allah? How about a jehova witness., or a morman? heck what if your kid's teacher is a catholic and wants to pray to mary ??? How about if your kids teacher is a wiccan and wants to lead your son in a prayer to a tree?????

I am completly ok with not allowing teacher let prayer in the public school system.

Back before that woman came out and said she had a problem with teacher-led prayer, it was pretty clear that our nation was founded on Christian principles. Back in the 1800s, the Bible was studied and even doctrine was taught. Seperation of church and state is not in the constitution. It's not a law that has to be abided by. That being said, when a teacher chooses to lead a class in prayer, that doesn't mean the class has to pray the way he/she does or even to the same god he/she prays to...a kid could choose not to pray at all. If a teacher wants to lead her class in prayer and the class agrees to it, then there shouldn't be a problem with it.

The reason we've had such a destruction of morals in our country is because over the past couple of decades we've slowly been pushing God out of America. The day America turns its back on God is the day God will remove the hedge of protection He's placed around us for so long. I truly believe that. I think someone needs to take a stand for Godly morals instead of sitting idly by and letting the ACLU and Muslims get rid of the things we hold so dear. When God told us to love everybody and be tolerant of other people, He didn't tell us to compromise our beliefs in order to do so. Even in my short lifetime I've seen Christian organizations compromise their beliefs and what they know is right in order to appease the un-Godly. What's next? Legalization of gay marriage? Expanded abortion rights? Taking "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance? Legalization of marijuana? Are we going to sit by and without a fight allow these things to take place? Will you not take a stand for God even against an overwhelming majority? I'm tired of seeing a destruction of morals in our country and not speaking out against it. Muslim students in New York are allowed 15 minutes at the end of the day so they can pray while others sit and use it as a study time. Why shouldn't Christians be able to pray in schools as well?

[mat1583]

Back before that woman came out and said she had a problem with teacher-led prayer, it was pretty clear that our nation was founded on Christian principles. Back in the 1800s, the Bible was studied and even doctrine was taught.

Back in the early 1800's, nearly no public schools existed. Schooling was privately funded and operated, thus the reason principles from the Bible could be taught and why teachers could strongly encourage students to follow these principles. It wasn't until public schooling started becoming popular that the separation between church and state became more discussed.


Seperation of church and state is not in the constitution. It's not a law that has to be abided by.

While the words "Separation of church" are not in the Constitution, the idea is of Constitutional foundation:

First Ammendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson wrote about the separation of church and state in regards to the Constitution. They believed that the Constitution outlined rules for government and it's hand in religious areas. They believed that our government should not have a national religion or make any laws favoring one religion over another. Allowing a teacher to lead a prayer in a government funded public school goes against all of this.


That being said, when a teacher chooses to lead a class in prayer, that doesn't mean the class has to pray the way he/she does or even to the same god he/she prays to...a kid could choose not to pray at all. If a teacher wants to lead her class in prayer and the class agrees to it, then there shouldn't be a problem with it.

So what if your teacher was a wiccan and wanted to lead the class in wiccan chants/curses? What if all of the students except for you were wiccan? By the way, a public school classroom is not a democracy.


The reason we've had such a destruction of morals in our country is because over the past couple of decades we've slowly been pushing God out of America. The day America turns its back on God is the day God will remove the hedge of protection He's placed around us for so long. I truly believe that. I think someone needs to take a stand for Godly morals instead of sitting idly by and letting the ACLU and Muslims get rid of the things we hold so dear. When God told us to love everybody and be tolerant of other people, He didn't tell us to compromise our beliefs in order to do so. Even in my short lifetime I've seen Christian organizations compromise their beliefs and what they know is right in order to appease the un-Godly.

While I agree that Christians should not compromise their beliefs, I do not believe Christians should force their beliefs by legislation. An unbelieving world will not become saved by following laws based on Christian morality. Neither will they understand the moral basis for those laws. I think we have caused unbelievers to hate Christians because of this. It's just as if the Jews in OT times had forced the same laws they followed onto the Gentiles. Even the Jews understood, for the most part, that the laws they followed as given to them by God were not to be cast upon gentiles and unbelieving nations. At first, Pilot could not justify crucifying Jesus because Jesus had done nothing wrong under Roman law. Were the Jews trying to change Roman law?


What's next? Legalization of gay marriage?

Gay people have already been doing gay things before some states legalized gay marriage. Legalizing gay marriage just means that now gay couples will get government benefits from being married. I say that the government should have no hand at all in marriages - none!


Expanded abortion rights?

This has nothing to do with Christian morality. A fetus is a human life. We were given certain unalienable rights, one of which is life. This is why I believe that abortion should be illegal - because a person is committing an act of murder when they abort.



Legalization of marijuana?

How is this any different from Alcohol being legal? Please see the Marijuana thread.


Are we going to sit by and without a fight allow these things to take place? Will you not take a stand for God even against an overwhelming majority? I'm tired of seeing a destruction of morals in our country and not speaking out against it.

I do fight, but I also fight with the gospel, not with law. Without the gospel, nobody will care to follow the law, nobody will be saved, and nobody will give a flip about 'morality'. You have to change hearts before you can change ways, and legislating morality is NOT the way.


Muslim students in New York are allowed 15 minutes at the end of the day so they can pray while others sit and use it as a study time. Why shouldn't Christians be able to pray in schools as well?
We are able to pray. We held prayer meetings in my high school during our 10 minute break between classes in the busiest hall of the school. We had First Priority before class started on Thursdays, FCS on Wednesdays, and even FCA. Christians are able to pray, but they cannot force other people to pray with them or broadcast the prayer to a class/school if it is in a public school.

If you are so worried about our schools, then fight more for private/home schooling!

-washboard

[Jesuslove]

I like John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich. If I had to hold my nose and pick a Republican candidate, I'd probably pick Ron Paul. I am so against this war and was from day one. It disappoints me that the Republican field support this mistake of a war. Bring our troops home now!