Who Would You Vote For?

Immigration is one thing. An open borders policy is quite another. You cannot flood a country with people, some who cannot easily assimilate into the culture, and say the economy will benefit because of it. Contrary to what you claim, it does not positively benefit the economy, but negatively affects the economy.

 

Dennis Kucinich for sure!

 

If I were an American citizen, I would vote for the Devil himself.....I mean just look at the list above!!!!!!!!!!! I'd trust 1 million rattlesnakes rather than 1/2 a politician......."when will we ever learn"?!


Robert

 

The entire immigration issue is more of a race issue than anything.

Rednecks don't like 'em Mexicans.

 

I don't think that US enforcement of no-fly zones over Iraq had anything to do with September 11, or any other thing involving US policy toward Iraq. I don't think that the presence of your troops in Saudi Arabia had anything to do with it either.

Lawrence Wright, who won a Pulitzer Prize for The Looming Tower (a very nice history of Al Qaeda and its rather strange ideology), has done other writing in which he discusses just this sort of thing. For example, when the United States withdrew its troops from Saudi Arabia in the lead-up to the Iraq War, the US did exactly what bin Laden had wanted for so long.

This didn't cause any change in response by Al Qaeda. Far from it. They responded by expanding their list of grievances against the United States to include other things. It was around this time, if memory serves, that Al Qaeda discovered the Palestinians and first began mentioning Palestine and America's role in Israel's oppression of the Palestinians as a complaint against the United States.

If A did not exist for them to list as a complaint against the United States in their videos, they would find a B instead, and following that a C.

What you have are a small radical group of people, dwelling in caves and previously ignored by the entire world (including most Muslims), that have decided for reasons of fundamentalist madness it is their mission to bring about a restoration of Islamic power in the world. And not merely any Islamic power, but the restoration of a Caliphate under a rather twisted interpretation of sharia law.

They view the United States as the obstacle to accomplishing this. Everywhere they see something preventing it from happening, they see the United States, because the United States is the Leviathan that defends the post-Cold War world order that they despise and seek to overturn and it is the culture distributed by the Leviathan that is an affront to so much of what they seek to establish.

And to seek support in attacking the Leviathan and in achieving their objectives, they are willing to cite as justification any number of lesser actions by the Leviathan or complaints of others against the Leviathan to bolster support for their cause.

You could list hundreds of grievances against the United States held by Muslims in general. It is impossible to eliminate every single one, and yet any one would be enough for them to cite as justification for them to attack the US.

Sure, you were routinely flying over Iraq and had troops in Saudi Arabia. You were also supporting Israel, the governments of moderate regimes like Egypt and Jordan, and you are allied with secular Kemalist Turkey. Yet you have also defended Muslims from attack in Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo. You have tried to prevent them from starving in Somalia and helped them to fight the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Your culture pervades the world (including the Middle East) and includes all manner of imagery (unmasked women, for example) that they consider to be affronts.

I wonder if Ron Paul wants to ban the broadcast of Bay Watch, so that angry Muslim prudes won't be offended by that, too.

 

An elected official is a puppet; the puppet of the people. You can't really avoid the conundrum.

 

Because, Ron Paul is admittedly a hard-core capitalist and hard-core capitalism is economic oligarchy. He's no different than the rest of the field, except that he wants to stop poor people from utilizing family planning services.

Ron Paul worms his way out of supporting/opposing gay marriage by saying it is a "states' rights" issue. Oh really? Kind of like slavery was in the 1800s? Kind of like segregation was in the 1950s and 60s? "States' Rights" is a code phrase and nothing more. Hey, wait...what's that smell??? Oh it's Mississippi burning again...

Ron Paul opposes a woman's right to choose. He is anti-choice with what a woman does with her own body! Libertarian, my ass.

He opposes the separation of church and state. RED FLAG! RED FLAG! RED ALERT!!!!

And forget crap like Affirmative Action, Ron Paul actually opposes the CIVIL RIGHTS Act for fuck's sake!

His plans for Social Security and taxation would destroy our economy, most poor folks' retirement, and our infrastructure. His "privatize" fetish is just as dangerous as the Turd we have in office right now.

No way in hell I'm voting for Ron fucking Paul. Remember: HE WAS ADMIRED BY RONALD "I HATE HIPPIES" REAGAN.

Face it, Ron Paul is a RIGHT-WING REPUBLICAN, not as bad as Bush, but just as dangerous.

 

*stands up and cheers WOO WOO*

 

I realize that this is a fairly socially liberal leaning site and all but i think somebody should point out that contraception and abortion on not even close to similar, one stops fertalization and the other is the forced death of human being, treating abortion as a crime has nothing to do with condoms or the pill.

 

1. "hard core capitalist" is a meaningless term, there are varying forms of capitalism and the non-corporatist, non state-monopoly form promoted by Paul and found in the works of Von Mises and Rothbard is certainly not corporate friendly. Hating capitalism just to hate capitalism is pretty marxian in my book and i don't believe his theories of economic planning have worked well for most who have tried them. There is a difference between a free market and a state managed market even a state managed "free" market, please learn the difference and why his economics are VERY different than the pro-corporatism espoused by other candidates. And if you choose to take offense to me broadly applying the term "marxian"(you might a trot or maoist for instance) well then you understand how i feel when you use "hard core capitalist" to describe anyone as if the term existed outside of your head.

2. As someone who wishes no harm to any life i take offense at you promoting the mass murder of a group of human beings simply because they are poor under the banner of "utilizing family planning services". it always amazes me how much socialists love to kill poor minority children and claim progress with a straight face. You would think a marxist would want the rich to kill off it's kids, but whatever. I realize that as this is a socially liberal site most are probably not going to side with me that vaguely defining "personhood" status is a piss poor way to judge if something should be killed or not, but try to keep in mind that there is a sizable part of the population that knows that taking a life is murder regardless of who is taking the life, and it aint got shit to do with what jebus has to say about anything.

I like how you assume our economy isn't already destroyed, they don't report the m3 anymore for a reason, it's all going to the shitter and it has to do with central planning and fiat monetary policy not privatization and how can you pretend that social security provides anyone with a "retirement", the next time i see my friends grandmother greeting people at the door at walmart( you know because her savings are worth shit due to inflation, fiat money, and well she didn't think ahead unlike my grandmother who , shock, invested her money) i'll ask her how she likes her government subsidized "retirement", then she and i will talk about how her granddaughtr is planning for her retirement now instead of relying on social security even being there when gen x and gen y get around to needing it. do you know what you call an investment that relies on future investors funds to pay off current investors? pyramid or ponzi scheme, either one is a no go for those who get in later on, i think i'd like to keep my money and pay for my retirement rather than pay for someone elses now and hope that someone else pays for mine later on thank you...

 

there is a large element of the right to life movement that IS against birth control and always has been. if we're going to turn back the clock and take a woman's reproductive rights away, they won't stop at abortion.

 

I don't care where they are wanting to stop, "winner takes all" is a false dichotomy, i don't know of any legislature that would seriously take away contraception, it isn't even a popular position, but about 100% of the population still recognizes abortion as the ending of a life, and about 50% still think that matters.

I'm all for reproductive rights, contraception is a good thing, abortion is not a reproductive right, you've already reproduced at that point, abortion is killing what you have reproduced. we're probably not going to agree on this issue, but trust me science trumps idealogy everytime and science tells me that there is a difference between a sperm and an egg(2 PARTS of a human being much like toenils or skin cells) and a zygote, embryo and fetus(all stages of life for A human being, not at all like toenails or skin cells, more like, well, A human being).

 

well, i disagree. it is a woman's right to abort. and i'll never vote for any candidate who would take it away. women should not be forced to reproduce. and fuck that 'then they just shouldn't have sex' argument that keeps getting thrown out. that's total bullshit. if all women quit having sex because it was the only way to prevent pregnancy 100% you guys would really be pissed. you anti-choice types are just a bunch of hypocrites. you're not gonna stop fucking, why should we?

 

nice reasoned arguement there. i think you just made my point.

Ideaology says it all depends on where "personhood" begins, which i guess is around 1-2 years old, but of course most people are not comforatable yet encouraging poor minority women to kill off their 1-2 year old so they use other arbitrary yardsticks to determine if what they are killing is a "person" or not. pro-abortionists(the educated ones) dont deny that it's a life or that it is a human being, they just claim that it doesn't matter that it is a life and that it doesnt matter that it's a human being because it not a "person" yet(not until they decide it's a person), so killing that living human being is more akin to say killing your cat or a roach. i've read pro-abortionists use that same arguement to support euthanization of coma patients and infanticide(the after-they-are-born version). i disagree, if you are a human being and are alive you should be allowed to keep on living before, during, and after you are a "person".

I don't want anyone to be pregnant who doesn't want to be pregnant, or having kids who don't want to, and if you could figure out a way to end a pregnancy without ending a life i would be all for it, but until then i have to take the ethical position that that opposing abortion is not "forcing you to reproduce" it's forcing you to support the well being of your child after you've already reproduced, or at the very least, stopping you from causing harm to another human being who has the unfortunate bad luck of being considered a burden or inconveinence.

You are not interested in debating those merits though, no not at all, you just know that if you don't have sex then "guys would really be pissed". and so you're not going to vote for a pro-lifer. glad we have such an informed rational populace.

 

well, ive just labeled myself a pro-capitalist pro-lifer, i think i'll head to another thread while i stilll have my head attached...

 

Shane, I tried explaining this to her once, and she isn't going to change her mind about this. All she really cares about is her "reproductive rights" - whatever that means. She doesn't see how her action is taking a much more important right away from something that cannot say yes or no. And this right being - The right to live.

It's all around very selfish, immature, and irresponsible.

She just can't accept that she has a responsibility with this. Because recognizing the responsibility would mean a change in her life style, and she doesn't want that.

 

someone who cannot say yes or no. she was never a thing, she came from things, she is a human being. that's the distinction that matters.

being a pro-lifer doesn't make me a redneck, theocrat or misogynist. it makes me a civil libertarian. it makes me human.

with that in mind i take my leave and say good night. Oh, and i'm voting for Paul, he's a pro-lifer who's anti-war, small government(non-existent almost), wants to legalize marijuana, opposes the PATRIOT ACT and other police-state measures and is free market, i could ask for more but i don't think i could expect to get more.​

 

I was???? I did???? When did I do this?

Anyway, regarding the rest of what you wrote... sorry, but I don't buy into the myth of al-CIAda or Islamic terrorists who want to bring down America and cut all our heads off. These so-called "terrorists" are nothing more than manufactured boogeymen to scare the public into accepting the unthinkable, which is happening before our eyes.

Learn your history. Al-Qaeda was a CIA creation and is a CIA-Mossad front to this day. Anyone who thinks bin Laden orchestrated the 9/11 attacks is living in a fantasy world and has listened far too much to the propaganda spoonfed to them on a daily basis by the government-controlled media.

 

"Terrorists have successfully attacked... our imagination". - from South Park