rp4prez
08-28-2007, 07:25 PM
Some of the Americans we need to educate from another forum I visit. (I'll post what my response was to all of this)
I would love to see Ron Paul as the Republican nominee as well...but it doesn't look like he will be. With that in mind, based on what you wrote above, would you vote for a Democrat in the general election, someone else (if so...who?), or not vote at all? If you don't feel comfortable, don't answer, but I'm just curious.
I will be voting for Ron Paul.
Artist, how could you possibly consider even faux-voting for Ron Paul, if you support a Woman's Right to Choose?
I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
He has an equally charming position on illegal immigrants.
Have you actually read anything about him? I am perplexed.
You mean if my life depended on it, since that's the only way I'd vote for any of those ass clowns? Giuliani.
Giuliani's pro-choice stance is pretty much the entire reason I support him over the other Republicans (he appears friendly towards gays as well, which is nice). I'm seeing him as the least of the evils.
Yup. Me too. Ron Paul isn't even a inkling of an option. No way.
FWIW there are maybe one or two reasons I'd pick Ron Paul over some of the others (if I had a gun to my head and HAD to pick a Republican), but I'd rather not say specifically WHY I came to that conclusion since it would just start a big old debate or flame war. One reason is his stance on the war. The other reason would start a debate if I mention it.
:D
Well, basically that he doesn't believe the "official story".
It also appears he's sort of in favor of impeachment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush
That would outweigh his stance on abortion? And his stance on immigration? Really? I'm not going to get into the whole "official story" thing because that will get us nowhere. I just don't see how that could be more important to you than the real dangers of what he'd do to the rights of citizens in this country if he were elected.
Also, he'd do away with Medicare and Medicaid (after a "transitional period").
But worst of all (IMHO), he is in favor of doing away with birthright citizenship, largely because he believes illegal immigrants take advantage of this as a way of making sure their children can stay in the country.
I'd forgotten about the Medicare and Medicaid bit. Yeah. I'm just so not into Ron Paul. Thank goodness not too many others are, either, so we likely won't see him in the general election.
So would his plan have birth citizenship going only to this born to U.S. citizens? Or legal residents?
That's a good point. Hmm. It's a tough call. I am NOT a fan of Guiliani. I can't stand McCain. Pretty much all of them sound awful to me. I'm not saying I LIKE Ron Paul, and all of you bring up REALLY good points. I just find him sort of fascinating I guess because he's so out there. He has some points that make him almost seem really liberal and yet he's also obviously very conservative. Like others have said, he's basically a Libertarian. I am totally NOT a Liberatarian OR a Republican, but when those two parties are compared to one another, Libertarian is much more appealing to me than Republican. Kind of like how ysolde has in the past described herself as a "paleo-con", or as I call them, "old school Republican".
Ron Paul wants to amend the 14th amendment to stipulate that children born in the USA to non-citizens would not automatically be granted US citizenship. I understand the reasons for this argument, but disagree with them personally.
To my understanding, this would have no effect on children/adults already born in the USA and given citizenship. You can't go back and strip someone's citizenship after the fact. Not to mention the fact that it would be a bureaucratic nightmare that would cost us all a lot in tax dollars.
FYI, Romney has also supported this idea in the past. Not sure what his current stance is, but he's certainly mentioned being in favor of the idea before.
I would love to see Ron Paul as the Republican nominee as well...but it doesn't look like he will be. With that in mind, based on what you wrote above, would you vote for a Democrat in the general election, someone else (if so...who?), or not vote at all? If you don't feel comfortable, don't answer, but I'm just curious.
I will be voting for Ron Paul.
Artist, how could you possibly consider even faux-voting for Ron Paul, if you support a Woman's Right to Choose?
I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
He has an equally charming position on illegal immigrants.
Have you actually read anything about him? I am perplexed.
You mean if my life depended on it, since that's the only way I'd vote for any of those ass clowns? Giuliani.
Giuliani's pro-choice stance is pretty much the entire reason I support him over the other Republicans (he appears friendly towards gays as well, which is nice). I'm seeing him as the least of the evils.
Yup. Me too. Ron Paul isn't even a inkling of an option. No way.
FWIW there are maybe one or two reasons I'd pick Ron Paul over some of the others (if I had a gun to my head and HAD to pick a Republican), but I'd rather not say specifically WHY I came to that conclusion since it would just start a big old debate or flame war. One reason is his stance on the war. The other reason would start a debate if I mention it.
:D
Well, basically that he doesn't believe the "official story".
It also appears he's sort of in favor of impeachment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush
That would outweigh his stance on abortion? And his stance on immigration? Really? I'm not going to get into the whole "official story" thing because that will get us nowhere. I just don't see how that could be more important to you than the real dangers of what he'd do to the rights of citizens in this country if he were elected.
Also, he'd do away with Medicare and Medicaid (after a "transitional period").
But worst of all (IMHO), he is in favor of doing away with birthright citizenship, largely because he believes illegal immigrants take advantage of this as a way of making sure their children can stay in the country.
I'd forgotten about the Medicare and Medicaid bit. Yeah. I'm just so not into Ron Paul. Thank goodness not too many others are, either, so we likely won't see him in the general election.
So would his plan have birth citizenship going only to this born to U.S. citizens? Or legal residents?
That's a good point. Hmm. It's a tough call. I am NOT a fan of Guiliani. I can't stand McCain. Pretty much all of them sound awful to me. I'm not saying I LIKE Ron Paul, and all of you bring up REALLY good points. I just find him sort of fascinating I guess because he's so out there. He has some points that make him almost seem really liberal and yet he's also obviously very conservative. Like others have said, he's basically a Libertarian. I am totally NOT a Liberatarian OR a Republican, but when those two parties are compared to one another, Libertarian is much more appealing to me than Republican. Kind of like how ysolde has in the past described herself as a "paleo-con", or as I call them, "old school Republican".
Ron Paul wants to amend the 14th amendment to stipulate that children born in the USA to non-citizens would not automatically be granted US citizenship. I understand the reasons for this argument, but disagree with them personally.
To my understanding, this would have no effect on children/adults already born in the USA and given citizenship. You can't go back and strip someone's citizenship after the fact. Not to mention the fact that it would be a bureaucratic nightmare that would cost us all a lot in tax dollars.
FYI, Romney has also supported this idea in the past. Not sure what his current stance is, but he's certainly mentioned being in favor of the idea before.