You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
^^And that is why I respect him. There was some conservative group that refused him an endorsement because they didn't feel he would work strong enough for pro-life and defense of the traditional view of marriage.
Now, as I get older myself, I've become more and more pro-life PERSONALLY but continue to be fully in favor of gay marriage. On that issue-I just don't care.
I think he touched on this in the Jay Leno(ugh) interview above. He said he's pro-life and anti gay marriage BUT its not up to him, and shouldn't be up to him. It's a state issue!
So don't like him on one hand because he wants to get the government out of the way and then hate on him because he won't get the government IN your way on issues you support.
That's always been my issue with the republican party. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but these statements are all of the right side of the isle:
"Low Taxes and Low spending" Great! Hate taxes and I'll buy my own shit. "Increase revenue by increasing the growth of the economy" Great! As long as its not at the total expense of the environment and fair living wages I'm all over it. "Smaller Government" Awesome! I think the bureaucracy here is nuts and its 20x worse in the states. "Defend America" Once again-can't go wrong. Gotta stop getting your nose in everyone's business, but I believe in secure borders.
But here's the issue:
"Low Taxes and Low spending" Low taxes...for rich people. Low spending...for poor people. "Increase revenue by increasing the growth of the economy" By way of any means necessary to companies friendly to our administration. *cough* Haliburton. "Smaller Government" Once again. Great, but smaller government goes both ways. Don't lecture me on smaller government and then tell me you want an amendment to the constitution preventing gays from marrying. Then want to inject that smaller government into the wombs of pregnant woman everywhere telling them what they can and cannot do with their bodies**I know, there is the whole protecting innocent life part that I'm NOT getting into here because it will be a whole new thread. "Defend America" At the expense of everyone else's sovereignty? They have done some shit in the name of national security that really hurts my head. PLUS the money that gets poored into defense and even worse, defense contractors.
So he tells people...shit, you want to get serious about smaller government? Let's go. Here's the plan: ACTUALLY GET SERIOUS ABOUT SMALLER GOVERNMENT.
You get these Tea Party politicians who have talked the talk, but when it comes time to asking them THE tough question: Where would you cut the budget? You know what you get?
Defund Planned Parenthood.
That's it? That's your fucking rally? A social policy wrapped in the cloak of a fiscal one?
And they are all the same. Leave Defense alone, and hack the shit out of entitlement programs.
Oh god, I could mind-fart on this for an hour...US politics just Sooooo pisses me off.
I only answer to my username, my real name is Irrelevant!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CELICAland
Posts: 25,667
Thanked 10,387 Times in 3,913 Posts
Failed 1,390 Times in 625 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Culture_Vulture
the media may be against him but that's just the general mainstream
that's what the voters depend on
hell CNN right now is talking about Mitt Romney....
and now they mention Ron Paul... what do they say?
"he might win in Iowa but he has no shot" (yet they used to always say YOU GOTTA WIN IOWA, IOWA says it all)
"you might like him depending on how much you know about him" (giving a look on their face like once you know him u wont like him)
hell CNN right now is talking about Mitt Romney....
and now they mention Ron Paul... what do they say?
"he might win in Iowa but he has no shot" (yet they used to always say YOU GOTTA WIN IOWA, IOWA says it all)
"you might like him depending on how much you know about him" (giving a look on their face like once you know him u wont like him)
Ron Paul was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN just a few days ago.
Maybe if Ron Paul did more events he would get more coverage.
__________________ Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter.
I'm starting to really agree after watching the Republican debates. He just makes sense. Other politicians are all about the spin but Ron Paul sounds like he's speaking his mind. His words don't sound rehearsed or written beforehand. I don't feel like he's calculating the effect of what he's saying before he says it, which is exactly how I feel about just about all politicians.
However, that's his problem. I'm guessing the vast majority of middle America will not understand him and just fall into the marketing schemes of the other candidates.
What he's got going for him is that his grassroots movement is getting the word out and people are starting to pay attention. That and he's up against few serious contenders.
I mean, Rick Perry is a religious nutjob and that only works for Tebow...Herman Cain is running into sexual harassment scandals BEFORE he hits office...Mitt Romney is boring as fuck...Michelle Bachman is a crazy bitch and c'mon...Newt Gingrich? He shouldn't be president on the simple fact that the most powerful country on the planet just cannot be run by a man named fucking Newt Gingrich. I remember I thought he was a cartoon character when I was a kid.
I'm starting to really agree after watching the Republican debates. He just makes sense. Other politicians are all about the spin but Ron Paul sounds like he's speaking his mind. His words don't sound rehearsed or written beforehand. I don't feel like he's calculating the effect of what he's saying before he says it, which is exactly how I feel about just about all politicians.
However, that's his problem. I'm guessing the vast majority of middle America will not understand him and just fall into the marketing schemes of the other candidates.
What he's got going for him is that his grassroots movement is getting the word out and people are starting to pay attention. That and he's up against few serious contenders.
I mean, Rick Perry is a religious nutjob and that only works for Tebow...Herman Cain is running into sexual harassment scandals BEFORE he hits office...Mitt Romney is boring as fuck...Michelle Bachman is a crazy bitch and c'mon...Newt Gingrich? He shouldn't be president on the simple fact that the most powerful country on the planet just cannot be run by a man named fucking Newt Gingrich. I remember I thought he was a cartoon character when I was a kid.
Cain is finished. He suspended his campaign.
__________________ Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter.
harper also passed a bill which allows these soilders to come and detain anyone in canada no questions asked with no right to a fair trial if they are seen as "terrorists".
I only answer to my username, my real name is Irrelevant!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CELICAland
Posts: 25,667
Thanked 10,387 Times in 3,913 Posts
Failed 1,390 Times in 625 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manic!
Ron Paul was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN just a few days ago.
Maybe if Ron Paul did more events he would get more coverage.
wolf blitzer has personally been a supporter of ron paul from the get go (since the last election) he's always tried to get a word about ron paul in there
Thanks for the correction. At the current time tho he should have the least vacation days taken for how much trouble we are in. Thats obviously not the case.
no matter how shitty my company is doing and how much they need me, if i was told that i cant have my basic right to vacation days every year id be pissed. the fact that obamas job sees him working like 15+ hours a day and that hes the leader of the free world im ok with him taking 10 days to be sane and ready to make decisions properly.
im not his biggest supporter nor am i a critic. im merely stating my disagreement with your comments Posted via RS Mobile
Ron Paul will never, ever run for president under the GOP banner. And the reason why you're seeing some of these GOP clowns surge in polls is because most of the GOP base and the tea party don't support Romney because he doesn't stand for core values most of the GOP believes in, hell Romney doesn't stand for anything except for himself and nothings wrong with that but voters don't want to see their future president flip flopping on one subject a 1000 times.
At the end it's going to be Romney Vs. Obama, if Romney's smart he'll get a strong VP candidate on board like the NJ Governor but I think Obama will win the 2012 election. The GOP isn't going to give Romney 100% support, most think he's worst than Bush and the tea party isn't going to vote for him so most of these voters will stay home.
Someone let him know that if America doesn't want him, I'm sure we can find somewhere for him here in Canada.
I would love Ron Paul to be in Canada for the Liberal Party, one that's back to being socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Just my two humble cents.
I would love Ron Paul to be in Canada for the Liberal Party, one that's back to being socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Just my two humble cents.
Ron Paul and the liberals are not even in the same galaxy. Ron Paul is not socially liberal.
Ron Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act bill in 2005 that would define personhood as beginning at conception and bar the Supreme Court from interfering with state prohibitions on abortion—essentially a permanent repeal of Roe v. Wade. Interestingly, the bill only had five co-sponsors. Ron Paul introduced this bill again in 2007, again with only five cosponsors. In 2009, Ron Paul introduced the bill yet again with three cosponsors. In the current legislative session, he is a cosponsor of the Protect Life Act, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, and the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, all of which prohibit federal funds from being used to fund abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or endangerment of the mother’s life.
__________________ Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter.
Ron Paul and the liberals are not even in the same galaxy. Ron Paul is not socially liberal.
Ron Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act bill in 2005 that would define personhood as beginning at conception and bar the Supreme Court from interfering with state prohibitions on abortion—essentially a permanent repeal of Roe v. Wade. Interestingly, the bill only had five co-sponsors. Ron Paul introduced this bill again in 2007, again with only five cosponsors. In 2009, Ron Paul introduced the bill yet again with three cosponsors. In the current legislative session, he is a cosponsor of the Protect Life Act, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, and the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, all of which prohibit federal funds from being used to fund abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or endangerment of the mother’s life.
The point of that bill would be to make abortion a state level regulation, as opposed to federal. In fact, that's the point of most of his platform. He personally disagrees with abortion, and I respect that. But unlike most anti-abortionists, he doesn't try to force others to go their way. He says let the states decide. If you live in a state where abortion is illegal, then move to another state.
The point of that bill would be to make abortion a state level regulation, as opposed to federal. In fact, that's the point of most of his platform. He personally disagrees with abortion, and I respect that. But unlike most anti-abortionists, he doesn't try to force others to go their way. He says let the states decide. If you live in a state where abortion is illegal, then move to another state.
would define personhood as beginning at conception
and giving states more rights??? You really want people like Rick Perry and Jan Brewer to have more power?
Thats the way it should be if one state is for gay marriage or legalized drugs and you are in a state that doesn't support that you can MOVE. Thus giving people a CHOICE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manic!
Well it does not work. Every state having it's own laws is stupid. Whats 100% legal in one state can get you years in jail in another.
Yes! And whether you disagree with the policy or you don't, with a federal mandate, conservative states like Alabama and liberal states like California get lumped together. It's never going to work and you get people that aren't happy.
In the american system, your vote is so disconnected from the presidency that you really don't have a say. Look up their electoral college and you'll see that you don't vote for the president. You vote for a delegate to vote for president on your behalf. Meaning if there are a few more votes for the republican in your state then your entire state votes republican. You voted for a democrat, but your state went republican, so you voted republican.
And that is a major problem. So either you believe in this massive federal government, and you therefore need to revise the electoral college system, or the power gets pushed back to the state level-which was the design, and already has a legislative body set up,by design, to do so complete with a state house, senate and governor and its own court.
I think its easier to have the power pushed back to the states except for instances where it needs to be federal...defense and foreign affairs, a few others like national money supply and such. But for the most part, it would be gutted to the point that presidential elections would be far less important.
But power likes power, and they've been making the position more powerful any chance they get. You can make that work as well, but you need to just accept that this is not the system you started out with and you can probably save on not having 50x a legislature, state senate and governor-because imagine how much THAT costs to operate. Each guy starts out at 75k.
I just extrapolated based on the representatives, senators and pay rate for illinois(first that came up in a search) and I got 600,000,000 a year JUST on elected officials for all the state houses(obviously this number is wrong as pay rates and #'s would be different for other states). Haven't put the lights on or paid a single secretary or aid. Ron Paul wants to get his billion dollars worth out of these guys.
LOL...california senators make 95k per year plus per diem. There are 40 of them.
I agree. Ron Paul is the only way out of the shit mess the USA is in right now. I've been a fan of him since the last election, I like his platform and what he stands for (smaller govnt. mainly). I'm happy to see many many more people supporting him, especially the large number of military in the USA. The media can't keep ignoring him, sooner or later they are going to have to admit he exists.
__________________
FOR SALE: 14'' MR2 MK1 wheels with 90% rubber $130, FD RX7 Transmission $200, Hitch Mount Snowboard/Ski rack w/ THULE clamps, locks $200. PM me for details!
RS.net, where our google ads make absolutely no sense!
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Richmond
Posts: 916
Thanked 692 Times in 227 Posts
Failed 68 Times in 25 Posts
I remember when Obama was a democrat primary, everyone was hopeful. He made a lot of good promises and even popularized the the phrase 'yes we can'.
Now that his first term is almost over, it just seems that all the hope went a little unfounded. He had plans, but somethings just can't be done under certain circumstances.
Don't be too hopeful when one good man/woman makes it into the presidency, because the whole government would be working against him/her.
Obama has been met by too much opposition in middle America, which I find strange because they oppose so many things where they would be the primary beneficiaries. I don't think I've ever seen a president this embattled by just straight up hatred. Bush was so much worse but no one drew Hitler-staches on him.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
