American Elections '08

[Kolar]

Sorry Reaver, getting late and I didn't feel like spending time finding the articles again.

While Paul is much better then Huckabee his views that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to privacy nor the Separation of Church and State and a lot of other things that fundamentally makes him a bad leader.

If you want a simple overview or wouldn't care to do real research on each candidate Wikipedia has articles titled "Political_positions_of_[]".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ns_of_Ron_Paul

[Reaver]

Sorry Reaver, getting late and I didn't feel like spending time finding the articles again.

While Paul is much better then Huckabee his views that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to privacy nor the Separation of Church and State and a lot of other things that fundamentally makes him a bad leader.

If you want a simple overview or wouldn't care to do real research on each candidate Wikipedia has articles titled "Political_positions_of_[]".

Wait, so he's adamantly supported less involvement of government in people's personal life and your claim is that the constitution doesn't guarantee the right to privacy... This is obvious but just because the constitution doesn't guarantee the right to privacy doesn't mean Ron Paul is against it. That's like saying Ron Paul doesn't believe in women's suffrage because it wasn't in the original constitution. Makes no sense dude.

[Kolar]

Wait, so he's adamantly supported less involvement of government in people's personal life and your claim is that the constitution doesn't guarantee the right to privacy... This is obvious but just because the constitution doesn't guarantee the right to privacy doesn't mean Ron Paul is against it. That's like saying Ron Paul doesn't believe in women's suffrage because it wasn't in the original constitution. Makes no sense dude.

No I believe the Constitution does, I was stating that Ron Paul doesn't think that is true. Being a strict Constitutionalist as he is any legislation would not be impeded by any such condition. I'm not saying he is for more Government intrusion or intervention, just that he doesn't support the fact and legal precedent that the Government doesn't have the legal authority to interfere in our personal lives. You can't overturn legal precedent and expect nothing to happen.

[Reaver]

No I believe the Constitution does, I was stating that Ron Paul doesn't think that is true. Being a strict Constitutionalist as he is any legislation would not be impeded by any such condition. I'm not saying he is for more Government intrusion or intervention, just that he doesn't support the fact and legal precedent that the Government doesn't have the legal authority to interfere in our personal lives. You can't overturn legal precedent and expect nothing to happen.

Then I don't think we're disagreeing on anything. You can be a staunch constitutionalist and still be for women's suffrage despite it not being originally in the constitution just like you can be for giving people privacy. The fact that he believes the states should handle abortion or gay marriage isn't any indication of poor leadership. In fact that's great leadership. Trying to pass massive laws like saying yes you may have abortion or no you may not, across a huge empire, is a bad way of doing things, whether you're for or against abortion. I could go on and explain why but I don't think that's necessary. Allowing states to decipher on these things is in the best interest of all people.

[Izor]

Wow, its a good thing that people like metalheadz and kolar have no voice in america

[Kolar]

But it is in the Constitution, the Nineteenth Amendment. His entire political position is based on a strict interpretation of the document. How then can he be for something like privacy and personal liberty while professing the exact opposite by saying neither Church-State Separation or Privacy are not covered by the document?


Edit: I'm not trying to bust your balls here Reaver, this to me seems to be circular reasoning.

[Reaver]

Wow, its a good thing that people like metalheadz and kolar have no voice in america

Actually it's kinda sad that on these forums, the people most informed about American politics are often not from America.

Edit: Kolar, the constitution is hundred's of years old. I don't think it mentions anything about the internet but I might have to check on that. I'd ask Ron Paul but since it's not mentioned in the constitution I doubt he has any political say on it.

[H.M.S. Stargazer]

Oh, btw, Just hope the democrats win. It looks like its a toss up between obama and clinton.

[Kolar]

I'm sure he has a lot to say about it. It's just another medium, and being uneducated like most legislators on the issue he does not differ from his stance of free market policies.

Edit: I didn't say he doesn't talk about current events or newer things, just that his position on just about anything comes from his interpretation of the Constitution.

[Reaver]

My last statement was a sarcastic one but I should have pointed that out, so my bad there.

The point remains this, I'm pretty sure that everyone in America appreciates privacy and wants it in their lives. The constitution doesn't mention it. That's fine, you can be a constitutionalist and stand for everything the constitution stands for, and also stand for things that aren't covered in the constitution provided they're not negating something in it. Just because you support something that's not in the constitution doesn't mean you're no longer a constitutionalist. Ron Paul has given numerous examples of things that he's personally against, but has explained that he will allow it in his administration if the constitution prohibits the federal government from stopping it. This is what I refer to every time you try to say he's for or against something and I tell you that he's explained time and time again that he would have the state regulate it because, constitutionally, the federal government is supposed to have no say

[Cops]

voting based on platform? what do you expect me to do? Research this thoroughly and join in on these forum discussions that never go anywhere? In the end, what does it matter what I do or how I vote to YOU? Who are you to tell me how I should cast my vote?

Voting based on party makes you look like an idiot. If you plan on posting and discussing politics on a presidential election at least understand what the different candidates represent, not just what the party usually stands for. Don't post on a thread and give your input then say you're not joining in on any sort of discussion when the mere fact that me quoting you completely pin points what an idiot you are, look up the word hypocrite in the dictionary.

I voted Bush last election, but I really wanted him to get reelected because I like his policies

I kind of expected this from you.

[Izor]

You arent even american....do i go sticking my nose up your ass in the canadian election? I'm not trying to join any political discussion here. I'm simply stating you all are overthinking it. My vote is simple and involves minimal research. I have the same belief that many people, even some on these liberal forums, do that politicians are liars anyway, shocking as that may seem to you. So despite how much they come on TV saying something, I really dont believe what they're saying too much. I'm not going to pretend to know these people like I already said, because I know they're being dishonest. What I DO know however, is that if my beliefs are mostly republican and if I help vote republicans into office, republican policies will be set into place. Obviously I wont agree with everything I've come to accept that everything wont be my way in this world. Again I will ask how you can tell me that voting by party is dumb. I see no other way of expressing my personal views than by voting for the party that best represents my own opinions on major issues. Please keep in mind when you reply that this is America we are talking about. Really I've already won any argument that we are talking about because I get a vote, compared to the zero that you do.

As to your comment about 'what the party usually stands for' is it not the party that backs a candidate??? The party will not back someone that doesnt agree with a lot of their points of view...please understand these basic concepts before talking to me next time.

[Money]

You arent even american....do i go sticking my nose up your ass in the canadian election? I'm not trying to join any political discussion here. I'm simply stating you all are overthinking it. My vote is simple and involves minimal research. I have the same belief that many people, even some on these liberal forums, do that politicians are liars anyway, shocking as that may seem to you. So despite how much they come on TV saying something, I really dont believe what they're saying too much. I'm not going to pretend to know these people like I already said, because I know they're being dishonest. What I DO know however, is that if my beliefs are mostly republican and if I help vote republicans into office, republican policies will be set into place. Obviously I wont agree with everything I've come to accept that everything wont be my way in this world. Again I will ask how you can tell me that voting by party is dumb. I see no other way of expressing my personal views than by voting for the party that best represents my own opinions on major issues. Please keep in mind when you reply that this is America we are talking about. Really I've already won any argument that we are talking about because I get a vote, compared to the zero that you do.

As to your comment about 'what the party usually stands for' is it not the party that backs a candidate??? The party will not back someone that doesnt agree with a lot of their points of view...please understand these basic concepts before talking to me next time.

well put, except the being republican part

[Izor]

same applies on the democratic side anyways

[Cops]

You arent even american....do i go sticking my nose up your ass in the canadian election? I'm not trying to join any political discussion here. I'm simply stating you all are overthinking it. My vote is simple and involves minimal research. I have the same belief that many people, even some on these liberal forums, do that politicians are liars anyway, shocking as that may seem to you. So despite how much they come on TV saying something, I really dont believe what they're saying too much. I'm not going to pretend to know these people like I already said, because I know they're being dishonest. What I DO know however, is that if my beliefs are mostly republican and if I help vote republicans into office, republican policies will be set into place. Obviously I wont agree with everything I've come to accept that everything wont be my way in this world. Again I will ask how you can tell me that voting by party is dumb. I see no other way of expressing my personal views than by voting for the party that best represents my own opinions on major issues. Please keep in mind when you reply that this is America we are talking about. Really I've already won any argument that we are talking about because I get a vote, compared to the zero that you do.

As to your comment about 'what the party usually stands for' is it not the party that backs a candidate??? The party will not back someone that doesnt agree with a lot of their points of view...please understand these basic concepts before talking to me next time.

1) First problem with that is that because I am not American my views are not valid or just in a discussion. Just because I didn't live in Germany during the holocaust doesn't mean I can't say it was a bad thing. Just for the record, I live directly above you, what happens below me still concerns me and what happens above you should still concern you but then again you're the last person I'd think that would actually be concerned with things around him.

2) You're engaging in a political discussion, exactly what you said you wouldn't do. Which is exactly why I told you to look up the word hypocrite. Well you're at it you might also want to look up the word dense

Political parties give a broad definition of what they 'represent' what the candidates bring to the table are very, very different. Look at what type of government Guliani would have compared to Ron Paul. For sake of argument I'll give you the Republican platform which quotes Ronald Regan of all people. This is how people vote in a new Hitler, they think just because the guy is associated with a certain party that he isn't a complete douchebag that has twisted plans for re modeling America.

RONALD REAGAN
believed that people were basically good, and had the right to be free.
He believed that bigotry and prejudice were the worst things a person could be guilty of.He believed in the Golden Rule and in the power of prayer.
He believed that America was not just a place in the world, but the hope of the world.As Ronald Wilson Reagan goes his way, we are left with a joyful hope he shared.May God bless Ronald Reagan and the country he loved

We choose strength.
We choose results.
We choose optimism.
We choose opportunity.
We choose freedom.

What exactly of that list stands out at you and makes you say to yourself 'wow, this is completely different from what the democrats are saying'. They also say they believe in innovation and change yet they are more keen to stick to traditional values compared to the democrats. Look at the conservative family values, the evidence is right in front of you. I'm not even glorifying the Democratic party, they're full of shit too.

The party will not back someone that doesnt agree with a lot of their points of view

Wrong, look at Ron Paul do you think Republicans generally care about a free market or would most agree with the revolutionary changes he wishes to make? No not really, some might but the overwhelming majority don't. Gulioni also goes against the more traditional values that the Republican party stands for.