The American Election, Who you votin' for/support? Options

[Dantrag]

Now, what were you saying again about freeing this country from corruption, Doomie? Don't you think it'd fall apart at the seams like tissue paper if you even tried ???

I know that the question wasn't directed towards me, but anyway....

While the corruption is obviously never going to be completely gone, I think it's terrible to accept it and be content with it. Why not at least try to be rid of it rather than just decide things are the way they are and shouldn't be changed? And you know what, if it does fall apart, maybe it didn't deserve to exist in the first place.

[Ibis]

hmmm, good points Danny ... you give me hope again. Ok, I'll try.

[DoomedOne]

More on Ron Paul, it seems you can really tell who in the media is blatantly, unapologetically biased and who actually strives to remain objective just by the time given to this candidate.

How? You ask? At least radical conservatives striving for objectivity will acknowledge his existence. He's the most demanded candidate, and always come out near the top of any polls that include his name, and yet somehow Fox News is still acting like he fell off the planet because he disagrees with Rupert Murdoch's agenda to get rich at the expense of the American people as well as people all over the world.

The best tool the media has is to set the stage, they don't baltantly say he's an idiot because too many people will see through that, they just disregard him in hopes he will be forgotten. Luckily, via the internet his fame continues to grow.

I love how people consider CNN and MSNBC to be all liberally biased when they practically completely ignore him as well. Where has he shown up? Wolfowitz, (though Wolfowitz repeated the lies and misconceptions all pundits have been mimicking about his platform) Bill Maher (Started out pretty cynical to the guy but has since become one of his best supporters) and Stephen COlbert (Which sucks because those interviews are all Stephen trying to make people laugh, and I love the guy but he's just not as good at interviews as Jon)

Meanwhile he's one of the most popular candidates on Youtube. The internet isn't that free, though. For a long period of time Myspace actually censored him but that backfired so they stopped. (Myspace is also owned by Rupert Murdoch, the antichrist, for those that didn't know)

[gamer10]

Ron Paul is a moderately good Republican candidate, in my opinion. However, I do disagree with a few of his policies, such as the fact that he supports gun rights, but he introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution to stop giving automatic citizenship to infants born in the United States to non-citizen parents, despite the fact that this would require alteration of the 14th amendment. To me he seems to be running a thin line.

I don't mind gun rights, as I am myself a proponent of constitutional rights, but it does seem rather odd that he supports some aspects of the constitution but not others, while claiming avid support for it.

I also am not much for his stance against the idea of a North American Union, I just plain like the idea.

As for his "yes" vote for the Southern border fence, he seems to have forgetten that it costs taxpayers to build that fence. I'm all for a secure border, but a fence is not going to stop a determined human being. I would rather have more personnel down there.

This post has been edited by gamer10: Jul 11 2007, 06:38 AM

[Dantrag]

The 14th Amendment one makes sense, after some research. Since the original Constitution did not include the children of non-citizens born on US soil. It was ratified in the mid-1800s to include that bit. So, in a way, it makes sense that he would oppose the ratification to begin with.

And I'm all for gun rights, by the way. I mean, think about it. Most murderers and other gun-wielding criminals aren't going to take the time to acquire the gun legally. Most of them would steal it or get it by other (illegal) means. The people that do have guns legally are often the ones that stop the bad ones. Five (don't quote me on the number, but I think it's correct) people involved in the VT shootings had concealed handgun permits, but weren't carrying due to its illegality on campus. Think of how many lives could have been saved if that murderer hadn't been the only one with a gun.

[Ibis]

I am with DAnny on pro-gun control but permits for US citizens w/ clean criminal records .. if guns are illegal, only outlaws will have guns.

I am with gamer10 that we need more personnel at the border rather than building a fence that they are just going to climb over, dig under, prevents wildlife from their natrual migration patterns there ... and also more machines/robots working @ the border. Our video surveillence is one of the main deterrents to illegals because it catches them exactly on tape and is used in their trials to send them back hence they came.

For good measure, I'll tell you that I am for ending this outa-control war in Iraq/Pakistan (forget? we are there still too?) and to using the money being wasted for bringing our troops home safely. It is an absolute outrage and slap in the face to every US soldier that there was no planning whatsoever for the medical needs/veteran's status of our troops. Did they really think just "shock & awe" was going to subdue the moslems so against us and that there would be no US bloodshed?

I am also for immediate Federal Katrina restoration ... the main money for reconstruction there is all tied up between teh Fed and the state of Louisiana & the major recovery effort is still being done by Church groups/volunteer organizations like one my NJ sister went on to tear down two houses so they could be rebuilt for ppl who've been living in their FEMA trailers in their front yards all this time. What a flaming symbol to the inadequacy of the present administration Katrina was and continues to be! I remember as a little girl how the Army Corp of Engineers came in IMMED and cleaned up and restored housing for US citizens for free after devestating Hurricane Camille.

[DoomedOne]

On thing that worries me about Ron Paul is that he says he supports Free Trade completely. I do too, but Free Trade has been overturned by the very companies that used it to get to the top. A successful business should be built on making the best product most efficiently, not on ignoring laws, ethics and human respect. With the WTO and other agencies and laws passed by bribed politicians, there is no free trade. There are only billionairies using the US military and courts to force people all over the world to submit to them so they can make more money.

Health insurance companies also need to go, I'm al for free trade but come on, just watch SiCKO and you'll understand just how badly they need to go.

[milanius]

I'd support any American president which would leave our own land and territory damn well alone.

I also had a long post but it was rather flammable. I decided to go with shorter, asbestos version.

[Ibis]

Sweet Milanius, ... always the good decision

[Dantrag]

Health insurance companies also need to go, I'm al for free trade but come on, just watch SiCKO and you'll understand just how badly they need to go.

Sicko may not be the best source. I mean, sure, there's some truth in it, but it isn't a documentary designed to give an unbiased opinion. It's a documentary to make you believe what Michael Moore does.

Sure, there's corruption in health insurance companies, but laws just need to be more strictly enforced and new legislation should be passed. With health insurance companies, you choose your own health care plan based on its service and price. If the government regulated it, like in Canada, you get what the government gives you. Since I believe in a limited government, and I like my personal freedoms and low taxes, I'll stick with health insurance.

[DoomedOne]

I love the hype about how much Michael Moore's films are propaganda. he uses facts to preesent and argument and delivers both sides of the dilema, that's not propaganda. Look at where he gets his facts if your paranoid, I do when I want to present sometihng he said as an argument because I know he alone is not a credible source because of all the bad buzz against him.

The fact is Hilary Clinton would make a terrible present because she's completely buyable. She does anything companies want her to if they giver her enough money.

They other fact is health insurance companies are evil and need to be burned to the ground, those are two facts I learned from SiCKO and confirmed with my own research.

So I digress, RON PAUL FOR THE WIN!

[canis216]

The trouble with health insurance is that it is hardest to get for people who need it most. The young and healthy can get insurance but don't really need it (I haven't had a real need for medical care since middle school; so, in about 10 years) whereas people who have more need and fewer means have to pay more and have a harder time getting covered. Business, too, is getting hammered by the cost of providing insurance to employees. The free market simply does not work for medical care. The U.S. spends a lot more on medical care than most places and doesn't get anything even resembling full coverage. It's pathetic.

[DoomedOne]

Well the problem with healthcare in this country is our pride and nationalism, to be honest. We have this idea that the free market is this universal principle because it helped us get to the top as a nation, but it didn't do it alone. Government subsidies got us out of the depression, for instance. Subsidies to higher education in the 60s and 70s gave us a massive boom in the middle class which was probably one of the best things for this economy our government has ever done.

The free market is great when money can be the bottom line, but in certain areas of our daily lives money just can't be the only goal of those in charge. Healthcare should be the bottomline of healthcare, and that means giving every citizen what they need. it doesn't mean we're going to put a big buraecracy down to make people wait years for surgery. The fact is if we switched right now wait times would decrease because no one would have to check insurance and the HMOs wouldn't add a bunch of obstacles to make sure they're still making money.

Now dantrag, I do agree Michael Moore is openly biased in his movies so they aren't really documentaries, and he is most definitely a left-wing pundit (One of few) who uses the same sort of language manipulation people like Bill O'Reilly use, but I can watch Michael Moore and read between the lines, it's not that hard to tell where he's putting something a certain way in order to generate an image or association.

However his documentary contains only facts. CNN tried to attack his documentary by explaining exactly where his facts got a little iffy, and Michael Moore started posting exactly how CNN was lying and how his facts were not iffy at all. CNN attempted to debate him but eventually the man who made the fact checking report lost a large portion of his fanbase and was forced to admit his mistakes.

So far of all the "Michael Moore is making propaganda" reports about his facts I've read and checked up on, only one fact was manipulated, and that was during Bowling for Columbine when harleton Heston was shown giving a speech and Moore took two speeches and made them seem like they were the same speech, even though Heston was wearing two different suits. However, he never actually claimed that it was one, authentic speech either.

So I agree, Michael Moore, like all extremists, lies to himself in order to hold onto his extreme "us and them" opinions. He justifies his own manipulations because, if you watch the news, they screw their facts up ten times as much as he does. In fact, the news is worse than him when it comes to bias even though they don't admit it. Their goals are to make sure people are frightened and insecure but think their government is doing everything it can to protect them. The business side of war is left out, and everything is censored as though, if someone were to specifically examine this country's media they would think we're living in a fascist country.

Anyway I must also digress, vote for Ron Paul. He never answered my email where I questioned his views on an absolute free market.

[Channler]

So this is a rather old topic, but still viable.

Currently my vote is for Giuliani.. Why? He seems moderate on the issues I'm moderate about, and hard on the views I'm hard about (the views, nothing else )

I'm currently in a military school. In fact, I'm sitting here in ACU's (Army Combat Uniform) right now typing this. I've been living in spartan accommodations and have been told that I'm nothing but a piece of trash.

However I payed for this punishment.. Why? Because I believe that its every American's job to serve the collective group (the nation). I don't want to go to Iraq, but I will go to finish the job. I don't like waking up at 0430, but I do it cause it has to get done.

So in regards to the situation in Iraq, my vote also goes with Giuliani because he isn't calling to turn tale and run.

He might not be perfect, but I've yet to find anyone that is.. Except me of course.

[stargelman]

So in regards to the situation in Iraq, my vote also goes with Giuliani because he isn't calling to turn tale and run.

I'm not sure this is entirely on-topic, but I'll ask anyway because it interests me immensly.

How exactly do you think this can still be won? If you were commander of the US forces in Iraq, what would you do to resolve the situation? How would you ensure that when you do leave, civil war will not break out between the three major players?

As I see it right now, the continued presence of US troups in Iraq is but a face-saving exercise. Leaving now would be admitting defeat, so they have to stay for the moment, until the public has either forgotten all about it (unlikely) or the situation can be presented as stable - first attempts to convince the public that the situation has improved have already been made.

Ultimately, the US will have to leave. I don't know if it will be in one year, in five or in ten, but I don't think there's any doubt they can't keep this up indefinitely. I figure the factions in Iraq know that, too. The Sunni seem to be attempting to play it nice in exchange for US support (training, arms etc). The Shia are doing all they can to control army and police forces to serve their needs, and the kurds in the North are already strong and have already begun to slowely expand their territory southwards. It appears to me that right now, all of them are actively preparing for the time when the US have finally left, to strengthen their position for the civil war that will (in my opinion inevitably) follow a US withdrawal. To make matters even worse, all three factions have to cope with whatever Al Qaeda splinter groups and sympathizers are operating in their territory.

So, what is there to be done? Am I making false assumptions, is there really a way to stop this madness from unfolding? I sure as hell don't see it.

[Channler]

Well Mr Stargelman,

You know how to keep the civil war from erupting? Don't leave.

Listen in 4 years if were not out of Iraq thats exactly where I will be going.. Fresh out of college (and TBS). And trust me, ground pounders do nothing but soak up bullets for the Iraqis. I will concur with you on the part of the strategy not working. It's not our job to garrison their country.. And honest to god I wouldn't care if their country fell into a civil war. Look at the United States, the Civil War was almost a good thing. It taught us for several centuries the futility of war, and the enormous cost. It ended slavery and caused great strides in liberal trends.

Maybe Iraq needs a civil war?

My idea however is our job is to destroy the insurgency and if we pull out 160 thousand soldiers/marines/sailors/airmen then the insurgents have just believe they won. It was Ho Chi Minh who said..

"You can kill ten of our men for every one we kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and we will win"

..And he was right. Terrorists and extremists will win. We have to show that 5000 deaths for 6 years of war is nothing in comparison to 58,000 deaths for 16 years.

[DoomedOne]

As a secular leader paid for by the West, Saddam Hussein was the only thing keeping that country out of civil war.

But they WANT civil war, you know why? Because it means we have to borrow money from the federal reserve meaning the American people end up spending billions of dollars and it goes directly to families like the Rockafellers.

Vietnam was the same way, we ended up owing the federal reserve (which is basically a privately owned company by some of the richest men on the planet) billions and making these families filthy rich. Right now you can see billions of dollars is being funneled to just a few people, owners of reconstruction companies, war companies and bankers.

In the words of Ron Paul. "They said we couldn't leave Vietnam early because China would take over the world, but look at what happened? China has become capitalist... and they're taking over the world."

[stargelman]

Heh. Hinsight is 20/20.

[Ibis]

Vietnam became profitable for the French. Vietnam had good supplies of coal, tin, zinc and rubber. Much of this was sent to France. Vietnam also provided a good market for French manufactured goods. By 1938, 57% of all Vietnam's imports were provided by French companies.

To help transport these raw materials and manufactured goods, the French built a network of roads, canals and railways. To pay for this the French taxed the Vietnamese peasants. This resulted in many new French mines and plantations.

Viet Nam had a fabled 'mountain of gold' somewhere in the jungles and they thought that we were there to get their mountain of gold. Actually the elements we did get were more valuable. America was in Viet Nam for rich deposits of space-age ccmponent metals found in strategic deposits of nickel, cadmium, platinum, etc. The space race was on with Rusia at this same time and important light weight, incredibly durable metals and polymers were being created from rich caches of Vietnamese minerals. Possibly an overlooked and little known fact with all the Communist mud-slinging flying around.

France and America created South Vietnam. There was no South or North before the French declared it so. No wonder really they wanted to reunite their country.