<p>
</p>
<p>Because that is what a constructive leadership does? No wonder that fantastic duo has helped our country so much and Congress out of its low approval rates. By the way, do they still peddle that amazing Marshall Plan for the US they unveiled during a State of the Union democratic rebuttal. </p>
<p>Peaches of people, aren’t they?</p>
<p>If you realize that war is the biggest issue for this election, then you are left with only a few choices:</p>
<p>Gravel, Paul, and Kucinich. These three are the only ones that have demonstrated their consistent anti-war efforts.</p>
<p>How you might ask?:</p>
<p>All three have opposed the Iraq war when given the chance right from the start (unlike Hillary).
All three refuse lobbyist money (Obama accepts AIPAC money yet claims to not take money from lobbyists.)</p>
<p>All three have no plans for any war of any kind (can’t say the same for Hillary and Obama who have military action against Iran as an option)</p>
<p>Gravel in particular filibustered for the Pentagon Paper hearings to oppose the Vietnam War. He even had a catheter hooked up to himself so he wouldn’t lose the floor! This is the kind of guy who cares about the sacredness of human life.</p>
<p>Paul is a strict constitutionalist. Just look at how the founding fathers intended for this country to be run and you’ll understand why Paul is so great. We went into Iraq without Congress declaring war. You people don’t see anything wrong with one person being able to cause a war which lasts for years? </p>
<p>If he can apply this kind of thinking to the rest of the federal government, then perhaps we can live in a more just world as the founding fathers intended.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.albionmonitor.com/0402a/iraqwarunconstitutional.html[/url]”>http://www.albionmonitor.com/0402a/iraqwarunconstitutional.html</a></p>
<p>Here’s a good quote from Paul: “Special interests have replaced the concern that the Founders had for general welfare. Vote trading is seen as good politics. The errand-boy mentality is ordinary, the defender of liberty is seen as bizarre. It’s difficult for one who loves true liberty and utterly detests the power of the state to come to Washington for a period of time and not leave a true cynic.”</p>
<p>I don’t know much about Kucinich or what makes him special, but his foreign policy is dead-on like Paul and Gravel. I’ll leave it to somebody else to praise him. I’m sure he’s very competent.</p>
<p>Read this chart to get some better understanding on where candidates stand on the issues. Use this only as a guideline. I hope you don’t vote based only on this chart.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think Mini’s target was the hubby. The comparison was probably based on their skillful mastery of public speaking and their public policies on allowing genocides to happen on their watch -and that is a mild interpretation of “allowing.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, please. Even Karl Rove doesn’t believe that nonsense he’s been spouting this week. But, let’s assume Rove is right. The great thing about Republican incompetence, cronyism, and corruption is that it’s the gift that keeps on giving. I guess you know that Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) had a little visit from the FBI and IRS today. I guess you’ve probably heard of Alberto Gonzales.</p>
<p>I can’t wait to hear Rudy Guiliani try to make the case that he’s above cronyism. Hello Bernie Kerrik.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good luck with that. Bush and his Republican administration is going to be sitting in the Oval Office for every minute of the 2008 campaign.</p>
<p>Ron Paul is too closely related to the John Birch society and the most despicable forms of racism for my taste. Sorry. </p>
<p>I’m also not going to consider a candidate who supports a consitutional amendment to ban abortions. Sorry.</p>
<p>Kucinich should be paying attention to his reelection campaign instead of yet another vanity Presidential run. I understand that Democrats are gearing up a primary challenge against him in Ohio.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The low approval rates are because Congress hasn’t stopped the madness in Iraq. Reid and Pelosi have no choice but to keep plugging away at the war issue.</p>
<p>@interesteddad</p>
<p>He is only a supporter of the constitutional parts of it, not the racism or whatever you claim to be present. That’s the only thing they share: a strict interpretation of the Constitution.</p>
<p>As I already mentioned, Paul is a constitutionalist.</p>
<p>As far as Gay’s rights goes, he is against the Federal Marriage amendment. He even voted against it in 2004. I don’t know where you’re getting your facts from ;). He is a firm believer in state rights and believes the issue should be left up to the states.</p>
<p>Basically, if Ron Paul gets elected, Gays will be able to marry in the more liberal states which are able to pass Gay marriage laws which is how it should have been all along. Unless of course, you don’t believe in the constitution.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s like saying that he’s only in favor of the white sheets part of the KKK.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If he’s such a “constitutionist”, then why does he want to amend the constitution to ban abortions?</p>
<p>Ron Paul is the darling of the black helicopter conspiracy crowd. But, by all means, please vote for him in the Republican primaries. I’m sure that the Democrats are licking their chops to run against a candidate who has written this in his campaign newsletters:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>@interesteddad</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/134/7587/high%20alert.asp?wid=134&nid=7587[/url]”>http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/134/7587/high%20alert.asp?wid=134&nid=7587</a></p>
<p>The second comment is not racist. Are stating facts now racist? You’re just quoting him out of context just like a politician. If you actually took the time to see WHY he holds a view, the you would agree with him.</p>
<p>Ron Paul has a firm belief that “grouping” of people leads to racism. Here’s a good quote:
“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.”</p>
<p>That is why he is against Affirmative Action. Not because he hates black people, but because he wants everybody to be treated equally.</p>
<p>He’s an OB-GYN and has deliver hundreds of babies of all colors.</p>
<p>Again, you’re misquoting facts. He personally opposes abortion, but that is not the main reason he opposes it. He believes that the 9th and 10th amendments don’t allow Federal regulation of abortion. It should be handled on a statewide basis.</p>
<p>I’ve never heard of this amendment which bans abortion. Care to give a link?</p>
<p>EDIT: I already mentioned that he is an OB-GYN, but I just want to stress that again. If any candidate knows anything about the abortion issue, he’s the one. He even has 2 books published about abortion.</p>
<p>He also has a lot of character. He is kind of like a rags-to-riches story. He is also a jack-of-all-trades: a well-versed economist, a Duke med school graduate, congressman, and served in the US Air Forces in several countries.</p>
<p>He refuses to accept medicare and medicaid. Instead, he provides discounted or free medical care to needy patients.</p>
<p>This is one helluva guy and it’s pretty sad that you think defending the constitution is anything like being part of the KKK. Maybe you oughta have your rights taken away to see how important the constitution is? How about no 1st amendment? Thought so…Ron Paul is on your side and is defending your rights from the inefficient federal bureaucracy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t tell me I would agree with him. I know why he holds racist views. He’s a racist.</p>
<p>But, by all means. If you think Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, or Dennis Kucinich is qualified to be President of Untied States, you should vote for one of them in the primaries. It’s a free country.</p>
<p>On abortion:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Don’t tell me I would agree with him. I know why he holds racist views. He’s a racist.”</p>
<p>Oh, I didn’t know you had a “jump to conclusions” amt. Can I use it? Let me try: Hillary is part Welsh so she is not loyal to our country.</p>
<p>Please note that was sarcasm.</p>
<p>If Paul could, he would ban abortion. But he supports the constitutional approach of state rights which is why he supported the amendment. I don’t understand how you can hate a Candidate just because he’s pro-life.</p>
<p>He knows a heck of a lot more about abortion than you do. Like he knows that the Constitution doesn’t support a decision like Roe vs Wade. He also understands the embryology aspect of abortion since he’s an OB-GYN.</p>
<p>FYI, NARAL gave him a 65% pro-choice rating.</p>
<p>But you keep on going with your smear campaign and quoting out of context.</p>
<p>I heard Ron Paul speak on our local PBS radio show, and his life story is impressive; I had no idea he was an M.D. I found his health-care ideas interesting.</p>
<p>Beware: today may not be the best of days for i-dad, since the latest Rasmussen poll shows that Hillary hasn’t faired too well in last week’s Hillary/Obama spat. Democrats agree with Obama’s position on speaking with world leaders 55% - 22%. Oops.</p>
<p>Beware? From the exact same web-site:</p>
<p>“Hillary Clinton leads all challengers with 41% support among Likely Democratic Primary Voters. Illinois Senator Barack Obama is a distant second at 23% while former North Carolina Senator John Edwards is preferred by 14%”</p>
<p>I was speaking specifically of the Rasmussen poll of Democrats’ reaction to the Hillary/Obama spat, drb. I thought I was clear. What web site are you referring to, btw?</p>
<p>Indeed you were clear. But your selective citation is misleading, given Hil’s comfortable lead (at present). i-dad need have no concerns, and we need not beware (any more than usual).</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics[/url]”>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics</a></p>
<p>It’s not a “selective citation:” it is simply an interesting fact–an interesting outcome of last week’s spat, based on the CNN debate, about which we had a long thread. I meant beware of i-dad’s mood–an attempt to be humorous, which fell flat, apparently. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>She’s just another right-wing democrat.</p>
<p>Which presidential candidate only allowed “HIS SUPPORTERS” in his rallies?</p>
<p>afruff23: Until Paul has the opportunity to personally face the issue of whether or not to have an abortion, I feel quite confident that he doesn’t know as much about abortion as I do. One of the sad things about wanting to reverse Roe v. Wade is that the only victims will be those not rich enough to find different access to the procedure. </p>
<p>Strict constructionist of the Constitution? Isn’t that the same document that called a “slave” a fraction of a person and prohibited sizable portions of US citizens to vote? I have always failed to see why this is a virtue.</p>
<p>As per your quote: People are individuals and members of groups last time I peeked into sociology.</p>
<p>Well, it was Round One to Obama (among Democrats by a landslide):</p>
<p>"Forty-two percent (42%) of Americans say that the next President should meet with the heads of nations such as Iran, Syria, and North Korea without setting any preconditions. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 34% disagree while 24% are not sure. </p>
<p>That question came up during last Monday’s Presidential Debate with Illinois Senator Barack Obama saying he would commit to such meetings and New York Senator Hillary Clinton offering a more cautious response. Democrats, by a 55% to 22% margin, agree with Obama. Clinton and Obama continue to dominate the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination."</p>