After looking at the candidates in the Republican race to the primaries, I'm definitely leaning towards Romney. Here's an interesting interview with the Governor.
In the build up towards Thompson, I thought he was a serious candidate and had some interest. Of late, I've had my share of doubts...
and I absolutely refuse to vote for Guliani. Could I see him as Attorney General? Most definitely. As Veep? mmmm....maybe.... But as president he would have access to too many levers which support the funding of abortion both here and abroad.
The only candidate that shares a solution for the economic troubles ahead with the fall of the US dollar and social security.
The only candidate that will end the US military presence overseas (and has more military donations then any other candidate!). Also, against pre-emptive striking of Iran, and against torture (which surprisingly is popular among other Republicans these days).
Pro-life Doctor who has delivered over 4000 babies. You should hear his first experience when he walked in a room not knowing an abortion was being done, pretty sad (this was before modern abortion techniques).
Been married to the same woman for over 50 years.
Restore the Republic!
Nathan
-----------
"As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first." -Ronald Reagan
"I strongly support Ron Paul. We very badly need to have more Representatives who understand in a principled way the importance of property rights and religious freedom." - Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize Economist
"Ron Paul's speaking to people like me"... "He's an honorable man. He's a hardworking man." -Barbara Hagan, former Congresswoman
Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capital Hill - William Simon, former Secretary of the Treasury
I'm not leaning towards anybody at the moment. I will definately not vote for Guilliani or McCain in the primary. I can't imagine Ron Paul, if elected president, would be effective at spearheading the reforms he calls for into actual change. He won't get any respect from the left and he has already offended enough power players on the right to cause him trouble.
If I were to decide right now who to vote for in the primary it would be between Brownback and Romney.
(That is one fault for the Arkansas Gov, he doesn't have name recognition.)
Hahaha, that's great.
He has a good chance at the upset, especially in Iowa and South Caroilna. I don't think he'll do well in New Hampshire however (social conservatism isn't as big there).
Better then Gulianni and Romney in my humble opinion.
and I absolutely refuse to vote for Guliani. Could I see him as Attorney General? Most definitely. As Veep? mmmm....maybe.... But as president he would have access to too many levers which support the funding of abortion both here and abroad.
Speaking of which, what is up with Pat Robertson supporting Guliani?
Being a Ron Paul supporter, I'm going to go ahead and put my tinfoil hat on and say conspiracy.
How could Pat Robertson endorse a pro-choice candidate? So odd...
I can't imagine Ron Paul, if elected president, would be effective at spearheading the reforms he calls for into actual change. He won't get any respect from the left and he has already offended enough power players on the right to cause him trouble.
I think that you meant to use the word 'Republican' instead of 'right'. The mainstream Republican party is not on the right. They spend like drunken sailors and increase government much like democrats. Many of them are also in favor of amnesty for illegal gate crashing immigrants. I don't see anything to the right about them. That's why Ron Paul is going to be a surprise (although I doubt he'll get the nomination) because he is the only alternative to the Republican establishment. However the establishment will gang up on him like never before if he begins to make any head way. He is a danger to their power structure and to the establishment of both major parties. Sounds like a good guy to me.
I did not say conservative, it is fair for me to have said right. I was not making a judgment on the domestic policies of Republicans by referring to them as 'on the right'. There are political realities to be concerned with if a president is opposed to power figures in both major parties.
The president needs to work with congress if he wants certain bills passed.
my goal is not to get into a spitting contest, but you said that he offended those on the right (I'm paraphrasing). He offended those in the Republican establishment which is not on the right. There's a difference.
You are correct that the President needs to work with Congress if he (oh that makes Hillary mad ) wants certain bills passed. That's why an overhaul of the legislative branch is needed as well as the executive branch. Then maybe the Constitution could be dusted off and adhered to instead of being ignored.
If a reformer does not respect an opponent for what they have done right, this opponent will not have a reason to listen to any call to reform. The reason to ignore the said reformer will outweigh any use of rhetoric or philosophy which may justify a new system of politics to some.
By the way, Ron Paul was one of just 4 Republicans in Congress, who voted yesterday to send Dennis Kucinich's resolution to impeach Dick Cheney to the House Judiciary Committee. The measure passed by 218 to 194. It's strange to be voting the same way as Kucinich, Conyers, Schakowsky etc, but don't forget that even a broken clock is right twice a day, and I'll heartily agree on at least one issue with anyone who supports impeaching Dick Cheney.
By the way, Ron Paul was one of just 4 Republicans in Congress, who voted yesterday to send Dennis Kucinich's resolution to impeach Dick Cheney to the House Judiciary Committee. The measure passed by 218 to 194. It's strange to be voting the same way as Kucinich, Conyers, Schakowsky etc, but don't forget that even a broken clock is right twice a day, and I'll heartily agree on at least one issue with anyone who supports impeaching Dick Cheney.
I am glad to read your comment here Lawrence. The Administration has trampled on the constitution. From what I have seen, Romney and Gulianni have no problem with civil rights and torture. Only Ron Paul is a viable candidate from the Republican side. He is the only true conservative, the only one standing up for the constitution, standing up against this unconstitutional and illegal war.
If a reformer does not respect an opponent for what they have done right, this opponent will not have a reason to listen to any call to reform. The reason to ignore the said reformer will outweigh any use of rhetoric or philosophy which may justify a new system of politics to some.
Terry
The only disrespect that is going on currently is for the US Constitution. Ron Paul is the only candidate that has any respect and/or knowledge of the US Constitution, if I were him I'd bring copies of the Constitution for all the other candidates to read at the next debate, they might learn something.
I honestly don't know who I'm going to vote for, for president in 2008. None of the candidates is close to being a perfect candidate for me. Giuliani has the most practical experience, and I agree with him on certain issues, but I don't like his pro-abortion position nor some of his other views. Hillary Clinton is . . . Hillary; 'nuff said. Besides, I�m tired of two families (the Bushes and the Clintons) amassing the most political power in America. Barack Obama is fresh and original (and ambitious; does anyone else suspect that he is running for Governor of Illinois?), but he is inexperienced. Ron Paul is interesting; so too is Dennis Kucinich; but neither of them will be the next President. Mitt Romney seems like a flip-flopper on social isssues. Mike Huckabee? I need to learn more about him. Etc.
If it was not a technical error, can one of the moderators explain why it was deleted?
Thanks.
Gordo
Wow, I just listened to that, and to the follow up callers and it looks like we're to stage 2.5 of Ghandi's quote. I'm excited by the fact that the neo-cons are coming out in force against Ron Paul. During the rest of that segment he accused Ron Paul supporters of being anti-semitic (a very dirty way of associating Ron Paul to anti-semitism, even though he has never said anything or done anything anti-semitic).
1.)First they ignore you, 2.)then they ridicule you, 3.)then they fight you, 4.)then you win."
Ron Paul is the perfect answer to how we send a message to the establishment in DC. Sling all the mud you want, but not all of us are going to mindlessly follow what talk radio tells us.
You notice how he calls them Ronpods. I've also heard Ronbots. Are we in 1984? is this doubletalk? Ron Paul supporters found Ron Paul mostly on their own through their own research and not spoonfed from the media, but WE'RE the robots?
Just a warning, if Ron Paul climbs in the polls, only expect more accusastions of racism, anti-semitism, and ridicule for delivering a message of non-interventionism and freedom.
Send a message to DC, send a message to the media, send a message to the world that we the people in fact decide who will be the next president of the United States no matter how much the special interests and media try to change that.
Just to be clear, my only interest in posting the link was the interview, not the follow-up commentary. I think he went way over the top, especially on the anti-semitic thing.
Too bad he could not stick to the substantive issues covered in his interview. Ron Paul should be critiqued based on the positions he actually holds.
As a Virginian, I'm much more inclined to be a strict constructionist. Unfortuanetly, such people are unelectable. And the nature of the presidency of the alternative, Mrs. Clinton, is unthinkable.
Just to be clear, my only interest in posting the link was the interview, not the follow-up commentary. I think he went way over the top, especially on the anti-semitic thing.
Lol, no problem. And if it sounded like any of that was aimed at you, it wasn't. I was just yelling at the whole world and more specifically the media, Republican leadership, talk show hosts, special interests, and the whole District of Columiba.
I'm not going to go through life always voting for the person with the best chance. Ron Paul is my Bunker Hill, he's my Alamo, as he'll probably lose, but this is a battle where I'm going to hunker down with the long shot and keep firing back at the media until the end.
(Imagine Glory, Glory, Hallelujah playing in background while reading that).
"Send a message to DC, send a message to the media, send a message to the world that we the people in fact decide who will be the next president of the United States no matter how much the special interests and media try to change that."
If a person with Ron Paul's ambitions became president, how would he meet the policy goals promised in his campaign?
Would he strictly follow them? How much compromise would be acceptable?
"Send a message to DC, send a message to the media, send a message to the world that we the people in fact decide who will be the next president of the United States no matter how much the special interests and media try to change that."
If a person with Ron Paul's ambitions became president, how would he meet the policy goals promised in his campaign?
Would he strictly follow them? How much compromise would be acceptable?
Terry
As President, he wouldn't be able to pass legislation, but would be able to introduce it (and veto and sign). On fiscal issues he would have the backing of most of the Republicans, and on foreign policy he would have the backing of most of the Democrats.
What we do know, when it comes to foreign policy is that he won't be pre-emptively stricking foreign countries, and will bring the troops home. As far as bringing bases home from other non combat counties, I don't know if he has the power to do that or not.
Lastly, he'll bring these issues up for debate in the public. Should we be overthrowing foreign governments in the name of freedom. Should we have a Federal Reserve and a currency that is not tied to anything. He will bring all these issues to the forefront to be discussed which is a start.
The US will not all of a sudden be utopia with Ron Paul, but it's a beginning towards a freer and better America.
I've been a Ron Paul fan for several years already, and I like the fact that he's a strict Constitutionalist who believes in a foreign policy of "Friendship with all, entangling alliances with none". And for me he's absolutely the only choice in a race where the other options are the war mongering megalomaniac Bush Republicans, and the socialism, sodomy and slaughtering the innocents of the Democrats.
I saw that on Drudge and here are my favorite parts of the article:
Quote
Paul remains a very long shot for the nomination.
Quote
"But there's a pretty low ceiling in terms of his actual vote."
Quote
Presidential debate moderators typically pay scant attention to Paul and two other House members seen as fringe candidates.
It's as if the media needs to keep reassuring itself and the readers that Ron Paul has no shot, so pay no heed to his steady rise in the polls and his rise in donations.
Ron Paul's top three contributers are people from Google, US Army, and US Navy in that order, now check out where the other candidates get their money from:
One commentator referred to Paul supporters as "Moon Bats" because their candidate is in favor of abolishing the personal income tax, the immediate withdrawl of troops from Iraq, our leaving the United Nations, abolishing the CIA, and impeaching Dick Cheney. If that makes you a "Moon Bat" then I'm proud to be a "Moon Bat."
I'll be back in Merry Old England where the Labour party is hard at work desotyring everythgin traditional, British, or Christian.
I however am a Devout Monarchist who supports the Unelected House Of Lords (that htey are dismantling) and find electiosn to be rather divisive affairs, built on intriuge and riot, signifyign only popular trends.
I support ominally ROn paul on the basis that he seems th emost logical Candidtae but agree that he shant win.
But I won't vote for him. Or anyoen else. I cna't participate in VOting, as I fond the hwole practice ridiculous.
The Byzantine Forum provides
message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though
discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are
those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the
Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the
www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial,
have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as
a source for official information for any Church. All posts become
property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights
reserved.
