Which Presidential candidate do you support?

[SemiAutoSam]

A friend that is a Ron Paul website member sent me this in a PM. For those of you that feel he would make a good president please distribute this far and wide.

Thanks.

Let's cut to the chase: conservative Republicans have only one choice for President in 2008: Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Unlike the GOP frontrunners, Paul is the real deal.

No real conservative could support Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson, or Newt Gingrich. When it comes to historic conservative principles, each of these men is as phony as a three dollar bill. That they are now attempting to cast themselves as conservatives is more than laughable: it is downright hilarious.

The more that conservatives (and the rest of America) learn about the GOP's "top tier" candidates, the more they will dislike them. This fact does not bode well for the GOP in the 2008 general election should one of these five men obtain the nomination. Plus, G.W. Bush has forever wasted the antiquated "lesser of two evils" philosophy. As they say here in the south, "That dog won't hunt." Not anymore.

On the whole, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are head and shoulders above the aforementioned "top tier" candidates, especially on the very important illegal immigration issue. They are also opposed to so-called "free trade" agreements, and they are both pro-Second Amendment. This is a plus. Hunter supports preemptive war, however, and he voted for both the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act, which disqualifies him for President, in my judgment. I confess to liking Tom Tancredo. He strikes me as an honest man and was a bulldog in fighting Bush's amnesty for illegal aliens proposal. However, he also voted for the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act. Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback are strong on the life issue, but they are dismal on immigration and Big Brother issues. All that said, it is Ron Paul alone who contains the "whole package."

He has a twenty-year record as a conservative congressman that is virtually unblemished. Unlike the vast majority of congressmen and senators in Washington, D.C., Paul consistently honors his oath of office to support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That, all by itself, should be worth a conservative's support.

In fact, Ron Paul has voted against so many unconstitutional bills offered by both Democrats and Republicans that he is known on Capitol Hill as "Dr. No." This moniker comes from both his "no" votes and the fact that Paul is a former medical doctor, an OB/GYN physician who has delivered more than four thousand babies.

If one wants a true photograph of how a congressman or senator votes on conservative, constitutional issues, the best place to look is the Freedom Index in the New American Magazine. Ron Paul almost always ranks as the most conservative congressman from either chamber or either party. His current ranking is 100%, which is a score that few congressmen or senators, except Ron Paul, ever achieve. And Paul does it routinely.

Ron Paul's commitment to the sanctity of human life goes beyond rhetoric. He is the man who sponsored H.R. 776, entitled the "Sanctity of Life Act of 2005." Had it passed, H.R. 776 would have recognized the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." The bill also recognized the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, H.R. 776 would have removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v. Wade decision, and would have denied funding for abortion providers. In plain language, H.R. 776 would have ended abortion on demand. (It is more than interesting to me that none of the Religious Right's pet politicians, including George W. Bush, even bothered to support Paul's pro-life bill.)

In addition to being willing to stop the illegal alien invasion, Ron Paul is one of only a handful of congressmen that dares speak out against the emerging North American Union, NAFTA superhighway, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement, all of which are being promoted by the White House in concert with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Another critical issue in next year's election is the gun issue (it is always a critical issue where freedom is concerned). On this issue, Ron Paul stands atop the field. Because Paul truly supports the Constitution, he truly supports "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Period. Should Ron Paul become President, gun owners would have the best friend they ever had.

Regarding the war in Iraq and other foreign policy issues, Paul is a traditional conservative of the order of George Washington and Robert Taft. Not ignorant of military matters (he is an Air Force veteran), Paul subscribes to a historical American approach of no entanglements with foreign nations. In fact, in the area of foreign policy, Ron Paul stands alone as a traditional, constitutional, American statesman.

Unlike his neocon counterparts, Ron Paul believes in an independent America. He believes that it is not America's responsibility to police the world. He believes America's political leaders are duty-bound to protect the interests of the United States, not the interests of internationalists. Accordingly, he opposed the unprovoked and preemptive invasion of Iraq. Time has certainly vindicated Dr. Paul's principled position.

In fact, those conservatives who have followed President Bush's preemptive war doctrine are the ones who have abandoned historical conservative principles. Before G.W. Bush changed the landscape, conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, mostly subscribed to Augustine's "just war" theory regarding accepted protocols for the conduct of war. Today, however, many professing conservatives have foolishly followed Bush's "preemptive war" theory, which, before now, was practiced mostly by pagan emperors. Not so with Ron Paul. As a Christian, he still subscribes to "just war."

Of course, Ron Paul believes in protecting America from terrorists. He authored H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. According to Paul, "A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage war against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation."

If the United States government had listened to Ron Paul, we would not have lost nearly 3,500 American soldiers and Marines, spent over $1 trillion, and gotten bogged down in an endless civil war from which there is no equitable extraction. Furthermore, had we listened to Dr. Paul, Osama bin Laden would no doubt be dead, as would most of his al-Qaeda operatives, and we would be less vulnerable to future terrorist attacks, instead of being more vulnerable, which is the case today.

And speaking of Christianity, Ron Paul's testimony is clear. He has publicly acknowledged Jesus Christ as his personal Savior. And for Paul, this is not political posturing, it is a genuine personal commitment. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that he does not wear his Christianity on his sleeve, as do so many politicians (of both parties).

Just recently, Ron Paul said these words, "I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator."

Could conservative Christians ask for a testimony that is any clearer?

Should Ron Paul win the Republican nomination, he would almost certainly win the general election. His constitutional, common-sense ideals would be attractive to such a broad range of voters, I dare say that he would win a landslide victory, no matter who the Democrats nominated. Conservatives, independents, libertarians, union members, and even some liberals (mostly those who oppose the war in Iraq and Bush's Big Brother schemes) would support Ron Paul. The challenge is winning the Republican nomination.

Face it: the big money interests, the Chamber of Commerce crowd, the international bankers and GOP hierarchy will never support Dr. Paul. He is too honest, too ethical, too constitutional, and too independent for their liking. Therefore, the only chance Ron Paul has of winning the Republican nomination is for every Christian, every conservative, and every constitutionalist within the GOP to get behind him.

Conservative Republicans have only one choice for President in 2008: Ron Paul.

 

[Executive]

What does it then say about George Bush if she "has more global knowledge and contact then any other candidate in this election"and he doesn't listen to her or follow her advice? Is that what you are saying? Or are you saying he follows her advice, but it doesn't accomplish anything.

Which one of them do you believe has not accomplished anything?

You are oversimplifying the process. The SoS advises and represents the Executive Branch. The SoS does not run around negotiating policy and treaties haphazardly (unlike the ill advised and constitutionally illegal junket made by the Speaker of the House earlier this year) . In any event, have you considered that perhaps the advice of the SoS must be tempered so as not to upset the liberal majority? Inefficient, yes, but necessary under the current system. To return to the OT,

I'm with Fred.

 

[calsdad]

I need to change my party affiliation so I can vote in the republican primary. I think I'm going to change from Dem. to Undeclared. It won't matter who I vote for in the general election as it's pretty safe to say that a Dem will win in MA, so I might as well get my vote in for a worthy candidate in the primary. I've also though about perhaps I should vote against Hitlery in the Democratic primary, but the only halfway decent dems don't have a chance in hell of winning.

Right now I think I like Fred. I like a lot of what Ron Paul stands for but I think surrendering to the terrorists and retreating tomorrow would be very bad for our country. Also the Dem's would tear Ron Paul apart.

I think you are wrong on that. Ron Paul may be the only Republican candidate who will actually pull Democratic voters over to a Republican candidate.

I will vote Ron Paul in the primary. I am sick of voting for the lesser of two evils. It's time to vote for your conciense.

There is no way I will ever vote Democratic - and Rudy Jailiani is nothing but a liberal socialist in disguise.

 

[vellnueve]

Ron Paul has no chance. Fred is the way to go, he is with me on most of the issues including RKBA, and he has a realistic shot at beating Hillbama.

 

[Gmountain]

Ron Paul has no chance. Fred is the way to go, he is with me on most of the issues including RKBA, and he has a realistic shot at beating Hillbama.

Ron Paul has as much as a chance as Fred Thompson. The only people that say otherwise are supporters of other candidates.

I have yet to see Fred say what he is going to do. Only what he doesn't like.

I guess I should say that Ron Paul has the only realistic shot of beating Hillary. Every other candidate is just more of the same.

 

[SemiAutoSam]

I suppose you either dont believe in polls or haven't seen these?

http://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/

Ron Paul has no chance. Fred is the way to go, he is with me on most of the issues including RKBA, and he has a realistic shot at beating Hillbama.

 

[squarooticus]

http://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/

You know, I like Ron Paul as much as the next guy, but citing an online poll with an obvious case of ballot-stuffing as evidence of widespread support for Paul displays either foolishness or deceit.

Kyle

 

[SemiAutoSam]

How is this a obvious case of ballot-stuffing ?

Where is any evidence of that ?

How do you prove such a thing ?

You know, I like Ron Paul as much as the next guy, but citing an online poll with an obvious case of ballot-stuffing as evidence of widespread support for Paul displays either foolishness or deceit.

Kyle

 

[Gabe]

Ron Paul has no chance. Fred is the way to go, he is with me on most of the issues including RKBA, and he has a realistic shot at beating Hillbama.

Ron Paul has a fine chance of being both nominated and elected President. He is the only candidate who has seen the fleecing of American conservatives that occurred after 9-11. And he has warned us about it. And you can check his facts.

Ron Paul is right. A small group of "neoconservatives" did hijack our foreign policy. Conservative Republicans are now imperialists, even though imperialism used to be (like, before 9-11) the favorite foreign policy of Democrats, not Republicans. When true conservatives wake up to what they've been fooled into believing (because they were afraid), they will rise up and support the only Republican who tried to tell us all about it, all along.

Ron Paul is the diamond in the rough; a Republican whose policies promise more prosperity and security than even Ronald Reagan delivered; his economic policies are laissez-faire, non-intervention neutrality regarding foreign policy, limited constitutional central government - lower taxes and less government meddling. For all those lulled asleep after the 9-11 attacks, Ron Paul's is the traditional Republican, conservative platform.

Ron Paul is such a traditional conservative, he doesn't even have to say anything about the 2nd Amendment. It's a given; he's a supporter. He has never voted for more infringement, ever.

These are the reasons for why Ron Paul has a good chance to win the nomination and election in 2008. America is still a predominantly conservative nation, and there is still time for Americans to snap out of it, and see that Ron Paul is the only candidate in either party who truly represents them.

 

[Gmountain]

How is this a obvious case of ballot-stuffing ?

Where is any evidence of that ?

How do you prove such a thing ?

I could easily vote 2 or 3 times.

 

[calsdad]

I'm not running around saying I don't have freedom. You said it. I think our country is still the best on earth.

So you want to get rid of the government. Tell me how things will get done. Do you not believe in the concept of nations? Is that what you are saying?

Do you believe in pure communism?

What do you think should happen as far as borders?

Seriously, do you think their should be some sort of government or anarchy?

If their should be some government, how would you organize it?

If you think you really have true freedom in this country as it was envisioned by the founding fathers then you really need to go back and read some American history. I will say again what I have said before - it constantly amazes me that people who frequent a gun forum in one of the most onerous states in the country for unConstitutional gun legislation think we truly have freedom in this country. It just goes to show how deep the rabbit hole goes as far as the socialist indoctrination of most of population.

You do not understand freedom as it was originally envisioned by the founding fathers of this country if you think we have it here now.

Just because this country may be the best in the world does not mean we have what would have passed for freedom in earlier times - it only means we aren't being beaten down quite as badly as people in some other countries are.

Would you be happy to only be beaten twice a day instead of four times? - and claim you had a much better situation than the person who was beaten those four times?

So you want to get rid of the government. Tell me how things will get done.

Again - you need to go back and read some American history. Up until the time of FDR's forced implementation of the "New Deal" the federal government had little to no influence in the average American's life - and the country as a whole got along pretty damn good. People took care of things thru their local government, private charities, private organizations, and fraternal and religious organizations. The NFA laws that started modern gun control were passed in 1934 - this should give you some clue as to when the demise of true American independent culture began and socialistic tendencies took over.

If you think that a person who is saying he wants freedom and does not believe we need a federal government is somehow a communist then once again - you completely misunderstand what this country was once about. The founders believed in very limited govt. powers - with full property and individual rights for every citizen - this is a far cry from communism.

Borders? How exactly has the federal government been defending our borders? It is in fact the Minuteman group that has done more to stop illegal aliens from coming over the border than our federal government has. If things were as they once were in this country we would have an armed citizens militia defending the southern borders and the federal government would not have a damn thing to say about it. If the people of this country want the borders defended - why does the federal govt. prevent them from doing it?

We already had the federal government organized - it was first organized thru the Articles of Confederation - and later changed and defined (with extremely limited powers) by our Constitution. Oh - and we were supposed to be a Republic by the way - not a pure democracy. Once again this is a little tidbit of history that is constantly mangled by the ignorant.

What we have now is NOT a Republic defined with limited powers for the Federal govt. by the Constitution. Going back to a severely limited in power federal govt. would be where I would start.

 

[SemiAutoSam]

YES but It would take a real effort to stuff that ballot box.
Meaning this one here.
http://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/
19517 for RP and 12197 for Obama where do you get enough people to stuff the ballot box over and over again.

Or maybe you saw a bias at that site that I did not ?

Sure everyone could vote 2 or 3 times and those that didn't think of that lost out on stuffing the ballot box I guess.

and as to the RP website one , Those numbers could be verified. if one took the trouble to do so.

I could easily vote 2 or 3 times.

WOW excellent post. BTW you sound like you would favor Ron Paul did I read that correct ?

If you think you really have true freedom in this country as it was envisioned by the founding fathers then you really need to go back and read some American history. I will say again what I have said before - it constantly amazes me that people who frequent a gun forum in one of the most onerous states in the country for unConstitutional gun legislation think we truly have freedom in this country. It just goes o show how deep the rabbit hole goes as far as the socialist indoctrination of most of population.

You do not understand freedom as it was originally envisioned by the founding fathers of this country if you think we have it here now.

Just because this country may be the best in the world does not mean we have what would have passed for freedom in earlier times - it only means we aren't being beaten down quite as badly as people in some other countries are.

Would you be happy to only be beaten twice a day instead of four times? - and claim you had a much better situation than the person who was beaten those four times?



Again - you need to go back and read some American history. Up until the time of FDR's forced implementation of the "New Deal" the federal government had little to no influence in the average American's life - and the country as a whole got along pretty damn good. People took care of things thru their local government, private charities, private organizations, and fraternal and religious organizations. The NFA laws that started modern gun control were passed in 1934 - this should give you some clue as to when the demise of true American independent culture began and socialistic tendencies took over.

If you think that a person who is saying he wants freedom and does not believe we need a federal government is somehow a communist then once again - you completely misunderstand what this country was once about. The founders believed in very limited govt. powers - with full property and individual rights for every citizen - this is a far cry from communism.

Borders? How exactly has the federal government been defending our borders? It is in fact the Minuteman group that has done more to stop illegal aliens from coming over the border than our federal government has. If things were as they once were in this country we would have an armed citizens militia defending the southern borders and the federal government would not have a damn thing to say about it. If the people of this country want the borders defended - why does the federal govt. prevent them from doing it?

We already had the federal government organized - it was first organized thru the Articles of Confederation - and later changed and defined (with extremely limited powers) by our Constitution. Oh - and we were supposed to be a Republic by the way - not a pure democracy. Once again this is a little tidbit of history that is constantly mangled by the ignorant.

What we have now is NOT a Republic defined with limited powers for the Federal govt. by the Constitution. Going back to a severely limited in power federal govt. would be where I would start.

 

[Gmountain]

If you think you really have true freedom in this country as it was envisioned by the founding fathers then you really need to go back and read some American history. I will say again what I have said before - it constantly amazes me that people who frequent a gun forum in one of the most onerous states in the country for unConstitutional gun legislation think we truly have freedom in this country. It just goes to show how deep the rabbit hole goes as far as the socialist indoctrination of most of population.

Frankly, I think I know plenty about history and freedom. I also know plenty about gun laws.

I am curious as to why you would think I live in Masssachusetts or some other socialist paradise? A bit egocentric, wouldn't you say? This forum title says Northeast Shooters, not Massachusetts Shooters.

You do not understand freedom as it was originally envisioned by the founding fathers of this country if you think we have it here now.

Just because this country may be the best in the world does not mean we have what would have passed for freedom in earlier times - it only means we aren't being beaten down quite as badly as people in some other countries are.

Hence the statement the US is still the best place in the world. I didn't say it couldn't be better.

If you think that a person who is saying he wants freedom and does not believe we need a federal government is somehow a communist then once again - you completely misunderstand what this country was once about. The founders believed in very limited govt. powers - with full property and individual rights for every citizen - this is a far cry from communism.

No, the poster said he would not vote in federal elections because it gave the government legitimacy. I asked him what he would do and what he wanted to see. No answer.

I'll ask you-instead of telling me how it used to be, tell me what you would like to do, in very real terms. I don't want to hear how the government isn't legitimate. Tell me who you would elect, or what you would do if elected.

I'll tell you what I would do immediately, if President. I would shut down the Dept of Education. It needs to be controlled locally. I would shut down the dept. of Energy. I would shut down the Dept. of Veterans Affairs. The Dept. of Defense can handle Veterans affairs, we don't need another cabinet post.

Homeland Security would be next on the chopping block. What a total waste. I would get our troops from around the world and put them on the border. That's were they need to be. No reason we can't have bases in Texas and Arizona and New Mexico.

I would institute economic protectionism. We should have tariffs on imports, both to raise money and protect American business. I would require the Federal govenment to live within it's means, with a budget raised from tariffs. I would immediately abolish any welfare.

Just some of my thoughts. You?

 

[MrsWildweasel]

Frankly, I think I know plenty about history and freedom. I also know plenty about gun laws.

I am curious as to why you would think I live in Masssachusetts or some other socialist paradise? A bit egocentric, wouldn't you say? This forum title says Northeast Shooters, not Massachusetts Shooters.



Hence the statement the US is still the best place in the world. I didn't say it couldn't be better.







No, the poster said he would not vote in federal elections because it gave the government legitimacy. I asked him what he would do and what he wanted to see. No answer.

I'll ask you-instead of telling me how it used to be, tell me what you would like to do, in very real terms. I don't want to hear how the government isn't legitimate. Tell me who you would elect, or what you would do if elected.

I'll tell you what I would do immediately, if President. I would shut down the Dept of Education. It needs to be controlled locally. I would shut down the dept. of Energy. I would shut down the Dept. of Veterans Affairs. The Dept. of Defense can handle Veterans affairs, we don't need another cabinet post.

Homeland Security would be next on the chopping block. What a total waste. I would get our troops from around the world and put them on the border. That's were they need to be. No reason we can't have bases in Texas and Arizona and New Mexico.

I would institute economic protectionism. We should have tariffs on imports, both to raise money and protect American business. I would require the Federal govenment to live within it's means, with a budget raised from tariffs. I would immediately abolish any welfare.

Just some of my thoughts. You?

Glad you're not running for president.

 

[Gabe]

Glad you're not running for president.

Was this a joke? His ideas sounded fine to me. I would love to see an America like that one (again).

As an aside, America isn't the first nation to have a Department of Homeland Security, it's just that every other nation calls theirs "the Army." Our Army is off policing the frigging world, so they can't secure the homeland.

 

[MrsWildweasel]

Nope not a joke. Some of the things I look for in a candidate is one who isn't going screw the military like Clinton, and also who is going to do the least damage to my gun rights.

 

[Gmountain]

Nope not a joke. Some of the things I look for in a candidate is one who isn't going screw the military like Clinton, and also who is going to do the least damage to my gun rights.

When did I say I was going to screw the military?

You are right-I didn't address gun rights. My view on that is the Second Amendment is clear. The right of the people shall not be infringed. If you want an F-16 and can afford it, then it's okay with me. Anything.

 

[Orvanic]

Some of the things I look for in a candidate is one who isn't going screw the military...

Closing United States military bases in 131 foreign countries would be a good start.

Is that what you would consider "screwing the military?"

 

[squarooticus]

Closing United States military bases in 131 foreign countries would be a good start.

Is that what you would consider "screwing the military?"

Agreed. If we're going to continue to have a standing army (incidentally, something I am adamantly opposed to), it should at least be sized and deployed appropriately to protect American citizens, which means they should be HERE and focused on actual defense against foreign invaders, and not galavanting around the globe attempting in vain to spread democracy to people who are too smart to want it.

Kyle

 

[Gabe]

Some of the things I look for in a candidate is one who isn't going screw the military like Clinton....

Does your definition of "screwing the military" include "sending brave soldiers to die for Washington's mistake?"

 

[MrsWildweasel]

Closing United States military bases in 131 foreign countries would be a good start.

Is that what you would consider "screwing the military?"

No, screwing the military is downsizing to where we can not realistically handle a war in several places at the same time, and having to send our men and women back for a 3rd and 4th tour. Not dealing with their issues from those wars, sending them back even though some are not fit for service just so they have the numbers, and the list can go on and on.

 

[MrsWildweasel]

Does your definition of "screwing the military" include "sending brave soldiers to die for Washington's mistake?"

Look we all know when we raised our right hands that we we may be called upon to go to war where ever our leadership tells us. IF I could have gone back in I would have, so wouldn't my husband. My only child went instead and if I could have traded places with him I would have.
He technically didn't HAVE to go since he was just finishing up AIT when his unit got called up. He volunteered, and he also fought tooth and nail to be able to go when they were going to DQ him for a bee sting allergy. His CO also fought to keep so he went. It was the longest year of my life and I also know if he volunteers to go again he will have my utmost support once again.
You may think this war is a mistake, but if you ask most will tell you they would rather have the fight on their soil and not on ours.
I am very proud of this generation for stepping up to the plate.
I served in a different time, but I knew if asked to go to war I would have done it. I signed up, volunteered and knew what I was getting myself into, just like everyone else.

 

[Gabe]

No, screwing the military is downsizing to where we can not realistically handle a war in several places at the same time, and having to send our men and women back for a 3rd and 4th tour. Not dealing with their issues from those wars, sending them back even though some are not fit for service just so they have the numbers, and the list can go on and on.

This isn't WWII. The only reason we are fighting wars in more than one place at once is because all of them are illegal, aggressive wars that we have no moral reason for fighting. Just War Theory (something that has become as antiquated as our Constitution...hmm) doesn't support any of our military conflicts of the past 57 years. Our brave soldiers have been fighting and dying for evil men in Washington who constantly defend all these needless deaths with imagined threats to our security.

 

[squarooticus]

The only reason we are fighting wars in more than one place at once is because all of them are illegal, aggressive wars that we have no moral reason for fighting.

Bingo.

 

[MrsWildweasel]

This isn't WWII. The only reason we are fighting wars in more than one place at once is because all of them are illegal, aggressive wars that we have no moral reason for fighting. Just War Theory (something that has become as antiquated as our Constitution...hmm) doesn't support any of our military conflicts of the past 57 years. Our brave soldiers have been fighting and dying for evil men in Washington who constantly defend all these needless deaths with imagined threats to our security.

So you would rather have the fight here just like what we are remembering today for? You are obviously against it, which is fine you are entitled to your beliefs,but I am done.

 

[Pilgrim]

From the poll posted above:

UNITED STATES Votes for:
15969 votes for Ron Paul
7363 votes for Barack Obama
2649 votes for Dennis Kucinich
1244 votes for Hillary Clinton

I'm not going to put much credence in a poll that lists RP as number one when that same poll puts Kucinich in at #3.

I'm also not going to put any vote in for anyone who is favored by terrorist/communist countries.

So what it boils down to is who cares what the poll says. It's crap like most other polls.

 

[Gabe]

Look we all know when we raised our right hands that we we may be called upon to go to war where ever our leadership tells us. IF I could have gone back in I would have, so wouldn't my husband. My only child went instead and if I could have traded places with him I would have.
He technically didn't HAVE to go since he was just finishing up AIT when his unit got called up. He volunteered, and he also fought tooth and nail to be able to go when they were going to DQ him for a bee sting allergy. His CO also fought to keep so he went. It was the longest year of my life and I also know if he volunteers to go again he will have my utmost support once again.

There's nothing to disagree with here. Soldiers, especially volunteer soldiers, are heroes of the highest order, there is no doubt. Soldiers are the ones who secure our freedom when it is threatened from without.



But our freedom hasn't been threatened from without since Pearl Harbor. Our heroes have been volunteering to die for evil men. Not a single American is more free because of the hundreds of thousands of soldiers who've willingly given their lives over the last 57 years. There's just a lot more wealthy and powerful evil men around.

You may think this war is a mistake, but if you ask most will tell you they would rather have the fight on their soil and not on ours.

That is a reach, since the only evidence you have is no domestic terrorism since 9-11. Who knows if this would be the case without our invasions? No one.

I am very proud of this generation for stepping up to the plate.
I served in a different time, but I knew if asked to go to war I would have done it. I signed up, volunteered and knew what I was getting myself into, just like everyone else.

Again, I have nothing but awe and thanksgiving for volunteer soldiers of this great nation. It's relieving and comforting to know that if our mainland is ever invaded, we will be well defended. But for chrissake, let's not tire them out or kill them off before they have a chance to defend our mainland.

 

[squarooticus]

So you would rather have the fight here just like what we are remembering today for? You are obviously against it, which is fine you are entitled to your beliefs,but I am done.

I love the false dichotomy.

The two choices aren't "fight them in the streets of Iraq/Afghanistan/Germany/Faulkland Islands" and "let them blow up our buildings". I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out what other options there are.

Kyle

 

[Gmountain]

I love the false dichotomy.

The two choices aren't "fight them in the streets of Iraq/Afghanistan/Germany/Faulkland Islands" and "let them blow up our buildings". I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out what other options there are.

Kyle

The Dept of Homeland Security would have you believe we ARE fighting them here, what with all the travel restrictions and papers they want us to carry.

If you ask me, put the army on the border, stop illegals from coming in, and that's it. Keeping the terrorsts out would certainly mean not fighting them here, don't you think.

 

[Gabe]

So you would rather have the fight here just like what we are remembering today for? You are obviously against it, which is fine you are entitled to your beliefs,but I am done.

If having the fight here means we don't immorally invade other countries, preemptively, then yes, let's have the fight here at home. The thing is, there will never be a fight here at home. They can't get to us because we are a couple oceans away.

Yes, individuals can infiltrate our nation and prosecute terrorism on our citizens, but that is only true because our nation has forgotten how important the 2nd Amendment is - our original department of homeland security - and because our overwhelming military is off chasing wild geese in dozens if not hundreds of other countries.

Bring them home, and then let's see if the terrorist bastards can do anything. With our military stationed on our homeland, and our 2nd Amendment rights restored, I 'd like to see what those cowards could do to us!