Thompson's gone, now what?

[Guest ACMM]

Ain't none of the choices perfect.

True, there are several that haven't sponsored bills that limited free speech though. McCain-Feingold

[Guest Boomhower]

This election is going to be a duzzy.

What they say now and what they do when they get into office can be very different things.

Not it can be......it will be. As I heard it stated today, promise everything to get the office, and who cares what happens once they get in.

[The Rabbi]

Ron Paul's foreign policy and platform are the same as Ronald Reagan's were and he was wildly popular.

No. Ronald Reagan never expressed the desire to cut off aid to foreign countries. Ronald Reagan never said that the reason the Soviets were after us was because of our actions. I remember Ronald Reagan. I voted for Ronald Reagan (twice). Ron Paul is no Ronald Reagan.

[Daniel]

Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.

[Guest ACMM]

Rabbi,

Ronald Reagan's policy on the Middle East was non-intervention; you absolutely cannot argue that with a shred of truth. RR knew if you left them alone they'd fight amongst themselves and they did. Ishmael will fight Isaac, if Isaac is not around Ishmael will fight Ishmael.

I'm pretty sure TEB will win it all no matter who's up against her. RP's the only person that has a chance to pull votes from her specifically because of his anti-war stance.

You started the thread hostile to RP and anyone that supports him, so I didn’t figure you'd change your mind, I'm not asking you to. However the fact that RP is the only conservative in the race and that you're fighting so hard against him is telling.

Compare voting records of ALL of them, you WILL see RP is the only conservative and the only one that supports the Constitution. I can't blame you for feeling compassion for other countries and wanting to help them. However, we cannot afford it anymore. In addition, there are a lot of homeless veterans that in my mind should be taken care of before a single dime is sent to any foreign country.

Hopefully we don't have to agree completely on politics or religion to be friends

[The Rabbi]

America has never flinched from its commitment to the State of Israel--a commitment which remains unshakable.2

Israel exists; it has a right to exist in peace behind secure and defensible borders; and it has a right to demand of its neighbors that they recognize those facts. I have personally followed and supported Israel's heroic struggle for survival, ever since the founding of the State of Israel 34 years ago. In the pre-1967 borders Israel was barely 10 miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel's population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.3

Since the foundation of the State of Israel, the United States has stood by her and helped her to pursue security, peace, and economic growth. Our friendship is based on historic moral and strategic ties, as well as our shared dedication to democracy.4

For the people of Israel and America are historic partners in the global quest for human dignity and freedom. We will always remain at each other's side.5

Quotations from Pres Reagan.

Beirut, funding to oppose the Sandinistas, the invasion of Grenada..the list goes on. Comparing this man to Ron Paul is absurd in the extreme. Reagan never shirked from involving America where its strategic interests were at stake.

[Guest ACMM]

Quotations from Pres Reagan.

Beirut, funding to oppose the Sandinistas, the invasion of Grenada..the list goes on. Comparing this man to Ron Paul is absurd in the extreme. Reagan never shirked from involving America where its strategic interests were at stake.

We give 3 times the amount of aid to Israel's enemies that we do to Israel. If we stopped all foreign aid while we get our affairs in order, I'd think Israel would still be ahead in the game. As a matter of fact we've asked Yoni on the Warrior Talk board about it and he agrees they'd be better off in this instance and he's a Jew living in Israel.

Don't worry, you're going to get your status quo:

http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/01/23/louisiana-republican-caucus/

It appears that Ron Paul supporters outnumbered the supporters of any of his opponents. But since this was predicted, the supporters of Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, cooperated to set up a “fusion” slate of unpledged candidates for Delegate. The “fusion” slate, labeled the “Pro-Life/Pro-Family” slate, beat the Ron Paul slate in each of the 7 U.S. House districts.

[The Rabbi]

I'm not particularly hyped on more money for Israel. I am hyped against the idea that we should conduct foreign policy like we were 13 colonies on the butt-side of the world instead of the world's lone superpower with economic and political interests all over the globe.

[Guest ACMM]

We will have to agree to disagree on welfare.

[dariks]

How about suading me?

[The Rabbi]

We will have to agree to disagree on welfare.

Since welfare hasn't been mentioned up until your last post I don't know whether we agree or disagree.

[Guest ACMM]

Since welfare hasn't been mentioned up until your last post I don't know whether we agree or disagree.

Foreign aid is welfare.

[The Rabbi]

Foreign aid is welfare.

Funny. I always thought foreign aid was foreign aid. Welfare is what is paid to individuals domestically. Strangely, everyone else (outside of the RonZombies) seems to see it the same way.

But this is what comes from being against gun ownership, like Paul is.

[Marswolf]

OK, I think you folks have convinced me to go vote for McCain.

Huck's a religious nut. Paul is just a nut. Romney is a watered down version of Hilary. Julie is less watered down.

If the ice clears off of the road, I think I'll go vote. But since it is now snowing and early voting goes through next Thursday, I may just wait.

[The Rabbi]

McCain (whom I have said previously ought to be ridden out of town on a rail for McCain-Feingold) earned new respect in my eyes by failing to endorse a boondoggle in FL whereby all taxpayers would be on the hook for disaster insurance in that state. He rightly pointed out we already have FEMA and 26 other gov't agencies engaged in disaster relief and underwriting disaster policies there could get expensive real fast.

All the other GOP candidates thought it was a great idea, btw.

[tnroadrunner]

McCain doesn't want to do anything about the illegals that are here. I'm leaning towards Huck.

[mousegunner]

How can anyone say Ron Paul is against gun ownership?????

The Worldwide Gun Control Movement

by

Ron Paul

by Ron Paul

The United Nations is holding a conference beginning this week in New York that ironically coincides with our national 4th of July holiday. It’s ironic because those attending the conference want to do away with one of our most fundamental constitutional freedoms – the right to bear arms.

The stated goal of the conference is to eliminate trading in small arms, but the real goal is to advance a worldwide gun control movement that ultimately supercedes national laws, including our own 2nd Amendment. Many UN observers believe the conference will set the stage in coming years for an international gun control treaty.

Fortunately, U.S. gun owners have responded with an avalanche of letters to the American delegation to the conference, asking that none of our tax dollars be used to further UN anti-gun proposals. But we cannot discount the growing power of international law, whether through the UN, the World Trade Organization, or the NAFTA and CAFTA treaties. Gun rights advocates must understand that the forces behind globalism are hostile toward our Constitution and national sovereignty in general. Our 2nd Amendment means nothing to UN officials.

Domestically, the gun control movement has lost momentum in recent years. The Democratic Party has been conspicuously silent on the issue in recent elections because they know it’s a political loser. In the midst of declining public support for new gun laws, more and more states have adopted concealed-carry programs. The September 11th terrorist attacks and last summer’s hurricanes only made matters worse for gun control proponents, as millions of Americans were starkly reminded that we cannot rely on government to protect us from criminals.

So it makes sense that perhaps the biggest threat to gun rights in America today comes not from domestic lawmakers, but from abroad.

For more than a decade the United Nations has waged a campaign to undermine Second Amendment rights in America. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called on members of the Security Council to address the “easy availability†of small arms and light weapons, by which he means all privately owned firearms. In response, the Security Council released a report calling for a comprehensive program of worldwide gun control, a report that admonishes the U.S. and praises the restrictive gun laws of Red China and France!

It’s no surprise that UN officials dislike what they view as our gun culture. After all, these are the people who placed a huge anti-gun statue on American soil at UN headquarters in New York. The statue depicts a pistol with the barrel tied into a knot, a not-too-subtle message aimed squarely at the U.S.

They believe in global government, and armed people could stand in the way of their goals. They certainly don’t care about our Constitution or the Second Amendment. But the conflict between the UN position on private ownership of firearms and our Second Amendment cannot be reconciled. How can we as a nation justify our membership in an organization that is actively hostile to one of our most fundamental constitutional rights? What if the UN decided that free speech was too inflammatory and should be restricted? Would we discard the First Amendment to comply with the UN agenda?

The UN claims to serve human freedom and dignity, but gun control often serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.

June 27, 2006

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

[The Rabbi]

Since a lot of so-called foreign aid is actually credits for use in buying weapons and related items from U.S. manufacturers, anyone who opposes foreign aid is actually opposing gun ownership.

See, when you switch definitions you can make anyone say anything you want. So if foreign aid=welfare then logically opposition to foreign aid should equal anti gun. Does that make sense? No, of course not. It's silly. Like most of Libertarianism.

[Guest ACMM]

Welfare can be domestic, corporate or international.

You can call it whatever you want, but that doesn't make it NOT welfare.

[The Rabbi]

Welfare can be domestic, corporate or international.

You can call it whatever you want, but that doesn't make it NOT welfare.

If you spend $1000 in my shop is that welfare? After all you are giving me money. If you want to call a purchase welfare, then go ahead. But that makes the conversation likely to be short.

[molonlabetn]

The government recieves welfare from me every month in the form of taxes...

I'd rather call taxes 'child-support' insted of welfare though.

[Guest ACMM]

If you spend $1000 in my shop is that welfare? After all you are giving me money. If you want to call a purchase welfare, then go ahead. But that makes the conversation likely to be short.

If I give you $1000 in your shop I will expect something more than friendship so you're apples to oranges here.

I'm glad you're active in politics though, I'm glad when anyone does research to figure out who they want to support as most do not. Hopefully we will get the best candidate no matter which party wins.

[The Rabbi]

If I give you $1000 in your shop I will expect something more than friendship so you're apples to oranges here.

I'm glad you're active in politics though, I'm glad when anyone does research to figure out who they want to support as most do not. Hopefully we will get the best candidate no matter which party wins.

And when the U.S. gives aid it gets more than friendship. Friendship isn't really an adequate description of international relations, despite political proclamations to the contrary.

[Guest supergus]

"How in the world can people so soon forget the McCain amnesty bill for illegal aliens that almost passed?"

Not only that, but he wants to get rid of catostrophic insurance for people:eek:, AND allow illegals to pay in state tuition.

[Marswolf]

Well, the NY Times endorsed Hillary and John McCain. I may have to think about my vote some more.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-25-times-endorsement_N.htm?csp=34

NEW YORK (AP) — The New York Times editorial board has endorsed Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain in the presidential primary race.

In editorials posted Thursday on the newspaper's website, the board argued forcefully on Clinton's behalf, while saying that McCain was the best of a flawed field with which the board had "strong disagreements."

The board said its case for Clinton was based on more than her accomplishments, adding that the senator "sometimes overstates the importance of resume."

"Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America's big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience," it said.

The board also spoke favorably of Sen. Barack Obama, calling him "incandescent," but concluded that "we need more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a clearer sense of how he would govern."

"Voters have to judge candidates not just on the promise they hold, but also on the here and now."

The board wrote that it disagreed forcefully with the leading Republican candidates on Iraq, the economy and their support of President Bush.

But McCain, the editorial said "is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe."

The editorial also excoriated former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, saying that he "first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city's and the country's nightmare to promote his presidential campaign."

"The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square," the board said.

New York is among more than 20 states that will hold primary contests on Feb. 5.

Asked about the editorial Thursday night at a Republican debate in Boca Raton, Fla., Giuliani said the Times attack was "because I probably never did anything The New York Times suggested I do in eight years as mayor of New York City. And if I did, I wouldn't be considered a conservative Republican.

"I changed welfare. I changed quality of life. I took on homelessness. I did all the things that they thought make you mean, and I believe show true compassion and true love for people," Giuliani said.

"So the reality is that I think there is serious ideological differences. That probably was some of the nicest language they've written about me in the last six months," he added.