Thread: Favorite Republican Candidate?

[QUOTE=forsytjr;376150]Fair enough. I think its safe to say many of the founders wanted to help people. But that was not put into the U.S. Constitution....[QUOTE]

Like I said, I'm done. You remind me of an old Lyndon LaRoche follower.

Originally Posted by forsytjr

Yes, we are nuts.

We believe in individual liberty
We believe that people know what's best for themselves, not government
We believe that we should not police the world
We believe the Constitution should be obeyed by our government.

Definitely some wacky crazy stuff there.

You forgot your rolling-eyed smiley. That would've really hammered your sarcastic point home, you know?

That's why your guy won't win - poor attention to the nuances and details.

Oh, and the fact that he's completely mad.



See what I did, right there? It's DECISIVE, man.

Originally Posted by forsytjr

Regarding the welfare clause, please read the words of James Madison, author of the Constitution:
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the details of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proof was not contemplated by its creators."

For more information why that clause is not justification for the present welfare state, read:
WorldNetDaily: Constitution vs. modern welfare state

Give aways to buy votes is welfare, giving more benifits to a parents without requiring some renumeriation is welfare, giving corperations blank checks is welfare. Investing public funds into insuring a well educated healthy workforce is not welfare. No matter how much some would like to go back to 1776 we can't. We are no longer an agrarian white soeciety. We live in a world that revolves around technology and trade and that requires a highly skilled, nimble, upwardly mobile workforce. The only way to keep that workforce is to make sure each worker is replaced with one as equally skilled and qualified and that means education, nutrition, and health in the formative years.

Originally Posted by forsytjr

Thanks for your perspective from your country - very interesting. I think different countries can learn a lot from each other, since they each have different systems which may work to greater or lesser extent. My push for school choice is based on some experiments that have gone on in other countries, and been very successful. You may want to check out Economic Freedom of the World Network to find out the level of economic freedom your country has compared to the rest of the world. Economic freedom is strongly correlated to low poverty rates, long lifespans, etc.

Dear Mr forsytjr,
thank you for your automated reply.
As it unfortunately had no bearing on the conversation however, you may wish to have your machine serviced.
Respectfully
Parihaka.

Originally Posted by LibertyBelle

That doesn't make him an expert on it...in fact he's never even read the Commission's report!

Reading a report hardly qualifies one as an expert. Conversely, running New York City during and after 9/11 does confer a certain expertise. To be the least bit credible you have to admit that.

Independent of those whom they serve, the one who give them the money. What, no comments on Rudy's involvement with the NAU, and HUGO CHAVEZ?

Prove it.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Dear Mr forsytjr,
thank you for your automated reply.
As it unfortunately had no bearing on the conversation however, you may wish to have your machine serviced.
Respectfully
Parihaka.

All in all, it would have been better for the Honorable Mr. Paul if the gentleman or lady, as the case may, had no machine to begin with.

Originally Posted by wabpilot

Reading a report hardly qualifies one as an expert. Conversely, running New York City during and after 9/11 does confer a certain expertise. To be the least bit credible you have to admit that.

Prove it.

Commander, remember what granddad said; you can't win a pissing match with a skunk.

Originally Posted by wabpilot

Reading a report hardly qualifies one as an expert. Conversely, running New York City during and after 9/11 does confer a certain expertise. To be the least bit credible you have to admit that.

Prove it.

It's all over the news, or perhaps you don't read?

Wow, what a bunch of quasi-conservatives we have here. I guess if you don't think their way you are nuts.

No one spammed the polls, you can't do that to a flash poll if you know anything about web coding. And how do you spam a cell phone poll? Why did Rudy do so poorly in the 'disapproval' column (he got 38%)?

Originally Posted by zraver

Give aways to buy votes is welfare, giving more benifits to a parents without requiring some renumeriation is welfare, giving corperations blank checks is welfare. Investing public funds into insuring a well educated healthy workforce is not welfare. No matter how much some would like to go back to 1776 we can't. We are no longer an agrarian white soeciety. We live in a world that revolves around technology and trade and that requires a highly skilled, nimble, upwardly mobile workforce. The only way to keep that workforce is to make sure each worker is replaced with one as equally skilled and qualified and that means education, nutrition, and health in the formative years.

Only if you are a socialist.

Originally Posted by LibertyBelle

Only if you are a socialist.

You're off your rocker you know that right? How exaclty is America supposed to make sure that the next generation of workers/consumers (we are a capitalist economy) will be available with out public support of said workers in the formative years? Living in Arkansas and hailing from Seattle I have seen both sides of the coin. The pat answer that each community should fend for itself doesn't work. Seattle, New York, rich white suburbs might be able to do without federal funding. But a community in the Delta region of the south where the average (not the mean) income is only 16,600 cannot do so, nor can the magoirty of the nations school districts. Nor can the magority of teenagers or thier parents afford college without student loans and grants.

Like wise a kid who doesn't get the proper medical care and enters adulthood half way to a disability check doesn't do us any good either. neither doe sone whose mind neve rfully developed for lack of critical vitamins, nutriants, and stimulation.

I am no socialist, I've never been called one before in my life. I am a Libertarian (within reason) at heart, vote Republican, am a vet, gun fan, and anti tax and spend. All that aside I am also civically minded and if the future of the nation requires me to dip into my wallet to invest in the nations future so be it. Kids are every bit as crucial to the future as good highways, fiber optic lines, and a business freindly tax enviroment.

So before you fire off your one liners, engage your brain if you have one and provide some solid reasoning why we should not invest in the nations children as a means to insure future economic success.

Originally Posted by zraver

You're off your rocker you know that right? How exaclty is America supposed to make sure that the next generation of workers/consumers (we are a capitalist economy) will be available with out public support of said workers in the formative years? Living in Arkansas and hailing from Seattle I have seen both sides of the coin. The pat answer that each community should fend for itself doesn't work. Seattle, New York, rich white suburbs might be able to do without federal funding. But a community in the Delta region of the south where the average (not the mean) income is only 16,600 cannot do so, nor can the magoirty of the nations school districts. Nor can the magority of teenagers or thier parents afford college without student loans and grants.

I don't think I was discussing student loans or grants? Or even schools...

Originally Posted by zraver

Like wise a kid who doesn't get the proper medical care and enters adulthood half way to a disability check doesn't do us any good either. neither doe sone whose mind neve rfully developed for lack of critical vitamins, nutriants, and stimulation.

I'm all for making the economy good so people can make more than $16,000 . I don't make much money either...

Originally Posted by zraver

I am no socialist, I've never been called one before in my life. I am a Libertarian (within reason) at heart, vote Republican, am a vet, gun fan, and anti tax and spend.

But, you vote for things that would increase taxes?

Originally Posted by zraver

All that aside I am also civically minded and if the future of the nation requires me to dip into my wallet to invest in the nations future so be it. Kids are every bit as crucial to the future as good highways, fiber optic lines, and a business freindly tax enviroment.

Yes they are which is why parents should take more responsibility and not let the government raise them...

Originally Posted by zraver

So before you fire off your one liners, engage your brain if you have one and provide some solid reasoning why we should not invest in the nations children as a means to insure future economic success.

I don't think I ever said that....I just said that some of the candidates we have, in fact the top 3, to me are not pro-America for one reason or another and thus don't have much support from 'conservatives and libertarians' in this part of the country..

Libertybelle,


In order to have any meaningful discussion about politics we need to hold to our previous statements as the basis for continuing said discussion..

You said-

I don't think I was discussing student loans or grants? Or even schools...

but you also earleir said-

I support privatizing education. Public schools are 1% education and 99% brainwashing. It's not the gov'ts job to do that.

Now back to my statement, how exaclty are schools that are not located in the midst of wealth supposed to privatize and yet still churn out the future workers our nation needs? Part and parcel with education is nutrition and medical care. Those three items as concerns children literally hold up our nations entire economic future.

I'm all for making the economy good so people can make more than $16,000 . I don't make much money either...

Thats where taxes supporting education, nutrition, and medical care for children comes in. It takes roughly 25K a year to educate a student and transform them into a worker-consumer-tax payer. 25x12= 300K per student. the Average american makes 40K a year and works for around 45 years 40x45= 1,800,000. That 300K investment pays a return of 600% overall 1,350,00 to the indivual and after taxes the system not only gets back the intial 300K but also gains 150K which is more than enough to offset lunches, food stamps, and medical care.

But, you vote for things that would increase taxes?

Taxes are not evil, they are simply a tool. The oneous is on where the money is spent and how it is spent. Pork, give aways and unproductive entitlements are bad. Many other areas however deserve public funding and the evil comes in opposing such finding for no other reason than "taxes are bad."

Yes they are which is why parents should take more responsibility and not let the government raise them...

And how exaclty is a poor under educated parent going to provide the job skills, technology, tools, medical care and balanced nutirtion the child needs? If the cupboards are bare- they bare and no amlount of wishful thinking or canned slogans will provide the food, doctors and schooling/technology the child needs.

I don't think I ever said that....I just said that some of the candidates we have, in fact the top 3, to me are not pro-America for one reason or another and thus don't have much support from 'conservatives and libertarians' in this part of the country..

Back to the honesty issue as you also said-

Universal Medical Care? He raised taxes. My candidate has NEVER done that. Voted 100% against them, for 10 years.

Now my record in this thread is very clear I have not been talking up Ron, Rudy, or Mickey. I have been talking about Huckabee. So your discussion with me and the issues I have raised are Huckabee centered. I don't give a rats ass who read what, who feels what, and who thinks what outside of my canidate. They are not getting my vote, wont get my vote and your attepts to drag them into our discussion is a logical fallacy. As is the ineundo that beucase any canidate or person who dissagrees with you is A a socialist B un/anti American, C untrustworthy

It would behoove you to take a family sized chill pill and do some serious research and back your conclusions up with cold hard facts, not canned spin, We will all get our fill of that (spin) by Nov 2008. You might also take a look at why my name is in blue, as are so many others on this board. It means we are veterans some combat some not, from enlisted to those who wear stars. For those of us active in this thread who are Americans backhanded refrences to us being unpatriotic or supporting those who might be is not only stupid its rude and uncouth in the extreme.