Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
__________________
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
I think the main reason I'll be voting for him is because I trust him. After all these years of mistrust in our WH, I need someone I have faith in & can trust.
Amazing speech...watched the whole thing. He's an amazing orator.
I have to say, Obama and Paul are the ONLY candidates out there that speak their minds.
There are things with both of them I disagree with but overall I agree with their mindsets of the role of government and the role of the people.
I'll be voting for Paul in the republican primary. If Obama makes it to the presidential general election, I'll probably vote for him. If he does not, I'm probably writing in Ron Paul.
But these voices need to be heard.
It helps B-RoK that he is one of the best speakers we've seen in a long, long time.
If you don't want to listen to all 40+ minutes, here's the Cliff Notes version: legislation spawned by an individual legislator's sense of religious morality is fine, so long as that legislation comports with the DNC platform.
Ron Paul's John Bircher ties eliminate him for me, and I suspect, for Obama.
__________________ Hoping for Audacity
Well, in truth I'm actually not a total hawk, but I'm not a dove either -- I'm more like an angry pigeon flying over the political arena after a really big meal. -Abba Gav
Ron Paul's John Bircher ties eliminate him for me, and I suspect, for Obama.
So might the fact that apart from their similar desire to retreat from Iraq as quickly as possible, their political philosophies and positions have nothing in common.
So might the fact that apart from their similar desire to retreat from Iraq as quickly as possible, their political philosophies and positions have nothing in common.
The common theme to me is they are genuine in their intent, that's all I ask, I don't have to agree with everything just believe they know what they are doing and that I can live with the things I won't like.
Both are fine for me.
GWB scores a negative 12,000,000 on that scale IMO.
__________________
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
Gimme a real, honest politician who truly represents the people (even with divergent philosophies - such as Paul and Obama) and I can get on board with that....
The common theme to me is they are genuine in their intent, that's all I ask, I don't have to agree with everything just believe they know what they are doing and that I can live with the things I won't like.
Both are fine for me.
Not to belabor the point, but Paul is anti-abortion rights, disinclined to foreign trade and labor agreements, instintively anti-entitlement, anti-taxation, pro-border fence--Obama's the polar opposite in every case. They may be genuine (or maybe not in Obama's case), but they genuinely disagree on most issues.
If you don't want to listen to all 40+ minutes, here's the Cliff Notes version: legislation spawned by an individual legislator's sense of religious morality is fine, so long as that legislation comports with the DNC platform.
Not to belabor the point, but Paul is anti-abortion rights, disinclined to foreign trade and labor agreements, instintively anti-entitlement, anti-taxation, pro-border fence--Obama's the polar opposite in every case. They may be genuine (or maybe not in Obama's case), but they genuinely disagree on most issues.
First of all Obama stands for blasting earmarks into the light of day, anti corruption and a whole host of things much worse than simple spending and he's a smart man, I doubt he's completely going to want to bankrupt us and in some cases as with Clinton the most progress on the issue occured during a Dems term.
Contrast that to GWB who mouthed about small government and incinerated the budget.
Abortion is not a deciding issue for me, it's just a part of the basket of goods, I'd prefer that the candidate was pro choice but in Paul's case I understand his postion and I'm ok with it.
Paul's ideals are so radical in terms of government spending you have to somewhat discount what he'd realistically get done, I think as in Only Nixon could go to China and only Clinton could sign a welform reform bill, you have to live on a certain side of the fence to get the credibility to walk to the other.
I'd prefer my candidate shrank the government to almost nil but short of that if they can bring a new updated way of problem solving to the current system and they have integrity I'm on board over wolves in sheeps clothing every day and twice on Sunday.
__________________
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
dreamcastrocks--My Hero!!
Linear Mode
