Consistency in politics?? Can it be true?

Republicans and Democrats have been the two parties in power that have led us down the current path we are on. So does anybody really think that these two parties are going to make any change for their constituents? C'mon, do ANY of them follow the constitution?? Will ANY of them cut spending, and close wasteful govt agencies?? Will ANY of them push to get rid of all the gun laws which are totally unconstitutional?? Will ANY of them put an end to foreign aid? Will ANY of them stop all the "entitlements"?? How about the illegal, unconstitutional, income tax, and the thousands of pages of regulations attached?? Will ANY of them do anything about all the illegal ALIENS, yes aliens, NOT "immigrants" that are bleeding us dry, and stealing what little jobs we have left?? Will ANYBODY in the current parties step up to the plate on even 1 of these problems?? No, NONE of them will do a damn thing to rock the boat, It's just business as usual. We need someone other than the same old tired Bull sh---ers that are the current repuglicans and democraps.

Ron Paul has a tremendous domestic ideas but he don't know jack about much else. Isolationism will eventually bring us another world war and do you really want China, Russia, and India to have greater influence over world affairs than the United States?

Ron Paul won't win the GOP nomination anyway so discussion about that is moot. At this point the nominee will be Romney or Perry, neither of whom will get my vote.

Isn't the point of having a cabinet to help you fill in your blind spots?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

Isn't the point of having a cabinet to help you fill in your blind spots?

---

I'm not sure Ron Paul would listen to his cabinet. Ron is a unique critter in Washington. Do you think he'd get someone with a completely different idea of foreign policy than his?

The optimist in me thinks that if Ron is as smart and focused as people want to believe, that he would be open to reason from people with direct experience with whatever issue he is trying to deal with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

Simply not true. I hate to admit it but I voted for Ross Perot. He got almost 20% of the vote in the election as a third party candidate.



Not going to rehash it as I've said it here over and over. Michele Bachmann is my candidate of choice. Look at her website "Issues" page if you're interested.

I don't care for Romney at all. But if he's the Republican nominee he's got my vote.

---

You just stated you would vote for a gun grabbers as our president. It's obvious that I don't understand your viewpoint. And quite frankly, and rather thankfully, I never will!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

The optimist in me thinks that if Ron is as smart and focused as people want to believe, that he would be open to reason from people with direct experience with whatever issue he is trying to deal with.

---

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. Paul and I differ on some issues, but he is closest to what I believe we need in the White House. I think he is principled, logical, and analytical. It makes sense that he would be willing to accept advice from experienced cabinet members.

Sadly, I'll bet Perry gets the nomination though. I'm not sure how he is perceived back in the land that God blessed (Colorado), but he has an almost cult like following here in Texas.

Michele Bachmann.

http://bachmann.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=2864

Quote:

---

Michele Bachmann wrote: "The United States has been blessed with a strong, dedicated military which can and will defend our nation’s security and preserve the freedoms we cherish each day. I believe in the mission of our men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and support providing them with the necessary funding they need to achieve success overseas. Our commanders on the ground deserve praise as they have taken the fight to the enemy in both Afghanistan and Iraq and have prevented terrorists from striking us here at home. I support their efforts to combat terrorism, to ensure the safety of our country, and to further democracy in other parts of the world."

---

This translates to more spending and backing of an unsustainable war. Blow the hell out of them, show the world we mean business, get out. That is the only way to handle this war.

Quote:

---

Michele Bachmann wrote: " We have an obligation to future generations of Americans to ensure our country keeps terrorism off U.S. soil. I will continue to support efforts to strengthen our national defense and support our uniformed men and women who are committed to protecting America."

---

I absolutely agree, and nowhere else in this world could we better defend our country than from the inside of our borders. No more nation building.

http://bachmann.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=4318

She supports better energy practices, and using national resources, the only thing i dont like, is putting Colorado in that mix. I can see Alaska, where the impact on people would be far less intrusive, but in Colorado, it would cost people land and homes. That I don't agree with.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/pers...2216&tab=votes

Michele Bachmann's absent voting record. The graph shows how often she was absent during votes in congress. She went way above that 90th percentile a few times since 2007.

Her voting record in entirety. Haven't finished going through it, but a few things already make me wonder. Her absent days for one. And not seeing many votes for spending cuts.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote...&person=412216

All in all, I like a lot of what she says, but I haven't gone through her voting record enough to see if she votes consistently the way she speaks. One glaring thing I cant support, is nation building and spending more money on unsustainable wars. And she is all for. So again, sounds like business as usual.

I need to look into Ron Paul a little more, but so far, the thing that I like about him most, is that I never hear him talking about stupid stuff like gay marriage, abortion, or any of the other retarded social issues that politicians use to get the retarded masses to vote for them over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CMP_5.56

You just stated you would vote for a gun grabbers as our president.

---

First off, that was 20 years ago. I didn't have the same political priorities 20 years ago as I do today nor was I anywhere near as politically aware then as I am today. Would I vote for him again today. No, I wouldn't. That's the same as the lame-ass talking points people use against Rick Perry's past in support of democrat candidates.

Did you vote for Reagan? I did...twice. He was the first president for which I was old enough to vote. He signed the Mulford Act in 1967. Ronald Reagan was a strong supporter of the Brady Bill. Reagan was not a strong gun-rights supporter at all.

Neither was Bush 1. He was responsible for the 1989 import ban.

I voted for both of them and my guess is, you did, too, if you were old enough to vote.

Bush 2 was not a real strong gun-rights president, either. But I voted for him twice. Did you?

So gimme a break with the voting "for a gun grabber" bullshit.

I gave you an instance of Americans, in rather large numbers, voting for a 3rd party candidate because you made the assertion that "nobody" would vote for a 3rd party candidate.

Furthermore, voting records rarely tell the whole story. I'd be cautious about judging a candidate solely on their past voting records. The reason I say that should be obvious if you know how the house/senate works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CMP_5.56

It's obvious that I don't understand your viewpoint. And quite frankly, and rather thankfully, I never will!

---

I have no problem with that because: 1) I don't need your understanding, and 2) I don't care.

Your so blinded by the whole Ron Paul is the perfect candidate ideology that it doesn't surprise me.

Here are some reasons I don't like Ron Paul:

• He's against the death penalty.
• Mixed feelings on some of his "drugs" and "war on drugs" ideas
• He wants to stop all foreign aid to Israel
• He's against any pre-emptive war
• Wants the US out of Korea and let Koreas "unify".
• He says product safety should not be a condition for continued trade with China. WTF?
• Pretty poor record on pork spending...$4B alone in 2006. How do you reconcile this with his smaller gov and less spending platitudes?
• Voted against the Lawful Protection of Commerce Act. Does that make him anti-gun?
• He's against having "any" troops abroad. That's zero. This is what he said in a "Meet the Press" interview in 2007:

Q: How many troops do we have overseas right now? A: I don’t know the exact number, but more than we need. We don’t need any.
Q: It’s 572,000. And you’d bring them all home?
A: As quickly as possible. They will not serve our interests to be overseas. They get us into trouble. And we can defend this country without troops in Germany & troops in Japan. How do they help our national defense? Doesn’t make any sense to me. Troops in Korea since I’ve been in high school! It doesn’t make any sense.

• He thinks that illegal immigration results from a poor economy. I think that contributes, but I don't think that's the reason or even the main reason we have an illegal immigrant problem.
• He thinks radical Muslims want to kill Americans because we occupy their lands.
• Intervention abroad incites hatred & attacks like 9/11.
• He believes we went into Iraq under false pretenses of WMD and 9/11. That's bullshit.

To be fair, and I've said it before, there are a lot of things he stands for that I do like. I wouldn't have any problem supporting him should he win the republican nomination because I have sense enough to know there is no such thing as a perfect candidate. But I won't support him in the primary. His foreign policy and national security ideas are a deal killer for me as a primary candidate.