NationStates Jolt Archive

Who do you think will win the GOP Nomination? If you vote please post why you believe or think the way you do.

Thank You and I hope you All had a Merry Christmas and will have a Happy New Year.

Dr. Ron Paul will win the election and I'll tell you why. You can't believe the the polls on the mainstream media because they are only polling registered Republicans of the last primary election. In the last primary elections I do believe the registered Republicans were way down on the % that went to vote.

Democrats, Independents, and others are in a large number sending in "Change of Party" to their elections committee or whoever. He is also reaching to the Non-Voters with his messege.

His Messege is simple, it's the Truth that no other candidate in a very very long time had the courage to do. He is the only candidate that is NOT a member of the CFR (Counsel of Foreign Relations) Whose Ultimate goal is to have a one world government under the power of the Central Banking Systems. The CFR is the primary reason for the EU and is now the USA, Mexico, and Canada leaders are having secret meetings to form the North American Union. In fact, President Bush has already signed papers to get the ball rolling.

Another fact about Dr. Ron Paul is he is the only candidate in either parties that has not collected not one penny from the Lobbyists, Special Interests, or any of the Big Business Corporations. He is for the People and For the Constitution. He is going to Bring the Troops home from across the globe, he's going to secure our borders, he's going to abolish the IRS as well as the Federal Reserve. Speaking of the Federal Reserve, you do realize that's a private bank and is in no way a government agency which is strictly against our Constitution.

Dr. Paul has an extremely consistent voting record unlike any of his opponents. He's a man of principal, integrity, and honesty.

The Reason for the poll was mainly because I like polls but another reason was I was hoping to get feed back on the candidates of the GOP.

I would also like to add please do your homework and research on your own Don't believe what the media says. They have been very biased towards Dr. Paul and I for one have done my homework and have registered as a Republican to further my support of this Great Man. He's challenging the Big Business and wants to return our Federal Government back to the realms as outlined in the Constitution and wants to return the power back to the States and the People.

Oh btw, Dr. Ron Paul of all other candidates is ruling over the internet.

Polling averages at Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-192.html)

I'm sure you can see yourself from the polling averages that Giuliani is slightly ahead. The question is, will he continue to be. After all, right now the social conservative vote is split between Huckabee and Romney, and should either one drop out of the election, the other would be placed on a much sounder footing. I hope this doesn't happen, as Romney is totally unelectable, and Huckabee smacks of a slightly toned down, calmed down, democratic Ayatollah Khomieni with a southern accent, but it could happen.

Of course, Giuliani does have the slight advantage that he basically owns the western United States, as he is the only one of the candidates who is strong in the war, strong in law enforcement, a proven fiscal and economic conservative, and has a California attitude towards Guns & Gays. This combined with his primary opponent vote being split between two candidates, and a sense among many Republicans that there are more important issues may win the election for him.

IN RESPONSE TO YOUR COMMENT: I see what you're saying about the last election but I'm not convinced that enough new voters have been added between then and now to make up for that kind of a difference, especially since virtually every single one of them would have to be a Ron Paul supporter to make a sufficient difference. This said, the message that Dr. Paul has sent out with his campain funding capital will create new discussion about what direction the Republican Party should take, though his fiscal and economic message I think is the more important one, while his foreign policy is the reason I WOULDN'T vote for him. We didn't need a Charles Lindbergh in 1940 and we don't need one in 2008!

as crazy as it sounds, right now, if I were a republican, I would say that John McCain has the best chance of getting the nomination. Everything seems to be lining up for him; he's been swarmed with endorsements, he's gaining in Iowa, possibly enough for a strong third place showing in a place he almost wrote off, and the Romney Backlash gives him a chance to gain momentum with a New Hampshire win. Having said that, Huckabee looks almost impenetrable in Iowa and South Carolina, so that might freeze any McCain momentum and propel Huckabee to the nomination. Thompson looks done and Guiliani's strategy of momentum-proofing his lead in Super Tuesday states is melting before his eyes. Interesting to see what happens in Iowa though, as what happens there will very likely incinerate any predictions just made here.

Dr. Ron Paul will win the election and I'll tell you why.*snip*

Ugh, a ronbot! Damn, you people are annoying. Do you think it anything less than transparent when you create accounts on forums and message boards just to propagandise for your already lost cause? For a second there, I thought I was reading something at digg.com which has become infested with ronbots and not on NSG. :rolleyes:

I say McCain, and for a number of reasons. A), he's right behind Romney in Iowa polls, and B), the traditional Southern, evangelical gun-nut conservative is never going to support a Mormon. However, McCain is a little liberal for a Republican. And as for Ron Paul, I'd rather keep the FDA, thank you very much.


And by the way, it's Huckabee not Hucklebee.

Just noting that Dr. Ron Paul has won an awful lot of straw polls which does indicate he has a chance...

here's the numbers for each straw poll...

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

here's a google map what show's actual results...

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/snippets/37/ron-paul-straw-poll-results/

So, I am convinced his messege was heard and our current Foreign Policy of policing the world is probably the greatest threat to our national security. Fact is we can't afford doing what we're doing any longer it's going to be the downfall of our Country. Do you realize we are borrowing billions of dollars from China to help fund for our super spending with no limits. We're going Bankrupt. The Federal Government needs to make major cuts on the spending and I for one don't want the Federal Government having to care for the People as Dr. Paul says, "from cradle to grave" Fact is is anytime the Government feels the need to get involved it always costs a hell of lot than the norms and it never gets fixed.

The chance of that racist, anti-semitic, sexist conspiracy nut winning the nomination is nil. Pat fucking Buchanan would have a better chance.

Ugh, a ronbot! Damn, you people are annoying. Do you think it anything less than transparent when you create accounts on forums and message boards just to propagandise for your already lost cause? For a second there, I thought I was reading something at digg.com which has become infested with ronbots and not on NSG. :rolleyes:

I'm not going to fall for your obvious arrogance but I will mention as you already know I am for Ron Paul but I'm also a former NSG poster from last year. So no there was reason I opened a new account I was curious as to what's being discussed in here and by your post I can tell Nothing has changed. Why be rude? I thought it was a very legitimate posting of mine seeking OPINIONS there was absolutely NO FLAMING in my post as you are obviously trying to provoke the FLAMES. Yep I suppose Christmas is over. Can't you do something instead of attempting to run down another? Why bother wasting a post. And NO I'm not a "ronbot" but Yes I have heard the Truth, I have heard his messege and Yes I have a right to my own thinking and opinions, period. Please take your bashing to another post Please. Thanks.

The chance of that racist, anti-semitic, sexist conspiracy nut winning the nomination is nil. Pat fucking Buchanan would have a better chance.

okay talk the trash where's the proof? Sources please... Why commit libel with no backing...

The chance of that racist, anti-semitic, sexist conspiracy nut winning the nomination is nil. Pat fucking Buchanan would have a better chance.




Wait...your saying McCain...is a "racist, anti-semitic, sexist conspiracy nut"? I'm sorry, which tunnel are you living in? I think a need to drag you out and show you the world.

I'm not going to fall for your obvious arrogance but I will mention as you already know I am for Ron Paul but I'm also a former NSG poster from last year. So no there was reason I opened a new account I was curious as to what's being discussed in here and by your post I can tell Nothing has changed. Why be rude? I thought it was a very legitimate posting of mine seeking OPINIONS there was absolutely NO FLAMING in my post as you are obviously trying to provoke the FLAMES. Yep I suppose Christmas is over. Can't you do something instead of attempting to run down another? Why bother wasting a post. And NO I'm not a "ronbot" but Yes I have heard the Truth, I have heard his messege and Yes I have a right to my own thinking and opinions, period. Please take your bashing to another post Please. Thanks.

It's Fass, he does this to everyone, just ignore him.

And by the way, it's Huckabee not Hucklebee.

Thank you for the correction but I did realize but I realized a split second too late...damn submit button. :)

The chance of that racist, anti-semitic, sexist conspiracy nut winning the nomination is nil. Pat fucking Buchanan would have a better chance.

I'm confused, are you talking about McCain or Paul?

I still say Paul has no chance.

Ron Paul's the man: albeit he has no chance. It's going to be Romney, Huckabee, or Giuliani. Personally, I'm never voting for a flip-flopping Massachusetts liberal, a pro-abortion, pro-gay gun control nut who ran a sanctuary city (Giuliani) or a man who wanted in-state tuition for illegals (Huckabee). So none of the above. Unless Hillary's running, of course.

Ron Paul's the man: albeit he has no chance. It's going to be Romney, Huckabee, or Giuliani. Personally, I'm never voting for a flip-flopping Massachusetts liberal, a pro-abortion, pro-gay gun control nut who ran a sanctuary city (Giuliani) or a man who wanted in-state tuition for illegals (Huckabee). So none of the above. Unless Hillary's running, of course.

You are aware that Ron Paul wants to get rid of the FDA?

Ron Paul

You are aware that Ron Paul wants to get rid of the FDA?

No, I didn't know that - however I think his stance on foriegn policy and illegal immigration are more important than something which probably wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing. The majority of the American public can agree with getting out Iraq, border security, no amnesty, etc. But with all the imports coming out of China laced with antifreeze and whatever else they put in it, President Paul would face the same backlash that Bush did when he supported the amnesty bill earlier this year.

You are aware that Ron Paul wants to get rid of the FDA?

He want's to Abolish the IRS and the Federal Reserve...He want's to return Power to the People. America has gone so far from the Constitution it's outragious.

Vote for whoever you choose but be warned all of the candidates except for Ron Paul are members of the CFR (Counsel of Foreign Relations) Do you want a North American Union?

Yes, actually, I do.

Hopefully Paul, since he's the only one not lusting for more bloodshed in Iraq (and elsewhere in the Middle East).

Yes, actually, I do.

By supporting a North American Union, you're supporting the following:

Two, if not three official languages for our country: English, Spanish (and) French (if you include Canada.) Think about the immense economic cost of printing everything in three languages, not only on our legal documents, our newspapers, but also every import across the world.

Complete and utter economic collapse. Consider the massive costs when East and West Germany reunited. They are still trying to recover. And East Germany wasn't nearly a bad a place to live in as Mexico is today. Imagine the trillions of dollars it would take to bring up the Mexican infrastructure to our level, as well as provide a hundred million well-paying jobs.

The answer - it wouldn't. Millions of Mexicans (think illegal immigration is bad now?) would swarm across the border, taking out all entry-level services and manufacturing jobs. You would annihilate the American middle class and replace it with an even further stratified society, with the haves being the same plutocrats that run the corporations and the government, and the have-nots being even worse off than before Canamex America became a reality. As an economics major, I think I may know just a wee bit more than the average high-schooler who'd think this was a good idea. Think it over.

You are aware that Ron Paul wants to get rid of the FDA?

Good.

A), America has no official language, and even if we had to add official languages, that wouldn't mean we'd have to print newspapers in all the languages. South Africa has something like 17 official languages, that doesn't mean that the have 17 copies of they same newspaper, and B), look at the EU! They didn't suffer economic collapse, far from it. And C), if we raise Mexican infrastructure level, they wouldn't need to come over.

In addition to the points raised by Capilatonia, um, the NAU doesn't exist, it's a conspiracy theory. I'm a Paulite myself, but like seriously, stop believing in things that don't exist people.

A), America has no official language, and even if we had to add official languages, that wouldn't mean we'd have to print newspapers in all the languages. South Africa has something like 17 official languages, that doesn't mean that they have 17 copies of they same newspaper, and B), look at the EU! They didn't suffer economic collapse, far from it. And C), if we raise Mexican infrastructure level, they wouldn't need to come over.

A) English is the official language of 34 states, and if it weren't for Democrats in the Senate, it would have been official at the federal level already. Don't know about you, but why the hell do I have to press 1 for English? I was raised speaking English (among other languages), I speak English in public, and I'm typing this now in English.

B) Last I checked, the EU was no economic star. With a GDP per capita of $29,900 it is about a third lower than in the USA, with unemployment of 8.5% (almost twice as high). And don't get me into the bloated French welfare state. Or the fact that until very recently it was illegal to work more than 35 hours per week.

C) Who's going to pay for it?

The FDA. Manages our food. Makes sure it doesn't have dead people or E. Coli or other diseases in our food. A good thing. You Paulites.....want..? to get rid of that? Read The Jungle and tell me you don't want an FDA.

I have read it. I tell you I don't want an FDA. :)

The FDA. Manages our food. Makes sure it doesn't have dead people or E. Coli or other diseases in our food. A good thing. You Paulites.....want..? to get rid of that? Read The Jungle and tell me you don't want an FDA.

We are a nation of immigrants, thus you press 1 for English because there are many people in this nation who's English is not that great. Secondly, my point was our economy won't collapse, in fact in will most likely get better. Canada's our number one trade partner, you know. And also, we're going to pay for it. Once we crawl out of the flaming hole that is Iraq we'll be able to pay for it quite easily.

Both of those are allowed for by the Constitution. You might want to actually read the document you claim to praise.

I think he means the original constitution, not the statist manifesto it is today.

He want's to Abolish the IRS and the Federal Reserve...He want's to return Power to the People. America has gone so far from the Constitution it's outragious.

Both of those are allowed for by the Constitution. You might want to actually read the document you claim to praise.

And also, we're going to pay for it. Once we crawl out of the flaming hole that is Iraq we'll be able to pay for it quite easily.

The cost of reuniting West and East Germany is an estimated 1.5 trillion euros. Or about $2 trillion US. Even today, the German government still allocates over €10 billion to the development of the formerly East German states every year.

Now imagine uniting two countries that are even further apart, and the latter is ten times bigger.

Just saying those, that's $20 trillion. Or roughly $650,000 in taxes per person.

No, thanks.

Socialism isn't that bad, people...

Again, look at the EU.

Again, look at the EU.

I already told you. A bloated welfare state, a stagnant economy only two thirds as productive as the USA is now, and an unemployment rate twice as high as us.

The EU is far, far away from a political union. It will be a long time before each government gave away its sovereignty to badly educated, out of touch elite socialists in another country.

One day I decided to list all of the reasons why I hate Ron Paul because I hate saying them every time some Ron Paul supporter pops up so here it is:

-Ending the U.N
-No intervention in Dar fur
-All of his immigration policies
-He says states should have the rights to decide if religious texts can be put in schools, if flag burning is illegal or not, the definition of marriage, and sodomy laws. All of these being constitutional rights that every person in the country should have.
-Wants to keep the electoral college.

I also kept this post in my vault of files just in case this happened again. Sadly I did not keep the name of the poster, so if this is yours then congrats on an amazing post worth of space on my computer:

He claims to be the "defender of the Constitution" and never to vote for anything not authorized in it, yet he is the only candidate in the running who has stood before Congress and voted for a bill he personally stated was unconstitutional.\

He claims to support liberty, but he constantly brings up the "We the People Act" which would take away the ability of the people to appeal when their civil liberties are infringed upon by state governments. This act makes it quite clear that Paul does not think that you have a right to freedom of religion or a right to privacy. Also, homosexuals don't have a right to equal treatment under the law.

He also supports unequal legal treatment of homosexuals - both through DOMA and through his own vote to try and keep homosexual couples from adopting children in DC. He has point-blank stated that black youths should be treated differently by criminal law than white youths (something he later tried to claim he did not write - but that he claimed as his own words at the time). His supposed "liberty" is for the states, apparently, rather than for the people (hence the reason white supremacists like him so much).

He claims that we should stay out of other countries, but wants to claim the Panama Canal as sovereign US territory forever.

He claims that even trade sanctions are essentially an act of war, but personally put forth a bill at one point to deny financial aid to Iranian students - and only Iranian students - living in the US.

He claims to support diplomacy, but wants to pull out of every diplomatic organization we are a part of and seems to have a major issue with signing treaties.

He's supposedly not a warmonger, but wanted to pull out of the ABM treaty in the middle of the Cold War.

He claims that his policies will make everyone rich, and yet he has proposed bills that would bankrupt nearly all of us in a single blow by making all of our money useless.

He claims that he doesn't support funding of embryonic stem cell research because the government shouldn't fund research, but voted in favor of federally funding private corporate research into space tourism.

His supporters seem to take great comfort in his MD, despite the fact that he voted in favor of a bill with only one effect - to endanger the lives of patients who need medically indicated late-term abortions.

He claims to be all for getting out of the war, but the only effort he has made to do so was to propose a do-nothing bill which basically said, "In 6 months, we might start getting out. Maybe. If we feel like it." He has put forward no plan for doing so, unlike many of the other candidates.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11...-congress.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people...92/gannon.0793
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html


Another sad note is most of those links do not work, but I would like to keep the post intact, since I am not the true author.

Also, the NAU is only a proposed idea. The exact details are unknown, we cannot really argue it effectively.

Click Stand;13323010']-Ending the U.N

Good.

-No intervention in Darfur

If anyone intervenes in Darfur, it should be the pseudo-humanitarians who expect other peoples' kids to go off and do it for them, while they sit at home and complain. People like George Clooney come to mind.

Don't know about you, but why the hell do I have to press 1 for English?

Is it really that much of an inconvenience?

Honestly, what is it about other people speaking Spanish that worries you so much? I'm seriously asking as I really don't understand this.

Or the fact that until very recently it was illegal to work more than 35 hours per week.

Actually it wasn't. You were taxed extra on anything over 35 hours worked, but you could still work it. However, I will say that I do support Sarko's reforms in that area (which consist of getting rid of that extra tax, but keeping the nominal 35 hour week).

Ending the UN is good? And I suppose you consider Teddy Roosevelt a terrorist?

Filipinos probably did.

Good.

Bad.

Now where does this leave us?

Edit: Yay, my second ever timeworp has arrived.

Honestly, what is it about other people speaking Spanish that worries you so much? I'm seriously asking as I really don't understand this.

Why should we have to learn their language to accomodate them? If I emigrated to Greece, I wouldn't expect all Greeks to learn English to accomodate me. Instead, I would learn Greek.

Ending the UN is good? And I suppose you consider Teddy Roosevelt a terrorist?

Click Stand;13323029']Bad.

I don't agree.

Now where does this leave us?

It leaves us disagreeing. *gestures emptily*

My, that may be the first impasse we've had in the entire thread! Hallelujah!

I guess so.

My, that may be the first impasse we've had in the entire thread! Hallelujah!

I put Huckabee down and I'll tell you why. I'm by no stretch his type, more like Mike Gravel's, so you do the math. However, Paul hasn't a chance in hell, and looking at Hucks immigration policy, economic policy, foreign policy, and death penalty attitude, I would say he's the best frontrunner.

Why should we have to learn their language to accomodate them? If I emigrated to Greece, I wouldn't expect all Greeks to learn English to accomodate me. Instead, I would learn Greek.

I don't give a damn if you learn Spanish or not. I don't speak Spanish myself (although I do speak French). However, you also shouldn't stop them from speaking their own language. If businesses want to have the option to operate in Spanish, it should be their business based on whether or not it's economically feasible.

Click Stand;13323029']Edit: Yay, my second ever timeworp has arrived.

Only your second? ;)

It seems like every other post I make is a time warp! :p

I don't give a damn if you learn Spanish or not. I don't speak Spanish myself (although I do speak French). However, you also shouldn't stop them from speaking their own language. If businesses want to have the option to operate in Spanish, it should be their business based on whether or not it's economically feasible.

Of course they should be allowed to speak their own language. However, they shouldn't force us to accomodate them. And of course businesses should be allowed that option. How they run their business is their choice.

You would one 1 American amongst many Greeks. The situation in the US is different. Still, I say we should train immigrants in English.

Still, I say we should train immigrants in English.

At whose expense?

Millions of immigrants with no knowledge of English whatsoever have managed to learn it on their own. There's no reason the current immigrants - who are no smarter and no dumber than those of the past - are unable to do the same.

Of course they should be allowed to speak their own language. However, they shouldn't force us to accomodate them. And of course businesses should be allowed that option. How they run their business is their choice.

What exactly does "accommodation" mean in this context?

Being from near the other border I care very little about the immigration debate and thus don't know what all the fuss is about.

What exactly does "accommodation" mean in this context?

Forcing everyone to learn their language, put up signs in their language, etc. at the taxpayers' expense.[/QUOTE]

Forcing everyone to learn their language, put up signs in their language, etc. at the taxpayers' expense.

And where is this occurring? I lived in Colorado for a year and the only signs in Spanish I saw were for private businesses.

As for learning another language in school, what exactly is wrong with that? I learned French in school, and my niece is learning Mandarin. Spanish would undoubtedly be rather more useful than either of those languages, especially out west.

And where is this occurring?

It's not. I'm just saying, it shouldn't.

As for learning another language in school, what exactly is wrong with that?

Absolutely nothing. But no one should be made to do so.

Being from near the other border I care very little about the immigration debate and thus don't know what all the fuss is about.

Michigan, eh? Then I can perhaps inform you on the negative effects of NAFTA and Bush's dream of Canamex America which would result, if he continues to have his way. Need I tell you that Ford's, Chevy's, Dodge's, and a lot of other American cars are made in Mexico - that a lot of that assembly has only moved there since NAFTA was agreed to?

I hope I don't need to give you an education on the decline of Detroit. :rolleyes:

Michigan, eh? Then I can perhaps inform you on the negative effects of NAFTA and Bush's dream of Canamex America which would result, if he continues to have his way. Need I tell you that Ford's, Chevy's, Dodge's, and a lot of other American cars are made in Mexico - that a lot of that assembly has only moved there since NAFTA was agreed to?

I hope I don't need to give you an education on the decline of Detroit. :rolleyes:

Trust me, I'm well aware of what NAFTA has done to my beloved state. However, what exactly does NAFTA have to do with immigration?

Absolutely nothing. But no one should be made to do so.

Why not? What's the difference between making someone learn Spanish and making someone learn trigonometry? Chances are, they'll get more use out of the Spanish in the long run.

What is this? Who is gonna get da nod thread #1,235,678,653,334,778,345,234,334,567,445! How many of these are really needed? Why not just post in one of those?

Ron Paul has my vote. He is quite popular out here in the west, mostly because he actually READS THE CONSTITUTION and votes according to whether the CONSTITUTION grants congress the power to act. He's not an isolationist, he just sees us as being entangled far too much in foreign affairs. We're not the police of the world. It's not our job to spread democracy. It's not our job to make alliances of convenience and repeatedly side with Stalins to oppose Hitlers. we should always be willing to act as neutral intermediaries when other countries wish to resolve their differences, but we shouldn't waste our time and money in a futile attempt to make peace between those who do not want peace.

The fact that nearly all of the other candidates from both parties are affiliated with the Counsel on Foreign Relations is cause for concern, as that organization has publicly supported a North American Union and other threats to our liberty and national sovereignty.

Ron Paul is not in anyone's pocket. He owes his campaign to a grassroots movement, not corporate money or special-interest noisemakers. He is a candidate of WE THE PEOPLE. Ignore the anti-Paul hype, dig into the issues, take some time to research, and see if you still dislike Dr. Paul.

100% pro-life
100% free speech
100% right to assemble
100% right to keep and bear arms
100% right to be secure in our persons, papers and effects against unreasonable searches & seizures
100% all powers not explicitly granted by the Constitution to the federal government belong to the states or the people

If this is too "libertarian" for you, our founding fathers were too "libertarian."

And where is this occurring? I lived in Colorado for a year and the only signs in Spanish I saw were for private businesses.


Look harder, in CA spanish is on everything. Even some games that are in english are now in spanish only as well.

As for learning another language in school, what exactly is wrong with that? I learned French in school, and my niece is learning Mandarin. Spanish would undoubtedly be rather more useful than either of those languages, especially out west.


Not about learning another language that is fine, but immigrants need to learn english so as to not limit them in their new country. Its also not right to force 250 million people who don't speak spanish to learn it, that is costly and takes too much time.

I think he means the original constitution, not the statist manifesto it is today.

Both of them are allowed by the original Constitution as well.

Not about learning another language that is fine, but immigrants need to learn english so as to not limit them in their new country. Its also not right to force 250 million people who don't speak spanish to learn it, that is costly and takes too much time.
No one actually argues for that except in your own mind.

Look harder, in CA spanish is on everything. Even some games that are in english are now in spanish only as well.

I said Colorado, not California. I never have been to California, nor will I ever go there.

Also, so what? There are places in northern Michigan where everything is in Finnish as well. Why aren't people raving about that on TV?

Not about learning another language that is fine, but immigrants need to learn english so as to not limit them in their new country. Its also not right to force 250 million people who don't speak spanish to learn it, that is costly and takes too much time.

It also takes time to learn English. I'm willing to bet that within 2 generations this new wave of Mexicans will be as "American" as the Italians and Irish who preceded them.

No one actually argues for that except in your own mind.



:rolleyes:


Yep, nobody thinks anybody should learn english in a mostly english speaking country but me. :rolleyes:

It also takes time to learn English. I'm willing to bet that within 2 generations this new wave of Mexicans will be as "American" as the Italians and Irish who preceded them.

Have to agree but I believe the majority of the first generation born in the US will be as American as the rest of us.

I said Colorado, not California. I never have been to California, nor will I ever go there.


Good, I have lived here for 25 years and never liked it once.

Also, so what? There are places in northern Michigan where everything is in Finnish as well. Why aren't people raving about that on TV?

Prove that before you claim it.



It also takes time to learn English. I'm willing to bet that within 2 generations this new wave of Mexicans will be as "American" as the Italians and Irish who preceded them.


Italians and the irish learned english because they had to..do the math.

:rolleyes:


Yep, nobody thinks anybody should learn english in a mostly english speaking country but me. :rolleyes:

Wow. Did you even read what you wrote? You said that people think that everyone in the U.S. should be forced to learn Spanish. Comprende?

Wow. Did you even read what you wrote? You said that people think that everyone in the U.S. should be forced to learn Spanish. Comprende?



Shut the hell up and go back and read! Did you even bother to read what I wrote or try to understand it before you opened your fat mouth? I suggest you didn't and just gave a kneejerk reaction. And yes there are people who think everybody should learn spanish. Now go away.

Is it really that much of an inconvenience?

Honestly, what is it about other people speaking Spanish that worries you so much? I'm seriously asking as I really don't understand this.


Because he and others don't like the idea of being forced to pick up a second language just to survive thats why.

Both of them are allowed by the original Constitution as well.

Where does it say that?

(Note: Am not a constitution expert. :()

Good, I have lived here for 25 years and never liked it once.

Too warm and not enough seasons out there for my liking. Also your government is schizophrenic as hell.

Prove that before you claim it.

Is this seriously so unbelievable to you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hancock%2C_Michigan#People_and_culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hancock%2C_Michigan#People_and_culture)

In fact, in Dearborn one can see Arabic signs and such around town.

Dearborn's population includes 30,000 Arab-Americans, [2] [3] [4], the second largest, and the densest Arab population of any community outside the Middle East. (New York City has nearly 70,000, out of a total population of over 8 million.) Arabs first settled here to work in the automotive industry. In January 2005, a new Arab American National Museum opened as a result of this large concentrated population. The city is also home to the Islamic Center of America, the largest mosque in North America and the Dearborn Mosque, as well as a mosque in the South End that is one of the few places in the US where one can hear the call to prayer over a loudspeaker. Because of the Arab cultural influence on the east side of Dearborn, store signs and billboards written in Arabic are common sights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dearborn%2C_Michigan#Demographics

Italians and the irish learned english because they had to..do the math.

Hispanics think they need to as well.

http://pewhispanic.org/factsheets/factsheet.php?FactsheetID=20

Click on the "Download the complete factsheet" link. PDF warning.

Have to agree but I believe the majority of the first generation born in the US will be as American as the rest of us.

I agree, but I'm betting that in 2 generations there'll be another group of immigrants (Africans perhaps?) the Mexicans will be railing against.

Because he and others don't like the idea of being forced to pick up a second language just to survive thats why.

In what possible scenario would you be unable to survive without knowing Spanish? Unless you moved to a Spanish speaking country, that is.

Shut the hell up and go back and read! Did you even bother to read what I wrote or try to understand it before you opened your fat mouth? I suggest you didn't and just gave a kneejerk reaction. And yes there are people who think everybody should learn spanish. Now go away.

ts also not right to force 250 million people who don't speak spanish to learn it, that is costly and takes too much time.

So yes, I did read what you said. And unless you can pull up someone who actually believes that, I'll continue to doubt the veracity of that statement.

In addition to the points raised by Capilatonia, um, the NAU doesn't exist, it's a conspiracy theory. I'm a Paulite myself, but like seriously, stop believing in things that don't exist people.

You would be correct on it not existing but you are wrong about it being a conspiracy theory. The CFR (Counsel of Foreign Affairs) are definately working hard to make this a reality which the start stage is going under the radar they want to have it started and then later tell the American People about it and notice how I said "tell the American People" and not ask.

http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf#search=%22Building%20a%20North%20American%20Community%22 (a 70 page publication by the CFR on how the North American Union will be created)

http://www.cfr.org/ (Counsel of Foreign Relations Home page)

So yes, I did read what you said. And unless you can pull up someone who actually believes that, I'll continue to doubt the veracity of that statement.


dennis kucinich, supports putting spanish on the same level as english as do many people on the left who support this country adopting it as a 2nd language and required in all schools. You read it but you clearly didn't understand it, now go away and learn about the issue before you make such claims.

Ron Paul has my vote. He is quite popular out here in the west, mostly because he actually READS THE CONSTITUTION and votes according to whether the CONSTITUTION grants congress the power to act. He's not an isolationist, he just sees us as being entangled far too much in foreign affairs. We're not the police of the world. It's not our job to spread democracy. It's not our job to make alliances of convenience and repeatedly side with Stalins to oppose Hitlers. we should always be willing to act as neutral intermediaries when other countries wish to resolve their differences, but we shouldn't waste our time and money in a futile attempt to make peace between those who do not want peace.

The fact that nearly all of the other candidates from both parties are affiliated with the Counsel on Foreign Relations is cause for concern, as that organization has publicly supported a North American Union and other threats to our liberty and national sovereignty.

Ron Paul is not in anyone's pocket. He owes his campaign to a grassroots movement, not corporate money or special-interest noisemakers. He is a candidate of WE THE PEOPLE. Ignore the anti-Paul hype, dig into the issues, take some time to research, and see if you still dislike Dr. Paul.

100% pro-life
100% free speech
100% right to assemble
100% right to keep and bear arms
100% right to be secure in our persons, papers and effects against unreasonable searches & seizures
100% all powers not explicitly granted by the Constitution to the federal government belong to the states or the people

If this is too "libertarian" for you, our founding fathers were too "libertarian."

Exactly! I really wish people would actually check him out for themselves and it would help tremendously if people listened to what he's saying. A True American who is actually FOR THE PEOPLE and FOR THE CONSTITUTION.

Well, one could argue that the very Amendment process built into the Constitution allows it. But I'm not going to bother with that.

Article 1: Section 8 allows for the establishment of a tax-collecting agency.


Article 1: Section 8 allows for the establishment of something with at least some of the powers of the Federal Reserve.


I could probably find more, but it's late and I'm tired.

Thanks.

Where does it say that?

(Note: Am not a constitution expert. :()

Well, one could argue that the very Amendment process built into the Constitution allows it. But I'm not going to bother with that.

Article 1: Section 8 allows for the establishment of a tax-collecting agency.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Article 1: Section 8 allows for the establishment of something with at least some of the powers of the Federal Reserve.
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

I could probably find more, but it's late and I'm tired.

dennis kucinich, supports putting spanish on the same level as english as do many people on the left who support this country adopting it as a 2nd language and required in all schools. You read it but you clearly didn't understand it, now go away and learn about the issue before you make such claims.

And once again you fail to actually provide any evidence for your claim.

Too warm and not enough seasons out there for my liking. Also your government is schizophrenic as hell.

Costs to much to live and other reasons.



Is this seriously so unbelievable to you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hancock%2C_Michigan#People_and_culture

In fact, in Dearborn one can see Arabic signs and such around town.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dearborn%2C_Michigan#Demographics

I simply asked for proof, I don't live there so I asked for prove of it.



Hispanics think they need to as well.

http://pewhispanic.org/factsheets/factsheet.php?FactsheetID=20

Click on the "Download the complete factsheet" link. PDF warning.

Then why is everything is spanish? Seems they don't make such a large effort, shit most of their rallies are in spanish.



I agree, but I'm betting that in 2 generations there'll be another group of immigrants (Africans perhaps?) the Mexicans will be railing against.

Bet you the language is spanish.



In what possible scenario would you be unable to survive without knowing Spanish? Unless you moved to a Spanish speaking country, that is.


A logical one? Seriously, do you ever walk outside? I already have a hard time living here and not knowing spanish, spanish is so popular here some companies won't hire you unless you know it! Do you not know of the areas in the southwest where non-english speaker out number english ones? Do you not know the majority of our growth has come from immigrants? Thats nationwide in a us census release. Jeez.

Exactly! I really wish people would actually check him out for themselves and it would help tremendously if people listened to what he's saying. A True American who is actually FOR THE PEOPLE and FOR THE CONSTITUTION.

Which is why he stated that a bill was unconstitutional but he was voting for it anyways.

Oh, and why he seeks to deny people rights based on sexual orientation.

Oh, and why he seeks to remove women's right to bodily integrity.

See, we've actually checked him out. You clearly haven't.

The Constitution states that Congress has the power to coin the money THE FEDERAL RESERVE is NOT Congress it is NOT any part of our Government it is a Private Bank.

Note I never said the IRS was unconstitutional I said the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional as for the IRS they are an unlawful organization considering their is no US Laws stating we as a people are required to pay taxes out of our paychecks for Labor. The IRS has used Fear and outright lies about that issue and yes now people are beginning to get aquitted because there is NO LAW.

Which is why he stated that a bill was unconstitutional but he was voting for it anyways.

Oh, and why he seeks to deny people rights based on sexual orientation.

Oh, and why he seeks to remove women's right to bodily integrity.

See, we've actually checked him out. You clearly haven't.

sources please and also note NO Person will be able to get Everybody to agree on issues but please provide some sources of your claims. and yes I have checked him out I'll be waiting for your sources too in fact I'll help you out

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/

so Yes I have checked Dr. Ron Paul out and of all the other politicians he's by far the Most Consistent of them all.

Costs to much to live and other reasons.

Also your leftists out there are silly in the application of their beliefs. A friend told me a story about when she was flying out of San Fransisco (her husband works for UC Berkely) and rather than spray deicer on the plane (because it might get into the Bay) they spun the plane in circles for two hours. She left Michigan a hardcore socialist, and she says California will make a Republican of her. They live in Switzerland sometimes (he gets loaned out to CERN) so they get a reprieve from California's nuttiness from time to time. Of course, they'd rather live in Michigan but given the state of the economy these days it's just not in the cards.

I simply asked for proof, I don't live there so I asked for prove of it.

So why isn't the media in an uproar over Hancock or Dearborn?

Then why is everything is spanish? Seems they don't make such a large effort, shit most of their rallies are in spanish.

Learning a language isn't easy, especially if you have to do it in your free time. I've been learning French for quite a few years (it's what I'm studying at university) and I've only really become (what I consider) fluent in the last year or so.

Bet you the language is spanish.

I bet not. It may take longer for the Mexicans to assimilate, with Mexico being right there, but it'll happen. People said the same things about the Italians, Irish and Germans that you say about the Mexicans. All it takes is time.

A logical one? Seriously, do you ever walk outside? I already have a hard time living here and not knowing spanish, spanish is so popular here some companies won't hire you unless you know it! Do you not know of the areas in the southwest where non-english speaker out number english ones? Do you not know the majority of our growth has come from immigrants? Thats nationwide in a us census release. Jeez.

I hear vastly more Ojibwe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anishinaabe_language)spoken in my town than Spanish. All the Mexicans around here speak English with the same quasi-Canadian accent I have.

And there were places where Italian speakers, Polish speakers, German speakers, Finnish speakers, etc. outnumbered the anglophones. They assimilated, so will the Mexicans.

As to the majority of growth coming from immigrants, we need them. In fact, we need them all to be legal and paying taxes so they can pay for our Social Security.

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence

Meh. He was also a white supremacist.

So power wasn't concentrated in the hands of a few before? Take a look at why the SEC was founded or why the union movement was founded....

People acting in their own selfish interests doesn't benefit society.

Exactly! I really wish people would actually check him out for themselves and it would help tremendously if people listened to what he's saying. A True American who is actually FOR THE PEOPLE and FOR THE CONSTITUTION.

Wait? The Federal Government is evil but you support the Constitution?

Another fact about Dr. Ron Paul is he is the only candidate in either parties that has not collected not one penny from the Lobbyists, Special Interests, or any of the Big Business Corporations.


Normally I'd have the Paul Collective Hive-Mind on Ignore-'O-Matic (TM), but this recently popped up in my RSS aggregator, and I just couldn't resist. Tip of the hat to the Associated Press:

"Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul on Sunday defended his efforts in Congress to bring home money to his Texas district, despite his long-held aversion to big government and congressional votes to reign in federal spending.

'I've never voted for an earmark in my life,' the Texas congressman said under questioning on NBC's "Meet the Press" about reports that he has requested hundreds of millions of dollars for special projects in his home district.

'I put them in because I represent people who are asking for some of their money back,' said Paul, who likened it to taking a tax credit. 'I'm against the tax system, but I take all my tax credits. I want to get their money back for the people.'

The 10-term congressman and longshot candidate for the Republican presidential nomination added that although he has requested special projects known as earmarks, he ultimately ends up voting against them in the House
...
For his home state, however, Paul has sought money for water projects, a nursing program, to expand a hospital cancer center and to promote Texas shrimp."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/RON_PAUL?SITE=ILMOL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

How is Ron Paul a liar? Just count all the ways!


Says he doesn't do pork barrel politics, but then does.
Puts in earmarks for his constituency, but then votes against them.
Insists that he opposes pork barrel politics, but then makes (really stupid) excuses for his own pork.


Two-faced political swindling, thy name is Dr. Ron Paul.

The chance of that racist, sexist conspiracy nut winning the nomination is nil."someone" has to win :D

Another fact about Dr. Ron Paul is he is the only candidate in either parties that has not collected not one penny from the Lobbyists, Special Interests, or any of the Big Business Corporations.not the only one.

re: Huckleberry.
The difference is that Ron Paul does not have a shot.

BTW CNN's follow the money
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/gop.html

100% pro-life
100% free speech
100% right to assemble
100% right to keep and bear arms
100% right to be secure in our persons, papers and effects against unreasonable searches & seizures
100% all powers not explicitly granted by the Constitution to the federal government belong to the states or the people

If this is too "libertarian" for you, our founding fathers were too "libertarian."

Actually, abortion was perfectly legal at the time of the Founding. It wasn't practiced with all the technology we have today, but it was practiced. It wasn't outlawed until advances in optics technology made it possible to see conception.

Wait? The Federal Government is evil but you support the Constitution?

I never said the Federal Government was evil and Yes I do support the constitution. The point is the Federal Government has grown to big and I for one don't want them wiping my ass for the rest of my life. Believe it or not I'm a grown up I can take care of myself and the People should not have to be dependent on the Federal Government. The Constitution left the ground work for the way our Government should work Limiting the power of the Federal Government.

So, do you support big government, do you support the Patriot Act and The Department of Homeland Security, As for the Department of Education, ask any school teachers about the "No Child Left Behind" are you for that too? The Federal Government should not be interfereing, any time they interfere it costs a fortune and it usually doesn't work, look at the war in Iraq, how much is it costing and is working? I do beleive Dr. Ron Paul is the only one who has a plan to get our troops home, a very simple one, "Just come home". or do you rather they stay their for 50 plus years as we are in S Korea?

Actually, abortion was perfectly legal at the time of the Founding. It wasn't practiced with all the technology we have today, but it was practiced. It wasn't outlawed until advances in optics technology made it possible to see conception.

even though Dr. Ron Paul is pro-life, afterall he is a docter who delivered more than 4,000 babies, he has said the issue of abortion has no place in the government that it's up to the people and the states to deal with NOT the Federal Government.

not the only one.

re: Huckleberry.
The difference is that Ron Paul does not have a shot.

BTW CNN's follow the money
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/gop.html

currently Dr. Ron Paul is inching towards $19,000,000 in the 4th quarter

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Note I never said the IRS was unconstitutional I said the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional as for the IRS they are an unlawful organization considering their is no US Laws stating we as a people are required to pay taxes out of our paychecks for Labor. The IRS has used Fear and outright lies about that issue and yes now people are beginning to get aquitted because there is NO LAW.

Oh, you're one of those tax deniers. 16th Amendment. However, you won't pay attention to this, since you deny reality.

What is it with Ron Paul supporters and the internet?

The Constitution states that Congress has the power to coin the money THE FEDERAL RESERVE is NOT Congress it is NOT any part of our Government it is a Private Bank.

Note I never said the IRS was unconstitutional I said the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional as for the IRS they are an unlawful organization considering their is no US Laws stating we as a people are required to pay taxes out of our paychecks for Labor. The IRS has used Fear and outright lies about that issue and yes now people are beginning to get aquitted because there is NO LAW.

Taxes aren't "paid" out of your check and you are free to fill out a W-4 with any information you choose. Withholding is a courtesy that employers provide at the urging of the IRS. No one who pays you money will withhold money against your will unless and until you have demonstrated that you lack the financial discipline to pay the taxes you owe by the time they're due.

If you don't like the money being taken out of your paycheck each week and think you would do better simply paying what you owe at the end of the year then ask your boss for another W-4 and say that you're married with 9 kids.

I'm not really sure who'll win, and it doesn't seem that many Republicans are too sure either. This is definitely a lesser-of-two (or more)-evils election for both parties.

Click Stand;13323010']
I also kept this post in my vault of files just in case this happened again. Sadly I did not keep the name of the poster, so if this is yours then congrats on an amazing post worth of space on my computer:

Another sad note is most of those links do not work, but I would like to keep the post intact, since I am not the true author.

I think that was Dempublicents1, she's the only one who's provided anything remotely resembling evidence against Ron Paul that I can recall -- mainly because all of the Paulites concentrated their attacks on people who didn't provide evidence.

What is it with Ron Paul supporters and the internet?

Proxies.

even though Dr. Ron Paul is pro-life, afterall he is a docter who delivered more than 4,000 babies, he has said the issue of abortion has no place in the government that it's up to the people and the states to deal with NOT the Federal Government.

And Roe vs. Wade wasn't an abortion issue, it was a search and seizure issue. Which is a matter for the Federal Government. So when a candidate for President says that he is 100% pro-life, he's got some explaining to do because if he's 100% pro-life and 100% anti-search and seizure, then what happens in the big case where you have to be one or the other, but not both.

Look, we all know that there is zero chance of Paul getting the nomination. He's a Libertarian, and most American voters aren't even completely liberal or conservative.
He isn't. He's a conservative pretending to be one.

Look, we all know that there is zero chance of Paul getting the nomination. He's a Libertarian, and most American voters aren't even completely liberal or conservative. And also the Federal Reserve is Constitutional. Saying it isn't is like saying the Air Force is unconstitutional.

Ron Paul's the man: albeit he has no chance. It's going to be Romney, Huckabee, or Giuliani. Personally, I'm never voting for a flip-flopping Massachusetts liberal, a pro-abortion, pro-gay gun control nut who ran a sanctuary city (Giuliani) or a man who wanted in-state tuition for illegals (Huckabee). So none of the above. Unless Hillary's running, of course.

Haha...Romney..."Massachusetts liberal"...anything but...(breaks out in a wheezing bout of laughter)

Look, we all know that there is zero chance of Paul getting the nomination. He's a Libertarian, and most American voters aren't even completely liberal or conservative. And also the Federal Reserve is Constitutional. Saying it isn't is like saying the Air Force is unconstitutional.

It's not really that, so much as that he's consistently underperformed in polls and, in fact, just about everywhere except on the internet. (He wasn't viewed as mainstream enough to be invited to the youtube debates for instance.)

That was Dem who made that post, since I remember it. She's not the only one who's provided evidence, though. TCT, Neo Art, and I all have, and I'm sure others have as well.

I guess I only read the first two pages of the thread, then.....

What is it with Ron Paul supporters and the internet?

Botnets.

Haha...Romney..."Massachusetts liberal"...anything but...(breaks out in a wheezing bout of laughter)

Next they'll call that warmongering tyrant Hillary a liberal.

Paul's also underperformed in Internet polls that limit people to one vote per IP address.

really? can I see a link?

I think that was Dempublicents1, she's the only one who's provided anything remotely resembling evidence against Ron Paul that I can recall -- mainly because all of the Paulites concentrated their attacks on people who didn't provide evidence.

That was Dem who made that post, since I remember it. She's not the only one who's provided evidence, though. TCT, Neo Art, and I all have, and I'm sure others have as well.

It's not really that, so much as that he's consistently underperformed in polls and, in fact, just about everywhere except on the internet. (He wasn't viewed as mainstream enough to be invited to the youtube debates for instance.)

Paul's also underperformed in Internet polls that limit people to one vote per IP address.

I guess I only read the first two pages of the thread, then.....

Nah, it's been in a bunch of different threads.

Ron Paul will never get elected!!! Show me one sane person who wants to get rid of the FDA.:headbang:

really? can I see a link?

Personal observation, sorry.

Ron Paul will never get elected!!! Show me one sane person who wants to get rid of the FDA.:headbang:

Oh come on! The FDA is a clear violation of our civil liberties. It denies us our Creator-given right to consume medicines and foods that might kill us. Haven't you ever heard of the Freedom of Suicide Act?!

Oh come on! The FDA is a clear violation of our civil liberties. It denies us our Creator-given right to consume medicines and foods that might kill us. Haven't you ever heard of the Freedom of Suicide Act?!

I'm pretty sure the Freedom of Suicide Act only covers informed suicide.yay white text for those who don't get a fucking joke!

I pray you aren't being serious...

Paul's also underperformed in Internet polls that limit people to one vote per IP address.

you mean like the aol online poll? Check the source and then please explain how "Paul's also underperformed"

I see Ron Paul as a mixture of the good (free trade), the bad (UN withdrawal) and the ugly (gold standard).

If the US were to have a Republican president I'd prefer McCain. But given the candidates with a reasonable chance of winning I'd prefer Huckabee to win, for the sole reason that I hope he gets trounced by the Democratic candidate.

I'm pretty sure the Freedom of Suicide Act only covers informed suicide.yay white text for those who don't get a fucking joke!

Technically, voting for Ron Paul counts as "informed suicide", given some of his claims. I'll include a smiley so people will know there's white text involved. ;)

Oh, you're one of those tax deniers. 16th Amendment. However, you won't pay attention to this, since you deny reality.

okay the following is the 16th Amendment:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Now First, I am not a "tax denier" I have no problems paying my taxes. I pay taxes everytime I go to the store, the gas station, I pay taxes on my house, the list goes on and on. So I damn well Pay my taxes.

The fact of the matter is yes the 16th amendment gives the Congress the power to lay and collect taxes on income but my point is that their is NO LAW that says I must pay taxes from my paycheck which is a trade deal between my boss and I, money for labor. Show me the Law, Fact is you can't show me the LAW that states I must pay taxes on my Labor for pay.

I Challenge you to find me the LAW. the actual law not the 16th amendment because it only states it gives the Congress the power to lay and collect taxes on income...Now show me the Law.

I hope Ron Paul wins the nomination. With H. Ross Perot out of the presidential picture for so long, I think people have forgotten what Batshit Insane looks like. :p

I hope Ron Paul wins the nomination. With H. Ross Perot out of the presidential picture for so long, I think people have forgotten what Batshit Insane looks like. :p

I would rather have Perot, because he was both insane and funny. Ron Paul's insanity isn't as funny.

Ron Paul will never get elected!!! Show me one sane person who wants to get rid of the FDA.:headbang:what is an FDA?


usually, common sense is that if I dont use it (FDA whatever that is) I can live without it.

Next they'll call that warmongering tyrant Hillary a liberal.

I've lost count of the times I've heard her called a "socialist", or even funnier, a "communist".

what is an FDA?


usually, common sense is that if I dont use it (FDA whatever that is) I can live without it.
Federal Drug Administration, I believe. Though it may be the Food & Drug Administration.

In charge of what pharmaceutical drugs are legalised, among other things.

Click Stand;13324087']I would rather have Perot, because he was both insane and funny. Ron Paul's insanity isn't as funny.

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/carvey_perot_listen_larry.wav

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/carvey_perot_save.wav

:D

Federal Drug Administration, I believe. Though it may be the Food & Drug Administration.

In charge of what pharmaceutical drugs are legalised, among other things.

The Food and Drug Administration. It's one of the very few things that almost makes me not want to get rid of the Federal government. That and the Supreme Court's history of protecting civil rights.

The fact of the matter is yes the 16th amendment gives the Congress the power to lay and collect taxes on income but my point is that their is NO LAW that says I must pay taxes from my paycheck which is a trade deal between my boss and I, money for labor. Show me the Law, Fact is you can't show me the LAW that states I must pay taxes on my Labor for pay.

I Challenge you to find me the LAW. the actual law not the 16th amendment because it only states it gives the Congress the power to lay and collect taxes on income...Now show me the Law.

The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is the most recent federal level law governing income tax.

The issue with the FDA is no so much about food, its more about drugs.

Wikipedia sums it up nicley:

1) Potentially life-saving experimental drugs are withheld from terminally ill patients
2) The expensive approval process has failed in several cases (see: Vioxx); and has probably kept safe effective drugs from reaching the market
3) The FDA prevents re-importation of medicine (thus, it is illegal for senior citizens to purchase a drug in Canada available in the US, where it is more expensive)
4) The FDA allows various chemicals to be used in food, such as rBGH; but require a warning label on UV-treated or irridiated food.
5) Politically motivated rejection of medicinal cannibis, LSD, and Psilocybin; despite evidence that all three are medically viable

So no, he doesn't dislike the FDA because he wants to posion us all, he thinks that the organization is corrupt and ineffective.

The issue with the FDA is no so much about food, its more about drugs.

Wikipedia sums it up nicley:

1) Potentially life-saving experimental drugs are withheld from terminally ill patients
2) The expensive approval process has failed in several cases (see: Vioxx); and has probably kept safe effective drugs from reaching the market
3) The FDA prevents re-importation of medicine (thus, it is illegal for senior citizens to purchase a drug in Canada available in the US, where it is more expensive)
4) The FDA allows various chemicals to be used in food, such as rBGH; but require a warning label on UV-treated or irridiated food.
5) Politically motivated rejection of medicinal cannibis, LSD, and Psilocybin; despite evidence that all three are medically viable

So no, he doesn't dislike the FDA because he wants to posion us all, he thinks that the organization is corrupt and ineffective.

Of course it's corrupt and ineffective. It's government. :p

But it has also policed hundreds of medications and enforced qulity standards on food industries that otherwise would have no uniform oversight.

The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is the most recent federal level law governing income tax.

are you suggesting the Constitution gave the IRS powers to make Laws? My challenge was to find a US Law not an IRC from an unlawful Independent organization.

I asked for the Law that states it is mandatory that taxes come out of your Paycheck.

The 2 "Laws" given to me were the 16th amendment which actually gives Congress the Power to make a law concerning the subject and the 2nd "law" given was the IRC of 1986. Neither of which are actual Laws. The Law doesn't exist...when I first heard of the "No Such Law" I was very skeptical about it so I did my own research to locate the LAW and it is not there.

I asked for the Law that states it is mandatory that taxes come out of your Paycheck.

As has been pointed out to you, it's not mandatory for the taxes to come directly out of your paycheck. If you want, you can opt out of that and pay it at the end of the year.

what is an FDA?


usually, common sense is that if I dont use it (FDA whatever that is) I can live without it.

Read the Jungle (Upton Sinclair). Then you might get an idea of why the FDA exists.

Read the Jungle (Upton Sinclair). Then you might get an idea of why the FDA exists.

Yes, but the FDA during the wild-wild-west capitalism days, when we as a civilization were feeling for the edges of what was good and what wasn't, isn't the same as the FDA now. It needs to either be scrapped or reformed. Since no government agency has been successfully "reformed" from within (see: CIA), it should probably be scrapped, and new regulatory agencies created in its place, hopefully this time without all the conflits of interest.

are you suggesting the Constitution gave the IRS powers to make Laws? My challenge was to find a US Law not an IRC from an unlawful Independent organization

You are aware that Congress created the Internal Revenue Code, not the IRS, right? The 1986 code was created by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986)

Next they'll call that warmongering tyrant Hillary a liberal.

Haven't they done that already?

Also, so what? There are places in northern Michigan where everything is in Finnish as well. Why aren't people raving about that on TV?

yeah, at least the mexicans have the decency to speak an indo-european language. we should declare indo-european to be the national language family. no uralic allowed!

Of course it's corrupt and ineffective. It's government.Until proof of the contrary I will assume that when a candidate says:
"we have to get rid of the IRS" or
"we have to get rid of the FDA" ...
...he means we have to replace it with something better / more efficient.

Until proof of the contrary I will assume that when a candidate says:
"we have to get rid of the IRS" or
"we have to get rid of the FDA" ...
...he means we have to replace it with something better / more efficient.

No. Saying "we have to get rid of the IRS/FDA" means that he wants to get rid of the IRS/FDA. If he doesn't explicitly state he plans to replace it, then it's safe to assume that he's not planning to. If he is planning to but hasn't said so, he can't make his intentions clear and therefore would be best off not suffering the responsibility of being President of the United States.

Anyway, your earlier statement -- essentially, that you've never heard of the FDA so it can't be particularly important -- is sparking me to adopt a much more impatient ("Fass"ish) tone, so apologies. I hope it doesn't come through.

Until proof of the contrary I will assume that when a candidate says:
"we have to get rid of the IRS" or
"we have to get rid of the FDA" ...
...he means we have to replace it with something better / more efficient.

Actually, Dr. Ron Paul said he would get rid of the IRS and replace it with "Nothing"

Actually, Dr. Ron Paul said he would get rid of the IRS and replace it with "Nothing"Link/source? ... if you have one.

... and just how would the gov pay for schools, Roads, Hospitals.. Think about it for a second.

Link/source? ... if you have one.

... and just how would the gov pay for schools, Roads, Hospitals.. Think about it for a second.

here it is in his own words...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkPUeFtLrPM&feature=user

and also note the vast majority of income tax collected goes to pay off the interest of the Federal Reserve (Private Bank) who loaned the Government money as they continually print it from thin air.

I might be wrong but wasn't one of the Reasons for the Revolunary War not only to escape the tyranny of the King but also to escape the Central Banking system?

Also, the next link is of a juror as she explains why the Jury aquitted a man on trial in regards to the Taxes.

part 1/2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_sZj8dZnJI&feature=related

part 2/2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hRwkyqycgU&feature=related

Until proof of the contrary I will assume that when a candidate says:
"we have to get rid of the IRS" or
"we have to get rid of the FDA" ...
...he means we have to replace it with something better / more efficient.

ANd whenever a politician says those same things, I always assume he doesn't give a crap about better/more efficient and is just trying to find a way to make it benefit his buddies and campaign contributors.

are you suggesting the Constitution gave the IRS powers to make Laws? My challenge was to find a US Law not an IRC from an unlawful Independent organization.

I asked for the Law that states it is mandatory that taxes come out of your Paycheck.

The 2 "Laws" given to me were the 16th amendment which actually gives Congress the Power to make a law concerning the subject and the 2nd "law" given was the IRC of 1986. Neither of which are actual Laws. The Law doesn't exist...when I first heard of the "No Such Law" I was very skeptical about it so I did my own research to locate the LAW and it is not there.

Internal Revenue Code 3401 allows an employer to withhold part of your wages and pay it directly to the Internal Revenue Service. As the Internal Revenue Code is a part of the United States Code it is a law and part of the Statutes at Large. I don't know where you got the idea that the USC is not law but I can assure you that if it is in the USC it can be held as law within a court.

I would also like to add please do your homework and research on your own Don't believe what the media says. They have been very biased towards Dr. Paul and I for one have done my homework and have registered as a Republican to further my support of this Great Man. He's challenging the Big Business and wants to return our Federal Government back to the realms as outlined in the Constitution and wants to return the power back to the States and the People.

I have done my homework on Congressman Paul.

He has done absolutely nothing to return any power whatsoever to the people. In fact, he has tried repeatedly to take power from the people and give it either to the states (more often) or to the federal government. The right to privacy? According to Paul, individual should have no recourse when their state government decide to infringe up on it. Same goes for the rights to equal protection under the law and religious freedom. Check out the "We the People Act" sometime.

Paul is the only candidate in the race who has openly and deliberately broken his vow to uphold the Constitution by voting in favor of a bill that he personally declared unconstitutional. What did the bill do, I wonder? Nothing but endanger the very patients that "Doctor" Paul once treated in his medical practice.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html

And I could go on......

In the end, I have to include that anyone voting for Paul has actually *not* done their homework and have instead been swayed by all the pretty propaganda he and his supporters are putting out there.

Here's an interesting source to start with:
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html
The blogger obviously has a political agenda of his own, but the types of bills that Paul actually proposes are rather telling.

You get to see his monetary bills that would instantly make US currency useless without phasing it our or replacing it with anything, effectively bankrupting any US citizen without substantial holdings in other currencies, his targeting of Iranian students for disadvantages in this country, his wishes to annex part of Panama, and more!

No. Saying "we have to get rid of the IRS/FDA" means that he wants to get rid of the IRS/FDA. If he doesn't explicitly state he plans to replace it, then it's safe to assume that he's not planning to. If he is planning to but hasn't said so, he can't make his intentions clear and therefore would be best off not suffering the responsibility of being President of the United States.

Not to mention that we can simply look at his record on these things. He has, on more than one occasion, proposed bills that would basically do away with US currency immediately. No "replacing it with something better". Just bills that would effectively bankrupt most US citizens with a single bill.

Paul obviously doesn't think ahead very much. He thinks in ideological terms without bothering with practical ones.

ANd whenever a politician says those same things, I always assume he doesn't give a crap about better/more efficient and is just trying to find a way to make it benefit his buddies and campaign contributors.of course.. 420 millions are coming from somewhere.

the candidates for president in 2008 have already raised about $420 million. This presidential money chase seems to be on track to collect an unprecedented $1 billion total.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp?cycle=2008

Thats why I support grass roots candidates like Colbert and Huckleberry ;) (notice how much Huckleberry owes to Corporate contributors? Now compare that to Romney or Giuliano.

The fact that Mike Huckabee is even being considered, and the fact that he has the most votes on this poll, really kinda frightens me as a guy who believes in Church/State separation.

The fact that Mike Huckabee is even being considered, and the fact that he has the most votes on this poll, really kinda frightens me as a guy who believes in Church/State separation.

Yeah really. What's even worse is that this is a man without any of the respect for the rights of an individual and for individual responsibillity that usually comes with being a conservative in America. He wants to expand government AND irrationalize it in a quasi-religious fashion.

The issue with the FDA is no so much about food, its more about drugs.

Do you know how many drugs go through FDA approval processes a year?

Much like many large agencies, the FDA is known for its mistakes. No one recognizes that they are an incredibly small proportion of what actually goes through.

Wikipedia sums it up nicley:

1) Potentially life-saving experimental drugs are withheld from terminally ill patients

I wonder if this issue is why new drugs for the terminally ill or for life-threatening illnesses with no standard treatments get special exceptions to rush them through the process?

2) The expensive approval process has failed in several cases (see: Vioxx); and has probably kept safe effective drugs from reaching the market

Any process will have some failures. That's just a fact of life.

3) The FDA prevents re-importation of medicine (thus, it is illegal for senior citizens to purchase a drug in Canada available in the US, where it is more expensive)

This is a problem, but it's not a problem inherent within the agency. It's a specific policy that needs to be changed.

4) The FDA allows various chemicals to be used in food, such as rBGH; but require a warning label on UV-treated or irridiated food.[/qutoe]

And.....?

[quote]5) Politically motivated rejection of medicinal cannibis, LSD, and Psilocybin; despite evidence that all three are medically viable

Last time I checked, both cannabis and LSD were made illegal by an act of Congress, not by the FDA. In fact, a quick google search reveals more than one FDA-approved clinical trial involving medicinal cannabis and at least one involving psychedelic drugs.

So no, he doesn't dislike the FDA because he wants to posion us all, he thinks that the organization is corrupt and ineffective.

I'm always amazed by how Ron Paul supporters ignore his own positions and project theirs onto him. He's opposed to the FDA, as well as quite a few other government agencies, because he says that the federal government shouldn't have them at all.

The fact that Mike Huckabee is even being considered, and the fact that he has the most votes on this poll, really kinda frightens me as a guy who believes in Church/State separation.We are talking about the Republican party here.
except maybe Ron Paul ... maybe ???
These candidates need to be seen as having some serious Christian belief.. as well as be pro gun, anti Immigration,pro small-gov, tough on crime, full bigot, anti Gay, pro-life, etc etc etc

What makes Huckleberry more likable.. is that he looks like he is honest and true.

even though Dr. Ron Paul is pro-life, afterall he is a docter who delivered more than 4,000 babies, he has said the issue of abortion has no place in the government that it's up to the people and the states to deal with NOT the Federal Government.

Um....since when is the state not government?

Meanwhile, Ron Paul has never said that it is up to the people. If he really thought it was up to the people, he'd support Roe v. Wade, which left the decision in the hands of the people. Instead, he has consistently argued that it is the place of the state government, while voting to make law about it in the federal government.


Look, we all know that there is zero chance of Paul getting the nomination. He's a Libertarian,

LOL. If only.

Yeah really. What's even worse is that this is a man without any of the respect for the rights of an individual and for individual responsibillity that usually comes with being a conservative in America. He wants to expand government AND irrationalize it in a quasi-religious fashion.Yeah, he turned Arkansas into a mad Church-state and rescinded all individual rights, made Christianity mandatory :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee#Governor_of_Arkansas

and thats why he was elected twice..

Click Stand;13323010']
I also kept this post in my vault of files just in case this happened again. Sadly I did not keep the name of the poster, so if this is yours then congrats on an amazing post worth of space on my computer:

Another sad note is most of those links do not work, but I would like to keep the post intact, since I am not the true author.

<3

You can't copy and paste out of the forums with links, unfortunately, since they get abbreviated. Here are the links that didn't work (I think):

http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/c8668bd3662b0fa5
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

:rolleyes:
Yeah, he turned Arkansas into a mad Church-state and rescinded all individual rights, made Christianity mandatory :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee#Governor_of_Arkansas

and thats why he was elected twice..

Thank god America is not Arkansas.

(Arkansas, Missouri and Louisianna are actually fairly liberal states for the South, and are only called Red States because they voted for Bush.)

Um....since when is the state not government?

Throughout this poll I have stressed Federal Government so if you had actually read the thread from the beginning you would have known I meant Federal Government...I keep forgetting how some on NSG are strictly critics, period.

Reminder, No Person is Perfect We all have our imperfections including YOU (you is being used in the plural it is not directed to you (singular) personally)

Same for the Candidates, I don't believe anybody can honestly declare any one of the candidate issues are 100% agreeable across the board.

Throughout this poll I have stressed Federal Government so if you had actually read the thread from the beginning you would have known I meant Federal Government...I keep forgetting how some on NSG are strictly critics, period.Someone that has been around long enough to know that NSG is criticismia, would also realize that reading an 11 page thread from the beginning is too much to ask.

And it implies that this isn't your first nation. Who are you?

Throughout this poll I have stressed Federal Government so if you had actually read the thread from the beginning you would have known I meant Federal Government...I keep forgetting how some on NSG are strictly critics, period.

I did read through the thread, and it doesn't matter. Having your civil liberties infringed upon by government is having your civil liberties infringed upon by government. It doesn't matter what branch or level of government we're talking about.

Reminder, No Person is Perfect We all have our imperfections including YOU (you is being used in the plural it is not directed to you (singular) personally)

Same for the Candidates, I don't believe anybody can honestly declare any one of the candidate issues are 100% agreeable across the board.

No, but some are so disagreeable that they aren't worth talking about except in absolute opposition. Because of Ron Paul's anti-liberty and anti-equality stances, he is one of them.

Meanwhile, when a candidate holds himself up as perfect, it makes sense to hold him to that standard. Ron Paul and his supporters make claims that he has never voted for anything not expressly permitted in the Constitution, despite the fact that he openly broke his oath of office by doing just that. He claims to be consistent, while his record is full of inconsistencies. He claims to be the "defender of the Constitution" while consistently ignoring, at the very least, the 9th and 14th Amendments. If a candidate cannot or has not lived up to his own claims, he should not make them.

Ran across an interesting page in the news about Rudy's latest 9/11 masturbatory rantings, with some commentary on the bottom which may help give an idea about how well he's doing in the public eye.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/12/giuliani_ad_lin.html

Oh, you're one of those tax deniers. 16th Amendment. However, you won't pay attention to this, since you deny reality.

I'm glad you brought up the 16th Amendment. This next link will tell you where the evidence lies scroll down to page 4 (their short pages)...
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/boxer/ferris.htm

Take Note that the Lawsuits and Evidence of how the 16th Amendment came to be was from Fraud and the Lawsuits are ever increasing...
Did you know that it was never properly ratified? Which tells me once again the American People have been scammed. It's a pure case of Fraud.
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chaptr13.htm

I also recommend this book, "The Law that never Was" by William J. Benson here's a wiki link...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_fraud_of_the_16th_Amendment_and_personal_income_tax

The following is the link "Inside Oklahoma's 16th Amendment Lawsuit"
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/qa/22063.html

What is it with Ron Paul supporters and the internet?

I believe the mainstream media has a lot to do with it since they have refused to fair towards Dr. Ron Paul.

So, the result is the People going online by the mass numbers and also please note we're not only online we're on the streets too spreading the messege of Dr. Ron Paul. Simply put we're showing the Power of the People vs the Mainstream Media and their biasedness.

Ran across an interesting page in the news about Rudy's latest 9/11 masturbatory rantings, with some commentary on the bottom which may help give an idea about how well he's doing in the public eye.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/12/giuliani_ad_lin.html

many republicans like collective masturbation, they may vote for him.
Most of the time I hear Gugliani speak in public, he looks retarded to me.

I'm glad you brought up the 16th Amendment. This next link will tell you where the evidence lies scroll down to page 4 (their short pages)...
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/boxer/ferris.htm

Take Note that the Lawsuits and Evidence of how the 16th Amendment came to be was from Fraud and the Lawsuits are ever increasing...
Did you know that it was never properly ratified? Which tells me once again the American People have been scammed. It's a pure case of Fraud.
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chaptr13.htm

I also recommend this book, "The Law that never Was" by William J. Benson here's a wiki link...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_fraud_of_the_16th_Amendment_and_personal_income_tax

The following is the link "Inside Oklahoma's 16th Amendment Lawsuit"
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/qa/22063.html
From your third link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_fraud_of_the_16th_Amendment_and_personal_income_tax#Benson.27s_non-ratification_argument_ruled_fraudulent)
Don't you just love it when someone kills their own argument with their own links?

I honostly cannot figure out who I think will get the GOP nomination. Or the Dem one either. Its too close to call. But for all you Ron Paul fans, I'm sorry but its not going to be Ron Paul.

TV stations are starting to call it Huckabee...for whatever that's worth...(in Iowa)

TV stations are starting to call it Huckabee...for whatever that's worth...(in Iowa)

with what percentage and who is coming in second?

Ran across an interesting page in the news about Rudy's latest 9/11 masturbatory rantings, with some commentary on the bottom which may help give an idea about how well he's doing in the public eye.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/12/giuliani_ad_lin.html

I find it kind of funny how on numerous occasions and including some certain debates how he isn't running for office off of 9/11 but it seems every other word is 9/11 9/11 9/11 oh i also noticed how his past few ads were all 9/11 based.

with what percentage and who is coming in second?

By a bit, it's Huckabee, Romney, Thompson.

Huckabee at 34% Romney 25%, Thompson 14%, Ron Paul and Mccain at 13% only 65% of caucuses have reported.

as for the Dems Obama at 36%, Edwards and Clinton at 30% with 80% of the caucuses reported.

Guiliani, I didn't catch his percent but I do know hes beating Duncan who is in last place. :D

thanks

If you vote please post why you believe or think the way you do.



I voted Huckabee.

Because the GOP is clearly insane.

including YOU (you is being used in the plural it is not directed to you (singular) personally)

This is why God invented the word "y'all". Solves little problems like that.

Huckabee. But sadly, because many Republicans are too intolerant to elect a Mormon, and not because Huckabee's policies are better than Romney's (even though they are).

As somebody who hopes to see the GOP crash and burn, I voted Huckabee.

HOORAY FOR IOWA! :D

We are talking about the Republican party here.
except maybe Ron Paul ... maybe ???
These candidates need to be seen as having some serious Christian belief.. as well as be pro gun, anti Immigration,pro small-gov, tough on crime, full bigot, anti Gay, pro-life, etc etc etc

What makes Huckleberry more likable.. is that he looks like he is honest and true.

Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and the two Bushes certainly meet their requirement.

I believe the mainstream media has a lot to do with it since they have refused to fair towards Dr. Ron Paul.

How so? He has received far more media coverage than any other long-shot candidate and all of the major achievements in his campaign have been covered.

So, the result is the People going online by the mass numbers and also please note we're not only online we're on the streets too spreading the messege of Dr. Ron Paul. Simply put we're showing the Power of the People vs the Mainstream Media and their biasedness.

If the message of Ron Paul was actually borne out by his record or his policies, you'd probably actually be able to get him in office. Luckily, while some people are swayed by pure propaganda, most actually take at least some time to actually look into a candidate.

As somebody who hopes to see the GOP crash and burn, I voted Huckabee.

HOORAY FOR IOWA! :D

*confused*

But ok. hehe

As somebody who hopes to see the GOP crash and burn, I voted Huckabee.

HOORAY FOR IOWA! :D

Bottle: bringing down the GOP since 19*coughcoughhackwheeze*

As somebody who hopes to see the GOP crash and burn, I voted Huckabee.

HOORAY FOR IOWA! :D

How telling is it that the least rancid of the GOP lot(Rudy Giuliani) got a measly 4% of the vote?

Has Iowa drifted away from the demographic center of the nation, or has the center drifted away from Iowa?