He's okay, i mean less income tax= great for economy,  but it will be really hard for him to get elected due to all of the people against him.

 

loadedstatement said: cdude1034 said: OriGin said: See, I'm not from America, but the way I see it - even if he is a crazy loon with some crazy ideas for the US, he can't change them without the support of congress anyway. Why the hell the American people wont wake up and vote for someone who is essentially a 'good guy' at heart is just amazingly bizarre to me.  Because being a "good guy" doesn't run the country :-.  Dont you think it is a step above a lying, deceiving, Christian cowboy?

if thats a blow to christians then i suggest you back up

I actually would want bush AGAIN over ron paul at this point, most of his ideas have been looney at this point

I really dont like any of the republicans this year, nor the democrats but whatever im sick of politics and im only 17!

That is true, Iraq was not a faceless enemy with a single bomb. But Iraq was a despotic regime in a dangerous part of the world. A part of the world that happens to be the source of most of the terrorism in the world. The bet is that enabling a positive change in Iraq could bring about greater change throughout the region and thus make the world safer in the long run. Yes, it's a longshot. And maybe the premise is naive. But it's rash to call it a bust so soon.

Truman left office with a less than stellar reputation. The Truman Doctrine was mocked by many at the time. But as the Cold War progressed, feelings toward the strategy changed. The fall of the Soviet Union and the retreat of communism from many corners of the Earth eventually vindicated him. Rather than being ridiculed, many politicians try to identify with him now. As fanciful as it might seem to you now, the Bush Doctrine may go through a similar evolution.

Lost tears of Kain said: loadedstatement said: cdude1034 said: OriGin said: See, I'm not from America, but the way I see it - even if he is a crazy loon with some crazy ideas for the US, he can't change them without the support of congress anyway. Why the hell the American people wont wake up and vote for someone who is essentially a 'good guy' at heart is just amazingly bizarre to me.  Because being a "good guy" doesn't run the country :-.  Dont you think it is a step above a lying, deceiving, Christian cowboy?    if thats a blow to christians then i suggest you back up I actually would want bush AGAIN over ron paul at this point, most of his ideas have been looney at this point I really dont like any of the republicans this year, nor the democrats but whatever im sick of politics and im only 17!

 

It is not at ALL a blow against Christians. I just believe that a man with that much control and power should not impose his/her religion upon the  country they govern.  

loadedstatement said: cdude1034 said: OriGin said: See, I'm not from America, but the way I see it - even if he is a crazy loon with some crazy ideas for the US, he can't change them without the support of congress anyway. Why the hell the American people wont wake up and vote for someone who is essentially a 'good guy' at heart is just amazingly bizarre to me. Because being a "good guy" doesn't run the country :-. Dont you think it is a step above a lying, deceiving, Christian cowboy?

 A lot of people diss Clinton because of the cheating thing, but the bottom line is, he was amazing for this country. Under his presidency, the country prospered. 

My point is, personality doesn't have a lot to do with your politics. Bush is a "likeable"person, but his politics suck, as reflected by popular opinion today. 

@Erik

You are correct about the republic vs democracy, but might point is still the same. If abortion law was to be set at the federal level, it would have been much better had it been by the will of the people through there representatives in Congress (and by agreement from the States if we wanted to make it explicit through an ammendment - much like slavery and segregation were dealt with, eh? not a bad system if I do say so myself).

Unfortunately, the courts prevented that from ever happening. Rather than allowing the nation to come to some compromise on its own, it usurped the decision for itself. You are now doomed to hear about it in every major election you witness. Left unresolved by the people, it is an issue to be raised incessantly.

loadedstatement said: Lost tears of Kain said: loadedstatement said: cdude1034 said: OriGin said: See, I'm not from America, but the way I see it - even if he is a crazy loon with some crazy ideas for the US, he can't change them without the support of congress anyway. Why the hell the American people wont wake up and vote for someone who is essentially a 'good guy' at heart is just amazingly bizarre to me.  Because being a "good guy" doesn't run the country :-.  Dont you think it is a step above a lying, deceiving, Christian cowboy?    if thats a blow to christians then i suggest you back up I actually would want bush AGAIN over ron paul at this point, most of his ideas have been looney at this point I really dont like any of the republicans this year, nor the democrats but whatever im sick of politics and im only 17!   It is not at ALL a blow against Christians. I just believe that a man with that much control and power should not impose his/her religion upon the  country they govern.

o ok then

imagine mitt romney or whoever that mormon guy is

 

Why do people feel insistent on crediting a president for a nation's prosperity? Usually those people fail to say what exactly the president did to produce such impressive results.

What did Clinton do to affect the prosperity of the 90's? The family leave act? Maybe welfare reform? While he gets kudos for signing the bill, he was hardly the dricing force behind the initiative.

Should Clinton also get credit for the dot com bubble or the economic down turn in 2000? A great dividend was captured with the end of the cold war and the 90's benefited from it (not to mention the timeliness of a technological boom).

Do you think history books will dedicate a whole chapter to the Bill years? It will likely be reduced to no more than a single paragraph with more emphasis on his indiscretions than anything else. That's why he has been so hungry to define a legacy. He would not need to put forth the effort if one really existed. But who knows? Maybe his wife can help him out with that one.

@cdude
If public opinion is such a great guage of the merits of policy, then why not convert this republic to a direct democracy. To Eric's point above, if we can't trust the majority to deal with moral issues, are we to rely on them to determine what is best in tax law or foreign policy?

cdude1034 said: I found this comment on Digg: " Just make sure you know what he's after before you vote for him. He wants to ban abortion, and he also wants to repeal the income tax. In other words, the rich get richer, and the poor will suffer. We will also have plenty of unwanted children being raised -- or not -- by resentful and indifferent mothers who were browbeaten into having them (just don't look to these guys to help support them, welfare queens!). Just because it's unpleasant doesn't mean 'making it go away' will work. Removing oversight in our corporatocracy is a bad idea too, bottom line. If you want to vote for him, go to, but make sure you're actually informed and not just following others around; honesty is not a given in any medium today, most especially the internet."   The bottom line is, this guy is nucking futs. Even though he doesn't outright say he wants to ban abortion, he does say he wants to delegate the decision to the states, which would then ban it outright, especially in the South. Taking away of Civil Rights is a bad thing guys :- He wants to get rid of the Fed! You know, the people regulating our currency? Whatever. Luckily he's nothing more than a fad. This guy has had to have spent LOADS on a viral campaign by now, judging by the insane amount of Ron Paul shit I've seen all over the streets and the internet. You know they're all posted by the same 4 guys... Yes he's likable, and yes he may be a great guy, but his ideologies are absolutely ridiculous. I'd rather ote for Romney...If I was republican.

 Abortion is wrong i just think someone does not have the right to kill someone else, just as the government does not have the right for capital punishment. Also life is more important than people think it is. A person is a person no matter how small. If you are old enough to have sex you should be old enough to be an adult and take care of a baby if not you shouldn't be fooling around. People need to take responsiblity for their own actions and not make others suffer for their mistakes. STOP SOCIALIZING THE RISKS, while not socializng the profits of its benifits. Anyways abortion is a states rights issue because there is no clause in the constitution about abortion and it is not good enough for the elsatic clause it is not justifiable that congress make such a law.  Getting rid of the income tax does not make the poorer poorer it gives them more money, and giving more money to people raises their propesity to spend which allows more buniess to hire more people giving more people jobs.  He wants to empower the individual to oversight the corporations not the government. Giving citzens more rights agaisnt corps. taking advantage of people.  He doesnt want to get rid of the fed he wants the fed to be accountable for its actions and not swayed by big busniess interests.