I am one of those liberals that GTech is talking about. I do consider myself a liberal and I am supporting Ron Paul primarily because of his non interventionist foreign policy and his strong stance on civil liberties. I am not as into his whole states rights thing because I feel there should be certain standards for all Americans in regards to education and health care and I feel there is a role for the federal govt in protecting the environment and putting a check on big business. I feel that if we were not wasting so much money by having troops all over the world we could easily afford to pay for better education and health care for everyone. Obviously this belief is completely contrary to what Ron Paul believes, but I am not willing to support Clinton or Obama over Paul just because they may be closer to my views on these topics. The problem is that the mainstream Dems are not honest and they are totally wrong on foreign policy & civil liberties. Those topics top everything else combined for me. I do feel that Dennis Kucinich & Mike Gravel (especially) are closer to my views than Ron Paul but I am also a pragmatist and I feel that it would be a mistake to not join the Ron Paul reEVOLution because of them. It's clear that Kucinich & Gravel have not been able to gain the footing necessary to make a real impact on this election. Ron Paul has and will. I cannot vote in the primary for him because New York State is not open (and it's too late to change parties here ) but I have donated $ to him, bought a shirt, and even got my fiancee to donate to him as well. I really feel that people are excited about a politician that actually tells the truth. Actually talks logically. Even if we do not agree with everything he says, we respect logical thoughtful responses. I am at the point where I am sickened by politics as usual on both sides of the aisle. I think many people feel this way.
Nothing wrong with being liberal either Zibblu. I myself am a moderate as i like to view things from the middle and try to take the best of both views. Guruseo you better believe they are on the run!!!! But how can they run away from the truth.
The truth will find them in due time. In the meantime I say it is best to focus the energy into spreading the word as opposed to letting some bone headed, thick skull get on your nerves. There is some people in this forum that are just energy suckers, they thrive on making people so mad as that is their twisted way of feeling important. Do not let this kind get in your way and your mission, just ignore them and channel that energy towards something positive and truthful.
Personally, I've never even put anyone on ignore because it usually cracks me up when people start making themselves look stupid that way (myself included lol), but I'm glad that people can, since it probably hurts feelings and keeps some people out of unrestricted forums. Maybe the ignore button should be one of the first things new members coming in are shown.
I only have 3 people on ignore here on DP, one for being an utter gutter mouth (samantha_pia), one for being totally insane (Toopac) and one for trying to get me banned all the time (Will Spenser.)
Haha, yeah, I have to admit I have considered it for a couple of those, but then I just start laughing too much and hit the wrong button.
Solution... If you saw my face you'd know in a minute why I do and say the things I do As for Ron Paul, I did not know this was a Ron Paul site, but rather a public forum. I stand for the Constitution of the United States. I am against the Patriot Act because I think it trashes our Constitution and I am against Ron Paul, if ONLY for his desire to attack the 14th Amendment as a solution to the ilegal alien dilemma. I think we've got a bunch of sheeple here, jumping on a bandwagon. And there could be no better proof to me than the ire I've inspired. Mark my words, Ron Paul is a dangerous man. Change one amendment, you can change another. Richardson may not say everything I agree with, but he's no slickster. Someone here asked me who I will vote for... again, I think so far my answer will be Richardson. And when you all come around to see the truth, I, as a Christian, will be happy to accept your apologies
Oh, funny, I was asked for stats supporting the truth of the illegal alien impact to our nation. I gave them, no one cared to comment on them since. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss... Another thing. I am no Johnny-come-lately to the Libertarian cause, having voted in 2004 and 2000 for the Libertarian executive Office. I split along lines after that, leaning, typically, to the Republican Party. As Paul will likely not receive the Republican nod, it is highly likely he will run on the Libertarian ticket. He will not get my vote this year. He has stood for less government until he ran smack dab into the US Constitution. His answer? Why, to change the Constitution, of course. He has sold us down the river and you newbies can vote for whoever you like. But try and do so with less vim and vigor and remember that wisdom cries out in the streets.
I'm sorry but this sounds seriously dumb. An amendment was a 'change' after the fact, by getting rid of it you'd simply be going back to what our country was founded upon. It also is not easy to get rid of an amendment, we've gotten rid of them before Prohibition ring a bell? The 14th amendment IMHO is dangerously misused and does need to be repealed.
I dunno man, he's got a pretty strong record doing what he says he will. Are you suggesting that he's been faking it all this time just to get elected on a long shot by random decentralized supporters, then suddenly turn on us all once he gets elected? Sounds pretty far out to me, and as far as Richardson goes... seems like a waisted vote to me at this point. Good luck though.
No, I am saying that now that this all important issue is coming ever more to bare, it is time for cooler heads to prevail and I believe Paul must stand up for decency and a clear cut answer to those that are here now!!!! Despite the comment of someone else here that seemed to suggest that Amendments were made to be changed, we must realize that the natural birthright of citenzenship in the US has been the unchallenged right of all since U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 110 years ago. Close the borders, yes, stop the leak yes, but realize we have invited these folks here de facto for over a century, and that, whether you like it or not, those born here ARE AMERICAN CITIZEN'S. I know a thing when I see it, and if you as a self-professed Christian cannot see the ugly head of predjuduce staring us in the face you are simply kidding yourself. Paul is pandering to the lowest common denominator in us all. I am deeply disappointed in the man, may he read this. Trust me, if there were nothing but a flood of Elke Sommers flowing over the border we'd all be down there with a net and you know it.
You sound like a smart, educated person, but maybe not too realistic? I have no fear of the constitution or a man that devotes his entire life to standing up for it. To be honest, I don't know a whole lot about politics, but I do know how to tell whether someone is sincere or not. In this world of spin and scams, that's good enough for me, and a fresh change. I welcome any risks that you claim it might bring. Edit: Just realized Dead Corn is probably on ignore by most people, so that's who I was talking to, but I'm getting tired of defending Ron Paul when there is so much open info out there about him and his supporters already, if you just look.
Amen then brother, may you be right and I wrong. Just that I have been following this man and the Libertarian party for many a year, and he don't seem like the same guy I used to know. I feel betrayed. You feel refreshed. Maybe there's a happy medium somewhere. But not at the expense of ONE American family ripped apart to satisfy the pride of elective office and the lie of racial superiority. To me he's a traitor to the cause. May he read this.
Incidentally, the one thing the Libertarian Party never gets credit for is the presumption of joint physical custody. I wonder how I can vote for Richardson for Pres and still get that all important item in?
Those that are here ILLEGALLY? Clear cut answer, normally for those who break the law 'you know being illegal and all' we would not reward them, we would punish them. Why should it be different here?. Never did I say they were meant to be changed Yet you latch onto an amendment that changed our constitution. You are the one jumping on the changing, not I. I am for bringing back our country to what it was founded on, this amendment was put into place for slaves not for modern day purposes. Ahh yes, an amendment that was abused. That says we can not repeal it how exactly? We invited them, seriously you trully think that? They knew they were breaking the law, but I guess the robber who was never prosecuted and made alot of money was invited to do it. We should let him off as well correct? Bringing religion into politics, you must understand many of us are able to seperate religion from politics, as it should be. Prejudice, oh please I don't care where you came from, if you came ILLEGALLY you should not be rewarded. I suggest you look into the definition of 'pandering' It is not pandering when you've had the same stance for years, he could care less if it gets him less votes, it's his opinion. That is far from 'pandering' I really suggest you do some research before suggesting such crap.
You mean to tell me to repeal an misused amendment in your eyes is 'changing' the constitution? Amendments, especially after the fact of the constitution and the bill of rights is not trully apart of what this country was founded on. He is for going back to our roots, but I see you either fail to see this, or you simply are trying to find a reason to be against him. ---- BTW this thread is not for a 'bash RP' or a stance, it's about the money bomb. If you feel it's necessary to debate this please start a new thread.
Because if we did punish them we would have to punish ourselves for inviting and enticing them here. It's called entrapment, it's called culpability. And only an ostrich with it's head in the sand and a flag in it's hand doesn't know the difference. Again, knowledge is power the test to this law came in 1898 US v. Wong Kim Ark, had nothing to do with slavery, the Amendment stands on it's own. Read and learn. Hunh? Grim you sound like a young angry American who really hasn't been out of the store and around the block yet. When that day comes I think you may see things differently. Best of luck.
Oh, and Grim, the Christian reference was directed to Solution who had started a thread regarding Christian responsibility. It had nothing to do with you personally. You may be surprised to find that not everything does.
It is not entrapment one bit. We invited/inticed them here to break the law? Seriously that's an invitation? They can make more money here, they can abuse the system, that is not enticing them one bit. If we were 'inviting' them we would legally allow them here, they could legally of come here, instead they broke the law. Entrapment, give me a break. Yes the amendment was put into place for slavery, those who wrote it did not forsee it being abused like it was. Just because it was ruled to extend beyond it's original purpose does not make it not being abused, does not take away from the fact it can be repealed. You speak of knowledge, I suggest you get some yourself, you're in dire need of some. Ahh no answer, you don't see breaking the law the same on all sides. Didn't expect anything less. You sound like someone who isn't very educated, like someone who is hell bent on finding ways to allow illegals to stay, I wonder why that might be. Actually I have gone to my current stance now from growing up, from history, from knowledge, from logic. I suggest you do some research yourself yet again, you are in dire need of it. I never said it did, I never brought up religion. You may find this surprising but it does not have to be pointed at me to show how illogical a post is -- Yet again, start a new thread.