|
|||||
|
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
![]() |
| Sponsored Links |
|
|
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
So, you just need to do a little homework to see what the candidates stand for. That's the hard part, to cut through the hype and see what each one is. Thankfully, in the TV age, we can see immediately who the person is, and get a pretty good idea of his or her nature, character, and personality. Some have taken extensive training in acting, so you have to look carefully at them, but you will eventually see who each one is. Then, take it inside, just you and each one of them, and decide who represents what you believe is best, then vote for him, or her. That's all you can do. It's YOUR contribution to the democratic process of the republic. //
__________________
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing." |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'd pick Rudi or Paul. Rudi because he's the least obnoxious who fits in with sticking with the status quo or Paul if I really felt like this country was dying and needed to go back to its roots.
Edit: My dislike of Romney is visceral. I can't really explain it so you'll have to decide about him yourself. I just edit him out of any possible consideration automatically. I can't think fairly about him so you shouldn't trust my thoughts about him. Last edited by sdaniels7114; 12-20-2007 at 02:10 PM. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
scottc, right now the Republicans are busy pandering to the religious right. The only ones who seem to be standing on principle or who are not extreme are Ron Paul and John McCain. Both seem to believe that the government should not interfere too much with people's rights, such as a woman's right to choose and gay rights. They don't favor broadening those rights, but probably wouldn't do much about reducing them. They would leave to the states.
Ron Paul is strongly against the Iraq war, but he comes to that position out of a largely isolationist policy, which is not good in this age of globalization. He's also largely against the federal government, but frankly most of the abuses in our history occurred at the state level, whether we're talking about depriving people of civil rights, violating worker safety, allowing pollution, creating an unfair court system, or distributing state aid unfairly. Nonetheless, his strong opposition to the Iraq war and his lack of opposition to civil rights for various groups makes him relatively progressive for a Republican today. John McCain is more a traditional conservative. He favors continuing the Iraq war, supports a moderate economic policy (probably like Bush I), and his not obsessed with social issues, so he's unlikely to cater to social conservatives and try to deprive women, gays, and other groups their rights. He's also a war hero (though some Republicans would disagree), and has a reputation of working with Democrats. That said, he's quite old (70) and at times in the past he has come across as somewhat unbalanced, which makes some people nervous. Nonetheless, if you want a Republican, I recommend those two. Romney and Giuliani are pandering and flipflopping to a ridiculous degree; Thompson seems to be just along for the ride and not really showing good work values; and Huckabee is a religious extremist who opposes things like evolution and believes women should "graciously submit" to their husbands. |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
You know, I can't give you much support of Dems as far as positions on the issues, since I find myself so at odds with them, but I can say that I have respect for both Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson. They both seem to be stand up guys, both have the experience, and seem to be able to work amicably with people from both parties. If I had to choose it would be one of them. My first choice would be Joe Lieberman, but a. he's not running, and b. he's not even a Democrat anymore, the lefties saw to that!
|
|
#16
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
![]() |
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
![]() |
|
#18
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
![]() |
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
|
You know I meant wisdom....
![]() |
|
#20
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I wouldn't call Lieberman "Israeli". He stands in the breach for Israel, which in these uncertain times, is a good thing, imo. If Israel does not have a clear voice in America, things could go real bad real fast. Nukes bad. Lieberman is an American Jew who stands for the survival of Israel, and I commend him for that. //
__________________
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing." |
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM |
| Like Our Site? Please help support our site by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive added benefits to your account! |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|