HAHA! I get it now. :p
But really, I support R-O-N Paul for president. He's a good man.
Printable View
I think this is more a failure of our federal congress, than the president. The president has no war making powers, if not rubberstamped by congress.Quote:
and when is the last time there was a formal declaration of war for the military activity that we undertook?
Consider this analogy to social relationships, our congress claims to abhor booty call relationships (as forms of war); but, is not willing to wait out a cluefull in guy, and get a formal (war) relationship going.
and we can see how well that worked:
Quote:
Upon accepting the Republican nomination for President in 1928, Herbert Hoover predicted that “We in America today are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of any land. The poorhouse is vanishing from among us.” Hoover won the presidency that year, but his time in office belied his optimistic assertion. Within eight months of his inauguration, the stock market crashed, signifying the beginning of the Great Depression, the most severe economic crisis the United States had ever known. Rightly or wrongly, Hoover’s efforts to combat the Great Depression have defined his presidency and his place in American history.
For the Ron Paul fans ;)
http://my.break.com/media/view.aspx?ContentID=374554
The problem with anybody outside of the "mainstream" political forces has little (read: no) chance of actually winning and merely acts as a spoiler which can actually cause one of the mainstream candidates to lose when they, in truth, had a real possibility of winning.
I do believe we need a major shake up of the system but by throwing your vote to a person that is all but guaranteed to not win does not, I believe, improve the system.
It does make a statement. The Ross Perot situation made a statement. The Ralph Nader situation makes a statement.
When all is said and done, it actually changes little to nothing. A drastic and rapid change is very difficult to have happen. What needs to be done is to find candidates that are a bit off center (towards the desired direction) but not so far as to not be a realistic candidate. Continual election of such candidates will eventually find the desired changes the voters seek.
So far, we have not been able to elect a woman or a black to either the vice presidency or the presidency. Do you really believe we will be able to elect any person not in the mainstream of either of the two major parties? Hell, Howard Dean was a major contender until his infamous scream at the end of his path to the Whitehouse speach. As it seems that is all it takes to run a major contender off the road, how much strength is there is somebody like Ron Paul's campaign.
I'm still looking for answers but I don;t think voting for Ron Paul is the answer.
Maybe RuPaul, but not Ron Paul.:eek::D
just kidding.
What do you think of the party of massive surpluses, under Obama?
My (foreign) policy consideration is that more focus could be given to the other continent, down under.
With more emphasis, and US leadership, even the Europeans could benefit from less immigration (that is usually only a problem for socialist economies that are less efficient than ours).