A representative government is important but the government should only serve to do things that people can not do for themselves. If you want to give money for the funding of research you have that right. I should also have the right to keep my money unless it is to be spent on something that we all must have. If not, it is a form of taxation without representation. You are taking my money and spending it on something that is optional and I have no say-so. How many "charities" are we going to force people to give to? Should we require people to give to NAMLA by spending their tax money on that? By your logic it would be OK because the politicians know better than us and I'm sure some people would be happy that it is happening. It's a prime example of why this is a pad policy. Also, Xuvious is not attacking representative government, he is merely asking that it represents him. What's wrong with that?
If this was an election in 1964, he'd be arguing that segregation would be a non-issue if the government was in charge of education. In a free market, there'd be segregated schools and non-segregated schools, but the difference would be you could send your child to whichever you prefer. And because these private schools would be a business looking to turn a profit, there'd be competition; cost of education would decline, affording quality education to all, and most schools would not be segregated (lest they wanted to lose business). Non-government movements (such as Dr. Martin Luther King's) lent more to the de-segregation of schools than did government intervention. It was changing attitudes that de-segregated schools, and it would've happened on its own if education was privatized. Paul's stance on gay marriage is the same as his stance on straight marriage: it's not for government to decide what is and is not marriage--it's for individuals to decide amongst themselves what they call their relationship.
"The Constitution also provides that the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, and that they have the power of judicial review."No, actually it's the People that holds that power. The founding fathers didn't expect us to believe the government would be self-regulating.
I listened to him speak in Spartanburg, SC recently and have researched his positions on numerous issues. While all that follows is entirely prefaced with "I think"; if you research his opinions yourself I believe you'll agree. He would insist that the federal government's role as the guarantor of our civil liberties precludes it operating as a database clearinghouse for the states or funding state efforts. While he would not prevent and perhaps would recommend that states create and utilize and share databases of folks who can by due process be denied their 2nd amendment rights, he would see the federal role as one of protecting the citizenry from the abuse of such. His approach would decrease the federal tax load, eliminate a layer of bureacracy and safeguard our liberties.
You can assume what he thinks on almost every issue. He is a true libertarian except for a few stances such as being against abortion. In other words, he believes in a limited government that only fulfills the roles assigned under our constitution.
It is also will be protected by the first amendment if Ron Paul goes into office. Which means that states won't be able to take things away that are related to free speech.
Yeah the Berlin wall was cool! We can call ours the Southern Wall! It makes us look bad as a nation too. We should be breaking walls down not putting them up. It's just a bunch of fear, economics and some racism. It would be a none issue if the economy was strong.
It's a regulation that is very complicated. I read through it but wasn't sure of what the real intent was. You have to realize that anything connected to telecommunications is so heavily regulate that it has become it's own world. No layman can understand and they have experts that live and breath this stuff just to help corporations along. HA! We pay people to understand the government, that is how far we have fallen!
Because that's not going to encourage people to go interstate to get abortions or anything. Each state having a separate law dictating whether something is allowed or prohibited isn't always a good thing, especially when it comes to basic rights like marriage. It'd be horribly confusing, people would feel like they were being discriminated against if they couldn't do something in one state that they could if they moved to another, etc. It's silly.
I've been surprised to see how many candidates say so little about where they stand on the issues. There is way too much sweet talking and avoiding the subject. So, I'm all the more happy to see that this site is attempting to help voters build an educated opinion based on where the candidates stand on the issues. I would love for the site to develop a functionality whereby a user can click on the candidates opinion and a pop-up gives more in depth detail and perhaps some quotes by the candidate.I'll recommend this site!
I am SO relieved that this has had so many diggs. It's time for people to realize that Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are incompatible and many have chosen the wrong candidate to support, if they REALLY knew the positions (and the repositioning going on). Saying you are for the rule of law and then not supporting IMPEACHMENT to me is just PURE HYPOCRACY. That's what the Consitution (a living document, people!) is really about - not letting "leaders" decide what is good for the people. We must have the rule of law or there is NO democracy.
all i can say is that Huckabee is retarded for saying that we should build a wall between Mexico and the US to keep the Pakistanis out... Thats right Pakistanis
Ever hear of the corn agribusiness subsidies which is absolutely decimating Mexico's economy? Our government does things to protect the interest of small groups all the way up to the largest groups.
Net neutrality is important. Nothing good could come of a government regulated internet. I'm surprised that you, antimatter, are all for keeping the government out of your wallet and bank account but they can do what they please with the internet. Personally, I don't see any smoky back room discussions with a couple of people plotting their way into global domination. The tax system has supported this country (whether or not sufficiently is debatable) for hundreds of years. Ron Paul's revolution seems a bit adverse of upholding the constitution where he's decided what works and what hasn't. Ron Paul has some admirable things to be said about his platform, but these sorts of drastic changes like removing the IRS is absolutely absurd.
bigj480Jul 21, 2007
A representative government is important but the government should only serve to do things that people can not do for themselves. If you want to give money for the funding of research you have that right. I should also have the right to keep my money unless it is to be spent on something that we all must have. If not, it is a form of taxation without representation. You are taking my money and spending it on something that is optional and I have no say-so. How many "charities" are we going to force people to give to? Should we require people to give to NAMLA by spending their tax money on that? By your logic it would be OK because the politicians know better than us and I'm sure some people would be happy that it is happening. It's a prime example of why this is a pad policy. Also, Xuvious is not attacking representative government, he is merely asking that it represents him. What's wrong with that?
babaramdassJul 22, 2007
If this was an election in 1964, he'd be arguing that segregation would be a non-issue if the government was in charge of education. In a free market, there'd be segregated schools and non-segregated schools, but the difference would be you could send your child to whichever you prefer. And because these private schools would be a business looking to turn a profit, there'd be competition; cost of education would decline, affording quality education to all, and most schools would not be segregated (lest they wanted to lose business). Non-government movements (such as Dr. Martin Luther King's) lent more to the de-segregation of schools than did government intervention. It was changing attitudes that de-segregated schools, and it would've happened on its own if education was privatized. Paul's stance on gay marriage is the same as his stance on straight marriage: it's not for government to decide what is and is not marriage--it's for individuals to decide amongst themselves what they call their relationship.
babaramdassJul 22, 2007
"The Constitution also provides that the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, and that they have the power of judicial review."No, actually it's the People that holds that power. The founding fathers didn't expect us to believe the government would be self-regulating.
robsayshelloJul 28, 2007
I listened to him speak in Spartanburg, SC recently and have researched his positions on numerous issues. While all that follows is entirely prefaced with "I think"; if you research his opinions yourself I believe you'll agree. He would insist that the federal government's role as the guarantor of our civil liberties precludes it operating as a database clearinghouse for the states or funding state efforts. While he would not prevent and perhaps would recommend that states create and utilize and share databases of folks who can by due process be denied their 2nd amendment rights, he would see the federal role as one of protecting the citizenry from the abuse of such. His approach would decrease the federal tax load, eliminate a layer of bureacracy and safeguard our liberties.
frankieleeAug 6, 2007
You can assume what he thinks on almost every issue. He is a true libertarian except for a few stances such as being against abortion. In other words, he believes in a limited government that only fulfills the roles assigned under our constitution.
luciusbrutusAug 11, 2007
It is also will be protected by the first amendment if Ron Paul goes into office. Which means that states won't be able to take things away that are related to free speech.
luciusbrutusAug 11, 2007
Yeah the Berlin wall was cool! We can call ours the Southern Wall! It makes us look bad as a nation too. We should be breaking walls down not putting them up. It's just a bunch of fear, economics and some racism. It would be a none issue if the economy was strong.
luciusbrutusAug 11, 2007
It's a regulation that is very complicated. I read through it but wasn't sure of what the real intent was. You have to realize that anything connected to telecommunications is so heavily regulate that it has become it's own world. No layman can understand and they have experts that live and breath this stuff just to help corporations along. HA! We pay people to understand the government, that is how far we have fallen!
luciusbrutusAug 11, 2007
Ron Paul exposed! <a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo</a>
SquareBottleAug 21, 2007
LMAO, we have a winner! It's been a while since I've actually laughed out loud at a comment.
Closed AccountSep 8, 2007
Because that's not going to encourage people to go interstate to get abortions or anything. Each state having a separate law dictating whether something is allowed or prohibited isn't always a good thing, especially when it comes to basic rights like marriage. It'd be horribly confusing, people would feel like they were being discriminated against if they couldn't do something in one state that they could if they moved to another, etc. It's silly.
annestahlJan 6, 2008
I've been surprised to see how many candidates say so little about where they stand on the issues. There is way too much sweet talking and avoiding the subject. So, I'm all the more happy to see that this site is attempting to help voters build an educated opinion based on where the candidates stand on the issues. I would love for the site to develop a functionality whereby a user can click on the candidates opinion and a pop-up gives more in depth detail and perhaps some quotes by the candidate.I'll recommend this site!
ladybroadoakJan 15, 2008
I am SO relieved that this has had so many diggs. It's time for people to realize that Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are incompatible and many have chosen the wrong candidate to support, if they REALLY knew the positions (and the repositioning going on). Saying you are for the rule of law and then not supporting IMPEACHMENT to me is just PURE HYPOCRACY. That's what the Consitution (a living document, people!) is really about - not letting "leaders" decide what is good for the people. We must have the rule of law or there is NO democracy.
crimsonv9Jan 26, 2008
all i can say is that Huckabee is retarded for saying that we should build a wall between Mexico and the US to keep the Pakistanis out... Thats right Pakistanis
adamblevinsFeb 1, 2008
I think we need another option on the ballot for "None of the above".
endtroducingFeb 3, 2008
Ever hear of the corn agribusiness subsidies which is absolutely decimating Mexico's economy? Our government does things to protect the interest of small groups all the way up to the largest groups.
endtroducingFeb 3, 2008
Net neutrality is important. Nothing good could come of a government regulated internet. I'm surprised that you, antimatter, are all for keeping the government out of your wallet and bank account but they can do what they please with the internet. Personally, I don't see any smoky back room discussions with a couple of people plotting their way into global domination. The tax system has supported this country (whether or not sufficiently is debatable) for hundreds of years. Ron Paul's revolution seems a bit adverse of upholding the constitution where he's decided what works and what hasn't. Ron Paul has some admirable things to be said about his platform, but these sorts of drastic changes like removing the IRS is absolutely absurd.
thebizerApr 25, 2008
Presidential candidate's positions on 52 issues are available at 2008 Election ProCon.org:<a class="user" href="http://www.2008electionprocon.org/summarychart.htm">http://www.2008electionprocon.org/summarychart.htm</a>