Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 2/24/2007 1:27:46 PM EST
If the current state of the election cycle is any indication, there will be no representative of conservative thought in the upcoming presidential campaign.

What got me thinking about this question was all the talk about the ~gasp~ AWBII.
Im not a 'one issue voter' by any stretch of the imagination, but gun rights are a big part of what leads me toward candidates. Ultimately I am in favor of a strict constitutionalist....sadly, I dont know of a viable candidate that meets that criteria.

Lets assume that this newly proposed ban gets enacted...in its current form.
It is far reaching enough to pretty much eliminate gun rights as we know them.

In an America like that, I dont know that it actually matters to me who gets elected.

I am already taxed beyond my comfort level.
I feel no sense of preservation of my rights.
With guns gone, what could Hillary do that would make my life suck any more?

Seriously...if a ban got passed on Bush's watch, what could a democrat do to make our personal lives worse? The economy is bigger than one man - economic factor will determine market success, not a president. I do have serious concerns about national security under a liberal leader...but could they really make much worse decisions than we have seen in past administrations?

Seems that one of the biggest drivers for many of us in recent elections has been our 2nd ammendment rights. If those are gone, how will that affect your 2008 vote?
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:30:22 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:33:06 PM EST
Lesser evil.........as usual
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:33:43 PM EST
Third party is better than none at all.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:35:11 PM EST
I don't know.

I'm leaning towards 3rd party. If we get fucked, I don't see a Republican frontrunner who would be willing to unfuck us.


Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:38:40 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:39:04 PM EST
If the Repub sucks bad enough I'll vote Libertarian.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:40:33 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/24/2007 1:42:12 PM EST by Silesius]
Yeah, I'll still vote. Maybe get some bumperstickers out of it too.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:42:14 PM EST
For the record, I am fairly sure I will vote.
I will most likely lean toward a 3rd party guy.
The front runners have done nothing to preserve the America that once was.
I do wonder just how much my mind will change if guns do in fact get banned.
A thing like that will no doubt make me question a lot about my citizenship.
At the very least I could see my opinion about voting change.

Its kind of hard to subscribe to the concept of a representative republic when I havent seen a leader in over 20 years that has actually led in a manner that represents my values. Make me question if those kind of leader are ever coming back.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:43:49 PM EST
I won't vote for Romney or McCain. I might vote for Guiliani. At least he's said that "Texas might need different gun laws than New York". Which is better than Romney's "all assault weapons should be banned everywhere".
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:43:53 PM EST
Somebody posted this in the another thread earlier today...

Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:45:54 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:45:55 PM EST
I'm not sure honestly I mean right now what we have McCain, Guliani, and The Mormon guy (no offence to Mormons, thats just the only way I even know who he is!).

McGun Graber and Gilirino are barly Republicans and can even a conservative Rep who is a Mormon get anough of the Southern Christians to vote for him to be even close?

As of now it's looking like a bad day at the bottom of a porta-jon for an Rep Press in 08.

WERE ARE OUR CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS!

Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:50:01 PM EST
I won't vote for Giuliani. I would probably hold my nose and vote for McCain, still not sure about Romney. I am still very hopeful that neither Giuliani nor Romney will get the nomination.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:52:33 PM EST
I plan on voting in the Republican primary and then sitting out the general election. I'll not cast my pearls before swine.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:52:34 PM EST
Then I suggest you suppport Bill Richardson of N.M. on the Demo side. He is the only one in our corner this time around. Then I would suggest that we really look at the House and Senate races in 08.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:52:38 PM EST
I think we're at the point where if a real conservative doesn't have a chance, then electing more RINOS only delays the inevitable, it doesn't prevent it.

As sorry as I am to say this, there is little hope of correcting the system under the current laws. It's all been rigged, any attempt to restore this nation to how it was envisioned under the Constitution has been sabotaged from within.

Between scumbag politicians and activist judges, between massive bureaucracies and hundreds of thousands of inane and insane laws, between multinational corporations and armies of lawyers, between unchecked illegal invasion and those that openly seek the destruction of the Republic, between millions of sheeple that willingly hand over their rights in order to simply exist and watch another episode of American Idol...

Yeah, we're fucked.

I won't become an outlaw to hasten the demise but apathy will obtain the same result.

Every nation, in time, falls. We have a great foundation in the DoI, Constitution and BoR to rebuild upon. The crack house that has been built upon them just needs to be demolished first in order to rebuild.

I know there are those that fear for their children (as do I) if we should fall, but to allow things to continue as they are only condemns them to more oppression, the hope of better times ahead does NOT lie on the path we are on. Any talk of it being so is simply whistling past the graveyard.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:54:37 PM EST
ok. ok.. so you dont like rinos..

and you dont vote for a rino candidate..

and the hildabeast or osama gets elected....

go ahead turn in all your guns.. learn to speak spanish and donate all your takehome pay to homeless shelters for islamic indigents...

sure the rinos will be bad.. but the hildabeast will just be the end......

on second thought.. go ahead and do the manly thing.. commit sepuki...
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:55:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By st0newall:
ok. ok.. so you dont like rinos..

and you dont vote for a rino candidate..

and the hildabeast or osama gets elected....

go ahead turn in all your guns.. learn to speak spanish and donate all your takehome pay to homeless shelters for islamic indigents...


Sorry, bud, I won't ever turn in my guns.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:58:11 PM EST

Originally Posted By Airwolf:
I think we're at the point where if a real conservative doesn't have a chance, then electing more RINOS only delays the inevitable, it doesn't prevent it.

As sorry as I am to say this, there is little hope of correcting the system under the current laws. It's all been rigged, any attempt to restore this nation to how it was envisioned under the Constitution has been sabotaged from within.

Between scumbag politicians and activist judges, between massive bureaucracies and hundreds of thousands of inane and insane laws, between multinational corporations and armies of lawyers, between unchecked illegal invasion and those that openly seek the destruction of the Republic, between millions of sheeple that willingly hand over their rights in order to simply exist and watch another episode of American Idol...

Yeah, we're fucked.

I won't become an outlaw to hasten the demise but apathy will obtain the same result.

Every nation, in time, falls. We have a great foundation in the DoI, Constitution and BoR to rebuild upon. The crack house that has been built upon them just needs to be demolished first in order to rebuild.

I know there are those that fear for their children (as do I) if we should fall, but to allow things to continue as they are only condemns them to more oppression, the hope of better times ahead does NOT lie on the path we are on. Any talk of it being so is simply whistling past the graveyard.


Well written! bravo.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:58:22 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:59:07 PM EST
There are no such things as democrats or republicans anymore. There are only patriots and traitors.

I will not vote for a traitor. If no patriots are running, then I will not vote.


Link Posted: 2/25/2007 5:08:49 AM EST
Bump for the morning crew - does anyone else find it ironic that the new weapon ban bill is called 1022? Could only be more insulting if it was called 102238.

Link Posted: 2/25/2007 5:15:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By BangStick1:
Lesser evil.........as usual


I'm not sure I can hold my nose and do it again.
Link Posted: 2/25/2007 5:27:56 AM EST
Yes, I will still be voting.

For local issues/offices. State issues and most likely even for US congresscritters and Senators.

But when it comes to checking the box for President I'll either just skip it or write in Mickey Mouse/Donald Duck/etc.



Originally Posted By Yankee1911:
Somebody posted this in the another thread earlier today...

img341.imageshack.us/img341/7459/cthulhu2006jj4.gif


That's great! May have to have a few bumper stickers made up. I think I'd put one on my car if things keep going the way they do.

Link Posted: 2/25/2007 5:32:38 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/25/2007 5:34:28 AM EST by Primos]

Originally Posted By st0newall:
ok. ok.. so you dont like rinos..

and you dont vote for a rino candidate..

and the hildabeast or osama gets elected....

go ahead turn in all your guns.. learn to speak spanish and donate all your takehome pay to homeless shelters for islamic indigents...

sure the rinos will be bad.. but the hildabeast will just be the end......

on second thought.. go ahead and do the manly thing.. commit sepuki...




This is EXACTLY the attitude that keeps giving us the "lesser of the two evils"
as the R's swing more and more to the left.
Link Posted: 2/25/2007 5:33:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By macro:
If the current state of the election cycle is any indication, there will be no representative of conservative thought in the upcoming presidential campaign.

What got me thinking about this question was all the talk about the ~gasp~ AWBII.
Im not a 'one issue voter' by any stretch of the imagination, but gun rights are a big part of what leads me toward candidates. Ultimately I am in favor of a strict constitutionalist....sadly, I dont know of a viable candidate that meets that criteria.

Lets assume that this newly proposed ban gets enacted...in its current form.
It is far reaching enough to pretty much eliminate gun rights as we know them.

In an America like that, I dont know that it actually matters to me who gets elected.

I am already taxed beyond my comfort level.

Your (or my) comfort level has nothing to do with it. Believe me, it can and WOULD get worse! Not widely known was the idea during the early Clinton admin. of a "one-time, ten-percent sweep of ALL EXISTING PENSION FUNDS!


I feel no sense of preservation of my rights.
With guns gone, what could Hillary do that would make my life suck any more?

She could confiscate the guns you and I already own. She could make it a felony to keep our guns... and when we get busted, we conservatives can no longer vote! NOTHING could make her hornier than the idea of disenfranchising the conservative voter!

Seriously...if a ban got passed on Bush's watch, what could a democrat do to make our personal lives worse? The economy is bigger than one man - economic factor will determine market success, not a president.

I don't believe that. I was in Los Angeles when the news reports came out about a fifty-minute conversation among leading Democrats about how the poor economy could be EXTENDED for their benefit. I do NOT joke about this!

I do have serious concerns about national security under a liberal leader...but could they really make much worse decisions than we have seen in past administrations?

Seems that I remember a news report about the Democrats inviting some Al-Quaida people over here for "negotiations." (I wonder what they talked about?) Did Bush do this? Hell, even Hanoi Jane didn't go THAT far!

Seems that one of the biggest drivers for many of us in recent elections has been our 2nd ammendment rights. If those are gone, how will that affect your 2008 vote?

I believe that a weak, new incumbent is preferable to an entrenched, strong one.

Link Posted: 2/25/2007 5:37:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By madmathew:
If the Repub sucks bad enough I'll vote Libertarian.


+1

RINO vs Socialist = lots more 3rd party voters.
Link Posted: 2/25/2007 5:38:24 AM EST
Constitution party has my vote unless a REAL conservative surfaces, and wins the nomination.

Link Posted: 2/25/2007 5:42:05 AM EST
Here is my thinking:

Lesser of two evils.

Third Party doesn't stand a chance, the whole system is set-up to prevent that and the rich just aren't going to allow it, because they own both parties and don't want to have to buy out a third.

If it came down to McCain and Hillary or Obama...we'd be screwed BIG TIME.

I think with McCain we'd have a 50% chance that he wouldn't propose gun legislation and a 0% chance that he would veto any that came across his desk.

With Rudy I think we'd have a 70% chance that he wouldn't propose gun legislation, but again a 0% chance that he would veto it.

Either way we're in deep if that happens.
Link Posted: 2/25/2007 6:12:41 AM EST
I won't vote Republican or Democrat in this election. Guaranteed.
Link Posted: 2/25/2007 6:15:30 AM EST
BTW...

Doesn't everyone realize the Republican and Democratic parties were both third parties in the past? If enough people jump ship there is no choice but to give the voters what they want.

All this voting for the lesser of two evils who voting for the two parties you are SO convinced are always going to win is eroding your rights much more efficently than voting your conscience ever would.

Link Posted: 2/25/2007 6:38:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By M4MikelA3:
I won't vote Republican or Democrat in this election. Guaranteed.


That's idiotic. What if Tom Tancredo is nominated? Or Duncan Hunter? You won't vote for them?
Link Posted: 2/25/2007 6:43:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By macro:
If the current state of the election cycle is any indication, there will be no representative of conservative thought in the upcoming presidential campaign.

What got me thinking about this question was all the talk about the ~gasp~ AWBII.
Im not a 'one issue voter' by any stretch of the imagination, but gun rights are a big part of what leads me toward candidates. Ultimately I am in favor of a strict constitutionalist....sadly, I dont know of a viable candidate that meets that criteria.

Lets assume that this newly proposed ban gets enacted...in its current form.
It is far reaching enough to pretty much eliminate gun rights as we know them.

In an America like that, I dont know that it actually matters to me who gets elected.

I am already taxed beyond my comfort level.
I feel no sense of preservation of my rights.
With guns gone, what could Hillary do that would make my life suck any more?

Seriously...if a ban got passed on Bush's watch, what could a democrat do to make our personal lives worse? The economy is bigger than one man - economic factor will determine market success, not a president. I do have serious concerns about national security under a liberal leader...but could they really make much worse decisions than we have seen in past administrations?

Seems that one of the biggest drivers for many of us in recent elections has been our 2nd ammendment rights. If those are gone, how will that affect your 2008 vote?


If you are a one-issue-voter, the only way to hold off AWBII is to hold-the-nose-and-pull-R..

The guy you send may not be conservative, but PARTY CONTROL is what matters on the AWB...

Look at how there was ZERO movement on the subject from 2000 to 2006...

A RINO who gives the GOP control of either house of Congress is better than a D who keeps the current crew in power...

Link Posted: 2/25/2007 6:51:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By M4MikelA3:
BTW...

Doesn't everyone realize the Republican and Democratic parties were both third parties in the past? If enough people jump ship there is no choice but to give the voters what they want.

All this voting for the lesser of two evils who voting for the two parties you are SO convinced are always going to win is eroding your rights much more efficently than voting your conscience ever would.



No, 'voting your conscience' gets us things like the present situation...

Had people done the PRAGMATIC thing and voted for the only party that stands a chance, we'd still be AWB-proof in Congress, and the war would be safe...

Unless there is a massive shift in culture, D and R are your only choice...

Even if you elect a 3rd-party congressman, what will it do? He'll have to join the D or R caucus in order to get anything done...

And there are NOT enough folks in the USA who will hold-their-nose-and-vote-L, ignoring the absolutely insane platform just to 'punish' the GOP...

Unfortunately, there ARE enough willing to throw away their vote to give the Dems power...
Link Posted: 2/25/2007 6:54:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By macro:
Bump for the morning crew - does anyone else find it ironic that the new weapon ban bill is called 1022? Could only be more insulting if it was called 102238.



Link Posted: 2/25/2007 6:57:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By Primos:
Constitution party has my vote unless a REAL conservative surfaces, and wins the nomination.



Same here. Only wasted vote is the voter who sat home on Tuesday.
Link Posted: 2/25/2007 6:58:07 AM EST
Your vote will have the most impact in the primaries. Tht's what will detrmine how conservative our nominee will be.

Once the nominee is determined, it's *still* important to vote in the general election. Look what happened in 2006. If you don't like a guy like, say, Guilliani, wouln't you still rather have HIM pick the next couple Supreme Court Justices instead of Hillary?

Roberts might be the kind of Justice who will push cases forward regarding the second amendment, so we need SCOTUS votes for our side.
Link Posted: 2/25/2007 7:01:18 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/25/2007 7:05:07 AM EST by LWilde]
Of course I will vote...and for the Republicans. How simple is that to figure out?

I can't imagine a scenario where I would sit at home and let my vote go uncast. That would be the worst scenario possible...that I opted out and a liberal won the election. My conscience would never forgive me.

Do I want a RINO? Of course not...but any RINO is orders of magnitude better for our country than any of the current libtards running.

If you can't figure that out then we really are in trouble.

Link Posted: 2/25/2007 7:04:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/25/2007 7:07:14 AM EST by M4MikelA3]

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By M4MikelA3:
I won't vote Republican or Democrat in this election. Guaranteed.


That's idiotic. What if Tom Tancredo is nominated? Or Duncan Hunter? You won't vote for them?


lol

What makes them so different from every other Republican? I'm not one of these people who is upset at Bush, I am alienated from the party permanantly barring a significant swing in their stance on the role the government should play in American's lives and the protection of human civil liberties.

I skimmed their websites and I see nothing significant or unique there.


I am especially disheartened by the shift of the Republican party as a whole away from Conservatism(which was mediocre at best but still better than the socialist liberals) towards Neo-Conservatism(which is just plane lunacy)
Link Posted: 2/25/2007 7:09:02 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/25/2007 7:12:32 AM EST by JonnySak]
M4MikelA3, it sounds like you're a Barry Goldwater conservative, you should take a look at Ron Paul.
Link Posted: 2/25/2007 7:12:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By BangStick1:
Lesser evil.........as usual


+1
Link Posted: 2/25/2007 7:24:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By M4MikelA3:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By M4MikelA3:
I won't vote Republican or Democrat in this election. Guaranteed.


That's idiotic. What if Tom Tancredo is nominated? Or Duncan Hunter? You won't vote for them?


lol

What makes them so different from every other Republican? I'm not one of these people who is upset at Bush, I am alienated from the party permanantly barring a significant swing in their stance on the role the government should play in American's lives and the protection of human civil liberties.

I skimmed their websites and I see nothing significant or unique there.


I am especially disheartened by the shift of the Republican party as a whole away from Conservatism(which was mediocre at best but still better than the socialist liberals) towards Neo-Conservatism(which is just plane lunacy)


Only lunacy I see is in your post. You know nothing about Tancredo or Hunter and seem very proud of your ignorance.
Link Posted: 2/25/2007 7:35:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:


mcain or a clone would be no better than obama/hillery.


I'm sorry but that is an asinine statement.
Link Posted: 2/25/2007 7:41:53 AM EST
Tancredo

http://www.teamtancredo.com/issues.php

Immigration
There is no doubt that America is facing an illegal immigration crisis. Currently, there are at least 12 million illegal aliens living in America. I am absolutely opposed to amnesty. In addition to rewarding those who broke our laws, amnesties simply do not solve the problem of illegal immigration. The only realistic solution to the problem of illegal immigration is a strategy of attrition, which seeks to reduce the flow of the illegal alien population over time by cutting off the incentives for coming to and staying in America - most importantly by eliminating the jobs magnet. America must also reexamine its legal immigration policies. Since 1990, that number has been roughly one million yearly - and that doesn't count illegal aliens. America should reduce legal immigration to 250,000 people a year, which will allow the newcomers to assimilate.

Defense
In the wake of the September 11th attacks and the ensuing war on terrorism, it has become clear that the United States is facing a new security threat. The war America is already engaged in will not be fought like the wars of the past. After witnessing the tragic terrorist attacks against the nation, it is now time to coordinate the efforts of federal, state, and local agencies to provide better homeland defense. Tomorrow's attacker is more likely to board a commercial airliner bound for the U.S. with a tourist or student visa - or he may simply walk across our porous southern or northern border carrying a device in his backpack. These issues must be addressed.

We are, I believe, in a clash of civilizations. That clash is fought on many fronts-some military, some diplomatic, and still others, ideological. On the military front we have won two significant victories. One was in Afghanistan where we destroyed the Taliban and Al Qaeda's command and control network. The second victory was in Iraq where, by toppling the Sunni dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and creating the embryonic infrastructure of a democracy, we set in a motion a chain of events that could lead to a major stregic advantage for us and for the West. This advantage emanates from the forced political equilibrium that can be brought to the region and Iraq itself now that Saddam has been dispatched. The deep schisms in Islam will force countries in the region to impose this equilibrium. Our continued presence in Iraq as the referee in a civil war inhibits this development.

We must take whatever steps are necessary to assure our ability to respond quickly to events in the area as the process of creating this new balance of power goes on. But the quicker that process starts, the better.

In his speech to the nation on the war in Iraq, the President said he was establishing a "November benchmark" for the Iraqis to complete the task of controlling all provinces of the country. This should be more than a benchmark. I believe it should be used as the time frame for our disengagement from Iraq.

We can maintain a military presence in the area to act as a quick response force with a mission to destroy Al Qaeda elements while simultaneously aiding the new balance of power in the region to develop.

I am not alone in my thoughts about what to do in Iraq. Former UN Ambassador John Bolton, in a recent interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, concurred.

"I think it's clear that the United States has met the obligation that it incurred when it overthrew Saddam Hussein. And that's to try and provide some conditions of security for the Iraqis to determine what kind of country or what kind of society they want in the future. We have met that obligation. That obligation does not need to be extended. And this is really the last chance for them. After that, we need to pursue very narrowly what our strategic interest is. And that's making sure that terrorism doesn't find root in that country."---Former UN Ambassador John Bolton

At the end of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a lady asked Benjamin Franklin, "What have you given us?" He replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it." We have purchased an oppportunity for Iraq and the entire Middle East with the blood and treasure of America. It was a noble endavor for which all who served can be immensely proud. It is now time to see if the Iraqis can take advantage of the opportunity and "keep" what has been so dearly purchased.

Education
Having served as a public school teacher in Colorado and as the U.S. Secretary of Education's Regional Representative, I have earned real world knowledge of how to best educate America's children. Control over the education of our children must be in the hands of the parents. I believe in the ability of parents to choose the educational path best suited for their children. I support tax credits for families who choose to allow their children to attend any other institution whether it be a private, parochial, or home school. I oppose increased federal involvement in education, and broke ranks with my party to oppose the No Child Left Behind Act for that reason.

Social Security
It is important that we acknowledge some of the shortcomings of Social Security as it currently exists. The current system simply cannot cope with the upcoming demographic changes in our country. The ratio of workers to retirees will drop close to 2-to-1 within a generation. To provide for tomorrow’s retirees, we must become a nation of owners and savers.

Unfortunately, the existing Social Security program does not save or invest for future generations of seniors. Without action to strengthen Social Security, the only options available to the government beginning in 2016 will be massive tax increases, deep benefit cuts for seniors, borrowing money on an unprecedented scale, massive cuts in other government programs -- and likely all of the above.

Simply ignoring the impending crisis is irresponsible. Younger workers must be empowered to invest a portion of their payroll taxes into private accounts, which will allow us to gradually move away from the current unsustainable defined benefit approach of Social Security to a defined contribution approach -- similar to 401k programs and the Thrift Savings Plan available to federal employees. Until we provide the option of personal accounts to younger workers, we will never be able to afford Americans a personal stake in their own retirement.

Taxes
I support tax relief, because it helps families save more for retirement, education, and medical care. In addition to decreasing the overall amount of taxes Americans pay, I also support efforts to scrap the current cumbersome income tax system and start fresh with either a national sales tax or a flat tax.

The income tax system, as currently constituted, is a source of frustration for nearly everyone in America -- with the possible exception of the accountants we pay to help us file each year. I think most Americans, regardless of their political party affiliation or
personal wealth can agree on one thing: The income tax system is in desperate need of reform. The system is inherently unfair, complex, and burdensome. It discourages investment, savings, and the accumulation of capital by taxing the three excessively. The income tax code has become so unruly and confiscatory that the average American family worked until almost May last year just to pay the tax bill required by the federal, state and local governments.

Aside from these direct costs, the cost of complying with the current cumbersome tax code exceeds some $200 billion each year. And remember, once Americans have written their checks to Uncle Sam they will continue paying government taxes every time they fly on an airplane, make a phone call, fill up their gas tank, buy an imported item or even sit down to have a cold beer. These federal excise taxes cost Americans hundreds or even thousands of additional dollars each year -- and that figure continues to rise.

No one disagrees that the government must acquire some form of revenue to carry out its basic functions. The question is, however, how heavy a tax burden should the American people be forced to bear. The tax initiatives that the Republican-controlled Congress approved in recent years reducing tax rates across-the-board, wiping out all federal taxes on dividends, eliminating the death tax, and boosting the child tax were a good start -- but the overall system needs to undergo fundamental change.

One fundamental improvement over the current progressive and punitive tax code is a flat tax system where every taxpayer, regardless of their level of income, pays the same flat rate of taxation on their income. Implementing a lower, flat tax would encourage investment by ending the double taxation of investment income, eliminating loopholes and curbing exemptions that the wealthy use to lower their tax burdens. It would also create equity in the tax code, as well as greatly reducing the time and cost associated with compliance.

Another approach would be to replace the income tax with a national sales tax. Perhaps the most attractive feature of this approach is the elimination of the IRS. By eliminating the requirement for individuals to file tax forms every April, we could eliminate the need for this invasive and often abusive agency. A sales tax would also unleash the full potential of the American economy by repealing business and individual income taxes, payroll taxes, self-employment taxes, capital gains taxes, estate taxes, and gift taxes. In their place, a single, nominal tax would be levied on all new goods and services at the
final point of purchase for consumption -- the same way cities and states collect sales taxes.

A national based sales tax would have many of the same benefits as a flat tax; namely increased compliance, increased savings and investments, decreased cost to the federal government, and increased economic growth.

I would support either of these long overdue tax reforms to our nightmarish tax code.

Abortion
As a devout Christian, father, and grandfather, I am a strong believer in the right to life for the unborn child. For years, activist judges have undermined life. As president, I would stop this by appointing strict constructionists as judges, reining in the power of the judiciary, and supporting constitutional amendments that respect life.

Budget
Government is spending dangerously beyond its means. For years, Congresses and Presidents of both parties have continued to spend more money than they take in. The largest component of this spending-spree is entitlement spending.

Simply put, federal entitlement programs are too big and cost far too much. The American taxpayer cannot be asked to continue funding numerous entitlement programs or be all things for all people. Finally, we cannot ask the American people to pay higher taxes to finance this spending spree. We must remember that federal government is in debt because it spends too much, not because it taxes people too little.

There two types of government spending—discretionary and mandatory. Discretionary spending, which accounts for roughly one-third of all Federal spending, includes money for things like the Army, FBI, the Coast Guard and highway projects. Congress explicitly determines how much to spend (or not spend) on these programs on an annual basis.

Mandatory spending, on the other hand, accounts for some two-thirds of all government spending. This kind of spending is authorized by permanent laws. It includes ‘entitlements’—things like Social Security, Medicare, and Food Stamps—programs through which individuals receive benefits solely because of their age, income or other criteria. Spending levels in these areas are dictated by the number of people who sign up for these benefits, rather than by Congress. In order to reduce this kind of spending, Congress must make fundamental changes to the underlying programs – something that few political leaders in Washington have the stomach for.

The only way we can rein in government spending is to take on entitlement spending. And the only way to take on entitlement spending is to fundamentally reform the crumbling and unsustainable institutions of the welfare state. Until Americans demand changes in mandatory spending, we will simply be treating the symptom of deficits rather than addressing the underlying problem of excessive spending. Americans can no longer continue to borrow money from countries like China and allow government spending to run on autopilot. We cannot sit idly by; waiting for the impending fiscal train wreck that we all know is just down the tracks.

We must make fundamental reforms to our creaky 20th century welfare state if we are going to ensure a prosperous 21st century for America.

Trade
Falling U.S. taxes on imported products and slowly crumbling foreign barriers to U.S. commerce have provided a number of benefits for Americans and American businesses. American consumers have unprecedented choices when it comes to everything from cars and computers to cell phones and coffee.

U.S. manufacturing and agricultural exports have grown strongly over the last decade. Between 1994 and 2004, for example, exports in U.S. manufacturing and agriculture have increased 65 percent and 38 percent, respectively. And United States exports of high technology products have grown by a whopping 67 percent during the past 10 years.

Unfortunately however, it isn’t all good news. Many recent trade agreements have done far more than just phase out high U.S. taxes on imports and open new markets for U.S. businesses – a lot more. In fact, the primary “import” American trade negotiators seem concerned with these days is foreign workers.

Take the recently approved Central American Free Trade Agreement, for example. Buried among its nearly 1,000 pages, the agreement contains an expansive definition of “cross-border trade in services.” This definition would effectively give people from Central American nations a de facto right to work in the United States . In fact, CAFTA is more than a just trade agreement about sugar and bananas; it is a thinly disguised immigration accord.

Little effort is even made by the U.S. trade officials to hide their efforts. One article of the agreement reads, “Cross-border trade in services or cross-border supply of services means the supply of a service…by a national of a party in the territory of another party.” CAFTA also stipulates that member nations take care to ensure that local and national measures “relating to qualification requirements and procedures, technical standards and licensing requirements do not constitute unnecessary barriers to trade in services,” and the U.S. is required to guarantee that our domestic laws are, “not in themselves a restriction on the supply of the service.”

U.S. immigration limits, visa requirements – or even licensing requirements and zoning rules – could be considered ‘unnecessary barriers to trade’ that act as ‘restrictions on the supply of a service.’ Congress would then be forced to change our immigration laws, or face international trade sanctions.

If CAFTA and its successors were really just about trade, the agreements would be little more than a few pages long, setting a schedule for opening markets and phasing out unfair taxes on goods. But they aren’t. In reality, these agreements have become vehicles to expand a growing body of international law that threatens to supersede our own national sovereignty.

Stem Cell Research
Medical research to find cures for debilitating diseases like Alzheimer’s and diabetes is critically important. We should do everything in our power to seek new treatments and drugs to help cure these diseases. We cannot, however, compel American taxpayers to pay for research that intentionally destroys human life, or authorizes the farming or cloning of human embryos.

Embryonic stem cell research is not the only option for stem cell research. Other promising alternatives which do not destroy human life – such as cord blood stem cell research – have shown much promise without the moral and ethical questions that surround embryonic stem cell research.

Gay Marriage
I support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
Unfortunately, every state in the union is now just one court ruling from being force-fed a new definition of marriage. If Congress does not act, people like San Francisco’s mayor and a few judges in Massachusetts will be able to dictate to the entire country what does and does not constitute marriage.

To impose gay marriage on Americans through judicial fiat flies in the face of both traditional American values and the time-honored tenets of American federalism.

Health Care
The way to address America’s heath care problems is not through bigger government programs, litigation, regulation, or additional government spending. Indeed, these things have contributed and continue to contribute to the rising cost of health care.

Another contributing factor is illegal immigration. While illegal immigration isn’t generally the first thing Americans think of when they think about health care, it has a significant impact on the cost, availability and quality of health care available to Americans.

The millions of uninsured illegal aliens in this country invariably get sick or injured. When they do, they seek what ends up being very expensive treatment in hospital emergency rooms – treatment federal law requires health care personnel to provide. The problem has become so acute that Congress recently allocated $1 billion in taxpayer funds to defray the costs incurred by hospitals treating illegal aliens. This is another good reason for our government to take the problem of illegal immigration seriously.

I believe in market based solutions to health care problems. One solution is the use of Association Health Plans or AHP’s. AHP’s would assist greatly in improving access to affordable health care – without creating a new big government scheme.

AHPs would allow small business owners to band together through pre-existing professional associations to purchase health insurance at reduced rates. It will help to reduce the number of uninsured Americans by giving small business the same accessibility, affordability, and choice in the health care marketplace that Fortune 500 companies and unions now enjoy. Experts estimate that up to 8.5 million uninsured small business workers could gain coverage and small business owners would save up to 25 percent on health insurance enabling more businesses to provide coverage.

Link Posted: 2/25/2007 7:42:48 AM EST
yes
Link Posted: 2/25/2007 7:59:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By M4MikelA3:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By M4MikelA3:
I won't vote Republican or Democrat in this election. Guaranteed.


That's idiotic. What if Tom Tancredo is nominated? Or Duncan Hunter? You won't vote for them?


lol

What makes them so different from every other Republican? I'm not one of these people who is upset at Bush, I am alienated from the party permanantly barring a significant swing in their stance on the role the government should play in American's lives and the protection of human civil liberties.

I skimmed their websites and I see nothing significant or unique there.


I am especially disheartened by the shift of the Republican party as a whole away from Conservatism(which was mediocre at best but still better than the socialist liberals) towards Neo-Conservatism(which is just plane lunacy)


Only lunacy I see is in your post. You know nothing about Tancredo or Hunter and seem very proud of your ignorance.


Nope. Like I said, I looked at their websites. I wouldn't vote for either of them.
Link Posted: 2/25/2007 8:00:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By JonnySak:
M4MikelA3, it sounds like you're a Barry Goldwater conservative, you should take a look at Ron Paul.


I'll be looking at'im.
Link Posted: 2/25/2007 8:18:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By M4MikelA3:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By M4MikelA3:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By M4MikelA3:
I won't vote Republican or Democrat in this election. Guaranteed.


That's idiotic. What if Tom Tancredo is nominated? Or Duncan Hunter? You won't vote for them?


lol

What makes them so different from every other Republican? I'm not one of these people who is upset at Bush, I am alienated from the party permanantly barring a significant swing in their stance on the role the government should play in American's lives and the protection of human civil liberties.

I skimmed their websites and I see nothing significant or unique there.


I am especially disheartened by the shift of the Republican party as a whole away from Conservatism(which was mediocre at best but still better than the socialist liberals) towards Neo-Conservatism(which is just plane lunacy)


Only lunacy I see is in your post. You know nothing about Tancredo or Hunter and seem very proud of your ignorance.


Nope. Like I said, I looked at their websites. I wouldn't vote for either of them.


Then you'd never vote for anyone with a chance in hell of getting elected and you're not worth talking to on the subject.
Link Posted: 2/25/2007 8:37:50 AM EST
I think the best we can hope for is McCain as the presidential nominee, with a strong conservative like Hunter or Tancredo as VP. The conservative VP will then be in place to run for president when McCain is done. McCain is old, so that may be in 2012 instead of 2016.
Link Posted: 2/25/2007 8:51:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By M4MikelA3:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By M4MikelA3:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By M4MikelA3:
I won't vote Republican or Democrat in this election. Guaranteed.


That's idiotic. What if Tom Tancredo is nominated? Or Duncan Hunter? You won't vote for them?


lol

What makes them so different from every other Republican? I'm not one of these people who is upset at Bush, I am alienated from the party permanantly barring a significant swing in their stance on the role the government should play in American's lives and the protection of human civil liberties.

I skimmed their websites and I see nothing significant or unique there.


I am especially disheartened by the shift of the Republican party as a whole away from Conservatism(which was mediocre at best but still better than the socialist liberals) towards Neo-Conservatism(which is just plane lunacy)


Only lunacy I see is in your post. You know nothing about Tancredo or Hunter and seem very proud of your ignorance.


Nope. Like I said, I looked at their websites. I wouldn't vote for either of them.


Then you'd never vote for anyone with a chance in hell of getting elected and you're not worth talking to on the subject.


I don't vote for which party I think has a chance. It's obvious the Dempublicans have the political enviroment monopolized. Hopefully, one day, there will be fewer sheep in the world. As long as the Democrats and Republicans keep playing keepaway with the American people and tossing the power back and forth every 4-8 years in some clusterfuck of a game this country will continue sinking. My hope is that one day voters actually research all the parties and vote with their minds and consciences.

I always hear/read people criticizing others for not voting at all or for not voting the way they themselves think others should vote and that is sad and ignorant and is going to make things vastly worse for this country, the world, and the people who live in the U.S. I refuse to be a part of the Demopublican vs. Republicrat heard and lead by example.

Are there important issues the Republicans will lose on if the Democrats squeak by with a simple majority of the vote? Sure.

Are there important issues the Democrats will lose on if the Republicans squeak by with a simple majority of the vote? Sure (this is nothing to speak of the electoral odds)

However, I feel the whole of the United States loses if voters continue to vote ignorantly and narrowly.

If you or anyone else TRULY considers themselves a Republican or Democrat or Neo-Con(god forbid) then you do not need my permission to vote for those parties and I will never ask for anyone's permission to vote with my mind and conscience.

Frankly, it is dangerous when people try to bully others into leaving their brain at home and towing someone else's party lines. I am glad I have the strength of character to never fold under such influences and I will teach my children the same.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top