| This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only". In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060 If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Political survey; Where do you stand? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Nov 9 2007, 11:40 PM (3,115 Views) | |
| The Holy Empire of Racaria | Dec 1 2007, 09:42 PM Post #101 |
![]()
Sergeant
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I pray you're right. I can probably stomach Obama, but NEVER Hillary. 4 years of full on national socialized healthcare, government funding for abortion, retreat/defeat foreign policy, and the 2nd indirect presidency of Bill Clinton. NO. |
![]() |
|
| Quaon | Dec 1 2007, 09:43 PM Post #102 |
![]()
A Prince Amoung Men-Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
|
Ron Paul is the only honest candidate. If he started advertising and got some momentum, I think he could go places. |
![]() |
|
| Kasnyia | Dec 1 2007, 09:59 PM Post #103 |
|
Chairman of the Bank
|
There is no such thing as an "honest" or "dishonest" candidate; merely an image as created by their PR committee. Ron Paul is the same, inspite of the mass fanboyism for him online. |
![]() |
|
| The Holy Empire of Racaria | Dec 1 2007, 10:08 PM Post #104 |
![]()
Sergeant
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'll have to disagree with you here. I do see what Quaon is talking about. It's not even his Libertarianism or anything relative to that. There's just something about him that makes me think he is actually somewhat trustworthy, unlike the rest of the candidates from both parties. That said, the only things I agree with him on so far are his loyalty to the constitution, and his drug legalization stance. |
![]() |
|
| Comrade Queen | Dec 1 2007, 10:13 PM Post #105 |
|
Comrade Bitchqueen
|
I think it's the fact that his record speaks for him. He actually votes with his beliefs and not his party like many other politicians do. That's something to respect and hold in high regard. |
![]() |
|
| Kasnyia | Dec 1 2007, 10:17 PM Post #106 |
|
Chairman of the Bank
|
*headdesks* Not another one... That's whats called an image. All politicians have it. There is nothing particularly special about Ron Paul, in is views or in how he presents them. As for his policies, most of them are untennable unless he was dictator. His entire presidency would be him fighting congress, Republican or Democrat, it makes no difference. The policies he states aren't the kind of thing one can do in either 4 or 8 years. And as for the actual policies, while a few of his policies I agree with, there are other policies I vehemanantly oppose which I will not go into here. I'm merely gonna state that right now none of the candidates are anything special. And won't be until the race gets closer. |
![]() |
|
| The Holy Empire of Racaria | Dec 1 2007, 10:21 PM Post #107 |
![]()
Sergeant
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'll agree to disagree with you bout Paul. He doesn't have a ghost's chance in hell anyway so it doesn't really matter. |
![]() |
|
| Comrade Queen | Dec 1 2007, 10:37 PM Post #108 |
|
Comrade Bitchqueen
|
Well then, let's weigh positions here... The rest of the candidates are primarily about - Big government - Big business - "Finishing" our efforts in Iraq - Potential conflict with Iran - Doing whatever they want to the Constitution - And generally resembling each other no matter who you vote for Ron Paul is for - Smaller, streamlined government - Lower/no more taxes and less IRS - Protecting the Constitution and Bill of Rights as they are written - Pulling out of Iraq entirely and forgetting about "finishing" anything - Non-intervention policy towards the rest of the world, thus nipping the potential Iran conflict in the bud and ignoring them instead - Guarding our borders - Legalization of drugs |
![]() |
|
| Kasnyia | Dec 1 2007, 10:43 PM Post #109 |
|
Chairman of the Bank
|
You can weigh the issues however much you want. Doesn't change a thing. |
![]() |
|
| Comrade Queen | Dec 1 2007, 10:44 PM Post #110 |
|
Comrade Bitchqueen
|
That you're wrong? Quite right. |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Dec 1 2007, 10:48 PM Post #111 |
|
Science and Industry
|
Pulling out of Iraq can be easily done within one term. There's already a sizeable contingent in Congress, and a sizeable portion of the American public who wish to pull out of Iraq, and a President Ron Paul wouldn't have to expend much energy getting Congress and the American public in supporting a troop pullout. Revamping American diplomacy can also be done within one term, for the same reasons. Just these two - very doable - items on the Ron Paul agenda would profoundly alter the course of the United States (in a positive way imo). |
![]() |
|
| NRE | Dec 1 2007, 10:53 PM Post #112 |
![]()
Map Tsar and Southern Gentleman
![]()
|
I would hope not, the American people simply aren't ready for the full legalization of all drugs |
![]() |
|
| Kasnyia | Dec 1 2007, 10:58 PM Post #113 |
|
Chairman of the Bank
|
^ QFT As for the mass pull out in Iraq and diplomacy, that was not what I was referring to. I'm talking about domestic policy. |
![]() |
|
| Comrade Queen | Dec 1 2007, 11:05 PM Post #114 |
|
Comrade Bitchqueen
|
Allow me to explain why drugs should be legalized; illegalization of narcotics doesn't work. It just simply creates crime, as stated by Dr. Paul himself: "We treat alcoholism now as a medical problem and I, as a physician, think we should treat drug addiction as a medical problem and not as a crime." Not to mention that many of these illegal drugs have very useful purposes in medicine. The problem is that the War on Drugs and enforcing drug laws is a waste of money that can be better spent elsewhere. |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Dec 1 2007, 11:11 PM Post #115 |
|
Science and Industry
|
Let him fight Congress over his domestic agenda. Even if his foreign policy is the only item on his agenda that he successfully enacts, that is a huge step forward for this country. But too bad most voters are too dull to think things like these through. |
![]() |
|
| Holy Catholic Imperium | Dec 1 2007, 11:12 PM Post #116 |
![]()
Turd Burgalur
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
<- Libertarian. |
![]() |
|
| The Holy Empire of Racaria | Dec 1 2007, 11:13 PM Post #117 |
![]()
Sergeant
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This one, and his friends are. |
![]() |
|
| The Holy Empire of Racaria | Dec 1 2007, 11:15 PM Post #118 |
![]()
Sergeant
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes......retreat and defeat, hiding behind our borders like disgusting cowards, pretending Islamofascism and Iran will never ever try to attack us.........right. This is why I can't and won't ever vote for Ron Paul. |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Dec 1 2007, 11:19 PM Post #119 |
|
Science and Industry
|
QUestion for you: why do you think "Islamofascists" and Iran want to attack us? Why do they hate us? |
![]() |
|
| Comrade Queen | Dec 1 2007, 11:19 PM Post #120 |
|
Comrade Bitchqueen
|
Thing is, if they actually do attack us, then we are in our full, legal right to retaliate. Ron Paul's policy is non-intervention, not pacifism. |
![]() |
|
| The Holy Empire of Racaria | Dec 1 2007, 11:19 PM Post #121 |
![]()
Sergeant
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
All that and its illegality adds to their social taboo which makes it more attractive to many. And the biggest reason of all, no government has any right to tell us what to do with our bodies. They are ours to do with as we see fit as long as we aren't hurting anybody else. |
![]() |
|
| The Holy Empire of Racaria | Dec 1 2007, 11:25 PM Post #122 |
![]()
Sergeant
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Have you ever heard Imadenamja-whatever his name is talk? Ever? How many "death to America" rallys over there do you need to see? They have nukes, their president is insane. He's a flaming anti-semite, who is actively funding and equiping the terrorists in Iraq. We're already engaged in a proxy war with Iran. But to answer your question directly, they hate us because we're not like them, an oppresive, sexist, Islamic theocracy. |
![]() |
|
| Comrade Queen | Dec 1 2007, 11:36 PM Post #123 |
|
Comrade Bitchqueen
|
Wrong answers. They hate us because for decades we have meddled in their international affairs. For decades we have built military bases and equipment in their back yard. They hate us because we appear like an Imperialist mega-power that's threatening to stamp out their religion and way of life. Furthermore, Iran is not funding the terrorists in Iraq. Iran actually supports the new Iraqi government because they utterly loathed Saddam's regime that came before (Iran and Iraq used to be bitter enemies, lest you forget). The terrorists are primarily funded by Saudi nationals, and always have been. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Iran has nuclear arms. President Ahmadinejad spouts the things he says because he believes that America and Israel and the rest of the West are Imperialists that seek to destroy Islam. |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Dec 1 2007, 11:40 PM Post #124 |
|
Science and Industry
|
Wow, that is horrifically ignorant. Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and Iran had always hated each other. It would take some horrifically ignorant policies to make three mortal enemies attack the same country at the same time. Lo and behold, the United States succeeded in doing just that. Please, Racaria, do not contribute to this stupid state of affairs. The ONLY reason Iran hates us is because we are interfering in the Middle East. They DON'T CARE if we aren't an Islamic theocracy. Even if we became the world's first All-Homosexual, All-Atheist, All-Lesbian country, if we simply pulled out of the Middle East, Iran would not hate us, and they wouldn't be pursuing nukes to defend themselves against us, the United States. Now, why did we get into Iran in the first place? Because we wanted their oil. A perfectly legitimate reason to be there. But we fucked it up - instead of dealing with their leaders like civilized people, we took over their country, assassinated their Prime Minister, and installed a dictator back in the 1950s. Furthermore we are helping out Israel piss off the Middle East too. Iran has perfect reason to hate the United States! Wouldn't you hate the United States if the good ol' USA took over your country, killed your leaders, and impose a dictator over you? How can we undo our stupid actions of the past? We can at least make some progress by withdrawing our one-way friendship with Israel, withdrawing from Iraq, and start WORKING with Iran instead threatening to attack them. |
![]() |
|
| The Holy Empire of Racaria | Dec 1 2007, 11:47 PM Post #125 |
![]()
Sergeant
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
.......Riiiiiiight. First off, everything I said in my previous post was accurate. The Koran clearly instructs Muslims to either forceably convert or kill anyone not like them. We also wouldn't be forced to "meddle" in their international affairs if they wren't an oppresive, aggresive, Islamic extremist theocracy hell bent on attacking western civilization for the reason I've previously stated. U.S. forces in Iraq have long since discovered arms from Hezbollah, a well known internationalist militant arm of Iran. I really doubt there would be mountains of U.N. resolutions and worldwide sanctions long imposed on Iran if it was making its nuclear arsenal up. Cmon man you don't actually believe that shit. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic » |













7:30 PM Jul 13