RudyTHEGANGSTER

I don't care what the media, candidates, or nation deems the important issues, the real issues for me are the ones I care about. Iraq Handling/pull-out Education/Teacher Pay Welfare Reform/Few to no Government handouts Legalization of Marijuana No handling or regulating moral/personal issues from Washington Some others but for me those are the big ones. Aside from Iraq, that sounds like Ron Paul's platform.

Iraq and border security. Having worked in the inner-city, I have seen first hand the effects and costs of an influx of illegals. More importantly, in the middle of a war, we should not have such pourous (sp) borders.

Plus, he's left on taxes and health issues, like a nationwide smoking ban. If you like these things alongside a closed border, Huckabee is your man. In my opinion, his rightist progressivism is the absolute worst mix of positions. He's pro running your private life (whether it be smoking, abortion, or homosexuality) and pro spending all your money on social programs. Even though I agree with him concerning the social issues, it's a sad day when conservatives in this country endorse government coercion in private affairs. Yes, I too hate politicians who call themselves conservatives and then do liberal things in their time as governor such as lowering taxes, advocating a flat tax, and opposing any attempt at a nationalized or even government subsidized health care. Give me a break, read up on the man before you try trashing him. Huckaby raised taxes: Other Arkansas governors "engineered serious tax cuts, although like Huckabee they had raised taxes even more." [The Arkansas Leader, 1/31/07] http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/02/busy_huckabee_t.php See also http://www.taxhikemike.org/ Huckabee's quasi-socialist approach to healthcare: "I advocate policies that will encourage the private sector to seek innovative ways to bring down costs and improve the free market for health care services. We have to change a system that happily pays $30,000 for a diabetic to have his foot amputated, but won't pay for the shoes that would save his foot." http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?Fuse...&Issue_id=8 "Some would call providing very basic, inexpensive health plans rationing care, but rationed health care is better than no health care.... We are going to have to start making some tough decisions. Aunt Sally is 90 years old, and is on the decline, should we be spending valuable health care dollars to put her on expensive dialysis to prolong her life for a few weeks? Or should we vaccinate an entire small towns worth of children to prevent disease? In my mind it seems an easy answer. " http://montanaforhuckabee2008.squarespace.com/health-care/ This "prevention-based" approach to healthcare increases government intervention in the economy. Granted, his approach is not extreme as Romney, Obama, or Hillary, but arguing in favor of a universal healthcare "middle-road" does not make you conservative. Huckabee on income tax: Lastly, Huckabee does not endorse the flat tax. He endorses the "fair tax," which is much like a European VAT. Socialist Mike Gravel ALSO endorses the "fair tax." Again, this does not make Huckabee conservative. Source: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?Fuse...&Issue_id=5 BTW, I support the fairtax, but first we have to repeal the income tax. We do not want a double whammy of income and fair tax. However, unlike most Ron Paul supporters, I believe the income tax, even without the 16th amendment, is constitutional. The Constitution allows for "direct taxtion," which before the corrupt gilded era supreme court applied the 14th amendment incorrectly to repeal civil waresque income taxes, the constitutionality of such taxes was generally not questioned. Huckabee panders to illegal aliens: "During his tenure as governor, Huckabee has taken up causes for illegal aliens, such as supporting a bill in 2005 that would have made them eligible for the same taxpayer-funded scholarships available to citizens and allowed them to pay tuition at state colleges at the cheaper in-state tuition rates." http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/175071/ Huckabee joins Hillary and Edwards in being endorsed by unions: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...ckabee_edwards/ Huckabee calls for national smoking ban in all public places: http://www.breitbart.tv/html/4958.html So, do I have to read up on Huckabee's record and stances or do his supporters? Huckabe is congratulated by the likes of Bill Maher for being leftist on economic issues. Compared to the 80s reagan and 90s newt gingrich conservatism that conservatives pretend to herald, these are neocons like Bush who pass huge government entitlement programs like prescription drug subsidies. That is not conservatism. Let me repeat: Huckabee is not conservative!!! It's a sad day when conservatives in this country endorse government coercion in private affairs.

Yeah I saw the ad and I thought it was great. I've always wondered why Huckabee hasn't gotten more traction in this campaign. You would think he would be the darling of Christian Conservatives since he is a pastor himself. He seems like a good guy too. While I obviously would want a Dem to win the presidency I would not mind him at all. Plus, he's left on taxes and health issues, like a nationwide smoking ban. If you like these things alongside a closed border, Huckabee is your man. In my opinion, his rightist progressivism is the absolute worst mix of positions. He's pro running your private life (whether it be smoking, abortion, or homosexuality) and pro spending all your money on social programs. Even though I agree with him concerning the social issues, it's a sad day when conservatives in this country endorse government coercion in private affairs.

Of course Iran is working on the bomb...but North Korea HAS the bomb and are testing delivery systems to hit America...and WE essentially gave them the LREs (reactors). Something stinks horribly.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2616.shtml The American empire is falling with the dollar By Paul Craig Roberts Online Journal Guest Writer Nov 8, 2007, 01:00 The US dollar is still officially the world's reserve currency, but it cannot purchase the services of Brazilian super model Gisele Bundchen. Gisele required the $30 million she earned during the first half of this year to be paid in euros. Gisele is not alone in her forecast of the dollar's fate. The First Post (UK) reports that Jim Rogers, a former partner of billionaire George Soros, is selling his home and all possessions in order to convert all his wealth into Chinese yuan. Meanwhile, American economists continue to preach that offshoring is good for the US economy and that Bush's war spending is keeping the economy going. The practitioners of supply and demand have yet to figure out that the dollar's supply is sinking the dollar's price and along with it American power. The macho super patriots who support the Bush regime still haven't caught on that US superpower status rests on the dollar being the reserve currency, not on a military unable to occupy Baghdad. If the dollar were not the world currency, the US would have to earn enough foreign currencies to pay for its 737 oversees bases, an impossibility considering America's $800 billion trade deficit. When the dollar ceases to be the reserve currency, foreigners will cease to finance the US trade and budget deficits, and the American Empire along with its wars will disappear overnight. Perhaps Bush will be able to get a World Bank loan, or maybe one from the "Chavez bank," to bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. Foreign leaders, observing that offshoring and war are accelerating America's relative economic decline, no longer treat the US with the deference to which Washington is accustomed. Ecuador's president, Rafael Correa, recently refused Washington's demand to renew the lease on the Manta air base in Ecuador. He told Washington that the US could have a base in Ecuador if Ecuador could have a military base in the US. When Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez addressed the UN, he crossed himself as he stood at the podium. Referring to President Bush, Chavez said, "Yesterday the devil came here, and it smells of sulfur still today." Bush, said Chavez, was standing "right here, talking as if he owned the world." In his state of the nation message last year, Russian president Vladimir Putin said that Bush's blathering about democracy was nothing but a cloak for the pursuit of American self-interests at the expense of other peoples. "We are aware what is going on in the world. Comrade wolf knows whom to eat, and he eats without listening, and he's clearly not going to listen to anyone." In May 2007, Putin criticized the neocon regime in Washington for "disrespect for human life" and "claims to global exclusiveness, just as it was in the time of the Third Reich." Even America's British allies regard President Bush as a threat to world peace and the second most dangerous man alive. Bush is edged out in polls by Osama bin Laden, but is regarded as more dangerous than Iran's demonized president and North Korea's Kim Jong-il. President Bush has achieved his dismal world standing despite spending $1.6 billion of hard-pressed Americans' tax money on public relations between 2003 and 2006. Clearly, America's leader and America's currency are poorly regarded. Is there a solution? Perhaps the answer lies in those 737 overseas bases. If those bases were brought home and shared among the 50 states, each state would gain 15 new military bases. Imagine what this would mean: The end of the housing slump. A reduction in the trade deficit. And the end of the war on terror. Who would dare attack a country with 15 new military bases in every state in addition to the existing ones? Wherever a terrorist turned, he would find himself surrounded by soldiers. All of the dollars currently spent abroad to support 737 overseas bases would be spent at home. Income for foreigners would become income for Americans, and the trade deficit would shrink. The impact of the 737 military base payrolls on the US economy would end the housing crisis and bring back the 140,000 highly paid financial services jobs, the loss of which this year has cost the US $42 billion in consumer income. Foreclosures and bankruptcies would plummet. If this isn't enough to turn the dollar around, President Bush's pledge not to appoint an attorney general if Michael Mukasey is not confirmed offers more promise. If the Democrats will defeat Mukasey's nomination, there are other superfluous cabinet departments that can be closed down in addition to the US Department of Torture and Indefinite Detention. The American empire is being unwound on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. The year is two months from being over, but already in 2007, despite the touted "surge," deaths of US soldiers are the highest of any year of the war. The Taliban are the ones who are surging. They have taken control of a third district in Western Afghanistan. Turkey and the Kurds are on the verge of turning northern Iraq into a new war zone, another demonstration of American impotence. Bush's wars have endangered America's puppet regimes. Bush's Pakistani puppet, Musharraf, is fighting for his life. By resorting to "emergency rule" and oppressive measures, Musharraf has intensified his opposition. When Musharraf falls, thanks to Bush, the Islamists will have nukes. American generals used to say that the wars Bush started in the Middle East would take 10 years to win. On Oct. 31, General John Abizaid, former commander of US forces in the Middle East, put paid to that optimistic forecast. Speaking at Carnegie Mellon University, Gen. Abizaid said it would be 50 years before US troops can leave the Middle East. There is no possibility of the US remaining in the Middle East for a half century. The dollar and US power are already on their last legs, unbeknownst to Democratic leaders Pelosi and Reid who are preparing yet another blank check for Bush's latest request for $200 billion in supplementary war funding. There isn't any money with which to fund Bush's lost war. It will have to be borrowed from China. The Romans brought on their own demise, but it took them centuries. Bush has finished America in a mere seven years. Even as Gisele throws off the dollar's hegemony, Brazil, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Columbia are declaring independence from the IMF and World Bank, instruments of US financial hegemony, by creating their own development bank, thus bringing to an end US suzerainty over South America. An empire that has lost its backyard is finished. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider's Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelow?s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct. Copyright ? 1998-2007 Online Journal

Why do people need to reconsider voting for Hillary or Obama? Because YOU think Paul is the best candidate? What a retarded thread. Those votes should be going towards Kucinich, Gravel, or at least Edwards, though he flip-flopped. how about the basic freedom of the united states is all citizens within good standing of the government and registered are given the right to choose whom they feel best fits their ideals. I like Paul and I think he would be an interesting canidate, that said some of his ideas are upon the extreme fringe of society as a whole. There is an appealing nature to some of his arguements and his beliefs but at the same time there are weaknesses as well. To blindly say you must not vote for this person or that person it anti to everything is the strength of our country and actually I think is against what Paul himself stands for. But anyways imo this thread is :banghead :banghead Of course people should vote for who they want. They ideally would not want scummers...

Why do people need to reconsider voting for Hillary or Obama? Because YOU think Paul is the best candidate? What a retarded thread. Those votes should be going towards Kucinich, Gravel, or at least Edwards, though he flip-flopped.

Liberals of course were never anti-war. They just hate Bush. Thanks guys for the Do-Nothing election of '06.

It is great to know that Hillary wants to continue giving Pakistan 10 billion dollars in aid because she has received tens of thousands of dollars in support from Pakistani interests: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zephyr-teach...ax_b_71379.html Barack Kablammo, I mean, Obama is not going to get us out of Iraq or the "War of Terror" as Borat put it. http://www.counterpunch.org/taylor06232007.html Remember, Kablammo also said he would bomb Pakistan (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printed...1,4555304.story) and Iran (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printed...1,4555304.story). I am sure that will make us a lot of friends. Some anti-war candidate he is. Again, anyone who knows history would understand that interventionism creates more problems than it solves. Did the United States shake in it boots concerning Islamic terror before we started putting troops in the middle east? Of course not. The goofy "Weathermen" were our worst problem. Time to wake up America, these wars only feed the military-industrial complex. They do not make us safer.

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publi...272617065.shtml I have been following this for some time now, but I am surprised at the event's (Nov 5 "money bomb") success. I really wonder how large Paul's base is after seeing this. My honest opinion is that this shows that Ron Paul has fervent support, but fervent support from about 20,00-60,000 voters...the sorts who think that Ron Paul is the country's last chance so they donate every last penny they have. I would understand, because as I see corporatism rearing its ugly head, I would agree with them..but I haven't donated a cent...Wait, I bought a couple of shirts...

Friggin' idiots. Bill is a huge hypocrite though.

No, it is hopeless. I have as much a chance of being sworn in to the office of President as Paul actually does, which is zero. I'd vote for a Democrat before Paul. Some conservative you are.

I just don't see where the government intervention is. Someone comes to the government and asks for something. When they have reached that level, they clearly have gone beyond being an innocent child or someone who only uses condoms. The threat of pregnancy is existent. It is sort of like this: Schools endorse the position that students should not go get tans. Once, when I used to be a substitute teacher, I had to show a video about why tanning is bad. The video used ridiculous exaggerations and cautioned students to use sunscreen even if it is cloudy out. I had to tell the students that the video was over the top. And this is the problem. I am not pro-tanning any more than I am pro-unsafe sex. However, a dangerous precedent begins when we use the government to endorse life choices. First it will be simple health tips. But of course, they will not be able to stop themselves from exaggerating. Then it is advocating against drugs. But anyone who has ever been to school would know that they try to scare you with lies to push an agenda. Then it is sexuality. Schools exaggerate the utility of safe sex or the "realisticness" of abstinence. After this comes environmental activism which slowly mixes with and becomes political activism. Then we have commercials on television, paid for with our tax dollars, telling us what personal habits we should have. So now we have to pay the government to tell us how to think, and thereby implicitly how to vote? This is an example of the tail wagging the dog in the simplest sense. And make no mistake concerning the dangerous direction this can lead to. Read up on the history of the Committee on Public Information. Read Walter Lippmann's "Public Opinion." Within scholarship the word given to the idea that government and elites indoctrinate the masses is "social control." 100 years ago, it was called social engineering. The fact of the matter is that the idea the government should use whatever means possible to endorse certain values presupposes the idea that we should not run the government because we are too incompetent, but instead that we should be ran by the government. Believe it or not, people used to not stand for this. Your high school history textbook might not say this, but when Harding ran on the "return to normalcy" platform, he was talking about much more than the league of nations and foreign entanglements. He was talking about the entire direction the nation was heading since the progressive era: meritocratic quasi-socialism. People were tired of these holier than thou Progressives telling them what to do and what to think. One of the largest landslides in history was the election of 1920. It was even bigger than the election of 1932. That means people were even more pissed of at Wilson's Progressive successor (Cox) than they were at Herbert Hoover at the peak of the Great Depression. However, we as a people have gradually given up on the idea that the government should not try to be selling us on things. We want the government to run our lives. So, should it be a surprise that the Bush Administration paid members of the press to support No Child Left Behind, or planted fake news stories, or invented a whole to-do about Iraq and now Iran? When we permit the government to endorse ideas, the direction in which everything heads is extremely dangerous. So, it is no place for the schools to be interfering with the personal lives of students. School's should give students the tools to make their own decisions--not make their decisions for them. I'm sorry, but the bolded part is very bad logic. Giving them condoms and other contraceptives and teaching them about it would actually reduce irresponsible and immoderate behavior (unless you think, unreasonably, that none of those kids will take you up on the offer, in which case, worst case scenario, it doesn't have any effect at all). It's a given that these kids will be having sex. The question is whether, during the course of this behavior (pun intended), they will have the necessary tools to be responsible. The problem with your position is that it assumes that more kids will be having sex if you provide them with these contraceptive tools. That is just flat out wrong. I respectfully disagree, because the message you send to 13 year olds when you give out free contraceptives like candy is obvious. Kids start talking about it more, the taboo fades away even worse than before. When I was 13, ahem, I was just beginning to discover myself. Now because TV, society, the internet, and schools are so sexualized, we have 13 year olds getting hummers. Granted, we cannot just pretend "it" is not there and hope for it to go away, but we can decide to not endorse the behavior by handing how little wrapped "permission slips." What is needed is implicit condemnation of negative behaviors. Not approval.

The more people that here this, the more that will wake up to the fact the Republicans need a real conservative who is not retarded (i.e. Fred Thompson) to run against Hillary. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/files/RonPaul_RealGOP.mp3

So the government should just sit with their hands under their asses whenever sh*t sucks, because hey, a lot of sh*t sucks? Teenage pregnancy is a problem. The government is trying to help prevent the problem. Well, stupid people having children is a problem. Maybe the government should endorse eugenics again at the local level like it did between the 1910s and 1945....Obviously no, the government has no business doing some things. Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...ING9C2QSKB1.DTL I generally respect and agree with your opinions on this board, but I don't agree with placing sex in the same category and sentence of taking drugs or driving cars too fast. Having consenting safe sex with someone the same age as you shouldn't be looked down upon as a crime. It is okay to disagree. I differ with you because I do not see irresponsible behavior as a crime. I see it as irresponsible behavior. And unlike automobiles where there are not multiple consenting parties in a car accident, drug use and premarital sex do have consenting parties. And sure, it is totally possible to responsibly use drugs and have sex. However, because young people are generally irresponsible and immoderate, to expect them to be responsible doing such things is silly. Thus, to subsidize behaviors that are almost all the time conducted irresponsibly (face it, when you are young and uptight alcohol is involved so often) is to condone them. So we should not be condoning nor paying for it. Granted, I am very conservative on this issue. Because this issue takes peoples values and imposes them, it is best that school's take no side in it.

Again, is it the role of the government to be these kids parents? Is it so important to shove condoms and pills in kids faces when condoms are so easy to get and cheap? I mean, if anyone here cannot afford a condom, I will mail some to you so you cannot contaminate the world There is simply no excuse for this. It reeks of value indoctrination. People want either sex shoved in kids faces or abstinence shoved in their faces. This is a family matter and a waste of our tax dollars.

Condoms are one thing, but birth control pills? These children -- and let's make no mistake about it, they are children -- don't have the necessary judgment to be put in a situation where they make decisions about their health. That's why children have legal guardians. Adults make decisions for their children because, legally, children don't have the capacity to make certain decisions. And parents cannot waive this responsibility and bestow it upon their children by signing a note. But they are old enough to be having sex? Nobody is shoving the pills down their throats. I'm sure they ask their parents before they have sex. Plus isn't this better than abortions? If we create an environment that encourages premarital sex excessively, are we really going to be preventing the STDs and pregnancies we claim to want to prevent? Condoms have existed for hundreds of years (the latex condom for less than a hundred.) The pill is nearing 50 years old. Only immoderate sexual attitudes can explain the amount of STDs and teen pregnancies we have. People are not so incompetant that they do not know how to read the directions on a box. Sex tends to bring the ineptness out in everyone. I think the environment already exists because 1)teenagers see sex everyday, all day on TV and in magazines, 2) their peers probably talk about it all the time, and 3) they have absolutely irresponsbile parents who probably have sex with their new boyfriend or girlfrield with the bedroom door open. The problem, IMO, with condoms, is that we are dealing with teenagers. How many adults deal with pressure not to use condoms? A teenage girl who is getting the pressure on her by her 16 year old boyfriend who says he will break up with her if they use condoms can at least have this as an option. I bet $100 that the girls who are having sex know about the pill already. The problem exists, whether we like it or not. Kids are having sex and getting pregnant. We either let them get unfettered abortions or we make every effort to stop this. Closing our eyes and hoping they listen to cool Mrs. Bobson, the 65 year old science teacher that sex is pure evil is not going to work. When you subsidize stupidity, you essentially are giving the message that stupidity is good. It is one thing to raise awareness of safe sex in health class--but to pay for it is to say, "You are a stupid animal, screw like a rabbit." Unlike animals, humans have free will. We, unlike dogs, can decide not to hump in the park. However, if we have such low expectations for youth that we even pay for their contraception and friggin' hand it to them, they will meet those low expectations. Thus, we the more we meddle and try to "help" these kids not get stds and get pregnant, the more harm we do. While ultimately pregnancy might go down, STDs have not and will not...because we are encouraging bad behavior. Kids are idiots. We should not subsidize their idiocy.

Condoms are one thing, but birth control pills? These children -- and let's make no mistake about it, they are children -- don't have the necessary judgment to be put in a situation where they make decisions about their health. That's why children have legal guardians. Adults make decisions for their children because, legally, children don't have the capacity to make certain decisions. And parents cannot waive this responsibility and bestow it upon their children by signing a note. But they are old enough to be having sex? Nobody is shoving the pills down their throats. I'm sure they ask their parents before they have sex. Plus isn't this better than abortions? If we create an environment that encourages premarital sex excessively, are we really going to be preventing the STDs and pregnancies we claim to want to prevent? Condoms have existed for hundreds of years (the latex condom for less than a hundred.) The pill is nearing 50 years old. Only immoderate sexual attitudes can explain the amount of STDs and teen pregnancies we have. People are not so incompetant that they do not know how to read the directions on a box. Sex tends to bring the ineptness out in everyone.

I'm more interested in Jesus' teachings of acceptance of others and non-violence than religious differences. I certainly have my share of problems with the Catholic Church, that's for sure. Christianity is not secular humanism, though I do believe non-violence is of vital importance. This is only the case if you assume that all Christians follow the two commandments, which they don't. The Bible says ?There is no one righteous, not one.? This is why, if anything, Ann Coulter was not extreme enough. Standard Christian doctrine is that no one is justified by the Mosaic Law. This means that faithful Christians do not merely have a ?fast track?? they have access through faith. Those who rely on the law, according to Saint Paul, are dead in the law. Thus, Coulter, if anything, was being not ?offending? enough when discussing her faith. This does not mean that, if we are to take the Bible as ?Gospel truth,? that only Christians go to heaven. Romans 2:12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) However, do not take the preceding to mean a whole mess of people are going to heaven. According to the Gospel of Luke, Jesus, when asked whether, "Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?" he replied, "Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to." (Luke 13) no it isnt, not at all. every leader of every mainstream christian (protestant and catholic) has denounced this kind of thinking. trust me, what she said is a lot worse than you seem to understand. this is very dangerous slippery-slope kind of thinking. thats what the spanish inquisition was about... perfecting the jews. 1. If we are all so convinced that one religion is not better than another, why do we follow any of them? 2. The Bible is clear that few go to heaven and though there are advantages to being Jewish, there are greater ones for being Christian. by using her logic, muslims would be perfected christians. how would you like it if some extremist muslim went on the air and said that we would be better off if everyone was muslim and we are going to perfect all the christians? actually, that sounds a lot like what muslim terrorists are saying... Quite frankly, I admire that sort of honesty. Religion is perhaps the most important thing out there, assuming God is real. Why shouldn?t someone who believes in Islam or anything else not be adamant? ann coulter hit on one of the two big justifications for anti-semitism: that we have to or should perfect/convert/change/make dissapear the jews... end the jewish religion. the other justification is that jews killed christ. She never said that. She merely said Christians have an easier time going to heaven. every republican candidate... and maybe even every democratic candidate... should be asked whether or not they agree with ann coulter's comments about america being better off if everyone was a christian. coulter clearly needs to reread the first amendment. The 1st amendment protects her right to hold, espouse, and practice such opinions.

Just like in 1981 when Ron Paul was one of the few guys that did not condemn Israel's strike on Iraq's reactor. Israel can take care of their own problems. No need for us to meddle. Again, it may also help if Rumsfeld and company (an international one) did not sell North Korea Nuclear Reactors. Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,...,952289,00.html

Just because teenagers have sex, smoke dope, and drive cars too fast that we should encourage them to do it more by schools giving them free birth control, weed, and souped up rice burners. Schools and colleges that give away birth control, quite simply, are ran by liberal atheists who relish the opportunity to implicitly approve of sin. Condoms are cheap and plentiful. There is no need to endorse stupid behavior by giving out such things for free. What a waste of tax dollars and what irresponsible nonsense. I mean, it is not as bad as killing people overseas in needless wars, but it still sucks.

The scary thing is that we don't know what any of these people will do and what they are capable of. Remember, Bush ran on "no nation-building" (a Clinton policy.) Kucinich, Gravel, Paul...the only non-flip floppers...and Gravel wants world government. Yikes!

Well, at least Obama wins the presidency we can look cool bombing Pakistan and Iran*. Yikes! * Referring to this: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printed...1,4555304.story http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...s-fly-over.html

Good! Why are people here unhappy with this development? The generals in Iraq that are not working directly for the White House will tell you that AQI causes maybe 10% of the violence in Iraq, at the most. They are a small group in the grand scheme of things. Remember, I am a Ron Paul supporter, but that does not mean I will ignore good news. If Al Qaeda is gone and the longer it seeps in that neither Iran nor Syria have anything to do with Iraqi instability, the more obvious it is that our presence is not necessary, because the problem is merely between Iraqis. Without other geopolitical interests outside of Iraq, I see no reason why our continued presence there is warranted. Of course, both Hillary (continuing Billy Clinton's policies) and the Neo-Cons would like a permanent military presence in the Middle East. Until we start rethinking our policy of keeping military bases in 120 countries, we are going to go no where every where.