Candidates stances on diff topics in one image

[Naethyn]

I can't be sure if this is accurate, but very interesting.

[Evermore]

funny how Ron Paul is the only one that looks right!

[Arlos]

There's a number of points where I disagree with Paul on that chart:

Roe v Wade
ANWR drilling
Internet Neutrality
Minimum wage increase
Universal health care


Just to name a few. I'm also not big on the border wall with Mexico idea either. We made a big point of tearing down the Berlin Wall, why are we so eager to put up our own version? Furthermore, you need to decide SOME way for illegals to transition to citizenship. Status quo isn't viable, but neither is mass deportation of millions of people. Finally, I'm curious as to what the "Other" stance is with regard to gay marriage/civil unions.

Of course, most of the major Democratic candidates have stuff I disagree with too, like Clinton/Edwards/Obama's support for the Patriot act, Clinton/Edwards' support for potential military action in Iran (would be an even bigger mistake than Iraq has been, IMO), etc.

Other Republicans are even worse, from my point of view, though. Like Giuliani and Romney supporting torture, Huckabee and Romney supporting a constitutional ban against even same-sex civil unions, etc.

-Arlos

[Martrae]

Like many people, he probably is for Net Neutrality because the term is so misleading. Considering his stance on other things I'd almost guarantee that.

He's against universal healthcare because he says everything the government gets involved costs skyrocket and care goes down. If you watched his townhall (from when Fox shut him out of the NH debate) vids on Youtube he explains his positions on things pretty clearly.

[Naethyn]

There's a number of points where I disagree with Paul on that chart:

Roe v Wade
ANWR drilling
Internet Neutrality
Minimum wage increase
Universal health care


Just to name a few. I'm also not big on the border wall with Mexico idea either. We made a big point of tearing down the Berlin Wall, why are we so eager to put up our own version? Furthermore, you need to decide SOME way for illegals to transition to citizenship. Status quo isn't viable, but neither is mass deportation of millions of people. Finally, I'm curious as to what the "Other" stance is with regard to gay marriage/civil unions.

Of course, most of the major Democratic candidates have stuff I disagree with too, like Clinton/Edwards/Obama's support for the Patriot act, Clinton/Edwards' support for potential military action in Iran (would be an even bigger mistake than Iraq has been, IMO), etc.

Other Republicans are even worse, from my point of view, though. Like Giuliani and Romney supporting torture, Huckabee and Romney supporting a constitutional ban against even same-sex civil unions, etc.

-Arlos

Roe v Wade

Ron Paul has stated that this should not be a federal law. He is not saying that abortion should be illegal. He is saying that it should be up to the individual states to decide this.

ANWR drilling

Ron Paul supports ANWR drilling for the simple fact that it greatly reduces our nation's dependence on the middle east. Until renewable energy resources come into a reality, gas will be needed by US citizens.

Internet Neutrality

This one surprised me much like roe vs wade, until I researched his stance further. He is against any law that puts it's hand on the internet. You must realize that Internet Neutrality puts regulations on the internet. He is against any regulations for the internet.

Minimum wage increase

In 2006 dollars, the minimum wage was $9.50 before the 1971 breakdown of Bretton Woods. Today that dollar is worth $5.15. Congress congratulates itself for raising the minimum wage by mandate, but in reality it has lowered the minimum wage by allowing the Fed to devalue the dollar. We must consider how the growing inequalities created by our monetary system will lead to social discord.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul370.html

Universal health care

Ron Paul is a doctor and he has delivered over 4000 babies. When asked the question of "Is health care a right?" he does not believe so. This is a topic I can go back and forth on.

We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses – but not individuals – to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.

While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government – in the form of “universal coverage” – is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html


All of these issues are debatable. But honestly do you not also think they pale in comparison to the War in Iraq? There will never be a politician you 100% agree with, but to rule the one man out who has for his entire career voted consistently with his ideals just because of a few issues? I say no.

The US is bankrupt. If we elect someone who has a check mark in the War in Iraq let alone ANOTHER troop surge where will we be then? I guarantee none of the topics listed above will even compare to the situation to come if that happens.

[Lyion]

I'm opposed to Roe v Wade. Most legal reviews have repeated how terrible it is as legislation and it's based in the judicial activism so many love, but which is contrary to our constitution.

I oppose the death penalty, but sadly none of the big name candidates really do.

I think No Child left behind is rubbish. I think teachers unions are rubbish, but they should be handled at the state levels, and without interference from Washington.

I oppose Embryonic Stem Cell research being paid for by the Feds, but have no problems with regular companies doing this. This is simple common sense, and it's a shame it's been spun by the media and idiots don't comprehend the simple facts here.

I'm for drilling in ANWR.

I'm against Kyoto. The countries who've signed on to it pretty much ignore it. I'm all for conservation, increased MPG ratings, alternative fuels. I'm not for lying, bullshit treaties that accomplish nothing.

I'm for an assault weapons ban. Heck, I'm for repealing the second amendment.

Net Neutrality is an idiotic and divisive piece of potential legislation.

I'm for Iran sanctions and being able to rattle our sabres at Iran. The weakness of the DNC candidates will cause us future pain, and I'm more worried about the security of the world. On the flip side, I agree with Dr Paul that the threat of Iran is exaggerated.

I think immigration is overhyped, and the status quo is fine. I do like Huckleberry's idea to repeal the gift of immediate citizenship to illegal alien children. I think it's high time we do this.

I oppose Same Sex marriage legislation at the federal level, I oppose same sex marriage constitutional amendments, I'm for civil union legislation that allows for better coverage of more people. Personally, I'd like there to be no marriage/partnership anything personal about people handled by federal legislation.

My big problem is The DNC candidates do not seems fit to be Commander in Chief, which is what the job should entail, and not village happy money spender, as they seem to believe. I prefer someone who is a federalist, and will push legislation back to the states and not try to tax and spend. Sadly, the Democrats are already talking <and crying> about how much they will 'fix'. That means how much they'll spend and attempt to really consolidate power at the Federal level, which I think is wrong.

I like some of Dr Paul's positions, but the man himself isn't someone I'd want in the oval office personally. It's a shame that there isn't someone with his positions, more Charisma, and a bit more of a hook into the modern political system.

[numatu]

We made a big point of tearing down the Berlin Wall, why are we so eager to put up our own version?

I've seen this argument used against a border wall several times. I'm not quite sure why though.

As a general rule, border walls are designed to keep non-citizens out of a country. The Berlin Wall's genesis came from the desire to keep oppressed people inside indefinitely. Thousands fled to West Berlin before it was erected.

There's a slight difference there; and I'm surprised at how a border wall is compared to the Berlin Wall so readily when in reality they're as incomparable as you can get. My only conclusion would be bringing up the Berlin Wall makes people frightened and therefore maybe they would subconsciously turn against a border wall. I don't know how effective that could be though.

[Gaazy]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/08/Dobbs. ... newssearch

I agree with this article if im readin it right. 'Change' is a joke.

Those crooked jacklegs running for president are going to do whatever they want, when they want anyway, and I doubt they really give a shit what we think, no matter whos elected. Thats why I dont hardly ever worry about politics, its all a crock of shit.

[araby]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1844137864?tag=artofthestate-21&camp=1406&creative=6394&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1844137864&adid=06H3BM9HGPPXT1EP3WZ4&

anyone ever read/see this book (portfolio)? it has pictures of his (Banksy's) grafitti on the Israel/Palestine wall..quite amazing.

this documentary/video http://www.iknowimnotalone.com/ shows footage of that wall, it is a must-see.

[Zanchief]

I'd like there to be no marriage/partnership anything personal about people handled by federal legislation.

BAM I've been saying this for years.

Why should the government care what two people performed a religious ceremony. They should treat all marriages as unions and just remove all the fuss.

[Evermore]

an anti government stance from zanchief?






its going to snow

[Gypsiyee]

someone just posted this on ct's site.. i found it pretty interesting

http://www.electoralcompass.com/language/en

interestingly enough, i landed just about smack dab in the middle of my two choices.

[Harrison]

A total shock!

[Naethyn]

[araby]

well it was there when I previewed it then it disappeared ><

Ron Paul. You guys already knew that and I did too, though. Fred Thompson was #2.

[Gypsiyee]

Fred Thompson was my furthest.. but that wasn't too surprising for me... though I don't really understand how you'd get ron paul #1 and Thompson #2 the way it's laid out?

[Tikker]

I think they match you with the closest democrat and republican, not necessarily best 2 matches



I was closes to Obama, but all of the dems were more left than I, and all the republicans more right

[Arlos]

My oval looked about like Gyps's, but it was centered just to the left of Obama's picture. I'm furthest away from Thompson as well. Of all the Republicans, I'm closest to Paul, but I seem to be right next to Obama. I could live with him being president for sure.

-Arlos

[Gypsiyee]

I think they match you with the closest democrat and republican, not necessarily best 2 matches



I was closes to Obama, but all of the dems were more left than I, and all the republicans more right

no i mean.. she said the second was Thompson, but maybe she meant the furthest was Thompson.. looking at the image, I just don't see how it's possible to get closest to Paul and Thompson since they're so far apart from each other and if you were put somewhere in between you'd be closer to another candidate than Thompson.

[Lyion]

Interesting, although I'm not sure how this figures in to things. I'm closest to Paul & Giuliani

[Markarado]

I was closest to Gulliani @ 70%
I was farthest from Obama @ 44%