Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Certain Topics Are Not "On the Table" for Most Candidates

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 31, 2012, 6:06 p.m. EST by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

How would a debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama be different than a debate between Ron Paul and Barack Obama?

The things Mitt Romney would debate Barack Obama on:

  1. Mitt Romney would debate whether the Federal Reserve should bring back Alan Greenspan as Chairman and Barack Obama would say Ben Bernanke is "doing a good job". Both would fail to ask if an institution with that much power in the ability to print our money should ever be taken a closer look at.

  2. Mitt Romney would debate whether we should send 200,000 troops to attack Iran and Obama would say "maybe we should just send $100,000 troops and a few talented assassins to kill their scientists". Both would fail to wonder if maybe Iran is developing nuclear energy just so the country will be more able to power their homes, like many of the other countries of the world already do.

  3. Mitt Romney would debate that drugs are evil and that he never inhaled marijuana. Barack Obama would put down his cigarette to admit that he inhaled, but also say "I got rid of my evil ways and can therefore now head up 'The War on Drugs" to punish people for theirs".

  4. Mitt Romney would debate that Federal Income Tax be left at the same levels as the previous "Bush-cuts" and Barack Obama would say "No, the federal government needs to take even more from the people!"

98 Comments

98 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Excuse me, but what happened to Gingrich? Is he off with some blonde? Or maybe a redhead?

[-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

The Newt is also just another NWO puppet.

"Newt Gingrich's decision to release only a portion of his "Freddie Mac" contract" That's right Freddy Mac. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/newt-gingrich-lobbyist/story?id=15430694#.Tyl_gvlvEow

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Since the first sentence asked, "How would a debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama be different than a debate between Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama?" I was merely inquiring where the rest of answer to the question might be.

[-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

I was just adding to your sentiment.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

I was really looking forward to a comparison, we all need a good chuckle from time to time.

[-] 0 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

The question was corrected to what it was intended to be, which is this:

How would a debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama be different than a debate between Ron Paul and Barack Obama?

And the rest of the answer is just a few comments below this one.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

mitt romney, and newt gingrich, what the hell to they have to offer to we the 99% I have never seen anything they talk about that relates to the majority. They are like puppets, only ron paul, and a little of rick santorium, but why do people even like these canditates, sheesh they might as well vote for a dictator than another worthless candidate that doesnt know anything about helping another human being.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (26671) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

This is why Obama will get a second term. Let's see if we can inspire a different congress ( at least inspire action ).

Petition from CREDOACTION to end Corporate person-hood.

http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=745043&id=34439-4904244-%3DMldmHx&t=7

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

AS long as we got yippie kay yah millionaires racing to take our leadership positions for us, we may need to break up the united states to independant states like europe, until we the people get back in control over the representation process.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (26671) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I hope not. Right now we have a single organism nation wide to regain control of and 50 individual organisms living in symbiosis to correct ( call back to order ). What a mess if mass session were to happen.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

well i dont see how it could get anyworse, we have increasingly been losing control over our governmetn for the past 25 years, and there doesnt seem to be any turn around. take the housing bailout for people who were losing homes for instance, congress set aside 7.6 billion with stipulations that you have to be in default of your home in order to apply, meanwhile banks instigate "paralell foreclosures" that mature before the citizens home bailout program is implemented resulting in people losing their homes anyways. this is the same system i saw 20 years ago, and i spent 10 years as a government employee in the military. Only now, those in charge, dont give a rats ass, from federal down to local government level (which i can prove in writing from my own experiences) and if it doesnt change soon, we will sink into a civil war. In the event of a civil war I propose that we begin the process of investigating and making public,the names and addresses of those people directly responsible for conjuring up freedom stealing laws over us citizens such as: seat belt enforcement, zoning ordinances so that we cant own a chicken, or a horse or work from our homes, (a lady went to jail for 30 days for selling flowers from her home to try and keep up with her mortgage payments when so many other were losing them in my city), and dmv regulations that became so abusive over my rights they said in effect: " i cant drive my truck to work because i have a check engine light" until i empty my savings account and fix it, these people should be our primary target, and not eachother.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

public health care

ending war

living in a debtor economy

[-] 0 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

Matt: What is this a reply to?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Certain Topics Are Not "On the Table" for Most Candidates

[-] 0 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

You are saying that all three of those topics are NOT "on the table" of discussion for "most candidates"?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

yessir

what is this obsession with addressing me

as opposed to the subject at hand?

[-] 0 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

What "subject at hand" are you referring to?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

genetics

exponential world population growth

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

instituting a direct democracy system

stop having closed door meetings

stop covering up government operation

[-] -1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

I have "closed door meetings" at my company.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

to non-members

citizen are members of the government

[-] 0 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

I find it challenging to have an intelligent discussion with you, Matt.

If you want to be taken seriously, please write with thoughtful, complete sentences. Capitalize the beginning of a sentence and end it with some form of punctuation.

Doing this is the basis for efficient and effective communication.

For me, the goal is that my message or question will be best understood by the person it is being directed to.

And sure, "things people write" do not always have to be "serious" and "by the book". After all, we humans do like to "play games" sometimes.

However, on here, on this website? Well, I have a feeling, that "the real OWS people" aren't just playing a game - they are fighting for their lives!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 2 years ago

-Great Post-

[-] 1 points by Libertarianliving (149) 2 years ago

Oh shit.... Is Romney pro-Drug War. Don't you just love how "Conservative Christians" CLAIM to be all for personal freedom. I guess it is only as long as those "freedoms" agree with what their Jeebus says. They are just as bad as the Liberal, government control EVERYTHING crowd hiding behind "morality".

[-] 0 points by fairforall (279) 2 years ago

Most rational people understand personal freedom has limitations when it has a high probability of impacting others. I have no doubt you see pedophilia as something that should be managed whether you have Jeebus in your life or not......do you?

[-] 3 points by Libertarianliving (149) 2 years ago

Typical "Christian Conservative" response. You are comparing people using drugs for recreational purposes or whatever purposes they choose while harming NOBODY to people who molest rape little boys and girls, shattering their lives. Yeah, great comparison. If You are a "Conservative Christian", I can only imagine the reason you don't want people to be able to legally use recreational drugs, is that it makes the temptation greater for YOU to disobey some silly old storybook. And you don't want that temptation.

[-] 0 points by fairforall (279) 2 years ago

What you fail to understand is that being under the influence of said recreational drugs clouds a person's judgement to the point they lose the ability to adequately keep their actions to themselves. Your typical response will be "people should do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes"........that's great but it very seldom works that way. I counsel inner city teens and seeing what crack does to a 13 year old or even that matter, an adult would open your eyes enough to know the impact to themselves and those around them is anything but recreational. Recreational.......really, its such a naive term. And referring to me as a Conservative Christian is interesting.......how did you come to that conclusion?

[-] 3 points by Libertarianliving (149) 2 years ago

So, because "CRACK" has such terrible, unavoidable consequences, people posessing and using Marijuana should suffer? Start PUNISHING people for bad actions, not what they choose to do to their OWN minds and bodies. By the way, making it illegal appears to be working so well. Well at least it ensures the future and prosperous employment of gangsters and thugs instad of businessmen who press the sales tax button.

[-] -1 points by fairforall (279) 2 years ago

Portaying the legalization of drugs like crack that guarantee turning a fellow human into a mass of nothing as something that should be done to improve tax revenue is insincere and shows a lack of compassion at best.

Now, why did you refer to me as a CC?

[-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

If drugs make people commit crimes as you say they should be arrested for the crime they commit. BTY Drugs are a human experience people have done them for thousands of years and most religions used them at one time. So really making drugs illegal was an act against humanity literally criminalizing human behavior.

[-] 2 points by Libertarianliving (149) 2 years ago

Thank You!!!!!! Telling people how they can use or what they can do with their own minds and bodies is about as tyrannical and oppressive of freedom as anything can get. Telling people what they can ingest, what (or better who) they can do with their sexual organs and what reimbursement or gifts they can receive from it, and what wagers they can place with others on the outcomes of future events is a laugh in the face of freedom. And those who support this oppression have no right claiming they "want government out of our lives". they are against government taking away freedoms, as do I, but support some pedophile priest controlling their thoughts, feeling, and actions through FEAR!

[-] 1 points by fairforall (279) 2 years ago

I said drugs make people commit crimes? Show me where. And then explain why you referred to me as a Conservative Christian........you haven't yet.

[-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

Ok sorry murder vs crime that is a difference and i never called you a Conservative Christian.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

No, prevention is the better option. I'm all for legalizing pot but coke and up no. If someone is caught with hard drugs they should be sent to a treatment facility and those caught selling go to prison, but not be allowed to be given the opportunity to ruins someone's life by murdering them for drug money.

[-] 0 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

Murder should be a death sentence if proven beyond reasonable doubt. You are under the impression government can help addicts, it is just not true. Government intervention along with interventions just statistically don't help. People sober up when THEY want to!! Also you must realize almost everything is a drug like pop, government's only role should be informing people of the danger not playing big brother.

[-] 0 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

I disagree, people who are PHYSICALLY addicted should be put in a treatment facility, similar to Europe. Drugs like cocaine, heroin, or meth should never be legal.

[-] 1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

The things Ron Paul would debate Barack Obama on:

  1. Ron Paul would debate whether the American people should have to live under the Federal Reserve system and, at the very least, he would argue that it should be audited.

  2. Ron Paul would debate whether the American people should be at war in Afghanistan, at the very least, he would argue that the act of war should only come after a "Declaration of War" from Congress.

  3. Ron Paul would debate whether a non-violent act involving a currently-illegal drug should be a criminal act. He would argue that an adult (21+) who possesses and consumes something such as psychedelic mushrooms, or marijuana, should NOT be put in prison.

  4. Ron Paul would debate whether a U.S. citizen should have to pay a Federal Income Tax, at the very least, he would argue that if a tax has to be paid that those revenues not be given to a foreign country.

[-] 3 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

Yeah but if Obama disagreed, then Paul would say "well I don't have to take this from a nigger" he's too cookoo for me, and since the legalization of pot is speculated to be a big issue for the 2016 election and I personally believe tha we're not going to have a war with Iran I'm voting Obama.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

These four men REQUIRE that you vote for Obama

John Roberts
Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas
Samuel Alito

If you don’t believe them,
…….ask Newt Gingrich or John McCain about Citizens United
OR
…….ask the family of any soldier killed in Iraq about bush v Gore

OR

Are you afraid to
……tell me why supreme court appointments make no difference ?


If you cannot see the difference between the democrats and the Rs –
.……and that President Gore would invade Iraq, or NOT read his PDBs –
…………..………………………………………………..you are blind


If you want to do what Davis & Lee failed to do
……………..……………………………………….…….you are crazy


[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

What's your point?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I agree with you - sorry it seemed otherwise

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

The format is a bit confusing but thank you:)

[-] 0 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

Ron Paul believes in protecting and promoting Individual Liberty. That, in itself, is contrary to being "a rascist". If you believe Ron Paul to be "a rascist" I would recommend you not believe in the people that are trying to "smear him" with un-truths.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

No one needs to "smear" rp - he dose it so well himself

Nader gave us the Iraq war – deregulation – halliburton - alito - roberts etc etc etc etc
Just think of the fun America will have if you vote for another third party candidate!
President Bain Romney ! ……… and more scalia clones like thomas

You gotta believe –
………….the only ones who don’t want you to vote Democratic-
…………………………………………………………………….are the tea potty !

You remember “George-yellowcake”.
You remember “ Dick-Iam not a crook”.
You remember “Ronnie-I don’t remember my treasonous acts”.
Now we have “Ron-I don’t remember my disgusting newletters”.

@--> A 1992 passage from the Ron Paul Political Report about the Los Angeles riots read, “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.” Another Paul newsletter asserted that people with AIDS should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva”;

@--> In 1990 one of Ron Paul’s publications criticized Ronald Reagan for having gone along with the creation of the federal holiday honoring the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which it called “Hate Whitey Day.”

@--> Ron Paul’s newsletter called Barbara Jordan, the African-American Texas congresswoman, a “half-educated victimologist” and said of crime in Washington, D.C., “I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

@--> ”If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992

@--> "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992

@--> "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992

@--> Ron Paul’s newsletter was listed by a neo-Nazi group called Heritage Front, as recommended reading. { you gotta believe the doctor }

@--> The September 1994 issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report states that “those who don’t commit sodomy, who don’t get blood a transfusion, and who don’t swap needles, are virtually assured of not getting AIDS unless they are deliberately infected by a malicious gay.”

@--> In the April 1993 Ron Paul Survival Report, the author states, “Whether [the 1993 World Trade Center bombing] was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.”

@--> Ron Paul SIGNED 1993 appeal for funds letter: "Israeli lobby plays Congress like a cheap harmonica," warned of a "race war" and said there was a gay-led cover up of AIDS. The letter suggests, that new $100 bills distributed by the Treasury and ostensibly aimed at tracking drug money were instead aimed at keeping track of all citizens. "I held the ugly new bills in my hands," the letter says. "I can tell you -- they made my skin crawl!" Then "my training as a physician helps me see through" what he calls the "federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS." The letter warns of a "coming race war in our big cities"

@--> Ron Paul December 2, 2011 Ron Paul Believes that Corporate Lobbying = Liberty: “I Take The Position That You Should Never Restrict Lobbying…”
About Citizens United - "It's corporations' money, they can do whatever they want with it."


And I’m sure I don’t need to tell you that deregulating-Ron would not want

a regulating Food and Drug Administration to ensure the safety of your food or meds
[ if you are poisoned, you or your estate can sue ],
or
a regulating Environmental Protection Agency
[ if your land is poisoned by a fracker – move ],
or
a regulating Federal Aviation Administration
[ if you are a scardy cat, take the train ],
or
a regulating Nuclear Regulatory Commission
[ ? ],
or
a regulating National Transportation and Safety Board
[ you know how to safety and crash test your car, don’t you? ],
or
a regulating Securities and Exchange Commission
[ you always pick honest corporate leaders, right ? ]
or
a nuclear bomb free Iran [ don’t all maniacs need one ? ]
or
a democratic ally in the middle east - like Israel
[ "Israeli lobby plays Congress like a cheap harmonica" – RP ]


Four years ago, Ron Paul generated controversy by not repudiating the endorsement of the neo-Nazi group Stormfront, This time, they seem proud about getting the support of a Nebraska Pastor who has made some revealing comments:
Ron Paul’s Iowa chairman, Drew Ivers, recently touted the endorsement of Rev. Phillip G. Kayser,
praising “the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs.” Kayser’s views on homosexuality go way beyond the bounds of typical anti-gay evangelical politics and into the violent fringe - Kayser recently authored a paper arguing for
criminalizing homosexuality and advocated imposing the death penalty
against offenders based on his reading of Biblical law: “As we have seen, while many homosexuals would be executed, the threat of capital punishment can be restorative.”
Has Ron Paul repudiated this endorsement?

My guess is that just like
Ron Paul tried to shove the
Ron Paul Newsletters under the carpet,
Ron Paul will try to shove his
Ron Paul endorser there too

It is fascinating how, despite the fact that fox hates Ron Paul, he uses the same tactics of deceit and obfuscation.


Please note – I’m not saying Ron is 100% nuts – just 99.4% pure


.................................................................
just a tiny fun fact - do you know who Ron named his senator son after?

google the libertarian queen’s name together with the name “William Hickman”


[-] -1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

You are trying "sell me" on the idea that Ron Paul is "nuts". And that's fine. You are free to do so.

But what you are selling is not "being bought".

I will continue to believe in the Constitution of the United States. And I believe that Ron Paul is the only candidate who will truly "protect, preserve and defend it". As he is the only candidate with the actual voting record to prove it.

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 2 years ago

It's not a smear if it is the truth, that's the part the PaulBearers like yourself don't understand.

[-] 0 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

I welcome you to try to "Sell me" on how Ron Paul does not "believe in protecting and promoting Individual Liberty". Please inform me of "the truth" you claim I do not understand.

If you can "sell me", well.... you will.

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 2 years ago

Racist newsletters which got him out of nearly 800,000.00 dollars of debt and earned him at least 20 million dollars over the years selling fear and hate. It's all there in black and white with a Ron Paul banner on top. I know it's hard to accept the fact you and many others have been "sold" a lie and have been "had" but it's best to cut your losses and move on, the civil war ended many years ago.

http://twitter.com/RP_Newsletter

[-] 0 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

Those newsletters don't "sell me". Why? First of all, I don't believe them to be true. They are counter to the message that Ron Paul has espoused for many, many years. What sells me on Ron Paul is his voting record while being a United States Congressman. He has voted time and time again to defend Our Constitution. In Congress he is known as "Dr. No" because he will not approve bills that he feels infringe on the liberties of the people.

What is Barack Obama's voting record?

One more side note: Ron Paul's title of "Dr." comes from him being a medical doctor who has delivered more than 4,000 babies in his career.

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 2 years ago

Deflection from the defective.....

[-] 0 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

I came to that conclusion myself after I did my research on all the candidates. Besides the fact that he's anti civil rights and is pro-life, he takes too much power away from the federal level to the states for me to support him.

[-] -1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

You say: "he's anti-civil rights". (which is short for "anti-civilian rights")

How can he be anti-civilian rights when he is for the Constitution of the United States in which Individual Rights are paramount?

You say "he's pro-life".

Do you want babies to be able to be killed after their heart has begun beating? And if you are okay with that, then what about on just the day before they are to be born? Are you for letting them be killed then, too? For me, I would allow for "some leeway" on this if a rape were involved. Otherwise, the small human's life should be protected.

In the end, all I can really say is that you should vote for who you truly believe in. I will be doing the same.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

You do understand that when the federal government is taken out of the rule making game that leaves the states with more power and leaves the nation more susceptible to divested interests. No where in the Constitution does it speak about individual rights, except when dealing with bill of rights. But instead it talks about states' rights VS Federal's. I have never had my civil liberties violated by the federal gov't, but the state, on the other hand, is notorious at overstepping its jurisdiction. States piss me off, while the federal gov't is more of a gnat, so why would I be happier giving states more power in dictating working conditions and civil rights? Ron Paul believes the state should dictate civil rights, not the individual. And I believe the lack of understanding this vital truth is why so many disgruntle citizens flock to the Ron Paul ticket. He wants states to have the right to be nickled and dimed by moneyed interests, and if the state wants to pass more laws hindering civil rights, well, in his mind, that's their prerogative. I should say though, me living in a red state, Arizona, I have less problem with the state than when I lived in Illinois, a blue state. But I was paid better in Illinois.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

the federal government never violated your civil liberties?
you must be an amazing electrical engineer
that can prove you phone has never been tapped
how smart you are!

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Well, I really don't care that they tap my Phone. Besides they need a FISA warrant, unless I'm talking to a foreigner, which does not have the same rights as I do. So that grey area does not bother me. NOw, I know the patriot act is a slippery slope, and the law could be used for routine criminal investigations which seems shady to me.And if I really wanted to know if they are investigating me, I could file for a freedom of information request. But I don't see why I would have to, I haven't broke the law in a decade. I guess to answer your question, I trust they are not abusing their power. Now, ask me if a news agency or some economic faction has taped my phone, and I would not be so quick to say no. Also, I guess the federal gov't could contract someone to tap my phone, I'm not so sure how that works.

[-] -1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

You write: "No where in the Constitution does it speak about individual rights, except when dealing with bill of rights."

Your statement is akin to saying: "Nowhere in the sky are there clouds, except in the upper atmosphere".

The States cannot infringe on the rights that are granted in the Constitution, which contains the Bill of Rights. And their are plenty of "individual rights" mentioned in that document.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

those rights, which I feel are all intact, are only applicable to the individual. If you want to have a gun on your shoulder and stand on a soap box and scream at the top of your lungs what you believe, you are free to do that. When you open up a business and the federal government does not have jurisdiction to regulate you, You are not unregulated. The state picks up where the Federal government leaves off when it comes to regulating the economy. The economy is not in the purview of the bill of rights. As an individual you are free. As an entrepreneur you are under the auspices of the Federal gov't and its enumerated powers. Those that are not enumerated are under the control of the state. now this is my understanding of the American system and of course it is debatable. You have rights by yourself, The Bill of Rights, but when you and your boys open a business you are no longer acting as an individual, but as a economic faction that is regulated by the individual states or the Fed. I guess I could have stated it better and omitted individual rights and put unregulated economic rights, which is my big beef with libertarians. I am all for personal choices. But when you form a corporation you are no longer an individual but an entity under the control of the commerce clause or the states. And since states can be played off each other, It makes more sense to leave corporate regulations under the control of the Fed.

[-] -1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

I am not in support of Corporations being given the status of "an individual".

That is a "dangerous" notion that allows people to be unaccountable, and it's one Ron Paul agrees: "should be changed".

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

For a Republican, Ron Paul is not that bad. My brother is in fact voting for him in the Primary. And I have not berated him for his choice, lol. His economics is a little kooky in my book, but knowing how our system works, he can have those ideas and they don't really mean dick in the big scheme of things. Also. I think our troops need to come home, and I'm glad to see he is all for it. Cheers!

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

That may be so, but it's not central to his platform.

I'm sure he would just defer to states "rights".

[-] -2 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

I imagine it would be a very difficult thing to actually put into "the law".

It would be reversing an established approach that has been in place for many, many years.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

Go for it

[-] -2 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

Are you going to address the questions I posed for you?

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

Oh! Sorry. He does not support certain equal rights from Civil Rights movement, and by the way, that is not a baby, it's protoplasm and no one has the right to tell a women what she can or cannot do with her body.

[-] -1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

A scenario: A pregnant woman lies on a table at a hospital, in which you are the head doctor. It is one day before the expected birth of her baby. If the woman wanted to, she could ask you to perform a caesarian-section and allow the baby to be born early. She definitely doesn't want a scar on her stomach, so she will wait one more day. And as the birth gets closer and closer, she has a complete change of heart. She decides that she no longer feels the need to be a mother. She wants to now kill the child and asks that you complete the act.

Would you, as the doctor, perform the killing? The woman is a paying customer, after all. Or would you hire someone else to do it?

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

That never happens, abortions are banned in the third trimester, and most women make these decisions before that.

[-] -2 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

So is it safe to say that "after the third trimester has begun", you are in support for laws that prohibit abortion?

If so, should those laws be at the Federal level (and written into the Constitution) or just at the State level?

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

Yes, at the federal level.

[-] -2 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

So, at some level, you are "pro-life". On another level, you are "pro-choice".

[-] 2 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

Where it counts I'm pro-choice, most women decide decide well before they have the baby.

[-] -1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

And I say "let them". There are currently 6.99 Billion humans on the planet. In 1960 there were 3.04 Billion.

The "Life vs. Choice" issue isn't actually a very important one to me personally. I do sometimes enjoy discussing the topic, though.

[-] 0 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

Well, you should vote for who you believe in. Please proceed.

Did you vote for Barack Obama in 2008?

Who did you vote for in 2004?

[-] 0 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

I was to young to vote then, but would've voted Democrat. I will be barely old enough to vote come November.

[-] -1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

Do you plan on voting in this year's presidential race?

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

Of course, I will exercise my rights and vote Democrat. I'm actually quite looking forward to it.

[-] 0 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

Good for you. Voting is exciting.

I would like one answer from you, and just one, for now. You can provide more later. But for your next post, I want you to just tell me one thing that you think is an injustice in America at the level of Federal Law (not State Law). Something where if you were to do it, you could be charged with a crime and be put in jail.

Can you think of one example?

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

Well there are many, but I would say the illegality of marijuana.

[-] -1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

So, what I am hearing you say is: "Putting someone in jail for the smoking of marijuana is an injustice".

Now, to my next question: Is the Presidential candidate that you plan on voting for in favor of changing this injustice?

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

No.

[-] -1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

If this candidate receives "your vote", is it then safe to say that "you will be helping them to perpetuate the injustice"?

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

Well I would say no, Barak Obama did not make it illegal, plus his administration's crack downs are actually bringing more people aware of this injustice so he does have his hand in ending too.

[-] 1 points by economicallydiscardedcitizen (761) 2 years ago

Ron Paul is the nation's 'Write In' candidate. If the nation is aware of the facts asauti and writes him in as their vote, Ron Paul would win.

Unfortunately the greater bulk of Americans are of average intelligence and will vote only for either Obama or Romney and so our fate as a nation and the global economy will be sealed.

If anyone knows of a way to reach the bulk of Americans of average intelligence with the message asauti has given in a much simpler way there may be hope yet.

PS: The vast majority of participants here at this forum are clearly among the smaller percentage of Americans and Global visitors with above average intelligence to grasp the issues of critical importance.

[-] 0 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

I will be one of those that writes in Ron Paul this year, as I did in 2008. I would rather it just be "checking a box" this time around.

[-] 0 points by economicallydiscardedcitizen (761) 2 years ago

Better an honest, researched and well reasoned vote than a 'throw away' vote on a candidate that is bought and paid for by 'the real owners' of this country as the late famed comedian George Carlin said.

[-] 0 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

Totally agree. If you were in the Seattle area, I would enjoy having lunch with you to discuss it more.

A great quote:

............................................................................................................

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”

............................................................................................................

-- John Quincy Adams (American 6th US President (1825-29), eldest son of John Adams, 2nd US president. 1767-1848)

[+] -7 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Ron Paul is done, sweet pea. Finished.

There was no way in hell that he was ever going to be a viable candidate and that was starting with his own party. For as much brewhahaha that is being given on how Romney is going to win, I think they are going to have a really hard time trying to get his own party to back him. There is going to be a split. Religious split.

[-] 0 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

The concept that Ron Paul is "done" isn't the question.

The point of the post is that there are many topics that the front-running candidates will not discuss. There are very important topics that Americans should want to know about, but they won't be openly talked about, as they are virtually "off the table".

[+] -8 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Your questions, and the answers, have been predetermined by the media.

[-] 1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

Here is a very direct question for you: Are Mitt Romney and/or Barack Obama discussing The Federal Reserve in a matter that raises questions about its policies? Are they discussing whether or not the Federal Reserve Transparency Act should be put into law?

And if you say, yes, to either one of the questions above please also provide an example (from a news report) to support it.

[+] -7 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Why don't you save a lot of time and see if you cannot have your question addressed? http://www.whitehouse.gov/OpenForQuestions

[-] -2 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

The question was for you.

Can YOU answer it? And again, if you can answer the question, please include an example to reinforce your argument.

It is an honest question. I am an open-minded person with a desire to hear "another viewpoint". I am looking for intelligent discussion among "peers" (other American citizens).

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Mitt Romney will more than likely not discuss it, unless to utilize the key word transparency. This is based on his response to Luke whatshisname. The only other possible backing of that law would be for him to quasi support the cosponsers of this recent version of the law.

Obama would tell you what has been accomplished at this point, and/or state that you have to actually get it sent to him. Two prior versions of this bill died in committee.


Nonetheless, if you have questions that you want answers to, then you will have to ask them. Further, if you include some type of Illuminati crap or phrase the questions in a loaded overemotional manner then you won't get jack. You don't like the debates on MSM? Nobody does. The questions, and therefore, the answers are already decided.

[-] 0 points by economicallydiscardedcitizen (761) 2 years ago

Exactly. The bought and paid for candidate is as of Mitt Romney's win in Florida more solidly either Barack The Magic Negro as talk show host Rush Limbaugh calls him or Mitt Romney The Man With The Magic Underwear.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

By the way, I do know that I have made some "personal-type attacks" in the post above. My apologies, I suppose my biases against those two candidates is clear. The point is, though, I believe them to be essentially "one-and-the-same".

[-] 0 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

Nice points dude.

[-] 0 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

Thanks.