Jump to content
Islamic Forum
SaracenSoldier

Us Elections 2012

Recommended Posts

I personally prefer America as a Christian based secular nation then just a secular nation. Many of the sins in Islam are the sins in Christianity. However, the support of israel has just got to go, the bible's reference to israel is not the israel of today. But I also think America should stop pulling funding selectively. israel is well off on it's own. I would keep the aid going to countries who desperately need it such as those in Africa.
I understand there would be less sin going around if America wasn't trying so hard to push Christianity out of very aspect of American life. When you push God out, sin comes in. As far as israel, I can defintely understand your sentiments, but I don't believe it will ever happen, because israel and America are married just like husband and wife; they are one. Besides, America knows if they stop support of israel, they'll get wiped out by their brother Ishmael. The fact is the whole world is caught up in the middle of a family feud of angry disgruntled brothers - Isaac and Ishmael. It is too bad that the issues between them weren't properly settled at the time of Abraham. Shara was impatient for a child and didn't tust God. If Muhammad was from Isaac's blood line, Christians and Muslims would be one in unity with religion. There would be nothing to stop reaching the world for God. But God knows best as you say. I know Christians are converting to Islam but you have Muslims converting to Christanity as well. Seem like we are getting no where fast lol Edited by BurningLight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
I understand there would be less sin going around if America wasn't trying so hard to push Christianity out of very aspect of American life. When you push God out, sin comes in. As far as israel, I can defintely understand your sentiments, but I don't believe it will ever happen, because israel and America are married just like husband and wife; they are one. Besides, America knows if they stop support of israel, they'll get wiped out by their brother Ishmael. The fact is the whole world is caught up in the middle of a family feud of angry disgruntled brothers - Isaac and Ishmael. It is too bad that the issues between them weren't properly settled at the time of Abraham. Shara was impatient for a child and didn't tust God. If Muhammad was from Isaac's blood line, Christians and Muslims would be one in unity with religion. There would be nothing to stop reaching the world for God. But God knows best as you say. I know Christians are converting to Islam but you have Muslims converting to Christanity as well. Seem like we are getting no where fast lol

All right, the verse people use to claim that blessing israel comes with goodness and all that is the following:

Genesis 12:3

And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Now this promise was given to Abraham (then known as Abram). Abraham was the father of Isaac and Ishmael. Isaac was the father of Jacob (israel) and Esau. There was this birthright system to the firstborn that seemingly disappeared sometime later. Esau was the original recipient of the birthright, but sold it for a bowl of soup from Jacob. That whole debacle seems a bit shady when you read about it.

 

The fact is, God made the promise to Abraham and his offspring, which would include Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, and Esau, and any daughters not mentioned, birthrights aside. To me, the sphere of this promise extends beyond just Jacob and his offspring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand there would be less sin going around if America wasn't trying so hard to push Christianity out of very aspect of American life. When you push God out, sin comes in. As far as israel, I can defintely understand your sentiments, but I don't believe it will ever happen, because israel and America are married just like husband and wife; they are one. Besides, America knows if they stop support of israel, they'll get wiped out by their brother Ishmael. The fact is the whole world is caught up in the middle of a family feud of angry disgruntled brothers - Isaac and Ishmael. It is too bad that the issues between them weren't properly settled at the time of Abraham. Shara was impatient for a child and didn't tust God. If Muhammad was from Isaac's blood line, Christians and Muslims would be one in unity with religion. There would be nothing to stop reaching the world for God. But God knows best as you say. I know Christians are converting to Islam but you have Muslims converting to Christanity as well. Seem like we are getting no where fast lol

 

Salam.

 

I don't believe America is going too stop funding israel too, but I'm just saying they should for moral and economic reasons.

 

America as a Christian secular based nation would be much better then America is heading towards now. So many sins becoming accepted, it's disheartening. Billboards attacking God, gay marriage being legalized, drugs, etc, etc. We Muslims and Christians have much in common and it would benefit both of us if Christianity was more in-rooted into America.

 

During the Persian-Roman wars, Muslims preferred the Christian Romans to defeat the Pagan Persians. This is how I feel about America only crossing out the pagans and adding the militant secularists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salam.

 

I don't believe America is going too stop funding israel too, but I'm just saying they should for moral and economic reasons.

 

America as a Christian secular based nation would be much better then America is heading towards now. So many sins becoming accepted, it's disheartening. Billboards attacking God, gay marriage being legalized, drugs, etc, etc. We Muslims and Christians have much in common and it would benefit both of us if Christianity was more in-rooted into America.

 

During the Persian-Roman wars, Muslims preferred the Christian Romans to defeat the Pagan Persians. This is how I feel about America only crossing out the pagans and adding the militant secularists.

i understand and agree. I appreciate hearing this. Many Muslims blame Christians for the sins as if it were part of Christianity. You show an understanding that goes beyond that mentality Edited by BurningLight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron Paul is polling first in Iowa at 23%!

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetpublicpolicypolling(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/main/2011/12/paul-leads-in-iowa.html"]PPP - Ron Paul Leads in Iowa[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are a history buff. I only said that it was founded on Christianity, because of the declarations made by most of the founding fathers a good 55 of them. In fact, George Washington went as far as to say not to consider yourself American if you would ever attempt to remove religion from our institutions and John Jay Supereme court judge was adamant this was a Christian nation; finally, you couldn't even get in office without a confession of believing in Jesus Christ as your Savior. These are the facts. Look it up for yourself. Put this way, all the founders with maybe the exception of two of them are rolling over in their graves with America stands on Christianity.

What you quote are their personal opinions, but if you look at the government they created, it was secular, which is why despite Washington's opinion, we do in fact have separation of church and state, and this same state is expected to treat all religions equally. And why do you think that, without a single change to the Constitution, we are able to elect officials who don't confess Jesus Christ as their savior. Because our state is secular, not Christian. A Christian nation would inherently favor Christianity. Ours does not, and the reason it does not is by design. It was purposely created to treat all of its citizens, irrespective of their religious beliefs, with the same measure. It was this equality before the law that allowed Washington, Jay, and others to have and express their opinions. But it is also the same equality that allowed the deists to express their opinions, for me to express my atheistic opinions and Muslim citizens to express their religious beliefs. This is only possible with a secular state, and it is because it is only possible with such a state that the founding fathers created it this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally prefer America as a Christian based secular nation then just a secular nation. Many of the sins in Islam are the sins in Christianity. However, the support of israel has just got to go, the bible's reference to israel is not the israel of today. But I also think America should stop pulling funding selectively. israel is well off on it's own. I would keep the aid going to countries who desperately need it such as those in Africa.

I have no idea what a Christian based secular nation is. Of course the laws of a country are going to reflect the majority belief, and so they will bear a similarity to the precepts of Christianity, but that is incidental to the nature of the state, and can and will change with the evolution of public opinion. If the Muslim community in the United States continues to grow, this too will eventually be reflected in the laws of the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Besides, America knows if they stop support of israel, they'll get wiped out by their brother Ishmael. The fact is the whole world is caught up in the middle of a family feud of angry disgruntled brothers - Isaac and Ishmael. It is too bad that the issues between them weren't properly settled at the time of Abraham. Shara was impatient for a child and didn't tust God. If Muhammad was from Isaac's blood line, Christians and Muslims would be one in unity with religion. There would be nothing to stop reaching the world for God. But God knows best as you say. I know Christians are converting to Islam but you have Muslims converting to Christanity as well. Seem like we are getting no where fast lol

What a series of ridiculous statements. How would not supporting israel cause Arabs (or whoever you think are the descendants of Ishmael) to destroy America? And the whole world caught up in a family feud? That would take some creative interpretation to demonstrate that political wrangling between India and China has anything at all to do with these things, and that ought to be a sign for you that your interpretative paradigm is too narrow to adequately explain what you are seeing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no idea what a Christian based secular nation is. Of course the laws of a country are going to reflect the majority belief, and so they will bear a similarity to the precepts of Christianity, but that is incidental to the nature of the state, and can and will change with the evolution of public opinion.

 

Precisely. What I'm trying to say is that I would prefer the evolution of public opinion to return to a more Christianized view. Many of the things secularists and liberals are pushing out today go against Christianity which usually goes against Islam.

 

 

If the Muslim community in the United States continues to grow, this too will eventually be reflected in the laws of the country.

 

I have a hard time buying that. The attack on sharia law before Muslims even think to add it to the state/country laws shows that this is very unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Precisely. What I'm trying to say is that I would prefer the evolution of public opinion to return to a more Christianized view. Many of the things secularists and liberals are pushing out today go against Christianity which usually goes against Islam.

A lot of those views being pushed are towards a more tolerant society, something that would be an advantage for Muslims. I don't really see what the problem is as long as you aren't prevented from following Islam. So what if non-Muslims act like non-Muslims?

 

I have a hard time buying that. The attack on sharia law before Muslims even think to add it to the state/country laws shows that this is very unlikely.

But that is only because Muslims are still a very small minority. You can't expect to impose something as completely Islamic as Sharia law when Muslims make up less than 3% of the population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What you quote are their personal opinions, but if you look at the government they created, it was secular, which is why despite Washington's opinion, we do in fact have separation of church and state, and this same state is expected to treat all religions equally. And why do you think that, without a single change to the Constitution, we are able to elect officials who don't confess Jesus Christ as their savior. Because our state is secular, not Christian. A Christian nation would inherently favor Christianity. Ours does not, and the reason it does not is by design. It was purposely created to treat all of its citizens, irrespective of their religious beliefs, with the same measure. It was this equality before the law that allowed Washington, Jay, and others to have and express their opinions. But it is also the same equality that allowed the deists to express their opinions, for me to express my atheistic opinions and Muslim citizens to express their religious beliefs. This is only possible with a secular state, and it is because it is only possible with such a state that the founding fathers created it this way.
No they are not. "Separation of church and state" is not mentioned in the constitution. Besides the purpose of separation of church and state was never to keep the church out of government; it was designed to keep the government out of the churches. They wanted Christianity in government, but they didn't want a church state (church dominating rule like they had in England). The founders made it clear this is a Christian nation. Look up David Barton. He makes it really clear and covers every detail. America was unequivocally founded on Christianity and has drifted from its Godly heritage to where people incorrectly say the governmet had intended it that way or is doing what it was designed to.

 

 

 

What a series of ridiculous statements. How would not supporting israel cause Arabs (or whoever you think are the descendants of Ishmael) to destroy America? And the whole world caught up in a family feud? That would take some creative interpretation to demonstrate that political wrangling between India and China has anything at all to do with these things, and that ought to be a sign for you that your interpretative paradigm is too narrow to adequately explain what you are seeing.
The whole word is caught up in a family feud between Ishmael and Isaac is self explanatory. The descendants of Ishmael are the great prophet Muhammad (Muslims) the descendants of Isaac are the Jews (Judeo-Christianity) is there not conflict of beliefs plus is there not political clashing between the middle east and the world. It's your comments that are ridiculous. Edited by BurningLight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No they are not. "Separation of church and state" is not mentioned in the constitution. Besides the purpose of separation of church and state was never to keep the church out of government; it was designed to keep the government out of the churches. They wanted Christianity in government, but they didn't want a church state (church dominating rule like they had in England). The founders made it clear this is a Christian nation. Look up David Barton. He makes it really clear and covers every detail. America was unequivocally founded on Christianity and has drifted from its Godly heritage to where people incorrectly say the governmet had intended it that way or is doing what it was designed to.

And the trinity isn't mentioned in the Bible. You need to read the first amendment again, there are two clauses regarding religion. The second does indeed prohibit the government from interfering with the freedom to exercise one's religious beliefs, but the first, the establishment clause, prevents exactly what you are claiming, the establishment of a national religion.

 

The whole word is caught up in a family feud between Ishmael and Isaac is self explanatory. The descendants of Ishmael are the great prophet Muhammad (Muslims) the descendants of Isaac are the Jews (Judeo-Christianity) is there not conflict of beliefs plus is there not political clashing between the middle east and the world. It's your comments that are ridiculous.

No it isn't. First of all, Christianity requires no belief about the state of israel, and second, where would communist China fit in your little scenario?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And the trinity isn't mentioned in the Bible. You need to read the first amendment again, there are two clauses regarding religion. The second does indeed prohibit the government from interfering with the freedom to exercise one's religious beliefs, but the first, the establishment clause, prevents exactly what you are claiming, the establishment of a national religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I simply said that the words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the amendment. I read it over. I still don't see it those words in it. Read what I said again. I said, the founders wanted the government out of the churches not Christianity out of government. They didn't want another church state senario like they had in England

Edited by BurningLight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The descendants of Ishmael are the great prophet Muhammad (Muslims) the descendants of Isaac are the Jews (Judeo-Christianity) is there not conflict of beliefs plus is there not political clashing between the middle east and the world. It's your comments that are ridiculous.

Most Christians are Gentiles (i.e. non-Jewish). I also remember Jesus saying something like "give to Caesar what is Caeser's, and give to God what is God's." Sounds like a separation to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I simply said that the words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the amendment. I read it over. I still don't see it those words in it. Read what I said again. I said, the founders wanted the government out of the churches not Christianity out of government. They didn't want another church state senario like they had in England

Congratulations. You completely ignored my previous post. Please look at it again. It had arguments against your position in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Congratulations. You completely ignored my previous post. Please look at it again. It had arguments against your position in it.
"No it isn't. First of all, Christianity requires no belief about the state of israel, and second, where would communist China fit in your little scenario?" when I said the world is caught up in a family feud between Ishmael and Isaac's seed, I didn't mean it in the sense of just the state of israel. I meant it in the sense that God's promise to Ishmael would be to make him strong with him against every man and every man against him. Moreover there is the promise from God that Isaac is the child of promise. This conflict is affecting the world some countries are directly affected and some indirectly. This will plunge us into the next major world war. Perhaps it will result the worst world war we have ever know; in fact, I am sure it will eventually plunge the world into the battle of Armageddon, So if the next world war is not enough to convince you, I am sure the battle of Armageddon will. I speak of what I discern spiritually. Imo, the world is caught up in the family feud whether it is realized or not. Just between Christians and Muslims this makes up most of the worlds population. A battle must take place in the spiritual realm that will manifest itsel in the world. Edited by BurningLight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"No it isn't. First of all, Christianity requires no belief about the state of israel, and second, where would communist China fit in your little scenario?" when I said the world is caught up in a family feud between Ishmael and Isaac's seed, I didn't mean it in the sense of just the state of israel. I meant it in the sense that God's promise to Ishmael would be to make him strong with him against every man and every man against him.

No, you divided it up into two camps; the Judeo-Christian (Isaac) side and the Arab (Ishmael) side.

 

Moreover there is the promise from God that Isaac is the child of promise. This conflict is affecting the world some countries are directly affected and some indirectly. This will plunge us into the next major world war. Perhaps it will result the worst world war we have ever know; in fact, I am sure it will eventually plunge the world into the battle of Armageddon,

I doubt it, but you never know.

 

So if the next world war is not enough to convince you, I am sure the battle of Armageddon will. I speak of what I discern spiritually. Imo, the world is caught up in the family feud whether it is realized or not. Just between Christians and Muslims this makes up most of the worlds population. A battle must take place in the spiritual realm that will manifest itsel in the world.

This is perhaps one of the few things I am glad I lost with my religion. I feel no compulsion to believe there has to be a horrible battle in which a large number of humanity is slaughtered. I think such beliefs predispose us to fulfill them since they are "inevitable", making them a sort of self-fulfilling prophesy in the minds of those who believe such.

 

I also made some arguments about your interpretation of the First Amendment as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And the trinity isn't mentioned in the Bible. You need to read the first amendment again, there are two clauses regarding religion. The second does indeed prohibit the government from interfering with the freedom to exercise one's religious beliefs, but the first, the establishment clause, prevents exactly what you are claiming, the establishment of a national religion.

No it isn't. First of all, Christianity requires no belief about the state of israel, and second, where would communist China fit in your little scenario?

I address the trinity in that other thread "The Trinity". I didn't address your comment on the first and second clause because i didn't fully understand what you meant. I know the govenment doesn't interfer with the freedom of religion, but they had the different versions of Christianity in mind at that time. It is a fact that people running for office needed to make a profession of faith in Jesus to get into office. They didn' t want non Chirsitians running the country. The words "Separation of Church and state" is not in the amendment, but it was designed orginally to keep govenment out of Church affairs not Christianity out of governmet like so many believe. The amendment has been reinterpreted to mean other than what the founders intended. That was the point I was trying to make.

 

No, you divided it up into two camps; the Judeo-Christian (Isaac) side and the Arab (Ishmael) side.

I doubt it, but you never know.

This is perhaps one of the few things I am glad I lost with my religion. I feel no compulsion to believe there has to be a horrible battle in which a large number of humanity is slaughtered. I think such beliefs predispose us to fulfill them since they are "inevitable", making them a sort of self-fulfilling prophesy in the minds of those who believe such.

I am only sharing what I pull out of the Bible. It says that the blood will be up the horses bridle. I am not looking forward to such a thing, but I am looking forward to Christ's return just as the Muslim are. I want to see Jesus received the reward of His suffering. Self-fulfilling prohecy? no, it goes way beyond that involving conflict at global proportions. lol, My belief will not cause all that, I assure you. It is because it is written!
I also made some arguments about your interpretation of the First Amendment as well.
Did you look up David Barton? Edited by BurningLight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I address the trinity in that thread.

It was a rhetorical statement about the trinity not being in the Bible and yet it is a Biblical doctrine. Just because the words "separation of church and state" aren't explicitly in the wording of the First Amendment doesn't mean that the concept isn't upheld by it.

 

I didn't address your comment on the first and second clause because i didn't fully understand what you meant. I know the govenment doesn't interfer with the freedom of religion, but they had the different versions of Christianity in mind at that time.

And yet they didn't say "versions of Christianity". They used the word religion. And Christianity is a religion. I don't think this was an oversight on the part of the writers of the Constitution.

 

It is a fact that people running for office needed to make a profession of faith in Jesus to get into office.

And it is a fact that you do not need a profession of faith to run for office now, nor have you ever needed one to serve in Congress or as President. Your problem isn't with any reinterpretation of the First Amendment. It has always forbidden the government to favor any particular religion. Your issue is with the Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection clause in it, which extended the scope of the protections granted by the Constitution: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause[/url]

 

They didn' t want non Chirsitians running the country.

It doesn't matter what they wanted. What they wrote ensured that no one was barred from elected office, irrespective of religion.

 

the words "Separation of Church and state" is not in the amendment, but it was designed orginally to keep govenment out of Church affairs not Christianity out of governmet like so many believe. The amendment has been reinterpreted to mean other than what the founders intended. That was the point I was trying to make.

No, it was not reinterpreted. It was reapplied to a broader swath of American life through the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

Did you look up David Barton?

Did you look up Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence from whom the phrase "Separation of Church and State" originates? I believe he served as President of the United States as well. Whose perspective do you think has a better understanding of what the writers of the Constitution intended?

 

Nevertheless, I did look him up, but there are a couple of David Bartons, including a senator from Missouri. Just to make sure I have the right one, is it the David Barton who holds no formal credentials in history or law, and whom critics dispute the accuracy and integrity of his assertions about history, accusing him of practicing misleading historical revisionism, "pseudoscholarship" and "outright falsehoods". Is it the same David Barton who's research has been described as flawed by many historians, who dismiss his work as that of "a biased amateur who cherry-picks quotes from history and the Bible"? Let me know if I have the right David Barton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was a rhetorical statement about the trinity not being in the Bible and yet it is a Biblical doctrine. Just because the words "separation of church and state" aren't explicitly in the wording of the First Amendment doesn't mean that the concept isn't upheld by it.

And yet they didn't say "versions of Christianity". They used the word religion. And Christianity is a religion. I don't think this was an oversight on the part of the writers of the Constitution.

And it is a fact that you do not need a profession of faith to run for office now, nor have you ever needed one to serve in Congress or as President. Your problem isn't with any reinterpretation of the First Amendment. It has always forbidden the government to favor any particular religion. Your issue is with the Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection clause in it, which extended the scope of the protections granted by the Constitution: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause[/url]

It doesn't matter what they wanted. What they wrote ensured that no one was barred from elected office, irrespective of religion.

No, it was not reinterpreted. It was reapplied to a broader swath of American life through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Did you look up Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence from whom the phrase "Separation of Church and State" originates? I believe he served as President of the United States as well. Whose perspective do you think has a better understanding of what the writers of the Constitution intended?

 

Nevertheless, I did look him up, but there are a couple of David Bartons, including a senator from Missouri. Just to make sure I have the right one, is it the David Barton who holds no formal credentials in history or law, and whom critics dispute the accuracy and integrity of his assertions about history, accusing him of practicing misleading historical revisionism, "pseudoscholarship" and "outright falsehoods". Is it the same David Barton who's research has been described as flawed by many historians, who dismiss his work as that of "a biased amateur who cherry-picks quotes from history and the Bible"? Let me know if I have the right David Barton.

Okay, we agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, Ron Paul's foreign policy is the only one I like and he is strongly against the neo conservatives which is always a plus. Definitely dislike Mitt Romney who is a neo conservative and believes in pre-emptive war. Don't like Rick Santorum either.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, Ron Paul's foreign policy is the only one I like and he is strongly against the neo conservatives which is always a plus. Definitely dislike Mitt Romney who is a neo conservative and believes in pre-emptive war. Don't like Rick Santorum either.

There all a bunch of neocons, with the exception of Paul, as far as I can tell, and I wouldn't vote for any of the rest of them. We've had more than enough neo-conservative foreign policy with Bush. Obama is better, but he hasn't moved far enough away from Bush's negative legacy in practice. If Ron Paul wins the Republican primary, it will be very tough for me to decide who to vote for. If he doesn't win, it will be no question who I vote for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There all a bunch of neocons, with the exception of Paul, as far as I can tell, and I wouldn't vote for any of the rest of them. We've had more than enough neo-conservative foreign policy with Bush. Obama is better, but he hasn't moved far enough away from Bush's negative legacy in practice. If Ron Paul wins the Republican primary, it will be very tough for me to decide who to vote for. If he doesn't win, it will be no question who I vote for.

I think the Republican race is going to turn into a Mitt Romney vs. Ron Paul race soon enough. Gingrich, Perry, Santorum, and Huntsman have failed to get on the ballot in a lot of later states, which means they'd lose out on a large chunk of delegates to the national convention, essentially eliminating any chance they'd have of getting the nomination. Only Ron Paul and Mitt Romney's campaigns are prepared for a long, drawn-out primary process. The ABC debate last Saturday night was wonderful when Ron held firm on characterizing Newt Gingrich as a chickenhawk. (For some reason, the YouTube tags aren't working for me...)

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetyoutube(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/watch?v=8QJMM_btpmM"]Ron Paul Spars with Newt Gingrich Over Military Record[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the Republican race is going to turn into a Mitt Romney vs. Ron Paul race soon enough. Gingrich, Perry, Santorum, and Huntsman have failed to get on the ballot in a lot of later states, which means they'd lose out on a large chunk of delegates to the national convention, essentially eliminating any chance they'd have of getting the nomination. Only Ron Paul and Mitt Romney's campaigns are prepared for a long, drawn-out primary process. The ABC debate last Saturday night was wonderful when Ron held firm on characterizing Newt Gingrich as a chickenhawk. (For some reason, the YouTube tags aren't working for me...)

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetyoutube(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/watch?v=8QJMM_btpmM"]Ron Paul Spars with Newt Gingrich Over Military Record[/url]

I sincerely hope that Paul does well. I know I will be voting for him when Texas does it's primary (when that is know one knows since our redistricting has gone to the Supreme Court). I think you can count on another four years of Obama if he doesn't get the nomination (unless something truly catastrophic happens). I think Americans are sick of a foreign policy based on military intervention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I sincerely hope that Paul does well. I know I will be voting for him when Texas does it's primary (when that is no one knows since our redistricting has gone to the Supreme Court). I think you can count on another four years of Obama if he doesn't get the nomination (unless something truly catastrophic happens). I think Americans are sick of a foreign policy based on military intervention.

There is one thing that Ron Paul supporters would agree on: if the GOP doesn't nominate Ron Paul, they WILL lose the election, and I hope that the party goes the way of the Whigs. The slogan that has been adopted this go-around is "No one but Paul." We make up a large enough chunk of the voting population to deny any neo-con the win. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for someone that I fundamentally disagree with on a wide array of issues, the most important one being ending the wars and abandoning the horrendous doctrine of pre-emptive war.

Edited by Wanderer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×