Where do the candidates stand on the issues - A guide for 2008 - Page 7

Pookie · 03-16-08, 07:28 PM

Well, I look at all the issues of the candidates, and I watch them closely to see if they do indeed act upon their words. From these I make a judgement, and therefore, cast my vote.
Purrs,
Pookie

Bodhisattva · 05-01-08, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danarhea

Instead of voting for a party, how about voting for a candidate? This comprehensive list shows where all the candidates stand on just about all the important issues that we as Americans are now facing.

This is one of the best websites around that tracks candidates' positions, and I hope that this thread will be made sticky by the mods.

2008 Presidential Candidates' Stands on the Issues.

I have to check out this guy Paul.

Truth Detector · 05-07-08, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrdman2luv

Ron Paul is more Anti-Tax than any of the Republican candidates. And is more Anti-War than any of the Democrat candidates.

Ron Paul is a whacko who appeals to the whackos who blather the blogosphere with their whacko unrealistic and naive ideas about REALITY.

Truth Detector · 05-07-08, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paykey

The only thing I can think of that would help direct this country back to being the best and loved one is, we need to get new blood in and that would mean getting all of congress out and put not the rich in, but people that would do their comunities right. We might then get rid of the pork barrel spending, the oversight of earmarked dollars for families employment, health care for all and not just the rich or the ones in Washington, veterns care, food for the poor, housing for the poor, and laws that will be for all. That is the only way the goverment will not beable to buy their power

I'd like someone to prove this statement to me with some FACTS rather than naive non-factual emotion:

"direct this country back to being the best and loved one is"

Truth Detector · 05-07-08, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrdman2luv

The whole middle eastern game is just that. A game. A game for not only money and power. But also for the childish way of getting the power to control the oil. While the leaders of these nations are at war for this oil, the oil companies are sitting back on their fat proffits, laughing at this game that will be won by either side in their favor. As it stands now, America with it's military might, is winning the war on oil.

From a middle class Americans stand point, I could care less if the arabs, politicians and muslims drank the crude with their breakfast cereal. Within 5 years, I can be completely off the grid. Meaning, I won't need to buy my electricity or water.

With the new technology available to Americans right now, with solar and wind alone, the only need for crude I need is plastic bags, gasoline and diesel.

American politicians have to ability to get all of America off foreign oil within a few years. But, that isn't part of their game plan.

If I have said it once, I have said it 1,000 times, if there was no oil in Iraq, our soldiers wouldn't be there. And, George Bush could have made the central front on terror in Afghanistan easier than Iraq.

The pipelines through Afghanistan is just one small peice of evidence that can e used against the oil companies, the Bush administration and those involved in this huge enormous lie that has plagued this country for 7 or more years.

I can see why you are a Ron Paul advocate with such a naive commentary. Let me correct one of your and many others, false arguments about our efforts in Iraq:

" if there was no oil in Iraq, our soldiers wouldn't be there."

This is false; if Saddam had never invaded his neighbor Kuwait and been defeated, and had not defied the UN resolutions for over a decade, then we would not be there.

Why is this argument so specious you may ask; because if it were only about oil we would be occupying Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and invading Iran as well?

The notion that we invaded a nation we received little oil from before or after is patently false argument by those who desperately desire to avoid the facts and truth.

Kandahar · 05-11-08, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

I can see why you are a Ron Paul advocate with such a naive commentary. Let me correct one of your and many others, false arguments about our efforts in Iraq:

" if there was no oil in Iraq, our soldiers wouldn't be there."

This is false; if Saddam had never invaded his neighbor Kuwait and been defeated, and had not defied the UN resolutions for over a decade, then we would not be there.

Desert Storm is a perfect example of a conflict that was absolutely, 100% about oil and nothing else. Why else should we CARE if Iraq invaded Kuwait? Would we send troops if Senegal invaded the Gambia to get its peanut crop? Of course not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

Why is this argument so specious you may ask; because if it were only about oil we would be occupying Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and invading Iran as well?

The notion that we invaded a nation we received little oil from before or after is patently false argument by those who desperately desire to avoid the facts and truth.

There is a difference between acknowledging the FACT that we wouldn't be in Iraq if there was no oil, and perpetuating the MYTH that we invaded Iraq to get easier access to their oil.

I doubt that any of the architects of this war (or of Desert Storm) ever consciously said to each other "I bet if we invade Iraq, we'll get some cheap/free oil as a result." But the fact is that the Middle East makes more noise than any other region of the world, because it is a region of such strategic importance due to its oil. The same is true in many other places: why does the American media spend so much time focusing on our relationship with Venezuela instead of our relationship with Bolivia? Because Venezuela has significant amounts of oil and Bolivia does not.

Truth Detector · 05-13-08, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kandahar

Desert Storm is a perfect example of a conflict that was absolutely, 100% about oil and nothing else. Why else should we CARE if Iraq invaded Kuwait? Would we send troops if Senegal invaded the Gambia to get its peanut crop? Of course not.

There is a difference between acknowledging the FACT that we wouldn't be in Iraq if there was no oil, and perpetuating the MYTH that we invaded Iraq to get easier access to their oil.

I doubt that any of the architects of this war (or of Desert Storm) ever consciously said to each other "I bet if we invade Iraq, we'll get some cheap/free oil as a result." But the fact is that the Middle East makes more noise than any other region of the world, because it is a region of such strategic importance due to its oil. The same is true in many other places: why does the American media spend so much time focusing on our relationship with Venezuela instead of our relationship with Bolivia? Because Venezuela has significant amounts of oil and Bolivia does not.

Do you have the slightest clue about how much oil the US derives from ALL Middle East oil reserves?

Give it a try and become INFORMED before you continue to postulate such absurd assertions.

I look forward to seeing your credible and factual answer to this question.

rivrrat · 05-13-08, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

Do you have the slightest clue about how much oil the US derives from ALL Middle East oil reserves?

Give it a try and become INFORMED before you continue to postulate such absurd assertions.

I look forward to seeing your credible and factual answer to this question.

Getting the oil from a place isn't nearly as beneficial as controlling the oil.

Control is what we're after, not the oil itself. Control is what's important.

Truth Detector · 05-13-08, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

Getting the oil from a place isn't nearly as beneficial as controlling the oil.

Control is what we're after, not the oil itself. Control is what's important.

That wasn't the question, but then you beg another one; how are we able to "control" the flow of Middle East Oil and Opec? Do you honestly think we "control" anything there?

The original question was this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth Detector
Do you have the slightest clue about how much oil the US derives from ALL Middle East oil reserves?

How hard is it to answer honestly? I think this illustrates that those who are of Liberal/Leftist persuasion never want to answer anything directly or with any level of honesty because then it would highlight the fallacies of most of their arguments.

Ikari · 05-13-08, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

This is false; if Saddam had never invaded his neighbor Kuwait and been defeated, and had not defied the UN resolutions for over a decade, then we would not be there.

You know why Saddam went into Kuwait, right? Kuwait was sidedrilling (ala Mr. Burns) into Iraq and taking their oil. If there was no oil in Iraq, Saddam wouldn't have invaded as there would have been no theft to have kicked it all off.