aj

Is there anybody like me who thinks that Ron Paul is looking like a good candidate now. I was a Romney supporter during the primary. However, the recent events exposing the governments failures in this current financial crisis and the facilitation of the mortgage and credit mess through Fannie, Freddie, and The Fed has got me wishing we had different choices in this election. Then comes this incompetent bailout plan that has basically kicked us into high gear toward socialism, which McCain and Obama supported. I mean, how much more can we take from this failing BIG government and both of these candidates want to continue more of the same big government policies.

I think Ron Paul and his approach toward the economy and government are sounding better and better with each passing day. Less government and free markets. Government intervention has been the problem and will continue to be the problem with either of these two major party candiduds. Anybody else feel the same?

If he were back in the game, enlight of the current situation, would anybody vote for him that wouldn't have in the primaries?

At the end of Obama's press conference, he said "in my opinion", the problem we are having is psychological. Lenders are afraid to lend to people and extend credit lines to business. He said the objective of the Treasury Sec. Paulson and FED chairman Bernanke is to break this psychology and let the people and lenders know that it's ok to lend and borrow. But it is this psychological problem that needs to be fixed. It's not the fundamentals of the economy that aren't strong, it is the psychology of the economy.

My question is: how is this different, fundamentally, from what McCain advisor Phil Gramm said a few months back, that 'we are in a mental recession', indicating we are mentally, or psychologically creating a recession through fear and through our negative perspective on the economy (mostly propagated by the Democratic party)? Obama has beaten this to death on the stump and has politicized it as much as possible.

Now, without a teleprompter, speaking from the tip of his tongue and top of his head. Speaking his mind. He is in agreement with it.

Did anyone else who saw the press conference pick up on this, or just me?

Do they realize they nominated Barry Obama for President. Palin has more executive experience than either Biden or Obama. Palin has experience outside Washington D.C. unlike Biden. Palin has experience of reform and change as a governor, neither Democrat has that.

Is this really the argument the Democrats need to make? Why was this not made with Obama, is his inexperience ok as the Presidential candidate but her inexperience is not ok as a VP candidate? Where is the sense in all this.....

Obama and the Dems new video attacks McCain as being "Exxon John" (search for yourself), indicating that McCain is in the pocket of Exxon. Reality is a bit different. We all know that in 2005 Obama voted for that Cheney Energy bill that extended the subsidies to big oil. McCain voted against it, specifically because of that.

Up through June, Obama received more money from Exxon contributers than McCain has. He has received more from BP and Chevron too for that matter.

Granted, McCain gets more money overall from oil and gas company contributions, that is to be expected when he wants to drill and Obama wants to tax them to death.

How is it that Obama can get away with attacking McCain for being in the pocket of Exxon, when he has received more contributions from them? What do you think?

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08/oil-indust...

Please respond only if you believe that man is the cause or one of the causes of global warming. Also, please read the article before you respond. If you provide evidence contrary to this article, please cite the source. The more information in this debate, the better!

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,2403...

Even if you are not a proponent of AGW, READ the article ANYWAY. No need for you to respond because this will only be further evidence of your views.

The media and Democrats always say the Republicans are in bed with everyone from the oil companies to Saudi Arabia. However, Democratic policies have benefited Saudia Arabia a great deal more. Carter passed the wind fall profit tax in 1980, imposed the Carter Doctrine, and basically killed nuclear energy. Their regulations have only increased our dependence on foreign oil and punished American oil companies.

Just in the last two months, they have killed Republican bills that included drilling in ANWR, oil shale, coal to oil, off shore drilling, and all other things adding to the supply of future oil. Last years energy bill included a bunch of goodies like renewables development, we need those, but it did nothing to encourage increasing current supplies of energy. This only promotes higher prices which benefit the Saudis, the Russians, Venezuala, Iran, etc..., you know the ones who sell the world oil.

I'm looking for further research for the vastly important issue of man-made global warming, please provide a source to the most important facts or figures you have seen with regards to the role of humans in Global Warming.

If we are not the cause of a warming globe or a changing climate, we can't do anything about it, the urgency and high costs to consumers is economically dangerous and risky.

However, if we do play a significant role in global warming or climate change, we need to act as quickly as possible. Thus, it is vital to try to prevent the potentially high future costs.

Please cite sources to where ever you get your information from. I don't care if it is for or against, left or right, or neither. I'm curious to see all perspectives, but cited material, so we all can follow up for further research.

Thanks!

Personally, I think Bob Barr is more electible than Ron Paul. He has a better resume than Paul, and the rest of the candidates for that matter. He has been a boardmember of the NRA since 1997. He would repeal the 16th Amendment. He is more charismatic than Paul, at least in my opinion.

The movement that surrounded Ron Paul had intensity, something the conservative (not Republican) base is lacking. Maybe it's just me, but Ron Paul kind of became the default candidate true conservatives could rally around at this time. The other Republican candidates (heck, the party in general) seem more liberal than a decade ago (fiscally, and in terms of privacy). I think that is what generated so much activity around Paul. Could that intensity switch to Bob Barr because I don't know if many will vote for McCain.

Republicans seem to have become more liberal in the last decade. They spend like Democrats. They have enacted legislation like the Patriot Act which infringes on privacy. They haven't done anything to combat the ever rising social welfare costs and pork barrel spending. Where have the conservatives gone?

On the other hand, Democrats have become a great deal more liberal. What may be happening is candidates entering politics who would have been more moderate Dems may be opting to go with the Republican party since the Dems are going so far left. This, in turn, makes the Republicans less conservative.

Conservatives feel more disenfranchized than ever this election. Maybe our politicians have seen that making promises of government hand outs (earmarks and programs) appeal to individuals, even though it is bad for society as a whole.

I want to hear alternate perspectives on what may be going on here, if in fact, my hypothesis is true.

We are all pro-life. Why is this designation used to describe those on a moral trip who feel they need to try to force their beliefs on to others. Shouldn't they be called 'anti-choice'?

Seriously, who isn't pro-life? I'm against destroying an unborn fetus, but who am I to make that choice for every woman. There are better ways to reduce the number of abortions, creating a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion is not one of them. Woman who are willing to get an abortion will most likely do it regardless of its legalities. Making abortion illegal would lead to a large increase in problems from women who are going to do it (back ally unregulated abortions vs. sterile regulated clinic abortions, you do the math).

Why don't we get away from the pro-life and pro-choice designations and the legal debate? We need to work at educating young women and lower income women in birth control and family planning.

Please provide agreements and disagreements and elaborate..

Honestly, why do we need the FDA? It's a bureaucracy that holds up the process. It delays the release of valuable medications that could save lives. Doesn't this cause more deaths than what they save by regulating the drug and keeping it off the market? The FDA is succeptable to manipulation by special interests, this prevents competition and allows the FDA to determine which companies get their drugs to the market place. On top of all that, doesn't it cost a great deal of money to get drugs passed, increasing the costs consumers pay. With a judicial system to hold companies accountable, why don't we get rid of the FDA... Your thoughts...