steve h

Should a foreign government, their citizens, dual citizens, or American citizens with ethnic or economic ties to those countries be allowed to contribute money, through political action committees and lobbies, to congressional political campaigns, with the hope of swaying votes on foreign policy, in order to benefit their countries? Where should the lines be drawn, if at all? When would this become counter-productive to America's interests? In a broader sense, is lobbying wrong?

In a court of law, causing accidental death is a crime. What is your answer to this question? None at all because it is the govt, not me? Not at all, it was an accident? Somewhat, because I voted for politicians that support the war? None at all as I don't support the war? Totally, because the government represents me? Or something else?

If so, when and how can they be absolved?

Or is the policy of invasion and regime change only morally right for those countries strong enough to do it?

If reincarnation is true, and it is true that there are more people alive on earth right now than have ever lived and died, then the math doesn't add up. not everybody could have had a past life then. Who of us has had past lives then? Who has had more than one? Do we share past lives? :> Do we have past lives as animals, or even insects and plants? or rocks? What is the total number of souls? is it a finite number or infinite? Or we all only one soul and that explains the past lives? Are there new souls... and old souls?

Just another one of those 'imbedded questions' by one of the 'Ron Paul Gang"! I know who I would trust to cure the country's ailments!

This question is not whether Ron Paul gets the GOP nomination or not, as Rudy will probably get it. Gallup polls already show that Rudy loses badly against Hillary in an election.

This question considers that both Paul and Clinton would get their party's nomination and would face off in an election.

Note: The war in Iraq is the dominant issue in this election. The Democrats were supposedly given a mandate over the war in the midterm election and have done nothing. So the question ends up being, "Would the public support an anti-war candidate against Hillary?"

Note: Paul said of Hillary a few day ago, “She voted for the war now she says she can’t get the troops out until 2013 and she won’t rule out a military first strike against Iran.”

“She voted for the war now she says she can’t get the troops out until 2013 and she won’t rule out a military first strike against Iran.”

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/rnr/447955472.html

Jefferson County, Alabama Straw Poll 10/13/2007 1st 57.8%

Washington State Republican Party Fall Dinner Straw Poll 10/11/2007 4th 12.2%

Tulsa State Fair, Oklahoma 10/07/2007 1st 41.5%

Oregon Straw Poll- Portland, Oregon 10/06/2007 1st 67.0%

Gwinnett County GOP, Atlanta, Georgia 9/30/2007 1st 36.2%

CWA New Jersey GOP Straw Poll 9/29/2007 1st 77.0%

South Sound Ronald Reagan Republican Club 9/26/2007 1st 35.0%

It is not a question whether the mainstream media is withholding coverage of Ron Paul's surging campaign and motivated supporters (which should be interesting news), or designating his candidacy as 'fringe' or 'insurgent', or taking down post-debate polls showing him winning (he has won almost every one), or even excluding him from polls, and of course there is the time-honored tradition of actively promoting other candidates as 'front-runners' whether they are or not... (Catch-22: they start to become front runners with all the media attention), ... the question is WHY?

It is also not relevant to this question whether he has a chance to win the nomination or not, as there are many other candidates who don't have a chance to win that are NOT being actively excluded and censored by the media. If he has no chance to win, then why the active suppression of his candidacy?

Will other nations in the future, when they become powerful enough, inevitably attempt to follow in the United States' footsteps and invoke their own precedent for unilateral military action against any sovereign nation they choose, and for any reason they choose?

People scoff at him all the time for him being dumb (which first of all is very cruel... we shouldn't ridicule anyone for their perceived intelligence, it is just not what we do in a polite society). More importantly, whether you agree with him or not, and whether you are from the left, right or constitutionalist point of view, I think that everyone is underestimating him. Sorry, I just don't buy that someone with an average intelligence could have accomplished all that he has in the time he has been in office. Remember, there are at least 7 times of intelligence.

If no, then is it morally right for the U.S. to pre-emptively attack other countries if they perceive those other countries as a threat? If yes, then why the double standard?

The questions surrounding Preventive War are the most important questions facing Americans and should be the Number One issue in the Elections.

The U.S. has become too quick to pull the trigger on other countries and only America's military might allows it to do this.

The U.S. will only attack nations that have oil and who don't have a chance of fighting back. Case in point is Russia, China and even North Korea, a member of the so-called Axis of Evil. There is never a mention of attack on those countries, and a case could be made for them all being a threat.

Many of the reasons that are given for taking over other countries are at odds with the truth, and many Americans go along with loss of Liberty and Preventive War because they are just plain scared, and being scared is not in the American tradition.