[Sandi Egan]

Rustico,

I apologize. I generally don’t consider religion in my decision to support or not support a particular political stance, but I shouldn’t have assumed it to be the only way to look at things. Please forgive me for hurting your feelings.

[Sandi Egan]

religious establishment check

Hm. Didn’t see that coming 🙂
I am not religious at all, I am just a big fan of Santa.

I have always been in favor of being poor,even personally, over prosperity driven wars. I have also been for making sure that the religion and politics connection have no negative link to human rights abuses domestically and by our hand abroad. Show me someone like that.
Do you consider celebrating Christmas and Mt. Soledad cross a human rights abuse? Even if you do, which is more important to you: sound foreign and domestic policy or politically correct landscape?

I think it’s a matter of priorities. There are several quizzes on the Internet, that let you specify your position on issues, and recommend the candidate that you are most aligned with. For example
http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

[Sandi Egan]

religious establishment check

Hm. Didn’t see that coming 🙂
I am not religious at all, I am just a big fan of Santa.

I have always been in favor of being poor,even personally, over prosperity driven wars. I have also been for making sure that the religion and politics connection have no negative link to human rights abuses domestically and by our hand abroad. Show me someone like that.
Do you consider celebrating Christmas and Mt. Soledad cross a human rights abuse? Even if you do, which is more important to you: sound foreign and domestic policy or politically correct landscape?

I think it’s a matter of priorities. There are several quizzes on the Internet, that let you specify your position on issues, and recommend the candidate that you are most aligned with. For example
http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

[Sandi Egan]

religious establishment check

Hm. Didn’t see that coming 🙂
I am not religious at all, I am just a big fan of Santa.

I have always been in favor of being poor,even personally, over prosperity driven wars. I have also been for making sure that the religion and politics connection have no negative link to human rights abuses domestically and by our hand abroad. Show me someone like that.
Do you consider celebrating Christmas and Mt. Soledad cross a human rights abuse? Even if you do, which is more important to you: sound foreign and domestic policy or politically correct landscape?

I think it’s a matter of priorities. There are several quizzes on the Internet, that let you specify your position on issues, and recommend the candidate that you are most aligned with. For example
http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

[Sandi Egan]

religious establishment check

Hm. Didn’t see that coming 🙂
I am not religious at all, I am just a big fan of Santa.

I have always been in favor of being poor,even personally, over prosperity driven wars. I have also been for making sure that the religion and politics connection have no negative link to human rights abuses domestically and by our hand abroad. Show me someone like that.
Do you consider celebrating Christmas and Mt. Soledad cross a human rights abuse? Even if you do, which is more important to you: sound foreign and domestic policy or politically correct landscape?

I think it’s a matter of priorities. There are several quizzes on the Internet, that let you specify your position on issues, and recommend the candidate that you are most aligned with. For example
http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

[Sandi Egan]

religious establishment check

Hm. Didn’t see that coming 🙂
I am not religious at all, I am just a big fan of Santa.

I have always been in favor of being poor,even personally, over prosperity driven wars. I have also been for making sure that the religion and politics connection have no negative link to human rights abuses domestically and by our hand abroad. Show me someone like that.
Do you consider celebrating Christmas and Mt. Soledad cross a human rights abuse? Even if you do, which is more important to you: sound foreign and domestic policy or politically correct landscape?

I think it’s a matter of priorities. There are several quizzes on the Internet, that let you specify your position on issues, and recommend the candidate that you are most aligned with. For example
http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

[Sandi Egan]

I like his view on these two issues but they will be a threat to “our freedom” “our standard” of living” and U.S. voters will not have the will to see past this.
One who doesn’t support what he truly believes in because “it has no chance of winning”, but instead supports “the lesser of evils” deserves the government he elects. If you believe in something, it is your duty as a citizen to act on it and try to convince everybody else. Even if you are the only one who believes it.

Regarding the link, I agree with every word. I’ll research Ron Paul’s position on the issue, and put links here.
In any case, I prefer to end the wars today, even if it means foregoing corporate Christmas parties for a couple more years.

[Sandi Egan]

I like his view on these two issues but they will be a threat to “our freedom” “our standard” of living” and U.S. voters will not have the will to see past this.
One who doesn’t support what he truly believes in because “it has no chance of winning”, but instead supports “the lesser of evils” deserves the government he elects. If you believe in something, it is your duty as a citizen to act on it and try to convince everybody else. Even if you are the only one who believes it.

Regarding the link, I agree with every word. I’ll research Ron Paul’s position on the issue, and put links here.
In any case, I prefer to end the wars today, even if it means foregoing corporate Christmas parties for a couple more years.

[Sandi Egan]

I like his view on these two issues but they will be a threat to “our freedom” “our standard” of living” and U.S. voters will not have the will to see past this.
One who doesn’t support what he truly believes in because “it has no chance of winning”, but instead supports “the lesser of evils” deserves the government he elects. If you believe in something, it is your duty as a citizen to act on it and try to convince everybody else. Even if you are the only one who believes it.

Regarding the link, I agree with every word. I’ll research Ron Paul’s position on the issue, and put links here.
In any case, I prefer to end the wars today, even if it means foregoing corporate Christmas parties for a couple more years.

[Sandi Egan]

I like his view on these two issues but they will be a threat to “our freedom” “our standard” of living” and U.S. voters will not have the will to see past this.
One who doesn’t support what he truly believes in because “it has no chance of winning”, but instead supports “the lesser of evils” deserves the government he elects. If you believe in something, it is your duty as a citizen to act on it and try to convince everybody else. Even if you are the only one who believes it.

Regarding the link, I agree with every word. I’ll research Ron Paul’s position on the issue, and put links here.
In any case, I prefer to end the wars today, even if it means foregoing corporate Christmas parties for a couple more years.

[Sandi Egan]

I like his view on these two issues but they will be a threat to “our freedom” “our standard” of living” and U.S. voters will not have the will to see past this.
One who doesn’t support what he truly believes in because “it has no chance of winning”, but instead supports “the lesser of evils” deserves the government he elects. If you believe in something, it is your duty as a citizen to act on it and try to convince everybody else. Even if you are the only one who believes it.

Regarding the link, I agree with every word. I’ll research Ron Paul’s position on the issue, and put links here.
In any case, I prefer to end the wars today, even if it means foregoing corporate Christmas parties for a couple more years.

[Sandi Egan]

esmith,

Your previous post made me think, and after posting my answer, I spent a couple of days researching the subject. Someone on this thread accused me of being a white rich straight male, (which I have to admit I am), and as such am looking at the issues differently. I accept that my views on some social issues might be biased by my personal situation, and I might not give some issues the importance I would, if my life and well-being depended on them.

Perhaps, I am no good at describing his positions on all issues. This video might shed light on some of them.

http://www.ronpaulnation.com/tv.html#nashua_telegraph

I tried to investigate the Dr. Paul’s stance on social security, medicare, and other related issues, which I admittedly didn’t pay enough attention to. Here’s what I found out:

As you can see in the video, there are two critical positions, that define Dr. Paul’s stance: non-interventionalist foreign policy and protection of personal liberty. Everything else is kind of following from these two. He is not going to disband SSA and Medicare when he gets to the White House. He will try resolve the financial issues that the US is facing, mainly by cutting the foreign military involvement, and then slowly steer the country to a less-bureaucratic route. He promises that everybody who needs help will receive it. That approach will allow to actually fund social programs by better distributing the funding, instead of just raising taxes.

Ron Paul of course has personal position regarding all topics, which may or may not correlate with mine or yours. His approach, however, is that it is not the place of executive branch of the government to force their beliefs on people. Regardless of his personal beliefs, the president should not aspire to replace the law with his own vision. The laws are the Constitution and the will of people expressed through their representatives in Congress. The executive branch is charged with optimal implementation of the laws.

I don’t agree with Ron Paul on some issues. Personally I would benefit from increased funding for science. It hurts my feelings, that he is opposes participating in Darfur crysis resolution and is against branding massacre of Armenians by Turkey in 1915 a genocide. But I understand that his position is not dictated by populist reasons. He claims that the US should not meddle in internal affairs of other nations, which I support, and I fully understand that his principles will not allow him to make exceptions and apply double standards.

I disagree with you that Dr. Paul is trying to sidestep hard questions by saying the States will deal with them. On the contrary, he openly describes how he feels about them, and by doing so repels some of his potential supporters. But the point is, he does not think he as a president will have a right to push his opinion on the country. For example, as an obstetrician he feels very strongly about abortions. He said many times, that in his personal view any abortion is a murder. But he will be opposed to a federal abortion ban, simply because it is not the place of federal government to dictate that. Like with other questionable issues, States decide what constitutes a crime and what should be the punishment. For this reason anti-abortion groups, that fight for a constitutional amendment to ban abortions wouldn’t endorse Ron Paul.

And that brings us to the main and overwhelmingly crucial argument, that defines Ron Paul for me. It looks like an obvious move for a candidate: proclame support for something he personally truly believes in and gain the endorsement of an influential political fraction. But he wouldn’t do that, because he puts the Law and Constitution above his personal beliefs, even if it might cost him a dearly. I challenge anybody to name another candidate that would dare to do so.

What I am trying to say is, Ron Paul is not an ordinary presidential candidate. The society grew convinced that there is no such thing as an honest politician. We don’t follow the politics, don’t vote. And even when we do, we vote for someone who promises something that would benefit us personally, as opposed to what is good for the country.

Ron Paul is a once-in-a-century opportunity for this country. Opportunity that came exactly when we needed it the most. Let’s not blow our chance.

[Sandi Egan]

esmith,

Your previous post made me think, and after posting my answer, I spent a couple of days researching the subject. Someone on this thread accused me of being a white rich straight male, (which I have to admit I am), and as such am looking at the issues differently. I accept that my views on some social issues might be biased by my personal situation, and I might not give some issues the importance I would, if my life and well-being depended on them.

Perhaps, I am no good at describing his positions on all issues. This video might shed light on some of them.

http://www.ronpaulnation.com/tv.html#nashua_telegraph

I tried to investigate the Dr. Paul’s stance on social security, medicare, and other related issues, which I admittedly didn’t pay enough attention to. Here’s what I found out:

As you can see in the video, there are two critical positions, that define Dr. Paul’s stance: non-interventionalist foreign policy and protection of personal liberty. Everything else is kind of following from these two. He is not going to disband SSA and Medicare when he gets to the White House. He will try resolve the financial issues that the US is facing, mainly by cutting the foreign military involvement, and then slowly steer the country to a less-bureaucratic route. He promises that everybody who needs help will receive it. That approach will allow to actually fund social programs by better distributing the funding, instead of just raising taxes.

Ron Paul of course has personal position regarding all topics, which may or may not correlate with mine or yours. His approach, however, is that it is not the place of executive branch of the government to force their beliefs on people. Regardless of his personal beliefs, the president should not aspire to replace the law with his own vision. The laws are the Constitution and the will of people expressed through their representatives in Congress. The executive branch is charged with optimal implementation of the laws.

I don’t agree with Ron Paul on some issues. Personally I would benefit from increased funding for science. It hurts my feelings, that he is opposes participating in Darfur crysis resolution and is against branding massacre of Armenians by Turkey in 1915 a genocide. But I understand that his position is not dictated by populist reasons. He claims that the US should not meddle in internal affairs of other nations, which I support, and I fully understand that his principles will not allow him to make exceptions and apply double standards.

I disagree with you that Dr. Paul is trying to sidestep hard questions by saying the States will deal with them. On the contrary, he openly describes how he feels about them, and by doing so repels some of his potential supporters. But the point is, he does not think he as a president will have a right to push his opinion on the country. For example, as an obstetrician he feels very strongly about abortions. He said many times, that in his personal view any abortion is a murder. But he will be opposed to a federal abortion ban, simply because it is not the place of federal government to dictate that. Like with other questionable issues, States decide what constitutes a crime and what should be the punishment. For this reason anti-abortion groups, that fight for a constitutional amendment to ban abortions wouldn’t endorse Ron Paul.

And that brings us to the main and overwhelmingly crucial argument, that defines Ron Paul for me. It looks like an obvious move for a candidate: proclame support for something he personally truly believes in and gain the endorsement of an influential political fraction. But he wouldn’t do that, because he puts the Law and Constitution above his personal beliefs, even if it might cost him a dearly. I challenge anybody to name another candidate that would dare to do so.

What I am trying to say is, Ron Paul is not an ordinary presidential candidate. The society grew convinced that there is no such thing as an honest politician. We don’t follow the politics, don’t vote. And even when we do, we vote for someone who promises something that would benefit us personally, as opposed to what is good for the country.

Ron Paul is a once-in-a-century opportunity for this country. Opportunity that came exactly when we needed it the most. Let’s not blow our chance.

[Sandi Egan]

esmith,

Your previous post made me think, and after posting my answer, I spent a couple of days researching the subject. Someone on this thread accused me of being a white rich straight male, (which I have to admit I am), and as such am looking at the issues differently. I accept that my views on some social issues might be biased by my personal situation, and I might not give some issues the importance I would, if my life and well-being depended on them.

Perhaps, I am no good at describing his positions on all issues. This video might shed light on some of them.

http://www.ronpaulnation.com/tv.html#nashua_telegraph

I tried to investigate the Dr. Paul’s stance on social security, medicare, and other related issues, which I admittedly didn’t pay enough attention to. Here’s what I found out:

As you can see in the video, there are two critical positions, that define Dr. Paul’s stance: non-interventionalist foreign policy and protection of personal liberty. Everything else is kind of following from these two. He is not going to disband SSA and Medicare when he gets to the White House. He will try resolve the financial issues that the US is facing, mainly by cutting the foreign military involvement, and then slowly steer the country to a less-bureaucratic route. He promises that everybody who needs help will receive it. That approach will allow to actually fund social programs by better distributing the funding, instead of just raising taxes.

Ron Paul of course has personal position regarding all topics, which may or may not correlate with mine or yours. His approach, however, is that it is not the place of executive branch of the government to force their beliefs on people. Regardless of his personal beliefs, the president should not aspire to replace the law with his own vision. The laws are the Constitution and the will of people expressed through their representatives in Congress. The executive branch is charged with optimal implementation of the laws.

I don’t agree with Ron Paul on some issues. Personally I would benefit from increased funding for science. It hurts my feelings, that he is opposes participating in Darfur crysis resolution and is against branding massacre of Armenians by Turkey in 1915 a genocide. But I understand that his position is not dictated by populist reasons. He claims that the US should not meddle in internal affairs of other nations, which I support, and I fully understand that his principles will not allow him to make exceptions and apply double standards.

I disagree with you that Dr. Paul is trying to sidestep hard questions by saying the States will deal with them. On the contrary, he openly describes how he feels about them, and by doing so repels some of his potential supporters. But the point is, he does not think he as a president will have a right to push his opinion on the country. For example, as an obstetrician he feels very strongly about abortions. He said many times, that in his personal view any abortion is a murder. But he will be opposed to a federal abortion ban, simply because it is not the place of federal government to dictate that. Like with other questionable issues, States decide what constitutes a crime and what should be the punishment. For this reason anti-abortion groups, that fight for a constitutional amendment to ban abortions wouldn’t endorse Ron Paul.

And that brings us to the main and overwhelmingly crucial argument, that defines Ron Paul for me. It looks like an obvious move for a candidate: proclame support for something he personally truly believes in and gain the endorsement of an influential political fraction. But he wouldn’t do that, because he puts the Law and Constitution above his personal beliefs, even if it might cost him a dearly. I challenge anybody to name another candidate that would dare to do so.

What I am trying to say is, Ron Paul is not an ordinary presidential candidate. The society grew convinced that there is no such thing as an honest politician. We don’t follow the politics, don’t vote. And even when we do, we vote for someone who promises something that would benefit us personally, as opposed to what is good for the country.

Ron Paul is a once-in-a-century opportunity for this country. Opportunity that came exactly when we needed it the most. Let’s not blow our chance.

[Sandi Egan]

esmith,

Your previous post made me think, and after posting my answer, I spent a couple of days researching the subject. Someone on this thread accused me of being a white rich straight male, (which I have to admit I am), and as such am looking at the issues differently. I accept that my views on some social issues might be biased by my personal situation, and I might not give some issues the importance I would, if my life and well-being depended on them.

Perhaps, I am no good at describing his positions on all issues. This video might shed light on some of them.

http://www.ronpaulnation.com/tv.html#nashua_telegraph

I tried to investigate the Dr. Paul’s stance on social security, medicare, and other related issues, which I admittedly didn’t pay enough attention to. Here’s what I found out:

As you can see in the video, there are two critical positions, that define Dr. Paul’s stance: non-interventionalist foreign policy and protection of personal liberty. Everything else is kind of following from these two. He is not going to disband SSA and Medicare when he gets to the White House. He will try resolve the financial issues that the US is facing, mainly by cutting the foreign military involvement, and then slowly steer the country to a less-bureaucratic route. He promises that everybody who needs help will receive it. That approach will allow to actually fund social programs by better distributing the funding, instead of just raising taxes.

Ron Paul of course has personal position regarding all topics, which may or may not correlate with mine or yours. His approach, however, is that it is not the place of executive branch of the government to force their beliefs on people. Regardless of his personal beliefs, the president should not aspire to replace the law with his own vision. The laws are the Constitution and the will of people expressed through their representatives in Congress. The executive branch is charged with optimal implementation of the laws.

I don’t agree with Ron Paul on some issues. Personally I would benefit from increased funding for science. It hurts my feelings, that he is opposes participating in Darfur crysis resolution and is against branding massacre of Armenians by Turkey in 1915 a genocide. But I understand that his position is not dictated by populist reasons. He claims that the US should not meddle in internal affairs of other nations, which I support, and I fully understand that his principles will not allow him to make exceptions and apply double standards.

I disagree with you that Dr. Paul is trying to sidestep hard questions by saying the States will deal with them. On the contrary, he openly describes how he feels about them, and by doing so repels some of his potential supporters. But the point is, he does not think he as a president will have a right to push his opinion on the country. For example, as an obstetrician he feels very strongly about abortions. He said many times, that in his personal view any abortion is a murder. But he will be opposed to a federal abortion ban, simply because it is not the place of federal government to dictate that. Like with other questionable issues, States decide what constitutes a crime and what should be the punishment. For this reason anti-abortion groups, that fight for a constitutional amendment to ban abortions wouldn’t endorse Ron Paul.

And that brings us to the main and overwhelmingly crucial argument, that defines Ron Paul for me. It looks like an obvious move for a candidate: proclame support for something he personally truly believes in and gain the endorsement of an influential political fraction. But he wouldn’t do that, because he puts the Law and Constitution above his personal beliefs, even if it might cost him a dearly. I challenge anybody to name another candidate that would dare to do so.

What I am trying to say is, Ron Paul is not an ordinary presidential candidate. The society grew convinced that there is no such thing as an honest politician. We don’t follow the politics, don’t vote. And even when we do, we vote for someone who promises something that would benefit us personally, as opposed to what is good for the country.

Ron Paul is a once-in-a-century opportunity for this country. Opportunity that came exactly when we needed it the most. Let’s not blow our chance.

[Author]

Posts