Personal Loans | Mobile Phones | Ringtones | Buy PSP | Loans
None of the above. [Archive] - FreeConservatives

PDA

View Full Version : None of the above.


Hilemanhouse
12-28-2007, 11:35 PM
None of the above.
Carolyn Hileman

It is only a few more days until 2008 and the real vying for our votes begin, I hate to inform most of you that want me to vote for you’re candidate but at this point my vote would be for none of the above. I am not the only one with that stance as one of my uncles whom I have forgiven for being a die hard democrat is thinking of voting for none of the above also. Maybe it is because none of the above does not need to try and sound like all the other candidates because None of the above can and will do what most of them can and will do and does not need to lie about it. Most of you know I will not vote democrat and from what I have heard from my friends and family who are they are not voting for any of them simply because they fear a vote for them is a vote for illegal immigration, they are right of course and I hope they stick by their guns on this one.

First of all I will not vote for Huckabee mainly because of his past stance on illegal immigration and his name. Dear God if we thought the jokes about Bush were bad what do you think they can do to a name like that? Then we have Mitt, who honestly has a name like that and I am sorry but he just looks to clean cut for me, and the going to Dallas to respond to criticism of his religion, you sir are no John Kennedy and to be honest if I thought you were worth anything I really would not have cared what your religion was. Duncan Hunter seems interesting although I have not heard much from or about him lately and he will need press if he plans on winning. There are some questions I would like answered by him such as if he is so border control, why is California is pretty much taken over by illegal immigrants? Fred, I loved you on Law and Order and I think you left just in time to save your reputation since they have gone overboard on their liberal BS but I need some straight answers. Ruddy, you know we love you but the fact of the matter is New York was a sanctuary city on 9/11, you cannot change facts and attacking everyone else rather than admitting your mistakes is a liberal stance and this conservative wants none of it.

Ron Paul is another subject altogether, this is a man who could not find it in himself to vote to congratulate our troops on a job well done. A simple vote that really meant nothing to anyone except maybe that man or woman in Iraq defending our freedom and he couldn’t do it, now he has even said Lincoln didn’t need to go to war and I am want to know when he deems a war necessary? Ron Paul is a Libertarian in republican clothes and his values are very closely aligned to them, he supported HR3037, to legalize industrial hemp, voted no on military border patrols, This is taken from the Libertarian party web site, The Libertarian Party has long recognized the importance of allowing free and open immigration, understanding that this leads to a growing and more prosperous America. Ron Paul became a republican when he figured out that a third party had a slim to none chance of winning elections, but Ron Paul for all his talk and sudden changes is still in his heart and libertarian open borders advocate and always will be.

So there you have it, I am sure I missed someone, but just once I would like a real leader. I want some one who rather than stick their finger in the air to decide which way the wind is blowing can take that finger and direct this country in the way it should go. I do not want one who is afraid to mention God or who feels he must explain away his relationship to him, if he has a real one he won’t be ashamed to act that way and will not feel the need to explain his actions. I want a leader who puts America and her people first and foremost, I want one who does what the people of America wants and does not need to ask all the other countries what is best for us. I am sick and tired of settling for the better of two bad choices, I want someone who is not going to run up the national debt by implementing a national health care plan that we the tax payers will pay for and more than likely will not benefit from. I want someone who will tell the national media to go to hell and be the person they are not what they think will look good on the news. I don’t want smart answers I want the truth, I want a secure border, I don’t want empty promises that you alone cannot keep. I want to drill for our own oil and the spotted owl be damned. But until the day when we have a candidate that wants to be honest with the people and stop hiding behind the safe issues or copying what the others are saying and doing then I say we need to vote for None of the above.

jayson
12-29-2007, 12:11 AM
...now he has even said Lincoln didn’t need to go to war and I am want to know when he deems a war necessary?

We didn't need to go to war. We could have done what every other nation that transitioned from pro to anti-slavery did. The government purchased the slaves and freed them. Consequently, none of these countries broke apart and were embroiled in a bloody civil war because of it.

Remember, Lincoln wasn't for or against slavery. In his own words he mentioned his belief that if he thought keeping slavery legal would preserve the Union, then so be it. If outlawing slavery was the path to keeping the Union together, then that was what had to be done.

I find it astonishing that you support a war that killed 600,000 Americans. I sure don't... there were many ways we could have gone about reconciling the Union without having to resort to something so divisive and bloody. But, it's no use bickering over wars that happened 150 years ago. What's done is done and fortunately that whole quagmire is behind us.

Ron Paul is a Libertarian in republican clothes and his values are very closely aligned to them,

Reagan said himself that the root of true Republicanism is Libertarianism. So if you are a libertarian in Republican clothes, then aren't you one and the same? Speaking traditionally of course... today we are stuck with such atrocities as compassionate conservatism, which is related to traditional conservatism in name only.

he supported HR3037, to legalize industrial hemp,

Industrial hemp has many many uses. Read this:

Per hectare, industrial hemp yields 4 times that of the yield from trees, and double the yield of cotton. Trees take at least 5 years to grow for paper or pulp, compared to hemp growing within 120 days.

Industrial hemp can also be processed into clothing, concrete and building materials, energy, bio-fuel, plastic, stone, paper, cardboard, car panels, animal bedding and feed, and was used for thousands of years before it was demonised and banned in the 30s. Archaeologists have found hemp textile dated 10,000 years old.Source: http://www.ferret.com.au/c/Happy-Planet/Happy-Planet-outlines-the-advantages-of-industrial-hemp-n676586

Additionally, the strain of sativa that is used for hemp contains so little THC that it would be impossible to ever smoke enough to receive the effects. If this were the case, pot smokers would be heading to their local hemp shop and purchasing hemp rope by the yards.

voted no on military border patrols,

He wants to enforce the border legally. I found that out on this very forum, actually. I believe it was Naturalized-Texan (or Rhino?) who mentioned the Posse Comitatus Act.

Ron wants to take away the incentives first and foremost, however. You can build a fence and invest in fancy electronics, but people are still going to get across if there is a big enough bonus on the other side. We need to stop illegal birthright citizenship, stop welfare and healthcare for illegals and stop such asinine perks as drivers licenses for illegals. If you want to come here, come here legally, pay into the system and receive those benefits. That's where Ron stands on that issue.


The Ron Paul became a republican when he figured out that a third party had a slim to none chance of winning elections, but Ron Paul for all his talk and sudden changes is still in his heart and libertarian open borders advocate and always will be.

Ron has ran and won in his district for ten terms as a Republican.

As for the open borders bit... see my paragraph above. Ron is far from supporting open borders. I have no idea where you even got this idea. He has received an endorsement from the leadership of the Iowa Minutemen chapter, as well as the group "Citizens for Tancredo". Needless to say, you would have to be pretty tough on immigration if you received an endorsement from Tancredo supporters.

Beowulf
12-29-2007, 12:25 AM
I find it astonishing that you support a war that killed 600,000 Americans. I sure don't... there were many ways we could have gone about reconciling the Union without having to resort to something so divisive and bloody. But, it's no use bickering over wars that happened 150 years ago. What's done is done and fortunately that whole quagmire is behind us.
Jayson, lest you forget who started the Civil War, the Confederacy when they fired the first shots on Ft. Sumpter, South Carolina.

Where The American Civil War Began
Decades of growing strife between North and South erupted in civil war on April 12, 1861, when Confederate artillery opened fire on this Federal fort in Charleston Harbor. Fort Sumter surrendered 34 hours later. Union forces would try for nearly four years to take it back.

http://www.nps.gov/fosu/

No way were the differences between the North and South going to be settled through diplomacy.

TeenageRepublican
12-29-2007, 01:12 AM
We didn't need to go to war. We could have done what every other nation that transitioned from pro to anti-slavery did. The government purchased the slaves and freed them. Consequently, none of these countries broke apart and were embroiled in a bloody civil war because of it.

Remember, Lincoln wasn't for or against slavery. In his own words he mentioned his belief that if he thought keeping slavery legal would preserve the Union, then so be it. If outlawing slavery was the path to keeping the Union together, then that was what had to be done.

I find it astonishing that you support a war that killed 600,000 Americans. I sure don't... there were many ways we could have gone about reconciling the Union without having to resort to something so divisive and bloody. But, it's no use bickering over wars that happened 150 years ago. What's done is done and fortunately that whole quagmire is behind us.


Let me use a quote by Reagan since we're throwing quotes by him at eachother.
"Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man."


He wants to enforce the border legally. I found that out on this very forum, actually. I believe it was Naturalized-Texan (or Rhino?) who mentioned the Posse Comitatus Act.

Ron wants to take away the incentives first and foremost, however. You can build a fence and invest in fancy electronics, but people are still going to get across if there is a big enough bonus on the other side. We need to stop illegal birthright citizenship, stop welfare and healthcare for illegals and stop such asinine perks as drivers licenses for illegals. If you want to come here, come here legally, pay into the system and receive those benefits. That's where Ron stands on that issue.


I support Ron Paul on the borders, but I don't support the fact that he's willing to let a nuclear 9/11 happen to this country by pulling our troops out.

The_Elucidator
12-29-2007, 06:22 AM
Fred, I loved you on Law and Order and I think you left just in time to save your reputation since they have gone overboard on their liberal BS but I need some straight answers.

Carolyn, you will find all the straight answers you need in the Fred Forum. Don't let yourself get dragged into the apathy abyss that many are waiting and willing to let happen. After researching ALL of the candidates there is only 1 candidate that will get my 100% support, FDT.

There is 1 candidate that I will vote for if FDT doesn't get the GOP nod; but I will tell you only who it isn't... The Nut from East Texas, Rudy, Huck and....

DesertFox
12-29-2007, 11:27 AM
We didn't need to go to war. We could have done what every other nation that transitioned from pro to anti-slavery did. The government purchased the slaves and freed them. Consequently, none of these countries broke apart and were embroiled in a bloody civil war because of it.Slavery wasn't why the Civil War happened. Buying all the slaves wouldn't have prevented a thing. Also, what other countries are you talking about that ended slavery that way? Certainly not the Russians. Not Brazil. Not Spain or its colonies. Nobody in Africa or India.