Will Bush be the NAU 'president' in 2012?

[tea.mochi]

His foreign policy goes against the constitution.
His universal health plan goes against the constitution
This link (Ignoring the "Hussein" part, I think that whole middle name schpeal was bullshit.) also shows a bit more info.

Really, it was more of a comment to the effect that we would need someone like Ron Paul in office, simply because he actually follows the rules set by this country's founders and anything against that is only furthering the damage done.
Obama is the exact opposite, and when their values were tested on their abilities to follow the constitution, he scored 0% while Ron scored 100%. (the percentages are the charts with the plusses and minuses and such...)

Of course I'm not saying all of Ron Paul's beliefs are good (Guns) and I'm not saying all of Obamas plans are all that bad (healthcare (I guess... actually no-... I honestly can't decide... Obamas like plastic and Ron Paul is recycled paper. One is convenient and one is actually good for the environment (concerning decomposition and all)) but I would much rather us do a 180 on the constitution matter, no matter how scary and spooky it sounds to the people accustomed to this welfare state.

But yes, it was an attack on ALL candidates besides Ron Paul.

[CosmicSerpent]

Originally Posted by teamochi

His foreign policy goes against the constitution.

You make some good points, but that's the only major part I disagree with. ^^

Also, the webpage you posted is incorrect. The U.S. constitution says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

In the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court ruled that a person born within the territorial boundaries of the United States is eligible for birthright citizenship regardless of the nationality of his or her parents. The only exceptions to this rule identified in Wong Kim Ark concern diplomats, enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States, and members of Native American tribes. The exclusion of Native Americans was eliminated by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

Neither in that decision nor in any subsequent case has the Supreme Court explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the Amendment, although it has generally been assumed that they are. In some cases the Court has implicitly assumed, or suggested in dicta, that such children are entitled to birthright citizenship: these include INS v. Rios-Pineda and Plyler v. Doe. Legislation to exclude children of illegal immigrants is often proposed by individual members of Congress but has never been passed into law.

Sources:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-_8...gfEwxv7ZH7Uwlc
http://books.google.com/books?id=yTA...og9wxFCVlHwcSA


Also, I don't understand why people keep going on and on about Ron Paul... he's out of the race. Whether or not he was a good candidate, it doesn't really matter anymore. In November the American people are going to have to choose between two major candidates, and Ron Paul won't be one of them. You can say that Obama's policies go against the constitution, and that Ron Paul is the only one who doesn't, but you would also have to say that every single candidate we've had in recent history has gone against the constitution.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by CosmicSerpent

You make some good points, but that's the only major part I disagree with. ^^

Also, the webpage you posted is incorrect. The U.S. constitution says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

In the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court ruled that a person born within the territorial boundaries of the United States is eligible for birthright citizenship regardless of the nationality of his or her parents. The only exceptions to this rule identified in Wong Kim Ark concern diplomats, enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States, and members of Native American tribes. The exclusion of Native Americans was eliminated by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

Neither in that decision nor in any subsequent case has the Supreme Court explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the Amendment, although it has generally been assumed that they are. In some cases the Court has implicitly assumed, or suggested in dicta, that such children are entitled to birthright citizenship: these include INS v. Rios-Pineda and Plyler v. Doe. Legislation to exclude children of illegal immigrants is often proposed by individual members of Congress but has never been passed into law.

Sources:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-_8...gfEwxv7ZH7Uwlc
http://books.google.com/books?id=yTA...og9wxFCVlHwcSA


Also, I don't understand why people keep going on and on about Ron Paul... he's out of the race. Whether or not he was a good candidate, it doesn't really matter anymore. In November the American people are going to have to choose between two major candidates, and Ron Paul won't be one of them. You can say that Obama's policies go against the constitution, and that Ron Paul is the only one who doesn't, but you would also have to say that every single candidate we've had in recent history has gone against the constitution.

If you listen to Ron Paul in interviews, what he says about the "revolution" is that it's a personal one for all Americans. And Ron Paul likes Obama's foreign policy. That's to teamochi.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UNOpdE2Z0Ss&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UNOpdE2Z0Ss&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[tea.mochi]

Ron Paul likes that Obama will get out of the war, but not his foreign policy.
Ron Paul's foreign policy is one of non intervention, so all US troops are here at home where they belong, Obama still wants to occupy places, so Ron Paul still disagrees with that point.
To suggest that Ron Paul would say one thing and mean another after over 20 years of saying the same shit over and over and over is kinda silly.

I watched your video and he says Obama is SLIGHTLY better on the foreign policy. I don't see how that is LIKING it. Looks like you're putting a spin on words.

Also, Ron Paul is IN the race. I have my ballot right in front of me and his name is on it. And who not get excited? A presidential candidate who wants to return to the constitution, give us freedom, sound money, no war and get us to take care of ourselves and this is a BAD thing? Its honestly astonishing...

Thanks for letting me know the page I posted was incorrect, that was a mistake on my part and I apologize.
I can't find anything on foreign policy cause I can't find the link, but I remember hearing that ours is supposed to be of non-intervention (and no, I didn't hear it from Ron Paul, but rather my school) and anyone who suggests we should expect other countries to actually allow us to watchdog them is off their rocker IMHO.

But like I said, if I have to swallow an Obama presidency I think I could, but I honestly don't have a good feeling about him. And no, color is not an issue, its the idea that we need to become a welfare state and watchdog other countries and expect them to love us for it and increase spending the most out of all of the candidates... and this is a GOOD thing.

[CosmicSerpent]

Originally Posted by teamochi

Also, Ron Paul is IN the race. I have my ballot right in front of me and his name is on it. And who not get excited? A presidential candidate who wants to return to the constitution, give us freedom, sound money, no war and get us to take care of ourselves and this is a BAD thing? Its honestly astonishing...

Yes, technically he is still a candidate because he hasn't officially withdrawn, but McCain is officially the Republican nominee. Ron Paul hasn't won a single state, and McCain already has way more than the needed number of delegates. So like I said, it doesn't really matter anymore whether Ron Paul was a good candidate. Personally, I like him a lot better than McCain, but the majority of Republican voters clearly do not... even if McCain were to drop dead today the nomination would inevitably go to Romney or Huckabee.

I think Paul would stand a good chance as a third-party candidate... better than Nader or any others. He already has a substantial following and the general election isn't even underway.

I can't find anything on foreign policy cause I can't find the link, but I remember hearing that ours is supposed to be of non-intervention (and no, I didn't hear it from Ron Paul, but rather my school) and anyone who suggests we should expect other countries to actually allow us to watchdog them is off their rocker IMHO.

But like I said, if I have to swallow an Obama presidency I think I could, but I honestly don't have a good feeling about him. And no, color is not an issue, its the idea that we need to become a welfare state and watchdog other countries and expect them to love us for it and increase spending the most out of all of the candidates... and this is a GOOD thing.

Obama doesn't want us to "watch dog" other countries. You're right - his foreign policy isn't quite as non-interventionist as Ron Paul's, but it is more so than any of the other candidates. He wants to pull us out of Iraq completely within the first year. There would be no permanent military bases. The only troops he would leave in the Middle East would be a small number specifically to protect our embassy and diplomats, not to interfere with how countries choose run themselves. The vast majority of our military would be at home protecting the country. He would meet with leaders of foreign countries to encourage diplomacy instead of war (even ones we consider enemies and have refused to meet with in the past).

Also, I do not think he would increase spending... definitely not more than Clinton or McCain would. His plans to reform health care are expensive, but they can easily be payed for by withdrawing from Iraq and allowing Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy to expire. Obama is more fiscally responsible than the other candidates, because he is the only one who advocates Pay-As-You-Go spending limits. These limits make it so that Congress cannot pass legislature to spend money that we don't have. New programs and expenses would be payed for by cutting out old, obsolete parts of our government instead of just digging us deeper into debt. These were the same policies that were in place throughout the 90's, and we ended up with an actual federal surplus until Bush took office. It's worked before and there's no reason it can't work again.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by teamochi

Ron Paul likes that Obama will get out of the war, but not his foreign policy.
Ron Paul's foreign policy is one of non intervention, so all US troops are here at home where they belong, Obama still wants to occupy places, so Ron Paul still disagrees with that point.
To suggest that Ron Paul would say one thing and mean another after over 20 years of saying the same shit over and over and over is kinda silly.

I watched your video and he says Obama is SLIGHTLY better on the foreign policy. I don't see how that is LIKING it. Looks like you're putting a spin on words.

Also, Ron Paul is IN the race. I have my ballot right in front of me and his name is on it. And who not get excited? A presidential candidate who wants to return to the constitution, give us freedom, sound money, no war and get us to take care of ourselves and this is a BAD thing? Its honestly astonishing...

Thanks for letting me know the page I posted was incorrect, that was a mistake on my part and I apologize.
I can't find anything on foreign policy cause I can't find the link, but I remember hearing that ours is supposed to be of non-intervention (and no, I didn't hear it from Ron Paul, but rather my school) and anyone who suggests we should expect other countries to actually allow us to watchdog them is off their rocker IMHO.

But like I said, if I have to swallow an Obama presidency I think I could, but I honestly don't have a good feeling about him. And no, color is not an issue, its the idea that we need to become a welfare state and watchdog other countries and expect them to love us for it and increase spending the most out of all of the candidates... and this is a GOOD thing.

Call it a spin, but sometimes you have to read between the lines, teamochi. Is Ron Paul GOING TO WIN? If not, he's got to align his supporters subtly behind someone. His words are indirect at times...

But hey, it's only my interpretation and suggestion. Not trying to argue. I just wanted to share that video clip with you.