freedom first

What do you like about John McCain?

I'm honestly curious. I don't fully understand which voting segment he appeals to.

Probably because of decentralized power and debate, Republics tend to create massive amounts of wealth, economies supportive of technological advancement, and military victory over rivals.

Roman Senate

British House of Lords

U.S. Senate

"All Roads Lead to Rome"

"The Sun Never Sets on the British Empire"

"Pax Americana"

Is it in the nature of a Republic to become an Empire? Is it a sign of success, or failure?

Great Depression - Hoover's anti-trade policies and the Fed's artificially low interest rates had a lot to do with this, yet its constantly cited as "proof" that free market capitalism doesn't work. What about the government intervention that contributed? Do we have proof that they failed too?

Bush - Oil prices are up, inflation is up, food is up, housing is a mess, and the world is angry at us and insecure about the future of our investments. Why? Well, because he spent too much money using the government to interfere with the economy!

So, if a Socialist Government calls itself Capitalist and then fails, is that good proof of the failure of Capitalism ... or of the failure of Keynesian Socialism?

Since we've been fighting them over there since the early 1950s, is it safe to say that this saying is just a meaningless slogan?

http://www.undergroundpolitics.com/index.php/2008_...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1932048/p...

Because in 1999 Clinton said it was in trouble over the long term:

"by 2013, payroll taxes will no longer be sufficient to cover monthly payments. And by 2032, the trust fund will be exhausted, and Social Security will be unable to pay out the full benefits older Americans have been promised."

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/19/...

But now the Democrats are saying there's no problem and that all the Republicans who have addressed the issue are wasting time and stirring up discontent for the sake of votes.

So, did Bush fix social security without ever getting legislation passed, was Clinton lying in 1999, or are the Democrats lying now when they say Social Security is going to be there for the younger workers? Is there some alternative I'm missing here?

Will the internet be the end of the two party monopoly?

The media completely ignored Ron Paul until his huge fund-raising success on Nov. 5, 2007. Since the story was so big they had to cover it, they brought out all their best attack articles. They resorted to name calling, attacking his supporters, and dismissing the constitution as "impossibly ideological." At the end of the week of being bashed by the media, he had picked up 5% in national polls.

Clinton and Giuliani don't have to worry about negative coverage so much. In fact, we've seen that CNN and FOX are more than willing to bend over backwards to give these two easy questions, extra air-time, and positive coverage. And they've done nothing but drop in the polls. Instead, Romney has crushed Giuliani's lead in New Hampshire and Iowa without much media attention paid

Do you think the internet is making voters more informed, since they can research beyond the few approved headlines? Will this end the two-party monopoly?

Or would you want to give them federal funding?

Democrats recently submitted a tax proposal that will greatly benefit people who make less than $20,000 a year and people who make between $100,000 and $500,000. They call this "middle class tax relief."

SCHIP was about "poor kids" medical coverage, so they pushed an expansion proposal that would expand coverage to families making $80,000 a year.

Kerry said that Bush's tax cutsshould be rolled back and rich people making $100k or more should pay the bill.

Are you following this?

$80,000 is POOR

<$20,000 is MIDDLE CLASS

$100,000 - $500,000 is MIDDLE CLASS

>$100,000 is RICH

The Democrats don't care about the middle class anymore than the Republicans do. They pander to minimum wage workers and the lawyer/doctor class.

Remember, remember the Fifth of November,

The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,

I know of no reason

Why Gunpowder Treason

Should ever be forgot.

On Nov. 5th England celebrates the prevention of a massive terrorist attack and arrest of the chief conspirator, Guy Fawkes. Guy Fawkes was a Catholic conservative monarchist, and really only opposed the standing king on racial, tribal, and religious grounds.

In America, Guy Fawkes Day has been associated with anti-British sentiment during and after the revolution, but its also been used by protestants as a rallying point for anti-Catholicism. In the last 40 years, it has been increasingly associated in the popular culture with order in anarchy and general anti-government ideas.

Isn't it just kind of weird to celebrate a holiday about a terrorist plot?

http://www.undergroundpolitics.com/index.php/histo...

Dems pretend to care about individual rights, as long as you're part of a historically repressed minority. And then when it comes time to actually write policy, well, they actually don't support homosexual marriage - and they don't actually reform the war on drugs, if anything, Clinton cracked down as hard as Reagan.

Reps pretend to care about individual rights too, but only if you own a gun or have a radio show. They talk about the bill of rights and the 2nd amendment, but when the party brass gets together to pick a front-runner they decide on Rudy.

By all calculations, the two parties are incredibly "authoritarian," a term that applies equally well to the left or the right. Whether its warrantless searches or smoking laws or media regulation, there's no party with a real libertarian or freedom agenda.

So why do they feel the need to hide behind a few sham libertarian positions? Why do party loyalists reward them for verbal idealism and legislative tyranny?

Because... that's exactly what every single one of the non-democratically selected "front-runners" is.

Is this what Americans demand from our leadership, or is something else going on?

Why are all the veterans and doctors running for president marginalized? Aren't war and medicine supposed to be the big issues this year?

Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, Romney? Lawyers.

Thompson? He only plays one on TV but he DID block tort reform, allowing unnecessary lawsuits to continue to drain our medical and legal system.

Please ignore the doctors, ministers, and veterans. They have been deemed second-tier.

Since military and medicine are big issues in the upcoming election,

Which candidate has the most military and medical industry experience in his/her career?

Usually, experience is important for a job interview...so...do we want a professional politician, skilled in the art of double-talk and corporate campaign contributions,

or a professional in the fields that are important to voter interests?

Remember: Iraq, Iran, and the Patriot Act are not correct answers.

Would that just be a desperate Democrat attack piece?

If Bush raked in more contributions from defense contractors than his competition, would that be proof he's a warmongering neo-con?

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/artic...

Do you treat your politicians with a double-standard?

*Disclaimer: My disgust with one party does NOT imply approval for the other.

I think I should probably take the illegal money from ex-cons and Chinese nationals.

That will make it easier to discredit them when I'm caught!

Then I can take the money and keep running for office, right?

Obviously, this lesser of two evils thing isn't working.

Since politics is basically about lying, backstabbing, and general strategic ruthlessness, shouldn't we vote for the greater of two evils?

Do you think the CEOs will be upset when the federal government cuts their industry a $100 billion dollar check each year?

Do you think the drug company CEOs were against government intervention when Bush similarly agreed to give them about $100 billion a year for Medicare drug benefits?

The FBI bugged his phones, ransacked his house, and followed him and his children around town without getting a warrant. They went into his office and confiscated documents relating to his clients. Maybe they got caught up in this mess, too.

It took him years of fighting and tens of thousands in legal fees to find a judge who would finally say "Get a warrant, Arrest him for a crime, or Leave him ALONE"

Who is Mayfield? A natural-born U.S. citizen with no criminal history. An honorably discharged military officer. A practicing lawyer.

But, since he has nothing to hide, he should not mind. Am I correct in my understanding of this issue?

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/09/26/mayfield....