Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (6450)	7/17/2007 4:11:25 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25737

Silly, silly boy.... (Quit fibbing!)

To: longnshort who wrote (6450)	7/17/2007 7:38:19 PM
From: goldworldnet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25737

Why Democrats Should Join the Ron Paul Movement First, if the number one issue among Democrats is the ending of the Iraq war ASAP, then supporting Ron Paul's GOP nomination virtually guarantees the withdrawal of our troops as soon as W's feet leave the Oval. Say Giuliani wins ... his Democratic opponent would have to come up with a way to talk about ending the war without leaving the door open for the reddest red-staters to somehow squeeze out a win. But if Paul is nominated, the Democratic nominee won't even have to give lip service to conducting a timely, measured withdrawal; it'll turn into a race to see which candidate can promise the quickest road home. Either way, if it's down to Paul and a Democrat, the war is ending. Democratic voters wouldn't even have to support Paul all the way to November '08; while supporting their chosen Democratic candidate, they can push Paul through the GOP primaries and then work for whomever they please. It's worth narrowing the field of your starkest opposition and leaving only a relative moderate to contend with. Would you rather take no action and face a 50% chance of living under Double Guantanamo & The Pro-Torture Boys, or preemptively strike (to borrow a term) and leave underdog Paul to run with a money machine like Hillary? The obvious sticking point to Democrats supporting a diehard libertarian is, well, he's a diehard libertarian, but doesn't that make him more of a Democrat than a Republican, these days? The GOP has emerged as the true party of entitlement, pork, corruption, bloated government, nanny statism, and big brothering. Working to elect a candidate like Paul, a man with no true party in modern America, alters the political spectrum of this election, from Moderate-Right, to Left-Moderate. Besides, his more outlandish (and brilliant) ideas will never pass, no matter which party runs Congress, so moonlighting for Paul while supporting Obama or Edwards is hardly an endangering practice for Democratic voters. According to vote-smart.org, most states allow voters to decide which primary to vote in on the day of polling, so a voter could wait to see if it looks like their Dem candidate has it in the bag before choosing Paul to run against. Several states require no declaration of party, such as Georgia, where anyone can vote in every primary. Some states are pretty brutal; Rhode Island requires a 90-day disafilliation notice (full disagulation?) before a person can switch. Either way, there are plenty of opportunities for Democratic sabotage in the booth, and there are plenty of ways to combat the FoxNews-approved candidates; I, for one, bought bumper stickers. If your goal for this election is the end of the Iraq war in 2008 and the avoidance of any other wars, torture, domestic spying, habeus corpus suspensions, and the further de-Amerification of our country, then ensuring that a Democrat runs against Ron Paul is the only way to guarantee success. jasonekirk.blogspot.com * * *