Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Roma and Tom Cox on January 21, 2012 at 5:25am

Yes I have done extensive research, and here it is (it also includes some Tea Party Research:

http://www.fctpcommunity.org/forum/topics/the-truth-and-nothing-but...

But I make no recommendations.,,just provide information, and let you decide. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by First Coast Tea Party on January 21, 2012 at 6:57am

There are also documents under the tab at the top of the page "Candidate Information."  These documents are tools to help you understand who each of the candidates are, but as with any tool the major responsibility is in the hands of the user.  No matter where/who you get your information from you should always verify.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roma and Tom Cox on January 21, 2012 at 7:53am

Thank you for pointing that out, I never noticed that tab.  I was wondering why the FCTP had not posted more information.  Also please post research done by this years FCTP research team.  I know D Gonzales does excellent research, and finds things others never find. 
First Coast Tea Party said:

There are also documents under the tab at the top of the page "Candidate Information."  These documents are tools to help you understand who each of the candidates are, but as with any tool the major responsibility is in the hands of the user.  No matter where/who you get your information from you should always verify.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roma and Tom Cox on January 21, 2012 at 2:07pm

P.S. I like links to the documentation so we can check out the resource of the information, or videos of the candidates in his own words.  Otherwise it is only an opinion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack on January 22, 2012 at 1:03am

I am for Newt all the way. I wanted a Cain/Newt ticket but things as they are a Newt/Rubio ticket would be perfect too. Besides the fact that I think Newt is the best candidate running, he is the only candidate running with any gonads, which is a HUGE issue with me. I do NOT want another weak candidate to run against Obama, Romney is McCain Lite. I think that the whole OWS movement was created in anticipation of Romney getting the nomination. The foundation for an anti-Romney/Wall street campaign has already been laid down; the ground work has already been done. That is why the press and the Washington establishment are doing everything that they can to force Romney on us as our nominee and I don’t know about you but I don’t like being forced to do anything (it’s a freedom thing).

That being said, Romney is NOT a Tea Party supporter; he is a self-described moderate that says that the Tea Party is insignificant and takes us all for granted. Newt on the other hand has been behind the Tea Party from the very beginning and is depending on us to help him get elected and to bring about the revolution needed to get America back on the right track. Romney claims he is pro-gun yet he votes for stricter gun control laws. Romney claims that he is pro-life yet Romney Care allows tax payer funded abortions. He attacked Rick Perry for giving illegal aliens free college tuition while Romney Care gives them free medical care. He claims that he will repeal Obama Care when he actually created the model for it with Romney Care. I do NOT trust Romney and I will NOT vote for him. He has been on every side of every issue. If he gets the nomination I do believe that Obama will be reelected.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack on January 22, 2012 at 5:12pm

Want Romney to walk away with it John? Then go ahead and waste your vote on Ron Paul. He doesn't have a chance of getting the nomination, and even he knows that. I actually like most of his ideas. Right up until he starts talking about foreign policy and it being ok for Iran to become a nuclear power. No we do not need to spend so much money policing the world but we can't just stick our heads in the sand and pretend that if we just leave these radical countries alone that they will leave us alone. That kind of thinking is naive and dangerous at best. There is a lot of what Ron Paul says when it comes to the Federal Reserve, our currency and national monetary policy that is brilliant and right on the money. He would be the perfect person to replace Ben Bernanke as Chairman of the Federal Reserve but his foreign policy ideas simply make him completely unelectable as president. So the choice for the Tea Party is now really between Gingrich and Santorum. My vote and my money is going to Newt.....................

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roma and Tom Cox on January 22, 2012 at 5:18pm

Jack, are you saying the Founding Fathers and the Constitution are dangerous?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack on January 22, 2012 at 5:27pm

No, but if that is the way that you want to spin it, then go ahead. It doesn't change the fact that Ron Paul is extremely naive when it comes to foreign policy. There is no way that he is going to get the nomination, but if you still want to waste your vote, then by all means go right ahead and vote for him.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack on January 22, 2012 at 5:32pm

The Constitution is there for a reason. It is the main job of the commander and chief to protect this country. That being said I think that following Ron Pauls foriegn policy would be a dereliction of duty for any sitting president.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Atkinson on January 22, 2012 at 5:34pm

I don't get the Newt people. Ann Coulter says he is the least conservative and least electable. Paul Ryan said, "With friends like Newt, who needs enemies?" Several GOP former colleagues say he was a poor leader. He has enough personal and professional baggage for Obama to spend a billion$ in ads on. What are you thinking?? Jim Atkinson 

Jack Wright said:

No, but if that is the way that you want to spin it, then go ahead. It doesn't change the fact that Ron Paul is extremely naive when it comes to foreign policy. There is no way that he is going to get the nomination, but if you still want to waste your vote, then by all means go right ahead and vote for him.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack on January 22, 2012 at 5:44pm

I don't care how many wives he has had. Newt is the only one running with any gonads. We the people are fighting the washington establishment. The washington establishment does not like Newt, they actually fear him getting the nomination. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, but the friend of my enemy is also my enemy. That makes Newt my friend and Romney my enemy. Romney has tried to distance himself from the Tea Party as much as he can, Newt on the other hand is a strong and vocal supporter of the Tea Party. And I think Ann Coulter is an idiot but that is a whole nother discussion.....................

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roma and Tom Cox on January 22, 2012 at 5:48pm

The Heritage Foundation explains the Founding Fathers Foreign Policy this way:

7. Foreign Policy

For the Founders, foreign and domestic policy were supposed to serve the same end: the security of the people in their person and property. Therefore, foreign policy was conceived primarily as defensive. Foreign attack was to be deterred by having strong arms or repulsed by force. Alliances were to be entered into with the understanding that a self-governing nation must keep itself aloof from the quarrels of other nations, except as needed for national defense. Government had no right to spend the taxes or lives of its own citizens to spread democracy to other nations or to engage in enterprises aiming at imperialistic hegemony.

The Progressives believed that a historical process was leading all mankind to freedom, or at least the advanced nations. Following Hegel, they thought of the march of freedom in history as having a geographical basis. It was in Europe, not Asia or Africa, where modern science and the modern state had made their greatest advances. The nations where modern science had properly informed the political order were thought to be the proper leaders of the world.

The Progressives also believed that the scientifically educated leaders of the advanced nations (especially America, Britain, and France) should not hesitate to rule the less advanced nations in the interest of ultimately bringing the world into freedom, assuming that supposedly inferior peoples could be brought into the modern world at all. Political scientist Charles Merriam openly called for a policy of colonialism on a racial basis:

[T]he Teutonic races must civilize the politically uncivilized. They must have a colonial policy. Barbaric races, if incapable, may be swept away…. On the same principle, interference with the affairs of states not wholly barbaric, but nevertheless incapable of effecting political organization for themselves, is fully justified.

Progressives therefore embraced a much more active and indeed imperialistic foreign policy than the Founders did. In "Expansion and Peace" (1899), Theodore Roosevelt wrote that the best policy is imperialism on a global scale: "every expansion of a great civilized power means a victory for law, order, and righteousness." Thus, the American occupation of the Philippines, T.R. believed, would enable "one more fair spot of the world's surface" to be "snatched from the forces of darkness. Fundamentally the cause of expansion is the cause of peace."

Woodrow Wilson advocated American entry into World War I, boasting that America's national interest had nothing to do with it. Wilson had no difficulty sending American troops to die in order to make the world safe for democracy, regardless of whether or not it would make America more safe or less. The trend to turn power over to multinational organizations also begins in this period, as may be seen in Wilson's plan for a League of Nations, under whose rules America would have delegated control over the deployment of its own armed forces to that body.

full article here : The Progressive /Liberal Movement And the Transformation Of America...

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 28
• Next ›
• Page