On the issues of NAFTA and trade with China, who do you believe can do a better job at promoting fair trade and preventing further job displacement and also strengthen American manufacturing once again?

I’d have to go with Ron Paul. He understands the monetary system and fiscal policy perhaps better than any other candidate, Republican or Democrat. He has served his district as a Congressman in Texas for 20 years. He has consistently voted against programs such as NAFTA, that give incentives for companies to search for cheap non-American labor and push our productive manufacturing jobs overseas.

Quite frankly, a vote for Huckabee, McCain, Clinton, or Obama is going to be a vote for the status quo in the future (although I dare say Obama may actually be more of a change than the others). Sure, the other candidates may move a few troops here and there, try to threaten Mexico into giving us more beneficial trading provisions, but none will actually do what is needed and pull out of NAFTA, which is not working in our best interests.

Not to mention he has spent years advocating responsible government with limited power over individuals. Vote Ron Paul, because it is an important time to send a message about what our government ought to be.

Do you really need to pass background check before you buy a gun?

People feel safe if armed. According to some estimates and publications, roughly 50% of the US households currently own guns, but how big may be percentage of those who acquired their firearms legally or without intentional use of the law loopholes allowing them avoid background check they must normally go through as gun purchasers?

Virginia law contains no provisions obliging gun sellers who aren’t licensed dealers to conduct any sort of background check on buyers acquiring guns from them at open-air gun shows, even if the same law requires that background check is performed when they buy from gun dealers who are licensed. This obvious law loophole constitutes real threat making it possible for certain felons and/or mentally ill people to creep their way towards purchasing some firearms. Assault rifle can easily (and absolutely legally?) be bought at a gun show from an unlicensed gun dealer with no questions asked. Surely, the loophole needs to be closed so that all gun buyers at gun shows would submit to background check regardless of the type of dealers they buy firearms from.

The situation in some other randomly taken states, such as California, Arizona, Texas, or New Mexico, whose primary firearms market as of the end of 2008 is estimated to exceed impressive number of approximately 10,000 active licensed gun dealers, is not different. In these four states current firearms control laws contain only provisions for background check for buyers who would buy from licensed weapons dealers, but no background check is required for firearms sold and bought between private citizens. No criminal background check is required by the law if you buy at gun shows, over the Internet, or through classifieds.

But even in the states with stricter law provisions for background checks on gun buyers, quite surprisingly the further routing of the weapon very often can’t be traced. Say, in the state of Delaware, the authorities are obligated to destroy records of approved gun purchases not later than 60 days after the successful passing of background check by someone wishing to obtain a gun. This must be done to comply with another State law prohibiting state agencies maintain databases of gun owners. But you can still perform a basic free criminal background check on person over the Internet digging criminal records available online, but this will most likely take a big amount of your time if you are not using some kind of online investigative service and trying to do it all yourself and gather all that information at your own for your background investigation.

In the USA, where private citizens across the nation own at least 200 million guns, fears that firearms held in the hands of the Americans, are hardly being controlled effectively, seem to be valid. Whatever arguments against or in the favor of the right for private ownership of guns, one thing can hardly be disputed: legislature regulating background checks on gun buyers does need improvement. As we know, the same attitude is shared by Barack Obama, who, according to CNN.com, soon after the election proposed introduction of background checks for buyers at gun shows along with calling to impose a complete ban on private ownership for several types of military-style automatic and semiautomatic rifles that could be used by criminals.
 

C. Dyson
http://www.articlesbase.com/regulatory-compliance-articles/background-checks-on-firearms-buyers-693948.html

what happen to all those smart minds around the clintons like james carvel, geogre stephanoplois and the like?

Since Hillary, in a fit of anger , called George Stephanopolis a " f**king idiot" at the White House , George has not been too keen on her since.

She’ll really have to put the spin on why she supported NAFTA when she goes to Ohio…. which, of course she did when Bill was President. But now she has a different story. You can be certain that ole Harold Ickes and Mark Penn are busy right now, trying to figure that one out.

I know it is too early to count your chickens before your hatch and what not plus 2012 is a long way off, but it is starting to seem like eventually Texas will go to Democrats in the 2012 election.

Republicans, what is your view on this and what is your plan?

If Texas goes Democrat, does that mean that Republicans will not ever be able to win another election?

The dude above me nailed it. Texas won’t be going Democrat any time soon and Missouri won’t be either, we were real close in 2012 but as soon as the Republicans get a good candidate, this state will rally around him.

Texas
Missouri
Kansas
The Dakotas both North and South
South Carolina
Louisiana
Mississippi
Tennessee
Kentucky
and Oklahoma

Do not expect for those states to go Democrat any time soon.