Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery
I'm curious as to why not funding FIRST is good for FIRST? I'm not saying you can't participate in the conversation here, but rather than bringing up generic political ideology, discuss the benefits and harms of each candidate directly engaging in FIRST.
In other words, while you may feel a republican is the best candidate for America because he won't fund FIRST, how does that make him the best candidate for FIRST?
|
That depends on what you define as the "Best". If you define "Best" as "giving taxpayer dollars to
FIRST", then I suppose Clinton or Obama would "Best". If you define "Best" as "verbally supporting
FIRST within the parameters of being Constitutional and allowing American citizens the freedom to do what they want with their money", then a Conservative would be "Best".
The latter was my basis for voting for McCain (although it can be argued he is not a true conservative, which is why I added Romney in my reply post).