DescentBB

Now here's a Democrat I kinda like. For a Democrat he seems to have a backbone thats not all mushy. He seems to be more of a middle of the road between Rep and Dem - What do y'all think of him compared to Clinton or any the Rep forerunners?

They all suck

Ron Paul ftw

ccb056 wrote:They all suck

Ron Paul ftw

qft

Ron Paul is the least worst...

Order of preference:

Ron Paul
Obama
jump off a cliff

I actually like listening to Obama. To be honest, I prefer him over Clinton.

Sadly, I'm also in the \"Clinton is inevitable\" camp as far as the nomination goes. Not that I'll have any say, since our moronic primary comes so late.

The primary issue I have with all Democratic candidates, aside from Paul, is the tax issue. My ideal candidate is right down the middle of the road. The one who has liberal ideas and values, but who is staunchly conservative when it comes to paying for them. Unfortunately, everyone here seems to think that raising taxes is a foregone conclusion. Well, excuse me, but if you are going to give the chimp nearly $200 billion to finance his little fiasco in the Middle East, I think you can eat the tax breaks. I never knew I was in this mythical \"Top 1%\" until the Democrats said so.

Kyouryuu wrote:I actually like listening to Obama. To be honest, I prefer him over Clinton.

Sadly, I'm also in the "Clinton is inevitable" camp as far as the nomination goes. Not that I'll have any say, since our moronic primary comes so late.

The primary issue I have with all Democratic candidates, aside from Paul, is the tax issue. My ideal candidate is right down the middle of the road. The one who has liberal ideas and values, but who is staunchly conservative when it comes to paying for them. Unfortunately, everyone here seems to think that raising taxes is a foregone conclusion. Well, excuse me, but if you are going to give the chimp nearly $200 billion to finance his little fiasco in the Middle East, I think you can eat the tax breaks. I never knew I was in this mythical "Top 1%" until the Democrats said so.

I didnt know you were a Libertarian.

My views are similar to that of Testi.

And I imagine that Hilary will choose Obama as her running mate, Paul will be gone. So I will be voting for her more then likely. I have to confess to a side of me that would enjoy the reactions of the Republicans with her victory....talk radio would be insane.

Our Bush, is your Hilary.

All I want for sure is, God, please, not Edwards, not even as a running mate. That guy really anoys the hell out of me. He anwsers way too many questions with, \"An even better question is....\", or \"The real questions is why...\", or \"What you should be asking is why...\". Just anwser the damn question!

I'll never get John Edwards. Even though he made Gore look somewhat less robotic and awkward, he's still odd in his own way.

For me, the defining moment of Edwards actually came from his wife. On MSNBC, his wife had called in and got into a pissing match with Ann Coulter. Now, I hate Coulter, but seriously - who staged this? Someone, somewhere in their campaign had to let it happen. There are so many things wrong with our country right now that sheer idea of this happening is asinine on its face. What did they honestly expect to accomplish here?

Obama wrote:“I don’t want to make that decision on behalf of my children,” he said. “I want my children to be able to make that decision on behalf of themselves, and I want them to be exposed to all the information, even in — did you say second grade? Second grade might be a little tough, but even in second grade to be exposed to all those possibilities, because I don’t want to impose my view. Nobody made me God.”

Source

I know this is relatively old news; but this seems bit messed up. I read the whole article; however, this caught my attention. That whole thing causes me to raise an eyebrow. I don't think he understands parenting well and if he can't take a leadership role in his own home, then I don't want him as President.

Ron Paul...he may not have a snowball's chance of winning, but it's worth a try.

Dont be swooned by a car salesman. Sure he may be a smooth talker, but who knows if he actually cares about the country or if he is owned by Corporate America.

Im for a third option, reboot the government and start from scratch with the constitution.

Top Wop wrote:Dont be swooned by a car salesman. Sure he may be a smooth talker, but who knows if he actually cares about the country or if he is owned by Corporate America.

Isn't the latter a foregone conclusion? I believe with the exception of Paul and Gravel, all of these people are varying degrees of evil. This is why I have respect for the "fringe" candidates. They are outspoken, they are radical, and you can tell what they say comes from their gut, not from the checkbook of whoever is paying them.

Top Wop wrote:Im for a third option, reboot the government and start from scratch with the constitution.

If we lived back in colonial times, I think the current government would have been overthrown and restarted. Unfortunately, we live in a time of unprecedented voter apathy. For every one who makes an informed, wise vote, there are a hundred others voting based on whoever planted the most campaign signs on front lawns.

This is why I respect the radical philosophies of Paul. While many would argue that he goes too far, I don't think it is possible to go far enough when it comes to downsizing the government and gutting the money it voraciously consumes. Whatever happened to Republicans who cared about spending? About government interference? When did the neoconservative agenda cause them to go mad and fall prey to the same vices of the opposing party? When did things slip so far that people trust the Democrats with fiscal responsibility?

Bottom line, the government needs an overhaul.

Clinton won't do it.

Romney won't do it.

Edwards won't do it.

Obama doesn't know how to do it.

Giuliani will find some way to blame 9/11 for it.

Kyouryuu wrote:For every one who makes an informed, wise vote, there are a hundred others voting based on whoever planted the most campaign signs on front lawns.

QFFT: My friend just votes for the person on the top of the ballot when voting time comes in school. Jesus he is stupid.

Kyouryuu wrote:Bottom line, the government needs an overhaul.

Giuliani will find some way to blame 9/11 for it.

"If you love the war on terror so much, why dont you marry it?... Oh wait, you'd just divorce that too..."

Dakatsu wrote:QFFT: My friend just votes for the person on the top of the ballot when voting time comes in school. Jesus he is stupid.

That's his way of saying "I really don't care who wins!"
It's a smarter move than you think...

Kyouryuu wrote:

Top Wop wrote:Dont be swooned by a car salesman. Sure he may be a smooth talker, but who knows if he actually cares about the country or if he is owned by Corporate America.

Isn't the latter a foregone conclusion? I believe with the exception of Paul and Gravel, all of these people are varying degrees of evil. This is why I have respect for the "fringe" candidates. They are outspoken, they are radical, and you can tell what they say comes from their gut, not from the checkbook of whoever is paying them.

Top Wop wrote:Im for a third option, reboot the government and start from scratch with the constitution.

If we lived back in colonial times, I think the current government would have been overthrown and restarted. Unfortunately, we live in a time of unprecedented voter apathy. For every one who makes an informed, wise vote, there are a hundred others voting based on whoever planted the most campaign signs on front lawns.

This is why I respect the radical philosophies of Paul. While many would argue that he goes too far, I don't think it is possible to go far enough when it comes to downsizing the government and gutting the money it voraciously consumes. Whatever happened to Republicans who cared about spending? About government interference? When did the neoconservative agenda cause them to go mad and fall prey to the same vices of the opposing party? When did things slip so far that people trust the Democrats with fiscal responsibility?

Bottom line, the government needs an overhaul.

Clinton won't do it.

Romney won't do it.

Edwards won't do it.

Obama doesn't know how to do it.

Giuliani will find some way to blame 9/11 for it.

One of the most intelligent posts I have read in awhile. Both party's are treading all over the constitution and OUR Bill of Rights and trying to re-write it while we just sit and stare. The younger generation people I speak to only know the first amendment and then only its name. MO-FO I can say anything I want and you cant do anything about it!! Just freekin sad

I think K's got it nailed. At least Paul would send a message, even if he isn't able to accomplish his full agenda. Even if he does not get elected, a strong turnout for him would send a message.

The voters are apathetic because they are cynical, no one really believes there is a good candidate... most don't understand Paul's agenda, they see his plan, for instance on abolishing the Dept. of Education, as \"no public education\", when actually that is far from true.

Skyalmian wrote:What awesomeness.

thanks for posting that

i was just watching this 4 part thing this morning about Ron Paul censorship.


the best part that stands out to me is when he was arguing with Sean Hannity, who is very agressive against Ron Paul. But he gets a shock when later on-air he quotes their live SMS poll numbers comming in and Ron Paul is on top. But then they try to pass it off as a campaign stunt - that it must be impossible for so many people to actually like Ron Paul.

Your article puts it into words well.

Hmm... I did not think he was popular because I don't know anyone who supports him... I guess I'm hanging out with the wrong people!

I don't think the Republican Party will LET Ron Paul win the nomination, no matter what.

BUT, an interesting possibility is what could happen if he continues to run as a third party candidate.

I'm going to vote for Lieberman.

Ha!

Interesting how a topic started on any candidate quickly turns into a Ron Paul topic.

After looking at all the candidates and their views, I'm going with Hillary Clinton 100%. I think she is smarter than the rest and may be able to fix the mess. Mr. Gore would have been my other choice but Mr. Paul would be the last person I would vote for.

Bee

I just came out today in the news that Barak Obama and Dick Cheney are eighth cousins!

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10172007/ne ... cheney.htm

I saw Hannity's trashing of Paul as well and scoffed at the host's arrogance. Other cable news channels have questioned why we even let Paul participate in the debates.

I don't know, maybe because that's the democracy our country was founded on? It's not just our politicians that have selective amnesia when it comes to our nation's principles.

None of this is surprising, mind you. The media has already picked their favorites and if you aren't in this mythical top tier, you aren't even worth talking about.

Eh, I haven't watched enough media to decide who I'd want to vote for President. Been too busy with my own life for that.

I like people with a good sense of charimsa and Obama seems to have much of that, so if worst comes to worst and I still hadn't decided on who to vote for (and my family hassle me to vote) I'll vote for Obama.
Too bad my second time voting for president might be like that: based on how much I liked one's character.

roid wrote:he gets a shock when later on-air he quotes their live SMS poll numbers comming in and Ron Paul is on top.

I've seen an awful lot of Ron Paul poll stuffing. The debate will finish, the polling will start, and Ron Paul will have about 1% support over the course of hundreds or thousands of votes... and then all of a sudden he shoots up to an 80% lead. Meanwhile, telephone polls and the like show him consistently polling in the 1-2% range.

We'll see what happens come voting time...

Bet51987 wrote:may be able to fix the mess.

I really don't think that's even possible anymore!

Lothar wrote:

roid wrote:he gets a shock when later on-air he quotes their live SMS poll numbers comming in and Ron Paul is on top.

I've seen an awful lot of Ron Paul poll stuffing. The debate will finish, the polling will start, and Ron Paul will have about 1% support over the course of hundreds or thousands of votes... and then all of a sudden he shoots up to an 80% lead. Meanwhile, telephone polls and the like show him consistently polling in the 1-2% range.

We'll see what happens come voting time...

and yet here we all are talking about him.
i think the media are trying to cover over the popularity that Ron Paul has. There are countless forums just like this where ppl rant about how awesome he is, i think the media saying that "nobody really likes Ron Paul" is quite... interesting no?
Considering the kindof raw honest sense he makes, i think it's peposterous.

roid wrote:i think the media are trying to cover over the popularity that Ron Paul has

I think it's mainly just that Ron has a KIND of popularity that they are not used to. He does NOT have great big numbers among the general population. BUT, his supporters are enthusiastic, rabid even, well organized, and online.

What baffles the media is that they don't seem to fully comprehend that the unscientific "straw polls" don't measure how popular someone is among the general population. It measures how enthusiastic and organized a candidates supporters are. And by that measure, Ron Paul is whipping everyone else on the field.

The big question, of course, is can he turn that enthusiasm into votes among the general population.