Favorite Candidate So Far?

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Just for fun...which presidential candidate do you all favor most?

[Scarfather]

Ron Paul and Bill Richardson are the only two who aren't complete fucking tools. I agree with Ron Paul's politics more, so Paul.

[Jon Lyrik]

None. The last American politician I really admire lost in a landslide in '72.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
None. The last American politician I really admire lost in a landslide in '72.

Yeah, McGovern is probably the only politician who truly didn't compromise his beliefs during election time. The American people demand phoniness these days.

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Yeah, McGovern is probably the only politician who truly didn't compromise his beliefs during election time. The American people demand phoniness these days.

He's a *gulp* honest politician and a great American.

[Squid Vicious]

Mike Gravel and Ron Paul. If I was American, and I didn't believe that voting is a complete waste of time, I'd vote for either of them.

[Thrizzle]

Gore/Bloomberg is my dream ticket.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Gore/Bloomberg is my dream ticket.

As long as it's not Bloomberg/Hagel.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Gore/Bloomberg is my dream ticket.

Great idea there. Support someone who is all for pushing cutbacks on everything, but he can have a $30,000 light bill, in one month. I can never listen to him again.

I went with Barack. He hasn't had too many good showings lately, but I like the guy.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by shoe1985
Great idea there. Support someone who is all for pushing cutbacks on everything, but he can have a $30,000 light bill, in one month. I can never listen to him again.


Well in his defense, that electirc bill included 20+ rooms, a security system, pool, office and office equipment, and the energy was provided by alternate energy sources. He used solar and wind power to provide energy, which is much more expensive. All things considered, its perfectly understandable.

He paid a lot more to help the environment. I dont see anything wrong with that.

[Badbird]

My favorite is actually Joe Biden, but he doesn't have a shot in hell.

Obama's not bad, and I like Richardson too. I can listen to them talk and not feel like I'm getting fed bullshit.

Hilary is just too shrill, though I love - love - the idea of Bill coming back to be the First Husband. That would be awesome. He'd be all lounging around is his bathrobe all day.

[QUENTIN]

He doesn't have a chance in hell, but my favorite's still Kucinich. A good man with great ideas who doesn't cowtow to big business or the M-IC.

I was a big supporter of Obama when he first emerged on ths scene and I still like him more than any of the other candidates who actually have a shot (Paul will win all debates but never get on a ballot), but while he'll be great domestically, Barack's said a lot that's made me worry he'll adopt the same batshit insane militaristic foreign policy that we've had for so long now.

[<3mekthx]

The two guys I like the most are Gore and Bloomberg as well. Not on the same ticket necessarily.

I read the other day that Warren Buffett would like to see a Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger ticket. Said the prohibition on someone not born in America serving as VP is less definitive.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Well in his defense, that electirc bill included 20+ rooms, a security system, pool, office and office equipment, and the energy was provided by alternate energy sources. He used solar and wind power to provide energy, which is much more expensive. All things considered, its perfectly understandable.

He paid a lot more to help the environment. I dont see anything wrong with that.

It is still a waste in my opinion. I am not a fan of his.

I am not a big Hillary fan, but she isn't a terrible candidate. Hell, I would vote for her in a second if Bill was her Vice President.

[Squid Vicious]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
Barack's said a lot that's made me worry he'll adopt the same batshit insane militaristic foreign policy that we've had for so long now.

Not to mention he voted to re-authorize the PATRIOT Act.

[Cyclonus]

I'm sort of rooting for Obama, since it would be an extraordinary historical first--and he actually has a realistic chance at winning. However, I do share Quentin and Squid's concerns about his Iraq (and Iran) policies. I can't say I'm too keen on Hillary, especially since I'd like to avoid supporting another political "dynasty."

I'm not ready to cast a vote for this poll just yet, not without a little more research. But I can tell you that I sure as hell don't want Rudy Giuliani to be my next president. I used to respect McCain, but now I have to wonder if he's off his rocker. I'm willing to give John Edwards another chance, though.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Cyclonus
I'm sort of rooting for Obama, since it would be an extraordinary historical first--and he actually has a realistic chance at winning. However, I do share Quentin and Squid's concerns about his Iraq (and Iran) policies. I can't say I'm too keen on Hillary, especially since I'd like to avoid supporting another political "dynasty."

I'm not ready to cast a vote for this poll just yet, not without a little more research. But I can tell you that I sure as hell don't want Rudy Giuliani to be my next president. I used to respect McCain, but now I have to wonder if he's off his rocker. I'm willing to give John Edwards another chance, though.

It's not necessarily the kind of poll you have to think much about, just vote for who gives you the best initial impression I suppose. I voted for Richardson, because he seems like the best candidate with enough EXPERIENCE to hold public office. For all I know he could be a total prick later on.


Anyway, I agree with not supporting Clinton because, as good a president as Bill was, the Clinton's are just like Republicans in the sense that they have no integrity. I don't support Obama but for the exact opposite reason. He seems extremely naive and he'll be in for the shock of his life once he realizes just how seedy Washington is, and how disingenuous you have to be in order to hold a decent approval rating.

[MadsenOMC]

I'm not worried about Obama's lack of experience. Dubya didn't have much either and he still somehow got re-elected. Obama has about 50 times the brain capacity Dubya has, and as long as he surrounded himself with intelligent people, he'd be fine.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

^^^^^^^^


That has nothing to do with it though. Dubya has been surrounded by seedy people all of his life. Obama seems like an honest guy who associates with good people. It's not inexperience it's naivete.

[MadsenOMC]

How is Obama naive? That seems like an odd way to characterize him and I'm not sure how someone would possibly get that impression from him. Of course he understands how Washington works, better than most people because he has worked there.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
How is Obama naive? That seems like an odd way to characterize him and I'm not sure how someone would possibly get that impression from him.


Have you seen Mr. Smith Goes to Washington? In that kind of way.

[MadsenOMC]

Ok but what gives you that impression about him? I don't get that feeling from him at all and strongly disagree with you.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Ok but what gives you that impression about him? I don't get that feeling from him at all and strongly disagree with you.


You can tell by the way he talks. I suppose all politicians talk about ending corruption and ushering in a new era of honesty and blah blah blah, but when Obama says it I'm not sure if we can take it too seriously. The man is not a seasoned politician, and even in the speech where he threw his hat in he admitted that (I'm paraphrasing here) "I may not know the ways of Washington, but I do know that the ways of Washington need to change." Our next president needs to know the ways of Washington so that he/she can change them, because once Obama is in office and realizes that he doesn't know how these people operate, it's going to make it a lot harder for him.


I think that, maybe by the end of his first Senate term, Obama would make a good presidential candidate. In the meantime, I guess he's just going to have to "learn the ways of Washington."

[Jon Lyrik]

It's not naivete, it's typical political bullshit. Even if he was a seasoned politician he'd be saying empty-suit shit like "ending corruption".

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
It's not naivete, it's typical political bullshit. Even if he was a seasoned politician he'd be saying empty-suit shit like "ending corruption".

Every young politician says things like Obama is saying at first, but over time most of them eventually become corrupted like a little schoolgirl. At this point it IS naivete, but if he ran in 2012 it probably wouldn't be.

[shoe1985]

Maybe we need someone like Obama. Someone to shake things up. As a citizen, I am sick of the current crop of people in office. I know at my college all we study it seems is ethics because they are pushing for the next generation to show that we are good people. Companies like Enron had people in their pockets, and went unnoticed for so long. We have too many people that are in office because of name and not for the real reason they should be in office. I want people that worked to get where they are, not someone that got there because there mommy or daddy got them there, George W anyone?

Hell, the only reason people like Rudy is because he was considered a hero on 9/11, yet he didn't do as much as people say he did.

I don't know a lot about Bloomberg, but I hear from friends he is a good leader for New York. Maybe he is what we need?

We need change because right now, we are headed towards disaster.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by shoe1985
Maybe we need someone like Obama. Someone to shake things up. As a citizen, I am sick of the current crop of people in office. I know at my college all we study it seems is ethics because they are pushing for the next generation to show that we are good people. Companies like Enron had people in their pockets, and went unnoticed for so long. We have too many people that are in office because of name and not for the real reason they should be in office. I want people that worked to get where they are, not someone that got there because there mommy or daddy got them there, George W anyone?

Hell, the only reason people like Rudy is because he was considered a hero on 9/11, yet he didn't do as much as people say he did.

I don't know a lot about Bloomberg, but I hear from friends he is a good leader for New York. Maybe he is what we need?

We need change because right now, we are headed towards disaster.



Don't get me wrong, if Obama gets the nomination and the Republican is someone I don't like (in other words, everybody except Ron Paul) then not only will I vote for him but I'll campaign for him as well. I think this country is headed towards disaster. This Administration has failed to do anything that will benefit America in the long run. It's failed to protect us from danger, which makes no sense when about 55% of the budget is spent on the military; the same military which is spending money on shit that it either does not use or is a complete waste of money. I think Bush is easily the worst president we've ever had. Period. I feel very strongly about that. I'm not saying Obama shouldn't be in office, I'm just saying he isn't the Christ-like figure everyone makes him out to be. Hell, I'll take him over Hillary Clinton (face it, the last thing we need in the White House is another Clinton).

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by shoe1985
Maybe we need someone like Obama. Someone to shake things up. As a citizen, I am sick of the current crop of people in office. I know at my college all we study it seems is ethics because they are pushing for the next generation to show that we are good people. Companies like Enron had people in their pockets, and went unnoticed for so long. We have too many people that are in office because of name and not for the real reason they should be in office. I want people that worked to get where they are, not someone that got there because there mommy or daddy got them there, George W anyone?

Hell, the only reason people like Rudy is because he was considered a hero on 9/11, yet he didn't do as much as people say he did.

I don't know a lot about Bloomberg, but I hear from friends he is a good leader for New York. Maybe he is what we need?

We need change because right now, we are headed towards disaster.

Hahah, you don't seriously expect that these guys are going to change a thing, do you?

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
Hahah, you don't seriously expect that these guys are going to change a thing, do you?


Well, if we elect someone who's pro-choice and pro-gay rights, then HOPEFULLY they'll push legislation that supports it. At this point anyone is a slight push to the middle of the road no matter how conservative. Your "everybody in politics is the exact same" logic doesn't apply.

EDIT: mean to put "your" there. Miniscule but I hate it when I do that.

[Squid Vicious]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
You're "everybody in politics is the exact same" logic doesn't apply.

I can't speak for Jon Lyrik, but I don't think that "everybody in politics is the exact same." There certainly are differences between the Republicans and Democrats -- such as the fact that the Democrats are far more hypocritical. I just feel that the differences between them (as well as the Liberals and Conservatives here in Canada) are so miniscule that it's not even worth arguing over.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Squid Vicious
I can't speak for Jon Lyrik, but I don't think that "everybody in politics is the exact same." There certainly are differences between the Republicans and Democrats -- such as the fact that the Democrats are far more hypocritical. I just feel that the differences between them (as well as the Liberals and Conservatives here in Canada) are so miniscule that it's not even worth arguing over.

Right now, they both seem like the same. Before it was the Repubs who were all Pro Bush, not it seems like the Dems are Pro Bush. Nobody has really taken a stand on any issues. The Dems were going to be open on everything, now only a few even want anything revealed.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Squid Vicious
I can't speak for Jon Lyrik, but I don't think that "everybody in politics is the exact same." There certainly are differences between the Republicans and Democrats -- such as the fact that the Democrats are far more hypocritical. I just feel that the differences between them (as well as the Liberals and Conservatives here in Canada) are so miniscule that it's not even worth arguing over.


It seems that the wedge issues are the only ones that matter anymore, and candidates on both isles are going out of their way to ignore them. Today, it's all about who isn't the biggest douchebag. Sometimes there are candidates we only see the bad side of and who do things we can't stand....

Take Rudy Giuliani for instance. I fucking despise him. I think he's a degenerate piece of shit and if he died right now I'd start going to church. Just look at his moronic, inaccurate response which got more applause than Ron Paul's historically accurate, research-backed statement. What a fucking troll. He can't go three seconds without mentioning 9/11, that fucking rat.....has nothing else going for him so he uses the deaths of 3,000 people to accelerate his campaign.

See, I really fucking hate him. It doesn't matter how much of a douchebag the other guy is if Giuliani is nominated I will drop out of college and support whoever is running against him.

Just a quick lesson in how American politics work.

[jeo4]

From the conservative standpoint, I think Ron Paul is the best choice. (Mitt Romney is a tool.) From the liberal camp, I'm not sure whom to choose. But I know I'd vote for anyone who opposes Hillary Clinton. I'd say Obama is a better choice by far. I have a bad feeling that we may see a Clinton vs. Romney vote. That just depresses the hell out of me.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by jeo4
I have a bad feeling that we may see a Clinton vs. Romney vote. That just depresses the hell out of me.

I can't see Romney getting nominated. People in the primaries will probably vote against his Mormonism, not his inability to take a stance on serious issures or his flat out weirdness.


I have little doubt that Hillary Clinton will get the nomination. She has to. She nearly has the full backing of all powerful Democrats. Anyone who believes that the people nominate their party nominees need to look at the dark reality of things. Does anybody really think that Democrats were just wild about John Kerry? No, but the Democratic leaders said to themselves "oh, what the Hell, let's let Kerry be the nominee, he's been a Senator for a while now and he's the only one who stands a chance against Bush."

[EVILxxx]

If Hillary wins the bid; whoever beats her.
I'm not crazy about Romney, but he was a decent governor, in a complicated state.

[jolanar]

Ron Paul for president!

[MadsenOMC]

Brando @$$ Fat, I hate Giuliani as much as you do. Well-said. Clinton would make a better president than any of the horrible Republican candidates. The worst in the Democratic field, whoever you think that is, would make a better president than any of the Republican candidates.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Brando @$$ Fat, I hate Giuliani as much as you do. Well-said. Clinton would make a better president than any of the horrible Republican candidates. The worst in the Democratic field, whoever you think that is, would make a better president than any of the Republican candidates.

I'm not so sure. Even though our philosophies are different I think Ron Paul would do a decent job. He's a lot like the S.C. governor Mark Sanford....a libertarian rather than a typical republican. Even though I didn't vote fo re-elect Sanford because I liked the other guy better I wish more Republicans were like them. I really just hate Giuliani for getting more applause than Paul did even though Paul's statement was actually CORRECT and the CIA itself said what Paul said is true. Of course, every idiot in the audience is going to root for Giuliani.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Brando @$$ Fat, I hate Giuliani as much as you do. Well-said. Clinton would make a better president than any of the horrible Republican candidates. The worst in the Democratic field, whoever you think that is, would make a better president than any of the Republican candidates.

I agree with you for the most part, because Giuliani, Romney, Tancredo, Thompson (both of them), and Brownback are all asshats and McCain has grown too reactionary and weak-willed to be president. Any Democrat running would be better than them. However, Republican Ron Paul would make a better president than anyone but Kucinich who is running as a major-party candidate and he would drastically reform for the better much of what is illegal but accepted in politics and government.

I'll vote for Obama if he gets the nomination, but if Clinton gets the nomination I'll only vote for her if she's running against Giuliani, otherwise I'll go third party and have the opportunity to vote for someone I actually believe in.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

I think it's important to realize that even though Ron Paul is a great leader his basic core philosophies aren't anything close to ours. I still think he'd be a better president than any Republican and many Democrats because he actually has his own ideas and beliefs. He doesn't lick his finger and put it in the air like Clinton, Romney and McCain and he's not a degenerate piece of shit like Giuliani.

[MadsenOMC]

With the possible exception of Paul (I need to learn more about his beliefs outside of the war in Iraq), the worst Democratic candidate would make a better president than any of the Republican options. We'll see what happens with Bloomberg and Unity08.

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by Scarfather
Ron Paul and Bill Richardson are the only two who aren't complete fucking tools. I agree with Ron Paul's politics more, so Paul.


Ron Paul is the biggest moron of everyone running.

[The Heart Collector]

Seriously, how is anyone taking that complete moron seriously? He's an idiot. He's a giant racist. He thinks "The war on Christmas" is real. He wants to bring back the gold standard. He's a complete fucking idiot of the highest order.

[The Heart Collector]

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

- Ron Paul



We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.


Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer.

- Ron Paul


Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions.

- Ron Paul


By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism

- Ron Paul

[MadsenOMC]

Thank you Heart Collector. That is why I didn't single out Paul as a good Republican candidate, because all I knew about him was his position on Iraq. I can now go back to my previous statement, that the weakest Democratic candidate is better than all of the Republican ones.

[Squid Vicious]

:eek:

Wow. Alright, cross Ron Paul off my list...

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
Seriously, how is anyone taking that complete moron seriously? He's an idiot. He's a giant racist. He thinks "The war on Christmas" is real. He wants to bring back the gold standard. He's a complete fucking idiot of the highest order.


Ok, how is that worse than what any of these other Republican candidates do? He says stupid shit on occasion, big deal. It doesn't really matter because he won't get the nomination so he might as well be as honest as possible. Even though I think it's best for him not to be president it's still extremely important to have people like him holding some sort of public office, since these days almost any bill that will waste taxpayer money gets the thumbs up from Congress. That's why I like him, because he's actually talking about important issues instead of mentioning 9/11 constantly like that fucking broken record Giuliani.

When it comes to foreign policy, the two parties are the exact same, and when it comes to issues like abortion/gay marriage polticians will ignore it. Even when they land a spot in the Oval Office they'll have difficulty getting support for such things from Congress. Ron Paul is a hardcore ideologist about government, which is what candidates SHOULD stand for. It shouldn't be about whether someone should terminate a fetus or not, it should be about how the government is run.

[MadsenOMC]

Did you read those quotes? It sounds like Ron Paul is way beyond insane. Those are some disturbing beliefs he has.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Did you read those quotes? It sounds like Ron Paul is way beyond insane. Those are some disturbing beliefs he has.


Bush said that God told him to go into Iraq and if that disturbs you less than what Paul said (how old are those quotes by the way?) then I'm not going to argue further.

[MadsenOMC]

Of course that disturbs me (in fact I am currently reading American Theocracy and the book just discussed that). You will not find less of a fan of Bush than me.

[Jon Lyrik]

Hey, we do give regular handjobs to Israel, but the way he words it makes it sound like something ripped from an updated edition of Elders Of Zion.

I don't trust most people who are labeled "libertarians" anyway. Not because I hate the basic philosophy, but most libertarians are whackaloon Republicans minus the religious aspect. I remember one guy saying corporations should not be regulated for environmental impact and that one has to make a case to prove that they have been harmed by their actions. Oh yeah, that's gonna work, and not be a horrendous, impractical, nightmarish burden on a completely fucked-up legal system. And this is hardly an isolated case.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Of course that disturbs me (in fact I am currently reading American Theocracy and the book just discussed that). You will not find less of a fan of Bush than me.

I'm just saying that, given the current political climate, this shouldn't bother everyone so much. Ron Paul saying something somewhat racist from a while back doesn't bother me as much as....

The Clintons' questionable/probably illegal past fund-raising techniques....

Or Giuliani's nonstop mentioning of 9/11...

Or Mitt Romney's frequent shift on positions....

Or John McCain's method of licking his finger and pointing it in the air when trying to determine where he should stand on an issue.....

Or Fred Thompson's laziness....

[MadsenOMC]

I'm sorry but I find those comments, regardless of when Paul said them, to be pretty damn disturbing and fucked up. I don't understand why someone would make light of them or act as if they're no big deal in the grand scheme of things. Would you vote for someone who said and believes those things? I didn't know anything about the man other than his Iraq stance and I'm glad someone shared the information. So what if his position on Iraq is noteworthy. He sounds like a terrible person.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
I don't understand why someone would make light of them or act as if they're no big deal in the grand scheme of things. Would you vote for someone who said and believes those things?


Ok, I have a surprise for you, so get ready........


I'm not voting for Ron Paul.


That's it. Sorry, I like the guy and everything but we stand too far apart on the ultimate ideological issues. I admire the guy and hope he stays in Congress but I believe the government's role should be to make sure people sleep peacefully at night and he believes in little-to-no government.


People say racist shit and then realize the error of their ways. I'm not saying what he said isn't wrong but I'm so sick of people being so damn judgemental on this issue. I had a grandparent who said racist things every now and then who marched with Dr. King and always said it was the best thing he ever did, but OH NO HE SAID SOMETHING RACIST THAT'S BAD HE'S A BAD MAN. People really need to lighten the fuck up, because everybody does something like make a racist joke at one point.

[The Heart Collector]

Ron Paul makes Dennis Kucinich look normal.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
Ron Paul makes Dennis Kucinich look normal.


I used to make fun of Kucinich's height until I learned we were the same height. Damn that was a blow.

[Thrizzle]

Kucinich would make a good President but unfortunately he doesnt have a snowballs chance in hell. It's because he'd make a good president that he has no chance...thats why our system is broken.

[Squid Vicious]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
Ron Paul makes Dennis Kucinich look normal.

Kucinich's platform, according to Wikipedia (or, 20 Reasons Why Dennis Kucinich Will Never Be President :p):

* Creating a single-payer system of universal health care that provides full coverage for all Americans.
* The immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq; replacing them with an international security force.
* Guaranteed quality education for all; including free pre-kindergarten and college for all who want it.
* Immediate withdrawal from the World Trade Organization (WTO) and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
* Repealing the USA PATRIOT Act.
* Fostering a world of international cooperation.
* Abolishing the death penalty.
* Environmental renewal and clean energy.
* Preventing the privatization of social security.
* Providing full social security benefits at age 65.
* Creating a cabinet-level "Department of Peace"
* Ratifying the ABM Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol.
* Introducing reforms to bring about instant-runoff voting.
* Protecting a woman's right to choose while decreasing the number of abortions performed in the U.S.
* Ending the war on drugs.
* Legalizing same-sex marriage.
* Creating a balance between workers and corporations.
* Ending the H1B and L1 Visa Programs
* Restoring rural communities and family farms.
* Strengthening gun control.

The only one I don't really agree with is strengthening gun control. The other positions don't seem particularly unreasonable to me.

[Thrizzle]

International cooperation? Department of peace? Free schooling and healthcare? Protecting the environment? Abolishing the death penalty? If Lynn read this she'd faint.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

I imagine there would be some bad blood between the Peace Department and the many War Departments Bush has put in.

I was reading up on Kucinich today. This guy has some shitty luck. While he was mayor of Cleavland, when he was running for re-election, his opponent's daughter was tragically killed right before the election and the other guy got enough sympathy votes to win. It also said that he was unpopular for not selling some lighting company to a big business, or something like that, and although it hurt his reputation as mayor he ended up saving the city something like $195 million over the next twenty years. So apparently he was like the Jimmy Carter of mayors.

[jeo4]

Wow. Take Ron Paul off the list. Damn. And he had some rather intelligent thoughts among his peers.

Not that this is saying much. All the Republican candidates suck.

But then again, all of the Democrats do too.

Any independent candidates? Anybody??

:(

[Scarfather]

Are any of those quotes ever going to be sourced? Or should I stop waiting?

[jolanar]

Originally posted by Scarfather
Are any of those quotes ever going to be sourced? Or should I stop waiting?

That's what I was wondering. I've never heard any of that before and seeing how Ron Paul is the 'internet underdog' so to speak, I'd imagine somebody would have plastered that all over the internet by now.

[The Heart Collector]

All of this IS plastered over the internet.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html


And google "Ron Paul Survival Report"



He "justified" his racist comments by saying "oh i didn't write that, an aide of mine wrote that even though those newsletters regularly were released under my name, as if i wrote it, so what i'm saying is i'm willing to put my name on things i haven't even read", BULLSHIT.

[MadsenOMC]

http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/aol-metropolitan/96/05/23/paul.html

[Scarfather]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
All of this IS plastered over the internet.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html


And google "Ron Paul Survival Report"

He "justified" his racist comments by saying "oh i didn't write that, an aide of mine wrote that even though those newsletters regularly were released under my name, as if i wrote it, so what i'm saying is i'm willing to put my name on things i haven't even read", BULLSHIT.

Mkay. I went to work before I read this "reply", it'll be touched on at the end.

___
I decided to source all of them myself.

QUOTE #1:

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

-Ron Paul, December 2003

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html]

QUOTES #2, #, and #4:

We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer.

- Ron Paul, 1992

Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions.

- Ron Paul, Also 1992

By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism

- Ron Paul, Also Also 1992

http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/aol-metropolitan/96/05/23/paul.html

Let's talk about the first quote.

Your major problem seems to be the 'war on Christmas' part.

Essentially, 'the war on Christmas' and what it entails, if there at any point was one, is over, Christmas means nothing now, it's a big fuckin' joke to 99% of the population and is officially 'buy your friends and family presents' day, as of right now, I see no war on the religious purity of Christmas because at this point there is none.

Ron Paul may not see this, but it's true. This hardly makes hi ma bad person, a moron, or a bad presidential candidate, just naive about the status of his faith.

My problem with this quote is the 'religiously tolerant' part, of course, the founding fathers were religiously tolerant, as Ron Paul says he is, but that's far away from religiously acceptive.

So this quote I disagree with, philosophically, on a count that I think actually matters, but again, it hardly makes him a bad person, let alone a bad presidential candidate.

Now, for quotes, 2, 3, and 4.

For the life of me, I couldn't find a direct link to the newsletter, just to Alan Bernstein's article on it. So for all I know, it could be blind BS, but I'll go on what he gave his readers.

"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

This is not racist, this is true. I don't know if you have ever been to Los Angeles or Washington D.C., I have been to both, the crime is disturbing. I could dig through thousands of links to prove that the crime is frequent and predominantly black, but I don't think you need me to, what Bernstein doesn't show is Ron Paul's solutions or actual stances on the latter end of a quote, just the former end that makes him look bad.

But on the simple side of things, for Paul, living in Washington D.C., to point out that a large number of blacks commit violent crime and that this scares him, is hardly racist.

"Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer."

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions."

Again, I had a large amount of trouble searching Bernstein's article for the same necessary elements a real quote needs, just like quote #2, an actual context, but what Paul seems to be stating here is that instead of participating in the political system to legislate the changes the community needed, they rioted. They did. This makes him racist, for pointing this out?

The problem here is either a gagging amount of white guilt on your part, or the inability to see facts. These out-of-context quotes, taken from 1992 were about the L.A. riots, in the midst of a 'race war' going on in a time when the black politicians of the area were at no real pace working towards the changes the community needed.

It is now 2007, the wide majority of the blacks I know are socially and politically aware, as any stroll through a college campus should show you. As far as progress goes for our society and race goes, we're as "there" as we've ever been, and until you can produce some good, sourced quotes about Paul and the race issue, from this decade, you're gonna need to squeegee your brain.

"By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism."

Again, the same problems exist here regarding the quote, but at least this one is pretty obvious, whether you're pro-Israel or anti-Israel, we as a government, are pro-Israel and allow them just about every favorable sanction they request, and more so, the ones they don't.

But at the core of this quote is the behemoth, bogus idea that antisemitism and antizionism are the same thing. Which couldn't be further from the truth. That's like saying that disagreeing with the policies of a country in Africa or Asia makes you racist.

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
All of this IS plastered over the internet.

[url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html)


And google "Ron Paul Survival Report"



He "justified" his racist comments by saying "oh i didn't write that, an aide of mine wrote that even though those newsletters regularly were released under my name, as if i wrote it, so what i'm saying is i'm willing to put my name on things i haven't even read", BULLSHIT.

Glad to see you did source one of the quotes, which comes from a legitimate source, and not the other three that don't.

So, this racism you speak of, I could not find.

This justification you speak of, I could not find either, and I Googled "Ron Paul Survival Report" which brought up nothing my previous searches had not.

Except this:

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees – while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.

Ron Paul, December 2002

His own personal philosophy.

Take all of this at face value of course, this is the internet.

[MadsenOMC]

What is considered a sensible political opinion and how does one go about determining what percentage of a racial group has a sensible political opinion?

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Statistically, I would say he's overexaggerating but he is right to an extent.

I mentioned earlier a documentary called Street Fight about the Newark mayoral race and it's one of the most poignant films I've ever seen about urban politics. Basically, it's about a young, Barack Obama-type kid who decides to run for mayor of Newark against it's corrupt, seedy incumbent. The incumbent's campaign does terrible things like accuse him of being Jewish and Republican (he was neither) in order to hurt his reputation with black voters. The mayor basically won re-election because he still had a stronghold on the black vote, which actually believed the lies he said about his opponent. So a lot of black people do not know much about politics, and many of them only follow what their community leaders tell them.

However, I think white people as a whole are even more close-minded and ignorant about politics, so I won't go any further. Maybe voters in general are just a stupid bunch.

[MadsenOMC]

There are a ton of politically ignorant people in all racial groups. It seems totally idiotic to single one race out. I read more about Paul and his stance on a variety of issues, and apparently I disagree with him more than I agree with him. I don't think he's a very good candidate for president.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
There are a ton of politically ignorant people in all racial groups. It seems totally idiotic to single one race out. I read more about Paul and his stance on a variety of issues, and apparently I disagree with him more than I agree with him. I don't think he's a very good candidate for president.


I don't even know why I should bother defending Paul's stance on race. To me it's just static that's taking away focus from the big picture.


Here's why I like Ron Paul and hope he's at least somewhat successful in the primary: because if people like him become more popular then both parties will realize that wedge issues do not matter and it should be more about the ideology of how to run a government. Both of the parties are the exact same when it comes to foreign policy. No Democrats except maybe Kucinich and a few others have supported the idea of cutting the military budget. It's fucking absurd that we give the Pentagon that much money each year and they always end up wasting it on shit we don't need, and their argument will always be that it creates jobs and blah blah blah. Not to mention the Democrats were equally responsible for Iraq and now they're parading around as if they are the good guys.

Here's what it comes down to: Ron Paul's success may help bring us back to the old days of people running based on the ideas of running government and none of the less important shit like abortion/gay marriage. Nowadays, people either vote with their wallets or their bibles. Fuck that. It should be about the basic philosophies. That's what the Founding Fathers wanted.


I don't want Paul to be president but I'm really hoping he comes in a close second or third in the primary.

[jolanar]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Maybe voters in general are just a stupid bunch.

Ding ding ding we have a winner!

No but seriously in the last election I had just turned 18 and of all my friends that voted I found that two things were absolutely true. Either:

1. They voted blindly for whoever their parents voted for.

or

2. They voted on whoever 'looked the best.'

Now that doesn't say much about young voters. And how many are their? Last election I think it was right about 20 million young people who voted in the last election.

Frankly, hardly anyone votes on the true issues anymore. Most of the time it boils down to things like abortion, death penalty, gay rights marriage and gun control which all have very very very very little to do with the day to day job of the President.

Haha anyways, mini-rant over.

[jolanar]

I think it would be interesting if we put up a new poll every 4 months or so and leave off those who have been knocked out of the race. It would also be pretty interesting to see how peoples opinions on candidates change over time.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Lol, Tom Vilsack......

[MadsenOMC]

What exactly is so great about Ron Paul? He dares to speak out against an unpopular war that is growing more unpopular daily? I haven't watched the Republican debates and essentially what I know about him is that he opposes the war in Iraq. Great. So do most Americans. What is so special about this guy?

[The Heart Collector]

A 1996 article in the Houston Chronicle[80] alleges that Ron Paul made comments in a 1992 edition of the Ron Paul Survival Report (a newsletter published since 1985), including commentary on race and disparaging remarks about fellow congressperson Barbara Jordan.[81]

In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine, Paul acknowledged that the comments were printed in the newsletter under his name, but explained that they did not represent his views and that they were written by a ghostwriter. He further stated that he felt some moral responsibility for the words that had been attributed to him, despite the fact that they did not represent his way of thinking:

"They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them...I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'"[82][11]

He further stated:

"I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady... we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."[11]

Texas Monthly wrote in 2001, "What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this." They state that it would have been easier for him to deny the accusations at the time, because the controversy would have destroyed most politicians.[11]

[Moviefan1234]

A Kucinich/Obama ticket would be my dream come true as Kucinich is the one I am most similar to in terms of what I believe in politically. However realistically, I think we're going to see Clinton win the nomination and take Obama along as her running mate. It's a good fit.

[jolanar]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
What exactly is so great about Ron Paul? He dares to speak out against an unpopular war that is growing more unpopular daily? I haven't watched the Republican debates and essentially what I know about him is that he opposes the war in Iraq. Great. So do most Americans. What is so special about this guy?

I think one of the biggest things is that he is consistent. He voted against the Iraq war and the Patriot act. He is a true republican in a sense that he wants less government in particular he feels the President holds waaaaay to much power. He is for lower taxes. He feels it is pointless to fight terrorism abroad while leaving the front door open aka border security and immigration reform.

He is a constitutionalist which basically means he has never voted for anything unless it was authorized in the constitution.

Thats the basic gist of it.

Oh and heres the kicker... he returns a portion of his congressional office budget to the treasury each year. Not sure what that portion is but still kinda interesting.

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by jolanar
I think one of the biggest things is that he is consistent. He voted against the Iraq war and the Patriot act. He is a true republican in a sense that he wants less government in particular he feels the President holds waaaaay to much power. He is for lower taxes. He feels it is pointless to fight terrorism abroad while leaving the front door open aka border security and immigration reform.

He is a constitutionalist which basically means he has never voted for anything unless it was authorized in the constitution.

Thats the basic gist of it.

Oh and heres the kicker... he returns a portion of his congressional office budget to the treasury each year. Not sure what that portion is but still kinda interesting.

OK, like I said, what is so great about him?

[Brando @$$ Fat]

^^^^^^

Just like everything I said earlier.

[MadsenOMC]

If that's it this guy is nothing special at all. Far, far from it.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

It's important for his message to click with Republicans. That's why he's important.



I'm starting to see the same close-mindedness we accused Lynn of.

[MadsenOMC]

Oh give me a break. Because I don't see the greatness you apparently do? We all have to feel the exact same way about all the candidates now? That was a stupid cheap shot and totally untrue. He just doesn't wow me. I don't agree with him on many issues. I'm not being closed-minded. That's a crock of shit.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

I don't really agree with him on most things either. I'm just not sure if the backlash is against him because you just recently read a racist quote online or because you've thoroughly researched his positions on everything.

[MadsenOMC]

Like I said, I didn't know much about him other than his stance on Iraq up until today. I looked into his positions on the issues after those quotes were posted. I don't agree with him on much and therefore I'm not real impressed with him at this point. I don't think it's all that noteworthy to speak out against an extremely unpopular war. That, plus the fact that I disagree with him on many things, plus the things he has said in the past, taken together, I'm not very impressed with him.

[Scarfather]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector


So your strongest argument now is that he has really shitty campaign aides?

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Oh give me a break.

http://www.freedomfundraising.com/Candy/KitKat.gif

[MadsenOMC]

I love Kit Kat bars. Wish I had one right now. That picture makes me hungry.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Anyone who shares a Kit-Kat bar is a fucking pussy. I eat that shit whole.

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Anyone who shares a Kit-Kat bar is a fucking pussy. I eat that shit whole.

[The Heart Collector]

Do you honestly buy the completely absurd excuse that every negative thing in the Ron Paul newsletters were the fault of some aides? He just *happened* to have a bunch of racists that just happened to feel like pranking him and he just *happened* to never read the damn thing? It's such a transparent lie.

[Scarfather]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
Do you honestly buy the completely absurd excuse that every negative thing in the Ron Paul newsletters were the fault of some aides? He just *happened* to have a bunch of racists that just happened to feel like pranking him and he just *happened* to never read the damn thing? It's such a transparent lie.

No, I don't buy it. At all. I've already posted what, given his admission to those words, I think might justify them. But at his denial, it is abundantly clear that he does have a certain level of brume around him at this point, which I feel I need to see him throughly explain before making a decision.

But my main problem this whole time has been this:

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
Ron Paul is the biggest moron of everyone running.

Do I really have to write essays on how untrue this is? Most of the other candidate don't have a fuckin' brume, they have a suffocating cloud of bullshit.

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Anyone who shares a Kit-Kat bar is a fucking pussy. I eat that shit whole.

Bah. I've got more.

http://www.nestle.ie/NR/rdonlyres/2A0F5229-2894-46AA-93F1-3546C7A32E8E/0/ProdKitKat02.jpg

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
If that's it this guy is nothing special at all. Far, far from it.

He's the only person running in this race who is a true constitutionalist and a true Republican. He is also the only one who has remained consistent in his views and has always voted as such, making him a frequent minority in his voting record. He literally will always vote for or against something based on what would be most constitutionally sound, so that even if he opposes something personally (like gay marriage for instance), he would never legislate that opinion because it has no constitutional precedent or legal reasoning. He is the only one for a small and limited government. He thinks states should be able to vote on social and economic issues individually, to restore power to individual voters and take away the power of the federal government. He wants to re-institute real checks and balances in government. He wants to abolish everything that is illegal (like the IRS) or not working (like Homeland Security, Department of Energy, the CIA) and reduce our defense budget drastically while focusing on securing America and never, ever involving ourselves in wars or conflicts as the aggressor.

If that doesn't make him special to you or you fail to see how that sets him apart from the rest of the candidates, then I just pray you don't vote.

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
[BI If that doesn't make him special to you or you fail to see how that sets him apart from the rest of the candidates, then I just pray you don't vote. [/B]

What is with the personal insult? That is a really ignorant and moronic comment. I could turn that around on you and express my desire that you don't vote. I don't like the guy. Plain and simple. If I like Obama and you don't, should I insult you? Like I have said repeatedly, I don't agree with Paul on many issues and I do not think he'd make a good president. Is it OK for people to have opinions about specific candidates around here? Jesus fucking Christ.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
What is with the personal insult? That is a really ignorant and moronic comment. I could turn that around on you and express my desire that you don't vote. I don't like the guy. Plain and simple. If I like Obama and you don't, should I insult you? Like I have said repeatedly, I don't agree with Paul on many issues and I do not think he'd make a good president. Is it OK for people to have opinions about specific candidates around here? Jesus fucking Christ.

What? Calm down. When did I personally insult you? I didn't. I said I hope you don't vote if you don't see what sets Ron Paul apart from the other candidates in this race, because that can really only be the result of not knowing much about the stances of the candidates. It's the equivalent of you saying you fail to see what makes 2001 different from most movies, and me saying "Well then I pray you don't become a studio exec". I never used insulting words like "moronic" like you just did. I just don't want uninformed people making important decisions.

And who said anything about you having to like Ron Paul or agree with him? That's not at all what my post was about, you're off-base. Rather, you said and I quoted "If that's it this guy is nothing special at all. Far, far from it." In terms of this presidential race, that is just a factually incorrect statement.. You don't have to like him or agree with him, and even though I do like him, I also disagree with him on a shitload of issues (he's an extreme old-school conservative, I'm an extreme old-school liberal), but I don't think you can say he isn't special and different from other potential presidential candidates right now. His voting record, his views, and what he has said so far at debates and speeches are wildly different from everything else all other candidates have done and are saying. He wants to immediately dissolve the IRS, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Energy, the CIA, and cut our defense budget by more than half while shifting power from the federal government to individual states. That is radically different than what anyone else, ESPECIALLY his Republican competition, is running on.He's the only person in this big field who is an actual conservative who wants to limit the role of government. And if you don't think that makes him special and makes him stand out, I think that can only be the result of not knowing much about either Ron's stances, the stances of the other 17-20 candidates currently running, or both since it is so obviously very unique right now.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

The only other candidate who really stands out like that is Mike Gravel. The only difference is Gravel is a crazy old man who will slip back to irrelevancy once the primaries are over while Ron Paul will continue to be somehow relevant.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
He's the only person running in this race who is a true constitutionalist and a true Republican. He is also the only one who has remained consistent in his views and has always voted as such, making him a frequent minority in his voting record. He literally will always vote for or against something based on what would be most constitutionally sound, so that even if he opposes something personally (like gay marriage for instance), he would never legislate that opinion because it has no constitutional precedent or legal reasoning. He is the only one for a small and limited government. He thinks states should be able to vote on social and economic issues individually, to restore power to individual voters and take away the power of the federal government. He wants to re-institute real checks and balances in government. He wants to abolish everything that is illegal (like the IRS) or not working (like Homeland Security, Department of Energy, the CIA) and reduce our defense budget drastically while focusing on securing America and never, ever involving ourselves in wars or conflicts as the aggressor.

These are some of the many reasons that I like the guy. I also see his religiious beliefs as minimal, even with his "war on Christmas". However, I see the racist comments and I don't see a public that will support him.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
And who said anything about you having to like Ron Paul or agree with him? That's not at all what my post was about, you're off-base. Rather, you said and I quoted "If that's it this guy is nothing special at all. Far, far from it." In terms of this presidential race, that is just a factually incorrect statement.. You don't have to like him or agree with him, and even though I do like him, I also disagree with him on a shitload of issues (he's an extreme old-school conservative, I'm an extreme old-school liberal), but I don't think you can say he isn't special and different from other potential presidential candidates right now. His voting record, his views, and what he has said so far at debates and speeches are wildly different from everything else all other candidates have done and are saying. He wants to immediately dissolve the IRS, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Energy, the CIA, and cut our defense budget by more than half while shifting power from the federal government to individual states. That is radically different than what anyone else, ESPECIALLY his Republican competition, is running on.He's the only person in this big field who is an actual conservative who wants to limit the role of government. And if you don't think that makes him special and makes him stand out, I think that can only be the result of not knowing much about either Ron's stances, the stances of the other 17-20 candidates currently running, or both since it is so obviously very unique right now.

Once again, well said.

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
What? Calm down. When did I personally insult you? I didn't. I said I hope you don't vote if you don't see what sets Ron Paul apart from the other candidates in this race, because that can really only be the result of not knowing much about the stances of the candidates. It's the equivalent of you saying you fail to see what makes 2001 different from most movies, and me saying "Well then I pray you don't become a studio exec". I never used insulting words like "moronic" like you just did. I just don't want uninformed people making important decisions.

And who said anything about you having to like Ron Paul or agree with him? That's not at all what my post was about, you're off-base. Rather, you said and I quoted "If that's it this guy is nothing special at all. Far, far from it." In terms of this presidential race, that is just a factually incorrect statement.. You don't have to like him or agree with him, and even though I do like him, I also disagree with him on a shitload of issues (he's an extreme old-school conservative, I'm an extreme old-school liberal), but I don't think you can say he isn't special and different from other potential presidential candidates right now. His voting record, his views, and what he has said so far at debates and speeches are wildly different from everything else all other candidates have done and are saying. He wants to immediately dissolve the IRS, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Energy, the CIA, and cut our defense budget by more than half while shifting power from the federal government to individual states. That is radically different than what anyone else, ESPECIALLY his Republican competition, is running on.He's the only person in this big field who is an actual conservative who wants to limit the role of government. And if you don't think that makes him special and makes him stand out, I think that can only be the result of not knowing much about either Ron's stances, the stances of the other 17-20 candidates currently running, or both since it is so obviously very unique right now.

I guarantee you that I know as much about these candidates as you. I am not uninformed. Quite the opposite. I follow politics voraciously. Have been for a decade. You insulted me, and I'm not happy about it. I don't need someone like you telling me that I shouldn't vote. That is a ludicrous crock of shit.

[MadsenOMC]

I admit that he has some different opinions when compared to the other Republican candidates, but I don't think he's anything special. I don't think he's a great candidate. I hope that is OK with, oh wise one. I hope I am allowed to have a fucking opinion about Ron Paul.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Can we have a debate without being accused of personal attacks?

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Can we have a debate without being accused of personal attacks?

I would like to. I was attacked. I was told that I was uninformed and shouldn't vote. That is BS and I'm not going to just sit and take it.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
I guarantee you that I know as much about these candidates as you. I am not uninformed. Quite the opposite. I follow politics voraciously. Have been for a decade. You insulted me, and I'm not happy about it. I don't need someone like you telling me that I shouldn't vote. That is a ludicrous crock of shit.

If you're very well-informed and follow politics voraciously, then I urge you to defend your statement that Ron Paul is "nothing special. Far, far from it" How is he not special? His views and proposed policies and voting record are RADICALLY different than everyone else running. If you don't think so, by all means, explain yourself. And explain how you think I insulted you, since all I did was point out what makes Paul so special and different and that if you don't see that, I don't want you voting. That doesn't mean you can't vote anymore than, to use my movie analogy again, a Michael Bay fan can't become a studio exec, just that I wish they didn't. You're making a lot of angry statements, but not really explaining yourself well at all.


Originally posted by MadsenOMC

What exactly is so great about Ron Paul? He dares to speak out against an unpopular war that is growing more unpopular daily? I haven't watched the Republican debates and essentially what I know about him is that he opposes the war in Iraq. Great. So do most Americans. What is so special about this guy?

And sorry, but that doesn't sound like someone who "voraciously" follows politics. It sounds to me like the reason you don't know Ron is so different is because maybe you don't know Paul's stances and the stances of the other Republican candidates. And if that's the case, fine, but I don't want someone who could claim Ron Paul isn't special (NOT good, but special, again it has nothing to do with liking him) voting because I think it's a sign of political ignorance of the current candidates.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

I think the misunderstanding is mainly over what we mean by "special." I mean, he's a very different candidate with views that aren't matched by any of the other candidates, he's special in that way and there's no arguing it. But if you mean he's not special in the sense that he's an extraordinary human being....then I'll give you that one.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
I hope that is OK with, oh wise one. I hope I am allowed to have a fucking opinion about Ron Paul.

You really need to calm down because at this point you're just way off-base and reacting as if I called you an asshole or took away your voter registration. I pointed out all the facts that make Ron Paul so drastically different from all other candidates and therefore quite "special" in this race. I then said if you don't see that his views make him different, I pray you don't vote.

Nowhere in there is there an insult or cause for you to get so unnecessarily angry and try to make this heated. You're blowing this way out of proportion considering I never called you any names, have no authority to stop you from voting, and have been as nice as I can in replying to your many unreasonably angry responses.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Well, there's one thing we've gotten out of this.....that we can engage in a venemous debate without the help of Lynn.

[MadsenOMC]

QUENTIN, being told by someone like you that I shouldn't vote is cause for anger. If I was someone casual about politics, someone who didn't care all that much about them, it wouldn't bother me. I probably wouldn't be here talking about them. I'd be reading people.com or something. But I do care about politics. I am passionate about them. And I know my shit. I read voraciously and I stay informed. That is why what you said was incredibly insulting and off-base. It has no basis in reality. I admitted that up until recently, I didn't know anything about Ron Paul other than his stance on Iraq. Now, I know more about him. Now that I do, I don't much care for him. Yes, he is different than the other Republican candidates in some ways, but I don't really think he's anything special and I would never vote for him. Do you understand why your comment upset me? Do you understand why it was totally uncalled for and off-base? If not, I don't know how else I can explain myself. However, as far as informed voters go, there are very, very few people out there who vote and as are informed as I am.

By the way, I caught something on the news about Ron Paul saying that two guys who were arrested for not paying taxes are just like Gandhi and Martin Luther King. What's the deal with that?

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
QUENTIN, being told by someone like you that I shouldn't vote is cause for anger. If I was someone casual about politics, someone who didn't care all that much about them, it wouldn't bother me. I probably wouldn't be here talking about them. I'd be reading people.com or something. But I do care about politics. I am passionate about them. And I know my shit. I read voraciously and I stay informed. That is why what you said was incredibly insulting and off-base. It has no basis in reality. I admitted that up until recently, I didn't know anything about Ron Paul other than his stance on Iraq. Now, I know more about him. Now that I do, I don't much care for him. Yes, he is different than the other Republican candidates in some ways, but I don't really think he's anything special and I would never vote for him. Do you understand why your comment upset me? Do you understand why it was totally uncalled for and off-base? If not, I don't know how else I can explain myself. However, as far as informed voters go, there are very, very few people out there who vote and as are informed as I am.

By the way, I caught something on the news about Ron Paul saying that two guys who were arrested for not paying taxes are just like Gandhi and Martin Luther King. What's the deal with that?

See, I think you've got blinders on to your own behavior and got more than a little melodramatic about what I said. If I offended you, it was unintentional, so I'd apologize, except that you've gone out of your way to be reactionary, unnecessarily harsh, and personal in your responses to me. Objectively looking at what's transpired here, I think it's more than fair to say you've given me far more to be insulted or offended about than vice-versa. While I only said that if you fail to see what makes Paul special, then I personally pray you don't vote, you've thrown out words like "moronic", "ignorant", and "a crock of shit" to characterize my statement and sarcastically referred to me as "oh wise one", and in a PM as an "asshole" and that you "hope I don't fucking vote". I'm not upset by it, but that's because I'm not thin-skinned, not because you've handled yourself appropriately or respectfully. While I've gone out of my way to respond to you nicely, re-explain myself at great lengths in a respectful manner, and avoid being offensive, you've done exactly the opposite and I don't think it takes much to see that.

Even in your explanation of why you're upset, it's not that you were told not to vote (which wasn't said anyway), but that "someone like me" would say they don't want you voting (whatever that means). I think I unintentionally touched on some nerve of yours that set you off, since you seem to be very touchy about making it clear how well-informed you are, even on a topic you admit you knew very little about, except for a day's worth of reading up on him online. What did I say that was so off-base, or had no basis in reality, what was a crock of shit? When I listed a brief series of facts that make Paul stand out from the other candidates or when I expressed my wishes that certain people didn't vote. I pray evangelical Christians don't vote either, since I don't think they're well-informed politically and don't have the nation's best interests at heart. They still go out and vote in large numbers. Me wanting or not wanting someone to vote is a personal opinion, like how I feel about a candidate, and it has no impact on the outcome of elections so it really shouldn't bother you so much. You're denouncing me for allegedly not giving you the right to have an opinion (something I didn't even remotely suggest), while attacking me for having an opinion about who I would like to be able to vote. Do you not see any hypocrisy there?

So no, I don't see why what I said upset you so much except that you are apparently overly sensitive. I am glad you can admit that Ron Paul is at least very different from the other candidates. That's where the crux of my initial statement came from, that not thinking Ron Paul stands out can only stem from a lack of information. And like I said, you don't have to like him or vote for him. I think there's some truth to Brando's assertion that some of this argument comes from different interpretations of the word "special" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/special I was taking the word in context as definitions 1-5, while I think you may have been using it in a 6, 7 manner). I hope you can calm down and get over this, I'm glad at least that we can agree Paul is different from the other candidates, regardless of the merits of his ideas.

As for the Gandhi, MLK comparison, I think it's understandable. While Gandhi and MLK tackled much bigger issues that related more directly to oppression, people who choose to not pay their taxes as a political statement are using the same tactics as those two well-respected leaders of civil disobedience. Since the government has no legal right to charge its citizens taxes and as citizens we have a right to refuse they're unjust attempts to take money we earn, they are non-violently resisting an illegal but common practice that the government endorses and enforces, just like Gandhi and MLK did. Of course they're not heroes for doing so, but they sacrifice a lot (they'll likely go to jail for committing no crime) for a principle they believe in.

Now I hope that we can put this behind us and get back to discussing the candidates and not personal back-and-forths.

[Cyclonus]

(I have made a deliberate choice to completely avoid other people's bickering here)

Okay, why does Ron Paul want to eliminate the Department of Energy? I can see why he'd want to get rid of the IRS (though doing so would be troublesome, to say the least) or Homeland Security (an organization I pray is not long-lived), but the Department of Energy? I don't get it. Unless it has something to do with states' rights.