I am just curious who people would vote for if the elections were held today. People don't need to disclose who they picked if they don't want too, I just am curious about where the numbers stand for the board, not necessarily each individual person.

I chose Obama as if it wasn't obvious :)

I found a funny thing also... on this website, http://www.electoralcompass.com

If you choose no opinion for every single question, it pairs you with John Mccain as your best pick, and Obama as your worst...

I would vote today for John McCain.

We are at war, and his experience in the military during a previous time of war would be invaluable, compared to the current CIC and his cheerleading resume.

He has shown an ability to reach across the aisle and get folks to work together; he can get things done through negotiation, being respected on many fronts both nationally and internationally.

He is a proponent of cleaning up campaign finance laws, and as President would be in a better position to do something.

He is realistic about the illegal immigrant situation.

He showed a tremendous amount of personal character and integrity in the 2000 campaign. Where he could have torn the party apart and most likely guaranteed a Gore victory if he had made a loud noise about the Bush campaign's tactics in South Carolina, he chose to take the high road and support his party in it's attempt to regain the White House.

It was the same character he showed in captivity when he was offered release in his first year of being a POW but turned it down, rather than trade on his father's clout and leave his fellow prisoners behind.

He has shown substance; to me, at least.

It's between McCain and Huckabee for me atm.

One of my big issues is the abolition of the IRS as it stands atm and a form of National sales tax implemented.

If McCain would get on board for that I'd be all in for McCain.

Obama doesn't stand for anything but CHANGE, and if you can't explain how you'd change one single thing then no thanks same as it ever was.

Clinton is too much of the same bs we've had since Reagan left office.

Romney is interesting but I'm not sure actually selling the bill of goods he's pretending to atm ;(

Edwards, he's a phony bullshit artist with an ambulence chasing career behind him.

It's between McCain and Huckabee for me atm.


Just a quick question... Do you support the changing of the Constitution to have it fit more in line with the Bible?

Quick question, does the President ever rewrite the constitution in recent memory?

I still havent decided. No way I'll vote for Obama. Pretty speeches of change with no substance. his inability to even hold American values ie salute the flag just make me cringe. Hillary is a dead duck but > than Obama.

McCain I believe in to a point, and agree with Byl on to a point but I dont see alot of difference between him and Cheney other than Halliburton. Im sure he has his own Halli corp out there. Some of his comments he has made in regards to foriegn relations with other countries and race is kind of scarey.

I liked Guiliani but I dont think he can be more than VP if he is lucky and has been ignorant in his campaign practices to really stand a chance.

Ron Paul I like alot of his message healthcare taxes and business energy plans. but really havent heard enough from him to form a solid opinion either way.
The others I really know less about, I usually wait until the field narrows more before I begin to vote. Really most of the field is not much compared to previous elections.

Should of set an undecided option :)

But an undecided option doesn't make sense if I ask, "Who would you vote for if the elections were held today" though does it?

That's not to say each of our opinions won't change 5 times before November. I was just curious where the numbers stood as of the end of January. Heck, I might post this at the end of each month up to the election to see how opinions change. Like I said, I'm just curious.

Quick question, does the President ever rewrite the constitution in recent memory?

No, however what the president thinks and wants to do should be a big indication of his stances. Simple question, do you support his beliefs that the Constitution should be changed to be more like the Bible?

You don't have to answer that, I was just curious.

Sounds like a great idea

To be honest while I am Christian *Baptist* I don't attend regularly. That being said there's alot of good moral sense to be found in the bible.

Do I want this country to become a cancerous theocracy as we see in some of the ME ?? oh hell no not ever.

Reagan once said if you agree with me 70% of the time you are a friend not an enemy.

I can swallow most of what Huckabee says and trust the powers that be to keep him from rocking the boat to hard.

Ron Paul, Ya'll.

I can swallow most of what Huckabee says and trust the powers that be to keep him from rocking the boat to hard.

The powers that be haven't kept Bush from walking all over the constitution though.

I voted for Edwards. Pretty much the same reasons Nydia outlined in another thread. Surprised he has 2nd place out of who voted.

My 2nd choice is tied between the unannounced Bloomberg and Ron Paul. They have the fiscal sense to drive the debt and recession away while backing us out of Iraq and providing for our citizens at home first.

Obama is a good choice but not much of a track record to judge him on leaves just the speaches. He's got a few innovative ideas but no plan to implement them. He is tied with Hillary for me in the 3rd place seat. She has a great track record and history but not exactly one who will bring the government together harmoniously. McCain falls just after them today but would have been ahead of them a year ago. His switch in stance on issues to seem more Republican was definitely noticable ... lets all walk through this incredibly safe Iraqi market (with gobs of secret service and the Army at the perimeter!)

Huckabee is a preacher not a politician and the last thing we need. Romney actually is a decent choice in my eyes and has taken far too much shit for his religion than deserved, but he's a bit too conservative for me. Guiliani is hiding behind his fanfaire from 9 11 and a horrible choice. Ralph Nader still hasn't announced ... thank god.

Since Edwards isn't gonna get the nomination despite my vote, I'l be voting for the Democrat candidate.

No way I'll vote for Obama. Pretty speeches of change with no substance. his inability to even hold American values ie salute the flag just make me cringe.You do realize that was a crock of shit, yeah?
Ron Paul, Ya'll.
No thanks, left the racist paleoconservatives back in the 60s*.

I'll vote Dem whoever gets the nod. No Republican on the stage is displaying any sense with regard to positions on the issues of the day. The Dems aren't great, but the progressive view is closer to the America I want to live in than anything else going.

*1860s

No thanks, left the racist paleoconservatives back in the 60s*.
The only way you could believe that racism charge is if you watch Fox News as your sole news source. The issues surrounding Obama's church (http://www.tucc.org/home.htm) are just as peripherally racist as Ron Paul's newsletter ghostwriter twenty years ago.

I choose Obama. this election i'm not looking for issue platform and well rehearsed answers to pundits questions of the day. I'm looking deeper into thier soul's and looking for the most desent human bieng!
Graduating top of the class in Harvard law and foregoing what had to be a ton of more lucrative opportunities to go work on the streets of Chicago speaks volumes to me.
did he make money in the end? ya he did, never discount the power of Karma.
In the end despite his lack of "experiance" i get the sense that no matter what the crisis or issue that he faces i can trust that this man will do the right thing. even if he fucks something up it wont be for lack of trying to whats best or whats right. that matters to me at this point in our history.
BTW, that last staement holds for all the candidates! I dare you to tell me that there is one person among them all who is not capable of fucking something up!

The only way you could believe that racism charge is if you watch Fox News as your sole news source. The issues surrounding Obama's church (http://www.tucc.org/home.htm) are just as peripherally racist as Ron Paul's newsletter ghostwriter twenty years ago.Nonsense. Ron Paul's response to this strains credulity past the breaking point. We're really supposed to believe that he let someone write all this crap in his name from 1996 onward, and he didn't put a stop to it? Or that he was unaware -- not even from associates -- of what was being written in his name? That requires some serious naivete`.

A former staffer claims (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124283.html#874781) that Paul wrote roughly half the newsletters. But at the very least, if Paul didn't write that stuff, he retains close ties and likely tacit approval of those who did (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/01/the_rockwell_files.cfm).

I voted for Obama, however I do see Byl's points on McCain and I truly believe the man has integrity but he never came out and defended his good friend John Kerry when the lies of the swift boat attacks were happening.

That to me speaks volumes.

Why Obama, because we need change and he brings forth change, I view him very closely to what Vel said above.

My sig is a quote from Merle Haggard and it probably surprises alot of people that Merle feels that way, I thought it was very profound yet simple as well as thought provoking, I truly hope it does not come to fruition which is why I vote for Obama as being the best choice to head that off.


And below I quote Obama.



"We are up against the conventional thinking that says your ability to lead
as President comes from longevity in Washington or proximity to the White
House. But we know that real leadership is about candor, and judgment, and
the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a common
purpose - a higher purpose." - Barack Obama

Oh come on, don't be silly. This is from the article you linked:

Mr Paul is probably not himself a racist, and many of the sentiments he expresses in his CNN interview are admirable. It is equally plausible that the hateful items published in his newsletter, so different in style from the congressman's own speech and writing, are not his handiwork.
Texas' NAACP director defends RP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvFLSwDvBUA

Ron Paul's response, in no uncertain terms: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rd1LOzDLgkg

You have to either be very uninformed or have your head stuck very deep in the MSM sand to think Ron Paul is a racist.

And again, if he isn't a racist or didn't give tacit support to what was written in his name, why didn't he denounce the writings back in the late 90s and ensure that whatever was written in his name fell more in line with his own personal beliefs? If Fred Phelps was writing for the "Sanchek God-Hates-Fags" newsletter, wouldn't you do something about it?

why didn't he denounce the writings back in the late 90s and ensure that whatever was written in his name fell more in line with his own personal beliefs?
He specifically said on CNN that he'd already repudiated those attitudes back when he got rid of Rockford.

So, he didn't micromanage a newsletter that was a secondary, peripheral thing going on while he had no political aspirations and was practicing medicine. If that's the best they could dig up on him, that puts him head and shoulders above the other candidates and says something in and of itself.

Regardless, you didn't say he hired a bad ghostwriter. You said he was a racist, which is obviously a complete falsehood.

Not keeping any kind of awareness of what is being written in your name certainly does say something in and of itself, but it barely keeps him head and shoulders out of the ground. Not to mention he keeps close contact and has support of people do believe completely whack things, whether racist rants or Christian Dominionism. Again, no thanks.

Not to mention he keeps close contact and has support of people do believe completely whack things, whether racist rants or Christian Dominionism.
What, like the NAACP director who vouched for him after the trumped up racism charges started flying? Maybe he's racist against white people! :rolleyes:

McCain gets my nod, for his military service, and character. I think he's a good conservative choice. He seems to have the respect of the Democrats, for the most part, and would be able to reach across the aisle in order to get things accomplished.

His stance on POWs is well known, but he also seems to understand the situation that the Congress needs to stay out of military matters, if we want them to be successful.

I also wish he would endorse the Fair Tax. It would make me like him even more.

Do you guys think tapping a Democrat as his Veep would be a nice touch? The whole uniter, not a divider line of thinking?

Or is the state of politics too polarized in America today?

It's a nice idea, but the Republicans will never stand for it - they'd drop all support, and he needs that supports if he ends up as the final candidate.

Now, if we rearrange the system so that each leading candidate is required to pick a VP from the opposing party...I like that idea.

I voted McCain I like his message moreso than the others. I don't like Obama and I don't like Hillary.

Speaking of digging up dirt. My radio station played a clip of some dude saying that he and Obama had sexual relations in Obama's limo several years ago after enjoying a nice bit of crack or cocaine (can't remember). It made me giggle to hear it, I don't know if there is truth to it but it was still funny :P The guy did say he would gladly take a polygraph and dared Obama to deny it. Am I the only one who heard about this?

Heh, to some Democrats, that would be a great thing. The first gay (bisexual), black President? 2 birds with 1 stone?

Doesn't that trump Hillary's offerings, that of being a woman?

What, like the NAACP director who vouched for him after the trumped up racism charges started flying? Maybe he's racist against white people! :rolleyes:No, more like Lew Rockwell and the Ludvig von Mises Institute, more like Christian reconstructionist Gary North who was on Paul's congressional staff and who supports (http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north538.html) him. There's just no hand-waving away all the crazy (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca) shit (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129) written under his name over the course of decades in various iterations.

Stormfront vouches for him, too.

Democrat John Edwards is exiting the presidential race Wednesday, ending a scrappy underdog bid in which he steered his rivals toward progressive ideals while grappling with family hardship that roused voters' sympathies but never diverted his campaign.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22913001/?GT1=10755

Repost Gandaar

http://ayonae.ro/showthread.php?p=132637#post132637

Heh, to some Democrats, that would be a great thing. The first gay (bisexual), black President? 2 birds with 1 stone?

Doesn't that trump Hillary's offerings, that of being a woman?

Not all gay people vote for someone just b/c they're gay :p But, yes I can see your point... now if he were Jewish and a single mother who is also an illegal immigrant.... WOW!! ;) And, I'm just kidding don't stone me!

Stormfront vouches for him, too.
So, the NAACP and Stormfront can both agree on him, without him having to pander to either? Hmm, maybe he's racist against polar bears. Yeah, that must be it! :rolleyes:

It's no different than Obama's church tying him to Farrakhan (http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obamas-mentor-gives-farrakhan-his-award), which he had to repudiate any endorsement of.

If ties to the wrong sorts of attitudes bother you, I'd think you would be much more upset about Obama still being a member of Trinity and having Wright to "help keep his priorities straight and his moral compass calibrated".

Personally, I think it's short sighted to get hung up over either issue. Every single candidate in the field has some bad associations that don't define them or their goals. If you honestly think these things are serious issues in this election, you're as bad as the media more interested in Britney Spears and Heath Ledger than what's really important.

I'm in for McCain or Romney.

Repost Gandaar

Bah... I missed that one...

It's okay... I'm old, I can get away with it.

Regarding the idea of McCain choosing a Democratic Veep, I have been thinking about that periodically with Lieberman in mind. They have worked closely in the Senate, and Lieberman has endorsed McCain (his being elected as an Independent makes it hard for the Dems to slight him for that).

It makes me wonder how many of those retired seniors in Florida were thinking along those lines as they marked their ballots......

So, the NAACP and Stormfront can both agree on him, without him having to pander to either?Uh, Paul hasn't pandered to the fringe -- he's worked with it, and they've worked with him. He's gladly accepted Stormfront's money when other politicians regularly return tainted coin (e.g., Hillary and Hsu). And don't tell us that the NAACP "agrees on him." You've only cited the president of a local chapter. His 109th Congress report card grade from the actual organization was an F (https://www.naacp.org/pdfs/109th_final_report_card3.pdf). I'm betting they're not too keen on him, but it's great he made a friend.
If you honestly think these things are serious issues in this election...Smoking dope once is a nonserious issue. Most campaign finance issues are pretty non-serious, too. Being allied with people whose belief systems run counter to this nation's principles...I'd say that bears examination.

Not that it matters, since his candidacy will go nowhere (despite actually promoting some worthy ideas).

Regarding the idea of McCain choosing a Democratic Veep, I have been thinking about that periodically with Lieberman in mind. They have worked closely in the Senate, and Lieberman has endorsed McCain (his being elected as an Independent makes it hard for the Dems to slight him for that).

It makes me wonder how many of those retired seniors in Florida were thinking along those lines as they marked their ballots......

The GOP has stated a number of times that the Republican National Party won't ever support a split ticket. They will both be Republican.

He's gladly accepted Stormfront's money when other politicians regularly return tainted coin (e.g., Hillary and Hsu).
I think his response here answers that pretty well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eGVoNQdRuI

If you actually believe these things you're posting, you need to really listen to what he's saying in the second half of the video. He is working with, pandering to, or tied to Stormfront no more than you or I are. In fact, much less, since he explicitly calls their beliefs "bad".

And don't tell us that the NAACP "agrees on him." You've only cited the president of a local chapter. His 109th Congress report card grade from the actual organization was an F (https://www.naacp.org/pdfs/109th_final_report_card3.pdf).
That URL isn't loading for me, but It seems kinda silly to cite one of their report cards. The Congress as a whole usually "fails" their report cards (perhaps because we aren't a socialist country just yet).

Further, citing just one Congress session as a representative sample is stretching the facts even farther than you have been so far. Come on.

Being allied with people whose belief systems run counter to this nation's principles...I'd say that bears examination.
You could say precisely the same thing about Obama's ties to Wright (which is why he had to distance himself).

No thanks, left the racist paleoconservatives back in the 60s.
Regardless, like I said before, you would have to be grossly uninformed to believe Ron Paul is a racist. One of his most fundamental beliefs is individual liberty, which is diametrically opposed to racism:

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals.
Or, hear it from him at about 6:40 in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG_HuFtP8w8

If you just don't agree with the man's platform, that's one thing. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. But, blatantly lying about him doesn't seem warranted. Leave that for the Clintons!

If you just don't agree with the man's platform, that's one thing. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. But, blatantly lying about him doesn't seem warranted. Leave that for the Clintons!

Or Karl Rove...

He is working with, pandering to, or tied to Stormfront no more than you or I are. He's been tied to efforts they and those like him support for decades. He's spoken (http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2007/10/08/extremist-group-announces-speech-by-congressman/) to a questionable bunch, directly. His associations with conspiracy-theorist types (http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=90&contentid=1659) and my previous mentions of other off-the-rails groups (pro-secessionist and the like) demonstrate not that a lot of reactionary kooks like him, but that his views dovetail neatly with theirs. And, of course, the newsletters (http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1343749).
That URL isn't loading for me, but It seems kinda silly to cite one of their report cards.
...
Further, citing just one Congress session as a representative sample is stretching the facts even farther than you have been so far. Come on.
Seems pretty reasonable when you're claiming that the NAACP supports him. Me stretching the facts? Come on, indeed. The 110th Congress report, btw, gave him an Incomplete for obvious reasons (which is why I cited the 109th), but given Paul's voting record I doubt his grade would have improved.
One of his most fundamental beliefs is individual liberty... Unless you're a woman trying to control (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.1546:) her reproduction due to the rights (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d097:HR00392:@@@L&summ2=m&) of blastocysts, or gays suffering discrimination, or religious persons suffering discrimination, or people who just want a right to privacy (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR00300:@@@L&summ2=m&). Can't let that liberty thing go too far I guess. Who needs privacy?
Originally Posted by Dr. Ron Paul
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals.
Let's finish this paragraph:
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.Bizarro-world logic straight from Newspeakland. Multiculturalism = racism!
If you just don't agree with the man's platform, that's one thing. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. But, blatantly lying about him doesn't seem warranted. Leave that for the Clintons!Like I said, there are various aspects of his platform I agree with. And plenty that's off the rails, but I'd say the same about Huckabee, McCain, etc. But his views, his lacking explanations of his past words (or words written under his banner), and his associations have caused even other (http://www.theagitator.com/2008/01/11/ron-paul-on-cnn/=) libertarians (http://sandefur.typepad.com/freespace/2008/01/the-libertarian.html) to consider him not a solution but a real problem (even for those like Jim Babka who support him). I think they're right.

You obviously didn't spend any time whatsoever listening to what he had to say in those interviews. If Stormfront was somehow connected to him, he wouldn't have denounced them so quickly and blatantly, on national TV.

You're so busy scouring Google for random blogs with 3 readers to "back" you, that you're not even beginning to understand his actual stance. It's sad that someone intelligent, like yourself, would resort to that instead of actually giving some rational thought to these trumped up accusations.

The fact is, since he doesn't care about any particular special interest, be it Stormfront or the NAACP. Because he cares about everyone's constitutional rights, he picks up supporters from every demographic. If the best you can do is resort to calling that a liability, that says a lot for the man.

Again, if you don't like the man or his platform, that's one thing. But, don't flagrantly lie about him. He isn't the one you're discrediting here, at this point.

I like Ron Paul as a Philosopher, but not a President.

I bet he would make an awesome Supreme Court Justice.

I've posted extensive backup to support my assertions regarding Paul's interaction with extreme elements. I'm not sure how TNR and the Houston Chronicle count as "blogs with 3 readers," but that you hand-wave it all away with that characterization is telling. "You're just pulling information from all over to show how I'm wrong!" isn't much of a defense.

A Presidential candidate repudiating on national TV things he wrote/said/believed years ago in response to their revelation? I'm shocked. But you accept this whole-heartedly because gosh, the man wouldn't lie, right? He said it, it must be so!

You can't even address the arguments. I link to Paul's own bills that seem quite contrary to people's rights, and you respond with "he cares about everyone's constitutional rights." Must've been in your blind spot.

You're simply too soused on the guy to apply a shred of reason ("He couldn't possibly know that people wrote racist content in his newsletter that he definitely didn't write himself!"). It has nothing to do with his platform, which is a mixed bag but mostly irrelevent to this debate. You can say that I'm lying all you like, but I've been showing otherwise.

LATE EDIT: (and them I'm out for the day) I should also reiterate that I'm not just talking in a vacuum, but that a host of actual libertarians are wrestling with Ron Paul. Some are too repulsed by the sorts of things I've presented to support him, while others have decided to support him despite these problems in order to promote libertarianism (the "lesser evil" that Repubs and Dems sometimes contend with in their candidate choices).

while i wildly disagree with ron paul on an ideological basis, it has to be said that he was the only republican candidate not pandering to the batshit insane crowd in the debates.

Most of those bills you linked are aimed at taking power away from the federal government and putting it back in the hands of the states. You're misunderstanding or misconstruing them.

Again, I don't see how that makes him a racist...

Like I've said again and again, if you don't like him and don't intend to vote for him, that's fine. I'm not trying to convince you to. If you believe in big government, no one's going to convince you it's wrong.

You'll notice I didn't attack your candidate at all. I haven't attacked any of them, even though I disagree with most of them.

It was you who decided you needed to take an uninvited potshot at mine, originally. I don't know what made you feel the need to do that, but if you're going to do that, you should at least bother to post something accurate. The man is simply not a racist. Not by any possible stretch of the imagination. If you've listened to anything he has to say, that's obvious.

Even when CNN was breaking the story on TV, they were all careful to state that none of them really thought he was racist and that the writings sounded nothing like the man they've known of for decades. They were just trying to brew up scandal over his apparent mismanagement of this newsletter, which is obviously a matter of national security.

Seriously, no one in their right mind thinks he's racist. Let it go.

You're going to state exactly how I am misconstruing what I have linked. I purposely did not link any bills he proposed that, for instance, barred federal funds from being directed to this or that cause. Last time I checked, an amendment to the Constitution of the United States isn't "putting [power] back in the hands of the states." You can't even construe my argument correctly, must less respond to it (and it has transcended racism for a couple pages now).

But I'm happy to let it go. Lack the time to pile on even more evidence of his crackpot ways and the inclination when it'll just get hand-waved away. I do expect, however, that you'll be buying into every politician's explanations for their past woes. It'd only be fair, really.

But I'm happy to let it go. Lack the time to pile on even more evidence of his crackpot ways and the inclination when it'll just get hand-waved away.
Of course I'm going to hand wave away the ridiculous links to conspiracyplanet.com and random blogs. As long as you're bringing material of that quality, I don't see how you expect to be taken seriously.

I do expect, however, that you'll be buying into every politician's explanations for their past woes. It'd only be fair, really.
Obama has seriously questionable baggage with his "spiritual adviser" that recently gave Farrakhan an award for "truly epitomizing greatness". This is something that happened in the past year, involving people Obama didn't cut ties with, doubly more damning than Paul's old newsletter fiasco.

And, like I said in this thread already, I don't think that's an issue either. Obama said he doesn't agree with Farrakhan's views, and I believe him.

(and it has transcended racism for a couple pages now).
By transcended, do you mean obfuscating the thread with anything other than racism you could find in a Google search, since you got called on talking out of your ass originally?

For the record, yes or no, are you still claiming that Ron Paul is a racist?

Of course I'm going to hand wave away the ridiculous links to conspiracyplanet.com and random blogs. As long as you're bringing material of that quality, I don't see how you expect to be taken seriously.You do realize that that article was an interview with Ron Paul, right? This is just hilarious. And again, TNR, the Houston Chronicle, and bills Paul has proposed aren't "random blogs." The only one flagrantly lying or talking out his ass is you through your continued mischaracterizations of the information I've extensively provided from a variety of sources. Guess I need to watch more YouTube!
By transcended, do you mean obfuscating the thread with anything other than racism you could find in a Google search, since you got called on talking out of your ass originally?

For the record, yes or no, are you still claiming that Ron Paul is a racist?Again, laughable defense. The problem isn't that I haven't pointed out the evidence of racism; the problem is that you somehow think it perfectly sensible that Paul ignored decades of racist babble written in his name (and that's assuming he didn't write it himself). The rest has been an expansion of my argument: that he happily deals with a variety of people with crazed views of one sort or another.

So my claim regarding race is that Paul has supported racism in the past through his decades of newsletters. That material came under his name, his banner, and to say he was unaware of it for all this time just defies reason. And if he was that oblivious, I wouldn't want him in charge of my laundry much less the nation.

Are you actually unable to provide a straight answer to that very simple question?

Are you a politician yourself?!

He stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.......

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/07/romney.campaign/index.html

Seems Romney won't be on the next poll for us.

"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror,"


lolz.

So McCain vs Hillary / Obama - the most liberal republican candidate vs the most liberal democrat candidate :)

Liberals win?

wouldnt Kucinich be the most liberal democrat?

Liberals win?

We still lose with Mccain... Heck even with Hillary

wouldnt Kucinich be the most liberal democrat?

He's not in the race anymore.

true, but its kind of stupid to say the most liberal democrat candidate out of the 2 remaining, isnt it? =D

That depends, technically there are still 5 real candidates in the mix across both parties and many link McCain with the liberals to a degree.

So McCain vs Hillary / Obama - the most liberal republican candidate vs the most liberal democrat candidate :)

(emphasis mine) thats what i was talking about, taleren.

Missed it, sorry. Sick today, so I'm kind of out of it.

some mod should edit the poll and remove the people who dropped out.

I don't know if people whose choices get deleted would be able to re-vote. Probably should just run another poll soon.

My plan was to do the poll once a month as more is hashed out and more people leave the race. I figure week to week is too often.

We still lose with Mccain... Heck even with Hillary

You need to find more than one issue to view the campaigns through.

It is much like the anti-abortion folks who cannot see any other issues past whether or not the candidate agrees with their viewpoint.

There is a lot more to what our country needs right now than your Iran/Iraq concerns. McCain and Hillary have both shown a willingness to work with those in the opposing party to get legislation moved, which is what "change" is supposed to be all about, if I am hearing people's cries for it correctly. They have both shown a willingness to be realistic about events affecting the country and have offered positions contrary to what might be politically more to their advantage.

Be honest with your statement, and say "I still lose", if that is how you really feel. Saying "we" includes me, and I don't see either of the two as a loss to the country, even though I can find things to disagree with both on, politically.

You need to find more than one issue to view the campaigns through.

It is much like the anti-abortion folks who cannot see any other issues past whether or not the candidate agrees with their viewpoint.

There is a lot more to what our country needs right now than your Iran/Iraq concerns. McCain and Hillary have both shown a willingness to work with those in the opposing party to get legislation moved, which is what "change" is supposed to be all about, if I am hearing people's cries for it correctly. They have both shown a willingness to be realistic about events affecting the country and have offered positions contrary to what might be politically more to their advantage.

Be honest with your statement, and say "I still lose", if that is how you really feel. Saying "we" includes me, and I don't see either of the two as a loss to the country, even though I can find things to disagree with both on, politically.

I am not concentrating on one issue, However I see 1 Issue in particular affecting many others therefore I rank it as important.

Hillary can in no way bring Republicans and Democrats together, as she demonstrates with her ridiculous Health Care plan.

At least Obama is smart enough to realize that he can get more Republicans on board by reducing the cost of Health care, and making it Mandatory for children, then Hillary's idiotic plan of Mandatory Health care for all, that no Republican in their right mind will approve of.

Obama will have it alot easier then Hillary as far as getting things done in my opinion. And Mccain? Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran.... 100 Years... Please! Thats all we need now.

Thanks Bylimet - I was going to post something similar when Jedd referenced what 'we' were doing in voting for Obama. My first thought: Oh *really*? Speak for yourself when you post, please... :)

Regards,
Nydia

P.S. I also personally agree with Bylimet that *both* McCain and Hillary both have the will, the skill and the guile to enact substantive change and that neither represents the 'status quo' - I'd feel more comfortable with either veteran in charge at this point than I would with Obama, inspiring rhetoric notwithstanding. More later, I'm at work and running around like a chicken sans head at the moment...

I'd be interested in hearing how McCain and Hilary don't represent the status quo.

Hillary could always tap Obama as Vice-President.
This would give him experience and season him for a later run at the Presidency, without all the nay sayers claiming he is too wet behind the ears.

********, neither one of them are stand out candidates, although I'd say McCain, at least isn't part of a former "dynasty" like Clinton is (albiet only by marriage).
If Obama wins the nod, it will indeed be a move towards change. Whether or not it will be beneficial change, remains to be seen.

I'd be interested in hearing how McCain and Hilary don't represent the status quo.The latest line from Mark Penn, Hillary's prominent pollster, is that Obama represents the establishment, and Hillary is the insurgent.

Possibly even stated with a straight face!

Uh oh... Turns out Hillary's 5 million she loaned herself might have come one way or another from someone in Dubai who Bill is involved with... Making it possibly an illegal campaign donation...

Not seeing anything illegal about it. There are elements that are potentially questionable from a political standpoint, and which would fuel the anti-Hillary campaign should she win the Dem's nod, but at present it seems legal.

I thought insurgents are bad, and establishment is good?

Oh wait, 1 man's Freedom Fighter, ect, ect...

And you have to admire Bill: he can get a Jewish Girl to eat pork, and get campaign donations from a Muslim.....!

Dear Abby,

My husband is a liar and a cheat. He has cheated on me from the

beginning, and when I confront him, he denies everything. What's

worse, everyone knows that he cheats on me. It is so humiliating.

Also, since he lost his job six years ago, he hasn't even looked for

a new one. All he does all day is smoke cigars, cruise around and

shoot the bull with his buddies, while I have to work to pay the

bills. Since our daughter went away to college he doesn't even

pretend to like me, and even hints that I may be a lesbian. What

should I do?

Signed: Clueless

__________________________________________________ ____

Dear Clueless:

Grow up and dump him. Good grief woman! You don't need him anymore!

You're a Senator from New York running for President of the United

States. Act like one!

That was pretty dumb and useless, even compared to what we expect from you Jedd.

That was pretty dumb and useless, even compared to what we expect from you Jedd.

Got it in an email, felt like sharing... meh

Anyone else notice that in almost all conversations you/we have with others about our choice of candidates, the choice is usually justified by seeking negatives about the alternative rather than promoting the positives of the one chosen?

Anyway, time for an update to the candidate list?

Time to redo the poll :)

Anyone else notice that in almost all conversations you/we have with others about our choice of candidates, the choice is usually justified by seeking negatives about the alternative rather than promoting the positives of the one chosen?

Anyway, time for an update to the candidate list?I apologize if I've said this before, but I have a lot of similar conversations these days. Anyhow, I saw a recent research article that suggested most people pick their candidate purely on an emotional appeal, and then find ways to justify why they like that individual based on their stance. It explians a lot of the problems we have with elected individuals if it's true - it means we're just fighting human nature.

...most people pick their candidate purely on an emotional appeal, and then find ways to justify why they like that individual based on their stance.No one on this board would ever do that. ;)

Anyway, if you do a new poll, make sure you include Nader! and None of the Above.

No one on this board would ever do that. ;)

Anyway, if you do a new poll, make sure you include Nader! and None of the Above.

Most definitely.

I plan on posting a new poll at the end of this week.

please include an option for Mike "fetus on the one dollar bill" Huckabee, for humors sake.

Just to make people happy, I'll make it right now! :P