NationStates Jolt Archive

If a Republican had to win president, which one would you prefer to win and why? Poll coming.

None. I don't like any of them. They all have something that's just dislikeable.

Ron Paul.

Watching the debates right now. Rudy is such a tool. He just called Islam a "great religion".:rolleyes: Fucking moron.

ugh

what a terrible prospect.

mitt romney at least understands fiscal responsibility. but his ubersconservative talk in these debates makes me want to puke.

What she said! :)

ugh

what a terrible prospect.

mitt romney at least understands fiscal responsibility. but his ubersconservative talk in these debates makes me want to puke.

You make my brain poop.

Duncan Hunter because I don't know who he is but his name makes him sound like he is immortal.

duncan hunter isn't too bad. At least not his economic policy.

Rudy appears to be the least conservative, even if he is war-hawkish.

Paul isn't so bad for a Republican, but then again that's like saying melanoma isn't so bad for cancer.

Ron Paul!

Join the Ron Paul Revolution!

Why isn't there a "i'd choose suicide" option on the poll? :'(

I want Ron Paul to win. He is the only candidate I could stomach.

Somehow I think RP would get alot more traction if he didn't have the (R) next to his name, kinda like guilt by association.

Ron Paul!

Join the Ron Paul Revolution!
Yes, let all the idiots stick gold stars on their forward so we can identify them and stay away to save our own IQs.

People only support Ron Paul because they don't understand him. And those supporters that do understand him are just as dangerous as he is.

Yes, let all the idiots stick gold stars on their forward so we can identify them and stay away to save our own IQs.


Hi, I am Zilam, and I approve of this message.

Yes, let all the idiots stick gold stars on their forward so we can identify them and stay away to save our own IQs.

People only support Ron Paul because they don't understand him. And those supporters that do understand him are just as dangerous as he is.

Why? Because they want the US to mind its OWN business, and care for our OWN people?

Why? Because they want the US to mind its OWN business, and care for its OWN rich and upperclass people?


Fixed.

Ron Paul's an idiot. I remember him saying something in the first GOP debate about how the US could be blamed for 9-11, due to our presence in Saudi Arabia. That's just disgusting.

...Besides, his GTFO Of Iraq NOW policy seems to be more extreme than Hillary Clinton's. That's just gross.



I personally would love a Pres. Guiliani and VP Huckabee. Though, I doubt Huckabee will come close.

Ron Paul's an idiot. I remember him saying something in the first GOP debate about how the US could be blamed for 9-11, due to our presence in Saudi Arabia. That's just disgusting.

...Besides, his GTFO Of Iraq NOW policy seems to be more extreme than Hillary Clinton's. That's just gross.



I personally would love a Pres. Guiliani and VP Huckabee. Though, I doubt Huckabee will come close.

If you don't even see the connection between our (the US') interventions throughout the Middle East and terrorism, then you are blind.

Much as it pains me to say it, Ron Paul, if only because it means we'll stop killing people in the Middle East.

Why? Because they want the US to mind its OWN business, and care for our OWN people?

That's not the only thing Ron Paul supports. If it were, I might be more inclined to support him.

If you don't even see the connection between our (the US') interventions throughout the Middle East and terrorism, then you are blind.
I am blind? Really??

...Even if there is a connection, which I will admit is conceivable in Afganistan, it seems like whatever the US does, it is screwed. To elaborate: During the Russian invasion of Afganistan, the US supplied weapons to the Mujadeen, those fighting the USSR. After the Soviets gave the order to pull out, Taliban groups began appearing all over, and I mean IMMEDIATLY afterwards. These groups then went on to bomb Americans.
That is an example of the US taking direct action, 'supplying the Good guys.'

Now an example of the US leaving things well enough alone: Palestine was ravaged by two rival groups, Fatah and Hamas. These two groups literally went around shooting eachother up. After much debate, the US decided to leave well enough alone. The US would not intervene at all. And so, Palestinians set up elections. Democratically, Hamas, a terrorist organization, was elected. Today, this same group spits out anti-American propoganda, and surely, it encourages the fight against American soldeirs in Iraq.

Conclusion: Terrorism occurs with or without provoking or interventions of the US. And while I will certainly admit the US has... screwed up... in the past in the Middle East (namely the Iran-Iraq War), the Ron Paul ideaology of "BLAME IT ALL ON AMERICA" doesn't always apply.

Now an example of the US leaving things well enough alone: Palestine was ravaged by two rival groups, Fatah and Hamas. These two groups literally went around shooting eachother up. After much debate, the US decided to leave well enough alone. The US would not intervene at all. And so, Palestinians set up elections. Democratically, Hamas, a terrorist organization, was elected. Today, this same group spits out anti-American propoganda, and surely, it encourages the fight against American soldeirs in Iraq.

Not only is your chronology flawed, but you're ignoring the obvious context: the US has been supporting Israel, Hamas's real enemy, for decades with extensive military and economic aid.

I am blind? Really??

...Even if there is a connection, which I will admit is conceivable in Afganistan, it seems like whatever the US does, it is screwed. To elaborate: During the Russian invasion of Afganistan, the US supplied weapons to the Mujadeen, those fighting the USSR. After the Soviets gave the order to pull out, Taliban groups began appearing all over, and I mean IMMEDIATLY afterwards. These groups then went on to bomb Americans.
That is an example of the US taking direct action, 'supplying the Good guys.'

Now an example of the US leaving things well enough alone: Palestine was ravaged by two rival groups, Fatah and Hamas. These two groups literally went around shooting eachother up. After much debate, the US decided to leave well enough alone. The US would not intervene at all. And so, Palestinians set up elections. Democratically, Hamas, a terrorist organization, was elected. Today, this same group spits out anti-American propoganda, and surely, it encourages the fight against American soldeirs in Iraq.

Conclusion: Terrorism occurs with or without provoking or interventions of the US. And while I will certainly admit the US has... screwed up... in the past in the Middle East (namely the Iran-Iraq War), the Ron Paul ideaology of "BLAME IT ALL ON AMERICA" doesn't always apply.

What about our continued support for tyrannical regimes in the Middle East? (Saudi Arabia springs to mind) That might have something to do with it. Or maybe the decade long bombing of Iraq following Gulf War I?

Not only is your chronology flawed, but you're ignoring the obvious context: the US has been supporting Israel, Hamas's real enemy, for decades with extensive military and economic aid.

Yup.

Ron Paul's an idiot. I remember him saying something in the first GOP debate about how the US could be blamed for 9-11, due to our presence in Saudi Arabia. That's just disgusting.

...Besides, his GTFO Of Iraq NOW policy seems to be more extreme than Hillary Clinton's. That's just gross.



I personally would love a Pres. Guiliani and VP Huckabee. Though, I doubt Huckabee will come close.

While there's nothing wrong with voting for the candidate representing your best interests, it's probably not wise to ignore those candidates that tell you what you don't want to hear.

Ron Paul's an idiot. I remember him saying something in the first GOP debate about how the US could be blamed for 9-11, due to our presence in Saudi Arabia. That's just disgusting.

Because of course there is no difference between our government which does stupid things and the people in general.

Ron Paul's an idiot. I remember him saying something in the first GOP debate about how the US could be blamed for 9-11, due to our presence in Saudi Arabia. That's just disgusting.


I know I quoted this before, but please read this article. It explains reasons why Ron Paul is correct on foreign policy in the Middle East.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/beito2.html

duncan hunter isn't too bad. At least not his economic policy.

Who is Duncan Hunter? And what is his economic policy?

(*hoping his economic policy doesn't involve tax increases*)
Somehow I think RP would get alot more traction if he didn't have the (R) next to his name, kinda like guilt by association.

So you're saying that all Republicans are automatically evil? I disagree with that. To me, the Democrats are just as evil as the Republicans ever thought about being, and in some cases (e.g. Hillary Clinton) more so.

Yes, let all the idiots stick gold stars on their forward so we can identify them and stay away to save our own IQs.

People only support Ron Paul because they don't understand him. And those supporters that do understand him are just as dangerous as he is.

What's so "dangerous" about Ron Paul? That he's actually a STATESMAN, actually a PUBLIC SERVANT, instead of a servant of big corporations (the financiers of the other candidates)?

Ron Paul may not be 100% perfect, but he's d%&@# sure a lot better than anybody else running.

What's so "dangerous" about Ron Paul? That he's actually a STATESMAN, actually a PUBLIC SERVANT, instead of a servant of big corporations (the financiers of the other candidates)?

Ron Paul may not be 100% perfect, but he's d%&@# sure a lot better than anybody else running.


I'd like to know why, as well.

What's so "dangerous" about Ron Paul? That he's actually a STATESMAN, actually a PUBLIC SERVANT, instead of a servant of big corporations (the financiers of the other candidates)?

Ron Paul may not be 100% perfect, but he's d%&@# sure a lot better than anybody else running.

Ron Paul is not only a borderline racist, his ambitions and views on america are blatantly unconstitutional, and totally in opposite to what the founding fathers had in mind.

Like many right wing "libertarians" he doesn't have any respect for our constitution, rather, he wants what he thinks the constitution should say, not what it does.

And for someone who has openly stated positions that are fundamentally in opposition to the constitution, he should never be allowed to hold a position that requires him to uphold it.

What about our continued support for tyrannical regimes in the Middle East? (Saudi Arabia springs to mind) That might have something to do with it. Or maybe the decade long bombing of Iraq following Gulf War I?

As opposed to what? A minority of terrorists forming a government only a few radicals agree with because they're armed and the rest of the population isn't? We're obviously in the Mid East for oil, but when we support tyrannical regimes, it's not like we're preventing more viable options. The region is known for its rather chronic instability.

Ron Paul is a man of the PEOPLE,

No he isn't, not even close. Ron Paul doesn't give a fuck about the people, or human rights.

Also, title should read: when a Republican wins... :)

He could but..isn't lying a sin?

Fixed.

No, it was perfectly fine to start with. You didn't "fix" his statement, you BROKE it. In other words, Ron Paul is NOT a man of the "rich and upper class", even if you think Republicans in general are. Ron Paul is a man of the PEOPLE, who (as opposed to special interests and big corporations) have been the primary contributors to his campaign.

If you don't even see the connection between our (the US') interventions throughout the Middle East and terrorism, then you are blind.

If you are condemning our support of Israel, I disagree with you. Israel is our only true friend in the Middle East, and to stop supporting them is to shoot ourselves in the head.

I like Rudy and Fred, but we'll see - we're a ways out. ;)

Also, title should read: when a Republican wins... :)

I'd like to know why, as well.

Read the post again; I SAID why in the first sentence.

Why is so hard for people to stomach the fact that America's illegal meddling around the world is the main factor that makes us a target for terrorists. They don't hate freedom, they hate having their countries invaded. Ron Paul wasn't trying to say America was responsible for 9/11. Of course, everyone knows the terrorists were responsible for that horrific crime. He was just stating that our pointless, aggressive foreign policy makes everything more dangerous. He's right. It's as simple as 2+2. The fact that so many Americans are offended by this idea is just more evidence of the tight grip of propaganda on our nation...but people are waking up.

I disagree with Ron Paul's stances on a lot of things, but let's face it. The Federal Reserve is stealing our money and the country's foreign policy is killing our soldiers and bankrupting our nation.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who is not tied up in special interests and lobbyists. He focuses on issues and never dodges questions. His voting record is completely consistent and he is clearly a man of integrity and honesty. Is the concept of having an honest and open president so strange that we have to call Ron Paul "dangerous"?

The more people actually take the time to listen to Ron Paul speak rather than just reading the smear articles or writing him off because he's Republican, the more they will continue to crossover and realize that he may be the only candidate who cares about regular people like you and me.


George Orwell said:
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"

It can also be quite contraversial and considered to be "dangerous".

Ron Paul is not only a borderline racist, his ambitions and views on america are blatantly unconstitutional, and totally in opposite to what the founding fathers had in mind.

Like many right wing "libertarians" he doesn't have any respect for our constitution, rather, he wants what he thinks the constitution should say, not what it does.

And for someone who has openly stated positions that are fundamentally in opposition to the constitution, he should never be allowed to hold a position that requires him to uphold it.

Sources?

Here's some real info on Ron Paul.
http://http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/

He could but..isn't lying a sin?

Hah. That's what they said in '04. "They" including a bunch of NSers who aren't around anymore. ;) Although it's always a shame to lose people.

Why is so hard for people to stomach the fact that America's illegal meddling around the world is the main factor that makes us a target for terrorists. They don't hate freedom, they hate having their countries invaded. Ron Paul wasn't trying to say America was responsible for 9/11. Of course, everyone knows the terrorists were responsible for that horrific crime. He was just stating that our pointless, aggressive foreign policy makes everything more dangerous. He's right. It's as simple as 2+2. The fact that so many Americans are offended by this idea is just more evidence of the tight grip of propaganda on our nation...but people are waking up.

I disagree with Ron Paul's stances on a lot of things, but let's face it. The Federal Reserve is stealing our money and the country's foreign policy is killing our soldiers and bankrupting our nation.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who is not tied up in special interests and lobbyists. He focuses on issues and never dodges questions. His voting record is completely consistent and he is clearly a man of integrity and honesty. Is the concept of having an honest and open president so strange that we have to call Ron Paul "dangerous"?

The more people actually take the time to listen to Ron Paul speak rather than just reading the smear articles or writing him off because he's Republican, the more they will continue to crossover and realize that he may be the only candidate who cares about regular people like you and me.


George Orwell said:
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"

It can also be quite contraversial and considered to be "dangerous".

Very well put post.

Why? Because they want the US to mind its OWN business, and care for our OWN people?

Oversimplification in the fullest.

RP tries to gloss over his domestic policy by attacking US foreign involvements and spending, but at the end of the day he is no man of the people, he would much rather a return to a neo-ancien regime and elitism than any concept of popular sovereignty.

There are hardly enough conservatives onboard to give this forum credence-as Winston Churchill observed, "If a young man is not a liberal, he has no heart, if an old man is not a conservative, he has no mind." The bulk of posters here are heavily socialist, which looks good on paper, but has never worked in RL-and the argument "It wasn't REAL socialism" doesn't hold water-tell me it after you've had real life experience-like a child you know will rely on your inheritance. Don't bother me with your inflammatory rhetoric-socialism/communism just doesn't work, and you have to accept it

RP tries to gloss over his domestic policy by attacking US foreign involvements and spending, but at the end of the day he is no man of the people, he would much rather a return to a neo-ancien regime and elitism than any concept of popular sovereignty.
Exactly. Ron Paul doesn't serve the big corps, but he would pave the way for them to screw us in the ass in his dismantling of the federal government and then watch them while they do it.
And Paul's domestic policy is - turn everything over to the states and then prevent the people from challenging the states' actions in federal court.

Exactly. Ron Paul doesn't serve the big corps, but he would pave the way for them to screw us in the ass in his dismantling of the federal government and then watch them while they do it.
And Paul's domestic policy is - turn everything over to the states and then prevent the people from challenging the states' actions in federal court.
Well I sympathize with his foreign policy, the US does spend ridiculous amounts of money of corrupt ME regimes and a kinda mercantillistic worldview. But domestically I think government is a fundamentally good thing, government helps people.

I have even heard RP saying once 'We should stop spending abroad so we can help our own people', but he doesn't support this, he supports NO welfare or support or anything for the people.

McCain and Paul are the only ones that are worth a damn.

McCain and Paul are the only ones that are worth a damn.

More like they're the ones most worth being damned.

I have even heard RP saying once 'We should stop spending abroad so we can help our own people', but he doesn't support this, he supports NO welfare or support or anything for the people.

Well, the next step after that is that the courts and jails can no longer cope with basic property crime (theft) and you need Judge Dredd methods.

Yay for freedom!

The debate they're having now is sooo fascinating....not...

Where's a third party candidate that actually has a chance at being elected when you need one?

Whichever one had the least resolve and the capacity to do the least damage.

Ugh. Can I vote for "moving to Canada"?

Ron Paul is not only a borderline racist, his ambitions and views on america are blatantly unconstitutional, and totally in opposite to what the founding fathers had in mind.

How so? Note that I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, just asking for an elaboration.

How so? Note that I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, just asking for an elaboration.
Well it was 'We' the people, not 'Me' the people, citizenship in a civic republic entails a social contract to conform.

Ugh. Can I vote for "moving to Canada"?

Yep! It's called "voting with your feet."

Ron Paul is not only a borderline racist, his ambitions and views on america are blatantly unconstitutional, and totally in opposite to what the founding fathers had in mind.


How so? Note that I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, just asking for an elaboration.

Well it was 'We' the people, not 'Me' the people, citizenship in a civic republic entails a social contract to conform.

He-hem. I wouldn't mind hearing Neo Art's reply, if you could just deal instead with this:

Whichever one had the least resolve and the capacity to do the least damage.

I mean, if you want to debate IM, why not take the freestanding post (that last one) rather than trying to speak for Neo Art?

Well I've watched the debates and, with the caveat that I'm not American so I don't care so much, I don't like any of their stances overall though I do personally like Mick Huckerbee - nice chap, completely disagree with many of his views though he does put them quite nicely - too nice for presidency though.

I really took a dislike to Ron Paul, same with Fred Thompson, they seemed stuffed with their own righteousness - Thompson seems stupid to boot.

McCain just seems uninspiring, I think he lacks confidence.

Did not like Romney, whom I thought shifty and unwilling to say what he believed, in fact he contrasted most with Huckerbee and it's showed in the hesitancy in making any outright statement.

Guiliani is the most interesting, I didn't like him personally but I thought he was the most presidential if that makes any sense.

The other two simply aren't worth talking about, how Tancredo is still in this race is beyond me.

I've met Ron Paul and worked on his presidential campaign in 1988. I've paid attention to his political activities ever since.

I am really quite shocked and appalled at the outrageous lies and smears I see posted here about him. Who are you people and why would you say such terrible things about Ron Paul? Of all the people in American politics who don't deserve this, he's at the top of the list.

If you disagree with the man, that's one thing, but the lies I've been reading on this thread (and all over the internet) are just appalling.

Bleaphk wrote:

Ron Paul's an idiot. I remember him saying something in the first GOP debate about how the US could be blamed for 9-11, due to our presence in Saudi Arabia. That's just disgusting.


I've met Ron Paul. He's not an idiot. Neither am I. Also, he did not say in the first debate that "the US could be blamed for 9-11". He did not say that. That is a lie. Ron Paul said, "Have you ever read about the reason they attacked us? They attacked us because we've been over there." That's just a simple statement of fact, a truth that people have been afraid to say in the US ever since George W. Bush told his enormous whopping lie that "they hate us because of our freedom." Maybe you disagree with Ron Paul and you think that US support for Israel and US deployments of troops in Saudi Arabia have nothing to do with the 9/11/01 attacks. Maybe you think Osama Bin Laden is lying when he says the reason he called for a war against the United States was primarily because of deployment of US troops to Saudi Arabia. Maybe you think he is lying when he says US support for Israel was another reason. But whatever you believe about any of that, Ron Paul never said the US could be blamed for the 9/11 attacks. He's saying that US foreign policy has made enemies. He's stating the simple truth that the attacks appear to be intended as retaliation for things the US has done in the Middle East. The blame for the attacks, however, of course lies with those who carried them out.

Here's a citation of the quote from the New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/05162007/news/nationalnews/rudy_in_rage_at_9_11_diss_nationalnews_carl_campanile.htm)

Please don't tell this lie any more.

If a Republican had to win president, which one would you prefer to win and why? Poll coming.John McCain. He was the only one not to jump on the "How do we out-24 24" bandwagon.

The_pantless_hero wrote:
Yes, let all the idiots stick gold stars on their forward so we can identify them and stay away to save our own IQs.

People only support Ron Paul because they don't understand him. And those supporters that do understand him are just as dangerous as he is.


I support Ron Paul and I'm not an idiot. On IQ scores I actually do rank in the "genius" category and not at the bottom end of it, either. Can you say as much? Only about one in 10,000 people score as high as I do on IQ tests. Of course, IQ tests aren't all that great a measure of intelligence, but I do about as well or better on the other measures as well.

By the way, I know quite a lot of other highly intelligent people who strongly support Ron Paul. But you can stay away from us if you'd like.

You say people only support Ron Paul because they don't understand him. I understand him. I've met him. I've followed his political career since 1987 and I worked on his first presidential campaign in 1988. Should I conclude from this that you are wrong? Or should I conclude from this that you are calling me "dangerous". You imply that Ron Paul is somehow "dangerous".

I'm offended. You know, Ron Paul is one of the very few congressmen who did NOT vote to support unconstitutional laws, violations of the Bill of Rights, illegal spying on the American people, military kangaroo courts, torture of innocent people and an unprovoked war of aggression against Iraq.

I'm not sure what you think is dangerous about him, but it seems to me that he's been doing more effective work than anyone I know to protect us from some of the most serious dangers the American people have ever faced.

I have no idea why you would call me "dangerous" when you've never even met me and I've done nothing to deserve such an epithet.

I have no idea why you would call me "dangerous" when you've never even met me and I've done nothing to deserve such an epithet.Libertarianism is a very dangerous ideology, albeit for different reasons than totalitarian ideologies are.

I take it that in addition to being intelligent, you are also educated. Anyone that deals in economics, as I'll assume a lot of libs do, will have heard of "Tragedy of the Commons." That allegory pretty much explains why libertarianism fails: People are too short-sighted and self-centered for completely libertarian societies to survive. The "commons" will be rendered useless by overuse if people are free to make their mistakes.

Rudy Giuliani. No question. I may not agree with the man's politics, but he has a sense of humor and the ability to laugh at himself as demonstrated by his Saturday Night Live appearances. That counts for a lot to me. *nod*

Just pick a President who is smarter than Osama Bin Laden, and you're laughing.

Is Nixon still alive?

Libertarianism is a very dangerous ideology, albeit for different reasons than totalitarian ideologies are.

I take it that in addition to being intelligent, you are also educated. Anyone that deals in economics, as I'll assume a lot of libs do, will have heard of "Tragedy of the Commons." That allegory pretty much explains why libertarianism fails: People are too short-sighted and self-centered for completely libertarian societies to survive. The "commons" will be rendered useless by overuse if people are free to make their mistakes.

You got that arse-about. "The tragedy of the commons" is the argument Libertarians use against communal property. If it's not someone's property, it won't be protected because there is no self-interest to do so, yet there is self-interest in exploiting the commons.

It could be argued that economic growth is all about exploiting "the commons" -- natural resources. We get better and better at it, and the helpless earth isn't raising the price, because "the market" really isn't a law of nature, it's a rationalization of human mutual competition.

Libertarianism is a very dangerous ideology

Dangerous to the State, yes.

Dangerous to the State, yes.

Dangerous to itself!

Dangerous to itself!

:confused:

If a Republican had to win president, which one would you prefer to win and why? Poll coming.
Honestly? I think any of them will be so catastrophically bad for the country that their presidency would probably lead to a permanent fracture in the Republican party, and possibly the full collapse of that party. Which would be nice, except I think all of the Republican candidates will kill, maim, and bankrupt my fellow Americans in the process, which I don't consider acceptable.

Honestly? I think any of them will be so catastrophically bad for the country that their presidency would probably lead to a permanent fracture in the Republican party, and possibly the full collapse of that party. Which would be nice, except I think all of the Republican candidates will kill, maim, and bankrupt my fellow Americans in the process, which I don't consider acceptable.

So, they're all really bad. Which one of the poll options would be worst?

Dangerous to itself!

Libertarianism is a danger to itself. It's hardly a new concept, but it makes no headway because self-interest is continually being redefined. It cannot build on its successes, because individual self-interests cancel each other out.

So, they're all really bad. Which one of the poll options would be worst?
Well, I just found out that Guiliani used security funding to finance his extramarital affair, then tried to blame the police for his actions. When you add that to the fact that he's Dubya Part 2, I'd say that puts him at the bottom of the barrel right now.

But McCain is giving him a serious run for his money. Anybody see the YouTube debate, in which McCain accused Ron Paul of being similar to those who appeased Hitler pre-WWII, and then tried to give Ron Paul "a message from the troops"? Talk about a slimeball. Ron Paul is a giant jackass, but I was glad to see him show McCain where to stick it. (He reminded McCain that the Republican candidate who has received the most donations from active duty military personnel is named Ron Paul, not John McCain.)

Well, I just found out that Guiliani used security funding to finance his extramarital affair, then tried to blame the police for his actions. When you add that to the fact that he's Dubya Part 2, I'd say that puts him at the bottom of the barrel right now.

Giuliani is Dubya + Benito Mussolini + assorted fruits and nuts

Rudy Giuliani. No question. I may not agree with the man's politics, but he has a sense of humor and the ability to laugh at himself as demonstrated by his Saturday Night Live appearances. That counts for a lot to me. *nod*
Giuliani may be the most liberal Republican socially but he is still Bush-lite.

All the Republicans look terrible.

Paul is a dangerous lunatic.
Thompson is Ron Paul with a neocon foreign policy.
McCain lost his damn mind years ago.
Huckabee is a crackpot who isn't trying.
Romney is trying to aspire to Bush in order to pull in all the evangelical and pro-neocon votes, and disguise the fact that he is Mormon.

Hey, I can't pick 'em. I'll let GWB decide. Whichever candidate he ringingly endorses is probably the biggest jackass. McCain, anyone?

All these people are insane in one way or another. And for that matter, I don't think i like any of the Democrats, at least none htat have a chance in hell.

I say we give Bush four more years to clean up his mess under the close, watchful eye of sane people, and if he doesn't do it, we take away his family fortune and everything he's earned, give him $500, a plane ticket to Crawford, TX, and a security deposit on a studio apartment, and tell him that he's on his own now.

Basically, he has four years to get us the hell out of Iraq, solve the mortgage crisis, clean up the environment just a wee bit, help research for alternative fuels and give subsidies to those of us working stiffs who can't afford to switch our vehicles to running on...I don't know, cow farts or something...eat a pine cone, and wrestle Hulk Hogan in a flaming cage match.

Well I've watched the debates and, with the caveat that I'm not American so I don't care so much, I don't like any of their stances overall though I do personally like Mick Huckerbee - nice chap, completely disagree with many of his views though he does put them quite nicely - too nice for presidency though.

I really took a dislike to Ron Paul, same with Fred Thompson, they seemed stuffed with their own righteousness - Thompson seems stupid to boot.

McCain just seems uninspiring, I think he lacks confidence.

Did not like Romney, whom I thought shifty and unwilling to say what he believed, in fact he contrasted most with Huckerbee and it's showed in the hesitancy in making any outright statement.

Guiliani is the most interesting, I didn't like him personally but I thought he was the most presidential if that makes any sense.

The other two simply aren't worth talking about, how Tancredo is still in this race is beyond me.

that mirrors my reaction to the debate.

well except that the first time fred thompson had a close up i gasped at how horrid he looked in that lighting. id hate to have to look at THAT face for 4 years.

huckabee came off as very charming, confident and positive. he seemed like a conservative with a heart. no wonder his poll numbers are going up.

the other guys all seem too negative and ugly to want to see in the whitehouse. the part where i agree with virtually nothing they support might add to that impression though.

All these people are insane in one way or another. And for that matter, I don't think i like any of the Democrats, at least none htat have a chance in hell.

I say we give Bush four more years to clean up his mess under the close, watchful eye of sane people, and if he doesn't do it, we take away his family fortune and everything he's earned, give him $500, a plane ticket to Crawford, TX, and a security deposit on a studio apartment, and tell him that he's on his own now.

Basically, he has four years to get us the hell out of Iraq, solve the mortgage crisis, clean up the environment just a wee bit, help research for alternative fuels and give subsidies to those of us working stiffs who can't afford to switch our vehicles to running on...I don't know, cow farts or something...eat a pine cone, and wrestle Hulk Hogan in a flaming cage match.
I'd rather impeach him and put him on trial for his multiple federal crimes. His sentence should be that he is put to work building homes for the people of New Orleans. While he does so, he can live in the same luxurious accommodations his administration has provided the displaced New Orleans people with. His sentence will be up when every single man, woman, and child from that region has a safe home.

Hey, I can't pick 'em. I'll let GWB decide. Whichever candidate he ringingly endorses is probably the biggest jackass. McCain, anyone?

I doubt Bush would endorse McCain, and frankly whoever he does endorse may as well kiss their chances goodbye. I think everyone has figured out Bush was the worst possible vote at this point.

I'd rather impeach him and put him on trial for his multiple federal crimes. His sentence should be that he is put to work building homes for the people of New Orleans. While he does so, he can live in the same luxurious accommodations his administration has provided the displaced New Orleans people with. His sentence will be up when every single man, woman, and child from that region has a safe home.

I knew I forgot a few things he needed to do in his four years under the close, watchful eye of sane people. New Orleans can be one of them. When he's done with that city, the average civilian had better be dressed in a top hat, a monocle, and a tuxedo/formal gown, know which fork to use, and be able to eat an omelette off the city street without getting so much as a speck of dirt, mud, or shit in it.

Oh yes, and those sane people would all have pet pit bulls who are provoked by stupidity.

I'll be generous and let him live his four years in a nice RV, but he has to give it back after those four years, and he has to be accompanied by at least two pit bulls at all times inside.

I knew I forgot a few things he needed to do in his four years under the close, watchful eye of sane people. New Orleans can be one of them. When he's done with that city, the average civilian had better be dressed in a top hat, a monocle, and a tuxedo/formal gown, know which fork to use, and be able to eat an omelette off the city street without getting so much as a speck of dirt, mud, or shit in it.

Oh yes, and those sane people would all have pet pit bulls who are provoked by stupidity.

I'll be generous and let him live his four years in a nice RV, but he has to give it back after those four years, and he has to be accompanied by at least two pit bulls at all times inside.

You forgot Al Gore. He should have Al Gore following him around and offering helpful advice. Tying his shoelaces for him, that sort of thing.

*out*

I'm partial, Republican wise to McCain, Guliani or Tancredo, and I'd go for either McCain or Guliani if Hillary gets the democratic nomination.... Though I'd go for Obama if he gets it over any republican candidate... (Hilary is just too damn conservative for my tastes... There are more liberal republicans I could vote for).

I also, from a personal standpoint, though I disagree with his platform issues, like Fred Thompson, mostly because he's a straight player compared to the others.... When he is asked a question he answers it directly, and does not, hardly ever, beat around the bush on an issue. I don't agree with his stances on those issues; but it's always nice to see someone who will lay his answer on the line, and have a take it or leave it attitude with its reception. I wish more candidates took stands that way.

You got that arse-about. "The tragedy of the commons" is the argument Libertarians use against communal property. If it's not someone's property, it won't be protected because there is no self-interest to do so, yet there is self-interest in exploiting the commons.

It could be argued that economic growth is all about exploiting "the commons" -- natural resources. We get better and better at it, and the helpless earth isn't raising the price, because "the market" really isn't a law of nature, it's a rationalization of human mutual competition.Then they severely misunderstand the tragedy. TotC is all about the need to regulate common property, particularly those that can't be owned, such as air.

Dangerous to the State, yes.And the people living in it. You could elaborate why Libertarianism would be beneficial, but until you do, you've lost the debate.

You forgot Al Gore. He should have Al Gore following him around and offering helpful advice. Tying his shoelaces for him, that sort of thing.

*out*

Or at least someone who shocks him with about 10,000 volts every time he says something like "nucular/nukyalur" or makes up a word in a speech to the nation.

There are hardly enough conservatives onboard to give this forum credence-as Winston Churchill observed, "If a young man is not a liberal, he has no heart, if an old man is not a conservative, he has no mind." The bulk of posters here are heavily socialist, which looks good on paper, but has never worked in RL-and the argument "It wasn't REAL socialism" doesn't hold water-tell me it after you've had real life experience-like a child you know will rely on your inheritance. Don't bother me with your inflammatory rhetoric-socialism/communism just doesn't work, and you have to accept it

Actually, my favour towards socialism can be traced to after I had a child - when I realised that this country basically says a big 'fuck you' to anyone that isn't rich. As the country whittles away the safety net, a few industries get richer, while less and less people can afford things like insurance, legal representation or healthcare.

That's wrong. Having a child changed my perspective - it made me realise we all depend on each other. The wealthy might not like to admit it, of course - preferring to think they somehow 'earned their position', but the truth is that those who are rich are rich because someone else gave them money.

Having people depend on you, makes you realise how the big picture looks.

If a Republican had to win president, which one would you prefer to win and why? Poll coming.

I don't see Satan on the list?

Is he just going to be coaching again, this term?

Actually, my favour towards socialism can be traced to after I had a child - when I realised that this country basically says a big 'fuck you' to anyone that isn't rich. As the country whittles away the safety net, a few industries get richer, while less and less people can afford things like insurance, legal representation or healthcare.

That's wrong. Having a child changed my perspective - it made me realise we all depend on each other. The wealthy might not like to admit it, of course - preferring to think they somehow 'earned their position', but the truth is that those who are rich are rich because someone else gave them money.

Having people depend on you, makes you realise how the big picture looks.
Yeah, I'm similar in the sense that I've become more liberal as I've gotten older. Particularly in the last few years, as I've watched what "conservative economics" does in practice...yikes.

Giuliani may be the most liberal Republican socially but he is still Bush-lite.

All the Republicans look terrible.

Paul is a dangerous lunatic.
Thompson is Ron Paul with a neocon foreign policy.
McCain lost his damn mind years ago.
Huckabee is a crackpot who isn't trying.
Romney is trying to aspire to Bush in order to pull in all the evangelical and pro-neocon votes, and disguise the fact that he is Mormon.

YOu didn't even bother with Tom Tancredo. :p

Ugh. What a prospect. Once upon a time, I would have enthusiastically said McCain, but then he went and lost his mind.

Guiliani, I suppose, but saying it makes me feel dirty.

And Ron Paul actually getting elected is one of the few things that might actually make me seriously consider just leaving the country. I like my civil rights, thank you very much.

Rudy. The 9/11 shtick is getting really tiresome, but he's probably less disastrous than most. I should point out that if a Republican gets the presidency then Dems ought hold Congress, and vice versa. One party in charge=Clusterfuck.

I don't see Satan on the list?

Is he just going to be coaching again, this term?

The power is always behind the throne.

I watched part of it.

McCain Ugh.
Mit I used to be able to stomach a little but not anymore.
Rudy? I just can't.
Thompson? No way in hell.
Paul? When hell freezes over.
Huckabee seemed a little likable but do we need a real theologian in the Whitehouse?

Huckabee seemed a little likable but do we need a real theologian in the Whitehouse?You can't make someone president that rips Chuck Norris jokes in his campaign ad. It's just wrong.

McCain, though he is crazy, he beats out the rest of these psychos.

I also like the way he talks, he makes me feel like I'm sitting near an open fire, knitting a blanket.

If I had to pick it would actually be Ron Paul. I agree with his foreign policy position of when you stop killing people's families, they are less likely to hate and want to kill you. I also agree with most of his economic positions as well.

If I had to pick it would actually be Ron Paul. I agree with foreign policy position of when you stop killing people's families, they are less likely to hate and want to kill you. I also agree with most of his economic positions as well.

Of course, under Ron Paul's ideal government, you don't have to go out killing people to worry about them hating you. If the people in your very own state hate you, they can vote to trample all over your rights. And they can do it right here at home!

Of course, under Ron Paul's ideal government, you don't have to go out killing people to worry about them hating you. If the people in your very own state hate you, they can vote to trample all over your rights. And they can do it right here at home!

what?:confused:

what?:confused:

Ron Paul is constantly working to take civil rights away from the individual and hand the authority to infringe upon them over the states. He finds this to be so important that he constantly brings up a bill that would keep federal courts from being able to examine state or local laws that might infringe upon religious freedom or the right to privacy for Constitutionality. In fact, he thinks any judge who dares to suggest that you have a right to privacy at all should be impeached.

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c110LUN8ho::

In other words, he wants to hand your rights to freedom of religion, privacy, and equal protection under the law to the states, which can then decide that you don't have such rights with no oversight under the US Constitution. You're a member of a minority religion in this country, are you not? If Ron Paul gets to stuff the courts with judges who agree with him, don't expect your state government to refrain from injecting Christianity into the law - especially if you live in a Southern state.

Ron Paul. Maybe John McCain. The rest are dumbasses or shitheads, notably Rudolph W. Giuliani, who should be shot by a crazed gunman at high noon in Central Park.

That was a debate I was watching? Damn, all that time I thought I was watching MTV.

I especially enjoyed how most of the candidates skirted around the major issues and answered with the typical "I'll be the best president this country has ever had" line...Not to mention some of the questions were just really idiotic, especially that one bible question; did CNN even bother screening them?

I would've said McCain in the past, but he has proven himself to be Bush III in the making. And don't get me started on Guiliani, he defines what it means to be a flip flopper. Tancredo? Only if the choice came down to either him or Bin Laden. As for Ron Paul, I just frankly don't trust him. Honestly Huckabee seems to be the ONLY likable one out of the whole bunch, but then there's his whole fundamentalist beliefs...

As for the rest, I just plain don't like them.

:If a Republican had to win president, which one would you prefer to win and why? Poll coming.

The candidate I like best is Dennis Kucinich but out of the republicans I like Ron Paul best-protects civli liberties
2nd best republican would be John McCain for his anti-torture policies
:)

MY first choice would be Rudy. My second choice would be McCain. I'd vote for a Guiliani McCain ticket in either order. A comment on last nights debate. First, Mitt Romney avoided every question he could. I personally love it when McCain pounded him on the water-boarding is torture thing. Romney "I don't think as a candidate for President we should be saying what we would and would not do." Or this pearl, "we don't want the enemy knowing what we will and will not do." First, as a candidate that is exactly the God damn question you should answer so ante up bitch. Next, if they know what we will an will not do will they win a prize for their guess? Finally, F U Mitt Romney you question avoiding jackass.

Also, for the love of Duncan Hunter. "We're fighting their religious bigotry over there so our boys back home can have religious bigotry over here." Ok, so I paraphrased this douchebag's answer. He claimed that gays and lesbians cannot serve in the military (much like Israel and the UK) because most soldiers making a "corporate" (what the F does that mean in context?) decision are conservative Judeo-Christians who would have to be asked to put aside their religious ideology to accept someone who is different than them. Well, what the hell is wrong with that? Great generalization by the way trying to paint the masses as "like you." Two people I definately won't vote for I mentioned here. Hell, crazy Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee beat these two shitheads.

If you don't even see the connection between our (the US') interventions throughout the Middle East and terrorism, then you are blind.

It's not as much blind as willful ignorance. Like when a candidate said "I will not apologize for the United States of America" (roar of overtly machismo numbingly patriotic people in crows) It's the "I've got digger balls than all of you and my balls are American" show. People ignore behaviors as if there is never anything to cause them. Radical Muslims are pissed...and that's it. As if an entire group of people woke up one day and said "fuck it, let's hate everyone, especially America." Forget Afghan Mujadeen, British imperialistic dogma, and the Russian adventures because they muslims are just a bunch of crazy fucks. Can you tell I'm pissed of with ignorance and stupidity today. They say there's no cure for stupid and I disagree. The only cure is for stupid to cease breathing.

Yes, let all the idiots stick gold stars on their forward so we can identify them and stay away to save our own IQs.

People only support Ron Paul because they don't understand him. And those supporters that do understand him are just as dangerous as he is.

Just like hitler did to the jews, I guess we have a nazi here.

:

The candidate I like best is Dennis Kucinich but out of the republicans I like Ron Paul best-protects civli liberties
Another winner for the person who has no idea what the fuck the candidates stand for contest.

: but out of the republicans I like Ron Paul best-protects civli liberties

Wow. You make me laugh. You pick the candidate who has attacked civil liberties more directly than any other Republican candidate and hold him up on a pedestal of protecting them?

Someone has fallen for the pretty propaganda and not bothered to actually look into the candidate.

Wow. You make me laugh. You pick the candidate who has attacked civil liberties more directly than any other Republican candidate and hold him up on a pedestal of protecting them?

Someone has fallen for the pretty propaganda and not bothered to actually look into the candidate.

Please explain why he attacks civil liberties more than Ghouliani.

Please explain why he attacks civil liberties more than Ghouliani.

How about the "We the People Act", where he attempts to give states the ability to infringe upon religious freedom, the right to privacy, and equal protection under the law without oversight and seeks to impeach any judge making decisions on civil liberties he disagrees with? He introduces it every year, sometimes adding some new civil liberty that he wants to remove. I believe it is HR 300 in the current congress, but thomas.gov won't let me directly link it.

How about actually voting in favor of a ban on an abortion procedure - a federal ban, despite the fact that he claimed it to be unconstitutional? Breaking the oath of office, much?

How about his vote intended to prevent homosexual couples from adopting in DC?

I'm sure I could go on...

In fact, you can get a good look at the types of bills he proposes here:
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

Did anyone see the YouTube Republican Guitar Song? I heard some of it one NPR, but didn't see the debate so didn't hear how it ended.

I wouldn't vote for Huckabee, but I did like that when confronted with a video showing him saying he saw nothing wrong with taxes, he said he thought his decision was a good compromise and not uncalled for, unlike other candidates who are doing their best to hide the smallest shred of anything that may be perceived as "liberal."

Did anyone see the YouTube Republican Guitar Song? I heard some of it one NPR, but didn't see the debate so didn't hear how it ended.

You can watch it all here, including the song:

http://www.youtube.com/republicandebate