Election of 2012....Who ya got?

[EasyEJL]

I love the support for Paul. The good Dr. who in 2007 said he doesnt support evolution. Boy, thats who I want leading the US in the 21st century.

please show me where in any way shape or form evolution accounts for going from the state of non-life to life. Even with accepting that a single cell organism evolved into humans, how did lumps of volcanic rock and swirling water become not just a single one celled organism, but enough of them of enough different types that they actually survived the conditions.

Its hard to accept evolution as the whole solution when it can't answer that part. You can see even yourself that selective breeding can create and change traits. But it can't turn a rock into a turtle, or water into a fish.

 

[fueledpassion]

Tell me how Obama is not socialist? "Corporatist" is nothing but a sugar-coated word for a socialist. It's a term that is not straight-forward. Between him and Bush they together have brought this country to a socialist state altogether. But you can't see it if you don't really understand the agenda of a socialist in the first place.

Socialist = Central power. No religion, no morale..only laws. Laws laws laws and regulations regulations regulations. Complete government takeover. Doesn't sound too free if you ask me. Kinda sounds like China, really. Which, without our consumer base China would suck again anyways. The only success they've had as a communist country is by being the largest parasite that America has. Anyways, socialism and communism gives vast amounts of power to the select few governmental officials to make decisions for everyone else in the public. A socialist at his core believes that it's best for a select few powerful and "educated" men to govern or control everyone else. This type of philosophy has been taught in our ivy league schools and in our court rooms for decades now. Oh, and the biggest indicator of a socialist is this: redistribution of wealth. Which I must say has been part of Obama's relentless efforts as president. You see the redistribution of wealth in a few things really: one is the tax system, another is the liberated court system - where the offenders can someone manage to sue the victims, where the have not's can sue the haves ( even without good reason ) and where the common law that this country lived by for 2 centuries is now thrown out the window.

Marxism is a broad word the wholistically represents it's sub-categories of socialism, communism and corporatism and supports all that bullcrap I just spouted off in the above paragraph.

Ron Paul on the other hand is a bonified natural-rights advocate. Basically, natural rights is the most free form of governmental philosophy which was the core inspiration of the birth of America. When the founding fathers particularly outlined what the federal government's purpose was and what they were allowed to do, they were attempting to preserve the natural rights of the people in the form of the document you might be familiar with - the Constitution.

Bottom line, we don't need corporatism. We need freedom to live by our religion, morale and to allow the states to form the laws to fill the gap, NOT the federal government. This way, California can continue to be filled with fruits and nuts and be happy with themselves as a liberal, law-defined society while here in Tennesee I can continue to live the Tennessee way which is by allowing social forms of morale and religion to dominate my lifestyle and to have laws fill the gaps on the grey areas. So when the fed's go away and actually do what they were designed to do (which is regulate interstate commerce by mediation between states regarding issues and national protection) we as individual states can create what each of us prefer. And if I don't like the way my state does things then guess what? I can move to a state that does do it the way I like. Thats the whole freggin point of having '50' states. Why else would we have so much variety!?!?

 

[AE14]

please show me where in any way shape or form evolution accounts for going from the state of non-life to life. Even with accepting that a single cell organism evolved into humans, how did lumps of volcanic rock and swirling water become not just a single one celled organism, but enough of them of enough different types that they actually survived the conditions.

Its hard to accept evolution as the whole solution when it can't answer that part. You can see even yourself that selective breeding can create and change traits. But it can't turn a rock into a turtle, or water into a fish.

So I assume that bacterial life certainly cannot evolve

 

[AE14]

Tell me how Obama is not socialist? "Corporatist" is nothing but a sugar-coated word for a socialist. It's a term that is not straight-forward. Between him and Bush they together have brought this country to a socialist state altogether. But you can't see it if you don't really understand the agenda of a socialist in the first place.

Socialist = Central power. No religion, no morale..only laws. Laws laws laws and regulations regulations regulations. Complete government takeover. Doesn't sound too free if you ask me. Kinda sounds like China, really. Which, without our consumer base China would suck again anyways. The only success they've had as a communist country is by being the largest parasite that America has. Anyways, socialism and communism gives vast amounts of power to the select few governmental officials to make decisions for everyone else in the public. A socialist at his core believes that it's best for a select few powerful and "educated" men to govern or control everyone else. This type of philosophy has been taught in our ivy league schools and in our court rooms for decades now. Oh, and the biggest indicator of a socialist is this: redistribution of wealth. Which I must say has been part of Obama's relentless efforts as president. You see the redistribution of wealth in a few things really: one is the tax system, another is the liberated court system - where the offenders can someone manage to sue the victims, where the have not's can sue the haves ( even without good reason ) and where the common law that this country lived by for 2 centuries is now thrown out the window.

Marxism is a broad word the wholistically represents it's sub-categories of socialism, communism and corporatism and supports all that bullcrap I just spouted off in the above paragraph.

Ron Paul on the other hand is a bonified natural-rights advocate. Basically, natural rights is the most free form of governmental philosophy which was the core inspiration of the birth of America. When the founding fathers particularly outlined what the federal government's purpose was and what they were allowed to do, they were attempting to preserve the natural rights of the people in the form of the document you might be familiar with - the Constitution.

Bottom line, we don't need corporatism. We need freedom to live by our religion, morale and to allow the states to form the laws to fill the gap, NOT the federal government. This way, California can continue to be filled with fruits and nuts and be happy with themselves as a liberal, law-defined society while here in Tennesee I can continue to live the Tennessee way which is by allowing social forms of morale and religion to dominate my lifestyle and to have laws fill the gaps on the grey areas. So when the fed's go away and actually do what they were designed to do (which is regulate interstate commerce by mediation between states regarding issues and national protection) we as individual states can create what each of us prefer. And if I don't like the way my state does things then guess what? I can move to a state that does do it the way I like. Thats the whole freggin point of having '50' states. Why else would we have so much variety!?!?

based on your definition every single politician is a socialist if you make the argument that corporatists are socialists.

 

[fueledpassion]

please show me where in any way shape or form evolution accounts for going from the state of non-life to life. Even with accepting that a single cell organism evolved into humans, how did lumps of volcanic rock and swirling water become not just a single one celled organism, but enough of them of enough different types that they actually survived the conditions.

Its hard to accept evolution as the whole solution when it can't answer that part. You can see even yourself that selective breeding can create and change traits. But it can't turn a rock into a turtle, or water into a fish.

Good point. Who gives a crap about evolution. Knowing or not knowing how things came to be doesn't change anything about the cluster bomb of a situation our country is in right now.

Besides, our leader doesn't have to have all the answers to be a good leader. So what if he doesn't buy into the theory of evolution. After all, it's still just a theory AE. It isn't fact. And it won't be otherwise it would have been proven so by now.

 

[fueledpassion]

based on your definition every single politician is a socialist if you make the argument that corporatists are socialists.

So all of the candidates that want to reduce central government down to bare minimumm, repeal a few amendments favoring central power, reduce their spending power, and give power back to the people and freedoms back to the people are also corporatist? yeah right. Denial.

Santorum does not favor Marxism or the passive version of corporatism.
Ron Paul does not favor " " " " "
Gingrich and Romney favor limited corporatism mainly because they think it's too much too ask our government to reverse course at this point. They see that its too late to go backwards without a revolutionary minset so they are taking a more moderate approach to things.

 

[AE14]

Good point. Who gives a crap about evolution. Knowing or not knowing how things came to be doesn't change anything about the cluster bomb of a situation our country is in right now.

Besides, our leader doesn't have to have all the answers to be a good leader. So what if he doesn't buy into the theory of evolution. After all, it's still just a theory AE. It isn't fact. And it won't be otherwise it would have been proven so by now.

If the last statement is true, we need to get the religious nuts away from office, as that is just a theory as well and cant be proven

 

[AE14]

So all of the candidates that want to reduce central government down to bare minimumm, repeal a few amendments favoring central power, reduce their spending power, and give power back to the people and freedoms back to the people are also corporatist? yeah right. Denial.

Santorum does not favor Marxism or the passive version of corporatism.
Ron Paul does not favor " " " " "
Gingrich and Romney favor limited corporatism mainly because they think it's too much too ask our government to reverse course at this point. They see that its too late to go backwards without a revolutionary minset so they are taking a more moderate approach to things.

1. Santorum? Look at his record of corruption in Pa, then rethink
2. Paul...agreed
3. Romney and Gingrich are no better than what is in office now. Again look at their records.

 

[fueledpassion]

based on your definition every single politician is a socialist if you make the argument that corporatists are socialists.

And I will also say that a majority of congress is socialist. Why wouldn't they be? Socialism favors those already in power so of course congress as a whole would want socialism. It will eventually lead to another dictatorship. Only difference is that it will be a group of people dictating the lives of the people rather than just one sole dictator. That's whats at the end of this road if you ask me.

 

[fueledpassion]

1. Santorum? Look at his record of corruption in Pa, then rethink Perhaps I will rethink. He's not my first or second choice anyways.
2. Paul...agreed
3. Romney and Gingrich are no better than what is in office now. Again look at their records. I agree

 

[fueledpassion]

If the last statement is true, we need to get the religious nuts away from office, as that is just a theory as well and cant be proven

Well no, I don't mind a president that believes in the Theory of Evolution. At the same time I think atheist should be ok with a president that believes in God. Period. What I'm saying it by believing or not believing one particular issue would not make him a good or bad leader.

I just want a president that leads by allowing us as individuals to decide for ourselves. That way it doesn't matter if he's atheist or a Catholic or a Protestant or if he's gay or wahtever. Because a good government gets out of the way and lets each man decide for himself what is believable and what is not.

Laws are there to define consequences for crossing those certain lines that cause injury to others. They shouldn't be there to define our religion, morale or lifestyle in any sense. And we need a radical, natural rights advocate for that type of governing and thats why I am for Ron Paul.

 

[AE14]

And I will also say that a majority of congress is socialist. Why wouldn't they be? Socialism favors those already in power so of course congress as a whole would want socialism. It will eventually lead to another dictatorship. Only difference is that it will be a group of people dictating the lives of the people rather than just one sole dictator. That's whats at the end of this road if you ask me.

I would be interested to see how long that would take to accomplish, and if it truly went that way, how quickly people would revolt (if at all)

 

[fueledpassion]

I would be interested to see how long that would take to accomplish, and if it truly went that way, how quickly people would revolt (if at all)

I'd give it 30 years if nothing revolutionary takes place in this country before then.

 

[EasyEJL]

So I assume that bacterial life certainly cannot evolve

where do you get that from? Bacteria are living cells. But life doesn't exist in the vaccuum of space, or in the heat of the big bang. Life had to start from non-life somehow. Evolution doesn't cover that.

 

[EasyEJL]

I would be interested to see how long that would take to accomplish, and if it truly went that way, how quickly people would revolt (if at all)

don't we already have that? we just pretend to elect them

 

[AE14]

don't we already have that? we just pretend to elect them

You wearing tinfoil?

 

[AE14]

where do you get that from? Bacteria are living cells. But life doesn't exist in the vaccuum of space, or in the heat of the big bang. Life had to start from non-life somehow. Evolution doesn't cover that.

1. This is an assumption about the beginning of time.
2. Even if this was true of the beginning, nothing answers it. Not religion or evolution.

 

[EasyEJL]

1. This is an assumption about the beginning of time.
2. Even if this was true of the beginning, nothing answers it. Not religion or evolution.

I can cleanly say that I totally disbelieve in religion's story of how we came to be, but I can't entirely buy evolutionary theory without that being a part of it .

 

[ax1]

where do you get that from? Bacteria are living cells. But life doesn't exist in the vaccuum of space, or in the heat of the big bang. Life had to start from non-life somehow. Evolution doesn't cover that.

Life has possibly infinitely have been evolved. It doesnt make sense to me that all the sudden life came from a rock or a stick, life had to come from life and its always been around is some shape or form. Its just laws of cause and effect and life may have been in forms beyond our knowledge (no Im not talking about god or anything like that.)

 

[ax1]

1. This is an assumption about the beginning of time.
2. Even if this was true of the beginning, nothing answers it. Not religion or evolution.

How can there be a beginning, isnt that mathematically impossible? Its like extracting numbers from 0.

 

[ax1]

Tell me how Obama is not socialist? "Corporatist" is nothing but a sugar-coated word for a socialist. It's a term that is not straight-forward. Between him and Bush they together have brought this country to a socialist state altogether. But you can't see it if you don't really understand the agenda of a socialist in the first place.

Socialist = Central power. No religion, no morale..only laws. Laws laws laws and regulations regulations regulations. Complete government takeover.

All political philosophies are subject to hijacking, and infiltration by the mega-corporations and banks. You can easily debate that Democracy and "freedom" is a complete corporatist and police state system run by the banking cartels. All you have to do is look at America the way it is since 1913 for example.

 

[fueledpassion]

All political philosophies are subject to hijacking, and infiltration by the mega-corporations and banks. You can easily debate that Democracy and "freedom" is a complete corporatist and police state system run by the banking cartels. All you have to do is use America the way it is since 1913 for example.

I actually agree with you AX, lol. That's also why I am for the repealing of those two nasty amendments of 1913 (16th and 17th) which I think we've visited earlier in this thread lol.

And of course the Federal Reserve Bank has alot of sway now since we've been in debt to them for quite some time now.

 

[ax1]

I actually agree with you AX, lol. That's also why I am for the repealing of those two nasty amendments of 1913 (16th and 17th) which I think we've visited earlier in this thread lol.

And of course the Federal Reserve Bank has alot of sway now since we've been in debt to them for quite some time now.

That was the purpose, permanent debt and permanent control.

Thomas Jefferson warned us about this, he was here earlier in the thread as well Ill quote what he said;

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

 

[Clickster]

At this point Paul needs to go Independent and completely dominate the young voters at the polls.

That would be a disaster as it would split the Republican vote and President Obama would be re-elected. Rick Santorum is who I like the best but I realize he probably won't win. Having said that, I am willing to get behind whoever the nominee ends up being. I won't be calling for my favorite to run as a third party candidate.

Ron Paul would lose as a third party candidate too.

 

[ax1]

That would be a disaster as it would split the Republican vote and President Obama would be re-elected. Rick Santorum is who I like the best but I realize he probably won't win. Having said that, I am willing to get behind whoever the nominee ends up being. I won't be calling for my favorite to run as a third party candidate.

Ron Paul would lose as a third party candidate too.

Many people feel there is no difference between Obama and any other republican, the fact that Obama's 4 year term has been nothing but a carbon copy of George Bush's (except for the teleprompter reading, lol) there is no evidence that putting a Republican back in there will be any different.

To some of us Ron Paul supporters what's important is not joining the winning team, but winning by delivering the message.

 

[carpee]

Many people feel there is no difference between Obama and any other republican, the fact that Obama's 4 year term has been nothing but a carbon copy of George Bush's (except for the teleprompter reading, lol) there is no evidence that putting a Republican back in there will be any different.

To some of us Ron Paul supporters what's important is not joining the winning team, but winning by delivering the message.

there's not. both sides will expand the govt power.
part of the overall problem is as a country we are not facing any black and white situations.
our economy partially could've been under economic attack (reports nonchalantly coming out of the pentagon)
Islamists are pushing for sharia in the US.
banks and financial institutions have their own agenda.
who knows what the fed reserve monster will bring about.
the list goes on and on.
some media outlets are more like propaganda spin artists, both sides.
and a white black Kenyan Hawaiian catholic Muslim Christian who was/could have been a revolutionary Marxist in college, as president

 

[DerickVonD]

Hmm. If Paul doesn't get elected I want to move to Switzerland. I want to avoid the Chinese invasion.

 

[AE14]

Many people feel there is no difference between Obama and any other republican, the fact that Obama's 4 year term has been nothing but a carbon copy of George Bush's (except for the teleprompter reading, lol) there is no evidence that putting a Republican back in there will be any different.

the bolded includes Ron Paul

 

[ax1]

the bolded includes Ron Paul

Certainly, which would prove that the entire government is a fraud and the President truly has no authority. The ones calling the shots are not the ones on TV.

Going by Ron Paul's voting record, and all bills he has put into play partly would support this for starters.

 

[AE14]

Certainly, which would prove that the entire government is a fraud and the President truly has no authority. The ones calling the shots are not the ones on TV.

Going by Ron Paul's voting record, and all bills he has put into play partly would support this for starters.

He has only had 1 or 2 passed in his entire time correct?

 

[EasyEJL]

1. This is an assumption about the beginning of time.
2. Even if this was true of the beginning, nothing answers it. Not religion or evolution.

Religion answers it, but with a garbage answer. If life has always existed, it's pretty astounding to me that you can believe that we are the first beings evolution had created that were able to maker indelible marks

 

[EasyEJL]

He has only had 1 or 2 passed in his entire time correct?

If you are one voice of sense in a room full of schizophrenics, is the number of things you started that passed any metric of your quality?

 

[AE14]

If you are one voice of sense in a room full of schizophrenics, is the number of things you started that passed any metric of your quality?

1 voice of sense? My goodness do I love the Paul folks. Let me clear it up or you now, he is not the lone voice nor is he a savior. He is a guy with a solid niche, who most certainly believes what he spews. However, we all know he will not get elected and would be a failure if he did.

Don't get me wrong, the other 3 are awful and are only as bad as the current president. Luckily, we at least have congress.....oh wait.

 

[ax1]

However, we all know he will not get elected and would be a failure if he did.

Why should that matter so much? Its not always about winning, and I have no need to join a winning team.

 

[DerickVonD]

1 voice of sense? My goodness do I love the Paul folks. Let me clear it up or you now, he is not the lone voice nor is he a savior. He is a guy with a solid niche, who most certainly believes what he spews. However, we all know he will not get elected and would be a failure if he did.

Don't get me wrong, the other 3 are awful and are only as bad as the current president. Luckily, we at least have congress.....oh wait.

A failure compared to whom? You act like Paul will be worse than any of the presidents we've had for the past 49 years. If all Paul does for 4 years is veto bills, he would do a hell of a lot better a job than any president we've had since JFK. A president that accomplishes nothing is still better than a president that brings about WWIII.

 

[Clickster]

A supporter of Ron Paul is just the "cool" or "hip" thing to be right now. Paul in this race is nothing more than an annoyance.

-You can send the hate e-mail's to the address in my signature.

 

[AE14]

A failure compared to whom? You act like Paul will be worse than any of the presidents we've had for the past 49 years. If all Paul does for 4 years is veto bills, he would do a hell of a lot better a job than any president we've had since JFK. A president that accomplishes nothing is still better than a president that brings about WWIII.

this is downright silly. Lets hope for 4 years of nothing....thats what we need I am amazed at the Paul fans...I give him credit, he is becoming like Jim Jones. Just a word of advice for Derick, Ax, and Easy....Dont drink the kool-aid

 

[AE14]

Why should that matter so much? Its not always about winning, and I have no need to join a winning team.

Not really sure what you are getting at here

 

[EasyEJL]

this is downright silly. Lets hope for 4 years of nothing....thats what we need I am amazed at the Paul fans...I give him credit, he is becoming like Jim Jones. Just a word of advice for Derick, Ax, and Easy....Dont drink the kool-aid

Lemee see, in the last 40 years of presidents + congress, what have they accomplished? They've put us in wars we didn't need to be in, driven up our debt, driven our manufacturing industry away, supported special interest groups over general group (including unions), been manipulated by the revolving door policy into high end private sector jobs after leaving government. Oh yeah, and entirely ignored the constitution. 4 years of nothing would be fantastic compared to another 4 years of rising deficits.

You realize at current projections, by 2021 the national debt will be high enough that more than 1/3 of what the government took in last year in revenue will be going towards interest alone?

 

[EasyEJL]

A supporter of Ron Paul is just the "cool" or "hip" thing to be right now. Paul in this race is nothing more than an annoyance.

-You can send the hate e-mail's to the address in my signature.

Nah, i've always been a constitutionalist but can't be a part of that party because of its religious tones. It is funny how he grabs so much of the young vote though. But he's not an annoyance any more than you can say each of the candidates are an annoyance. He's running more about the overall movement of "back to actually following the consitution" than necessarily getting elected. He's happy with not winning the nomination, so long as he can win 5 caucuses and be guaranteed speaking rights at the convention.

If anything, from results so far, you can say he has beaten each of the others besides romney in at least one of the primaries/caucuses held. If thats what a "cool" "hip" annoyance gets for votes, what does it say of the others?

 

[ax1]

Not really sure what you are getting at here

You always bring up failure over and over again. I know Ron Paul's ideas are a challenge this day in age in Washington, but the movement isnt about Ron Paul its about the idea's and planting seeds which is happening and Im personally amazed how well Ron Paul has in fact been doing win or lose. Because of this, we are winning but your considering everything a failure.

 

[ax1]

A supporter of Ron Paul is just the "cool" or "hip" thing to be right now. Paul in this race is nothing more than an annoyance.

-You can send the hate e-mail's to the address in my signature.

Ron Paul's movement to audit the Federal Reserve won the support to partially audit the private banking cartel with authority granted by Ron Paul's bill HR 1207. Its publishing (this past July) was astounding.

The partial audit revealed 16,000,000,000,000 (yes trillion) in secret bailouts to US banks, corporations and foreign banks that took place in a 2.5 year period. The GDP at time of publishing for the United States was only $14.12 trillion.

If you find that to be "hip and annoying" I certainly wish to continue to be. Everyone else can support the Fed and their top secret ponzi schemes, and also can focus on borrowing more money from the Chinese to go to war with Iran (which I bet the Chinese will let Iran borrow money too).

 

[EasyEJL]

If you find that to be "hip and annoying" I certainly wish to continue to be. Everyone else can support the Fed and their top secret ponzi schemes, and also can focus on borrowing more money from the Chinese to go to war with Iran (which I bet the Chinese will let Iran borrow money too).

but without ponzi schemes, we wouldn't have social security.

And don't leave out borrowing money from china to send foreign aid to china. Granted we only send them a few million, which doesn't cover the interest for 1 day of what we borrowed from them this year, but still.

 

[AE14]

Lemee see, in the last 40 years of presidents + congress, what have they accomplished? They've put us in wars we didn't need to be in, driven up our debt, driven our manufacturing industry away, supported special interest groups over general group (including unions), been manipulated by the revolving door policy into high end private sector jobs after leaving government. Oh yeah, and entirely ignored the constitution. 4 years of nothing would be fantastic compared to another 4 years of rising deficits.

You realize at current projections, by 2021 the national debt will be high enough that more than 1/3 of what the government took in last year in revenue will be going towards interest alone?

A lot of what you said is true and a good portion is entirely opinion. During the Cold War, many supported the idea of physically containing and beating communism. So, Vietnam and Korea are logical at least from the perspective of the time that they took place.

Driving our manufacturing jobs away is a bit misleading. If you were a CEO of a corp, and could make more $(significantly) by sending jobs elsewhere, you are not going to do it? I will call BS there, as this is what Capitalism is all about.

Maybe it is time to look at Socialism.

Yes, Paul considers himself a strict Constitutionalist, I am just curious how many have actually looked at his record.

 

[EasyEJL]

A lot of what you said is true and a good portion is entirely opinion. During the Cold War, many supported the idea of physically containing and beating communism. So, Vietnam and Korea are logical at least from the perspective of the time that they took place.

Driving our manufacturing jobs away is a bit misleading. If you were a CEO of a corp, and could make more $(significantly) by sending jobs elsewhere, you are not going to do it? I will call BS there, as this is what Capitalism is all about.

Maybe it is time to look at Socialism.

Yes, Paul considers himself a strict Constitutionalist, I am just curious how many have actually looked at his record.

Part of driving away manufacturing is a union issue though. without unions we are able to be competitive in a lot of areas. With unions, we aren't.

 

[AE14]

Ron Paul's movement to audit the Federal Reserve won the support to partially audit the private banking cartel with authority granted by Ron Paul's bill HR 1207. Its publishing (this past July) was astounding.

The partial audit revealed 16,000,000,000,000 (yes trillion) in secret bailouts to US banks, corporations and foreign banks that took place in a 2.5 year period. The GDP at time of publishing for the United States was only $14.12 trillion.

If you find that to be "hip and annoying" I certainly wish to continue to be. Everyone else can support the Fed and their top secret ponzi schemes, and also can focus on borrowing more money from the Chinese to go to war with Iran (which I bet the Chinese will let Iran borrow money too).

This is one of the instances where I agree with him. THere is no reason not to audit the fed. No "government" agency is above audit imo

 

[Clickster]

If one is in a election and doesn't care about actually getting elected...to me that is an annoyance.
This is just my opinion...I realize it isn't popular at the moment.

 

[EasyEJL]

If one is in a election and doesn't care about actually getting elected...to me that is an annoyance.
This is just my opinion...I realize it isn't popular at the moment.

He wants to get elected, just that even if not elected getting people to actually use their brains for a bit and see that overall the republican party + democratic party are almost identical in their refusal to follow the constitution, continuing to grow the size of government, continuing to invade our personal liberty, etc is well worth his efforts.

 

[Clickster]

He wants to get elected, just that even if not elected getting people to actually use their brains for a bit and see that overall the republican party + democratic party are almost identical in their refusal to follow the constitution, continuing to grow the size of government, continuing to invade our personal liberty, etc is well worth his efforts.

I understand where you are coming from.
But I really don't think the Republican Party & Democratic Party are close to the same.

Good luck to Ron Paul. I really think he is a nice guy and adds to interesting debate. I don't disagree with Paul on a lot. But the things I disagree with him on are a pretty big deal to me.

 

[EasyEJL]

I think for me is - we've tried it with "interpreting" the constitution by all 3 branches for a while, and we just get deeper in **** as we go. I'd like to see us instead follow it for 8 years and see where we end up. Keep it simple stupid, and keep the power out of the hands of a small group who usually are idiots.