Ron Paul for Republican Presidential Candidate??

[memoryjar]

This guy is awesome, you need to spread the word!!

[NightWolve]

He seems to be very popular with the Libertarian Party and would make a fine candidate for them, really. I think the only main thing I supported out of that promo was the abolishment of the IRS (gosh, I'm such a radical), but that has about as much chance of ever happening as him actually becoming the next president...

(As an aside, I think he wastes time with the declaration of war bit. The Constitution doesn't specify exactly how a declaration of war is to be worded. The Congress DID pass a bill conditionally authorizing the use of military force at the president's discretion provided that conditions were not met as a final ultimatum to Saddam. Anyway, did that bill have to exactly say "we declare war" somewhere to effectively be a declaration of war or what? But originally, the president was not going to seek this approval/authorization. We were still technically at war with Iraq since Desert Storm, since that declaration, and that war that followed. We had a cease-fire provided that Saddam fully cooperated with disarming all his WMD programs, etc.. So, the case was being made that since Saddam never fully cooperated with the cease-fire agreement that hostilities/war should resume on just that basis alone. However, the president was advised to go through Congress again, and also to get UN approval, etc. That's what he did. Blah blah, point is, it wasn't the constitutional crisis that Ron makes it out to be.

By the way, do we even still actually have a Constitution? I thought that was all phased out in favor of an oligarchy of judges and their "rulings" making it say whatever they want, thus the whole point of a Constitution being rendered utterly pointless... I say we end all the fakery and just stop pretending that we actually still have one...)

[Sanhime]

Nah, this country has been turning Communist/Socialist for the past say... 40 some years, maybe more than that.  Thanks a bunch, FDR!

BTW, Ron Paul would be my kind of canditate.  However, like Buchanan (also my kind of person of Prez.), he has no realistic chance of becoming Prez.  There is another candidate that called for the abolishion of the IRS, but now I cant remember his name.  Talk about having the air being sucked of the room with so many candidates!  I think there are only 2 Republican candidates that stand to be electable in the general election, and they would be Guilliani (my mayor! Lived in NYC) and Ronmey (my Gov'na! Moved to MA)

If my memory serves me correctly, he would not fit well with the Libertarian Party since he is big on border enforcement.  I think the Libertarian Party's platform is more open borders?  I dont remember.

Speaking of IRS, I think the 1913(?) Supreme Court ruling on the IRS was and still is a bad ruling.  Even though its now the settled law of the land, the entity and mechanism for which the IRS exists and operates, I believe, is not only unconstitutional, but anti-constitutional.  It is basically a government sanctioned, legalized, money laundering and racketeering front for crooks, namely the politicians and their legislative agenda.  It is not to say the government doesnt have the right to tax is citizens, because it does.  However the IRS reminds me of another government intervention that was meant for one thing but ended up becoming something else: Affirmative Action.

So much for the lesson-supposedly-learn "Taxation Without Representation".

[memoryjar]

I agreed with most of the things he voted for except for the recent Gun Control which he was the ONLY representative that voted against. >_> I know he doesn't really stand a chance as a republican candidate, but if he DOES get the spot, I think he might be the most likely to beat the Democrats since his stands are some what similar so he should be able to steal votes. However if he isn't the republican candidate, then I don't see how republicans can win in the next election because all of the republican candidates (aside from Ron Paul) are pro-war when a super majority of America is against it.

[NightWolve]

I think he might be the most likely to beat the Democrats since his stands are some what similar so he should be able to steal votes.

Nah, he has no chance in hell. There isn't any if about it. He's a nobody. And stealing votes by being a democrat on an issue or various ones doesn't help you win if you alienate enough of the GOP base, such as what Bush has been doing with his triangulating on immigration, the prescription drug plan for the elderly, that sort of thing. I know I wouldn't let him get through the nomination process. No way I wanna be stuck voting for that.

I dunno who I want personally, but if Fred Thompson gets in, I suppose I'll nominate him. If he loses to Rudy, I will force myself to vote for him because I know the consequences of a democrat getting in, and he doesn't alienate me enough to the extent that this GOP savior (apparently), "Ron Paul" does.

However if he isn't the republican candidate, then I don't see how republicans can win in the next election because all of the republican candidates (aside from Ron Paul) are pro-war when a super majority of America is against it.

Rudy Giuliani has far more name recognition than all of them combined and all that political capital he gained with his performance in the aftermath of 9/11. I never heard of Ron Paul until recently when libertarian types started their plugging campaign for him and these debates came around. In the match ups that I saw, Giuliani beats Hillary Rotten Clinton (aka Her Thighness) every time. But these are polls of a random one thousand people or whatever and using 1000 Americans to speak for 301 million Americans is effectively propaganda (though it is always tempting to accept them when they reflect your opinion). The only real poll that matters is on election day. I'll wait for that day to try and decide what a super majority of America is for or against.

Personally, I can't imagine a "super majority" has adopted the Michael Moore position wanting to retreat from Iraq and to hell with the consequences that'll follow as a result. If you believe going into Iraq was irresponsible, I think you'll find pulling out before the job is done would be even more irresponsible. It occurs to me even the currently elected democrats see this fact or they would've played even more games with the last funding bill, which failed a veto override and was later passed cleanly, without the massive pork (bribery, something they had to do originally to get enough of their guys to go along with the whole thing) and no unconstitutional timetables.

To summarize, I would say you're placing way too much weight on one single issue, Iraq, and that the only way to win is by being against it. I think that is flawed, not just your pumping up of a nobody who really doesn't belong in the GOP anyway. He is to a great degree at odds with the GOP platform, and to be a member of the party regardless is to thus seek to subvert that platform which of course the base will not stand for. We don't need two parties that become more and more like each other on social issues, but only differ on economics, one being more capitalist, the other being more socialist. I understand he is not exactly the perfect LP kind of guy, he has varying positions where he can't quite fit exactly in any party, but in my mind, he is closest to the LP which is not representative of any majority in this country. It just isn't.

[Sanhime]

As far as polling is concern, the only indicative polls that matters are the internal polling (the general public almost never hear about) and a couple of other pollsters (ie Zogby).

All polling that is done by media/groups tend to be garbage and inaccurate.  This might sound cruel when I say this, but regardless of "sentiments" of the American public there are shown in most media polls, none of the them matter because the media polling samples are too random and are not of active voters.

Remember the biggest fear for a politician is not an informed public, its an informed voter.

[NightWolve]

Alright, that's why... He attempted a presidential run in 1988 having won the Libertarian Party nomination. Now I've got plenty of reasons not to like the guy. Knew there was something there. I was already resenting him getting plugged on my board. Sure, he's got some principled positions on the wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars and the like, but after reading more of his bio, there's a lot I'd have to swallow. Anyway, it's all moot since he isn't getting anywhere.

I don't like any of the declared GOP candidates if it makes a difference. Nobody so far is a Reagan republican I can get excited about. Romney is a flip-flopping phony that was electable in Mass., Rudy (a former democrat himself) was a big city mayor currently doing his own little dance on some issues, who dressed in drag for fun, was married to his cousin, who shows up in same-gender-bender loving pride events, who wants taxpayers to pay for abortions because if you and I don't pay for it, why, we would be denying women their constitutional right to having an abortion, yadda yadda. Fred or Newt is probably a pipe dream at this point. I'll give my primary vote to Fred as I said if in fact he does declare himself in, but I expect Rudy will likely win in the end. There will be a lot to swallow with Rudy, but I don't see a way out as far as wanting a real Reaganite + being electable.

It's times like these I wish I was democrat. It doesn't matter if it's Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Al Gorilla, whatever, it's all the same thing. If you're a diehard lefty, if you consider yourself a member of the democrat base and whatnot, you're pretty much gonna get most of what you want and will have little to compromise on/fear.

Man though, it is hard to believe that just a few years ago it was looking like the GOP could get 60+ senate seats, the complete destruction of the democrat party was just around the corner relegating them to permanent minority status and it all just went to hell... President Bush has been very very good to democrats, hasn't he? Oh, they'll hate his guts till the end of time, but he succeeded in rolling back Reaganism for them, giving them back control of Congress after only 12 years, to their previous 40 or whatever... I like the guy, but I have to accept the fact that he led the party off a cliff.

My overall feelings on Bush: Tough on terrorists, soft on democrats. The End.

Remember, the biggest fear for a politician is not an informed public, its an informed voter.

Yeah, well said.

[Arto94]

I generally browse the SA forums on a daily basis, and this guy has been getting quite the Buzz around there recently.  I'm not one to read up on politics (although, I know that I should, I just find the whole thing confusing, and thus, boring), but I actually read up on him a bit, and really have a strong good opinion about this guy, but have to agree, that he doesn't stand a chance.  I feel as though this country really has become a 'two party system' and anyone without the FULL backing of their political party behind them, stands no chance of ever becoming president.




I vote NightWolve for ruthless dictator.

[NightWolve]

I generally browse the SA forums on a daily basis, and this guy has been getting quite the Buzz around there recently.

YouTube got taken over with this guy for a while there, literally. Plug plug plug everywhere for him.

[JoeQuaker]

That's because most other media just don't talk about the guy. In some cases... he was either left off of presidential polls or even REMOVED from a poll once he started gaining a lead! Besides that, a large number of these people who do things like flooding youtube with Ron Paul crap post MySpace bulletins about "EVERYONE don't buy gasoline on this certain day!". It's kinda sad. It's safe to say not a lot of them are even checking into the guy, he just seems to be the hip candidate to vote for. Would not surprise me if many of those same people never even made it to the polls, as all I usually see standing in line with me are older white people.

I do like some of the things he's said.. but hell, we all know politicians are just paid bullshitters. Regarding Isreal for example. Cut off tax-paid foreign aid to them (at LEAST put the US interests before theirs), and definitely take a look at other nations who don't need it or are pissing it away. How do we even afford to do it when our nation has such a tremendous debt? Realistically, any candidate who isn't in full support of Isreal probably doesn't stand a chance as well.

So far the last candidate I voted for looks good for the coming election too... the blank space where a 3rd party or independent candidate SHOULD be.

[memoryjar]

I don't think Ron Paul is "hip" or any, but he is the only conservative candidate that is willing to tell the truth. (well there's one in the democratic side, gravel) While his ideas are a bit radical, like scrapping social security and going back to the gold standard to back the greenback, his non-interventionist ideals is his most popular asset. When was voting about which side will win? Even if a candidate doesn't win I still believe he deserve my vote.

On a side note, chances are Romney is going to win the Republican nominee because Giulianni won't win. As much as I hate to say it, the republican party will vote for a protestant over a catholic candidate.

[JoeQuaker]

but he is the only conservative candidate that is willing to tell the truth.

The truth? A politician?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Ron Paul is peaking someones interest for sure though...

http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22ron+paul%22%2C

[JoeQuaker]

Wow... Haaretz.com ranks US prez candidates on who's best for Isreal

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerPage.jhtml

Notice who IS NOT EVEN ON THE LIST. ROFL

[NightWolve]

but he is the only conservative libertarian candidate

Correction.

On a side note, chances are Romney is going to win the Republican nominee because Giulianni won't win. As much as I hate to say it, the republican party will vote for a protestant over a catholic candidate.

Huh? Romney is a Mormon and I doubt whatever Catholic is left in Rudy Giuliani is the problem. I've never heard anyone make this claim until now in fact. I have heard plenty with regards to Mitt Romney's "Mormonism" but I felt that was a distraction by the drive-by media. The man was electable in Mass., and his legacy is he himself was responsible for redefining marriage in that state by executive order. The first state in the union to gender-neutralize the institution of marriage in response to a ruling by the state's supreme court when there was zero basis for him to even get involved... All because of him. He literally intervened to make this happen when this was a shodown between the legislative branch and a rogue judiciary. That is not going to slide with the base... There is also his flip-flopping on the abortion issue.

Anyway, I feel his problem is how utterly fake it is for him to portray himself as someone in Reagan's mold. I don't care that he is technically a Mormon, no, but I do care that he's a democrat on some social issues and appears to lack the principle of consistency. Same problem with Giuliani I'm afraid. But yeah, the idea that there is still so much anti-Catholic sentiment that we'd rather elect a Mormon who's just as much a social democrat as Rudy is nonsense.

Let's be real here. Neither of them strike me as very devout (I wouldn't use the word at all, in fact) and both have taken opposite positions on social issues from what their respective churches advocate. So, why would it even be an issue? If Rudy loses the nomination, it sure as hell isn't gonna be because he's a "Catholic."

his non-interventionist ideals is his most popular asset.

Obviously, we have had a big disagreement here. Isolationist/non-interventionist ideals didn't serve us well in WWII, yet he trumpeted the GOP's stance during that era as a model to follow. The US is often criticized for not having directly intervened sooner which could've ended that war earlier.

It seems he calls for blind isolationism/non-interventionism and I don't see much merit to it. Interventionism is something that should be handled on a case by case basis. There are plenty of examples in history that I can think of where interventionism could've saved millions of lives and prevented tyrannies from ever coming to power. Just because the US military isn't doing as well as it could in Iraq, doesn't mean interventionism is hereby permanently discredited. We wouldn't apply that thinking to Afghanistan either.

EDIT: Thought I'd throw in this nice little article on him. I quoted the last paragraph of it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html?ei=5070&en=92de4b8b79c3b1eb&ex=1186200000&pagewanted=all

But what is “Ron’s message”? Whatever the campaign purports to be about, the main thing it has done thus far is to serve as a clearinghouse for voters who feel unrepresented by mainstream Republicans and Democrats. The antigovernment activists of the right and the antiwar activists of the left have many differences, maybe irreconcilable ones. But they have a lot of common beliefs too, and their numbers — and anger — are of a considerable magnitude. Ron Paul will not be the next president of the United States. But his candidacy gives us a good hint about the country the next president is going to have to knit back together.

[JoeQuaker]

I dunno who I want personally, but if Fred Thompson gets in, I suppose I'll nominate him.

Oh come on, don't choose the guy just because he's some lesser of evils... he's just as bad if not worse than the rest.

Fund raiser for the Libby trial... (After Bush commuted sentance) "I am very happy for Scooter Libby. I know that this is a great relief to him, his wife and children. This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life." <--- Good acting or an extreme lack of good judgment of character there... 

Oh look, and unquestioned support for Isreal. Wow, he looks like EVERY OTHER POLITICIAN that makes it to the top. Funny, isn't it?

Any news of any independent candidates this year? I'll even settle for some "independent republican" like Buchanan. No? Didn't think so

As far as the isolationist/non-interventionist  goes... I think there just has to be some balance in there. While we should fence up the borders a bit more and perhaps have some more national guard HERE where they should be... we do have to perform our duties Team America - World Police from time to time and save someones ass or put a few fears to rest.

[JoeQuaker]

Today in "Ron Paul news" ...
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=340761

[JoeQuaker]

Huffington post = morons

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/15/to-his-dismay-ron-paul-b_n_68575.html

[NightWolve]

Oh come on, don't choose the guy just because he's some lesser of evils... he's just as bad if not worse than the rest.

Fund raiser for the Libby trial... (After Bush commuted sentance) "I am very happy for Scooter Libby. I know that this is a great relief to him, his wife and children. This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life." <--- Good acting or an extreme lack of good judgment of character there... 

Oh look, and unquestioned support for Isreal. Wow, he looks like EVERY OTHER POLITICIAN that makes it to the top. Funny, isn't it?

Well, it's clear to me Libby got railroaded in the worst, twilight zone sort of way and I'm fine with a pro-Israel stance. Neither of those two issues brought up bother me, although I'm still waiting for an answer as to what exactly his daughter was sucking on in that interview.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/15/to-his-dismay-ron-paul-b_n_68575.html

Poor RuPaul. He's so misunderstood...

[JoeQuaker]

Dude that's so Fred's youngling wife's diaphragm! LOLOLOLOLOLOL

[JoeQuaker]

Hmmm I guess this shoots the "He only wins online polls because of bots" conspiracy theory


http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0637543320071106


OWNED -> http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/10/paul_bot

[JoeQuaker]

These guys have their own take on it...Their website... www.jtf.org .... wow

I should warn though there is a graphic pic or 2 there if you are curious. I love this quote... "JTF loves the always brave, always brilliant and always beautiful Ann Coulter" LOLOLOL

[NightWolve]

These guys have their own take on it...Their website... www.jtf.org .... wow

I should warn though there is a graphic pic or 2 there if you are curious. I love this quote... "JTF loves the always brave, always brilliant and always beautiful Ann Coulter" LOLOLOL

Do they have the video on their site? By the time I got to clicking that youtube link, the video had been taken down.

[NightWolve]

"Ron PaulPots: Resigned to the ashheap of election history..."

http://kevinmccullough.townhall.com/blog/g/8a322a21-6c43-4a67-91a6-077b54d50fdc&comments=true#comments

[JoeQuaker]

Haha I'm not sure if it is or not, it was pretty much just 2 jerks talking about Ron Paul should be killed because he wants Jews to die or some bologna.

I don't really get the point of this Kevin guys article...

"Goodbye Iowa, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Nazi Election Money, Soros Election Money, MoveOn.org staff, resources, and election money, 9/11 Truthers, Dorky Screen Names like "Knights of BoooHooo", Late night love-ins with Michael Moore, Disconcerting allegiances with skinheads, and oh yes the 3% Revolution."

Nazi money? Michael Moore? Skinheads? MoveOn.org? What does that have to do with Ron Paul? Nazi money... um.. Prescott Bush? MoveOn/Michael Moore... bleeding heart liberal Hillary Clinton democrat crap? 9/11 "truthers"... yeah Michael Moores type of "truth" again LOL.  Oh and the last time I checked, Neo-Nazi skinheads have their own (pathetic) political party and candidates.

Where is the Ron Paul connection with this paragraph?

[NightWolve]

Damn you, you RuPaul supporter! I had a nice lengthy response that was lost with the server getting upgraded! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Anyway, you're a lost cause as is RuPaul and tomorrow I must cast my primary vote... ...

WHO SHALL I VOTE FOR??? WWWWHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOO???

Well, I gave it considerable thought and decided that I'll be voting for Romney, the utter phony and flawed candidate that he is. One of his flaws I had mentioned is detailed here by Alan Keyes.

John McLame's Florida win got me very nervous and so I'm left with little choice since Fred Thompson failed. Yes indeed, I've joined the Stop McLame Express and the only one that has a chance to stop him is Romney unfortunately. For that reason and because Mark "The Great One" Levin endorsed him, I'll just have to hold my nose and pull the lever for him. I truly am disappointed with every one of them and I'm sad considering Fred Thompson had become even more appealing to me after his S. Carolina performance and his video outlining his positions. He was the real deal Reagan republican with little baggage unlike the rest of the candidates. Tsk.

Well, that's that... Romney, the Mormon, a man whose faith traditionally supported polygamy actually wound up redefining marriage a different way... Not the two-and-only-two person requirement mind you. Oh no, he didn't alter that; instead, he altered the gender requirement because of a rogue court and a phony lawsuit... And this man has to be the lesser evil for me because there's no other option... What a horrible feeling... I wish I could go back to pre-9/11 mode of only caring about life and not politics.

On second thought, what the fuck, why don't I just vote for Barack "Not-that-Hussein" Obama (Rhymes with and is one letter away from 'Osama', first name of the terrorist mastermind of 9/11 - just look at how easy it was for Teddy 'The Champion Swimmer' Kennedy to confuse the two) ?? He's so likeable and most likely to unite the country, riiightt???? Rrrrright? A uniter, that's what he is... That's right, he's gonna unite the Supreme Court and the rest of the judiciary with ACLU radicals in the mold of Baby Ruth Bader Ginzburg... He's gonna unite the tax paying public with, you guessed it, higher taxes!!! Woo-hoo! What better way to unify the country with more secularism and socialism?? Satisfaction guaranteed for all!

Man, what a great fucking name that is... Talk about eerie unwanted coincidences. His middle name is the last name of the Butcher of Bagdad that the US military took out, and his last name is so very close to the first name of the man responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks who's still at large... It would surely be an obamanation (ahem, abomination) were he to be elected, doncha think ? Har har. Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week...

[JoeQuaker]

Not real sure who  The American Conservative magazine is... perhaps you do. They just endorsed Paul. http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_02_11/feature.html

Too bad the Republicans will probably just force McCain down our throats

Yeah, Obama has some rather socialist views but I love the guy compared to Clinton *shudder*. He still would never get my vote though.

I guess you and many other people will vote with 9/11 and Osama Bin Laden in mind. I suppose one reason for my endorsement of Paul may rest in the fact I'm one of those "lunatics" who scratches my head over the official details of that day, and knows a little something about Jack Abramoff, SunCruz casino ships, and Mohammed Atta. We do have a lot to fear in this age... I don't think it's any of these crap on television, in the newspapers, or on the radio. 

Obamination ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[NightWolve]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!

I almost cried after the super Tuesday results... I know damn well you had democrats crashing the party and taking republican voting sheets to fuck us over with McLame. They had enough of their voters to spare and only two to choose from on their side... God dammit...

Then there's that SOB Huckabee who served as McLame's wingman... Good job, @sshole. Good job! Now, you're useless to McLame so let's see what happens. Think he'll give your ass veep, do ya?? FUCKING ASSHOLE!

This all began with Florida and having too many candidates. 65% voted against McLame there but he got to win anyway because of the vote being divided up among others... Of course Romney shares the blame; he was a weak candidate for reasons I mentioned which kept the base from warming up to him, and by the time they realized he was their best bet, it was too late (I fall into that category). And today, today I learned he suspended his campaign, thus McLame's nomination is sealed... Game over. It's clear the democrats will have an easy road to the White House with either Hellary or Obama.

         

I'm a real sad panda today, Joe. You have no idea. Help... Me... Am I actually gonna have to pull the lever for McLame come November?? This is NOT HAPPENING. How could that jerk, who once considered switching to the democrat party, who entertained being John F'ing Kerry's running mate, who always brags about reaching out to the other side of the aisle TO ADVANCE THE INTERESTS OF THE OTHER FUCKING PARTY WHILE THWRATING HIS OWN, how could he be rewarded with the nomination???!!! For all his back stabbing and advancing of the democrats' agenda, how can he now be rewarded with the republican nomination??? Be it on taxes, free speech, social conservative issues, he's voted with democrats, as a democrat! He couldn't even advance the most basic principle of lower taxes which is the main selling point of the republican brand. I know he's singing a different tune now, but we all know how he voted when Bush's tax cuts came up way back which is a good indication of how he'll behave in the future...

Final thoughts: I didn't leave the republican party, the republican party left me.

Not real sure who  The American Conservative magazine is... perhaps you do. They just endorsed Paul. http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_02_11/feature.html

Too bad the Republicans will probably just force McCain down our throats

Come on Joe, let's get over the RuPaul thing. He's been over with... He was the most uncharismatic candidate next to Dennis Kuccinich. His attitude and using Howard Dean/Michael Moore type anti-war talking points turned me off. If his talking points were at least original and if I didn't feel like I was listening to Michael Moore verbatim, I might've had less of a negative opinion of him, though I still wouldn't have supported him - I'd have less dislike for 'im is all I'm saying. Anyway, RuPaul is a dead and boring subject now.

I dunno what I'm gonna do come November. I'm not gonna stay home of course. There may be good republicans for the congressional races that could use my vote... Right now, I'm just real sad that he won... It's simply not fair that someone like him won... We all know he's a closet democrat subverting the party on their behalf. There's a long laundry list when it comes to him, some of which I previously mentioned. We have him on tape saying a) Hellary would make a good president, b) John Kerry would make a good president and that there was nothing wrong with him as a candidate, c) that he seriously considered being his running mate in '04 because "we're good friends, so of course I considered the offer," etc. We also know from sources that during the period when democrats were working behind the scenes to get certain traitorous republicans to switch parties after the GOP gained a slim 51 count majority (an effort which ultimately succeeded with Jumping Jim Jeffords declaring himself an independent to deny republicans the majority), McLame's staff wondered why democrats didn't try to arrange something with him... THAT'S who wound up getting the nomination because of a fluke in Florida with too many [weak] candidates and winner-take-all delegate rules... That's the record of McLame and right now there are a lot of democrats out there with smiles on their faces. Yes, indeed, The New York Times/Slimes favorite and endorsed republican has won... Lucky us.

I guess you and many other people will vote with 9/11 and Osama Bin Laden in mind.

Not exactly. Sure, some of that matters, but what I'll always have in mind is voting against the ACLU type of judges Hellary or Obama would appoint and hope McLame could at least do a better job on that, which is highly doubtful given some of his statements on the subject. Mind you, I don't believe he can win, but essentially, my vote would better be described as anyone-but-a-democrat.

You see my dilemma though... How am I going to square my anyone-but-a-democrat view against my anyone-but-McLame view?? McLame will have a shot at beating the democrat, but he's as good as a democrat in the end, so if I pull the lever for him and he somehow miraculously manages to win, I really pulled it for a democrat in republican's clothing... Thus, it's not a very principled vote in the end...

...

However, as he's still technically a member of the party, we'll have better sway over him than Hellary/Obama at least. Right? But on the other hand, he, as well as his supporters, will use his victory to redefine the GOP and make it more like the other party. So, considering that also, sometimes losing the election is a necessary sacrifice to prevent the loss of party control, that is, the subversion of the party, which is what is happening here...

I say again Joe, HELP ME. I don't want to vote for a democrat, I don't want to vote for McLame, and yes, neither do I wanna vote for RuPaul, but I see no other winnable option now that it's clear we'll have to take that McLame excrement sandwich and eat it...

         

(Sorry, this post got a little repetitious and longer than I expected. Things are looking terrible and I really am seriously depressed right now... McLame should not have happened, not in 2000, and not this time either...)

[JoeQuaker]

Excellent post Nightwolve hehe... McLame!!! Damn... great stuff. I'm really glad the Limbaugh/Boortz/whoever fans haven't really gone for that guy. He'll probably want to bomb Iran, I don't think that would go over too well right now.

I'm sorry you know... at first I didn't like Ron Paul because all these same fucking dread-haired hippies who try to tell me not to buy gasoline on a certain day and other nonsense were soooo crazy about the guy.

One day though, I was like... ok... I'm going to listen to this Ron Paul guy talk. I totally DESPISE Michael Moore and the total LIES he spreads in his bleeding-heart bullshit documentaries... but I like a lot of what this guy says. I know all politicians are generally complete liars, as well as lawyers haha... but I'm sorry, things like the national dept... I don't feel comfortable at all with the low level of military resources our current administration puts into our OWN country... let alone the economy.

To be completely honest though Nightwolve, I do not have faith that Ron Paul would even get on the ballot... however I plan on voting for his none the less if he does not drop out, and then for MYSELF, as I did last election... I can't sleep at night knowing I didn't cast my vote out of my own will and not Because I feel the need "have" to pick someone to keep another from office I despise. I have but one request to make to you as a fellow voter... ANYONE... ANYONE... but Hillary Clinton!!!!! Please god no.... can't quite say the same thing about Ron Paul eh? heh-heh

[NightWolve]

The Real McLame Record:

http://marklevinfan.com/?p=2489

By Mark R. Levin

There’s a reason some of John McCain’s conservative supporters avoid discussing his record. They want to talk about his personal story, his position on the surge, his supposed electability. But whenever the rest of his career comes up, the knee-jerk reply is to characterize the inquiries as attacks.

The McCain domestic record is a disaster. To say he fought spending, most particularly earmarks, is to nibble around the edges and miss the heart of the matter. For starters, consider:

McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.

McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.

McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.

McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.

McCain-Reimportantion of Drugs — a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety (hey Rudy, pay attention, see link).

And McCain’s stated opposition to the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was largely based on socialist, class-warfare rhetoric — tax cuts for the rich, not for the middle class. The public record is full of these statements. Today, he recalls only his insistence on accompanying spending cuts.

As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, McCain was consistently hostile to American enterprise, from media and pharmaceutical companies to technology and energy companies.

McCain also led the Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.

And then there’s the McCain defense record.

His supporters point to essentially one policy strength, McCain’s early support for a surge and counterinsurgency. It has now evolved into McCain taking credit for forcing the president to adopt General David Petreaus’s strategy. Where’s the evidence to support such a claim?

Moreover, Iraq is an important battle in our war against the Islamo-fascist threat. But the war is a global war, and it most certainly includes the continental United States, which, after all, was struck on 9/11. How does McCain fare in that regard?

McCain-ACLU — the unprecedented granting of due-process rights to unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists).

McCain has repeatedly called for the immediate closing of Guantanamo Bay and the introduction of al-Qaeda terrorists into our own prisons — despite the legal rights they would immediately gain and the burdens of managing such a dangerous population.

While McCain proudly and repeatedly points to his battles with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had to rebuild the U.S. military and fight a complex war, where was McCain in the lead-up to the war — when the military was being dangerously downsized by the Clinton administration and McCain’s friend, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen? Where was McCain when the CIA was in desperate need of attention? Also, McCain was apparently in the dark about al-Qaeda like most of Washington, despite a decade of warnings.

My fingers are crossed that at the next debate, either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney will find a way to address McCain’s record. (Mike Huckabee won’t, as he is apparently in the tank for him.)

* Some McLame funding can be traced to Soros

--

* OJ Simpson endorses Hellary Rotten Clinton (aka Her Thighness)

* The McLame/Hellary mutual endorsements

MR. RUSSERT: Senator McCain, a serious question: Do you think the lady to your right would make a good president?

SEN. CLINTON: Oh, we can't hear you, Tim. We can't hear you.

SEN. McCAIN: Yeah, you're breaking up. I am sure that Senator Clinton would make a good president. I happen to be a Republican and would support, obviously, a Republican nominee, but I have no doubt that Senator Clinton would make a good president.

MR. RUSSERT: Equal time, Senator Clinton. The gentleman to your left?

SEN. CLINTON: Absolutely.

Translation: "Either one of us would make good presidents... Heheheheheheh."

--

Notes on Barack Obama:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56293

Che flag sends 'disturbing' message about Obama
Candidate attracts 'people who think mass murderers are romantic revolutionaries'

The Fox TV affiliate in Houston has captured images of a volunteer in a campaign office for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama working in front of a flag featuring the image of Che Guevara, the South American revolutionary who became Fidel Castro's executioner after the communist takeover in Cuba.

I have but one request to make to you as a fellow voter... ANYONE... ANYONE... but Hillary Clinton!!!!! Please god no....

I dunno man... You see, I gots to thinking... McLame now calls for party unity, right? He asks that we all just calm down and rally around him to help keep the democrats out of the WhiteHouse come next year... This, from a man who built his persona by being the "maverick," by being "independent," merely by walking over to the other side of the aisle, putting on his "democrat" suite, and voting with the democrats to help them enact/advance their agenda! (According to the drive-bys, when you're a republican and you vote with the democrats on most of the key issues, you're a "moderate", "independent," etc.)

Anyhow, with that said, what if WE in the republican base wanna be the "mavericks" this time around?!?! What if WE wanna be independent and walk over to the other side of the aisle and pull the lever for the democrat?!?!?!

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT MCLAME?!?!??! WHAT IF I WANNA BE THE 'MAVERICK' THIS TIME AROUND BY VOTING WITH THE OTHER TEAM JUST AS YOU'VE BEEN DOING??? YEEEEEAAAARRRRRGGGGH!!! STICK THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT! After all, if Her Thighness or John F'ing Kerry would make good presidents by your own admission, what's the point of voting for you ??

I must say, he's very confusing this McLame...

can't quite say the same thing about Ron Paul eh? heh-heh

Well, if you seek an endorsement, I shall give it to you...

Ron Paul would make a better president than Hillary or Obama or most any other democrat. Period.

He'd make some bad foreign policy decisions in my mind, but I know that he'd a) appoint good constitutionalist/originalist justices to the bench (or at least try; it's gonna be very difficult to fight for them against an increasingly radical democrat majority that is open about its agenda to abuse the judicial system by continuing to pack it with ACLU radical types that have no regard for the letter of the law and simply make things up as they go along), b) lower taxes as much as possible, c) get us out of some of these undesirable international treaties, etc.

There's obviously more, but abolishing this or that (IRS, NEA, etc.) cannot happen when you have a democrat majority so those issues become moot. He should be realistic about that instead of giving the public a false sense of hope. You wanna market those views with the parties or advance your own party and gain some seats in Congress for that sort of thing; you can't advance those views by going straight into the presidency.

[rocket]

looking at that picture....   Does bill know or will he be the last to know?  he goes for interns and she goes for other senitors?

[NightWolve]

Eh, B.J. "Bubba" Clinton could care less if Hillary had any extramarital relations. It's not like he could complain about it anyway...

[duke4711]

Just wondering. . . If Hillary does get elected president, then what, exactly does that make Bill?

[NightWolve]

The first lady and in violation of the spirit of the 2 term limit amendment.

[JoeQuaker]

Hahaha the Clintons, what an easy target. I hope we all come to conclusion that if she wins, I'm sorry... but yes, elections are rigged LOL. 

I can't take any more fahking McLame!!!!!   

All I heard today was crap about the stupid NY Times farticle at work. I haven't seen the chick he supposedly had affairs with or whatever, but wow... she has to be some piece of work to want to get with this old plastic-faced dude. I think it's safe to say a majority of career politicians have some rather strange sexual side interests, so that aspect of it is quite tame. If there's money involved though... yeah, I want to see McLame completely creamed by ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, radio shows, et all. Career politician is many steps above a career lawyer in my opinion, so  people should pay attention to where the money is coming and going from.

While McCain proudly and repeatedly points to his battles with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had to rebuild the U.S. military and fight a complex war, where was McCain in the lead-up to the war — when the military was being dangerously downsized by the Clinton administration and McCain’s friend, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen? Where was McCain when the CIA was in desperate need of attention? Also, McCain was apparently in the dark about al-Qaeda like most of Washington, despite a decade of warnings.

McCain was a total spineless jellyfish about the war before it started if I remember correctly. If he would have known anything about "Al-Queda" in the first place... he would have known that it was a sort of label for a database of Muslim groups, with many interesting names. Originally compiled by whom? Good ol' Bill Clinton. Here's a quote from Wikipedia, although my opinion of this was close before finding something to reference for this post, heh.

The name appears with the spelling "al-Qaida" in an executive order issued by President Bill Clinton in 1998, less than two weeks after the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Executive Order 13099, issued on August 20, 1998, lists the organization as one of several associated with Osama bin Laden, the others being the Islamic Army, Islamic Salvation Foundation, the Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Places, The World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, and The Group for the Preservation of the Holy Sites.[31] The name "al-Qaida" could have been introduced to U.S. intelligence by Jamal al-Fadl, who had been providing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) with intelligence about bin Laden since 1996, before ultimately appearing as a witness in the February 2001 trial of those accused of the 1998 United States embassy bombings.

I hear the term "Bush's War" a lot... Hillary Clinton gets elected, and all of this scary shit is never going to surface.

[NightWolve]

Woah, Joe, check this out. Actual rational logic came out of Roseanne Barr. Too bad I have to plug a shitty place like Huffington Post though.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roseanne-barr/experience-vs-inspiratio_b_87982.html

When I fly in an airplane I want the pilot with the most experience, not the one who can inspire hope in me that I get to where I am going. When I pay my taxes, I want the person filing them to be experienced, not the new person who inspires hope in me that he can do the job. When I hire someone to fix my washing machine, I want the tried and true experienced person, not the one who inspires me to hope that he can fix it. When I go to the doctor I do not want to get the one who inspires hope in me that s/he can cure what's wrong, but the one who knows what the hell to do the minute I call. It's not really the job of a public servant to inspire, but to get the job that the people demand done. The democrats think that if they have hope and are inspired things will get better, but they actually won't. When Oprah makes her employees sign her fifty page non-disclosure statement, she doesn't "hope" they can't break it, she pays teams of experienced lawyers to MAKE SURE they can't break it, or be sued in an experienced court by an experienced judge.

[JoeQuaker]

Heh-heh just now noticed yr reply to this.

I'd have to agree... I dunno sometimes she says stuff that really makes sense, and sometimes she says stuff that sounds completely bat guano crazy.

yeah... can't blame me for this mess, I voted for Nader (lol) just because he was the only independent party choice I had.

Oh yeah and speaking of ol' Ron Paul, I really hope his Federal Reserve audit bill goes through! 

[JoeQuaker]

P.S.

Where have you been in these recent discussions 

Did you forget the...


INTERNET NUMBER

LOL

[NightWolve]

P.S.

Where have you been in these recent discussions 

Who, little ole insignificant me? I've been quietly voicing my opinion on our dear leader here on my blog as far as what I believe is unfolding right before our very eyes: literally, the worst presidency in American history! Right here, right now! That's what'll be "historic" about him when it's all said and done, how horrifying he is/was, not the irrelevant fact that his father was a black man from Kenya which is what the state-run media kept trying to sell us on. "C'mon, give the black guy a chance, will ya? C'mon, white guys have been running this country for too long! Yay, it's historic ladies and gentlemen: for the first time in American history, a half-black/half-white president will be taking a crap in the WhiteHouse toilet! Historic!!!!11111

So yeah, what's new? The Bolshevik Bandit that now resides in the office of the presidency is plotting away to put the heath insurance industry out of business so that the democrats/government will be the sole monopolistic provider of health insurance (single-payer system), guaranteeing themselves perpetual power for decades to come given how much votes they will be able to buy/bribe by offering "free" coverage, medical care, etc. to everyone! Yay! "FREE FOR ME!!!"

The problem is that "free" is not so free when it comes to the Marxist mafia that is our government... Collective costs spread around increases everyone's cost of living, there is no escaping that. These thieves, who mask/rationalize their banditry under humanitarian causes as usual, when they're not plotting new kinds of taxes to steal even more money from our wallets, our paychecks, etc. they're either borrowing it and/or printing it (I know the Fed is quasi private, but the greenlight to print new money comes from high up).

This fool, this manchild, is not a Commander-in-Chief... Quite the contrary, what you have here is more appropriately labeled a Confiscator-in-Chief. He just plainly horrifies me in every way. I can't believe the amount of lying that he gets away with, what with a lapdog media at his side (aside from Fox News and talk radio which he's been engaging in open warfare with like a fucking good little Hugo Chavez)... Lie after lie, one misleading comment after another, talking out of his ass, playing cheerleader for humongous bills that he wasn't even reading!!!

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA! MMM, MMM, MM!

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA! MMM, MMM, MM!

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA! MMM, MMM, MM!

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA! MMM, MMM, MM!The most arrogant, the most egotistical, a megalomaniac of epic proportions, ...

(Blah, to finish at my earliest convenience.)

[Waverider]

I'm sure loving this "Hope & Change".