USA Pres.(don't vote unless your from US)

[Ariel*]

I am in between on Obama and Hilary. I think Obama would be more for the people. But Hillary has ole Billy boy by his side, and he was a good president and He and her together have way more experience than Obama.

Help.

Clinton. She cares a lot about our country and I think she will change it for the better. She is determined, and as you said experienced. I think Hillary is the person we have been waiting for, and need.
Obama is a good choice too, but I think Hillary will accomplish more.

I wish I could vote in the primaries, but I hope you guys vote for her so that I can vote Hillary in the election. It sucks, really. I turn 18 right after the primaries. I can vote in the election, but what does that matter if I didn't even get to pick who I can vote for? In my opinion, everyone who can vote in the election should be allowed to have a say in the primaries too.

[wcaclimbing]

So the big question is, how many people that voted in the poll are actually at a legal age where they are allowed to vote?

and also, how many people up in the poll are from outside the US, and voted just for fun?

[Frigidus]

So the big question is, how many people that voted in the poll are actually at a legal age where they are allowed to vote?

and also, how many people up in the poll are from outside the US, and voted just for fun?

I'm of voting age (and have intent to vote), in the US, and I gave a tentative Obama. One of the big things that affects my decision is seeing the debates between the two final candidates. It touches on all of the important issues and a lot that aren't so much, gives you an idea of how the candidate plays politics (personal attacks, stalling, actual arguments), and can give a pretty clear idea of which is more personable.

[muy_thaiguy]

So the big question is, how many people that voted in the poll are actually at a legal age where they are allowed to vote?

and also, how many people up in the poll are from outside the US, and voted just for fun?

I am of legal age, and do live in the US. However, McCain. like i have said before, is the candidate that I want to pull through, and so far, he's looking alright.

[reminisco]

if you haven't already, read "The Audacity of Hope" by Barack Obama.

reading that convinced me to vote for him.

to those of you who say he's inexperienced, you really don't know shit about shit. or about experience.

those of you who support Giuliani and aren't from the East Coast need to ask someone from the East Coast, or better, from the New York Metro area about him. about his history.

the guy is bad news.

[Frigidus]

So the big question is, how many people that voted in the poll are actually at a legal age where they are allowed to vote?

and also, how many people up in the poll are from outside the US, and voted just for fun?

I am of legal age, and do live in the US. However, McCain. like i have said before, is the candidate that I want to pull through, and so far, he's looking alright.[/quote

If I saw a McCain-Obama election it would restore at least a little of my faith in our election system.

[reminisco]

oh yeah, and about Ron Paul...

seems good intentioned. but honestly, scrapping the Fed?

a little extreme. too extreme, really.

[jay_a2j]

oh yeah, and about Ron Paul...

seems good intentioned. but honestly, scrapping the Fed?

a little extreme. too extreme, really.

Not scrapping it, making it smaller.

[Iliad]

To every Ron Paul supporters

Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, “If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” Paul said.

Paul also wrote that although “we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”

Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, “By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government” and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.

[jay_a2j]

To every Ron Paul supporters

Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, “If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” Paul said.

Paul also wrote that although “we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”

Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, “By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government” and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.

Hmmmm are those the quotes that someone else wrote and put Paul's name on without him ever editing it first? This has been rehashed over and over. I'll say it one more time.... RON PAUL IS NOT A RACIST! Capiche?


January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

[Skittles!]

Do you have proof that he isn't a racist? It sure does sound like he is racist.

[Iliad]

To every Ron Paul supporters

Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, “If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” Paul said.

Paul also wrote that although “we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”

Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, “By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government” and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.

Hmmmm are those the quotes that someone else wrote and put Paul's name on without him ever editing it first? This has been rehashed over and over. I'll say it one more time.... RON PAUL IS NOT A RACIST! Capiche?

First he said it was taken out of context. Then he claimed it was someone else. Give it a break

[jay_a2j]

January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

[Iliad]

January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

Worst excuse ever. It's tarnished even more since he claimed it was taken out of context before that

[jay_a2j]

Worst excuse ever. It's tarnished even more since he claimed it was taken out of context before that

Documentation please, I have never heard the "taken out of context" argument.


From Ron Paul's website:


A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.

Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

[Iliad]

The Freedom Report’s online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul’s newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles “Lefty” Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that “opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions,” that “if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be,” and that black representative Barbara Jordan is “the archetypical half-educated victimologist” whose “race and sex protect her from criticism.” At the time, Paul’s campaign said that Morris had quoted the newsletter out of context. Later, in 2001, Paul would claim that someone else had written the controversial passages. (Few of the newsletters contain actual bylines.) Caldwell, writing in the Times Magazine last year, said he found Paul’s explanation believable, “since the style diverges widely from his own.”

Hmmm

And how could he not know what was written in his newsletter for so long?

[Iliad]

Worst excuse ever. It's tarnished even more since he claimed it was taken out of context before that

Documentation please, I have never heard the "taken out of context" argument.


From Ron Paul's website:


A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.

Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

There it is again for ya
The Freedom Report’s online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul’s newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles “Lefty” Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that “opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions,” that “if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be,” and that black representative Barbara Jordan is “the archetypical half-educated victimologist” whose “race and sex protect her from criticism.” At the time, Paul’s campaign said that Morris had quoted the newsletter out of context. Later, in 2001, Paul would claim that someone else had written the controversial passages. (Few of the newsletters contain actual bylines.) Caldwell, writing in the Times Magazine last year, said he found Paul’s explanation believable, “since the style diverges widely from his own.”

[jay_a2j]

The Freedom Report’s online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul’s newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles “Lefty” Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that “opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions,” that “if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be,” and that black representative Barbara Jordan is “the archetypical half-educated victimologist” whose “race and sex protect her from criticism.” At the time, Paul’s campaign said that Morris had quoted the newsletter out of context. Later, in 2001, Paul would claim that someone else had written the controversial passages. (Few of the newsletters contain actual bylines.) Caldwell, writing in the Times Magazine last year, said he found Paul’s explanation believable, “since the style diverges widely from his own.”

Hmmm

And how could he not know what was written in his newsletter for so long?

Believe what you want to believe, you will anyways. You don't like him, vote for someone you do. Move on.

[Iliad]

The Freedom Report’s online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul’s newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles “Lefty” Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that “opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions,” that “if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be,” and that black representative Barbara Jordan is “the archetypical half-educated victimologist” whose “race and sex protect her from criticism.” At the time, Paul’s campaign said that Morris had quoted the newsletter out of context. Later, in 2001, Paul would claim that someone else had written the controversial passages. (Few of the newsletters contain actual bylines.) Caldwell, writing in the Times Magazine last year, said he found Paul’s explanation believable, “since the style diverges widely from his own.”

Hmmm

And how could he not know what was written in his newsletter for so long?

Believe what you want to believe, you will anyways. You don't like him, vote for someone you do. Move on.

Aren't you a bit of hypocrite?
I told you the facts. You asked for evidence. I gave you some. You got nothing.

Oh and I don't live in America so I guess I will just vote for Rudd or the Greens when the election comes eh?


I'm sorry jay but your candidate is a racist and it is impossible to run from your past especially if you're a candidate for president. I presented you the evidence he is a racist. You as ever cower and make some stupid remark when you got owned for the umpteenth time

[jay_a2j]

The Freedom Report’s online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul’s newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles “Lefty” Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that “opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions,” that “if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be,” and that black representative Barbara Jordan is “the archetypical half-educated victimologist” whose “race and sex protect her from criticism.” At the time, Paul’s campaign said that Morris had quoted the newsletter out of context. Later, in 2001, Paul would claim that someone else had written the controversial passages. (Few of the newsletters contain actual bylines.) Caldwell, writing in the Times Magazine last year, said he found Paul’s explanation believable, “since the style diverges widely from his own.”

Hmmm

And how could he not know what was written in his newsletter for so long?

Believe what you want to believe, you will anyways. You don't like him, vote for someone you do. Move on.

Aren't you a bit of hypocrite?
I told you the facts. You asked for evidence. I gave you some. You got nothing.

Oh and I don't live in America so I guess I will just vote for Rudd or the Greens when the election comes eh?


I'm sorry jay but your candidate is a racist and it is impossible to run from your past especially if you're a candidate for president. I presented you the evidence he is a racist. You as ever cower and make some stupid remark when you got owned for the umpteenth time

ROFL...that is not PROOF, that is here-say. You either believe the quotes or you believe Paul. THERE IS NO PROOF! Carry on ....

[Iliad]

The Freedom Report’s online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul’s newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles “Lefty” Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that “opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions,” that “if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be,” and that black representative Barbara Jordan is “the archetypical half-educated victimologist” whose “race and sex protect her from criticism.” At the time, Paul’s campaign said that Morris had quoted the newsletter out of context. Later, in 2001, Paul would claim that someone else had written the controversial passages. (Few of the newsletters contain actual bylines.) Caldwell, writing in the Times Magazine last year, said he found Paul’s explanation believable, “since the style diverges widely from his own.”

Hmmm

And how could he not know what was written in his newsletter for so long?

Believe what you want to believe, you will anyways. You don't like him, vote for someone you do. Move on.

Aren't you a bit of hypocrite?
I told you the facts. You asked for evidence. I gave you some. You got nothing.

Oh and I don't live in America so I guess I will just vote for Rudd or the Greens when the election comes eh?


I'm sorry jay but your candidate is a racist and it is impossible to run from your past especially if you're a candidate for president. I presented you the evidence he is a racist. You as ever cower and make some stupid remark when you got owned for the umpteenth time

ROFL...that is not PROOF, that is here-say. You either believe the quotes or you believe Paul. THERE IS NO PROOF! Carry on ....

ROFL TALKING IN CAPS LOCK IN AN ONLINE ARGUMENT MEANS YOU HAVE RUN OUT OF POINTS!

It is not hearsay. First they claimed it was out of context then he claimed it was not written by him. Funny how you don't believe that everything in this world is as it is but you do believe that.

[got tonkaed]

even though i tend not to use the these type of arguements...surely if you werent a racist person, you wouldnt end up getting yourself caught in so many akward situations like that. I mean yeah there are tons of ways to slip up in a very P.C. culture. Im sure everyone at somepoint says something that they probably could have phrased differently or taken back. It seems like theres a bit too much of that going on here.

[Guiscard]

even though i tend not to use the these type of arguements...surely if you werent a racist person, you wouldnt end up getting yourself caught in so many akward situations like that. I mean yeah there are tons of ways to slip up in a very P.C. culture. Im sure everyone at somepoint says something that they probably could have phrased differently or taken back. It seems like theres a bit too much of that going on here.

And, furthermore, it implies he either had little or no editorial control over his own newsletter (and didn't realise it had ever been published) or agreed with the contents (as he made no effort to withdraw the remarks, whether or not they were his own, until he was called out on it).

[jay_a2j]

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”


Vote for Huck, Romney or Rudy. When you compare the integrity of Ron Paul with these guys there's no contest. Voting record? Paul stays consistent, even over many years. Hey I can't get the planet to see the danger this country is headed for, I just know, deep down that Ron Paul really loves his country and wants to serve it and uphold the Constitution.


Funny, this "race" thing is the only thing anyone can dig up on the guy. While the skeletons keep falling out of the other candidates closets. Do what you want, I have made my decision and will sleep well knowing that I supported the right guy.



Game Over

[jennifermarie]

just to let you know, richardson announced he was dropping out of the race earlier today, due to 4th place finished in Iowa and NH