When I heard Ron Paul was for guns I was like "okay that's cool" but then he's like "i'm pro-choice lol" and I said "aw gahd, there goes half your Mr. High Moral citizen support" and then he started blabbing on and I just thought to myself "What the fuck does this guy stand for?"

Since when is he pro-choice?  He's very much NOT pro-choice (he talks about how he's delivered all these babies as a doctor HE KNOWS THESE THINGS OF COURSE DR. RON PAUL)

My top three are Kucinich, Biden and Obama. I agreed with Ron Paul on exactly 0 issues. awesome

kucinich wants to get out of iraq ASAP.

here's a fun game that matches the candidates to your political views, you can learn some stuff about the candidates too: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/candidate-match-game.htm

make sure you adjust the sliders at the end, depending on how much you care about each issue. my top three were Obama, Chris Dodd, then Hillary Clinton. it doesn't cover every issue and I wouldn't focus upon the results, but it seems like a pretty decent test overall.

Looks like I'd be voting for Gravel then Kucinich and then.... Romney?!

haha!  Ron Paul was dead last in my list!

Huh?

I'm still trying to figure that one out dude lol I dont know how Kucinich and Guliani are even CLOSE to each other. I guess its because I put emphasis on the Environment, Tax Reform and Health Care with the sliders that bumped Guliani up there somehow. I would say that I am a fairly solid lefty though (and guliani is a pig so yeah. like that quote from joe biden: A Guliani sentence contains three things: a subject, a verb and 9/11)

also: DRAGONSLAYERS MUST THINK BEYOND NORMAL

I did that quiz thing, and I am closest to Kucinich, which is no surprise, because he is who I've supported thus far.  Too bad he doesn't have a shot.  Next was Obama, followed by Gravel.  I've never really even heard anything about Gravel, so I don't know about that.

I took the quiz and got Biden, then McCain, then Obama. I think I'll go with Obama, he has the right idea where it really matters, though I'm not sure about his stance on same-sex marriage. Time will tell in relation to the extent of his views.

(Incidentally according to the quiz I agree with Ron Paul on nothing. Hardly surprising.)

regardless of what steel and the people on this forum think

ron paul actually is NOT THAT FUCKING BAD FFS. Seriously do you think that half the shit he says would ever make it through in the first place.. and even if it did... social pressure would keep a free market type system in check. Someone dies from taking an unregulated medication? Well its like the constitution already has a provision in it to put the person responsible for that death in jail. holy shit. many of his other points are defensible using oh what is it again the constitution which happens to be the what highest law in the land you say.. .no fucking way liar

sorry:d runkpost

anyway yeah I'm so glad for these primaries. I'll never have to see fred thompson, tom tancredo or joe biden ever again weeee

Tancredo drops out today btw.

Anyways, I think you've missed the whole point of the anti-Ron Paul movement. it has nothing to do with an actual fear of Ron Paul winning; it has to do with the messianic proportions his supporters have elevated him to. They keep chanting about revolution while voting for a very regressive candidate. This in turn leads to people seriously advocating for the destruction of the IRS and a return to the gold standard. Basically, all the Republican candidates are scum, and this idea that Paul is some progressive "true" conservative ignores the rest of recorded history as far as all his policies go.

The man has voted to ban flag burning, to push abortion into a state's rights issue, to deny funds to companies that hire homosexuals, and believes the IB program is a European conspiracy to indoctrinate young people into becoming commies or SOME SHIT. He's Lyndon LaRouche.

FOR CONTRAST'S SAKE:

Youtube brings up 81,300 results for Ron Paul
58,400 for the Beatles
23,800 for the Simpsons
14,400 for Barack Obama

And that's not including comments, which are EVERYWHERE. You can't go anywhere on the internet without finding Ron Paul's name now.

The group is hilarious, throwing huge amounts of money into a vacuum or into a fucking blimp (currently floating around somewhere in South Carolina DURING THE PRIMARIES) and they are the single most irritating group of politicians. At least your average Republican is just ignorant and thinking about God. Your average Paulsie is athiest (despite Ron Paul saying he doesn't believe in evolution) and of course, I GOT MINE FUCK YOURS.

That's why I'm so against Ron Paul; if he was some no name fuckwit like Tancredo (who had a truly amazing ad running: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf3JunNAQQw no one would care, but the fucking nerds ruined everything.

I had forgotten about the evolution thing, that was ESPECIALLY bad.  Most of the people backing him, like you said, are atheists, and I think if they even took a second to really see where he stands on things they wouldn't like him so much.  But it's like he's a god that cannot be seen as bad no matter what.


He also prefers to spend his time deciding we should have a reenactment of the Boston Tea Party instead of maybe, I don't know, not taking donations from white supremacists or something.

if you absolutely must vote for a republican btw McCain is against the Fairtax, torture, and is kind of okay on immigration.

of course if you must vote for a republican you're a piece of shit???

mccain is the only republican i would vote for rather than be waterboarded. even though i disagree with him on most things he's at least a decent enough human being to be, say, AGAINST TORTURE and have a somewhat humane view on immigration.

McCain isn't bad.

Obama seems so spotless and fresh because he was a senator for 4 years. What does he stand for? All his speeches are just high energy "hope" speeches with no substance. I really have no idea what he stands for and I've been researching. He seems like the type of guy I'd want to hang out with, but not my president.

McCain isn't bad.

Obama seems so spotless and fresh because he was a senator for 4 years. What does he stand for? All his speeches are just high energy "hope" speeches with no substance. I really have no idea what he stands for and I've been researching. He seems like the type of guy I'd want to hang out with, but not my president.

why does anyone say this? his platform is on his website. all this politics of hope bullshit that people think is some kind of damning critique is just conservative backlash or something, because he has a well outlined platform that yeah, deals with HOPE maybe but it's better than Hillary Clinton's centrist pandering or Kucinich's occasional tinfoil hat.

or Gravel but really GRAVEL.

why does anyone say this? his platform is on his website. all this politics of hope bullshit that people think is some kind of damning critique is just conservative backlash or something, because he has a well outlined platform that yeah, deals with HOPE maybe but it's better than Hillary Clinton's centrist pandering or Kucinich's occasional tinfoil hat.

or Gravel but really GRAVEL.

I don't really have anything against Obama. I'm not just not 100% sure of his views outside of the standards. I checked his site and it was pretty in line with the democratic party, so I failed to see the new/unique views which made him a stand-out canidate. However, he does seem to inspire people rather than bitch and moan or yell about republicans that all liberals do. Which is funny the house and senate have the same disaproval rating of the president. So I think people are equally sick of both parties. And God knows the republican front runners suck big time.

I don't really have anything against Obama. I'm not just not 100% sure of his views outside of the standards. I checked his site and it was pretty in line with the democratic party, so I failed to see the new/unique views which made him a stand-out canidate. However, he does seem to inspire people rather than bitch and moan or yell about republicans that all liberals do. Which is funny the house and senate have the same disaproval rating of the president. So I think people are equally sick of both parties. And God knows the republican front runners suck big time.

the democratic party has proven to be limpwristed and weak though, where as Obama takes a more hardline liberal stance as opposed to his opponent Hillary. his health care plan is better, he's got a more consistent voting record, and unlike Hillary, he actually has taken a stance on something. he doesn't pander as much as they others do either.

fun fact: Ron Paul has sponsored 349 bills, 5 on the floor, and has passed 0.

is that even legal?

like, i know he's the president... but... i dont know, how can that be legal?

the other points aren't that bad (well I dunno what the last one is supposed to mean); flag burning should be banned imo and although abortion should be legal and the right of every woman, it's better that the state figure out the details on their own maybe idk

im a pretty liberal guy myself but didnt really think the two former were conservative

but then again state rights issue would be kinda similar to europe's countries deciding for themselves or something??

but the homosexual one.. man what


edit: also seriously if ron paul wins europe is in trouble dont let him win

his We The People act would destroy federal government pretty much, and deny athiests the right to hold office, gays to marry, and heck, first amendment rights out the window.

I have no idea how you can think flag burning should be illegal. it's free speech you dildo! also state's rights is a way for people to subtly push what they want without having to actively say I AM AGAINST ABORTION RIGHTS. it's been a while since Europe really had to consider anything like state's rights, but different states in the US are like different countries; Louisiana for instance nearly elected a white supremacist in 2000.

state's rights is a libertarian argument that instead of one big government doing something, you have 50 far more inefficient governments do it instead. as a result, a small group of hicks can end up passing anything, including a state mandated religion or QUEER BASHING DAY, and we've seen throughout recorded history that they have; the Civil Rights movement would have been destroyed on the spot if it wasn't for the federal government providing what little they did before finally taking a stand. that's just one relevant example, and there are hundreds of others. all of recorded history points to state's rights being pretty fucking ridiculous, and basically endorses the idea IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT GO TO THE STATE THAT ALLOWS IT which is hilarious backwards and demands that people pick up and leave because they are a minority in a population that would rather not see them around.

so basically if someone says STATE'S RIGHTS they are either libertarian or trying to push their own ideals onto the front or both at the same time. it's rare that the state's rights argument has been applied to liberal issues as well; gay marriage was one Kerry tried to push and it was only because Bush was suggesting an amendment to make marriage exclusively between men and women.

if you were actually FOR abortion, you wouldn't say some shit about state's rights because abortion is already legal in all states; why would you want to legislate that away in exchange for a bunch of hicks chanting about their rights while KK4 goes on sniper patrol?

Maybe, or maybe not. Either way, it shouldn't really matter, should it?

it does kind of matter. you have to look at the subtext. just look at their platforms and guess what they are different. of course they are usually on the party line, they are the same friggin party, but the differences are what matter.