Want to remove the ads? Register for a free account!

Anyone watching them? Any comments?

I think Mitt Romney is killing his campaign. His outburst with Mike Huckabee during the first question on the GOP side was a turnoff for me. Ron Paul was crazy.

Right now, the Dems are on. Hillary Clinton seems rather full of herself to a degree. I almost think she's a bit of a sore loser and to answer her question about who is ready to be president, I think she's too wishy-washy to be ready for president. Sort of reminds me of Al Gore when he lost/demanded the recount in 2000. While I will not be voting for a Democrat, if I had to I'd pick Barack Obama. He is confident yet not cocky.

I like Obama.

None of the Democrats "won," IMO. Obviously if you already favored one candidate, then you're probably going to think that one did well. Not going on what he said, but on his appearance and how he said things, I think Edwards came across the best, being so enthusiastic.
As far as Republicans...I think Huckabee did alright. I was very surprised he didn't bring up religion, since that seems to be one of his routes to his success thusfar. He seemed very positive. All of the others...meh. Ron Paul just seems so lost, more of a libertarian than anything.
And not to get personal with anyone on here, but I think anyone saying they will never vote "republican" or "democrat" is very short sighted. Putting those kinds of labels on people isn't always accurate. Giuliani supports abortion rights....isn't that anti-Republican? I don't think it's ever as black and white to say you will never vote one way or the other.

My thoughts on some of the candidates...

GOP
Huckabee seemed to be the best of the group. Rudy wasn't bad but his agenda is too liberal for a lot of republicans, as mentioned in the above post. Ron Paul basically acted like a nutcase and Mitt came across as being the bully of the bunch. I was tuned into the Facebook US Politics app while the debate was on and in general folks there seem to think Mitt lost a lot of support tonight. I agree.

DEMS
I think Hillary may have both won and turned off people at the same time. Obama was probably the best of the bunch, but not by much. Edwards seemed a bit far out to me. I think he may lose votes this time around but then again Hillary's whining and egotistical comments may cause people to vote for Edwards just because they don't like either Hillary or Obama.

I don't think any of the DEMs said anything revolutionary. It was the same ole same ole from all of them. I don't think Hillary became any more likeable. And I don't think Obama proved he has a bunch of secret experience that nobody knew about.

The Dems seemed sort of redundant the whole time they were on to me.

Either Naive or Lying:
http://www.democraticunderground.com...esg_id=3958241
Is it 2013 or 16 months:
http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=132x3960065
Obama has some questionable top advisors:
http://www.democraticunderground.com...esg_id=2584691

. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL): A “Dishonorable Mention” last year, Senator Obama moves onto the “ten most wanted” list in 2007. In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company’s shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicia...liticians-2007

Look at the record:

- Obama voted for funding the war
- Obama voted for supporting the Patriot act
- Obama doesn't offer any change

Inalienable Blog Archive » Ron Paul versus Barack Obama on the economy

-------------------------------

Mike Huckabee seemed to be the biggest tool.. Romney came off better than McCain. Rudy did the absolute worst.. all I heard was "9/11...*unintelligent remark*...9/11" I hate Rudy more than any of them. Thompson did OK.. republicans in order:

Paul
Thompson
Romney
Hunter
McCain
Hucklebee
Rudy

While I do not support Iraq, some form of intelligence apparutus is needed to secure natural resources, but as we know, the intervention in Iraq and the money printed in the war causes oil to go up in price... not keep it down due to supply.

PRODUCTION IN IRAQ OF OIL IS LESS NOW THAN BEFORE THE WAR BEGUN.. THE INFLATION OF PAYING FOR THE WAR HAS CAUSED IT TO INCREASE 200+% while the European's currency, due to less debt, only have made + 100% since the start of the Iraq war. The Terrorists hate us not because we're free, but because of all the shit we're doing in their countries.

Social liberties are important.. Obama voted for the Patriot Act....

---------------

The Dems are just....shit. Socialism..higher taxes..destructive economy..terrible govt. services. The free market produces the prospertity we need, deregulation lowers prices and increases wealth. We have never had a pure market, the govt. messes it up each time. Most dems would keep us in Iraq...

Lol well didn't take long for the negativity to start. (Nice confederate flag btw.....right) OBVIOUSLY if you go to a negative website, you are going to find those kinds of stories. Doesn't take a genious to find negative things on all of the candidates. Lol and I'm sure one of the reasons so many young people like Ron Paul is because he doesn't care if people do drugs (any and all) and drink all they want.

The Confederate flag represents my cultural heritage..

Um, government is a negative thing.. If you can find so much dirt on everyone, why let government grow so much? If everyone is corrupt and you're trying to decide amongst the corrupt who the least corrupt one is--don't it ring the bell that government is the problem!?!?

Deregulation is key to making things more safe and less intrusive on our freedoms. Obviously, if marijuana was legalized, the money would go away from the organized crime, safer weed...etc. It is not the government's job to regulate morality or what people do in their personal lives. The Constituition does not allow this... NO ONE SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO COMMAND PEOPLE'S PERSONAL LIFE EXCEPT THE PERSON...

A pure free market works.. Less government--- the more freedom you have.

I will take anyone on this forum to school on economics. Period.

Ron Paul is actually a libertarian but a lot of young people think he's the "cool republican".

I've been following the LP for awhile now, I'm not simply a bandwagon follower..

Read:

Murray Rothbard (a lot of good books)
lewrockwell.com

More beef on Obama:
Here's a checklist of new spending programs or new regulatory power he favors:
*universal health care
*higher fuel standards
*ending "tax giveaways to companies that ship out jobs overseas" (whatever that means)
*annual increase in the minimum wage
*federally-funded early childhood "education" (he means schooling)
*recruiting an "army of new teachers and paying them 'better'" (better would be less in my view but that's not what he means)
*a cap on carbon emissions (except from the mouths of politicians)
*corporate welfare for "renewable fuels"

The government has no right to intervene in personal transactions amongst independent firms in the market..

Obama wants change, all the change in your pocket!!

(credit: lewrockwell.com)

Well, any president would be better than Abraham Lincoln!

I know, right! Stupid emancipation proclamation!

I assume that means the states shouldn't have a say either? That means there should be no regulation on abortion, drugs, same-sex marriage, and anything else that deals with personal lives. The problem with Paul's views on that, and that the modern party he belongs to, is that many staunch republicans favor those kind of blanket bans.

In 1862, Lincoln published a letter stating, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union."

Really, what Lincoln should have done is let the Confederacy go its own way. Automation and industry was growing rapidly, and would certainly have made slave labor more expensive than the alternatives, and eventually it would have collapsed under its own inefficiency. Most likely, the southern states would have re-joined the Union over the course of a few decades for economic advantage and protection from Mexico and other foriegn powers. IT WOULD BE CHEAPER TO BUY BACK ALL THE SLAVES THAN KILL 600,000 AMERICANS..

Lincoln suspended a lot of constituitional rights, increased taxes, etc..
Seccession was a legal process..

Read some articles here (books, too, but I doubt you'd do that):

King Lincoln Archive

_______________________________________

I think that abortion, drugs---everything should be legal.. That's my views as more of an anarcho-capitalist..

But yes, if regulation is to occur-- the states decide not the federal govt. I should had made that clear, sorry.

Let's talk about Lincoln because Lincoln is a participant in the most recent presidential debate.

I mentioned the comment softly.. jbrewste picked up on it so of course I had to argue my points..

Could you please find a more reliable source than that? The Democratic Underground has produced such gems as referring to the 2004 Tsunami as an attack, praising the death of Ronald Regan, saying that we should stay in Iraq because it kills off the "Republican soldiers", has produced federal investigations for death threats to the administration, and many more absurd comments. That to me is the equivalent to linking to the FOX News forums.

One of the only good things from that website is the political images.



These links are not working.

That's not unlike any other Republican canidate besides Ron Paul? We both have Ron Paul as our first choice, I don't think there's any doubt in that. However he has already stated that if he does not receive the Republican nomination he will not run as an independent. I'm looking for second choices, I think you should do the same.
That was actually a good read despite some bits of hypothetical situations and this comment which was ridiculous in my opinion:

First off, using an example of soldiers striking? That's absurd and will not happen. Secondly "If a service is deemed necessary by the state, then it might be a threat to security to allow strikes."? What the fuck, does that sound like an excerpt of the communist manifesto to anyone else? Who says what constitutes a job which is a security interest?

You say it like Thompson wouldn't expand on it and Romney didn't vote for it. Romney has even considered himself an extension of George W. Bush.

Doubt that. I can see Hillary doing it though...

This is how I feel also. But I will not discuss politics.

The pundits said McCain had a good night and Romney had a horrible night. I think I have to disagree, at times I felt McCain was at a loss for words especially on the topic of amnesty and it felt that Romney commanded the whole republican debate. Furthermore McCain threw some immature stabs at Romney. Thompson did well.
As for the democrats... Obama and Edwards are slimy as hell. Tag teaming. Edwards knows he's so weak and he's leeching off of Obama because he knows Hillary is his greatest threat. I'm glad Hillary made it clear that Obama has not effected any change and when Obama says "i'm an agent of change" it does not mean that he will effect change. However, I don't think it was Clinton's strongest night because I felt she came off rather bitchy at times. Richardson has a problem of staying on topic. I also thought it was pretty lame for Edwards to make the excuse "because its personal" to me as a reason why he will cause change within America. I mean come on! Out of the dems, Hillary is by far the most experienced. Clinton, Obama, Romney, and maybe Huckabee are the most articulate.

P.S. - Gibson sucks as moderator;what I will commend him on is debating with the candidates and some of his questions were good and put the candidates on the spot. but also who was that guy up there with him I forgot his name?

And I doubt any negative comment would've been said about Lincoln except for that Ron Paul said it first.

The south didn't have anything going for it during the Civil War.

I didn't like that other guy.


The problem with just letting the states do what they want, is that states don't have the money, gold, silver, whatever monetary value RP wants to use. You can't just say, oh, you fight your own battles within your own state. States don't have the money to control drugs and crime on their own. Is that the state's fault? Maybe, but maybe not. It doesn't really matter who that blaim falls on because the point is, it's a probelm. I just don't think just turning everything lose on them is wise. States have better things to do than to hold elections to see if they want schools to remain integrated. What a waste of time and money. If Ron Paul wants to explain how states can raise enough money (without raising taxes and without depending on money from the fed govt, since that would be gone due to completely cut taxes) to be completely self-sufficient, then I'll gladly hear it. And I'm sure governors would gladly listen too.

Not to get too off-topic, but saying "Government is a negative thing" carries implications it doesn't seem you've considered.

If we didn't have government, what incentive would there be for people to not steal, or shoot someone to get what they have?

If we didn't have government, who would ensure subgroups of our populace (let's say corporations) didn't take advantage of consumers [more than they already do]?

Sans government, who's going to help keep business from forming monopolies and exploiting the population?

Without government, who's going to protect children who live in abusive homes?

I think saying "government is evil" is a very shortsighted and easy route out. We need government in some way, shape or form to protect us from each other. Sure, individually there may be a lot of good people, but there are always bad apples, and unless we have some sort of organized way of enforcing rules "for the good of everyone," especially with our world in the state it's in, we'd be SOL.

My ending disclaimer, though, is that I'm not advocating the type of government we presently have, and I do agree that government should be "By the people, for the people." So change is undoubtedly needed. I just think tossing government completely would pretty much guarantee the population's failure.