Who else supports Ron Paul in '08?

[underpants]

DU'er Lasher's sig line pic

:rofl:



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=215&topic_id=60527&mesg_id=60614

[arizonateddybear]

1. Who?

[arizonateddybear]

2. dupe

[Deep13]

3. There's a guy who yells at cars downtown who likes RP. n/t

[Kucinich4America]

4. Saw the first Ron Paul sign locally yesterday

It was nailed to an abandoned house surrounded by a barbed wire fence. Seemed symbolic somehow of the Libertarian agenda....

[arizonateddybear]

7. Ron Paul signs are all over the place here in Phoenix, AZ

Nothing more than "Ron Paul" too.

Many here originally thought it was a fundraiser for a fallen fireman

[bunnies]

12. Ron Paul signs all over the place in my area too.

But then again... Im in NH. Live free or Die. Ya know?

[Gidney N Cloyd]

11. I saw "Ron Paul Revolution" tagged on a boarded up Shell station in >

Arlington Hts, Illinois.

Also a beat up sign in the weeds near the Route 53 on-ramp in Palatine, Illinois.

That's quite the sophisticated following the guy has...

[FredScuttle]

5. LOL

I thought I saw a similarity between Ron Paul meet-ups and "discussions" at the old Spahn Movie Ranch.

[MADem]

6. That is viciously, brutally funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! nt

[underpants]

9. Isn't it?

:rofl:

[MADem]

10. Ya know, underpants, you should trot back out those animated briefs you used to have as your sig

line, in honor of Mittsy the Shittsy!!!!

[rAVES]

8. He gets more abuse from the dems than the Ghoul.. I dont get it

[Occam Bandage]

14. Because he's crazier than the Ghoul.

[rAVES]

16. I would have to disagree with you on that. in fact.. thats an outrageous statement.

[Occam Bandage]

18. Oh, really? Does Giuliani propose demolishing the Department of Education? Does Giuliani want to

destroy federal welfare, medicare, and medicaid? Does Giuliani want to remove OSHA and destroy the Dept. of Labor? Does Giuliani want to destroy the IRS, FEMA, the Federal Reserve, and return us to the gold standard? Has Giuliani taken money from Stormfront? Has Giuliani sponsored a bill that would strip the federal courts of the ability to adjudicate questions of privacy, marriage, and sexuality? Does Giuliani want to overturn Roe v. Wade? Does Giuliani believe that there is a conspiracy to merge Canada, America, and Mexico?

Ron. Paul. Is. Insane.

[rAVES]

21. Its strict adherance to the constitution of the united states...

I agree a lot of it should be toned down, and some of his votes do look aweful on face value, but if you actually listen to his explanations they generally make some sense within the confines of his said strict adherence. some of it is a tad heartess, like the Rosa parks medal vote, he said that tax payers shouldnt be handed the bill for it, and recomended that the representatives chip in and pay the bill themselves.

also.. he said of the Stormfront donations: I do not share their views, if they want to waste their money donating it to me, I'm happy to take it.

The man is clearly not insane, and though I wouldn't be crazy about living in a system like the one he proposes, it sure beats the hell out of a world with one quarter of it a nuclear wasteland as Giuliani would like to see. and the rest a corporate utopia.


Also, I would say you'd have to be insane NOT to see the writing on the wall re North American Union.

[Occam Bandage]

22. No, it's not. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled all of that Constitutional.

He believes in a Constitution that does not exist--his own reading of it, which has no force of law, and ought have no force of law. He believes in removing the income tax, despite that being explicitly in the Constitution. He believes in removing birthright citizenship, despite that being explicitly in the Constitution.

And frankly, it's not "looking awful on face value." It's things that, if he got his way, would result in mass poverty and death. Poverty sucks? Wait until you see poverty without welfare, social security, medicare or medicaid. You think corporations have it sweet now? Wait until you see what happens after Ron Paul destroys the Dept. of Labor and OSHA. And hey, those Chinese lead-painted toys? Yeah, we'll be making them here in America once he destroys governmental oversight. But hey, I'm sure the best way to keep corporate power in check is not to regulate it at all whatsoever.

Ron Paul's ideas are insane. His Rosa Parks vote is indeed a tad heartless. His belief in destroying every single societal safety net is not a tad heartless. It is so "heartless" as to be sociopathic.

Nobody is suggesting nuking anyone. Perhaps the only reason Ron Paul looks halfway reasonable to you is that you believe in insane conspiracy theories regarding what everyone else wants. It would be in character for Mr. Paul, given his belief that Mexico and Canada will merge with America.

[rAVES]

28. All problem that allready exist in the US..

Lead toys from China, mass poverty, rubbish health care.. people being tossed out on the street because of an illness they cant cover the costs of.. things are really bad as it stands. Corporations running away with power...

None of this will change under any Democrat bar Kucinich. none of it.. yet you call Paul insane for calling a Spade a spade.

Do not get me wrong.. I dont support Paul, but I do not think he's insane, and I think the US and the world could do much much worse than him... the Ghoul for instance.. a CRIMINAL.

[Occam Bandage]

29. Uh...huh. So because poverty exists, wanting to destroy welfare is "calling a spade a spade"

Because we have bad healthcare, wanting to destroy medicare and medicaid is "calling a spade a spade."
Because people are tossed on the streets, it's okay to destroy social security.
Because corporations are running away with power, it's okay to hand over what power they don't yet have.
Because I have a papercut, it's okay to saw my hand off.

We could not possibly do worse than Ron Paul. He is insane. Seriously. If you want to defend the most conservative man running for President, go do that at Stormfront. They cheer how Ron Paul "calls a spade a spade" there, too.

[Vickers]

71. "I dont support Paul"

Of course you don't.

*pats head in a condescending manner*

[ConfidentialStatus]

33. I understand you

He says because the Constitution limits and restricts him. The Federal Gov is not suppose to appropiate funds for charity, medals and the likes.

If people want to read why, google "Not yours to give" you might not like what you read but at least you'll know Paul's position.

BTW... My wife whispered in my ear and says she wants a $350,000.00 gold medal. :) Anyone want to help pay for it? She's worth it!


Peace

[crawfish]

13. He's against the war...the repubs hate him...

Why all the hate from this board?

It's human nature to tag people as crazy in order to discredit them. That doesn't make it so. There is a strong movement behind Paul that has nothing to do with him or his agenda - and it's only getting stronger. His supporters include a lot of crazies, but it also includes a disproportionate number of highly intelligent, educated, independent-thinking people who feel disenfranchised by the current state of politics and are willing to accept a radical change regardless of some of Paul's more extreme views. Ignore them if you want - but it's my guess that in another election or two, you won't be able to anymore.

Just think about it - he has raised over $10 million dollars this quarter DESPITE a serious lack of an organization supporting him. He has made that money without official $500-per-plate black-tie dinners. It's just beyond me why people don't take his supporters more seriously.

I've said it before - if we made Kucinich a serious, viable candidate rather than just a cute little mascot, he'd turn much of that zealous support base over to our side. Why we insist on putting our eggs in the basket of candidates WHO SUPPORTED THE WAR is beyond me.

Kucinich '08

[Occam Bandage]

15. You could say both about David Duke.

Ron Paul is a niche libertarian candidate, who could not draw more than 5% in a general election--and that would be if everything broke right for him, as it currently is. Frankly, he won't be able to dupe that legion of misguided idiots who only care that "he's against the war" for very much longer.

He's a fringe candidate, and he will remain a fringe candidate, as will all people who wish to dismantle the federal government. I think both parties can safely ignore the "Medicare is Unconstitutional!" crowd for as long as they like.

[crawfish]

17. You're missing the point.

It's not ABOUT Paul. When Paul is done, someone else will take his place.

Perot -> Nader -> Dean -> Paul

I know people who've supported all four of those candidates - whose views are widely different. You won't understand the Paul phenomenon until you understand what it is about those candidates that draws such diverse support.

The second a candidate comes along who can energize that base while holding views that are more palatable to the mainstream (and who can withstand the inevitable smear campaigns by the mainstream parties), you'll see the revolution. Look above, and you'll see that each successive candidate is more "politically viable" than the previous one - I see that trend continuing.

[Occam Bandage]

19. It is noteworthy that all four failed badly. Stick LaRouche, and you've got five.

Perot came closest to winning. Nader didn't get 5%. Dean flamed out in the primaries--and shouldn't even be in this list, as he has nothing in common with the rest, other than the support of a few malleable whackjobs. Paul is at 5% among his own party. I'm sure the revolution is just around the corner, though. It always is.

[crawfish]

23. I can only hope...

I'm tired of the status quo. The ship is sinking, and the mainstream candidates are all bragging about having bigger and better buckets.

Dean belongs on this list because he attracted the same type of base. Perot didn't need an organization underneath him to get his name out there - he had billions of dollars and the ability to buy time on prime-time TV. Nader and Dean never had the funds to get out of niche status. With Paul, you've seen the base become energized enough to donate over $10M to his campaign, giving him the ability to match the mainstream candidates in spending. It may have come in too late to work, but it's a HUGE statement about the progression of the movement.

I admit, it could be tricky. The base is incredibly independent and will avoid organizing, as they will not support just ANY candidate. Any attempt at organization will probably lead to it being hijacked like that idiot Robertson did with the Reform party.

For the record, the latest polling %'s I've seen show Paul at around 8%. That's quite a bump considering where he started and his lack of name recognition. If only that base had decided to adopt Kucinich, he might actually have a chance. :(

[Occam Bandage]

24. There will always be a few nutbars. They are about 5% of any given population.

Ron Paul, in the last five polls taken, is at 5%, 4%, 5%, 1%, and 4%. He will go no higher, because he is insane, and only appeals to people who do not care about the sanity of their candidate.

Kucinich is floating around 4-5% on the Democratic side as well. He will go no higher for similar reasons.

Nader peaked at 5%. Are you seeing a trend, yet?

All were profoundly unpopular, even among those who recognize them.

Dean does not belong in that conversation. He attracted a few nutjobs, but they were never the force behind his campaign. Same with Perot. The "base" you are referring to is a political nonentity. I know you think it's important, but realistically, it's about as important as a pile of styrofoam peanuts.

[crawfish]

31. Whatever, dude.

Enjoy the Kool-aid.

[Occam Bandage]

37. And enjoy your myth of revolution.

[Lasher]

40. Yay, let's hear it for Occam Bandage!

That was good.

[MonkeyFunk]

34. Perot, Nader and Paul

were not or are not politically viable. I don't know why you include Dean in that list - he was a mainstream Democratic candidate.

And this is DemocraticUnderground - advocacy for Ron Paul isn't looked upon fondly.

[crawfish]

43. Yeah, I'm trying to step lightly...

I support Kucinich, but I identify with the frustration behind Paul's supporters. Which is illustrated in the replies to my posts here. I have been aware of this Paul phenomenon since almost the beginning; the frustrating thing for me is that by the time that same crowd really began to know and respect what Kucinich stood for, the bandwagon for Paul was already in progress and could not be redirected.

A definition of "insane" is "doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results". We of the more independent mindset tend to get labeled with the "crazy" tag for seeming to support radical policies, but the truth is that a sane man tends to stick out in an asylum. ;)

I will shut up about it now.

[LanternWaste]

61. Guess 'Insane' and 'Practice' are the same things...

"A definition of "insane" is "doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results"."

Guess 'Insane' and 'Practice' are the same things...? :shrug:

[underpants]

26. You are right

and Welcome to DU :hi:

I can't say that I have spent much energy worrying about Ron Paul but you are right about him openly the door to real change or at least real change in candidates. And how you can run a campaign now.

[Occam Bandage]

27. Yep. Start with astroturfing and spam,

http://wonkette.com/politics/the-war-on-paultards/paultards-suffer-crushing-reality-check-330785.php

play up the fact that you don't like the guys that internet kids don't like either, and by the time they find out you're crazy, they'll have bought into you so much that they'll start spinning bizarre logical loops excusing you.

Then collect some money, go to some debates, play Presidential Candidate, and finish with 5% of the vote. Fun times.

[crawfish]

44. Yeah!

Let's stick with kindergarten notes, name-calling and underhanded tactics, and hopefully the election will be over by the time the sheeple majority realize that the whole process was there to distract them from realizing what the candidates were REALLY about. And how, in the end, the only changes they'll make are surface-level.

[Occam Bandage]

46. Kind of ironic, because Ron Paul's supporters seem totally uninterested

in his actual stances. Few will actually defend the notion of dismantling the federal government. Few actually think we need to kill Social Security and Medicare. And nobody believes that he would be able to accomplish one percent of his platform if he were actually elected. They support him because he "speaks truth to power," which is perhaps the most fundamentally useless thing a President can do. Once elected, the President is power. I--and 95% of the voting public--am more concerned with what a candidate will attempt to do with power once elected, rather than how forcefully they talk about the current administration's failings.

And what Ron Paul plans to do is utterly (and I would apply this word to no other candidate) indefensible. Which is why RP's supporters so rarely attempt to focus on his plans. No, plans are difficult. On the other hand, talk is cheap. Since RP's support comes almost purely from his talk, I'm not sure where you get off complaining about the "sheeple" being uninterested in the real issues.

[LanternWaste]

60. When we call him crazy...

When we call him crazy, I seriously doubt anyone on this board is actually labeling him 'clinically insane', much like when I offer a movie choice to my g/f and she calls me insane for that particular offering. It's a dramatic device used to illustrate the vehement opposition we have towards him. Kay?

Just because the republics hate him, simply because he's against our continued involvement in the Iraqi Occupation doesn't mean I'm going to give him a free pass for his "crazy" (see?) libertarian perceptions that corporations should write environmental laws. It doesn't mean I'm going to give him a pass for wanting to destroy the last vestiges of defense the poor, elderly and infirm have in social security and other welfare programs. Or his racism.

Agreeing with a candidate on one plank out of one hundred is not just cause for me to jump to his defense...

And yeah... I'll still be ignoring him eight years.

[graywarrior]

20. Charlie and George came from the same womb.

They look and sound exactly alike.

[Catchawave]

25. The Ron Paul Revolution is working our intersections during rush hour.

Who are these people?

[CTyankee]

30. Excuse me. This is Democratic Underground.com.

What gives you the right to advertise for a Republican candidate on democraticunderground.com?

I am offended that you did so. Please go to another website where you are more welcome. I am not interested in your garbage.

I am really mad that I cannot even have my own democratic website without republicans invading it!

[ConfidentialStatus]

32. Yeah the pic

and name calling just helps Ron Paul. You can ask my wife... guess who she's supporting? BTW Not because of the ridicule, cuz it motivated her to find out what all the fuss was about Ron Paul.

This is what's happening. The people are running for President... through Ron Paul! That’s the true revolution about which my wife and neighbors are speaking.

The CNN debate was a joke... a questioner said he's a conspiracy kook if he follows people who believe in NAU and CFR. The media is turning into one big freak show.


"We have some 14 states passing resolutions to oppose the North American Union and NAFTA Superhighways, amendments passed in Congress have taken away funds for North American integration projects and Virgil Goode has some 50 sponsors for his bill in the House," Paul explained. "There are millions of Americans who oppose this globalist agenda."

According to Google Trends, if the election happened today, Ron Paul would be the next U.S. President. In a competition between Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul is the most searched for presidential candidate in the 2008 election. What CNN doesn’t realize, what the neocons don’t realize, is that Google is all-powerful, even beyond them. Google Trends accurately predicted the last U.S. President, George W. Bush.Will Ron Paul’s popularity continue to rise and spread?


http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22ron+paul%22%2C+%22hillary+clinton%22&ctab=0&geo=US&geor=all&date=ytd&sort=0

[Occam Bandage]

53. "The people are running for President through Ron Paul!"

You may be slightly confused. This is a site for Democrats, not for Republicans.

[rAVES]

35. Did you even read the OP before flying off the Handle? 8 ball says: Not a chance

[CTyankee]

39. Obviously, I didn't "get it" on first glance. Sorry. I must have mixed up

this post with some of the others on DU who DO support Ron Paul.
Or did, past tense. They made me wonder where the hell I was, maybe "Democratic (sometimes)Underground"? The pic should have tipped me off, however, I've seen some pretty weird pictures on this website...

[Moochy]

36. I am really amused

[LWolf]

41. "Your own democratic website" ?????????

:wtf:

At least you left the "d" small.

I wasn't aware that DU was "your" website. Who ARE those people who came to DU, and kept the board thriving, in the days before you arrived? Underpants was one, of course.

Do you not recognize satire when it's branded on a forehead?

[Lasher]

42. Chill.

CTyankee realized the error and said so here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3801807#3804050

Everyone makes mistakes.

Peace. :hippie:

[Lasher]

38. The Ron Paul 'revolution'

Giuliani 25.7%
Huckabee 14.0%
McCain 13.3%
Thompson 13.3%
Romney 10.5%
Lunatic Fringe 4.8%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-192.html#polls

[ConfidentialStatus]

45. I'm not Defending Ron Paul

However I'll defend the truth. I guess the media is telling me Ron Paul is a kook. No need to search further. I'll stop using my brain cells. I wonder if Dennis Kucinich or any other Dem had this same question, would you be screaming from the roof tops how "they" are trying to paint one of "ours" as a lunatic? Then "they" get the average folks to fight with one another... divide and conquer.



Please tell me what you think of this short video clip? Who's the nut-job? The question is, "Does Paul believe in a conspiracy to form a NAU?" The bigger question is, Do the people at CNN have an agenda, by picking this question out of thousands that were submitted?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3QAC2yJFdM


I'm not here to fight with you or others, but I do feel it's necessary to point out some substance on the matter. I believe we are at a serious crossroads for America.



Peace

[Lasher]

49. Oh no, I don't think you're defending Ron Paul

You're just giving us some insight by sharing some of the supportive things your wife and neighbors are saying about him.

It's not just the media who is saying Paul is crazy. I, for one, am saying it and I am not part of the media except for an occasional humble contribution here at DU.

I viewed the video as you asked. It was appropriate for CNN to ask him about a conspiracy theory that he advances, particularly since there are quite a few people who think this view is 'ahem' profound. As a matter of fact it would be highly questionable if he were never asked about it.

As most have come to realize, particularly during these past 7 years, the Reaganite trickle-down theory was never anything more than an attempt to find moral justification in taking from the poor and giving to the rich. And so a day of fiscal reckoning is in our future. We're going to have to pay the bills that have been run up by Junior's disastrous borrowing-and-spending spree. But if you are in favor of ignoring this reality by retaining the current administration's tax cuts, and if you want to just stop paying taxes altogether, then I guess Ron Paul's your man.

I believe many Paulards are drawn to him on account of greed. There are those who want to keep the money they are now paying in taxes no matter what and they buy his snake oil because they think it justifies this desire. But the last thing we need right now is someone who obviously understands our complex $13 trillion economy less than Saint Ronnie did, and even less than The Decider does.

Ask yourself, what would we have to do to eliminate federal income taxes? Withdrawal from the UN, Iraq and Afghanistan, after foreign aid is abolished and the State Department shut down, he has only saved $180 billion. In fact, Paul's presidency would have to cut spending back to the early 90's, which would be impossible given America's growth and demands since then. He doesn't even stop there. He would also remove estate tax and gift tax, too. He has tried to legislate against these three taxes no less than eight times, and some taxes more than that. He would have to slash other areas besides foreign spending - perhaps welfare, or the dismantlement of agencies. Whatever path he took, it would mean the same thing: Disaster, of the pre-FDR kind.

Here, visit this site, where you can see a conclusive argument, with plenty of links to supportive documentation, that Paul is not honest or consistent as his Paulards like to claim. He's a kook with a curious obsession for a return to the dark ages, and a something-for-nothing scam that has swept up a few enthusiastic but gullible supporters.

But I'm glad you haven't fallen for his nonsense. I'll bet you'll want to use this information to help your wife and neighbors realize how foolish they've been to endorse such a knucklehead.

[ConfidentialStatus]

50. Greed?

Your conclusions are far from my thoughts on the info that is out there. How much have I made on this war? Answer = Zilch. How much is this unjust/illegal war costing? I'll let you answer that one. How many more people will be injured or dead? I'll tell you my agenda, I'm sure you want to know. Freedom, Liberty and Peace. Can we start in our own back yard. The republicans are calling him crazy as well. So it must be true.


So many issues. Wait a minute he's a one issue candidate is what I see over the net most of the time and this board as well. I prefer not get into a debate about taxes, spending, abortion and drugs. Some of these are moral issues, also you made the comment about the dark ages. Look at the success the Federal Government has on Drugs... taxes... spending.... abortion. More Federal Bureaucracy, more agency's with more power destroying lives. Ron Paul can't take all the blame/responsibility for this or can he? I would not call that the "dark ages."

Since you clicked on the link. Stay with this one issue first. The NAU is all made up by Ron Paul and/or his supporters? Is this a Yes or No? If no who is behind this? What's their agenda? How come "we" Americans don't know much about this? Talk about "someone" wanting to make people divisive.

We as people can't even get to the heart of the issue, because we are debating over whether it's fiction or real. Who controls the airwaves to plant this divisive thoughts/info into are brains? I smell an agenda... Do you? That leads to a deeper question what would be the reason?

I believe most people are tired of the smearing and negativity that abounds the political world. It really is non productive. Just my two cents. The gotcha game does get old regardless of party affiliation.

Peace

[Occam Bandage]

52. Yes or no, do you believe there is a conspiracy to merge America, Mexico, and Canada?

[ConfidentialStatus]

56. Is that what you're calling it?

A conspiracy? Read up a few posts. I wonder if would make a difference on what I believe? "Yes" it has been talked about... Right back at you... Do you believe their is an agenda to merge America, Mexico and Canada?

[Occam Bandage]

57. It's not a pejorative term. But if you like, I'll reword it. Do you believe that

America, Mexico, and Canada, if all continues as it is currently progressing, are going to merge? If you do, why do you object to Ron Paul being given a chance to "get the word out" about this?

[Lasher]

64. Hey, I said Ron Paul supporters were greedy but that doesn't apply to you.

I mean, it's not like you are a Ron Paul supporter pretending to be something else, right?

[Occam Bandage]

66. Yeah, I don't know why he would take offense to that. He's not a Ron Paul supporter,

according to him. Perhaps he just means his "wife."

[Lasher]

67. But I think it's mainly the groundswell of grassroot support from his many "neighbors"

God, I have so enjoyed this thread.

[Occam Bandage]

68. The message-board equivalent of the ol' Fox News "Some say..."

[Lasher]

69. I'm gonna frame this and hang it on my wall:

"We could not possibly do worse than Ron Paul. He is insane. Seriously. If you want to defend the most conservative man running for President, go do that at Stormfront. They cheer how Ron Paul "calls a spade a spade" there, too."

I kid you not, I have been laughing out loud about that one all day.

[Occam Bandage]

51. Simple question, yes or no:

Do you believe Ron Paul would be an acceptable President?

[ConfidentialStatus]

54. My wife says Yes

I would say No because I like Dennis K. Although today as it stands I'll take those two guys over the other candidates. Now please don't attack me... I'm just being straight with you since you asked.

Yes my wife has some influence on me. At least I let her think she does. :) Hey, I have to live with my wife and not anyone on this board. :)

So don't beat me up!

[Occam Bandage]

55. I'm not asking your wife. I'm asking you. And I'm not asking, "Is he the absolute best."

I'm asking, simple, yes or no, is Ron Paul an acceptable candidate for President?

[ConfidentialStatus]

58. Now I see where this is going

I answered NO but you fail to see my answer and then I elaborated on the answer. You're looking to go tit for tat... thanks but no thanks you can find someone else to play with.

Peace

[Occam Bandage]

59. That is not what you said, sir.

You said "no, because I prefer Kucinich." I am not asking about preference. I am not asking about Ron Paul's acceptability compared to Mr. Kucinch, or compared to the rest of the field. I am not asking about your wife, neighbors, friends, or anyone else. I am asking if you believe Ron Paul, taken objectively and without regard to any other candidate, would be an acceptable President.

Not the best choice. Not a better or worse choice than anyone. I don't care about that. I'm asking if Ron Paul would be acceptable. To elaborate, if you don't quite understand: would you not oppose a Ron Paul presidency?

If you mean to say that Ron Paul would be completely unacceptable to you, this is your chance to clarify.

[ConfidentialStatus]

62. My apologies

Then the answer is Yes, Ron Paul would be an acceptable President. That being said... since I was placed on the hot seat. Which Republican candidate do you see as an acceptable President? Then which Democrat candidate?



Peace

[Occam Bandage]

65. My answers are thus:

1. No Republican would be acceptable as President. I believe in preserving the federal welfare state, not destroying it so corporations and the wealthy can shun their societal obligations.

2. The Democrats who would be acceptable are, in order of preference:

Joe Biden
Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
Bill Richardson
Chris Dodd
John Edwards
Dennis Kucinich

[lonestarnot]

70. And you are out of your fucking mind in addition to being on the wrong board.

:eyes:

[0007]

47. Egads!!

Is Hillary's goose cooked?

[JamesA1102]

48. I don't support White Supremacists nt

[ConfidentialStatus]

63. Send the pic to AOL

It will go right along with this poll (scroll down) to see the questions. He's a nutter, he and his supporters are crazy. What is a regular political nut?:)



http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/12/07/a-ron-paul-blimp-in-every-pot/?ncid=NWS00010000000001

[riqster]

72. There's some Sharpie Wielders in Ohio. nt