Reply With Quote
I agree. My problem is that it absolutely will not be equitable. CNN was sabotaging, not challenging equally.Originally Posted by bbobb
I agree. My problem is that it absolutely will not be equitable. CNN was sabotaging, not challenging equally.
When you consider the entirety of the Fox network I think it balances out.
Banned by Administrators
Jesus man, Hillary has her own questions fed to her, Obama keeps thinking he's Denzel Washington, McCain is senile, Rudy can't stop taking credit for everything in the world, and Paul is not even in their league.
I vote for keeping them as far away from each other as possible.
....not a button masher
How 'bout you find out a little more about him besides the one line I pulled from a bill he co-authored. The guy doesn't exist to please lobbyists, like 98% of all other politicians. He doesn't take Federal matching campaign funds. He turns down the Congressional pension (worth millions) - he actually GIVES back what he feels he's overpaid as a Congressman every year. He's voted the same way since day one - never raising taxes or supporting bills he feels violate our Constitution, even if he supports the ideas they back.
Congress currently has an 11% approval rate, we all know they are riddled with corruption and back-door deals. This country continues to depend on more and more borrowed money as we funnel manufacturing jobs out of the US. My choices are MORE government with the Democrats or MORE government (while we tell you it's less) with the Republicans. I want these assholes out of my wallet and out of my life - we CANNOT afford to continue to spend, tax and borrow. We need a drastic turnaround and there's ONE candidate out of all the two-party offerings who even mentions our monopoly-money "Federal Reserve" problem. ONE candidate who isn't a member of the CFR and approves of usurping our sovereignty as a country. ONE candidate with the only foreign policy that we can afford if want to have a strong defense and not go bankrupt policing the world.
His website gets more hits than ANY of the other candidates. As a Republican, he gets the most donations from the military (yes, the anti-frivolous war Repub) and has had the single highest donation day (4.2+ million dollars) of all his counterparts. He has more Meetup members, more Myspace and more YouTube support than all of the other Republicans combined, and most of the Dems too.
So if he's not in the "bought and paid for" or "corporate media's darling" league than that's a good thing. I'm sick of smug tool "commentators" telling ME who can and cannot win. I'm sick of our circus of a media where Hulk Hogan's divorce is more important than real discussion about our national currency tanking. He may not win the primary, but when he does well in many states and takes NH - people are going to be shocked. There really is a Revolution of sorts going on - it doesn't exist on the television but it's grassroots, it's real and it's ALL people from all political backgrounds coming together.
Banned by Administrators
Do you really think Ron Paul would get elected, really?
3/4 of you Paul supporters will be sitting on your ass on election day.
I really think someone like Ron Paul would never get elected because the majority of the USA is full of people like SpoDaddy.
More people vote for American Idol than the President. Showbiz is what works on them.
Say Ahhh
Hardly, CNN is just another media conglomerate. Not some bastion of far-left politics. Otherwise why are the real leftists being marginalized by the network? Kuicinich gets altogether a minute's worth of airtime per debate, and Gravel has been barred from CNN entirely.
If the GOP candidates think that they're being shafted on CNN they'll whine about it on air to bolster support from frothing morons who think CNN is run by Fidel Castro and the Global Gay Conspiracy. In reality, they'll get some pointed questions which they'll dodge entirely and then talk about what an ugly sea hag Hillary is.
Time for a change
Frakkin' toasters
You're right, the majority of the country sees through a Pat Buchanan clone trying to hide his extreme views behind a "states' rights" argument. The anti-abolitionists used the same "states' rights" argument to maintain slavery; "states' rights" is a great way to maintain the status quo while appearing above the fray.
That's actually a good point just because with leaving big, moral decisions up to the states you can come out with states that have horribly immoral systems set up like slavery, and if you're pro-life you might equate abortion to something as awful as slavery.
I am pro-abortion for a number of reasons but I do concede that it is killing a person.
I feel like the Slavery issue was actually similar to the abortion issue. Being pro-abortion is incredibly self-serving, but allowing a child into the world that is unwanted or that will be fucked up by drugs or that will not have the support it needs to live is not something I am for. Slavery was incredibly self-serving and when it began the people for it were still in the popular moral high ground.
Women who go around getting multiple abortions and not being careful about pregnancy, and women who don't care because they feel abortion isn't anything to feel bad about really disgust me, but the abortion is better than the alternative imo. I was in a relationship where we had to get an abortion, and I don't regret it, but I'm still not happy about it and feel a little bad. I know having the child would have ruined my life, her life, and the child's life though.
Last edited by Cowutopia; 29 Nov 2007 at 05:58 PM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks