namelesstavern.net

From what I saw of it last night before I floated to dreamland, it seemed that Obama pretty much commanded it. To me, Clinton seemed even more snide than usual - the more I see of her, regardless of my agreeance on some of her stances, the less I like her. I was talking about it during the debate and she just carries herself as a woman scorned, and she just gives me the feel that everything she does there's a certain amount of spite behind it, and I just can't get behind that with someone running the country.

Edwards did fine I thought, I'm just not a fan of his overall.

Really, I just love Obama - Hillary kept trying to throw this at him and that at him and he's just very quick-witted and confident in everything he says, and his confidence doesn't strike me as typical politician - it's more confidence because he believes in what he's saying.

If it's not Paul or Obama, I'll be a very sad panda.

I was pretty impressed by how all 3 handled themselves. They all were good but I agree that Obama was running the show.

/agreed. he had an impressive presence in the midst of the anxiety you saw on clinton's face.

I cant believe im going to say this, but I could actually live with Obama. Godamn as long as its not Hillary. Obama is the only one Ive seen that mentions trying to use low-emission coal fired plants and investing in that technology, on top of other sources of course. Even the repubs dont mention it. Thats really one of the only issues I give a shit about. Dont give a fuck about abortion, gay marriage, or any stupid shit like that. But it looks right now like Obama is the one that is my best bet to keep my families well being going ><

I concur with all good things equalling Obama but I'm not sure he can mean business. He's a great public speaker. I feel like I have a lot to think about. I knew McCain would take SC, and I know Obama will win on that side and I have a feeling it will be down to these two.

Throw in some running partner suggestions in there...Thompson should jump on with McCain to take away from the Huckabee supporters. Guiliani...why is he even still a frontrunner? Anyone on the democratic ticket isn't a woman or a black man can forget about the convention! It's Obama vs..McCain, I feel it.

So what the hell am I gonna do with that? Vote Ron Paul still? I have some issues with both of these men, and here we are once again at a "lesser of two evils" situation and I'm wondering what to do. I'll figure it out. In the meantime, Democratic Debate last night=lot's of LOL's haha...

I honestly dont feel like anyone of them are gonna bring about any *real* change. Too much bullshit everywhere you look

Obama speaks and debates much better than Hillary.

I guess there's a reason more than 50% of the news clips for Hillary show Bill doing a speech, and not her.

The only person in the race who doesn't bring the status quo back to DC is Paul, and it's arguable whether what he offers is better or worse. I don't like many of the candidates in the race to be Commander in Chief. They belong in the legislative branch, where we can lessen the impact of their desire to bankrupt America.

araby wrote:So what the hell am I gonna do with that? Vote Ron Paul still?

You're going to do exactly what you've preached from day one, because that's who you are

You're going to vote the man you have the most faith in, regardless of his numbers and projections - you're going to show your support until the end, as Paul deserves.

If people give up on their candidates just because the outcome looks bleak, the common thought will be that they don't have the support. it's simply not true for Paul, he has plenty of support, just not enough. that doesn't mean that you put your vote elsewhere and give someone you don't necessarily agree with your support.

Like you said in another thread - vote the candidate you believe in~

Gypsiyee wrote:

araby wrote:So what the hell am I gonna do with that? Vote Ron Paul still?

You're going to do exactly what you've preached from day one, because that's who you are

You're going to vote the man you have the most faith in, regardless of his numbers and projections - you're going to show your support until the end, as Paul deserves.

If people give up on their candidates just because the outcome looks bleak, the common thought will be that they don't have the support. it's simply not true for Paul, he has plenty of support, just not enough. that doesn't mean that you put your vote elsewhere and give someone you don't necessarily agree with your support.

Like you said in another thread - vote the candidate you believe in~

What may happen is people realize that Ron Paul is not the messiah like they initially thought and start listening to other candidates.

Listen to their bullshit, toss? unfort this may happen cause americans are generally sheep and believe what they see on the tube anyway. if you see things for how they are Ron Paul is the ONLY good candidate.

Evermore wrote:Listen to their bullshit, toss? unfort this may happen cause americans are generally sheep and believe what they see on the tube anyway. if you see things for how they are Ron Paul is the ONLY good candidate.

Do not want.

Tossica wrote:

Evermore wrote:Listen to their bullshit, toss? unfort this may happen cause americans are generally sheep and believe what they see on the tube anyway. if you see things for how they are Ron Paul is the ONLY good candidate.

Do not want.

then why bother with the rest? they are all telling you what you want to hear to get elected.

Tossica wrote:

Gypsiyee wrote:

araby wrote:So what the hell am I gonna do with that? Vote Ron Paul still?

You're going to do exactly what you've preached from day one, because that's who you are

You're going to vote the man you have the most faith in, regardless of his numbers and projections - you're going to show your support until the end, as Paul deserves.

If people give up on their candidates just because the outcome looks bleak, the common thought will be that they don't have the support. it's simply not true for Paul, he has plenty of support, just not enough. that doesn't mean that you put your vote elsewhere and give someone you don't necessarily agree with your support.

Like you said in another thread - vote the candidate you believe in~

What may happen is people realize that Ron Paul is not the messiah like they initially thought and start listening to other candidates.

I'm a Paul supporter, but I've never thought he was the messiah by any means. He certainly has his flaws like every other candidate, but he has far more integrity than the other candidates and that alone is far more important than any issue people can flipflop on.

I listen to candidates fairly before I choose, and I like Paul and Obama. My point is if you support someone you don't just not vote for them because no one else is, you vote for your candidate until their day is done.

Look at it like poker. You're not out of the game until all your chips are gone. If you were shortstacked and everyone's saying yep you're done, are you just going to go ahead and distribute your chips amongst the rest of the table and bow out?

How can you like Paul AND Obama? They hold opposing views on almost ALL issues and have grossly different platforms and beliefs.

I honestly wish we could just trash our current government from the top down and rebuild it.

Our population doesn't have the nuts to do it though. We are WAY too comfortable with everything.

Paul might be the only one who will bring any of this touted "change" everyone is waving like a fucking banner. For good or worse...I haven't decided yet.

EVERY other candidate will be more of the same exact shit we're all sick of in my opinion.

Incorrect. they're not grossly different. on the few that they're incredibly different on, I tend to agree with one side or the other. those issues include agreeance with Obama on gun control, immigration, and education, and agreeance with Paul on Economy, income, and national security. They both have great stances on a good many things, but I'm in heavy agreeance about 50/50. That's how I like them both - you don't have to fully agree with a candidate to favor them.

Grossly different would be Obama and Thompson, or Hillary and Huckabee.. something like that, those are grossly different. Look at that electoral compass site, for example - I land flat in between the two of them (Paul and Obama)

And Paul has a track record of integrity ( sp) very very rare now days

Gypsiyee wrote:Incorrect. they're not grossly different. on the few that they're incredibly different on, I tend to agree with one side or the other. those issues include agreeance with Obama on gun control, immigration, and education, and agreeance with Paul on Economy, income, and national security. They both have great stances on a good many things, but I'm in heavy agreeance about 50/50. That's how I like them both - you don't have to fully agree with a candidate to favor them.

Grossly different would be Obama and Thompson, or Hillary and Huckabee.. something like that, those are grossly different. Look at that electoral compass site, for example - I land flat in between the two of them (Paul and Obama)

Ugh... Paul wants to completely gut the federal government and hand all the power back to the states which would pretty much cancel out ANY other candidates and especially a Democratic platform.

And what's wrong with that? The States should be the ones to decide most issues.

Martrae wrote:And what's wrong with that? The States should be the ones to decide most issues.

Because we end up in a pre civil war US where hordes of ignorant fucks can do what the please as long as there are enough of them congregated in a state.

UNITED States, remember that?

That's the most bass-ackward thing I've ever heard. I'm truly at a loss for words...

Tossica wrote:

Martrae wrote:And what's wrong with that? The States should be the ones to decide most issues.

Because we end up in a pre civil war US where hordes of ignorant fucks can do what the please as long as there are enough of them congregated in a state.

UNITED States, remember that?

The federal government was never meant to become the ginormous wad it is now. What you said also makes little sense, if any.

All that being said, I still don't see how we could even begin to dismantle the federal government in its current form. Peacefully that is...

For all the Ron Paul supporters out there I pose this question:
What if Ron Paul were elected?

-Adam

People hear Ron Paul's words but don't think about the reasoning behind them or the route he wants to take to realize them. He is the poster boy of unregulated capitalism which will be the absolute WORST thing to happen to this country. You thought GWB was bad? Let this guy loose in the White House and see how long it would take before the pharmaceutical, oil and insurance companies actually OWN the fucking country instead of just paying off politicians. It's an open door to turn back time on workers rights and environmental protection to a pre enlightened era where profits trump EVERY other issue and no company can be held accountable for it's actions. The already dangerously unstable middle class would be done for while the rich get richer and the poor are left without even the basic safety net we have in place right now.

FUCK RON PAUL.

Harrison wrote:The federal government was never meant to become the ginormous wad it is now.

Never said it was. There are TONS of federal programs I would like to see go away or get scaled back but there are just as many necessary federal programs that can't be privatized or abolished without major social backlash. I agree with Paul on many of his points, we just don't agree on the reasoning behind the points.