As of Today who would you VOTE in as President? (Poll)

[Zguy28]

What are you talking about? The man raises millions of dollars in a single day (Nov 5th, 2007) and has a beautiful message that millions like myself find great comfort and hope in; but yet he has little to no support?

I'll be blunt, your wrong.

He has millions of supporters; the response to his message has been incredible and truly resonates with the younger generations that truly see through this corrupt political system in America.

If that's the case then he will sweep the primaries and you got nothing to worry about. :2cents:

[#98QBKiller]

Obama

______

[PleaseBlitz]

I just dont see the point in deciding a year before the election. A lot is going to happen between now and then, so i havent even bothered to think about it.

If i vote at all.

[Prosperity]

Barack Obama... slightly ahead of Paul. I think Obama is just a more competent, polished, and pragmatic candidate.

[The_cavalierman]

1. Stuck in a never ending occupation: says who? And I thought if Hillary becomes President (cough cough) she will end the war, so I guess in her mind it is not a never ending occupation

• Says the 4000 American Lives lost
  
• Says the thousands more Iraqi lives lost
  
• Says the 1 trillion dollars spent
  
• Says 12 Billion dollars still un accounted for
  
• Says the fact that over the course of 4-5 years virtually no diplomatic or infastructure progress has occured.
  
• Says the fact that if Bush followed the first suggested plan for securing Iraq then the surge would not have been needed 4 years and 4000 lives later.
  

Yep...that about sums it up

2. Financing our occupation via China: hmmm... China, I seem to recall Clinton

The next time you see your doctor ask about him/her about factile dysfunction because you got it big time. Maybe you have been in a cave for 7 years but Iraq is all Bush/Cheney and Clinton has not been president for a while now.

Or maybe you have breaking news to share on how Clinton financed a secret war on terror via China while he was in office. Everyone (to include the Clintons) would love to hear about that....:doh:

3. Scandals-Corruption galore: hmmm... Clinton comes to mind here

Dude....I hope you were joking because Clinton was one guy versus....

• Mark Foley
  
• CIA Leaks
  
• Justice Department being used as a political hack house
  
• Tom Delay
  
• Trent (KKK) Lott
  
• The republican congressman soliciting sex in a airport bathroom
  
• Newt Ginghrich having an affair on his dying wife the same time he was blasting Clinton for his the lewinsky episode.
  

I think you are refering to the policies of the Clintons. I would never refer to a President and Vice President as retards no matter how much I dislike them. Get some respect for the leaders of you country.

Three things:

1. Grab a copy of the Constitution/Bill of Rights and read it because their is a little thing called the freedom of speech.

2. I respect people that earn it. Just because you occupy an office does not mean you deserve respect.

3. Your hypocrisy is laughable because you are still attempting to trash-blame Clinton and now you want people to show Bush respect?

:laugh:

[ImmortalDragon]

Well, for one, the Middle East would be more chaotic, possibly leading to a larger conflict where we would have no choice but to get involved in a broader war than what Iraq and Afghanistan is. Let's face it, whether we like it or not, we are dependent on Middle East oil. Until we are free from that dependency, we will always have interests in that region. I shudder to think how Paul would handle the North Korean situation.

The simple truth is that we cannot resolve every human conflict across the globe, and there will always be violence somewhere on earth. The fatal conceit lies in believing America can impose geopolitical solutions wherever it chooses.

Non-interventionism was the foreign policy ideal of the Founding Fathers, an ideal that is ignored by both political parties today. Those who support political and military intervention in Iraq and elsewhere should have the integrity to admit that their views conflict with the principles of our nation’s founding. It’s easy to repeat the tired cliché that “times have changed since the Constitution was written”- in fact, that’s an argument the left has used for decades to justify an unconstitutional welfare state. Yet if we accept this argument, what other principles from the founding era should we discard? Should we reject federalism? Habeas corpus? How about the Second Amendment? The principle of limited government enshrined in the Constitution- limited government in both domestic and foreign affairs- has not changed over time. What has changed is our willingness to ignore that principle.

[NoCalMike]

I understand why true conservatives want to vote for Ron Paul, but any democrat or liberal or independent voter that is supporting him is just flat out ignoring his views on other issues.

For any democrat/liberal out there, go to his website and look at his stances on other issues and I don't see how he could still have your support.

If you are a liberal/democrat and want this war to end, Kucinich is basically saying the same things that Ron Paul is about the war and it's abysmal effects, but since the media considers him "kooky" he isn't taken seriously by the public. It is sad really. I mean don't get me wrong, everyone has a right not to vote for who they don't want, but it is really sad how easy media manipulation can take a candidate who most of the base probably agrees with the most, right out of the race based on non-factors that are turned into factors by a sensationalistic media. I mean Kucinich is being looked at as an "extremist" by the media when he is merely echoing Ron Paul's sentiments on the Iraq war and the current foreign policy, yet when Ron Paul says it, he is suddenly some type of visionary just because he happens to be a conservative saying it.

[speardog1]

I mean Kucinich is being looked at as an "extremist" by the media when he is merely echoing Ron Paul's sentiments on the Iraq war and the current foreign policy, yet when Ron Paul says it, he is suddenly some type of visionary just because he happens to be a conservative saying it.

Ron Paul has gotten nothing but negative media coverage. At the CNN/Youtube debate he didn't talk until 40 minutes into it. Then what were his questions? Consipiracy theories, and will you run as an independant. He consistenly gets the shaft and is still on a roll. I can't tell you how many times I've seen an interview start out with "Even though the polls show that you don't have a chance....."

[edgun88]

Bill Clinton would be one fine first lady.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Obama with the gut. That's great to see. Now hopefully Dem primary voters pull their heads out of their asses and nominate him.

[Koolblue13]

I understand why true conservatives want to vote for Ron Paul, but any democrat or liberal or independent voter that is supporting him is just flat out ignoring his views on other issues.

For any democrat/liberal out there, go to his website and look at his stances on other issues and I don't see how he could still have your support.

If you are a liberal/democrat and want this war to end, Kucinich is basically saying the same things that Ron Paul is about the war and it's abysmal effects, but since the media considers him "kooky" he isn't taken seriously by the public. It is sad really. I mean don't get me wrong, everyone has a right not to vote for who they don't want, but it is really sad how easy media manipulation can take a candidate who most of the base probably agrees with the most, right out of the race based on non-factors that are turned into factors by a sensationalistic media. I mean Kucinich is being looked at as an "extremist" by the media when he is merely echoing Ron Paul's sentiments on the Iraq war and the current foreign policy, yet when Ron Paul says it, he is suddenly some type of visionary just because he happens to be a conservative saying it.

Kucinich says he will run one the same ticket as Paul and be his VP.

[Koolblue13]

Obama with the gut. That's great to see. Now hopefully Dem primary voters pull their heads out of their asses and nominate him.

Oh yeah, despite them both being members of the CFR and recieving donations from Hsu and such, what a huge difference between the two, but at least they have experence working together on some of thier "patented" shady land deals and tax evasion. Heads in the ass alright.

[Koolblue13]

Barack Obama... slightly ahead of Paul. I think Obama is just a more competent, polished, and pragmatic candidate.

why?

[chiefhogskin48]

I want Barack Obama.

[Ken]

These videos show and mean nothing. What is wrong with the first video? The hecklers were ruining the meeting for everyone else. I have no problem with what the mayor said. If you are going to address a public official, you need to do it in a respectable and dignified manner. In the 2nd video, the caller, whether he had parkinsons or not, was rude. Rudy made a joke, a poor one, well maybe. It is not as if he knew the guy had parkinsons.

If this is the worst you have on Rudy, then you need to keep digging.

First of all, they weren't "hecklers".

Just becaue Rudy didn't like what they had to say, doesn't mean they are hecklers. When he started insulting them personally is when they started shouting. There were probably 100 public bus workers there. They were not hecklers.

Watch the other video then if you think this guy is right for america. :doh:

The guy is pure scum. His dad is a reputed organized crime boss and he isn't far behind.

Its blasphemous that you would defend this guys actions.

[Koolblue13]

First of all, they weren't "hecklers".

Just becaue Rudy didn't like what they had to say, doesn't mean they are hecklers. When he started insulting them personally is when they started shouting. There were probably 100 public bus workers there. They were not hecklers.

Watch the other video then if you think this guy is right for america. :doh:

The guy is pure scum. His dad is a reputed organized crime boss and he isn't far behind.

Its blasphemous that you would defend this guys actions.

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=225012

Here are some of the other things on Rudy

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Oh yeah, despite them both being members of the CFR and recieving donations from Hsu and such, what a huge difference between the two, but at least they have experence working together on some of thier "patented" shady land deals and tax evasion. Heads in the ass alright.

Well at least he's not a member of the John Birch Society. *cough* *cough*

[TrumanB]

The simple truth is that we cannot resolve every human conflict across the globe, and there will always be violence somewhere on earth. The fatal conceit lies in believing America can impose geopolitical solutions wherever it chooses.

Who says that we have to resolve every human conflict across the globe? Maybe you're referring to the neocons, but they are a minority who unfortunately has had great infuence in the Bush administration. I, like a lot of other Amerians, only care about what is in the best economic and security interests of America. The Middle East is only important because of our dependence on oil. I will vote for any presidential candidate from any party that has a serious plan on moving us to other sources of energy (not just lip service).

Ron Paul's foreign policy thinking is that of the early 1900's. He would take us down a road that we would all regret. Thank god he stands no chance at getting the nomination.

[Koolblue13]

Who says that we have to resolve every human conflict across the globe? Maybe you're referring to the neocons, but they are a minority who unfortunately has had great infuence in the Bush administration. I, like a lot of other Amerians, only care about what is in the best economic and security interests of America. The Middle East is only important because of our dependence on oil. I will vote for any presidential candidate from any party that has a serious plan on moving us to other sources of energy (not just lip service).

Ron Paul's foreign policy thinking is that of the early 1900's. He would take us down a road that we would all regret. Thank god he stands no chance at getting the nomination.

and why is that, Truman?

By not subsidizing big oil and putting all energy companies on a fair paying field, he will help us get off the oil. Plenty of Americans already do what they can to help, despite all that. We don't need to have troops in 130 countries, bring them home and defend our own borders. Free economic trade without tying the hands of American companies and forcing more manufacturing jobs to the countries who openly support the people we are at war with and who refuse to start restricting polution.

I would like to seriously know what your claim about Pauls forign policy putting us in a regretable situation is backed by.

[Prosperity]

why?

I guess ultimately I can't buy into libertarianism. I strongly agree with most libertarian positions, but my position is ultimately the way it is for different reasons than individualistic materialism. Furthermore, he is too dogmatic. I don't like the idea of ideaologues running things... every ideology will probably have some failures so it is best to have someone that is willing to bend for the particular context. Dr. Paul also needs to be a bit more articulate for my liking.

With that said, Dr. Paul still has my support, and I would prefer him over all other candidates, but Obama.

[TrumanB]

I would like to seriously know what your claim about Pauls forign policy putting us in a regretable situation is backed by.

All you have to do is take his stance on the Iraq war as an example. Calling for the immediate withdrawal of all Amercian forces from Iraq is both foolish and dangerous. It's one thing to be against the Iraq war (I am), but it's another thing to foolishly pack up and leave at this point and make that entire region even more unstable with the Iranians lookin on. Bush got us into this mess and we need to fight our way out of it. I want and wish that we could scale down most of our troops in the next year or so, but we have to do it smartly. With Rumsfeld gone and new leadership in at Defense and the armed forces, I believe we are starting to see signs of things turning around. Ron Paul only sees black and white. There is a lot of gray in Iraq and in other hot spots around the world.

[luckydevil]

I guess ultimately I can't buy into libertarianism. I strongly agree with most libertarian positions, but my position is ultimately the way it is for different reasons than individualistic materialism.

This is simply a leftist (the collectivist kind) smear against libertarianism. Libertarianism is simply a political philosophy, nothing more. There is a rich history of libertarian intellectuals condemning materialism. Not every damn libertarian is Ayn Rand.

Oh and Paul is far more pragmatic than portrayed. However, I do tend to agree he is not the greatest speaker for liberty( which he acknowledges by the way).

[Henry]

Joe Biden. But there's no chance in hell he makes it out of the primary.

Of the candidates who have a realistic shot, Guiliani. Maybe Obama. It's still a little early.

[JosephGibbs]

Says the 4000 American Lives lost

• Says the thousands more Iraqi lives lost
  
• Says the 1 trillion dollars spent
  
• Says 12 Billion dollars still un accounted for
  
• Says the fact that over the course of 4-5 years virtually no diplomatic or infastructure progress has occured.
  
• Says the fact that if Bush followed the first suggested plan for securing Iraq then the surge would not have been needed 4 years and 4000 lives later.
  

Yep...that about sums it up

Nothing you stated above points to an occupation, nothing. You honestly think the Bush administration wants to stay there longer than needed? For what purpose? Wow, you think over 4-5 years no diplomatic or infrastructure has occurred? I guess they never had elections afterall? C'mon quit watching CNN and you'll realize more is happening over there then just our troops dying.

The fact is the surge is working and Democrats will have to figure out a way to change their negative campaign against it and the troops.

The next time you see your doctor ask about him/her about factile dysfunction because you got it big time. Maybe you have been in a cave for 7 years but Iraq is all Bush/Cheney and Clinton has not been president for a while now.

Or maybe you have breaking news to share on how Clinton financed a secret war on terror via China while he was in office. Everyone (to include the Clintons) would love to hear about that....:doh:

My doctor says I am rising to the facts just fine. You totally missed my point here. My point had nothing to do with Clinton and Iraq. It had to do with Clinton and his backdoor dealings of our secrets with China.

Dude....I hope you were joking because Clinton was one guy versus....

• Mark Foley
  
• CIA Leaks
  
• Justice Department being used as a political hack house
  
• Tom Delay
  
• Trent (KKK) Lott
  
• The republican congressman soliciting sex in a airport bathroom
  
• Newt Ginghrich having an affair on his dying wife the same time he was blasting Clinton for his the lewinsky episode.

What does anything here have to do with Bush/Cheney? You are laughable. You are not even making the right points to back your statements up. I will spare you a Democrat list. I fail to see which one of these individuals was President, oh right none of them. If you are unaware of the secret dealings during the Clinton administration then you need to take off the blinders. Start with Watergate and his 8+ extramarital affairs then work your way down.

Three things:

1. Grab a copy of the Constitution/Bill of Rights and read it because their is a little thing called the freedom of speech.

2. I respect people that earn it. Just because you occupy an office does not mean you deserve respect.

3. Your hypocrisy is laughable because you are still attempting to trash-blame Clinton and now you want people to show Bush respect?

:laugh:

I never said you did not have the right :doh: . I agree somewhat with your 2nd point;however, I personally believe in showing respect for high public offices. I would never call any President a retard. I think President Clinton did some good things and some questionable things, that is all I am saying. I still have respect for the man and the position and would not resort to a 1st grade mentality of calling him a retard.

End of story.

[JosephGibbs]

First of all, they weren't "hecklers".

Just becaue Rudy didn't like what they had to say, doesn't mean they are hecklers. When he started insulting them personally is when they started shouting. There were probably 100 public bus workers there. They were not hecklers.

Watch the other video then if you think this guy is right for america. :doh:

The guy is pure scum. His dad is a reputed organized crime boss and he isn't far behind.

Its blasphemous that you would defend this guys actions.

Yes, I realize they were bus drivers, but they were also/became hecklers when they continued on in the fashion they did. They made their point, now let other individuals there ask a question as the forum was not specific to them/bus drivers.

I am not defending his actions, I am reputing the fact that those videos are a dagger against Rudy.