VOTE OBAMA

What I like the most about him is he would be a huge change from the Bush/Clinton circle jerk  we've had for the last [b]20[/b] years now. But is change for the sake of change worth it?

Check out his book.  He reads the audiobook version, very well, I might add.  If you go to that link you can listen to a free sample of him reading it. 

I actually like the Bush/Clinton chain.  It's fun.  After Hillary, we could have Jeb.  Then Chelsea.  Then the Bush twins could run together.  The whole dynasty thing just feels so right. 

http://www.g4tv.com/attackoftheshow/videos/20138/Cobra_Commander_Runs_fo...

Obama is the best candidate out there now, probably.  That doesn't mean he'll change jack.  I have yet to hear him (and correct me if I'm wrong) in the last few months talk about the Patriot Act or the fact that the first illegally detained and tortured American citizen was just convicted under it.  He supports America's right to arbitrarily invade countries, and has never, ever said anything about the corporate cronyism that goes into modern American warfare.  His health-care package is piecemeal and half-assed.  His major talking point seems to be "bringing America together" and "changing the debate," along with the usual meaningless bullshit about "getting interest groups out of Washington."  So, I'll be voting for him in November, in all likelihood, but my enthusiasm will be tempered.

And PF that's fine, I understand your reluctance.  And he may not be able to change EVERYTHING, but I think his heart is in the right place, and I have more hope and faith in him doing SOMETHING then any other candidate.  Only time will tell, but anybody after Bush will probably look like a saint.  Label me hesitantly optimistic.  And I think if he brought up some of those subjects you just mentioned it could be very tricky how to handle it, and he could run the risk of alienating voters.  You don't hear him talking about abortion either.  But I'm very happy to hear he has your vote.

I get to vote for him this november! I shall, too.

Honestly, I don't like the idea of a "Vote For X!" thread. This is not a lobbying group. You guys all know where I stand on things, and I purposely wait till things are brought up before I throw them out there. Look at the way Dennis' Pro-bama thread was, informative about Super Tues, then about who he was supporting and why. I won't bother talking about why Obama's not a good choice (if the deomcrats are your only option, then I guess). But pimping candidates with their own threads is not the way to go.

Again, it's a free country (not for long), so do what you want. I just think it's a little un-kosher and sets a bad precedent.

or does it set a bad president? HAha!

I have no problem with pro-Obama threads!

(...or pro-anyone threads for that matter. Equal voices for all, I say.

Obama has emphatically stated he doesn't support "arbitrary" invasions. He would put security first, through diplomacy. If all else failed and we needed to act on an imminent threat, then yes, he would invade. And if he wouldn't, I wouldn't want him as president. Besides, if someone invades the US, our government will be well armed from the guns they take from Giggan.

Also, I knew it wouldn't be long before the parody videos started:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs&eurl=http://crooksandliars.co...

The gov't was armed prior to Sept 11, but insecure borders and a lack of business control of private business caused the events. That, and the gov't allowed it to happen. Some argue they did it, but I have yet to see proof of that.  Either way, I don't want to live in a prison world. You may feel free to volentarily surrender your freedom of travel, defense, and livelyhood, but I like mine, and want the rest of it back. Politicians are pigs, have always been pigs, and will always be pigs. The only ones that transcend their species are those that refuse to do their job, that is, vetoing new bills and repealing old one. Self destruction is the answer.

Monkeywright - would you feel the same way about this sort of post if someone as political as me posted a new opinion piece every day and degraded this place into a myspace bulletin board? I'm not saying this thread in particular is bad in itself, but if we all started pimping candidates, this place would turn into a filth fest of swine.

Though perhaps you'd only dislike ones which you disagree with, which is understandable. I'm not going to complain if someone wants to sprinkle Ron Paul threads about. But I wouldn't do it myself.

If you want to look for a candidate of change than look to Ron Paul not Obama. Ron Paul is the only candidate out there who doesn't flood the airwaves with feel-good, meaningless campaign garbage and instead proposes solutions to America's problems and a plan for the way things should be run according to our Constitution.

Seriously?  Really?  Isn't this the POLITICS & CURRENT AFFAIRS board?  I can't think of a better place to post this thread.  And if you want to post a Ron Paul thread, go for it.  Or if you want to continue to bash our government and everything it has ever done, then do that too.  It's like Chix stating that no politician ever did anything good, ever.  Ridiculous.  I would post a more educated thread if that was my forte, if I could actually express intelligently why OBAMA is a great candidate.  There are a lot of great ideas coming from all over the place, Paul and Kuch included.  A good idea is a good idea.  There is nothing un-kosher about posting a VOTE OBAMA thread in the political forum, nor does it set a bad precedent.  Seriously, if you hate this country and the government so much, there are many other countries out there you can move to.  Not that I hadn't thought about it myself.  I'm not "lobbying" for OBAMA, I'm expressing my opinion that OBAMA is a great candidate and encouraging others here to make some research, and if you like him, help him to get past this primary. 

Shouldn't the concept of free speech apply here too giggan?

and i think that's a mistake - if you've read Obama's books (which I'm sure you haven't) or have listened to the substance behind his speeches, you'll see there is a lot going on there - of course when you have to make 6 speeches in six states in three days it gets whittled down to sound bytes and generalizations  - give the man a chance to put his money where his mouth is when he gets in office, there is depth to what he has to say, he's just building support through hope and by inspiring people with his dreams for the future - at least the guy can speak - shoot, he just won a grammy for best spoken word album - maybe paul will be his VP, i'm sure that OBAMA has time and room in his future for thinkers like Paul

Giggan,

As Richard stated, this is the politics and current affairs board. I would LOVE LOVE LOVE it if people were showing an interest in their country and government by actively discussing candidates and topics. I hate it that people only get interested in government once every four years. I think having your voice as well as those of other political persuasions could encourage thought, research, and might actually inspire people to become citizens rather than civilians. I think as long as trolls don't start attacking the threads and people exchange ideas, it's all good. If it turns into a Hannity-style "I'm right, LalalalalalaIcan'thearYoulalalalla" fest, then yes, by all means, kill the thread.

Your right I havn't read his books but I do listen to his speeches. And some his ideas may be good if you subscribe to the democrats philosophy. Personally I think anything Obama does in the areas of security, healthcare, taxes, education, etc. would be wrong. While his ideas may be progressive I think they are progrssive in the wrong direction. Besides he is a polar opposite from Ron Paul they could never be running mates.

Where was the insinuation that it didn't? Giggan is the reason I read more about Ron Paul in the first place. Any candidate that can inspire that much fervency in aperson, and do so without the use of "push" issues (fear-based politics, race/sexual orientation politics) must have somehting good to say. And he did. He wiped the floor with the Repubs at every single debate (when he was allowed to speak). It's a travesty that more conservatives didn't follow his message. Their movement is mired in the whole Limbaugh/FoxNews/lock-step mentality right now. When they get their act together after the sacrificial offering of McCain (or who knows, maybe they'll rally around him) - then Paul's voice might resonate louder.

Another thought - Paul, like Obama, is inspiring young voters. In elections, and in particular with conservative/Republicans, their base is old and very set in their way of thinking. They're not big on radical change (and there are positive aspects to that as well). So Paul was pushing his Boulder uphill right out of the gate.

Well, I don't have his entire platform here, but when he talks about tax-breaks for the middle class (that's me) and no more for the uber-rich, that sounds like a good idea to me.  Concur?  What exactly about his position on the other issues you brought up do you think would be a big mistake?  Have you see SICKO?  Oh wait, you think MM is full of crap too, I'm sure there isn't one IOTA of truth in any of his documentaries.  All lies, half-truths, and misinformation.

If Paul is a progressive (and I admit I know next to nothing about his positions) wouldn't he and OBAMA have SOME common ground?

Oh, MONKEY - I think the reference to free speech had to do with GIGGAN saying that this thread really shouldn't exist.  Of course it should exist.  I don't work for OBAMA, I'm not making phone calls for him or going door to door (but I may be down the road).  I have donated money to his campaign though.

And believe me, I have a TON of room to be educated here about Paul, Kuch, politics in general, even OBAMA.  So educate me.  Like MONKEY said, it'd be great if could all talk and debate politics in the POLITICS FORUM.  We'd all learn a lot I'm sure.  I still don't understand the entire DELEGATE process.

The simple answer on delegates (and super delegates and the electoral college) is this:

Make Americans think they have a voice in society while controlling the poolitical process as much as possible.

What really confuses me is why Republicans only need 1100 or so to win their nomination, but Dems require 2000+.

The delegate process for primaries is set up by party rules, hence the differences between the Republicans and Democrats. I believe it stems from the different ways of divding up population and voters but I could be wrong. Either way I suppose it is weakly modelled off of the Electoral College, which in itself I find difficult to understand.

.

Did I say to ban this thread? Did I say suggest it be deleted? Or did I say, it's a freecountry (for now) but I don't think these threads are a good idea. My opinion, my free speech. No action suggested, jsh.

If there is a good place to post it, this is it. It's not the substance I'm against, its the idea of a thread being used to promote a particular candidate. I'm probably not as opposed to this thread as you guys think, I'm just rendering my opinion. We all share this board, and I respect anyone's right to post anything.

I got the opportunity to talk to Peter Christ at the NH Liberty Forum in January, he's one of the pioneers of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a group of LE officers focused on ending the 'drug' war because they see the struggle as causing more harm then good, and are not in it because they believe in promoting drugs or recommend using them. He said to me (paraphrasing) 'every person has a point in their life they look back on as their biggest mistake and says, 'seemed like a great idea.'' An idea, more often than not, is a mistake that's already been made that the decision maker is unaware of. While that may seem to be a pessimist view, I don't consider myself a pessimist, but that is a reality we must face. I encourage you to look deeper than face value.

My libertarian/anarchist ideologies have nothing to do with whether or not Obama would make a good/bad pres. THIS is my country, I swear my allegience, just as Thomas Jefferson has, before the altar of God, eternal hostility against tyranny over the mind of man. I will not run to another country, with less rights and blessings than this nation, for the sake of allowing unconstitutional majority rule to take over. I don't run, I stand. I stand firmly for peace, justice, and liberty. I sit for nothing less.

Sorry, emotion driven outburst there, point being, my country, my opinion, my word. You are entitled to yours, and I respect that, and I believe you are well intentioned. I also believe Barack Obama is wrong in how he wishes to implement these things. The means never justifies the ends.

Don't take this the wrong way, but Adolf Hitler was one of the most motivating political speakers of history. Doesn't mean anything.

Intending no disrespect, you don't follow politics very much, do you? A socialist taking a libertarian as their running mate is like...I don't even know what that's like, but they're polar opposites. They're two radically different extremes, though they may have similar foreign policy, leaving our neighbors alone unless they attack us, etc. Their domestic policies however are night and day.

It's like, 50% false.

Not all lies, but...

Bingo.

He means more chapters in the IRS code, which there is no law saying we must abide by anyways...yet we're imprisoned if we don't. There's a million and one ways around taxes, none of them make any sense, unless you pay 10k to an accountant each year, which us middle classers can't afford. There's a major erosion of the middle class, propelled through inflation, to make just two classes. The haves and have-nots. Why must we work two jobs to survive if our economy is supposedly so great? Why is our buying power failing...these all tie back to the federal reserve.

He's talking about making the current confusing tax system more progressive.

EDIT: To clarify, progressive tax means as amount goes up, percentage goes up. Regressive=amount goes down, percentage goes up. Flat=same percentage throughout.

Karl Marx had the same idea. Bush's first tax cuts de-progressivized major taxes on the rich. (While no taxes are 'fair', percentages should not go up because amount goes up). That's not a tax cut, thats a taxing equalization. Granted, the rich know how to play games with the tax code, but those games shouldnt exist. No should the income tax. But if it must, I say no games. Flat, simple tax.

The dems, especially Kerry when he was running talked about abolishing Bush's tax cuts 'for the rich'. My mom's a high school teacher. They don't exactly rake the dough in. She saw an extra 3 grand with the tax cut. It wasn't just for the rich. The political system is so complicated that unless you literally spend more time than is healthy within it, nothing makes sense from the outside. That needs to change.

It's all good, nobody does. The parties themselves (independent of govt) determine how each state party (indy of govt) computes their delegates. It's like an electoral college, it doesn't exactly make sense, but its just the way it is. Why I prefer the electoral college to majority rule, I'd be more in favor of a vote quota, like a president needs to get, 60% for example, to win. Without that, no fuerer, yay!

Again, if I came across that way, I apologize. My intent is not to stiffle your opinion. It is just my personal opinion that there are better ways of presenting it.

I realize when I talk about anarchy-esque ideas, those who don't already agree with me probably roll their eyes, (why do I do it then?!?) but getting back to the basics, what should be the first lesson in civics in all schools...why we have a govt to begin with. Thats what every citizen should be able to answer for themselves, and then research the philosophy, etc. (I prefer Lockean philosophy) Everyone I know know thats an anarchist is in the closet about it. And in public, I am too, I wouldn't want reps on a committee to know that, I'd never be able to persuade them of anything.

You guys want my opinion (on philosophy of gov't, why we have it), I'll be happy to offer it. John Locke inspired ideology. Gov't itself is not bad, when it's sole purpose is protection of life, liberty, and property. That's seldom the case.

Well put man. You're right on.

wow...very well thought out response, and while i don't agree with everything, nor can i format it as nicely without pulling a muscle, let me see if can rebutt your rebuttle

1. well, you kind of did say that this was not the place for this thread, nor did you agree with the content - you didn't say shut up, or call me an idiot (i don't think) but did say you don't like a VOTE FOR ________ thread

2. well, ok this thread IS promoting OBAMA, but isn't that what the internet and boards are for?

3. well, that's very pessimistic indeed, we'll have to disagree here, but i do have hope in the future, OBAMA is not a god, nor a saint, but i like what he is saying and want to give him a chance

4. didn't realize OBAMA and Paul were so far apart, so my stupidity of course very obvious here - point GIGGAN

5. SICKO - well, then it's also HALF-TRUTH, gotcha there, POINT WICKERKAT

6. i pay about $150 to an accountant, and got a $15,000 refund last year - there is a lot of room for tax breaks for the MC, but i won't get into the MC, UC tax stuff, since i am not a CPA

7. i'm just going to pass on the delegate thing, it really is so confusing

8. repeat, see #1

9. i concur - thanks for your opinion, it has been enlightening, and i always need educating when it comes to this subject

VOTE OBAMA

When n my undergrad I took a government course, with some long ridiculous name but was called "Anarchy 101," as it was constructed of some fo the greatest libertarian and anarchist thinkers and philosophers and theorists around.  Locke was never held in high regard, or so it seemed.  We read a good deal of his stuff, discussed it extensively, and then read a bunch of theorists who ripped him apart in ever so convincing ways.  However it was 5 years ago and I wish I could remember more of the authors but I cant and to try and articulately express much else from it would be erroneous and misleading on ym part.  And I only remember the Locke thing because I had read all of his stuff the prior semester in a different class, but in that class we did not read any of the criticism against it, and the result was a different opinion.  Granted, we were all 19 year old hot heads with easily adaptable and exciteable minds.  The professor, for both of these classes, who was a 50+ white woman, I am sure had an entirely different opinion on all it than we did.

Calling Obama a socialist, is, I think a bit harsh, if for no other reason than that Socialism is such a stigmatized identity and ideology, and while he has socialist leanings, (Which I agree with, for the most part) I still think it unfair to label him a flat out socialist.  A lot of his ideas have libertarian roots as well as socialist root.  Some have democratic roots as well, though not all of them.  Though seeing as how the categories of democrats and republicans are moot nowadays, I dont suppose it matters. 

I think the major difference between obama and paul is not their policy differences (which are in many cases very very different) but rather their presentations as well as how much they are willing to pander to the current political milieu.  Paul is extreme in his views (well, extreme when compared to the neo-cons who have been running the republican party for two or so decades, at least).  But he doesnt temper his opinions or his policies, he has his ideas and he puts them out there, balls to the wall.  Obama, on the other hand, who I think has many equally progressive and extreme ideas, then allows those ideas to be tempered by the political process and by the current accepted political machine.  most of his policy statements and ideas still push the boundaries of what the democratic party has come to expect for the last decade in bullshit partisan politics, but they are not fully representative, i believe, of the heart of many of his ideologies.  So, you could say that paul is being more honest to himself, and not allowing himself to be malleable in anyway, or diluted, and obama is allowing just that to happen.  However, look at the result.  Sure, ron paul has a larger than expected following, mostly consisting not of republicans but of 17 - 24 males with libertarian tendencies who are tired of being told what to do and jsut want to essentially have free reign (not making a judgment but an empirical observation, please dont read into it).  While his supporters are, for the most part, very vocal, their numbers are still not even close to being high enough to make him a viable candidate.  Obama, on the other hand, "sold out" if you will.  He saw the gap between his views and the current views, and instead of going balls out was content to push the envelope enough to assert himself as out there but not so much as to seem a hopeless radical who cannot achieve anything.  the result is that, not counting superdelegates, he is now ahead in the democratic delegate race and expecting some more important wins in weeks to come.   am i saying one should sell out?  no.  and do i think that obama has entirely sold out, or compromised himself?  No, not entirely.  But he has allowed political realities to temper his views into manageable, realistic pieces.  He plays well with others, while Paul runs with scissors.  You can criticize either one of them as a result of this: obama for not sticking to his morals because he wants to be electable or paul for being so antisocial and triumphalist that he refuses to see the forest for the trees.  likewise, you can praise both of them: obama recognizes that the only way to affect true change is to be a part of the system, and the only way he can become part of the system involved tempering his views into acceptable, bite-sized pieces, so, without giving up his vigor or motivations, he is willing to make concessions because he would rather be in the white house affecting some change than outside affecting none.  Paul has string political ideologies and is not allowing himself to be corrupted, influenced or diluted by his popularity or electability, he is being honest and true, all the way through.  So, the point of this, I think they are similar in as much as they both are representatives of the progressive edge of their party, or of what their respective parties have become, at the very least.  The difference is how they present that progressiveness to the political world.  But would they ever be running mates?  Hell, no.  Basically everythign paul supports obama decries, and vice versa.  Sure, not entirely, but in quite a large part.  I wouldnt call them polar opposites, as the twinkle of a libertarianism is in obama's eye, but certainly far apart on the spectrum. 

What is firghtening and hilarious to me now is that Lieberman is looking like he is the frontrunner to be McCain's VP, though nothing official has come through.  He has quite publicly supported McCain this whole time, though.  God, I loathe Lieberman.  I LOATHE him.  Most likely because I lived in CT when he pulled his slippery little trick, and because I think he makes a mockery of our political system, I dont know...

I would love to hear more, Giggan, about why you support the electoral college.  I personally dislike it, I think one person=one vote.  However, I know that at the time of the last election I had a friend try to explain to me why the electoral college actually exists to protect the political minority, and protect America againtst mob rule, and his argument was somewhat compelling, but i dont remember it entirely.  I know that in the end I didnt buy it, because it still made my vote less important than someone's vote in Ohio, which is essentially un-American to me, but it at least made some resemblance of sense...

But, easily more messed up than the electoral college is the ridiculous confines of our two party system, which is a mess.  I dont have a viable, realistic alternative.  But the whole two party things just doesnt work, especially since the original distinction was really a small-govt (rep) vs. big govt (dem) distinction and now it is about almost everything else.  tax cuts do not equal small govt, they equal less support for americans that need it.  patriot act does not equal small government.  domestic spying, CIA and selling 1/3 of our national debt to china do not equal small government.  banning gay marriage and appealing women's right do not equal small government.  jesus does not equal small government.  the party distinctions are a messed up joke, and this is best exemplified in ron paul.  i have made it clear i dislike him and dont want him on a national ballot, though i dont have much conern if the outcome if he were to get on one.  but the point is, he should not be running against romney or mccain.  thats ridiculous.  he is a pseduo-libertarian republican, and much more of a traditional republican than those fools, but making him run against them in a primary is unfair to him and them.  And then, of course, the end result of this whole two party system culminates into often (aka 2004) but not always choosing the lesser of two evils, or throwing away your vote on a green or rainbow party candidate that 98% of the country has never heard of and who is there essentially in name only.  And then the whole thing culminates in the electoral college, making my vote as a massachusetts resident meaningless in the general election, because the state will go blue with or without me (yeah, i know, that kind of logic, when applied by all, results in the opposite, so it is still my duty to vote, blah blah blah).  this is why my primary vote was more important to me than my general election vote will be.  and this is why, although i like obama more, i, for a moment, thought about who was more electable in a general election clinton or obama, because while i dislike clinton she is better than any of the other non-obama candidates.  i only entertained the thought for a moment because the strongest protest we have against the corrupt system is not to fall victim to its ways and not let its corruptness effect your vote, (and then hopefully try to change it during the 4 yeasr you get off before you have to vote again.)

Oh, and Giggan: "Don't take this the wrong way, but Adolf Hitler was one of the most motivating political speakers of history. Doesn't mean anything."  Of course it means something.  If it "didnt mean anything" you would not have said it.  You said it to be reactionary, edgy and argumentative.  You said it for a specific reason, dont try to annul it by saying it doesnt mean anything.  The fact of its existence proves otherwise.  And, try as you like, you are never going to win anyone besides folks who already agree with you that using Hitler and ANY democratic candidate in the same sentence is ever justified.  And for that matter most republican candidates.  You are saying it for effect, only, and the only ones that wil take it as a serious recognition of the obama's or anyone else's character is already making the same reactionary, fruitless statements.  So give it up.  The rest of your post proved people should at least listen to you, whether they disagree or not.  Dont ruin that.  (And as a total non-sequitur, I would be willing to bet money that your "50%" and "Bingo!" responses to MM are based in conservative/republican/neo-con/big money rhetoric, and not grounded in facts.  I agree MM uses muscle tactics and ingenious editing, and also that not everything is as dire or as wonderful as he presents it in his films.  But your reaction is typical of folks who dont like him or the threat he poses and as such say things like "it is all half truths" without actually knowing that to be true at all and without having evidence to support it.  At least you are in good, well, large, company in this regard).

wow - fantastic post, thanks for that - i appreciate the education, good stuff

Maybe someday the Chuck Meister will run!!

Very well said Oberon, I wish I had the attention span to write such a long post lol.

Dude, I wish Obama was a socialist.  It would make me happy.

There is a distinction between true anarchist philosophy and libertarian/minarchist. There are even varying philosophies when it comes to how the anarchist system would work. Theoretically, anarchy is the most appealing to me because it is the freest, most peaceful means of government (self government). However, when it comes to enforcment of criminal code (direct harm, murder, rape, robbery, etc), can a business be trusted to run the court system? That's where I have some issues with true anarchy, but we'll got quite a ways to go before we cross that bridge. I love the Constitution, and would absolutely love gov't if the totality of our laws were the constitution and a few direct impact criminal statutes. That's all one needs to be free.

Many anarchists don't like Locke's philosophy because it is minarchist, and believes gov't has a purpose, protection of life, liberty, and property. Anarchists, believing in total self gov't, do that themselves. I would to, but I think the layer of protection should be there, but that's where it ends. I'd be against forcing it upon anyone else, ever.

While its true the man has made some comments in regards to decriminalization of marijuana that are more pro-liberty than current policies, with the amount of further increase he wants to see in gov't, there's no way of doing such without being what I would consider a socialist, quite simply controling the economic business of others 'for their own good. I'll agree that socialist is a very vague term that gets thrown around quite a bit, but if I see someone on the threshold of it, I'll associate them as having been in. If that makes sense. I see more abuse in the use of the word communist, such as how people label Hitlery, because being a communist would be quite a compliment to someone who wishes to take from one group and give to another to keep them in power. Communism may do that, but at least it keeps us on the same level, which we can than break out of.

About Obama 'selling out' so to speak, I wouldn't so much say he has as I would say he's leaving his options open. Anyone could listen to his speeches and find something they like because he's charismatic. Ron Paul, as you said, talks about issues and the sevarity of the circumstances, like he's ready for the change in power immediately. Different approaches, both have their appeals. Ron Paul's campaign started with less and multiplied much more than any other campaign in the sense that RP's supporters are die hards. Notice how as people dropped out in the GOP race, RP's numbers stayed about the same, not gaining much. People didn't have him as a guy they sorta liked, second choice, he was their guy. With Edwards and them leaving the Dem race, The numbers went between Hitlery and Obama. While RP has fewer people than anyone else still in the race, he has more committed people than anyone, and the potential for growth in the future under the umbrella that once was the Ron Paul campaign is high. 

I prefer the electoral college to majority rule because majority rule destroys the minority. That's not to say that the electoral college is the best system either. The reason I prefer it is considering state populations, California has tons of people, NH has a few less tons. New Hampshire is recognized as a state, affected by the rule of all those who think and vote differently in national election than California. So NH is represented on par as a state with Cali, we have the electoral college. It's the same reason every state gets 2 senators, then Reps based on population. I'd prefer no fed gov't to having to vote for dictators though.

Actually we wouldn't even have dictators if we followed the Consitution, because the president really isn't supposed to have much power at all. Neither is the gov't with enforcement powers, but break down all layers of unConstitutional gov't at a later date.

This is true. When the two parties gain so many similarites that they're only arguing over implementation, there ceases to be a reason for a seperation. For example, Hitlery and McCain believe in federal intervention in health care, fed reserve, income tax, fed law enforcement, gun control, recognition of marriage, unConsititutional regulation, etc. They have different ideas of how each should be 'managed', but basically support the intervention either way.

For example, in response to your mention of 'banning marriage', there is an example of an issue that should not even be before gov't for leaders to argue about. Marriage is a religious sacriment. It becomes a legal contract between 2 people. It was first 'licensed' by gov't in the US so there'd be no interracial marriage. A license turns a right into a priviledge. Government was given no jurisdiction by the fed and most state Constitutions. Their only job is to aid a violated party if a contract is broken. The ability to grant contracts can not be legislated, so the gov't cannot therefore declaritively recognize any marriage, hetero or otherwise. 

I meant that being charismatic doesn't mean anything, not that my comment was not supposed to mean anything.

This is true. I think we all have to overcome the reactionary side of ourselves if we wish to draw others to entertain our points of view. I was raised to bump heads with those you disagree with as opposed seducing them to your side, as The Palahniuk suggests, and it's something I have to work on. I could spend the day listing all the shiite I know Michael Moore either misrepresented or lied about in Bowling for Columbine and The Big One (only flicks of his I've seen), but that, I feel, would be getting a little off topic.

I love the contrast. In the Finnish political system even Obama would most likely be considered a right-wing conservative. Hillary would be a real neo-con, a corporate b*tch so to say, and I won't even get into the Republicans. But yeah, I don't think America is ready for a "real change" yet. Obama's victory (I'd vote for him) would be a nice, gentle step towards it, though. Your society is naturally very different from ours, in my view much more conservative and less liberal and what's sad is that the gap has lately even been [I]widening[/I] with all those terrorism laws of yours.

(Although lately we've had some very doubtful development here as well: more pre-censorship and other hints here and there of a slow movement towards a police state! But that unfortunately seems to be a fairly global direction for many countries, especially in Europe.)

I think the American election system is in two words [I]fucked up[/I]. The fact that you need to be a multimillionare in order to stand even a relative chance is plain sad. What's more, I don't think many people even know about your third-party candidates, which is just another symptom of this money-led media circus that used to symbolize democracy and the freedom to choose. Having two almost identical parties (feel free to argue) is in the end the same as having just one party, which is basically the system they have in Russia, our dear neighbor. (Note the sarcasm!)

So, hurray indeed for the land of the free.

Without being all fancy and quoting:

* Thanks for the distinction between minarchist and anarchist

*"and the potential for growth in the future under the umbrella that once was the Ron Paul campaign is high" This may very well be true... until you consider that the man is what, 73 years old?  Do you realy anticipate him being physicaly able to make a grab for the White House in four years?  And do you think even his die hards will want him in office when he is 80+ years old?  And, like him or not, the man is just a little off kilter (thats probably why people like him) but imagine him once senility sets in...  I think RP, similar to McCain, are looking at their last chance for a White House position, before they get too decrepit... unless a Democrat wins, allows stem-cell reserach, and the human life expectancy is lengthened by 20 years...

*" I prefer the electoral college to majority rule because majority rule destroys the minority." - So, as someone who wnats small-if-not-nonexistant government, you still find it cool that they have a hand horribly deep in the electoral process?  As Gor vs. Bush showed, the "people" are not truly running this country or picking its leaders, as the popular vote doenst matter (and similarly Hilary's campaign has said she will go against the popular vote if she has to, trolling for superdelegates).  I understand that New Hampshire and Californis need to be qualized in someway, otherwise geographical biases would play a much larger role, and since, with the exception of CA, the hotbeds of liberalism which I love are relatively small in population, it might prove problematic, especially considering in the last few years polls have declared that less than 50% of the US population believes in evolution.  I understand all of that.  But the fact that my vote is not equal to other peoples votes is incredibly unnerving and frustrating to me.  As is the fact that the electoral college has no OBLIGATION to follow their states vote.  Any member of the electoral college can throw her/his vote in either direction they want, regardless of how their state votes.  Now, they dont do this, at least I dont remember an historical instance of it, but they have the power to do it, if they desire.  Talk about dictatorship possibilities!  How can you want a hands off government and support this?  Is it a cost/benefit analysis for you, and the benefit of not having geographical opinions sway the vote is greater than the cost of not all voters are equal and the government has deep control of the process?

*Let me tell you my views on marriage... Irrelevent of the reason for it, I see it as important that the federal government have some semblance of authority regarding the laws and rights and benefits that are the result of a current "marriage license."  This should, hypothetically, mitigate the control religious ideologies have on people's lives.  Obviously it is not doing that, it is just further extending them.  What I think needs to happen is rather simple, though.  You're right, marriage is a religious institution.  The US Government has no right giving out marriage licenses.  The US government should give out Civil UNion Licenses, to ALL couples, breeder or queer, and these license would confer ALL of the rights and benefits (and cons) that the current "marriage license" offers.  These list of these rights and benefits is rather long, and as a queer man who has been a part of this issue for a while, I can assure you that most of them are taken for granted by straight people, not intentionally but because they are just assumed.  Such as, if my partner is sick, and needs to be hospitalized, I have no legal right to be there, and the hospital can and does refuse admission.  Some hospitals work around this and yeah, youve got pockets of liberla everywhere, but they have no obligation to.  Or, if I either had a kid or was going to adopt a kid, the legal paperwork necessary in order to have both of us as legal parents is ridiculous and expensive.  Or, if my partner died and had left everything to me in his will, his family can contest it and will most likey win, saying my partnership with him is invalid and unnatural.  So these laws are need, really.  But "marriage ceertificates" should be given out by individual religious institutions, after you have obtained a "civil union license."  As such, since the religious institutions are positing a sacred defintion of marriage, they have the right and ability to monitor who they allow to be married and in what forms "the instituttion of marriage is upheld."  Does this mean that some churches will ban gay marriage?  Yes, certainly.  But a church has the right to do so, as much as I disagree with it.  They are totally allowed to hate queer folk, if they want.  The US government does not have that right, and it is the responsibility of a government such as ours to recognize the shared humanity and equality of all human beings, and as such needs to allow 100% equal civil union rights to queers.  (And a quick supplement - the civil unions licenses need to be for all couples, not just queers.  None of this Separate but equal bullshit.  Orwell said it best, "All pigs are equal, but some are more equal than others.")

*If you meant "Being charasmatic doesnt mean anything" than say that.  Say, "The world has seen innumerable charismatic leaders who have fallen far short of the ideals founded within their charisma" and if you really felt the need, you could add, "everyone from [insert well-liked but somewhat political useless historical figure here] to Hitler."  It is all in the wording, sir.  It is what differntiates you from someone to be listened to and takne seriously and soemone being oppositional and reactionary and not worth the time.  And I am serious about that, and I dont mean just here on the message boards, and I dont mean just when discussing politics.  You can say the meanest, most disparaing thing about someone, but if you word it correctly, it will be understood by all but also accepted by all, you wont be thrown out.  However if you express the same sentiment in other ways you geta  boot to the ass.  Being 19 you must be a freshmen or sophomore in college, I am assuming, you will see this in your relationship with your professors and the adminisstration over and over again, and then ceasless in the unfortunate real world.  You can make your opinions kown, even if they are the polar opposite of everyone else's in the room, but as long as you do so in a thoughtful and respectful way you will at the least be taken seriously and respected, which is the most we can ask for nowadays.  "Hitlery" doesnt get you there.  I am all one for off-color and inappropriate humor, and this title can surely be esconced there.  But if you are engaging in a serious political discussion with someone, it has no space on the floor.  In a serious political discussion it is the input of a reactionary youngin. 

*Michael Moore rocks.  If for no other reason than he pisses off the social and politically conservative movement, and once every few years rallies liberals to think they can affect change, though they quickly become complacenet again anyway.  Maybe one day ti will stick.  And I have no doubt that a lot of what he spreads include exaggerations and slight misinformations, or non-issues repackaged as things essential.  My only point was, most of the people that I have met, and granted of all the people in the world I have met but a few, who do not like him and make claims as to percentages of truth and whatnot in his films, well, they are just making shit up because they think he is pompous and he likes to cause trouble and they dont see the point of it.  And while on occasion they may know a thing or two he has misrepresented, they have in no way a comprehensive list of his half truths or whatnot... 

On an entirely different note... Obama is over 100 pledged delegates ahead!!! The nerd in me cries out, Woot!  And I have heard more than one superdelegate say that they feel the superdelegates will "go with the flow," and if he can continue his current momentum then there is no reason to fear Clinton stealing the election in the end... though I have heard at least one super-delegate, of course one from NY, who said that his vote will be for Hilary no matter what, because she is the better candidate even if the American people dont want her... and that frightens me, because it undercuts the already ridiculous primary system even more!

great stuff guys, wow, really intense - thanks

I could spend the day listing all the shiite I know Michael Moore either misrepresented or lied about in Bowling for Columbine and The Big One (only flicks of his I've seen), but that, I feel, would be getting a little off topic.

Well, before dismissing MM, you need to see his more current films, such as F911 and especially SICKO, which is the least political and/or biased of the bunch.  Until then, I don't think you can criticize or dismiss him as a nutjob.  And if 50% of his film is false, misleading, or exaggerated, then look for the 50% that is true, accurate, and on point.  If nothing else, he calls attention to subject matter that needs attention - guns, american cars, 911, and US healthcare.  So go rent at LEAST SICKO today, watch it tonight, and post up tomorrow.  I'd love to hear what you have to say.  There is a lot of room for improvement in the US.  Maybe we can learn from some other countries that are doing it well or better.

I mean, imagine - you don't have to pay for education (no 40-400,000 debt) or qualify for healhcare - there is a way to make it all work.

Why you shouldn't vote for www.theonion.com/content/opinion/do_we_really_want_another_black

Hi Oberon,

In your discussion on civil unions and lack or rights gays and lesbians have as couples, I think a legal way to beat this would be to contact an attorney and appoint them as medical power of attorney.  I don't know if being medical power of attorney allows you visitation rights, but I should check this out.

medical power of attorney si one of the legal documents that queers get, in the attempt to mimic marriage.

It is possible for queer couples to get almost all of the same rights as straight married couples, with the exception of tax stuff (this is not counting massachusetts gay marriages, which i am not sure of all the ins and outs of).

However, it costs a LOT of money.  A lot of money and a lot of time.  Both in lawyer time and visist and the cost for all of the documents.  Where as a current  marriage license cost like $50 and it is one stop shopping for all of these rights.

So yes, the rights and obtainable, but they take an exorbitant amount of time and money and are not feasible for many americans...

I see you guys have new stuff, which I've skimmed, but I just came across this article and figured I'd throw it out here...

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/ckincaid/2008/ck_02151.shtml

When ripping it apart (if anyone cares to) don't address the criticisms at me, since I'm just linking it. If you have contrast with something in it (which I'm sure most of you will) feel free to post, I just ask that I'm not treated as though I wrote the thing

I'll try and respond to the new stuff that's up later today, enjoy.

How do we know that you didn't write it, and Cliff Kincaid is just your alias?  or maybe you are really Cliff Kincaid, Editior of "Accuracy in the Media," and the Giggan you are pretending to be is the alias?

The plot thickens.

Having read the article, it seems exactly like what you (and many others) accuse Michael Moore of.  It seems like he has taken a few random facts and then created a whole lot of speculation and half-truths by manipulating those facts into the story he wants to tell.

And Saul Mendelson was amazing, he did incredible things for community organizing and the like, his theories and methods of social organizing have helped many communities create better and safer neighborhoods for themselves and their children.  Of course Obama would speak at his funeral, socialist or not.

The other thing to keep in mind is that to most of those far left liberals, like myself, calling Obama a socialist isnt all that slanderous, although it is untrue.  It is only slanderous to the folk in the middle of the road who do not really know or care much about the goals of socialism but rather know the historical precedents associated with it.  So good for Cliff Kincaid, the article doesnt bother me much, and besides, it is on the GOP website, he is preaching to the choir.  Are there members of the Republican party who are on the fence about Obama, and need guidance?  I doubt it....

Also, Giggan, I came across a Clinton epithet in the op-eds today that I liked... "Over-the-Hilary."  I approve, her notions of what is best for this country resemble the old guard which has obviously been failing for the last 8 years+ years.  Let some new blood in!

I was watching a speech of his the other day and I realized, if he doesn't win the democratic nomination, what's the point in voting.  Both Hilary and McCain's policies are deplorable.

I could do a write in, but what would be the point.  Unless so many people wrote in for Obama that he won the presidency without the Dem nomination.  Talk about an underdog victory.

.

I mean the movement is growing under him, not his personal campaign. There is now a growing classification in the repub party called "Ron Paul Republicans"

Embryonic stem cell research is currently legal.

True, but we lose much more power of our vote when a large amount of people are represented by few politicians. Our senators were originally nominated by the state legislatures, which created a good competition with the state and fed gov'ts. Now senators are voted in by the people, and when you represent over a million people, you realistically represent no one. Majority rule is similar, which is why the idea of states approving the nominee as well as the people is superior to simply majority rule of the people. I still would prefer no dictator be selected, but the process is more liberty minded when organized than when mob ruled.

 One delegate or electorate from Washington DC 'protested' the 2000 election by not voting. That's all I can think of.

Whoa, whoa whoa. Stop right there... The federal gov't has absolutely NO authority in the matter. End of dicussion (unless the pages of my Constitution are sticking together and I'm missing something, that power is never enumerated).

Scrath out "US" and replace it with "state or local municipalities" and I'd agree. As for all the greviances with how hospitals and such wrongfully manage business, take it up with the state. The gov't involvement in medicine, for example, has caused this health crisis and dictated to us the minimum standards that are unnacceptable for Americans. You set a standard, and what you've basically done is told everyone to hold there. With free market, the market demands the highest quality, or the money is going elsewhere.

¿Wasn't it animals? Either way, true. Marriage is a religious ceremony, and gov't has no right to define it. Refer to your state's Constitution, I'm sure the clear argument is in there, I know the NH Constitution says that the current system we have is filthy.

Don't worry, I can turn it around fast. The other day I had a discussion with someone about how evil math was, and they thought I was being a stupid youngen, and talked about the importance of it. I then proceeded to rant about how nobody knows the Constitution, and people's civil and natural rights are being violated while they teach calculus in school. It ended there. She had great points, but its all in the framing, and there's no arguing that the Constitution is less important than teaching minions calculus just hoping they'll maybe someday use it.

Slight? I would call Bowling for Columbine outright lying, and on such a major issue, that is incredibly dangerous. All he does is perpetuate the dellusion that there is a right and a left, and the politicians such as Bush and Kerry, who are financed by the same corporations, are different people.  I neither know nor care whether he is just incredibly nieve or incredibly calculated in his representations.

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

http://www.mooreexposed.com/

I haven't read these, but they came up on google. I know that third site David Hardy had a hand in, he's a good man. He was on of the plantiffs in the FOIA suit against the gov't that exposed the truth behind what happened at Waco.

McCain and Hitlery are both CFR, if Obam's not in the fold (and I don't think he is) than McCain will get it. We don't make the call. But I doubt Obam's gonna get the nom. There's more to it when a superdelegate makes a statement like that, I'm sure he got a slap on the wrist by those in charge for making such a presumptious statement.

Oy vey.

Education is not free. Health care is not free. Roads are not free. To pay for them, a few of us hire men with guns on their hips to forcibly take the money from those of us who prefer not to be a part of it. I object to that practice, and wish to opt out of it, and I refuse to be a part of any social system that's primary goal is not 'first, do no harm'. I live by the golden rule, which is why I'm a libertarian.

Tell you what, wickercat. I'll make a deal with you. Michael Moore has (and I respect him for this) made statements that he does not discourage, and even prefers for people to pirate and bootleg his films because he wants them to be seen. If you have a way of obtaining or burning a copy of Sicko, we'll exchange documentaries and report back on what we got from each. The docu I have in mind to send you will also be bootleg, so don't feel obligated to spend any money on it if you're down (aside from blank DVD or VCD cost). If you're interested, PM me and we'll exchange addresses and view each other's bootleg docus.

Well, Giggan, to respond to my quote, well of course education, healthcare and roads are not free.  We will pay for them with taxes.  BUT, nobody would be denied an education or healthcare, so I think that would really change the way things are, and for the better. 

I'll gladly swap a copy of SICKO with you.  I do not have a way of obtaining a bootleg, my Mac can't burn DVDs, but I'll gladly get a copy and send it to you.  Feel free to send me a bootleg.  The hardest thing for me, is who to believe.  Moore says one thing, somebody says that is wrong, here's MY source, and then he comes back and says, "NO, you are wrong."  In the end, I'm just confused.

The things I was NOT confused about, in SICKO, for example, were people's personal stories about being denied healthcare, being told that MRIs were experimental medicine, being told they were not at risk (and then they die) etc.  SICKO is his LEAST political movie yet.  Strangely enough, I do agree with your earlier comment about BUSH vs. KERRY, in the end it seemed that it didn't matter.

And OBAMA can win, not only the DEM nom, but the whole thing.  We all just need to get behind him.  GIVE him a chance to put his money where his mouth is.  I don't think he could do a worse job then Hillary or McCain, and god forbid, Bush.  I'm willing to take that chance.

If he can get past Hillary - and I hope to god he can - mostlikely I will vote for Obama. This will mark the first time I've ever voted for any candidate for either of the two main political parties. I'm sure that he can beat McCain, especially so if he picks a good running mate, someone like Edwards. Unfortunately, I don't think he'll get past Clinton, and I don't think she has a snowballs chance of getting past McCain.

While I don't have a better suggestion, I certainly would not label John Edwards a "good running mate." 

As for the electoral college vs. mob rule.  I can understand the dangers of mob rule mentalities, though I still favor that potentiality over my vote not counting.  But, if we wanted to find a compromise: Have a system where each precinct gets its own vote.  Similar to the Democratic Primaries, states can be split, and instead of winner takes all, let it be on a precinct-by-precinct basis.  (If not a precinct-by precinct, than some sort of geographical and population division that awards states with higher populations more total votes, but still allows split votes within states.  Whether this be a pure percentage basis, identical to the Democratic primary, or by a precint-by-precinct thing, either way works for me, both have their pros and cons but both are better than the current system).  In addition, get rid of the actual people who comprise the "Electoral College."  There should be no people arbiting whether or not the people in their district "voted the right way."  Whoever a precinct votes for, that is who it votes for.

This may not be a solution.  Maybe the number of Christians in Texas is higher than I think and allowing for any system other than what we have will hurt the Democratic party more than I anticipate.  I dont know.  I just know that the system is broken, and it is the responsibility of the political system to self-regulate and fix itself. Something needs to change.

And as far as the federal govt involvement in marriage... Giggan, that was my explicit point, and where you and I will not agree.  I do not want such laws to be regulated on a state-by-state basis.  I do not want to have legal rights in one state and then lose those when I cross a border.  I feel it is the imperative of the federal government to ENSURE that ALL american citizens are awarded equal civil rights.  That includes the right to "marriage" and all legal benfits thereof.  While I appreciate your idea that states should be left to governj themsleves and one should appeal to their states constitution, no state should have the power to legalize intolerance, hatred or ignorance.  This is why I explicitly want federal regulations in this matter. 

On a related note, my concern is that weakening federal law too much, and empowering state law in direct proportion, could be devastating for our national identity and unity as a country.  Geographically segregated cultural differences within our country would lead to states that would soon want to secede and do their own thing.  If we truly implemented the type of tate authority advocated by Ron Paul I think that in less than 50 years we would be facing secession issues and potential civil war.  That seems like an exaggeration as I type it, but it is a serious concern.  There are too many Confederate flasg flying south of the Mason Dixie line for it not to be a genuine concern.  The issue would not longer be slavery, but it would be family values, the role of religion in education, the right to bear arms, among other "morally based" issues.

Ordinarily it pisses me off when foreigners pan the US political system, but this didn't at all.  You're exactly right about the right-skewed political spectrum, though; hell, in the America of the 1930's, Obama would probably be a conservative.  That's why it cracks me up when people call the Dems "socialists".  It's really, really not the case.

Well spoken.

As it stands right now, if Obama gets the nod, I will vote for him.  If Hillary gets it, I will vote for McCain.

That's a terrible idea. Stick with the democratic party this time, Ed Schultz even agreed that it would be "A 3rd term for the Bush organization if McCain was elected"

I really don't know what I would do if OBAMA didn't win the DEM nomination. 

10 STATES in a row though, looking good.  Anybody know how Texas and the other big states coming up work, are they all or nothing, or divied up?  Texas has like 240 or something, could be the difference, and HC is from AK.  Very unnerving.

Oi, I wish I had kept up with this thread as it grew.  Right now I have neither time to read it all nor do I have a large enough attention span.  I'll say now that when the election rolls around I will vote for Obama.  And if, god help us, Hillary gets the nomination I'll vote for her.  I can't say I full heartedly believe in Obama as a candidate, but I think he is much better than the alternative.  I believe in him more than I did Gore, or even Kerry, but I'm not overflowing with praise for the guy.  And if Huckabee wins, I'm moving to Europe.

I've recently started dating someone (Nathaniel) who is a big advocate for Ron Paul and a big believer in the New World Order stuff and 911 conspiracy.  I haven't read many of Giggan's posts, but I'm assuming he has similar beliefs.  Nathaniel was registered Libertarian but reregistered as Republican so that he could vote for Paul in the primaries.  Now, I think that was a little silly considering the delegates in Louisiana can vote for whomever they choose regardless of how the public votes.  But thats another topic for another time.   Since I've been spending time with Nathaniel I have learned a lot about Paul and the theories of NWO and all that.  In the past I've mostly kept my distance from politics, they mostly just end up pissing me off and I don't like to be pissed off.   I guess I'm getting to the point now where I need to be pissed off because I can't ignore this shit anymore.

When I stay at Nathaniel's place I am awoken in the morning by the Alex Jones show.  Now, there are things Jones says that I don't agree with and certain things he states as fact that I find to be utter bull shit, but who knows.  The guy is obviously intelligent, well read, and well researched.  He talks about Paul a lot too.  As far as I can tell there is only one reason I could never support Ron Paul and that is his stance on reproductive rights.  He is 100%, will not budge, pro-life.  I could never and will never support a candidate with this stance.  Anyway, there was a lot more I wanted to say, but I'm completely out of time.  I don't even have time to read this and see if it makes any sense, so if it doesn't, I appologize.

Yeah, Obama will probably get my vote simply because he represents the best option available.  McCain is certifiable and Hillary is so hated by the right that theres really no way she can be successful.  I would love to vote for a woman, but the Clinton's bring so much baggage that her presidency would be almost a doomed prospect from the start. 

Obama did make me a little nervous though, when he started talking about taking a look at "performance pay" for teachers.  That strikes a little close to home.  I can't control whether or not those little jerks want to do their homework!!! 

Yeah, I disagree with a lot of stuff that Alex Jones says too.  But, I've seen a few of his documentaries and they are pretty interesting.  In Dark Secrets he infiltrates the infamous Bohemian Grove, where a lot of ex. presidents, media moguls, etc. meet, and it shows them doing all these weird occult rituals, and then they also do a mock sacrifice.  Maybe it could be harmless, but I think it kinda gives credibility to Jones as a journalist,  also it's pretty fucked up to imagine Ronald Reagan taking part in something like that.

.

This is a legitamate concern, though I would distinguish "marriage" and contractual civil union. The fed gov't could, under the interstate commerce clause, mandate that marriages and civil unions be recognized as civil unions, but to mandate using the term, "marriage", which is a religion sacrament, and therefore off limits to regulation by the gov't.

It is interesting that you related the civil war, because Ron Paul inspired me to look back at the lead up to the civil war, because he alledged that the US gov't could have prevented sucession by buying the slaves their freedom, as dozens of other countries did to ban slavery without a civil war. The civ war was over what the south saw as a lack of state's rights. More states rights, I don't see as creating a problem just because their will be the potential for more legal diversity. For example, the life I lead in New Hampshire is illegal in places like California, or even New York. I'd be jailed for years enjoying the freedoms of New Hampshire in other states. 

I'm not much on 9/11 conspiracy theories, cause I see a major lack of evidence on both sides, but I agree that there's complete control by NWO groups like the Council on Foreign Relations over American politics. The last 5 presidents have been members of this group, and you'd be hard pressed to find any other organization that Clinton and Bush or Reagan and Clinton, etc, would both belong to. Kerry was a member as well, and I'm sure most of you know about skull and bones. During the 'don't taze me bro' vid, the guy was asking Kerry why he seceeded from the race in 2004 so quickly with so many reports of voter fraud. When he mentioned skull and bones, the police moved in.

Ron Paul's stance on volentary abortion is unique. He recognizes Roe v. Wade as an unConstitutional decision, but has said that the only way make the united States more "pro-life" as they call it is to allow states to decide how they will manage this. I agree, because as a personally anti-volentary abortion person, I realize we'd never reach a consensus as a nation, but at least have the power to be pro-choice (literally, not rhetorically) on a state level, as everything not specified in the Constitution should be via the 10th Amendment.

This is one of those rare occasions where lefties and libertarians find common ground. Here we both believe Obam, or Bush, or McCain, whoever, should not have the power to control such things from their high horse in Washington. Now is that or is it not socialism when the salaries of a class are micro-controlled by a dictator thousands of miles away? Yeah, that's right, I called him a dictator, because the fact that he's a nice guy doesn't make the use of that power any less evil.