Ron Paul is def. the correct answer.

^ Least qualified person to ever have an opinion on anything ever by far.

Now that explains a lot

Deaf != nutbar

Def.
Abbreviation used only by those too stupid to spell definitely.

Socialist and Liberal are contradicting terms

I'll probably do what I should have done in 2004 is leave that section of the ballot blank. Obama doesn't really scare me that much. Yeah he's a big liberal. Obama really is coming off to many as someone who is different than "same ol' politics." Hillary ****in' planned her whitehouse bid to a T back in 1998 or something. First buy a house in NY, then run for NY Senate, then win NY Senate, bide your time until the right moment, then run for president.

For McCain, I guess "3rd time's a charm" does pay off. He's finally the nominee! (c'mon you really expect Huckabee to pull it off?) Too bad he won't win the presidency. Eight years of "Republican rule" has left us...really nowhere. I honestly feel we haven't accomplished a damn thing in eight years. Yeah we executed Saddam and probably some heads of al qaeda. Wooooooooo. :jerkbag: Border's still a mess. People have spent themselves into record debts. Gas is $3.30 (at least in CA) (~$0.30 of that being taxes)

And neither has their original (read: correct) meaning in America.

Liberal wasn't originally a political term. But language changes. Get over it.

Being flushed down the toilet is not exactly a change, son of Wookie06.

You don't have to vote for someone just because they're the nominee for a party. You can put anyone's name down that you want. I'll vote for Ron.

Ok, so since it doesn't have the exact same connotation it now has in Europe, it's been flushed down the toilet?

You might as well whine that the word "gay" been flushed down the toilet.

Well to be fair it has.

And just what is the american definition of liberal?

I probably won't vote for either of them. I wouldn't be too upset with either winning, but neither one is that close to my views.

However, I prefer Obama to McCain, and McCain to Clinton. Thankfully, any one of them will close Guantanamo and create a reality-based immigration policy.

Yeah man... because "just about anything not (hardcore) Republican" meaning socialism (OR JUST THE LEFT IN GENERAL GASP) just makes sense when it comes to the development of language.

Gay somehow makes sense if you assume every homosexual is a cheery hippie eco-dancer from Sound of Music. Not that unsurprising for you folks either. And "whine"... now that toilet is seriously holding a party or something.

But hey, it's okay and even a bit acceptable for you to mangle words, makes your "democracy" slightly funnier to follow!

If you hate it here so much, LEAVE.

Rob: Nothing short of providing logical fallacies since 1987

/facepalm

Isnt that his catchphrase?.

Thats echoman's not a catchphrase.

Explain that to the far left, not me.

I'll definitely vote for Paul, whether he is on the ballot or not. And if he runs as an independent, I will vote for him, even though he'll just be taking votes from McCain and handing the election to Obama. If that happens, oh well - I'll vote for who I think is best, while plenty of other people who agree with what Paul stands for will reject him because they think he can't win. It's that mentality of not 'wasting your vote' that keeps the two-party system in power.

It's the electoral college that keeps the two party system in power.

The original electoral collage might have actually helped with this but it's not even close to being the same thing as it was when the country started. Now it's just a pointless formality.

Rob, no. It's the populace's reluctance to vote for a third party that keeps it in power. We've had third parties rise before, this isn't speculation, it's history.

There's a good reason for the two party system, and why a 3rd party wont rise up.

?

But third parties have risen? Several times? And George Washington spoke about the danger of letting parties rise for this very reason? Really, it's quite amazing the things our founding fathers foresaw - and how thoroughly we have ignored their advice!

I'm voting for McCain, but I'd be happy with Obama, too. Honestly, it seems like a win-win situation to me, and much better than our choices in the last two elections.

Was there much wrong with Kerry?

And what was wrong with Gore?

Kerry had the charisma of a card-board cut-out of Fat Britney. And Al Gore invented the internet. That's what was wrong with them.

but you have a neckbeard

Kerry was basically Mit Romney but French. And Gore is so pretentious he'd probably end up hurting the environment. Obama or even Hillary are far, far better than either of these guys would have been.

i shaved like 2 months ago.

Because you're not doing that already.

Kerry was basically Mitt Romney? Careful or you'll even have me calling you an idiot.

News flash: Obama is a goa'ould.

Actually it's usually the far left who makes this distinction.

People in America think that Welfare programs (like healthcare) are "socialist" just because there is government involvement, which is simply not true.

If you look at Welfare States, you'll find that their purpose was/is to preserve the market system, not to replace it by any means. Thus it's quite silly to call Clinton or Obama socialist, as they are quite far from it. (As a matter of fact, I believe by most measures, they are considered "conservative" on the political scale)

The US was founded as what was essentially a libertarian nation. I expect control in any direction can be easily seen as extreme.

It's not exactly the first time that comparison's been made. In the eyes of the general public, both Kerry and Romney were smarmy flip-floppers who couldn't articulate a solid policy stance to save their lives.