...all the running candidates are fools? I'm all for participating in government but the only person who's opinions match mine is Ron Paul, and he gets NO MEDIA coverage. In turn, has no chance to win because he doesn't reach the morons who get all their political info from the media.

Obama seems 'okay'... But he promises some pretty extreme things that I do not believe is possible for him to achieve.

Billary and Chelsea(sp?) are just pathetic. I'm sorry but no presidential candidate should have his/her entire family out campaigning for them. Not to mention her many blatant lies and making a fool of herself.

McCain just seems... I don't know. I can't really decide on him. Seems like he'll just turn out like Bush to me.

(those are the only three candidates that seem to have a chance so thats all im really going to mention).

Usually I research really heavy during election time and figure out who I want to vote for. Yet this time around, none of my choices impress me and I am losing my enthusiasm to vote. I guess I will just have to keep reading and listening, maybe one of them can change my mind.

vote for me... i may not be old enough to be president but i promise to nuke any country that looks at us funny i will lower the drinking age to 7 and deport all illegal immigrants to france

Hahah the deporting part sounds fun... not right, but fun.

STEPHEN COLBERT 2008!

That the last few presidential elections have seemed like "the lesser of two evils" proves to me that...

...I have drastically different opinions from the majority of Americans.

Dictatorship of the majority!

Two? Last I checked there were more than 2 parties.

Uh, seriously?

Cuz I've looked into Ron Paul, and anyone who opposes legislation because it would require involvement by the federal government is not suitable for the role of president.

But, of course, maybe dismantling the Department of Education and letting states decide their own standards for education is a good idea. Mississippi, et. al might just finally get Intelligent Design taught in the science classroom.

The reason Ron Paul doesn't get media coverage is because he's about as sane as Kucinich and demonstrates an equal amount of knowledge of our government as Kucinich. We've tried a decentralized government before, but it failed abysmally because, without a central leadership to unite the states, you ended up with what was basically a bunch of small, weak countries squabbling with each other. A man who rides his platform on what has been proven to be a failed model of government isn't going to get a lot of media attention because people just might actually have an inkling of just how idiotic that platform is.

I am honestly bewildered by the random spots of support Ron Paul gets.

He's a member of the John Birch Society c/d?

Yeah, I'm very opposed to what Ron Paul wants to do socially and economically. Granted I support his stance on ending the War in Iraq, and ending the War on Drugs but then again Kucinich also wanted to do that, and while Kucinich may not have been the best of the "fringe candidates" he was much better than Paul or at least his policies would have been much less damaging.

I don't see how any of what Obama wants to do is "extreme" either, care to point to any examples?

Your post is a matter of personal opinion. But as for the media coverage, political stance has very little to do with it. The media has been promoting "front runners" for a long time and will continue to do so. The same was done when Bill Clinton was running. He just got attention cause of all his scandals.

Conveniently point out that the first part of what Wolfy said is opinion and ignore the rest of his post that provides reasons for that opinion. Very good.

You, in turn, point out something that is entirely obvious, completely useless, condescending, and supercilious, so that I may also point out something that is entirely obvious, completely useless, condescending, and supercilious!

Who's next?

Yes, but it's witty to do so in this case because that's exactly what people and candidates do during the election season.

Yeah, in what way is Obama extreme that your beloved Ron Paul is not?

The role of the President is to enforce the US Constitution, which is exactly what Paul wants to do. I'm not sure why Wolfy is bringing this bit up about the Articles of the Confederation. And apparently he is suggesting the US Constitution has failed? It is coming across strictly as opinion, currently. He's free to elaborate more if he wants.

As for the DOE and Intelligent Design -- I don't believe religion should be taught in science classes. But this doesn't exactly have much (if anything) to do with the DOE. This is addressed by the Constitution and has been addressed by the Supreme Court. How does the DOE factor into this?

He brought up the AoC because that's the kind of government RP wants. Not that complicated.

Articles of Confederation != US Constitution.

Really, I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing that out. Seriously.

RP wants a smaller, decentralized government with little to no power, handing the power to the states.

The AoC was a small, decentralized government that gave most of the power to the states.

The AoC failed, miserably.

I can't make it any simpler than that.

RP wants to enforce the Constitution. Seriously.

AoC is completely irrelevant. I'm sorry if you somehow fail to realize that. Your fantasy that enforcing the Constitution somehow means someone wants to bring the AoC, or something similar, back is quite laughable.

I see you're very good and making assumptions about my political position. What's amazing is that I haven't said anything about where I stand on any of the candidates. You asked why Wolfy brought up the AoC. The logic for his reasoning is there in his post. All I did was simplify it because you said you didn't understand it. I am not telling you to believe it or to agree with it, but your blatant inability to even understand someone's opposing views is scary.

So, who's really in the fantasy land here? The person who understands someone else's reasoning for their stance on a candidate or the one who flat out ignoring or refusing to even entertain the idea that someone else can have a different opinion?

The republican choices were definitely lacking this election season. There was a single candidate running that didn't have some sort of baggage tagging behind them or had the kind of stances on issues I was looking for in a candidate.

I'm disappointed that McCain seems to be the only choice but I'd rather have him than Obama or Hilary. While three are very liberal, at least McCain is more to the center than the democrat candidates. "Lesser of two evils" as Lord_Grismath pointed out.

I was interpreting it as though you agree with him. My mistake.

But my point is: RP wants to enforce the US Constitution. He wants the Federal govt. and the states to have the power that the Constitution gives them. I still don't understand what it has to do with the AoC. I'm sorry. I just don't see the connection.

Now, if Wolfy thinks that RP wants something very similar to the AoC, then I can see a connection. But at this point I have to say I disagree and RP himself has indicated his intentions are based on the Constitution.

It's fine if he has an opinion. I regarded it as such in the first place.

I'm not drawing my conclusion that he wants a decentralized form of government from the phrase "enforce the Constitution". I've gotten it from his stance on education, healthcare, taxes, American independence (I think the important words are in that one "limited, consitutional government"), inflation, racism, and energy.

"Enforcement of the U.S. Constitution" is a subject to what your interpretation of the Constitution is, and Ron Paul's takes us closer government like that under the AoC than any before.

Not to mention, he wants to increase border security, reduce our debt, reduce spending, and cut taxes.

Aren't those all... good things?

I think the fact that all these threads turn into 'ron paul sucks' discussions should tell you something about the power of his message.

On the casual glance, sure. But basing a vote on a casual glance is stupid.

i had Ron Paul buy gas the other night...

granted this Ron Paul was much better looking and less crazy.

also, Huckabee? helllllooo?

or Nader?!?!

Fools? No. Obama is *very* smart. Hillary is pretty smart too, but her reputation doesn't give her the charismatic leeway of Obama. Mcain is a bit dumb though, I think. The last thing we need is another more extreme version of Bush. Huckabee is either smart or naive and lucky.

Ron Paul is very reasonable, but he probably wouldn't end up making an effective president. His ideas are very well thought out for the most part, but he'd face far to much opposition to be able to do anything with his presidency. He gets a fair amount of coverage, but the media isn't geared toward thoughtful debate and and discussion of the issues, it's geared toward lazy Americans with three second attention spans and no critical thinking ability. It's not exactly the sort of environment that someone like Paul can come off well on. The things that win elections are insipid, empty little slogans like, "Change you can believe in."

I didn't read the rest of this.. but to answer your question, no you're not.

But.. it's better than last year at least. :p

Also, I'm all for McCain except for his STUPIDRETARDED policy towards illegal immigrants. And I like Huckabee, but there's no way he'll ever get elected. (same with Ron Paul)

Nonsense! The mighty STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA scoffs at your pithy foreigner lies. Our borders are vast, and our hoagies delicious! Scoff not at our rich cultural tapestry, and cower before our Amish buggies and bountiful farms! The Declaration of Independence was signed in Philadelphia, but that was only the beginning! It's time for a new Declaration, a Declaration of IN DA PENN dence! Time to vassalize New Jersey.

Yes.



Sorry, couldn't resist... or beleive that no-one had made that joke yet

Whoa... dude. I totally didn't think of that. Dude, where's my car?

I fully agree with you, I was very dissapointed to see McCain get the republican nomination because I think he was the worst choice out of all of them. As for Hillary and Obama, I was leaning towards obama (and VERY far way from hillary) but, he started spewing some crazy stuff, like a tax to remove world poverty which basically translates into throwing even more money into the UN... Yeah, that will work.


So, I'm voting 3rd party, that way I can complain about whoever gets the office

You do realize that the knock on McCain is that he's too liberal for a Republican, right? Which means he's not a more extreme version of Bush.

Bush is too liberal to be a republican.

Well, I don't think you could look at this at a 50,000 ft view and say if he's a more extreme or not. It's an issue-by-issue basis. In terms of Iraq and National Security, I would say McCain is at least at the same level as Bush.

And if he has the same stance on an issue as Bush, that's not more extreme, now, is it.

I'm saying at least. It's certainly up for debate as to whether he's more extreme or not.