PDA

View Full Version : Democratic Candidates - MW Style



Pagan Warrior
December 2nd, 2007, 01:06 PM
Alright fellow MW'ers, I am curious to see how a poll on this board would turn out for Democratic candidates. Please vote for your favorite Democratic candidate (even if you are a republican, choose the "lesser of all evils" if you will).

banondraig
December 2nd, 2007, 01:10 PM
I picked Gravel. I also like Kucinich, but he has kind of a nutty vibe about him, and so I doubt his ability as a head of state.

Pagan Warrior
December 2nd, 2007, 01:44 PM
I also like Kucinich, but he has kind of a nutty vibe about him

:lol: nutty vibe, that's awesome!

Pagan Warrior
December 2nd, 2007, 01:49 PM
Who can I bug about getting this changed into a sticky topic?

Laisrean
December 2nd, 2007, 03:43 PM
I picked Gravel. I also like Kucinich, but he has kind of a nutty vibe about him, and so I doubt his ability as a head of state.

I mostly agree. Gravel would be my #1 choice among the Dems, and Kucinich would be #2.

However, I see his nuttiness as a positive quality. :ballonsmi

HedwigHarfang
December 2nd, 2007, 03:56 PM
I'm not too sure who they all are except for Kucinich (seen him in action on YouTube, not keen), Obama (like me at his age - too eager, too little enthusiasm) and Clinton (my vote and my tip for the actual victory). It is a myth that politicians all know each other (I concentrate on the domestic British scene anyway) and we have to get our information from places like YouTube because the BBC concentrates on home affairs on its mainstream programming.

banondraig
December 2nd, 2007, 04:07 PM
I'm not too sure who they all are except for Kucinich (seen him in action on YouTube, not keen), Obama (like me at his age - too eager, too little enthusiasm) and Clinton (my vote and my tip for the actual victory). It is a myth that politicians all know each other (I concentrate on the domestic British scene anyway) and we have to get our information from places like YouTube because the BBC concentrates on home affairs on its mainstream programming.

May I suggest CNN U.S. (http://www.cnn.com/)?

Pagan Warrior
December 2nd, 2007, 04:26 PM
I've posted this once before, but if anyone is interested in viewing the debates you can find them online here:

http://www.youdecide2008.com/2007/06/13/full-2008-debate-schedule-from-dnc-and-gop/

Furthermore, I'm already finding this poll very interesting because there is a bigger spread between the Democratic candidates than the Republican candidates. Is that because the Republican party has far more underqualified candidates?

banondraig
December 2nd, 2007, 04:40 PM
I've posted this once before, but if anyone is interested in viewing the debates you can find them online here:

http://www.youdecide2008.com/2007/06/13/full-2008-debate-schedule-from-dnc-and-gop/

Furthermore, I'm already finding this poll very interesting because there is a bigger spread between the Democratic candidates than the Republican candidates. Is that because the Republican party has far more underqualified candidates?

Personally I think Obama is underqualified. That whole pin thing (http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/10/05/pingate-and-pinheads/) shows that he fails to grasp basic diplomacy. He might make a good president in another 10 or 20 years.

Wicce
December 2nd, 2007, 04:59 PM
Obama has my vote, although if I were an Iowa or NH resident, I'd be trying to push Kucinich up in the rankings. I also like Edwards, and I wouldn't be fussed if he were the top candidate over Obama. Clinton is my least-liked dem candidate, although all things considered, I prefer her well over almost every republican.

Brightshores
December 2nd, 2007, 05:13 PM
I prefer Dodd and Biden - they seem extremely well-qualified and during the debates, I liked what they had to say. Richardson isn't bad either. Kucinich is OK but a bit kooky (and I can't stop thinking that he looks rather like a hobbit with those ears), and if I had to pick from among the top three, I'd go with Edwards.
Yep - I'm not good at picking the winners. :T

Laisrean
December 3rd, 2007, 12:43 AM
I prefer Dodd and Biden - they seem extremely well-qualified and during the debates, I liked what they had to say. Richardson isn't bad either. Kucinich is OK but a bit kooky (and I can't stop thinking that he looks rather like a hobbit with those ears), and if I had to pick from among the top three, I'd go with Edwards.
Yep - I'm not good at picking the winners. :T

That's a good thing when you consider the people who are "winners" end up being the likes of Bush and Kerry. The only candidates worth a crap are the ones who are at the bottom of the popularity barrel. If only more people thought the way you do...

Cassie
December 3rd, 2007, 06:09 AM
I'm not too sure who they all are except for Kucinich (seen him in action on YouTube, not keen), Obama (like me at his age - too eager, too little enthusiasm) and Clinton (my vote and my tip for the actual victory). It is a myth that politicians all know each other (I concentrate on the domestic British scene anyway) and we have to get our information from places like YouTube because the BBC concentrates on home affairs on its mainstream programming.
Oh come on! I think your claim to be MH is slipping a bit.. If I, as a non politician, can keep myself informed of what is happening in the political world outside the UK, I would like to think that someone claiming to be a high profile politician could do the same.

On TV there is BBC World and BBC News 24 (in addition to CNN as Banondraig already mentioned). Most satalite and cable operators in the UK also offer a variety of American and international news channels.

On Radio there is the BBC World Service, probably the best international news and current affairs service the world has ever known (and one of the few things that still makes me proud to be British).

On the internet there are thousends of news sites that are more accurate and informative than YouTube including the BBC and all American news outlets.

And then there are those old fashioned things called newspapers. The British broadsheet newspapers (even those I don't like) ALL have coverage of what is going on in the USA. Plus you can buy American and international newspapers in all larger cities as well.

Back to the OQ. Boring as it is, I would vote for Clinton for pragmatic reasons; I think she has the best chance of winning.

Laisrean
December 3rd, 2007, 11:29 PM
I remember a few years ago there was someone on this board, a young girl named "Lil Suzie" (or similar) and this member eventually revealed themselves to be a middle-aged man.

Is something similar going on here now? A person online can pretend to be anyone or anything they want and how would you be able to prove them wrong? Perhaps I am really G.W. Bush and no one knows it. :woah:

Pagan Warrior
December 3rd, 2007, 11:33 PM
I remember a few years ago there was someone on this board, a young girl named "Lil Suzie" (or similar) and this member eventually revealed themselves to be a middle-aged man.

Is something similar going on here now? A person online can pretend to be anyone or anything they want and how would you be able to prove them wrong? Perhaps I am really G.W. Bush and no one knows it. :woah:

Not me ... I'm an ass on the boards and I'm an ass in real life :lol:

Cassie
December 4th, 2007, 04:48 AM
Not me ... I'm an ass on the boards and I'm an ass in real life :lol:
So you are GB then! :hahugh:

wintermagick
December 4th, 2007, 05:10 AM
A poll I took said that I should vote for John Edwards... hmm... whatever, but failing that then Hillary.

banondraig
December 4th, 2007, 11:45 AM
I remember a few years ago there was someone on this board, a young girl named "Lil Suzie" (or similar) and this member eventually revealed themselves to be a middle-aged man.

Is something similar going on here now? A person online can pretend to be anyone or anything they want and how would you be able to prove them wrong? Perhaps I am really G.W. Bush and no one knows it. :woah:

:lol:

No way. Pawnman is G.W. Bush.

David19
December 4th, 2007, 11:58 AM
So you are GB then! :hahugh:

:lol:.

David19
December 4th, 2007, 11:59 AM
I remember a few years ago there was someone on this board, a young girl named "Lil Suzie" (or similar) and this member eventually revealed themselves to be a middle-aged man.

Really?, was he some kind of pediphile or something? (sorry if that's way OT, but I'm just curious as I haven't heard of this before).

Pagan Warrior
December 4th, 2007, 12:08 PM
So you are GB then! :hahugh:
_wedgie_

Laisrean
December 4th, 2007, 01:28 PM
Really?, was he some kind of pediphile or something? (sorry if that's way OT, but I'm just curious as I haven't heard of this before).

Not as far as I know. It seems everyone believed he was a 13-15 year old girl for a long time up until he suddenly revealed himself in a final post. He claimed to have multiple personality disorder, and that may be all there was to it.

You should be able to find the thread in Just Talk, I think. I don't know why he suddenly revealed the truth, but whatever the reason was, that was his last post (as far as I know).

I was just reminded of him because of someone here claiming to be a member of parliament or something.

David19
December 4th, 2007, 10:00 PM
Not as far as I know. It seems everyone believed he was a 13-15 year old girl for a long time up until he suddenly revealed himself in a final post. He claimed to have multiple personality disorder, and that may be all there was to it.

You should be able to find the thread in Just Talk, I think. I don't know why he suddenly revealed the truth, but whatever the reason was, that was his last post (as far as I know).

I was just reminded of him because of someone here claiming to be a member of parliament or something.

Thanks :).

Edit: just wanted to add, I found the post you were talking about, here (http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=101763), it seems "lil_suzie" 's last appearance was July 24th 2006, I wonder what happened to him, maybe he's been committed to a mental institution or something?.

banondraig
December 5th, 2007, 12:13 PM
Thanks :).

Edit: just wanted to add, I found the post you were talking about, here (http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=101763), it seems "lil_suzie" 's last appearance was July 24th 2006, I wonder what happened to him, maybe he's been committed to a mental institution or something?.

we'll probably never know.

so, Democrats . . . .

kinda sux that they canceled their debate.

Childof_theMorrigan
December 5th, 2007, 12:37 PM
i haven't made up my mind yet... need to do more research

Philosophia
December 5th, 2007, 10:46 PM
I remember a few years ago there was someone on this board, a young girl named "Lil Suzie" (or similar) and this member eventually revealed themselves to be a middle-aged man.

Um...ew.

Cassie
January 3rd, 2008, 04:59 AM
Edwards gave Kerry a bit of a race last time round. Why does he seem so far behind this time?

Laisrean
January 3rd, 2008, 06:41 AM
Edwards gave Kerry a bit of a race last time round. Why does he seem so far behind this time?

Because he is a white male and the time has come for a minority and/or female president?

Cassie
January 3rd, 2008, 06:45 AM
Because he is a white male and the time has come for a minority and/or female president?
I'd like to think so but I'm a bit surprised that more Democrats don't see Edwards as a 'safer' candidate.

Laisrean
January 3rd, 2008, 07:56 AM
I'd like to think so but I'm a bit surprised that more Democrats don't see Edwards as a 'safer' candidate.

He could be stigmatized by his association with Kerry and so people might look at him as a failure and be unwilling to give him another chance.

Don't worry too much, because from what I've seen the front runner seldom ends up the victor in these things. In 2004 Howard Dean was the front runner and we see how that worked out for him when the caucuses began.

Kerry was the underdog but he seemed like a stable and respectable candidate with his veteran status and so forth. But I guess he was too stable and... *shrug*

banondraig
January 3rd, 2008, 12:58 PM
Because he is a white male and the time has come for a minority and/or female president?


I'd like to think so but I'm a bit surprised that more Democrats don't see Edwards as a 'safer' candidate.

I personally take the more cynical view that his genetics aren't such that he is a "first candidate" of any kind, and therefore he provides less media spin.

Also, perhaps his Southern accent reminds people of Bush on some level, though it's really not the same.

Laisrean
January 3rd, 2008, 02:04 PM
I personally take the more cynical view that his genetics aren't such that he is a "first candidate" of any kind, and therefore he provides less media spin.

Also, perhaps his Southern accent reminds people of Bush on some level, though it's really not the same.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. The main reason (and probably the only reason) why Hillary and Obama are the front-runners is because they are respectively a woman and an african-american.

The media is like "OMG! A woman!" when it comes to Hillary, and "OMG! A black man!" when it comes to Obama. As for Edwards, he's just another white male so what is there to talk about? It's sad that a candidates gender or race determines the level of attention they receive, but what can you do? If Edwards is just as competent as the other candidates, then it is ironically racist and sexist to ignore him.

banondraig
January 4th, 2008, 01:08 PM
I think you've hit the nail on the head. The main reason (and probably the only reason) why Hillary and Obama are the front-runners is because they are respectively a woman and an african-american.

The media is like "OMG! A woman!" when it comes to Hillary, and "OMG! A black man!" when it comes to Obama. As for Edwards, he's just another white male so what is there to talk about? It's sad that a candidates gender or race determines the level of attention they receive, but what can you do? If Edwards is just as competent as the other candidates, then it is ironically racist and sexist to ignore him.

Agreed.

There's nothing like that backlash.

Lilith Morgaine
January 4th, 2008, 06:08 PM
Disclaimer: Do not jump on ME it's my friend's joke. Please just appreciate the humor!



My friend's bf/ refers to Barack as the Moroccan Bomber... it's funny and pleasent to say..... kinda rolls off the tongue.....


As for the lesser of the evils (and I'm not even a Repub.)... I picked Hil.....



That is all.

Seasaidh
January 4th, 2008, 07:09 PM
I really like Mike Gravel. I agree with pretty much everything he is running on; although, I don't fully understand the progressive fair tax and have heard mixed opinions about universal healthcare. I think the National Initiative is a really cool idea (it basically gives more power to us as lawmakers). (If you're interested in how Gravel stands on today's 'hot issues', you can go here (http://www.gravel2008.us/issues).) I guess what I like the most about him is that he seems genuine and speaks to the people like equals (he doesn't get that arrogant 'you probably won't understand my answer, so I'm just going to side-step the issue entirely' attitude that other candidates seem to have). Also, he's not afraid of being honest, even if it means he's going to rock the boat.

If I'd have to pick from the top three, it'd probably be Edwards. :)

(I'm so glad I get to vote this time. :hahugh: )

FaeSpirit39
January 6th, 2008, 09:39 PM
Living in Canada, I don't pay a whole lot of attention to U.S. Politics, but I try my best at least have a good understanding of what's going on and who's running for the Presidency especially as the US and Canada are very closely tied.

My vote (if I could vote) is for Barack Obama.

Lady Moonsong
January 7th, 2008, 02:45 PM
I'm for Edwards. From what research I've been able to do over the last couple months he seems to be a great guy in general. He's smart, kind, loyal, and made his money fighting for the little guy. What's not to like? I think he could do a great job in the White House.

Honestly, I think Hillary would be too concerned about getting a second term and would end up a bit wishy-washy as a result. And Obama...I think he wants the power and prestige more than the job. He's a charmer...but I've yet to see anyone really pin him down on what he believes in. He needs more time serving in the political arena before I'd be comfortable handing him the presidency.

Just my opinion.

~Cat

Petunia
January 10th, 2008, 05:26 AM
I voted for Edwards. Mainly becasue he is the only front runner who has really addressed the issue of health care.

aluokaloo
January 10th, 2008, 03:33 PM
I'm voting for John Edwards, he seems to have a brain, I just wanna see if he's got the guts to back it up.

Dark_Tezcatlipoca
January 10th, 2008, 05:28 PM
I really like Mike Gravel. I agree with pretty much everything he is running on; although, I don't fully understand the progressive fair tax and have heard mixed opinions about universal healthcare. I think the National Initiative is a really cool idea (it basically gives more power to us as lawmakers). (If you're interested in how Gravel stands on today's 'hot issues', you can go here (http://www.gravel2008.us/issues).) I guess what I like the most about him is that he seems genuine and speaks to the people like equals (he doesn't get that arrogant 'you probably won't understand my answer, so I'm just going to side-step the issue entirely' attitude that other candidates seem to have). Also, he's not afraid of being honest, even if it means he's going to rock the boat.

If I'd have to pick from the top three, it'd probably be Edwards. :)

(I'm so glad I get to vote this time. :hahugh: )

FairTax would mean that the government would do away with income tax and the IRS and install much higher sales tax (i think 20%?). People are just catching on to Ron Paul, the libertarian GOP candidate. Im surprised to hear that a democrat is for FairTax.

Dark_Tezcatlipoca
January 10th, 2008, 05:28 PM
I really like Mike Gravel. I agree with pretty much everything he is running on; although, I don't fully understand the progressive fair tax and have heard mixed opinions about universal healthcare. I think the National Initiative is a really cool idea (it basically gives more power to us as lawmakers). (If you're interested in how Gravel stands on today's 'hot issues', you can go here (http://www.gravel2008.us/issues).) I guess what I like the most about him is that he seems genuine and speaks to the people like equals (he doesn't get that arrogant 'you probably won't understand my answer, so I'm just going to side-step the issue entirely' attitude that other candidates seem to have). Also, he's not afraid of being honest, even if it means he's going to rock the boat.

If I'd have to pick from the top three, it'd probably be Edwards. :)

(I'm so glad I get to vote this time. :hahugh: )

FairTax would mean that the government would do away with income tax and the IRS and install much higher sales tax (i think 20%?). People are just catching on to Ron Paul, the libertarian GOP candidate. Im surprised to hear that a Democrat is for FairTax.

banondraig
January 10th, 2008, 05:44 PM
FairTax would mean that the government would do away with income tax and the IRS and install much higher sales tax (i think 20%?). People are just catching on to Ron Paul, the libertarian GOP candidate. Im surprised to hear that a Democrat is for FairTax.

More than 20 percent.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

Laisrean
January 10th, 2008, 05:48 PM
More than 20 percent.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

It could be much less than 20% provided spending is also cut.

Dark_Tezcatlipoca
January 10th, 2008, 05:55 PM
More than 20 percent.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

Ron Paul doesnt want that. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Tax_Reform.htm

Q: If you replace the income tax with a flat tax, a 30% consumption tax, that would be very, very punishing to the poor and middle class.

A: Well, I know. That's why I don't want it.

Q: So you have nothing?

A: I want to cut spending. I want to use the Constitution as our guide, and you wouldn't need the income tax.

Q: What would happen to all those lost revenues? How would we fund our government?

A: We have to cut spending. You can't get rid of the income tax if you don't get rid of some spending. But, you know, if you got rid of the income tax today you'd have about as much revenue as we had 10 years ago, and the size of government wasn't all that bad 10 years ago. There're sources of revenues other than the income tax. You have tariff, excise taxes, user fees, highway fees. So, so there's still a lot of money. But the real problem is spending. But, you know, we lived a long time in this country without an income tax. Up until 1913 we didn't have it.

banondraig
January 10th, 2008, 05:55 PM
It could be much less than 20% provided spending is also cut.

Don't hold your breath, and the website said 23%.

banondraig
January 10th, 2008, 05:58 PM
Ron Paul doesnt want that. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Tax_Reform.htm


That's correct. That jack@ss Huckabee is the one who wants it. I can't stand that guy.


Q: If you replace the income tax with a flat tax, a 30% consumption tax, that would be very, very punishing to the poor and middle class.

A: Well, I know. That's why I don't want it.

Q: So you have nothing?

A: I want to cut spending. I want to use the Constitution as our guide, and you wouldn't need the income tax.

Q: What would happen to all those lost revenues? How would we fund our government?

A: We have to cut spending. You can't get rid of the income tax if you don't get rid of some spending. But, you know, if you got rid of the income tax today you'd have about as much revenue as we had 10 years ago, and the size of government wasn't all that bad 10 years ago. There're sources of revenues other than the income tax. You have tariff, excise taxes, user fees, highway fees. So, so there's still a lot of money. But the real problem is spending. But, you know, we lived a long time in this country without an income tax. Up until 1913 we didn't have it.

Thanks for sharing this.

Laisrean
January 10th, 2008, 05:59 PM
I agree with Ron Paul. The income tax should go and there shouldn't be a consumption tax either, but I think a consumption tax is still preferable to the income tax and so I would accept a fairtax as a lesser of two evils. And it would eliminate the need for the IRS.

Dark_Tezcatlipoca
January 10th, 2008, 06:29 PM
That's correct. That jack@ss Huckabee is the one who wants it. I can't stand that guy.



Thanks for sharing this.

Youre welcome.

I dont want him because he meddles his religion with politics thus enforcing it on people. Hes also a fundamentalist.

Ron Paul actually voted against the amendment that would ban gay marriage. Heres another Q/A from the same site(Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007):

Q: What do you intend to do to counteract the homosexual agenda?

A: If you want to change people, you change them through persuasion, through family values and church values, but you can't do it through legislation because force doesn't work. But if homosexual groups want to enforce their way on us, there's no right to do that, either. At the same time, you should eradicate all these hate laws. They indicate that some people would receive a different penalty on others.

He has a really long record for ALWAYS supporting rights of all individuals. and never flip flopped for political gain.

All of you, I urge you to also pray to your gods that he wins because he is a real American. I shall pray to the Black Tezcatlipoca and the Red Tezcatlipoca. Im literaly doing everything I can. Volunteering too. and for the squemish types do blood sacrifices if you have to:spinnysmi


I agree with Ron Paul. The income tax should go and there shouldn't be a consumption tax either, but I think a consumption tax is still preferable to the income tax and so I would accept a fairtax as a lesser of two evils. And it would eliminate the need for the IRS.

Yeah me too. It would encourage people to save more like retirement, etc. It would affect the common man more negatively than the rich but the beuracracy and bullying of the IRS and the hassles of filing taxes would not be there. If you look at Ron Paul's site ronpaul2008.com one of his issues is IRS taxing tips(strippers, waiters, etc). Since theres no record of tips they estimate- even if you dont make that they still take it as you actually did. Outragous! So yeah FairTax would be the Lesser of two evils.

P.S. I dont want to hijack this dem thread. Although I highly disagree with them I respect their right to not have their thread hijacked by a libertarian zealot like myself:smileroll So if someone can please make a Ron Paul/libertarian thread....

-edit- oh yeah nvm I just hadnt seen one on the 'new posts' button

Laisrean
January 10th, 2008, 07:21 PM
P.S. I dont want to hijack this dem thread. Although I highly disagree with them I respect their right to not have their thread hijacked by a libertarian zealot like myself:smileroll So if someone can please make a Ron Paul/libertarian thread....

There are a few of them about if you do a search. :smileroll Or you could create a new one. :boing:

banondraig
January 11th, 2008, 10:52 AM
Yeah me too. It would encourage people to save more like retirement, etc. It would affect the common man more negatively than the rich but the beuracracy and bullying of the IRS and the hassles of filing taxes would not be there. If you look at Ron Paul's site ronpaul2008.com one of his issues is IRS taxing tips(strippers, waiters, etc). Since theres no record of tips they estimate- even if you dont make that they still take it as you actually did. Outragous! So yeah FairTax would be the Lesser of two evils.

P.S. I dont want to hijack this dem thread. Although I highly disagree with them I respect their right to not have their thread hijacked by a libertarian zealot like myself:smileroll So if someone can please make a Ron Paul/libertarian thread....

-edit- oh yeah nvm I just hadnt seen one on the 'new posts' button

You mean they don't let you report your own tips any more? That's what I did when I worked for tips.

David19
January 11th, 2008, 12:38 PM
Q: What do you intend to do to counteract the homosexual agenda?

A: If you want to change people, you change them through persuasion, through family values and church values, but you can't do it through legislation because force doesn't work. But if homosexual groups want to enforce their way on us, there's no right to do that, either. At the same time, you should eradicate all these hate laws. They indicate that some people would receive a different penalty on others.

It's funny, from what I've read of him, sometimes he seems like a really cool guy and other times, not such a cool guy, like it's good he wants to eliminate hate laws, but what does he mean by "if you want to change people, you change them through persuasion, through family values and church values", is he talking about changing the bigots or is he talking about changing LGBT people (like those groups that claim to "cure" homosexuality).

And, I don't think LGBT groups want to "enforce" their way on straight people, LGBT groups want equality, not to turn everyone gay.

Laisrean
January 11th, 2008, 01:09 PM
It's funny, from what I've read of him, sometimes he seems like a really cool guy and other times, not such a cool guy, like it's good he wants to eliminate hate laws, but what does he mean by "if you want to change people, you change them through persuasion, through family values and church values", is he talking about changing the bigots or is he talking about changing LGBT people (like those groups that claim to "cure" homosexuality).

And, I don't think LGBT groups want to "enforce" their way on straight people, LGBT groups want equality, not to turn everyone gay.

He is a Republican and he is religious so I think he probably does disapprove of homosexuality on a personal level, but at least he doesn't think the government should interfere with it. He has his personal views, but he keeps them separate from his political views.

Here is a quote he said about Gay Marriage:

"It is great comedy to hear the secular, pro-gay left, so hostile to states’ rights in virtually every instance, suddenly discover the tyranny of centralized government. The newly minted protectors of local rule find themselves demanding: “Why should Washington dictate marriage standards for Massachusetts and California? Let the people of those states decide for themselves.” This is precisely the argument conservatives and libertarians have been making for decades! Why should Washington dictate education, abortion, environment, and labor rules to the states? The American people hold widely diverse views on virtually all political matters, and the Founders wanted the various state governments to most accurately reflect those views. This is the significance of the 10th Amendment, which the left in particular has abused for decades."

* Eliminate Federal Court Jurisdiction, March 2, 2004 [6]

So he is entirely against Washington interfering with gay marriage and he wants to let the states be free to decide that. To be fair, I think on a personal level he is against it, but I think you would agree he at least isn't as bad as most of the other Republican candidates in this respect. Because some of them (Like Huckabee) actually want it banned entirely at the federal level.

I looked for quotes by him on wikiquote.org but I couldn't find anything else on the topic of homosexuality than that one there so I don't think its a major issue to him.

Dark_Tezcatlipoca
January 11th, 2008, 01:13 PM
Read about the behaviorist psycholigists...BF Skinner,etc...

Anyway Ron Paul argues that lobbying groups do try to force their way and get more priviliges for their ideas. He is a very strong supporter of INDIVIDUAL rights. So when he talks about changing gays he says Christians should try to change them not FORCE them to change. They have every right to pursue their rights but not get priviliges above everyone. Like how some people automatically call others homophobes when they dont support even a PARTICULAR belief and freedom is silenced by such lobbying groups ie. when *certain* muslim lobbying groups charge a *certain* person with a hate crime for throwing a *certain* Muslim holybook down a toilet. Anyway, he PERSONALLY thinks marriage is a religious matter not a government matter, so if any gay/gay approving churches/religions want to marry people they are free to do as they wish.

I PERSONALLY believe people should do what they want as long as they dont force their personal beliefs on anyone. If they want to persuade others then they are free to so- just like "Los Hermanos" try to persuade people to join their religion-they are free to so.

Laisrean, to add, as to not get people confused to your posts: People do not confuse 'Conservatives' with 'neoconservatives' whow ant to TAKE peoples rights.

David19
January 12th, 2008, 02:58 PM
Anyway Ron Paul argues that lobbying groups do try to force their way and get more priviliges for their ideas. He is a very strong supporter of INDIVIDUAL rights. So when he talks about changing gays he says Christians should try to change them not FORCE them to change.

Yes, but he's still saying Christians should try and change LGBT people into something they're not, he might not be the typical violent homophobe, and he's entitled to his beliefs that being gay is "wrong", but I just think, as a presidential candidate he shouldn't broadcast them, why let people know he thinks LGBT people are "wrong" or "sinful"?.

And, I know, he's saying it's up to individual churches to decide whether to marry gay people or states to decide to give LGBT equal rights, but if this was the 1960s, during the civl rights marches, would Ron Paul be saying "it's up to the states to decide whether to give black people equal rights", I hope not, but IMO, it's pretty much the same thing.

Laisrean
January 12th, 2008, 04:13 PM
Yes, but he's still saying Christians should try and change LGBT people into something they're not, he might not be the typical violent homophobe, and he's entitled to his beliefs that being gay is "wrong", but I just think, as a presidential candidate he shouldn't broadcast them, why let people know he thinks LGBT people are "wrong" or "sinful"?.


I don't think he has ever said LGBT people are wrong or sinful (if anyone can dig up a sourced quote by him where he has said that then I will stand corrected). But what I think what he is doing is acknowledging that some religious groups do think it is wrong and sinful, and he is telling those groups that if they think that way then they should use things like freedom of speech to convince people of this, but they shouldn't be trying to get the government to pass laws against it.

I've also seen quotes by him and similar people on the issue of abortion, where they think it is wrong but that there shouldn't be any laws against it, and instead of laws the pro-life should run ads to try to convince people to their viewpoint. I see nothing wrong with people exercising free speech like that, because they aren't forcing anyone to do something or not to do something and it is a peaceful way of advancing their cause.

Of course, I don't agree with the churches that LGBT people are wrong, but I do think it would be better that they try to convince people with ad campaigns instead of by passing laws. I think that's where Paul is coming from with that quote you posted.

Dark_Tezcatlipoca
January 12th, 2008, 04:49 PM
Yes, but he's still saying Christians should try and change LGBT people into something they're not, he might not be the typical violent homophobe, and he's entitled to his beliefs that being gay is "wrong", but I just think, as a presidential candidate he shouldn't broadcast them, why let people know he thinks LGBT people are "wrong" or "sinful"?.

And, I know, he's saying it's up to individual churches to decide whether to marry gay people or states to decide to give LGBT equal rights, but if this was the 1960s, during the civl rights marches, would Ron Paul be saying "it's up to the states to decide whether to give black people equal rights", I hope not, but IMO, it's pretty much the same thing.

but why is it that the general gay population despise the (gay/bi)'DL' guys/not out. Why is it that other gays and try to change them into something theyre not (into being out)? and why do gay activist leaders stigmatize them when its their decision to be not out? Why do that? Huh? huh?

David19
January 12th, 2008, 05:12 PM
but why is it that the general gay population despise the (gay/bi)'DL' guys/not out. Why is it that other gays and try to change them into something theyre not (into being out)? and why do gay activist leaders stigmatize them when its their decision to be not out? Why do that? Huh? huh?

The gay population where I'm from don't do that, in fact, most people are understanding of why people are in the closet, and offer any advice or support they need.

BTW, what are DL guys, as I've never heard that term before?.

Dark_Tezcatlipoca
January 12th, 2008, 05:14 PM
The gay population where I'm from don't do that, in fact, most people are understanding of why people are in the closet, and offer any advice or support they need.

BTW, what are DL guys, as I've never heard that term before?.

In the US they do that. I dont know where you live... Down Low- discreet

David19
January 12th, 2008, 05:15 PM
I don't think he has ever said LGBT people are wrong or sinful (if anyone can dig up a sourced quote by him where he has said that then I will stand corrected). But what I think what he is doing is acknowledging that some religious groups do think it is wrong and sinful, and he is telling those groups that if they think that way then they should use things like freedom of speech to convince people of this, but they shouldn't be trying to get the government to pass laws against it.

I've also seen quotes by him and similar people on the issue of abortion, where they think it is wrong but that there shouldn't be any laws against it, and instead of laws the pro-life should run ads to try to convince people to their viewpoint. I see nothing wrong with people exercising free speech like that, because they aren't forcing anyone to do something or not to do something and it is a peaceful way of advancing their cause.

Of course, I don't agree with the churches that LGBT people are wrong, but I do think it would be better that they try to convince people with ad campaigns instead of by passing laws. I think that's where Paul is coming from with that quote you posted.

When you put it like that, it does seem "better", kind of anyway, for them only to be using ads, instead of laws, although maybe it's society that needs to change ('cause even if states could decide individually, it's not likely that you're going to get Alabama or other Bible belt states approving same-sex rights, etc.

Philosophia
January 12th, 2008, 07:28 PM
but why is it that the general gay population despise the (gay/bi)'DL' guys/not out. Why is it that other gays and try to change them into something theyre not (into being out)? and why do gay activist leaders stigmatize them when its their decision to be not out? Why do that? Huh? huh?

How do the general gay population despise the homosexuals still in the closet? How do you know that other gays try to change them into something they're not?

David19
January 12th, 2008, 10:17 PM
In the US they do that. I dont know where you live... Down Low- discreet

I'm in the UK.


How do the general gay population despise the homosexuals still in the closet? How do you know that other gays try to change them into something they're not?

QFT, I'd like to know how other gays try and "change" or "force" people to be something they're not.

Haerfest Leah
January 27th, 2008, 04:01 AM
Barack Obama all the way.

Cake-eating_Moth
February 9th, 2008, 08:22 PM
Hillary's face ANNOYS me... So do her proposed policies. If she's elected, she will lose to the Republican nominee, because those who strongly dislike her and are going for another Democrat (said, mostly, Barack Obama) would rather vote for the Republican nominee than her.

(These views are expressed only because of my discussion with many on that issue)

Laisrean
February 9th, 2008, 08:24 PM
At this point the choice is pretty well between Obama and Hillary. This thread may as well be closed... There could be a new one between the candidates that remain, but it would be short lived because this is going to be over soon, I think.

The Republican one is the same way. Only Huckabee, Paul, and of course McCain still remain. So yeah, these polls served their purpose but they are no longer pertinent.

Philosophia
February 9th, 2008, 11:05 PM
At this point the choice is pretty well between Obama and Hillary. This thread may as well be closed... There could be a new one between the candidates that remain, but it would be short lived because this is going to be over soon, I think.

The Republican one is the same way. Only Huckabee, Paul, and of course McCain still remain. So yeah, these polls served their purpose but they are no longer pertinent.

Both threads will be kept open and stickied up top until a presidential candidate from both sides is found and announced. When it is, then both threads will be unstuck but not locked.

Unless, of course, the OP wants them unstuck.

CheshireEyes
February 10th, 2008, 04:25 PM
Typically, from a political standpoint, I don't agree with a two party system (for the most part as we have now in this country). I'll prolly be voting for Hilary just to show that there's nothing wrong by voting for a woman. I REALLY doubt she'd ever get in office SIMPLY because of her sex, but I'd vote for her anyway, because of that. Not the least of which, i agree with alot of her policies.

But for me, its more about breaking that two party lock and getting people to vote on the issues and the person, not the party.

The only time I voted thru party lines is for the democratic representative for my district b/c i know him and he's a good guy.

Belgalad
February 10th, 2008, 04:26 PM
I will vote for anyone who offers me universal health care. I've been an uninsured working stiff... actually, fairly recently. Worrying constantly that if I twist my ankle in the mall or get a hernia moving the couch, my whole family will be homeless because I can't work in that kind of condition, and we're paycheck to paycheck on the mortgage as it is... that's not something I'd wish on anyone.

So regardless of anything else Clinton stands for, she's offering the people who are now in that position some kind of relief from the anxiety and the nearness of poverty, which I think is among the most important issues in the country today.

Lilith Morgaine
February 10th, 2008, 07:33 PM
Simply put..... if B.O. beats H.C. I cannot in good faith vote at all.

Seasaidh
February 11th, 2008, 01:32 PM
Despite the misinformation that many news channels have been perpetuating, Mike Gravel is still in the Democratic running. You'd think with only three candidates left, Gravel would be able to be included at a debate, but the stations are still keeping him out of the debates because he doesn't met the standard that says you must have such-and-such amount of money in your campaign. Gravel is pretty much getting information about himself out on the internet and by holding 'alternative debates' at different universities.

If anyone would like to read up on Mike, here is his campaign site (http://www.gravel2008.us/) and his youtube channel (http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=gravel2008).

When he was the Alaskan Senator in the 70s, he was responsible for a one-man filibuster that cut funding for the draft and helped end the Vietnam war, and he also read the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional record. Gravel is for gay rights, a woman's right to choose, universal health care, ending the war against terror and the war against drugs, and establishing a fair tax. (Of course, I'm not an economist and have not had to file taxes yet, so I'm not sure if the fair tax would be an improvement or not. I'm also, personally, still a bit iffy on universal health care.)

It seems a shame that the mainstream news channels have decided to cut him out of the race by not informing people of him and by saying he has dropped out when he has not. From the very beginning, it was as though MSNBC and the like had already picked out Obama, Clinton, and Edwards as the three candidates- hardly giving air time to any of the other candidates.

Dark_Tezcatlipoca
February 12th, 2008, 02:43 PM
Despite the misinformation that many news channels have been perpetuating, Mike Gravel is still in the Democratic running. You'd think with only three candidates left, Gravel would be able to be included at a debate, but the stations are still keeping him out of the debates because he doesn't met the standard that says you must have such-and-such amount of money in your campaign. Gravel is pretty much getting information about himself out on the internet and by holding 'alternative debates' at different universities.

If anyone would like to read up on Mike, here is his campaign site (http://www.gravel2008.us/) and his youtube channel (http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=gravel2008).

When he was the Alaskan Senator in the 70s, he was responsible for a one-man filibuster that cut funding for the draft and helped end the Vietnam war, and he also read the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional record. Gravel is for gay rights, a woman's right to choose, universal health care, ending the war against terror and the war against drugs, and establishing a fair tax. (Of course, I'm not an economist and have not had to file taxes yet, so I'm not sure if the fair tax would be an improvement or not. I'm also, personally, still a bit iffy on universal health care.)

It seems a shame that the mainstream news channels have decided to cut him out of the race by not informing people of him and by saying he has dropped out when he has not. From the very beginning, it was as though MSNBC and the like had already picked out Obama, Clinton, and Edwards as the three candidates- hardly giving air time to any of the other candidates.

I think he is the best Democrat running. He has a lot of libertarian views, which I like but he is for direct democracy. Direct democracy just causes mob rule, and the media will be (even more than today) the dictator of the nation. The USA was intended to be a constitutional republic.

Pagan Warrior
February 18th, 2008, 01:18 PM
I have to admit this has been a very interesting debate and I appreciate the "powers that be" on MW for making this topic sticky and keeping it there. Even here Hilary and Barack are running neck and neck. I have to admit I don't really like either of them all that much but of the two I'm more inclined to lean towards Obama.

XanderAmon
February 23rd, 2008, 04:40 AM
I've been a fan of Barack ever since his famed DNC speech, and I'm happy to see all the support he's getting in the primaries.

Ben Trismegistus
March 15th, 2008, 09:43 AM
FYI, I am feeling the Obama-mentum.

That is all.

Jeremy Westenn
March 26th, 2008, 01:51 AM
Hillary for the win. Caucuse'd for her and doing everything in my power to make it happen.

P.S. Ron Paul really isn't a true Republican, he's a Libertarian with an R next to his name so people would elect him. *Coughjokecough*

ravenhecate999
April 7th, 2008, 01:41 PM
Hillary. I dont care what anybody says. =]

Doodlebug
April 27th, 2008, 02:05 PM
Definitely Hillary Clinton. It's time we had a female president! :thumbsup:

David19
April 27th, 2008, 08:38 PM
Definitely Hillary Clinton. It's time we had a female president! :thumbsup:

I think I do agree with you, kind of anyway :) ;).

Sequoia
April 27th, 2008, 10:27 PM
Definitely Hillary Clinton. It's time we had a female president! :thumbsup:


I think I do agree with you, kind of anyway :) ;).

Because everyone knows the only reason you should elect a president is their gender.

:)

banondraig
April 29th, 2008, 12:48 AM
Because everyone knows the only reason you should elect a president is their gender.

:)

Of course not, but it's nice to see some choice in that particular matter for once. I still don't like either remaining Democratic candidate myself. Obama has chronic foot-in-mouth disease, and there's just something about Hillary that I don't trust.

CzechWoods
August 15th, 2008, 09:51 PM
i voted hillary regardless its obama by now.

hillary !!!!!!!!!!!!!!


besides, a friend f mine istened carefully to his speech in berlin

Hillary i say, hii-aaaa-ryyyyyyyyyyy!

David19
August 16th, 2008, 11:18 AM
i voted hillary regardless its obama by now.

hillary !!!!!!!!!!!!!!


besides, a friend f mine istened carefully to his speech in berlin

Hillary i say, hii-aaaa-ryyyyyyyyyyy!

I think the only way that'll happen, now, is, if Obama, McCain, and all the other candidates have a horrible "accident" ;) :giggle:!.

CzechWoods
August 16th, 2008, 08:11 PM
I think the only way that'll happen, now, is, if Obama, McCain, and all the other candidates have a horrible "accident" ;) :giggle:!.

you mean there is still hope ?

:giggle: