Biased Election Thread...GO HUCKLEBERRY!!!

[Observer]

Originally Posted by fxashun

Since no one has posted a thread on the election today that I've seen. I just saw early results that my man Huckleberry is in the lead for the Repubs. Anybody but Giuliani or Clinton as far as I'm concerned.

GO HUCK!!!

The Huckster is just that. He has changed just about everything he stood for when he started out. Notice how he appears to fall into a trance when someone else is talking. Then listen to what they are saying, then watch at the next debate the Huckster recite word for word what Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Guiliani, or Thompson said. I don't believe he has an original thought. It's everyone else's thoughts.

Watch

this video

. The military is for Ron Paul. That should tell us all something about the war. Then please pray for this young man. I don't imagine the brass takes too lightly any criticism from the lower ranks.

[fxashun]

Originally Posted by Observer

The Huckster is just that. He has changed just about everything he stood for when he started out. Notice how he appears to fall into a trance when someone else is talking. Then listen to what they are saying, then watch at the next debate the Huckster recite word for word what Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Guiliani, or Thompson said. I don't believe he has an original thought. It's everyone else's thoughts.

Watch this video. The military is for Ron Paul. That should tell us all something about the war. Then please pray for this young man. I don't imagine the brass takes too lightly any criticism from the lower ranks.

I agree that we should try to "fix what we broke" in Iraq. And saying "he has changed everything he has stood for" without giving any examples doesn't make for much of an argument.

[sgtdmski]

Well New Hampshire is now in the books!!! McCain took it for the Repubs and Hillary for the Dems. So it would seem that the Big Mo did not carry over from Iowa, but then again, this is not anything new now is it. That is why there are primaries and caucuses.

The next test will be in South Carolina. It will be interesting to see what happens on the Dems side, will they go for the favorite son Edwards, or will it be between Hillary and Obama???

On the Repubs side, I truly believe that Huckabee has the inside track, he is a good ole boy and the South so far in the polls has been supporting him. In the end it will be interesting to see. Remember in 2004, SC is where McCain lost to Bush and pretty much ended his candidacy. Perhaps SC will go for McCain this time around. I think Romney will finish third or fourth, depending on how Thompson does. Thompson's being from Tennessee may attract some southern voters as well.

dmk

[Observer]

Originally Posted by fxashun

I agree that we should try to "fix what we broke" in Iraq. And saying "he has changed everything he has stood for" without giving any examples doesn't make for much of an argument.

Well, you have to admit that he isn't too original after viewing

this video

.

If you can, fxashun, watch the debates from the first to the last. That's the only way you'll be convinced. He snickered and mocked Ron Paul in the beginning of the debates, then later you'll see he is espousing RP's stances word for word. Why? Because Paul's message is gathering momentum.

It wouldn't hurt any of us to review the debates from the first to the last. Let me know if you have trouble finding them and I'll help you hunt 'em down.

The best way to know a politician is to review their record. How does it stand with what he says? This is one of life's most valuable lessons. "Don't listen to what they say. Watch to see what they do (or have done)."

And now for a joke (an oldie, but a measure of truth in it): Question: How can you tell when a politician is lying? Answer: Their lips are moving.

It's their job to lie to you. It's the only way they can keep their job!! So, the lesson to learn especially in an election year is find out if they are completely truthful. And don't stick your fingers in your ears and chant "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!" when anyone offers evidence that your candidate is lying and try to prove them wrong if you don't believe what they've offered. You know, play "devil's advocate" with yourself! Do we need another liar in the Whitehouse for the next 4-8 years?

[fxashun]

Originally Posted by Observer

Well, you have to admit that he isn't too original after viewing this video.

If you can, fxashun, watch the debates from the first to the last. That's the only way you'll be convinced. He snickered and mocked Ron Paul in the beginning of the debates, then later you'll see he is espousing RP's stances word for word. Why? Because Paul's message is gathering momentum.

It wouldn't hurt any of us to review the debates from the first to the last. Let me know if you have trouble finding them and I'll help you hunt 'em down.

The best way to know a politician is to review their record. How does it stand with what he says? This is one of life's most valuable lessons. "Don't listen to what they say. Watch to see what they do (or have done)."

And now for a joke (an oldie, but a measure of truth in it): Question: How can you tell when a politician is lying? Answer: Their lips are moving.

It's their job to lie to you. It's the only way they can keep their job!! So, the lesson to learn especially in an election year is find out if they are completely truthful. And don't stick your fingers in your ears and chant "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!" when anyone offers evidence that your candidate is lying and try to prove them wrong if you don't believe what they've offered. You know, play "devil's advocate" with yourself! Do we need another liar in the Whitehouse for the next 4-8 years?

Ron Paul is toast. What you said was that "huckleberry has changed everything he stood for". I still haven't seen you specify anything that he has changed. I'll agree with you if you can justify that statement. And remember you specifically said everything.

One thing I agree with you on is that we don't need MOTS in the White House. But looking at our choices, things ain't looking good for any real change in any way that appeals to me.

[Katczinsky]

I fear that a lot of Ron Paul supporters are voting for change just for the sake of change and not really knowing the true consequences of what Ron Paul and libertarianism would do. Especially among those on the left that support him, considering Ron Paul is probably the most conservative candidate to hit the Presidential candidate scene since Berry Goldwater. Mitt Romney may be a dunce but at least he won't take us back to the gilded age.

[Observer]

The "gilded age"?? So what's wrong with abiding strictly by the Constitution, Katczinki?

And fxashun, the proof is in watching the debates from 1 to however many we've had. For example, in the first debate, Ron Paul said he'd do away with IRS and everyone guffawed. He said he'd return to the gold standard and everyone guffawed. He said we went into the war illegally (without a proper declaration of war) and that he'd bring the troops home from all over the world.

Well, now Huckabee, Thompson, and everyone's dog is talking about no taxes, doing away with the IRS. Especially watch how Huckabee goes into a trance when the other candidates are speaking. Then watch the news closely the next day to see how Huckabee is quoting someone VERBATIM!! He's quoted Paul, Romney, Guiliani. I don't believe he knows a damn thing. And now he has a CFR member coaching him on the issues after he made a total ass of himself about the Mushariff/Bhutto deal. If they had him in a sound proof room (which I think would be a good idea -- where the candidates didn't hear how the others were answering the questions) I guarantee you, you would see his ignorance. I can't understand for the life of me why you can't see his flakiness, anyway! Sorry, JMOHO. Trying to help you out, buddy.

As for Paul "will never make it", you ought to try to figure out why the media is keeping him on mute. I'd be a little curious if I were you. I happen to KNOW WHY they are and it ain't pretty, my friend.

[fxashun]

Originally Posted by Observer

The "gilded age"?? So what's wrong with abiding strictly by the Constitution, Katczinki?

And fxashun, the proof is in watching the debates from 1 to however many we've had. For example, in the first debate, Ron Paul said he'd do away with IRS and everyone guffawed. He said he'd return to the gold standard and everyone guffawed. He said we went into the war illegally (without a proper declaration of war) and that he'd bring the troops home from all over the world.

Well, now Huckabee, Thompson, and everyone's dog is talking about no taxes, doing away with the IRS. Especially watch how Huckabee goes into a trance when the other candidates are speaking. Then watch the news closely the next day to see how Huckabee is quoting someone VERBATIM!! He's quoted Paul, Romney, Guiliani. I don't believe he knows a damn thing. And now he has a CFR member coaching him on the issues after he made a total ass of himself about the Mushariff/Bhutto deal. If they had him in a sound proof room (which I think would be a good idea -- where the candidates didn't hear how the others were answering the questions) I guarantee you, you would see his ignorance. I can't understand for the life of me why you can't see his flakiness, anyway! Sorry, JMOHO. Trying to help you out, buddy.

As for Paul "will never make it", you ought to try to figure out why the media is keeping him on mute. I'd be a little curious if I were you. I happen to KNOW WHY they are and it ain't pretty, my friend.

Ron Paul is a weirdo IMHO. Of course we need taxes. And a agency to collect them. Of course we need a Dept. of Education. And some of the other ideas he has are just strange. I'm sorry, I would vote for Ron Paul only if he was the only choice against Hillary. But I wouldn't choose to vote for either.

[Katczinsky]

Originally Posted by Observer

The "gilded age"?? So what's wrong with abiding strictly by the Constitution, Katczinki?

Libertarianism doesn't necessarily equate with abiding strictly by the Constitution. You can be liberal or conservative too and follow the Constitution. Libertarianism presents something else entirely. Not to mention the founders had intended reformations in Constitutional conventions with frequency, as they saw the need of an evolving Constitution. Many libertarians in my opinion are nostalgic and naive enough to ignore the very basic fact that our original Constitution was set up in a very different climate and libertarianism thrived under very different circumstances.

Libertarianism was useful with a relatively small population in a country before the Second Industrial Revolution. The Constitution is supposed to evolve to meet new threats to liberty. At the time of the framing of the Constitution, corporation weren't there, and even then founders saw Corporations as a future threat to liberty that may need to be limited by the people (government). When Ron Paul says statements like 'small government and lassez-faire worked good enough for the first hundred years of American history, so why can't it now?' (and I'm paraphrasing), he must be expressing a profound ignorance of American economic history.

Lassez-faire libertarianism failed. It's a now defunct philosophy in the industrial and post-industrial age. We need at least a mixed economy to sustain itself and protect vital liberties. It failed during the gilded age, and hence the need of New Deal reform. Ron Paul would roll all that evolution back and destroy the institutions that sustain our economy and protect our liberty. Ron Paul is critical of corporations but naively would destroy all the institutions that keep them from monopolizing and paying us pennies a day to live in tenements and under tyranny.

[Observer]

Originally Posted by fxashun

Ron Paul is a weirdo IMHO. Of course we need taxes. And a agency to collect them. Of course we need a Dept. of Education. And some of the other ideas he has are just strange. I'm sorry, I would vote for Ron Paul only if he was the only choice against Hillary. But I wouldn't choose to vote for either.

Possibly the reason you think Paul is a "weirdo" is because you don't understand his policies, fail to understand that following the Constitution to a "T" is what will keep our nation intact, and can't understand that the other candidates promise you the moon but won't be able to deliver if and when elected.