Maybe people are being superficial, but they are not voting for some jerk-off celebrity who is feeding them complete fluff, they are voting for a legitimate, qualified, excited, intelligent Democratic cadidate telling them all the things people want to hear.
i think you prove krugman's point. "most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I???m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality."
if people are supporting obama for superficial reasons, then why so much hate towards hillary? don't you think its a little troubling that obama supporters vilify hillary by quoting word for word, the same republican anti-hillary rhettoric as the fox news types? isn't it very likely that the reason she trails right now, despite her experience and the "clinton name", is because obama supporters are hillary-hating more than the gop? hillary supporters generally praise obama, but prefer hillary as their prez. if it was a two way street, i think hillary would be on cruise control right now. negativity works. i'm not talking about obama, btw, just his supporters.
I don't need Obama to know that I have never remotely liked Hillary as a presidential candidate. If I lived in NY, I may well have voted for her twice, and may well look forward to voting for her again. If Obama was not in this, I would have been pulling hard for Edwards.
well, i will co-sign harveycanal in saying, as a progressive, i'm down with this. it makes me nauseous to hear obama talk about his republican support.
What makes me nauseous are people who treat politics like some "us against them" game when it should simply be "what's best for ALL of us".
I'm surprised at the assumption that they are essentially the same candidate. Yes they are both from the same party. Yes they have very similar political stances. But there is a great deal of prioritizing and nuance that goes into being the most powerful person in the world. It's not like the senate when you just vote "yes" and "no" on everything. Four years of Hillary would be far different than four years of Obama, nobody can dispute that.
Plus all the excitement is a GOOD thing. This is what you get when you appeal to young voters more than ever before (?). They're not old and cynical yet, let them be excited.
it just reminds me of the whole cult of mac stuff.
i wouldnt take it seriously
Wow, I was thinking the same thing. Most people don't care about the specifics on issues when it comes down to it. People would rather vote for Character, and ability to rally spirit, or debate well.
When they should be caring about what these charismatic people are talking about.
Ron Paul supporters don't realize the CHANGE he's talking is almost going backwards issue wise.
Hillary and Obama are talking the same change from the GOP to moderate dem standards. So, if either one gets elected it's fine with me.
Hillary and her husband may have a history with shitty politics, but the Clinton era was a much better time then the Bush era.
- spidey
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Ron Paul supporters don't realize the CHANGE he's talking is almost going backwards issue wise.
Backwards as in dismantling a rogue criminal government?
Is that actually Ron Paul's policy, or just your perception of Ron Paul's policy?
Sounds like it to me.
Education
Ron Paul voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools.
"Many of those who share my belief that the most effective education reform is to put parents back in charge of the education system have embraced government-funded voucher programs as a means to that end."
Healthcare
"We need to get the government out of the way. Inflation hits the middle class and the poor the most. Those are the people who are losing it. We don't have enough competition. There's a doctor monopoly out there. We need alternative health care freely available to the people. They ought to be able to make their own choices and not controlled by the FDA preventing them to use some of the medications."
- spidey
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Is that actually Ron Paul's policy, or just your perception of Ron Paul's policy?
Sounds like it to me.
Education
Ron Paul voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools.
"Many of those who share my belief that the most effective education reform is to put parents back in charge of the education system have embraced government-funded voucher programs as a means to that end."
Healthcare
"We need to get the government out of the way. Inflation hits the middle class and the poor the most. Those are the people who are losing it. We don't have enough competition. There's a doctor monopoly out there. We need alternative health care freely available to the people. They ought to be able to make their own choices and not controlled by the FDA preventing them to use some of the medications."
- spidey
Really, the better proof I quickly found is that Paul as a Congressman has indeed voted for lessening corporate oversight. So, cashless was right.
But, I happened across a message board exchange that might clarify some things about that corporate oversight...
It is very idealistic, so what if one state decides that they want to have tons of coal-fired power plants and don't want to require clean burning technology to be used? Is that solely the responsibility of the State Government or does the Federal Government have a say? Those actions not only effect the state, but the resulting pollution effects the states surrounding polluter and puts lives and health at risk. It is my understanding that Ron Paul would have the citizen only use the courts as a recourse because he fundamentally believes in the Federal Government having no regulatory authority. This worries me on several levels. The idealism is great, but there are too many grey areas where I think you need some sort of Federal regulation. Health-care, environmental protections, trade policy, a living wage, etc.
That said his views on Foreign policy, taxes, the "War on Drugs", balanced budgets, etc are very appealing!
Bakers Dozen, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on December 22, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Baker Dozen- what you have to realize is that none of those federal regulations actually do ANYTHING. They are used soley as a means to collect more revenue from us, and then are split up for political reasons, and the end result is.........nothing. As far as the environment is concerned, how much money do you think the coal and oil industries get from the feds? Not to mention our military industrial complex. So again, the great inconsistency of well intentioned regulations, coupled with the subsidizing of those same companies who are the most guilty of harming the environment. The free market can help because when you get the fed out of it, you let the energy sources compete, and I believe we have a ton of alternative sources that are screaming to become more mainstream but cannot because we subsidize the fossil fuel industry. How about legalizing HEMP in CA for god's sake, our economy would EXPLODE.
Also, private property rights under a Paul admin would be sacred, and that means you cannot pollute your neighbors air, water or land. So if this is happening, then that's where the courts come in.
curious, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on December 22, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Re: "Corporate Oversight" :
There would be a lot more Corporate Oversight under a Ron Paul (and related philosophy, not just the man) administration. How?
Because Corporations right now are literally the Fox guarding the Henhouse - how do you think all regulations are made by our Congress ?
With Corporate Oversight, yup, a true perversion of that statement's meaning.
Corporations LITERALLY govern how they are governed, by virtue of all the fake, useless regulatory 'oversight' that is constantly legislated.
When they have nothing to influence, control, conduct their own perverted 'oversight' over, it will be a dramatically different paradigm.
They're going to have more oversight than they ever dreamed (had nightmares) of.
Ron Paul is Pro Citizen Choice, a resident of Another Coastside community, on December 22, 2007 at 2:36 pm
It's no secret that corporate affiliates are funding these campaigns, and governing themselves. However, I think it'd be a mistake to give them more power.
Ron is constantly talking about taking away power from the US government, therefore the responsibilities will have to fall on somebody elses backs (corporations).
Besides that, Ron Paul regresses on things that I feel are important.
Ron paul stances:
Strongly opposes a woman's right to have an abortion Strongly opposes the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 Strongly supports restrictions on medical procedures used during late term abortions Supports abstinence-only education
Strongly opposes hate crime legislation Opposes increased funding for public schools Opposes across-the-board pay raises for schoolteachers Supports the use of standardized tests to measure public school performance Supports a voucher-based school system Opposes the creation of charter schools to compete with under-performing public schools Strongly opposes race-based affirmative action programs in higher education
(Public schools stay the same, teachers still get low pay, emphasis on private schools, and parents buying childrens education.)
Opposes the idea that human pollution is a significant cause of global warming Strongly supports investment in drilling for oil domestically Strongly opposes requiring American automakers to meet certain fuel efficiency standards Strongly opposes the protection of natural places from development Strongly opposes greater investment in public transportation
(More oil drilling in America, Carmakers don't need emission standards, No money for better public transportation.)
Opposes allowing gays to serve openly in the military Strongly opposes extending federal rights and benefits to same-sex couples
(Don't ask don't tell reinstated)
Strongly opposes restrictions on access to firearms Strongly opposes a ban on assault weapons Strongly opposes running background checks on individuals purchasing guns.
(More powerful guns for americans, with less wait time)
Strongly opposes universal health care which provides access to health care regardless of ability to pay. Opposes taxpayer-financed health care for all children under the age of 18. Strongly opposes requiring American employers to cover a significant portion of the health care costs of their employees.
(No free healthcare, less insurance help for employees.)
Opposes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants
("If we reward lawbreakers who enter this country illegally with citizenship, then any new laws Congress might pass likewise can be ignored. Reform must begin with a new mentality that immigration laws will be enforced.")
Strongly opposes the US having a long-term presence in Iraq Strongly opposes the United States' current relationship with Israel Opposes a continuation of the economic embargo on Cuba Strongly opposes an increase in foreign aid to combat poverty and disease Strongly opposes use of the United Nations to deal with international issues
(No foreign aid at all)
Strongly opposes an increase in taxes for the wealthiest Americans Supports a flat tax system across income levels Strongly supports a Constitutional amendment that would require Congress and the President to balance the budget each year Strongly supports eliminating taxes on estates after an individual's death Strongly supports the elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax
(Everybody pays the same Tax, regardless of income.)
Strongly opposes an increase in the federal minimum wage Opposes legislation restricting employers from interfering with union votes
Strongly opposes a woman's right to have an abortion Strongly opposes the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 Strongly supports restrictions on medical procedures used during late term abortions Supports abstinence-only education
someone PLEASE to explain how his abortion positions square with his otherwise libertarian veiws. particularly puzzling because he opposes the FDA's regulation of food and drugs. I cram to understand.
its because liberals miss having a real religion to believe in.
there is a small dingy of truth floating atop this ocean of idiocy. It is because liberals have consistently rejected the word of our father that they have throughout history so often become the vassals of false prophets(see marx, mao, stalin, hitler, musolini, castro, pol pot ect.). If they would only read the scripture, only open their hearts to the lord, then they would be equiped with an armor of sound proof with which to defend themselves against the honeyed lies of deceivers. It's just a shame theyd much rather spend their time fornicating with themselves to pictures of heavily tatooed anorexics.
How to bake a God-Fearing Cake
Take one large store-bought loaf of Pander-label rhetoric, add three cans of stock diatribe, sweeten with Straw-Man Brand revisionist history and add 1 pinch of bitter sarcasm. Stir kool-aid flavoring with religious fervor. Bake with fruity words and strain all humo(u)r. Ice with didactic frosting. Serves one.
Strongly opposes a woman's right to have an abortion Strongly opposes the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 Strongly supports restrictions on medical procedures used during late term abortions Supports abstinence-only education
someone PLEASE to explain how his abortion positions square with his otherwise libertarian veiws. particularly puzzling because he opposes the FDA's regulation of food and drugs. I cram to understand.
I will try. Although this is more for others than you. I highly doubt you will ever be able to step past his views on Israel.
The statements above are very misleading. He personally opposes abortion. He does NOT oppose a woman's right to have an abortion. He opposes Roe because he thinks the federal gov has no business deciding whether or not a woman has an abortion. I'm not sure where the restrictions on medical procedures comes from but I'd like to see a source on that. A man who supports homeschooling and all forms of private personalized eduction, would obviously support a person's right to teach abstinence only education and a person's right to take their child to a different school.
Strongly opposes a woman's right to have an abortion Strongly opposes the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 Strongly supports restrictions on medical procedures used during late term abortions Supports abstinence-only education
someone PLEASE to explain how his abortion positions square with his otherwise libertarian veiws. particularly puzzling because he opposes the FDA's regulation of food and drugs. I cram to understand.
I will try. Although this is more for others than you. I highly doubt you will ever be able to step past his views on Israel.
The statements above are very misleading. He personally opposes abortion. He does NOT oppose a woman's right to have an abortion. He opposes Roe because he thinks the federal gov has no business deciding whether or not a woman has an abortion. I'm not sure where the restrictions on medical procedures comes from but I'd like to see a source on that. A man who supports homeschooling and all forms of private personalized eduction, would obviously support a person's right to teach abstinence only education and a person's right to take their child to a different school.
Cram on.
Exactly. He personally opposes it because of his experience as a OB/GYN and his Christian background. But he'll leave it up to the states to decide for themselves.
Strongly opposes a woman's right to have an abortion Strongly opposes the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 Strongly supports restrictions on medical procedures used during late term abortions Supports abstinence-only education
someone PLEASE to explain how his abortion positions square with his otherwise libertarian veiws. particularly puzzling because he opposes the FDA's regulation of food and drugs. I cram to understand.
I will try. Although this is more for others than you. I highly doubt you will ever be able to step past his views on Israel.
hey man, fuck you.
mine was a serious question. theres about a million reasons I would never vote for that clown. I was just curious about the abortion thing.
I just want to thank you all the Ron Paul heads for giving your best shot at saving us all from the scourge of healthcare, education, the Nafta superhighway, international diplomacy and mexicans. Rock on you two!
I just want to thank you all the Ron Paul heads for giving your best shot at saving us all from the scourge of healthcare, education, the Nafta superhighway, international diplomacy and mexicans. Rock on you two!
Strongly opposes a woman's right to have an abortion Strongly opposes the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 Strongly supports restrictions on medical procedures used during late term abortions Supports abstinence-only education
someone PLEASE to explain how his abortion positions square with his otherwise libertarian veiws. particularly puzzling because he opposes the FDA's regulation of food and drugs. I cram to understand.
I will try. Although this is more for others than you. I highly doubt you will ever be able to step past his views on Israel.
The statements above are very misleading. He personally opposes abortion. He does NOT oppose a woman's right to have an abortion. He opposes Roe because he thinks the federal gov has no business deciding whether or not a woman has an abortion.
He believes it is the business of state governments to decide whether or not a woman has an abortion?
Comments
I don't need Obama to know that I have never remotely liked Hillary as a presidential candidate. If I lived in NY, I may well have voted for her twice, and may well look forward to voting for her again. If Obama was not in this, I would have been pulling hard for Edwards.
democratic platform = "what's best for all of us"
republican platform = "us against them"
Plaese to photoshop a single laser beam ala Cyclops exploding her head into tiny bits.
Thank you.
Plus all the excitement is a GOOD thing. This is what you get when you appeal to young voters more than ever before (?). They're not old and cynical yet, let them be excited.
KVH to independents/moderate Republicans: GTFOH
KVH to energized dem's: Sit down and STFU
A Winning Strategy!!!
Wow, I was thinking the same thing. Most people don't care about the specifics on issues when it comes down to it. People would rather vote for Character, and ability to rally spirit, or debate well.
When they should be caring about what these charismatic people are talking about.
Ron Paul supporters don't realize the CHANGE he's talking is almost going backwards issue wise.
Hillary and Obama are talking the same change from the GOP to moderate dem standards. So, if either one gets elected it's fine with me.
Hillary and her husband may have a history with shitty politics, but the Clinton era was a much better time then the Bush era.
- spidey
Backwards as in dismantling a rogue criminal government?
Yes, then backwards it is.
How about backwards as in letting corporations do whatever the fuck they want? Nothing could ever go wrong there right?
Backwards like taking us back to the glorious Reagen-era.
- spidey
Is that actually Ron Paul's policy, or just your perception of Ron Paul's policy?
Yes, because we all remember how Ronald Reagan did away with the IRS.
Sounds like it to me.
Education
Ron Paul voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools.
"Many of those who share my belief that the most effective education reform is to put parents back in charge of the education system have embraced government-funded voucher programs as a means to that end."
Healthcare
"We need to get the government out of the way. Inflation hits the middle class and the poor the most. Those are the people who are losing it. We don't have enough competition. There's a doctor monopoly out there. We need alternative health care freely available to the people. They ought to be able to make their own choices and not controlled by the FDA preventing them to use some of the medications."
- spidey
Really, the better proof I quickly found is that Paul as a Congressman has indeed voted for lessening corporate oversight. So, cashless was right.
But, I happened across a message board exchange that might clarify some things about that corporate oversight...
Ron is constantly talking about taking away power from the US government, therefore the responsibilities will have to fall on somebody elses backs (corporations).
Besides that, Ron Paul regresses on things that I feel are important.
Ron paul stances:
Strongly opposes a woman's right to have an abortion
Strongly opposes the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973
Strongly supports restrictions on medical procedures used during late term abortions
Supports abstinence-only education
Strongly opposes hate crime legislation
Opposes increased funding for public schools
Opposes across-the-board pay raises for schoolteachers
Supports the use of standardized tests to measure public school performance
Supports a voucher-based school system
Opposes the creation of charter schools to compete with under-performing public schools
Strongly opposes race-based affirmative action programs in higher education
(Public schools stay the same, teachers still get low pay, emphasis on private schools, and parents buying childrens education.)
Opposes the idea that human pollution is a significant cause of global warming
Strongly supports investment in drilling for oil domestically
Strongly opposes requiring American automakers to meet certain fuel efficiency standards
Strongly opposes the protection of natural places from development
Strongly opposes greater investment in public transportation
(More oil drilling in America, Carmakers don't need emission standards, No money for better public transportation.)
Opposes allowing gays to serve openly in the military
Strongly opposes extending federal rights and benefits to same-sex couples
(Don't ask don't tell reinstated)
Strongly opposes restrictions on access to firearms
Strongly opposes a ban on assault weapons
Strongly opposes running background checks on individuals purchasing guns.
(More powerful guns for americans, with less wait time)
Strongly opposes universal health care which provides access to health care regardless of ability to pay.
Opposes taxpayer-financed health care for all children under the age of 18.
Strongly opposes requiring American employers to cover a significant portion of the health care costs of their employees.
(No free healthcare, less insurance help for employees.)
Opposes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants
("If we reward lawbreakers who enter this country illegally with citizenship, then any new laws Congress might pass likewise can be ignored. Reform must begin with a new mentality that immigration laws will be enforced.")
Strongly opposes the US having a long-term presence in Iraq
Strongly opposes the United States' current relationship with Israel
Opposes a continuation of the economic embargo on Cuba
Strongly opposes an increase in foreign aid to combat poverty and disease
Strongly opposes use of the United Nations to deal with international issues
(No foreign aid at all)
Strongly opposes an increase in taxes for the wealthiest Americans
Supports a flat tax system across income levels
Strongly supports a Constitutional amendment that would require Congress and the President to balance the budget each year
Strongly supports eliminating taxes on estates after an individual's death
Strongly supports the elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax
(Everybody pays the same Tax, regardless of income.)
Strongly opposes an increase in the federal minimum wage
Opposes legislation restricting employers from interfering with union votes
(Less rights and money for low income workers)
- spidey
someone PLEASE to explain how his abortion positions square with his otherwise libertarian veiws. particularly puzzling because he opposes the FDA's regulation of food and drugs. I cram to understand.
Best posts of the year.
I will try. Although this is more for others than you. I highly doubt you will ever be able to step past his views on Israel.
The statements above are very misleading. He personally opposes abortion. He does NOT oppose a woman's right to have an abortion. He opposes Roe because he thinks the federal gov has no business deciding whether or not a woman has an abortion. I'm not sure where the restrictions on medical procedures comes from but I'd like to see a source on that. A man who supports homeschooling and all forms of private personalized eduction, would obviously support a person's right to teach abstinence only education and a person's right to take their child to a different school.
Cram on.
Exactly. He personally opposes it because of his experience as a OB/GYN and his Christian background. But he'll leave it up to the states to decide for themselves.
hey man, fuck you.
mine was a serious question. theres about a million reasons I would never vote for that clown. I was just curious about the abortion thing.
I just want to thank you all the Ron Paul heads for giving your best shot at saving us all from the scourge of healthcare, education, the Nafta superhighway, international diplomacy and mexicans. Rock on you two!
ummm, ok.
He believes it is the business of state governments to decide whether or not a woman has an abortion?
As opposed to federal government? Yes.
And as opposed to the woman herself.
Just wanted to make sure we're all clear.
Women can still have an abortion. If they live in a state that bans abortion, they just need to go to another state.
YAY!