I don't get it, do you choose to be that stupid? You practically realize that these candidates are lying to you just to get your vote. It's blatantly obvious that they are just paying lip service and are nothing more than frontmen. I have yet to see one candidate talk about the fact that the country is dying economically, except for Ron Paul. In the debates, NONE of them will try to counter his fiscal argument. They avoid it completely, because they are not there to tackle real issues, just pay lip service and put on a show. Huckabee is tolerable, but as you said, not trustworthy. If what he said is really what he was gonna do, I can see supporting him, but he is a liar, just another standard corrupt politician. Just as Southpark put it, you're presented with a Giant Turd and a Douchebag. Why are you letting this happen to yourself to even consider supporting any of the CFR sponsored candidates?
1) Agree 2)Doesn't matter how experienced or unexperienced the president is as a commander. Politicians ALWAYS make much bigger mess out of war. Military is capable to execute war plan with maximum force and effectiveness, problem is with politicians pressuring military to do it inefficiently and sensitively. PR at its worst. It is hard to believe but there were orders given to limit Iraqi army loses to a minimum, WTH ? 3) Basically agree with you on the partial birth abortion . problem is that in US there is no common sense. If you let the partial birth abortion be banned, the ban on all abortion will follow shortly. Unfortunate but true . 4) 40 % is very optimistic number .It is about 48 %
Good post. You're absolutely right. No candidate other than Paul discusses dollar devaluation, inflation, globalization, trade or a plan to address the twin deficits. It's over. Has been for a while though......
You don't need to be insulting in your knee-jerk reactions. The post was regarding whether I would take Huckabee or Obama. Neither of them are in my top choice, but if I were to vote between the two, I would go with Huckabee as stated in my post. Ron Paul was never a consideration in that post. If you'd have read any of my other posts, you'd know that I like Ron Paul. A specific third party candidate wasn't specified, so I didn't respond to that. The plain fact is that I don't get to choose who makes it to the generals, but I will vote regardless when the time comes. Even if I am voting on the lesser of two evils. I won't simply refrain from voting because my top choices didn't make it. But in your post you've actually outlined the precise reason why RP won't even come close to winning. The sad truth is that the issues spouted by RP are not understood by the average voter. He is screaming in vain. The other candidates don't field his questions because to do so in a debate is pointless. That should not be confused with ignorance on their part. For example, Huckabee preaches "going out of business" for IRS just as RP does, but he doesn't scream about it during the debates. Why? He knows which issues are going to get the most voters. Which is better, RP not accomplishing anything toward the cause for decades, or a candidate with a similar stance actually doing what it takes to get elected thereby allowing him to try to make a difference?
I agree with most of what you said, but just a comment on the abortion issue. Knowing what happens with a partial birth abortion makes me willing to take the risk you've outlined. I agree that a ban on partial-birth abortions will likely lead to a push toward a ban on all abortions, but the horrid nature of partial-birth abortions makes the future fight worth it. It is my opinion that an enormous majority of Americans are against partial-birth abortons. Allowing them to continue soley on the fear of a future reversal of Roe v. Wade is incredibly flawed logic, IMO.
Other than spearheading the fight to preserve legal partial birth abortions I can't think of another issue Obama was prominent fighting for in Illinois. Our fiscal situation was a mess when he entered the Illinois Senate and an even bigger mess when he left. (Democrat's have a 2-1 plurality in the Illinois legislature) He's one of those guy's ALWAYS looking to move up. After 1 term in Springfield he was running for Congress. After getting wasted in that primary he was right back running for the U.S. Senate. After less than half his first Senate term looking to be Prez. Never has one who's done so little been considered for so much.
While in the Ill. legislature, he also voted to deny funds for medical care to infants that survive abortion and need medical attention. We'll save that little bit of information for the appropriate time.