you already admitted you weren't voting for obama and edwards... now tonight you have eliminated hillary. in the past you said you would not back someone that didn't have a chance. so... it was hillary or no one.
I said I wouldn't back anyone that wasn't electable, which is true. However, it was never "Hillary or no one"...how goonish is your thinking? Pretty darn goonish. Does that mean I can't vote against someone by voting for someone else who I don't actually back? Your thinking is so illogical, so juvenile and fanatical...you really don't even appear to understand how our system works with electoral votes. It is astounding to me that after what we saw in 92 with Clinton becoming president without a popular majority, and again with Gore winning the popular vote but losing the presidency, that there is such naivety about how things work... In addition California will not be going republican in the general election, and all that matters anyway is having a moderate in the white house in 2008 so we don't get more right wing Catholic judges and Bible pushing presidents who claim God tells them to start wars, etc... Oh, and the most recent polls show Paul running 5th in California...
it is becoming more and more difficult to read your drivel. you contradict yourself so much.. it is beyond ridiculous. so now zzZ is going to vote for someone he doesn't even back. lol lol lol.. ok, i have no problem with this except that you are full of shit and everyone knows it. so you aren't voting in your primary? hmmmmmm seems fishy zzzZZZ. nice spin though you nutball.
I can't help it if you don't understand the difference between backing someone and the actual voting process. I don't back anyone who is currently running for president, and I will not be voting for Hillary, or RuPaul. I will also not be telling anyone who I did vote for, or against... My goodness, your brain is so rotted by delusional thinking and paranoia bound by black and white thinking that simple logical statements are beyond your ability to comprehend.
Um...they want him out of the race because he can't get more than 6% of the national vote in ANY poll (source - Real Clear Politics). Why is this? Cause he is a total whack job. The guy wants to flat out eliminate the CIA for heavens sake. Regardless of the nasty things the CIA does, imagine how vulnerable we'd be if they didn't even exist. And I agree with ZZZZ (which is a rarity in itself) when he speaks about the fanaticism of Paul supporters. There are several posts in ET alone that state if you don't vote for Paul you are an idiot. Who the hell may Paul supporters judge and jury. The attitude of Paul supporters alone make me dislike the guy.
Then why don't you explain how the Constitution is wrong and where the Founders went astray? That should be relatively simple for such a keen mind as your own.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HcdLO3jKkPo&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HcdLO3jKkPo&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
The Constitution is not wrong but neither is it absolutely right...the people who are certain they know and understand exactly what the intention behind each and every written word in the Constitution is and recite the Constitution like a parrot recites what they have been trained to say are wrong. At some point children have to grow up and think for themselves...it is what the founders would have wanted. If we are bound only by the past, and not by the present, we really are nothing but an empty shell of nostalgia. Imagine a Constitutional convention today to draft a brand new Constitution...how well would that go? What are the odds of hammering something out that all 50 states would finally agree on and then to being bound by? The Constitution was written by white men of a certain economic class, elitist to a degree, and not represented by women or minority interests nor terribly concerned with the rights and status of those not included in the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. They did not go astray relative to their time and space, just as doctors in their day did the best that they could with what they had and what they knew, but a doctor practicing medicine of a 1789 level today on patients in today's society would be found guilty of malpractice. America is just not the same as it was back then, and the mythology that binds people now on that basis alone retards any real progress as a nation. There are some who think we can regress back to that time when the Constitution was written, typically the white republican Christian type, however that is not a viable option. Constructionists and regressives look to the past and try to get today to fit into their view of the way they want it to be based on the way it was. There is also an alarming synchronicity between fundamentalist religious types who would take their religious faith based on literalism of words alone and those who follow the words of the Constitution as if they were drafted by God himself. Better to look at today and see what we need to do to make it into all of the tomorrows yet to come...
so basically you just hate white men? i have a serious question for you... are you a scientologist. it would explain so much.