 |
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| If Ron Paul were not running, who would you have been backing? |
| Republican Candidate |
|
42% |
[ 3 ] |
| Democrat Candidate |
|
28% |
[ 2 ] |
| Libertarian Candidate |
|
14% |
[ 1 ] |
| Green Candidate |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Communist Candidate |
|
14% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 7 |
|
| Author |
Message |
WWBigDaddy
Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Posts: 53
Location: Wrightwood, California
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:13 am Post subject: If |
 |
|
If Ron Paul were not running, would you be backing a democrat or republican candidate?
_________________
WWBigDaddy |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guitarras Reyes
Forum Guru
Joined: 18 Nov 2006
Posts: 7896
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
But Ron Paul IS running. So why the poll?
Why don't people just say who they support instead of merely sitting on the fence and seeing which way the warm smell of winds blow?
Are you for Ron Paul? Then say it loud and say it proud. Why can't people just be true anymore?
_________________
www.myspace.com/suejacobsband
 Hecho en E.U.A. COMING SOON! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ms. Dancealot
Forum Guru
Joined: 04 Nov 2006
Posts: 463
Location: State of Flux
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, Hillary. True.
_________________
... Other dancers may pee on the floor, but my eyes will see only you ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theLIBERTARIAN
El Loco
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 11424
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If Ron Paul were not running, I would pick Dennis Kucinich. OMG, did I just say that? I am not with him on the "workers rights" or other things so much, but he is against the war and he receives very little money from corporate interests.
But this is what will probably happen: It will come down to Hillary and Guiliani. Then I will vote for the communist candidate, ah, I mean the Libertarian candidate.  But if Huckabee is the Republican candidate, I might vote for him, of course if Ron Paul is not it.
Now that I got that straight... 
_________________
Bing News - The Best Place To Get Your News
Bing Search
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aliaslezarddagain
Forum Guru
Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Posts: 1490
Location: somewhere between the begining and the end
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Eric Reyes wrote: |
But Ron Paul IS running. So why the poll?
Why don't people just say who they support instead of merely sitting on the fence and seeing which way the warm smell of winds blow?
Are you for Ron Paul? Then say it loud and say it proud. Why can't people just be true anymore? |
I generaly look at party platform when you can trust the party to be true to themselves by putting forward the best candidate to represent them, but we have entered a brave new wold of tricksters and I don't and won't know what I'm going to do for a few.
I will more than likely change parties (to shake things up and put some fear into party leaders) but still vote for someone within either the Rep or Libertarian party (because they are less left than others).
All parties continue to move left (we call this "progress") and I don't think moving left quickly is good for this country because if we overtake France we will no longer be anything recognisable as The United States of America. 
This brings up how "the pols" show things to be. Like Reps are at a sertain level on the war, for instance. This does not show that some people (the left) thinks the war should be stopped, and others (right) think it is not being fought hard enough to get it over with quickly enough given our capabilities.
The illegal immagration issue. Some on the left think we should just let everyone in, and on the right think we should build a wall, the pol questions lump these together and it looks like one party or the other is worse on the issue that they realy are.
This happens when the polsters have an agenda that THEY want to further. Pols are taken by media in a lot of cases. The media leans left, so the pols always come out (majority of them) showing the right to be fvcking up more than they might actualy be and show the left not fvcking up at all. The truth is more in the middle and this will show once again when the next election is contested by the sore (but close) looser!
Then the media will continue to show uneven numbers to prove that one party is totaly screwing up and the other is Go.....,er,a......., strike that, God is not allowed.
The media will of course do thier normal "oops! Sorry, we were almost wrong" and place it on the last page one time so no one sees it, and then go right back to trying to destroy anyone they dissagree with for the next four years.
_________________
"Trying to determine what is going on in the world by reading newspapers is like trying to tell the time by watching the second hand of a clock." Ben Hecht (1894-1964) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theLIBERTARIAN
El Loco
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 11424
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey, France is moving to the right. Look who they elected President.
_________________
Bing News - The Best Place To Get Your News
Bing Search
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guitarras Reyes
Forum Guru
Joined: 18 Nov 2006
Posts: 7896
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| theLIBERTARIAN wrote: |
If Ron Paul were not running, I would pick Dennis Kucinich. OMG, did I just say that? I am not with him on the "workers rights" or other things so much, but he is against the war and he receives very little money from corporate interests.
But this is what will probably happen: It will come down to Hillary and Guiliani. Then I will vote for the communist candidate, ah, I mean the Libertarian candidate. But if Huckabee is the Republican candidate, I might vote for him, of course if Ron Paul is not it.
Now that I got that straight... |
Ifs? Nothing straight. You voting for Ron Paul Lib? He's running. Big differences between him and Huckabee. Who will be president if your vote will matter Lib? Don't be afraid...say it. Its ok to be wrong...but at least you'd display that you can be a person of conviction. (And not something else). Some people don't follow wishy-washers.
_________________
www.myspace.com/suejacobsband
Hecho en E.U.A. COMING SOON! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guitarras Reyes
Forum Guru
Joined: 18 Nov 2006
Posts: 7896
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 4:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aliaslezarddagain wrote: |
| Eric Reyes wrote: |
But Ron Paul IS running. So why the poll?
Why don't people just say who they support instead of merely sitting on the fence and seeing which way the warm smell of winds blow?
Are you for Ron Paul? Then say it loud and say it proud. Why can't people just be true anymore? |
I generaly look at party platform when you can trust the party to be true to themselves by putting forward the best candidate to represent them, but we have entered a brave new wold of tricksters and I don't and won't know what I'm going to do for a few.
I will more than likely change parties (to shake things up and put some fear into party leaders) but still vote for someone within either the Rep or Libertarian party (because they are less left than others).
All parties continue to move left (we call this "progress") and I don't think moving left quickly is good for this country because if we overtake France we will no longer be anything recognisable as The United States of America.
This brings up how "the pols" show things to be. Like Reps are at a sertain level on the war, for instance. This does not show that some people (the left) thinks the war should be stopped, and others (right) think it is not being fought hard enough to get it over with quickly enough given our capabilities.
The illegal immagration issue. Some on the left think we should just let everyone in, and on the right think we should build a wall, the pol questions lump these together and it looks like one party or the other is worse on the issue that they realy are.
This happens when the polsters have an agenda that THEY want to further. Pols are taken by media in a lot of cases. The media leans left, so the pols always come out (majority of them) showing the right to be fvcking up more than they might actualy be and show the left not fvcking up at all. The truth is more in the middle and this will show once again when the next election is contested by the sore (but close) looser!
Then the media will continue to show uneven numbers to prove that one party is totaly screwing up and the other is Go.....,er,a......., strike that, God is not allowed.
The media will of course do thier normal "oops! Sorry, we were almost wrong" and place it on the last page one time so no one sees it, and then go right back to trying to destroy anyone they dissagree with for the next four years. |
Yeah yeah yeah. So who you voting for?
_________________
www.myspace.com/suejacobsband
Hecho en E.U.A. COMING SOON! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aliaslezarddagain
Forum Guru
Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Posts: 1490
Location: somewhere between the begining and the end
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| theLIBERTARIAN wrote: |
| Hey, France is moving to the right. Look who they elected President. |
'France worried by Iran-Israel tension'
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
PARIS
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said in an interview published Wednesday that there is a danger of war erupting over Iran's nuclear program if "the Israelis consider their security truly threatened."
In the interview with Le Nouvel Observateur magazine, Sarkozy said France was more worried about tensions between Iran and Israel than between Iran and the United States.
"I have never been for war," Sarkozy was quoted as saying. "The problem for us is not so much the risk that the Americans could launch a military intervention, but that the Israelis consider their security truly threatened.
"The danger of a war exists," he was quoted as saying.
In a major report last week, US intelligence agencies concluded that Teheran stopped developing its nuclear weapons program four years ago. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert insisted Tuesday that Iran is still pursuing nuclear arms and poses a major threat to the West and the world must stop it.
(They are. They have not shut down thier centrifuges and heavy water plant. They don't need either one of these for nuclear powerplants!)
Israel has for years been warning that Iran is working on nuclear weapons, and it considers Iran a significant threat because of its nuclear ambitions, its long-range missile program and repeated calls by its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to wipe Israel off the map.
Olmert also said Tuesday that Israel would work with world bodies such as the International Atomic Energy Agency and would not take the lead in the struggle against Iran's nuclear program - an apparent attempt to counter speculation that Israel might feel the need to strike Iran militarily on its own, in the aftermath of the US intelligence report.
Israeli leaders have never explicitly said they are considering an attack.
(Iran won't know it's comming until it's over.)
Iran claims its nuclear development is peaceful and that the goal is nuclear power.
In the interview, Sarkozy said, "Everyone agrees that what the Iranians are doing has no civilian explanation. The only debate is whether they will have military capability in one year or in five years."
Sarkozy said that if Iran allowed the International Atomic Energy Agency to carry out inspections, he "would be ready to come to Teheran and study the possibility of collaborating on civilian nuclear power."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1196847320451&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
_________________
"Trying to determine what is going on in the world by reading newspapers is like trying to tell the time by watching the second hand of a clock." Ben Hecht (1894-1964) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aliaslezarddagain
Forum Guru
Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Posts: 1490
Location: somewhere between the begining and the end
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Eric Reyes wrote: |
| aliaslezarddagain wrote: |
| Eric Reyes wrote: |
But Ron Paul IS running. So why the poll?
Why don't people just say who they support instead of merely sitting on the fence and seeing which way the warm smell of winds blow?
Are you for Ron Paul? Then say it loud and say it proud. Why can't people just be true anymore? |
I generaly look at party platform when you can trust the party to be true to themselves by putting forward the best candidate to represent them, but we have entered a brave new wold of tricksters and I don't and won't know what I'm going to do for a few.
I will more than likely change parties (to shake things up and put some fear into party leaders) but still vote for someone within either the Rep or Libertarian party (because they are less left than others).
All parties continue to move left (we call this "progress") and I don't think moving left quickly is good for this country because if we overtake France we will no longer be anything recognisable as The United States of America.
This brings up how "the pols" show things to be. Like Reps are at a sertain level on the war, for instance. This does not show that some people (the left) thinks the war should be stopped, and others (right) think it is not being fought hard enough to get it over with quickly enough given our capabilities.
The illegal immagration issue. Some on the left think we should just let everyone in, and on the right think we should build a wall, the pol questions lump these together and it looks like one party or the other is worse on the issue that they realy are.
This happens when the polsters have an agenda that THEY want to further. Pols are taken by media in a lot of cases. The media leans left, so the pols always come out (majority of them) showing the right to be fvcking up more than they might actualy be and show the left not fvcking up at all. The truth is more in the middle and this will show once again when the next election is contested by the sore (but close) looser!
Then the media will continue to show uneven numbers to prove that one party is totaly screwing up and the other is Go.....,er,a......., strike that, God is not allowed.
The media will of course do thier normal "oops! Sorry, we were almost wrong" and place it on the last page one time so no one sees it, and then go right back to trying to destroy anyone they dissagree with for the next four years. |
Yeah yeah yeah. So who you voting for? |
I just said that I don't know.
If I don't decide before election day, I have already told you that I would write in Dead Ronald Reagan, or if I want to (being that dead is dead), maybe I'll just vote for Teddy Rosevelt.
_________________
"Trying to determine what is going on in the world by reading newspapers is like trying to tell the time by watching the second hand of a clock." Ben Hecht (1894-1964) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guitarras Reyes
Forum Guru
Joined: 18 Nov 2006
Posts: 7896
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fair enough, but just like Paul Tevis, I think you are too afraid of making a decision and sticking to your candidate right now. You'll not support any one candidate until you are certain a majority does. And then you'll only sing the praises of that candidate, whomever it is, until AFTER he is nominated. Not before, because you simply don't want to be considered a loser. I'm telling you that this time around is not about painting our faces any color at all. Its about what you believe and are convicted of. Those with convictions can unequivocally say who they'd vote for RIGHT NOW, BEFORE the nomination. Those who have NO CONVICTION will not decide once and for all, wherever the cards may fall.
_________________
www.myspace.com/suejacobsband
Hecho en E.U.A. COMING SOON! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aliaslezarddagain
Forum Guru
Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Posts: 1490
Location: somewhere between the begining and the end
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Fair enough, but just like Paul Tevis, I think you are too afraid of making a decision and sticking to your candidate right now. You'll not support any one candidate until you are certain a majority does. |
I regulary vote for people that don't win.
How about this dude, I don't decide until I have the most evedance I can get.
I will tell you this tho, the Republicans have the best line up I've ever seen in my life, the problem is figuring out which one is the more conservative along with being a proven leader. Almosyt all of them are proven leaders.
You would be blessed to have some of these liberal leaning people on your ticket!
Have you ever been on a jury?
God, I hope for the person on trial you have not!
I'm impressed with the proven leadership abilities of most of these people, but not thier ability to stick to the constitution.
THAT is the issue for me.
I don't much cotton to socialist policies.
I'll choose someone and they probably won't win.
I will also not pose for you and pretend I voted for the winner, I sweare!
I think you may have "projected" just a bit there.
You know I voted for McClintock and Schwartz won out here. I didn not vote for either Clinton or Bush, or Clinton or Dole. I voted for Reagan, and I voted for WBush both times as well as his dad once.
You wins some, you loses some, but you stick to your guns. I agree with you on that! I haven't drawn my gun yet is all.
I don't vote the pocket book, I don't nessessarily vote "the man", I basicly vote the platform.
Right now the Reps have no leader setting a platform and whipping everyone into it. I may not vote Republican for president at all.
I think this is why some were waiting for Gingrinch to get it. He would have been able to define the race by putting the conservative platform out there.
I'll tell you this. Your guy appears to have the momentum on the Dem side, but I don't really know if it's more because people are as exited as you are by him, or if it because people are more unexited by Hillery.
I don't think you really care about that until he gets up against whoever the opposition is in the general.
That's when we need to worry because of people like me who WILL vote third party if I'm not happy with anyone on the Rep ticket.
This could help you if more indipendant minded people stick to this like I'm well known to do.
That is also why I have mentioned voting for Hillery myself.
I'd rather straight out go down that road right now than to continue seeing this country turn into France incrimentaly, because it just sucks the life right out of a free person to experiance this. 
I appears to me that almost everyone running on both sides see the world closer to your way, everyone works for the government and is controlled by them, 24-7!
I would be ashamed to believe this.
_________________
"Trying to determine what is going on in the world by reading newspapers is like trying to tell the time by watching the second hand of a clock." Ben Hecht (1894-1964)
Last edited by aliaslezarddagain on Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:01 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aliaslezarddagain
Forum Guru
Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Posts: 1490
Location: somewhere between the begining and the end
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Eric Reyes wrote: |
| Fair enough, but just like Paul Tevis, I think you are too afraid of making a decision and sticking to your candidate right now. You'll not support any one candidate until you are certain a majority does. And then you'll only sing the praises of that candidate, whomever it is, until AFTER he is nominated. Not before, because you simply don't want to be considered a loser. I'm telling you that this time around is not about painting our faces any color at all. Its about what you believe and are convicted of. Those with convictions can unequivocally say who they'd vote for RIGHT NOW, BEFORE the nomination. Those who have NO CONVICTION will not decide once and for all, wherever the cards may fall. |
The when he loses, they can vote for Hillery.
_________________
"Trying to determine what is going on in the world by reading newspapers is like trying to tell the time by watching the second hand of a clock." Ben Hecht (1894-1964) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theLIBERTARIAN
El Loco
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 11424
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I don't much cotton to socialist policies. |
Then Ron Paul should be your candidate. 
_________________
Bing News - The Best Place To Get Your News
Bing Search
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aliaslezarddagain
Forum Guru
Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Posts: 1490
Location: somewhere between the begining and the end
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes he should, but Pat Buchannan should have also been when he ran.
Dig? This is where your own ability to think gets involved.
I didn't vote for him.
I also don't agree with Paul on what I consider to be the single most imporant issue of the day. If he is a libertarian who is pro choice, make that the two top issues.
Why isn't Alan Keys my guy?
_________________
"Trying to determine what is going on in the world by reading newspapers is like trying to tell the time by watching the second hand of a clock." Ben Hecht (1894-1964) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
