Presidential Candidates .. Who Do You Like?

Good, means you're rational. :P

Interesting article...

I've wondered if the GOP was heading for extinction a few times myself.

can only dream

What's so "shocking" about it?

At least it's highlighting his career and what he stands for, rather than mudslinging.

/slings mud at Zahrah

Nothing shocking really. I didnt name it, I just enjoyed it and decided to share it....

I'm wearing a dress today! RAAAWWWRRR!

/slings rocks at Drac

A president who is honestly, truly against war would be a breath of fresh air.

And showing that he's had the same views since I was in diapers and hasn't been wishy-washy on topics makes me more trustful towards him. (Not that I would ever fully trust any politician, lol.) So many politicians sway their stances on issues. It's encouraging to see one that actually stands for something instead of swaying with the popular stance.

And thank goodness for none of this "Well my opponent is bad because x,y, and z and I'm so much better because a, b, and c!" Watching politicians spend more time and money putting each other down than building themselves up is getting really damn old.

Was there a corresponding article? Just wanted to know how/why CNN dubbed this campaign video "shocking". Seems pretty straight forward.

even if a president is turly against war it doesn't mean that the U.S. would not join a war under his presidency nor does it even mean that we will pull out of wars/conflicts we are already involved in. There is always more to it than "I don't like war so there will be none or I like war so there will be war"

I personally don't think Obama LIKES war but there are time when he believes action is necassary.

Basically though, things are never as simple as I don't like war so there will be none or I think we have no business here so lets not be here.

Ron Paul has no chance of winning and I think he knows that. I personally think he just wants to put his message out there and see if anything sticks.

Also, I can't watch the video atm so I can't really comment on that.

It saddens me that I rarely see women in dresses anymore... ; ;

/go dresses (on women)

Oh for sure it doesn't mean there won't be war. But it does (hopefully) mean that the US won't stick their noses into other peoples' business and therefore instigate wars, or that we'll conveniently find reasons to go to war with countries that just-so-happen to have lots of oil, stuff like that. Since you can't watch the video at the moment, he said something along the lines of "If it's not worth you losing your legs, your children, or your grandchildren for, then we don't need to go to war for it." Along those lines, only in more Paul-talk than Liela-talk, because that was really Liela-fied.

If he doesn't win the GOP, I will be seriously disappointed. Unfortunately, I highly doubt he'll win the GOP. Nothing against him, it's just that people are so damn lazy that they don't want to go research candidates for themselves, so they are just going to vote for whoever Fox News tells them to vote for, and Fox News has no interest in promoting Paul.

If he ends up on a ballot vs. Obama, he has my vote hands-down. If any other candidate ends up on a ballot vs. Obama, I'm going to have to vote for Obama for the lesser of two evils and to retain what freedom my body has for itself. Being a woman and all, I'm severely annoyed by candidates who think that my birth control should be "an Aspirin between my knees." Right, because my husband and I should never have sex even though we've been married for over 6 years. Or should we just pop out babies all over the place before we're financially ready, mature enough, and at a point in our relationship where we want kids? Because everyone needs more kids that they can't handle and can't afford running around helping to overpopulate the earth, right? ._. And if I get raped, eff off. It's getting aborted. Period. And that is none of Santorum's business. Period.

Sorry, kinda went off on a rant there. *blush* The point is, I hope Paul wins GOP. Hopeful for it, but prepared to be sorely disappointed when it doesn't happen. Because America is too lazy to see it happen.

Reminded me of an article I read today Liela.

He is not truly against war. He just calls for war to be justified and declared. He does believe that we should not be the policeman of the world, and is that policing that obviously makes us a target.



Nothing that I could find directly related to it. Maybe they are shocked at the idea of a candidate who has remained as consistent as he has over the span of 3-4 decades.

Sad part is that certain groups of powerful people will go every extend to not let him win at a time that we need someone like him the most.

I'm surprised this didn't come up over 21 pages.

Good times.

I wish all republican wives would all do that. "Oh, you don't approve of birth control honey? How quaint. ^^ No sex for you." If only!

Yeah, they just usually believe the same inane crap as their husbands.

Stepford Wives annoy the crap out of me. How can you ALWAYS agree with EVERYTHING your partner/spouse believe? Where is the fun, and where are the thought provoking conversations? Maybe I'm just fickle. I already know I like challenges. How is it stimulating in any capacity to simply nod your head all the time?

I've never seen the Stepford Wives, but dang. I don't really think men want a mix of a doormat and a Barbie doll as a spouse. The best discussions and the way you find out most about your spouse is by disagreeing with them and talking it out. Very rarely does it dip into an argument, and if it does, making up is fun. And it really lets you grow as a couple.

It seems you havent met most guys.

I say that, but I just know one. She gets under my skin to no end. She has absolutely no backbone. (I was friends with her husband more than her in college. I think I've mentioned this guy before on here while venting.) Anyway, he's not shy about cheating, and she had just about caught him once.

During the '08 elections she admitted that she never knew that there was an Electoral College during a discussion at a barbecue. That left most of us gob-smacked. She's just turned thirty, and relies on/parrots her husband's/father's political beliefs. She's horrible to talk to in any capacity. Her idea of current events is what she reads on the tabloids while in queue at the grocery store register.

I dont think the problem with Paul is that Americans are "lazy" moreso the electorate that Ron Paul attracts are younger, more educated individuals who simply are out-numbered by a population of non-college educated white suburban voters who long for the past. You can't really support someone who keeps bringing up the Constitution if well... you don't even know what's in the Constitution.

"You mean I can't discriminate against others based on sex/religion/race? That's rubbish, I like that Santorum guy better. He wants to bomb those heretical Muslims!"

The landscape is changing. What once was a country firmly rooted in a singular set of core beliefs while everyone else was shoved off to the fringes of society is becoming a country with many different peoples all demanding their fair share in the spotlight. Gays are slowing getting rights, racial diversity has gone quite a ways in just 50 years, people are becoming more educated and seeing the flaws of the old system and speaking out about it.

The Internet has done so much to get varied opinions (good and bad) out to those willing to sift through. I find it funny when Rick Santorum bashes college though because he knows education is the key to put guys like him out of a job. Let's not even get into the fact that he went to college himself either.

The Ron Paul style candidacy may not happen this cycle but it's inevitable because the Republican party is isolating itself from the voting base and quickly becoming (or has already become) a party for only white voters. They'll either adapt and purge themselves of people like Santorum and Gingrich or fall by the wayside to a new-age Republican party that doesn't put so much emphasis on "live this way or you're morally bankrupt".

Uh oh...Maybe I'm falling down on the job, but it seems I have missed this.

/sifts around

EDIT: Uh oh! Hmmm...Found some articles. Not pleased.

Don't forget his choice words on separation of church and state!

"Gone mostly unnoticed until very recently is a comment made by presidential candidate Rick Santorum during a December 30th NBC News interview, in which he made clear his intention to nullify all legal same-sex marriages currently in existence across the country.

The latest census data, collected in 2010, puts the number of married same-sex couples at 131,000, but that number is likely higher now.

Santorum said he plans to introduce an amendment to the Constitution that would not only make same-sex marriages illegal throughout the nation in perpetuity, but would also invalidate all existing unions.

“We can’t have 50 different marriage laws in this country,” he remarked. “You have to have one marriage law.”

The former Senator has come under fire in the past for comparing same-sex marriages to the matrimony of “man on child” and “man on dog.”

Both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich has expressed their intention to ban same-sex marriage through a Constitutional amendment, but have not gone so far as to demand the retroactive nullification of existing marriages.

Ron Paul, who is personally opposed to same-sex marriage, says the federal government should not be involved in deciding who can and cannot get married.

Asked how he would go about getting such an amendment approved, given growing public support for gay rights, Santorum inadvertently made a powerful appeal to history in favor of marriage equality.

“Just because public opinion says something doesn’t mean it’s right,” he said. “I’m sure there were times in areas of this country when people said blacks were less than human.”"

http://thedailywh.at/2012/03/04/santorum-santorum-says-of-the-day-4/



Conclusion: I hope Santorum steps on a lego, barefoot, in the middle of the night, on his way to the kitchen to get chocolate milk. And then when he gets to the kitchen, I hope he finds that he's out of chocolate milk, plus out of normal milk and Hershey syrup. Then I hope he steps on another lego on his way back to bed. That's nearly way too cruel of me to wish upon another person, but that man deserves it, if anyone does!

"The Senate voted today to reject legislation authored by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) that aimed to offset President Obama’s health care mandate requiring employers to provide contraception coverage to female employees.

The legislation would have given employers the right to refuse any medical coverage they were religiously or morally opposed to.

Lawmakers in the Democrat-led Senate tabled the Blunt amendment along party lines, with 48 voting in favor, and 51 voting against. Outgoing Republican Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) joined Democrats in defeating the transportation bill amendment.

The junior Senator from Maine, Susan Collins, did not side with her colleague out of concern that self-insured health plans of faith-based organizations would not be allowed an exemption from the mandate.

“This issue will not go away unless the administration takes it away by giving people of faith those First Amendment protections” to refuse coverage on religious grounds, said Sen. Blunt.

Democrats objected to providing employers with the say-so on their employees’ birth control use.

“Imagine that, your boss will decide whether you’re acting morally,” Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said before the vote. “It’s appalling we’re having this debate in the 21st century.”"


Yes, yes that is appalling. I'm so glad it was overturned, but it's terrifying that it was only 48 to 51. What on earth were they thinking?

as far as I'm concerned people's health overrides other people's 1st's rights, but that's just me.

Women for Santorum have spoken!