Primary predictions

[ambler]

If Paul does well in NH, which I don't believe he will, then McCain is in serious trouble. I see McCain, Obama and Edwards fighting for that pool of indie votes.

On edit: I'm getting to dislike Edwards more every day. Remember how there used to be "limosine liberals"? Well he's a "Mansion Socialist".

[ambler]

Originally Posted by Metboi

Thankfully. What started off as a hilarious pander from a guy in a 28,000 sqft house kept escalating and escalating and has apparently become a true "rebirth" as a socialist.



I'm no Hillary fan, but she's actually winning or tied in most head-to-head polling at the moment. Shouldn't matter much now as the nomination is Obama's for the taking, but I suppose it doesn't hurt letting the GOP take victory for granted against her, just in case.



Definitely.

I'm willing to get on Obama band wagon and go down swinging than watch Hil get elected (not that it would happen). Seriously, Obama is the most exciting and energizing Dem candidate I can remember, his inexperience notwithstanding. (not that W, Clinton and Kennedy were so experienced).

By contrast, I'm having a hard time picking a Rpeub I WOULDN'T vote for over Hil. She has a chance to do more damage to the dem party than any candidate in a helluva long time if she makes lifelong dems cross the line for the first time.

[Shastada]

Originally Posted by FrankStylV7

they're all asshats.

EVERY one.

Just like on South Park... choosing between a turd sandwich and a giant douche.

[Jersey Shore]

Originally Posted by ambler

I'm willing to get on Obama band wagon and go down swinging than watch Hil get elected (not that it would happen). Seriously, Obama is the most exciting and energizing Dem candidate I can remember, his inexperience notwithstanding. (not that W, Clinton and Kennedy were so experienced).

again.no way the powers of the dem party that destroyed Dean from within the party because they thought Kerry more "electable".will be the same people who will elevate Edwards over both Clinton and Obama

Originally Posted by ambler

By contrast, I'm having a hard time picking a Rpeub I WOULDN'T vote for over Hil. She has a chance to do more damage to the dem party than any candidate in a helluva long time if she makes lifelong dems cross the line for the first time.

you'd better start thinking in terms of a repub you WOULDN't vote for over Edwards

[Metboi]

Originally Posted by Jersey Shore

again.no way the powers of the dem party that destroyed Dean from within the party because they thought Kerry more "electable".will be the same people who will elevate Edwards over both Clinton and Obama



you'd better start thinking in terms of a repub you WOULDN't vote for over Edwards

Edwards accepted public financing, meaning should he (he won't) win the nomination, he wouldn't be able to spend any money all summer until the convention.

[Ajax]

All I can say is that Edwards is the Democratic candidate the Republicans would rather NOT run against.

[gregjefferies09]

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – The Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign praises the New Hampshire Republican Party’s decision to pull its sponsorship of the Fox News forum in protest of Fox’s decision to exclude Congressman Ron Paul.

“The New Hampshire Republican Party did the right thing by pulling its sponsorship for Fox’s candidate forum,” said Ron Paul 2008 spokesman Jesse Benton. “Fox News’ decision to exclude Congressman Paul is unfair, but it won’t stop Dr. Paul’s message of freedom, peace and prosperity from resonating with the people of New Hampshire.”

Today, New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen released the following statement regarding Sunday’s Republican forum on FOX:

“The first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary serves a national purpose by giving all candidates an equal opportunity on a level playing field. Only in New Hampshire do lesser known, lesser funded underdogs have a fighting chance to establish themselves as national figures. Consistent with that tradition, we believe all recognized major candidates should have an equal opportunity to participate in pre-primary debates and forums.

“This principle applies to tonight’s debates on ABC as well as Sunday’s planned forum on FOX. The New Hampshire Republican Party believes Congressmen Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter should be included in the FOX forum on Sunday evening. Our mutual efforts to resolve this difference have failed.

“While we understand that FOX News continues to move forward it is with regret, the New Hampshire Republican Party hereby withdraws as a partner in this forum.”

[gregjefferies09]

I liked when everyone at the debate attacked Paul. It shows they are scared of him.

I am not really sure why they felt the need to attack his answer about rising fuel prices because it was not about terrorism, but instead about how other countries fuel costs are not rising, just ours because the Dollar is weaker than it was and is buying less fuel.

[Metboi]

Originally Posted by gregjefferies09

I liked when everyone at the debate attacked Paul. It shows they are scared of him.

I am not really sure why they felt the need to attack his answer about rising fuel prices because it was not about terrorism, but instead about how other countries fuel costs are not rising, just ours because the Dollar is weaker than it was and is buying less fuel.

You support an anti-war candidate? The guy brutalizes Bush at every turn.

[gregjefferies09]

Originally Posted by Metboi

You support an anti-war candidate? The guy brutalizes Bush at every turn.

He isn't anti-war in the looney left sense (as in anti anything the president did regardless of what it was).

I don't agree with him on the issue, but I can't fault his reasons for his opinion. He feels it wasn't constitutional the way it was handled.

I love his immigration plan. Same with his economic philosophy.

[Green Must Go]

Originally Posted by gregjefferies09

I love his immigration plan.

Any candidate with an immigration plan is refreshing.

[Jersey Shore]

Originally Posted by gregjefferies09

He isn't anti-war in the looney left sense (as in anti anything the president did regardless of what it was).

apparently the "fair and balanced, we rport you decide" network thinks he's a bit looney.

Originally Posted by gregjefferies09

I don't agree with him on the issue, but I can't fault his reasons for his opinion. He feels it wasn't constitutional the way it was handled.

so, you like him based on his ignorance of the constitution?

[NeilAllen]

Originally Posted by gregjefferies09

I liked when everyone at the debate attacked Paul. It shows they are scared of him.

greg, let me ask you if a poster came on here saying that 9-11 happened because "we've been over there" and because "we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years" what would you have told him? What do you think the general reaction to that sort of post around here would be? And do honestly think it would be because we were "scared" of that poster?

Although I am scared of any serious contender that thinks 9-11 happened specifically as a reaction to something we did and thinks that if we just stick our fingers in our ears and ignore them the Jihadists will all go away. Yeah that DOES scare me.

[gregjefferies09]

Originally Posted by NeilAllen

greg, let me ask you if a poster came on here saying that 9-11 happened because "we've been over there" and because "we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years" what would you have told him? What do you think the general reaction to that sort of post around here would be? And do honestly think it would be because we were "scared" of that poster?

Although I am scared of any serious contender that thinks 9-11 happened specifically as a reaction to something we did and thinks that if we just stick our fingers in our ears and ignore them the Jihadists will all go away. Yeah that DOES scare me.

Because rudy twists his words, does not mean that is what he said. In fact, when you read his actual writings, NOWHERE does he blame the U.S. for 9/11.

Ironically, he was just a minute ago dismissing that false accusation against him on Leno.

[gregjefferies09]

I assume you are basing this on the debate where Rudy snapped at him.

This about sums it up:

Giuliani vs. Ron Paul « AgapeRevolution.com


Having actually read in detail what Paul actually thinks about the situation (I will gladly provide links to his writings over the years and what research he formed his opinion from) and understanding where he is coming from, I can disagree with his logic on the matter and still see that he has never blamed the US for 9/11.