I like Huckabee.

Your vote won't be wasted if you vote for Huckabee. Vote for person you like and know why you don't like the other options.

'He tells America how it's gonna be.' LMAO

The most important election for the presidency is the primary. It's only after the primary when you can officially say that you've got no hope of getting someone into office. Up until then, noone has any business saying who is or isn't going to come out on top.

Slayer, I say you should forget what you think might happen and vote in the primary for the candidate you want to support. Otherwise, your really not voting for a *your* candidate, but for the lesser of two evils (unless one of them turns out to be your pick as well).

I will come out of this election happy that I have supported a candidate to the maximum of my abilities. And if he doesn't win the primary, that's ok. I've done my part, and the rest of the country doesn't agree with me. Does that mean I will vote for a lesser of two evils? No. It may be horrible for this country for the opposing party to win an election, but it would be even worse if my own party evolves into something I don't want it to be. Perhaps some growing pains may be necessary if the Republicans want to win elections.

----------------------------
"Oculus is just this guy, you know?"

Well, I don't call myself a republican anyway. I think of myself as a conservative... and I am pretty mad at the republicans lately. At this point I would vote for Huckabee in the primary... but I seriously doubt he will be nominated to run against Hillary.

What I have a problem with is people that vote for a write in, or don't vote at all in the actual election, because the candidate that fit their needs exactly didn't make it, and they won't support the candidate that was chosen. That is basically like helping give the election to the libs... and I don't like it. At that point, i really do think we need to chose the lesser of two evils. When it comes to Giuliani vs Hillary, I am voting for Guiliani, even though I disagree with a lot of his social values.

I think Hillary Clinton is God's gift to the republican party if... excuse me, WHEN she gets nominated. If they play their cards right, I think pretty much ANY of the republican candidates could smoke Hillary because she is so pitifully unqualified. But if people refuse to support the nominee, simply because they aren't perfect... Hillary could win it... and I think that would be a disaster for America.

BTW, have you heard Dick Morris talk about how bad things would be if, or by his view when, Hillary is elected? Its pretty scary stuff... and I figure he should know best, being Clinton's former adviser.

If we all continue to support the lesser of two evils by strictly voting for a major party nominee no matter whether there is another candidate that better represents us, then that is the only system we will ever have. The only way to break away from this system is to vote for who best represents your values. In my case, if I vote for Guliani if he get nominated, then on election day we see a lot of votes for Hillary and a lot of votes for Guliani. If I and thousands like me vote for someone that isn't nominated then on election day we see a lot of votes for Hillary, a lot of votes for Guliani, and a non-trivial number of votes for someone else. The losing candidate can look at that and say "If I was a little more like that guy I would have those votes and I might have won." Over a few elections the Republicans might start to get the message that they are no longer satisfying their voter base.

Finally, I don't vote in an election by playing three levels of strategy and examining the third order effects of my vote. I vote for who best represents my values. That's the way it is meant to be, and the way the system works best. I won't give my vote to Guliani, or Romney, or anyone except Ron Paul. On election day I will write in his name if I have to. I'm sorry if this upsets you, but you have your vote to cast and I have mine. Looking at it in terms of what would have happened had all those write-ins gone to the GOP nominee is irrelevant--because the voters who wrote-in didn't vote for the GOP nominee, and there's no evidence they wanted to. Your argument assumes that every voter is obligated to vote for one of the major party nominees, and I can't find that in the Constitution.

No, you are not obligated to vote for the nominee... but I just think, especially in this case, that there is a significant difference in the two evils. I am really scared of what would happen if Hillary gets elected... and I think, however much it might shock the GOP into reality... it might be too late for them to recover. I am seriously scared for the country's future if Hillary is elected. If she is, I think we are headed for socialism in a hurry. I think it is important that we keep her out of office in order to even have a chance to send the GOP a message of discontent. Although, perhaps I should take a lesson from France... they seem to be turning around now with the election of their new president, but it has gotten pretty bad there.

Maybe I am just too pessimistic and cynical... but I don't even know if the majority of the American people even care enough to try and turn things around... and from what I see of my generation of citizens, I have little faith.

There's a huge movement of people that want to turn things around. Ron Paul has the largest active movement for change that's ever existed in American politics. The youth (this generation) is particularly excited about him. This is the height of a revolutionary change in modern times.

Why have little faith?

And since Bush:

gas has gone from $20/barrel to $100/barrel
we ended Habeas Corpus
the dollar is the weakest it has been in a long time
our national debt astronomical after inheriting a surplus
China has $1,000,000,000,000 in US currency on hand
we borrow that money from China to fight a war on evil
I can't take my bottle of Mountain Dew on the airplane
The gov can invade my privacy at any time without notifying me
He signed a directive authorizing him to remain in office and take control of all 3 branches of Gov in the event of emergency or environmental catastrophe at the end of his term.

How much worse can it get for the average American? Relatively, things were pretty good when Clinton1 was in office.

Slayer, I am scared of having Hillary in office as well. However, I'm gonna stick to my guns. If the GOP nominee gets beaten by Hillary then he'll certainly have some reflecting to do. Besides, a candidate like Guliani will only limp America along the path it's currently headed. At least if Hillary was elected we'd probably get closer to having the critical mass necessary for a reset, but I doubt that will happen in my lifetime.

I disagree with James Carville on most things, but you've got to give him two things:
1. He made a cameo in Old School.
2. He's a smart guy.

He said many months ago (in reference to the 2006 congressional election, IIRC) "if the democrats can't win with the current political climate then they have to rethink the entire premise of the party." I think the GOP should look at the other side of that coin. They can't win in this election unless they rethink the entire premise of the party (or rather, what the party has become).

Truth is, the Republican party loves Hillary. Why? Because they can put just about anybody in to run against her and depend on the American people to "vote against" her.

A vote is a powerful and important thing, and it shouldn't be wasted on a candidate that you don't agree with, no matter how bad the end result would be if you didn't vote against the worse candidate. As pissed off as you would be for me contributing to Hillary's win, you should be more pissed off if your best hope of a conservative party is being dissolved from the inside out. 4 years of hell is better than 50-100 years of no strong conservative party.

Voting against the lesser of two evils just doesn't give the parties any reason to actually listen to the people. Why should they? They will continue to get voted into office.

I don't consider myself Republican either, I consider myself conservative. But the Republican party is every conservatives' best hope of implementing conservative change. When that party becomes overrun by non conservatives (whatever your definition of that may be) it's time to use the voting box and force them to place real conservatives in office.

Maybe one day a third party will gain enough momentum to win elections. I don't count on it any time soon. But anything is possible.

----------------------------
"Oculus is just this guy, you know?"

As I've stated before, I've never been as excited about a candidate as I am about Ron Paul. He doesn't need the presidency near as much as this country needs him as president. That is a powerful thing, and something we haven't seen in a long time.

I refuse to vote for anyone else. The "lesser evil" is still evil, so why would I cast my vote for someone I don't think should be in office? That is not the way the system was meant to work.

I am a Libertarian. But Ron Paul is running as a Republican. It doesn't matter. His stance and views come closest to matching my own.

Great quote about RP:

"Congressman Ron Paul not only has emerged from darkhorse status to player in the race for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, he is doing it with a campaign method that is out of the dark ages.

"He’s saying what he truly believes. Off the cuff. Straight off the top of his head."

Editorial, Michael Morris, The Facts, 11/23/07

The last Ron to run for President ended up being one of the best Presidents in US history (according to an ESPN commentator).

The last RP to run for President would have been our president had he not withdrawn from the race so late in the game.

It's in the stars that Paul will be president. Nancy Reagan's astrologer said so.

um,i'm shamefuly not very informed bout the candidates this time around.so idk much about Ron Paul.but one thing on his website that jumped out at me,was the fact that he voted against the Iraq war.Can yall please explain 2 me the logic behind that,please..

Eric,i think bush is smokin crack in alot of areas.
but ur buletted list is pretty rediculous.
i'm gona comment on a few of your points.

1.even though it may seem like we aren't at war,we most def are.granted,we are still able ta go on with our live as usual.OTHER than your MD,and somebody having the ability to eves drop on your conversations about your grocery lists etc..it is a VERY small sacrifice for us who aren't serving,or able to serve in our military,IMO.

2. as for the fuel price.all we need to do is start using the resources AND technology that we have at hand.the middle east IS NOT the only avenue for the means of supplying crude oil.

this is just what i've gathered in my young adult mind.please inform me if i'm mistaken about anything i've said,OR if you just don't agree..there is SOOO much i want to say about all of the ppl and issues that have been brought up,aswell as many more issues.but i am TERRIBLE at gathering and/or expressing my thoughts.

oh yeah,the video is clutch lmao

][-][ //-\\ ][_ {()} ][

Hubcap, RP's stance on the Iraq war is quite simple.

1. He believes we should never go to war without a declaration of war from congress, as the Constitution outlines.

2. He did not believe Iraq posed an imminent threat to use and thinks we should not meddle in the affairs of other countries.

You can read all of his views at ronpaul2008.com. Hit the "issues" page.

Mid,

1. that's reasonable,and makes since. +1

2. i read "war and foreign policy",all in all sounds good..i didn't see anytihng about the fair tax,yet.but i'm def gona study up on this fool.
RP def doesn't seem as shady as Giuliani.i've heard a few speeches from Giuliani,he says alot of the right stuff,but he almost makes me feel uneasy.idk?

thanks though

][-][ //-\\ ][_ {()} ][

hubcap, you should vote whoever you want to vote for, it's best to decide on your own without other people telling you. This would require a lot of contemplating on what you believe and if your willing to go against the grain if you find out you believe different than the two main parties on certain issues. Otherwise, just wait until the main election and vote for the least evil (I wouldn't recommend that).

on #2 (in your first post), your right on about oil and energy in general.

on #1 (in your first post, the privacy/liberty thing), I disagree. I have one quote from Benjamin Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

It's not that the .gov *is* abusing the new power we've given them. It's that they now *can* abuse it if they want to. Sure it may not be so bad now, but wait until the democrats or (insert party here) control the executive, and legislative branches (and theoretically judicial). Then I don't think we would be so trusting. It becomes a problem when the general trend for government is moving away from personal liberty. Like the analogy of putting a frog in boiling water vs heating the water slowly. The frog will never jump out of the water if it's heated slowly.

Personally, I don't blame Bush for things, I think that's a cop-out. I voted for the man twice.

On the Iraq war. I think it's a tough call. Ron Paul wanted congress to declare war instead of going in on a U.N. resolution and through the executive branch. Congress wouldn't do it. His reasoning was that if everyone wanted to go to war, then they should vote on it, declare it, go in and win it, and then get home. Why did he so strictly oppose going in in the first place? Because going into Iraq the way we did violated some basic principles of the Constitution. Not that it wasn't a good mission, but that we had to break the constitution to go on that mission.

For Ron Paul personally, he was against the concept of pre-emptive war. But that was his personal vote, he would have been fine if he was just out voted and war was declared through congress. It would have followed the constitution, and he'd have gone along with it. A presidency under Ron Paul wouldn't be a strictly no-war presidency, but it would be a strictly by-the-constitution presidency. I don't trust politicians, I do trust the constitution.

So I hope I helped you understand a little bit more why it's not as black and white as it seems.

I also believe that we'd be fooling ourselves to think that Iraq is the one stop funnel that all terrorists are funneled through before getting to US soil. We need to realize that if we're going to do this, we need to go all the way and go after Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and a bunch of African countries that have terrorists. You'll quickly realize that it's a burden the American people won't go for. Me included.

Especially since our own borders aren't even locked down (North and South).

----------------------------
"Oculus is just this guy, you know?"

Technically, the war on terror is not a "war", because of what Midnight just pointed out, if I am not mistaken, the congress simply gave President Bush the permission to do what was necessary. Or am I wrong? I think that is right. Regardless, I believe it is an important endeavor.

Ron Paul's stance on Iraq is probably the main reason he is not my candidate.

BTW, George Bush isn't running this election... but I don't think that has sunk in yet. :)

Also, I heard today that Huckabee is making huge progress, and it is conceivable he could win in Iowa, although it is improbable. If he did, that would be really exciting... he may stand a good chance.

Additionally, Huckabee supports the FairTax and that is a plus to me.

I like Fred Thompson, but he isn't speaking up like Huckabee is, and I don't think he has taken a very hard stand on immigration, which is a huge issue to me.

the fair tax is essentially, sales tax, and getting rid of the income tax. (also what Ron Paul wants to do) though I don't think I've heard him endorse the previously named "Fair Tax". What he wants is essentially a mirror image of it, and even better. Ron Paul endorses actually phasing out government programs that suck our pockets dry, AS WELL, as getting rid of the income tax.

I can think of a few gov programs/departments that we could lose over time:
-Welfare
-Social Security
-Dept of (insert department name here)
-IRS

The fair tax is nice and all (Huckabee is the only one I think who's specifically endorsed it) But the only, and I mean only person who is going after the spending problem also is RP. We will still have lots of wasted gov spending under the fair tax.

----------------------------
"Oculus is just this guy, you know?"

thanks for that.honestly i'm very glad we went straight over there after 9/11.i just wish we weren't so politicaly correct about it(among MANY other things),and kicked some serious ass!! maybe that's just me bein wreckless with anger,idk? PC is def sending us into a steady downward spiral though..btw i agree with you about the other countries in the sorounding region.i also believe there was and is WMDs,maybe not in Iraq (anymore).but we def need ta watch our bums

anywho.I'm gona vote for whom i agrre with the most,just don't know enough about the candidates yet.i have ruled out any demos though..

IF the anti-christ,i mean HILLARY gets into office that may put America over the edge.in the process,slap some since into more ppl.i would def hope so..

this is kinda off subject with our candidate talk.but i just realized that I'm assuming that we all agree on the same "core values"..What do yall think of "free"/socialized health care?

][-][ //-\\ ][_ {()} ][

good point Oc

][-][ //-\\ ][_ {()} ][

Personally, I supported going into Iraq. One thing is clear, and every dictator on planet Earth now knows this: If you f*ck with us, and we think your responsible or think your going to harm us, you will see us on your doorstep soon enough. It doesn't matter how powerful you think you are. Sometimes fear is the only thing people understand. Whether or not we went in on bad data/intelligence is irrelevant at this point.

But I don't support us staying over there. It's time the Iraqis start to get their head out of their butt and realize that we can't be there forever.

Of course, I'm saying this from the comfort of my own cozy chair and computer screen, so you can take my opinions as such.

----------------------------
"Oculus is just this guy, you know?"

Peace,through power.

Slayer, whether you agree with RP's stance on the war or not, you have to agree that it's principled, and he can coherently explain those principles, and they don't change based on his audience. That's more than I can say for any other candidate. ANY candidate.

I supported the war from its onset as well, but there's no reason we should still be over there. If a group of people can't bring a "for the people" government to themselves after 4.5 years of American assistance then f*ck'em. Nobody gave independence to us (the US). We got pissed off and we took it. It's not worth another single American life to maintain this expedition.

Midnight, I am not bashing RP, I respect the fact that he is principled and I agree with him on many things. But it seems to me that I shouldn't vote for him just because he is "principled". Dennis Kucinich (spelling?) is principled, but he is also a loon, and I wouldn't trust him with anything. I don't think voting for someone simply because they are principled is much different than voting simply because they are the closest of the two nominees to your beliefs and you don't want the other candidate to win. Seems to me to be a similar reasoning there, but I could be wrong.

BTW, from what I understand, things are going pretty well in Iraq after the surge. No news is good news in this case I think, and the main stream media has definitely slowed in their reports of deaths in Iraq. I think we will be out of there in the next year or so anyway for the most part.

Part of me does think we should screw 'em though. Those people are not going to change their way of thinking after thousands of years in one, two or even ten years and suddenly love the U.S. and embrace democracy. I wish we had just bombed the crap out of them to start with. On the other hand, part of me says that we are helping our own cause over there and possibly helping our allies as well. So I am somewhat double minded on the subject, but for the most part, I think it is good thing that we have at least taken down Saddam's government there. It is probably time to get out though, but I want to make sure that we have finished the job.

Knowing what we know now, I doubt we would ever have gone into Iraq. It's a cluster-f*ck, and we have little choice but to try to get the hell out w/out making things worse. I don't blame Bush. At the time, more people thought it was the right thing to do. Like anything else, hindsight is 20/20. I just wish the current administration would have the balls to come out and admit that. "Hey, we thought it was the right thing to do at the time. We messed up. Bear with us." It would go a long way to mending some of the broken trust the American public has in it's leadership, and would mean alot to hear that kind of honesty from the President.

Too bad it will probably never happen.

You wouldn't vote for someone who stands for his beliefs and principles, which are founded on the Constitution, but would vote for someone else who licks his fingers, and puts them up to catch which way the political wind is blowing in order to decide their stance on any given issue?!

Not voting at all would be a better tactic for you, in this case.

The lesser of two evils approach will burn you, sooner or later. Why not make a decision and stick with it? Find a candidate whose beliefs and principles most closely match your own, and for Christ's sake, make a stand. No matter who it is, (not talking about RP here), man up and make your vote count. Even if the candidate you support doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, at least you had the balls to make your voice heard, instead of masking it behind someone else's for the sake of a "lesser evil".

There is a reality you must acknowledge in order for this to happen. And that is, voting for the lesser evil is not voting for anyone, it is voting AGAINST the person you fear to win. You must get beyond that fear.

If your vote happens to be for the candidate running against Hillary, then fine. But be honest with yourself, and let it be b/c you believe in that candidate, not b/c you don't want the "other guy" (gal in this case) to win.

Back to my list. Yes, hubcap. I agree that my list is ridiculous.

Gas has gone from $20/barrel to $100/barrel.
Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/Oil_Prices_1861_2006.jpg/800px-Oil_Prices_1861_2006.jpg

Habeas corpus was suspended. (AG Gonzales said that the Constitution does not guarantee habeas rights to citizens. Left unchecked, you can be ceased and taken away and you have no rights. This law if for “unlawful enemy combatants”. However, the language is left open.)
Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:S.3930:
Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html

the dollar is the weakest it has been in a long time
Source: http://finance.google.com/finance?q=CURRENCY%3AUSD

Our national debt is astronomical after inheriting a surplus
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
(We were supposed to be over $1 Trillion in the surplus by now. This helped Bush win the election. People didn’t want to have a huge debt. They wanted America to have a lot of cash on hand. IMO, debt isn’t a bad thing always. However, we have the largest national debt we’ve ever had. Government spending is out of control. The Republican party has never been about such high rates of Government spending. Unfortunately, most Republican candidates want to continue down this path.)

China has $1,000,000,000,000 in US currency on hand. “China holds over $1 trillion in dollar denominated assets (of which $330 billion are U.S. Treasury notes). In comparison, $1.4 trillion represents M1 or the "tight money supply" of U.S. Dollars which suggests that the value of the U.S. Dollar could change dramatically should China ever choose to divest itself of a large portion of those reserves”.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

we borrow that money from China to fight a war on evil. We do borrow money from China. Sounds crazy doesn’t it?
Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_gilbert&sid=aQxsnUgFh_Xs (sorry for the weak source).

I can't take my bottle of Mountain Dew on the airplane
Source: http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/prohibited/permitted-prohibited-items.shtm

The gov can invade my privacy at any time without notifying me
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy

He signed a directive authorizing him to remain in office and take control of all 3 branches of Gov in the event of emergency or environmental catastrophe at the end of his term.
Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

Note that while you may not agree about WHY these things are happening (you may even support why some of these things are happening), they greatly affect today’s citizen (you). In the end, you pay more for goods than you did in previous years. You pay more for gas. Some of your personal liberties have been restricted.

Things weren’t so bad under Bill Clinton.

Quote #1:

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have a kind of nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not."

Take a guess at who said that? Ron Paul said that right? No.

Actually, George W. Bush said that in 2000. That was the foreign policy that helped get him elected. Look at all the Republican candidates that go against that policy now.

We are trying to build a nation. We are trying to forcibly install democracy. We aren’t there because some town in Iowa is going to be attacked by some Iraqi army.

Quote #2:

From a speech titled "Our foolish war in the Middle East". paraphrase: "The West has been at war with the Muslim world for over a thousand years. In this century, the British led the charge prior to World War II. Since that time it has been the United States. Although the British remain close allies of ours in intimidating the Muslim world, it is the military strength of the United States that assumes the burden of responsibility for the policy. It is justified by claiming a right and need to protect "our" oil." And so on...

You probably guessed that Ron Paul gave that speech. So, my question to you is "when did he give this speech?"

I would bet that you would say that it was in 2002 or 2003.

I think it's amazing to know that Ron Paul gave that speech before Congress in 2000...before the attacks of 9-11. Before we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. The whole speech is spot on and is still very true to this day: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr111500.htm

One major thing that attracts me to Ron Paul is how consistent he has been since the 1980's. Go on YouTube and you can find speeches by RP from the 1980's. He message is the same.

When I read his speeches from years past, it is almost prophetic.

There's a reason for that. When Ron Paul sees a problem, he doesn't issue policy to fix the problem. He issues policy to fix the cause of the problem. He goes back in time to figure out what went wrong.

When you listen to RP speak about the economy, the war, or taxes, he doesn't just tell you how to fix it. He tells you why it occurred and what can be done to overcome the problem.

He has the heart of a teacher. Tonight during the YouTube debate, you'll notice that he will try to educate the audience on the causes of problems. You also notice other candidates giving a response in order to generate around of applause.

RE: Ron Paul and voting against the War in Iraq and his foreign policy

First of all, studies have shown that people that are pro war in Iraq will not vote for Ron Paul. The war in Iraq has been sold to the American people based on “weapons of mass destruction”, “nuclear weapons”, and “involvement in 9-11”. People that support the war in Iraq have bought into the reasoning that our President and administration gave us. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have advocated this war to the American public for years now. So have other TV and radio personalities. Regular and republican listeners to those shows are most likely pro-war and have been so for years. Only a small portion of those listeners are for extraction in Iraq (although the American public is in fact war weary).

Ron Paul doesn’t support the war in Iraq because it was not authorized (a Constitution thing) and because it was not necessary (a Logic thing).

Iraq has no Air Force or Navy. How would Iraq hurt our homeland? How would Iraq hurt you?

You might say “look at 9-11”. 9-11 was an act of terrorism. Terrorism can never be fully abolished. Terror and terrorist will always exist. If you put a good guy in a room with a killer, who wins that war? The killer does because he’s the last one standing. Remember, the killers we are fighting in Iraq look like ordinary people and are not uniformed.

When the .gov is able to prevent murders, then the .mil will be able to defeat terrorists.

Could we have prevented 9-11? We had the intelligence to prevent it. We probably didn’t have the infrastructure to do it. The .gov has admitted that because of poor communication between agencies, information was not prioritized and relayed.

And what did Iraq have to do with 9-11? The connection between Al Queda and Hussein is at best very weak. If you can find the connection, is that connection worth wagering a war with them?

The main reason we went into Iraq was because they were supposed to have had weapons of mass destruction. To this day, only some old rockets and gas has been found. The Bush administration used language that included “nuclear weapons”, “radioactivity”, “dirty bombs”, and “biological agents”. This simply was not the case with Iraq. They likely never had any major WMD’s.

Regardless, do you think there was enough evidence to go to war with the third world country? Has it been worth the 3000+ US lives? Has it been worth the 100,000’s of Iraqi civilian causalities? Has it been worth the hundreds of billions of dollars? Or lost ties with foreign countries?

What justifies us being in Iraq? To install democracy?

Then why aren’t we installing democracy in other countries?

Weapons of mass destructions?

Then why aren’t we attacking North Korea and Iran? What about other countries in the “axis of evil?”

In fact, North Korea has said they want to destroy the US. They have ICBMs. They have military power. They are threatening us. But we don’t fight with them. Why?

What’s so wrong with bringing our troops home?

By the way: American troops have donated more money to Ron Paul’s campaign than any other candidate.

Here's a great example of how the government and law enforcement culture thinks nothing of stepping on your Constitutional rights:

Boston Police Will Go Door to Door Asking For Residents to Consent to Voluntary Searches

If you consent to a voluntary search, that is your business. You have nothing to gain from it legally, but very much to lose. The fact that Boston Police are going to use taxpayer money to conduct this endeavor and the fact that most of the city supports it shows exactly how far the Average American has fallen from the tree planted by our forefathers. A gov representative going door to door asking to search your home is OUTRAGEOUS! I cannot believe people will give up their 4th Amendment right simply because someone in uniform asks them to.

Maybe you should help put clinton #2 in office then? Clinton #1 left a mess to clean up that we are still dealing with now. Towards the end of his last term we were headed toward recession...war brought our economy back strong, but the war which helped the economy might not have been needed if he would have done the deed before when he had the chance. If he would have taken care of the threats we knew then, there is a very good chance the economy would have stood strong through the transition from him to Bush. I guess thats what happens when you just "dick" around in the oval office instead of taking care of business. Clinton was a very smooth talker and still is, Bush may not have the suave sense of speech...but when it comes down to making a decision he gets to the point. Comparing what clinton dealt with to what bush has been through is like trying to compare apples to oranges...Bush got the scraps from the mess clinton made.

Everyone wants to complain about how bad of a job Bush has done with Iraq. I do believe that things have become too strung out, but back when we first went in Congress had the same intel as Bush and they gave him the power to go in there based on what they knew. George Tenet was a big cause of all the bullshit the CIA was pumping out and he was a clinton #1 man. Though bush did keep him at his position due to so much opposition by the democrats to try and bridge the large gap between the 2 parties. That choice is one of Bush's greatest faults til this day, but he was a clinton #1 guy that didnt do his appointed job very well at all.

I really hope this does not set forth a precedent.

Hah. Good luck with that thinking. I remember democrats said the same thing about Bush. And now look where they are.

I love this kind of fluff. I didn't know Clinton was the CEO of: Enron, Arthur Andersen, WorldCom, pets.com, 1000000 other dot-bombs, used his mind control over a bunch of idiots on Wall Street, etc; and at the same time, moonlighted as the President.

As the current debt and mortgage crisis is 100% Bush's fault. Right? The truth is: the President has very little effect on the economy.

JayWhy and I agree 100% on a political topic. Grab your guns and sacks of flour...the end is near.

Oh my, where do I start... er, well, I think I simply respond to Disavowed, since I haven't read the rest of the posts.

Disavowed, what I was trying to say is that simply because someone is principled doesn't mean they are right. Voting for someone simply because they are principled, even though you disagree with them, is to me no different than me voting for the nominee even though I may disagree with one or two of their stances on something in order to defeat what I consider to be a great threat to our country.

I do not think that all of the other candidates besides Ron Paul are flip flopping, spineless candidates. I should not have used the term "lesser of two evils" to start with, because it isn't like I think any of the republican candidates are "evil", or nearly as bad as Hillary or Obama, even though I may not agree with them 100%. Also, I would consider who I was voting for as the nominee, I wouldn't do it blindly.

Having said this, I have considered and am considering what you and Midnight are saying. It makes sense, and I have heard these arguments before. I am hoping that Mike Huckabee is going to be nominated, and it is starting to look hopeful.

I don't worry about gas prices. Why? If the price of oil ever gets to the point where Americans simply won't pay for it, I'm 100% certain that car companies have alternate fuel sources. If one dude in his garage can make a car that runs on water, I'm sure thousands of engineers working for years in a high-tech lab have reasonable alternatives.

Hamdi v Rumsfeld (2004) reinstated habeas corpus to enemy combatants. The last president to suspend it was Lincoln.

As far as that directive goes, I'm sure it will fuel many conspiracy theories in the future. If you look at FDR, people really don't want the president to change in times of peril anyway. I wouldn't want a current president to pass the baton to a new president an hour after another 9/11 anyway. This directive is easily explained away using the elastic clause in the Constitution.

I don't want you to carry your Mt. Dew onto an airplane. I don't think carrying your Mt. Dew on an airplane is a protection listed in the Constitution. Public transportation deals with a lot of peoples' rights, and your rights end where another person's begins. My safety on an airplane is more important than you quenching your thirst.

I'm going to just quickly state some opinions on some issues. Yes I am exaggerating a bit...

The war: Should have just carpet bombed Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran too while we were at it, back to the stone age in the first place. Would have saved money, saved American lives, gained a lot of oil. Screw this politically correct pussy footing around. We could have done it like Hiroshima, dropped some paper in Arabic telling the people to get the heck out. Oh yeah, and I wouldn't mind moving on to North Korea, and maybe China too... eventually.

Iran and Iraq have both supported terrorism, regardless of which group it is... I'd have bombed them just for that.

There is nothing so wrong with bringing our troops home, if the job is done, I think it basically is, lets do it. Right or wrong, if the job isn't done over there, it would be all for nothing, so especially if it was not a good idea, we should definitely finish our job so people didn't die in vain.

Patriot Act: The patriot act was, I believe, necessary at the time, now I think it has served its purpose... we really no longer need it. But I don't believe this, almost conspiracy theorist, notion that the government is constantly monitoring and listening to every word we say on the phone. I don't think its true. The government is not arresting innocent people either. You tell me how many arrests have been made because of the Patriot Act and "wire tapping"... its minuscule. But I agree that we no longer need the patriot act.

Gas: Gas is high, it's not the president's fault... get over it. If we would screw the freaking caribou in Alaska and freaking drill it, like I believe the president has tried to do, then it wouldn't freaking matter. All these environmental whackos need to stop whining about gas... its their fault.

Okay, I have said more than I even wanted to... moving on.

I'm going to build my alter to RP now...

I don't want the troops out of Iraq... yet. I mean, come on, they're right there if anything else big ever happens in that part of the world. If Iran starts giving us more grief, we're right there. If Korea gives us more grief, we're there. It's helped us prove that we don't take crap from other countries. Even if they can't abolish terrorism (which we've established will never happen) they at least stop large terrorist organizations from establishing a permanent base in that country.

Being isolationist at this time just won't help. That's what we did in the 1920's. WWI just ended. We won. We were booming in the 1920's. Even with the 18th amendment, speakeasies made alcohol easily available. Flappers explored new boundaries with their sexuality. Cars expanded cities and revolutionized transportation. Our economy prospered. Expendable incomes were abundant. People were happy. Then the stock market crashed in 1929. Then Communism got big again. That sucked. That could happen again (War on Terrorism ending, focusing on ourselves). I got another Ben Franklin quote, "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it."

If we pull out, terrorists will follow us. At least, they say they will, and they've delivered on that promise at least once that I can remember. Sure, they may not do it with Mt. Dew bottles on airplanes, but they'll find a way. You know how easy it was for me to get past "security" at Universal Studios today? There was one middle-aged woman standing at a fold-up table searching women's purses with a thin stick to move junk around inside the purse. My friend (with a beefy jacket) walked past her and said, "Am I good?" and she nodded. He could've been wearing dynamite strapped to his chest. I'd rather keep the terrorists across the sea, not in Orlando.

I don't care what reason we have for being there today, I'm just glad the terrorists aren't here.

LOL. HHO. What a scam. I guess the first Law of Thermodynamics doesn’t exist. All that is being done here is converting energy from fossil fuels through electrolysis into hydrogen.

Let me break it down. It is really simply why this doesn’t work.

Which is more efficient?

a) Fossil Fuels -> Electrolysis -> Hydrogen -> Run engine

OR

b) Fossil Fuels -> Run Engine

So unless electrolysis and burning hydrogen are 100% efficient(which they aren’t) b) is the correct answer.

Hydrogen only hope is renewable sources. Like say.

Solar Panels -> Electrolysis -> Hydrogen -> Run engine.

That was an example. I hear we also have corn as a fuel source.

Having transportation tied to corn is a bad idea. For one, droughts (like the one we had this year) would be devastating to two industries at once: food and transportation (which really affects all industries). Even when there is no drought, the price of food would go up substantially...which is a tax on all American people.

Secondly, MSNBC ran a story today about how corn produces 20 gallons of oil per acre per year. We're going to run out of land! At the same time, the WSJ wrote a piece on how it's not economically feasible to produce ethanol.

Finally, oil companies are making record profits right now. They aren't going to stop making those profits to push for a technology shift to another fuel source.

also@Mintz: Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He's a non-interventionist, which is what the founding fathers wanted us to be.

Also, I could argue now that America is now more isolated from the rest of the world than ever before. Look at the countries that don't support our war in the middle east. Look at all the turmoil we've caused. Look at all the countries that we've put sanctions on. It seems that our intervention in other countries affairs has made us more isolated from the rest of the world.

If you are against isolation, then you should be against the actions that have causes America to be isolated from the rest of the world.

If you are for relations and open trade with other countries with low tarrifs, then you should support a non-interventionist.

The internet has been let down by Chuck Norris in the last two weeks over somethings he has done and said. The techmeme crowd has been looking for a new hero. Mr. T is getting hugely popular although I think he has less credibility than Chuck Norris. Johnny Cash may step up to take over Chuck:

Reason 1.
Only one man who has ever lived has been bad enough to be called “The Man In Black” and it wasn’t Chuck Norris

Reason 2.
Johnny didn’t have to fight to be a bad ass. He just had to pick up a beer bottle and a guitar.

Reason 3.
Norris made a bunch of films where he killed folks. Johnny Cash went to Folsom Prison and did a concert. You tell me which one takes more balls.

Reason 4.
Chuck wasn’t the first of his kind to kick ass. Johnny was the first rock star to set something on fire. While most artists only set their hotel rooms on fire, Johnny took it one step further and burned down half a national forest.

Reason 5.
When Chuck was five, he was a normal five year old. Johnny had already earned man points by working in his dad’s cotton fields. That is a true bad ass. By the time he was six, Cash did more hard work than most men do in their whole life.

Reason 6.
Chuck never got stabbed in the back by a woman. Johnny never stopped bleeding. Chuck may have gotten punched a few times, but Johnny knew what real pain was.

Reason 7.
Chuck is a republican. Johnny was close with every president except for GWB. It was said he just didn’t trust that son of a bitch. When Johnny didn’t trust someone, you just knew something foul was going on.

Reason 8.
Johnny was invited to play the at White House in 1972 for Richard Nixon. He was given a list of politically correct songs to sing. He instead metaphorically threw up his middle finger at the establishment, in true ShoutWire fashion, and sang a set full of left leaning, politically charged tunes. Chuck Norris has never told the president to hump off in his own house.

Reason 9.
Chuck Norris made a lot of crappy movies. Johnny Cash never touched anything that didn’t turn to gold. In the 80’s, he made a song called “Chicken in Black” to get himself out of a record deal. Even that became popular.

Reason 10.
Johnny is the only man in history to decline painkillers after a double bypass heart surgery. He knew he liked drugs too god damn much and wouldn’t stop. That shows power over an addiction previously not seen before. Kicking a ninja's ass is easy compared to kicking a drug's ass.

I'm in this video.

Besides the reasons rapture gives above, corn -> ethanol is a very inefficient process. It barely saves any fossil fuels. As corn requires large amount of fertilizer(nitrogen), which is made from fossil fuels specifically natural gas.

For this very reason corn is also a very poor feedstock. 90% of the corn grown in this country is NOT grown for human consumption. More efficient alternative exists. However farmers are slow moving and the industry is subsidized. Why our government hasn't pushed done incentives programs and given insurance, say if the new corn replacement kills all the cattle(more feel good than anything).

Of all the biofuels currently being proposed. The one with the most promise is cellulosic ethanol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol

Studies have shown cellulosic ethanol could be cost effective as gas per gallon equivalent. Possibly even cheaper. It could cut out 80%-120% of the carbon emissions compared to gas.

Plus the money we spend on energy goes to AMERICANS. It does not goto: rich Saudis who fund Madrassas, religious schools which in-doctorate the youth; rich Saudis who give money to "charity" groups who filtered that "charity" to the 9/11 hijackers; Iraq so they can make weapons of mass destruction; Iran so they can make weapons of mass destruction; Russia so Putin can overthrow democratic reforms, etc, etc, etc...

However you need a large push from Washington and our President for this to be viable. There is too much vested into the oil economy for it to change without Washington pushing it.

While I am skeptical of the viability of a certain types of ethanol production over others based on the argument of global warming like is listed in the wikipedia article, I do think that ethanol types of fuels are going to be the future of our energy needs. Jay I completely agree with you on the cost effectiveness and energy balance of cellulosic ethanol.

Ethanol requires much less change to our existing infrastructure from the vehicle standpoint. And it doesn't hurt having a cleaner burning fuel if you live in a city that has smog problems. Anyone who's been to some large cities and smelled smog will likely be happy about this. I have, and it sucks, trust me.

My truck can run on ethanol or an ethanol blend right now without any modifications. Essentially they just put more sturdy gaskets and seals so the ethanol can't break down the plastics/rubber so easily.

I do think that the free market will do a better job at tackling this problem than government can. I agree that we need a president to step up and challenge everyone to meet this demand, but not through force or through regulation, laws, or taxes.

We'd be a more sovereign nation without oil. We'd be safer. We'd have a stronger economy. I keep waiting for conservatives to step up on this issue to offset the liberals who want to do it through regulation and laws. None have yet that I know of. GW has tried a bit, but I don't see Hydrogen or electric cars as valid right now. I think we all want the same thing, just liberals tend to tie it to global warming, regulation, and spending projects and I think that deters a lot of people who don't necessarily buy into it. If it were tied to national sovereignty, security, and the economy, I think more people could relate.

Oil == bad

my definition of bad may be different than other people's

----------------------------
"Oculus is just this guy, you know?"

You think us being there has made things less volatile and the terrorists less likely to come over to our soil? hardly. It's only emboldened them and increased their recruitment. I'm not saying everything we've done over there has been a mistake...but this foolish policing the world foreign policy fails, has failed, and will continue to plunge us further and further into debt. We can't even afford to be in Iraq!!! "As long as we live beyond our means we are destined to live beneath our means"- Ron Paul.

I hope you realize we are in the makings for a Depression worse than anything this country has ever faced, and it started when we let the Federal Reserve Bank take over and base our currency on the promises of other countries and confidence. The dollar is losing its value slowly but steadily, I hope you know. One of our biggest problems is how much we depend on and how we are owned by other countries. China could cripple us very fast. I cannot, and will not support the socialistic trends of the past 50 years. I never even thought I had an option like Ron Paul. I personally would love to see a Paul presidency with Huckabee as VP. Huckabee has a lot of great positions I respect, but I cannot agree with his positions on the war. I also think Huckabee has even LESS of a chance winning than Ron Paul. RP's campaign grows exponentially by the day through word of mouth, advertising, and the internet. Huck has a lot of good positions but he just seems like a less extreme version of RP, which is why I think he would make a good VP but not a good President.

Huck seems to be trying to copy RP, as well. He tried to do a money bomb after the Nov. 5th Ron Paul Money Bomb that raised over 4 million dollars. People only dub Huckabee a dark horse because they hate Ron Paul. The day of Huckabee's imitation money bomb RP supporters heard about it and trumped it with a small RP money bomb and actually outgave Huckabee's money bomb, all within hearing about it on the same day. RP has been saying and voting consistently with his positions since the 80's.

Here's a video of RP when he ran as a Libertarian in 88-

His voting record, positions, morality, and leadership have never contradicted himself. His campaign grows exponentially by the day. He has the most donors from the active military out of ANY candidate of ANY party. I know you didn't say it but one fallacy I've been hearing lately is Mike Huckabee has a better chance than Ron Paul. Even so, regardless of how electable someone is if they match up to what I believe and know to be true, I will support them.

The government could provide tax incentives or programs to help facilitate the change over.

The free market is like the cake in Portal. It doesn't exist, especially here. What is the cost of holding troops in Saudi Arabia? What is the cost of fighting wars in the Middle East? What is the cost of funding rouge oil regimes then fighting them years later, or having them fund terrorist organizations? What is the true cost of global warming, or the smog that damages our lungs? I could go on. But do you really think the true cost of gas is 3 dollars a gallon?

I'm not asking the government to get involved in making ethanol. Just provide incentives for REAL production.

Investors will not move into risky ventures lightly. Going up against Big Oil is a damn risky venture. So investors impose high performance guarantees and demand high return on investment, making the projects expensive and making the profits basically nil for the developer. This is a problem in general with new energy technologies across the board. Incentives based on production would help alleviate that pressure.

It is your duty as an American to do just that.

I agree with tax breaks for ethanol/energy production (even complete tax free status), but I disagree with subsidies. Companies should use their own profits to fund things like this. Whenever we have government handing out money, it almost always does not get handed out in the manner we intended it to be. It essentially becomes corporate welfare. If I put a box out in my front yard with 100 dollar bills and a note that said, "only take if you are using for the development of alternative energy", the only way I can make sure people are using the money correctly is if I follow their every step and monitor what they are doing with the money. Something the federal government shouldn't be doing.

Same goes for large companies, the only incentive for them is to provide the appearance of moving in the direction of alternative energy. (seen any big oil commercials for alternative energy lately?) Government is not efficient enough to know if these companies are truly using their money effectively. All they have to do is throw a couple e85 stations up in a few states, continue to promote the farse of corn ethanol, and get all the money from the government anyways. The only effective equalizer is the market. Using government to artificially equalize the market doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

I think I can say with complete honesty that there is a strong demand right now for ethanol (of the kind you described above).

Oh,... WAR EAGLE (see below), Auburn and the state of AL for cellulosic ethanol
http://domesticfuel.com/?p=1027
Auburn has a great agriculture technology program.

granted, corn ethanol is mentioned in the article, but the idea of promoting alternative energy through leadership is where I'm coming from.

Jay I agree that the economy is not completely free market, but I would like to move in the direction at least of a freer market. And I think I can win you over to the free market side.

Consider this, if you personally had a large percent of your income back in your pocket instead of it being taken through taxes and redistributed via the government, wouldn't you be more generous with your money? Why should the federal government decide who you donate your money to (whether it be for social causes, or for the energy cause) Wouldn't you (and the general technology community) be smarter than any government agency in deciding how and who to invest in to promote ethanol production, or feeding the homeless in your community, or whatever cause?

I think the issue is in trust of government as a whole. I have a distrust in government to do the "right" thing, and I can back up my distrust with a hundred years of factual evidence for why you should too. I have a lot of respect and trust in individuals and the general positive nature of people in general and can back that up as well. Not that there aren't crappy people, just that the good ones can tackle a lot of issues without the use of government.

----------------------------
"Oculus is just this guy, you know?"