Pajiba

A Gore/Edwards ticket would be really cool, but in my heart, I'm voting for Kucinich.

Only in my heart, though, I know he has no chance of winning In Real Life. *sigh*

My exact vote and my exact quote from the booth in Year 2000: *punches Gore lever* "I'll have eight more years of the same, please."

I worry that the Obama frenzy will make him 2008's Howard Dean. On that note, I'm avoiding picking anyone too early lest I go through that heartbreak all over again, and have to support a Democrat I don't really like.

Erm... "toe."

Can we get numerical totals on the vote board as well as the percentages, please?

Did anyone else notice that the Mormons are advertising at the top of the page? Weird...

I'm really starting to hope the Gore gets in the race, giving us a Gore/Obama ticket.

I'm glad to see that Bill Richardson was added to the poll. After all, he's only a former congressman, senator, Secretary of Energy, Ambassador to the United Nations, and governor.

In comparison, Fred Thompson quit the Senate after one and a third terms, and is best known for playing a supporting character on Law and Order. Completely aside from political views, one of these would do a better job than the other.

I'd love to see an independent ticket with Paul and Kusinich. Both are the only ones running who voted against the war and the patriot act, and both are really the only ones i'd consider voting for. If they both would comprimise a lil on some issues, they would be exactly what this country needs. Everyone complains about the administration and the politicans running the country...then why do you keep voting for them?!?!? If people would ignore what the media says because its either liberal or conservative based t.v shows that are a business...A business, with the exception of C-SPAN, but that's very boring. I see little hope for America, most of the world hates us and we keep electing the same type of politicans! Obama, Clinton, Rudy, Thompson...four more years of the same type of politics that is ruining our country! 60 million Americans re-elected George W. Bush...now all we do is complain about how bad he is...it's not all his fault, how about the senators and congressman we elected who can barely do a damn thing? and the only candidates that would do something to correct the direction of the country "dont stand a chance"...why? Because CNN and Fox News said so! How about being independent and thinking for yourself? Or have Americans just become too dumb to do that?

So, private citizens are supposed to take care of Social Security, Assistance for Needy Families, Public Works, Parks and Recreation, Public Housing, Day Care for poor parents, etc.?

Sure. That'll work.

The problem with that idea, RP08, is that people don't help people. There is so much suffering because people are selfish. I mean if Americans were the most generous people in the world would 25% of children in American be living in poverty? I think that since we are obviously not handling this problem individually, then I think that the government should be involved. I think that everyone should have a fair and equal chance at a good life and our current system is not doing that. But I don't think that getting rid of a lot of social programs will do that either. People should vote with compassion. Not just thinking about their taxes and how much they have to pay to help "lazy" poor people who they claim take advantage of the aid that our government gives, because that just isn't true. Maybe I am not making sense. I just get all worked up about this. I really care about social justice. I think it is the most important thing.

There is a huge problem with your statement Erin. First let me tell you to do some research on our monetary system and Federal Reserve and listen to what Dr. Paul is saying of these things and hopefully you will understand.
Secondly that when you have a tax system that confiscates 50% or more of you income it doesn't leave so much left for most people to be caring...
Tell you what... If you were able to keep that, being that you are a caring, compassionate individual, what would you choose to do with it?

RE: Erin

All valid points. You admit freely that social justice is your #1 issue, and I don't begrudge you that.

As for your statement: "I think that everyone should have a fair and equal chance..." , I couldn't agree more. The role of government is to ensure the equality of opportunity, not the equality of result.

Where I take issue with your position is that the *federal* government is to address these problems, despite its abysmal record at solving any problem other than enriching congressmen, senators, and the people who helped them get elected. In the comment above yours, by "TK", the notion that "His message is to return the powers back to the states when he talks of eliminating gov't programs, thats were it belongs" is anathema to federalists who want the federal government to cure all the ills of the country.

Government is inefficient, and federal government of a nation of 300 million people is inefficient on an epic scale. If states handled their own issues, not only would federal income tax rates not need to be so high, but if people didn't like how their state was being run, it would be much easier to enact change by voting in new officials or simply moving to another state that has its shit together...see: the California exodus

Does anyone believe that the Ron Paul comments are comming from someone not associated with his campaign?

I don't think the attacks are at Paul in particular but at libertarianism more broadly, which has always been and will continue to be a fringe view.

The problems with suggesting that private citizens will take care of one another is that 1) we have no evidence historical or otherwise that they will. After all, currently America has the lowest income tax of all industrial nations, especially for the wealthy, and yet our 371 billionaires with their $1.1 trillion dollars consistently fail to provide for the 30 million *working* poor in our country. If we can have 30 million *working* poor under the current system, what would happen if labor laws were loosened today? We'd go back to 1905, when working conditions here were as bad as those our companies gleefully impose on the third world. We'd go back before the New Deal, everybody lived the way today's working poor live. (And I won't get started on CEO's who earn millions while driving their companies into the ground, even while paying all low-level employees less than enough to feed their families, thereby allowing those people to fall on the social system while the CEO laughs to the bank...I don't see how libertarianism would solve that, but I do see how regulation would.)

There's a whole lot to be said about economies of scale. There are two ways of combining resources in our country...through taxation, or else through agreement among a good-ol-boy's club. I trust government a thousand times more. To suggest that our American system of government is unsound is about as unpatriotic as it gets, when it comes to that, but my BIGGEST problem with Bush and his party, war aside, is the absolute contempt that they have shown for the constitution, the system of justice in our country, and the rule of law in general.

Now, on to Paul. I would abhor any suggestion that we go toward a libertarian system. But even more so would I abhor such a move that started with the social programs, and only then discussed taking the badly manipulated world markets and making them truly fair and free markets. Because the only prayer for a libertarian system to work (and it's a small prayer) would be if markets were completely unmanipulated by the world's power elite. So you take away that only ambulance that poor have to keep them from death and suffering (the social programs) and let them flounder while you "fix" the markets? Abolish the IRS before you abolish the IMF?

I saw Paul on the Daily Show, and he said he wanted to get rid of every organization in the world, even the non-governing ones! That seems a lot more like anarchy to me than libertarianism....

Schadenfreude...It's not just the pulling out of troops that makes Ron Paul isolationist. He's also a big supporter of the enormous fence between the States and Mexico, and he's been trying to introduce legislation to make sure that babies born in the US aren't citizens if their parents aren't.

Ron Paul is scary to me because it sounds really good to people that have fairly steady incomes and see the government taking away their money. His idea of repealing the 16th amendment sounds fabulous- "yay, no more taxes!" Who is going to pay for that giant fence then? Who is going to pay for the bounty hunters he wants to hire to kill bin Laden?

Gore. All the way. No question. But I voted for him in 2000, so it's no big surprise.

Is there an unbiased website for Ron Paul? I have a feeling I probably don't agree with much of what he believes in or stands for, but I'd like to be informed nonetheless. Oh, and my unbiased I mean NOT created by someone affiliated with Paul or his campaign.

K--this is not meant as an antagonistic question, and thank Goodness for the people who stepped up to the plate and sent resources to New Orleans during Katrina. But....who's job was it to make sure the levees were sound? Who pays for levees? How many of the people of New Orleans were poor, hungry and without succor before Katrina ever came? And where were the trucks at that time?

The problem with what RP08 said above, about democracies sucking out resources from public coffers, is, well, how is libertarianism better, if it keeps money from ever reaching the public coffers to begin with?

If I were poor, I would far rather trust government to respond to my needs than nameless strangers without obligation to me. This is especially true in an increasingly secular country.

The other problem is that poverty doesn't have any respect for the "meritocracy" myth we cherish as a nation. Poverty affects people, all too often, according to the history of their race, ethnicity and the attendant social problems. We can hardly pretend that the average black youth in the U.S. is born with the same opportunity as the average white youth. Not with the current disparities in education. And under libertarianism, where education follows a capitalist market, these disparities are liable to continue reproducing themselves in perpetuity.

Ultimately, Alex (who wrote): "I mean, if someone is impoverished, and they can't "dig themselves out of a hole," then perhaps they DESERVE to stay in that hole. Why should I have to pay to offer a helping hand? Why should I be FORCED to pay?"

Are you an example of the fine private good will that will care for the nation's hungry in this brave new world?

RP08--

I think you may be contradicting yourself. In my mind, it is the job of the people who employ those working poor, first and foremost, to ensure a living wage. I feel strongly that Walmart employees should not be on the public system, while Walmart investors and CEO make millions. But how does one impel a Walmart to pay employees more? Libertarianism seems to feel that the labor market will ensure a living wage, but even with labor laws in place, this does not occur.

But moreover, it seems disingenuous to say that you want private charity to care for the poor, instead of the government, and then to say that it is not in fact the job of the private interests to do so. I gave that example as a simple illustration of the fact that, if the wealthy are not currently caring for the poor, how are we to trust that they will when taxation and social systems were removed under Paul's leadership?

Eeeewww! I had no idea Pajiba was populated by so many rabid anti-progress conservatives. Reading some of these comments just makes me feel dirty. And sad. Sad that anyone could be so selfish and cruel. Ugh.

If you seriously think that the poor and needy will be assisted by individuals, you are living in a pipe dream so clouded you can't see your way out.

At least Ron Paul stands zero chance of being nominated. For that, we should all be thankful. Ew, I need to go wash the slime off. I'm out of this comment diversion.

Well, I'm sure as hell am never going to win a debate here. The comments I see are simply amazing.
Calling Libertarianism a fringe view?
Now, correct me if I am wrong but weren't those were the views this country was founded upon.
Then to say there is no "historical evidence" that private citizens will not take care of one another to me is just completely ignorant.
I would say that there is significant historical evidence that the system we have now is doomed.
50 trillion dollars in future obligations!
Just where is this money supposed to come from?
That's right, we have the federal reserve who will create it out of nothing.. lend it to the US treasury at the current rate 5.25% so the have nots can have some.
Now.... Let me ask you this... who is profiting from this system?
Yes... as Jen said..it is the "371 billionaires with their $1.1 trillion dollars" that "consistently fail to provide for the 30 million *working* poor in our country."
As Ron Paul has said.. If spending we brought back to year 2000 levels we would be able to eliminate the income tax.... no kidding.
I think many of you fail to see the whole picture.

Alex, you said, "I mean, if someone is impoverished, and they can't "dig themselves out of a hole," then perhaps they DESERVE to stay in that hole. Why should I have to pay to offer a helping hand? Why should I be FORCED to pay? The government doesn't (or I guess, shouldn't) have the power to do this. As RP08 said, this is the role of private generosity."--- I am a single mother, working over 40 hours a week at a job that only offers a small insurance to me,not my children. My pay barely keeps our heads above water. Yes, I could get a better job outside of the small town I live in, but then I would be putting $75 to $100 in my gas tank every week, as well as not being available if my kids, or my aging mother, needs me. My kids receive medical insurance from the state because I cannot pay for it myself. Without it, my son could not have had surgery on his broken arm, my kids couldn't get their eyeglasses or keep their teeth healthy. I don't blow my money on cigarettes or booze, or running around. I just pay bills. Yes, I am in a hole, no I am not completely capable of digging myself out, but I am trying to make sure the hole doesn't close up on me and mine.

I am not crazy about the government or the way things are run, either. But to say maybe we DESERVE to be left in a hole because the Constitution did not allow for the government to offer aid, or to expect my neighbors (also in holes in a small farming community, losing manufacturing jobs left and right) to help me is naive. Come out here to the breadbasket of America and see how much it sucks to be stuck here.

No, I am NOT a Republican!!!! I am an Independent, and Paul scares the hell out of me. The choices are pretty thin right now, but I'd sooner give Obama a chance than someone who wants to put another brick in the wall.

Damn...it...Janet.

Alex you might want to pick up that asshole card she just threw at your feet.

Nobody here even bothered to answer my question..
It's simple.. and it should end this debate..
Jen,
dammitjanet,
Erin,
If you, or anyone else for the matter had the extra 20-50% of the money that the US treasury confiscates from us through our tax system. Would you choose to be more generous to the needy? Would we even be having this conversation?
I eagerly wait you response.

Dear RP08 and all other claimants that the Federal Income Tax is Unconstitutional:

I kindly direct your attention to the 16th amendment to said Constitution, ratified in 1913 and never repealed which reads, in its entirety,

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

End of case. Please never venture forth with this patently untrue claim ever again in any future tax debates.

I want America back. I want Ron Paul to be my Commander & Chief.

I had never heard of Ron Paul before today. After watching his supporters (who have never been seen on this site before) completely hijack this thread, not to mention their bizarre theories of constitutional interpretation, I now have one more candidate to root AGAINST.

My dream ticket is Feingold/Kucinich. If I can't have that, I'd settle for Edwards/Kuchinich or Obama/Kuchinich (in that order). While I like Gore, his complete capitulation to Dubya during the 2000 debates, combined with his move to the right along with the Clintons, was enough to make me lose faith in him as a viable reformer.

monica,

Libertarianism is not Anarchy. Libertarianism asks the question "What does government do better than the private sphere?" and comes up with two answers: 1. Puts people in jail and 2. Kills people. To the extent that both of these are sometimes necessary to protect society from criminals and external armies, government is necessary. But, it should be recognized that these powers can be turned against law-abiding citizens and therefore, government should be kept as small as possible.

bartap,

I have read this site for a while, but you are correct, I had never posted before. Sorry if an election which will determine the fate of the world for the next four years gets me more riled up than whether or not Jericho is going to be renewed.

A Patriot-
I would and already do give, but I already stated that I care deeply about the poor. A lot people, as demonstrated in the comments here, believe that people should "dig themselves out" so I don't think that they would be all that willing to help anyone but themselves. Also I think that it is more than just monetary donations that are necessary, but also programs that help people. Maybe I am cynical because I don't believe that Americans would take care of the poor, but that is something that I have learned through experience. And I don't think that the federal government is doing a great job. I think there is a lot of room for improvement. Plus you are ignoring the fact that a large percent of that 20-50% goes to more than just the poor. It is all of our social programs, like public transportation, police, roads and much more. Who would take care of that?

"...but, he'd also push to abolish income tax, eliminate all social programs, oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants, overturn Roe v. Wade, and make the United States an isolationist country."

AWESOME! Just.. awesome. Where do I sign up?

- Merchantprince (A Giuliani supporter who knew next to nothing about Ron Paul until visiting Pajiba today.)

With you, bartap. I saw Ron Paul on "The Daily Show" last week, and he made some sense in the five minutes of discussion. As always, however, with a relatively unknown candidate who seems too good to be true, the truth ultimately will out. Anyone can sound good for five minutes, but what I'm hearing today is the "libertarianism" rationalization typically used to justify abandoning the poor and disenfranchised.

There's a philosophical divide here that is not going to be bridged on a discussion board -- Gore, Kucenich, and Edwards believe there is an obligation to use government to do things for people that cannot otherwise be accomplished. Beneficiaries of things like the TVA and Medicare probably agree with them.

Oh, and please don't insult us with the tired bullshit that Republicans and Democrats are "the same." There are about 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians and over 3,000 dead American soldiers who'd like to argue that point. I didn't think anyone really believed that any more.

Oh well, take some comfort that Ron Paul has about as much chance as Al Sharpton did, i.e., zero.

Thank you for the responses!
You see.. it does work! I fully understand that some of you are more generous and helpful with your time than others and please, keep it up... yet also understand that not everyone will be like this. This comes right down to what RP is saying.. set an example, have more control over what you do with what you earn.. have others emulate you.. there is goodness in all of us.. yet when you have a system that punishes you for working.... just how are you going to feel.. you have to understand the effect that the system is having on us all..
I cannot urge you enough to take a look at this mans record and life and then tell me that he will not be somebody that most everyone would want as our president and do great good for this country... take a few minutes..
Then find the time to read the book I mentioned above... Even If this doesn't change your views, at least you could say that you did.
After all, isn't that how we conceive our opinions?
Peace

I voted Gore. All the way. I also ordered a bumper sticker "Gore 2008"- which is huge for me as I've never done any public support.

Also, some people have to open their eyes and realize that Liberals are Republicans. Or, I should clarify, Liberals are what Republicans used to be. That's why I love Paul- he truly understands that. But, I love Gore more.

Now, a Gore/Paul ticket would be interesting. Even though it's pure fiction.

"You socialist cowards"...
I am trying to stifle a giggle. Such colorful words! You have a flair for the dramatic, dear Allen.
Not every American's dream is the same as yours, and alot of us find it somewhat frightening that people are so vehement about pushing the "true" dream on us.

American Dream = Freedom, Small Government

It's quite simple my dear yazikus.

I believe the problem some people hare having with libertarianism on here is that they are getting the practical application and the theoretical idealism and they don't know which one to believe.

Theoretically Libertarianism states that the government should only perform functions that it would be able to carry out more effectively then the private sphere. To a Libertarians way of thinking these are somewhat limited, hence the extreme limited government that so many Libertarians seem to desire.

The problem with this is, and where people on here are poking holes at libertarians on here is that, by the very topics people have been bringing up (in particular the rather obdurate poster who suggested Social Darwinism (which is in and of itself a horrendous misapplication of Darwin's theories of evolution to non biological phenomenon) as a cureall for this country) Just because you can take candy from a baby, certainly doesn't mean you should. Or if you really want to talk social darwinism in its unregulated hey-day in the industrialist gilded age, it wasn't candy, but toes, fingers, occasionally an entire limb and if they children were really lucky their entire life. But that is neither here or there.

I understand RP08's post about the fact peopl do give back, you are correct, but for Every Andrew Carnegie, Bill Gates or Warren Buffett, there is a Rick Hilton or Donald Trump. And what defines useful social investment from the private sector is debatable at any rate. While fighting for a cure for AIDS or malaria is honorable and a noble thing to do, if my baby is starving to death right now, a cure to a disease that -may- be developed in 20 years time, and available in an affordable generic form in another 20 years isn't doing me a whole lot of good.

Ultimately the idea of Libertarianism and what the federal government is and isn't good for is in the eye of the beholder. The founding fathers are often misquoted and their intents are not always clearly illustrated, but above and beyond any specifics, the found fathers -did- want a living breathing constitutional government, that could -change- and -evolve- over time. While it is important to remember where we came from, it is also important to remember that the constitution was a COMPROMISE and not anyones ideal document. You cannot idealize something that said black people were only 3/5 human. Our civilization locally, nationally and globally has changed drastically, and our government has changed with it.

Also for all of you educated people who keep piddling on about democracies, I would remind you that the idea that our government is a democracy, is in fact an invalid half truth. We have a representative democracy, more commonly referred to as a republic. Which has always had something of an oligarical bent to it, which has unsurprisingly become more prevalent as time has progressed, though admittedly that oligarical bent I would surmise has been helped far more than hindered thanks in large part to the sort of half witted cold, heartless ideologies that some on this board have espoused.

Social darwinism indeed.

"I refuse to let you socialist cowards destroy the true American dream."

Ha. I'm all for hurling insults at strangers on message boards. But when it comes to enlightening someone on your point of view, you might want to rethink your argument. Or maybe you have in fact successfully enlightened us all to your point of view, "Allen". Your statement harkens to the verbal diarrhea of many other extremist factions in other various organizations and political affiliates.

Without revealing my own political ideals (which are not necessarily esconced above, I was merely playing a proverbial pundit, and have apparently now taken to bad alliteration) I would just like to say, that by definition, stating that your vision of the american dream is the only vision of the american dream, is an inherant and somewhat hypocritical paradox of what the american dream actually is.

"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happyness"

It fails to mention that I must follow your ideal of the above.

Further I would like to point out that stating such is akin to a religious/political figure (of which we have no shortage in this country) informing us that jesus is the only thing that will save this country, and only if we follow jesus will we be virtuous.

I hate to bring religion into this already over boiling pot, but as a gay man living in america, I find your tactics particularly brutal, disengenuous and abhorent.

But hey, you're free to whatever dream you want.

Has Ron Paul's entire base suddenly become Pajibans? Like a previous poster mentioned above, I had never really heard of Ron Paul before the first Pajiba Presidents Poll...and now, after reading some of what his supporters have posted, I can't say I'm glad I HAVE heard of him now.

Also, nice post Ben.

We're already seeing the destruction wrought by Will Smith and his intentionally mis-spelled movie title. It's spelled "happiness," people.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled Paul-related ranting.

I was referring to GWB, jokingly.

Allen, I don't think anyone is attacking your statements for being unintelligent. I also don't think anyone is trying to take away your right to be angry at the current state of the union. However, when you attack intelligent people trying to have an intelligent conversation it flips to name calling instead of informing. As an "amateur daily opiner" I thought I'd help you find a reasonable way to get your message across.

I don't mean to insult those who in all reality depend on the government for assistance, or insult anybody for that matter. You must realize however that super-powerful governments, like ours, condition their respective populus to exorbitant amounts of fear mongering. Fear of terrorism, fear of war, fear of abandonment and of chaos. I believe the government needs to do a lot of rethinking. I believe there needs to be some serious changes within. I also believe that this will only be accomplished by electing Ron Paul. Any other candidate, regardless of party affiliation, will seek only to increase size and power of government, further rendering us helpless without it and powerless to challenge it.

Allen
You.. my friend, get it.
Thanks

I'm voting for Mayor McCheese, by the way.

btw, this is why I LURV Pajiba....for a site that started out as movie reviews to be able to start some really intelligent discussions and debates about all sorts of things....that's just great. Thats why I am an "amateur daily opiner" and intend to stay one!!!! Thanks for making us think, Dustin! And on a FRIDAY no less!!!

One thing that Barack Obama has that Ron Paul never will: Obama Girl. Suck it, Ron.

I wish I had the optimism that the Ron Paul people have. I believe that if all government programs were eradicated we would begin to have a similar situation to that of China. Health care system decimated, no free public education and workers abused, held captive and then thrown out when they are no longer useful. (Except for the rich Chinese benefiting from these practices.) The rich and powerful will always squeeze every drop out of the working poor they can. After all what they care about is profit, not humanity. I personally am very thankful the social net was there to catch me until I could get back on my feet again. And one last thing, most of these poor people who deserve to be where they are, are children. I am for Edwards all the way.

kate-

if all government programs were eradicated, who do you think would keep workers captive? Do you really think General Motors would begin building prisons?

"(Ron Paul would) also push to abolish income tax, eliminate all social programs, oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants, overturn Roe v. Wade, and make the United States an isolationist country."

And? Not all of us are so enamored of big government as the majority of Pajibans appear to be.

I was only commenting on the social programs being cut in China, which they have been. I never meant to imply a libertarian government would be a single party system with censorship and no political freedoms. I apologize if I was not clear on that.

"It saddens me that this is the only place where a discourse can be enjoined about what the *ROLE* of government should be."

I agree wholeheartedly. But what saddens everyone more: RPO8's statement, or the fact that we're all in the minority when it comes to even HAVING a discussion? I say fuck it- I'm hosting a viewing party for Norbit at my place on November 4,2008.

Gore/Obama would make me dance with mild excitement.

I'm sorry, but this far out from November 2008 I can't cast my vote for any of these people yet. Give others a chance to declare their candidacy, give the rest of us some peace and quiet, and then fire up the malfunctioning Diebold machines sixteen months from now.

As for Ron Paul, one can't be pro-life and a Libertarian. You're either believe that people have the right to control their own lives without government interference--the very essense of Libertarianism--or you don't. And if you don't, well, there are other political parties out there that reflect your interventionist philosophy.

team RP: movie nerds will always prevail!

so i know i'm the only one still at work but can team RP please address GUN CONTROL?

i'm curious what has been the inspiration for the hard-core libertarians out there. i only know one personally and he seems to be motivated by mistreatment by the police at a young age.

"One can't be pro-life and a Libertarian."

I respectfully disagree. I know many pro-life Libertarians. If you believe that a fetus is a human life protected by the guarantees of life and liberty in the Constitution, a Libertarian can hold this position. The Libertarian party is silent on the abortion and death penalty issues and lets its members take their own personal position.

You guys who are wanting Gore, may I suggest some research into Bill Richardson? Since Gore's biggest issue is environmentalism, I'm assuming that's why you guys want him. But Bill Richardson is the single greenest candidate in the running, the most experienced, he's worked with the Save Darfur coalition and negotiated a 60 day cease fire in Sudan and has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize four times, also, he's pro choice AND pro gun rights, but also, unfortunately, pro death penalty.

He's definitely worth reading up on, if you haven't already.

"Freedom takes courage." What kind of freedom is Ron Paul espousing if he would take away the right of 50% of the population to decide what happens to their own bodies? How am I free if I get accidentally pregnant and am forced to carry the pregnancy (which in my case could cripple or kill me)? (Oh, right. I'm not supposed to have sex if I can't support a pregnancy. Ever. For the rest of my life. Thank you, right-wing fundamentalists. Their view of life is so healthy.)

A Patriot: "Talk to your parents, grandparents.. ask them what they did when times were tough.. growing up in the depression.. WWII That whole government created, taxpayer funded safety net was never there for them.. cause it never existed! They survived! The stories they could tell you."

Okay, I'm categorically against commenting about this kind of thing, and have never commented on Pajiba before (despite being a long-time reader). I also don't want to add my personal beliefs about anything. However, I have to take issue with the historial inaccuracy of A Patriot's comment here. The Depression marked, obviously, the beginning of many social-welfare programs that still exist today; it was also a period of time in which the federal government, through the Works Progress Administration, employed people to essentially do busy-work. In my hometown, the WPA built our zoo. A branch of the WPA, the Federal Writers' Project, even employed writers during the Depression to produce literature. Furthermore, I'll assume that you'll want to argue that those programs were unnecessary, and that Hoover-style government inaction during the Depression would have been the correct response. So I'll point out that the second historical period of your example, World War II, instituted other types of federally-funded social programs. The first example that comes to my mind is the GI Bill (1944), which paid for millions of veterans to go to college after the war and substantially increased the country's middle class.

All right folks I have had it with the Gore love. I know that this is at the bottom of the post and may not be read by most but Fuck it. This man could not win his HOME state and you really want this guy to run the country? He could not find the right way to ride the coat tails of a popular President and he lost to the village idiot. Boo hoo??? stole election call it even for the JFK election in 1960.
As for his global warming crusade... fire up the lear jet and by more carbon credits???? Global warming????cyclical people...it is called the sun and we live on a hot cored planet...do we really think that we have that much control??? Mars is heating up at the same rate as the earth, where are their SUV's. Be smart sure, cut unnecessary driving yep, fuel efficient cars I bought one the two times I have bought a car. But it is pretty far fetched that we know what the optimal environment is for the whole planet.

Go Obama and give the country something to slow the rising health care costs

I think the original poll was probably more indicative of the political bent of us Pajibians. The Ron Paul fanatics who showed up to vote early and often in this thread will likely not be seen in these parts again (unless, of course, their main man is name-checked again).

This particular flood of crazies should tide us over nicely until the TV Whore gives us his take on the new Tyler Perry offering. Or, you know, when you guys get all elitist again. ( ;

OK, I might as well make my contribution of urine to the collective punch bowl...

Eeeewww! I had no idea Pajiba was populated by so many rabid anti-progress conservatives. Reading some of these comments just makes me feel dirty. And sad. Sad that anyone could be so selfish and cruel. Ugh.

Yeah, well, it's easy to be generous with other people's money. Which is pretty much what big government liberalism - socialism - boils down to.

The same could be said of Dubya's brand of big government "conservatism"...which isn't really conservative at all For better and worse, he's more of a Wilsonian liberal than a "conservative," as his stance on both the Iraq War and his embrace of amnesty for illegal aliens - and his tolerance of massive, uncontrolled illegal immigration - illustrate.

For me, the choice for president in '08 is a simple one: Which of the above candidates will behave rationally and prudently in office, quit gouging me with confiscatory/punitive taxes, spend the tax money he does collect responsibly, keep his nose out of my personal business, and do the best job of defending America against the threats we face?

Right now, IMHO, the best choice in that regard seems to be Fred Thompson, followed maybe by Bill Richardson. (Given Richardson's association with the Clinton Administration, I've got my doubts about his overall committment to individual liberty, even if he does support gun rights.)

The rest of the major candidates, Democrat and Republican alike, are just a bunch of big-government nanny statists.

No, Ron Paul doesn't count as a major candidate. I think he fails the "rationality" test. He's a crank. Libertarianism isn't necessarily anarchy...but the Libertarian Party itself are pretty much a bunch of anarchists. And Paul was once their choice for President, which should tell you something.

As far as Pajiba being populated by a bunch of "conservatives," well, speaking as a proud right-wing extremist I've always thought Pajiba was predominantly liberal. Certainly a lot more liberal than me. Still, it's a fun blog to read...and part of being a responsible citizen is to respect the right of your fellow citizens to disagree with you without holding your nose and going "Eeeewww!" whenever somebody does.

I repeat: cold in my grave before I'll vote for John Edwards.

Come on, Dustin! I realize that some of Ron Paul's rhetoric may seem a little out there, but he's acknowledged many times that the President can't just step into office and start swinging his axe. He would work with Congress, which means that any of his more radical ideas would either need the approval of the American public or they would be severely tempered.

Obama refuses to remove preemptive nuclear strikes from the table and nobody is screaming, "A VOTE FOR OBAMA IS A VOTE FOR NUKING IRAN!" even though the likelihood of a President Obama nuking Iran would be higher than the likelihood of a President Ron Paul undoing hundreds of years of unconstitutional laws and programs.

Besides, after 8 years of Bush desecrating the Constitution I can't think of anything we need more than someone who consistently respects it as if it were the sole code of human governance.

Dollar hegemony wont last forever, we will soon have to pay the world what we truly owe them. It will happen whether Giuliani or Paul or Hillry is in office. When that happens and the whole house of cards falls down, and with laws like the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act on the books, who do you want in office? A Fascist, a Socialist, or a Constitutionalist?

in the past we heard, from both sides, that single issues should not predominate in the selection of candidates. could it be that, within Big-Media, the other 9 out of 10 issues that stand to pull this country down are not being fed to the public when the voice speaking on those issues is the lone standup critic of today's "right" and "left" - Dr.Paul ?!?