New poll shows Obama's ahead in Texas

this is soooo awesome. hillary is a power-hungry pro-war career politician who's got to be stopped. i'm a ron paul guy. obama isn't perfect, but i think he's got so much more integrity and authenticity; and he'll do more to rebuild our burned bridges with the muslim world, as well as phase out our occupation of iraq.

Is this what hope feels like?

Yup, this is what hope feels like. Knowing we'll get a sensible sane President instead of a dynastic Flag-Desecration-Amendment-supporting hack like Clinton.

Wow, hope kind of tickles.

Funny you should say that, cause I'm tickled to know I'm going to have a black atheist for president.

It was predicted that February would be Obamas month to kick ass across the nation and so far that has come true but the same people who suggested that also said it could change to favor Hilary in May. I don't share the same optamisim for her. With all the endorsements and fund raising Obama has gained in the two weeks since Super Tuesday I think this is the turning point for his campaign.

At this point brokenladder there is no way Ron Paul is going to get the GOP nod but I hope that doesn't stop him and he runs as an independent. In a fantasy world where happy thoughts can fuel your car and fast food doesn't make you fat Obama and Ron Paul would be on the same ticket. The sight of two such passionate, intelligent, articulate, and inherently forward thinking politicians made my heart race. A Obama/Paul ticket would shake things up a bit. While I'm fantasizing, I'd also like free universal health care.

devo64,

we'd all like "free" health care (i dropped out of college to work full-time to get a surgery to fix a congenital defect, that my impoverished mother never had the resources or concern to fix), but nothing's actually free. and even if you think it's okay to force other people to spend their money in a way you perceive to be altruistic, that's the same as suggesting we just appoint a benevolent dictator, for practical purposes. sure, in principle it sounds great, but when you give the government that much power to redistribute money, you leave a perfect opportunity for nefarious sorts to attain political office. and then you have halliburton running your executive office. and then you have hundreds of thousands of people dying for profit. and then you have people depending on agencies like fema, and being massively let down and having their lives devastated -- whereas if they had been able to keep more of their money and depend on themselves, they would have chosen to live in safer places, and/or would have taken more concern over the state of their levies.

there's a reason the founders envisioned a republic and not a democracy, and an extremely limited government. but we've lost their wisdom because we want handouts.

how many people have to suffer and die so you can have other people pay for your health care? think about someone besides yourself.

We all pay for other peoples health care already through Medicare and the VA. If we pay are doctors bills or insurance premiums, we also pay for other peoples care. Those that pay always pay for those that don't. Why not equalize the playing field a little bit?

uroburs8,

i'm absolutely in favor of phasing out Medicare and other "social safety net" programs in favor of voluntary charity.

doctor's bills and insurance premiums are also voluntary, and do not rely on a behemoth nanny government.

Wow. You're a real jerk. You know that, right?

devo64,

okay, then charitably help those you love and care about. but if you implement a system where you can force others to do the same, then bear in mind that powerful forces (powerful often powerful because they were greedy and ambitious) will use that system to make *you* fund the murder of tens or hundreds of thousands of people in wars, and to pay for corporate welfare, and all other manner of total evil.

i'm just saying, all things considered, a relatively small and extremely limited government is better for the people. looking at how government monopoly on the money supply led to the great depression, or how government malfeasance failed the people of new orleans, and numerous other examples like these, i cannot see how anyone can seriously contend that statism is good.

i think i'm going to get a big poster made to put up on my wall, that shows pictures of little kids' body parts lying on the streets of iraq, as well as pictures of crushed people in the minneapolis bridge collapse, and it's going to say "government: it's not worth the social safety net".

brokenladder

Two questions.

Who is the "Black Atheist" you think it going to be president? Obama is not an atheist.

Who wrote the Ron Paul Newsletters?

My question is a serious one, I've read about his Newsletters (pretty scary stuff in those, I'd hope you'd even admit), but I've never heard any reasonable defense of them.

I agree with you that our system of government is far from perfect. There are a lot of things to fix. But the Rob Paul plan would "fix" the problems by destroying the country. Maybe the reason he's not a viable candidate is when you look any deeper than his opposition to the war you find a lot of scary ideas.

i'm very sure that barack obama is an atheist (which i like, as i'm also an ardent atheist).

i don't know who wrote the newsletters, but it definitely wasn't ron paul, and that's all i care about. the campaign has given a completely reasonable defense of them. ron paul didn't write them. end of story.

some suggest it was lew rockwell, but he hasn't fessed up if it was him. i agree it could be further investigated, but this is like talking about britney spears when there are real issues like our economic insolvency to talk about. ron paul is the only candidate who has a clue about economics, monetary policy, and the history of government.

i don't know what on earth you mean when you say ron paul would fix the problems by destroying the country. that's standard fare paul-bashing nonsense. ron paul would work to restore the country to the kind of constitutional republic it began as. he would work to fight inflation by phasing out the federal reserve and allowing competing currencies. he would eliminate needless endless war abroad and bring our troops home from around the world (which is why he leads both parties in donations from active duty members of the armed forces, ahead of obama, then mccain, then hillary). he would end the horrendous guantanamo abuses.

just look at his voting record. look at who he takes money from, and compare it to all the corporate sponsors of clinton, mccain, obama, et al. it's sickening. ron paul actually gives back a portion of his congressional budget to the treasury every year. the man is practically a saint. and i want him to save my country, not destroy it.

stop thinking with your emotion, and evaluate candidates with your intellect.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA

you cannot show me a candidate from either party who even comes _close_ to ron paul in economic literacy, or attention to history (the same problems keep repeating themselves, but he's the only one pointing back to the advice of the founders). you cannot give any educated intellectual support for an anti-paul argument. you just can't. you can only argue against ron paul out of ignorance and/or bias.

"you cannot give any educated intellectual support for an anti-paul argument. you just can't. you can only argue against ron paul out of ignorance and/or bias."

Thank you for your open mindedness broken.

And "he didn't write what was in HIS newsletter" might be good enough for you, but it isn't for me. If you want to defend the guy, you're going to have to try harder than that. Who's thinking with their emotion (read blind devotion) and not their intellect here? I like Obama, but I'm going to hold back anointing him a saint, like you did your guy.

But if I'm ignorant of the reasons why Paul should be sainted. Rather than insult me, try educating me. I, unlike you, am open to reasonable debate. So let's hear it. I'll even ask the questions.

How is the government going to operate without the IRS? How long will the phase out take?

What system does Mr. Paul suggest replaces the Department of Education?

What other parts of the Federal Government does he plan to dismantle outright or to leave powerless without funds?

What will replace the loss of jobs this will cause?

If Corporations have too much power now (which I agree they do), why would anyone think less regulation is going to make things better?

How will the Paul Administration deal with the issues of climate change and terrorism without any money?

What about poverty and health care? What would having lower taxes mean to a family that isn't making enough money to pay taxes?

I watched the video. It's nice. There are some great quotes and honestly, I agree with a lot of what he has to say (wish I could say the same about HIS newsletter). He's right about a lot of the problems, I just think he's wrong about the solutions.

But I could be wrong, I hope you respond and answer these questions better than the first two I asked. Maybe you can change my mind.

I'm open-minded. You should try it sometime.

Oh...one more question while you're at it. I've heard Obama state on several occasions that he's a Christian. I don't really care about a candidates' religion, but I have to wonder why you're going out of your way to call the man a liar? It really calls to mind the sick race baiting and religious stereotyping found in the Ron Paul Newsletters.

krag2112:

my response was too long, so i'm linking to it:
http://groups.google.com/group/electronpaul/browse_thre...

Clay

Lets all fall back into reality hear.

Not to be a skeptic of RON PAUL
who I personally think has a very good stance on almost all issues.

HOWEVER

today in a political-culture completely dominated by the media, it is not the substance (issues) that really matter, which I would say is about 30 percent of what people consider when making a vote

No, its actually STYLE; how people look, their charisma, their image, what they stand for, their background, their childhood, etc. etc.

And, as disgusting as this may seem, the majority of Americans (i.e. the one's that brokenladder mentioned about concentrating on celebrity gossip more than real news) really are just going to look at the morning headlines and see which candidate fits their perceived image as the next heroic figure who can change the mess that we are now facing.

NOW, with that being said, paul's image does not suffice, and as much as an idealist as i wish to be, his style does not appeal to the American people. So, arguing over such minor details is petty at best.

although I will note that this argument is one of the most sophisticated and well-grounded debates I have seen on a internet blog in a long long time.

Broken,

Thank you for a very thorough and well written (if condescending at times) response to my questions. If nothing else, Ron Paul should be proud to have a supporter like you.

As I said before, I think you (and Paul) are right about many of the problems. You have an excellent grasp of the issues, but I just disagree with your solutions.

A totally free market, decentralized approach to government might look good on paper (well...to you anyway), but at some point you have to look at things realistically. Your point about education is perfect example. No child left behind is a train wreck, granted. But ceding the schools to Bush's "fundie base" is not just short sighted, it ignores the simple fact that not everybody can just up and move to San Francisco. And with all due respect, the idea that "charitable donations" could somehow replace social programs is a pipe dream. Yes, the government helps corporations too much (again good at recognizing the problem) but I suspect that most CEO's would gladly accept ending corporate welfare if it also meant ending regulation. Do you really trust the corporations to regulate themselves? I don't. These are not realistic solutions.

You use a lot of the mistakes (not a strong enough word) of the Bush Administration to make your points (FEMA, Iraq, No Child Left Behind, the power of the oil industry and the military industrial complex and corporate welfare). I can't defend these things, nor would I try. I think Bush has been the worst president in our history. But I don't think it justifies the dismantling of the Federal Government. There has to be some middle ground. I respect the fact that you disagree, but I see a baby in the bathwater you're throwing out. I think that our best hope lies in the middle and not at the extremes. That's not to say there aren't some good ideas down at your end. There are.

As to your point about Obama's religion (a particularly well written part of your response), I can appreciate what you say here. You are bringing a lot of your personal experience to your assessment and I generally agree with your conclusions. I'm going to just take him on his word about his faith because I think that's the right thing to do. But I have to say, I enjoyed your examination of it.

Again, for the most part your response was logical, structured, well researched and even respectful at points. Thank you for that. But your position on the Ron Paul Newsletters is puzzling. Clearly you believe in accountability. It's practically the theme of everything you've written here. So how is it that on this issue you are so willing to just look the other way? You are smart person, anyone reading this can tell that. So don't pretend not to understand my point here. You say that Ron Paul didn't write the incredibly stupid and hateful things in HIS newsletter. I don't know whether he did or he didn't. Unlike you, I haven't read so much of his writing that I can tell based on style. But this is the RON PAUL NEWSLETTER we're talking about. How can you seriously suggest that he is not accountable for what is in HIS newsletter. If he didn't write it, who did? How is it possible that he doesn't know the answer to that question? And more importantly, if he was an admirer of MLK and Gandhi, how did he allow this kind of bile to be circulated under his name? Is he so out of touch that he didn't bother to find out? If you want us to consider him for president (or sainthood) somebody has to explain this. It has nothing to do with what anybody merely feels in their gut. These are serious concerns, and to suggest otherwise only serves to diminish your (and his) arguments.

GOBAMA!!!

The ARG polls also predicted Obama would win NH by 20%. Obama lost by 3%. The same polls have Clinton leading Obama by 7% in Wisconsin while other major credible polls have Obama leading by 5%. This organization does not have a credible record for polling.

Any Democrat (with current candidates) win in America is a HUGE loss for America and the World. Any Republican (with current candidates) win is just a loss for America and the World. National Health Care is a joke. And anybody that truly does the research in to it would know that. The Democrats tax plans will never work, there are several studies out there that prove that (even from some of the most liberal schools out there - look it up, I'm not doing your homework for you). Republicans catering to the rich and big corporations will never work either. The Republicans (policies) and Democrats (actions - not the eco crap that they tell you) have gotten America far too dependant on foreign oil. The Worlds dependents on oil is a fact of life. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking for better and more efficient forms of energy. The Global Warming scare is a joke; again, that has all been scientifically proven. Of course you'll never hear that from the liberal media and/or politicians. And hey, the corporations love it too; they make millions and billions off the Global Warming scare. Go do the research. One volcano in Hawaii puts more global warming chemicals into the air in one eruption than all the world can in a year if we tried. I still want clean air, water, and soil. Just don't lie to me in order to try and guilt trip me into your "movement". Blah, blah, blah.

Long story short, the World is going to hell because we all say we want to get along and make it a better place. But we don't want to do the TOUGH LOVE things that will bring about World peace and harmony.

This is the worst election year ever. And our government only gets more greedy. And the sheep are more than willing to hand America over to them, even for a "cause". Wake up people, Democrats and Republicans (not all of them) want the same thing, POWER. And they'll tell you whatever you want to hear to get it.

Good try UTHoook. But your "I'm not going to do your homework" crap is not gong to fly here. You want to get into this debate? Cite something. Back something up. You are entitled to your opinion. But that's all it is...an opition, until you back it up with some facts. I hope you can...because I appreciate productive debate. But I'm guessing this will be the last we hear from you. Tough Love? Back it up. Or just go away...like all the blow-hards who have come before you.

National Health Care may not be regarded as a joke to the 47 million Americans who don't have insurance. When and if those same 47 million Americans VOTE we may see a National Healthcare Program even if the insurance companies, and those who might regard it as a joke, like it, or not.

With regard to the observations that global warming is a joke. I would simply say the sad, sick joke is clear cutting of old growth forest. As for our dependence of foreign sources of the product. With the election of Obama, that would change.

As for any great loss to America. History may paint a much different picture based on the total federal debt or any other measure that might be considered.

Of course, so called, Conservatives, might not wish to use any of the economic measurements that might make them look bad.

Once again, I'm not going to do the hard work for you. I'm not your mommy. You've got to go look up the information yourself, or you'll just have to remain ignorant. In that case, please don't vote. Thank you.

National Health Care is a disaster in every country that has it or has ever tried it. I'm not saying the system we have here is perfect, but it's a far better cry from the debacle of National Health Care.

I don't believe in clear cutting. Most of the Conservatives I know don't either. So I'm not sure where that came from. But I do know that the number of trees in this country is actually growing daily. And that is a great thing.
Blah, blah, blah, Obama, blah, blah, blah. Obama won't change a thing. He'll bow down to oil producing countries just like every other modern National Leader has.

Trust me, I want to get our dependants on oil reduced too. I want to see more cleaner and efficient forms of energy too. Every Conservative I know does too. But we also have a grasp on reality. And that reality is that we need oil now and long into the foreseeable future. Maybe that will change. Hopefully, as I said before, we will move on to much more environmentally friendly and efficient forms of energy. But I don't see that happening very quickly. There is just to much money and power, greed, involved.

Also, do not start confusing Conservatives with Republicans. I am a Conservative, and I'm not happy with the Republicans. The Bush Administration is not my friend. It just is the lesser, in my view, of two great evils, Democrats and Republicans. But not all of them are bad; there are very few of them still out there trying to do what's best for the World. The others are just greed SOB's trying to stay in power. And they'll tell you whatever you want to hear to do it, ie. the current Administration.

Anyway, krag2112, again, I'm not your mommy. You've got to go do the hard work and research for yourself. Get over yourself and your greed for power. But thinks for proving another point. Those that have no point or argument, such as yourself, aways resort to name calling. Grow up.

Nice to see the senior astute faith based female type of America is wise to the GREED.

In your vast wisdom you are now voting for WHO?