Nightwing

Pulling back on our military presence around the world is intelligent (and cost-efficient). I can understand and I agree with that. But it's not that Ron Paul stops there. He's a straight-up isolationist: We don't need to pull out of the UN. We don't need to pull out of NATO. I don't understand the need of continuing self-destructive foreign policy moves. I don't agree with him on Iraq because I don't trust him to pull out "when it is safe" when he wants to pull all our military assets around the world. THAT will piss off a bunch of our allies as well (I believe I mentioned Korea on the previous page. Japan might not be too happy with that, either...). There's a difference between "Switching gears" and "Completely destroying the transmission" that Ron Paul supporters don't seem to get. Essentially, when I see a Ron Paul supporter I see someone who wants to get out of Iraq at the cost completely decimating whatever foreign relations we have left. That's not an intelligent strategy. The Gold Standard isn't going to magically fix our problems, nor is eliminating the Federal Reserve. It won't control inflation or suddenly make people better with money and not make bad investments; they'll still happen, and we'll start moving towards a Silver Standard, etc etc... Plus, I don't know if he actually has the power to do that, under his own office (That's a Congress thing). I mean, the whole "Strict Constitutionalist" is great to talk about... but in practice, we wouldn't have purchased Louisiana if Jefferson had held to his ideals. He won't be able to initiate most of what he says because he simply doesn't have that sort of power under his own interpretation. It's not small government that is the problem, or that it's frightening. It's microscopic government that frightens people: if we moved towards the Libertarian ideal, we'd be closer to a confederation of states than an actual nation. I can understand cutting down on government excess and bureaucracy, but I'm not for completely raping the government of any power because I'm not sure that State Power is that much "better" than Federal power. Shifting the power doesn't mean that the power the government holds over you isn't there. There is nothing that makes it intrinsicly better or more protective of your rights: If you're in the majority in that state, you're fine. But if you aren't... well, move to another state, eh? And Narcoleptic Jumper still hasn't reconciled his hatred and fear of big business with Ron Paul's completely Laissez Faire stance. So the Federal Government being reduced to a husk and allowing multinational corporations to have free reign is completely okay with you? So, in conclusion: Becoming a completely isolationist state (And this isn't about intervention: leaving NATO and the UN isn't a "non-interventionist" move...)? Crazy. Refusing to do anything economically except lower taxes and deregulate? Crazy. What is it about any sort of centralization that sends so many people into a paranoid fit? Is it some sort of long-internalized desire that springs from when you were a toddler screaming "I CAN DO IT!!!"? Is it too much to ask for help, or to actually help another? Hey, look! I can speak in sweeping generalizations, used platitudes, and pseudo-freudian terms, too! I suppose it's a Midwestern thing...

Medication Time! Seriously: How's your candidate going to stop the EVIL multi-national corporations with deregulation? How are we going keep our economy going by destroying the Federal Reserve and going back to the Gold Standard? INFORM ME how this fits, or shut up. Because right now, you're loose and contradictory grasp on the reality of your candidate seems to be catching up with you. He's not some sort of savior for you from the NEW WORLD ORDER AMERICAN EMPIRE BRAIN SNATCHERS TINFOIL HATS, and I think you don't quite realize this. He wants less government and allow more business freedom. If anything, he's the ultimate big business candidate: Someone who will let them do whatever they want without any sort of regulation.

Huh?

Yeah, because they're really frightened about him suggesting deregulation with the current mortgage crisis going on. Or talking about going back to the Gold Standard. How about you answer my question: How can you support someone who wants to deregulate the corporations whose campaign contributions you are so frightened by? The follow up question: How is it to be completely crazy? Do you even see the same colors I do?

Perhaps you've just been concentrating too much on being snarky to notice, but while Obama can put on a great speech, he's been fairly underwhelming during the debates. Just because Obama gives much "grander" speeches doesn't mean that he's automatically the best; Huckabee speaks on a more personal level. I count debate quality, and Huckabee came off way more composed, calm, and control when he was responding to questions. So yeah. Maybe if you weren't concentrating on playing the "Bitter, disillusioned Libertarian" all the time you might catch those sort of subtle things.

Do you want a rag or something? You know, to clean up your dripping sarcasm?

Overall, my grades on this debate: John McCain: B/B-. He went a little too hard for the jugular on Romney, and that probably came off bad. But he didn't make any critical mistakes, which is what you really had to look for. Immigration was a weak point, but he managed to recover on the Tax issue well by focusing on spending instead of the "Tax Cut for the Rich" quote. Pointing to his own party's spending failures for the 2006 Election losses was a smart choice. This isn't a sealer for him, but it didn't do anything bad, really. Mitt Romney: C. I don't think he came off good. Trying to brand McCain as a liberal with the New York Times remark completely backfired on him. He came off a lot stronger on immigration, but it's not good. His support of the "Bush Revolution" was, to me, a stupid thing to say, though it will work for him in the primaries... maybe. Honestly, he didn't do anything that would make me like him any more, and he needed a lot more out of this. Mike Huckabee: A. I'm completely convinced that you could find just about anyone recent history and put him up in a debate against Huckabee and Huckabee will come off great. Bill Clinton would look like Al Gore against him. He's just ridiculous. He came off as knowledgeable, personable, intelligent, and interesting. The more I see of him, the more I will say that he the next Republican VP. He's the perfect combo for either guy, though probably best for McCain to shore up the Christian Right. Ron Paul: Inc. I can't grade him fairly, no matter how much I find myself disliking him. He looked frustrated, and deservedly so: It wasn't until Huckabee started standing up for the other half of the table that they started to get to them. I can't fault him for being frustrated when he's not getting any sort of

The more Ron Paul opens his mouth, the less I like him. American Empire, Deregulation, Tax Cuts as the only solution... man, I'm not sure I really need to hear more from him. Huckabee fucking SCORES with saying he won't guess whether Reagan would endorse him or not. Huckabee should just show replays of the debates for his ads. He makes me hate the Christian Right more because I wish he ran on something closer to my values. Not only that, but he's kept himself open by not alienating anyone like McCain and Romney are doing to each other. His demands for more time are coming off great. Obviously Paul has to fight a lot more for his time, but Huckabee's remarks about it are just fantastic. And the word of the day is "Reagan Revolution".

Oh! Another 5 words. I wouldn't put it past Paul to just strangle Anderson there and then. I actually would forgive him if he did, too.

He had a brief thing where he said "Less regulation, less taxes, and less spending." I suppose that's six words, but they are concentrating a lot on McCain and Romney with a bit of Huckabee thrown in. That also has me ask: You guys like Narcoleptic Jumper, who are so afraid of multinational corporations and how they fund candidates and such... how can you support Paul when you know that he's for less regulation of these people? Right now we're in a mortgage crisis because of a lack of regulation, and the same can be said of other businesses (Most notably is the Airline Industry). I swear to God, Huckabee is easily the best speaker in this entire campaign. I've heard Obama, and he honestly doesn't compare. Huckabee has a lot of personal charisma (What people used to say about Bush), but he has wit and intelligence behind it. If I didn't seriously disagree with his social views and were just judging on what I've seen so far, he'd easily be the guy I'd be up for. I felt like McCain sidestepped the "Tax for the Rich" thing a little bit, but Romney was just as busy talking about Reagan as McCain was. And he just got hit with immigration on whether he'd vote for his own bill and said no because of the amendments to it. He's now switching the talk to border security. He's coming off a bit evasive and quiet. I'm not sure that's going to work well for him, especially with Romney looking a lot more 'solid'.

When you say "Bill", you'd better follow that with "Richardson". If her husband runs alongside her, we'll be seeing a Democratic disaster of McGovern proportions. She isn't getting Obama or Edwards: She made sure of that with her campaign. If she tried to put Bill in as VP, I think the Democratic Party would completely disown her and run Obama/Someone in their place.

Let's not forget the great "This sucks!" line from the girl who presumably got killed by the hull breach.

Frankly, I just don't think Bay can top the awesomeness that was Jason X.

I believe he sorts his acts on a day-to-day basis.

I'm not sure whether you should stay the hell away from the Republican Party or join right up. I'm conflicted. Giuliani would be a miserable choice for VP: A VP should be someone you can't normally draw in on your own. Huckabee is the only choice for VP, in my opinion. McCain, if he won, would be able to draw in fiscal conservatives and foreign policy conservatives with his own record. Even though he's shown he shares their beliefs, he'll probably have the hardest time shoring up the evangelicals. Huckabee is ridiculously charismatic, comes off as honesty and witty, and really is a great campaigner. Choosing him tells the Christian Right that "We know you're part of our constituency", but his role is limited enough to deflect criticism that the Religious Right would be running the Country. McCain's politics carry incredibly well across independents (even better than Giuliani), and I can't see anyone who could beat him out there. His worry should be bringing out the conservatives, and Huckabee can do that well. That's the best choice for the Republican Party. The easiest attack on it? McCain's age makes a Huckabee Presidency via succession a real possibility. That might turn off some voters, but I'm not sure banking on McCain's death to scare people would be an effective attack strategy. Ron Paul + Economics = Destruction of US Economy. Maybe we haven't had enough of Narcoleptic Jumper's "Tinfoil Hat Chats" to realize that, though.

OH SO IN A DISCUSSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY YOU PULL OUT A NUMBER THAT REFERS TO MEDICARE, SOCIAL SECURITY, AND "OTHER PLANS," WHATEVER THE HELL THAT MEANS, ONLY TO INFORM US THAT THE NUMBER YOU WERE USING TO FEARMONGER ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY ACTUALLY DOESN'T REFER TO SOCIAL SECURITY. YOU ARE STARTING TO STRIKE ME AS A DISHONEST TROLL. First of all the other two programs are Railroad Retirement and the Black Lung Program, and as far as I know they are relatively small compared to Social Security and Medicare. And yes, medicare is the bigger portion of the $53 trillion ($34 trillion) but Social Security is right behind it and they are usually bunched together as Baby Boomers will be drawing benefits from both programs as they retire. Well, I guess we can't yell at you for lying because I'm sure you really believed it was true. Boon: Here's a great site for judging trends that I've been using. Right now, Obama is trending up and Clinton is trending down, and all the data here is about a week old, before all the big stuff for Obama.

OH SO IN A DISCUSSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY YOU PULL OUT A NUMBER THAT REFERS TO MEDICARE, SOCIAL SECURITY, AND "OTHER PLANS," WHATEVER THE HELL THAT MEANS, ONLY TO INFORM US THAT THE NUMBER YOU WERE USING TO FEARMONGER ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY ACTUALLY DOESN'T REFER TO SOCIAL SECURITY. YOU ARE STARTING TO STRIKE ME AS A DISHONEST TROLL. Did I ever tell you you're my hero? I'd honestly say neither. I know he won't be on for Clinton: She's alienated both major competitors, and I don't think Edwards would sign up for what would almost certainly be another losing campaign. Maybe for Obama, but I'm not really feeling it there. I've heard Bayh and Richardson being mentioned in the VP spots, but that's about it.

Okay, Marvin, let me educate you again: The Tax Cut: McCain was against Tax Cut when it was first introduced. This is fact. He supports the Tax Cut becoming permanent because he feels it is a tax increase, you moron. It's in line with his regular beliefs, but you wouldn't know that because you're too busy masturbating to Glenn Beck's voice to actually think for your fucking self. He's against more tax cuts, but he won't sign up for what he views as a tax increase down the road. On Immigration: You haven't shown a flip-flop, you moron. His policy isn't actually amnesty, and even Romney had to back off that claim for a while when it came to the forefront. On Abortion: McCain's quote was in 1999. If you are letting off Mitt Romney for changing his stances within the last year or so, you can't hold McCain to that quote and say he couldn't have "evolved" his beliefs. Of course, his voting record shows him as one the most conservative voters on Abortion (Something that is limiting my own support of him as a candidate). This hasn't changed since he first entered the Senate. It's a lot fucking different from going "Choice" to "Life", but I'm not sure you can perceive such minute details. On Ethanol: This is a simple one. It's a "evolving one", too. Economic choices can change as economies change. He's still against ethanol subsidies, which was really the main point. It's not about ethanol, but rather subsidizing the industry. His view changing slightly on ethanol to reflect the economic realities is more believable than Romney suddenly waking up and becoming Pro-Life, Anti-Gay, etc. I honestly can't fathom you. McCain got fucking fried to death for his views on Iraq, and he's still holding them. You can't say the same for Romney and his social views. Why would McCain, if he were a "Flip-Flopper", keep what is easily the most harmful issue he has and continue to make it one of his lead issues? It doesn't make sense. Romney is a liar; you can't honestly believe that he said he was going to bring back those jobs with any truth in his heart. It's almost impossible to do, even if you want to believe. Just because you want to believe it doesn't mean it isn't lying. The very fact that you admit he knew it wasn't possible but wanted to 'BELIEVE IT!" shows how much of a slimebag he is. If he knows its a political and economic impossibility, then tell us so. Don't lie to us about how you are going to bring the good times back.

Im assuming youre refering to his stance on abortion. I really dont care one way or another about abortions, and thats the only major flip flop I know hes made, whereas Mccain has made at least 4 I know of. I also have an idea where Romney made his flip flop So its good to at least know he changed his mind for moral reasons instead of changing them to get more votes. You are shitting me. Seriously, he changes his stances on 1) Gay Marriage 2) Abortion 3) Stem Cell Research All basically at the same time, and you say "He's evolved"? I'm sorry, but I can't believe that from a guy who lied to the face of Michigan saying he was going to magically bring back manufacturing jobs to this state. McCain has done a minor flip on taxes, but it stands up with a view he's always had: Not to increase taxes. Once they were lowered, he didn't go to increase them. But hey, I suppose we can't evolve there, right? Immigration is something he's always been on the more liberal side. I'm not sure how he's flip-flopped here: He does have a legit claim that what he's put in place isn't actually amnesty. Global Warming? What's the flip-flop? Again, he's always been closer to the center. I don't think he's directly contradicted anything he's done in the past here. Christ, I'm coming off way too in favor of McCain in this post when I'm only interested in him as an option. Damn you, Marvin.

Wait, that's not the same as the statement you made earlier. There's a difference between a 5% hike and a much larger one. I'd also like to point out the absolute stupidity in labeling McCain a "flip-flopper" when you are going to fucking Romney of all people.

For the love of God, Marvin, never use the Washington Times as a source ever again.

I meant screen time, not campaign time, though my wording was a bit confusing. The fact of the matter is, CNN and every other news outlet are making these 'wins' out to be something by giving them the coverage they are, when Romney's minor wins in Wyoming and Nevada were basically ignored. At the very least, Romney actually won some delegates, unlike Clinton. I just find it disproportionate what it should be, and it seems to be only because Clinton is winning them.

Oh, it started. It just crashed and burned like a 767 ramming into the North Tower.

McCain captures Florida. A lot of talk about Giuliani ending this abortion of a campaign and throwing his lot into McCain camp. Clinton's phantom win is easily one of the most frustrating things to watch: There should be a limit on how much press time you get for meaningless wins. I mean, Romney didn't get much coverage for Nevada and Wyoming, but Hillary gets tons of time for Florida and Michigan, places that no other candidate campaigned in? Ugh. Let's just watch and enjoy as she goes back on the previous agreement set forth by the Democratic frontrunners and tries to get these people delegates...