![[FSF Associate Member]](http://www.notsosoft.net/images/getButton){kind=small}
Iowa Speaks, Paul Sucks, Obama Comes out Ahead
So, this is just a short post, because I’m still watching all of the caucus stuff (sorry). I’m not seeing Ron Paul as having won much at all. Ron Paul is looking having won 10%. Gosh, I’m glad to hear that. It’s very nice to see that Iowans didn’t buy his horsecrap either. I’m no fan of Huckabee or Romney, but I’d rather them than Paul if a Republican made it into the white house.
On the other hand, Barack Obama pulled about 38%. In a surprise twist, Hillary pulled in at third place with John Edwards taking second. That kinda took me by surprise, but I’m happy to see that Hillary is not floating to the top. Congratulations Barack Obama, I’m glad to see you’re doing well. Congratulations Mike Huckabee, I’m not as happy to see you doing well, but I’m happy to see you doing better than Ron Paul. Congratulations to John Edwards, it’s nice to see that you still have the audacity to run after having lost the nomination last time, and then proceeding to kiss John Kerry’s ass.
Later folks, have a good one.
Popularity: 7%
This entry was posted
on Thursday, January 3rd, 2008 at 22:38 and is filed under Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Stumble it!
You are typical of Ron Paul haters, who cares who wins? Anybody but Paul.
Wow, that was really an intelligent criticism of my opinion. You’re typical of Ron Paul supporters, abuse and insult those who disagree with you.
I’m not anybody but Paul, I’m just looking for a candidate that won’t hurt this country. Paul, he will hurt the country. Mitt Romney, he will hurt the country. Mike Huckabee, he’ll probably hurt the country as well. Hillary Clinton, she’ll definitely hurt the country. There are a few people I’m still uncertain of, but Ron Paul is probably the most dangerous. I’d rather see Hillary than Paul on this one.
Let’s go for a candidate that doesn’t buy into tinfoil that conspiracy theories and a candidate that won’t leave our planet’s well-being up to the greedy. We can’t let Paul destroy the constitution, we can’t let Paul destroy the planet.
Lay off the kool-aid there Don, it’s laced with bullshit.
You still seem to have a misunderstanding of Libertarian environmental policy. There are many criticisms. I haven’t found a convincing one against the idea of tort based environmental protection, but I will give you the criticism of natural resources, which even under tort can be bought up and then used without regard. This criticism though does not address air and water.
Destroy the Constitution? HA! that’s a good one! Who mentions the Constitution nearly as frequently as Ron Paul? Yes, he sure wants your attention that he knows about it so you can see him destroy it!
Hey, Manny, put down the Kool-Aid long enough to figure out what I’m talking about. Ron Paul wants to remove the 14th amendment, he’s only for the parts of the constitution that he agrees with.
He can mention the constitution all he wants to, but let’s remember that certain German dictators mentioned Judaism an awful lot in the late 1930’s and early 1940s, too. Doesn’t mean he liked them or supported them.
Cezar, I respect you, but it would seem that you’ve misunderstood my point here. I don’t pretend to know all of Libertarian policy, but I do know what Ron Paul is saying he’ll do. He seems to think that businesses and consumers can and will take care of the environment without the government’s help. That’s simply not the case. One would have to be an idiot to believe such a ridiculous thing. Companies–like Exxon-Mobil and the Ford Motor Company–will do what they think they have to do to make profits. If that means that not filtering their emissions will make more money, then they’ll opt not to filter their emissions.
Likewise, consumers are out to save a buck. Most folks are so busy managing a household and working and paying bills that they don’t have time to pay attention to the damage that they’re doing. Nor do they have the money to have a positive affect on the environment. This isn’t something that consumers or businesses will do on their own because the research costs money, the solutions cost money, and everything involved takes time and dedication. Businesses aren’t going to cover that, neither are consumers. Tax-funded research is the only way to discover such problems and solve them. Ron Paul is against that.
Also, Cezar, you keep forgetting that Ron Paul is running as a Republican. He may pretend to have Libertarian views, but he’s nothing more than a white nationalist playing make-believe with the people for a vote.
“Cezar, I respect you, but it would seem that you’ve misunderstood my point here. I don’t pretend to know all of Libertarian policy, but I do know what Ron Paul is saying he’ll do. He seems to think that businesses and consumers can and will take care of the environment without the government’s help. That’s simply not the case. One would have to be an idiot to believe such a ridiculous thing. Companies–like Exxon-Mobil and the Ford Motor Company–will do what they think they have to do to make profits. If that means that not filtering their emissions will make more money, then they’ll opt not to filter their emissions.”
Ron Paul pretty much pulls the Libertarian party line when it comes to the environment. Which is very different from letting corporations do it themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Environmental_protection
Adam: Yeah, that policy wouldn’t work. I don’t even think that a federal policy is sufficient. Let’s remember that environmental concerns aren’t only regional concerns. The entire world is at risk with global warming, and the entire world should be involved in the solution. We need a global environmental policy, nation-wide and regional policies are insufficient.