- Moderator
- #1
Im not asking for who you think you will win or who you want to win. But who has character? Who says what they mean and mean whats they said? Who do you think is the most honest?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have to go with Ron Paul.. He definitely says what he means, and means what he says.
I have to go with Ron Paul.. He definitely says what he means, and means what he says.
With the exception of Ron Paul i'm very disappointed with the Republican field. All Big Government Neocon stiffs. When is the Republican Party gonna finally dump this Democrat-Light stuff? It has become so lame.
I have to go with Ron Paul.. He definitely says what he means, and means what he says.
I don't know about that. He says he opposes earmarks but he has gotten millions in earmarks for his district by attaching them to bills and then voting against bills. That's always been kind of shady to me.
Im not asking for who you think you will win or who you want to win. But who has character? Who says what they mean and mean whats they said? Who do you think is the most honest?
I have to go with Ron Paul.. He definitely says what he means, and means what he says.
I don't know about that. He says he opposes earmarks but he has gotten millions in earmarks for his district by attaching them to bills and then voting against bills. That's always been kind of shady to me.
Have you ever really thought about that though? He's totally up front about what he's doing. He's radically opposed to the kind of government where we send our tax money to Washington and than have to send our reps to get it back. But it's the kind of government we have. As long as the tax and spend bills are getting passed, he'd be fucking over his constituents not to try to get their share. It's a subtle approach, but it's not sophistry, it's not equivocation, and it's not shady - in the slightest. It's the only reasonable thing to do in a very unreasonable situation.
Perhaps a sports analogy would help. Let's say you're an old-school football coach and you've always disliked the forward pass. You've always felt like it betrayed the true nature of the game. Every year, at the rules committee meetings for the league, you argue passionately for banning it and going back to what you consider real football. But in the meantime, you've got a team to coach and they'd lose every game if you did utilize passing while the other teams are. It doesn't make you a hypocrite for passing. It makes you a good coach.
The frustrating reality of the situation is that Paul integrity and character are among his greatest weaknesses. he almost never backs down from a position and always gives a genuine explanation - even when it would be better for him political to equivocate and stick to stupid sound bites (like the commercial candidates do). You can knock Paul for a lot of things, but the last thing his is 'shady'.
I don't believe old democrats give a fuck about this nations youth - yet ironically they expect the youth (er anyone younger than they are) to care about them......