[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by MaleFashionista

Apparently David Duke is one of his most vocal supporters...and Paul hasn't bothered distancing himself or his campaign from Duke and his ilk. In fact, he's even justified accepting campaign donations from leaders of white supremacist groups.

I don't really care that he takes money from them, as I agree that it's money they can't use for their purposes.

The reason these groups support him, is probably because he supports states' rights and less federal government involvement.

Thank you...I've read his attempts at justifying/rationalizing his opinion.

In light of his individualist views, it makes sense. Not that I agree with his stance on the issue, just that his stance isn't inconsistent with him being anti-racist.

However, I fail to see how the government was overstepping its bounds by mandating that publicly funded institutions be open to all Americans, regardless of race...or that voter registration requirements be applied equally.

I don't either, and that obviously isn't what he was against. However, as I said, it's a moot point, since he has no intention on repealing the act now anyway.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that companies should be able to fire employees just because they decide to grow out a beard, or start wearing hejab? After all...its forced integration and collectivism that gives unjustly terminated people an avenue of appeal.

No, I don't, and I never said I had anything against the Civil Rights Act, only that you don't have to be a racist to be opposed to it. I also don't see how what you mentioned is collectivism, when such cases are evaluated on an individual basis.

As far as the gold standard is concerned...its absolutely absurd to think that its even remotely applicable in this day and age. There quite literally isn't enough gold in the world to back the amount of US currency currently in circulation...and even if there was, the rate at which new gold is mined simply doesn't match the average rate of economic growth. You're basically tying down economic growth to a very fixed commodity...its ridiculous.

If the commodity is fixed, then so is the value of the bank note, which is based on it. That means the value of the dollar stays the same. If there isn't a lot of gold to mine, then that just means it's worth more, and raises the value of the dollar. It doesn't limit economic growth, only government spending. It means that the government can't just print money out of thin air, based on debt and interest to a private bank. It also means that they can't control it's value.

As far as your comments on gun control are concerned...where exactly do you draw the line?

You the draw the line with age. If everyone in a town had a gun, who'd be stupid enough to try and use one on someone, expecting to get away with it?

Do you support the legalization of drugs as well? How about getting rid of age restrictions on alcohol and tobacco purchases? What about prostitution? All of these things exist in society despite legal restrictions...so if we're to take the libertarian approach, then they should all be decriminalized.

I don't really care about those things, as they don't really concern me, so I'm indifferent to them.

That's the problem with extremist libertarian policy...it's almost a form of controlled anarchy.

You can't really call it anarchy though, if there's law enforcement.

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by MaleFashionista

In theory, Ron Paul has no problem with "hobbyists" owning machine guns.

Hobbyists can already own machine guns. They just have to give up their 4th amendment rights to do it.

Originally Posted by ChotooMotoo

Any hunter that needs an automatic or semi-automatic rifle is a big looser, whose kill will be totally inedible, and needs to spend more time on the firing range. Really semi-automatic and automatic rifles have only one purpose, to kill people. You don't hunt deer with them, unless you love eating bullets.

You don't know what you're talking about. From the above, I'd conclude that some combination of the following factors are at play here:

a) you don't understand the definition of "semi-automatic"
b) you're a luddite
c) you've never fired a gun or been hunting

90% of hunting rifles on the market today are semi-automatic. A deer killed with a large caliber semi-automatic rifle will usually have one bullet in it, and at most two. Sometimes you need two - this is why semi-automatic rifles are actually recommended by hunting associations; it's easier to get off a quick follow up shot, so you don't leave an animal crippled/bleeding/suffering. One shot, one kill 100% of the time isn't a reality to even the best of hunters. You can track a crippled animal, but that doesn't have a 100% success rate either, and there's no need to leave the animal in pain for longer than necessary.

Nobody would ever hunt a deer with a fully automatic weapon - not only is that stupid, it's illegal.

By the way, handling a fully automatic weapon takes far more skill than handling a semi-automatic weapon. Anyone who can handle a full auto weapon has most certainly spent an extensive amount of time at a range.

[MaleFashionista]

Originally Posted by Kaminyu

I don't really care that he takes money from them, as I agree that it's money they can't use for their purposes.

The reason these groups support him, is probably because he supports states' rights and less federal government involvement.

You seem to be forgetting the fact that in politics, money buys influence.

If he realizes that a significant portion of his support base belongs to such groups, who do you think he's going to pander to?

Originally Posted by Kaminyu

I don't either, and that obviously isn't what he was against. However, as I said, it's a moot point, since he has no intention on repealing the act now anyway.

No, I don't, and I never said I had anything against the Civil Rights Act, only that you don't have to be a racist to be opposed to it. I also don't see how what you mentioned is collectivism, when such cases are evaluated on an individual basis.

I don't think its moot...in a Ron Paul, libertarianesque govenment, there's no room for an EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)...that would be an infringement on your employer's right to arbitrarily terminate you (or not even hire you in the first place) simply based on your race, religion, sexual orientation, etc...it's simply not the government's role to interfere in private businesses like that.

Originally Posted by Kaminyu

If the commodity is fixed, then so is the value of the bank note, which is based on it. That means the value of the dollar stays the same. If there isn't a lot of gold to mine, then that just means it's worth more, and raises the value of the dollar. It doesn't limit economic growth, only government spending. It means that the government can't just print money out of thin air, based on debt and interest to a private bank. It also means that they can't control it's value.

So let me get this straight.

You have a problem with the idea of a panel of some of the US's most prominent economists and bankers determining how the value of the dollar should fluctuate...but you're entirely OK with the idea of letting the rate at which gold is mined be the primary determinant of inflation and deflation...thereby ensuring that the government has no way to adjust its monetary policies in the short term to deal with all the various situations that can arise in a national economy...Moreover, you have no problem with putting the dollar into a state of near constant deflation, because, as I already pointed out, the rate at which gold is being mined does not equal the rate of American economic growth...not to mention the massive deflation that would inevitably have to occur when the gold standard is initiated, because of the limited amount of gold already available,

Originally Posted by Kaminyu

You the draw the line with age. If everyone in a town had a gun, who'd be stupid enough to try and use one on someone, expecting to get away with it?

Everyone in town can already own a gun, provided they don't have a record of violent crimes. Why make it even easier for criminals to buy guns?

Originally Posted by Kaminyu

You can't really call it anarchy though, if there's law enforcement.

Amazing. I'm guessing you're one of those people who believe in the ultimate goal of the establishment of some utopian Islamist police state...and yet, you're willing to advocate the exact opposite of that in the US, just because the guy hates Israel and wants to pull out of Iraq.

[GOTFIVEONIT]

Huckabee Wins Kansas GOP Caucuses

by FOXNews.com
Saturday, February 9, 2008

Mike Huckabee, shown here speaking to students Saturday at the University of Maryland in College Park, Md., has won the Kansas caucuses. (AP Photo)

Mike Huckabee won the Kansas Republican caucuses Saturday, FOX News projects, demonstrating the lingering rift in the party after rival John McCain was minted the clear front-runner following Super Tuesday.

With 65 percent of precincts reporting, Huckabee had 61 percent and McCain had 24 percent. Texas Rep. Ron Paul had 11 percent.

Both McCain and Huckabee were wooing conservatives in the state Friday. Huckabee had the support of anti-abortion activists , while McCain had the backing from conservative Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback.

Huckabee pledged Saturday morning at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., that he would be staying in the race, even though Mitt Romney’s exit from the race earlier in the week made McCain the virtual heir to the GOP nomination.

But McCain is still trying to reach out to conservatives, many of whom are skeptical of him for taking moderate positions on campaign finance, taxes and immigration.

“This is a huge win for us,” Huckabee campaign manager Chip Saltsman said. “This is a state that both candidates competed in. This shows that Washington pundits don’t pick the nominee. The folks in the states and outside the Beltway pick the nominee. So not so fast, we still have a long way to go until the nominee is picked, with 20-plus states left.”

Huckabee will have a lot farther to go to catch McCain. Kansas offers 36 total delegates, but the Arizona senator began the day with 719 delegates.

Huckabee had 198, and Texas Rep. Ron Paul had 14.

Eighty delegates are stake for the GOP in Saturday’s contests in Kansas, Louisiana, Washington and Guam. McCain’s campaign has said the earliest the Arizona senator could seal the nomination with the needed 1,191 delegates is the March 4 primary.

Some Kansas Republicans thought their caucuses would provide an indication of whether conservatives grudgingly accepted McCain as the GOP candidate or whether they still hoped to nominate someone else despite the long odds.

Meanwhile, other presidential candidates are looking to pick up vital momentum in the states holding contests Saturday, recognizing that the race will drag on for at least another month for both parties.

For Democrats, the still airtight race will likely go on for many weeks — but a sweep of wins in the upcoming contests could help boost one of the candidates to the front and prevent the race from coming down to the convention in August, which some party officials already dread will happen.

There are 161 delegates at stake for Democrats in Washington, Nebraska, Louisiana and the Virgin Islands Saturday, and 24 in Maine on Sunday.

Washington, with 78 delegates, is the biggest prize and the first of many unlikely states to be showered with attention by the candidates.

“On Saturday if we come out of here with momentum and additional delegates, that will lay the groundwork for (future primaries),” Obama said in Seattle. “Washington has a lot of delegates at stake and will impact how the contest is viewed.”

Both candidates campaigned in Seattle and other major Washington cities ahead of the state’s contest, but headed to Maine Saturday.

Clinton said in Orono, Maine, that “every delegate is important,” and argued she’s the strongest candidate to go up against McCain, who already is considered the Republicans’ virtual nominee.

“You’ll never have to worry about me being knocked out of the ring. I think I can go toe to toe with John McCain every single day,” she said.

She even argued Obama — the anti-war, one-term senator — is the establishment candidate.

“He has increasingly run an establishment race and he has increasingly relied on big endorsements and celebrities to attach himself to to get the kind of validation that comes from that sort of endorsement,” she said. “If we want a Democrat to be the standard bearer who stands for the positive agenda of the Democratic Party … I think I’m the best candidate to carry that message.”

Both campaigns also focused on Louisiana. Obama spoke in New Orleans Thursday about recovery needs after Hurricane Katrina, while Bill Clinton made a Friday swing through the state for his wife.

But the 185 Democratic delegates at stake in this weekend’s contests won’t guarantee a win. Neither will the 175 at stake Tuesday in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia and voting by Americans overseas. Neither will the 370 at stake on March 4 in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont.

Coming out of Super Tuesday, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are effectively tied. The latest tallies show Clinton with 1,055 delegates and Obama with 998, and they each need about 1,000 more to win the nomination.

Complicating that is the fact delegates are awarded proportionally for Democrats, so candidates are not just looking for wins, but big margins. And they’re looking at all the states.

If Super Tuesday failed to settle the campaign, it produced a remarkable surge in fundraising.

Obama’s aides announced he had raised more than $7 million online in the two days that followed.

Clinton disclosed she had loaned her campaign $5 million late last month in an attempt to counter her rival’s Super Tuesday television advertising. She raised more than $6 million in the two days after the busiest night in primary history.

The television ad wars continued unabated.

Obama has been airing commercials for more than a week in television markets serving every state that has a contest though Feb 19.

Clinton began airing ads midweek in Washington state, Maine and Nebraska and added Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia on Friday.

FOX News’ Aaron Bruns and Serafin Gomez and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[GOTFIVEONIT]

Originally Posted by sak01

So that's about 16.3 million votes in the Democrat primaries. A difference of approximately 3.6 million. With this kind of difference in turnout, isn't it a given that we'll be seeing a Democrat in the White House, no matter if it's Clinton or Obama running?

no it was over 17 million in the democratic primary and the difference being about five million. and no it doesnt mean that a democrat is assured the white house because of higher voter turnout. it just means they have a better chance. because of how our system is set up with winner take all electoral college votes, we dont know where these new voters are coming from. if more people are voting in the new york state democratic primary for example, it is meaningless in the battleground states. there was higher voter turnout in the 2004 election, even on the democratic side in in the primary's, but dubya still won relection.

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by MaleFashionista

You seem to be forgetting the fact that in politics, money buys influence.

If he realizes that a significant portion of his support base belongs to such groups, who do you think he's going to pander to?

You can't buy influence on idealists with money, regardless of what position they're in. The only thing you can do is blackmail them, and since they have nothing to blackmail Paul with, then them giving money to his campaign won't benefit them, only the campaign.

I don't think its moot...in a Ron Paul, libertarianesque govenment, there's no room for an EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)...that would be an infringement on your employer's right to arbitrarily terminate you (or not even hire you in the first place) simply based on your race, religion, sexual orientation, etc...it's simply not the government's role to interfere in private businesses like that.

Does he actually plan to get rid of the EEOC?

So let me get this straight.

You have a problem with the idea of a panel of some of the US's most prominent economists and bankers determining how the value of the dollar should fluctuate...but you're entirely OK with the idea of letting the rate at which gold is mined be the primary determinant of inflation and deflation...thereby ensuring that the government has no way to adjust its monetary policies in the short term to deal with all the various situations that can arise in a national economy...Moreover, you have no problem with putting the dollar into a state of near constant deflation, because, as I already pointed out, the rate at which gold is being mined does not equal the rate of American economic growth...not to mention the massive deflation that would inevitably have to occur when the gold standard is initiated, because of the limited amount of gold already available,

You could use other "precious metals" as well, such as silver. It just should be something of intrinsic value to back up the bank notes that are printed. That way the value of the bank notes stays the same. $1 is always going to be worth $1. The only thing that would change, is the price of goods and services, depending on their supply and availability.

Everyone in town can already own a gun, provided they don't have a record of violent crimes. Why make it even easier for criminals to buy guns?

I don't have a problem with restricting criminals from getting guns. I just don't think it should go beyond that, to the point where it's very difficult for anyone to get a gun.

Amazing. I'm guessing you're one of those people who believe in the ultimate goal of the establishment of some utopian Islamist police state...and yet, you're willing to advocate the exact opposite of that in the US, just because the guy hates Israel and wants to pull out of Iraq.

No, I actually don't care for any kinda police state, and I never have, nor do I believe any utopian Islamic state would be one (otherwise, it wouldn't be utopian nor Islamic). The reason I advocate RP, is because he has real solutions to real issues, which none of the other candidates have.

[GOTFIVEONIT]

Maryland Democratic Primary Opinion Poll

Primary Date | Tuesday, February 12 | Delegates at Stake: 99

Polling Data

Poll
SurveyUSA
Date:
02/07 - 02/08
Sample:
737 LV
Obama
52%
Clinton
33%
Spread: Obama +19.0%

Poll
Rasmussen
Date
02/06 - 02/07
Sample:
925 LV
Obama
57%
Clinton
31%
Spread: Obama +26.0%

The Sun Poll 01/06 - 01/09 455 LV 39 26 Obama +13.0
Date
Poll
Rasmussen
Date
02/06 - 02/07
Sample:
925 LV
Obama
57%
Clinton
31%
Spread: Obama +26.0%

[GOTFIVEONIT]

Virginia Democratic Primary Opinon Poll

Primary Election Date | Tuesday, February 12 | Delegates at Stake: 101

Polling Data

Poll:
RCP

Date:
02/06 - 02/08

Sample:
-
Obama
55.3%

Clinton
37.7%

Spread: Obama +17.6%

------------------------------------------------------------------

Poll:
SurveyUSA

Date:
02/07 - 02/08

Sample:
588 LV

Obama
59%

Clinton
39%

Spread: Obama +20.0%

----------------------------------------------------------------

Poll:
InsiderAdvantage

Date:
02/07 - 02/07

Sample:
501 LV

Obama
52%

Clinton
37%

Spread: Obama +15.0%

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Poll:
Rasmussen

Date:
02/07 - 02/07

Sample:
719 LV

Obama
55%

Clinton
37%

Spread: Obama +18.0%

[GOTFIVEONIT]

BREAKING NEWS:

OBAMA WINS NEBRASKA DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, CNN PROJECTS

OBAMA - 69%

17,074

HILLARY - 31%

7,622

Uncommitted

14

73% Precincts Reporting


RESULTS: Nebraska


RESULTS: Nebraska

STATE INFORMATION: 5 electoral votes

1,138,069 total registered voters -- 33% Democratic, 50% Republican, 17% nonpartisan/other

DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL:
Closed Caucuses
31 total delegates*
24 tied to February 9 caucuses, 7 superdelegates

[GOTFIVEONIT]

Developing Story

*** Obama takes Washington Democratic caucuses, CNN projects ****

RESULTS: Washington State

STATE INFORMATION: 11 electoral votes

DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL:
Caucuses
February 9

DEMOCRATIC CAUCUSES February 09, 2008

Washington STATE

Updated 6 minutes ago

Obama - 67%

7,698

Clinton - 32%

3,685

Uncommitted 136 1%

35% Precincts reporting

[GOTFIVEONIT]

MSNBC CALLS LOUISIANA WIN FOR OBAMA! OBAMA SWEEPS TONITE IN ALL PRIMARIES, OBAMA NIGHT!

RESULTS: Louisiana

STATE INFORMATION: 9 electoral votes

2,837,985 total registered voters -- 53% Democratic, 25% Republican, 22% Other
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL:

Closed Primary
66 total delegates*
56 tied to February 9 primary, 10 superdelegates

LOUISIANA DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY February 09, 2008

Updated 1 minute ago

Obama - 54%

61,601

Clinton - 38%

44,039

34% Precincts reporting

[GOTFIVEONIT]

AP reports Obama is the projected winner in the U.S. Virgin Islands democratic primary

[GOTFIVEONIT]

On the Net:

Ron Paul 2008 — Hope for America

Paul vows to remain a Republican in race

Sat Feb 9, 1:09 PM ET

HOUSTON - Presidential hopeful Ron Paul said he will not run as a third-party candidate in a new message to supporters that seems to recognize his slim chances at getting the Republican nomination.

The Texas congressman wrote on his Web site Friday that he is making cuts to his national campaign staff and that he must also stay focused on not losing the primary for his House seat.

Paul began Saturday with just 14 delegates for the Republican nomination that John McCain, with 719 delegates, has all but officially secured. Mitt Romney dropped out of the race Thursday, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has 198 delegates. A total of 1,191 delegates are needed to secure the GOP nomination.

"With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero," Paul wrote. "But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get."

Paul wrote that while he does not denigrate third parties he is committed to staying a Republican. His campaign supports low taxes and reduced government spending.

Paul's latest entry on his Web site also included a request that supporters not