Who do you think should win the Republican nomination?

[trucktina]

After the last two debates, I'm leaning towards Sen. Rick Santorum.

[jaymz462]

Mhmm!  Aha!  Ha!  Ha!

Ron Paul.  He's a nut, but has a couple decent ideas unlike the rest of the jokes running.

[Flackle]

Mhmm!  Aha!  Ha!  Ha!

Ron Paul.  He's a nut, but has a couple decent ideas unlike the rest of the jokes running.

I don't think He's a nut. In fact I think he is a lot less crazy then all the other people running against him.

[Falconer02]

Ron Paul.  He's a nut, but has a couple decent ideas unlike the rest of the jokes running.

I don't think He's a nut. In fact I think he is a lot less crazy then all the other people running against him.

Agreed. We have quite a crap-infested GOP lineup this time around.

We have candidates that say they're against gay rights and free thinking http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA ,

Creationism should be taught in classrooms http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/rick-santorum-creationism_n_1120766.html

And one's husband (who's probably gay) is running a facility that secretly offers "Gay Healing" USING YOUR TAX DOLLARS http://www.alternet.org/news/151592/michele_bachmann's_husband's_clinics_practiced_ex-gay_therapy_(while_pocketing_$161,000_of_your_tax_money)/

And Newt Gingrich. Do I really need to post a link for him?

We as americans have some pretty facepalm-inducing people up there on stage. During the debates, I do believe that Ron Paul is the only one with his head screwed on decently. I'm not a huge fan of him, but I have heard some of his ideas and I think they're the most rational (end the war asap, cut drastic fed spending across the board, etc.) up on the stage. And he gets a lot of irrational flak for them! It's ridiculous. I believe Paul vs. Obama would have some quite epic presidential debates and would be glued to my tv if he got the nomination just to see that go down.

[Garydh]

Ron Paul.  He's a nut, but has a couple decent ideas unlike the rest of the jokes running.

I don't think He's a nut. In fact I think he is a lot less crazy then all the other people running against him.

Agreed. We have quite a crap-infested GOP lineup this time around.

We have candidates that say they're against gay rights and free thinking http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA ,

Creationism should be taught in classrooms http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/rick-santorum-creationism_n_1120766.html

And one's husband (who's probably gay) is running a facility that secretly offers "Gay Healing" USING YOUR TAX DOLLARS http://www.alternet.org/news/151592/michele_bachmann's_husband's_clinics_practiced_ex-gay_therapy_(while_pocketing_$161,000_of_your_tax_money)/

And Newt Gingrich. Do I really need to post a link for him?

We as americans have some pretty facepalm-inducing people up there on stage. During the debates, I do believe that Ron Paul is the only one with his head screwed on decently. I'm not a huge fan of him, but I have heard some of his ideas and I think they're the most rational (end the war asap, cut drastic fed spending across the board, etc.) up on the stage. And he gets a lot of irrational flak for them! It's ridiculous. I believe Paul vs. Obama would have some quite epic presidential debates and would be glued to my tv if he got the nomination just to see that go down.

I hope you get your chance to see that happen. I am personally at the point of thinking of instead of electing individuals, we should just look at coorporations. They are the ones funding and running this country. So what corporation do you think will win?  Well enough of politics, money, and individual candidates. FusionCash your self and have fun.

[Abrupt]

My major concern this election is in regards to the next president likely nominating 4 Supreme Court justices.  That is the main reason that I fear Obama being reelected and have concerns over the election.  If we get 4 crazy liberal justices it will most likely be the end of the nation.  It wouldn't be a problem if liberals thought in a truly liberal fashion, but they do not, they are anti-thinkers and the most non-liberal people you are likely to encounter.

I will gladly take any of the republicans over Obama, and I hope that the rest of America has enough wisdom to see past their own prejudices to understand why that is important.  Paul, even though I don't see him having a chance in hell, would likely be the best choice to point us in a direction of restoration, even if none of us liked what he did.  The government is too large and has stolen too much power from us so we certainly need to elect people with the goal of reducing it and getting it out of our lives.  Nearly every vulnerability and weakness we feel today can be attributed to the actions of an ever reaching and expanding federal government that has entangled itself into nearly every aspect of our lives.

People that like to live instead of being told how to live and people that like to think instead of being told how to think, need to wake up and realize exactly what is going on and take steps to correct it without fear of losing something other than their freedoms.

[dwiley11]

I want someone other than a lawyer

[Falconer02]

I hope you get your chance to see that happen. I am personally at the point of thinking of instead of electing individuals, we should just look at coorporations. They are the ones funding and running this country. So what corporation do you think will win?  Well enough of politics, money, and individual candidates. FusionCash your self and have fun.

You too, man! And yeah, it's pretty much already at that point. It seems like something out of the movie "Idiocracy". I hope the politicians understand that's a major reason why the OWS protests are happening and stand up to show there's a major problem following lobbyists. It's sad to realize that if politicians don't have a few lobbyists riding on their backs, they pretty much don't have a chance at winning  

[Abrupt]

I hope you get your chance to see that happen. I am personally at the point of thinking of instead of electing individuals, we should just look at coorporations. They are the ones funding and running this country. So what corporation do you think will win?  Well enough of politics, money, and individual candidates. FusionCash your self and have fun.

You too, man! And yeah, it's pretty much already at that point. It seems like something out of the movie "Idiocracy". I hope the politicians understand that's a major reason why the OWS protests are happening and stand up to show there's a major problem following lobbyists. It's sad to realize that if politicians don't have a few lobbyists riding on their backs, they pretty much don't have a chance at winning  

A simple solution to this problem would be smaller government.

This is also a perfect example of why OWS is absolutely wrong.  The OWS solution is more regulation and larger government.  If what you state about coorporations is true then the OWS solution could only make it worse.  In effect you would be prescribing a treatment that has as a side effect the symptom you are attempting to treat in the first place and this is the definition of lunacy.

[mall0271]

At this point, I don't know what to think. But I do think it is funny when the mud slinging starts. They dig up the most dark and dirty secrets.  It makes me wonder if it is worth it.

[Falconer02]

A simple solution to this problem would be smaller government.

Agreed, though I'm more of a proponent of trimming the fat and beefing up other areas if need be. Living near Chicago I'll say that I see a lot of fat that the fed and state should cut, but I really don't see OWS going "WE NEED MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING US IN EVERY ASPECT!"--that would be black and white thinking and I think OWS and the Teaparty movement are doing neither. I mainly see OWS attacking areas of the corrupted financial system in the country and how the fed gov has defended these bad practices-- it's obviously not working since everyone in the country is getting/has already gotten screwed over by it. Maybe ending the war and cutting a lot of "needless" fed aid and putting some effort into monitoring shady business practices would help trim the deficit down and keep people safe from banking traps.

I will gladly take any of the republicans over Obama

Ehh...I dunno...whenever I see candidates preaching anti-gay and creationist nonsense, they immediately lose all credibility because they obviously lack the logic skills to see what's wrong with their argument. That or they're just trying to grab the votes from the uneducated bible-belt voters (in which case they're putting an emphasis on deceit). It's like if we were discussing advanced algebra and I tell you 2+2= 7 or 5x5 = 137 and I refuse to change my answer, you're going to think that I probably shouldn't be teaching the class.

[Abrupt]

Agreed, though I'm more of a proponent of trimming the fat and beefing up other areas if need be. Living near Chicago I'll say that I see a lot of fat that the fed and state should cut, but I really don't see OWS going "WE NEED MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING US IN EVERY ASPECT!"--that would be black and white thinking and I think OWS and the Teaparty movement are doing neither. I mainly see OWS attacking areas of the corrupted financial system in the country and how the fed gov has defended these bad practices-- it's obviously not working since everyone in the country is getting/has already gotten screwed over by it. Maybe ending the war and cutting a lot of "needless" fed aid and putting some effort into monitoring shady business practices would help trim the deficit down and keep people safe from banking traps.

I do see a lot of problems in Wall Street but I think much of it comes from peoples assumptions of what it is and that it is some sort of no risk guarantee.  Wall Street is about risk and greed as that is primarily how it works.  People should think of it more along the lines of giving their money to someone to take to a casino to gamble with than their apparent current impression that it is some safe and well regulated and low risk venture.  OWS is attacking them for being what they are (that being greedy).  OWS should be attacking the government for entangling itself within Wall Street and exposing our nation to direct risk instead of just those directly involved.  OWS should be attacking the government for bailing out the foolishness of Wall Street.  With OWS attacking Wall Street I cannot think of them as any more than a bunch of simple idiots with no comprehension of what is going on and simply having a desire to act afool.  While I generally admire people stating what is on their mind and making an effort to accomplish their goals I cannot respect OWS as I think it is as wrong as can be imagined as to what the problem is.

Ehh...I dunno...whenever I see candidates preaching anti-gay and creationist nonsense, they immediately lose all credibility because they obviously lack the logic skills to see what's wrong with their argument. That or they're just trying to grab the votes from the uneducated bible-belt voters (in which case they're putting an emphasis on deceit). It's like if we were discussing advanced algebra and I tell you 2+2= 7 or 5x5 = 137 and I refuse to change my answer, you're going to think that I probably shouldn't be teaching the class.

I haven't seen any anti-gay preaching from the candidates and it seems to me that anymore if someone doesn't "put the gays in their mouth" that they are suddenly considered ant-gay.  I am also amazed at the groups connected as those that are pro gay also tend to be evolutionists and spread the wealth types where an evolutionists should immediately recognize that gay does not fit within their model and that the 'spread the wealth' nonsense is also destructive to evolution.  It baffles me as it seems to be more a collection of 'anti-s' than it is anything else.  I don't think creationism should be taught in school either and I also don't think the Theory of Evolution should.  Evolution requires more suspension of belief than creationism does.  With creationism you need one "just agree with it" point, with evolution you need countless of these for every species and it always fascinates me how people wear their blinders regarding evolution and act like it actually has even one single answer instead of simply being the question it is.  With all the virus mutation experiments we have done we have managed to accelerate beyond the entire history of nature and have yet to see any example of anything suggested by the evolution history.  But I guess science doesn't need to be involved in evolution and all you need is a vivid imagination.

[Falconer02]

I do see a lot of problems in Wall Street but I think much of it comes from peoples assumptions of what it is and that it is some sort of no risk guarantee.  Wall Street is about risk and greed as that is primarily how it works.  People should think of it more along the lines of giving their money to someone to take to a casino to gamble with than their apparent current impression that it is some safe and well regulated and low risk venture.

Well what if those gamblers got drunk, threw your money away on the tables, and then got rich off of manipulating the system when the gov't came in to hand them more cash to make sure they stay on their feet while you walk away empty handed (and lose more due to the gov't stepping in)? To extend the example, I'd just like to see these gamblers take breathalizers before they enter the casino. I believe it's one area that should be well-monitored due to the irresponsible behavior already displayed in the past. It would still be a risky business, but having a smaller gov't pertaining to the financial district just seems like it would allow the same no-boundary situation that took place in 2008 which seems irresponsible to me.

OWS should be attacking the government for entangling itself within Wall Street and exposing our nation to direct risk instead of just those directly involved.

Agreed. Their focus should have been a duel priority imo- protesting WS and the Whitehouse. The last time I checked they are protesting both, but they should originally have been doing both. But lately I'm more concerned with the NDAA and SOPA passing so admittedly I've been missing out on any new info on the movement. Can you blame me? These bills scare the hell out of me.

I haven't seen any anti-gay preaching from the candidates and it seems to me that anymore if someone doesn't "put the gays in their mouth" that they are suddenly considered anti-gay.

I posted a video in an above post with Perry saying he has a major problem with homosexuals in the military (right after saying he's not ashamed to be christian...). When you openly disgrace the men and women of the military, are completely oblivious towards the separation of church and state, and practically promote inequality (via religion and sexual preference), you shouldn't be up on stage trying to be president.

.  I don't think creationism should be taught in school either and I also don't think the Theory of Evolution should.  

Now that I think of it, I have no problem with creationism being taught in schools as long as it stays in mythological studies. Microevolution has humongous amounts of proofs and macorevolution has an ever-expanding fossil record to back the claims up. It is a practiced fact and scientific theory (parallel example being gravity or medicines), so it belongs in science classes. To say evolution is imaginary is literally saying biology is imaginary since evolution is the primary makeup of modern biology.

it always fascinates me how people wear their blinders regarding evolution and act like it actually has even one single answer instead of simply being the question it is.

I'm not sure what you mean here since science is about sharpening our understanding of the universe and it is always leaving the door open for new evidences and questions to be presented. More answers always lead to more questions in the scientific community and finding evidences of something being scientifically wrong is a good thing. Evolution still has major gaps, but that is by far not a reason to dismiss it.

[Abrupt]

Well what if those gamblers got drunk, threw your money away on the tables, and then got rich off of manipulating the system when the gov't came in to hand them more cash to make sure they stay on their feet while you walk away empty handed (and lose more due to the gov't stepping in)? To extend the example, I'd just like to see these gamblers take breathalizers before they enter the casino. I believe it's one area that should be well-monitored due to the irresponsible behavior already displayed in the past. It would still be a risky business, but having a smaller gov't pertaining to the financial district just seems like it would allow the same no-boundary situation that took place in 2008 which seems irresponsible to me.

That is why the government shouldn't have bailed them out.  If everyone understood that there were no bail outs and that wall street took risks (often excessive and occasionally illegal), then people would keep a very close eye on their money.  The best would rise and thrive and the worst would fall by the wayside and die.  I would say that a considerable amount of the blame goes to people who invest their money and pay it no mind after that (except for how much they make).  Those are as much the villains as anyone as they encourage the conduct by forgoing the most basics of personal responsibility.

Agreed. Their focus should have been a duel priority imo- protesting WS and the Whitehouse. The last time I checked they are protesting both, but they should originally have been doing both. But lately I'm more concerned with the NDAA and SOPA passing so admittedly I've been missing out on any new info on the movement. Can you blame me? These bills scare the hell out of me.

I absolutely agree, both of those scare the heck out of me and that they could even be proposed and that so many people are even as of now entirely unaware of them (and yet so eager to vote again in the next election) makes me wonder just how low the media has sunk.

I posted a video in an above post with Perry saying he has a major problem with homosexuals in the military (right after saying he's not ashamed to be christian...). When you openly disgrace the men and women of the military, are completely oblivious towards the separation of church and state, and practically promote inequality (via religion and sexual preference), you shouldn't be up on stage trying to be president.

I wouldn't call that anti-gay preaching but simple honesty on his part.  His stating regarding his faith is entirely constitutional and in no way infringes upon this "separation of church and state" animal you speak of.  Anyone who serves honorably in the military is counted among my heroes and their sexual orientation is not a factor as it has no business being discussed since the military has nothing at all to do with sex.  Personally I consider homosexuality a bad thing and something that should be discouraged much along the lines of smoking, yet every day it is raised as if it were an issue signifying some quality that someone should want to have by people trying to justify their own guilt's against the undesirable traits of others.  I suppose that makes me anti-gay and that makes me have to ask you then what is wrong with me having that position?  It is certainly within my rights and a perfectly logical stance to take that does not suggest any bad qualities in me.  In the above example of a gay soldier, the soldier would be a hero to me because he was a soldier and not because he was gay and the one quality does not transfer to the other or elevate it in any way.  I don't care about his gayness and would prefer it to never be mentioned to me.

Now that I think of it, I have no problem with creationism being taught in schools as long as it stays in mythological studies. Microevolution has humongous amounts of proofs and macorevolution has an ever-expanding fossil record to back the claims up. It is a practiced fact and scientific theory (parallel example being gravity or medicines), so it belongs in science classes. To say evolution is imaginary is literally saying biology is imaginary since evolution is the primary makeup of modern biology.

You sound like you are confusing adaptation with evolution.  Adaptation is certainly proven and logical but there has never ever been even one single bit of evidence to indicate any evolution event ever occurring.  Every single one of these fossil records that are suggested as hinting to support evolution also include a missing link on both sides -- Every Single One.  People only seem to think about the often mentioned human 'missing link' and fail to realize that it is only one of many.  For that to be so obvious yet so overlooked makes me adamant that the subject should not be taught in schools as it is being sold as a lie full of "pretend and ignore".  To me it is smoke and mirrors and would be quite the same as showing the evolution of a nickle to a quarter by using a 'fossil' of a dime.

I'm not sure what you mean here since science is about sharpening our understanding of the universe and it is always leaving the door open for new evidences and questions to be presented. More answers always lead to more questions in the scientific community and finding evidences of something being scientifically wrong is a good thing. Evolution still has major gaps, but that is by far not a reason to dismiss it.

I was speaking along the lines of what I explained above but I didn't go into detail regarding it even though I should realize that most people don't see the problem I highlighted (although they should and it should be one of the first questions they ask when explained evolution but it isn't -- and I cannot understand why it doesn't immediately spawn red flags all around).  I think scientific theory is quite sound and worthy of being introduced, but I barely can even qualify evolution as a theory and could never give it enough worth to be a viable subject to instruct in school (and you must admit that it is being taught more like fact than theory and with the worth of questions you proposed above that should offend you that the way it is presented does not invoke that worth and actually suppresses it).

[noirlupe]

None of them are sounding promising so far.