-----Ron Paul for 2012 US President!-----

Ron Paul is the only reasonable and logical candidate in the GOP race. Obama has done nothing to improve the state of this nation. Also, he signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), if you don't know what this is, you need to look it up immediately. It has been quietly passed and set into law. Basically it allows the MILITARY, not the police force to detain you for HOWEVER LONG THEY WANT TOO WITHOUT ANY TRIAL at all if they suspect you of terrorism. This applies to all people. This is just unacceptable.

The others (Romney, Perry) are complete tools, and Santorum is just an idiot.

Paul's political views can be found here.


voteron - -----ron paul for 2012 us president!-----

ronp - -----ron paul for 2012 us president!-----

ronppuppet - -----ron paul for 2012 us president!-----


You might be interested


Reply Attach
  • 12

    Sorry, but he doesn't stand a chance.

    cthulhu for president l1

    • Ertrov
    • January 6, 2012, 9:00 pm
    I disagree.
    - Jjbigscreeners January 6, 2012, 9:03 pm
    May Cthulhu have mercy on your soul as he slowly devours it.
    - Ertrov January 6, 2012, 9:10 pm
    May Dagon tentacle rape his virgin daughter.
    - XxDaminalsxX January 8, 2012, 9:16 am
    - sessyann March 20, 2012, 3:30 am
    Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
    - Ertrov March 20, 2012, 3:42 am
    he doesn't stand a chance?

    - 24paperwings March 29, 2012, 10:26 am
  • 7

    I'm Canadian so....

    y0ujc - -----ron paul for 2012 us president!-----

    You lucky bastard.

    - Ertrov January 8, 2012, 12:20 am
    Not that lucky, a lot of what you fellows down south do effects us. We're going to feel SOPA if it passes.
    - CrazyJay January 8, 2012, 8:57 pm
    That's not us, it's the government we hate. Big difference.
    - Ertrov January 9, 2012, 3:05 pm
    Twas implied.
    - CrazyJay January 9, 2012, 4:18 pm
  • 7

    randonesia - -----ron paul for 2012 us president!-----


    Censoring "Fuck" but not "shit". Wat.
    - Ertrov January 9, 2012, 4:21 pm
    Someone else who likes Lamb of God. I never thought I would find anyone else. You've made my day :D
    - exile March 16, 2012, 2:47 pm
    I just have one question, Mark Morton or Chris Adler for Vice President?
    - Stags70 March 19, 2012, 11:55 pm
    Mark Morton, Them riffs.
    - Turtlestlker March 28, 2012, 9:44 pm
    Them are some bad ass riffs.
    - Stags70 March 29, 2012, 8:11 pm
    Ashes of the wake FTW \\m/ \\m/ \\m/ \\m/
    But Adler does seem like the mind behind the band, meh either one of them will do.
    - Turtlestlker March 29, 2012, 8:23 pm
  • 5

    Hey team! Long time no talk-about-stuff-that-makes-people-angry.

    Points, listed in order of importance.

    1. Torture is illegal and inhumane. But, beyond that, completely ineffective. Torture has been proven time and time again to provide unreliable intel and to make gaining reliable intel from other interrogation techniques nearly impossible. The only reliable intel garnered from KSK was the result of giving him chocolate chip cookies, not water boarding him over 200 times.
    2. Ron Paul has a very strange following of people disillusioned with Obama. For some reason, many of those people think Paul is the logical next step. I just don't see it, being only moderately disappointed in Obama myself.
    3. Ron Paul is fairly undeniably a racist homophobe, but so are many if not all of the other GOP candidates, which is part of the reason I'm not a fan of that side of the fence at the moment.
    4. Obama has not done "nothing." Yes, some of his promises fell through. Guantanamo, NDAA veto, etc... However, the economy is doing much, much better, Don't Ask, Don't Tell is gone, we have a head for the CFPB, he effectively ended "enhanced interrogation," he created a Credit Card Bill of Rights, he passed health care reform preventing denial of insurance due to a pre-existing condition, passed the Matthew Shepherd and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, etc. To say he failed in a few promises is completely accurate. To say he has done nothing is absolutely erroneous.
    5. The NDAA signing doesn't bother me as much as it does others. Why? Because the government already had the powers everyone is freaking out about. Heard of Al-Awlaki? Look him up. This, if anything, was a step in the right direction, creating more transparency and the awareness necessary to ignite a firestorm of legal action. Other things in the bill trouble me deeply though, such as allowing military to act as local law enforcement in a non-emergency state. Ruh roh.
    6. I will most likely be voting for Obama. He is the only candidate that has a CHANCE of doing what I want to be done with the government. I still hold out hope that he was biding his time the first four years, only to reveal his radically left-wing, nearly fanatical self. *sigh*... One can dream.

    1. Pretty much agree.
    2. Obama has done good, but the point is I'd rather Paul over any of the other GOP candidates for sure, and I'm give him the edge over Obama unless anything changes in time.
    3.I'm assuming your referring to the newsletters. That was a while back but it certainly doesn't help him. To me he seems like he's let all that go and is focusing on the bigger picture. We'll see.
    4.Obama has done things obviously, just not ones that are attention grabbers. I appreciate very much the pulling our troops out of the middle east. I don't like the shady acts being committed though.
    5.To further diagnose those shady acts, I am very bothered by the NDAA. The main reason is that lets say Obama doesn't get reelected and the next President abuses this power. I think that there is plenty enough awareness already. Going forward, our rights are diminishing one, by one.
    6.Honestly Obama would be my second choice. Romney is a tool, Perry is close-minded, Santorum is an idiot, Huntsman is well, Huntsman. IMO.

    Thanks for the input man.
    - Jjbigscreeners January 9, 2012, 4:00 pm
    It's funny, not a lot of people talk about Al-Alwaki. For anyone who's not sure who he is, (I know you know, Logos. Just typing for the sake of discussion.) Al-Alwaki was a Yemeni-American cleric, and part of Al-Qaeda. He'd put pro-Taliban propaganda on the internet (in English, like how to build a bomb in your kitchen, etc.) and obviously the US gov't didn't like this. So they blew him to bits with a predator drone.

    While we're on the topic of Ron Paul, I believe he was against this, mainly because Alwaki was legally a US citizen.
    - CrazyJay January 14, 2012, 6:04 pm
    "Obama has done things obviously, just not ones that are attention grabbers."

    So saving GM, trying to get healthcare and consumer protection started, having Bin Laden killed and repealling "Don't ask, don't tell" didn't get your attention? I have my problems with him too, but I'd give him SOME credit. Granted, when you consider the Bush presidency and the republican field, the bar is pretty low at this point.
    - CrazyJay January 14, 2012, 6:13 pm
    Thanks- I always assume people are fairly politically literate.... I guess I always assume Awlaki was a huge deal to everyone, when in reality, it didn't make that much of a national impact : /. Which is why I didn't explain the situation, nice call.

    And yes, Paul was against this. And there is a bit more to the situation than you let on, but the summary was good and enjoyable : ).
    - Logos385 March 16, 2012, 12:52 pm
    I'm curious as to why you favor Paul over Obama? What has Paul done, not said or hoped for, but actually done, that is an attention grabber? Of the 620 measures Paul sponsored in Congress.... Four made it to the House floor. How many were signed into law? One! It was discussed for two minutes and was about the sale of a single Texas property.

    Doesn't seem like he has successfully done anything of much note or importance : /.

    But, I do want to know why you give him the edge over Obama, and how Paul could be equivalent to Obama in any way? They disagree on nearly ever key issue.
    - Logos385 March 16, 2012, 12:55 pm
    It's mostly that I like his message. Much like Obama in 2008, what he promised sounded really good, but I think a lot of people would say that he hasn't delivered on several of those promises. In a time where our rights are being diminished faster than ever, we need someone to step in and defend us. Paul will start reducing our debt, pull us out of other nations that we don't need to be in, not start wars unless we DECLARE war, fight against abortion, and give more power to the states rather than the federal government.

    I'm not digging this high unemployment rate and this attack on rights/religion.

    Now, I will say that at this point in time, I think I would rather Obama if not Ron Paul. Romney and Santorum scare me. Santorum is a complete religion freak who should not be given any authority over this country. Romeny changes his views every day and is not consistent. Paul is VERY consistent in his opinions and views. Hope this answers your question.
    - Jjbigscreeners March 18, 2012, 11:53 am
    This whole not-delivering-on-promises thing is getting less and less true as time goes on. Obama is getting stuff done over time, as should be expected.

    Paul is very against taxation, which reduces national debt. The majority of how he would propose debt reduction is with the cut of social programs, as he doesn't believe that is government's place. He also voted AGAINST the Equal Rights Amendment.

    Abortion is an entirely different discussion, no need to start it here ; P.

    And states vs. federal government? I'm NOT a fan of giving states significant power. Just look at Virginia... where a woman is forced to be vaginally penetrated against her will by the government. Not a great time to give states more power.

    The economy is getting much, much better under Obama, including unemployment- how is there an attack on religion?

    I agree on Santorum and Romney, and agree that Paul is very consistent. That is a point for him for sure. I just happen to disagree with most of his consistent views, haha.
    - Logos385 March 19, 2012, 7:01 pm
    I'm not trying to say that Obama has been horrible. Because as you pointed out, the economy is doing very well at the moment. I think we need to go in a different direction though, and Paul will lead us in that direction.

    As a libertarian, I don't worry about Paul not supporting "Equal Rights". He may have been different in the past, but he is all for the people of all races and wealth today.

    Again, I'm not saying 'hey Texas, do whatever you want to do.' Things are different all over the country. For example, people in DC and New York should not be telling people in Louisiana how to live. Federal government can step in if something is completely unreasonable, like the Virginia law you just informed me of.

    As for an attack on religion, it's a combination of several things, and it's not just from the U.S. The whole contraception thing is very, very unfair.

    Our moral standards are getting lower and lower and the desire to work hard and succeed is diminishing to a degree. I firmly believe that our government is not doing all that it could to help this nation progress. Also, our judicial system is very messed up. Along with our police force.

    Thanks for your input man, I really like discussing these types of things. =]
    - Jjbigscreeners March 19, 2012, 11:38 pm
    Logos must have forgotten to add that women only have to be vaginally penetrated as part of an ultrasound if they are seeking an abortion. Something championed by pro lifers, which, by your previous statements jj, you seem to be.

    Funny how inconvenient details are left out like that, eh?
    - casper667 March 20, 2012, 12:20 am
    I am pro-life. Being "penetrated" does not compare to killing a human life.
    - Jjbigscreeners March 20, 2012, 4:30 pm
    Well then, you should be for the Virginia law logos mentioned, not against it. :P
    - casper667 March 20, 2012, 4:33 pm
    Why would I be for it if it's for abortion?
    - Jjbigscreeners March 20, 2012, 4:35 pm
    b/c it's a step in the pro-life direction. Before the law, women didn't have to see the baby they were killing. Now, with the law, they must have an ultrasound(vaginally penetrated) and wait 24 hours after to get an abortion if they still want to go through with it. It's not exactly what pro-lifers want, but it's a small step in that direction.
    - casper667 March 20, 2012, 4:38 pm
    Why go in a new economic direction when this one is working? ; ).

    And I see what you mean about states' rights. That's always been a trouble area in American politics, it can be so hard to regulate with state borders often being ideological borders as well. Eh, just preference I guess.

    What whole contraception thing? Are you referring to the mandate that explicitly excludes religion?

    And yes, morality is always elusive in contemporary America, but I don't think religion is the answer- not saying you do either. Absolutely agreed on the judicial and police fronts!

    I love discussing things like this too, especially with reasonable people! : ).
    - Logos385 March 20, 2012, 4:38 pm
    Well I honestly don't see the point in that law. Using guilt to try to change their minds I guess.
    - Jjbigscreeners March 20, 2012, 4:45 pm
    Eh, it was more of a general direction rather than strictly the economy.

    Fair enough.

    If that is the forcing all religious-affiliated employers to provide insurance that covers contraception, then yes, that. I'm not to big on the details, just know the general idea.

    Religion isn't the answer, and I don't know what is. I blame television, haha.
    - Jjbigscreeners March 20, 2012, 4:49 pm
    That's exactly it JJbigscreeners, the idea behind the law is explicitly anti-woman. The only way an ultrasound inhibits abortion is if a woman is so ignorant that she does not realize that pregnancy means there is a baby in her. Thus, the Virginia legislature enacted an underhanded trick to attempt to play on what they believe to perpetuate society- overwhelming female ignorance. Casper, if you really think that a woman who is pregnant does not know that there is in fact a baby involved, then the law assists the pro-life cause.

    And even then, a non-intrusive ultrasound would serve just as well.

    No matter what reason, a government should not mandate vaginal penetration. I mean, come on.
    - Logos385 March 20, 2012, 5:10 pm
    I'm trying to stay neutral in this debate, and just informing the reasoning behind this law. I'm actually pro-choice, but that's not the topic of this thread :P
    - casper667 March 20, 2012, 5:13 pm
    That's fair, I would like to know what direction Paul would take that you are in support of.


    And actually, even though the initial bill applied to all employers, the bill that actually was enacted was amended to give an exemption to religious and/or moral interests. So there really isn't any religious issue there. Even though I personally would have championed the initial bill, that is not what ended up being enacted. I don't think an employer's religious view should affect the health care of an employee, especially as the employee's religion might be something else entirely. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," and that's exactly what this law is. But I guess I can't get everything I want, eh?

    Hahahaha, oh the television excuse : P. I blame unassailable cultural/ideological tradition.... propagated by parents, the media (TV! : P), and community. People need to listen more to their biological psychology, then maybe they would have some more morality!
    - Logos385 March 20, 2012, 5:15 pm
    Gotchya, I just found JJ to be reasonable, so I didn't think the reason for the law would be relevant. And it isn't- governments should not mandate vaginal penetration, I don't care about the reason, thus didn't feel the need to include it.

    Plus, I'm sure JJ is perfectly able to research these things himself! : ).

    But yes, thanks for the input, always nice to have a neutral voice keeping things in check.
    - Logos385 March 20, 2012, 5:17 pm
    Ok. I'm pretty sure he would remove majority if not all of our troops out of foreign nations that we don't absolutely have to be in. He would work on reducing our debt. He'd "legalize the Constitution" (I love that phrase), he's pro-life, he wants to allow more exploration for oil to create more competition, and he keeps an open mind. He can see the reason between both sides rather than only look at one side.

    Did not know that. Yeah, no matter who's in office, there will always be people unsatisfied.
    - Jjbigscreeners March 20, 2012, 5:32 pm
    What do you mean by legalize the Constitution?? And why do we need MORE government oil investment? We already have way, way more than we need... we are subsidizing some of the richest countries in the world. And why do you think he can see reason in both sides, when he is so steeped in his economic agenda that he is willing to ignore social issues entirely (i.e. Equal Right's Amendment)? And he proposes lowering taxes, which will increase our debt. I just don't see it : P.
    - Logos385 March 28, 2012, 4:38 pm
    Legalize the Constitution is just a phrase basically saying how our rights are being taken away from us. People aren't following the Constitution. It wasn't literal haha. Oh we have oil for sure, but we aren't tapping into our reserves. We need to just use it and continue development of alternate energy sources.

    He didn't ignore the ERA. He opposed it because it gave the government the power to tell people with private businesses and/or property what to do. It violated their liberty. He is all for equal rights.

    He is for lowering taxes, as you stated. But he plans to cut various forms of government spending. This sums it up pretty good. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/10/ron-paul-spending-cuts-/1#.T3N_AWEgdM4
    - Jjbigscreeners March 28, 2012, 5:13 pm
  • 2

    He's still for keeping tax cuts for the rich, not improving the healthcare system, thinks global warming is a hoax, is a creationist and the rest of the useless BS republicans still shove down our throats. Yes, he'd legalize drugs and do the odd thing republicans would never want. His foreign policies are great but other than that, he's hardly better than the rest. As for the NDAA, congress and the senate basically shoved that onto Obama. He'd have had to sign it regardless. So would Paul if he was president. (Though it would have been nice if he'd at least point out how illegal it was. Not to mention we should have done something about the patriot act AGES ago.)

    Obama could have rejected it. Yes it would still have been forced into law anyways, but it would have at least showed that Obama didn't like it and perhaps gotten some media coverage.
    - Jjbigscreeners January 7, 2012, 10:59 pm
    True. All he had to say was it was illegal and make a media event of it. (I doubt the majority of the US even knows what the NDAA is, if they did they'd be appalled.)

    To give Paul a little more credit though, he's at least consistant in his views. Unlike Romney who'd decapitate kittens if he thought it would get him elected.
    - CrazyJay January 8, 2012, 9:05 am
  • 2

    Im just saying if i was 40 you would all be voting for me! Harrison for president in 2032!!

    Merriweather for president 2044!!!
    - xxkisamexx January 8, 2012, 7:44 pm
    haha lets just all get ready for future elections of sharenators
    - buddyfoeva January 9, 2012, 3:41 pm
  • 2

  • 1

    I don't like any of the bastards running.

    The field is horrible, but Paul IMO is the best choice.
    - Jjbigscreeners January 6, 2012, 9:06 pm
  • 1

    I'd love to see Ron Paul, but it will never happen. Democracy is a joke. Elections are bought and paid for. Voting is just an illusion so the people feel like they have a choice in picking the next dick to fuck us.

    Oh the fix is in alright. They don't want Paul to win.
    - Jjbigscreeners January 6, 2012, 9:18 pm
    i wish i was a girl during the elections, so i could at least enjoy the dick in my ass
    - bufus101 January 8, 2012, 10:50 am
  • 1

    as much as I disagree with many of the republican view I am more against treason, than I am for gay marriage and pro choice ideology.

  • 1

    I'm still for Obama.

    Obama recently signed the NDAA into law, which grants him the ability to use the military to imprison US citizens indefinitely without trial. Still for Obama? Because I can keep going.
    - Ertrov January 7, 2012, 5:46 pm
    I'm aware of this, I'm against it but remember he can only veto something once so if he thinks something will get passed anyways why bother delaying it, so even if he's against something sometimes he can't stop it. And please keep going, I enjoy your insight and view in matters very much.
    - GothicRoze January 7, 2012, 6:50 pm
    Okay, another thing, he promised to shut down Guantanamo Bay. Funny story...
    - Ertrov January 7, 2012, 6:57 pm
    A politician not keeping all of his promises? Blasphemy!
    - CrazyJay January 7, 2012, 7:21 pm
    I know it's common, doesn't make it any less repulsive.
    - Ertrov January 7, 2012, 7:23 pm
    Screw Guantanamo, I'm still waiting to not pay ridiculous amounts of money to see my doctor. Or the $350/mo I spend on insulin. Which by the way is almost what I pay for rent.
    - Grand6Loki January 7, 2012, 7:25 pm
    I would rather keep Guantanamo Bay,I also believe torture of prisoners that are clearly guilty of a crime and could provide more information should be legal. And I believe Obama tries to keep his promises but he isn't allowed to do what he wants, he is fought against tooth and nail by congress and other politicians.Remember just because he's president doesn't mean he can pass any law he wants to. Other people in the government are allowed to deny any bill he tries to pass.
    - GothicRoze January 7, 2012, 8:07 pm
    Torture of anyone is completely inhumane....
    - Ertrov January 7, 2012, 8:32 pm
    Agreed, torturing anything alive is just completely fucked, whether it be human or animal.
    - poopiteepoop January 7, 2012, 9:19 pm
    Hell to the yes.
    - Ertrov January 7, 2012, 9:21 pm
    I believe something in the Constitution stated "No cruel and unusual punishment". Ring a bell?
    - XxDaminalsxX January 8, 2012, 9:13 am
    Sometimes we need to do the necessary inhumane tasks that no one wants to do. Sometimes its for the greater good even though its completely fucked up.
    - GothicRoze January 8, 2012, 4:06 pm
    Its not punishment, its torture.
    - GothicRoze January 8, 2012, 4:06 pm
    That's exactly what Hitler said. (Well, not exactly, I don't think he knew English)
    - Ertrov January 8, 2012, 4:16 pm
    Hitler may have said the same thing but was is it really for the greater good, I think not. He did absolutely nothing for the greater good, what he said and did were often different things.
    - GothicRoze January 8, 2012, 4:30 pm
    So, in the case you present, the greater good is brainwashing the public into thinking all terrorists are evil, and causing physical pain to people who might not even be guilty.
    - Ertrov January 8, 2012, 4:38 pm
    - Ertrov January 8, 2012, 4:39 pm
    So let's the military suspects your dad of terrorism. They lock him up and are able to hold up for however long they want because its legal. Let's also say that the evidence they have would not hold up in court to have him detained. Does this sound fair?
    - Jjbigscreeners January 8, 2012, 7:34 pm
    Hehe, "alive". xD
    - XxDaminalsxX January 8, 2012, 8:00 pm
    And you think any of the GOP candidates will do any better?
    - defmid26 January 8, 2012, 8:13 pm
    Nope, I'm in favor of revolution.
    - Ertrov January 8, 2012, 8:38 pm
    But torture doesn't even provide reliable intel. It just brings the prisoner to the point where they will say anything (make shit up) just to get you to stop.

    If interrogaters want info, they should treat prisoners like humans, make them WANT to tell you things. Prove you're the greater good. That's how they got info out of Nazis back in WW2.
    - CrazyJay January 8, 2012, 8:51 pm
    i say its not punishment but torture because punishment is a just way to make a person pay for something they did, while torture is causing as much pain as you can to get a person to tell you information
    - GothicRoze January 10, 2012, 8:32 pm
    its not fair but its not the first time something like that has happened
    - GothicRoze January 10, 2012, 8:33 pm
    I have to say that I personally think that is total bull shit, I mean no offense to you or anyone else, I just don't think that's what really happened or would ever work. Remember the history books are written by the winners and they always make the losers seem super horrible and the winners completely awesome.
    - GothicRoze January 10, 2012, 8:36 pm
    You mean to get them to tell you what they think you want to hear so the pain will stop? Torture is not only wrong, it's useless.
    - Ertrov January 10, 2012, 9:04 pm
    Thing is, by that same logic I could say that someone like Dick Cheney is lying when he says it does work. (Which he is, many CIA interrogators have come out and said that torture was useless.) Logically, torture is too cruel and doesn't help your cause. It makes your country look REALLY bad. It's also illegal by not only your laws, but most of the western worlds as well. (if not all)
    - CrazyJay January 11, 2012, 7:33 am
    The president doesn't make laws, Congress does. He just approves or vetos it...open a fucking book
    - Smokey January 11, 2012, 8:21 am
    It does work sometimes, my family can say that with certainty.
    - GothicRoze January 12, 2012, 12:47 am
    it does work sometimes, and if I always did what my peers or other people thought was right, I would have gone to jail or gotten myself killed already
    - GothicRoze January 12, 2012, 12:48 am
    It doesn't matter if it works or not, it's disgusting and inhumane.

    Two wrongs don't make a right.
    - Ertrov January 12, 2012, 12:56 am
    Replying to Ertrov here. Wouldn't a terrorist be evil purely by definition?
    - exile March 16, 2012, 2:55 pm
  • 1

    So after watching the New Hampshire Debate that just ended, I'm seeing a problem. No one wants to go after Romney. Everyone will attack each other except for Mitt for some reason. He's leading the race but is oblivious to tough questions. Strange.

    Second, the media is clearly against Paul. They focused on the "racist newsletter" rather than have him discuss actual topics. Gave him less time compared to the others as well. Perry is self destructing. Competition is Romney/Santorum.

    It won't be Santorum/Romney for long. Since this race started, there's been a front runner ahead of Romney who ultimately sinks back to the bottom of the polls. Cain, Backman, Gingrich, Perry...Santorum is just the flavour of the month...ewwww.

    Think of the last election too. McCain wasn't always in the lead the whole time, so I don't think anything matters this early on.
    - CrazyJay January 8, 2012, 9:08 am
    The media is bought and paid for now-a-days. I think if everyone pulled thier head out of thier ass things would turn around.
    - Smokey January 11, 2012, 8:27 am
  • 1

    dont drag US politics onto sharenator !

    Why? It's good to get information out there and hear people's thoughts.
    - Jjbigscreeners January 8, 2012, 7:37 pm
    But not everyone here is A) American, B) Follows American politics, C) Gives a flip about GOP nonsense, or D)Gives a flip in general.
    - defmid26 January 8, 2012, 8:17 pm
    Then don't read. Not my problem.
    - Jjbigscreeners January 8, 2012, 8:31 pm
    It's important stuff too. Even if we can't all agree, I'd rather debate than see people happily ignore it.
    - CrazyJay January 8, 2012, 8:57 pm
    I didn't. And I am American, but I really care less about the GOP primaries because none of their views fit my political beliefs.
    - defmid26 January 8, 2012, 9:11 pm
    - Jjbigscreeners January 8, 2012, 9:51 pm
  • 1

    oh yeah obama is such an aweful president, he didnt start a war he end an war usually people get shot when they do such a stupid crap
    spongebob for president

    • Vans
    • January 8, 2012, 8:47 pm
    "oh yeah obama is such an aweful president"-*Awful*

    "he didnt start a war he end an war"- I don't even...

    "usually people get shot when they do such a stupid crap"- SWEET TITTIE SPRINKLES YOU DON'T MAKE ANY SENSE

    spongebob for president- spongebob would be an "aweful" president. Squidward 2012
    - Jozzoh January 13, 2012, 10:28 pm
    sorry that I am not an native speaker

    as far as I remember tha president who didnt want to start a war was shot

    spongebob would be the best president ever, krabby patties for everyone
    - Vans January 14, 2012, 2:50 pm
  • 1

    Im just 14 here, so forgive me for my lesser knowledge on this, but i think Ron Paul is actually a good candidate to become president. He wants to take out any/every out of country military base that is unnecessary. For example, lets say we have a military base in Japan but there is no real reason why it is there. Imagine the money the country will gain if we had all our troops back at home! this is again coming from a 14 year old and if my thoughts don't make much sense sorry! :)

    • knox
    • March 16, 2012, 1:00 pm
  • 1

    Smart People

  • 1

    Obama forever. Three words - health care reform. if you don't think that's a good thing that Obama has done then you, my friend need to take a look at the present. Countries with free health care have been far better off in medical terms than any country with a system of health insurance. Cuba, Canada, the UK, to name just a few, all have free, and excellent health care. Obama decided to make it far more like this better system but oh no, mr Paul has decided that health care reform is bad. Obama is the best hope america has. Anyone would have a hard time clearing up the shit that Bush left.

    Where's my free health care at then, brah? I been waiting for other people to pay for my doctor visits for a long time but it still costs me $ ?
    - casper667 March 20, 2012, 1:01 am
    Really expect it to be easy for him? He's been having one hell of a push for it to be better. I never said it was free right now, i said it was better.
    - Bekenel March 20, 2012, 3:15 am
  • 1

    Wasn't Santorum the one who said that everyone who listens to rock/punk/metal worshiped the anti-christ? LMAO xD

    LOL, I think we can all agree that Santorum is an idiot.
    - casper667 March 20, 2012, 11:23 am
    I despise that man, but may as well feed his ridiculous accusations \\m/.
    - Turtlestlker March 28, 2012, 9:48 pm
  • 1

    guys vote for Norris 2012, sure he is not running he is the best choice.

  • 1

    Hey as long as I get my bacon, I am happy.

Related Posts