www.ditl.org

I say Obama. I haven't liked Hillary since she tried to get the government involved with regulating video games. Although my old man thinks that Obama will get assassinated sometime during his first term.

Definitely Obama for me.

Looking to be a landslide here, folks.

Hillary and Obama are almost indistinguishable in "theory". What made the easy decision for me is that when you actually look at their voting record, instead of their spoken platforms, Hillary has basically enabled Bush on everything of any importance that deeply went against my beliefs regarding the Constitution, invasion of privacy, and this illegal war.

My problems with the war (police action) stem from the stated reasons for going in, and the horrible mismanagement of resources. This really should've been an 'in-and-out within a year' sort of operation. Back in 2005, I posted a blog on MySpace detailing a viable strategy to withdraw within a year; two years later, the military started implementing identical strategies (more troops, working with tribal leaders, repairing infrastructure, etc.). If I could see these strategies two years before the so-called military "experts", we clearly have some mentally-challenged folks running the operation.

If implemented in a timely manner (along with a tightly controlled border; they still haven't gotten to that one), these strategies may have worked. Now... It's probably too little, too late. The whole thing is embarassing, IMO.

Can you add an option "I would rather Fu*k a cheese grater than have either of those two"?

Any US candidates catch your eye, Teaos?

I liked Ron Paul when he was in. Damn shame he doesnt have more stage presence. He had a lot of support going into it but when the Obama-mania started...

If it weren't for his pro-life stance, and his support for a radically scaled back government, I'd agree that he's a great candidate. I'm against scaling back government oversight of corporations, at the very least (you may recall that you and I are somehow similar on the political scale).

He also lived in Surfside, where I also lived (albeit in a tent, on the beach for several months). Love the town, so the man clearly has some taste. The fact that he did pro bono surgery while living there also nets him some points with me.

Overall, his politics are uncannily similar to mine, but there are a couple of key issues that make me do a double-take. Corporations can not have free reign; try talking to my phone company or my power provider and you'll see exactly what I mean. They already have a lack of government regulation, and feel they can freely walk all over whoever they choose. Also, the whole anti-abortion angle makes me very uneasy.

If it weren't for his pro-life stance

I dont like that he is but I understand it since he has delivered about a million babies. But he doesnt want to stop you from having your choice he wants state control of it. He wants to leave it up for states to decide not the government.

Teaos wrote:

If it weren't for his pro-life stance

I dont like that he is but I understand it since he has delivered about a million babies. But he doesnt want to stop you from having your choice he wants state control of it. He wants to leave it up for states to decide not the government.

Wasn't he the guy that wanted to disband the IRS and go to flat rate tax? I know in theory that's appealing to a lot of people, especially if they make a lot of money. But really, don't we already have a society that does enough to benefit those that already have, and penalize those that have not?

Was it flat tax or fair tax he wanted?

I thought it was fair but I may be wrong...

Apparently, he believes we can abolish income tax for inividuals mostly by reducing redundant or unnecessary bureaucracy. I'm unsure of his stance on increased sales tax to make up the difference, because that would definately hurt the majority of people... Unless they just make up the difference with a 200-400% luxury tax on Bentleys, Prada, Gucci, or any other common items that are ridiculously over-priced...

Tsukiyumi wrote:Apparently, he believes we can abolish income tax for inividuals mostly by reducing redundant or unnecessary bureaucracy. I'm unsure of his stance on increased sales tax to make up the difference, because that would definately hurt the majority of people... Unless they just make up the difference with a 200-400% luxury tax on Bentleys, Prada, Gucci, or any other common items that are ridiculously over-priced...

Hell quadruple the sales tax on beamers alone and that should cover it. Such a pretentious status symbol.

Duskofdead wrote:Hell quadruple the sales tax on beamers alone and that should cover it. Such a pretentious status symbol.

Any pretentious and overpriced status symbol items, then. I think that's actually a perfectly reasonable plan.

BTW, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul here's Ron Paul. Tweak a few key issues, and he'd represent my politics exactly.