I have wished this for quite some time.

Hm - I'll have to read more into his time in the Illinois Legislature, thanks.

However, the above is still kind of hollow for me - for instance, many many many bills are co-sponsored by members of both parties, the bill is VERY specious in that the term "rebuild trust" shows an agenda beyond the bill itself, "doesn't play the game" doesn't really mean anything to me, I don't know what "working with" someone with diametrically opposed views really means since there's no real compromise to death, etc. etc. etc. - and that's kind of the problem.

Obama's message seems kind of hollow, and there doesn't seem to be much meat on his ideas (very similar to Ron Paul in my mind, just in a completely different fashion). I do agree that his message is meant to appeal to both sides of the aisle - but in doing so, I think he's done this through rhetoric alone. I realize this is not uncommon, and that's what makes me really worry that Obama really is exactly "politics as usual" instead of anything really mold-breaking. Maybe I'm out there for feeling this, though . . . but it's not like others are lining up to explain "how" or tell where the money will really come from, after all.

See, this is why we're gonna be the team to beat, MC, great minds... ;):p

Definitely do, he's certainly gotten more done there than as a freshman US Senator simply because of the politics involved in being low man on the totem pole. I never have sources at my fingertips because I read such a variety of news/magazines/etc. and because I never anticipate needing to pull them up again later.

I think it's taken Obama time to develop his ideas, and this will be a weakness for him. But what he has developed makes sense to me. For example, the issue of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants: I agree that we'd be better off if illegal immigrants had IDs, had to take driving tests, and show proof of insurance just like the rest of the population. Obama answered the question, and Hilary answered the question AND tried to turn around and be anti-illegal immigration at the same time. I don't feel like Obama feels the need to cover his ass with his answers.

*shrug* Being from Illinois gives a bunch of "woo Obama" spirit as well. Of course, as I said, I don't vote in primaries anyway so hence why so many of my candidates listed in my summary are "who to the what now?" responses.

All good dude - this all makes perfect sense to me, I just wanted to pick your brain for the same reasons you listed. Thanks!

I don't know how I missed this thread, but no matter; I'm here now.

Yeah, Ron Paul's message is radical, but in this day and hour, it is much needed. I don't like any of the other candidates, because all they will do is seal the fate of this nation.

Meaning: the Iraq war will never end, the economy will collapse, the dollar will drop to below zero, hyperinflation will occur, leading to skyrocketing crime, martial law will be imposed, the National ID Card will be implemented, dissenters of the government will be shipped off to FEMA camps, and we will be under constant monitoring and surveillance. In short it will be a draconian, Orwellian environment which will be antithetical to the true purposes of American, and life won't be worth living here anyway.

I don't know if RP will get all his plans implemented. I do know for a fact that if he doesn't, at a minimum he will try his darndest to reverse the current direction America is headed: a one-way ticket to Oceania. And that is by reducing or eliminated the most menacing and nuisance government programs. And that much is good enough for me.

My take on the other candidates
 

In short, all the other major candidates, Dem or Rep aren't going to do a dang thing to improve this country. If anything, I guarantee you they will make it worse. If you hated Bush, you'll hate tenfold any of these other media-hyped oddballs, and you will regret voting for them for the rest of your life.

Okay, here's a summary:

Republicans:

Rudy Guiliani (The Ghoul): Bush times 10, only The Ghoul is much smarter and speaks much more eloquently. Also exploits 9/11 every chance he gets.

Mitt Romney (Great Mitten): Pretty boy Mormon who thinks he can charm his way into the White House. You're gonna learn real quick, what you see is what you get. All glitter and fluff, no substance.

John McCain (Ted Baxter): Former Vietnam POW that will push the Iraq war until 2050 if he wins the White House.

Fred Thompson (Randy Watson): A boring as f[rea]k dud that has no charisma whatsoever. When he asked for a round of applause after a boring speech, I always thought that after hearing silence after that speech, he should've shouted, "SEXUAL CHOCOLATE! He would've shown just a little bit of shine after that.

Mike Huckabee (The Hucklebuck): While I admire his Christian leanings, he is just as pro-war and pro-tax as any of the others would be, and that for me is a dealbreaker. Also, some of his dirt coming to light while he was governor is equally disturbing. I do look forward to seeing him on Meet the Press next week. Tim Russert is gonna whoop his TAIL like Mike Tyson the '88 Tyson/Spinks fight and I am going to ROTFL for the next three days.

Duncan Hunter: Who?

Alan Keyes: Lis-ten up, yall, 'cause Con-di's pissed.
She's tired of you I-raq pes-si-mists. Nuff said.


Democrats

Hillary Clinton: Simply put, she literally scares the snot outta me. She will actually be worse than Bush with the damage she will do to America. Don't believe me, listen to her speech on how America must win "THE NEW WAR!" (Iran?) Aww, shoot. Hillary must get her tail whipped in the general election at any and all costs.

Barack Obama: An overrated Congressional pro-war neophyte. Nuff said.

John Edwards: Another unimpressive candidate. Nuff said.

Dennis Kucinich: Ron Paul Lite. I can work with him if he can get rid of the pro-war attitude.

Joe Biden: Who?

Chris Dodd: Who?

Bill Richardson: Who?

You obviously are not familiar with Austrian economics, and its "godfather", Ludwig Von Mises, whom Ron had studied economics under, and which serves as a cornerstone of the Libertarian movement.

Or it could be that most American are clueless to the true state of our country (read: sheep).

Actually, support for him has been so strong and fervent because if RP does not win the White House, then America as we know it is toast. It will be game over at that point. The RP supporters are trying very hard to avert that from ever happening.

I wouldn't be too sure about that.

Anyway, we'll see what happens.

Doomsday politics sell papers but don't win elections.

There is a house here with a lit up Ron Paul sign. I am sure it took them quite a while to make it. It looks like a huge lite brite.

Ron Paul while having some radical ideas, he is also the only one who would like to downsizing the Federal Government.

It seems that most of the others just want status quo and go on the same old way. Do not upset the perks given to the incumbents.

Running this country into the ground, it sure seems so.

Less expendable monies, housing with sub prime tates, credit card interest rates going up with a higher % rate and less monthly payment period.
Holiday shopping will be one of the worst in history, American Express is losing money by the fist full.

Using the Government as a cash cow when it is our money and is wasted not on the war in Iraq, but the usage of lining contractors pockets at a lose of life.

No where do I see any one of the candidates who say and do help the American peoples. Lets help illegal imagrants first and the help with the populous.

Charlie Wilsons War, maybe a good movie, but it is so true as saw a 2 hour about the real guy!

Lived high on the back of us and spent it hand over fist.

We as citizens have only so much monny that can be taken from us!:mad:

God, I want to ignore you because my stomach still turns when I think of that other thread, but I just have to ask, where do you get this?--v
One of Kucinich's mainstay issues is that he is the only Democrat running who initially voted against the Iraq war and he has continued to oppose funding for it.

Kucinich is extremely anti-war and very dissimilar from Ron Paul. Paul is a true conservative and Kucinich is about as far left as one can be. Biden and Richardson are great candidates, Richardson is probably the most qualified person running for either party. Also, you described Huckabee as being pro tax like other republicans, the republicans are against raising taxes.

Nittany, if you feel you have to qualify your inquiry by taking up for that slandering insensitive grave-pisser, I respectfully refuse to answer your question. Period, the end.

Merry Christmas.

You are correct, I meant to say pro-abortion, but I got the Iraq war heavy on the brain, so I typed that in error. Mea culpa. :o

ETA: I was comparing Kucinich to Paul in that both tend to speak truthfully and not pander to any given audience, a rare find in a political candidate in this day and age.

As for Huckabee, then why did he constantly raised or pushed to raise taxes as governor or Arkansas?