Ron Paul - Hope for America

[cCmad]

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

"When the Paul campaign began, most of the political cognoscenti considered it a quixotic joke. Now it’s one of the hottest stories of the season. The reason for the turnaround is money. On November 5 alone, Paul took in a gigantic haul of $4.3 million...

By November, Ron Paul was getting respect from surprising and prominent places. Conservative bigthinker George Will called Paul 'my man' on ABC. Texas singer-songwriter-novelist Kinky Friedman told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that Paul is 'probably telling the truth.' Singer-songwriter John Mayer was caught on video informing a pal that 'Ron Paul knows the Constitution, and I’m down with that.' Even Eleanor Clift, conventional wisdom on the hoof, said on The McLaughlin Group that 'Ron Paul with his antiwar libertarian message will be the story coming out of New Hampshire for the Republicans.'"

Easily the best choice for President guys:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Z_gKOCb4QBA

[psi29a]

Right... so we like him because he is pro-life and a racist?

[Shaka Zulu]

Seen alot stuff I like from him that made alot of sense (almost all of it foreign policy wise, and the free trade and such), for a republican, but I knew the anti-abortion view (though he isnt advocating federal ban is he?) but the racist part is new to me? What he say(do? I mostly skimmed his overall views and speeches.


Generally, I like any yank who is an isolationists

[War Machine]

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/

I'm very impressed by some of the things he says to the point where I would consider him a libertarian, yet he falls so short on other issues. What baffles me more is that he belongs to the republican party, which if anything, it's known for being awfully conservative. So I'm left questioning his motives, is he really that against government regulation if he proposes some of his own?

[psi29a]

San Antonio Express-News English

(Copyright 1996)

A 1992 newsletter by Republican congressional candidate Ron Paul highlighted portrayals of blacks as criminally inclined and lacking sense about top political issues.

Reporting on gang crime in Los Angeles, Paul commented: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Paul, a Surfside obstetrician who won the GOP nomination in the 14th District runoff by defeating incumbent Rep. Greg Laughlin, said Wednesday he opposed racism.

He said his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."

Paul's Democratic opponent, Charles "Lefty" Morris, said many of Paul's views were "out there on the fringe" and that this fall voters would judge his commentaries.

Morris' campaign distributed selected writings by Paul this week.

Paul, a former congressman and one-time Libertarian presidential nominee, said allegations about his writings amounted to name-calling by the Democrats.

He said he'd produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers.

Writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, Paul commented about black men in the nation's capital.

Citing statistics from a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia, Paul concluded in his column:

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"These aren't my figures," Paul said this week. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report.

He also wrote: "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered "as decent people."

and...

Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, “If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” Paul said.

Paul also wrote that although “we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”

Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, “By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government” and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.

[Shaka Zulu]

Ahhhh here I was foolishly thinking there is a such thing as a republican I can like, while this dude shows sides that are of the worst possible of republicans.

[The Prince]

Seen alot stuff I like from him that made alot of sense (almost all of it foreign policy wise, and the free trade and such), for a republican, but I knew the anti-abortion view (though he isnt advocating federal ban is he?) but the racist part is new to me? What he say(do? I mostly skimmed his overall views and speeches.


Generally, I like any yank who is an isolationists

Can'r forget the whole legalizing drug issue.....

Don't know about Ron Paul himself, but from what I have observed (as well as many others) his supporters seem to have no qualms making derogatory statements toward his critics. Safe to say his supporters are very passionate.

But in terms of policy, I too would like to know what Psi would be referring to.

[MsNomer]

Ron Paul's supporters today are no more rabid or enthusiastic than Ross Perot's were... and it will have about the same impact on the electoral process. And notice? Same initials.

Ron Paul gains more media attention regarding his being excluded from things and his ability to raise funds over the internet. (Fox is excluding him from the Republican debate on Sunday while ABC is including him tonight at the same venue.) He's not gained wide spread media attention for say, coming up with a radical new way of looking at the War in Iraq and presenting an exit strategy. To my mind, the attention given to Ron Paul's presence in the campaign is like everybody at your high school noticing and gossiping about the new kid. Just because everyone is aware, doesn't mean he can win class president.

I plan to watch tonight's debate... democrats and republican debates back to back. I'll let you know if Ron Paul says anything of substance.

[The Prince]

Ron Paul's supporters today are no more rabid or enthusiastic than Ross Perot's were... and it will have about the same impact on the electoral process. And notice? Same initials.

Ron Paul gains more media attention regarding his being excluded from things and his ability to raise funds over the internet. (Fox is excluding him from the Republican debate on Sunday while ABC is including him tonight at the same venue.) He's not gained wide spread media attention for say, coming up with a radical new way of looking at the War in Iraq and presenting an exit strategy. To my mind, the attention given to Ron Paul's presence in the campaign is like everybody at your high school noticing and gossiping about the new kid. Just because everyone is aware, doesn't mean he can win class president.

I plan to watch tonight's debate... democrats and republican debates back to back. I'll let you know if Ron Paul says anything of substance.

Hope you don't mind, but I'll be using you as my new source for political news. Screw the Drudge Report.

[Buzkashi]

I've read some bad things about Ron Paul. But I've also read a lot of good things. I can handle a racist. Shit people think only white people are racist, well i'ma let you in on a litttle secret. Middle easters are some of the most racist people around. As long as he does what he promises and gets us out of half the fucking places in the world we SHOULDNT be in. Heh. But alas, I've seen footage of almost everyone who has a Gods honest chance of winning this election, at AIPAC meetings so pretty much whoever wins, we lose.

[Shaka Zulu]

That some serious bullshit right there Buz. Apologetic crap, homes.

[MsNomer]

I promised a report of anything Ron Paul said of substance and so here you are:

Paul seems to have a good grasp of the factors involved with being in a War in Iraq and why terrorists like to target the US. Unlike the other candidates, his familiarity with the socio-economic factors that create terrorism shows his grasp of the culture and the actual conditions in the area. Islam does not equal terrorism or even Radicalization, poor economic prospects do.

Additionally, Paul seemed to grasp the greater complexities of macroeconomics as they relate to the inflationary effect of printing more money to cover US expenditures on the war. This inflationary policy is more of the reason we are seeing $3+ per gallon pricing for gasoline in the US. He made the astute observation that the money we are spending in Iraq is pushing us to borrow from China and printing more dollars, devalues our dollar... I was surprised to hear him cite some basic economic theory and be attacked by the other republicans on the stage.

I monitored the debates by not only watching the broadcast but also by plugging into facebook and the comments there about Ron Paul were divided. Those who love him, really love him and those that don't... do not bother to listen to him and mock what they do hear.

I am not voting for Ron Paul because I can not agree with some of the things he has said in the past, but I can respect his positions on the war, the economy and health care.

[Tempest]

"The greatest trick The Devil ever did was to make Man believe he didn't exist."

Likewise, the greatest trick Ron Paul ever did was to make people believe he isn't completely batshit loco.



People always tout out the anti-war portions of his stance, but conveniently forget all the insane things he stands for. He's against birthright citizenship. He's against a federal ban on abortion, but that is only because he wants it to be a State's Rights issue and is himself anti-abortion. He wants to get rid of federal income tax and go back to the Gold standard. He wants to go back the the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military. He also wants us out of the UN and NATO.


Bat. Shit. Loco.

[Aetherfukz]

I believe everyone would be better for the whole world, than George Dubya Bush. Although I'd like to see Hillary Clinton become President and see how a woman on top changes things (and at least she looks better than Angela Merkel XD)... but sadly I cannot see that happen. From what I know about America, they won't vote a woman or a black man for their next president, sadly.

[MsNomer]

"The greatest trick The Devil ever did was to make Man believe he didn't exist."

Likewise, the greatest trick Ron Paul ever did was to make people believe he isn't completely batshit loco.



People always tout out the anti-war portions of his stance, but conveniently forget all the insane things he stands for. He's against birthright citizenship. He's against a federal ban on abortion, but that is only because he wants it to be a State's Rights issue and is himself anti-abortion. He wants to get rid of federal income tax and go back to the Gold standard. He wants to go back the the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military. He also wants us out of the UN and NATO.


Bat. Shit. Loco.

The only bat shit loco thing you cited was going back to the gold standard. "Don't ask, Don't tell" is still the policy of our military. Not everyone believes abortion should be illegal, and personally, as a woman, I don't think it's any of the government's business to make those decisions for me. I'm against birthright citizenship too. With all the illegal immigrants coming into this country to squat babies, it makes sense to reign in that particular loop hole. As for the UN and NATO... I haven't considered the pros and cons of that issues, but as a liberal institutionalist, I am generally in favor of building strong alliances and participating in institutions that create more interaction between nations, so I couldn't back that play.

Just because someone doesn't share your view, doesn't make them loco or bat shit, it just means they are either in possession of information you are not, or that they are looking at the issue from a different vantage point, or that they are bringing a different experience to the issue. Please, remember, opinions are like assholes, we all have one and they all stink.

[The Prince]

I believe everyone would be better for the whole world, than George Dubya Bush. Although I'd like to see Hillary Clinton become President and see how a woman on top changes things (and at least she looks better than Angela Merkel XD)... but sadly I cannot see that happen. From what I know about America, they won't vote a woman or a black man for their next president, sadly.

Sadly you're a moron.

To insinuate that Americans won't vote for the likes of Hilary or Obama because Americans, in general, are sexist and racist is absurd. Comments like these make it hard to take you seriously.

Just look at the fervor created by Obama and his campaign down in Iowa (rural america) during its recent caucous. And in the case of Hillary, up until the point of shooting herself in the foot (a half dozen times), she pretty much had a red-carpet layed out for her leading to the Whitehouse.

Wanna know what's sad? People that vote for elected officials on the basis of political correctness.

Let's stick to the issues.

"The greatest trick The Devil ever did was to make Man believe he didn't exist."

Likewise, the greatest trick Ron Paul ever did was to make people believe he isn't completely batshit loco.



People always tout out the anti-war portions of his stance, but conveniently forget all the insane things he stands for. He's against birthright citizenship. He's against a federal ban on abortion, but that is only because he wants it to be a State's Rights issue and is himself anti-abortion. He wants to get rid of federal income tax and go back to the Gold standard. He wants to go back the the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military. He also wants us out of the UN and NATO.


Bat. Shit. Loco.

Like you I disagree with many of his policy ideas, but I actually agree with a lot of his policies as well, as I'm sure many other americans. And the fact that you would call someone insane for having these stances, because they differ than your own makes you part of the problem.

I could go on forever regarding the cons of birthright citizenship (ex. In the case of illegal immigrants; Should this then render the parents, siblings, grandparents, cousins, etc of that child citizens as well or should that child be left alone to fend for himself in America?) or regarding the UN, why should taxpaying US citizens pump in tens of billions to the UN which time after time has proven itself to be completely corrupt and for the most part irrelevant?

Ron Paul ain't crazy.

Unfortunately, the same can't be stand for many of his supporters.

[Tempest]

The only bat shit loco thing you cited was going back to the gold standard. "Don't ask, Don't tell" is still the policy of our military. Not everyone believes abortion should be illegal, and personally, as a woman, I don't think it's any of the government's business to make those decisions for me. I'm against birthright citizenship too. With all the illegal immigrants coming into this country to squat babies, it makes sense to reign in that particular loop hole. As for the UN and NATO... I haven't considered the pros and cons of that issues, but as a liberal institutionalist, I am generally in favor of building strong alliances and participating in institutions that create more interaction between nations, so I couldn't back that play.

The point I was trying to make with the abortion thing was that he wants to overturn Roe V. Wade, which to me seems a bit of a lofty goal in general. Besides, wanting to go back to the Gold Standard is enough of a reason label him a wacko. That and the racism.

Just because someone doesn't share your view, doesn't make them loco or bat shit, it just means they are either in possession of information you are not, or that they are looking at the issue from a different vantage point, or that they are bringing a different experience to the issue. Please, remember, opinions are like assholes, we all have one and they all stink.

I don't mind people not sharing my belief, but if I like chocolate ice cream, my friend likes vanilla, and some guy hears us talking about it and says "I like Pickle flavored ice cream!........... and vanilla's pretty cool too." I'm not totally convinced that man is playing with a full deck of cards.

[Aetherfukz]

I believe everyone would be better for the whole world, than George Dubya Bush. Although I'd like to see Hillary Clinton become President and see how a woman on top changes things (and at least she looks better than Angela Merkel XD)... but sadly I cannot see that happen. From what I know about America, they won't vote a woman or a black man for their next president, sadly.

Sadly you're a moron.

To insinuate that Americans won't vote for the likes of Hilary or Obama because Americans, in general, are sexist and racist is absurd. Comments like these make it hard to take you seriously.

Just look at the fervor created by Obama and his campaign down in Iowa (rural america) during its recent caucous. And in the case of Hillary, up until the point of shooting herself in the foot (a half dozen times), she pretty much had a red-carpet layed out for her leading to the Whitehouse.

Wanna know what's sad? People that vote for elected officials on the basis of political correctness.

Let's stick to the issues.

Oh noes, the flamage!

Seriously. Never have I said that americans in general are sexist and racist. That is just what you interpreted because maybe YOU think so.
But take a look at the facts: John Kerry was a good candidate, had a good following and good views on things. Bush on the other hand was already prez for 4 years, waded wars like probably no other president before him, is a general failure when it comes to speeches and is not more than just a puppet of Rumsfeldchaneyrize. But what happened? Bush got elected again, despite all his failures.

What is Clinton (Billy boy) remembered for? The Lewinsky incident primarly. Probably not because he had the least budget deficit since god knows when, and all his other accomplishments.

Based on only the campaign between Bush and Kerry, it looks like a good deal of americans won't vote for the candidate with the better party platform behind him, but the one whom they simply like best because of media coverage.

I still cannot fathom how they could vote Bush for another 4 years, no matter how bad his opponent would have been. I'd rather vote a loaf of bread as president than Bush. At least the bread wouldn't wade wars just for the sake of war itself.

Would it be great if Hillary of Obama were to become president? Sure. I think that Obama will be the democrats choice though. Who will participate on the behalf of the republicans, I dunno. At least he too will be better suited than Bush.

But you have to take the facts for what they are: I didn't say the majority of americans is racist or sexist. BUT, there are racist and sexist americans, just as there are in EVERY country of the world. Dumb people aren't restricted to borders, sadly.
Anyway lets take a hypothetical percentage of 10% voters that are either racist or sexist (I have no clue how much are, but bear with me for this gedankenexperiment). They will not under any circumstances vote for a woman or african american as their next president. The percentages of votes for each of the democratic and republican wannabe prez will probably be around 40-60%. I don't believe one will have something close to 80% of the votes, that would be a landslide victory and wouldn't be affected by a minority of voters. Recent elections have shown that often it comes down to the very last states to decide who will be finally elected because votes are close.
So when both candidates are close to 50% because the majority of voters are split, then take into account the 10% (or how many) percent that I spoke of before. Guess who will win by a few percent then?

If you deny the fact that there are racist and sexist people in the country, you are just showing dumbness. So the democrats not only have to get more than 50% of the voters to vote for them, they have to take into account that they will need 50% + however much racist and sexist people there are to win.

Therefore the democrats will have to literally own the opposition so their candidate will win. If it's a close call, the republican conservative will probably take the race.

[MsNomer]

Seriously. Never have I said that americans in general are sexist and racist. That is just what you interpreted because maybe YOU think so.
But take a look at the facts: John Kerry was a good candidate, had a good following and good views on things. Bush on the other hand was already prez for 4 years, waded wars like probably no other president before him, is a general failure when it comes to speeches and is not more than just a puppet of Rumsfeldchaneyrize. But what happened? Bush got elected again, despite all his failures.

What is Clinton (Billy boy) remembered for? The Lewinsky incident primarly. Probably not because he had the least budget deficit since god knows when, and all his other accomplishments.

Based on only the campaign between Bush and Kerry, it looks like a good deal of americans won't vote for the candidate with the better party platform behind him, but the one whom they simply like best because of media coverage.

I still cannot fathom how they could vote Bush for another 4 years, no matter how bad his opponent would have been. I'd rather vote a loaf of bread as president than Bush. At least the bread wouldn't wade wars just for the sake of war itself.

Seriously? Mr. Bush's second term in office (and that is how he is generally referred to in our media not President Bush as is custom) continues to be subject to almost as much suspicion as his first term. There are few intelligent people in this country that believe he was ever elected. Too many people were prevented from voting in the last election and too many cast votes (see Ohio, see absentee ballots) went uncounted. It wasn't as if he ever had a mandate from the people... the election results we were given indicate it was still divided right down the middle. Irregularities not withstanding, his win of the popular vote was marginal. Check out this link for a map of the voting problems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004 ... rsyMap.jpg

You can find a lot of other interesting information and graphs here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presi ... ontroversy When looking at the map of the United States that depicts the popular vote by state or county, keep in mind that the center of this country, from the Mississippi River to the Rocky Mountains, is largely unpopulated, particularly when compared to the areas depicted in blue (Democratic/Kerry voters).

As for Clinton, he is remembered for a lot of other things than his dalliance with Monica. The work he did on the deficit is getting a lot of buzz these days. Try getting your news from sources other than The Daily Show and Jay Leno's monologue.

As for Hillary, she has finally opened the door on the 2 for 1 aspect of her election to the presidency, following in the footsteps of her husband's campaign that tauted her as an asset. If you watched the Double debates televised by ABC, you will have noticed when she fired a volley citing her husband's record on the deficit as something she can bring to the White House.

[Aetherfukz]

Try getting your news from sources other than The Daily Show and Jay Leno's monologue.

I have never seen any of those daily shows. As I live in europe, I get my news through second media (as in european news stations that report what american ones told) or the internet, though mostly the internet. Google News, DPA, etc.

[Albator]

Because as we all know, Wikipedia is the most reliable source for politics.

As for the voting controversy during the 1st election, fair enough. However I haven't seen too much problems regarding the second one like for the 1st one. It is customary for the losing side to systematically contest the voting results, but that's that. Not only in the US, everywhere they point irregularities. ANd, as in others elections around the world, they then shut up. It seems to me that people willingly gave Bush his second term, whether you like it or not, and for whatever reason.

Edit: I understand the point about the popular vote. However the US system has sent republicans AND democrats to the white house, so it is not the system or Bush's fault, it is the people who voted for him. He actually had the honesty to not sway from his bullshit to be reelected, he sticked to it, and voters ate it, I don't know why.

[Aetherfukz]

Because as we all know, Wikipedia is the most reliable source for politics.

Hehe. Also OMG -

The Wikimedia Foundation servers are currently experiencing technical difficulties.

The problem is most likely temporary and will hopefully be fixed soon. Please check back in a few minutes.

First time I've seen that wikipedia has problems with their servers. Hope it doesn't have anything to do with their financal situation.

[The Prince]

Seriously. Never have I said that americans in general are sexist and racist. That is just what you interpreted because maybe YOU think so.
But take a look at the facts: John Kerry was a good candidate, had a good following and good views on things. Bush on the other hand was already prez for 4 years, waded wars like probably no other president before him, is a general failure when it comes to speeches and is not more than just a puppet of Rumsfeldchaneyrize. But what happened? Bush got elected again, despite all his failures.

What is Clinton (Billy boy) remembered for? The Lewinsky incident primarly. Probably not because he had the least budget deficit since god knows when, and all his other accomplishments.

Based on only the campaign between Bush and Kerry, it looks like a good deal of americans won't vote for the candidate with the better party platform behind him, but the one whom they simply like best because of media coverage.

I still cannot fathom how they could vote Bush for another 4 years, no matter how bad his opponent would have been. I'd rather vote a loaf of bread as president than Bush. At least the bread wouldn't wade wars just for the sake of war itself.

Seriously? Mr. Bush's second term in office (and that is how he is generally referred to in our media not President Bush as is custom) continues to be subject to almost as much suspicion as his first term. There are few intelligent people in this country that believe he was ever elected. Too many people were prevented from voting in the last election and too many cast votes (see Ohio, see absentee ballots) went uncounted. It wasn't as if he ever had a mandate from the people... the election results we were given indicate it was still divided right down the middle. Irregularities not withstanding, his win of the popular vote was marginal. Check out this link for a map of the voting problems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004 ... rsyMap.jpg

You can find a lot of other interesting information and graphs here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presi ... ontroversy When looking at the map of the United States that depicts the popular vote by state or county, keep in mind that the center of this country, from the Mississippi River to the Rocky Mountains, is largely unpopulated, particularly when compared to the areas depicted in blue (Democratic/Kerry voters).

So inevitably the discussion has regressed into another tired out bash George Bush thread. What a suprise!

BTW.....Where are the links for George Bush being behind 911 and the AIDs epidemic?

[The Prince]

Seriously. Never have I said that americans in general are sexist and racist. That is just what you interpreted because maybe YOU think so.

......

This is what you said.

"Although I'd like to see Hillary Clinton become President and see how a woman on top changes things (and at least she looks better than Angela Merkel XD)... but sadly I cannot see that happen. From what I know about America, they won't vote a woman or a black man for their next president, sadly."

What was I thinking? (sarcasm)

But you have to take the facts for what they are: I didn't say the majority of americans is racist or sexist. BUT, there are racist and sexist americans, just as there are in EVERY country of the world. Dumb people aren't restricted to borders, sadly.

Good job at back-tracking.

Anyway lets take a hypothetical percentage of 10% voters that are either racist or sexist (I have no clue how much are, but bear with me for this gedankenexperiment). They will not under any circumstances vote for a woman or african american as their next president. The percentages of votes for each of the democratic and republican wannabe prez will probably be around 40-60%. I don't believe one will have something close to 80% of the votes, that would be a landslide victory and wouldn't be affected by a minority of voters. Recent elections have shown that often it comes down to the very last states to decide who will be finally elected because votes are close.
So when both candidates are close to 50% because the majority of voters are split, then take into account the 10% (or how many) percent that I spoke of before. Guess who will win by a few percent then?

Hmmm.....let me guess those racist/sexist Republicans?

Is that your logic?

I guarantee that for every person who would vote AGAINST Hilary or Obama based on gender and ethnicity, there is going to be someone that votes FOR Hilary or Obama specifically because of their gender or ethnicity.

If you deny the fact that there are racist and sexist people in the country, you are just showing dumbness. So the democrats not only have to get more than 50% of the voters to vote for them, they have to take into account that they will need 50% + however much racist and sexist people there are to win.

Therefore the democrats will have to literally own the opposition so their candidate will win. If it's a close call, the republican conservative will probably take the race

Because conservatives are racist....I got it, I got it!

Once again your just using blanket logic to pigeon-hole people into being racist and sexist. Are we to assume that any fringe independent who would decide to vote for a republican candidate over a Obama or Hilary, regardless of the issues, are racist and sexist?

What is Clinton (Billy boy) remembered for? The Lewinsky incident primarly. Probably not because he had the least budget deficit since god knows when, and all his other accomplishments.

You don't give Clinton enough credit:

- Initiated a massive firebombing campaign over Kosovo to divert "genocide"/ headlines from the Monica Lewinski debacle. Yet stood idley by when 100,000's of Rwandan women and children were massacred, despite being fully briefed on the situation days.

- Pardoned 100's of criminals due to special interest considerations at the end of his second term.

- Clinton's national security advisor Sandy Berger stole highly classified terrorism documents from the National Archives, destroyed them and lied to investigators (Ironically is now an adviser to Hillary's campaign)

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance

- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*

- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation

- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify

- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly

- First president sued for sexual harassment.

- First president accused of rape.

- First first lady to come under criminal investigation

- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case

- First president to establish a legal defense fund.

- First president to be held in contempt of court

- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions

- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad

- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

......For starters

[Starnum]

Clinton wasn't actually impeached dude.

Aether, it did kind of sound like you were calling all Americans racist and sexist, but it's whatever. I don't really believe in the presidential electoral system, but if I were going to vote for someone, it wouldn't be based on either sex or race. With that said, I just don't want Hilary Clinton as president, and it has nothing to do with her being a woman. I actually think it could be cool to have someone other than a white man as president, if they deserve the position. I might vote for Obama, or even Ron Paul if he's on the bill. However, chances are I won't vote at all. It's all a lie anyway.