1. Sean Penn 2. George Clooney 3. Brad Pitt 4. Janeane Garofalo 5. Barbara Streisand 6. John Cusack 7. Tim Robbins 8. Ed Asner 9. Warren Beatty Any one of which would be better than any of those GOP clowns.
Wow, that list of anti American yahoos tells us all we have to know about you going forward. How's it feel living in la la land? Beam me up Scotty! LMFAO.............
"This message has been deleted by submarinepainter. Reason: it wasn't even funny" I found it humorous - I'm sure others got a chuckle out of it too, but I guess freedom of speech (and speaking the truth) is just a bad habit to break.
Haven't been around for a while so here is an update: 1. Ron Paul - 146 2. Herman Cain - 111 3. Gary Johnson - 107 4. Mitt Romney - 104 5. Jon Huntsman - 92 6. Newt Gingrich - 87 7. Rick Perry - 66 8. Michelle Bachman - 58 9. Rick Santorum - 47
Almost exactly how I'd do it: 1) Ron Paul 2) Gary Johnson 3) John Huntsman And the rest are all tied for 9th as establishment status quo.
I would also like to re-visit this assessment, given that Paul is doing so well in the early States. Perhaps his support isn't all "online" after all?
Why Because He good lookin like Dan Quayle. Right there means he'll get the woman vote.The chick vote. Plus he's a time tested Conservative.Good on all the issues. He even handled Chris Matthews well,when on - Hardball - about a month ago.Right there makes him heads above the entire lot of others.Plus he's an authentic Catholic,unlike Chris Dodd,John Kerry, Dick Durbin,Joe Biden,Patrick Leahy,and yes,Chris Matthews.
They are all a bunch of unqualified buffoons. This is typical for republican candidates since Reagan onwards.
To make the "unqualified" statement you're jumping into some pretty deep waters I'm afraid. What "qualifies" you to be President? Being a community organizer? Being a career politician? A succesfull business man? I would say that having proven integrity and demonstrating consistency and actual principles should be a start. A good understanding of economics and history would also be high on my list. Some experience in law and politics is important, as is leadership. I think that most of the Republican candidates are morons, but Newt, Romney, Paul, Perry, Santorum, Huntsman and Bachman all have some measure of those experiences. Obviously Herman Cain has absolutely no clue about anything short of how to sell pizzas. Anyone care to share some new ranking lists?
If I had to.. 1 Ron Paul 2 Harman Cain 3 Newt Gingrich 4 Perry 5 Romney Would not vote for the others with a gun to my head.
Whats with all this Ron Paul Bullsh!t.The guy is by far the Oldest. Can anyone tell me what he's famous for.Besides being the Loon in the room.I refuse to have a guy like that as Leader of this Country. I wanted someone who in the least is able to build consensus. Ron Paul is ToTally Whacked.Makes Ralph Nader seem like a Rotary Club member. Paul has never demonstrated any leadership.Santorum at least was considered an up & coming young leader in the Senate when he served.
He is old, congratulations for noticing. Yes, he is 76. Obama was 40-something, how has that worked out for ya? He has been in politics for 30 years and has essentially set the tone of Republican debate in the past 10 years. All the talk about really cutting spending and eyeing the Federal Reserve was born by Ron Paul. That is not to say he is the first to ever consider these issues, but he is the first to successfully force their importance into the greater debate. He predicted the financial crisis and warned against the housing bubble before it happened, which points to the fact that he actually knows what he is talking about when it comes to important issues of government involvement and the economy. Saying he is "totally whacked" isn't going to get you anywhere. He is the most knowledgable of any candidate on the stage, and clearly understands both economics and history. When he makes claims on foreign policy, he presents an actual argument (whether you're for or against it), citing actual studies, historical fact and CIA feedback. He simply doesn't make baseless, broad statements based on fearmongering. He doesn't pander. He doesn't speak in generalities or use the kind catch phrases of the day that would easily capture simple intellects, which is why he often gets marginalized in debates. This might surprise you, but most answers to the world's complex problems can't properly be explained to people with no attention span or underlying knowledge in under 30 seconds. That is why you don't understand Ron Paul.
He is old, congratulations for noticing. Yes, he is 76. Obama was 40-something, how has that worked out for ya? He has been in politics for 30 years and has essentially set the tone of Republican debate in the past 10 years. All the talk about really cutting spending and eyeing the Federal Reserve was born by Ron Paul. That is not to say he is the first to ever consider these issues, but he is the first to successfully force their importance into the greater debate. He predicted the financial crisis and warned against the housing bubble before it happened, which points to the fact that he actually knows what he is talking about when it comes to important issues of government involvement and the economy. Saying he is "totally whacked" isn't going to get you anywhere. He is the most knowledgable of any candidate on the stage, and clearly understands both economics and history. When he makes claims on foreign policy, he presents an actual argument (whether you're for or against it), citing actual studies, historical fact and CIA feedback. He simply doesn't make baseless, broad statements based on fearmongering. He doesn't pander. He doesn't speak in generalities or use the kind catch phrases of the day that would easily capture simple intellects, which is why he often gets marginalized in debates. This might surprise you, but most answers to the world's complex problems can't properly be explained to people with no attention span or underlying knowledge in under 30 seconds. ************************************* Some might suggest I hold a grudge against Ron Paul for some reason. That would be correct.The grudge is,he hasn't done a doggone thing,NOT One for me personally in all the years he's been in Congress.Has he shown any Leadership as a Congressman.NO.If he has then point it out.Put it on his Resume. I voted for Rand Paul,because he replaced Jim Bunning,a good Senator,a true Republican and Paul has been out,like Rick Santorum was,as a Freshman Senator driving home important points. ALL Rand's Dad is to me,is some guy with whacky notions,like the Conservative version of Bernie Sanders.I'm sorry I don't need that.I don't want that.In fact,Rand Paul almost got flushed down the toilet for voicing his Dad's Loony notions about Civil Rights,which Rachel Maddow turned into a debate about sitting at a lunch counter in the South.Ron Paul seriously needs to just find a nice comnfortable rocking chair and a corncobb pipe.
As for me... ALMOST ACCEPTABLE: 1. Ron Paul <-- supports closing the Fed and all U.S. military bases abroad 2. Gary Johnson <-- is pro-choice and anti-war 3. Jon Huntsman <-- ...is NOT a tea party supporter EVIL OPPORTUNISTS: 4. Mitt Romney 5. Michele Bachmann PLEASE DIE IN A PLANE CRASH: 6. Rick Perry 7. Newt Gingrich 8. Rick Santorum 9. Herman Cain ...But, as of right now, I am tentatively endorsing Jill Stein of the Green Party for president.
Explain how Michele Bachmann is Evil.Certainly her policy approach is as Americana as it gets.Now if you mean she has an ego and wants to be the Big Man { President } in order to feed that Ego,there is no way of knowing that short of actually Being the President. Conversely it can be argued that John Kerry is arguably still the Only Non-serving French-American President that we have.
I put her in that category essentially because she's a conservative, tea party enthusiast who likes to take credit for representing the tea party movement (whether or not the broader movement agrees). I'm against most of the tea party movement's ideas and I'm against the opportunistic egotism involved in Bachmann's campaign. I struggle to think of anything I have in common with her aside from gender. But at least she hasn't called for the assassination of her political opponents or scammed the government or grabbed an employee and forced their head into her crotch or something of this nature. That's the kind of stuff that gets you placed in the latter category on my list.
