Republican Candidates

simcha

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Posts
2,173
Media
0
Likes
26
Points
268
Location
San Leandro, CA, USA
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I think that I'd pick Huckabee from among all of the Rapethepublicans. He'd be such an easy target for us Demoncrats. He doesn't even believe in evolution. And most Americans, contrary to the whacko right wing element of the Rapethepublican party, want separation between Church and State to continue. He's a Southern Baptist Minister and there is NO WAY he could keep Church and matters of State separate. It would be like electing a Rabbi, Priest, or Shaman to president.

(BTW "Typo" intended in spelling "Demoncrats.") *wink*
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Nice research, Justasking. Ron Paul has some serious flaws in his interpretation of the law.

I will be voting for Mike Huckabee. He is a friend of mine and I believe he will make the better president. He is not rich and never will be. We have picked guitars with each other many times. He is very talented and a very smart man.

I can not vote for Obama, Clinton, Gulianni, Romney, or Paul.

By the way, Monster, hillbillies are NOT in Texas, they are in Arkansas and Missouri. Hillbillies come from the Ozark Mountains. I should know, I am one...and PROUD! Cowboys and Rednecks are in Texas.
I think the campaign trail benefits from Ron Paul's straightforward and unflinching positions regardless of how extreme they are. Many things he says makes perfect sense. Ross Pero served the same purpose in the election he participated in. His presence forced the candidates back to the issues. However, Ron Paul is surrounded by every wacky fringe group in the nation, including white supremicists and "taxes are illegal" freaks.

I have somewhat of a libertarian streak in me, but that is only one facet of Ron Paul. I have to admit I am impressed at how he has managed to capture the "internet vote". During the weekend debate, he mentioned that he and Obama are similar in that they both have captured the youth vote. He laughed at how unlikely that really is even though it is true.
 

dazedandconfused

Just Browsing
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Posts
357
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I dont vote replubican because they always stand for hate, your reponse to my post is a typical backwoods hillbilly response.

First off, saying you do not vote for Republicans because they hate and then are derogatory in calling somone a hillbily is irony at it's finest.

Second, there is a lot of hate in the republican party, I cannot deny that. However, the democrats have a lot of hate to go around.

Arguably, the most racist man in America calls himself a democrat and has run for President multiple times (Jesse Jackson).

Also, a democrat threw three INNOCENT (please do not argue with me on this point. There is no evidence of AT ALL of sexual assault) men under the bus and used a poor, insane African-American to win an election and public support in the Duke lacrosse fiasco. It was left-wing nut jobs in the faculty who implored President Broadhead to suspend the team (and some even kick the players off campus) with absolutely no evidence. It was liberal nut job professors who signed a listening statement which pubically berating the lacrosse team for allegations that had not at all been proven. Again, it was left-wing nut jobs who protested with signs such as "castrate" at the lacrosse with, again, no evidence a crime other than underage drinking occured.

Lastly, it was liberal nut-jobs who had the idea to have a residence life program at Delaware that required mandatory one on ones between RA's and residents to try to brainwash diversity in residents and ask questions such as "what age where you when you discovered what your sexual identity is?" Also, the handbook clearly stated "all whites are racist and non-whites cannot be racist."

Democrats= party that hates white men and white men who sympathize with the white men hate.
 

like2playwbd

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Posts
74
Media
1
Likes
2
Points
91
Location
Dallas
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Easy...Ron Paul.

He's the only candidate in the lineup who has the first clue what he's talking about.

I watched the NH debates dumbfounded as all those other douchebags sat there and conteded with utter sincerity that our foreign policies of previous years have absolutely no bearing on why radical fundamentalists profess such hatred of the USA.

Totally agree:smile:
 

B_Italian1

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Posts
1,661
Media
0
Likes
13
Points
183
Location
United Steaks
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I dont vote replubican because they always stand for hate, your reponse to my post is a typical backwoods hillbilly response.

Monster, that's not true. That's like saying all Italians are mobsters and the Irish are all drunks.



I like McCain and think he'd make a good president. I just don't like his age. I can't even imagine being a president at my age. I'm not so sure a man 70+ will be able to handle world travel, stress, keeping up his energy level, and everything else that goes with being the president. I'd like to see him a vice president, as his knowledge of foreign affairs is superb. His book, Faith of my Fathers, was a good read. The guy went through hell as a POW.
 

OldPArtner

Just Browsing
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Posts
167
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Age
39
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I'd probably vote for Romney or Thompson, in hopes that the glimmers of support for progressive causes displayed by both of them indicate that they are secretly moderate and just playing to the base right now.

A much safer choice would be John McCain, because he is a serious, principled, and honest candidate who is dedicated to cutting the waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal budget, even though he is a diehard supporter of Iraq and more generally a consistent conservative; also, though I despise Ron Paul's racism and some of his more extreme policies, in reality if he became President the only part of his platform that wouldn't get shot down by huge bipartisan majorities in Congress would be his isolationist foreign policy, and considering how shattered our international reputation has become because of Iraq, staying the hell away from military intervention (even that which is justifiable, like Obama's plan to invade Pakistan to finally get Osama bin Laden) for four years doesn't sound so bad after all.

I used to be a huge fan of Giuliani until I learned his position on free spech and his infamous suppression of dissent as mayor, not to mention his incompetent handling of security pre-9/11 and of the rescue effort post-9/11.
 

Qua

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2007
Posts
1,600
Media
63
Likes
1,260
Points
583
Location
Boston (Massachusetts, United States)
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
This is the kind of nonsense that scares me about Ron Paul supporters. I am all for limited government power, but I am not for spreading around groundless lunacy about income tax laws. Qua, I invite you to conisder the following:

The federal tax laws are contained in the Internal Revenue Code, also known as Title 26 of the United States Code, which is the compilation of laws passed by the Congress (“Title” basically means “Volume” when applied to the U.S. Code as a whole, so Title 26 is what might more casually be called Volume 26).
The Internal Revenue Code is the law that requires people to pay taxes (and yes, the Internal Revenue Code is a law ).
The most important statutory provision with regard to income taxes is section one of the tax code, 26 U.S.C. § 1. This is the section that actually imposes the income tax. It’s very simply written. If you are unmarried, the relevant provision is § 1(c), which states:

"There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual . . . who is not a married individual a tax determined in accordance with the following table:"
followed by a table specifying the tax rates on various income amounts. If you are married, you are covered by the similar provision at § 1(a). There are also a couple of other possible filing statuses covered elsewhere in § 1 (such as “head of household”), but the basic point is that section 1 imposes an income tax.

Section 1, it will be observed, imposes the tax on your “taxable income.” How do you know what that is? Section 63 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. § 63, defines “taxable income” to mean “gross income minus the deductions allowed” by chapter 1 of the Code, so now we need to know what “gross income” is. So we turn to section 61 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. § 61, which provides the critical definition:
[G]ross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
. . .

Now, how do you know that you have to file a tax return and actually pay the tax? Section 6151 of the code, 26 U.S.C. § 6151, says:
"[W]hen a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return)."

You can look up the above statutes yourself in any law library (just ask the librarian to help you find Title 26 of the United States Code.) These statutes demonstrate that the claim that there is no law requiring anyone to file income tax returns or pay income tax is complete nonsense.


However, income as defined by the Supreme Court in Bowers v Kerbaugh-Empire co. essentially means gains or profits from labor, not direct compensation for it.

I'm not one for one sided documentaries, but Aaron Russo's America: From Freedom to Fascism debunks this myth. I suggest everyone watch the whole thing objectively, without buying his hyperbolic narration

YouTube - America: From Freedom to Fascism (part 1 of 11)
 

ClaireTalon

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Posts
1,917
Media
0
Likes
16
Points
183
Age
60
Location
Puget Sound
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female

RedScrotum

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
May 27, 2007
Posts
2,077
Media
3
Likes
2,487
Points
443
Location
Iowa, USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
Easy...Ron Paul.

He's the only candidate in the lineup who has the first clue what he's talking about.

I watched the NH debates dumbfounded as all those other douchebags sat there and conteded with utter sincerity that our foreign policies of previous years have absolutely no bearing on why radical fundamentalists profess such hatred of the USA.

he's also the only candidate to mention, and vote along the lines of, the constitution. and the only senator that the lobbiests won't waste their time trying to influence.
 

B_Monster

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Posts
4,508
Media
0
Likes
45
Points
183
Age
43
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Monster, that's not true. That's like saying all Italians are mobsters and the Irish are all drunks.



I like McCain and think he'd make a good president. I just don't like his age. I can't even imagine being a president at my age. I'm not so sure a man 70+ will be able to handle world travel, stress, keeping up his energy level, and everything else that goes with being the president. I'd like to see him a vice president, as his knowledge of foreign affairs is superb. His book, Faith of my Fathers, was a good read. The guy went through hell as a POW.


Name one republican thats for gay right?
 

B_Monster

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Posts
4,508
Media
0
Likes
45
Points
183
Age
43
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
I don't know what his religious is.

I think he's realistic enough not to run. He'd be well aware that he's too liberal [gasp!] to get the GOP nomination.


He went to Brigham Young is the reason I ask about his religion, It doesnt matter to me if he is or not, religion shouldn't play a part in it but, it does.