only watched parts of the debate tonight (switching back and forth to the NFL), but was pleased to see RP nail the racist answer.

and lol at the commentators who were confused as he'll why RP has taken out perry, gingrich, and now focusing on santorum, while avoiding hitting romney thus far. it's like they've been reading kdice forums :P

>Just face it.

I'll face that you are making stuff up. The decl of independence does not define state rights and you have no evidence that states have the right to regulate sexual behavior.

Ron Paul killed it.

Here are the highlights:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvZ5D_fU39w&feature=youtube_gdata_player

ugly:

Take a look at this clause from the last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:

"and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence

Notice that "all other".

Monte: {{2012paul:2012romney::2008obama:2008clinton }}

is a flawed analogy because obama and clinton ran on almost the exact same platforms (healthcare, ending the wars, economy, etc).

paul and romney are running on almost opposite platforms (paul doesnt care if iran gets nukes, romney does, paul is for the gold standard and a bunch of other regressive bullshit, repeal of the civil rights act, romney isn't, etc)

so that dichotomy you're painting isn't real. Obama beat clinton not because her message was inferior but because obama was better liked among the establishment democrats. romney is better liked among the establishment republicans than paul and thats why he will win.

frankly, theyll accept almost any republican who can run a campaign anywhere besides into the ground and isn't paul and that's why romney will win. he is the only republican that isn't terrible at campaigning and isn't paul.

what I meant in that analogy was that the younger not-heads-up-their-asses-for-the-party-man people voted for obama, and the same is happening for paul. it's obv that the old fogey repubs will never endorse paul, you'd be blind not to see that.

okay well the difference is the old fogey democrats endorsed obama and not hillary. because they didnt like how much of an activist hillary was - obama on the other hand was a blank slate.

ron paul isn't a blank slate, he definitely has more radical views as far as republicans are concerned than hillary did as far as democrats are concerned. and the establishment democrats definitely hated hillary, just like they hate paul.

it seems the only real similarity you can draw here is that the establishment seems to always get their man.

so no, it doesnt really matter if younger people like ron paul more - young people dont vote.

just like the establishment republicans hate paul.

So Veta are you gonna take that bet? Surely you wouldn't pass on a sure thing.

oh yeah i meant to say yes. but with a revision.

we make a gentleman's agreement to pay the other person's choice of candidate's campaign once the general election starts. so if paul wins the nomination i'll donate $20 to his campaign (i like him better than romney anyway) and if romney wins you'll donate $20 to obama or whoever the democrats pick (i'm sure you like obama better than romney anyway).

i'm not really sure how we can guarantee this other than simply sending the money to one another over the internet but then again maybe it's just as easy to take a screenshot of your donation. like i said its a gentleman's wager so i'd be comfortable with either way.