US: The Republican Race for the Presidency

RifRad wrote:

SuperByNature wrote:

RifRad wrote:

With all the mudslinging that's been going on in the Republican party, I'm amazed that anyone would choose even one of the canidates. On Casey's point, the country was not handed to him on a silver platter. In fact, if anything, he was trying to catch it on it's way to the floor. No matter what, even if McCain had been elected, we'd still be in the (yes, I'm about to call it what it is because it is) depression we are in today.
I'd love to go on forever about the terribleness of our government today, but all I'd be doing is shouting at a brick wall. What I say here won't really matter in the end. No offense, but I don't think any of you have any high ranking government offices. If so, I'm even more dissappointed in our government.

On another note, why is Stephen Colbert not on your list? He's damn near the reason Huntsman dropped out. He was polling one percent more than him in South Carolina.

well you don't have a high ranking government office either. so what was the point of making that comment?

To be honest? Not quite sure. I guess I was hoping I could cure some ignorance, but your prior post shows that mine did not help. What was so confusing about his plan to you?

well the plan where he was going to lower taxes, not cut enough government spending to be able to lower taxes, and on top of that, throw billions and billions to try and stimulate the economy, when very little of it was going to actually circulate to the people, which would actually stimulate. instead, it went to roads and stuff like that (which a plan like that already was tried and failed in america, partially leading to the great panic of 1837, which was far worse than even the great depression).

SuperByNature wrote:

RifRad wrote:

SuperByNature wrote:

RifRad wrote:

With all the mudslinging that's been going on in the Republican party, I'm amazed that anyone would choose even one of the canidates. On Casey's point, the country was not handed to him on a silver platter. In fact, if anything, he was trying to catch it on it's way to the floor. No matter what, even if McCain had been elected, we'd still be in the (yes, I'm about to call it what it is because it is) depression we are in today.
I'd love to go on forever about the terribleness of our government today, but all I'd be doing is shouting at a brick wall. What I say here won't really matter in the end. No offense, but I don't think any of you have any high ranking government offices. If so, I'm even more dissappointed in our government.

On another note, why is Stephen Colbert not on your list? He's damn near the reason Huntsman dropped out. He was polling one percent more than him in South Carolina.

well you don't have a high ranking government office either. so what was the point of making that comment?

To be honest? Not quite sure. I guess I was hoping I could cure some ignorance, but your prior post shows that mine did not help. What was so confusing about his plan to you?

well the plan where he was going to lower taxes, not cut enough government spending to be able to lower taxes, and on top of that, throw billions and billions to try and stimulate the economy, when very little of it was going to actually circulate to the people, which would actually stimulate. instead, it went to roads and stuff like that (which a plan like that already was tried and failed in america, partially leading to the great panic of 1837, which was far worse than even the great depression).

Well, looks like you are somewhat versed in you U.S. history. And current events for that matter. Though, I don't think you quite understand what he had wanted to do.

Whether you'll admit to it or not, I believe just about every candidate has stated that they are going to cut taxes and spending, but usually, nothing gets done about it anyways. What many people fail to realize though, is that it is not the president's fault that nothing gets done, it's Congress's, which, for the past few years, has stopped any change that appears too radical for the Republican majority, which means just about any change. Yes, Obama wanted to raise taxes, but have you noticed how indebt we are? Sooner or later, a country like China or the Ex-Soviet Union is going to come along and nail us for it. While raising taxes by even 1% wouldn't really do much for that, we might at least be able to develop jobs in government for still unemployed people.

That's another problem in the U.S.. Jobs. I wonder if you might know of another time when the U.S. got itself out of it's near 10% unemployment rate? Just after the Great Depression, at the beginning of WWII. Why? Because we needed shit to be made for war. It dropped below 2% within a few years. Now, either we need a war, or we need to start getting our shit together, allowing our government to make stuff by using the money we give them so they may give it back.

What's depressing about this is that it's Republicans once again, making sure that there isn't tax equality. The rich aren't taxed as much as the poor which is sad. While it makes sense that everyone should pay the same amount, it also makes sense that everyone should pay the same percent.

I'd go into it more and I probably will later, but I figure I should quit this, especially because it's hopeless.

Anyways... Let's go Ron Paul! Woo!

RifRad wrote:

SuperByNature wrote:

RifRad wrote:

SuperByNature wrote:

RifRad wrote:

With all the mudslinging that's been going on in the Republican party, I'm amazed that anyone would choose even one of the canidates. On Casey's point, the country was not handed to him on a silver platter. In fact, if anything, he was trying to catch it on it's way to the floor. No matter what, even if McCain had been elected, we'd still be in the (yes, I'm about to call it what it is because it is) depression we are in today.
I'd love to go on forever about the terribleness of our government today, but all I'd be doing is shouting at a brick wall. What I say here won't really matter in the end. No offense, but I don't think any of you have any high ranking government offices. If so, I'm even more dissappointed in our government.

On another note, why is Stephen Colbert not on your list? He's damn near the reason Huntsman dropped out. He was polling one percent more than him in South Carolina.

well you don't have a high ranking government office either. so what was the point of making that comment?

To be honest? Not quite sure. I guess I was hoping I could cure some ignorance, but your prior post shows that mine did not help. What was so confusing about his plan to you?

well the plan where he was going to lower taxes, not cut enough government spending to be able to lower taxes, and on top of that, throw billions and billions to try and stimulate the economy, when very little of it was going to actually circulate to the people, which would actually stimulate. instead, it went to roads and stuff like that (which a plan like that already was tried and failed in america, partially leading to the great panic of 1837, which was far worse than even the great depression).

Well, looks like you are somewhat versed in you U.S. history. And current events for that matter. Though, I don't think you quite understand what he had wanted to do.

Whether you'll admit to it or not, I believe just about every candidate has stated that they are going to cut taxes and spending, but usually, nothing gets done about it anyways. What many people fail to realize though, is that it is not the president's fault that nothing gets done, it's Congress's, which, for the past few years, has stopped any change that appears too radical for the Republican majority, which means just about any change. Yes, Obama wanted to raise taxes, but have you noticed how indebt we are? Sooner or later, a country like China or the Ex-Soviet Union is going to come along and nail us for it. While raising taxes by even 1% wouldn't really do much for that, we might at least be able to develop jobs in government for still unemployed people.

That's another problem in the U.S.. Jobs. I wonder if you might know of another time when the U.S. got itself out of it's near 10% unemployment rate? Just after the Great Depression, at the beginning of WWII. Why? Because we needed shit to be made for war. It dropped below 2% within a few years. Now, either we need a war, or we need to start getting our shit together, allowing our government to make stuff by using the money we give them so they may give it back.

What's depressing about this is that it's Republicans once again, making sure that there isn't tax equality. The rich aren't taxed as much as the poor which is sad. While it makes sense that everyone should pay the same amount, it also makes sense that everyone should pay the same percent.

I'd go into it more and I probably will later, but I figure I should quit this, especially because it's hopeless.

Anyways... Let's go Ron Paul! Woo!

you do have some good points

the house does control spending. and well, to add to what you said, in the middle of the depression, unemployment rates were 25%. the panic of 1837, 33%, recovering in 6 years. however, saying war, i really don't understand how war would fit into any of this, except for maybe condoning the bush administration going into war (well, conflict, not war by 1 vote). and i do believe in tax equality. democrats try and favor the poor by taxing the shit out of the rich, republicans just the opposite. that's why i am slowly leaning towards being moderate.

and here's the thing i think, democrat/republican. this two party shit has to go. all party system's, i think, should be gone. you see, my family is mostly republican. my family basically taught me about being conservative over being liberal and all this shit. and so when i look at someone who has a different belief, or is acting what i feel is democrat, i look at it a little bias. even if they use the same logic i have used to defend a previous republican president. don't worry, this has a point. anyways, i believe that if a person like me, who is trying hard to see something unbiased, yet still failing, that others won't be trying hard to not be bias. they vote democrat, see that it didn't work, then go the opposite extreme and vote republican. then when that doesn't work, they vote back in democrat. there is no time for a group to actually help the nation, its too busy bickering. a house divided against itself cannot stand. and that is what the nation is right now.

RifRad wrote:

Jericho wrote:

At least you don't have a woman running your country ...

Oh, come on, a constitutional monarchy can't be THAT bad.

Dude I could putting out ALL her flaws but we would be here all night

SuperByNature wrote:

RifRad wrote:

SuperByNature wrote:

RifRad wrote:

SuperByNature wrote:

RifRad wrote:

With all the mudslinging that's been going on in the Republican party, I'm amazed that anyone would choose even one of the canidates. On Casey's point, the country was not handed to him on a silver platter. In fact, if anything, he was trying to catch it on it's way to the floor. No matter what, even if McCain had been elected, we'd still be in the (yes, I'm about to call it what it is because it is) depression we are in today.
I'd love to go on forever about the terribleness of our government today, but all I'd be doing is shouting at a brick wall. What I say here won't really matter in the end. No offense, but I don't think any of you have any high ranking government offices. If so, I'm even more dissappointed in our government.

On another note, why is Stephen Colbert not on your list? He's damn near the reason Huntsman dropped out. He was polling one percent more than him in South Carolina.

well you don't have a high ranking government office either. so what was the point of making that comment?

To be honest? Not quite sure. I guess I was hoping I could cure some ignorance, but your prior post shows that mine did not help. What was so confusing about his plan to you?

well the plan where he was going to lower taxes, not cut enough government spending to be able to lower taxes, and on top of that, throw billions and billions to try and stimulate the economy, when very little of it was going to actually circulate to the people, which would actually stimulate. instead, it went to roads and stuff like that (which a plan like that already was tried and failed in america, partially leading to the great panic of 1837, which was far worse than even the great depression).

Well, looks like you are somewhat versed in you U.S. history. And current events for that matter. Though, I don't think you quite understand what he had wanted to do.

Whether you'll admit to it or not, I believe just about every candidate has stated that they are going to cut taxes and spending, but usually, nothing gets done about it anyways. What many people fail to realize though, is that it is not the president's fault that nothing gets done, it's Congress's, which, for the past few years, has stopped any change that appears too radical for the Republican majority, which means just about any change. Yes, Obama wanted to raise taxes, but have you noticed how indebt we are? Sooner or later, a country like China or the Ex-Soviet Union is going to come along and nail us for it. While raising taxes by even 1% wouldn't really do much for that, we might at least be able to develop jobs in government for still unemployed people.

That's another problem in the U.S.. Jobs. I wonder if you might know of another time when the U.S. got itself out of it's near 10% unemployment rate? Just after the Great Depression, at the beginning of WWII. Why? Because we needed shit to be made for war. It dropped below 2% within a few years. Now, either we need a war, or we need to start getting our shit together, allowing our government to make stuff by using the money we give them so they may give it back.

What's depressing about this is that it's Republicans once again, making sure that there isn't tax equality. The rich aren't taxed as much as the poor which is sad. While it makes sense that everyone should pay the same amount, it also makes sense that everyone should pay the same percent.

I'd go into it more and I probably will later, but I figure I should quit this, especially because it's hopeless.

Anyways... Let's go Ron Paul! Woo!

you do have some good points

the house does control spending. and well, to add to what you said, in the middle of the depression, unemployment rates were 25%. the panic of 1837, 33%, recovering in 6 years. however, saying war, i really don't understand how war would fit into any of this, except for maybe condoning the bush administration going into war (well, conflict, not war by 1 vote). and i do believe in tax equality. democrats try and favor the poor by taxing the shit out of the rich, republicans just the opposite. that's why i am slowly leaning towards being moderate.

and here's the thing i think, democrat/republican. this two party shit has to go. all party system's, i think, should be gone. you see, my family is mostly republican. my family basically taught me about being conservative over being liberal and all this shit. and so when i look at someone who has a different belief, or is acting what i feel is democrat, i look at it a little bias. even if they use the same logic i have used to defend a previous republican president. don't worry, this has a point. anyways, i believe that if a person like me, who is trying hard to see something unbiased, yet still failing, that others won't be trying hard to not be bias. they vote democrat, see that it didn't work, then go the opposite extreme and vote republican. then when that doesn't work, they vote back in democrat. there is no time for a group to actually help the nation, its too busy bickering. a house divided against itself cannot stand. and that is what the nation is right now.

Wow, thank you for that. That was actually very humbling. I can really connect with what you mean by being raised under a certain bias. It's true, the two party thing is really not working for the U.S., but so far, we don't have much of a choice. So far. I understand completely what you mean, too, voting back and forth. We need to start having a more stable government would be the best term for it. Many candidates have the same points and beliefs as each other, whether Republican or Democrat, and I might even consider voting (even though I'm not exactly old enough too) for Republicans if they were better represented. None of the candidates this year have made much of an impact except in the media. Cain and Gingrich with all of their personal past problems, I believe Romney has some shady friends supporting his Superpac (big thing that I hate about these campaigns are the Superpacs. Way to much money put into them.) and a few other things. On top of that, conservative news programs have not been doing too well with all this covering.

Fox and CNN haven't been doing the best job at covering the news about the government. They're very uninformed. There was a story a week or two ago about a Halloween Party that the President had had that the Fox anchors thought was being covered up. It was this big party and I believe Johnny Depp had been there and the even hired the real Chewy. They were very into this, on how much money was spent and how the President tried to cover it up, while in fact, it had been very much covered during Halloween. It was actually a fund raiser and there is a lot of video and photo evidence of it happening. (I know I'm going on a bit of a rant here, but it kinda makes me angry. I watch John Stewart and Stephen Colbert a lot and I get it from them.)

Anyways, I understand where you're coming from. I really think the U.S. has to get it's shit together and start agreeing with itself, otherwise, we'll either go nowhere, or somewhere bad, really fast.

John TPA wrote:

RifRad wrote:

Jericho wrote:

At least you don't have a woman running your country ...

Oh, come on, a constitutional monarchy can't be THAT bad.

Dude I could putting out ALL her flaws but we would be here all night

Well, I guess I can't really talk. I haven't studied much of British government. I thought she was more there for the look of it and Parliment did most of the actual governing.

RifRad wrote:

John TPA wrote:

RifRad wrote:

Jericho wrote:

At least you don't have a woman running your country ...

Oh, come on, a constitutional monarchy can't be THAT bad.

Dude I could putting out ALL her flaws but we would be here all night

Well, I guess I can't really talk. I haven't studied much of British government. I thought she was more there for the look of it and Parliment did most of the actual governing.

They're Australian, not British...

Jarrett wrote:

RifRad wrote:

John TPA wrote:

RifRad wrote:

Jericho wrote:

At least you don't have a woman running your country ...

Oh, come on, a constitutional monarchy can't be THAT bad.

Dude I could putting out ALL her flaws but we would be here all night

Well, I guess I can't really talk. I haven't studied much of British government. I thought she was more there for the look of it and Parliment did most of the actual governing.

They're Australian, not British...

Exactly.

Julia runs our country and is the worst person to be running it.

John TPA wrote:

Jarrett wrote:

RifRad wrote:

John TPA wrote:

RifRad wrote:

Jericho wrote:

At least you don't have a woman running your country ...

Oh, come on, a constitutional monarchy can't be THAT bad.

Dude I could putting out ALL her flaws but we would be here all night

Well, I guess I can't really talk. I haven't studied much of British government. I thought she was more there for the look of it and Parliment did most of the actual governing.

They're Australian, not British...

Exactly.

Julia runs our country and is the worst person to be running it.

Oh! Sorry about that! That doesn't change much. I haven't looked into Australia's government either. I haven't seen anything in the States news about it so I haven't paid much attention to it. Why would you say she is the worst person?

RifRad wrote:

SuperByNature wrote:

RifRad wrote:

SuperByNature wrote:

RifRad wrote:

SuperByNature wrote:

RifRad wrote:

With all the mudslinging that's been going on in the Republican party, I'm amazed that anyone would choose even one of the canidates. On Casey's point, the country was not handed to him on a silver platter. In fact, if anything, he was trying to catch it on it's way to the floor. No matter what, even if McCain had been elected, we'd still be in the (yes, I'm about to call it what it is because it is) depression we are in today.
I'd love to go on forever about the terribleness of our government today, but all I'd be doing is shouting at a brick wall. What I say here won't really matter in the end. No offense, but I don't think any of you have any high ranking government offices. If so, I'm even more dissappointed in our government.

On another note, why is Stephen Colbert not on your list? He's damn near the reason Huntsman dropped out. He was polling one percent more than him in South Carolina.

well you don't have a high ranking government office either. so what was the point of making that comment?

To be honest? Not quite sure. I guess I was hoping I could cure some ignorance, but your prior post shows that mine did not help. What was so confusing about his plan to you?

well the plan where he was going to lower taxes, not cut enough government spending to be able to lower taxes, and on top of that, throw billions and billions to try and stimulate the economy, when very little of it was going to actually circulate to the people, which would actually stimulate. instead, it went to roads and stuff like that (which a plan like that already was tried and failed in america, partially leading to the great panic of 1837, which was far worse than even the great depression).

Well, looks like you are somewhat versed in you U.S. history. And current events for that matter. Though, I don't think you quite understand what he had wanted to do.

Whether you'll admit to it or not, I believe just about every candidate has stated that they are going to cut taxes and spending, but usually, nothing gets done about it anyways. What many people fail to realize though, is that it is not the president's fault that nothing gets done, it's Congress's, which, for the past few years, has stopped any change that appears too radical for the Republican majority, which means just about any change. Yes, Obama wanted to raise taxes, but have you noticed how indebt we are? Sooner or later, a country like China or the Ex-Soviet Union is going to come along and nail us for it. While raising taxes by even 1% wouldn't really do much for that, we might at least be able to develop jobs in government for still unemployed people.

That's another problem in the U.S.. Jobs. I wonder if you might know of another time when the U.S. got itself out of it's near 10% unemployment rate? Just after the Great Depression, at the beginning of WWII. Why? Because we needed shit to be made for war. It dropped below 2% within a few years. Now, either we need a war, or we need to start getting our shit together, allowing our government to make stuff by using the money we give them so they may give it back.

What's depressing about this is that it's Republicans once again, making sure that there isn't tax equality. The rich aren't taxed as much as the poor which is sad. While it makes sense that everyone should pay the same amount, it also makes sense that everyone should pay the same percent.

I'd go into it more and I probably will later, but I figure I should quit this, especially because it's hopeless.

Anyways... Let's go Ron Paul! Woo!

you do have some good points

the house does control spending. and well, to add to what you said, in the middle of the depression, unemployment rates were 25%. the panic of 1837, 33%, recovering in 6 years. however, saying war, i really don't understand how war would fit into any of this, except for maybe condoning the bush administration going into war (well, conflict, not war by 1 vote). and i do believe in tax equality. democrats try and favor the poor by taxing the shit out of the rich, republicans just the opposite. that's why i am slowly leaning towards being moderate.

and here's the thing i think, democrat/republican. this two party shit has to go. all party system's, i think, should be gone. you see, my family is mostly republican. my family basically taught me about being conservative over being liberal and all this shit. and so when i look at someone who has a different belief, or is acting what i feel is democrat, i look at it a little bias. even if they use the same logic i have used to defend a previous republican president. don't worry, this has a point. anyways, i believe that if a person like me, who is trying hard to see something unbiased, yet still failing, that others won't be trying hard to not be bias. they vote democrat, see that it didn't work, then go the opposite extreme and vote republican. then when that doesn't work, they vote back in democrat. there is no time for a group to actually help the nation, its too busy bickering. a house divided against itself cannot stand. and that is what the nation is right now.

Wow, thank you for that. That was actually very humbling. I can really connect with what you mean by being raised under a certain bias. It's true, the two party thing is really not working for the U.S., but so far, we don't have much of a choice. So far. I understand completely what you mean, too, voting back and forth. We need to start having a more stable government would be the best term for it. Many candidates have the same points and beliefs as each other, whether Republican or Democrat, and I might even consider voting (even though I'm not exactly old enough too) for Republicans if they were better represented. None of the candidates this year have made much of an impact except in the media. Cain and Gingrich with all of their personal past problems, I believe Romney has some shady friends supporting his Superpac (big thing that I hate about these campaigns are the Superpacs. Way to much money put into them.) and a few other things. On top of that, conservative news programs have not been doing too well with all this covering.

Fox and CNN haven't been doing the best job at covering the news about the government. They're very uninformed. There was a story a week or two ago about a Halloween Party that the President had had that the Fox anchors thought was being covered up. It was this big party and I believe Johnny Depp had been there and the even hired the real Chewy. They were very into this, on how much money was spent and how the President tried to cover it up, while in fact, it had been very much covered during Halloween. It was actually a fund raiser and there is a lot of video and photo evidence of it happening. (I know I'm going on a bit of a rant here, but it kinda makes me angry. I watch John Stewart and Stephen Colbert a lot and I get it from them.)

Anyways, I understand where you're coming from. I really think the U.S. has to get it's shit together and start agreeing with itself, otherwise, we'll either go nowhere, or somewhere bad, really fast.

Well here is the thing, media wants to stir up shit, because the more they can stir stuff up, the more money they make. Journalist William Randolph Hearst, the man who made the New York Journal into what it is today, was said to have said to the man who brought him pictures of the Second War for Cuban Independence "you supply the pictures, I'll supply the war". meaning that he would create the war and blow it out of proportions.

oh and a fun study about fox news viewers. a survey showed that fox news viewers were less educated about current events than people who watched no news at all.

Hah! Wow! I may have to look into that study! And thank you, again. You've got really good points and even greater evidence. I had heard that quote before, but I didn't realize where that came from. I might have to use that in a debate sometime. You're smarter than I thought you were Super, and I mean that in the nicest way possible.

RifRad wrote:

Hah! Wow! I may have to look into that study! And thank you, again. You've got really good points and even greater evidence. I had heard that quote before, but I didn't realize where that came from. I might have to use that in a debate sometime. You're smarter than I thought you were Super, and I mean that in the nicest way possible.

you mean you thought i was stupid? how dare the fuck out of you

nah jk.

Breaking news: Rick Perry has also left the race, following Jon Huntsman as the second drop out this week. This leaves four candidates just days before the South Carolina primary. Update coming this afternoon.

John TPA wrote:

Jarrett wrote:

RifRad wrote:

John TPA wrote:

RifRad wrote:

Jericho wrote:

At least you don't have a woman running your country ...

Oh, come on, a constitutional monarchy can't be THAT bad.

Dude I could putting out ALL her flaws but we would be here all night

Well, I guess I can't really talk. I haven't studied much of British government. I thought she was more there for the look of it and Parliment did most of the actual governing.

They're Australian, not British...

Exactly.

Julia runs our country and is the worst person to be running it.

Not as bad as David Cameron, who is the Prime Minister of the UK, for those wondering.

RifRad wrote:

John TPA wrote:

Jarrett wrote:

RifRad wrote:

John TPA wrote:

RifRad wrote:

Jericho wrote:

At least you don't have a woman running your country ...

Oh, come on, a constitutional monarchy can't be THAT bad.

Dude I could putting out ALL her flaws but we would be here all night

Well, I guess I can't really talk. I haven't studied much of British government. I thought she was more there for the look of it and Parliment did most of the actual governing.

They're Australian, not British...

Exactly.

Julia runs our country and is the worst person to be running it.

Oh! Sorry about that! That doesn't change much. I haven't looked into Australia's government either. I haven't seen anything in the States news about it so I haven't paid much attention to it. Why would you say she is the worst person?

Well, she spins SO much BS around us it is hard to trust her. She got into power because Kevin Rudd was no good (Kevin 07) and then that started the faceless men shit. From then on it has gone down hill broke a promise she would not bring in the Carbon tax and she did. John Howard in my eyes was good for Australia but they decided to give Labor a go and now they are chopping at the bit to get rid of her and get Tony Abbot in even though he sometimes makes no sense. Prolly only one guy in the entire thing is good to see and is understandable and I forget his name.

Update: (new design coming over the weekend after the South Carolina primary)

John TPA wrote:

RifRad wrote:

John TPA wrote:

Jarrett wrote:

RifRad wrote:

John TPA wrote:

RifRad wrote:

Jericho wrote:

At least you don't have a woman running your country ...

Oh, come on, a constitutional monarchy can't be THAT bad.

Dude I could putting out ALL her flaws but we would be here all night

Well, I guess I can't really talk. I haven't studied much of British government. I thought she was more there for the look of it and Parliment did most of the actual governing.

They're Australian, not British...

Exactly.

Julia runs our country and is the worst person to be running it.

Oh! Sorry about that! That doesn't change much. I haven't looked into Australia's government either. I haven't seen anything in the States news about it so I haven't paid much attention to it. Why would you say she is the worst person?

Well, she spins SO much BS around us it is hard to trust her. She got into power because Kevin Rudd was no good (Kevin 07) and then that started the faceless men shit. From then on it has gone down hill broke a promise she would not bring in the Carbon tax and she did. John Howard in my eyes was good for Australia but they decided to give Labor a go and now they are chopping at the bit to get rid of her and get Tony Abbot in even though he sometimes makes no sense. Prolly only one guy in the entire thing is good to see and is understandable and I forget his name.

Damn. Seems like the U.S. has been way too wrapped up in itself.




On another note: LET'S GO RON PAUL!

The South Carolina primary happens tomorrow:

Currently in the South Carolina primary, things are too close to call. Romney and Gingrich are both performing well in different counties around the state. Romney is retaining a national lead.

Even though it is very early in counting, Gingrich is the projected winner in South Carolina.

With about 65% of South Carolina's votes accounted for, it appears as though Gingrich has taken it.

Here's a look at what has passed and what's ahead:

I'm scared:

This guy needs to win.