Sorry, but I stopped reading as soon as I finished that sentence.

“He says he doesn’t trade votes and as a result is rarely pressured.” That is from a bias washington post article(against Ron Paul),and still, it says he never trades votes. He sticks with what he says and NEVER changes. You’ll never be able to prove anyone wrong on this,sorry. Besides that man you just came off really fucking nerdy when you tried making a joke about people creaming their pants over their internet.

Quit being pathetic, douche.

A March 12, 2007 article written by acclaimed Washington columnist Robert Novak sheds a very revealing light on the true sentiment of Hillary Clinton during the peak of the Civil Rights Movement.

In an attempt to attract black support Hillary Clinton regularly shares her ‘civil rights experience’ during every speech given to black audiences. Novak writes of one such speech at Selma’s First Baptist Church on the 42nd anniversary of the “bloody Sunday” freedom march there, where Sen. Clinton declared: “As a young woman, I had the great privilege of hearing Dr. King speak in Chicago. The year was 1963.

The fact is, in 1963, not only was Hillary Clinton a republican, but she was also a staunch supporter of republican Senator Barry Goldwater, well known as a segregationist and one of the most vocal senators adamently against the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is why he lost in his presidential bid to Lyndon B. Johnson. Novak writes “…how then could she be a ‘Goldwater Girl’ in the next year’s presidential election?” He continues, “…she described herself in her memoirs as ‘an active Young Republican’ and ‘a Goldwater girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit.’

Novak adds, “As a politically attuned honor student, she must have known that Goldwater was one of only six Republican senators who joined Southern Democratic segregationists opposing the histo ric voting rights act of 1964 inspired by King. Hillary headed the Young Republicans at Wellesley College. The incompatibility of those two positions of 40 years ago was noted to me (Novak) by Democratic old-timers who were shocked by Sen. Clinton’s temerity in pursuing her presidential candidacy.”

To Read Novak’s original article simply Google ‘ Hillary, King, Goldwater ‘. His article is everywhere. Then SHARE THE TRUTH. We’ve had a liar in office long enough. NO MORE !!!!!

Also, thanks for the insinuation that, because I don’t support Ron Paul, I must be some liberty-hating Bush crony. Honestly, it seems like so many Ron Paul supporters consider there to be only two types of people in the US: libertarians and neoconservatives. As a liberal, I care very deeply about civil liberties and have no love for the Patriot Act.

In fact, it’s your slavish devotion to “states’ rights” in all cases that is more condusive to tyranny, as American history shows us; from slavery to Jim Crow, from repression of women to repression of homosexuals, restrictions on civil liberties have invariably been defended and maintained for decades under the banner of “states’ rights.” And, of course, your hero Dr. Paul wishes to turn back the clock to such oppression. Might I direct you to the “We The People Act,” which Paul has introduced to the House multiple times:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:h4379:

In short, this bill would prevent federal courts from hearing cases dealing with the 1st and 4th Amendments and make federal decisions no longer applicable to the states, unless the state courts decided to recognize them later. Basically, it would allow the states to impose censorship, require religious tests and declare state religions, and allow restrictions such as anti-flag burning and anti-sodomy laws to go back into effect. Paul defends this with his archaic belief that the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to state law; this interpretation was made obsolete with the passing for the 14th Amendment (strange, you’d think a champion of the Constitution would be aware of that).

In summary, Dr. Paul has no problem with tyranny as long as it’s a tyranny of the states. Not exactly a philosophy I can get behind.

With Vietnam, college kids had the prospect of personally being shot at by the VC if their protests failed. There’s wasn’t really anything like this in the late 70s, 80s or 90s. The biggest policy changes of that time would only result in your taxes being cut/hiked or welfare cut/hiked, which don’t usually tend to affect affluent, middle class people without jobs (i.e., college kid demographic). Even George W. Bush’s horrific violations of civil rights didn’t hit most of us (unless you were checking out “How To Make Bombs On Airplanes” or the Koran out of the library), even if they did offend our sense of democracy.

(In contrast, old people always have stuff at stake in elections, like Medicare & Social Security, so they always participate. Plus, they’re unpleasant and don’t really have anything better to do.)

I think the reason for the increased college kid participation is that now it seems like stuff IS actually going to affect us. Between climate change destroying the world, Social Security and Medicare hitting the fan, globalization eating our economy alive, and everyone in the world wanting to murder us, it’s concievable (and probably likely) that the US might not be the most powerful nation on the world in 15 years.

That’s a pretty scary thought for those of us used to just eating hamburgers and playing guitars. This election finally seems like real stakes, and I think that’s why everyone’s getting involved.