Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul 2008?

Between the two best candidates of the Democratic and Republican party, who do you choose?

http://danny.piccirillo.googlepages.com/presidency2008poll

What if they ran together? Would you vote for Kucinich-Paul 2008?

We need to stop sitting around and do something. We can't be apathetic and wait back anymore. We need to do what we can to change things for the better. Even facing something that seems impossible, when doing the right thing appears sure to fail, you are still obligated to do it! We CAN make a difference!

P.S. I support Dennis Kucinich more

Everyone is too apathetic. Not enough is done in society to encourage altruism. It has been shown that altruism can be incorporated into public education by adding community service to the education system.

Vote Kucinich if you want amnesty for illegal aliens, more third world immigration, removal of gun rights, more anti-white hate laws, socialized health care and education, gay marriage, higher taxes and the overall throwing of America down the shitter.

I really wish the country wasn't so divided about this... That's not to say i just wish everyone agreed with me but, i wish we could all come to some greater understanding :/

That's like asking whether you want to vote for kike #1 or for kike #2. It's the same shit. Same fucking kikes and their puppets.

>>6
troof harder

>>3
Altruism corrupts market forces.

>>3
Altruism is sometimes a marketable quality but most people use it to help people rather than help them help themselves.

I have to say though that the Paulites are personally the most disturbing example of groupthink I've ever witnessed.  I don't think they can think critically anymore.

>>10
What concerns you?

His domestic policies.  I'mn not sure if it's really okay to just abolish the income tax.  I don't want Ron Paul to pass HR 300 and reverse Roe v. Wade and give that kind of decision to the states, and silence the Supreme Court on the issue.

There are a few other things, but mainly I think he just wants to mess with too much at home.

I mean, in 2004, the census bureau released statistics for the personal distribution of income (as they do every year). The richest 20% of American households held 50.1% of America's income.  If the income tax is abolished, what happens in regards to this disparity? I think the rich will be richer and the poor will be poorer.  That's not good.

>>12

What is the probability that your vote (one vote) will decide the outcome of the election?

>>12
Right and wrong. Obviously if a rich person spends very little compared to their profits they will pay less tax however someone who splashes out will pay more. Although low and middle income earners spend more on consumer goods and services than the rich, the transfer of money is not taxed which reduces the expenses for middle and low income earners to save and take out loans, for students, prospective homeowners and a nation ridden with debt this would be a blessing for many. Not to mention the fact that a sales tax system is a much less expensive bureaucracy than the current income tax system. You also forget the monthly tax rebates for low income earners proposed.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=calculator
My hypothetical single mother with 3 children and no savings would have 869 more spending money under fair tax, she only spent $1400 on used goods so the calculation was slanted a little against fair tax's favour.

Thanks for clearing that up. But in addition, I'll just post this link and shut up.

http://democrashield.wordpress.com/2007/12/17/google-ron-paul/

Read some of that and draw your own conclusions.

>>15
Does "shut up" also mean you won't listen to criticism?

Not particularly.  I'm listening.

>>17
The site you linked to uses ambiguous subjective language instead of straight language, this is indicative of communism and terrorism.

"eliminating birthright citizenship"
"individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States."

Birthright citizenship implies everyone born in the US whether their parents are US citizens or not which is wrong. So you can strike that off the list.

>>15
The majority of that list is just skewed rhetoric. 

Kucinich is a kike. Is Paul also a kike?

OP is a HUGE faggot for even thinking Dennis Kucinich could compare to Ron Paul.

Please, open up your skull and pour in some bleach.

>>18

Yeah right.  Ron Paul would sooner give rights to a fertilized egg rather than an individual born in America.  He's recently released a half hour long video in which he discusses his pro-life stance on abortion. He basically says right off the bat the because he's a doctor who's studied economics, history, and politics that "life begins at conception." "[...] I assure you that life begins at conception." It's obviously a very big issue for him.

I would rather have something like Roe v. Wade because this allows women to excercise a choice about abortion by mandating that they be nationally available. The fact that he wants to turn over this decision to the states scares me because realistically I see entire parts of the US (such as the South) outlawing abortion.  This just has a bad effect on an already big population struggling to find room to live in our country. Ron Paul hates population regulation in general.

That's just a really broken argument.

So Ron Paul doesn't mind you being protected by American law as long as you aren't actually born yet, but once you leave the womb you aren't even a fucking citizen?  How is that right? How is anyone going to have rights under such a standard?