Ron Paul hasn't got a chance. He's very low in the polls anyway and not many people know about him.No, thank goodness he doesn't. It's funny how people spam the online presidential candidate polls to give Ron Paul a significant lead and then complain when the poll gets taken down. The reason why that happens is because there's obviously something fishy going on when a candidate who gets no more than 2% or 3% of the votes in the serious polls suddenly receives more than half the votes in a poll that can easily and transparently be manipulated.
Ignoring Ron Paul for a moment, to me it seems right now as though Rudy Giuliani is the worst candidate.
Ignoring Ron Paul for a moment, to me it seems right now as though Rudy Giuliani is the worst candidate.regardless of what steel and the people on this forum think
The guy single handedly made New York the worst place to live. Once Giuliani left, the state instantly became one of the healthiest, safest places to live in. Manhattan is actually a decent city now!
ron paul actually is NOT THAT FUCKING BAD FFS.
Seriously do you think that half the shit he says would ever make it through in the first place
regardless of what steel and the people on this forum think
ron paul actually is NOT THAT FUCKING BAD FFS. Seriously do you think that half the shit he says would ever make it through in the first place.. and even if it did... social pressure would keep a free market type system in check. Someone dies from taking an unregulated medication? Well its like the constitution already has a provision in it to put the person responsible for that death in jail. holy shit. many of his other points are defensible using oh what is it again the constitution which happens to be the what highest law in the land you say.. .no fucking way liar
sorry:d runkpost
anyway yeah I'm so glad for these primaries. I'll never have to see fred thompson, tom tancredo or joe biden ever again weeee
has some good moral grounds (God forgive he has principals).He's a pretend moral police officer who's passed off as honest and good simply because he's had the word reverend placed behind his name in the past. It's nothing but the same homophobic, anti-abortion RIGHTS, pro-war "logic" charlatanry that somehow gets passed off as credible thanks to his smooth-talking personality and southern charm.
so because his barbaric policies have no chance of being passed he suddenly becomes less barbaric? i don't understand your logicI fail to see how any of his policies other than on immigration are barbaric. Sure a return to the gold standard is pretty stupid but do you think that would ever actually happen? please explain to me how ron paul is similar to Ataturk or Attila. I am not on the same page as you
I fail to see how any of his policies other than on immigration are barbaric. Sure a return to the gold standard is pretty stupid but do you think that would ever actually happen? please explain to me how ron paul is similar to Ataturk or Attila. I am not on the same page as you
keep in mind, my arguing on the side of ron paul here is not be throwing my support for him. I would never vote for him ever, I just dont think he is the evil demon monster that steel makes him out to be (keep in mind socialists and libertarians are like the opposite of each other so take into account the perspective you've acquired here, you've been exposed to what amounts to reactionary mudslinging on these forums)
This whole talk of Ron Paul and internet support got me thinking. How many of you that are of legal age plan on voting in the primaries? I would really like to, but unfortunately, I am currently registered as unaffiliated.yeah I have no interest in even registering to vote until the cutoff for the real really (in ohio you have to register with the party to vote in their primary which is actually a good thing, but I just dont feel I fit the democrat or republican mold)
This whole talk of Ron Paul and internet support got me thinking. How many of you that are of legal age plan on voting in the primaries? I would really like to, but unfortunately, I am currently registered as unaffiliated.
This whole talk of Ron Paul and internet support got me thinking. How many of you that are of legal age plan on voting in the primaries? I would really like to, but unfortunately, I am currently registered as unaffiliated.I'll be 18 for the general election, but not the primaries.
I would like to vote in the primary, but Pennsylvania doesn't hold theirs until the 22nd of April. I have a feeling the candidates for both parties will be decided long before then.
For all of the Kucinich supporters: he'd like you to make Obama your second choice (http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/721778,sweet10208.article) since he too is "a candidate of change."That's gay because Obama sucks and Kucinich is cool. Their views are a little different on some main topics.
Huckabee is nothing but laughable imo, he talks about ending negative ads to the press and then proceeds to show his own campaign's (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/huckabees-remarkable-play/) at the conference and compared his ignorance of the NIE report on Iran (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/72266/) to gossip about Britney Spears. Even funnier than all of those though is when he said “Domestically, we need to protect our borders with Pakistanis coming into the country.” (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/28/huckabee-takes-aim-at-pakistani-illegals/) Does it get any better than this? :fogetbackflip:
That's gay because Obama sucks and Kucinich is cool.Why is that? I'm not criticizing you but I'm wondering why you think Obama is not a good choice while Kucinich is. I didn't know much about Kucinich before, but apparently our views are pretty close as well. It seems to me, at a glance, that anyone who supports Kucinich would also be pretty down with Obama on at least most of the major topics.
Why is that? I'm not criticizing you but I'm wondering why you think Obama is not a good choice while Kucinich is. I didn't know much about Kucinich before, but apparently our views are pretty close as well. It seems to me, at a glance, that anyone who supports Kucinich would also be pretty down with Obama on at least most of the major topics.
I believe it has something to do with Obama being bought by the filthy jews, while Kucnich is championing their demise.In that case, it's too bad Bobby Fischer (http://home.att.ne.jp/moon/fischer/) isn't running.
Why is that? I'm not criticizing you but I'm wondering why you think Obama is not a good choice while Kucinich is. I didn't know much about Kucinich before, but apparently our views are pretty close as well. It seems to me, at a glance, that anyone who supports Kucinich would also be pretty down with Obama on at least most of the major topics.
I believe it has something to do with Obama being bought by the filthy jews, while Kucnich is championing their demise.Actually one reason is because Obama is a zionist. He admitted the Palestinians were treated like shit but said he wouldn't do anything about it. Kucinich isn't "championing their demise" I actually don't know his stance on Israel, I know he is pro peace though. I also know he took a trip to Lebanon and saw a kid by his parent's grave (or something like that) and it "touched him."
Also, Kucnich is anti-war, Obama isn't. Sure, he wants to end Iraq but he also has no problem using force against Iran. Also, I haven't read up on Obama's environmental views (if he has any) but I know Kucinich is big on protecting the environment.
He's for guns and against pretty much everything else. It ESPECIALLY bothers me that he's against things like the FDA. People are pissed that the FDA keeps holding back all of these supposedly amazing drugs, but they'd be far more pissed if those drugs got through too easily and severely damaged or killed them. He's also against stem cell research so I don't know what he's trying to do there. He's against abortions, but he's also against gay adoption, so how about we keep on breeding those babies but deny a pretty large portion of possible parents from giving them homes. He was also against a worldwide amber alert system, so fuck all you children.
kucinich wants to get out of iraq ASAP.
And this is true for almost all the Rublicans that are running for president... they're not real conservatives. When I heard Ron Paul was for guns I was like "okay that's cool" but then he's like "i'm pro-choice lol" and I said "aw gahd, there goes half your Mr. High Moral citizen support" and then he started blabbing on and I just thought to myself "What the fuck does this guy stand for?" The republicans this year don't really stand on the right nor do they stand on the left or the middle... it's like they're floating in space somewhere.
This is dangerous thinking. I don't know how far you're exaggerating this statement (because I don't follow Kucinich so I wouldn't know) but if he just wants to pack up and leave IMMEDIATELY then he's only going to fuck things up more than if we actually stayed.
This is dangerous thinking. I don't know how far you're exaggerating this statement (because I don't follow Kucinich so I wouldn't know) but if he just wants to pack up and leave IMMEDIATELY then he's only going to fuck things up more than if we actually stayed.he said "we shouldn't send one more soldier to iraq" or something like that. he does want to pull out ASAP, but I'm not sure if ASAP = immediately. Either way, not the best choice imo.
yeah it's way more dangerous than letting our boys get their arms blown off from IED's and come home in bodybags.
I'm aware that you're in the military and whatnot, but we're fighting an idiotic war and we shouldn't have to lose one more american life.
did you adjust the sliders wc?? gotta adjust them slidersyes
Bush made a big enough mess by evading but just straight up retreating would be like building a bridge with no support pillars and then opening up to public use.
I could've seen leaving eight or nine months ago because it was a lost cause, but now it would be ridiculous. People don't really know that the situation has improved that much because the media's not putting it out there, and we're not searching for it, otherwise we'd know. Fuck, this is a war for which we're not even being taxed; you think anyone but the military isn't propped up in their proverbial recliner wondering why Congress keeps super-sizing the war budget, why our deficit keeps growing? This war was an afterthought, and it shows, but that doesn't mean we should leave just when the train is starting to pick up steam.please explain how my tax dollars are actually not going to the military
please explain how my tax dollars are actually not going to the militaryno child left behind
I know I'm missing something here; is there a reason not to raise taxes for the absurd cost of the war?
No, we are being taxed (http://www.nationalpriorities.org/cms/tradeoffs?location_type=4&state=2&town=0.000064912459941823300000000000&program=282&tradeoff_item_item=999&submit_tradeoffs=Get+Trade+Off). My bad. I made a mistake, but the generalities of my point still stand. Thanks for calling me out on it; I'd never really had an excuse to go actually look up the tax information. What I mean is that as a military, we are stretched thin and we've recently had to lay off federal employees at a time where they don't really need to be laid off, so why not raise taxes? I know I'm missing something here; is there a reason not to raise taxes for the absurd cost of the war?well maybe the military wouldnt be stretched so thin if we werent keeping 30,000 troops in korea and tons all over the rest of the world
yeah it's way more dangerous than letting our boys get their arms blown off from IED's and come home in bodybags.While getting out of there as fast as possible might cause less people to die in the short run, in the long run trying to get out without causing chaos, if we really should be getting out at all (things have turned around over there after all), would probably be a good idea.
I'm aware that you're in the military and whatnot, but we're fighting an idiotic war and we shouldn't have to lose one more american life.
my top three were Kucinich, Guliani [...]Huh?
as much as i'm for pulling the troops out of Iraq, I kind of think we should leave peacekeeping forces behind. however, on the other hand, that just seems to be PISSING THEM ALL OFF so idkI don't think any democratic candidate supports getting out of Iraq immediately. They realize you can't just hop on a plane and go home. The only candidate I know that wants this is Ron Paul. Democratic candidates are for an "immediate begin of the phased retreat out of Iraq". Which, I presume, would mean slowly bringing back troops where possible, while keeping around a sizable force that's able to keep things stable until the country is ready to be put in control of Iraqi forces and UN peacekeeping soldiers.
When I heard Ron Paul was for guns I was like "okay that's cool" but then he's like "i'm pro-choice lol" and I said "aw gahd, there goes half your Mr. High Moral citizen support" and then he started blabbing on and I just thought to myself "What the fuck does this guy stand for?"
kucinich wants to get out of iraq ASAP.Looks like I'd be voting for Gravel then Kucinich and then.... Romney?!
here's a fun game that matches the candidates to your political views, you can learn some stuff about the candidates too: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/candidate-match-game.htm
make sure you adjust the sliders at the end, depending on how much you care about each issue. my top three were Obama, Chris Dodd, then Hillary Clinton. it doesn't cover every issue and I wouldn't focus upon the results, but it seems like a pretty decent test overall.
Huh?I'm still trying to figure that one out dude lol I dont know how Kucinich and Guliani are even CLOSE to each other. I guess its because I put emphasis on the Environment, Tax Reform and Health Care with the sliders that bumped Guliani up there somehow. I would say that I am a fairly solid lefty though (and guliani is a pig so yeah. like that quote from joe biden: A Guliani sentence contains three things: a subject, a verb and 9/11)
regardless of what steel and the people on this forum think
ron paul actually is NOT THAT FUCKING BAD FFS. Seriously do you think that half the shit he says would ever make it through in the first place.. and even if it did... social pressure would keep a free market type system in check. Someone dies from taking an unregulated medication? Well its like the constitution already has a provision in it to put the person responsible for that death in jail. holy shit. many of his other points are defensible using oh what is it again the constitution which happens to be the what highest law in the land you say.. .no fucking way liar
sorry:d runkpost
anyway yeah I'm so glad for these primaries. I'll never have to see fred thompson, tom tancredo or joe biden ever again weeee
McCain isn't bad.
Obama seems so spotless and fresh because he was a senator for 4 years. What does he stand for? All his speeches are just high energy "hope" speeches with no substance. I really have no idea what he stands for and I've been researching. He seems like the type of guy I'd want to hang out with, but not my president.
why does anyone say this? his platform is on his website. all this politics of hope bullshit that people think is some kind of damning critique is just conservative backlash or something, because he has a well outlined platform that yeah, deals with HOPE maybe but it's better than Hillary Clinton's centrist pandering or Kucinich's occasional tinfoil hat.
or Gravel but really GRAVEL.
The man has voted to ban flag burning, to push abortion into a state's rights issue, to deny funds to companies that hire homosexuals, and believes the IB program is a European conspiracy to indoctrinate young people into becoming commies or SOME SHIT. He's Lyndon LaRouche.is that even legal?
I checked his site and it was pretty in line with the democratic party, so I failed to see the new/unique views which made him a stand-out canidate.Maybe, or maybe not. Either way, it shouldn't really matter, should it?
I don't really have anything against Obama. I'm not just not 100% sure of his views outside of the standards. I checked his site and it was pretty in line with the democratic party, so I failed to see the new/unique views which made him a stand-out canidate. However, he does seem to inspire people rather than bitch and moan or yell about republicans that all liberals do. Which is funny the house and senate have the same disaproval rating of the president. So I think people are equally sick of both parties. And God knows the republican front runners suck big time.
is that even legal?
like, i know he's the president... but... i dont know, how can that be legal?
the other points aren't that bad (well I dunno what the last one is supposed to mean); flag burning should be banned imo and although abortion should be legal and the right of every woman, it's better that the state figure out the details on their own maybe idk
im a pretty liberal guy myself but didnt really think the two former were conservative
but then again state rights issue would be kinda similar to europe's countries deciding for themselves or something??
but the homosexual one.. man what
edit: also seriously if ron paul wins europe is in trouble dont let him win :(
Maybe, or maybe not. Either way, it shouldn't really matter, should it?
it does kind of matter. you have to look at the subtext. just look at their platforms and guess what they are different. of course they are usually on the party line, they are the same friggin party, but the differences are what matter.I wasn't referring to that. What I mean is that it matters whether a candidate most accurately represents you (or your ideology) and will actually be able to do something for you when the possibility arises. It shouldn't make a difference if a particular candidate is "just a typical democrat", when that happens to be your exact political alignment.
I wasn't referring to that. What I mean is that it matters whether a candidate most accurately represents you (or your ideology) and will actually be able to do something for you when the possibility arises. It shouldn't make a difference if a particular candidate is "just a typical democrat", when that happens to be your exact political alignment.
Not that it matters, though, since the candidates are different from one another, and I wouldn't exactly be able to define what an "average democratic point of view" is, anyway.
EDIT: by the way, don't you hate it when you make a big and important post, but then someone makes an insignificant post on a new page right afterwards, knocking you out of sight?
The only person I want to be president out of the whole group is Bill Richardson, seeing as though it looks as if he is the only one who has done things.Ah! That's the person I was talking about in my post when I was referring to the guy who I seemed to agree with the most.
man where is the athiest/agnostic, pro marijuana reform, pro gay/lesbian rights, pro-abortion, anti-war candidatesh... should I run for candidacy?...
why isnt there one of those (fuck you jerry falwell and pat robertson for buttfucking the collective american thought process)
man where is the athiest/agnostic, pro marijuana reform, pro gay/lesbian rights, pro-abortion, anti-war candidateIn all seriousness, is there a candidate like this? If so, vote for him (or her).
why isnt there one of those (fuck you jerry falwell and pat robertson for buttfucking the collective american thought process)
man where is the athiest/agnostic, pro marijuana reform, pro gay/lesbian rights, pro-abortion, anti-war candidatevacation in europe maybe??
why isnt there one of those (fuck you jerry falwell and pat robertson for buttfucking the collective american thought process)
man where is the athiest/agnostic, pro marijuana reform, pro gay/lesbian rights, pro-abortion, anti-war candidateI'm looking forward to the first atheist president of the United States. I don't think there will be one for some time. The marijuana reform isn't going to happen very soon, either.
why isnt there one of those (fuck you jerry falwell and pat robertson for buttfucking the collective american thought process)
flag burning is pretty disrespectful though and is illegal here. but flags and nationality is pretty important here so maybe thats why. i dont mind the law at all. a couple of years ago some important television comedian/critic burned the american flag live and while i guess its an effective way of saying something, its extremely disrespectful :( its not like we imprison them for doing that, but they get a fine (the amount depending on your wage, like most fines here are)
i dont know how anyone can be for making flag burning illegal for any purpose
maybe you guys should stop your free speech spree rite now because USA has proven that uttering certain things can get you locked up for a long time over and over again!! i do understand the argument but there's no reason to go WE ARE THE FREE SPEAKERS, WE SPEAK OUR MINDS!! etc
and a flag doesnt represent the government but the country so why should critisism of a government come through the form of a national insult :(
by burning say an AMERICAN flag you dont say you're against the government but rather against everything the flag represents; every single person and idea in that country. it's respectless and disgusting.
but maybe thats a cultural difference between us, im not conservative in any way and ive taken part in rallies where flags have been burned (mostly israeli and american) and i always thought it was a dumb thing to do because a patriotic israeli or american that does his best to work against the actions that the flag burners despise could/would/might be just as offended as someone spearheading such actions. its a disgusting and generalizing action.
maybe to you the flag represents the government but it sure as hell doesn't to anyone i know
so except for a broken free speech i dont really see the arguments for it sorry for disrailing :(
also flag burning is a form of treason?I do not think it is treason.
and a flag doesnt represent the government but the country so why should critisism of a government come through the form of a national insult :(​
when a country has a law against burning the flag it is saying "YOU WILL BE LOYAL OR ELSE"im not for it in that sense, someone burning the norwegian flag i dont care much about. its about burning the flags of other nations i care about. we should be respectful to other nations, and burning someone else's flag is extremely disrespectful.
what i'm saying is national pride is stupid.depends on how it is channeled. if its through making 3000 songs about how great your country is, making 3000 films about how your country kicks the asses of other countries, then yeah. once it starts bordering nationalism its just silly. but patriotism as something you never speak about, or act from, but rather compassion for what place you're from and the people in it?
for the sake of the topic's interest, I will bump this with relevant percentages when they come around.
almost 400 votes in-
Senator John Edwards : 33.18%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 32.47%
Senator Barack Obama : 31.52%
Governor Bill Richardson : 1.90%
Senator Joe Biden : 0.81%
Senator Chris Dodd : 0.07%
Uncommitted : 0.05%
Precincts Reporting: 346 of 1781
Where did you get this?
Are the Iowa caucuses really that big of a deal? This is a real question. Is it really a good indicator of someone's chances of getting the nomination? I mean, we all know which candidates are going to be in the top for each party. Would beating Hilary Clinton by .5 percentage points really be that big of a deal?
edit: ok i already see he is ahead by more than .5 but still
in the past like seven or so elections (if i could find this stat i would argh) whoever won the first two primaries won the nomination.
Is there anywhere I can easily see all of the opponents' views in a summarized form? I've seen enough of Ron Paul, Barack, and Hilary, but I'd really want to see what the other candidates are saying without sifting through a load of shit.
Is there anywhere I can easily see all of the opponents' views in a summarized form? I've seen enough of Ron Paul, Barack, and Hilary, but I'd really want to see what the other candidates are saying without sifting through a load of shit.
how did huckabee become so popular??? A few weeks ago I barely remember him even being mentioned in an exit poll at my university and now he comes out with a chuck norris ad campaign and BOOM EVERYONE VOTE FOR HUCKABEE 2008It's the recent Huckabee "surge". Giulliani used to be ahead of him though, now he's all the way at the bottom. What's going on!?
Plus if Clinton is out, I feel that'll result in a huge amount of crossover Republican voters who are sickened with the last 8 years of shitty policies.
Believe it or not, a lot of those 'crossovers' are actually in support of Clinton. Goes to show you how conservative she really is.
Maybe Huckabee went on Oprah? It worked for Obama.No I think it's a result of the suddenly-deciding-to-vote social conservatives made up mostly of Evangelical Christians who suddenly decided to make Huckabee their man. And Giulliani definitely isn't that guy. I'm surprised Romney has made it so far, I mean... he's a MORMON.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqoFwZUp5vc this is pretty good.I'm kind of glad he didn't say "under God". It's nice to see his numbers high in that video too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqoFwZUp5vc this is pretty good.
I'm kind of glad he didn't say "under God". It's nice to see his numbers high in that video too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqoFwZUp5vc this is pretty good.
Love the guy and I'll definitely vote for him, but I don't understand how he plans on making republicans and democrats get along.
Oh God I hope Obama makes it. Hillary would have to be the worst... I just think it's disgusting that we have the WIFE of a FORMER PRESIDENT up there. What is this, some kind of monarchy? Plutocracy? Obama is young and new and willing to make some changes.Look at Argentina..
Yeah, I too am kind of surprised, he's much better at giving speeches than the other candidates. He is the most natural speaker out of all I've seen so far, and he has a warm and powerful voice too. Although he's no Martin Luther King (http://youtube.com/watch?v=PbUtL_0vAJk) (they're sometimes compared), I think that his way of delivering the message might be that which tips the balance in his favor.
Look at Argentina..I know it's the same situation there.
I just like how he believes in America and the power to unite the people. Rather than blaming X or Y. I mean he's adknowledging problems, but I think he comes off very sincere and optimistic. It's a good change.I don't want to state the obvious but
My friend is a HUGE Paul supporter but after he saw this ad he said he's not supporting him anymore!
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/29/ron-pauls-disgraceful-ad
Now he just has to prove his views on the tough issues. Which whether you like it not, he hasn't been talking about. We'll see how he still stands in a month or so. Same with Huckabee. They both haven't really been talking about the tough issues and Huckabee is basically clueless on foreign policy.
My friend is a HUGE Paul supporter but after he saw this ad he said he's not supporting him anymore!Ya I'm trying to get my friend to see the light in terms of Paul's ignorance towards domestic issues. That has got to be the worst ad I've ever seen.
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/29/ron-pauls-disgraceful-ad
But holy crap I hope Clinton doesn't win. She reminds me of those people who go into middle schools to give pep talks.
My friend is a HUGE Paul supporter but after he saw this ad he said he's not supporting him anymore!You should welcome your friend to the truth. The truth is that Ron Paul's popularity on the Internet is based on misunderstanding, denial, and hype.
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/29/ron-pauls-disgraceful-ad
You should welcome your friend to the truth. The truth is that Ron Paul's popularity on the Internet is based on misunderstanding, denial, and hype.
Let's take Digg as an example.
Misunderstanding because they believe his viewpoints on issues such as protecting the constitution somehow make him a rebel that fights against the established politicians. For example, it's quite easy to tell someone that we need to pull out of Iraq immediately, because we're not supposed to be there and we're causing a lot of civil casualties; most people will immediately agree, without realizing that leaving on a minute's notice will cause much more damage than a phased and controlled leave during which it is made sure that the Iraqi army and the UN peacekeepers will be able to take over seamlessly. Since Ron Paul is pretty much the only person (correct me if I'm wrong) arguing for such a stupid thing, people claim that he's "not holding back in order to be political", or "just telling it like it is, unlike the other candidates". That's the kind of thing that makes you popular on Digg, it seems.
Diggers are also in denial, because they refuse to believe it when someone shows them just how horrific Ron Paul's statements really are. There are plenty of resources on the Web on which you can read all about his plans to denounce the UN and the NAFTA, as well as videos in which he speaks about not accepting the evolution theory. Most of these things are simply not posted on the site, and when they do, they rarely reach the front page. A while ago, a video was posted on the site in which Ron Paul can be heard dismissing the evolution theory, and while it generated a lot of negative responses from people who do not support him, it was also labeled "inaccurate". There are even videos of self-proclaimed neo-Nazis floating around YouTube in which they pledge their support to Ron Paul; how do the Diggers take this? They simply say that they're trying to paint their lovely candidate black by association. Yes. They actually say that the neo-Nazis who support Ron Paul are just doing that to make him seem bad. By the way, did you know that Ron Paul is the officially supported candidate of Stormfront, the largest white supremacist Web site?
And then there's the hype. This is much more simple to explain. Basically, since everybody is a fan of Ron Paul, that means you can't succeed or become popular on that site if you don't support him. People who disagree with him usually get so many negative points that their messages in the topic get hidden by default. It's difficult to criticize him and have your message "survive".
You know what the most funny thing about this is? I don't even think that most people on Digg really support the kind of positions that Ron Paul supports, and I actually think they're mostly democrats. They seem to mostly support gay marriage, abortion, and even things like legal marijuana, and that's probably largely because they're our demographic. Just look at Digg The Candidates (http://digg.com/elections/). If you ignore Ron Paul, the republicans have only superficial support; exactly as you see everywhere else in the 18-29 age group.
So, in reality, Ron Paul's support is largely based on the surge of popularity he got and managed to keep after people started posting all kinds of incorrect and inaccurate statements that they attributed to him. That makes them the exact kind of demagogues they proclaim to want out of Washington without even knowing it! Thankfully, things seem to slowly be turning around lately, but even if Ron Paul somehow loses his support on that site, it's still quite sick that this could have happened in the first place. This is what happens, not when people don't read political programs closely enough, but when people don't read criticism published in the media.
Have your friend read this post!! He deserves to know he was a tool!
fffff we just had this conversation, but I guess you didn't actually look at anything???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama
http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/
you might have to click a few links!!!!!!!
I read this. he just hasn't been talking about these in his stump speeches. In other words. It hasn't been the main highlights of his campaign.
His main points have been bringing change to Washington. I guess getting out of the war is a second main point for his as well.
there's a debate before NH, which is in a week, so check dat out???
Alrighty man. I don't get why you fight for barack with your life. I think he's cool. I think he gives probably the best speeches I have ever seen a modern candidate give.
ps there is a debate tonight
The white nationalist is a way the establishment try to contaminate Ron Paul's movement. The KKK and White supremacist are all CIA operations. Do your research.
Thank you, Digg.QuoteThe white nationalist is a way the establishment try to contaminate Ron Paul's movement. The KKK and White supremacist are all CIA operations. Do your research.
Has this been posted yet? http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/candidate-match-game.htm
I ended up with:
1. Dennis Kucinich
2. Bill Richardson
3. Mike Gravel
Not really into American politics, so the only name that sounds vaguely familiar is Bill Richardson.
I'm going for Obama though, seems like the right guy.
This God stuff isn't just talk with Huck. One of his first acts as governor was to block Medicaid from funding an abortion for a mentally retarded teenager who had been raped by her stepfather -- an act in direct violation of federal law, which requires states to pay for abortions in cases of rape. "The state didn't fund a single such abortion while Huckabee was governor," says Dr. William Harrison of the Fayetteville Women's Clinic. "Zero."
Science changes with every generation and with new discoveries' date=' and God doesn't, so I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict.[/quote']
http://www.alternet.org/story/70229/?page=entire
WHEEEEEEE
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/magazine/16huckabee.html?pagewanted=7&_r=1&ref=magazine
how to steal an election wooord
http://www.alternet.org/story/70229/?page=entireBut at least we'll all be safe from Satan when the thunder starts to roll!
WHEEEEEEE
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/magazine/16huckabee.html?pagewanted=7&_r=1&ref=magazine
how to steal an election wooord
Between Ron Paul, Huckabee, and Giuliani, I don't think I've ever encountered more ridiculous advertisements in my life.Probably because everyone knows the democrats will win this time
DAMN, sorry, Chuck. You're soooo 2006. Paul wins. Here are some BADASS facts about Paul, Chuck:
*Ron Paul doesn't go the gym. He stays fit by exercising his civil rights.
*Ron Paul delivers babies without his hands. He simply reads them the Bill of Rights and they crawl out in anticipation of freedom.
*Ron Paul doesn't cut taxes. He kills them with his bare hands.
*When Ron Paul takes a shower, he doesn't get wet...the water gets Ron Paul.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Kucinich_suggests_tonight%27s_Democratic_debate_unfair%2C_files_FCC_charges_versus_ABChttp://youtube.com/watch?v=2RXFWojq3Uc
yeah cool stuff
they're barring him even though he has won THEIR OWN FUCKING POLLS in the past.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Kucinich_suggests_tonight%27s_Democratic_debate_unfair%2C_files_FCC_charges_versus_ABC
yeah cool stuff
they're barring him even though he has won THEIR OWN FUCKING POLLS in the past.
i have no idea whats going on in any of this (lol ignorant non-american) but do ANY politicians record their own advert speeches? the two i just listened to were HEY IM A GUY AND I SUPPORT THIS MESSAGE
i guess. it just seems really cold and distant and impersonal to me. i guess that's a culture thing, though.
*Ron Paul doesn't go the gym. He stays fit by exercising his civil rights.I thought that one was really funny.
well you have to keep in mind, they've sold almost EVERYONE they need to sell to get their votes, except for independents. now there are a few people who, yes, will want the candidate to speak for themself, but there are also those who are drawn in by brilliant promises, the same kind of dude who gets kind of excited by just a message and graphics. so you have about half and half; we only link the ones that are hilarious (and usually those are the message/graphics ones) so you aren't seeing the ones where people talk.holy shit did the girl explode or what
that and what's more effective? an ad where the President says (like all Presidents) "I will keep this country safe" or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKs-bTL-pRg
he rode into the White House on this ad.
*Ron Paul doesn't go the gym. He stays fit by exercising his civil rights.
I thought that one was really funny.
you know, it's really amazing to me how important TV advertisements are to the American public. They're insignificant in Dutch politics. It's much more important here to simply be seen on independent TV shows and in the newspapers. They do run advertisements, but they're usually crammed into tiny "political message" time slots, which are equally distributed to the contesting parties.
Last time we had elections, there was one party (the VVD, a liberal party that suffered huge losses) that took a large TV advertisement offensive, showing about three per commercial block. It gave them absolutely nothing.
EDIT: you know, it's really amazing to me how important TV advertisements are to the American public. They're insignificant in Dutch politics. It's much more important here to simply be seen on independent TV shows and in the newspapers. They do run advertisements, but they're usually crammed into tiny "political message" time slots, which are equally distributed to the contesting parties.
Last time we had elections, there was one party (the VVD, a liberal party that suffered huge losses) that took a large TV advertisement offensive, showing about three per commercial block. It gave them absolutely nothing.
The former Massachusetts governor won eight delegates' date=' former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson got two and California Rep. Duncan Hunter won one, meaning no other candidate could beat Romney. Caucuses were still being held to decide all 12 delegates at stake.[/quote']
I really hope anyone but Huckabee and Paul win the nomination for the Republicans.
I thought we as a nation had figured out Chuck Norris had no real importance by now...didn't we?
Huckabee all the way.
Dude, CHUCK NORRIS was standing right behind him at Mike's little victory speach at the Iowa caucus.
That and all these little quizes always say he's the candidate I relate to most.
Obama seems more respectable than anyone though, so... depending on how things go I MAY actually end up voting for Barack instead.
congrats you are the closest to the worst human being running for office atm.
[22:25] <Ryan> ahah jeff i'm glad to know you support a guy who wants to build more prisons and have them privatized
[22:25] <~Jeff> What is wrong with that, Ryan?
[22:25] <%[w]cycle> building more prisons is bad
[22:25] <Ryan> he's also against drug education because "it doesn't work"
[22:26] <~Jeff> Thats because it doesn't.
[22:26] <~Jeff> Actually I a pro legalization of all drugs but thanks for assuming.
[22:27] <~Jeff> Abstinance doesn't work either.
[22:27] <~Jeff> Sure it is. It is better to focus on family values.
[22:30] <+Lars[sleep> hey Ryan who do you support
[22:30] <~Jeff> Ryan supports hilary
[22:30] <Ryan> as far as front runners obama/edwards
[22:30] <Ryan> are the best
[22:30] <Ryan> hillary is pretty shit
[22:30] <Ryan> she's still better than all of the republicans but she's really mediocre as far as the democratic candidates
[22:30] <~Jeff> hahaha
[22:31] <~Jeff> man you are pretty ignorant to think hilary is better than the republicans
[22:31] <Ryan> :)
[22:31] <Ryan> if only hillary was pro-torture and wanted to fuck the middle/lower class even more
[22:31] <Ryan> big business heh heh
[22:32] * Jeff sets mode: +b Ryan!*@*
[22:32] * Ryan was kicked by Jeff (I'll thank you to come back when you can presnet your own opinison rather than just be a tool and spout anti-republican crap.)
[22:33] <%[w]cycle> why did you do that man
[22:34] <~Jeff> wc: because I can't stand morons who are like I DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT REALITY BUT PEOPLE ARE SAYING REPUBLICANS SUCK SO IT MUST BE TRUE
[22:34] <~Jeff> Which is pretty much exactly what he was doing.
[22:34] <~Jeff> He has done no research at all on republicans
[22:34] <~Jeff> he just assumes they are bad
[22:34] <~Jeff> and sees fit to bash anyone who likes them
[22:37] <~Jeff> I am pretty proud of being a republican and I consider myself to be a pretty smart and informed fellow.
And I'll be honest, I hate the idea of gay marriage. Those two words shouldn't even be in the same sentence, let alone right next to eachother in the sentence. I know there are bigger issues than that but I don't like it at all and the Republicans will make sure all that nonsense goes away.concentration
:crazy:​ Wow I really hope Chuck never sees that... He might make your head explode telekinetically! Please be more careful... I don't want you to get hurt is all...man i def feel you on that front
Chuck aside, being a Republican doesn't mean shit. Maybe Bush fucked up the image but I don't care for any of the democratic candidates except Obama. I like Mike and Mitt more than Hilary for sure.
And I'll be honest, I hate the idea of gay marriage. Those two words shouldn't even be in the same sentence, let alone right next to eachother in the sentence. I know there are bigger issues than that but I don't like it at all and the Republicans will make sure all that nonsense goes away.
Also, I guess the whole Ron Paul thing was a big joke. "Hope for America"... hehe... good one. Is he even a real person? :fogetlaugh:
And I'll be honest, I hate the idea of gay marriage. Those two words shouldn't even be in the same sentence, let alone right next to eachother in the sentence. I know there are bigger issues than that but I don't like it at all and the Republicans will make sure all that nonsense goes away.Do you honestly think George Bush gives a shit whether homosexuals can marry or not? It's knee-jerk issues like this that republicans bring up to keep the masses from paying attention to real issues, like our fucked up economy.
I am watching it I wanna see Kucinich :(
BLACK PEOPLE, or AFRICAN AMERICANS on the other hand can do much better. If they had elected a BLACK PERSON instead of a N****R they wouldn't be in this mess.don't expect to convince him of anything reasonable!
Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference... oh well, glad I don't live in Detroit because I hear it's been going under for quite some time now.
5:45 pm ET: High drama behind the scenes at ABC, barely an hour before the first debate. Dennis Kucinich filed for a temporary restraining order with a judge here in New Hampshire, claiming it was a violation of FCC rules to keep him off the debate stage. That prompted a wave of panic among the folks who have spent months planning tonight's live events. David Westin, the president of ABC News and a lawyer, personally worked the phones and got the judge to dismiss it. Elapsed time: about 15 minutes. Years off our collective lives: Maybe 15, as well.lol yeah!!!
:( I know technically he has no chance but still, fair is fair.
Huckabee all the way.The reason why I disagree with this position is because you're going to be voting for a person rather than the message behind the person. While it's true that you will want the person to represent your country to be a likable man, it's much more important that this man is actually going to do things that will make your country better. And the question is whether Huckabee will be this person.
Dude, CHUCK NORRIS was standing right behind him at Mike's little victory speach at the Iowa caucus.
That and all these little quizes always say he's the candidate I relate to most.
Obama seems more respectable than anyone though, so... depending on how things go I MAY actually end up voting for Barack instead.
And I'll be honest, I hate the idea of gay marriage. Those two words shouldn't even be in the same sentence, let alone right next to eachother in the sentence. I know there are bigger issues than that but I don't like it at all and the Republicans will make sure all that nonsense goes away.That might be true, but what you must consider here is whether you take your right to marry for granted. You're not gay, so you probably do. How would you feel if you were stripped of this right? In reality, you must accept that gay people are human beings too, just like you. To disagree with that is to discriminate.
DADA, I agree with your post, pretty thoughtful, except the problem in your post is that the "human naturally progresses" concept is an idealist/liberal paradigm, and not everyone thinks this way. Realists have a more pesimistic paradigm in which humans always fall in a cycle that always ends with destruction.
There is scientific evidence for both paradigms, so that leaves there to be a debate on how people see their kind as they advance in the future. Historically, realists won this debate, but there seems to be gaps in time in which liberalists had their moments.
Think of how USA saw herself with the world before and after 9/11.
believes as in doesn't think it occurs or as in I PREFER REVOLUTION
And I'll be honest, I hate the idea of gay marriage. Those two words shouldn't even be in the same sentence, let alone right next to eachother in the sentence. I know there are bigger issues than that but I don't like it at all and the Republicans will make sure all that nonsense goes away.Are you serious? WTF? !!!
DADA, I agree with your post, pretty thoughtful, except the problem in your post is that the "human naturally progresses" concept is an idealist/liberal paradigm, and not everyone thinks this way. Realists have a more pesimistic paradigm in which humans always fall in a cycle that always ends with destruction.I didn't even know about that, to be honest. The idea of natural progression towards the best possible circumstances with the resources that are available seems to make much more sense than anything else. Isn't it in the nature of the human being to advance? Then what have we been doing since our inception? Why were the slaves freed and the homosexuals given acceptance? And why was racial discrimination of black people abolished in the United States and elsewhere? This is progression, isn't it? And all these things have two things in common: they're difficult to revert, and they were beneficial to society as a whole. I can't think of how you could argue against this.
I didn't even know about that, to be honest. The idea of natural progression towards the best possible circumstances with the resources that are available seems to make much more sense than anything else. Isn't it in the nature of the human being to advance? Then what have we been doing since our inception? Why were the slaves freed and the homosexuals given acceptance? And why was racial discrimination of black people abolished in the United States and elsewhere? This is progression, isn't it? And all these things have two things in common: they're difficult to revert, and they were beneficial to society as a whole. I can't think of how you could argue against this.Political Realism.
Anyway, maybe I'm just missing the point completely here. What's the name of the other theory? Because I'd like to go read up on how they explain themselves.
the main actors of our world as we can see nowadays with these wars and the conflict with iran, do not share this paradigm.Well, I do believe that human beings will always be waging war with one another. That's not the point. What I'm talking about here is not even on the individualistic level. It's a subconscious direction that all of a society goes towards.
Sorry if it seemed like I just hated gay people for a second, I just don't believe it's beneficial on a progressive scale for them to ever be allowed to marry.Alright, I'm sorry you don't think that it is.
I didn't mean for my comments to send the topic off topic for that break few hours... but...
I don't mind gay people. I've been around them, and they're entertaining. I accept them for who they are. What I don't like is them being legally "married" and getting tax breaks for it. Those benefits are for a man and woman who, likely, will have a child or two someday. I don't think gays should be allowed to adopt and raise a child... sorry, I just don't. It's not natural.
I don't care if I'm surrounded on both sides with anal exploring fudge packing faggots as neighbors in a house who consider themselves a "couple." But they shouldn't be called "married," have the same benefits of a legit man and woman, and shouldn't be raising children.
Sorry if it seemed like I just hated gay people for a second, I just don't believe it's beneficial on a progressive scale for them to ever be allowed to marry.
how does that make ANY sense to youbecause the bible says no (I dont know I am going out on a limb here)
seriously though I dont know any atheist that hates gays or doesnt think they should have the same rights as other people.I do. (If we're going to play the "everybody I know agrees" game, let's be fair.)
I do. (If we're going to play the "everybody I know agrees" game, let's be fair.)I'm sorry to hear that man. Because while discriminating against people based on religion is tragically misguided it is understandable imo, but having no reason for said hatred is just pathetic.
I don't mind gay people.
I've been around them, and they're entertaining.
Those benefits are for a man and woman who, likely, will have a child or two someday.
I don't care if I'm surrounded on both sides with anal exploring fudge packing faggots as neighbors in a house who consider themselves a "couple."
WC, people don't hate gays just because the bible says soif it offends their masculinity then they have some serious issues with their own sexuality and some lingering immaturity/possible oedipus/electra complex I would say
They may also hate them because it offends their masculinity, or find it completely awkward, or let's put it this way: It offends nature (not god, just MOTHER NATURE (very misterio))
yeah tuesday is new hampshire. any predictions?
if it offends their masculinity then they have some serious issues with their own sexuality and some lingering immaturity/possible oedipus/electra complex I would saysure, so?
Man, did anyone else watch the Simpson's episode about the primaries? It was terrible and it only made my hatred of the show grow to insane heights. One quote in particular:
Lisa: It's in the constitution.
Bart: I thought the Patriot Act destroyed the constitution.
FAIL HUMOR IS FAIL. FOX should go on strike until the writer's union provides capable writers.
Political Realism.
Although I might be mixing things up a bit as well. Realism is an international theory, about the relation between predominant states concerning the dichotomy between war and peace.
It is a theory that has a pesimistic view on human beings in which they will always end up causing wars. That we never learn. Realists, don't give a shit about negros, homosexuals, abortion, or any other moral issue. They are all about the possesion of power, military power. They believe that the direction of the world depends solely on the predominant states, terrorism action from lesser states is not even a big thing for realists (at least for the purist, there are those variations that consider it important).
But well I was bringing this international theory to the national level, but the point in my previous post is to show you that the "human progress" paradigm is not embraced universally at all, and that the main actors of our world as we can see nowadays with these wars and the conflict with iran, do not share this paradigm.
all existing states act through realpolitik. i dont think it has anything to do with a "pessmistic attitude", it has more to do with the present order of things etc. realpolitik can be justified ideologically with "progressive" paradigms by the ruling class etc.
people who are not part of the elite/ruling class that believe idyeologicall "political realism" are really sad creatures, because in their hatred for humanity, they ironically hate themselves too.
ron paul supporters chase sean hannity down the street
I feel bad for Sean Hannity thanks a lot Ron Paul.
WHY WONT THEY TREAT US SERIOUSLY *forms lynch mob to chase celebrity with sticks*
Trying to find out if Obama was in support of the smoking ban in bars in Illinois, since that probably decides whether or not I actually go and vote for him.
Facing the prospect of defeat in tomorrow’s primary, Hillary Clinton just made her strongest suggestion yet that the next president may face a terrorist attack – and that she would be the best person to handle it.She pointed out that the day after Gordon Brown took office as the British prime minister, there was a failed attempt at a double bombing in London and Glasgow.
“I don’t think it was by accident that Al Qaeda decided to test the new prime minister,” she said. “They watch our elections as closely as we do, maybe more closely than some of our fellows citizens do…. Let’s not forget you’re hiring a president not just to do what a candidate says during the election, you want a president to be there when the chips are down.”
VOTE FOR ME OR THE TERRORISTS WILL WIN.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLg-31WKfXQwhy do they make so many faces? seems incredibly unprofessional to always make faces
hahahahahahahahha
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLg-31WKfXQSo he wrote racist newspaper articles for 20 years? He told people to go "buy guns" because "the animals are coming" ("animals" referring to non-white people)?
hahahahahahahahha
"Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began,"
"Am I the only one sick of hearing about the 'rights' of AIDS carriers?"
quote:
In January 1995, three months before right-wing militants bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, a newsletter listed "Ten Militia Commandments," describing "the 1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty" as "one of the most encouraging developments in America." It warned militia members that they were "possibly under BATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] or other totalitarian federal surveillance" and printed bits of advice from the Sons of Liberty, an anti-government militia based in Alabama--among them, "You can't kill a Hydra by cutting off its head," "Keep the group size down," "Keep quiet and you're harder to find," "Leave no clues," "Avoid the phone as much as possible," and "Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here."
quote:
A 1988 newsletter cited a doctor who believed that AIDS was created in a World Health Organization laboratory in Fort Detrick, Maryland.
quote:
In addition, Ron Paul & Associates sold a video about Waco produced by "patriotic Indiana lawyer Linda Thompson"--as one of the newsletters called her--who maintained that Waco was a conspiracy to kill ATF agents who had previously worked for President Clinton as bodyguards. As with many of the more outlandish theories the newsletters cited over the years, the video received a qualified endorsement: "I can't vouch for every single judgment by the narrator, but the film does show the depths of government perfidy, and the national police's tricks and crimes," the newsletter said, adding, "Send your check for $24.95 to our Houston office, or charge the tape to your credit card at 1-800-RON-PAUL."
Maybe Ron Paul, maybe just Ron Paul's closest political friend who still publishes all of his essays on ther internet writing under his name posted:
"What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved [Martin Luther King Day]!" one newsletter complained in 1990. "We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day."
quote:
While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled "The Duke's Victory," a newsletter celebrated Duke's 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Republican Senate primary. "Duke lost the election," it said, "but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment." In 1991, a newsletter asked, "Is David Duke's new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?" The conclusion was that "our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom." Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website.
quote:
The newsletters were particularly obsessed with AIDS, "a politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby," and used it as a rhetorical club to beat gay people in general. In 1990, one newsletter approvingly quoted "a well-known Libertarian editor" as saying, "The ACT-UP slogan, on stickers plastered all over Manhattan, is 'Silence = Death.' But shouldn't it be 'Sodomy = Death'?" Readers were warned to avoid blood transfusions because gays were trying to "poison the blood supply." "Am I the only one sick of hearing about the 'rights' of AIDS carriers?" a newsletter asked in 1990. That same year, citing a Christian-right fringe publication, an item suggested that "the AIDS patient" should not be allowed to eat in restaurants and that "AIDS can be transmitted by saliva," which is false. Paul's newsletters advertised a book, Surviving the AIDS Plague--also based upon the casual-transmission thesis--and defended "parents who worry about sending their healthy kids to school with AIDS victims." Commenting on a rise in AIDS infections, one newsletter said that "gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense," adding: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."
quote:
In other words, Paul's campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically--or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point--over the course of decades--he would have done something about it.
the federal holiday named after him. ("What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!" one newsletter complained in 1990. "We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.") In the early 1990s, a newsletter attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as "a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."
To understand Paul's philosophy, the best place to start is probably the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Auburn, Alabama.
Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. ("What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!" one newsletter complained in 1990. "We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.") In the early 1990s, a newsletter attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as "a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."
RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION!
RON PAUL REVOLUTION!!
You know, maybe we should find a bunch of videos that summarize the real Ron Paul pretty well. This one's a start. We could put them all together and make the ultimate anti-Paul YouTube video. And we could use the video description to contain source links. Might be a fun thing to do (not entirely necessary though, since it's not like he's an important candidate, anyway).This would be very helpful for people like me who have to deal with a lot of Ron Paulites.
I was talking about Obama.
oh nvm
yeah ignore what paulsies, episodes of Bullshit, etc say; exit polls are extremely reliable so he might still pull this off.
Still nothing from Hanover' date=' home to Dartmouth, or Lebanon, adjacent to it. But Grantham, another community near Dartmouth, is reporting all votes: 48 percent for Mr. Obama, 32 percent for Mrs. Clinton. This is the area where Mr. Obama’s win will come from if the young people and the college professors actually turn out[/quote']
cnn says no college towns from nh have reported yet. this is xcellent news for obamaOH FUCK YES, THERE IS HOPE
obama lost everyone blame truth :(
okay people come on. it's one state. it's not OVER by any means. a massive blow but he took Iowa EASILY and then.
this kills Nevada endorsements yes, but look at McCain.
okay yeah I'm painting a better face on this than it deserves CHIN UP LITTLE ONES...
guys obama is still projected to win south carolina. nevada is up for grabs but this is by no means over. obama still has boatloads of money.
God I hope you're right. Seriously, I have a feeling this country's going to shit if she wins. Something about her just makes me cringe. I think it's an omen.
also, what's McCain like? I'm under the impression he's the best out of the republicans?-ya he is
Just by first impression I think I'd rather have him than Hillary, but I may be so wrong, I dunno, just ranting air
man you are an idiot
because she has success in another state it must mean it's because THE BITCH cried
man you are an idiot
because she has success in another state it must mean it's because THE BITCH cried
I'm pretty mad I just lost the link but I was reading over this British news article that went IN DEPTH on how, for the past 50 years, candidates have won over New Hampshire due to emotional break down. In 2004, Kerry started crying when a NH woman told him her life story and he won the state in a landslide. In the 70s, some politician defended his wife's honor by attacking a newspaper that made fun of her. In his debate, he whiped a "snowflake" out of his eye (was actually a tear) and was torn apart.haha what are you talking about
I've got to find that link again because I stumbled over it on accident and I have my history folders cleaned out automatically.
I think he's saying that New Hampshire's votes are easily swung by drama
i sincerely doubt that is why she won.I heard on the news here that it might be because a lot of women came out to vote today, and they all voted for Hillary. Maybe they were watching when she broke down?
i mean, it's not like her campaign knew that if she lost again it would be over at all AM I RITE.
ps they knew this and so they made sure they ensure a comeback.
HOW they pulled this off is beyond me but I don't think her crying mattered much.
Well shit Hillary won, dang I missed so much discussion.
And I KNEW people would try to pass of the crying thing as some sort of reason for her winning.
Oh and I had a heated discussion about Ron Paul with my friend today who almost tried to tell me that it shouldn't matter if he was a racist or not, I was nearly outraged, well not really I was too busy laughing at him. Then he went on to explain that the quotes were taken out of context. I told him how his position on domestic affairs were irresponsible, etc. I'm just interested in finding some more debate strategies against Paul since I didn't really convince my friend at all. Any suggestions?
The US converting to a gold standard would require them to re-issue all currency in circulation as a fixed amount of gold. Since the US government doesn't have a lot of gold, it would mean a lot less currency. Thus, they would need to purchase gold — as a result, the price of gold would skyrocket. The US government would have to sell assets in order to purchase the now absurdly expensive gold, or run a deficit. Taxes would be forced to rise to finance this.
However, this would be pointless, since approximately 1 trillion dollars of goods flows out of the US economy every year. Thus, the economy would literally bled gold bullion. The only way to balance out is a recession, so deep and crippling, that it would eliminate the US trade deficit.
Okay, the regulatory mechanism for the gold standard works like this. Suppose we have two countries, A and B.
Now, for whatever reason, country A is on the gold standard. It doesn't matter what country B is on. Now, A and B buy and sell goods to one another. In order to buy and sell goods, the people in these countries need to purchase currency from one another to buy them.
When an economy buys things from another economy, they need to purchase money from the other economy to buy goods. So, for instance, country A needs to buy country B's currency (call it B$) to buy goods from country B. And vice versa.
Now, as they buy and sell, there usually will be an imbalance been how much people buy and sell in a given country. For instance, country A may be buying more from country B than it is selling. This leads to an imbalance in the currencies, because people in country A will be buying up B$ and selling A$. When it all comes out in the wash, there is a surplus of A$ on the market -- that is, the demand for A$ is lower than the amount supplied.
Now, people will work to correct this surplus, because it's pointless for them to have A$ sitting around no one wants to own. In a quasi-fiat system of freely traded currencies, the exchange rate does this. Bankers and financial dealers adjust the relative values of the currencies to make the "price" of A$ optimal. Currencies wax and wane in value based on their economies and variety of other complex mumbo jumbo which doesn't really matter here.
However, in the gold standard this doesn't happen, because A$ are linked to a fixed amount of gold -- that is, a commodity. Instead, people who hold A$ start redeeming them for gold, in order to sell them as a useful commodity. As a result, Country A's stockpile of gold, which they use to back their currency on, dwindles. In turn, the supply of money for country A falls.
Not enough money is circulation causes the economy to constrict, since doing basic business becomes increasingly difficult. It also can cause deflation, and a host of other problems. In short, the only way for A's domestic economy to come into equillibrium is for it to crash. Businesses shut down, and domestic demand for goods slows as the economy stalls.
While this is a bad thing, it does do one very good thing. If you have no money, because the economy is in recession, you can't very well afford to buy items from country B. Thus, the supply of A$ on the market falls, and people stop redeeming the excess for gold. The process brings the two markets into equilibrium again, and all is well in the world of international commerce.
Of course, the side effects are not exactly pleasant for people in country A.
One theory right now is that since the polls were so 15 POINT LEAD f*CK YEAH GUYS that a bunch of Independents figured Barack had NH in the bag and voted for Mccain/Paul (Although with Paul i guess it's not true because NINE PERCENT and whatnot).
But then again....
fuck John Edwards, fuck his stupid supporters who when I was holding a huge sign today tried to stand in front of me and block its view from the road and told me that they truly believed edwards had a chance to be president
they didn't like it too much when i told them their candidate would make a great AG.
I don't know why Edwards is running. It should be pretty obvious to him that he really doesn't have much of a chance going against Obama and Hillary. I'd just drop out and stop wasting my own (and other people's) money. I'm sure he supports Obama more than Hillary. Dropping out would be good for him both personally and...non...personally...
One theory right now is that since the polls were so 15 POINT LEAD f*CK YEAH GUYS that a bunch of Independents figured Barack had NH in the bag and voted for Mccain/Paul (Although with Paul i guess it's not true because NINE PERCENT and whatnot).I hope that this is the case, and that Obama supporters are now awake and realize that they really need to get out and vote if they want him to win. But you know, this explanation still seems slightly unlikely to me, as I'd reckon that people are more willing to vote if they're certain that they're not supporting someone who's not going to win anyway.
LAS VEGAS (AP) — Presidential hopeful Barack Obama has won an endorsement from the Nevada chapter of the Service Employees International Union, boosting his prospects against rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in Nevada's upcoming Democratic caucuses.
The influential union claims to represent 17,500 health care and county workers in Nevada. Its executive board approved the decision in a conference call late Tuesday, shortly after the Illinois senator finished a close second behind Clinton in the New Hampshire primary.
The announcement came as Obama was expecting to get another boost from labor in Nevada. The 60,000-member Culinary Workers Union, Local 226 was scheduled to announce its endorsement Wednesday.
btw Obama still is winning via delegates, which is what matters
Obama: 25
Clinton: 24
Edwards: 18
just a little fyi.
Obama mentioned his church during his appearance with Oprah.That's right... they actually think his middle name is Mohammed.
It's the Trinity Church of Christ. It's not like any Church of Christ
I've ever heard of. I found this very interesting.
Obama's church:
Please read and go to this church's website and read what is written there.
It may be very alarming.
Barack Obama is a member of this church and is running for President of the U.S.
If you look at the first page of their website, you will learn that this congregation
has a non-negotiable commitment to Africa. No where is AMERICA even mentioned.
Notice too, what color you will need to be if you should want to join
Obama's church... B-L-A-C-K!!!
Doesn't look like his choice of religion has improved much over his (former?)
Muslim upbringing.
Are you aware that Obama's middle name is Mohammed?
Strip away his nice looks, the big smile and smooth talk and what do you get?
Is he a racist, as plainly defined by the stated position of his church!
Is he possibly a covert worshiper of the Muslim faith, even today.
This guy desires to be in charge of over America
while his loyalty is totally vested in a Black Africa!
I cannot believe this has not been all over the TV and newspapers.
You may want to pass this message along to all of your family & friends.
To think that Obama has even the slightest
chance in the run for the presidency, is really scary to me.
Click on the link below:
This is the web page for the church Barack Obama belongs to:
www.tucc.org/about.htm
Yeah
I think it's important to note that Hillary and Obama TIED in the number of delegates won in New Hampshire.
helpful stuffHey thanks !!
the obama pledge thing is on snopes as untrue btw.Well it is true that he didn't PUT HIS HAND OVER HIS HEART (instead he stood in respectful observance, and uses his hand many other times anyways), but a lot of people try to convolute that as some sort of statement about his SACRED PATRIOTISM.
Richardson has dropped out.
Maybe his supporters will go to Obama?
Edward wont drop out?
Given that situation, his supporters would rather vote who Hillary or Obama?
hah, nice. I think Edwards should negotiate with Obama asap. If the Obama/Edwards formula is presented now, Obama should win by landslide.
But what do I know, I'm just thinking
so after NH and some new polls I'm getting the feeling that Hillary will win!!
what is your opinion that if obama gets the nomination, he's toast because of the perceived notion that the southern states won't vote for a black man who is often mistaken for a muslim? i really want to know how likely this scenario is because i'd like to debunk the myth that everyone in the south is a bunch of racist hicks, as well as argue in favor of an extremely intelligent candidate who i have faith in and who would handle this country well, but i actually don't know if that's the way they'd vote!
Obama just got endorsed by John Kerry.Poor guy.
Obama just got endorsed by John Kerry.
seriously the best thing for the Obama camp right now
is either to win in SC or have Edwards wins. but if Hilary wins in SC man... its gonna be a long battle after that to regain the lost momentum
sigh. on a side note my hickass of a lab partner in biology today told me that everything about obama in that ridiculous chain letter was true and that I should move to Iran because I want to have a muslim with the middle name mohammad who wont say the pledge of allegiance. it took pretty much every fibre of my being (and the fact that he was a middle linebacker) to keep from punching him in the face
Man, I was so confident in Obama winning the Democratic nomination, but after the last few days, I'm not so sure he could pull it off.
there can only be one answer....an hour ago I was going to post "now steel will come in here and claim it's all because of him" but apparently gw didn't want to let me do that
steel bandwagoning
This is really interesting.
I could make a separate topic about it if anybody wants, in case they are in FEAR OF THE DERAIL.
But I find it pretty interesting how GW, which has no political premise at all, seems to have mostly atheist liberal members that are pretty much in favor of Obama. Why is this? Which factors made GW be that way? Is the structure of GW that in some way promotes this kind of member? Is it that the most relevant members happen to think that way, and by teaming up they just define the political tendency inside GW?
it is interstins
an hour ago I was going to post "now steel will come in here and claim it's all because of him" but apparently gw didn't want to let me do that
man, what a steel thing to say. has it ever occurred to you that MAYBE, given the same general age range and sociopolitical leanings, his interest in feminism is inspired by the same thing that inspired it within you? why do you think that simply because you posted about it on gw, at some point in time, anyone after that point with more than a passing interest in it must clearly have been vitally influenced by you in their thirst for knowledge that thousands of others have been interested in before you were even at the point of being able to understand that someone doesn't stop existing when they move out of your line of sight?
we've already covered these bases before; they should be familiar ground for you by now. gw, at its very core, is an exceedingly homogeneous community. so much time spent around so select a group of people leads to, surprise, the lines of peoples NETDENTITIES (heh) gradually fading until one person is barely distinguishable from the rest. was a conscious desire to be like someone else cited when i sounded like you who sounded like turkpimp? no, because it is unconscious, and a problem (if you could even call it that) that can be traced back to a person's simple PRESENCE on gw, their very interaction with anyone here.
there is, of course, one thing of yours he didn't coopt. and that is your giant, uncontrollable ego that seems to color everything you see in some sort of STEEL BRUSHED HAZE. perhaps he is like you, in a loose sense, but he probably wouldn't make the mistake of saying that a person must surely be basing their own identify off of someone else because of shared interests in superficial subjects, and a general similarity in posting tone that also exists throughout a large amount of the active posters at gw.
"Even in a book of lies you sometimes find truth. There is indeed a season for all things' date=' and now that I see you flesh to flesh, blood to blood, I know I cannot raise my hand against you. But know this, you are my greatest disappointment. Does your master hear me? Atlas! You can kill me, but you can never have my city! My strength is not in steel or fire, that is what the parasites will never understand. A season for all things, a time to live, and a time to die. A time to build, and a time to destroy! Come now my child, there is one last thing to discuss."[/quote']
anyways yeah how is that an actual question Shep? conservatives tend to be older by vast numbers and liberals are younger. come on, a little bit of applied thinking results in like a hundred possible answers all of which are probably at least slightly valid.Because if political belief were to be defined by age then I wouldn't be asking this question
As for Kucinich, does he really think the recount is going to make any difference for him?
This stuff about Ron Paul has gotten me increasingly skeptical about his running as a candidate. I mean, I don't know anything about the guy's character or personality, but his policies, to me, just looked plain ridiculous. Certainly, some of them are good, even great, ideas, but c'mon: The Gold Standard? Withdrawal from trade agreements and the United Nations? Abolishment of several government-funded programs that ensure the safety and protection of our citizens? I mean, I'm not sure if it's all completely true and correct, and I'm sure I'd read up on his policies before our state's primary (except I didn't register to vote 30 days before, which is the cutoff and also IT DOESN'T COUNT), but I couldn't really see him as a president. He's a little too... radial for my tastes. But I suppose that's what his supporters are arguing for, eh? A revolution? It's just too weird.
What's really weird,tough, is imagining all the candidates with the prefix "President". I mean, except Clinton, because there's already been one. But the rest of the sound odd, to say the least.
Man, I've almost stopped reading Digg because of how much they love Ron Paul. All the posts about his newsletters coming out are ignored or replied to with "WELL HE SAYS HE DIDN'T WRITE THOSE", and there's one that's all about HOW GOOD OF A JOB RON PAUL DID SAYING HE DIDN'T DO IT, and the post goes on and on about "The Ron Paul I love..." That's the essence of it--they don't give a shit what Ron Paul is really like because they're in love with this magical image of him, they don't realize the Ron Paul they love isn't who they want to put in office, it's the real Ron Paul that would be there.Now, where did I hear about this before?
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/new-hampshire-t.html
NH's gonna recount. That'd be crazy if anything changed.
One voter expressed concern because her district reported 0 votes for Ron Paul when her family all voted for him.
Clearly some miscount of the votes occurred, because it was later discovered that Dr. Paul had several dozen votes for the district.
How fucking retarded is this?
Retarded that Paul only got a dozen votes or retarded because they're recounting something that ended days ago?
I'm kind of interested in this revelation. Miscounting a couple dozen votes is pretty serious.
Retarded because it shows how fucked up the voting system is when votes go uncounted. That's a few dozen uncounted votes in just one county. There are around 237 counties in New Hampshire. Hopefully this recount will be done before Super Tuesday...it should be if their estimates are correct. Imagine how big of a blow it would be to Hillary if they found that Obama won.
As for GZ's comment, don't know if that was directed at me or not, but I'm an Obama supporter.
I completely agree with Ron Paul's Ideals. It's about time that America focused more in it's own interest rather than trying to police other nations. Cutting systems from the federal government is a great Idea as well. I mean the government is putting billions of dollars of our tax money to all these organizations that are old and aren't even necessary anymore. Besides Ron Paul did vote against the Patriot Act, and the Government Regulation of the Internet, both of which affects us internet users!. Sure he maybe going for a more socialistic approach, but whats so bad about that? Look at Canada and it's medical system, why do you think so many senior citizens in America cross the border to Canada to get medications. If we had a better Medicare/medicate system they wouldn't have to go to Canada to get cheaper medications in the first place.
But I can't vote, I'm not a citizen. And for the first time ever in the 10 years I've lived in America I finally feel the true importance of voting, which some people take for granted at times.
Sure he maybe going for a more socialistic approachHuh?
but whats so bad about that?Nothing's wrong with a social government. But if you want one, vote for a democrat! Don't vote for Ron Paul, because he wants to steer America into the opposite direction.
Speaking of which, I have yet to understand why getting rid of stuff like the FDA and education system and social security and the federal reserve and so on would be at all beneficial. Ron Paul's supporters keep gushing about that shit over and over but I have yet to see any of them explain why any of that would be good at all.I'm also unsure (because, as you say, this isn't explained in detail very often), but I think that the general argument is simple: they say the government cannot be trusted to do an as good job as the free market. In reality, the advantages you gain by increasing the competition over these areas will not outweigh the negative consequences. After all, these are essential services we're talking about here that people cannot go without. You can't trust privatized companies to always do a good job, especially when their services are required by a great part of the population.
haha what! it's like you took the internet's CRAZY MESSIAH WORSHIP and conformed it to your own beliefs. Paul hates UHC! he wants the free market to deal with it. he also wants all that bullshit alternative medicine to be allowed even though, you know, doesn't work 99.9% of the time but hey stock it next to the condoms and advil!!!Off topic, if by alternative medicine you mean holistic medicine it does work.
Off topic, if by alternative medicine you mean holistic medicine it does work.
Well TCM they've been doing it for like 5000 years so it must be of some use.You CAN'T be serious, I know you don't believe in God and people always say things like "well people have believed in god for thousands of years, it must be true lalala", you know that's a junk principle, just apply that same principle to TCM and the rest of junk medicines out there.
the problem is this wasn't a matter of a few votes being discounted, but something that was CLEARLY a mistake. were it a conspiracy or anything, she'd write: PAUL: 20 or something. but she wrote zero. I mean, obviously SOMEONE who voted for Paul would call the media or something.
it doesn't take much thought to realize that this was a mistake instead of a FUCK PAUL. it also is a statistically insignificant number; margins of error tend to take these kind of mistakes into account, so Paul's total vote percentage won't be affected at all.
basically it's a clear example like GZ said of Paulsie retardation; this was a mistake, almost assuredly in every way (she fixed it within 16 hours when it was brought to her attention) but now they are throwing more money away on a recount, in some desperate way hoping he'll get 3,000 votes that didn't exist prior.
You CAN'T be serious, I know you don't believe in God and people always say things like "well people have believed in god for thousands of years, it must be true lalala", you know that's a junk principle, just apply that same principle to TCM and the rest of junk medicines out thereI don't get what you mean? Basically, they believe it works so that's why they use it???
It isn't just the few miscounted votes though. From what I remember, Obama had more votes when they were hand counted and Hillary had more when they used the computerized voting system. I honestly don't give a fuck about Ron Paul, but I do agree with Kucinich that it seems odd that the results would be so dramatically different from the predictions (the Obama vs. Hillary stuff). Either way, why does it matter if they recount? If the votes were counted correctly the first time and the recount confirms it, then it'll instill confidence in computerized voting systems. If they differ, then we'll know something's up and to be more careful next time. It's a win-win either way. Sure it'll cost money, but it's nothing when you consider that the election will determine the fate of the U.S. for the next 4 years.
hundley took kelp to cure his acid reflux against his doctor's orders, if I recall correctly. It largely depends on the doctor exactly how alternative the treatments can go; the doctors my family visit know about herbs and alternative medicine and will give you an educated opinion on whatever best choice is. some of that stuff does work, and as a future doctor I think it's important for someone in the profession to have a good knowledge of the available cures within their field. what paul's suggesting however is the dumbest shit and would probably kill tons of people, especially without the FDA to regulate things. let the free market decide which medicines work!!
I don't get what you mean? Basically, they believe it works so that's why they use it???
Actually, I've seen it work so yeah. I could be misunderstanding your post though.
Hey guys the Michigan primary (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#MI) is going on right now.
Romney is winning in exit polls according to drudgereport
According to CNN exit polling' date=' 68 percent of blacks chose uncommitted, compared with 30 percent for the Democratic front-runner.[/quote']
bad news for hillary!
man he is a real horses ass (romney)
cant fucking wait till tomorrow eveninnnggggg (sc primary come on obama)
Nevada is next for Obama, not South Carolina. I think they hold their Democratic primary a week after the Republican one. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.ah yes thats next saturday
RP might actually take second in Nevada. And Clinton won Nevada so blah. But who cares it's caucuses that no one cares about.Wow, if we don't watch out, there might actually be a solid reason to campaign against Ron Paul. Up until now, some people have stayed away from exerting effort towards that because he's "never going to win anyway". I still don't think he'll win, but... still.
that and Romney and him are the only ones who campaigned in Nevada.
EDIT:
great
clinton wins
romney wins
ron paulsies get a boost (despite losing by 40% in a terrible state, they will say SECOND PLACE WOOT)
fuck you Nevada.
i just found out our primary is before my birthday so i don't get to vote in november :(
I WAS SO STOKED TOO
Kucinich dropped out todayYeah :(
obama also won white people and women, so it was pretty much a crushing victory.He won in total amount of votes, but according to CNN, he didn't get a majority support from white folks.
come on edwards. a third place showing for clinton would be aceI'd rather have edwards losing bad so he quits
how long do these go on for? Seriously, isn't the election more than a year away?
how long do these go on for? Seriously, isn't the election more than a year away? As senators, what happens to their responsibilities? Are they just ignored until this eight month long campaign for candidancy is over, or what?umm the election is about 9 monthes away but the last of the primaries/caucuses in like july or something (i'm going on fragile memory)
I love how the 2008 race has been news since the day after the 2006 interim elections (I am not sure what they were called). In the end of 2008, the 2010 interim elections will be news until 2012, et cetera. Mass media could love American politics for that reason alone! It wouldn't be bad if you actually learned political things in the news, but every time I watch CNN it just seems like more news about who kissed which babies. Not really helpful!
the Republican ones do. the democratic ones don't, however. (interesting to note that clinton has made several last minute visits and even declared victory in a state that was prohibited to campaign in by the democratic party)The Republican ones only count for half off the delegates. But I'm not talking in terms of the delegates earned from Florida, I'm talking about how a win here will affect the primaries in other states, and the success of the candidates' campaigns themselves.
but it does say something ... =\
no it doesn't, he wasn't really campaigning there as far as I know.
On the Democratic side, Tuesday's vote in Florida may have little impact on the presidential race because the party's national leadership said it would not allow the state's delegates to participate in the national convention after a squabble over scheduling the primary. The party's candidates agreed not to campaign actively in Florida
Republicans penalized the state as well but took away only half of their 114 delegates.
What's the deal with this? Someone explain.
Edwards has said he won't endorse anyone in his speech tonight, rather that he'll just underline his issue of poverty.I'm not so certain whether it's good for Obama. I have a feeling that Edwards was soaking up a lot of white male voters which will now go to Hillary. It's true that Edwards is much closer to Obama, but that might not necessarily translate in an advantage for Obama.
Basically, he's waiting to see who echoes his campaign lines the most before he endorses them.
Even without an endorsement though, I think this can only be good for obama. I feel like alot of both Obama's and Edward's votes are anti-hillary votes.
huge florida landslide for hillary; good it doesn't countwell also I think that Obama gave up on the states that dont have any delegates because the Democratic convention stripped them of them (he lost in michigan and in florida heheh lets see if such a trend continues)
I'm not so certain whether it's good for Obama. I have a feeling that Edwards was soaking up a lot of white male voters which will now go to Hillary. It's true that Edwards is much closer to Obama, but that might not necessarily translate in an advantage for Obama.
Still, if Obama wants to comfortably win on Super Tuesday, he's going to want an endorsement from Edwards.well as I recall in the last debate that had Bill Richardson in it, Edwards kinda threw his support behind Obama when they ganged up on Hilary. He didnt seem to agree with her on much at all, so I'd be really suprised if he doesnt announce support for Obama.
i realise this is irrelevant now but i just realised john edwards is 54 and i am blown away.
well as I recall in the last debate that had Bill Richardson in it, Edwards kinda threw his support behind Obama when they ganged up on Hilary. He didnt seem to agree with her on much at all, so I'd be really suprised if he doesnt announce support for Obama.
oh shit Obama raised $32 million in just the MONTH OF JANUARY. that's equal to his three month fundraising record. also Hulk Hogan endorsed Obama
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
edit: in comparison John McCain raised $29 million in ALL OF 2007
ffffff Just two days ago I was talking about how as far as JOKE OPTIONS go I wanted Hulk Hogan to be president. This is the next best thing.Obama 2008: HOGAN'S CHOICE
Moveon.org endorsed obama today
I would love it so much to be able to tell my kids how he was behind the whole time then in the end overcame and won the nomination.The electoral equivalent of SUPERFIGHT II
A music video set to Barack Obama's stirring speech after the New Hampshire primary from Black Eyed Peas frontman will.I.am.. Includes celebrity supporters Scarlett Johansson, John Legend, Herbie Hancock, Kate Walsh, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Adam Rodriquez, Kelly Hu, Adam Rodriquez, Amber Valetta and Nick Cannon. Directed by Jesse Dylan, son of Bob Dylan.
videoMan, that's an awesome video. Herbie Hancock and Jesse Dylan!
I swear it must be because of Edwards dropping out.
ughghjd;hfahweoifiopq[
apparently i can't vote tomorrow since I'm at college at a different town/precinct and even if I did re-register, there's a 20-day waiting period THIS IS BULLSH*T
you can vote absentee or travel to your town.pretty sure its too late for me to ask them to send me an absentee ballot, no? traveling back home is out of the question (it's a tuesday, i have classes :sad: )
Also that sucks ASE, here you can do everything day off.Yeah my friend said that in NH, for example, you can register and vote on the same day (this helps the large college student population!) but stupid states like MA have not adapted this policy yet!
Yeah my friend said that in NH, for example, you can register and vote on the same day (this helps the large college student population!) but stupid states like MA have not adapted this policy yet!
Huckabee wins in first Super Tuesday test.It isn't going to happen. His core support is from the religious right, but the religious right also has other alignments on economics or on national security, which means McCain and Romney will take away a lot of his potential support. I am with you on that, though. I hate the religious right so much and I don't want to see a representative of them in power. McCain has the best chance of being secular, since Romney has already said that you can't have government without religion and Huckabee is, well, Huckabee.
"Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee has drawn first blood in Super Tuesday's U.S. Republican primaries, winning the state of West Virginia."
*cringe*
A Huckabee nomination terrifies me to the core.
Dada, on the other hand... Obama is blackYou're a latino! You guys are the ones that are massively voting for Clinton!
your argument is very biased
Early results showed Obama with a 2-1 lead over rival Hillary Clinton in the first state to close its polls.
That couldn't be three times as much, or else he would only win 20 delegates, and hillary would win.
Your an ass!
Apparently projections show Obama winning 60 of the 87 delegates of Georgia.
edit: That's three times more than expected
Someone doesn't understand how to correctly present what they are thinking then. No one could look at that and not think 20 delegates. I will give you a chance to explain what you really meant, your welcome.
What would suck is if he won and did a shitty job.Ahahaha, yeah, that's the number one thing that I would be afraid of. I mean, most people thought Bush was a good president until around 2002-2003ish. No matter what anyone's policies are right now, their approval ratings will eventually drop before the end of their term and we might even end up despising them. And then we'll say, "lol, who elected this guy?" like we do with Bush now. The worst thing is that if one of the two Democratic front runners got into office and ended up doing not-so-well, it'll set this horrible precedent against change in the United States. :sad:
reading through this thread, it seems like Obama is winning, but according to CNN, Hillary is leading overall with 299 delegates, compared to Obama's 225.That is right but he is gaining heavily on her from what the numbers were at the start of the day, so I would still say he is winning. California is the big deal though, for both republicans and democrats.
Obama just sweeped Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah according to Daily Kos
uh, obama is losing AZ, NM, CO, and UT, according to CNN, and I'd say that CNN is more trustworthy considering that very small percentages are coming in so far from these places so it would be a bit hard to SWEEP
how is losing by 100 delegates not a big deal?
also what states are up next for primaries?
I went on MSNBC and I don't see those numbers.
I did read an article saying Obama won more delegates tonight, and that he may be up by 4, but I still see no numbers.
Obama won in states where he wasn't expected to perform well. He carried Southern states, he'll probably take New Mexico, he did win a Northeastern state, he got a 60/40 split in Hillary's Senatorial state (a closed primary, for that matter), he might not get obliterated in California, and he grabbed nearly 40 percent of female voters.
EDIT: why is Arkansas so stupid?
Obama won in states where he wasn't expected to perform well. He carried Southern states,
Holy shit YES! This is great news.That's what they said about New Hampshire, too. Let's not get too excited!
CNN still shows Hillary up top though, so I dunno yet. It's clear though that the momentum is with Obama though. And I think it's pretty clear he's going to win the next primaries as well.
superdelegates are not committed btw until the final conference, where they go with the popular vote winner usually so.Now I KNOW we've just crossed over in the Dragonball Z universe....
superdelegates are not committed btw until the final conference, where they go with the popular vote winner usually so.
The 834 number is only delegates won LAST NIGHT
add up the other delegates as well
superdelegates are not committed btw until the final conference, where they go with the popular vote winner usually so.That is kind of bizarre and disagreeable to me, but I guess it's to Obama's advantage, as Clinton currently has more superdelegates.
What if she ends up as our democratic candidate? Will you guys vote for her, or vote republican, or not even vote at all? Would you be pissed?
Obama is/was the underdog dude. Clinton was pretty far up in the Summer, she's fallen a lot.
Obama's website says he won Super Tuesday is this true???
I don't know much about presidential elections but what does all of this money go to? Just the campaign?
I like how all the candidates are for ChangeTM. How inspiring!
Huckabee still terrifies me... I'd take Guiliani over Huckabee. *cringe*
Obama started that shit. After the other candidates saw how well it was working for him, they just started to copy. It's retarded.Yeah, it's apparently a MAJOR priority these elections. That's why the other candidates have been trying very hard to make it part of their curriculum. It seems to be too late for them, though.
You don't live in America right Omega? I wanted to note that I find it cool that people like you are very interested in this, if other people have the same level of interest in other countries as you seem to demonstrate it really just proves that it's not only america that wants a better goverment, but the world wants america to get their shit together, too.Trust me, all of the world's eyes are on America right now. Not just here in the Netherlands, but in all of Europe. Every single primary and caucus has been reported on here in the Netherlands. The vast majority wants a democrat to win, too. According to some poll, Hillary Clinton is apparently the favorite here, Obama being a close second.
Guys when i make the American Socialist Party join ok.
Not just here in the Netherlands, but in all of Europe.
Don't worry someday we'll change this two party stuff.
Guys when i make the American Socialist Party join ok.
Steel, I need you to give me the biggest, fattest, most erect Anti-Ron Paul post with plenty of links and shit. I just quoted one of your Arguments on another forum, and I might need some more ammo.
PS: I gave you credit and shit though.
EDIT: Actually, you can PM it or whatever. I just need something to go off of hear.
I definitely will, mostly because it means you'd also be in possession of a time machine that's capable of taking us back to the beginning of the twentieth century.There is more to socialism than just that, you know.
wørdzYeah this is amazing stuff. (Also, see the original topic (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2746491&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1) for more information.) Remember how I said I was going to fix up the Ron Paul article on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul)? It's just too difficult at this point, man. There are a couple of frequent editors who have stated before that "we now reliably know he did not write those newsletters" and other such things. I guess that I should at least wait until the sucker drops out.
You don't live in America right Omega? I wanted to note that I find it cool that people like you are very interested in this, if other people have the same level of interest in other countries as you seem to demonstrate it really just proves that it's not only america that wants a better goverment, but the world wants america to get their shit together, too.Damn straight we do!
Damn straight we do!*emphasis*
There is more to socialism than just that, you know.
Well, actually, I was referencing the fact that the American Socialist Party was founded in like, 1901.
(But I also think Socialism is a pretty terrible form of government)
i'm not one of those HEH FLIP FLOPPER faggots or anything but since when were you even remotely socialist? what made you decide to flip your political opinions? (not trying to be a dick i'm genuinely curious)
Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, an early supporter of U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, told the News-Press in Richmond last week that he felt Obama, if nominated, "would be well served" by selecting Virginia's junior U.S. Sen. Jim Webb as his running mate.
[...]
"I think he should choose someone who is strong in foreign policy and defense issues," he said. He then went on to drop the name of Sen. Webb.
Yes, and it was broken up in the 70's and split into two groups that are much more radical.
Between McCain, Obama, and Clinton. Obama Ftw.
Highly reliable, probably the most reliable poll so far
Ron Paul appears to have had a Dennis Kucinich moment.
Just as the liberal Ohio congressman realized last month that his long-shot presidential campaign was imperiling his prospects for keeping his House seat, Paul appears to be choosing the comfort of incumbency over a continued effort to win a nomination that he has virtually no shot at capturing.
I've noticed that polls are considered more reliable when they say what people want them to.
Ron Paul "scaling back" his presidential run: (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0208/Ron_Paul_pivots_to_his_reelection.html)They should disallow commentary on that site. It immediately became apparent that their site is home to the political unsavory by looking at the people saying things like "a noble effort which will likely have an impact on the future of the GOP" and "Ron Paul defeated every other candidate in the presidential primary somewhere". They also accused the blog of being part of the conspiracy to prevent Ron Paul from getting media coverage. Then again, that's normal; wherever there's Ron Paul news, there are zealous fans waiting to pounce right onto it. It's their compensation which reassures us that Ron Paul was never more than an ant that tried to be an elephant.
superdelegates are not committed btw until the final conference, where they go with the popular vote winner usually so.
Obama completes the sweep:
Projected to win Washington, Nebraska, and finally louisiana.
Winning close to 70% of the votes in the former two states
Is this true? If so, why does CNN count the superdelegates? Are you sure this is true?
many of them committed to clinton when she was "inevitable"
many of them committed to clinton when she was "inevitable"
Why do we even have superdelegates? their existence seems retarded
And the other two are Bill and Hillary :fogetshh:
Well, the thing you have to understand is that the Democratic party? They pretty much have no clue what they're doing. I mean, the only thing they really do a good job of is sabotaging themselves. I mean, the 2004 Election? That should have been a SURE thing, and yet, look how it turned out. Other than that, they pretty much run around like chickens with their heads cut off. Ergo, Super Delegates.
Their general disorganization may not be such a problem now that the Bush administration has irreversibly damaged the Republican party.
They are there so the democratic party has SOME say in who they elect as their representative.
Just watched Dada's video. AWESOME. I actually hadn't seen that yet. Reporter looks to find stupid political follower, and finds someone actually informed and smart! How about we elect that man for president?I'm sure he'd fare better than Huckabee! Actually, that quote about believing in miracles is pretty hilarious. (Too bad he's serious.)
Is this true? If so, why does CNN count the superdelegates? Are you sure this is true?
yeah, maybe I'm just too cynical but I find it impossible to believe that the average voter is THAT well informed. That's either a one in a million shot or it's staged. I also found it strange how the reporter was really grilling the fuck out of the guy in the beginning. It sounded more like a police interrogation than a casual interview.it is impossible that your average voter is that well informed
video no longer availableLiar.
:(
I have no idea what happened.Stop smoking weed l mao
I didn't know the voting would take place today! I forgot to record CNN. Oh well.
EDIT: I'm sure most people have seen this one by now, but still:
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kica8hmSdAM&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kica8hmSdAM&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Did Steel suddenly turn black?
Also Clinton just fired and replaced her campaign manager.... SHIT IS GOIN DOWN
yeah, that and the fact she donated herself 5 million dolla to herself shows she's pretty desperate and will do what it takes.Well, that must have just been a cry for attention, since according to CNN she still has plenty of money (http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/dems.html) left. A lot more than Obama, that is.
Ditching the campaign manager is the political equivalent of firing the kicker.
Wait, were you this interested in the 2004 election? The one that could have dramatically reduced the damage caused by the Bush administration? That one was a lot more important than this one, where all the front runners are pretty much ok. (Nevermind that Bush Jr. was pretty ok in 2000, and then circumstances changed and resulted in this trainwreck)
oh, he was interested.
he voted for Bush.
in that election where it was not 100% a certainty one party would win, as opposed to this one where even Sean Hannity said the Democratic party would have to try to lose in order not to win.
so yeah don't accuse Truth of maybe riding bandwagons and not having the most political sense because then he'll accuse you of being...a...apathetic...
I was also 18 years old thanks.
I'm getting tired of you accusing me of being a bandwagoner tex, i've been an obama supporter since september at least (when hillary was still considered the presumptive nominee). And of course this is more important than 2004. We have a MUCH BETTER CHANCE of winning this election obviously, the republicans are divided this year we can make inroads and hold the senate AND the presidency, that is huge.
John Kerry is also more similar to Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama (He voted for the war just like she did).
I am of the opinion that Obama is the most important candidate we've had come around in fifty years at least. I'm extremely interested in the Obama campaign, and it's not like I haven't made....... avatars.... about other things I was extremely interested in.
don't try to argue about it, Steel Paladine knows why you support Obama.
by the way at the time I wanted to vote for Bush too, but I was only 17 so I couldn't
crushed by a CaRRot CuSine you're like the worst human being ?
hey guys watch out about getting too interested in the most important election of our lifetimes.well dawg it's clear you're like rabidly obsessed with obama and i don't even know why you're making an argument that you're not? your last two or three avatars have been of barack obama, your member title is about barack obama, you have a fucking BARACK OBAMA QUOTE in your signiture, and apparently you just like message steel on aim saying "YES WE CAN." i don't quite understand how this can make you anything but a crazy obama supporter. this doesn't mean that i'd call you a bandwagoner, because i'm not sure i agree with him about that, nor does it mean that obama's a bad candidate, because he's clearly not; it just means that you're an ALARMINGLY RABID SUPPORTER of him and it's a little weird!
you might be accused..... of obama dick jacking.
i hope eugene debs wins
Render, just, please, do not reply to me again. passive aggressive is not shit I do and this is just getting pathetic on your part because you keep following me around saying OH YOU KNOW EVERYTHING and it's just sad, don't care, if I could put you on ignore I would, etc, thanks for listening!This is aggressive aggressive, what part of YOU ARE A FAGGOT sounds watered down to you
so yeah don't accuse Truth of maybe riding bandwagons and not having the most political sense because then he'll accuse you of being...a...apathetic...
so yeah don't accuse Truth of maybe riding bandwagons and not having the most political sense because then he'll accuse you of being...a...apathetic...
I really don't know as much about the candidates as I should. Of course, it doesn't matter, since I live in the Netherlands. The one I've read most about is Barack Obama, and he seems a very acceptable candidate.Sorry, I know that this is an old post. Anyhow, this made me think, wasn't Abraham Lincoln an atheist?
People are saying it would really be something if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton were to become the next president, since there haven't ever been black or female presidents before, but I personally am waiting more eagerly for the first atheist president.
by the way at the time I wanted to vote for Bush too, but I was only 17 so I couldn'tYou guys say "I was only n years old" like that somehow makes it all right. Are you implying that it's impossible to have a well-informed opinion when you're barely legal voting age? You should be saying "I wanted to vote for Bush, but that was back when I didn't have a clue about the world."
can i frequent one fucking topic without there being a steel argument in itSteel is participating in the topic.
Sorry, I know that this is an old post. Anyhow, this made me think, wasn't Abraham Lincoln an atheist?I wasn't sure, but according to Wikipedia he "attended churches, but never officially acquired membership in a church".
You guys say "I was only n years old" like that somehow makes it all right. Are you implying that it's impossible to have a well-informed opinion when you're barely legal voting age? You should be saying "I wanted to vote for Bush, but that was back when I didn't have a clue about the world."now this is an interesting derail!!
By the way, it's been about 7 years since the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001 and about 5 years since Iraq became a target. I was 14 at the time of the 9/11 attacks. I don't know when exactly you were 17, but it's not like there haven't been enough notable events that might have made you question the Bush authority. Unless you also agreed with, say, first deploying a team of weapons inspectors who find absolutely no evidence to back up an invasion and then invade anyway
rather than any info on his opponent?
You guys say "I was only n years old" like that somehow makes it all right. Are you implying that it's impossible to have a well-informed opinion when you're barely legal voting age? You should be saying "I wanted to vote for Bush, but that was back when I didn't have a clue about the world."
By the way, it's been about 7 years since the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001 and about 5 years since Iraq became a target. I was 14 at the time of the 9/11 attacks. I don't know when exactly you were 17, but it's not like there haven't been enough notable events that might have made you question the Bush authority. Unless you also agreed with, say, first deploying a team of weapons inspectors who find absolutely no evidence to back up an invasion and then invade anyway.
Sorry, I know that this is an old post. Anyhow, this made me think, wasn't Abraham Lincoln an atheist?I dunno but he said this!
I dunno but he said this!I believe this was in reference to a conversation about the separation of Church and State, though. Taken in that context, that is not necessarily an Atheist quote, simply a secular one combined with a non-denominational Christian one. It would be nice if someone could find a full record of that conversation, but since the Atheist movement has picked up on it, they have tried extensively to keep only that line.
"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."
- Abraham Lincoln, American president (1809-1865).
I believe this was in reference to a conversation about the separation of Church and State, though. Taken in that context, that is not necessarily an Atheist quote, simply a secular one combined with a non-denominational Christian one. It would be nice if someone could find a full record of that conversation, but since the Atheist movement has picked up on it, they have tried extensively to keep only that line.Yeah that is true. I never said he was an Atheist. He could be a deist or something.
If Huckabee becomes president I am going back to PolandIt won't happen. First off, McCain is secure for the nomination. Second, Huckabee will not risk breaking the republican party by running as an independent. Third, a "real conservative" does not have a chance against either Hilary or Obama.
Secondly, I really disliked Bush! I wasn't punkvoter.com but I never thought he was a good president at all. I just really disliked kerry tooWhether you were more informed than I was, I don't know. One thing that you should know, though, is that we do get access to a considerable amount of substantial material regarding American politics here in the Netherlands. (I'm actually not sure whether we are very interested in politics as a country, but our elections get turnouts of over 80%, so I think that counts for something.) At least, I do think I was pretty informed about what Kerry was all about. Although there were only two candidates in the end, it wasn't simply a case of "anyone but Bush" to me, despite the fact Kerry wasn't an ideal candidate.
Plus you're from a foreign country, so your experience is obviously different from mine. I'll dare to say you were maybe LESS informed than I, riding on 'bush should never be re-elected' rather than any info on his opponent? Again, I'm not going to bother arguing now who was better, my point is simply that I thought I was taking all sides of the conflict into consideration
I would respectfully disagree with your characterization of this situation.
Regime change, on its own, is not something you'd go to war for. Nor are Iraq's poor human rights record, their attacking of U.S. planes, or "spreading democracy", as it was called.This is a bit (actually very) controversial. America has a massive military apparatus and had so even before Bush sized it up. There are many Americans who feel the justification for this massive military is that the United States should use it to help people around the world. Now then I realize that this is under harsh criticism, but it is not some EVIL DOMINATION PLAN or even something done out of needless arrogance. Many in the US believe that if people are having a hard time in the world that we should do what we can to help them out. This is kind of a fundamental American value: the desire to help others (or at least people want to claim it is and be seen that way). I say this because, and i will bring up the overused example, that not just the republicans voted for the "war". It was a decision made from both sides based on both the situation at the time, but also on beliefs that many Americans on both sides of the fence hold dear. I don't know whether this opinion is "right" or not, but I am explaining to you that while it might appear cut and dry that one nation should not interfere in other nations affairs, it is not so certain here in the United States.
The belief of Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destructions was the meat of the rationale for invasion. The evidence presented to solidify that belief was widely criticized even before the invasion, and the weapons inspectors never found any hard evidence leading to said weapons.As far as weapons of mass destruction, Saddam said that he had, indeed, dismantled all of the WMDs that were in his country when the evidence was acquired of them some decade or more ago. He did say, however, that he kept the facilities needed to make them and that should the need arise he would not have hesitated to reinstitute the program if Iran became a serious and aggressive threat to his country.
We've never found conclusive evidence that supports the claim of Saddam Hussein cooperating with al-Qaeda. He might have been a supporter of the group, but that's something different.Actually, the FBI interview with Saddam -- he was told he was being interviewed privately by a high ranking government official, so you can probably take most of this as true -- turned up a few things. Saddam said that he would never cooperate with al-Qaeda or even support them simply because they represented values he did not hold true such as non-secular government, and also because they represented a destabilizing force of extremists when Saddam and his party's main platform was political and religious stability.
While it's true that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a terrible country that routinely abused human rights, that on its own is no reason to go to war for.As far as human rights violations, I will not argue with you there, however (and I am sure I will take flak for this) it is important to note that while the regime instituted political violence and repression, it was one of the more modern states in the Middle East, it was secular, and for the most part, under Saddam there was no sectarian violence as now grips the nation both in terms of the US occupation and the general citizens and government.
By the way, I've actually never heard of Saddam Hussein trying to kill George W. Bush, when did that happen? I know that some guy once threw a grenade at him that didn't explode, but that didn't exactly seem like an organized attempt.I also have not heard anything about an assassination attempt.
As far as weapons of mass destruction, Saddam said that he had, indeed, dismantled all of the WMDs that were in his country when the evidence was acquired of them some decade or more ago. He did say, however, that he kept the facilities needed to make them and that should the need arise he would not have hesitated to reinstitute the program if Iran became a serious and aggressive threat to his country.
Well, y'see, you know how everyone has been shitting their bricks about the primaries this election? Perhaps if you (all of you) had been more active in the 2004 primaries, we wouldn't have all these problems we do today. I'm just sayin' is all.stop with the insights please :( we know
:woordz:Just posting to say that I don't really intend to go toe-to-toe with Jeff, because his post more or less sheds light on the situation without vocally agreeing or disagreeing with what I've said. We really don't have to debate some of these things. (Like whether "spreading democracy" is a cause worth fighting for. Obviously I know that it's a good cause, and every self-respecting democracy should use its ability to criticize other countries when they do something wrong. If you're going to war, you might as well help democracy on its way while you're there "fixing things" anyway, but it's debatable how strong a reason it is.)
iirc his bad side only really started to show up once he started trying to be the IDEAL CANDIDATE.Yeah, it was Kerry who at some point said "if you don't do well at school, you'll wind up in Iraq". Which is pretty much the worst thing he could have possibly said, since he painted a negative image of the soldiers serving in Iraq (who undoubtedly have the fullest respect of even the strongest opponents of the war) in order to criticize the war. It's just plain terrible and absolutely baffling that he said it. The media had a field day with the story and Bush suddenly didn't seem like the biggest idiot anymore after that.
The intro to it says that if he wins all three today, he could be "close to unstoppable".I think it's too early to call him the frontrunner at this point. Obama needs to do very well today if he wants to have a good shot at eliminating Clinton's lead in Ohio and Texas.
eah, it was Kerry who at some point said "if you don't do well at school, you'll wind up in Iraq". Which is pretty much the worst thing he could have possibly said, since he painted a negative image of the soldiers serving in Iraq (who undoubtedly have the fullest respect of even the strongest opponents of the war) in order to criticize the war. It's just plain terrible and absolutely baffling that he said it. The media had a field day with the story and Bush suddenly didn't seem like the biggest idiot anymore after that.
. granted I do live in Lynchburg but still it was pretty alarming!
Why have they not changed the name of your town?
First settled in 1757, Lynchburg was named for its founder, John Lynch, who at the age of 17 started a ferry service at a ford across the James River to route traffic to and from New London.
And the Civil War was fought over State's Rights and had nothing to do with slavery. Honest.
..what? Lynchburg was named after JOHN LYNCH. not LYNCHING
Yeah, I suppose if I lived there, I'd buy that too.
Yeah, I suppose if I lived there, I'd buy that too.
Does anybody else not find this funny?"i can't be wrong, it must be misinformation!"
so whats the delegate situation or is it still too early to tell?
This is pretty cool (sorry guys):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVKSfwfy0h8
oh my god Obama's speech in Wisconsin right now is giving me goosebumpsIt was excellent dude. Maxed capacity 17k with overflow. The three hour wait was really worth it, there is just something really cool about seeing a president (nominee) in person. Hopefully I'll get to seem him after the nomination when he comes back.
It was excellent dude. Maxed capacity 17k with overflow. The three hour wait was really worth it, there is just something really cool about seeing a president (nominee) in person. Hopefully I'll get to seem him after the nomination when he comes back.oh shit i forgot you saw him in person! congrats to you! I wish i could have seen him a couple weeks ago when he was in MA :(
This is pretty cool (sorry guys):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVKSfwfy0h8
This is pretty cool (sorry guys):Would you kindly stop propagating Paulite lies?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVKSfwfy0h8
man my dad got a full head of steam and voted for ron paul today. he mumbled something about how he liked one of his mindless rhetorics on economic policy or something. i tried to stop him, but i felt really stupid because i had forgotten entirely what it was about him that made me so incredibly sick to my stomach when i first read about him many moons ago. too bad i didn't read this beforehand i guess, because it's horrifying that my dad gave this disgusting creature a vote. not that it matters anyway, but it's one of those moral lossesRON PUAL (Click to reveal)Ron Paul had several newsletters printed under his name over several decades that were pervasive with anti-semetic, homophobic, racist, and extreme right-wing paranoid conspiracy theory ramblings (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca). (The sheer number of craziness, filth, and crazy filth contained in these newletters is staggering; just read the article to see just how deep the rabbit hole goes.)
Despite denying any connection to these newletters that bore his name--and were published by "Ron Paul & Associates"--for decades, Ron Paul continues to make prejudice remarks, describing those working for the Transportation Security Administration as looking "more suspicious to [him] than most Americans who are getting checked," (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/index1.html) not to mention that he not too long ago voted against the renewal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and published his reasons for disaproval with the Act (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html).
It is not surprising that Ron Paul continues to make these types of remarks considering the newletters and his legislative past, where he sponsored a bill that would make it easier for private schools to discriminate (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.3863:), another that would weaken the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d098:HR04982:@@@L&summ2=m&), yet another that would deny Iranian students federal aid (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.5842:), and finally one that would require unmarried minors to notify parents they requested an abortion or contraceptives, "[prohibit] the expenditure of federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle or which suggest that it can be an acceptable lifestyle," endorse "corporal punishment" against children, and repeal the estate tax--a tax which affects only the wealthiest of Americans (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:HR07955:@@@L&summ2=m&).
He has also recently published articles stating that he believes that the Left is waging a war on Christmas, that Churches should serve a role in society eclipsing that of the state (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html), and that he opposes gay marriage (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html) . Plus, Ron Paul has recently (6/6/07) introduced legislation that would define life as beginning at conception (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.02597:) and legislation that would prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like--a bill which he has repeated reintroduced (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300:). (A list of all the ridiculous bills he has sponsored over the past few decades can be found here (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html).)
Oh, there's more. SO MUCH MORE!
He was the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-764). He wants to pull out of the U.N. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146:), disband NATO (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146:), abolish the federal reserve (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2755:), reinstate the Gold Standard (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm), believes in New World Order conspiracy theories (http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/ron_paul_first_bush_was_working_towards_nwo.htm), believes that the International Baccalaureate program is U.N. mind control (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r109:E14AP5-0007:), and...
Aw hell, just take a look at his own website (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/), where he advocates abolishing the Department of Education, the Food & Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Social Security Administration, and a ton of other agencies that provide vital public services.
I did not write this, this is someone froM SA, but yeah.
also: does not include a link to the infamous 20 years of newsletters that were uncovered.
man my dad got a full head of steam and voted for ron paul today. he mumbled something about how he liked one of his mindless rhetorics on economic policy or something. i tried to stop him, but i felt really stupid because i had forgotten entirely what it was about him that made me so incredibly sick to my stomach when i first read about him many moons ago. too bad i didn't read this beforehand i guess, because it's horrifying that my dad gave this disgusting creature a vote. not that it matters anyway, but it's one of those moral losses
Ron Paul talks about how the dollar is increasingly becoming weaker (I remember a topic a few months back about how the canadian dollar is stronger that the US Dollar now). The main things I have read him say is that America borrows about 600 billion of dollars a year and prints money it doesn't have according to it's gold and silver supply, which according to the constitution is the only legal tender. he claims that sooner or later the economy will lead to a recession if they keep on borrowing and printing new problem to hide the problem.i do not acknowledge politicial candidates that identify exceptionally elementary problems and then suggest ridiculous solutions that they probably won't be able to go through with anyway.
Ron Paul's solution is said to spend more wisely (i.e. not on war on Iraq) and stop printing money that the country doesn't have according to it's Gold or Silver supply.
I don't really know much about economics, but I had heard before that America are like 3 Trillion dollars in debt and continuing to spend and borrow money, which will eventually have to pay back.
i do not acknowledge politicial candidates that identify exceptionally elementary problems and then suggest ridiculous solutions that they probably won't be able to go through with anyway.
this is particularly the case when these politicians are racist homophobes
McCain meanwhile offered a grim warning of the direction Obama or Clinton would take the country.
"They will paint a picture of the world in which America's mistakes are a greater threat to our security than the malevolent intentions of an enemy that despises us and our ideals."
Ron Paul talks about how the dollar is increasingly becoming weaker (I remember a topic a few months back about how the canadian dollar is stronger that the US Dollar now). The main things I have read him say is that America borrows about 600 billion of dollars a year and prints money it doesn't have according to it's gold and silver supply, which according to the constitution is the only legal tender. he claims that sooner or later the economy will lead to a recession if they keep on borrowing and printing new problem to hide the problem.
Ron Paul's solution is said to spend more wisely (i.e. not on war on Iraq) and stop printing money that the country doesn't have according to it's Gold or Silver supply.
I don't really know much about economics, but I had heard before that America are like 3 Trillion dollars in debt and continuing to spend and borrow money, which will eventually have to pay back.
Maybe someone with more knowledge on the subject can shed some light on this one for me.
Hillary Clinton is taking aim at Barack Obama in a new Wisconsin television ad for not agreeing to participate in a debate there.
"Both Democratic candidates have been invited to a televised Wisconsin debate," an announcer says in the new 30 second spot. "Hillary Clinton has said yes. Barack Obama hasn't. Maybe he'd prefer to give speeches than have to answer questions."
I don't really know much about economics, but I had heard before that America are like 3 Trillion dollars in debt and continuing to spend and borrow money, which will eventually have to pay back.Every other country in the world has such a debt. Granted, America's is most likely the largest in the world, but this is somewhat proportional to its size. Yes, it should be paid back eventually, but until that becomes possible, the only way to pay the interest on that debt is to borrow more.
Hillary Clinton is going negative in new Wisconsin TV ads (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/)EDIT: correct link is http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/13/clinton-goes-negative-in-new-ad/ (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/13/clinton-goes-negative-in-new-ad/) by the way.
Hilary pretty much demanded an apology and kept talking about how offensive it is. Also she took it LITERALLY (like, she thought they were saying she prostituted her daughter).Maybe she took it literally because she thought they found out that she really WAS prostituting her daughter for votes.
I don't know if it's been mentioned in this topic, or when it happened (i first heard about it today), but someone on MSNBC said it seemed like Hilary was pimping her daughter around because her daughter was calling up every important person she can to talk about how great her mom is. Hilary pretty much demanded an apology and kept talking about how offensive it is. Also she took it LITERALLY (like, she thought they were saying she prostituted her daughter).
Okay I have to say right now that I don't see how someone who is so upset about the word pimp and misunderstood it in the first place can run a whole country. Grow a fucking backbone. In fact, I read somewhere that her daughter said that since she was involve with the campaign, she knew she was a target for criticism.
She also says she's a "mother first, and candidate second", but fuck, I want you to be a CANDIDATE FIRST. Yeah I'm glad you love your kids, but if you're running my country I want you to be pretty damn committed.
I don't really know much about economics, but I had heard before that America are like 3 Trillion dollars in debt and continuing to spend and borrow money, which will eventually have to pay back.last time I checked it was 9 trillion dollars
uh...what?
the term pimp is a highly offensive term, despite what Pimp My Ride and Nelly say; if she didn't get highly offended by it, I would be disappointed. do you really think presidential candidates expect a level of discourse where they are compared to prostitutes and the people who deal in prostitutes?
She also says she's a "mother first, and candidate second", but fuck, I want you to be a CANDIDATE FIRST. Yeah I'm glad you love your kids, but if you're running my country I want you to be pretty damn committed.
You see this is one thing I hate about words, people love to abuse them. Everyone and their grandmother knows that she wasn't calling her a "pimp" it is a word that has evolved and has a double meaning(triple meanings). She took it the wrong way on purpose in my opinion just to get attention.
Shuster said on air Thursday, while talking about Chelsea Clinton placing phone calls to Democratic superdelegates on her mother’s behalf: “Doesn’t it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?”
"pimping someone out means you are making a direct comparison between a presidential candidate and a whoremonger."
no, not really.
"this is not suitable for any kind of actual political discourse."
Yes, this is true because their exsist people who love taking things the wrong so they can get more attention or push things in their favor. So a person in that position (political spokesman) shouldn't fall for such a simple trap.
I don't see how so many people think that literally means PROSTITUTION, unless I'm the only person who has heard that phrase used the way he intended? People have begun to use pimping out and whoring out to basically mean USING SOMEONE for any reason, and even though the comments are completely unfounded and the dude should have known better than to say that on the news, she should be strong enough to not make a big deal about it.
edit: the part where it said chelsea is an obvious target if she is getting involved wasn't FROM chelsea, just about her, so i take that part back, but the rest stands.
transitive verb : to make use of often dishonorably for one's own gain or benefit
Also I'd like to add that it's one thing to want an apology, it's another to threaten to boycott that channel's debates and rabidly keep the press away from your daughter (who has proven to be capable of handling them herself, and is the main person involved in the comment) after you've already had the person responsible suspended and who will probably end up being fired, and he's already given you the apology.
THAT is overreacting.
but someone on MSNBC said it seemed like Hilary was pimping her daughter around because her daughter was calling up every important person she can to talk about how great her mom is. Hilary pretty much demanded an apology and kept talking about how offensive it is. Also she took it LITERALLY (like, she thought they were saying she prostituted her daughter).
they are not saying the same thing as whormongering at all
this is the definition he meant (straight from websters dictionary)
When your daughter calls every member of The View as well as important political figures to tell them how great you are, it is not out of place to think that you are probably putting her up to it. If he had said "using" instead of "pimping", there wouldn't have been a problem, so yeah, he fucked up there, but I don't see ANY way that you can say he was trying to use it to mean the other meaning of pimping at all. There is NO reason to think he meant that definition, and I don't see how so many people think he did unless they're unaware it can be used the other way.
nigger
3. a victim of prejudice similar to that suffered by blacks; a person who is economically, politically, or socially disenfranchised.
Velfarre pretty much summed it up.
crushed by a CaRRot CuSine, the word has many references to what a PIMP does, it was not a reference to a pimps whoremongering.
This is like a sport announcer commenting on a running back and saying "Whoa, he was like an animal in todays game." and him calling up and saying "I want an apology for you calling me a wild savage beast."
*facepalm*
You are the type of person who forgets what he is saying and just doesn't want to be "wrong" because their is no way (unless you don't like to read) you missed the part where I said that it was stupid to say something like that as a political announcer(your setting yourself up for a trap). We weren't debating that at all, you said he was calling her a "whoremonger"(referencing her to that aspect of a pimp) which would mean he is saying she is selling her daughter for sex/sexual deeds and calling her daugher a whore.
You are right, I am wrong. Yes he was calling her a whoremonger, infact? Why did he say pimping? he should have been more direct about it and saved us some time.
Well since Impeal posted but said nothing about the aggression, I will. Stop escalating this argument. I agree with one side of this argument but I won't say who because it doesn't matter, it is getting out of hand. The points have been made that are relevant to the presidential primary, which is HEY what this topic is about so lets drop it.I figured the aggression would stop naturally when they realized there was an obvious middle ground.
You are the type of person who forgets what he is saying and just doesn't want to be "wrong" because their is no way (unless you don't like to read)This is really, really unfair of you, Xeno. Maybe Steel just disagrees with you, as I do? There's no need to judge him like that.
(CNN) — Hillary Clinton has officially won the New Mexico Democratic caucuses, more than a week after the state's February 5 Election Day.
After a nine-day vote count, Clinton now has one more delegate to add to her total. Clinton and Democratic rival Barack Obama were separated by just 1,709 votes — 73,105 for Clinton, 71,396 for Obama.
Obama now ahead in American Research poll in texas.Interesting. So what this tells us is that even if Clinton wins Texas, it probably won't be a very large victory.
Interesting. So what this tells us is that even if Clinton wins Texas, it probably won't be a very large victory.
In typical Texas contrarian fashion, the primary rules read like a DNA chart. On the Democratic side, 228 delegates are up for grabs. But it's not that simple.
The state has both a primary and a caucus -- on the same day. And you can't caucus unless you voted in the primary. On primary night, 126 delegates will be determined based on voting results in each Senate district.
The number of delegates in each district is based on how many Democrats voted in the last two general elections in that district. Got that? Well, there's more.
The selection of another 67 delegates will begin at the caucuses that night and culminate at the state convention in June. The remaining 35 delegates are some kind of unique political life form that will evolve into actual delegates at the National Convention later that summer.
The endorsement of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which counts 1.9 million members in North America, came one day after the Illinois senator was endorsed by the 1.3 million-strong United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union.
Today, I asked my parents whom they voted for in the primaries. They said Clinton. I asked why not Obama?
My dad answered, "You think I would vote for someone called Hussein?"
...
Are you fucking shitting me?
Then they both told me they don't think someone "of that race" should be President. "It gives a bad image to America"
this is translated from Polish to the best of my ability.
i always knew they were racists but I didn't think when I asked them "why don't you vote for Obama" that my dad would answer with "BECAUSE HE IS BLACK. This is a country of WHITE PEOPLE."
i wish i was making this up
Today, I asked my parents whom they voted for in the primaries. They said Clinton. I asked why not Obama?the right answer is to just never talk about anything social/political with them ever ever again and just try to forget that they have awful, reprehensible beliefs concerning race.
My dad answered, "You think I would vote for someone called Hussein?"
...
Are you fucking shitting me?
Then they both told me they don't think someone "of that race" should be President. "It gives a bad image to America"
this is translated from Polish to the best of my ability.
i always knew they were racists but I didn't think when I asked them "why don't you vote for Obama" that my dad would answer with "BECAUSE HE IS BLACK. This is a country of WHITE PEOPLE."
i wish i was making this up
the right answer is to just never talk about anything social/political with them ever ever again and just try to forget that they have awful, reprehensible beliefs concerning race.yeah, I actually figured this out the last time I tried talking to them about homosexuality
Not that it matters (because religion doesn't dictate who you vote for) but it's funny seeing all these people hate Obama cause they think he is a Muslim.tell that to the residents of Lynchburg or Virginia Beach or Salt Lake City
tell that to the residents of Lynchburg or Virginia Beach or Salt Lake Cityheh I've even heard that as a reason not to vote for him at my school :(​ (then again if you aren't a republican at my school you're pretty much affiliated with the devil)
conservatives are the worst peopleNot every conservative is a religious nut-job, thanks.
Not every conservative is a religious nut-job, thanks.Any person against stem-cell research is a nut-job, thanks.
Any person against stem-cell research is a nut-job, thanks.
Not every conservative is a religious nut-job, thanks.I said it in general, with all its implication, not just religion and my man JC Jesus Christ
conservatives are the worst people
edit: on another note there is no good way to refer to that guy, even if you abbreviate his name it comes out as MEH
they aren't against researching stem cells they're against killing embryos
Ron Paul is going to be at my school today. Perhaps I should try and get a picture with him.Try to get a picture of you kicking him in the nuts :fogetbackflip:
Try to get a picture of you kicking him in the nuts :fogetbackflip:
Kiss him on the cheek and ask to marry himTake this one further and brumski (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=brumski) him (first one obviously)
ask him for a subscription to his newsletterThis.
ask him for a subscription to his newsletterERAVE PLEASE DON'T FAIL US
man how do you fucking people not read anything in the topic.
the last six or so posts were about how shit ron paul was, and this topic is full of it.
good to see you're so heartless as to be afraid of being "raped in taxes" while allowing a fearmongering incubus who believes jesus gives him the right to beat his wife enter office!
ps: ask your friends who are so paranoid about liberals if they would still be doctors if their med school was free and they took a minor pay hit. if not, your friends are no doctors I'd want treating me considering money is really the last reason you should be operating on people for, win win.
HE'S A FUCKING RACIST HOMOPHOBE NUTJOB THAT'S NOT A FUCKING PROBLEM THAT'S A FUCKING CANCER ARE YOU KIDDING ME.
christ i need to drink before i tear you to shreds and then panda will probably have to goad me because i will say IT DOESN'T MATTE RHE SUPPORTS FUCKING HUCKABEE WHAT DECENT PERSON DOES THAT.
you fucking idiot.
in 1991 David Duke, a white nationalist and former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, ran for governor of Louisiana. he only lost because black voters, horrified, voted against him. he nearly won.
now Terin.
Terin this is important.
do you understand the dangers of mass-electing a racist man to the governor's seat?
if you do not, then everything is wasted, and honestly, I'd like to ask you to leave. if someone else wants to ask about UHC or the gold standard or even race relations, and you have questions, I will answer them.
but if you cannot see this basic precept, if you cannot understand the absolute horror someone like myself or someone who is a minority in any way would feel at seeing a racist enter power, the dread and the fear and absolutely hopelessness we would enter, then please do not post. I don't begrudge you because you have not seen what race means to other people or what racism can do; you might just be 15 (although I hope your profile lies and you aren't 22) and confused. but I don't want to deal with it, because people like you break my fucking heart. it absolutely kills me to see someone say something like a racist can be elected because he will somehow miraculously hold objective beliefs otherwise and make things better.
the trains might run on time in Hitler's Germany, but my friends and I are still corpses in the camps.
if you don't get it, don't post. if you do and you meant something else, if you realize saying "how can a homophobic and racist president affect the law" is foolish, I'll accept that and post.
but otherwise, it's too much.
There's a reason that US Health Care is awesome -- it's expensive and you get what you pay for.
I would prefer to have my leg taken care of ASAP. Or hell, if I get cancer, that'd be nice to have treated right away. You know, instead of dying while I'm waiting for my health care to take care of me.
hahaha. get the fuck out of this topic with shit like this.
WHO CARES IF MY HEALTH CARE IS SO EXPENSIVE IT LEAVES MILLIONS UNINSURED
who cares. i want my god damn flu shot asap no waiting for me bucko
You know, most reasonable jobs provide decent insurance so it's almost next-to-nothing to pay for that kind of thing. And you know, those benefits extend to the family pretty easily. Now, let's just, for a second, read my other post about trying to make education better and cheaper, then I think more people would have access to decent jobs, and thus be able to take care of their families better. However, if you decide that for some reason, it's perfectly acceptable to be a grocery store manager or something else that doesn't extend benefits, then maybe you should try to aspire towards something better. Even better, marry someone who does.
And actually, as I recall, a friend of mine works for a grocery store as a manager and he gets reasonable benefits.
So because a few people have issues accessing health care, everyone else should get screwed over. Especially when it's going to get a bunch of good doctors to quit because they won't get the type of money they deserve.
--Terin
You know, most reasonable jobs provide decent insurance so it's almost next-to-nothing to pay for that kind of thing. And you know, those benefits extend to the family pretty easily. Now, let's just, for a second, read my other post about trying to make education better and cheaper, then I think more people would have access to decent jobs, and thus be able to take care of their families better. However, if you decide that for some reason, it's perfectly acceptable to be a grocery store manager or something else that doesn't extend benefits, then maybe you should try to aspire towards something better. Even better, marry someone who does.
And actually, as I recall, a friend of mine works for a grocery store as a manager and he gets reasonable benefits.
So because a few people have issues accessing health care, everyone else should get screwed over. Especially when it's going to get a bunch of good doctors to quit because they won't get the type of money they deserve.
--Terin
A $1,000 deductible? For what? For something like a surgery? That's pretty standard. If I have to have some crazy tumor removed for $50,000 and I pay $1,000, that's a good deal still.
I've actually taken care of myself with and without insurance. So I've had to deal with expensive procedures that drained me. And I've had to deal with the same procedures WITH insurance. It's a fact of life.
Now, fine, if you want to complain that everyone has issues with insurance, then fine. I can understand that and you have a point.
My real question is, would you be willing to screw over the quality of our health care for the sake of giving health care to everyone? Would you rather save most people (85% of people let's say) or try to save everyone and only 40%-50% are saved?
--Terin
--Terin
A $1,000 deductible? For what? For something like a surgery? That's pretty standard. If I have to have some crazy tumor removed for $50,000 and I pay $1,000, that's a good deal still.
I've actually taken care of myself with and without insurance. So I've had to deal with expensive procedures that drained me. And I've had to deal with the same procedures WITH insurance. It's a fact of life.
Now, fine, if you want to complain that everyone has issues with insurance, then fine. I can understand that and you have a point.
My real question is, would you be willing to screw over the quality of our health care for the sake of giving health care to everyone? Would you rather save most people (85% of people let's say) or try to save everyone and only 40%-50% are saved?
--Terin
--Terin
So because a few people have issues accessing health care, everyone else should get screwed over. Especially when it's going to get a bunch of good doctors to quit because they won't get the type of money they deserve.
AHAHHA I love it when white folks try to say I TOO HAVE DEALT WITH POVERTY ONCE I SLEPT ON MY BROTHERS COUCH its the funniest thing in th eworld.
directed to terin who is saying HEH I KNOW WHAT POOR IS I ONCE PAID FOR A SURGERY.
And FYI Ryan, there are different kinds of deductibles. I pay $10 for doctor visits and $1,000 for actual medical procedures. Two different deductibles. I believe my new benefits are that medicine is also $10 as well.
Now, if somehow insurance companies got phased out, we got the same type of coverage with no additional taxes and everyone got coverage and paid less or nothing (or even if my premium rates only went up slightly -- like to $20 for visits to doctors/medicine, $1500 for surgery), that'd be reasonable. I'd be in support if I got the health care I have now, but extended to everyone, and paid nothing (or little) else. But the question that it boils down to is the *quality* and the *cost* in the long term.
AHAHHA I love it when white folks try to say I TOO HAVE DEALT WITH POVERTY ONCE I SLEPT ON MY BROTHERS COUCH its the funniest thing in th eworld.
i had to do this once. it was horrible.
sorry bud but our deductible is $1,000 for any medical procedure. including routine checkups.this seems a little ridiculous, man. who's the insurance provider for your mom's company? i can understand large deductibles, but generally there ARE differences in prices for different levels of treatment (i.e. the deductible isn't the same for a checkup as it is for major surgery). plus, is a routine checkup even classified as a medical procedure? a checkup is just that; they're not treating you while you're there beyond perhaps prescribing you some type of medicine, so i think there might be some sort of differentiation between it and an actual procedure like a colonoscopy or something. anyway, i don't know much about insurance, but since the deductibles for my parents' insurance, for visits to the doctor, are like $10-15 too, i think even if it really is a $1,000 deductible across the board, you might just have really, really terrible insurance, because i feel like that's pretty atypical, even with all the other obvious problems with the health care system. in my experience, most insurance, if you can actually get it, is at least somewhat useful, and yours is more or less totally worthless barring the need for serious medical treatment (incredibly unlikely).
basically what you are saying is "i won't pay a dime more in taxes to cover 47 million Americans." hope you sleep well tonight!
this seems a little ridiculous, man. who's the insurance provider for your mom's company? i can understand large deductibles, but generally there ARE differences in prices for different levels of treatment (i.e. the deductible isn't the same for a checkup as it is for major surgery). plus, is a routine checkup even classified as a medical procedure? a checkup is just that; they're not treating you while you're there beyond perhaps prescribing you some type of medicine, so i think there might be some sort of differentiation between it and an actual procedure like a colonoscopy or something. anyway, i don't know much about insurance, but since the deductibles for my parents' insurance, for visits to the doctor, are like $10-15 too, i think even if it really is a $1,000 deductible across the board, you might just have really, really terrible insurance, because i feel like that's pretty atypical, even with all the other obvious problems with the health care system. in my experience, most insurance, if you can actually get it, is at least somewhat useful, and yours is more or less totally worthless barring the need for serious medical treatment (incredibly unlikely).
I guess the path is clear for you, buddy. It's time to stop screwing around in college and get a real job to help support your family!b...but I'm perfectly content frying and serving chicken fingers at the dining hall from 8PM-3AM !!!
There's a reason that US Health Care is awesome -- it's expensive and you get what you pay for. Cuba... Hmm. Social health care. Canada? Same thing. Then why is it that it takes you months to get your busted leg fixed in Canada? Why did Fidel Castro get a doctor from outside of Canada? I had a friend in Canada who had to wait a few months to get his broken/busted leg fixed and reset by the doctors because of the waiting list.You know, you don't need to have experienced those health care systems firsthand in order to know what they're really like, but you do need to conduct the appropriate research first. I'm talking about reading studies and finding out what the situation really is like in those countries, then comparing them to your own and then determining whether either has benefits. That's research.
Ron Paul will bring Libertarian views to the US which would be a change of pace -- a very welcome change, in my opinion.Would you support an anarchistic president?
I've never encountered the follow-up visit thing, but my experience with specialist physicians is also very limited. To be fair, though, even for a borderline lower-/middle-class family, $25 per visit is pretty inexpensive. Realistically, how often would a person need to see an optometrist?
I like you confidence
wait, I was under the impression Clinton was going to win in Texas by a fair margin???
hahaha. get the fuck out of this topic with shit like this.
WHO CARES IF MY HEALTH CARE IS SO EXPENSIVE IT LEAVES MILLIONS UNINSURED
who cares. i want my god damn flu shot asap no waiting for me bucko
it just strikes me as extremely implausible that someone who isn't white could support either Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee. You'd have to be really ignorant of the history of the U.S., the world and your race for that to be true.
So his skin color should have something to do with his political viewpoints? How is that not a racist comment on your part?no it means that if you're not white and you voted for Ron Paul you're an idiot.
Steel, I'm amazed at your rhetoric. You're right. It's all propaganda.
And I went to go see Bill Clinton (in representation of Hilary) at my alma mater this evening. It was kind of amusing. You know how the thing went?
"We want <something>. The Republicans and George Bush screwed it up. <This> is a problem with our nation. It is time for the Republicans' rule to end."
It was honestly just mud-slinging. And I'm not saying Bush and other republicans don't. But it's all the same. Furthermore, it's amusing that Wildcat posts something, as do many others, in a very civil fashion and your response is
"LOL OMG WTF U FAG. I M MINORITY FROM SHIT FAMILY CANT SUPPORT JACK SHIT NO REPUBLICANS HERE SO LIBERALS RIGHT ALL TIME FUCK YOU DUDE. REPUBLICANS RAPED MOM AND FUCKED DAD IN BUTT AND NOW THE ENTIRE WORLD IS FUCKED UP BECAUSE OF THEM. WTF YOU IDIOT. LOTS OF EVIDENCE"
And just FYI, it was amusing to find that I got about 5 IMs from people today who sent me an IM saying "Dude, Ryan and Steel are pretty left-wing, you should really watch about posting that stuff there. But yeah, they're totally crazy and from low-income, low-class families in areas where they don't have any conservatives. They act childish."
Just thought I'd share that with you, Steel and Ryan. You talk big, but why don't you stop whining like a piece of shit and go out and do something with yourself, rather than spend hours a day posting on the internet. I think that might further society a bit better, huh?
--Terin
Steel, I'm amazed at your rhetoric. You're right. It's all propaganda.
And I went to go see Bill Clinton (in representation of Hilary) at my alma mater this evening. It was kind of amusing. You know how the thing went?
"We want <something>. The Republicans and George Bush screwed it up. <This> is a problem with our nation. It is time for the Republicans' rule to end."
It was honestly just mud-slinging. And I'm not saying Bush and other republicans don't. But it's all the same. Furthermore, it's amusing that Wildcat posts something, as do many others, in a very civil fashion and your response is
"LOL OMG WTF U FAG. I M MINORITY FROM SHIT FAMILY CANT SUPPORT JACK SHIT NO REPUBLICANS HERE SO LIBERALS RIGHT ALL TIME FUCK YOU DUDE. REPUBLICANS RAPED MOM AND FUCKED DAD IN BUTT AND NOW THE ENTIRE WORLD IS FUCKED UP BECAUSE OF THEM. WTF YOU IDIOT. LOTS OF EVIDENCE"
And just FYI, it was amusing to find that I got about 5 IMs from people today who sent me an IM saying "Dude, Ryan and Steel are pretty left-wing, you should really watch about posting that stuff there. But yeah, they're totally crazy and from low-income, low-class families in areas where they don't have any conservatives. They act childish."
Just thought I'd share that with you, Steel and Ryan. You talk big, but why don't you stop whining like a piece of shit and go out and do something with yourself, rather than spend hours a day posting on the internet. I think that might further society a bit better, huh?
--Terin
You know, you don't need to have experienced those health care systems firsthand in order to know what they're really like, but you do need to conduct the appropriate research first. I'm talking about reading studies and finding out what the situation really is like in those countries, then comparing them to your own and then determining whether either has benefits. That's research.
You just conclude that you're right based on what a friend told you.
Then again, you don't read the links we provide, you don't listen to the arguments we make, and you say you'd prefer a libertarian president because that means "things would change". It seems that you're an emotional voter, one who has a very shallow understanding of things but will gladly agree with a person who campaigns his views as though they are obviously good. Does being on the side of Ron Paul make you feel better because his following is essentially a minority that acts as though it knows a lot about politics?
You know, I don't even believe you're a minority now. Maybe you posted pictures in the Picture Topic before, I don't know, but it just strikes me as extremely implausible that someone who isn't white could support either Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee. You'd have to be really ignorant of the history of the U.S., the world and your race for that to be true.
EDIT: then again, you also think that Noah's Ark could have existed, so I could be wrong about that.
Would you support an anarchistic president?
Why not? They're quite similar. They're not the same, sure, but on a lot of fronts, they are in agreement. Libertarianism is sort of like "anarchism done right". On which fronts do you disagree with anarchism, and in what way do you think libertarianism solves that disagreement?
he called you g steel that means he identifies with you as a minority
or just post a picture of you holding a sign with the word Terin on it.
Now, Dada, I think that insurance needs reform -- no doubt. But if insurance becomes crappy as a result, as WildCat was saying, I think that we have a serious issue on our hands. A lot of other countries like American health-care.Take a look at this map of countries that have implemented universal health care (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c5/WORLDHEALTH2.png). You'll find that it includes some of what you could arguably call the better countries in the world (Norway, Iceland, Austria, Canada, Sweden, The Netherlands, and so go on). These countries have all been able to sustain universal health care for prolonged periods of time without the quality of the health care deteriorating (they're all listed very high on the HDI, let's not forget).
And an Anarchist president? Why not. It's crazy. It's out there. Hell, why not a Communist president (that doesn't make sense, since Communism doesn't have 1 leader, ideally...)? The truth is that the President only has so much power. The more variety we get in, the more difference there will be. And ideally we'll have to pass bills that won't be too extremist in ANY form, so that EVERYONE can agree. (or mostly everyone) In that sense, we'll be doing something good for the nation. So many people hate Bush and think he's done a poor job. Why not try something else? We've tried liberal and conservative. Let's try something new.Well, I don't know what to say, really.
Bush shot down taking embryonic stem-cells, as it would destroy fetuses and he was anti-abortion, etc (ironic that Texas allows for abortion -- a law that I believe he let pass while he was governor). It caused scientists to have to find alternative methods, and now, they've discovered a way of getting stem-cells from the donor themselves. I don't think we'd have figured that out unless someone had stomped their foot down and said, "No." Now, the donor has a limitless (or mostly limitless -- a lot more than a fetus) supply of stem-cells, and they're easier to come by. So we've made "progress" in that regard. And someone who can stand tall for something like that, get some bad flack, and actually do something positive -- that's important to me. That's something I see as "good" with Bush. Maybe there's another side like "Bush didn't do that," or something -- but from what I can recall and remember, that was Bush.Bush did not shoot down stem cell research so they could go ahead and find some other way of doing it. He did it because he found it perfectly acceptable that this form of research, which could one day make very great contributions to health care development, would get suffocated.
Dada, agreed on the first part. It's possible, but I'm really worried that it's going to get screwed up and hurt our taxes. And if there's a transition period, we're all going to get screwed up for health-care in that time.That last part is simply not true. I don't see how health care would be of poor quality during or after the transition. There are ways to prevent this, and it's nothing that has never been done before.
Bush did not shoot down stem cell research so they could go ahead and find some other way of doing it. He did it because he found it perfectly acceptable that this form of research, which could one day make very great contributions to health care development, would get suffocated.
The fact that scientists managed to find another way to do it is not only miraculous, but also something you cannot attribute to George W. Bush. You make it sound as if he was right all the time. He wasn't. He gladly would have let this kind of research die out in the U.S., let's not forget. The very fact that he was willing, and able, to deliver a great blow to medical science, is what made that an extremely poor decision by him.
You say that Bush is moderate for this reason, but that's nothing short of ridiculous. (The reason why he's not been in the spotlight lately is because he's busy trying to polish his image as much as possible, which would account for his current Africa trip. He's not going to get all that much done anymore, anyway.)
I feel like despite the problems with Iraq (I know I'm not there fighting right now -- and I'm not paying the bill for it yet), that it was the right thing to do. Taking care of North Korea would be nice to do too, after seeing the type of shit they do to their people. But that would assume a stronger "world police" role. Which would be a pain in the ass and checkbook, for sure. Maybe more so North Korea -- seriously, was watching a documentary and saw how they did "surgery" over there -- on fold-out tables that weren't clean, without antibiotics, and the people still say how their "great leader" is watching out for them. I mean, at least he is pushing for them being self-reliant, but it still seems like they're getting raped within their own country.Seems to me that the same kind of mentality that says it's time to "take care of" a nation is present in the people I overhear in public places saying "we shoulda just nuked the whole goddamn place... woulda solved all our problems" and in the people who believe that ignorance, bigotry, and racism are the best ways of "taking care of" groups of people with dissenting beliefs.
Seems to me that the same kind of mentality that says it's time to "take care of" a nation is present in the people I overhear in public places saying "we shoulda just nuked the whole goddamn place... woulda solved all our problems" and in the people who believe that ignorance, bigotry, and racism are the best ways of "taking care of" groups of people with dissenting beliefs.it's just an expression, dawg. it doesn't necessarily have to have the same connotation when some random guy says it as when some redneck you live by does!
Seems to me that the same kind of mentality that says it's time to "take care of" a nation is present in the people I overhear in public places saying "we shoulda just nuked the whole goddamn place... woulda solved all our problems" and in the people who believe that ignorance, bigotry, and racism are the best ways of "taking care of" groups of people with dissenting beliefs.
My - way to keep the discussion civil. Someone disagrees and you insult and shout them down. If you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait until it is "free." The quality will go way down, and the availability will drop like a rock. Many of the issues we have with healthcare are due to the government's involvement in the system. It doesn't need to get any more involved, thanks. If we aren't satisfied with the care received what opportunity would there be for us to go elsewhere? Essentially what you are saying is that you don't care if it isn't available or quality - just as long as it is "free." During times of tight budgets, it could be decided that your health care won't be covered on a whim and you would have no place to go and just have to suffer or die with no options. I do not want my body to belong to Big Brother. No thank you. And "waiting" that you refer is to going from needing a diagnostic exam and getting it scheduled in a day or so or waiting months or even a year at a time - I'm sorry, but "less expensive" isn't exactly worth it if the test is needed to check for an ailment.
But if the polls are any indication at this time, you may just get your wish to have government controlled health care (or the flowery term "universal health care" as some like to call it to make it sound nice), so here's some of what we have to look forward to:
And what the fuck. "I'm afraid of what it'll do to our taxes.." shut up and pay your damn taxes.Man i'm glad that someone said this. You don't see North-Europeans speak for their system too often in these forums!
Sweden got pretty much the highest taxes in the world but I would never trade lower taxes with UHC even though I'm 90% sure me and my family could cover any sort of health expenses (ok maybe not but a whole lot).
You know why? Because I fucking care about those less fortunate, I might not give away a whole lot of cash but I'll never bitch about tax that goes towards saving the lives of the less fortunate. QUOTED GATDAMN FOR THE MOTHERFRACKI*G TRUTH
So many people hate Bush and think he's done a poor job. Why not try something else? We've tried liberal and conservative. Let's try something new.Terin has committed to the most common and worst idea Ron Paul supporters constantly have: "WELL NOTHING HAS WORKED SO FAR AND RON PAUL IS DIFFERENT THEREFORE HE IS BETTER (AMERICA IS JUST AFRAID OF CHANGE)"
I think it's important to try to reach out to a lot of different places if we can and do what's right for people.
"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal"
guess I just would rather "liberate" a place, and only do such in a way that saves the people and doesn't put them into danger.I was trying to go back and read through more of your posts but I read this and couldn't read any more. If stuff like this was possible, they could liberate themselves. The problem is that there is no way to run in and save the people without them being in danger because it's people CAUSING the danger. You overthrow a dictator, you anger the citizens who for whatever reason liked the dictator. How do you save just the ones who aren't going to hurt each other, and how do you keep them away from the ones who will? There is no country in which there is a horrible dictator and every other person in the country besides that dictator is standing around waiting for the dictator to die. Optimism is okay, but all of your opinions are absolutely idealistic with no reality in them at all. It sounds almost good, but you have to be realistic about the things you're talking about.
And just FYI, it was amusing to find that I got about 5 IMs from people today who sent me an IM saying "Dude, Ryan and Steel are pretty left-wing, you should really watch about posting that stuff there. But yeah, they're totally crazy and from low-income, low-class families in areas where they don't have any conservatives. They act childish."
I'm saying that because he had the balls to go out there and do that (as cruel and unfair as it seems), it indirectly helped.So basically, you're saying that it was good he did what he did, because "it led to something good".
Terin has committed to the most common and worst idea Ron Paul supporters constantly have: "WELL NOTHING HAS WORKED SO FAR AND RON PAUL IS DIFFERENT THEREFORE HE IS BETTER (AMERICA IS JUST AFRAID OF CHANGE)"The funny thing is that the main idea behind libertarianism is minimizing the government. And why do they want that? Because libertarians believe that a smaller government, simply by virtue of being smaller, is better.
I'd just like to point out that healthy people who lead long lives cost the health care system MORE than smokers and obese people.They more than make up for this by being more capable to work for their society.
Apparently, he didn't make the racist comments in those newsletters, but someone else did. That's an easy cop-out, so I don't know:
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822
They more than make up for this by being more capable to work for their society.actually, most people retire around 65-70 so basically after that they're pretty much just leeches on society. so really the issue that we have is that the longer they live after retirement the more they fuck us in the ass. For instance, what economic contribution do senior citizens provide outside of propping up your local Cracker Barrel or Ponderosa? Or their unwavering support of the cottage industry of nursing homes and the pharmeceuticals? (oh and ruining social security for us) not a whole lot. and they drive slow. and they smell!
actually, most people retire around 65-70 so basically after that they're pretty much just leeches on society. so really the issue that we have is that the longer they live after retirement the more they fuck us in the ass. For instance, what economic contribution do senior citizens provide outside of propping up your local Cracker Barrel or Ponderosa? Or their unwavering support of the cottage industry of nursing homes and the pharmeceuticals? (oh and ruining social security for us) not a whole lot. and they drive slow. and they smell!Argh I hate you, you bumped both my posts off of the page.
so there
Are you seriously comparing a minority of cases against 40 millions uninsured people?
I never thought I'd be insulted for the fact that my dad died at an early age and his medical bills crippled my single mother who thanks to right wing legislation could not get welfare, while her minority status ensured she wouldn't get a job that paid nearly as well as her white coworkers were promoted.
For instance, what economic contribution do senior citizens provide outside of propping up your local Cracker Barrel or Ponderosa?
Argh I hate you, you bumped both my posts off of the page.my post was pretty tongue in cheek, but yeah I really dont like old people. I guess working in food service instills that in you after a while. But I agree that working people should be kept as healthy as possible. (also before anyone says it, I dont really care what happens to me when I get old, I dont really want anyone or any system to take care of me and hobble me along for unnecessary extra years... when the time comes I want to just fucking die and not live a pitiful unindependent existance)
It doesn't happen very often that I make such good posts!!
You're right that people retire and then stop working. But they're still spenders, which too is part of the economic development. Though I must admit, you're right, me saying that they "more than make up for this" is an exaggeration. But there's still the fact that people who are able to get health care will be of more use to society. It's not just helping them back on their feet when they get health problems, it's also prevention of sickness. This will actually greatly help the economy in the long run.
You are a walking liberal sob story, and yet, you are now bound for a top tier law school! Mr. Steel you have pulled yourself up by your bootstraps! gg.fuck you man. I bet you wouldnt say horrible shit like this if you had actually had to live in a situation like that.
Yeah, because UHC never comes up in LF EVER.
I was confused for a second. I thought we had gone back to discussing Ron Paul, but apparently you're talking about an SA forum.
I am very bad with conputer
The most recent controversy (March of 2007) involves polictics and the upcoming presidential election 2008. Ashford found pictures of presidential-hopeful Barack Obama's prepubescent children and posted them on his website, Puellula.com. He then wrote that he was supporting Obama because of how beautiful his little girls were. He did, however, take down the pictures at the request of Obama's lawyers.
I was never able to figure out before what it was people liked about Hilary Clinton... but over the last few weeks I have been becoming ever more increasingly baffled why ANYONE could like her. Shes like a fucking viper she-devil bitch. (obviously some people arent as tied to likeability as I am, but in defense of myself, someone bitchy and arrogant like she is isn't a good foreign policy person) and what with obama and hilary being so close to each other in the actual issues fuckin hell I do not understand why people are still voting for her.
Holy fucking shit how can anyone vote for Clinton with her SMUG CHEEK-GRIN she always hasShe reminds me of Miss Piggy for some reason...
The whole time she has a horrible "HEH YOU AND YOUR IDEAS" face.
NOTI have personal testimony to prove that this is true!
A
NIGGER.
ps thats really it!
She reminds me of Miss Piggy for some reason...
and what with obama and hilary being so close to each other in the actual issues fuckin hell I do not understand why people are still voting for her.
The whole time she has a horrible "HEH YOU AND YOUR IDEAS" face.Hah! I actually laughed out loud at that. It's funny because that's the exact truth.
Also, everyone's secretly hoping for a Presidential nipslip and/or "Stepping out of a limo in a dress without wearing any panties" shot.Oh my fucking god I hope you get a warn for this (you don't really deserve it but christ that's gross NO ONE thinks that ewwww :blarg:​).
it's pretty clear Obama can easily beat her in any speech or debate, which is why she needs to constantly try to slam him and it doesn't really work out for herHmm, I'm not sure about that. I read that Clinton has consistently done very well in debates, to the point where she complained to the Obama camp about him declining an offer to have another debate.
If this election was on ideas/ideals/history alone, he'd run over the other canidates.I visit Digg too!
as long as they are not any of the main candidates you'll find peace of mind terinhahahahahahaha
i don't like the way hilary clinton is getting treated in all of this. it seems to me that a lot of people are just focusing on attacking her personally and the amount of times i see words like bitch, cunt and other gross sexist insults get thrown at her makes me think a lot of it is to do with her being a woman. she gets a lot of flack for not being likable or relatable, or whatever, but really she isn't any worse than many of the other male candidates have been. she's not anywhere near as charasmatic as obama is, but she isn't some cold fish up on the stage.if she was a man I'd call her a petty piece of shit. bitch is just easier because shes a woman
I visit Digg too!
maybe i'm not the best guy to bring this up, but no-one else has.
i don't like the way hilary clinton is getting treated in all of this. it seems to me that a lot of people are just focusing on attacking her personally and the amount of times i see words like bitch, cunt and other gross sexist insults get thrown at her makes me think a lot of it is to do with her being a woman. she gets a lot of flack for not being likable or relatable, or whatever, but really she isn't any worse than many of the other male candidates have been. she's not anywhere near as charasmatic as obama is, but she isn't some cold fish up on the stage.
i don't think i'm stepping out of line saying that a lot of the stuff that is said about her, and there is a lot of it in this topic, comes from a cowardly hatred for an older woman who is trying to make a serious attempt at taking power.
maybe i'm not the best guy to bring this up, but no-one else has.
i don't like the way hilary clinton is getting treated in all of this. it seems to me that a lot of people are just focusing on attacking her personally and the amount of times i see words like bitch, cunt and other gross sexist insults get thrown at her makes me think a lot of it is to do with her being a woman. she gets a lot of flack for not being likable or relatable, or whatever, but really she isn't any worse than many of the other male candidates have been. she's not anywhere near as charasmatic as obama is, but she isn't some cold fish up on the stage.
i don't think i'm stepping out of line saying that a lot of the stuff that is said about her, and there is a lot of it in this topic, comes from a cowardly hatred for an older woman who is trying to make a serious attempt at taking power.
maybe i'm not the best guy to bring this up, but no-one else has.yeah, we talked about this in my feminism class. I tried to stay out of it because I know my TA's and professor are all HILLARY CRAZY but the discussion is fairly interesting. Just the fact that Clinton is the only candidate whose physical appearance is actually analyzed on TV, whereas none of us give a damn that John McCain wore a red tie. And yeah, like you said, when Hillary Clinton shows passion/aggressiveness about a topic she is called a "bitch" whereas a male candidate in the same position is just "strong" or "adamant."
i don't like the way hilary clinton is getting treated in all of this. it seems to me that a lot of people are just focusing on attacking her personally and the amount of times i see words like bitch, cunt and other gross sexist insults get thrown at her makes me think a lot of it is to do with her being a woman. she gets a lot of flack for not being likable or relatable, or whatever, but really she isn't any worse than many of the other male candidates have been. she's not anywhere near as charasmatic as obama is, but she isn't some cold fish up on the stage.
i don't think i'm stepping out of line saying that a lot of the stuff that is said about her, and there is a lot of it in this topic, comes from a cowardly hatred for an older woman who is trying to make a serious attempt at taking power.
your post
I think they use the sexist insults because calling her DICKFACE doesn't really work so well. I really don't think it has anything to do with her being a woman, it has to do with her being a really really fucking smug woman with a bad attitude. Ugh, the kind of smugness that radiates from her has nothing to do with being a woman, it has to do with that being her personality. I'm perfectly willing to just call her an asshole from now on if it enforces the fact that her being a woman isn't the issue.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SZTo0iGc_Dw&feature=related
I am not voting for Obama.
lol. I am fucking kidding. No, we don't have basic government classes in high school. Will that calm your irrational, knee-jerk rage?lemme guess your voting for dr. ron paul????
Obama is all style and no substance. Throw the word "change" around, talk about vague "plans to save America", the guy still has no qualifications. I don't support Clinton, but that is my take on it. Feel free to unleash the Obama-supporting fire unto me.
lemme guess your voting for dr. ron paul????I don't see how that conclusion can be drawn, but SURE!!! :gwa:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SZTo0iGc_Dw&feature=relatedI love how people can choose their candidate by watching a short video now instead of doing research.
I am not voting for Obama.
i think a lot of the time a common kind of man can really over react to any perception of smugness because she's a woman. i'm not saying the smugness isn't there (although i guess i don't really see it), but i think when some closet misogynist picks up a whiff of smugness in a female he gets really really cheesed off.this is really true. some people would probably be triggered simply by her being confident, or seeming like she's in control. sexism actually does have a lot to do with this, but it's not gonna make me vote for her and I do think she comes off as being a little smug
I don't support Clinton.
Roberson what's your cutoff? did you know Hillary Clinton has only held a political office for eight years? why would you say he's all style and no substance considering he's apparently been in political office longer than the next contender?
why would you come into this thread thinking you could post a youtube the Hillary Clinton people have been sending around, linked from once again TNR, and then say HEY GUYS DID YOU KNOW BARACK OBAMA NEVER DOES ANYTHING? do you think everyone in this thread is that dense?
you're pretty dumb!And yes, automatically interpret me posting the video as my ONLY reason for not supporting Obama. Maybe I should've wasted time explaining "This is a funny video" and "I do not support Obama" as separate ideas, but I didn't feel like it. Christ, you'd think if that video was my sole reason for not voting for Obama, I'd say "AND THIS is why I am not voting for Obama"...
And yes, automatically interpret me posting the video as my ONLY reason for not supporting Obama. Maybe I should've wasted time explaining "This is a funny video" and "I do not support Obama" as separate ideas, but I didn't feel like it. Christ, you'd think if that video was my sole reason for not voting for Obama, I'd say "AND THIS is why I am not voting for Obama"...This is quite possibly the most ridiculous trying-to-get-out-of-deep-shit reasoning I have ever heard.
yeah i should maybe clarify don't like clinton very much as a candidate i'm just annoyed at the way she gets treated because she's a woman, and surprised how it isn't being addressed (anywhere that i've seen)
i think a lot of the time a common kind of man can really over react to any perception of smugness because she's a woman. i'm not saying the smugness isn't there (although i guess i don't really see it), but i think when some closet misogynist picks up a whiff of smugness in a female he gets really really cheesed off.
the other guys made most of the points i should've/would've.
...but what about when you're female? You based that whole argument on how men react to her smugness. By the way, I felt exactly the same towards George Bush's dumb SMIRK AT YOU face as I do to Hilary's HEH SMUG face. She just comes off as really arrogant, especially during things like that video of the debates.
I am leaning towards McCain. Because he has much more experience, he's not going to cut taxes like crazy like other Republicans want to do, he is against universal health care, he is in favor of environmental protection, he does not want to pull out of Iraq early, and he doesn't let religion influence him greatly like most Republicans. And that is my stance. :woop:
Because he has much more experience
he's not going to cut taxes like crazy like other Republicans want to do
he is against universal health care
he is in favor of environmental protection
he does not want to pull out of Iraq early
he doesn't let religion influence him greatly like most Republicans
You kind of wonder what the news reaction would be if Obama was caught crying during a dinner party.
The crazy Obama fans (the same ones who denounced Clinton for using such a cheap and dirty tactic) would applaud Obama for having the courage to transcend the expectations of a patriarchal society andshow emotionbear his soul.
I don't see how I can win here, unless I get involved in a lengthy debate and you clearly aren't going to budge on anything, so I don't see the point. Like you said, I am too dumb/ignorant/full of bullshit to argue correctly anyway. I'm not admitting this sarcastically either, you are right. I am a propaganda-spreadin' idiot.
The contents of this post actually prove how dumb/unable to argue I am, right? Pretty cool, I'm doing your job FOR you!
maybe i'm not the best guy to bring this up, but no-one else has.I agree with this. It's not like Clinton is a terrible candidate. I once read a comment on Digg where someone called her "Hitlary". These people know nothing about politics and just like to hike a ride on what Omega calls the "reverse bandwagon".
i don't like the way hilary clinton is getting treated in all of this. it seems to me that a lot of people are just focusing on attacking her personally and the amount of times i see words like bitch, cunt and other gross sexist insults get thrown at her makes me think a lot of it is to do with her being a woman. she gets a lot of flack for not being likable or relatable, or whatever, but really she isn't any worse than many of the other male candidates have been. she's not anywhere near as charasmatic as obama is, but she isn't some cold fish up on the stage.
Even though we got a new prime minister just last year, I wouldn't be surprised if the government continues to devote most of its time to blowing America's dick. So here's hoping that you guys don't fuck up!!Hey man, what's going on in Australia, anyway? To me, right now Australia is that country that's trying to ban porn. And that's a democratic socialist party. Which is kind of amazing, seen as how such extremities are usually only employed by the conservatives.
[...] he is against universal health careThe U.S. health care system is in shambles and your country is the only one in the top 20 of the Human Development Index that does not have universal health care. Why'd you be against this? I'm asking not because I'm anxious to try and trample your argument but mostly because I'm interested in how one could possibly think that universal health care is bad. What's your argument, what makes the clock tick?
he's in favor of DADT, a policy that not only puts a great deal of psychological stress on our very courageous soldiers already in stress situations (imagine if you were in a war zone and if you got spotted with a boner because some hot chicks were taking a shower in front of you) but also dishonorably discharges anyone who is suspected of being gay, he attempted to pass legislation in Arizona to make same sex marriage illegal, he wants to include intelligent design in public education, and he changed his position on Roe vs. Wade in recent years in an attempt to pander to the religious right.
that's a lot of social policies influenced by religion!
WASHINGTON (AP) — Ralph Nader could be poised for another third party presidential campaign.
The consumer advocate will appear on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday. Nader launched his 2004 presidential run on the show.
not that this makes the actual policy any better but I believe the punishment for disclosing a homosexual orientation results in a general discharge, not a dishonorable
imagine if courts-martial were held for every gay person in the military; that'd be a huge waste of time and resources.
if you say you are gay before you are caught, you get a general discharge. if you get caught and never told anyone you were gay, you get a dishonorable discharge. of course, telling people you are gay means you can't serve anyways, so basically you can't be gay in the military. it's pretty awful.
if you say you are gay before you are caught, you get a general discharge. if you get caught and never told anyone you were gay, you get a dishonorable discharge. of course, telling people you are gay means you can't serve anyways, so basically you can't be gay in the military. it's pretty awful.
Whoah whaaaa? Man I hope that's not happening--I've not seen or heard anything about it to be honest. The exception is the banning of alcohol, drugs and porn in the Aboriginal communities, which has been talked about for a couple of years now. It should be noted though that the current party in power is pretty conservative, as is the PM. It's the first time they've run Australia in 10 years, after taking over from a party who were equally conservative (despite being called the Liberal Party of Australia).http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/web-porn-filter-takes-biggest-hit/2008/02/16/1202760663247.html
So yeah I don't even know anymore man! And uh I really haven't heard anything abut banning porn except for the cases in the indigenous community at this stage.
(despite being called the Liberal Party of Australia)Well, remember that classical liberalism would now be considered conservatism.
Well General would lose a lot of activity if we did politics in a different forum, and also I don't know if things will be so political after the election.
She reminds me of Miss Piggy for some reason...
Yeah me too. I mean, there IS quite a lot happening. The US elections, Castro and the recent events in Australia (new govt., apology to the indigenous population, porn) all provide discussion. There's always somthin' going on so I think there'd be a bit to talk about.
the thing about a politics forum is that it would mean less shit for the general forum. The ask/tell forum already takes away a good chunk of the general forum content; taking away political topics would mean the general forum would be nothing more than a dumping ground for dumb news topics.
also these ideas are never as good as they seem initially. A whole lot of people wanted to see a sports forum happen and then when it did there were only 2-3 people who cared enough about sports to actually use the forum and it was largely dead for the most part. I think the only way the admins would agree to a politics forum is if someone pays the $30 or whatever it costs to have a temp forum.
I agree but this also reinforces my first point in that it would mean a lot less activity for the general forum.
I agree but this also reinforces my first point in that it would mean a lot less activity for the general forum.how much less activity could it possibly mean? there's never really been an incredibly large amount of political topics in this forum to begin with, so i don't think the hit would be all that big.
The failure of the sports forum (Which I feel awful/it's my fault) has expressed to me that gw really isn't SA, we're not going to be able to have the people for either kind of forum.Yeah, I think that a political forum would probably fail. Like, we're discussing plenty of things right now, but is it really enough for an entire forum? And what about one year from now?
What the fuck is wrong with John Mccain? When did he go from being a maverick centrist to being a conservative doushcebag? When talking about castro saying "I hope he has the chance to meet karl marx someday soon"
Like what the fuck KARL MARX, you mean the man who died penniless who was one of our greatest philosophers? He really is one of those douschebags who worships captialism HELLZ YES RONALD REAGAN WON THE COLD WAR
lol. I am fucking kidding. No, we don't have basic government classes in high school. Will that calm your irrational, knee-jerk rage?last time I checked a basic government class was a requirement to graduate
Obama is all style and no substance. Throw the word "change" around, talk about vague "plans to save America", the guy still has no qualifications. I don't support Clinton, but that is my take on it. Feel free to unleash the Obama-supporting fire unto me.
man, marx was a smart guy who came up with an idealist philosophy. if you want to blame anyone for the horrible excesses and atrocities of communism, blame lenin, stalin, and maoor blame marx for confusing politics with philosophy
reminder that John McCain went to Baghdad and said the market was safe and the next day because of the increased military presence he brought to the market, terrorists attacked and 21 people (I think) were killed.
then he went on the Daily Show and when John Stewart brought it up he joked about giving Stewart an IED.
What evidence would convince you that global warming is a serious threat to the planet? —Jeff Young, SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA
I have no doubt that global warming exists. I just question the cause and what we can do to ameliorate it. But I wonder why the Sierra Club isn't going crazy about the environmental aspects of massive immigration into the U.S. The fact is, Americans consume more energy than anyone else, so if a person moves here from another country, they automatically become bigger polluters.
the environmental aspects of massive immigration into the U.S.
I visit Digg too!I don't!
if she was a man I'd call her a petty piece of shit. bitch is just easier because shes a womanYeah. I've just recently caught up. Ahaha. I work nightshift, so I miss a lot of important things.
But yeah BlizzardVeers have you been paying attention to the primaries since Super Tuesday? Hilary has to win like... 60% of the remaining delegates to even tie Obama (which wont happen lol (as in in no contest has she beat obama by more than 5-10%)
On that note, I want to vote for Ron Paul but see no point in doing so. I'll vote for Obama over McCain though. Simply because of what McCain has done since Bush became President. McCain is a McTwit, and that Obama might still be young enough not to have been completely corrupted by the idiocy and boy lovers in Congress.Okay, so you're not voting for Ron Paul because he's not going to win anyway. But then why are you voting for Obama? He's at the complete opposite side of the political spectrum. Obama is a socialist democrat and Ron Paul is a libertarian (which is basically a nicer word for neo-anarchism, just in case you didn't know).
i like talking ronpaul with omeg because he's just like so confused about everything. it is like THEY THINK THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T RUN ANYTHING AND IT SHOULD ALL BE RELEGATED TO STATES and he is just liek HOW HOW HOW THIS MAKES NO SENSE :( BADLEY CONFUSED.And I still just don't get it. The reason why I'm asking him why he supports Ron Paul is not necessarily so I can shoot it down, but because I'm really, really wondering what his exact reason for supporting libertarianism is.
Okay, so you're not voting for Ron Paul because he's not going to win anyway. But then why are you voting for Obama? He's at the complete opposite side of the political spectrum. Obama is a socialist democrat and Ron Paul is a libertarian (which is basically a nicer word for neo-anarchism, just in case you didn't know).Airforce Surgeon, Is for State Regulation over Total Government Regulation, Doesn't want the government involved in my personal affairs, Pretty clear on what you're getting with him, Brilliant with Economics, Has the correct philosophy on American Military force (Strategic Defense)
(He also published a newsletter filled with anti-semitic, homophobic and racist commentary, by the way.)
Why exactly do you support him?
Airforce Surgeon, Is for State Regulation over Total Government Regulation, Doesn't want the government involved in my personal affairs, Pretty clear on what you're getting with him, Brilliant with Economics, Has the correct philosophy on American Military force (Strategic Defense)
By the way, Ron Paul is more of a Constitutionalist on most things than a Libertarian.
There is a difference between Government stepping away from the 'regulate the people' button and being completely gone. Anarchism is similar to Libertarianism in philosophy, but the practice and ideals are different enough that I don't like Anarchism. Government needs to provide Police, Fire Help, Military, etc. They do not need to tell me that I cannot do drugs in the comfort of my own house, tell me I can't get married to someone else, have sex with someone else, etc., since that is an intrusion on my right to happiness. Hm. By the way, the government looking to improve the overall state of the country rather than just the appeasement of certain small groups will work far better than just propping up a single group for a little while. The very fact that you've said that Anarchism is basically Libertarianism shows how little you actually know about something that can simply be wiki'd and read about fully and comprehensively.
Show me this anti-semetic, homophobic, and racist commentary. I want facts, with full details on -everything- said, not just hearsay. Then I want you to prove to me what he's said is not true if taken into the proper context of which it was written.
What I said was that I'd pick Obama over McCain anyhow. Also, a man with good ideas that I don't agree with is still a man with good ideas. I understand that I'm voting for someone that's pretty much the opposite of the one person I said I would vote for and have said that all along, but maybe it's time for someone else with different ideas to step up. It's rather simple to admit that perhaps your ideas are wrong, despite the fact that you believe in them strongly, and that someone else's might be the correct answer.
By the way, way to assume my intelligence level and what I actually know. You're so psychic! :D
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28537_Ron_Pauls_Personal_Details_in_Racist_Newsletter&only
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129QuoteJean McIver, a former Ron Paul congressional assistant campaign manager, will be joining us as our Texas field coordinator. Together they will help direct our crucial Texas program.
(http://www.gamingw.net/pubaccess/57278/pauloops2.jpg)
also found a formatted post on SA.
Ron Paul had several newsletters printed under his name over several decades that were pervasive with anti-semetic, homophobic, racist, and extreme right-wing paranoid conspiracy theory ramblings (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca). (The sheer number of craziness, filth, and crazy filth contained in these newletters is staggering; just read the article to see just how deep the rabbit hole goes.)
Despite denying any connection to these newletters that bore his name--and were published by "Ron Paul & Associates"--for decades, Ron Paul continues to make prejudice remarks, describing those working for the Transportation Security Administration as looking "more suspicious to [him] than most Americans who are getting checked," (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/index1.html) not to mention that he not too long ago voted against the renewal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and published his reasons for disaproval with the Act (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html).
It is not surprising that Ron Paul continues to make these types of remarks considering the newletters and his legislative past, where he sponsored a bill that would make it easier for private schools to discriminate (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.3863:), another that would weaken the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d098:HR04982:@@@L&summ2=m&), yet another that would deny Iranian students federal aid (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.5842:), and finally one that would require unmarried minors to notify parents they requested an abortion or contraceptives, "[prohibit] the expenditure of federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle or which suggest that it can be an acceptable lifestyle," endorse "corporal punishment" against children, and repeal the estate tax--a tax which affects only the wealthiest of Americans (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:HR07955:@@@L&summ2=m&).
He has also recently published articles stating that he believes that the Left is waging a war on Christmas, that Churches should serve a role in society eclipsing that of the state (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html), and that he opposes gay marriage (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html) . Plus, Ron Paul has recently (6/6/07) introduced legislation that would define life as beginning at conception (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.02597:) and legislation that would prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like--a bill which he has repeated reintroduced (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300:). (A list of all the ridiculous bills he has sponsored over the past few decades can be found here (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html).)
Oh, there's more. SO MUCH MORE!
He was the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-764). He wants to pull out of the U.N. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146:), disband NATO (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146:), abolish the federal reserve (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2755:), reinstate the Gold Standard (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm), believes in New World Order conspiracy theories (http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/ron_paul_first_bush_was_working_towards_nwo.htm), believes that the International Baccalaureate program is U.N. mind control (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r109:E14AP5-0007:), and...
Aw hell, just take a look at his own website (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/), where he advocates abolishing the Department of Education, the Food & Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Social Security Administration, and a ton of other agencies that provide vital public services.
The very fact that you've said that Anarchism is basically Libertarianism shows how little you actually know about something that can simply be wiki'd and read about fully and comprehensively.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84cahttp://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007378.html
continues to make prejudice remarks, describing those working for the Transportation Security Administration as looking "more suspicious to [him] than most Americans who are getting checked,"So?
voted against the renewal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and published his reasons for disaproval with the Act.Lol. Did you actually read the article that you put? This goes with the 'Libertarian' aspect.
a bill that would make it easier for private schools to discriminateIt is within the rights of Private organizations to decide who they want to hire and what policies they use. This is freedom of choice.
another that would weaken the Civil Rights Act of 1964Read it and tell me why this is a 'bad' thing. This goes with the Libertarian point of view.
yet another that would deny Iranian students federal aidWhy should the United States provide federal aid for education for other countries in general? He's an isolationist.
require unmarried minors to notify parents they requested an abortion or contraceptives, "[prohibit] the expenditure of federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle or which suggest that it can be an acceptable lifestyle," endorse "corporal punishment" against children, and repeal the estate tax--a tax which affects only the wealthiest of Americans.#1: I see nothing wrong with that. A minor is a dependant. #2: I do not agree with this. This goes against things he's said in the past as well. #3: Know many kids that never got punished? How'd they turn out overall? #4: Leaving out that he wants to allow deductions and exemptions for other social status.
believes that the Left is waging a war on Christmas, that Churches should serve a role in society eclipsing that of the stateHave you missed all the anti-religious things spewed recently? And that last part is not what is actually written.
opposes gay marriageNo, he doesn't. That's not what this bill opposes, and what this was doing was removing Federal Jurisdiction over marriage. Leaving it up to the states to decide.
recently (6/6/07) introduced legislation that would define life as beginning at conceptionUnshakable foe of Abortion.
the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the SudanThis seems odd given his track record on these things.
pull out of the U.N., disband NATOAgain. So? I am of the personal belief that the UN causes many problems with countries as you have diplomats that have no fear of reprecussion speaking rather than the countries actually communicating with one another.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2755:Because he also wants to abolish taxes and go back to Gold.
believes in New World Order conspiracy theoriesOr maybe the 'New World Order' thing is taken out of context. He wasn't referring to it as a secret group. He was referring to it as a trade union.
believes that the International Baccalaureate program is U.N. mind controlMaybe not Mind-Control, but you can't argue that if you're teaching someone generally they're going to believe what you're teaching them. If there's a bias towards something in the teaching, then those people receive that bias.
http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Politics/whynotthegoldstandard.htmlI'm going to receed on this particular subject until I've researched it a little more thoroughly.
holy shit where do i even start.Before you even start, I really don't care, I try look at things from an objective point of view and admit when I'm wrong and where I'm wrong. If I offended you, or made you go, "Homg you're so terrible." I really do not care. My line of thinking and opinions on various subjects are different than yours, get over it. Calling me a horrible human being is no different than me calling you a stupid naive one.
christ even the only link you provided is horrible.
okay getting beer before I do this, omeg, if you feel like taking him down a thousand pegs feel free, because chances are I am just going to say YOU ARE A HORRIBLE HUMAN BEING CONGRATS.
Well, if you're going to discredit Wikipedia with random websites. I guess I will too.
http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007378.html
So?
Lol. Did you actually read the article that you put? This goes with the 'Libertarian' aspect.
It is within the rights of Private organizations to decide who they want to hire and what policies they use. This is freedom of choice.
Read it and tell me why this is a 'bad' thing. This goes with the Libertarian point of view.
Why should the United States provide federal aid for education for other countries in general? He's an isolationist.
#1: I see nothing wrong with that. A minor is a dependant. #2: I do not agree with this. This goes against things he's said in the past as well. #3: Know many kids that never got punished? How'd they turn out overall? #4: Leaving out that he wants to allow deductions and exemptions for other social status.
Have you missed all the anti-religious things spewed recently? And that last part is not what is actually written.
Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.
No, he doesn't. That's not what this bill opposes, and what this was doing was removing Federal Jurisdiction over marriage. Leaving it up to the states to decide.
Unshakable foe of Abortion.
This seems odd given his track record on these things.
Again. So? I am of the personal belief that the UN causes many problems with countries as you have diplomats that have no fear of reprecussion speaking rather than the countries actually communicating with one another.
Also, he's opting for the US to become a hermit, so, this makes sense from the perspective he's explained.
Because he also wants to abolish taxes and go back to Gold.
Or maybe the 'New World Order' thing is taken out of context. He wasn't referring to it as a secret group. He was referring to it as a trade union.
Maybe not Mind-Control, but you can't argue that if you're teaching someone generally they're going to believe what you're teaching them. If there's a bias towards something in the teaching, then those people receive that bias.
So, he's predujice, racist, homophobic, anti-semitic, etc.
Though, at the same time, many of his comments if thought of with the perspective of the upholding of the constitution, of liberty, etc, you can clearly see he's going with the basic of his belief and not going to attack a single group. Since there are instances of him doing similar things when they had nothing to do with the race/gender etc. Outside of Iran, and that plays into the isolationist in him.
By the way, way to just completely dismiss something I say when what I said was, "something that can be wiki'd" and it CAN be wiki'd and learned about rather comprehensively if you've ever bothered to look. Just because it's not written in a book, or because it's on wiki does not mean it's not credible. However, there's a good chance that if it is on wikipedia without source, it isn't as credible.
I understand the Libertarianism philosophy, and I understand the Anarchistic philosophy at the most basic level. That is all I need to know to know that I agree with one and cannot stand by the other.
Before you even start, I really don't care, I try look at things from an objective point of view and admit when I'm wrong and where I'm wrong. If I offended you, or made you go, "Homg you're so terrible." I really do not care. My line of thinking and opinions on various subjects are different than yours, get over it. Calling me a horrible human being is no different than me calling you a stupid naive one.
Just because you provide a whole crap load of links that give long drawn out opinions and 'facts' that can be taken out of context in a matter of seconds and I respond with my own and the reasoning for mine in a simple sentence or two does not make your's any more valid.
Well, if you're going to discredit Wikipedia with random websites. I guess I will too.I'd just like to note something about the reliability of Wikipedia here. While there's no doubt that Wikipedia is an extremely good resource on pretty much every relevant topic, with well-sourced articles that form a good starting point for broader research. The problem that most easily arises in these topics, however, is also the least obvious one to the uninformed reader: bias. There are some articles on Wikipedia, for example the one about Ron Paul, in which some things are purposely omitted or written in a sense that would give the reader a certain opinion about the subject matter. These things are not very easily helped unless there are a couple of editors willing to put in many hours to fix up the article. This is a pitfall that you must avoid.
This is something I see more libertarians do: they assume they're right. For what reason, I don't know. You think it's not a bad thing that Ron Paul voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, by the way, is what Martin Luther King, Jr. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Martin-Luther-King-1964-leaning-on-a-lectern.jpg) died for, because it "fits perfectly with the fact he is a libertarian". About the right to vote, King said the following: "We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote." This was the reality: in some states, you simply could not vote if you were black. It wasn't until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that it was determined that there should be no discrimination in this regard. Everybody was given the ability to vote.voted against the renewal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and published his reasons for disaproval with the Act.Lol. Did you actually read the article that you put? This goes with the 'Libertarian' aspect.
Read it and tell me why this is a 'bad' thing. This goes with the Libertarian point of view.There you go again. You that that since "it's the libertarian point of view", it's good. You provide me with no insight as to why, aside from the fact that "it's a libertarian principle". I know by now that you like libertarianism, but I still don't know why.
No, he doesn't. That's not what this bill opposes, and what this was doing was removing Federal Jurisdiction over marriage. Leaving it up to the states to decide.And again, there is no explanation as to why this would be good. I'll take a wild stab in the dark here and guess that it's good because "it's libertarian".
Again. So? I am of the personal belief that the UN causes many problems with countries as you have diplomats that have no fear of reprecussion speaking rather than the countries actually communicating with one another.I've always hoped that I wouldn't have to explain why leaving the United Nations (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg/640px-Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg.png) is a bad thing.
Also, he's opting for the US to become a hermit, so, this makes sense from the perspective he's explained.But why is this good?
So, he's predujice, racist, homophobic, anti-semitic, etc.The interesting thing here is that Ron Paul supporters usually say that they don't trust other politicians, or that other candidates have shown themselves to be unreliable in the past. They say that Ron Paul is a man you can trust. ("Honesty" and "trust", weren't those John McCain's calling cards in 2004? "I will say things that you'll want to hear, and I'll say things that you won't want to hear. But I'll always tell the truth.")
Though, at the same time, many of his comments if thought of with the perspective of the upholding of the constitution, of liberty, etc, you can clearly see he's going with the basic of his belief and not going to attack a single group.
I understand the Libertarianism philosophy, and I understand the Anarchistic philosophy at the most basic level. That is all I need to know to know that I agree with one and cannot stand by the other.It's true, there are differences between anarchism and libertarianism. The label I gave to the latter was not incorrect, though. You can accurately think of libertarianism as "neo-anarchism", despite that not being any officially recognized or associated label.
Ron Paul had several newsletters printed under his name over several decades that were pervasive with anti-semetic, homophobic, racist, and extreme right-wing paranoid conspiracy theory ramblings.
Despite denying any connection to these newletters that bore his name--and were published by "Ron Paul & Associates"--for decades, Ron Paul continues to make prejudice remarks, describing those working for the Transportation Security Administration as looking "more suspicious to [him] than most Americans who are getting checked,"
not to mention that he not too long ago voted against the renewal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and published his reasons for disaproval with the Act.
It is not surprising that Ron Paul continues to make these types of remarks considering the newletters and his legislative past, where he sponsored a bill that would make it easier for private schools to discriminate,
another that would weaken the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
and finally one that would require unmarried minors to notify parents they requested an abortion or contraceptives,
"[prohibit] the expenditure of federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle or which suggest that it can be an acceptable lifestyle," endorse "corporal punishment" against children, and repeal the estate tax--a tax which affects only the wealthiest of Americans.
He has also recently published articles stating that he believes that the Left is waging a war on Christmas, that Churches should serve a role in society eclipsing that of the state
, and that he opposes gay marriage.
Plus, Ron Paul has recently (6/6/07) introduced legislation that would define life as beginning at conception and legislation that would prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like--a bill which he has repeated reintroduced. (A list of all the ridiculous bills he has sponsored over the past few decades can be found here.)
He was the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.
He wants to pull out of the U.N.,
disband NATO,
abolish the federal reserve,
reinstate the Gold Standard,
believes in New World Order conspiracy theories,
believes that the International Baccalaureate program is U.N. mind control, and...
Aw hell, just take a look at his own website, where he advocates abolishing the Department of Education, the Food & Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Social Security Administration, and a ton of other agencies that provide vital public services.
if I was omeg I would outline these but instead I'm going to lol at the fact you told us to wikipedia shit when I got a bunch of anarchist books right next to me and omeg probably knows more about libertarianism than you do considering how fascinated he is by how stupid it is.
here's a gold standard link: http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Politics/whynotthegoldstandard.html
oh and regardless of what he says about not knowing: in 1990 (remember, he KEPT WRITING THESE after this), he said the quotes were "tongue in cheek, academic" writings.
so he knew.
he KNEW.
and he kept on truckin!
This material was published by writers other then Paul.
This is just criticism of the TSA.
What Ron Paul voted against was a bill called House Resolution 676, which celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, not the renewal of the Civil Rights Act, because he wished to expressed grievances over the additional regulation of businesses that resulted.
This is a minor change in the IRS's ability to evaluate private schools, it is difficult to tell what the actual effect would without more background and the portion of IRS code this is effecting.
This is a prohibition against forced busing, no problems here.
For a pro-life candidate, this is about as reasonable as a pro-life bill is going to get.
The bill in this link does appears to be entirely different from what is described here.
He is a Christian, he just wants individuals to be able to openly celebrate Christian holidays. I would hardly call that believing in a war on Christmas.
The War on Religion
Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.
No, he is merely ensuring that the state's retain authority over marriage license. The state's are currently responsible for marriage license, and have also shown a greater willingness to accept gay marriages than the federal government, which the religious right as been attempting to use to block gay marriages. So protecting the states from federal courts may actually be helpful towards gay rights.
Being a Christian, he believes life begins a conception. The link you provided provides no evidence for the other claims.
Incidentally, this is also the bill that defines the civil war in Sudan as a genocide, perhaps he considered it just a civil war and not genocide.
The U.N. has an annoying habit of pulling us into wars we do not need to be in.
It has been constantly devaluaing the dollar over the majority of the past century, and needs to go.will destroy the economy according to every major economic thinker that isn't hilariously out of date.
We could use money that will retain its value.will destroy the economy according to every major economic thinker that isn't hilariously out of date.
He mentioned it in passing. New World Order is a vague term that could mean several things. It is not necessarily an endorsement of a conspiracy theory.yes it is, the NWO is a famous conspiracy theorist term and means only conspiracy theories. nothing else. what does it mean then? tell me. did he just create a term and quote the biggest conspiracy theory link of George Bush's speech for fun? he just said THEY didn't want you to know they exist, no conspiracy there, just pals.
Some criticism of particular ideologies being pushed on college students, but nothing about U.N. mind control.way to be exclusionary
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should withdraw from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
UNESCO sponsors the International Baccalaureate program, which seeks to indoctrinate US primary and secondary school students through its ``universal curriculum'' for teaching global citizenship, peace studies and equality of world cultures. This program, started in Europe, is infiltrating the American school system.
That is the general idea.will destroy society according to every major political thinker that isn't hilariously out of date.
that inflation and deflation are positive and negative changes in the consumer price index respectively:
1.) The price deflation that is so often mentioned as a cause of the Great Depression did not happen until after the market crash of 1929 and the Depression began. Furthermore, the United States was actually accumulating gold during that time, meaning that the price deflation after 1929 was the result of the Federal Reserve removing federal reserve notes from circulation.
2.) Prior to the 1920s, their was a huge surge in the consumer price index, which rose from 9.9 in 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created to 20.0 in 1920. During the 1920s, their was a contraction in prices for the first two years, but then in remained relatively constant around 17.1 until the market crash of 1929. Therefore, the volatile 1920s followed a massive expansion in credit during the 1910s, and despite a two year contraction, prices during this time were nearly twice as high as in 1913. Therefore, any claims in regard to the Great Depression being a result of prior deflation simply are not true, because with the exception of 1920-1922, deflation was not even taking place, and the 1920-1922 are minor compared to inflation occuring during the 1910s.
3.) The Federal Reserve obviously had plenty of power to expand the money supply despite the gold standard, seeing as how in managed to double the consumer price index in less then a decade.
Below is a table I obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics containing the data I am describing:
Year CPI
1913 9.9
1914 10.0
1915 10.1
1916 10.9
1917 12.8
1918 15.1
1919 17.3
1920 20.0
1921 17.9
1922 16.8
1923 17.1
1924 17.1
1925 17.5
1926 17.7
1927 17.4
1928 17.1
1929 17.1
1930 16.7
1931 15.2
1932 13.7
1933 13.0
1934 13.4
1935 13.7
1936 13.9
1937 14.4
1938 14.1
1939 13.9
1940 14.0
1.) The price deflation that is so often mentioned as a cause of the Great Depression did not happen until after the market crash of 1929 and the Depression began. Furthermore, the United States was actually accumulating gold during that time, meaning that the price deflation after 1929 was the result of the Federal Reserve removing federal reserve notes from circulation.
2.) Prior to the 1920s, their was a huge surge in the consumer price index, which rose from 9.9 in 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created to 20.0 in 1920. During the 1920s, their was a contraction in prices for the first two years, but then in remained relatively constant around 17.1 until the market crash of 1929. Therefore, the volatile 1920s followed a massive expansion in credit during the 1910s, and despite a two year contraction, prices during this time were nearly twice as high as in 1913. Therefore, any claims in regard to the Great Depression being a result of prior deflation simply are not true, because with the exception of 1920-1922, deflation was not even taking place, and the 1920-1922 are minor compared to inflation occuring during the 1910s.
3.) The Federal Reserve obviously had plenty of power to expand the money supply despite the gold standard, seeing as how in managed to double the consumer price index in less then a decade.
The US converting to a gold standard would require them to re-issue all currency in circulation as a fixed amount of gold. Since the US government doesn't have a lot of gold, it would mean a lot less currency. Thus, they would need to purchase gold — as a result, the price of gold would skyrocket. The US government would have to sell assets in order to purchase the now absurdly expensive gold, or run a deficit. Taxes would be forced to rise to finance this.
However, this would be pointless, since approximately 1 trillion dollars of goods flows out of the US economy every year. Thus, the economy would literally bled gold bullion. The only way to balance out is a recession, so deep and crippling, that it would eliminate the US trade deficit.
Okay, the regulatory mechanism for the gold standard works like this. Suppose we have two countries, A and B.
Now, for whatever reason, country A is on the gold standard. It doesn't matter what country B is on. Now, A and B buy and sell goods to one another. In order to buy and sell goods, the people in these countries need to purchase currency from one another to buy them.
When an economy buys things from another economy, they need to purchase money from the other economy to buy goods. So, for instance, country A needs to buy country B's currency (call it B$) to buy goods from country B. And vice versa.
Now, as they buy and sell, there usually will be an imbalance been how much people buy and sell in a given country. For instance, country A may be buying more from country B than it is selling. This leads to an imbalance in the currencies, because people in country A will be buying up B$ and selling A$. When it all comes out in the wash, there is a surplus of A$ on the market -- that is, the demand for A$ is lower than the amount supplied.
Now, people will work to correct this surplus, because it's pointless for them to have A$ sitting around no one wants to own. In a quasi-fiat system of freely traded currencies, the exchange rate does this. Bankers and financial dealers adjust the relative values of the currencies to make the "price" of A$ optimal. Currencies wax and wane in value based on their economies and variety of other complex mumbo jumbo which doesn't really matter here.
However, in the gold standard this doesn't happen, because A$ are linked to a fixed amount of gold -- that is, a commodity. Instead, people who hold A$ start redeeming them for gold, in order to sell them as a useful commodity. As a result, Country A's stockpile of gold, which they use to back their currency on, dwindles. In turn, the supply of money for country A falls.
Not enough money is circulation causes the economy to constrict, since doing basic business becomes increasingly difficult. It also can cause deflation, and a host of other problems. In short, the only way for A's domestic economy to come into equillibrium is for it to crash. Businesses shut down, and domestic demand for goods slows as the economy stalls.
While this is a bad thing, it does do one very good thing. If you have no money, because the economy is in recession, you can't very well afford to buy items from country B. Thus, the supply of A$ on the market falls, and people stop redeeming the excess for gold. The process brings the two markets into equilibrium again, and all is well in the world of international commerce.
Of course, the side effects are not exactly pleasant for people in country A.
The big problem is that once you move in to the scale of global markets on a gold standard you can no longer directly control the flow of money in and out of the country. This is well and dandy if you are running a trade surplus; money/gold flows in while goods flow out and you see a healthy level of inflation (gasp! Poor person tax ) and economic growth. Reverse that situation for a country running a trade deficit and a large amount of currency flows out of the country overseas. Lacking all this commodity based currency causes the value of money/gold to surge to the heavens and you see massive deflation. There isn't enough money in circulation so economic growth and investment stagnates and causes people to hoard what little they have left and it spurs a depression cycle.
Not to mention that there simply isn't enough gold out there to buy up to recognize and back the value of our economy so you would need to mandate a massive devaluation of currency right off the bat just to make the initial adjustment. Fiat systems work because the value of your currency is an aggregate of the total worth of your economy and is being constantly re-evaluated and re-appraised by other economies, countries, and foreign businesses. Only so much "Jew manipulation" can happen because if you push it too hard everyone else realizes you are trying to "print money" that doesn't have real economic backing and they devalue your currency for you because of that. Trying to tie your currency to a rock or oil or some other singular (or small set) of commodities is retarded because it will never be a truly accurate measure of your economy's worth, it might only keep in line for some periods of time if you are lucky.
TL;DR Gold Standard only works if you put the entire continental united states in a gigantic bubble and blast it off in to space so you never have to deal with any foreign bodies again
It's almost like this topic is the movie groundhog day
idiotic paulsy pops up, spouts nonsense.
proof is put forth that ron paul is a racist/bigot/etc, paulsies say WAS NOT HIM HE SAID SO (when he openly admitted to this during his 1990 election to the house as said above).
....just like atlas..... truth.... shrugged
Yesterday, a 14-year-old wounded in a drive-by shooting last week was released from hospital. He was luckier than some of the other victims in a series of turf wars. All seven of the young men shot or stabbed to death in London since the beginning of February have been black. This prompted Tony Blair to speak out last week, claiming the spate of murders in London was not being caused by poverty, but by a distinctive black culture.
He didn't even try to back up the "facts" he mentioned. Such as his "fact" that "the U.N. has a habit of pulling us into wars". He says it like it's a fact, while it is in fact ridiculous, and does not mention even a single shred of evidence to back up such a ludicrous claim.
While debating with some Billary supporters on youtube, I brought up the point that Hillary tends to dominate the high school drop out demographic and asked them to explain the meaning behind it only to get this comment:
"College has screwed up the minds of too many people. I'd take "social intelligience" and "emotional intelligence" any day over college liberals who think Che Guevara is a hero. Many educated people are so arrogant and are such elitists, they lose touch with their own roots. "
I laughed.
okay getting beer before I do this, omeg, if you feel like taking him down a thousand pegs feel free, because chances are I am just going to say YOU ARE A HORRIBLE HUMAN BEING CONGRATS.
Wait...I thought HIGHER CRIME RATES were corrolated with BEING POOR and that a disproportionate number of black people are poor?
But there is a little-known episode Clinton doesn't mention in her standard campaign speech in which those two principles collided. In 1975, a 27-year-old Hillary Rodham, acting as a court-appointed attorney, attacked the credibility of a 12-year-old girl in mounting an aggressive defense for an indigent client accused of rape in Arkansas - using her child development background to help the defendant.
.
.
Rodham, records show, questioned the sixth grader's honesty and claimed she had made false accusations in the past. She implied that the girl often fantasized and sought out "older men" like Taylor, according to a July 1975 affidavit signed "Hillary D. Rodham" in compact cursive.
.
.
The victim, now 46, told Newsday that she was raped by Taylor, denied that she wanted any relationship with him and blamed him for contributing to three decades of severe depression and other personal problems.
damn, the worst hitpiece ever just leaked:yeah, except she is going to twist it around and say IT HELPED ME START THE FIRST RAPE HOTLINE IN ARKANSAS - GO WOMEN WHOOOOO
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2934440,print.story
this is...damn
as a defense attorney you are supposed to use every defense for your client (even if that means implying a 12 year old girl lied about rape), but if the mainstream media picks this up, it's a deathblow for Clinton.
CLINTON CALLS 12 YEAR OLD SLUT, NEWS AT 11.
also I brought up this terrible Penn and Teller episode with my roommate the other day, where they quoted DAVID FUCKING HOROWITZ (he is terrible) as the sane one and interviewed Chomsky and asked him if colleges were "liberal indoctrination centers" to which he looked very confused and said "uh...no"Noam Chomsky was in a Penn and Teller episode? I need to see this. Which one?
yeah, I don't think it's really a big deal. I can definitely see some people holding it against her/attempting to hurt her campaign with it, but I don't t hink it exactly spells disaster for her
Noam Chomsky was in a Penn and Teller episode? I need to see this. Which one?
did you know Dr. Dre didn't go to college?But he's a physician!
you don't think it could be spun into HILLARY CALLED A 12 YEAR OLD GIRL A SLUT?like I said I can see people using it against her and spinning it however, I just don't see it striking that big of a blow to her campaign. you'd have to be kind of gullible to really hold it against her, but maybe most people are? I guess we'll see if/when the media gets it
or/and you don't see that being a deathknell?
like I said I can see people using it against her and spinning it however, I just don't see it striking that big of a blow to her campaign. you'd have to be kind of gullible to really hold it against her, but maybe most people are? I guess we'll see if/when the media gets it
in any case I kind of hope it doesn't get out even though I'd rather have hillary lose to obama, this isn't the type of thing I'd want to determine our future president. also it wouldn't be good if she ends up against mccain and THEN this gets out
thing is, the american people hate defense attorneys.
think about this again. do you think anyone should be able to be a potential president given they made such a gargantuan mistake that spans 20 years? it's virtually impossible to get you to agree ron pauls ideas are retarded, but surely you must agree something like this is such a grand error, that it at least should put DOUBT in peoples minds about his ability to be president. for most people it has been enough to convince them he is completely out of his fucking mind.no, the correct paulsie answer is: OH WOW so he is racist and maybe he doesn't like gays a little?? SO WHAT HIS IDEAS ARE STILL BETTER THAN THE OTHER CANDIDATES. heh nice try. why don't you give me some REAL proof............
I’d love to carry Texas, but it’s usually not in the electoral calculation for the Democratic nominee. Florida and Michigan are.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JdpPj6UMG6A&feature=bz303
Chris Dodd announces support of Obama (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23347376/)
yay like 17 more votes nationwide
Is homosexuality ''fixed at birth'' or a choice?
It is ''fixed at birth'', genetic. 32%
It is a choice. 54%
There is no strong evidence either way. 14%
Total: 1643 votes
Vulnerability:
People may decide they like roads
"The left always finds something to pick at other than to describe the issues; we're not surprised at all." (Bill Hobbs, GOP Communications Director)
With the Ron Paul supporters having silently evaporated, let's talk about the other candidates again.Yeah, as I stated before, my parents are deathly afraid of and simultaneously disgusted by Obama. My father asked me, and I quote "You would vote for someone with HUSSEIN in their name???" Also my mother repeatedly calls him "Osama" (not on purpose).
The demagogy continues (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/28/tennessee.gop/index.html) with the Republican party showing a photo of Obama in traditional Kenyan clothes and talks about the "growing chorus of Americans concerned about the future of the nation of Israel ... if Sen. Barack Hussein Obama is elected president of the United States." So many people are afraid of anything Middle-Eastern, they've resorted to just plainly stating his full name in order to damage his reputation.
Now, one of Clinton's laws of politics is this. If one candidate is trying to scare you and the other one is trying to get you to think, if one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.
Smells of desperation and pandering to the biggest demographic in rural Ohio: Blue collar White "Dixiecrats" who are backhandedly racist and are VERY CONCERNED about who is going to answer that red phone....gotta love em
A reporter asked whether Clinton should drop out after Ohio and Texas. Obama adviser Richard Danzig responded:
"I would encourage you on March 5 to call Sen. Clinton at 3 a.m. and ask that question."
Nobody has the experience of answering the red phone when it rings. You tell both Clinton and Obama that a nuclear missile is on its way to the U.S.: the person you want to answer the phone at that moment is the one with the biggest ability to remain cool.Man that was such a bad comment, though the other comments were even worse than that.
And we all know that black people are infinitely more cool that white people.
Yes, I played the race card. That's okay, though, it's the first time in this entire campaign.
Also Dada, tell me isn't there a way to report about the misusage of Ron Paul's wiki-page to the upkeepers of Wikipedia? Like this is just plain political abuse of Wikipedia, surely such act is punishable in some ways?Some articles do get locked, but that's only when there's a furious edit war going on. That's not the case for Ron Paul. There aren't enough people who are against Ron Paul that are editing the article. There are more fervent Paulsies than anti-Paulsies. Besides, locking the article means making it impossible to put in any criticism, too.
I think the xbox/wii/ps3 articles were LOCKED during the console arm-wrestling due to the abuse.
Can't you put up those huge THE NETURALITY OF THIS WHOLE FUCKING ARTICLE IS RIDICULOUSLY DISPUTED banners???Good idea, let's try that right now.
or would they remove those too?
please don't post again, thanks! you're clearly at worst a liar and at best purposefully ignorant and Ron Paul will never get elected, he was an awful racist candidate, you all wasted your money by supporting him, and thank god for that. it's no longer relevant and all you did was make everyone realize you are an awful idiotic human being.
This material was published by writers other then Paul.
no they weren't, no writer ever stepped forward, no writer was ever disclosed, the "writers" had the odd and queer foresight to write as if he was Paul many many times, he hired the man distributing his letters for his campaign, and in 1990 he claimed authorship of them by saying they were academic tongue in cheek quotes. and if all if this was untrue it doesn't change the fact that this is just criminally irresponsible and he shouldn't be President if he can't check racism in a small newsletter he's been running for decades that he signs off on personally.
Quote
This is just criticism of the TSA.
exclusionary, buddy, it was a racist criticism of the TSA.
Quote
What Ron Paul voted against was a bill called House Resolution 676, which celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, not the renewal of the Civil Rights Act, because he wished to expressed grievances over the additional regulation of businesses that resulted.
ah yes this is so much better when you vote against a celebration because it stopped people from kicking out niggers.
Quote
This is a minor change in the IRS's ability to evaluate private schools, it is difficult to tell what the actual effect would without more background and the portion of IRS code this is effecting.
the effect would be that private schools could now discriminate and the IRS can't check them on it, thanks for playing.
Quote
This is a prohibition against forced busing, no problems here.
the Civil Rights Act and the "forced busing" was the only way people could stop racists like Paul from preventing them from getting their rights. don't say no problems. I and every minority have a huge problem with repealing it.
Quote
For a pro-life candidate, this is about as reasonable as a pro-life bill is going to get.
for a libertarian its completely ridiculous and an infringement on a woman's rights.
Quote
The bill in this link does appears to be entirely different from what is described here.
no it isn't. glad to see you've bought into the jargon of the estate tax instead of the reality and figured out something every single political economic theorist hasn't though. you sure are a clever one.
Quote
No, he is merely ensuring that the state's retain authority over marriage license. The state's are currently responsible for marriage license, and have also shown a greater willingness to accept gay marriages than the federal government, which the religious right as been attempting to use to block gay marriages. So protecting the states from federal courts may actually be helpful towards gay rights.
except the greatest help to gay rights is to be for gay marriage. the bill anulls marriages as soon as they cross state lines. this is not helpful to gay rights at all.
Quote
Being a Christian, he believes life begins a conception. The link you provided provides no evidence for the other claims.
as a libertarian he has an obligation to fight for all rights, even ones he dislikes, and yes it does, you clearly have no idea what removing judicial review would do.
Quote
Incidentally, this is also the bill that defines the civil war in Sudan as a genocide, perhaps he considered it just a civil war and not genocide.
you clearly didn't read the link, where he explained his horrible motives for giving government funds to Sudan.
Quote
The U.N. has an annoying habit of pulling us into wars we do not need to be in.
as a member of the ruling seven the US has the right to not follow any UN action and frequently goes over the UN's head. once again, you demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge on the subject.
Quote
We could use money that will retain its value.will destroy the economy according to every major economic thinker that isn't hilariously out of date.
Quote
Some criticism of particular ideologies being pushed on college students, but nothing about U.N. mind control.way to be exclusionary
Quote
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should withdraw from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
UNESCO sponsors the International Baccalaureate program, which seeks to indoctrinate US primary and secondary school students through its ``universal curriculum'' for teaching global citizenship, peace studies and equality of world cultures. This program, started in Europe, is infiltrating the American school system.
Quote
That is the general idea.will destroy society according to every major political thinker that isn't hilariously out of date.
Quote
that inflation and deflation are positive and negative changes in the consumer price index respectively:
1.) The price deflation that is so often mentioned as a cause of the Great Depression did not happen until after the market crash of 1929 and the Depression began. Furthermore, the United States was actually accumulating gold during that time, meaning that the price deflation after 1929 was the result of the Federal Reserve removing federal reserve notes from circulation.
2.) Prior to the 1920s, their was a huge surge in the consumer price index, which rose from 9.9 in 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created to 20.0 in 1920. During the 1920s, their was a contraction in prices for the first two years, but then in remained relatively constant around 17.1 until the market crash of 1929. Therefore, the volatile 1920s followed a massive expansion in credit during the 1910s, and despite a two year contraction, prices during this time were nearly twice as high as in 1913. Therefore, any claims in regard to the Great Depression being a result of prior deflation simply are not true, because with the exception of 1920-1922, deflation was not even taking place, and the 1920-1922 are minor compared to inflation occuring during the 1910s.
3.) The Federal Reserve obviously had plenty of power to expand the money supply despite the gold standard, seeing as how in managed to double the consumer price index in less then a decade.
Below is a table I obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics containing the data I am describing:
Year CPI
1913 9.9
1914 10.0
1915 10.1
1916 10.9
1917 12.8
1918 15.1
1919 17.3
1920 20.0
1921 17.9
1922 16.8
1923 17.1
1924 17.1
1925 17.5
1926 17.7
1927 17.4
1928 17.1
1929 17.1
1930 16.7
1931 15.2
1932 13.7
1933 13.0
1934 13.4
1935 13.7
1936 13.9
1937 14.4
1938 14.1
1939 13.9
1940 14.0
glad to see you think you know more about economics than Dr. J. Bradford Delong, a Harvard educated economics professor who taught at Harvard, Boston University, MIT, and currently teaches at Berkeley and all these people:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GoldStandard.html -Dr. Michael D. Bordo, London School of Economics, currently teaching at Rutgers
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/12/the_gold_standa.html -James D. Hamilton, Professor of Economics at University of California
and pretty much everyone else, such as professor Barry J. Eichengreen who wrote the fantastic Golden Fetters, who has ever published a paper on the subject. ps: EVERYONE ELSE. there are no serious economists advocating a return to the gold standard (cue Greenspan namedrop).
regardless, no doubt you will be angry that I suggested you have zero credibility compared to a man who taught at MIT and Harvard and got his PhD from the top university in the country instead of refuting your arguments but let's give it a shot.
Quote
1.) The price deflation that is so often mentioned as a cause of the Great Depression did not happen until after the market crash of 1929 and the Depression began. Furthermore, the United States was actually accumulating gold during that time, meaning that the price deflation after 1929 was the result of the Federal Reserve removing federal reserve notes from circulation.
by being stuck to the gold standard (if you read the link you'd know this), the Federal Reserve was unable to prevent the Great Depression. runs on the dollar resulted in the crash, and had the dollar not been tied to such a horrible (arbitrary) standard, it would have never happened.
Quote
2.) Prior to the 1920s, their was a huge surge in the consumer price index, which rose from 9.9 in 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created to 20.0 in 1920. During the 1920s, their was a contraction in prices for the first two years, but then in remained relatively constant around 17.1 until the market crash of 1929. Therefore, the volatile 1920s followed a massive expansion in credit during the 1910s, and despite a two year contraction, prices during this time were nearly twice as high as in 1913. Therefore, any claims in regard to the Great Depression being a result of prior deflation simply are not true, because with the exception of 1920-1922, deflation was not even taking place, and the 1920-1922 are minor compared to inflation occuring during the 1910s.
I'm amazed you think you figured out some CPI shit that professors of economics would just magically ignore. did you know btw there was a huge depression before the Fed was around? the Panic of 1819 huh how did that happen....
I would refute this better but it's late and you saying that you just FIGURED OUT ALL THEM STATS THAT PROFESSOR WHO GAVE A LAYMAN'S VERSION DIDN'T GO INTO DETAIL ERGO HE'S WRONG is pretty funny. that and considering how much you've lied above and said OH IT DOESN'T SAY THAT leads me to believe your facts are almost certainly grossly inaccurate!
Quote
3.) The Federal Reserve obviously had plenty of power to expand the money supply despite the gold standard, seeing as how in managed to double the consumer price index in less then a decade.
no. these have nothing to do with each other. what are you, stupid?
okay let's ignore your huge fucking selective bias by skipping over the salient part of the link provided and jumping to AHA SEE THE GOLD STANDARD HELPED THE GREAT DEPRESSION because I don't care and there isn't a single piece of economic literature that agrees with you. let's play the hypothetical scenario game.
Quote
The US converting to a gold standard would require them to re-issue all currency in circulation as a fixed amount of gold. Since the US government doesn't have a lot of gold, it would mean a lot less currency. Thus, they would need to purchase gold — as a result, the price of gold would skyrocket. The US government would have to sell assets in order to purchase the now absurdly expensive gold, or run a deficit. Taxes would be forced to rise to finance this.
However, this would be pointless, since approximately 1 trillion dollars of goods flows out of the US economy every year. Thus, the economy would literally bled gold bullion. The only way to balance out is a recession, so deep and crippling, that it would eliminate the US trade deficit.
Okay, the regulatory mechanism for the gold standard works like this. Suppose we have two countries, A and B.
Now, for whatever reason, country A is on the gold standard. It doesn't matter what country B is on. Now, A and B buy and sell goods to one another. In order to buy and sell goods, the people in these countries need to purchase currency from one another to buy them.
When an economy buys things from another economy, they need to purchase money from the other economy to buy goods. So, for instance, country A needs to buy country B's currency (call it B$) to buy goods from country B. And vice versa.
Now, as they buy and sell, there usually will be an imbalance been how much people buy and sell in a given country. For instance, country A may be buying more from country B than it is selling. This leads to an imbalance in the currencies, because people in country A will be buying up B$ and selling A$. When it all comes out in the wash, there is a surplus of A$ on the market -- that is, the demand for A$ is lower than the amount supplied.
Now, people will work to correct this surplus, because it's pointless for them to have A$ sitting around no one wants to own. In a quasi-fiat system of freely traded currencies, the exchange rate does this. Bankers and financial dealers adjust the relative values of the currencies to make the "price" of A$ optimal. Currencies wax and wane in value based on their economies and variety of other complex mumbo jumbo which doesn't really matter here.
However, in the gold standard this doesn't happen, because A$ are linked to a fixed amount of gold -- that is, a commodity. Instead, people who hold A$ start redeeming them for gold, in order to sell them as a useful commodity. As a result, Country A's stockpile of gold, which they use to back their currency on, dwindles. In turn, the supply of money for country A falls.
Not enough money is circulation causes the economy to constrict, since doing basic business becomes increasingly difficult. It also can cause deflation, and a host of other problems. In short, the only way for A's domestic economy to come into equillibrium is for it to crash. Businesses shut down, and domestic demand for goods slows as the economy stalls.
While this is a bad thing, it does do one very good thing. If you have no money, because the economy is in recession, you can't very well afford to buy items from country B. Thus, the supply of A$ on the market falls, and people stop redeeming the excess for gold. The process brings the two markets into equilibrium again, and all is well in the world of international commerce.
Of course, the side effects are not exactly pleasant for people in country A.
Quote
The big problem is that once you move in to the scale of global markets on a gold standard you can no longer directly control the flow of money in and out of the country. This is well and dandy if you are running a trade surplus; money/gold flows in while goods flow out and you see a healthy level of inflation (gasp! Poor person tax ) and economic growth. Reverse that situation for a country running a trade deficit and a large amount of currency flows out of the country overseas. Lacking all this commodity based currency causes the value of money/gold to surge to the heavens and you see massive deflation. There isn't enough money in circulation so economic growth and investment stagnates and causes people to hoard what little they have left and it spurs a depression cycle.
Not to mention that there simply isn't enough gold out there to buy up to recognize and back the value of our economy so you would need to mandate a massive devaluation of currency right off the bat just to make the initial adjustment.
Fiat systems work because the value of your currency is an aggregate of the total worth of your economy and is being constantly re-evaluated and re-appraised by other economies, countries, and foreign businesses.
Only so much "Jew manipulation" can happen because if you push it too hard everyone else realizes you are trying to "print money" that doesn't have real economic backing and they devalue your currency for you because of that. Trying to tie your currency to a rock or oil or some other singular (or small set) of commodities is retarded because it will never be a truly accurate measure of your economy's worth, it might only keep in line for some periods of time if you are lucky.
TL;DR Gold Standard only works if you put the entire continental united states in a gigantic bubble and blast it off in to space so you never have to deal with any foreign bodies again
what gets me is the complete dishonesty you've been peddling. you clearly ignore salient points and jump on those you have weak rejoinders to. I'll at least admit I don't give a fuck about the Great Depression and the reason I linked had nothing to do with it (and even then you ignored the evidence like how every country not on the gold standard was okay and you know, the basic economic theory that makes your argument impossible), but you're just skipping over the bad parts, aren't you tex? whoa he didn't SAY mind control how can you exaggerate it...he just said the UN was secretly indoctrinating students.
hahahaha this is brilliant
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmYMzxA_U-c
What about all that foreign trade we did before 1913, when we were neither in a gigantic bubble or in space? It worked then, despite all your theories and hypothetical scenarios. You talk as if the gold standard has never been used with any success.
You know, the thing about these Ron Paul supporters is that they can't accept even the vaguest possibility of them being wrong. They will not be proven wrong. It's just not going to happen. That's why they approach every single point of criticism with "no you're wrong, because" instead of "this is a valid concern, but we can explain this with thus and so". No. Whenever they see criticism, they immediately go on the defense. There's not even any argumentation. Just look at the posts of BlizzardVeers and Phanixis. One didn't even explain why he supports Ron Paul and the libertarian viewpoint, the other basically just quoted Omega's post and said "nah" to every single point he made. He didn't even try to back up the "facts" he mentioned. Such as his "fact" that "the U.N. has a habit of pulling us into wars". He says it like it's a fact, while it is in fact ridiculous, and does not mention even a single shred of evidence to back up such a ludicrous claim. Neither wrote a post in which they actually explain why they're right, like Omega and I both did.
[...]
Supporting an alternative candidate like Ron Paul is probably very exciting, because a lot of people in our demographic (people in their teens and early twenties) like to be alternative. But in the end, you can't substitute a good understanding of politics and the world with a standard list of demagogic statements.
Again, you just need to set your intial ratio of dollars to gold to ensure their is sufficient gold to back the current amount of currency in circulation.The total amount of gold that has ever been mined is estimated at around 142,000 tonnes (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/of02-303/OFR_02-303.pdf). The price of gold has wildly fluctuated, being $27,300 per kilogram in 1980, around $8,000 per kilogram in 1999, and again around $27,500 in 2008. According to Kitco (http://www.kitco.com/), gold is currently $975 per troy ounce, which is about $31,000 per kilogram. Now, that would mean that the current combined value of the entire planetary stock of gold is around $4.402 trillion. That's much less than the amount of cash circulating in the U.S. alone, which is estimated (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/current/default.htm) at $7.4 trillion. Since not all gold can be brought to U.S. bank vaults, either, the price of gold would be obscenely higher than it should be if the U.S. were to implement a gold standard. This in itself is not even the largest complaint against the gold standard (there's also the cost of even maintaining one, estimated at about 2.5% of the U.S.'s GDP, for example), but as you can see, things aren't that simple.
What about all that foreign trade we did before 1913, when we were neither in a gigantic bubble or in space?1913 was 95 years ago. If you believe that what happened then is still largely relevant with the globalization we're facing today, you must be dreaming. Ignoring the idea of global collaboration and integration at a time like this would be economical suicide. I'm not even exclusively talking about the gold standard here.
So can someone give an update on the obama-hilary situation?Hillary (NOT Hilary, by the way) was the "inevitable" candidate for quite some time. But she's lost 11 contests in a row to Obama, who's now ahead in the amount of pledged delegates and is gaining superdelegates rapidly. Obama is likely to win the nomination at this point, as Hillary will have to win big in Texas and Ohio, but she is not going to be able to do that.
nbc and cnn are telling me dozens of things and i don't know what to think.
Let's review what I said earlier.
You know, the thing about these Ron Paul supporters is that they can't accept even the vaguest possibility of them being wrong. They will not be proven wrong. It's just not going to happen. That's why they approach every single point of criticism with "no you're wrong, because" instead of "this is a valid concern, but we can explain this with thus and so". No. Whenever they see criticism, they immediately go on the defense. There's not even any argumentation. Just look at the posts of BlizzardVeers and Phanixis. One didn't even explain why he supports Ron Paul and the libertarian viewpoint, the other basically just quoted Omega's post and said "nah" to every single point he made. He didn't even try to back up the "facts" he mentioned. Such as his "fact" that "the U.N. has a habit of pulling us into wars". He says it like it's a fact, while it is in fact ridiculous, and does not mention even a single shred of evidence to back up such a ludicrous claim. Neither wrote a post in which they actually explain why they're right, like Omega and I both did.
[...]
Supporting an alternative candidate like Ron Paul is probably very exciting, because a lot of people in our demographic (people in their teens and early twenties) like to be alternative. But in the end, you can't substitute a good understanding of politics and the world with a standard list of demagogic statements.
Phanixis, you are a demagogue. You claim to know a lot about politics but say frighteningly little of substance.
You can't even explain why you really want to pull out of the U.N., that organization that has been proven to greatly reduce the amount of violent conflicts in the world, to which every single country in the world is a member.
The U.N.'s purpose is to help people everywhere in the world by providing food and development to those who are in desperate need of it. Their peacekeeping soldiers are there to help prevent bloody conflicts from occurring.
For example, you never mention exactly why it's a good thing to be against the rights of black people to vote as harbored in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You simply state that "he provided some criticism". You don't mention what kind of criticism and why it's a good thing he did it. Because you don't know that. (By the way, he didn't just "provide some criticism", he actually voted "no". He also sponsored a bill that would weaken it.)
Public School Civil Rights Act of 1984 - Eliminates inferior Federal court jurisdiction to issue any order requiring the assignment or transportation of students to public schools on the basis of race, color, or national origin.
Permits individuals and school boards to seek relief from court orders made prior to this Act unless the court makes certain findings, including: (1) that the acts giving rise to the order intentionally and specifically caused the segregation; (2) that no other remedy would work; and (3) that the benefits of the order outweigh its economic, social, and educational costs.
You mumble something about "U.N. mind control", completely ignorant of the fact that the U.S. is one of the permanent members that has every right to not comply when the U.N. wishes it to do something.
The total amount of gold that has ever been mined is estimated at around 142,000 tonnes. The price of gold has wildly fluctuated, being $27,300 per kilogram in 1980, around $8,000 per kilogram in 1999, and again around $27,500 in 2008. According to Kitco, gold is currently $975 per troy ounce, which is about $31,000 per kilogram. Now, that would mean that the current combined value of the entire planetary stock of gold is around $4.402 trillion. That's much less than the amount of cash circulating in the U.S. alone, which is estimated at $7.4 trillion. Since not all gold can be brought to U.S. bank vaults, either, the price of gold would be obscenely higher than it should be if the U.S. were to implement a gold standard. This in itself is not even the largest complaint against the gold standard (there's also the cost of even maintaining one, estimated at about 2.5% of the U.S.'s GDP, for example), but as you can see, things aren't that simple.
By the way, there are also nobel prize winning economists who strongly oppose the gold standard. I'll leave it as a readers' exercise to figure out who they are. (Annoying when people do that, isn't it?)
Quote
What about all that foreign trade we did before 1913, when we were neither in a gigantic bubble or in space?
1913 was 95 years ago. If you believe that what happened then is still largely relevant with the globalization we're facing today, you must be dreaming. Ignoring the idea of global collaboration and integration at a time like this would be economical suicide. I'm not even exclusively talking about the gold standard here.
This is actually my largest complaint about Ron Paul. He ignores the fact that there's a world out there that's not part of the U.S. but still plays an important role in your daily lives. It's for this reason he also wants all U.S. troops on foreign soil to return home. He doesn't realize or doesn't care that this will send a shock wave of conflict through the regions that depend on U.S. troops that cannot be reinforced by U.N. troops on a short-term basis. (Then again, you think that the U.N. just controls minds into taking part in wars, so I cannot possibly expect you to provide a reasonable answer to that.)
You just made this statement, as if it were as clear as the light of day. No evidence was provided to the effect that
1.) violent conflicts in the world have gone down
2.) the U.N. was the cause in the reduction of violence
You might actually have evidence of this or seen statistics that demonstrate this is true, but you never posted them here. You just made the statement. This goes for the rest of the reasons for your support for the U.N.
I had argued that it would be beneficial to leave the UN because the have dragged the US into wars, it was a good reason but with no evidence, perhaps I decided the fact was obvious as well.First of all, the U.N. is there to prevent war. Not to wage war. Maybe the years of engaging in regime change have given you the wrong idea. The U.N. is a political organization that attempts to promote social and economic development in countries that badly need it and coordinates diplomatic and military efforts aimed at reducing the possibility of a violent conflict occurring.
as a member of the ruling seven the US has the right to not follow any UN action and frequently goes over the UN's head. once again, you demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge on the subject.... the U.S. does not need to take orders from the U.N. at all. And frequently doesn't.
But please don't go criticizing me for not providing detailed evidence for every claim I made when you are not living up to the same standards you wish to impose on me.Did you not read my gigantic post (http://www.gamingw.net/forums/index.php?topic=3350.msg1258889#msg1258889) on page 29, which already provides a very detailed and personal assessment of many of the pro-Paul arguments given in this forum? I most definitely am explaining myself, not just by giving links (which, by the way, also are a valid way of making an argument).
Now that is a good point, I will have to look into that somewhat further. You could still deal with it by running gold as legal tender alongside U.S. fiat currency, although that wasn't quite what we were originally discussing. Although I have no idea were you got the 2.5% GDP figure, that seems far to high a figure for the maintainance of any monetary system.I got the 2.5% GDP figure from Milton Friedman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman), who himself is vehemently opposed to the gold standard.
Sure, but why are you so certain that it would no longer work when you haven't seen in action during the 21st. I mention 1913 because that was the most recent date in which the gold standard was truly in place(without the federal reserve), although some semblance of it was retained up until Nixon, whereas there is nothing to indicate that we would be unable to use the gold standard in our modern economy provided we were able to reinstate it successfully.Back in 1913. You do realize that this was 95 years ago? Ghandi hadn't even started campaigning for India's independence yet! By the way, the Federal Reserve was actually conceived in 1913 by Woodrow Wilson.
Ron Paul can be a bit too isolationist at times, but this is something I believe we actually need to do. We are deep in debt and running a huge deficit, and we really do not have the luxury of indefinitely stationing troops across the entire globe. I do not believe that the world is as quite as dependent on our troops(or on us in general) as we like to think. We can at the very least, remove our troops stationed in stable regions of the world such as Europe.Every country (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Public_debt_percent_gdp_world_map.PNG) is in debt. It's not just the U.S., you know. There's no need to be rash about it, either: there's no need to completely pay off the debt, and lowering the debt can be done in due time.
but I probably won't reply anyways because look at all that worthless text that makes no sense at all.Not kidding anyone.
heh... no wonder the good doctor hates the un... look at the mudbaby that runs it....Kofi Annan is no longer the Secretary-General, by the way, but I'm sure you knew that.
He says it like it's a fact, while it is in fact ridiculous, and does not mention even a single shred of evidence to back up such a ludicrous claim.
I suppose I can understand some of your concerns. But in regard to providing evidence to back my claims, sometimes I provide simple reasons and statements for my positions, in sometimes I go into greater detail providing specific evidence. The reason why I often stick to basic statements is to keep these types of rebuttals concise, these topics can get very long very fast. If particular issue is then taken with a given statement, it can always be further elaborated with evidence in a later post. I am merely trying to strike a balance between being concise I providing sufficient evidence.
<TWO GIGANTIC POSTS, NO EVIDENCE OF CLAIMS>
But please don't go criticizing me for not providing detailed evidence for every claim I made when you are not living up to the same standards you wish to impose on me.
<previously and currently posted multiple outside sources to back-up claims>
don't even bother typing if you aren't going to post links with reputable sources. saying "well times have changed this is why it will work" doesn't cut it. post real, solid evidence of your claims.
As long as I can remember, I have just been providing arguments.
Not kidding anyone.
By the way, you should be out dancing to 90s music and drinking Malibu.Kofi Annan is no longer the Secretary-General, by the way, but I'm sure you knew that.
"U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs."Do you agree?
"But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.
"'The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?' Obama asked.
"Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world. 'On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. … And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point
Well he doesn't want to start a war. He basically said all options are on the table regarding Iran (including military action).
How is missile striking a viable option? Does he think we will drop a few missiles and it will be done? I'm pretty sure Iran or Pakistan would retaliate (lol war).
The Chicago Tribune
CAMPAIGN 2004: US SENATE RACE
Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran
By David Mendell
Tribune staff reporter
Published September 25, 2004
U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday
that the United States one day might have to launch
surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to
keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs.
Obama, a Democratic state senator from the Hyde Park
neighborhood, made the remarks during a meeting Friday
with the Tribune editorial board. Obama's Republican
opponent, Alan Keyes, was invited to attend the same
session but declined.
Iran announced on Tuesday that it has begun converting
tons of uranium into gas, a crucial step in making
fuel for a nuclear reactor or a nuclear bomb. The
International Atomic Energy Agency has called for Iran
to suspend all such activities.
Obama said the United States must first address Iran's
attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before
the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the
international community to apply more pressure on Iran
to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come
in the form of economic sanctions, he said.
But if those measures fall short, the United States
should not rule out military strikes to destroy
nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.
"The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant
to these pressures, including economic sanctions,
which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate,
at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to
take military action?" Obama asked.
Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is
not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes
might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that
such strikes might further strain relations between
the U.S. and the Arab world.
"In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all
the problems in terms of perceptions about America
that have been created, us launching some missile
strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us
to be in," he said.
"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy
in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess
my instinct would be to err on not having those
weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of
Iran. ... And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But
realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved,
I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point."
As for Pakistan, Obama said that if President Pervez
Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United
States similarly might have to consider military
action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it
already possesses. Musharraf's troops are battling
hundreds of well-armed foreign militants and Pakistani
tribesmen in increasingly violent confrontations.
Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a
vastly different brand of foe than was the Soviet
Union during the Cold War, and they must be treated
differently.
"With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that
they were operating on a model that we could
comprehend in terms of, they don't want to be blown
up, we don't want to be blown up, so you do game
theory and calculate ways to contain," Obama said. "I
think there are certain elements within the Islamic
world right now that don't make those same
calculations.
"... I think there are elements within Pakistan right
now--if Musharraf is overthrown and they took over, I
think we would have to consider going in and taking
those bombs out, because I don't think we can make the
same assumptions about how they calculate risks."
A last resort
Obama's willingness to consider additional military
action in the Middle East comes despite his early and
vocal opposition to the Iraq war. Obama, however, also
has stressed that he is not averse to using military
action as a last resort, although he believes that
President Bush did not make that case for the Iraq
invasion.
[Extra text deleted]
also stop calling steel omega it is really confusing me for about 2 seconds then i am like "oh"No man. I waited a long time for this moment.
In what may be bad news for Clinton, Democrats across all four states overwhelmingly say they want super delegates to vote based on which candidate finishes ahead in the pledged delegate count at the end of the primary season.
Majorities of Democrats in Texas (62 percent), Ohio (61 percent), Rhode Island (57 percent) and Vermont (66 percent) all said the super delegates should cast their vote for the primary winner, not for who they think can best win in November.
Why is this bad news for Clinton? As CNN's John King has made clear on his interactive delegate map, it is nearly impossible for Clinton to catch up to Obama's pledged delegate count. She would have to win the rest of the states convincingly to do so, given that the party allots delegates proportionally. Barring large blowouts in the remaining contests, its likely Clinton will finish behind Obama in pledged delegates.
why? honestly the clinton spin on this is just unbelievable. she'll still be behind about the same number in delegates.
We've always been at war with Eastasia.
because she will have a reason to continue and I don't really want them to drag this out to the convention. this gives mccain a huge advantage
i had a lot of respect for Hillary before the election began. since then shes proven that she's no different than the Karl Roves and the rest of the Bush lot.
I'm sorry, I really do not understand what you are trying to say, please elaborate. Are you upset because Clinton isn't rolling over for Obama and is actually trying to win the nomination?I believe he is referring to her complete collapse of substance lately. Such as:
I'm sorry, I really do not understand what you are trying to say, please elaborate. Are you upset because Clinton isn't rolling over for Obama and is actually trying to win the nomination?
NBC says Clinton won the Texas primaries :(
or maybe shit like what her husband said after south carolina? (even jesse jackson won here!)
or her 3 a.m ad? (fearmongering)
or her saying john mccain is a better candidate than a member of her own party? (fucking suicidal her party)
or.. her having almost no chance to overtake him delegate-wise yet still fighting on out of sheer selfishness?
Hate to break the news to you but Hillary and Bill are not actually the same person.
Even if the superdelegates all pile up and elect her, that would piss so many people off to overturn the will of the people.
Maybe that is what nader is counting on.
Hate to break the news to you but Hillary and Bill are not actually the same person. I know we all think her to be a Malicious Harpy Puppetmaster, but the truth is she does not control everything her husband thinks.
Yeah, damn her and admitting that maybe the Republican party isn't so awful! I mean, I would respect someone a little bit more if they said "Hey, just because I'm a Democrat, it doesn't mean I think Democrats have all the answers, and maybe you guys shouldn't vote for someone just because they're a Democrat, you should actually pay attention to the issues*." I use the term "would" because we're talking about politicians and I have zero respect for politicians and nothing they say or do is going to make me think any better of them. Especially not during a campaign.
*Ideally, this would be the case, but as we've mentioned, what politicians SAY and their PLATFORMS mean absolutely nothing.
She still has a chance, the race is still pretty damn close, I see no reason why she, or anyone in her shoes, would give up right now.
it's been stated about 6,000 times that she has to win over 60% of the delegates in every state yet to come to even TIE obama in pledged delegates.That and she's a giant bitch.
(https://legacy.gamingw.net/etc/i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg113/NamesAshHousewares/Hillary_Obama_StarWars.gif)
Hillary and Bill aren't the same person? Well damn, you'd think she was basing her entire "experience" claim on her being.. his wife during his presidency or something.
And uh, as a DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT, you don't go saying that the other potential DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT is not as qualified to be president compared to the REPUBLICAN nominee for president. Unless of course you're unbelievably desperate and selfish and will stop at nothing to get the nomination, even if it means absolute suicide for you and your party.
edit: and christ go watch the news or something. it's been stated about 6,000 times that she has to win over 60% of the delegates in every state yet to come to even TIE obama in pledged delegates.
Hey I bet if Michigan and Florida get to actually have delegates, I bet all the Obama supporters will call Clinton an evil conniving bitch who's trying to cheat their man out of his nomination.
Hey I bet if Michigan and Florida get to actually have delegates, I bet all the Obama supporters will call Clinton an evil conniving bitch who's trying to cheat their man out of his nomination.
EDIT:
Something I don't feel like quoting, but you brought up the telephone ad earlier. I just wanted to point out that Obama's campaign retaliated with this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=PVnwsQfRK4k&feature=related). Obama's just as guilty of fearmongering as Clinton.
Also that whole "Hey I've been active in politics since I was like, 18, which was before Obama was even born" thing. But let's ignore that and focus on the fact that she was just the First Lady (which, I mean, still, that's more experience in the White House than Obama or McCain).
So like, McCain shouldn't say that he thinks Obama would make a better president than Ron Paul? It shouldn't be about what's best for the party, it should be about what's best for the American people. HEY MAYBE WE WOULDN'T HAVE AS MANY PROBLEMS IN THIS COUNTRY IF DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS DIDN'T SPEND SO MUCH TIME DEMONIZING EACH OTHER???? idk tho. Frankly, it shows that she's willing to bridge the gap between the parties, something Obama only talks about
Which, realistically, she could do. In fact, if I were to watch the news right now, they'd all tell me she's gaining momentum or whatever the hell term they're using. But you're right, its not like a Democrat to screw up his front runner status during the primaries by doing something stupid.
The whole thing about experience pisses me off as a basis for voting for someone.Well yeah, that's a good point, but I think the argument has even worse problems with it.
guess who had experience? george w bush!
The whole thing about experience pisses me off as a basis for voting for someone.
I think the experience, aside from jading her, makes it likely for her to have a much larger personal agenda.Yeah, that's the thing. Obama is a (relatively) young politician who hasn't allowed himself to be corrupted by the game of politics.
Uh, no to burst your bubble Velfarre but I don't like misinformation being spread.
Dubya had LESS experience than Obama, and ZERO legislative experience.
ssorry to burst your bubble... (http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010)
The New Republic reports that Michigan "plans to get out of its uncounted delegate problem by announcing a new caucus in the next few days."
Said the source: "They want to play. They know how to do caucuses. That was their plan all along, before they got cute with the primary."
"Michigan Democrats had originally planned on caucuses after the legally permissible Feb. 5 date, but then went along with top elected Democrats, including Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who pushed for an early primary."
The Hotline confirms the story.
Super delegates can vote however they want. That's the rule. And as far as I'm concerned, they should vote for whoever leads the pledged delegate race or risk a civil war within the party.
Of course, that case is weakened if Clinton were to take away Obama's lead in the popular vote (currently at around 600,000 votes), and I'm sure that must be what Clinton's camp must be hoping for. If she overtakes Obama in the popular vote, it would denote a massive collapse in Obama's campaign that would make his staunchest defenders pause and consider whether he is, truly, the best general election candidate for us. I don't expect it to happen, but it's the Clinton campaign's hail mary.
All that aside, what if the super delegates decided, in the interest of democracy, to vote for the winner of their states? Let's see how that would stack up. I went with popular vote wins, which means Clinton picks up the supers in Nevada and Texas despite losing the delegate count. I'm using the Green Papers delegate counts, which I assume to be accurate but could always be off.
State Obama Clinton
IA 12
NH 8
NV 9
SC 9
AL 8
AK 5
AS 6
AZ 11
AR 12
CA 70
CO 15
CT 12
DE 8
DA 4
GA 15
ID 5
IL 30
KS 9
MA 28
MN 16
MO 16
NJ 20
NM 12
NY 50
ND 8
OK 10
TN 17
UT 6
LA 10
NE 7
WA 19
ME 8
VI 6
DC 24
MD 29
VA 18
HI 9
WI 18
OH 21
RI 12
TX 35
VT 8
Total 325 330
Obama would love that just fine, up to this point. with his 135-150 pledged delegate lead, he could afford to lose five net delegates factoring the supers this way.
That would also put his current count at around (using NBC's total) 1,691 to Clinton's 1,557. (There are 21 delegates from prior contests still unallocated.)
Let's game this out, however, and apportion the super delegates according to the CW over who will take each of the remaining states:
State Obama Clinton
WY 6
MS 7
PA 29
GU 5
IN 12
NC 19
WV 11
KY 9
OR 13
MT 8
SD 8
PR 8
Total 61 74
Now I think Indiana is actually going to be fertile ground for Obama, but I'll keep it with Clinton so I can avoid the easy charges of bias. (I am, but not in this analysis.) Even then, there's not much ground to be made up by Clinton based on a "super delegates vote their states" approach. Obama would lead based on existing tallies and these projections 1,752 to 1,631, or a deficit of 121. She's not going to make that up with the remaining 611 or so remaining pledged delegates.
By the way, if those were split down the middle (rounding up in Clinton's favor), Obama would come out with about 2,057 delegates to Clinton's 1,937.
Obama needs 2,204 2,025 to win. He's the nominee.
Bottom line? She's not going to catch up in the pledged delegate race. She wouldn't gain enough supers by forcing them to vote their states (even though she won the states with the biggest super delegate totals). So what's left?
Absent an epic collapse by Team Obama, her only chance will be coup by super delegate -- cajoling the supers to abandon the will of the voters.
Yes, it is within the rules. But like I said above, that way lies civil war.
Yeah he came directly from being a CEO for some oil company I beleive.
He was governor of Texas for two terms you schmuck.
I did see a special on CNN today about how Clinton has no chance at this point absent Obama pulling a YEEAAARRGGHHH or something like Howard did. Let's hope Obama's smart enough not to blow it!
At this point in time, Ron Paul isn't even a frontrunner in the republican nomination run so he's out..."Not even a frontrunner"? Well, no, with barely 20 delegates, it's hard to call anyone a frontrunner (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/frontrunner). You almost make it seem as though you're disappointed.
Ryan that link sends me to no article
My dad showed me this. It is the scariest thing I've ever seen. If Obama is elected, there will be change. A change of the most horrible kind. As a christian, I get scared when I hear people calling him a "revival" and saying that he is the "hope" of America. No. Jesus Christ is the HOPE of this world. Jesus Christ is our revival! This is disgusting.
How can he 'preach' about America, yet parts of the add are NOT in English and on his campaign signs there are no flags. Very little of this candidate is actually American.
The beginning of Obama will be the End of America.
http://www.dipdive.com/dip-politics/wato/
Please check this out, and take it seriously.
Let us all stick together in this great cause of liberty and show the love that we all share for our country and the Constitution. Thank you for joining in.Demagogue.
"Not even a frontrunner"? Well, no, with barely 20 delegates, it's hard to call anyone a frontrunner (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/frontrunner). You almost make it seem as though you're disappointed.
Disappointed that he wasn't able to be competitive yes because I liked him the most out of all of the peeps trying to run for President but oh well... Obama is my next favourite though.
IT BEGINS AGAIN.
i just wish i could understand why ron paul fans think obama, a pretty clear establishment candidate, is the one they most fall in line with.
do you guys seriously expect anyone to READ THIS ENTIRE TOPIC at this point
Disappointed that he wasn't able to be competitive yes because I liked him the most out of all of the peeps trying to run for President but oh well... Obama is my next favourite though.We've been through this a few times so I won't go into detail, but there is something wrong with what you're saying here. Basically, you're saying that Paul is your favorite candidate, but that Obama is your second favorite. However, Paul is on the complete opposite side of the spectrum. He wants to practically abolish most of the federal government, as per his libertarian beliefs, whereas Obama is a social democrat. There are actually no two candidates further apart than these two.
I thought Quest-Master kind of addressed how it's conceivable for someone to switch from Paul to Obama.Yes, he addressed some reasons, but they're not particularly strong. I don't see how anyone can switch from Paul to Obama without being either completely oblivious to what politics are and how they work, or being so completely blinded by their single issue that they can't see that they differ strongly even there. (Paul wants to pull out all the U.S. troops because he disagrees with that policy, which will undoubtedly cause a shock wave of unrest and instability to be sent through the world, whereas Obama has a much sounder and, if you will, normal policy that also involves leaving Iraq in due time.)
completely oblivious to what politics are and how they work, or being so completely blinded by their single issue that they can't see that they differ strongly even thereAmerican voters
And the truth is, yeah, American voters can be easily swayed by views on very few issues. I'm pretty sure his complete and total anti-war leanings (only matched in scale by other "nuts" like Kucinich and Gravel) were a huge factor in his wide support among youth.Yeah, you're right that this was most likely the biggest issue. That is, aside from the various other demagogic and plain naive claims: such as saying Ron Paul supports "a sound fiscal policy" (very nice non-issue; I don't think I've ever heard a candidate say that they support an unsound fiscal policy), or the claim that Ron Paul is the "only one" who supports the constitution.
At the same time I see this huge OBAMA CULT OF PERSONALITY style movement forming, and it's kind of weird. I like Obama a whole lot, but I know a bunch of people who think he is going to SAVE THE WORLD and END POVERTY. As counterintuitive as it sounds there's a lot of similarities between Paul and Obama supporters! I guess it's because he's revolutionary, ooooohhhh, which would probably also explain why so many Paul dumbasses are switching to Obama.Well, both Obama and Paul are well-liked by the naive demographic (which, by the way, is our demographic, in case you didn't know). How exactly Paul managed to do this, I'm not sure. I think his "libertarian straight talk", which many people confuse with "the truth that Washington rejects because it does not want to hear it", has something to do with it.
i'm really suprised anyone finds the stupid pokemon things funnyI wonder about this too. It kind of reminds me of Family Guy in a way, in which all the humor is basically some kind of REFERENCE to something. I can kind of see why people would think it's funny, but it just doesn't resonate at all with me for some reason.
ach whatever steel is rightGet off.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080316/ap_on_el_pr/clintonI know we agreed to not count the Michigan votes but I want to I want I WANT I WANT I WANT I WANT I WANT I WANT!!!!!!!!!
sigh