Username [Register?]: | Password [Lost Password?]: Save Password?
Bottom of Page
INTL v5.0 > Discussion Forums > The "Song A Day" Thread Forum > USA President, 2008 > Viewing Thread
Also Here: 1 guest. Moderated by: D drahnier
Page: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] [ Thread Views: 7677 | Total Posts: 126 ]
Rate This Thread: Reply to Thread | Create New Thread | Create New Poll | Subscribe To Thread
So, who are you cheering/voting for?
This poll has expired.
Obama 11 votes, 31.429%
Clinton 3 votes, 8.571%
--- 0 votes, 0%
Gravel 1 vote, 2.857%
--- 1 vote, 2.857%
--- 0 votes, 0%
Huckabee 0 votes, 0%
McCain 0 votes, 0%
--- 0 votes, 0%
Paul 14 votes, 40%
--- 0 votes, 0%
--- 0 votes, 0%
Don't Care / Other: Specify 5 votes, 14.286%
Totals: 35 votes, 103.058%
Modify Poll
abused
i done told you once bitch

Looks and acts like a douche-bag

Ballkicks: (+820 / -208)
Posts: 689 (0.105)
Reg. Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kenya
Gender: Female
(Originally posted on: 01-17-08 04:04:21 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Well, we've had a thread specifically bashing Obama.

I don't think we have a general poll to see who INTL is voting/cheering for.

Who do you support? Why?

Who do you think the eventual candidate for each party will be?
"Hey there, Fancypants. Play the songs that make us dance. Play the tunes that make the ladies swoon. A song for all the lonely hearts, shattered dreams and broken parts. It feels like sunny days are coming soon."
This reply was last edited on 02-07-08 02:15:51 PM by abused.
emtilt

the cow of horses

Ballkicks: (+486 / -41)
Posts: 5238 (0.768)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location: Last Week
Gender: Male
Reply 1 of 126 (Originally posted on: 01-17-08 04:33:11 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Of the front runners, Edwards seems the least of many evils to me. Still pretty awful though. I'm not yet familiar with any potential third party candidates though, so I have no idea who I'll vote for yet.
this is my music i hope you like it
this is music i listen to these are movies i like these are books i like
poop
$$~~~Crips~~~$$
slooooooooooooots

i'd expect more sorcery in a place called mana pools

Ballkicks: (+731 / -71)
Posts: 7914 (1.165)
Reg. Date: May 2002
Location: Canada
Gender: Male
Reply 2 of 126 (Originally posted on: 01-17-08 05:46:59 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Lately I've been watching alot of professional basketball, and will continue to support this campaign in the coming election.
Wandering Idiot
INTL Premium Member

Surely something dumber has come up since my apparent forgetfulness for STDs and doctor visits.

Ballkicks: (+257 / -16)
Posts: 2130 (0.336)
Reg. Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arms' reach of my wifes' bitchslap
Gender: Male
Reply 3 of 126 (Originally posted on: 01-17-08 06:20:05 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

I'm voting Kucinich if he's actually on the Tennessee Primary ticket. High doubts on that, though.

So, Edwards, seeing as how Obama doesn't really present more to the table than "change".

Every time I watch a debate I feel like I'm seeing an episode of South Park with too many indigents asking for loose coins.
Hoff
Lightnin' Hopkins

Helping a brother out.

Ballkicks: (+192 / -38)
Posts: 2563 (0.472)
Reg. Date: Jan 2006
Location:
Gender: Male
Reply 4 of 126 (Originally posted on: 01-17-08 06:53:46 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Voting for Ron Paul. Its too early to tell which candidates are going to win the primaries but I believe it will be McCain and Obama. So I hope Paul runs as an independent.

Edit: Why Paul? Because I believe he is the only candidate with a thinking brain and the only one that isn't insanely corrupted by lobbyist. Paul has the correct foreign relations policy. Basically every bad thing that has happened to America has been blow back. Meaning we did something stupid, most likely for oil/oil companies, and as a result people hate us and retaliate. The right thing to do for international relations would be to stop fucking with other people's business and making enemies, and start trading and making friends with them instead.

Also, he is the only one who I believe truly wants to make government smaller. Many candidates preach this, but in reality they do not support this doctrine. Paul aims to reduce government spending and reduce the ridiculous bureaucracy that we have now. And he is also a strict constitutionalist and is trying to fight for our rights, while others don't seem to really care about the constitution.
This reply was last edited on 01-17-08 07:02:35 PM by Hoff.
Captain James T. Kirk
Sweaty men? Yes please!

íSpanish!

Ballkicks: (+184 / -62)
Posts: 895 (0.138)
Reg. Date: Mar 2003
Location: Illinois
Gender: Male
Reply 5 of 126 (Originally posted on: 01-17-08 07:13:42 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

I'll be voting for Obama in the Illinois Primary.
<Byc> kita, give troz a rim job
<Trfzt> if youlike the flavor
<Trfzt> rim?
<Byc> he knows what i'm talking about
<kita> urgh.
<Trfzt> give it to me, oh yeah
<kita> no.
<Trfzt> why?
<Trfzt> is it something like eat ass?
Hoff
Lightnin' Hopkins

Helping a brother out.

Ballkicks: (+192 / -38)
Posts: 2563 (0.472)
Reg. Date: Jan 2006
Location:
Gender: Male
Reply 6 of 126 (Originally posted on: 01-17-08 07:47:32 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from byc:
I'll be voting for Obama in the Illinois Primary.
In all seriousness, what about Obama do you like? He's hard to hate because he is very personable and has a likable personality, but what about his politcs do you like?
Amphytrite
Hard for Drah

I don't really even like hearing about it or reading about it

Ballkicks: (+1869 / -83)
Posts: 6818 (1.122)
Reg. Date: Apr 2004
Location: Cowpenis
Gender: Female
Reply 7 of 126 (Originally posted on: 01-17-08 08:49:14 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

I voted for Ron Paul in the South Carolina primary. Should he pull out of the race, I'll turn my support to John McCain.
i am raising my eyebrow


Vissario: i am here to serve
Amphy: then make me a sandwich.
Vissario: holy shit
Vissario: u just did not say that, sugaboo
emtilt

the cow of horses

Ballkicks: (+486 / -41)
Posts: 5238 (0.768)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location: Last Week
Gender: Male
Reply 8 of 126 (Originally posted on: 01-17-08 09:43:13 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Guys, Ron Paul is either insane or stupid, though he does have his pluses. He doesn't seem as hopelessly corrupt as the others. He seems sincere. He has many positions I agree with, as well. But that doesn't change the fact that he's nuts.

He wants to pull out of the International Criminal Court, the United Nations, the Law of the Sea Treaty, the WTO, NATO, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. Sure, you may not agree with all of those things, but do you really think that's a swell idea? And do you really think his fundamental economic policy, which is essentially that the Federal Reserve and the lack of a gold (or similar) standard cause all our problems, is at all useful? And it's nice and rational to say that evolution doesn't exist, right? He also doesn't like a rigid separation of church and state, because he doesn't believe that has a constitutional basis. Or perhaps you think some of the legislation he's introduced, like the We the People Act or the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005 isn't crazy (he introduces a lot of legislation that would be shot down if ever challenged in a federal court for a strict constitutionalist...)? His views of the internet and it's regulation are also fishy (opposes net neutrality); his ideas for dealing with illegal immigration aren't so hot either. There's a lot more things I don't like about him, as well. But hey, to each his own. At least he's better than Huckabee or Romney.

Granted, he could never actually acheive most of his stated goals, but they point to one of a couple things. Either he's not all that rational, or he'll say absolutely anything to get people's attention.

I guess in some ways having him in office wouldn't be that awful though. He's basically crazy in the opposite direction from most of Congress, so maybe they'd balance each other out. He'd also veto a lot of the shit that Congress would pass, which is swell.

EDIT: Also, Hoff, I'm pretty sure Paul would not make so many foreign friends; he'd probably tick off most of the world with his almost isolationist approach to diplomacy at the federal level. Not to mention it just doesn't make any sense in a modern world. Better than bombing, though, I suppose.
this is my music i hope you like it
this is music i listen to these are movies i like these are books i like

This reply was last edited on 01-17-08 10:00:22 PM by emtilt.
Hoff
Lightnin' Hopkins

Helping a brother out.

Ballkicks: (+192 / -38)
Posts: 2563 (0.472)
Reg. Date: Jan 2006
Location:
Gender: Male
Reply 9 of 126 (Originally posted on: 01-17-08 10:19:33 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from Ampitheatre:
I voted for Ron Paul in the South Carolina primary. Should he pull out of the race, I'll turn my support to John McCain.
If Ron Paul doesn't win or run as an independent i'll probably vote for a democrat, unless its clinton.

Quoted from emtilt:
He wants to pull out of the International Criminal Court, the United Nations, the Law of the Sea Treaty, the WTO, NATO, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.
Well I don't about all of those, but I don't think leaving some of those things would be a bad idea.
Quote:
Do you really think his fundamental economic policy, which is essentially that the Federal Reserve and the lack of a gold (or similar) standard cause all our problems, is at all useful?

Yes I do. The FED which controls our money is basically a private bank, and banks only care about their own profite. Getting rid of them and switching back to the gold standard would be a step in the right direction.
Quote:
And it's nice and rational to say that evolution doesn't exist, right? He also doesn't like a rigid separation of church and state, because he doesn't believe that has a constitutional basis.
I don't really care about these issues, they are non-issues to me.
Quote:
Granted, he could never actually acheive most of his stated goals
yes obviously, but he is the only one that could get us going in what I believe to be the right direction. So he is still the top candidate in my eyes.
Quote:

EDIT: Also, Hoff, I'm pretty sure Paul would not make so many foreign friends; he'd probably tick off most of the world with his almost isolationist approach to diplomacy at the federal level. Not to mention it just doesn't make any sense in a modern world. Better than bombing, though, I suppose.
Not really an isolationist, more like a non-interventionist. Most of the shit thats happened to the US has been blowback from shit like throwing over the Iran government in the 50's which led to the Iranian hostage crisis in the 70's. Paul, atleast he says, he would not intervene, but rather negotiate and trade with nations instead of nation building. If he backs the US out of constricting trade agreements then thats good in my eyes as long as he continues to negotiate for a more fair trade.

Edit: I'm not a Ron Paul expert, so the things I didn't address in your post I will have to look into more to give my opinion. So Don't think i'm just conveniently ignoring certain points you made. I just don't feel like doing it now.
Sunn O)))
INTL Alumni
14 year RP master

Zan-beef

Ballkicks: (+761 / -127)
Posts: 5458 (0.799)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laputa
Gender: Male
Reply 10 of 126 (Originally posted on: 01-17-08 11:28:04 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
EDIT: Also, Hoff, I'm pretty sure Paul would not make so many foreign friends; he'd probably tick off most of the world with his almost isolationist approach to diplomacy at the federal level. Not to mention it just doesn't make any sense in a modern world. Better than bombing, though, I suppose.

While I agree with you otherwise, I don't think most of the rest of the world would object to American isolationism. The problem is that in the current situation that would cause more upheaval than it's worth. Whether it may or may not make a difference to the international system, cutting off international institutions would destroy those institutions (many of which still rely on heavy American investment), and (if extended to) the economy would go to shit for many other states (if not permanently, at least temporarily), and others would attempt to gain a more strategic position. Political isolation may work, and may be a good solution for the United States and the rest of the world right now, but even though isolation can work, it's at the point now that - while still possible - it probably wouldn't provide much benefit for the hassle of adopting it.

I view most of his policies this way. There's so much emphasis on things - even the Constitution, I would say - that has been so manipulated and changed since the inception of the United States that overthrowing the system wont bring back a former glory, or even a new glory. It will only disrupt and weaken establishments that - if Ron Paul is able to create within his 8 years (highly unlikely with the legislative control of the purse strings) - will revert back to a worse off norm. Yet if he had the chance to do it all, and you want to risk it all, go ahead and destroy three centuries worth of manipulation for eight years of crackpot nonsense. Das ist so ein Quatsch.

Quote:
Not really an isolationist, more like a non-interventionist. Most of the shit thats happened to the US has been blowback from shit like throwing over the Iran government in the 50's which led to the Iranian hostage crisis in the 70's.

Actually it was more of a reaction of religious zealots taking advantage of a weak and corrupt government that had diminished the role of religion and morals. A weak and corrupt government that embraced foreign involvement over national, but ultimately - while backed by the United States - was seen less for being an American puppet as for shitty leadership. I suppose that's another argument.

Conflicts wont disappear if the US steps back. They may or may not increase, but they'll be just as bloody and ruthless with or without American involvement. I think it's fairly safe to say that the rest of the world wouldn't object to American intervention if it is done responsibly, with a firm strategy, and with intentions (be it humanitarian or the more likely national) that leads to positive outcomes. Its been done before. There are many states which have had America intervene positively that remain supportive. It's just too often that such cases are not repeated.
This reply was last edited on 01-17-08 11:43:11 PM by Sunn O))).
Hoff
Lightnin' Hopkins

Helping a brother out.

Ballkicks: (+192 / -38)
Posts: 2563 (0.472)
Reg. Date: Jan 2006
Location:
Gender: Male
Reply 11 of 126 (Originally posted on: 01-17-08 11:50:48 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from Hermione:

Quote:
Not really an isolationist, more like a non-interventionist. Most of the shit thats happened to the US has been blowback from shit like throwing over the Iran government in the 50's which led to the Iranian hostage crisis in the 70's.

Actually it was more of a reaction to religious zealots taking advantage of a weak and corrupt government that diminished the role of religion and morals. A weak and corrupt government that embraced foreign involvement over internal, but ultimately - while backed by the United States - was seen less for being an American puppet as for shitty leadership. I suppose that's another argument.
seems to me we are saying the samething there, just that I stated where it actually began. Mossadegh, a democratically prime minister took power and sought to nationalize Iran's oil fields. Who were then in the control of a British Company, whose name escapes me right now but would later become BP. The british convinced the US (by saying the country was soon to become communist, not really true though) to send in the CIA to overthrow the goverment and install one that was more friendly towards the west and their oil needs. This puppet regime was repressive and fundalmentalists finally revolted in the 70s and overthrew the shah. As a result, in the 70s, Iranian students took however many americans as hostage for over a year for overthrowing their government in the 50s.

Quote:
Conflicts wont disappear if the US steps back. They may or may not increase, but they'll be just as bloody and ruthless with or without American involvement. I think it's fairly safe to say that the rest of the world wouldn't object to American intervention if it is done responsibly, with a firm strategy, and with intentions (be it humanitarian or the more likely national) that leads to positive outcomes. Its been done before. There are many states which have had America intervene positively that remain supportive. It's just too often that such cases are not repeated.
Since we were talking about Ron Paul, he believes that if congress declares war, or agrees to send troops somewhere that it is constitutional. But what we see now is a President deciding by himself to send troops overseas. One man should not have that much power.

If a conflict arises, give a serious effort to negotiations, then as a last result, get congress to declare war to get the proper authorization to send troops somewhere. Thats the way it should be.
Sunn O)))
INTL Alumni
14 year RP master

Zan-beef

Ballkicks: (+761 / -127)
Posts: 5458 (0.799)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laputa
Gender: Male
Reply 12 of 126 (Originally posted on: 01-18-08 12:07:43 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from Hoff:
Quoted from Hermione:

Quote:
Not really an isolationist, more like a non-interventionist. Most of the shit thats happened to the US has been blowback from shit like throwing over the Iran government in the 50's which led to the Iranian hostage crisis in the 70's.

Actually it was more of a reaction to religious zealots taking advantage of a weak and corrupt government that diminished the role of religion and morals. A weak and corrupt government that embraced foreign involvement over internal, but ultimately - while backed by the United States - was seen less for being an American puppet as for shitty leadership. I suppose that's another argument.
seems to me we are saying the samething there, just that I stated where it actually began. Mossadegh, a democratically prime minister took power and sought to nationalize Iran's oil fields. Who were then in the control of a British Company, whose name escapes me right now but would later become BP. The british convinced the US (by saying the country was soon to become communist, not really true though) to send in the CIA to overthrow the goverment and install one that was more friendly towards the west and their oil needs. This puppet regime was repressive and fundalmentalists finally revolted in the 70s and overthrew the shah. As a result, in the 70s, Iranian students took however many americans as hostage for over a year for overthrowing their government in the 50s.

There's more to it than that, but as I said I'm not getting into it.
Quote:

Quote:
Conflicts wont disappear if the US steps back. They may or may not increase, but they'll be just as bloody and ruthless with or without American involvement. I think it's fairly safe to say that the rest of the world wouldn't object to American intervention if it is done responsibly, with a firm strategy, and with intentions (be it humanitarian or the more likely national) that leads to positive outcomes. Its been done before. There are many states which have had America intervene positively that remain supportive. It's just too often that such cases are not repeated.
Since we were talking about Ron Paul, he believes that if congress declares war, or agrees to send troops somewhere that it is constitutional. But what we see now is a President deciding by himself to send troops overseas. One man should not have that much power.

If a conflict arises, give a serious effort to negotiations, then as a last result, get congress to declare war to get the proper authorization to send troops somewhere. Thats the way it should be.

To be absolutely honest, control over foreign policy has always been the prerogative of the Executive and the establishments created by the Executive to deal with those areas. During the time of the Constitution, and for the hundred years following, foreign relations had not been a major factor. The US opted out of a European dominated world. Although perhaps you are right with giving Congress more control in foreign policy, it's arguable whether that would be an ideal situation with the current status quo of the Congress, and whether or not Ron Paul would have success in making such changes. Ron Paul would have to rewrite the Constitution - or at least Amend it heavily - just to get some of his more basic ideas through.

You also should realize that it's the Executive, not just the President that directs foreign policy. Given that - in the past - institutions and norms were created to "assist" the President in foreign policy, you now have a multilayered, multitiered bureaucratic mess. The only real power the President has, is as the consenter to those who actually make the foreign policy, and (with all respect) your President is easily persuadable. I'm pretty sure under the right circumstances your Congress is too.
Angus

D'oh!

Ballkicks: (+621 / -84)
Posts: 2742 (0.455)
Reg. Date: Jun 2004
Location: Michigan
Gender: Unspecified
Reply 13 of 126 (Originally posted on: 01-18-08 12:12:27 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

I'm voting for Edwards because he is fighting against special interest because his parents worked in a mill.
Guy Tuttle and Ass
Global Moderator

gotta get that VICTORY ROYALE #gamer #memes #LoL

Ballkicks: (+1782 / -130)
Posts: 15966 (2.337)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Gender: Male
Reply 14 of 126 (Originally posted on: 01-18-08 01:25:57 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

If Ron Paul somehow became president, I think there is a 20-50% chance there would be a military coup in this country.

Hoff, what do you say about the (more and more convincing) allegations of racism? To summarize, a number of people have come forward with evidence/testimonials that Ron Paul participated in white supremacist newsletters and stuff during the ninties, like stormfront stuff. What do you think about that? What do you think about his stance on immigration?

It just seems like every Ron Paul supporter I have spoken to has cided a) his support for Ron's foreign policy, and b) his belief that Ron Paul is uncorrupted and incorruptible by corporate interests, and when I brought up other stuff (like the above and what emtilt said) they just say "I don't know/care about that stuff enough to have an opinion about it". Which is a very bad perspective to have.

Also if you want someone who is perfectly anti-special interests, vote for Edwards, who has never accepted a donation from a lobbyist in his entire career.
Pertti Susilainen
Head Priest

mr. sukkit

Ballkicks: (+924 / -57)
Posts: 7104 (1.083)
Reg. Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mayrit
Gender: Male
Reply 15 of 126 (Originally posted on: 01-18-08 02:43:17 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

I don't know enough about the possible candidates to vote for any of them (if I could, I mean). From what I've seen, Clinton is the most politician-like of the bunch, and I absolutely hate that. Obama doesn't sound all that bad, but I'm not too convinced either. I might choose Edwards if I knew what he stands for, or had any interest in finding out.

What I do know is that all the Republicans scare me. For some of them it's just a gut feeling, but the little I know about Paul, Huckabee and the like has been more than enough to reaffirm my fears.
đonne onwŠcne­ eft wineleas guma, gesih­ him biforan fealwe wegas, ba■ian brimfuglas, brŠdan fe■ra, hreosan hrim ond snaw hagle gemenged. Ůonne beo­ ■y hefigran heortan benne, sare Šfter swŠsne. Sorg bi­ geniwad ■onne maga gemynd mod geondhweorfe­, grete­ gliwstafum, georne geondsceawa­ secga geseldan; swimma­ oft on weg. Fleotendra fer­ no ■Šr fela bringe­ cu­ra cwidegiedda.
The Wanderer, l. 45-55a
atlas sighed (at me)
User is currently banned until further notice.

Reply 16 of 126 (Originally posted on: 01-18-08 07:29:03 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Other: Michael Jingozian

Really, everyone who picked Obama as their candidate deserves a nice, shiny avatar which depicts their membership in the [ignorant masses]. That guy is nothing more than a tool for greedy corporate cabals who advertise his "nice guy" image and convince people that he is going to "change" the world into a magical fairy-tale of butterflies, equality, and butterscotch.

edit:

Quoted from Ice:
Hoff, what do you say about the (more and more convincing) allegations of racism? To summarize, a number of people have come forward with evidence/testimonials that Ron Paul participated in white supremacist newsletters and stuff during the ninties, like stormfront stuff. What do you think about that? What do you think about his stance on immigration?


You really think people who members of the NAACP, supporters of the ADL, and buddies with black radicalists like Al Sharpton and Co. are any better than those who associate with Nazis and white supremacists? Of course you do! You have been brainwashed by the media and popular culture to think certain types of racism and selfishness are acceptable whereas others are not (namely, it is impossible for black 'interest groups' to be "racist").
ba
INTL Premium Member
Captain of the Cool Kids

and i said, a\re you a gay ass fucker who can't take a baseball up the ass you faggot???? and he said yes........

Ballkicks: (+456 / -62)
Posts: 3134 (0.486)
Reg. Date: Apr 2003
Location: behind you!
Gender: Male
Reply 17 of 126 (Originally posted on: 01-18-08 08:14:57 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
You really think people who members of the NAACP, supporters of the ADL, and buddies with black radicalists like Al Sharpton and Co. are any better than those who associate with Nazis and white supremacists? Of course you do! You have been brainwashed by the media and popular culture to think certain types of racism and selfishness are acceptable whereas others are not (namely, it is impossible for black 'interest groups' to be "racist").


True, but I'd still rather have a President who is for "equal rights" (whatever the fuck that means nowadays) than someone who's a white supremacist.
~British[/whisper] Agent
[whisper].___.
{O,o} O RLY?
/)__)
-"-"-
Links: Penny Arcade, YTMND, Something Awful.
Amphytrite
Hard for Drah

I don't really even like hearing about it or reading about it

Ballkicks: (+1869 / -83)
Posts: 6818 (1.122)
Reg. Date: Apr 2004
Location: Cowpenis
Gender: Female
Reply 18 of 126 (Originally posted on: 01-18-08 08:21:10 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from BA:
"equal rights" (whatever the fuck that means nowadays)

Equal rights doesn't mean anything anymore, it's just a term for politicians to throw around to make them seem like they care about everyone.
i am raising my eyebrow


Vissario: i am here to serve
Amphy: then make me a sandwich.
Vissario: holy shit
Vissario: u just did not say that, sugaboo
Sixten Sparre
╔pater la bourgeoisie

wears neckerchiefs

Ballkicks: (+1184 / -307)
Posts: 4672 (0.703)
Reg. Date: Sep 2002
Location: Funen Island
Gender: Male
Reply 19 of 126 (Originally posted on: 01-18-08 08:38:27 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

You will vote for McCain?

Isn't he FUCKING INSANE?

If either guliani or mccain becomes president, man, those guys seem fucking nuts, and not even mentioning that religious guy
Tough, Unique, Bad, Bodacious, and Sassy.
ba
INTL Premium Member
Captain of the Cool Kids

and i said, a\re you a gay ass fucker who can't take a baseball up the ass you faggot???? and he said yes........

Ballkicks: (+456 / -62)
Posts: 3134 (0.486)
Reg. Date: Apr 2003
Location: behind you!
Gender: Male
Reply 20 of 126 (Originally posted on: 01-18-08 09:22:25 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from Amphy:

Equal rights doesn't mean anything anymore, it's just a term for politicians to throw around to make them seem like they care about everyone.


You don't think Obama cares about equal rights?

Quoted from TFW:
McCain


Yeah he's a little crazy, but at least he understands the consequences of war and bad foreign policy (or he should). At least he's not Huckelberry who thinks the 2nd ammendment means that owning a gun is mandatory.
~British[/whisper] Agent
[whisper].___.
{O,o} O RLY?
/)__)
-"-"-
Links: Penny Arcade, YTMND, Something Awful.
Amphytrite
Hard for Drah

I don't really even like hearing about it or reading about it

Ballkicks: (+1869 / -83)
Posts: 6818 (1.122)
Reg. Date: Apr 2004
Location: Cowpenis
Gender: Female
Reply 21 of 126 (Originally posted on: 01-18-08 09:38:23 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from Surt:
You will vote for McCain?

Isn't he FUCKING INSANE?

I don't think McCain is insane. He has a lot of really good ideas about how to help the stumbling economy and has actual plans for the war in Iraq. He's also a big teddy bear.
Quoted from British Agent:
Quoted from Amphy:

Equal rights doesn't mean anything anymore, it's just a term for politicians to throw around to make them seem like they care about everyone.


You don't think Obama cares about equal rights?

I wasn't very clear when I said that. I'm sure they all care, but I don't think anyones going to do anything about equal rights because there's no clear way to define it anymore.
i am raising my eyebrow


Vissario: i am here to serve
Amphy: then make me a sandwich.
Vissario: holy shit
Vissario: u just did not say that, sugaboo
D
Administrator

i didn't have the strength to get it all the way off

Ballkicks: (+1950 / -91)
Posts: 18505 (2.709)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location:
Gender: Male
Reply 22 of 126 (Originally posted on: 01-18-08 10:41:45 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from ice:
Hoff, what do you say about the (more and more convincing) allegations of racism? To summarize, a number of people have come forward with evidence/testimonials that Ron Paul participated in white supremacist newsletters and stuff during the ninties, like stormfront stuff.

Gimme the long version with sources of this stuff please.

Quote:
and when I brought up other stuff (like the above and what emtilt said) they just say "I don't know/care about that stuff enough to have an opinion about it". Which is a very bad perspective to have.

Obviously I don't know what issues your referring to, but i'd like to take a guess and say some of the things people toss at me are non-issues. Stuff like "gay marriage" to me shouldn't be, in any world, political debate, and the fact that people vote based on what a politician thinks about that kind of stuff is very scary. Thats why states should have more rights, so that the entire country and the millions of square miles it covers isn't arguing about stupid shit like that when there are more important, demanding, pressing and urgent issues afoot.
emtilt

the cow of horses

Ballkicks: (+486 / -41)
Posts: 5238 (0.768)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location: Last Week
Gender: Male
Reply 23 of 126 (Originally posted on: 01-18-08 10:42:47 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from Hoff:
Quote:
And it's nice and rational to say that evolution doesn't exist, right? He also doesn't like a rigid separation of church and state, because he doesn't believe that has a constitutional basis.
I don't really care about these issues, they are non-issues to me.


I hear a lot of people take that attitude with issues like those, and I don't quite understand it. People often assert that a lack of belief in evolution has no bearing on political policy or ability. But it does. It indirectly implies a lot about the person. It suggests that either the person is incapable of effective reasoning beyond his or her own personal biases, or that the person is willing to take stances on issues which they have no understanding and haven't bothered to research. Both are awful traits for a high-level political leader of any sort. It also suggests, if the person has a poor understanding of the issue, that he is unwilling to defer to those more knowledgeable about a specific topic than he when the need arises. Also not a good trait.

And I think he does have isolationist tendencies in some sense. He's overly concerned with eliminating any possibly of other states having influence over what America does. But the truth is that modern law and economics doesn't allow that. Sunny's points are good, though.

EDIT/update:
Quote:
Obviously I don't know what issues your referring to, but i'd like to take a guess and say some of the things people toss at me are non-issues. Stuff like "gay marriage" to me shouldn't be, in any world, political debate, and the fact that people vote based on what a politician thinks about that kind of stuff is very scary. Thats why states should have more rights, so that the entire country and the millions of square miles it covers isn't arguing about stupid shit like that when there are more important, demanding, pressing and urgent issues afoot.

This is kinda like what I was saying about evolution. I agree with your general premise that a number of these things shouldn't even be issues at a federal level, but a candidate's strong stance on them still makes strong implications toward their personal ability to deal with issues and decisions in general. They also sometimes make crazy ideas of the politician more evident.
this is my music i hope you like it
this is music i listen to these are movies i like these are books i like

This reply was last edited on 01-18-08 10:48:07 AM by emtilt.
atlas sighed (at me)
User is currently banned until further notice.

Reply 24 of 126 (Originally posted on: 01-18-08 12:26:40 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
You don't think Obama cares about equal rights?


Like all democrats, "equal rights for all" is really a phrase for "special rights for my constituents". In this case, the people who are going to comprise a large part of his constituency will be minorities, Jews, women, homosexuals, and liberal weenies who think the four former groups are oppressed by the evil right wingers.
Quick Reply
Page: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Reply to Thread | Create New Thread | Create New Poll | Subscribe To Thread
[ Thread Views: 7677 | Total Posts: 126 ]