Michelle Bachman is an evil cunt

  On 8/17/2011 at 3:36 PM, eugene said:

ron paul reminds me of our own foreign minister lieberman, just the opposite political spectrum, lieberman too offers controversial but seemingly reasonable and simple-to-understand solutions to israel's troubles. he's been a total failure of a foreign minister, a bulldozer that doesn't really understand how things work, just sticking to his ideologies, the fact that feeds his supporters somehow.

 

this quote from michael haneke interview stuck with me: "The idea can be good or bad, but once it becomes absolute, in all cases, it becomes dangerous. It becomes very strict, and can be used for radicalism."

for the 1029874259324867345892734809720985746093865093427509780347th time, there is no evidence to assume that once Paul would be president that he would be able to enact every reform he's spoken of, destroy the government, become isolationist, repeal civil rights and separation of church and state.

id support kucinich if he was running, but he ain't.

yeah, lets just continue the trend from that other thread of assigning own meanings to other people's posts.

  On 8/17/2011 at 3:46 PM, eugene said:

yeah, lets just continue the trend from that other thread of assigning own meanings to other people's posts.

if im not mistaken, you claimed that, as ron paul bares similarity to your own foreign minister, he is destined to make the same choices/run the presidency the same way

im done defending the guy anymore anyway.

i dunno when voters stopped considering the fact that we are in multiple wars as a major point of contention.

edit: corrected, thx dleet

  On 8/17/2011 at 3:57 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 8/17/2011 at 3:46 PM, eugene said:

yeah, lets just continue the trend from that other thread of assigning own meanings to other people's posts.

 

if im not mistaken, you claimed that, as ron paul bares similarity to your own prime minister,

foreign minister

  On 8/17/2011 at 3:57 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 8/17/2011 at 3:46 PM, eugene said:

yeah, lets just continue the trend from that other thread of assigning own meanings to other people's posts.

 

if im not mistaken, you claimed that, as ron paul bares similarity to your own foreign minister, he is destined to make the same choices/run the presidency the same way

 

im done defending the guy anymore anyway.

 

i dunno when voters stopped considering the fact that we are in multiple wars as a major point of contention.

 

 

edit: corrected, thx dleet

there's no arguing that the system shapes people in its own way, my point is that such people should stay clear of politics altogether imo. lieberman is just particular example in israel with a different system, i'll never say or hint that someone is destined to something, but still, you should take notice of your "surroundings".

i just think that there can only be progress made with rights for gays, the civil rights for blacks aren't gonna be overturned, and abortion won't be out lawed. I don't mind anyone finding Paul's policies frightening and whatnot, but unfortunately I think we are at a certain time in history that maybe a racist homophobe who hates war and hates the two parties is more necessary than a completely PC choice... like obama.

you say that the system shapes people in its own way, and yet your previous posts said that the worst part about Lieberman is that he is too uncompromising with representatives of that same system. that sounds like something a politician would say.

I also think its really easy to attack anyones solution to this situation we are in because there simply isn't a beacon of light. There is no politician running for President that I would put up on a pedestal and say, this dude is jesus y'all! he's the real deal, I know 100% Follow us, come on its gonna be boat loads of fun and love!... we gonna end the wars, raise taxes on the rich, arrest corrupt wall streeters/bankers, dismantle TSA and Homeland Security, allow gays to marry and serve openly (lol war), close Gitmo, provide public option for health care thats universal, ensure free internet, and reform the electoral college so third parties are viable!!!!

  On 8/17/2011 at 5:46 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

you say that the system shapes people in its own way, and yet your previous posts said that the worst part about Lieberman is that he is too uncompromising with representatives of that same system. that sounds like something a politician would say.

that's why i said "in its own way", it leaves a lot of room. lieberman hasn't actually succeeded in his big plans at all, like population exchange or civil marriage thing but his ideological stubbornness in foreign ministry, so to say, does a lot of damage nonetheless.

how can we choose a decent president when we don't care about senators and house reps? treating the presidency as the only election that matters is what many americans do and the obvious problem with that is shown by the poor quality of presidential candidates.

plus, (derailing here) anyone who doesn't think every single congressman/woman is bought and sold by corporate/party interests is painfully naive. it's a much bigger problem than the US can ever hope to solve imo. rome will fall before a new system is in place. whether that happens in 10, 20, 100 years is anyones guess

  On 8/15/2011 at 2:08 PM, viscosity said:

the only question I have though.. what's the evolutionary purpose of homosexuality?

population control?

  On 8/17/2011 at 11:43 AM, disparaissant said:

But, I abhor racism, believe strongly that the federal government needs to protect a woman's right to choose, believe that queers everywhere should allow to marry other queers, and I abhor racism. I also think Paul's economic theories are whacky at best. So that's what, -3 total now? Yeah, sorry. Not gonna get my vote.

this is honestly the only thing standing in between me right now and me out on the streets campaigning for the guy. I'm not totally clear. It's unacceptable to be against gays. What has Obama done for the gays?

Lets be honest here. You anti-Ron Paul guys, we're not talking about fucking Ron Paul vs. God.

We're talking about Ron Paul vs. Michelle Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Obama.

The question isn't one of perfection. It's one of, 'What is the best option.' It's a multiple choice test. There is no 'none of the above.'

Honestly, why would Obama or even the other 2 repubs be a better vote?

I really don't understand libertarianism clearly enough to have an opinion. I'm pretty skeptical whether or not most people should have opinions either, haha.

  On 8/17/2011 at 6:52 PM, vamos scorcho said:

I really don't understand libertarianism clearly enough to have an opinion. I'm pretty skeptical whether or not most people should have opinions either, haha.

Most people shouldn't, probably including myself, which is why I am launching a website that will hopefully help inform people of our political climate today. I just conceptualized the idea and am working with other passionate people on how to move forward. But I think it will be immensely beneficial for helping citizens understand the issues and where both parties stand as well as your local candidates etc.

  On 8/17/2011 at 6:52 PM, vamos scorcho said:

I really don't understand libertarianism clearly enough to have an opinion. I'm pretty skeptical whether or not most people should have opinions either, haha.

There is a chart out there that shows this pretty clearly ( that I couldn't post if I wanted to, due to the fact that I'm using mobile and you can't even post images with the fill page view on a mobile now ) , but I'll see if I can make it simple:

- republican = high government involvement in social issues / low government involvement in fiscal issues

- democrat = low government involvement in social issues / high government involvement in fiscal issues

- libertarian = low government involvement in social issues / low government involvement in fiscal issues

- authoritarian = high government involvement in social issues / high government involvement in fiscal issues

  On 8/17/2011 at 6:09 PM, theSun said:

how can we choose a decent president when we don't care about senators and house reps? treating the presidency as the only election that matters is what many americans do and the obvious problem with that is shown by the poor quality of presidential candidates.

thats easy. Senators and Reps are elected by their own populous, not by the nation.

The way my state is redistricted is incredibly lopsided towards Democratic nominees. Which isn't necessarily all bad, but it allows an open-door policy for very corrupt criminal minded politicians to make their way in.

Personally I put the most in voting from the bottom up. I feel a lot more satisfied after voting for a guy I have met and talked to, understood his policies and his personal background without it being nauseatingly cookie-cutter.

  On 8/16/2011 at 3:05 AM, usagi said:

  On 8/15/2011 at 5:13 PM, jefferoo said:

 

where the fuck is she looking

right after that picture was taken, she was hit in the face by a frisbee

  On 8/17/2011 at 7:18 PM, BCM said:

  On 8/16/2011 at 3:05 AM, usagi said:

  On 8/15/2011 at 5:13 PM, jefferoo said:

 

where the fuck is she looking

 

right after that picture was taken, she was hit in the face by a frisbee

lol perfect !

  On 8/17/2011 at 7:18 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

 

 

The way my state is redistricted is incredibly lopsided towards Democratic nominees. Which isn't necessarily all bad, but it allows an open-door policy for very corrupt criminal minded politicians to make their way in.

 

Hate to brake it to you, but a corrupt politician ia a corrupt politician despite what party they subscribe to.

  On 8/17/2011 at 7:35 PM, jefferoo said:

  On 8/17/2011 at 7:18 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

 

The way my state is redistricted is incredibly lopsided towards Democratic nominees. Which isn't necessarily all bad, but it allows an open-door policy for very corrupt criminal minded politicians to make their way in.

 

 

Hate to brake it to you, but a corrupt politician ia a corrupt politician despite what party they subscribe to.

There's no need for that. We have had only one Republican governor in the last 60 years, and have not had a non-Democratic mayor in our largest city for 50 years. I'm just doing the math. I agree with you that Republicans would be just as likely to corrupt/abuse their power, but statistically in my area this is much less so. Do you understand what I am saying has nothing to do with party bias?

Its like a union if it runs out of enemies, it decays, corrupts itself from the inside. If Democrats are basically guaranteed to win in this state, why on earth should they worry about adhering to any ethical principles? Its the same as Republicans in say, Texas.

obama on gays:

-repealed DADT

-did not defend DOMA

that's about the best case scenario i could think of when he was elected, too. which is pretty sad.

but i dont think people really get it when it comes to ron paul. you're assuming that when i say he will have a hard time getting things done i mean he will have a hard time getting ANYTHING done. no. he will have a hard time ending wars and implementing non-interventionism and ending the war on drugs. he will have an easy fucking time completely destroying roe v. wade, paving the way for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and basically making sure that any supreme court justice he picks is a whacked out libertarian ideologue. he will have a hell of an easy time shitting all over the poor of this country, which is his stated fucking goal. he will be a complete and utter disaster.

  On 8/17/2011 at 8:31 PM, disparaissant said:

obama on gays:

-repealed DADT

-did not defend DOMA

that's about the best case scenario i could think of when he was elected, too. which is pretty sad.

 

but i dont think people really get it when it comes to ron paul. you're assuming that when i say he will have a hard time getting things done i mean he will have a hard time getting ANYTHING done. no. he will have a hard time ending wars and implementing non-interventionism and ending the war on drugs. he will have an easy fucking time completely destroying roe v. wade, paving the way for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and basically making sure that any supreme court justice he picks is a whacked out libertarian ideologue. he will have a hell of an easy time shitting all over the poor of this country, which is his stated fucking goal. he will be a complete and utter disaster.

his stated goal? also a justice has to be approved by congress... you contradict yourself completely in this post

edit: also im interested in who you are supporting, because I agree with most of your stances regarding policy but disagree with the way you are approaching paul. it seems like you are going after all of pauls negatives and exaggerating the reign of destruction he will have on this country

also technically on social issues libertarians would be for gay marriage and such, so not sure why you correlate the justice pick with libertarian ideologue when its entirely a religious one

id vote for kucinich and i would have even supported weiner despite his pro-israel stuff until he proved himself to be a total creep. mostly im for the downfall of the system as sophomoric and cliche as that is to say. it's utterly and completely broken and corrupted by corporate greed and no one is really going to be able to do anything about that at this point.

ron paul is not for gay marriage, he's made that clear many times. he wants to make it a states right thing, and making it a states rights thing is just ensuring that a good chunk (maybe most) of this country will not accept it.

and yes ending welfare while simultaneously giving corporations more leeway to fuck over the working poor is his stated goal. not in those words, but that is what he stands for. and you KNOW the republicans on capitol hill would eat that shit up.