West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: herpes on October 01, 2008, 03:16:48 PM
-
A lot of times I hear people say when it comes to change thats just teenage idealism. Whats wrong with that maybe its that type of passion we need to save America from its own self. I am not talking about in broad terms like most teenagers do like we need to over throw the gov't. But the passion that comes along with that. Whats so wrong with that ?
-
A lot of times I hear people say when it comes to change thats just teenage idealism. Whats wrong with that maybe its that type of passion we need to save America from its own self. I am not talking about in broad terms like most teenagers do like we need to over throw the gov't. But the passion that comes along with that. Whats so wrong with that ?
I don't know..maybe they just talk and never walk it.
-
There's nothing wrong with idealism, but the majority of the people don't agree with it. That's why someone like Barack looks pained to support that bailout plan, but knows the country wants action. Idealism doesn't cut it when you have old people who lost theirs when they still talk about the glory days of Reagan.
-
What change exactly is Obama going to bring? Other than skin color there is no difference between him and any other dem candidate. The only way any real change would have come to Washington would have been if Ron Paul won and then a majority Ron Paul style republicans won in 2010.
-
It's not the passion that annoys people. It's the passion combined with a loud mouth, and often times a biased, ill informed or sheltered view of things.
-
What change exactly is Obama going to bring? Other than skin color there is no difference between him and any other dem candidate. The only way any real change would have come to Washington would have been if Ron Paul won and then a majority Ron Paul style republicans won in 2010.
:loco:
-
I want a one world government ruled by an enlightened cabal of monks and philosophers...am I an idealist?
-
It's not the passion that annoys people. It's the passion combined with a loud mouth, and often times a biased, ill informed or sheltered view of things.
-
What change exactly is Obama going to bring? Other than skin color there is no difference between him and any other dem candidate. The only way any real change would have come to Washington would have been if Ron Paul won and then a majority Ron Paul style republicans won in 2010.
:loco:
So then tell me about the great changes an Obama presidency would bring. Instead of declaring wars outright like Bush, he'll just subtly bomb places to shit like Clinton?
-
What change exactly is Obama going to bring? Other than skin color there is no difference between him and any other dem candidate. The only way any real change would have come to Washington would have been if Ron Paul won and then a majority Ron Paul style republicans won in 2010.
:loco:
So then tell me about the great changes an Obama presidency would bring. Instead of declaring wars outright like Bush, he'll just subtly bomb places to shit like Clinton?
After you tell me how Ron Paul has a better chance of being president than Ralph Nader. Nader will actually be on the ballot, hell even Bob Barr will be, but no Ron Paul.
-
What change exactly is Obama going to bring? Other than skin color there is no difference between him and any other dem candidate. The only way any real change would have come to Washington would have been if Ron Paul won and then a majority Ron Paul style republicans won in 2010.
:loco:
So then tell me about the great changes an Obama presidency would bring. Instead of declaring wars outright like Bush, he'll just subtly bomb places to shit like Clinton?
After you tell me how Ron Paul has a better chance of being president than Ralph Nader. Nader will actually be on the ballot, hell even Bob Barr will be, but no Ron Paul.
You see the statement I made here ;
"The only way any real change would have come to Washington would have been if Ron Paul won and then a majority Ron Paul style republicans won in 2010."
Notice the bold type. The would have come and would have been. The "if" before Ron Paul, and the way I conjugate win after Ron Paul. Notice how it's in past tense. Ron Paul cannot win because he did not win the primary. My argument was that if he had won the primary and then went on to win the election no change would happen until 2010 if, and even then it's an if, congress was a majority Republican with Ron Paul style republicans.
Never did I imply Ron Paul has any shot in the upcoming election. But Ron Paul has a better at winning as a write in candidate than the shot the idea of change has of becoming a part of America in the next 4 years, because whether it's Obama or McCain change will be not be be anywhere in sight.
-
I want a one world government ruled by an enlightened cabal of monks and philosophers...am I an idealist?
no your living your dream