West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: M Dogg™ on February 06, 2008, 09:20:59 AM
-
No word, where are they.... Huckabee got your tongue. After all, he took you delegates in Virginia.
-
It was part of a deal for 3 delegates since he got eliminated in the first round. Do u actually think Pauls people are going to switch candidates.
-
SEND MCCAIN BACK TO VIETNAM.
-
It was part of a deal for 3 delegates since he got eliminated in the first round. Do u actually think Pauls people are going to switch candidates.
That's a move you make when you know your time is coming to a close. Time for Paul to pull out, collect his money that all these people donated that he never spent, and laugh to the bank in Texas. Biggest con man ever.
-
It was part of a deal for 3 delegates since he got eliminated in the first round. Do u actually think Pauls people are going to switch candidates.
That's a move you make when you know your time is coming to a close. Time for Paul to pull out, collect his money that all these people donated that he never spent, and laugh to the bank in Texas. Biggest con man ever.
You still don't get it. The fundraisng was the campaign. With out no movement could start. It's in its baby steps now but it has started. America wasn't yet smart enough to vote for the ideals of Paul, of America. They still think they needs Kings in the white house to tell them what to do. The Paul campaign was a great first step towards democracy. Paul could have spent every dime and them some and all that would so is nothing. The Networks would just conter point ever ad he had with stupid smirks and laughs to make him look like a fool. The average person that watches him on the debates thinks "hey everyone is laughing at him, he must be an idiot", or "what?! no way is anything bad in the world our fault". There was no con going on here. The movement has begun and if the Dems win, which they probably will, the 2012 election will feature a younger, more charasmatic, constitutionalist and will move the movemt forward that much more and the Paul campaign and all the money raised will be the catalyst for that.
-
^How can Clinton/Clinton ever beat McCain/Huckabee? McCain/Huckabee are the ultimate war duo. The veteran and the religious freak. Crazy shit. Muslim countries gotta be shook.
-
It was part of a deal for 3 delegates since he got eliminated in the first round. Do u actually think Pauls people are going to switch candidates.
That's a move you make when you know your time is coming to a close. Time for Paul to pull out, collect his money that all these people donated that he never spent, and laugh to the bank in Texas. Biggest con man ever.
You still don't get it. The fundraisng was the campaign. With out no movement could start. It's in its baby steps now but it has started. America wasn't yet smart enough to vote for the ideals of Paul, of America. They still think they needs Kings in the white house to tell them what to do. The Paul campaign was a great first step towards democracy. Paul could have spent every dime and them some and all that would so is nothing. The Networks would just conter point ever ad he had with stupid smirks and laughs to make him look like a fool. The average person that watches him on the debates thinks "hey everyone is laughing at him, he must be an idiot", or "what?! no way is anything bad in the world our fault". There was no con going on here. The movement has begun and if the Dems win, which they probably will, the 2012 election will feature a younger, more charasmatic, constitutionalist and will move the movemt forward that much more and the Paul campaign and all the money raised will be the catalyst for that.
i agree.
-
Straight up, Paul is Ralph Nader 2008. You guys will support him, he'll do his thing, and then in 2012 he'll run and people will be tired of his extreme views and move to something else, and in 2016 he would be relevent and the new thing will be going for the under-30 crowd, which you guys wouldn't be part of then. If Hillary wins, look for a 8 year reign, the Clintons are too strong, and if McCain wins then Paul in 2012 is offically over. It's the facts, if you don't win when you are hot you better have made a great showing because you may never get that chance again unless you are young, like Nixon in 1960 for his 1968 run. So good luck with the Paul 2012 run, you guys will be off the bandwagon by 2009 and might thing about it in 2012.
-
Oh I get it, anti war is extremism, pro war is for the people
and ignorance is strength right!
-
^How can Clinton/Clinton ever beat McCain/Huckabee? McCain/Huckabee are the ultimate war duo. The veteran and the religious freak. Crazy shit. Muslim countries gotta be shook.
They can win because the last 8 years. If the US had jst finished a 8 years of Bill Clnton then Hillary/Obama woud get slapped around by McCain but America wants the Reps out and the Dems in more than ever so that gives a woman or a black man a hell of a head start.
Straight up, Paul is Ralph Nader 2008. You guys will support him, he'll do his thing, and then in 2012 he'll run and people will be tired of his extreme views and move to something else, and in 2016 he would be relevent and the new thing will be going for the under-30 crowd, which you guys wouldn't be part of then. If Hillary wins, look for a 8 year reign, the Clintons are too strong, and if McCain wins then Paul in 2012 is offically over. It's the facts, if you don't win when you are hot you better have made a great showing because you may never get that chance again unless you are young, like Nixon in 1960 for his 1968 run. So good luck with the Paul 2012 run, you guys will be off the bandwagon by 2009 and might thing about it in 2012.
I never said he'd run again. I'm saying his message will run again. All it needs is the right guy to make the stupid people understand. A Ronald Reagan type in 2012 running on a Constitutionalist platform may not win but he'd be pretty damn close, and by 2020 it'll be even easier. The constitution won't go away and once everyone realizes that Hillary, Obama, or McCain run some same sinking shithole ship that the last 3 presidents ran they'll be ready for real change.
-
^How can Clinton/Clinton ever beat McCain/Huckabee? McCain/Huckabee are the ultimate war duo. The veteran and the religious freak. Crazy shit. Muslim countries gotta be shook.
They can win because the last 8 years. If the US had jst finished a 8 years of Bill Clnton then Hillary/Obama woud get slapped around by McCain but America wants the Reps out and the Dems in more than ever so that gives a woman or a black man a hell of a head start.
I believe Obama/Edwards could slaughter McCain/Huckabee, but Clinton/Clinton... I have my doubts about that one.
-
You're a fucking dildo
It was part of a deal for 3 delegates since he got eliminated in the first round. Do u actually think Pauls people are going to switch candidates.
That's a move you make when you know your time is coming to a close. Time for Paul to pull out, collect his money that all these people donated that he never spent, and laugh to the bank in Texas. Biggest con man ever.
You still don't get it. The fundraisng was the campaign. With out no movement could start. It's in its baby steps now but it has started. America wasn't yet smart enough to vote for the ideals of Paul, of America. They still think they needs Kings in the white house to tell them what to do. The Paul campaign was a great first step towards democracy. Paul could have spent every dime and them some and all that would so is nothing. The Networks would just conter point ever ad he had with stupid smirks and laughs to make him look like a fool. The average person that watches him on the debates thinks "hey everyone is laughing at him, he must be an idiot", or "what?! no way is anything bad in the world our fault". There was no con going on here. The movement has begun and if the Dems win, which they probably will, the 2012 election will feature a younger, more charasmatic, constitutionalist and will move the movemt forward that much more and the Paul campaign and all the money raised will be the catalyst for that.
Great post, unfortunately that goes way over the head of most of the dipshits on this board.
-
Clinton/Clinton? That won't happen. But either way, Obama will crush McCain. McCain and Huckabee will lose to any democratic ticket.
Ron Paul is too smart to be President. And the american people are too stupid to vote for him. America doesn't deserve Ron Paul.
-
I don't think the Ron Paul supporters should be upset with how he ran his campaign at all. He ran a good campaign, made himself relevant for a while, but he is too different to be accepted right now. The Republicans attack him because he wants to pull out of Iraq immediately, and they want a resolution and not a major mess, even though it will be no matter what. The Democrats didn't like his small government and his views on border control, although I've actually heard a lot more reasons lately that makes me think they should do that. The image of him serving McCain will stay in my mind for a while though.
-
http://www.ontheissues.org/Ralph_Nader.htm
-
Ron Paul is too smart to be President. And the american people are too stupid to vote for him. America doesn't deserve Ron Paul.
Although I think Libertarianism is probably best for characterizing the views of most Americans (since Libertarians are secular, pro-free market, socially liberal, and usually anti-war...which is how many people are in this country), I don't really think Ron Paul is too much of a Libertarian. He's really just an anti-war conservative, more than anything else, since he has many socially conservative views on stuff I don't agree with.
I've heard someone describe him as socially centrist and economically the most conservative of the GOP candidates.
-
Clinton/Clinton? That won't happen. But either way, Obama will crush McCain. McCain and Huckabee will lose to any democratic ticket.
Ron Paul is too smart to be President. And the american people are too stupid to vote for him. America doesn't deserve Ron Paul.
Agree with everything you said.
-
americans are too stupid for ron paul
-
Clinton/Clinton? That won't happen. But either way, Obama will crush McCain. McCain and Huckabee will lose to any democratic ticket.
Ron Paul is too smart to be President. And the american people are too stupid to vote for him. America doesn't deserve Ron Paul.
LMAO... name one sucessful MODERN country that's liberitarian.
-
Hong Kong
-
Hong Kong
First off, Hong Kong is a large city. Second, Hong Kong has always been under the control of a larger power so that it's protection and economical security is thought of, thirdly they were at onetime more powerful than the cities of the PRofChina, but since have fallen from grace and now have adopted some socialist bureaus to help run the government. Liberitarian hate the FDA, well Hong Kong has the Food and Health Bureau, headed by a guy name York Chow. You have multiple parties, and you have a system that's changing to socialism everyday.
NEXT!
-
So tell me why socialism and the current status quo will fix our dollar problem?
-
Take this guy with a pinch of salt he has not the slightest clue about stasiland, or the bolsheviks, he probably has never even read the communist manifesto and yet will parade about socialism.
Warning to the dipshits out there Hilary Clinton plans to force you to take health insurance by taking a large chunk of someones income, nevermind that americas plummet down the tubes has not even reached terminal velocity yet. Nevermind that Obama has said he wants a war in IPakistan, nevermind that he is another complicit bastard in the creation of the north american union.
Vote Obama or if not vote Hilary after all you want CHANGE right.
The only way in which these 2 fucks are synonymous with change, is LOOSE CHANGE in the back pockets of big corporations.
-
Obama is no different than George Bush.
-
Take this guy with a pinch of salt he has not the slightest clue about stasiland, or the bolsheviks, he probably has never even read the communist manifesto and yet will parade about socialism.
Warning to the dipshits out there Hilary Clinton plans to force you to take health insurance by taking a large chunk of someones income, nevermind that americas plummet down the tubes has not even reached terminal velocity yet. Nevermind that Obama has said he wants a war in IPakistan, nevermind that he is another complicit bastard in the creation of the north american union.
Vote Obama or if not vote Hilary after all you want CHANGE right.
The only way in which these 2 fucks are synonymous with change, is LOOSE CHANGE in the back pockets of big corporations.
LMAO... you mad... you mad
(http://srv0106-07.oak1.imeem.com/g/f0e65ec8467c36a7f313ec19cbc0166d.jpg)
Obama wouldn't go into Pakistan
Ron Paul no different than Ralph Nader
-
I'm not into politics at all and it makes me sick
but I do know that Huckabeeeee wants to change the Constitution so fuck that guy
I feel sorry for all you wasting time with these liars and cons
if Ron Paul is a con then what the fuck are all the other politicians? haha
-
I'm not into politics at all and it makes me sick
but I do know that Huckabeeeee wants to change the Constitution so fuck that guy
I feel sorry for all you wasting time with these liars and cons
if Ron Paul is a con then what the fuck are all the other politicians? haha
politicians... which are cons with a better chance of winning than Ron Paul. Paul is still a politician too... which is why he just JACKED all that money... and is about to pull out the race, no go 3rd party and he just secured his congressional set with that money. So Paul knew what he was doing all along. He JACKED you guys, and is keeping his congressional seat.
-
I'm not into politics at all and it makes me sick
but I do know that Huckabeeeee wants to change the Constitution so fuck that guy
I feel sorry for all you wasting time with these liars and cons
if Ron Paul is a con then what the fuck are all the other politicians? haha
politicians... which are cons with a better chance of winning than Ron Paul. Paul is still a politician too... which is why he just JACKED all that money... and is about to pull out the race, no go 3rd party and he just secured his congressional set with that money. So Paul knew what he was doing all along. He JACKED you guys, and is keeping his congressional seat.
I don't think anyone funded Ron Paul's campaign on the assumption that he would become president. And how has he jacked peoples money when he used that money to spread a message successfully? And if he decides to run as a third party candidate, he might have a better chance of getting some focus on him now that he got some shine as a Republican. If people don't approve of either of the Republican and Democratic candidates, they'll have something to choose. Thanks to Ron Paul being in the race for becoming the Republican nominee, people may actually notice him this time around. It's not even about becoming the 44th president of the United States. Thanks to Ron Paul there's a chance the 45th will be better. That's where the money went. Is that so hard to grasp?
-
I'm not into politics at all and it makes me sick
but I do know that Huckabeeeee wants to change the Constitution so fuck that guy
I feel sorry for all you wasting time with these liars and cons
if Ron Paul is a con then what the fuck are all the other politicians? haha
politicians... which are cons with a better chance of winning than Ron Paul. Paul is still a politician too... which is why he just JACKED all that money... and is about to pull out the race, no go 3rd party and he just secured his congressional set with that money. So Paul knew what he was doing all along. He JACKED you guys, and is keeping his congressional seat.
I don't think anyone funded Ron Paul's campaign on the assumption that he would become president. And how has he jacked peoples money when he used that money to spread a message successfully? And if he decides to run as a third party candidate, he might have a better chance of getting some focus on him now that he got some shine as a Republican. If people don't approve of either of the Republican and Democratic candidates, they'll have something to choose. Thanks to Ron Paul being in the race for becoming the Republican nominee, people may actually notice him this time around. It's not even about becoming the 44th president of the United States. Thanks to Ron Paul there's a chance the 45th will be better. That's where the money went. Is that so hard to grasp?
read Ralph Nader 2000. All he wanted was the Green Party to gain 5% of the vote to be seen nationally as a major party, hoping that would open a 2004 bid. On top of that Paul is 72, in 2012 he'll be 76, that's OLD. And the issues he brought up has always been there, but no we think... oh his making it larger. Just like the Green in 2000, within 8 years, you guys will move on and become either traditional Republicans or straight up Libertarian.
-
I'm not into politics at all and it makes me sick
but I do know that Huckabeeeee wants to change the Constitution so fuck that guy
I feel sorry for all you wasting time with these liars and cons
if Ron Paul is a con then what the fuck are all the other politicians? haha
politicians... which are cons with a better chance of winning than Ron Paul. Paul is still a politician too... which is why he just JACKED all that money... and is about to pull out the race, no go 3rd party and he just secured his congressional set with that money. So Paul knew what he was doing all along. He JACKED you guys, and is keeping his congressional seat.
Ron's clearly jacked you because nobody wants to read your lame threads unless you put his name in the title.
-
I'm not into politics at all and it makes me sick
but I do know that Huckabeeeee wants to change the Constitution so fuck that guy
I feel sorry for all you wasting time with these liars and cons
if Ron Paul is a con then what the fuck are all the other politicians? haha
politicians... which are cons with a better chance of winning than Ron Paul. Paul is still a politician too... which is why he just JACKED all that money... and is about to pull out the race, no go 3rd party and he just secured his congressional set with that money. So Paul knew what he was doing all along. He JACKED you guys, and is keeping his congressional seat.
I don't think anyone funded Ron Paul's campaign on the assumption that he would become president. And how has he jacked peoples money when he used that money to spread a message successfully? And if he decides to run as a third party candidate, he might have a better chance of getting some focus on him now that he got some shine as a Republican. If people don't approve of either of the Republican and Democratic candidates, they'll have something to choose. Thanks to Ron Paul being in the race for becoming the Republican nominee, people may actually notice him this time around. It's not even about becoming the 44th president of the United States. Thanks to Ron Paul there's a chance the 45th will be better. That's where the money went. Is that so hard to grasp?
read Ralph Nader 2000. All he wanted was the Green Party to gain 5% of the vote to be seen nationally as a major party, hoping that would open a 2004 bid. On top of that Paul is 72, in 2012 he'll be 76, that's OLD. And the issues he brought up has always been there, but no we think... oh his making it larger. Just like the Green in 2000, within 8 years, you guys will move on and become either traditional Republicans or straight up Libertarian.
I know your new favorite thing is to say that Paul is Ralph Nader. Great. How are they similar philosophically?
-
I'm not into politics at all and it makes me sick
but I do know that Huckabeeeee wants to change the Constitution so fuck that guy
I feel sorry for all you wasting time with these liars and cons
if Ron Paul is a con then what the fuck are all the other politicians? haha
politicians... which are cons with a better chance of winning than Ron Paul. Paul is still a politician too... which is why he just JACKED all that money... and is about to pull out the race, no go 3rd party and he just secured his congressional set with that money. So Paul knew what he was doing all along. He JACKED you guys, and is keeping his congressional seat.
I don't think anyone funded Ron Paul's campaign on the assumption that he would become president. And how has he jacked peoples money when he used that money to spread a message successfully? And if he decides to run as a third party candidate, he might have a better chance of getting some focus on him now that he got some shine as a Republican. If people don't approve of either of the Republican and Democratic candidates, they'll have something to choose. Thanks to Ron Paul being in the race for becoming the Republican nominee, people may actually notice him this time around. It's not even about becoming the 44th president of the United States. Thanks to Ron Paul there's a chance the 45th will be better. That's where the money went. Is that so hard to grasp?
read Ralph Nader 2000. All he wanted was the Green Party to gain 5% of the vote to be seen nationally as a major party, hoping that would open a 2004 bid. On top of that Paul is 72, in 2012 he'll be 76, that's OLD. And the issues he brought up has always been there, but no we think... oh his making it larger. Just like the Green in 2000, within 8 years, you guys will move on and become either traditional Republicans or straight up Libertarian.
I know your new favorite thing is to say that Paul is Ralph Nader. Great. How are they similar philosophically?
Same extreme following, with the same extreme politics, just different sides of the extreme. Same old shit, just a different year. Only difference, Ralph Nader DIDN'T QUIT.
-
I'm not into politics at all and it makes me sick
but I do know that Huckabeeeee wants to change the Constitution so fuck that guy
I feel sorry for all you wasting time with these liars and cons
if Ron Paul is a con then what the fuck are all the other politicians? haha
politicians... which are cons with a better chance of winning than Ron Paul. Paul is still a politician too... which is why he just JACKED all that money... and is about to pull out the race, no go 3rd party and he just secured his congressional set with that money. So Paul knew what he was doing all along. He JACKED you guys, and is keeping his congressional seat.
I don't think anyone funded Ron Paul's campaign on the assumption that he would become president. And how has he jacked peoples money when he used that money to spread a message successfully? And if he decides to run as a third party candidate, he might have a better chance of getting some focus on him now that he got some shine as a Republican. If people don't approve of either of the Republican and Democratic candidates, they'll have something to choose. Thanks to Ron Paul being in the race for becoming the Republican nominee, people may actually notice him this time around. It's not even about becoming the 44th president of the United States. Thanks to Ron Paul there's a chance the 45th will be better. That's where the money went. Is that so hard to grasp?
read Ralph Nader 2000. All he wanted was the Green Party to gain 5% of the vote to be seen nationally as a major party, hoping that would open a 2004 bid. On top of that Paul is 72, in 2012 he'll be 76, that's OLD. And the issues he brought up has always been there, but no we think... oh his making it larger. Just like the Green in 2000, within 8 years, you guys will move on and become either traditional Republicans or straight up Libertarian.
I know your new favorite thing is to say that Paul is Ralph Nader. Great. How are they similar philosophically?
Same extreme following, with the same extreme politics, just different sides of the extreme. Same old shit, just a different year. Only difference, Ralph Nader DIDN'T QUIT.
LOL, in no way is that an arguement to them being similar philosophically. Do you understand what my question was?
And if you took time to seek info out rather than watching Fox News, you'd quickly (well hopefully) realize that Paul hasn't quit. It sounds like you're in extreme denial.
You know you don't want Paul to drop out. You need him to be relevant so people bother responding to you. Shit is disgusting.
-
I'm confused. Why is that? What on earth has Ralph Nader got to do with Ron Paul? They campaign differently, their ideas show very little similarities and erm... There's basically nothing to compare the two, except that they're borth outsiders looking for change.
Just like the Green in 2000, within 8 years, you guys will move on and become either traditional Republicans or straight up Libertarian.
What makes you think 'we' aren't yet?
-
M Dogg never stated that they are ideologically similar. He said, "Same extreme following, with the same extreme politics, just different sides of the extreme." Extreme isn't the right word there, but he's saying it's a similar small following just on the opposite side of the political spectrum.
-
M Dogg never stated that they are ideologically similar. He said, "Same extreme following, with the same extreme politics, just different sides of the extreme." Extreme isn't the right word there, but he's saying it's a similar small following just on the opposite side of the political spectrum.
thanks... my point but worded way better... lol
-
What's the difference between having the same extreme politics, and being ideologically similar?
People like Ron Paul should be praised for actually looking to make a change, as opposed to the usual politics of the two big parties. You can be sure the change won't come from Obama; we should be glad there's actually some people out there willing to stick out their necks. Or, to put it in a familiar context: within a few years, you guys will feel either deceived by your candidates who promised change, or you'll stick your heads in the sand like "Real" American. So go ahead, and blame Ron Paul for being different. Yeah, fuck having people who actually express their true visions through democracy, instead of being a bunch of yes-men! Ron Paul should be banned from the campaign! ::) :grumpy:
-
What's the difference between having the same extreme politics, and being ideologically similar?
People like Ron Paul should be praised for actually looking to make a change, as opposed to the usual politics of the two big parties. You can be sure the change won't come from Obama; we should be glad there's actually some people out there willing to stick out their necks. Or, to put it in a familiar context: within a few years, you guys will feel either deceived by your candidates who promised change, or you'll stick your heads in the sand like "Real" American. So go ahead, and blame Ron Paul for being different. Yeah, fuck having people who actually express their true visions through democracy, instead of being a bunch of yes-men! Ron Paul should be banned from the campaign! ::) :grumpy:
Here is the thing. Obama is not a someone that is running as a pure liberal, though he has the most liberal voting record in the senate. He is able to communicate his message to the broad public, and sound like a moderate. This is important, as this allows his left wing politics to be seen as more mainstream, and allow for his agenda to get done. And this I agree with, since I am a liberal after all.
-
What's the difference between having the same extreme politics, and being ideologically similar?
People like Ron Paul should be praised for actually looking to make a change, as opposed to the usual politics of the two big parties. You can be sure the change won't come from Obama; we should be glad there's actually some people out there willing to stick out their necks. Or, to put it in a familiar context: within a few years, you guys will feel either deceived by your candidates who promised change, or you'll stick your heads in the sand like "Real" American. So go ahead, and blame Ron Paul for being different. Yeah, fuck having people who actually express their true visions through democracy, instead of being a bunch of yes-men! Ron Paul should be banned from the campaign! ::) :grumpy:
I praise Ron Paul for what he's done. Props to him and his followers.
The polices in the last 8 years have been heavily favored to the neo-conservatives, apart from the last two. Obama can't bring an extreme change, but you can't deny that he'll have a strong impact in domestic polices. Why? Well he's going to be able to work with a Democratic Congress. Bill Clinton didn't even have that, and that's why it was pretty hard for him to get things done. He's also going to nominate 2-3 Supreme Court Justices. We can't let a Republican take office and nominate even more conservatives to the Supreme Court, it will end up being extremely favored to the right. Roe V Wade can be overturned if McCain gets elected.
-
M Dogg never stated that they are ideologically similar. He said, "Same extreme following, with the same extreme politics, just different sides of the extreme." Extreme isn't the right word there, but he's saying it's a similar small following just on the opposite side of the political spectrum.
Well he keeps saying that Ron Paul is Ralph Nader which is a stupid statement. He's also saying that Paul has dropped out, that he's a Libertarian, and that he stole people's money with no intent of running for the presidency. He also admits that nobody pays attention to him unless he mentions Ron Paul.
Even if you draw that parallel between Paul and Nader, it's still weak as hell and I could list 100 reasons why they aren't even remotely close to similar. Mdogg is just trying to smear Paul.
-
What's the difference between having the same extreme politics, and being ideologically similar?
People like Ron Paul should be praised for actually looking to make a change, as opposed to the usual politics of the two big parties. You can be sure the change won't come from Obama; we should be glad there's actually some people out there willing to stick out their necks. Or, to put it in a familiar context: within a few years, you guys will feel either deceived by your candidates who promised change, or you'll stick your heads in the sand like "Real" American. So go ahead, and blame Ron Paul for being different. Yeah, fuck having people who actually express their true visions through democracy, instead of being a bunch of yes-men! Ron Paul should be banned from the campaign! ::) :grumpy:
I praise Ron Paul for what he's done. Props to him and his followers.
The polices in the last 8 years have been heavily favored to the neo-conservatives, apart from the last two. Obama can't bring an extreme change, but you can't deny that he'll have a strong impact in domestic polices. Why? Well he's going to be able to work with a Democratic Congress. Bill Clinton didn't even have that, and that's why it was pretty hard for him to get things done. He's also going to nominate 2-3 Supreme Court Justices. We can't let a Republican take office and nominate even more conservatives to the Supreme Court, it will end up being extremely favored to the right. Roe V Wade can be overturned if McCain gets elected.
McCain wont do shit....but Roe V Wade needs to be overturned. it should be a state issue.
It's not about nominating conservatives or liberals to the supreme court, one just needs to be a strict contistionlist and most progressives and neocons are not
-
What's the difference between having the same extreme politics, and being ideologically similar?
People like Ron Paul should be praised for actually looking to make a change, as opposed to the usual politics of the two big parties. You can be sure the change won't come from Obama; we should be glad there's actually some people out there willing to stick out their necks. Or, to put it in a familiar context: within a few years, you guys will feel either deceived by your candidates who promised change, or you'll stick your heads in the sand like "Real" American. So go ahead, and blame Ron Paul for being different. Yeah, fuck having people who actually express their true visions through democracy, instead of being a bunch of yes-men! Ron Paul should be banned from the campaign! ::) :grumpy:
I praise Ron Paul for what he's done. Props to him and his followers.
The polices in the last 8 years have been heavily favored to the neo-conservatives, apart from the last two. Obama can't bring an extreme change, but you can't deny that he'll have a strong impact in domestic polices. Why? Well he's going to be able to work with a Democratic Congress. Bill Clinton didn't even have that, and that's why it was pretty hard for him to get things done. He's also going to nominate 2-3 Supreme Court Justices. We can't let a Republican take office and nominate even more conservatives to the Supreme Court, it will end up being extremely favored to the right. Roe V Wade can be overturned if McCain gets elected.
McCain wont do shit....but Roe V Wade needs to be overturned. it should be a state issue.
It's not about nominating conservatives or liberals to the supreme court, one just needs to be a strict contistionlist and most progressives and neocons are not
You're taking an ideal approach to the Supreme Court situation. Do you really want to leave it up each State?
-
It's not about nominating conservatives or liberals to the supreme court, one just needs to be a strict contistionlist and most progressives and neocons are not
Word, this is exactly what I mean, all of these people who constantly have these ridiculous labels "well i am a centrist leaning but slight leftie" "well i think that you lefties are the cause of the social decline in this country, we need a strong right wing government" "well i think you are all wrong what we need is the liberals" "flaming liberals endanger the stability of this nation with their idiotic poliicies" "
Meanwhile the truth is that these ideologies stopped on having any signifance at the upper echelons of power a long time time ago. Like 123 has said there is no difference in the parties they should just merge, that's not exclusively an opinion on american politics it''s largely the same here, i can't speak on germany or holland but I am sure 123 can speak on that. These labels mean nothing because fundamentally they have shifted the goal posts, they no longer contest or argue about the fundamental principles of constitution, about rights, now it's about giant centralised bureaucracies where the state imposes mass control on all sectors of an individuals life. Instead of addressing these major issues, the argument turns to who can manage this the best. It's no longer about civil liberties being shitted on, the argument instead moves to "addressing the flaws" it's no longer about the wrongfulness of means testing, instead it's petty disagreements about where the threshhold should be. It's not about having a military which protects this nation and who should not be used outside of that scope, it's about an argument over which invasion best serves our "national interests" .
What M Dogg is saying though, relects entirely the double think which has been indoctrinated into so many of the populous. For example oh you are against the military being used to wage aggression on other nations, you are for upholding the constitution, you complain about a police state, you complain about the state of the borders, you are angry at the state of the economy, oh you are angry about complete centralised government control, you are an extremist. I wonder how much longer it is before these clowns then add to that, why are you for the constitution, don't you want to be free?
-
LOL It's not wise to follow the Constitution in a strict manner. Times change.
-
What's the difference between having the same extreme politics, and being ideologically similar?
People like Ron Paul should be praised for actually looking to make a change, as opposed to the usual politics of the two big parties. You can be sure the change won't come from Obama; we should be glad there's actually some people out there willing to stick out their necks. Or, to put it in a familiar context: within a few years, you guys will feel either deceived by your candidates who promised change, or you'll stick your heads in the sand like "Real" American. So go ahead, and blame Ron Paul for being different. Yeah, fuck having people who actually express their true visions through democracy, instead of being a bunch of yes-men! Ron Paul should be banned from the campaign! ::) :grumpy:
I praise Ron Paul for what he's done. Props to him and his followers.
The polices in the last 8 years have been heavily favored to the neo-conservatives, apart from the last two. Obama can't bring an extreme change, but you can't deny that he'll have a strong impact in domestic polices. Why? Well he's going to be able to work with a Democratic Congress. Bill Clinton didn't even have that, and that's why it was pretty hard for him to get things done. He's also going to nominate 2-3 Supreme Court Justices. We can't let a Republican take office and nominate even more conservatives to the Supreme Court, it will end up being extremely favored to the right. Roe V Wade can be overturned if McCain gets elected.
McCain wont do shit....but Roe V Wade needs to be overturned. it should be a state issue.
It's not about nominating conservatives or liberals to the supreme court, one just needs to be a strict contistionlist and most progressives and neocons are not
You're taking an ideal approach to the Supreme Court situation. Do you really want to leave it up each State?
well I'm pro-life but abortion should be handled at a local level, the federal government shouldn't be the enforcer. Just like many other shit.
-
LOL It's not wise to follow the Constitution in a strict manner. Times change.
Why is that? This country was founded on that principle, and many politicians say that we should be strict. There the ultimate papers of democracy and freedom. The founders of whom were one of the smartest people advised us to be strict to the document. We have been drifting further away from it ever since its creation, and look at whats happening in this country slowly but surely.
-
What's the difference between having the same extreme politics, and being ideologically similar?
People like Ron Paul should be praised for actually looking to make a change, as opposed to the usual politics of the two big parties. You can be sure the change won't come from Obama; we should be glad there's actually some people out there willing to stick out their necks. Or, to put it in a familiar context: within a few years, you guys will feel either deceived by your candidates who promised change, or you'll stick your heads in the sand like "Real" American. So go ahead, and blame Ron Paul for being different. Yeah, fuck having people who actually express their true visions through democracy, instead of being a bunch of yes-men! Ron Paul should be banned from the campaign! ::) :grumpy:
I praise Ron Paul for what he's done. Props to him and his followers.
The polices in the last 8 years have been heavily favored to the neo-conservatives, apart from the last two. Obama can't bring an extreme change, but you can't deny that he'll have a strong impact in domestic polices. Why? Well he's going to be able to work with a Democratic Congress. Bill Clinton didn't even have that, and that's why it was pretty hard for him to get things done. He's also going to nominate 2-3 Supreme Court Justices. We can't let a Republican take office and nominate even more conservatives to the Supreme Court, it will end up being extremely favored to the right. Roe V Wade can be overturned if McCain gets elected.
McCain wont do shit....but Roe V Wade needs to be overturned. it should be a state issue.
It's not about nominating conservatives or liberals to the supreme court, one just needs to be a strict contistionlist and most progressives and neocons are not
You're taking an ideal approach to the Supreme Court situation. Do you really want to leave it up each State?
well I'm pro-life but abortion should be handled at a local level, the federal government shouldn't be the enforcer. Just like many other shit.
It should be handled at the most local level period: the individual. The Federal government isn't forcing the young woman to have the abortion, it's just giving her the option to do so. A lot of States will take that right away, not because of Federal vs State but because of Religion.
-
LOL It's not wise to follow the Constitution in a strict manner. Times change.
Why is that? This country was founded on that principle, and many politicians say that we should be strict. There the ultimate papers of democracy and freedom. The founders of whom were one of the smartest people advised us to be strict to the document. We have been drifting further away from it ever since its creation, and look at whats happening in this country slowly but surely.
Times change.
-
LOL It's not wise to follow the Constitution in a strict manner. Times change.
Why is that? This country was founded on that principle, and many politicians say that we should be strict. There the ultimate papers of democracy and freedom. The founders of whom were one of the smartest people advised us to be strict to the document. We have been drifting further away from it ever since its creation, and look at whats happening in this country slowly but surely.
Times change.
It doesn't matter. If you look at the ideals and the fundamentals of liberty and freedom, those are timeless and the reason that this country was founded. That can never be outdated.
-
LOL It's not wise to follow the Constitution in a strict manner. Times change.
Why is that? This country was founded on that principle, and many politicians say that we should be strict. There the ultimate papers of democracy and freedom. The founders of whom were one of the smartest people advised us to be strict to the document. We have been drifting further away from it ever since its creation, and look at whats happening in this country slowly but surely.
Times change.
It doesn't matter. If you look at the ideals and the fundamentals of liberty and freedom, those are timeless and the reason that this country was founded. That can never be outdated.
yeah exactally, unless you want to become less free and more fascist..
and for abortion, states should retain jurisdiction, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. The ninth and tenth amendments to the US Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion and shouldn't be the rule maker. It's not all about religion. its an act of aggression towards a fetus which is alive, cant argue that.
-
LOL It's not wise to follow the Constitution in a strict manner. Times change.
Why is that? This country was founded on that principle, and many politicians say that we should be strict. There the ultimate papers of democracy and freedom. The founders of whom were one of the smartest people advised us to be strict to the document. We have been drifting further away from it ever since its creation, and look at whats happening in this country slowly but surely.
Times change.
It doesn't matter. If you look at the ideals and the fundamentals of liberty and freedom, those are timeless and the reason that this country was founded. That can never be outdated.
exactly.... M Dogg and Javi, do you guys support Bush? because he sure as hell had tried to change the constitution
M Dogg talking about Ron Paul has an "extreme" following
Huckabee wants to change constitution and is against abortion, you don't think motherfuckers following him are "extremists"? give me a fuckin break
this is why politics is disgusting, supposedly what's right and wrong will never end... or better yet fact and fiction
we're all being fucked in the end
-
M Dogg never stated that they are ideologically similar. He said, "Same extreme following, with the same extreme politics, just different sides of the extreme." Extreme isn't the right word there, but he's saying it's a similar small following just on the opposite side of the political spectrum.
Well he keeps saying that Ron Paul is Ralph Nader which is a stupid statement. He's also saying that Paul has dropped out, that he's a Libertarian, and that he stole people's money with no intent of running for the presidency. He also admits that nobody pays attention to him unless he mentions Ron Paul.
Even if you draw that parallel between Paul and Nader, it's still weak as hell and I could list 100 reasons why they aren't even remotely close to similar. Mdogg is just trying to smear Paul.
I tried to be civil at one time with debates with Ron Paul people. I have respect for him and MOST of his supporters, but when ya'all started saying things about Obama, like his pro-war when his the most anti-war president in the contest, that's when I was like, ok, if they want to distort the truth, let me do the same. You took Obama's words about national security and made it into his campaign platform. OF COURSE his going to say his going after Osama, what you want him to say, we invite him to dinner after he killed 3,000 Americans. Obama is for getting out of Iraq, and joining in on a UN occupation of Afganistan, and the capture of Osama Bin Laden. That's not being a hawk, that's being the man who wants to be commander and chef. But to hear you guys talk, it's as if Obama will bomb every Middle Eastern country outside Israel.
Straight up, you guys are annoying. I post some pro-Obama stuff, the same way you post your pro-Ron Paul stuff, and either it's ignored or you guys start dissing Obama, saying when are you going to wake up. REALIZE, I BEEN UP. I've supported Obama since he started, I have been a liberal for as long as I can remember, and his the first candidate I can honestly say I am not compromising my politics supporting him. You smear Obama, I smear Paul, that's how this works now.
Oh, and how Paul and Nader are simular. Both were ideal candidates, neither had an honest shot at winning the presidency. Pauls main objective is to move the Republican party more to the right, the same as Nader wanted to move the Dems more to the left, or risk having some votes taken (which happened), and honestly, Paul is so far right, and Nader so far left that they both actually have simular policies. On a side note, the Reform Party, or the Republican Party of crack with such great politicans as Pat Buchanan and Ross Parol as their nominees in the past, nominated Ralph Nader in 2004, so that shows you how easy Nader's views can fit in the right, just like Paul's anti-war, keep peoples lives private fits the left.
-
I guess it's getting hard for people to understand, so let me sum it up like this.
The Constitution is a bit vague to be taken strictly. That's why the Founding Fathers didn't write the Constitution in stone. When did Bush try to change the constitution? Oh yeah that's right, he used it as a political stunt to get the Southern idiots to vote for him.
-
Paul is so far right, and Nader so far left that they both actually have simular policies.
LOL... this guy has lost it
-
Paul is so far right, and Nader so far left that they both actually have simular policies.
LOL... this guy has lost it
I pointed out some simularities. I know for the most part they are different, but then again, both are anti-war, both are isolationist, and both don't have many supporters over 30.
-
Paul is so far right, and Nader so far left that they both actually have simular policies.
LOL... this guy has lost it
I pointed out some simularities. I know for the most part they are different, but then again, both are anti-war, both are isolationist, and both don't have many supporters over 30.
They're both isolationist... yeah so many similar policies.. you're right.. lol.. and lol @ you using that last one as an example of a similar policy.
By the way, it's spelled SIMILAR... and there's a difference between HE'S & HIS... aren't you in fucking college?
-
Paul is so far right, and Nader so far left that they both actually have simular policies.
LOL... this guy has lost it
I pointed out some simularities. I know for the most part they are different, but then again, both are anti-war, both are isolationist, and both don't have many supporters over 30.
They're both isolationist... yeah so many similar policies.. you're right.. lol.. and lol @ you using that last one as an example of a similar policy.
By the way, it's spelled SIMILAR... and there's a difference between HE'S & HIS... aren't you in fucking college?
graduated ;D
-
Paul is so far right, and Nader so far left that they both actually have simular policies.
LOL... this guy has lost it
I pointed out some simularities. I know for the most part they are different, but then again, both are anti-war, both are isolationist, and both don't have many supporters over 30.
They're both isolationist... yeah so many similar policies.. you're right.. lol.. and lol @ you using that last one as an example of a similar policy.
By the way, it's spelled SIMILAR... and there's a difference between HE'S & HIS... aren't you in fucking college?
graduated ;D
Well at least you can always use yourself as a good indication/example of our failing education system.
Here you go... enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/v/AMqJvhmD5Yg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMqJvhmD5Yg)
-
Word, this is exactly what I mean, all of these people who constantly have these ridiculous labels "well i am a centrist leaning but slight leftie" "well i think that you lefties are the cause of the social decline in this country, we need a strong right wing government" "well i think you are all wrong what we need is the liberals" "flaming liberals endanger the stability of this nation with their idiotic poliicies" "
Meanwhile the truth is that these ideologies stopped on having any signifance at the upper echelons of power a long time time ago. Like 123 has said there is no difference in the parties they should just merge, that's not exclusively an opinion on american politics it''s largely the same here, i can't speak on germany or holland but I am sure 123 can speak on that. These labels mean nothing because fundamentally they have shifted the goal posts, they no longer contest or argue about the fundamental principles of constitution, about rights, now it's about giant centralised bureaucracies where the state imposes mass control on all sectors of an individuals life.
I can't speak for Germany, because honestly I wouldn't even know what kind of coalition they have, but as for the Netherlands... The political parties don't differ much, yet the population is torn into two camps: you're either pro (muslim) immigration, or you're against it. That seems to be the only political issue that really counts right now. ALL BUT ONE of the traditional parties in the parliament (there's like 8 of them) are more or less pro immigration and integration, and they reject the gut feelings of the people and the views which say the islam might not be so great a mixture with the progressive nature of the Dutch culture and the huge load of unwritten rules that naturally evolve with our freedom. There's homosexuals getting beaten for walking hand in hand in Amsterdam, and there's ghetto-like practises evolving in the poor areas of all major cities. The one traditional party who's for zero tolerance is the "People's Party of Freedom and Democracy" (the right winged non-conservative liberals), and basically they only do so because in the past few years two of their most important members have left the party to start parties of their own. These two new parties together are now bigger than any other party. Verdonk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rita_Verdonk) and Wilders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders) both preach strong conservativeness towards integration and immigration, the latter being especially outspoken and harsh. He basically found a way to trick the media into generating hypes around him, so no matter what kind of stupid remarks he might make, it'll be picked up and it'll become a major issue among the voters and the politicians. The traditional liberals couldn't stay behind (their electorate is now only a third of what it was in 1998), so they're starting to pick up on these issues. It's a battle they can't win though, as long as Wilders keeps making remarks and manages to stay relevant through the media. You may have heard about his plans on making an anti-Qur'an movie... He's looking to write history by instigating something that'll combine the Danish cartoon controversy and the murder of Theo van Gogh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_%28film_director%29). That's how the Dutch political system works: you say some shit, and the people will vote. You stir up bad vibes among the people, and it'll prove to be a self fulfilling prophecy.
Either way, populism is big, and the differences between most parties is only in nuance. With integration being such an important issue, the political parties who take on extreme viewpoints do best. Yet, at the end of the day, it is the less outspoken parties who always get to form the cabinet and govern the country.
It has to be said though; the Dutch people have always been rather united in their viewpoints. There's little debate on how income taxes should be dealt with, there's little debate on the importance of the welfare state, health care, etc. The only things that seem to differ, concern moral issues. How do we deal with the 'pornification', binge drinking, integration and young offenders, etc. How much tax money should be invested in health care, and how should it be put to use? It seems like there is no fundamental debate - either that, or we've been tricked into believing that everyone else agrees.
-
Thanks for clarifying 123 oh and props JML that video clips from George Carlin is so poignant I watched it once before and it perfectly illustrates the point
You can't just get "The Al Quaida" in Pakistan without invading Pakistan! an invasion means a war and yet you are protesting about Obama being seen as a Hawk!.
You are protesting about Obama being pro war when he wants to expand the troop presence in Afghanistan.
You can't talk about getting the islamic militants when islamic militants are being used against Iran, funding by the CIA and the Saudis.
I guess they hand out degrees like food stamps these days!
-
props JML that video clips from George Carlin is so poignant I watched it once before and it perfectly illustrates the point
George Carlin is one of the realest motherfuckers alive... hilarious too.
-
That's for sure, I don't always agree with his viewpoint but he certainly presents a very funny alternate view.
-
You smear Obama, I smear Paul, that's how this works now.
Kain is 100% on point,this place is a "Fuckery"
-
"its called the American dream, because you have to be asleep to get it", quote of the day, dope video