Down the middle?
tkepearljamn
Posts: 581
Anyone else here fairly down the middle? I have followed the caucuses closely for both parties. I would be happy with candidates from both sides as the United States leader. Is that right or wrong to do? I'm 24. I have many friends that are going down the same avenue that I am with this. Im trying to figure out if it is just me or other people too.
Also:
Does it scare you that the Nomination for either party is going to have a VP that is the #2 or #3 for its' party? Like 2 people that don't like one another? i.e. Obama/Clinton or vice versa and a McCain/Romney or vice-versa?
Also:
Does it scare you that the Nomination for either party is going to have a VP that is the #2 or #3 for its' party? Like 2 people that don't like one another? i.e. Obama/Clinton or vice versa and a McCain/Romney or vice-versa?
07-02-98, 10-11-00, 04-22-03, 04-23-03, 06-09-03, 06-10-03, 06-18-03, 06-21-03, 06-22-03, 10-02-04, 10-03-04, 10-05-04, 05-16-06, 05-17-06, 05-22-06, 06-24-06, 06-29-06
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I don't pick sides, because there is no such thing in politics....especially US politics.
I was 100% for Kucinich, then realized he really didn't have much of a chance after the UFO story hit. Then I favored Gravel, but realized he was too out there, and again does not stand a chance. Then I clearly realized Ron Paul is the next best people's choice. Party affiliation is an illusion. The message and the integrity of person giving it is paramount above all else.
We have yet to see how it unfolds, worst case scenario is it coming down to Obama and Hillary, because Obama, although he talks a good game, does not have enough smarts on his own to really be truthful to what he is saying. He's been to the Aipac rallies, waving the Pom Poms shaking the hands that feed him like a good lap dog. He's in bed with the institution, and his supporters either don't see it or care either way. He's similar to shit with perfume sprayed on it. Hillary is Bush with ovaries...she'll do nothing except carry on the Bush torch.
The US is in more of a predicament then it's citizens realize, and everyone is far too casual about it. No fire...no guts. Hillary will get elected, it's all going to go down with a whimper, then years of complaining after the fact.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Politics is politics. Ron Paul does tell it as it should be. But, There are too many people that won't elect him. We have to pick a lesser of an evil unfortunately. Hopefully, It's somebody that stands for what they believe or is a fresh person in dc that can carry a nation.
:rolleyes:
you don't pick sides when it comes to US politics? then what's with the dozens upon dozens of threads/posts that you've made supporting Ron Paul? or is it just that being a Canadian you can't actually pick sides?
also, you need to realize that just because you don't like Obama that doesn't give you the right to make up stuff about him or about the people that may support him. so take off your tin-foil hat and maybe you'll be able to get a glmpse at reality
to the OP, there's nothing wrong with going with the candidate that most closely represents your views....no matter their party.
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Maybe you didn't pay attention when I said who I supported and in what order. It was truthful regardless of your interpretation.
Obama @ Aipac rallies smiles and handshakes, present and giving pro Zionist speeches. That's enough for me. Should be for you as well if you understand how things really work.
If you don't know what I know, you can't effectively criticize me. Knowledge is power.
You can try though.
I suggest you take a good strong look at Obama and Aipac and get back to me.
It should take you a few days of research.
edit: and you should drop the being Canadian, tinfoil hat thing, it only makes your arguments essentially useless, and as though like you're some kind of jlew wannabe/follower, and that's pretty sad. Herd mentality....try some originality.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
maybe because in the 100's of threads and posts that you have made to support Ron Paul you never mentioned that you supported Kucinich or Gravel (or if you did no one bothers to read your going on and on about your hard-on for Ron Paul)
nearly all politcians address aipac meetings. the speech that Obama made was NOT pro-zionist. it's funny how when posted that speech you cut out this part: We can and we should help Israelis and Palestinians both fulfill their national goals: two states living side by side in peace and security. Both the Israeli and Palestinian people have suffered from the failure to achieve this goal. The United States should leave no stone unturned in working to make that goal a reality.
and from his website:
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Obama will make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a key diplomatic priority. He will make a sustained push – working with Israelis and Palestinians – to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security
oh i do know that what you think you know is a lot of bullcrap so i can effectivly critisize you. you just seem to be of the mistaken impression that you know more than others.
I read the Obama speech to that Aipac meeting long ago. it didn't take days for anyone to do that.
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Kucinich or Gravel never got the media momentum or support RP has, and I've posted Gravel vids, and Kucinich stuff, before Paul, it's just that they have no legs and the numbers in fact support it. Common sense perception is required here.
Obama has an undying love for Israel. Read between the lines.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odNYQd4XK20
Here's some nice Zionist Obama quotes
"That effort begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: Our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. "That will always be my starting point."
And calling for sustained military support to Israel, Obama said: "We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs."
So he's either hes dead stupid, or the full story is not being told here.
which is it?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Do the math. He's essentially saying the US should be keeping the pressure and intervention going in the region.
In this vid the very beginning, and the very end are the best parts. (Especially the end after listening to Obama's stance on Iran). There it is right there. That's Barack, that's what you're going to get n a nutshell. All options are on the table including nuclear war - Obama
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=744030378520608209&q=obama+aipac&total=31&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3
Shows how far from reality we have all been led astray.
If he isn't declaring himself outright anti, then you can bet your ass he's pro.
And he's saying yes to pro Israel, yes pro military, yes pro military defense plans, yes pro all options are on the table. That means nuclear war is an option for him! That's fucking crazy talk....
Where's the guesswork here????
The guy is a puppet, when push comes to shove he folds under pressure and obeys the military plan/route.
If RP gave a pro zionist speech at an AIPAC rally talking seriously about nuclear war as a viable option, I'd dump him like piece of shit faster than yesterday.
I mean ...seriously....
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Straight from his AIPAC speech the prism apparently knows all about
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
why is he pro zionist for supporting Israel? and I'm glad he is pro defense. makes no sense for me (you know, as an American) to support someone who's not. and with Iran I definitely want someone who has a pair of balls. Iran does support terrorism and all options should be on the table. easy with your nuclear war propaganda. your a joke. and your wet dream of wishing you were american is getting old. I think I am now leaning towards voting for Obama.
and prism is right. you never once said you supported kookynich or gravel. and have only leaned one way this entire process.
just pick the candidate that you most closely agree with on specific issues. dont let which party he/she is in matter.
If that's your take on the situation go for it vote for him you'll get it. Better yet vote Hillary you'll get even bigger balls, hers plus Bills. 2 for 1.
It just amazes me that Obama says nuclear war is on the table as an option against Iran and people are like..oh yeah man...he's so like...anti war.
The guy condones the use of pre-emptive nuclear strikes, and people are like...oh well .. nuke away...not even raising an eyebrow.
You want to know the joke?...that's the joke. You're welcome to it. pony up to the ballot box.
I wouldn't trade my citizenship for anything southern anytime soon. I go overseas first.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
pre-empitve nuclear strikes? you have officially lost your mind.
You don't follow the news at very well it seems. I can't even believe you don't know that, yet accuse me in a derogatory manner. That's just ridiculous.
Interesting how I've only ever promoted candidates that might actually serve to move your country into a more peaceful era, and all I get from you is endless hatred, and resentment.
Pretty interesting how that is eh? Pretty telling as well.
If you want to continually place yourself under a microscope and hang a flashing sign over your head with an arrow, that's your prerogative.
Be my guest, you have to live in it more than I do.
I've set forward why I like the candidates I have promoted and have always said favorable things about (Gravel, Kucinich, and Paul)
If that pisses you off, hey....good luck to you....you're your own worst enemy and you haven't a clue why. Keep driving home that American stereo type, you seem to do it like no other.
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20080122081822696
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=161775
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053.html
I could post dozens more mainstream links.. It's been a while now...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Bullshit posturing.
I post legitimate information. Instead of refuting it with proof, or some kind of insight, it goes straight to ongoing personal attack, so I educate the guy again, and again, and again.
Same situation over and over.
What exactly is bullshit posturing? I'm posting factual articles, and information which is all verifiable.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
oh c'mon man....reread your posts in this thread (hell, this post - you didn't have to add the "so I educate the guy again and again" part). I dont' know who starts it more...but you guys both do it
The bullshit posturing is these five countries saying they want nukes on the table (not any of what you're saying...but I do think you're overreacting to this a bit, scary as it is). They're just flexing their muscles. Who would be crazy enough to nuke a country that had terrorists with WMD? Even without retaliation, the world would fall apart at the seams if ANYONE nuked ANYONE. They know this...MAD is alive and well....maybe not from all out nuclear war/winter...but it would completely destabillize every aspect of the world as we know it.
This manifesto sounds on par with all the other changes made to broaden the definition of 'enemy'. Anything that does this on a domestic or personal level is worth fighting...but with nukes? Can you think of a single situation where it would be viable? It would be suicide...
My original point was. Obama said he supported" all military option are on the table", and this is interpreted to include nukes especially as there have been grumblings about using them dating back to 2005. All options on the table is Bush speak.
If someone says they are an antiwar candidate and they are saying they're not against using nuclear force something is not jiving. I would think an antiwar candidate would outright proclaim he was definitely against using nuclear force as an option.
Don't you think? All military options are on the table, but I'm against using them? Then why say they're on the table in the first place? It sends the wrong message altogether.
I shine a flashlight on situations when it's due. call it posturing...debating....proving a point... however you want to see it.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
says you? just because roland the great posts something on a message board doesnt make something fact.. understand this? you are interpreting something that fits your agenda.
It's a general concensus by many, but anyway... regardless, if you were (an intelligent) and true antiwar candidate, would you leave youself open to interpretation that you would use nuclear force and definitely consider it a viable response to an already fragile situation?
That would be incredibly stupid and irresponsible now wouldn't it?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
something is not a general consensus when you're one of the very few that can't/doesn't comprehend reality.
from his website on foreign policy issues:
Iran
The Problem: Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust. But Obama believes that we have NOT exhausted our NON-military options in confronting this threat; in many ways, we have yet to try them. That's why Obama stood up to the Bush administration's warnings of war, just like he stood up to the war in Iraq.
Opposed Bush-Cheney Saber Rattling: Obama opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which says we should use our military presence in Iraq to counter the threat from Iran. Obama believes that it was reckless for Congress to give George Bush any justification to extend the Iraq War or to attack Iran. Obama also introduced a resolution in the Senate declaring that no act of Congress – including Kyl-Lieberman – gives the Bush administration authorization to attack Iran.
Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.
(now I personally do not support the WTO, but i can see where diplomatically it's needs to be open to all countries that want to be involved)
Nuclear Weapons
A Record of Results: The gravest danger to the American people is the threat of a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon and the spread of nuclear weapons to dangerous regimes. Obama has taken bipartisan action to secure nuclear weapons and materials:
He joined Senator Dick Lugar in passing a law to help the United States and our allies detect and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world.
He joined Senator Chuck Hagel to introduce a bill that seeks to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, and stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
And while other candidates have insisted that we should threaten to drop nuclear bombs on terrorist training camps, Obama believes that we must talk openly about nuclear weapons – because the best way to keep America safe is not to threaten terrorists with nuclear weapons, it's to keep nuclear weapons away from terrorists.
Secure Loose Nuclear Materials from Terrorists: Obama will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years. While we work to secure existing stockpiles of nuclear material, Obama will negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material. This will deny terrorists the ability to steal or buy loose nuclear materials.
Strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: Obama will crack down on nuclear proliferation by strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions.
Toward a Nuclear Free World: Obama will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But he will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. He will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate- range missiles so that the agreement is global.
you still going to insist that Obama is looking to drop nukes on Iran?
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
i know that you are not telling the full on story because you took that out of context and that speech is not pro-zionist. also from that speech:
We can and we should help Israelis and Palestinians both fulfill their national goals: two states living side by side in peace and security. Both the Israeli and Palestinian people have suffered from the failure to achieve this goal. The United States should leave no stone unturned in working to make that goal a reality.
how is working towards a two state solution pro-zionist?
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
I never said he was looking for it, just that he has been quoted fully supporting Israel and openly promoting providing military aid to them. Israel commits some brutal acts and Obama supports this as well by unconditionally providing support to Israel as a staunch ally. He should realize that. He certainly knows about it what goes on with the Palestinians.
He isn't exactly speaking against anything by offering full military support and financial aid for them to carry on as per usual. He could be a lot more resembling of a humanitarian stance there to say the least. So yeah, that's a red flag. Also when you say all military options are on the table, it not exactly a peaceful anti-war sentiment, especially when everyone is talking nuclear. Rather foolish for an ant-war guy to get his wires crossed up like that.
This isn't a stretch by any means to say there is some cause for legitimate concern there from a self proclaimed ambassador of peace.
Somethings missing from the picture.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
That's the thing. He says that, and then turns around and says he will provide full military aid to Israel, and that Israel's security is the main priority above all else.
Does he even realize what is taking place there?
I know he does.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
he does not say that israel's sercurity is the main priority above all else. those are YOUR words.
what Obama said does not imply that he favors using military force or dropping nukes on Iran. you might just want to read his words that were already posted in post #25
also when Obama said that in regards to Iran that "all options are on the table" he did not say "all military options are on the table" once again those are YOUR words. your twisting around the things that candidates actually say to suit your agenda just makes YOU look like a tool...a very dull tool at that.
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
prism, you are giving a great effort here. for those of us with common sense we can clearly see what you posted and understand what obama has said. roland creates his own reality and lives in it. thanks for posting though and proving him wrong. time and time again.
What do you mean by "anti-war" candidate? Why would anybody vote for a candidate who came out and said he was against war under any circumstances?
And the point of having nuclear weapons is that you DON'T have to use them. They kind of lose their scariness when you have a leader saying, "Yeah we have them. But don't worry. We'll never use them ever."
for the least they could possibly do