Okay, you don't like any mainstream candidates, that's very indie of you. I don't think though that if ANY of the mainstreamers win that "we're in deep trouble".
well, when it comes down to it, the tv is going to tell us who to choose from. we know how it works - campaign financiers with the big money will only support candidates who will be good to big business, and likewise with the mainstream media outlets. and since most people in this country do what the tv tells them, we'll be looking at either clinton, obama, or guiliani to lead us through the next war on iran, while we set up permanent shop in iraq, and continue to lose our liberties at home.
I agree w/ a lot of what Ron Paul says, but how anyone on the left can support him w/ his gun control policy is a mind fuck to me.
you're going to allow one issue like gun control stop you from supporting paul, and in turn, support one of the more popular globalist war mongers? how does that make sense? do you really think personal gun ownership is that big a problem?? more so than our foriegn policy? or our ecomonic policies? or our education system? and with the way things are going in this country, i can sympathize with gun owners wanting to protect themselves rather than relying on the gov't or the increasingly taser-happy police to do it.
i don't think that shunning a candidate just because one of his policies doesn't fall in line with your party's beliefs is very productive. the whole left-right paradigm is over done in my opinion, and is only a tool used to both divide us and to give us the false illusion of choice when it comes to elections.
i'm more a fan of popular bands.. like the bee-gees, pearl jam
you're going to allow one issue like gun control stop you from supporting paul, and in turn, support one of the more popular globalist war mongers?
Just because someone is a mainstream candidate doesn't make them a "globalist war monger". I'm not voting for Paul because I believe in what Barack Obama is doing. I've worked with him and know he is as genuine as they come in the political world. What you see is what you get with him. People read too much into a mainstream candidate and assume like you do.
Just because someone is a mainstream candidate doesn't make them a "globalist war monger". I'm not voting for Paul because I believe in what Barack Obama is doing. I've worked with him and know he is as genuine as they come in the political world. What you see is what you get with him. People read too much into a mainstream candidate and assume like you do.
obama certainly comes off as a globalist war monger type, maybe with a slightly gentler facade. but it's all there: he's in favor of, to paraphrase, pursuing our enemies and promoting our values worldwide ; creating a "pax americana" (which is neo-conese for bomb! bomb! bomb!); speaking of which, he's in favor of pre-emptive military action in iran and pakistan; he's kissed the behind of AIPAC, so we know he'll support israel no matter what; etc..
that's what i see with obama. but i'd like to see something different in '08, not more of the same with some pretty new face on it.
i'm more a fan of popular bands.. like the bee-gees, pearl jam
and they will be sworn in on 1-20-09 as the President and Vice-President of the U.S.A.
Write it down.
Gauranteed.
my2hands has made his official prediction :cool:
this is one exciting time in America... at least on the Democrat's side... a black man... a woman... a latino... a Senator from Delaware ... outspoken peace candidates that are ahead of their time...
Of course the Republicans are coming to the party with the same old white men they usually come with... perhaps they dont realize that the majority of the country is either a woman or a minority... oh well, too bad for them and their 18th century agenda...
waddya folks think? either side?... and dont just say who you support... because the guy i am voting for has no chance it appears (Dennis Kucinich)
I saying there is no chance of this happening, first Edwards won't run as VP again, second I don't think Obama and John see eye to eye, I'm thinking a midwest or southern running mate is guarrenteed, but it won't be Edwards. I don't think Obama is seen as midwest either, so his choice will be interesting if he get's the nomination.
Hillary isn't even close to being finished. Curious to see if Dem's really want change (Obama) or that comfortable old friend (Hillary).
I also don't believe that Hillary is what the Republican's want to run against, they'll attack her, and it will backfire. Not sure how they will run against Obama, maybe the lack of experience, nieve, etc...
"Music, for me, was fucking heroin." eV (nothing Ed has said is more true for me personally than this quote)
I saying there is no chance of this happening, first Edwards won't run as VP again, second I don't think Obama and John see eye to eye, I'm thinking a midwest or southern running mate is guarrenteed, but it won't be Edwards. I don't think Obama is seen as midwest either, so his choice will be interesting if he get's the nomination.
Hillary isn't even close to being finished. Curious to see if Dem's really want change (Obama) or that comfortable old friend (Hillary).
I also don't believe that Hillary is what the Republican's want to run against, they'll attack her, and it will backfire. Not sure how they will run against Obama, maybe the lack of experience, nieve, etc...
there's a large percentage of dems that won't vote for a woman and won't vote for a black man. when it comes to the general election; they'll vote to keep either out.
I don't know if hardcore Democrats can see it or not, but Ron Paul is smashing the credibility of mainstream politics altogether. It won't matter if Hilliary or Obama make it into office, the people will see more of the same shit that has been happening for 100 years. 2008 may go to a Democrat, but Ron Paul's successes thus far means that the mainstream political class is losing its grip.
Are there realy people out there so misguided as to think "the right of THE PEOPLE to bear arms" is a "collective" right and not a INDIVIDUAL right?
And don't give me this crap about a militia.
Just because you throw out the bath water doesnt mean you throw out the baby too.
We are supposed to have
a. no standing armies in times of peace
b. STATE militias, not a federal army
therefore, given that NEITHER of those holds true no more (regardless of the fact that the constitution insists that they should), we ABOSLUTELY need INDIVIDUAL gun ownership rights ...
In the absense of STATE run militias ... armies run by, in the best interest of, and held accountable ONLY to the state and its people (but run under resriction of the constitution) .. in the ABSENSE of such protection of peoples rights, individual gun ownership becomes even MORE important.
In case some folks missed the message of our founding fathers, it was DO NOT TRUST YOUR GOVERNMENT.
Trust only in your individual rights and duties, and lay claim to them by WHATEVER means necessary.
Be that dumping tea in a harbor, or offing some redcoat as he rides through your town ... but be not afraid of confrontation and armed revolt ... and NEVER surrender your INALIENABLE rights!
CERTAINLY not to the fucking federal government.
So again,
who are these people on the left that believe such things?
The products of a federaly regulated educational authority?
That's fucked up. When I started reading this post, my computer started playing the theme to Deliverance and it spit chewing tobacco at me.
1/12/1879, 4/8/1156, 2/6/1977, who gives a shit, ...
That's fucked up. When I started reading this post, my computer started playing the theme to Deliverance and it spit chewing tobacco at me.
Its ok to be scared man, "they" want you to live in fear and you are not alone. Just don't hang too hard onto the hope that Obama or Clinton are any different...
Am getting really curious to see what happens on Dec 16.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Its ok to be scared man, "they" want you to live in fear and you are not alone. Just don't hang too hard onto the hope that Obama or Clinton are any different...
I'm sure I'll get by. All the patriotism and flag-waving that you yanks do is a bit much for this guy.
1/12/1879, 4/8/1156, 2/6/1977, who gives a shit, ...
there's a large percentage of dems that won't vote for a woman and won't vote for a black man. when it comes to the general election; they'll vote to keep either out.
no, their is a minority or possibly a small majority of republicans that will not vote for a women or black man, but I doubt there are a majority of dem's that wouldn't.
as for the general election, unless the Dem's completely frack it up, they'll win the whitehouse, more senate seats (so far 6 republican senators are retiring), and more seats in the house. Bush's plan that got press today about keeping 100k plus troops in iraq ongoing, while the iraqi government will give American corporations preference on contracts in iraq. That'll go over well, alone with the failing economy, the poor and middle class are about to be hit real hard by this.
Loving Scott McClellan for telling the truth about the white house cover up of the plame leak.
"Music, for me, was fucking heroin." eV (nothing Ed has said is more true for me personally than this quote)
That's fucked up. When I started reading this post, my computer started playing the theme to Deliverance and it spit chewing tobacco at me.
Perfect example of how ignorance and intolerance are working to keep even "enlightened" folks in shakles, and ultimately bringing about the death of the once great America.
Heaven forbid someone want to stand up and protect what were decreed to them as natural born, godgiven, inalieanble rights ... only a halfwit readneck would want to do that!
:rolleyes:
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Perfect example of how ignorance and intolerance are working to keep even "enlightened" folks in shakles, and ultimately bringing about the death of the once great America.
Heaven forbid someone want to stand up and protect what were decreed to them as natural born, godgiven, inalieanble rights ... only a halfwit readneck would want to do that!
:rolleyes:
Who decreed these god-given rights and are these god-given rights dated at all? The devout defence of the second ammendment is everything that is wrong with America today. Take a leap into the 1900s at least.
1/12/1879, 4/8/1156, 2/6/1977, who gives a shit, ...
I saying there is no chance of this happening, first Edwards won't run as VP again, second I don't think Obama and John see eye to eye, I'm thinking a midwest or southern running mate is guarrenteed, but it won't be Edwards. I don't think Obama is seen as midwest either, so his choice will be interesting if he get's the nomination.
Hillary isn't even close to being finished. Curious to see if Dem's really want change (Obama) or that comfortable old friend (Hillary).
I also don't believe that Hillary is what the Republican's want to run against, they'll attack her, and it will backfire. Not sure how they will run against Obama, maybe the lack of experience, nieve, etc...
If I'm the Republicans I would keep doing what they are doing---making it seem as if Hillary is the handsdown candidate to win. Why would they do that? A recent poll shows Hillary losing to EVERY Republican frontrunner. If she wins the primary it's only going to get worse. This is a change election and she is not the candidate to run.
If I'm the Republicans I would keep doing what they are doing---making it seem as if Hillary is the handsdown candidate to win. Why would they do that? A recent poll shows Hillary losing to EVERY Republican frontrunner. If she wins the primary it's only going to get worse. This is a change election and she is not the candidate to run.
see that is where i think different from most people. i don't think that this is a change election. viewing from outside of america, what i see is still a country that is still split. sure the war is viewed very much the same by most people. social issues are still the same. there is a big gap between the right and left. if thi swas a change election, Ron Paul would win the rep. nomination (he is not) and dennis would win the dem. nomination (he is not).
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
Who decreed these god-given rights and are these god-given rights dated at all? The devout defence of the second ammendment is everything that is wrong with America today. Take a leap into the 1900s at least.
Declaration of Independence, dated 7-4-1776
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
In contrast,
i believe the idiotic willingness to relinquish any and all rights thats politicians see fit, is what is wrong with America.
Ok. Why don't we jump to the 1900s and just surrender to some Nazis and get it over with.
What is your problem with civil liberty and the right to personal freedom?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
see that is where i think different from most people. i don't think that this is a change election. viewing from outside of america, what i see is still a country that is still split. sure the war is viewed very much the same by most people. social issues are still the same. there is a big gap between the right and left. if thi swas a change election, Ron Paul would win the rep. nomination (he is not) and dennis would win the dem. nomination (he is not).
I think it's very much a change election. The last two Presidents have been one who was impeached and one who should have been, and for the first time since 1956 there is no sitting President or former Vice President running for President.
A change for Kucinich or Paul would be a culture change, not a political change. Because they don't stand a chance doesn't mean this isn't a change election.
I think it's very much a change election. The last two Presidents have been one who was impeached and one who should have been, and for the first time since 1956 there is no sitting President or former Vice President running for President.
A change for Kucinich or Paul would be a culture change, not a political change. Because they don't stand a chance doesn't mean this isn't a change election.
what then would you say a "change election" means? is it just that a president ot vice presedent is not running?
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
I think it's very much a change election. The last two Presidents have been one who was impeached and one who should have been, and for the first time since 1956 there is no sitting President or former Vice President running for President.
A change for Kucinich or Paul would be a culture change, not a political change. Because they don't stand a chance doesn't mean this isn't a change election.
what then would you say a "change election" means? is it just that a president ot vice presedent is not running?
I think people want a change of someone who is fairly new to DC and outside of the current ring of corruption that have made the headlines for the last 10 years.
I think people want a change of someone who is fairly new to DC and outside of the current ring of corruption that have made the headlines for the last 10 years.
I understand that. the problem that i see is that if you get someone who is "new" to DC there is going to be issues of experience. see Obama.
if you get someone not "new" to DC you get someone who is intrenched in the system. see Clinton, and alot of the rep.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
Okay, you don't like any mainstream candidates, that's very indie of you. I don't think though that if ANY of the mainstreamers win that "we're in deep trouble".
I agree w/ a lot of what Ron Paul says, but how anyone on the left can support him w/ his gun control policy is a mind fuck to me.
and let's not forget his staunchly anti-reproductive choice stance. i wouldn't vote for him strictly based on that.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
People are far more likely to be civil libertarians than capital "L" Libertarians. Most people hate the IRS, most people hate government regulation, but most people, when they look deeper into it, don't really want to get rid of either.
It's a lot like Communism. Sure it looks good on paper, but......
true enough, but i don't see Ron Paul winning anything.
Why is that exactly?
I'm curious as to why so many have written him off?
Unlike other candidates, his poll numbers and financial numbers are RISING, and he actualy has visible support via signs and bumper stickers.
The other candidates seem to be treading water or in decline from a numbers standpoint (aside from huckabee), and they are all seeing their campaign contributions ($$$) decline.
Yet Ron Paul is on the march?
What in those indicators gives you the impression he doesn't have a chance?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Comments
well, when it comes down to it, the tv is going to tell us who to choose from. we know how it works - campaign financiers with the big money will only support candidates who will be good to big business, and likewise with the mainstream media outlets. and since most people in this country do what the tv tells them, we'll be looking at either clinton, obama, or guiliani to lead us through the next war on iran, while we set up permanent shop in iraq, and continue to lose our liberties at home.
you're going to allow one issue like gun control stop you from supporting paul, and in turn, support one of the more popular globalist war mongers? how does that make sense? do you really think personal gun ownership is that big a problem?? more so than our foriegn policy? or our ecomonic policies? or our education system? and with the way things are going in this country, i can sympathize with gun owners wanting to protect themselves rather than relying on the gov't or the increasingly taser-happy police to do it.
i don't think that shunning a candidate just because one of his policies doesn't fall in line with your party's beliefs is very productive. the whole left-right paradigm is over done in my opinion, and is only a tool used to both divide us and to give us the false illusion of choice when it comes to elections.
Just because someone is a mainstream candidate doesn't make them a "globalist war monger". I'm not voting for Paul because I believe in what Barack Obama is doing. I've worked with him and know he is as genuine as they come in the political world. What you see is what you get with him. People read too much into a mainstream candidate and assume like you do.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
obama certainly comes off as a globalist war monger type, maybe with a slightly gentler facade. but it's all there: he's in favor of, to paraphrase, pursuing our enemies and promoting our values worldwide ; creating a "pax americana" (which is neo-conese for bomb! bomb! bomb!); speaking of which, he's in favor of pre-emptive military action in iran and pakistan; he's kissed the behind of AIPAC, so we know he'll support israel no matter what; etc..
that's what i see with obama. but i'd like to see something different in '08, not more of the same with some pretty new face on it.
I saying there is no chance of this happening, first Edwards won't run as VP again, second I don't think Obama and John see eye to eye, I'm thinking a midwest or southern running mate is guarrenteed, but it won't be Edwards. I don't think Obama is seen as midwest either, so his choice will be interesting if he get's the nomination.
Hillary isn't even close to being finished. Curious to see if Dem's really want change (Obama) or that comfortable old friend (Hillary).
I also don't believe that Hillary is what the Republican's want to run against, they'll attack her, and it will backfire. Not sure how they will run against Obama, maybe the lack of experience, nieve, etc...
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
there's a large percentage of dems that won't vote for a woman and won't vote for a black man. when it comes to the general election; they'll vote to keep either out.
The Republican machine better be careful, as it will be taken over by true conservatives if things don't straighten up.
You got to spend it all
You got to spend it all
That's fucked up. When I started reading this post, my computer started playing the theme to Deliverance and it spit chewing tobacco at me.
Its ok to be scared man, "they" want you to live in fear and you are not alone. Just don't hang too hard onto the hope that Obama or Clinton are any different...
You got to spend it all
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)
(")_(")
I'm sure I'll get by. All the patriotism and flag-waving that you yanks do is a bit much for this guy.
True patriotism means burning the flag if need be. That's what I do.
You got to spend it all
no, their is a minority or possibly a small majority of republicans that will not vote for a women or black man, but I doubt there are a majority of dem's that wouldn't.
as for the general election, unless the Dem's completely frack it up, they'll win the whitehouse, more senate seats (so far 6 republican senators are retiring), and more seats in the house. Bush's plan that got press today about keeping 100k plus troops in iraq ongoing, while the iraqi government will give American corporations preference on contracts in iraq. That'll go over well, alone with the failing economy, the poor and middle class are about to be hit real hard by this.
Loving Scott McClellan for telling the truth about the white house cover up of the plame leak.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
Perfect example of how ignorance and intolerance are working to keep even "enlightened" folks in shakles, and ultimately bringing about the death of the once great America.
Heaven forbid someone want to stand up and protect what were decreed to them as natural born, godgiven, inalieanble rights ... only a halfwit readneck would want to do that!
:rolleyes:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If I'm the Republicans I would keep doing what they are doing---making it seem as if Hillary is the handsdown candidate to win. Why would they do that? A recent poll shows Hillary losing to EVERY Republican frontrunner. If she wins the primary it's only going to get worse. This is a change election and she is not the candidate to run.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
see that is where i think different from most people. i don't think that this is a change election. viewing from outside of america, what i see is still a country that is still split. sure the war is viewed very much the same by most people. social issues are still the same. there is a big gap between the right and left. if thi swas a change election, Ron Paul would win the rep. nomination (he is not) and dennis would win the dem. nomination (he is not).
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
Declaration of Independence, dated 7-4-1776
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
In contrast,
i believe the idiotic willingness to relinquish any and all rights thats politicians see fit, is what is wrong with America.
Ok. Why don't we jump to the 1900s and just surrender to some Nazis and get it over with.
What is your problem with civil liberty and the right to personal freedom?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I think it's very much a change election. The last two Presidents have been one who was impeached and one who should have been, and for the first time since 1956 there is no sitting President or former Vice President running for President.
A change for Kucinich or Paul would be a culture change, not a political change. Because they don't stand a chance doesn't mean this isn't a change election.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
what then would you say a "change election" means? is it just that a president ot vice presedent is not running?
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
i agree...
I think people want a change of someone who is fairly new to DC and outside of the current ring of corruption that have made the headlines for the last 10 years.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
I understand that. the problem that i see is that if you get someone who is "new" to DC there is going to be issues of experience. see Obama.
if you get someone not "new" to DC you get someone who is intrenched in the system. see Clinton, and alot of the rep.
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
and Ron Paul?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
true enough, but i don't see Ron Paul winning anything.
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
and let's not forget his staunchly anti-reproductive choice stance. i wouldn't vote for him strictly based on that.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
It's a lot like Communism. Sure it looks good on paper, but......
Why is that exactly?
I'm curious as to why so many have written him off?
Unlike other candidates, his poll numbers and financial numbers are RISING, and he actualy has visible support via signs and bumper stickers.
The other candidates seem to be treading water or in decline from a numbers standpoint (aside from huckabee), and they are all seeing their campaign contributions ($$$) decline.
Yet Ron Paul is on the march?
What in those indicators gives you the impression he doesn't have a chance?
If I opened it now would you not understand?