What if the election came down to...

CorporateWhore
CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
edited July 2007 in A Moving Train
Hillary Clinton vs. Ron Paul?

Would you still vote for Kucinich?

Would Ron Paul get the anti-war vote?
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13456

Comments

  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Combine the best of Ron and Dennis and bingo.

    Or Ron Paul with socialized health care.


    I totally skipped the question. It would be Ronnie over Chelsea's mom for me :D

    Kucinich needs to get angrier.
    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.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Eliot Rosewater
    Eliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Hillary Clinton vs. Ron Paul?

    Would you still vote for Kucinich?

    Would Ron Paul get the anti-war vote?
    If it came down to Clinton and Paul then I'm assuming the only way to vote Kucinich would be to write him in? If I'm writing anyone in it's gonna be the late great Kurt Vonnegut. His books alone could run this country better than most humans.

    I'm finding that if Paul is a constitutionalist, then maybe I don't really like our constitution. I just disagree with him on nearly every social issue and a lot of his views on civil liberties. I don't like Hillary AT ALL. But seriously, it's a way of getting Bill back in the white house and that can't be all that bad. At least the scandals will focus on fidelity rather than mass murder.
  • Rushlimbo
    Rushlimbo Posts: 832
    don't gimme no wrote:
    I don't like Hillary AT ALL. But seriously, it's a way of getting Bill back in the white house and that can't be all that bad. At least the scandals will focus on fidelity rather than mass murder.

    Very nice !!
    War is Peace
    Freedom is Slavery
    Ignorance is Strength
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    don't gimme no wrote:
    I'm finding that if Paul is a constitutionalist, then maybe I don't really like our constitution.

    You are not alone in this belief. Most liberals do not like our constitution. In fact, that would prefer a socialist one that guarantees that poor people have equality of outcome.

    Liberals have frequently refused to say these things because they know they will not get elected if they say them. But, make no mistake - liberalism does not believe in the constitution of the United States. It puts an ideological agenda that exists outside of rule of law before any consent of the governed. You don't like it? Well too bad!

    The constitution is one of the greatest achievements of mankind. If you don't like our constitution, you don't like this country either. The two go hand in hand.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • Eliot Rosewater
    Eliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    You are not alone in this belief. Most liberals do not like our constitution. In fact, that would prefer a socialist one that guarantees that poor people have equality of outcome.

    Liberals have frequently refused to say these things because they know they will not get elected if they say them. But, make no mistake - liberalism does not believe in the constitution of the United States. It puts an ideological agenda that exists outside of rule of law before any consent of the governed. You don't like it? Well too bad!

    The constitution is one of the greatest achievements of mankind. If you don't like our constitution, you don't like this country either. The two go hand in hand.
    Certainly you cannot directly relate the state of our country and the constitution. Good Lord, have you been paying attention?

    But since you mention it. I don't particularly like this country. Or at least what it's become. And I dread what it is further becoming. But I have a vote and I have a voice. I'm not going to flee the country. I'm going to do what I think is best for my fellow Americans.
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    i would still vote for kucinich.

    while i like the majority of what paul says i don't like his vision of a dog eat dog world...seems kinda like he wants to bring us back to feudalism or what john jay was talking about "those who own this country ought to govern it."

    only those w/ $ and power have a say
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • blackredyellow
    blackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    Definitely Paul... While his view of the "dog eat dog world" as El mentioned is a bit too far to me, with congress he will never get that far. I just think that we need someone like Paul to come in and basically clean house as far as government goes.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    I'd write Kucinich in most definitely...my ideals are faaaar from that of a libertarian. The most important issues out there for me are ones where I find myself in direct conflict with Ron Paul except for the war. But even with his foreign policy, he's against the UN...and I'm not on board with that either. And the whole John Birch Society stuff is kinda creepy....it's like republicans on steroids or something. No thanks. :p

    Paul's good for his war stance and that's all for me.

    Kucinich matches my views better than any politician I've ever seen.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    blackredyellow wrote:
    Definitely Paul... While his view of the "dog eat dog world" as El mentioned is a bit too far to me, with congress he will never get that far. I just think that we need someone like Paul to come in and basically clean house as far as government goes.

    With Dems in office we'd stand a better chance of getting things done with Kucinich than we would Paul. I can't see to many of Paul's ideas working when it's more than just him calling the shots. With Dennis, I think we'd have a strong shot at UHC, education reform and some good environmental policies.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • blackredyellow
    blackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    With Dems in office we'd stand a better chance of getting things done with Kucinich than we would Paul. I can't see to many of Paul's ideas working when it's more than just him calling the shots. With Dennis, I think we'd have a strong shot at UHC, education reform and some good environmental policies.

    I'm not totally as far as Kucinich is at politically, but I do like his ideas. My thinking is that if he were elected, we would just put another layer of government ideas, programs and laws (albeit better ones) on top of years and years of terrible, half-assed or just poorly planed programs and ideas. In my perfect world, I would like to have Paul come in for 4 years and just freakin' clean house, then I would be ok with someone like Kucinich coming in and sort of rebuilding our priorities.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    blackredyellow wrote:
    I'm not totally as far as Kucinich is at politically, but I do like his ideas. My thinking is that if he were elected, we would just put another layer of government ideas, programs and laws (albeit better ones) on top of years and years of terrible, half-assed or just poorly planed programs and ideas. In my perfect world, I would like to have Paul come in for 4 years and just freakin' clean house, then I would be ok with someone like Kucinich coming in and sort of rebuilding our priorities.


    I think that a lot of harm could be done in four years ...especially if it includes tearing down some of our govt programs and safety nets that we desperately need and actually need to make stronger.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Eliot Rosewater
    Eliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    I think that a lot of harm could be done in four years ...especially if it includes tearing down some of our govt programs and safety nets that we desperately need and actually need to make stronger.
    I agree...and especially with this pathetic congress we've got.
  • slightofjeff
    slightofjeff Posts: 7,762
    I would probably try to drown myself in a river.

    In fact, I might do that anyway.
    everybody wants the most they can possibly get
    for the least they could possibly do
  • Rushlimbo
    Rushlimbo Posts: 832
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    You are not alone in this belief. Most liberals do not like our constitution. In fact, that would prefer a socialist one that guarantees that poor people have equality of outcome.

    Liberals have frequently refused to say these things because they know they will not get elected if they say them. But, make no mistake - liberalism does not believe in the constitution of the United States. It puts an ideological agenda that exists outside of rule of law before any consent of the governed. You don't like it? Well too bad!

    The constitution is one of the greatest achievements of mankind. If you don't like our constitution, you don't like this country either. The two go hand in hand.

    I guess Bush is a liberal by your idiotic definition. Do you really believe "liberals" do not believe in the constitution? I guess the ACLU is supported by neocons. Do some reading while you are in college.
    War is Peace
    Freedom is Slavery
    Ignorance is Strength
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    Rushlimbo wrote:
    I guess Bush is a liberal by your idiotic definition. Do you really believe "liberals" do not believe in the constitution? I guess the ACLU is supported by neocons. Do some reading while you are in college.

    Bush IS a liberal!!!!!!!!!

    Did you not read my LBJ vs. Bush post?

    Liberals do not respect the constitution because the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause DO NOT give congress the authority to make laws on every aspect of our lives. That is not how the framers intended the constitution to be read.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    slightofjeff wrote:
    I would probably try to drown myself in a river.

    In fact, I might do that anyway.

    lol...
    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.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • LoveRock333
    LoveRock333 Posts: 59
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    You are not alone in this belief. Most liberals do not like our constitution. In fact, that would prefer a socialist one that guarantees that poor people have equality of outcome.

    Liberals have frequently refused to say these things because they know they will not get elected if they say them. But, make no mistake - liberalism does not believe in the constitution of the United States. It puts an ideological agenda that exists outside of rule of law before any consent of the governed. You don't like it? Well too bad!

    The constitution is one of the greatest achievements of mankind. If you don't like our constitution, you don't like this country either. The two go hand in hand.


    Ever hear of change for the better? I recall a certain Adolf Hitler saying similar things about his regime.
    -Defender of the faithless-

    "Hallowed are the Ori"

    http://www.freewebs.com/alnkirk - it ain't shabby!
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Bush IS a liberal!!!!!!!!!

    Did you not read my LBJ vs. Bush post?

    Liberals do not respect the constitution because the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause DO NOT give congress the authority to make laws on every aspect of our lives. That is not how the framers intended the constitution to be read.


    yeah...it's just liberals who make needless laws limiting our personal freedoms riiiiiiiiight :rolleyes:

    reagan?
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    LoveRock333 wrote:
    Ever hear of change for the better? I recall a certain Adolf Hitler saying similar things about his regime.

    Here, here.

    Some changes can be for the better...what a concept! Some act as if time just stands still in the same set of circumstances forever and ever...everyone one has the same opportunity, bullshit.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    LoveRock333 wrote:
    Ever hear of change for the better? I recall a certain Adolf Hitler saying similar things about his regime.

    The bedrock of Liberalism! Trot out a Hitler reference and say that conservatives want to bring us back to the stoneages - then you can get whatever "progressive" change you want!

    It's not that simple, friend. Americans are conservatives, by and large, and they respect the tenets of the constitution.

    If anything, the nanny state that liberals support is more similar to the totalitarian actions of Hitler.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell

Categories