NationStates Jolt Archive

If you are an American vote for this man.

Heres who he is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Feingold

He impressed me with regard to PATRIOT (twice), I'll give him that, and he's taken a courageous stance against the subjugation of Iraq.

If he wins the nomination he just may get my vote in 2008, instead of more left-wing parties.

If you are an American vote for this man.

Heres who he is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Feingold
*fights to restrain his laughter at the utter absurdity of this*

Feingold is an idiot, pure and simple. He thinks the Patriot Act attacks our civil liberties and all that liberal bullshit. While it is true it was somewhat misworded in a couple instances giving it a wee bit too much power, those instances were fixed recently and thus the Patriot Act does exactly what it needs to do without endangering us. Feingold, however, being the dumbshit he is, still thinks it's unconstitutional. I would be unpleasently surprised if he was reelected next term.

So, no, don't vote for him. Try finding someone actually decent.

Feingold is an idiot, pure and simple. He thinks the Patriot Act attacks our civil liberties and all that liberal bullshit.

No, no, it just lets our trustworthy government, which never lies to us, never distorts facts, never tortures, never detains with charge, never wiretaps with warrant, never demonstrates incompetence and stupidity, go about its business capturing dangerous Islamic terrorists.

Right?

No, no, it just lets our trustworthy government, which never lies to us, never distorts facts, never tortures, never detains with charge, never wiretaps with warrant, never demonstrates incompetence and stupidity, go about its business capturing dangerous Islamic terrorists.

Right?
Blaming the Patriot Act for the illegalities of this administration is horridly unfair. They're going beyond the constraints of the Patriot Act like all other laws. The Patriot Act does not give them THAT much power. Do some research on it.

No, he's a protectionist and that automatically removes him from my consideration. Protectionism is a dead ideology that has been proven a failiure, and the last thing we need is someone willing to take away the American consumer's power to choose the best product; that would reduce our standard of living, hurt our economy, and cause inflation.

We need to make ourselves more competitive, not hide behind artificial walls, and I seriously doubt Feingold's commitment to our economic strength and growth if he advocates protectionist ideas .

*fights to restrain his laughter at the utter absurdity of this*

Feingold is an idiot, pure and simple. He thinks the Patriot Act attacks our civil liberties and all that liberal bullshit. While it is true it was somewhat misworded in a couple instances giving it a wee bit too much power, those instances were fixed recently and thus the Patriot Act does exactly what it needs to do without endangering us. Feingold, however, being the dumbshit he is, still thinks it's unconstitutional. I would be unpleasently surprised if he was reelected next term.

So, no, don't vote for him. Try finding someone actually decent.


Wow... you guys are on a whole different level of hypocricy Huh?



"Is an idiot."

G. W. Bush. I know its been said, but i'll say it again.


Patriot act IS an attack on your liberties and the only reason republican red-neck assholes like certain people here arent bitching about it is cos they havnt said "Yukyukyuk...duuuuhh no guns."

NRA founded same day KKK disbanded.
Nuff said.

Blaming the Patriot Act for the illegalities of this administration is horridly unfair. They're going beyond the constraints of the Patriot Act like all other laws. The Patriot Act does not give them THAT much power. Do some research on it.

The point is that they are not trustworthy, and anything that gives them more power to abuse my rights and my privacy is not something I can support.

Try finding someone actually decent.

yeah, like a fascist or something

The point is that they are not trustworthy, and anything that gives them more power to abuse my rights and my privacy is not something I can support.
I can certainly understand where you're coming from. But again, I urge you to do more research. It doesn't make civil liberties easier to abuse as much as people think. Further, most of the issues that many people--myself included--protested against have been reworded.

That said, I too find myself trying to decide if supporting the Patriot Act with the current administration in power is a good idea or not. Perhaps when Bush is impeached it'll be safer in the eyes of many.

Wow... you guys are on a whole different level of hypocricy Huh?



"Is an idiot."

G. W. Bush. I know its been said, but i'll say it again.


Patriot act IS an attack on your liberties and the only reason republican red-neck assholes like certain people here arent bitching about it is cos they havnt said "Yukyukyuk...duuuuhh no guns."

NRA founded same day KKK disbanded.
Nuff said.
...

Methinks you need to educate yourself lest you embarrass yourself more than you already have.

Feingold would have my vote for President based on almost every one of his stances, with one strong exception: free trade v. protectionism. If he didn't have the position there that he has - I'd vote for him. As it is....I would find it very hard to cast a ballot for someone who subscribes to a shortsighted, narrow-viewed, defunct economic ideology like protectionism.

Feingold would have my vote for President based on almost every one of his stances, with one strong exception: free trade v. protectionism. If he didn't have the position there that he has - I'd vote for him. As it is....I would find it very hard to cast a ballot for someone who subscribes to a shortsighted, narrow-viewed, defunct economic ideology like protectionism.

My understanding is that free trade is best when your on top, that so long as you've got the big companies centered in your nation than it is in your interest to promote free trade. However, if many of the big companies relocated to say China or India over the next ten years, wouldn't protectionism be the best bet?

*fights to restrain his laughter at the utter absurdity of this*

Feingold is an idiot, pure and simple. He thinks the Patriot Act attacks our civil liberties and all that liberal bullshit.
I see you have an unbiased and unpartisan view of the matter.

We need to make ourselves more competitive, not hide behind artificial walls, and I seriously doubt Feingold's commitment to our economic strength and growth if he advocates protectionist ideas .
Agreed. He’s probably just going for votes in the automobile and other industries.
My understanding is that free trade is best when your on top, that so long as you've got the big companies centered in your nation than it is in your interest to promote free trade. However, if many of the big companies relocated to say China or India over the next ten years, wouldn't protectionism be the best bet?
First, those companies are not going to relocate to a country where their assets could easily be seized. They will utilize labor from those countries, sure.

Second, your statements are only true if you exist merely to see your own nations dominance. I don’t see the world that way.

My understanding is that free trade is best when your on top, that so long as you've got the big companies centered in your nation than it is in your interest to promote free trade. However, if many of the big companies relocated to say China or India over the next ten years, wouldn't protectionism be the best bet?

Absolutely not. If you import more than you export, then imposing protectionism would drive up prices and reduce employment, weakening economic growth; also, the nations you impose tariffs on would retaliate, making the situation that many times worse. If anything, the only way you can get away with tariffs is through being the most powerful nation; if you're not, you will be utterly ruined economically if you try and isolate yourself.

China and India are investing in the US at an increasingly faster and larger rate, which means more jobs for Americans along with lower prices. The strongest job growth since the 1960's was realized during a period of economic liberalization in the US (the 90's); interestingly enough, the strong growth of the 1960's also coincided with the implementation of the first GATT in the 1950's.

Agreed. He’s probably just going for votes in the automobile and other industries.

He's pandering to the UAW, who has shown time and again they have neither the interests of their rank-and-file members nor that of the larger economy in mind when they advocate their policies.

As unfortunate as union job losses are, they have to realize that the benefits they are guaranteed are simply not sustainable and that they were greedy and too demanding at times in the past and were given benefits they neither deserved nor could be guaranteed. Otherwise, the companies will collapse and all of the things they gained will be annihilated.

yeah, like a fascist or something

Been there, done that, we're getting sick of him already. :p

Feingold, except for his protectionism, looks like a good candidate to me. I can deal with protectionism if it means a good strong social liberal in office.

I see you have an unbiased and unpartisan view of the matter.
It's impossible to be unbiased about anything, really, no matter how much one fools themselves.

It's impossible to be unbiased about anything, really, no matter how much one fools themselves.

However, it is possible to be more or less biased.

However, it is possible to be more or less biased.
That goes without saying. =/

I HEART Russ.

That goes without saying. =/

I'm just saying it because most of the time when someone is pointing at how absolute unbiasedness is impossible to atain, they are merely trying to justify being a raving partisan.

I'm just saying it because most of the time when someone is pointing at how absolute unbiasedness is impossible to atain, they are merely trying to justify being a raving partisan.
True. And I'm not being a raving partisan here in this instance. I just never liked Feingold and think he's an idiot. I think the same of many Republicans. Especially Delay. Now THERE'S a complete dumbass.

It's impossible to be unbiased about anything, really, no matter how much one fools themselves.
Though, why should your opinion count if you wouldn't vote not Republican in the first place?

NRA founded same day KKK disbanded.
Nuff said.

While I agree with you that the Patriot Act is an attack on our civil liberties, and if Feingold weren't protectionist I'd vote for him, I have to address this. Are you trying to imply that the NRA supposedly picked up where the KKK left off?

The NRA actively opposed attempts by the Ku Klux Klan to disarm southern blacks. Many southern NRA chapters consisted entirely of freedmen.

I'm aware that a lot of posters here don't accept the Wikipedia as a source, but the idea that the NRA and KKK are in any way linked is absurd.

My understanding is that free trade is best when your on top, that so long as you've got the big companies centered in your nation than it is in your interest to promote free trade. However, if many of the big companies relocated to say China or India over the next ten years, wouldn't protectionism be the best bet?

Whose best bet? For how long? By what standards? Sure, in fearful reaction to the loss of jobs to another, recently fast-growing but historically poverty-stricken nation, it may seem to be in your interests to favor protectionism, but this doesn't really make sense. Protectionism is a shortsighted attempted stopgap against progress and growth whose purpose is to protect a single nation from any change or upheaval in its economy via trade isolationism that prevents it and other nations from achieving true maximal productivity and success, and in the narrow interests of that nation only. Not to mention that it only works temporarily anyway.

It's a global market; we're not a collection of mercantile fiefdoms with government-mediated international trade anymore, where certain isolated areas are economic hotspots and others, by virtue of their self-enforcing isolation from wealth, trade, and growth, are left monetarily barren; the global economic paradigm is changing as a necessity of the ever-increasing growth of markets and production, information-age integration and communication, and appetite for resources. We've economically, if not unfortunately politically, outgrown nationalistic protectionism.