NationStates Jolt Archive

The reason for the swap? The Kennedys.
As soon as the Kennedys voiced their support for Obama, I changed my mind. I can't bring myself to trust them. The name "Kennedy" reminds me of US invasion of Vietnam and the Pigs' Bay.

Meh.

The reason for the swap? The Kennedys.
As soon as the Kennedys voiced their support for Obama, I changed my mind. I can't bring myself to trust them. The name "Kennedy" reminds me of US invasion of Vietnam and the Pigs' Bay.

Meh.

Barack cant' decide who likes him.

Barack cant' decide who likes him.

He can't change his skin colour, so therefore I disagree with you. I was truly shocked when he lost California, I thought it was populated mainly by hippies and various coloured folk, why did they vote for the non black person?

He can't change his skin colour, so therefore I disagree with you. I was truly shocked when he lost California, I thought it was populated mainly by hippies and various coloured folk, why did they vote for the non black person?because his talk of change and hope is insubstantial. hope doesn't pay bills.

He can't change his skin colour, so therefore I disagree with you. I was truly shocked when he lost California, I thought it was populated mainly by hippies and various coloured folk, why did they vote for the non black person?

Hi! How are things back in 1968? :rolleyes:

Hi! How are things back in 1968? :rolleyes:

Indeed.

Hi! How are things back in 1968? :rolleyes:

He's a troll. My suggestion is liberal use of the I.G.N.O.R.E. cannon.

Barack cant' decide who likes him.

Maybe Mario Cuomo had the best idea for the Democratic Party - the Clinton/Obama ticket. Still, I don't see it coming.

Hillary wins: DP loses lots of afro-american votes (that could be decisive)
Obama wins: DP loses lots of centrist votes (that could be decisive, too)

:(

What a mess.

The reason for the swap? The Kennedys.
As soon as the Kennedys voiced their support for Obama, I changed my mind. I can't bring myself to trust them. The name "Kennedy" reminds me of US invasion of Vietnam and the Pigs' Bay.

Meh.

That's an odd reason. None of the Kennedys alive today are responsible for either Vietnam or the Bay of Pigs. Not to mention that Obama can't stop someone from endorsing him. Kennedy was also about to withdraw from Vietnam when he was assassinated

The reason for the swap? The Kennedys.
As soon as the Kennedys voiced their support for Obama, I changed my mind. I can't bring myself to trust them. The name "Kennedy" reminds me of US invasion of Vietnam and the Pigs' Bay.

Meh.

More Kennedys support Clinton (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kennedy29jan29,0,1618955.story).

Maybe you should make your decisions on something less shaky.

As long as you're not in the passenger seat, why does it matter what Ted Kennedy does? :p

The reason for the swap? The Kennedys.
As soon as the Kennedys voiced their support for Obama, I changed my mind. I can't bring myself to trust them. The name "Kennedy" reminds me of US invasion of Vietnam and the Pigs' Bay.

Meh.

So you are voting for pro-war candidate? :confused:

The reason for the swap? The Kennedys.
As soon as the Kennedys voiced their support for Obama, I changed my mind. I can't bring myself to trust them. The name "Kennedy" reminds me of US invasion of Vietnam and the Pigs' Bay.

Meh. uhmmm...
isn't Hillary also being 'supported' by the Kennedys?
More Kennedys support Clinton (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kennedy29jan29,0,1618955.story).

Maybe you should make your decisions on something less shaky. Maybe Risottia will move away from the Democratic party towards the Independants...

As long as you're not in the passenger seat, why does it matter what Ted Kennedy does? :p
and as long as you can swim...

Maybe Mario Cuomo had the best idea for the Democratic Party - the Clinton/Obama ticket. Still, I don't see it coming.

Hillary wins: DP loses lots of afro-american votes (that could be decisive)
Obama wins: DP loses lots of centrist votes (that could be decisive, too)

:(

What a mess.

Actually...if Obama gets the nomination, they gain independent, centrists, and a good portion of the Republican Vote. McCain is not that trusted among segments of the GOP.

The reason for the swap? The Kennedys.
As soon as the Kennedys voiced their support for Obama, I changed my mind. I can't bring myself to trust them. The name "Kennedy" reminds me of US invasion of Vietnam and the Pigs' Bay.

Meh.

in english the incident is know as "the bay of pigs".

mrs clinton is running an ad linking herself to robert kennedy who served in his brothers administration.

in english the incident is know as "the bay of pigs".

mrs clinton is running an ad linking herself to robert kennedy who served in his brothers administration.

As Attorney General if I remember right.

As Attorney General if I remember right.

yupyup

which was in my lifetime but i was far too young to remember him in the job.

Maybe Mario Cuomo had the best idea for the Democratic Party - the Clinton/Obama ticket. Still, I don't see it coming.

Hillary wins: DP loses lots of afro-american votes (that could be decisive)
Obama wins: DP loses lots of centrist votes (that could be decisive, too)

:(

What a mess.

Eh? You've got thqt 180 degrees ass ackwards. Obama pulls the centerists. Hell, nobody's talking about Clinton Republicans, while Obama Republicans are goping to possibly be the biggest thing since the Regan Democrats...

As long as you're not in the passenger seat, why does it matter what Ted Kennedy does? :p

:) Indeed. :::digs up lifegaurd Ted t-shirt:::

So you are voting for pro-war candidate? :confused:

Indeed so.

One, two, three, four,
I don't need Billary's dogdamned war!

Actually...if Obama gets the nomination, they gain independent, centrists, and a good portion of the Republican Vote. McCain is not that trusted among segments of the GOP.

And this is the double dutch argument against Billary. If the likes of Corny and me can agree to support Obama and oppose Billary, what does that say. And it doesn't stop there. The anti-Billary faction here is healthily diverse. The anti-Obama faction is small, seems to be based on the delusion that Billary can win the national race, and is (sad to say) IMHO based in part on rather bigoted ideas...

He can't change his skin colour, so therefore I disagree with you. I was truly shocked when he lost California, I thought it was populated mainly by hippies and various coloured folk, why did they vote for the non black person?

It's populated by Hispanics.

The reason for the swap? The Kennedys.
As soon as the Kennedys voiced their support for Obama, I changed my mind. I can't bring myself to trust them. The name "Kennedy" reminds me of US invasion of Vietnam and the Pigs' Bay.

Meh.Hillary handed out Diploma's in Berlin's Kennedy School. There, now they're both associated with the Kennedys.

More Kennedys support Clinton (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kennedy29jan29,0,1618955.story).

Maybe you should make your decisions on something less shaky.
Quite a bag of tricks you have there CTOAN? It would appear that you will go to any length to support your man?

Quite a bag of tricks you have there CTOAN? It would appear that you will go to any length to support your man?
o_O

He... made three members of the Kennedy family support Clinton and write about it in the LAT?

Or, wait, no, he made Risottia say he didn't like a candidate because he was supported by two members of the Kennedy family?

He sneakily introduced the "post link" button to NSG?

It must have been something like that, judging from your post.

Maybe Mario Cuomo had the best idea for the Democratic Party - the Clinton/Obama ticket. Still, I don't see it coming.

Hillary wins: DP loses lots of afro-american votes (that could be decisive)
Obama wins: DP loses lots of centrist votes (that could be decisive, too)

:(

What a mess.

You truly think centrists are going to vote for Hillary? Pretty much all polls show Obama with broad support amongst Independents and Moderates. I agree that the moderates are very important, but I disagree they will vote for Hillary. She's the most polarizing figure next to GWB. I don't think she has must crossover appeal.

More Kennedys support Clinton (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kennedy29jan29,0,1618955.story).

Maybe you should make your decisions on something less shaky.

You beat me to the punch on this one.

o_O

He... made three members of the Kennedy family support Clinton and write about it in the LAT?

Or, wait, no, he made Risottia say he didn't like a candidate because he was supported by two members of the Kennedy family?

He sneakily introduced the "post link" button to NSG?

It must have been something like that, judging from your post.

Exactly! CH are you feeling well lately? You seemed to have lost your edge in debates.

And your willing to ignore facts and logical thinking and valid arguements people make in order to support your tranny.

Wow, I think tranny is a little harsh.

Quite a bag of tricks you have there CTOAN? It would appear that you will go to any length to support your man?



And your willing to ignore facts and logical thinking and valid arguements people make in order to support your tranny.

And your willing to ignore facts and logical thinking and valid arguements people make in order to support your tranny.

Its CH. It happens to him when he can't win an argument.

The reason for the swap? The Kennedys.
As soon as the Kennedys voiced their support for Obama, I changed my mind. I can't bring myself to trust them. The name "Kennedy" reminds me of US invasion of Vietnam and the Pigs' Bay.

That's a really awful basis for changing your mind about a candidate.

As long as you're not in the passenger seat, why does it matter what Ted Kennedy does? :p

[/thread]

The reason for the swap? The Kennedys.
As soon as the Kennedys voiced their support for Obama, I changed my mind. I can't bring myself to trust them. The name "Kennedy" reminds me of US invasion of Vietnam and the Pigs' Bay.

Meh.

In English it's known as the Bay of Pigs, and it has everything to do with what Dulles planned under Eisenhower. Dulles was, in a lot of ways, like Hoover, invincible in Washington, because of how long he'd been around, and how much power he'd managed to accrue around himself. The only reason Kennedy was able to organize the balls and influence to get rid of him was because of Bay of Pigs.

As to Vietnam, the US didn't invade Vietnam. Our aid was requested by an ally, and we responded. In fact, the only people who did any invading of anything were the North Vietnamese.

But, never mind that these events happened 45 years ago, and were carried out by people who have been dead for almost that long.

As to Vietnam, the US didn't invade Vietnam. Our aid was requested by an ally, and we responded. In fact, the only people who did any invading of anything were the North Vietnamese.


Well...we were propping up a brutal militray dictatorship to stop the spread of ebil communism because we were working on the "domino theory" which is probably the stupidest fucking thing ever. But thats an aside.


However, under Kennedy we just had military advisors and he actually watnted to pull them out. After he was assassinated, Johnson (who had always wanted to go into nam full force and that was a major source of disagreement between them) sent in the boots.

Well...we were propping up a brutal militray dictatorship to stop the spread of ebil communism because we were working on the "domino theory" which is probably the stupidest fucking thing ever. But thats an aside.


However, under Kennedy we just had military advisors and he actually watnted to pull them out. After he was assassinated, Johnson (who had always wanted to go into nam full force and that was a major source of disagreement between them) sent in the boots.

Johnson didn't want to go in, either. However, he also didn't want to go down in history books as the one who "lost" Viet Nam. So, he sent in the boots, and the rest, as they say, is history.

I should add that South Viet Nam was a brutal civilian dictatorship (not that that's much better) when JFK was in office, and, brutal as Diem was, the North was much worse.

Interesting fact: Under Diem's rule, corruption was punishable by death. How's that for irony? :p

Quite a bag of tricks you have there CTOAN? It would appear that you will go to any length to support your man?

Wow, dude, you have fucking lost it.

Both candidates are supported by Kennedys, and pointing that out makes me a 'at any lengths' Obama supporter? Seriously, man, you've gone off the fucking rails. I haven't seen this kind of self delusion in fucking Bush supporters. Get a grip, dude.

Johnson didn't want to go in, either. However, he also didn't want to go down in history books as the one who "lost" Viet Nam. So, he sent in the boots, and the rest, as they say, is history.



See, Ive read different, but I suppose thats something we will never know, so Ill just drop it now...

Wow, dude, you have fucking lost it.

Both candidates are supported by Kennedys, and pointing that out makes me a 'at any lengths' Obama supporter? Seriously, man, you've gone off the fucking rails. I haven't seen this kind of self delusion in fucking Bush supporters. Get a grip, dude.

Clearly.

Just like reality has a liberal bias, it apparently has an Obama bias as well. ;)

Wow, dude, you have fucking lost it.

Both candidates are supported by Kennedys, and pointing that out makes me a 'at any lengths' Obama supporter? Seriously, man, you've gone off the fucking rails. I haven't seen this kind of self delusion in fucking Bush supporters. Get a grip, dude.

i'm kinda hoping its all just some sort of elaborate work of performance art

Meh. The only Kennedys I care about are the Dead ones. Like Jello Biafra and East Bay Ray :p

Clearly.

Just like reality has a liberal bias, it apparently has an Obama bias as well. ;)

lol

Well...we were propping up a brutal militray dictatorship to stop the spread of ebil communism because we were working on the "domino theory" which is probably the stupidest fucking thing ever. But thats an aside.


However, under Kennedy we just had military advisors and he actually watnted to pull them out. After he was assassinated, Johnson (who had always wanted to go into nam full force and that was a major source of disagreement between them) sent in the boots.

Given what happened in South Vietnam after the North finally succeeded in 1975, I'd say that supporting the brutal civilian dictatorship in South Vietnam wasn't that morally repugnant.

That the US government went about it all wrong is entirely true, but the justification is not half bad.

Meh. The only Kennedys I care about are the Dead ones. Like Jello Biafra and East Bay Ray :p

Quality.


Of course, now I have California Uber Ales stuck in my head.



...because that's the only DK song I know...

The reason for the swap? The Kennedys.
As soon as the Kennedys voiced their support for Obama, I changed my mind. I can't bring myself to trust them. The name "Kennedy" reminds me of US invasion of Vietnam and the Pigs' Bay.

Meh.

Such a fallacy. And do you also know that Clinton is supported by a Kennedy?

But, I must admit that this is the greatest argument against Obama I've seen since mid-January (and that argument was horrible, too).

Face it: Obama is the greatest choice for America no matter who supports (or doesn't support) him. If people vote not based on gender, race, and/or religion (even though Obama is Christian), then there is no doubt that Obama will win.

Such a fallacy. And do you also know that Clinton is supported by a Kennedy?

But, I must admit that this is the greatest argument against Obama I've seen since mid-January (and that argument was horrible, too).

Face it: Obama is the greatest choice for America no matter who supports (or doesn't support) him. If people vote not based on gender, race, and/or religion (even though Obama is Christian), then there is no doubt that Obama will win.

Whatever noob. I'm still voting Green.

Protest votes are nice symbolically but in practical terms they ultimately tend to have a Shot In The Foot effect, as can be seen from the Sunni withdrawal from the Iraqi political process or Hugo Chavez's opponents boycotting the last Venezuelan election.

Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

Whatever noob. I'm still voting Green.

Protest votes are nice symbolically but in practical terms they ultimately tend to have a Shot In The Foot effect, as can be seen from the Sunni withdrawal from the Iraqi political process or Hugo Chavez's opponents boycotting the last Venezuelan election.

Vote whatever. It's the United States of America, Bush is almost out of office, and you're not a soldier - you still have freedom of speech.

But, as long as you don't vote Hillary, then I'm OK.

I would stab myself in the eye before voting for Hillary. I have no problem complying with that!

Vote whatever. It's the United States of America, Bush is almost out of office, and you're not a soldier - you still have freedom of speech.

But, as long as you don't vote Hillary, then I'm OK.

Um soldiers can speak their minds on political matters just for your information. They just cannot do so while in uniform.

Whatever noob. I'm still voting Green.

Vote whatever. It's the United States of America, Bush is almost out of office, and you're not a soldier - you still have freedom of speech.

But, as long as you don't vote Hillary, then I'm OK.

And a protest vote is basically washing your hands of the mess and in practical terms doing nothing. The best possible outcome would be for Obama to be selected as the Presidential candidate. If anything he's the closest the Democratic Party has gotten to a true political outsider since Jimmy Carter.


Why oh why did you have to make that comparison?

Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

And a protest vote is basically washing your hands of the mess and in practical terms doing nothing. The best possible outcome would be for Obama to be selected as the Presidential candidate. If anything he's the closest the Democratic Party has gotten to a true political outsider since Jimmy Carter.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

And a protest vote is basically washing your hands of the mess and in practical terms doing nothing. The best possible outcome would be for Obama to be selected as the Presidential candidate. If anything he's the closest the Democratic Party has gotten to a true political outsider since Jimmy Carter.

That's sort of self-fulfilling, isn't it? If you convince every dissatisfied person that they can only chose between dissatisfaction and mild dissatisfaction instead of excercizing their alternatives then you doom people to dissatisfaction. It's only a wasted vote because we've convinced so many that don't want the limited choices that those are the only choices.

These aren't protest votes and it's unfair to paint them that way. They are votes for the choices truest to their beliefs. To dismiss that is to create an artificial dilemma, and the saddest thing is that we let it work.

Um soldiers can speak their minds on political matters just for your information. They just cannot do so while in uniform.

.

And a protest vote is basically washing your hands of the mess and in practical terms doing nothing. The best possible outcome would be for Obama to be selected as the Presidential candidate. If anything he's the closest the Democratic Party has gotten to a true political outsider since Jimmy Carter.

I'm sorry, but I'm not so keen on sacrificing what is right on the alter of political pragmatism.

I'm looking at the 2000 Election and the votes that could have gone to Gore instead draining off to Nader as a reminder of the harsh realtiies of United States politics. Until true solid Third Parties form in this country, giving away votes to a virtual non-contender is the equivalent of voting twice for the person you least want to win the election.

And you don't see how that reasoning essentially defeats any real chance for there to be a solid third/fourth party?

That's sort of self-fulfilling, isn't it? If you convince every dissatisfied person that they can only chose between dissatisfaction and mild dissatisfaction instead of excercizing their alternatives then you doom people to dissatisfaction. It's only a wasted vote because we've convinced so many that don't want the limited choices that those are the only choices.

These aren't protest votes and it's unfair to paint them that way. They are votes for the choices truest to their beliefs. To dismiss that is to create an artificial dilemma, and the saddest thing is that we let it work.

I'm looking at the 2000 Election and the votes that could have gone to Gore instead draining off to Nader as a reminder of the harsh realtiies of United States politics. Until true solid Third Parties form in this country, giving away votes to a virtual non-contender is the equivalent of voting twice for the person you least want to win the election.

And a protest vote is basically washing your hands of the mess and in practical terms doing nothing. The best possible outcome would be for Obama to be selected as the Presidential candidate. If anything he's the closest the Democratic Party has gotten to a true political outsider since Jimmy Carter.

and people wonder why AMERICA is stuck in a TWO party system. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, but I'm not so keen on sacrificing what is right on the alter of political pragmatism.

And I'm sure the country today is grateful for the Nader Voters who effectively cast two ballots for Dubya back in 2000.

Why oh why did you have to make that comparison?

Because like Carter, Obama is not a political insider whored to special interest. Worst case scenario if he does get elected President is he either gets mired down by politics trying to do what he feels is the right thing and he ends up burned out at the end of his term(s) in office. There's always 2012 if he doesn't do things even close to expectations.

It doesn't. Ross Perot proved there can be an opening shot for successful third parties, even if maintaining them currently is not a certain endeavor. All that's required is a freaking huge cold winter of discontent amongst the United States populace.

And you don't see how Ross Perot was the Ralph Nader of the 1992 election?

And I'm sure the country today is grateful for the Nader Voters who effectively cast two ballots for Dubya back in 2000.

I'm more concerned about the 58,000 African Americans illegally purged from the voting rolls in Florida, and the widespread election fraud. Face it: Nader had nothing to do with Bush winning. Corruption and creeping fascism did.

And you don't see how that reasoning essentially defeats any real chance for there to be a solid third/fourth party?

It doesn't. Ross Perot proved there can be an opening shot for successful third parties, even if maintaining them currently is not a certain endeavor. All that's required is a freaking huge cold winter of discontent amongst the United States populace.

I'm more concerned about the 58,000 African Americans illegally purged from the voting rolls in Florida, and the widespread election fraud. Face it: Nader had nothing to do with Bush winning. Corruption and creeping fascism did.

Bush actually won by a Supreme Court verdict of 5 to 4 to not recount the votes, and amazingly, each vote was designated towards policital party allignment, 5 Republicans and 4 Democrats. Which is why to this very day, Gore is still up at night, crying because he could have won if they recounted. ;)

Which means the problem is about election fraud. And how is casting a protest vote to someone who'll supposedly be disenfranchised by said corruption going to change things anyways?

Why does that in anyway means that I should trade one set of corporate whores for a set that promises to be a bit more gentle when it bends the American people over the table and has their way with us?

I'm more concerned about the 58,000 African Americans illegally purged from the voting rolls in Florida, and the widespread election fraud. Face it: Nader had nothing to do with Bush winning. Corruption and creeping fascism did.

Which means the problem is about election fraud. And how is casting a protest vote to someone who'll supposedly be disenfranchised by said corruption going to change things anyways?

Why does that in anyway means that I should trade one set of corporate whores for a set that promises to be a bit more gentle when it bends the American people over the table and has their way with us?

Because it means the people are awfully tolerant of the corporate whores or they enjoy being reamed instead of being pissed off to the point where they take action en masse. If that "Why don't they all rise up?" argument can be used to justify the treatment of Iraqis and Palestinians overseas, I don't see why such a similar observation should not be applied to the United States voter populace.

Because it means the people are awfully tolerant of the corporate whores or they enjoy being reamed instead of being pissed off to the point where they take action en masse. If that "Why don't they all rise up?" argument can be used to justify the treatment of Iraqis and Palestinians overseas, I don't see why such a similar observation should not be applied to the United States voter populace.

No, they don't bolt the Democratic Party because people like you guilt them into staying with stupid pronouncements like "a vote for a third party is 2 votes for the Republicans".

I have never, and will never use the "Why don't they all rise up" argument, so bringing it in here means nothing. You're only making the bankruptcy of your position more apparent.

No, they don't bolt the Democratic Party because people like you guilt them into staying with stupid pronouncements like "a vote for a third party is 2 votes for the Republicans".

I have never, and will never use the "Why don't they all rise up" argument, so bringing it in here means nothing. You're only making the bankruptcy of your position more apparent.

You're also assuming that a vast majority of registered Democrats actually don't want to be Democrats. You're playing into that Silent Majority hype that Ron Paul's campaign was running on. You're making it sound like there's more of them out there than there really are. And conversely, if there's such people in the Democratic Party, shouldn't there be some in the Republican Party as well? Or are you thinking that the only people going with the Democrats are Independents too scared to go on their own and the GOP is full of right-wing hiveminds?

You're also assuming that a vast majority of registered Democrats actually don't want to be Democrats. You're playing into that Silent Majority hype that Ron Paul's campaign was running on. You're making it sound like there's more of them out there than there really are. And conversely, if there's such people in the Democratic Party, shouldn't there be some in the Republican Party as well? Or are you thinking that the only people going with the Democrats are Independents too scared to go on their own and the GOP is full of right-wing hiveminds?

No, I'm saying that the Democratic Party's base is much further to the left than the Democratic Party, and would probably rather vote Green or Left independent (like Nader) because of this. But they rationalize away that "Oh my god, I have to keep supporting the party that continually betray's its base to corporate interests because if I bolt, the Republicans will win!"

No, I'm saying that the Democratic Party's base is much further to the left than the Democratic Party, and would probably rather vote Green or Left independent (like Nader) because of this. But they rationalize away that "Oh my god, I have to keep supporting the party that continually betray's its base to corporate interests because if I bolt, the Republicans will win!"

And given that until 2006, the Republicans having won consistently didn't encourage them to break out either.

And given that until 2006, the Republicans having won consistently didn't encourage them to break out either.

Because there is an understanding between the Democrats and Republicans. Their interests coincide quite often. Such an understanding does not exist (and likely will never exist) between the Republicans and the Greens or the Socialists. If the Democratic Party disintegrated, it is likely that a more radical party would come to prominence on the left.

The Republicans would have a hey day for a while. But not for long. Finding real opposition would mean an end to corporate dominated politics in America.

As long as you're not in the passenger seat, why does it matter what Ted Kennedy does? :p



That's hillarious!!!:p

because his talk of change and hope is insubstantial. hope doesn't pay bills.

No. It's cause he hasn't appealed to Hispanics and Asians enough.

People keep attacking his message of hope and unity, but that's how you win people over. Issues have NEVER won elections in the US. Look at the race of 1960: Kennedy won on TV because of his looks and stuff. Nixon won on the radio because of the issues.

because his talk of change and hope is insubstantial. hope doesn't pay bills.

Change does, though. If it's a substantial amount. :p

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Heh...waiting for Risottia and Canuckheaven to come back to the thread....:p

Heh...waiting for Risottia and Canuckheaven to come back to the thread....:p

CH seems to have taken to Corny's old run away on loosing...

CH seems to have taken to Corny's old run away on loosing...

Yep! LOL

The reason for the swap? The Kennedys.
As soon as the Kennedys voiced their support for Obama, I changed my mind. I can't bring myself to trust them. The name "Kennedy" reminds me of US invasion of Vietnam and the Pigs' Bay.

Meh.
:confused:
I've never understood basing who you would vote for based on who does or does not support a candidate; can't you make up your own mind?

:confused:
I've never understood basing who you would vote for based on who does or does not support a candidate; can't you make up your own mind?

well, suppose there was a candidate that had the vocal support of all the various nazi and fascist groups around. would you really be comfortable also supporting that candidate?

:confused:
I've never understood basing who you would vote for based on who does or does not support a candidate; can't you make up your own mind?

I think it can be a consideration. At the very least, if people you find to be extremely unsavory are supporting a candidate, that would be a reason to take a second look at them. For instance, if racist groups are supporting a candidate, why is that? If you can't really find anything, no big deal. If you can, it might make you rethink supporting that candidate.

For instance, if racist groups are supporting a candidate, why is that? If you can't really find anything, no big deal.

depends - i tend to assume organized racists actively supporting something means that they know something about it that i don't. even if it isn't immediately obvious, it seems to me that that merely means there is some subtext or coded language i am missing.

well, suppose there was a candidate that had the vocal support of all the various nazi and fascist groups around. would you really be comfortable also supporting that candidate?

Moot point, a candidate that I supported would not be supported neo-nazi's.

I started pro Ron Paul and now I'm pro Wayne Allen Root.:p

So, jump from one sinking racist ship to another?

well, suppose there was a candidate that had the vocal support of all the various nazi and fascist groups around. would you really be comfortable also supporting that candidate?



Like Ron Paul?:p

I started pro Ron Paul and now I'm pro Wayne Allen Root.:p

I'm pro Morbo

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/ewwwwgross/morbo.gif

Morbo: “Morbo will now introduce tonights candidates. Puny human number one, puny human number two and Morbo’s good friend Richard Nixon.”