NationStates Jolt Archive

Who do you want as president, I like Ron Paul but since i cant have him Huckabees ok

:(:(No funny option?:(:(

:(:(No funny option?:(:(
Ron Paul not funny enough for you?

Hilary's on there....

(budum psh!)

I suspect most people would see Ron Paul as the joke option.

None of the above.

The problem is that all of the stated options are jokes.

I like Ron Paul actually....

Huckabees my second option

:(:(No funny option?:(:(

Hilary's on there....

(budum psh!)

Dear United States,
Please vote for Obama.

Yours truly,
The World

Who do you want as president

Who do you want? This should be stated in your OP... something to get discussion actually started....

Maybe we should change the question to: What is the most funny option?

I voted Ron Paul (partially because his name was first and therefore I did not have to exhaust myself by clicking another option wich requires more movement from my cursor and my arm.)

I suspect most people would see Ron Paul as the joke option.

Hilary was my first thought, so I went for it.

Me.

TSI '08

If Obama doesn't get the nomination, I will give up on democracy.

On Topic: Ron Paul is the joke option.

No one, and I have no plans for voting for any of them or any other future person.

Who do you want as president, I like Ron Paul but since i cant have him Huckabees ok

You forgot Wayne Allyn Root. I'll vote for him if he is on the ballot in Oklahoma. http://www.rootforamerica.com/

And if he isn't vote for someone else but will not vote for McCain, Clinton, or Obama. This is the first time in my life that we will have two Democrat candidates running for President on different tickets.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/Celtlund/Clintonism.jpg

Obama, but for the joke option, i'd say Ron paul. He isn't going to win in a national election. He's a racist homophobe.

He dislikes non-white gay people especially?

Obama, but for the joke option, i'd say Ron paul. He isn't going to win in a national election. He's a racist homophobe.

Who do you want as president, I like Ron Paul but since i cant have him Huckabees ok

what is it that you like about huckabee?

i find him to be a charming nut.

what is it that you like about huckabee?

i find him to be a charming nut.

Huckabee scares me, he is to far to the right.

Huckabee scares me, he is to far to the right.

id be scared if i thought he had a chance to win. now im only worried that he will get the vp nomination--scary because of mccains age.

He dislikes non-white gay people especially?

yep. I mean what could be worse to a southern, insane, right wing conservative than a gay, atheist black man? ;)

Where is the Britney Spears Option? :D

id be scared if i thought he had a chance to win.

I wouldn't be so confident.
Thanks to Diebold, now ANYONE can be president!

Dear United States,
Please vote for Obama.

Yours truly,
The World

You know Obama is racist against white people?

ron paul isnt racsist

I dont see why the republicans let Mcain run as one of them

Obama, but for the joke option, i'd say Ron paul. He isn't going to win in a national election. He's a racist homophobe.

You know Obama is also racist?

You know Obama is also racist?

Against who? proof plz.

Against who? proof plz.

From 'Dreams of My Father',
"I CEASED TO ADVERISE MY MOTHER'S RACE AT THE AGE OF12 OR 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites"

From Dreams of My Father, " I FOUND A SOLACE IN NURSING A PERVASIVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER'S RACE".



From 'Dreams of my Father', "The emotion between the races could never be pure..... the THE OTHER RACE (WHITE) WOULD ALWAYS REMAIN JUST THAT: MENACING, ALIEN AND APART"

From Dreams Of My Father, "never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. IT WAS INTO MY FATHER'S IMAGE , THE BLACK MAN, THE SON OF AFRICA, THAT I'D PACKED ALL THE ATTRIBUTES I SOUGHT IN MYSELF.

From Dreams Of My Father:
"THAT HATE HADN'T GONE AWAY," he wrote, BLAMING WHITE PEOPLE,- SOME CRUEL, SOME IGNORANT, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives."



From Dreams Of My Father;
"There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs," he wrote. "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, TO SHOW YOUR LOYALTY TO THE BLACK MASSES, TO STRIKE OUT, and name names"


From Dreams Of My Father, "I had grown accustomed, everywhere, to SUSPICIONS BETWEEN THE RACES.."









Quote from Barack Obama's book, Dreams Of My Father:
"The person who made me proudest of all, though, was [half brother] Roy .. He converted to Islam."


From 'Dreams of my Father', "In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school"
"I studied the Koran.."

From 'Audacity of Hope: "Lolo (Obama's step father) followed a brand of Islam ...."I looked to Lolo for guidance".


From 'The Audacity Of Hope, "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."



From The Audacity Of Hope, "We are no longer just a Christian nation," "We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."

source:

http://www.examiner.com/a-534540~Can_a_past_of_Islam_change_the_path_to_pres ident_for_Obama_.html?cid=dc-article-obama

http://www.examiner.com/a-536474~_Trapped_between_two_worlds_.html

ron paul isnt racsist

I dont see why the republicans let Mcain run as one of them

Oh yes thats just his magic elfish ghost writers that are racist. :rolleyes:

*snip*

:rolleyes:

its a sad thing that in this world if you arent racist against whites your marked racist

:rolleyes:

So you don't like the idea that Obama is racist?

its a sad thing that in this world if you arent racist against whites your marked racist

Indeed, thats multiculturalism for you.

yep. I mean what could be worse to a southern, insane, right wing conservative than a gay, atheist black man? ;)

The Federal Government.

So you don't like the idea that Obama is racist?

No. I think your examples are laughable as indicators of Obama's racism.

whos insane now?


Ron paul? because he REALIZES THAT THE Fu***** FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Is way overboard in its powers?

No. I think your examples are laughable as indicators of Obama's racism.

Sorry to have to say this but, you are an idiot.

Ron paul, even though he wont get elected. Anyone who calls for the decriminilization of marijuana is good in my books!

i suspect puppetry involved for RP to get 20% of the vote on this forum

snip

What else should I have expected from site that spouts rightwing propoganda.

From The Audacity Of Hope, "We are no longer just a Christian nation," "We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."

And this means what? that he realizes that *gasp* there aren't only christians in this nation! that means he's ebil.

Springsteen/Weinberg '08!

So you don't like the idea that Obama is racist?

Got any page numbers there, champ, or just random quotes without any sourcing?

Sorry to have to say this but, you are an idiot.

From you, I'll take that as a compliment.

Huckabee scares me, he is to far to the right.

The fact that you think Huckabee's too far to the right scares me.

whos insane now?


Ron paul? because he REALIZES THAT THE Fu***** FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Is way overboard in its powers?

Well, his economic policies are highly ill-advised, he allowed racist tripe to be published under his name and never rebutted it or apologized, and his decentralization policies are hypocritical given the powers he wishes to give to the State governments. And that's just for starters.

Currently, Obama is my favourite - though that might change. McCain is in second place, and Ron Paul is my joke option :)

Ah... Silly, silly RuPaul.

its a sad thing that in this world if you arent racist against whites your marked racistIndeed, thats multiculturalism for you.
Neither of these posts make any sense at all... The first post especially.
Quote from Barack Obama's book, Dreams Of My Father:
"The person who made me proudest of all, though, was [half brother] Roy .. He converted to Islam."


From 'Dreams of my Father', "In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school"
"I studied the Koran.."

From 'Audacity of Hope: "Lolo (Obama's step father) followed a brand of Islam ...."I looked to Lolo for guidance".


From 'The Audacity Of Hope, "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."



From The Audacity Of Hope, "We are no longer just a Christian nation," "We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."

source:

http://www.examiner.com/a-534540~Can_a_past_of_Islam_change_the_path_to_pres ident_for_Obama_.html?cid=dc-article-obama

http://www.examiner.com/a-536474~_Trapped_between_two_worlds_.html
How's any of this indications of racism?

How can you vote for a republican after what Bush did??:sniper:

Please vote Hilary or Obama

whos insane now?


Ron paul? because he REALIZES THAT THE Fu***** FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Is way overboard in its powers?

And his plan to fix this is to give the same powers to the various state governments.

What happens when nobody votes? I mean really nobody.

What happens when nobody votes? I mean really nobody.

MAJOR lulz.

Dear United States,
Please vote for Obama.

Yours truly,
The World

Dear World,
We don't care what you think. You can go shove your opinions of our candidates where the sun don't shine.

With a big fuck you to the world,
USA

How can you vote for a republican after what Bush did??:sniper:

Please vote Hilary or Obama

Because Bush didn't do what he promised to do as a Republican- reduce the size and power of the gov't, and reduce spending.

Because Bush didn't do what he promised to do as a Republican- reduce the size and power of the gov't, and reduce spending.

The Republican Party hasn't been genuinely about that for decades.

The Republican Party hasn't been genuinely about that for decades.

True, but at least there is a chance for them to do so, unlike with the democrats, who always want the government to have more power and responsibilities, which cost more money.

True, but at least there is a chance for them to do so, unlike with the democrats, who always want the government to have more power and responsibilities, which cost more money.

I don't think that makes any sense.

The Republican Party wants the government to have more power and responsibilities in some respects, and not others.

The Democratic Party wants the government to have more power and responsibilities in some (different) respects, and not others.

On what basis is one party or the other more likely to be genuinely "small government"?

I don't think that makes any sense.

The Republican Party wants the government to have more power and responsibilities in some respects, and not others.

The Democratic Party wants the government to have more power and responsibilities in some (different) respects, and not others.

On what basis is one party or the other more likely to be genuinely "small government"?

Well I'm an independent, I don't support either party on all their issues, but I generally agree with Republicans more.

But to your question: Republicans give you more freedom, especially with your money. And with your economic freedom, you can live your life as you please.

I guess the Dems give you freedom two, but at the cost of your money.

But, I guess neither party wants a really small government, but Republicans, at least in theory, support a smaller government. That's my take, at least.

Neither of these posts make any sense at all... The first post especially.

How's any of this indications of racism?

I 2nd you. Half of those quotes were out of contect, without any indication of who words like "he" and "him" were refering to, others plain had no racist undertones to them, some talked about his childhood perceptions (which for biracial people are extremly volitile and prone to leaning toward one racial identiy over the other, and besides He's An Adult Now), and last, there was one quote that did even start at the begining of a sentnence and probably totally warped what it was actually saying.

What happens when nobody votes? I mean really nobody.

"What if they had an election and nobody showed up?"

I 2nd you.
I <3 you too.


Ah well... He made a thread on it, so he won't be back here to argue his silliness.

I suspect most people would see Ron Paul as the joke option.I demand a Nader joke option! :mad:

Dear World,
We don't care what you think. You can go shove your opinions of our candidates where the sun don't shine.

With a big fuck you to the world,
USAHope you never lie in bed wondering why people hate us.

Wow! It's a tight race!

If only this poll was the real election.

Dear World,
We don't care what you think. You can go shove your opinions of our candidates where the sun don't shine.

With a big fuck you to the world,
USA

I wonder why people think the USA is so arrogant?

nope, no idea.

Not one of these again...

ron paul isnt racsist

I dont see why the republicans let Mcain run as one of them

Do your research, yes he is.

whos insane now?


Ron paul? because he REALIZES THAT THE Fu***** FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Is way overboard in its powers?

No, because if we were actually to follow his plans, there would be no need for the U.S. government, because there would be no more U.S.

But to your question: Republicans give you more freedom, especially with your money. And with your economic freedom, you can live your life as you please.

I'm going to hold off on an attack on this notion of "economic freedom" because it's not relevant to the point.

More relevantly, "economic freedom" may be all well and good, but the Republicans are against other kinds of freedom... look at their stance on abortion, gay rights, privacy, and so forth.

Personally I liked Kucinich the best, and now my favourite's Mike Gravel, but there was never any way either of them were going to win.

Of the two Democrats left, I voted for Obama because he just has a better vibe about him, but it doesn't really matter which, Clinton or Obama. Just give us a Democrat, please.

Click Stand;13435680']If Obama doesn't get the nomination, I will give up on democracy.

On Topic: Ron Paul is the joke option.

Ditto.

I want TourettesGuy, but he's dead.

I don't think that makes any sense.

The Republican Party wants the government to have more power and responsibilities in some respects, and not others.

The Democratic Party wants the government to have more power and responsibilities in some (different) respects, and not others.

On what basis is one party or the other more likely to be genuinely "small government"?

QFT

I'm going to hold off on an attack on this notion of "economic freedom" because it's not relevant to the point.

More relevantly, "economic freedom" may be all well and good, but the Republicans are against other kinds of freedom... look at their stance on abortion, gay rights, privacy, and so forth.

I'm not female, nor gay, so abortion and gay rights don't affect me, and honestly I don't care about those issues. I change the channel whenever those issues are talked about on the news.

The privacy issue is a big deal, however. That's why there should always be some Dems around, and other differing opinions, so no party gets carried away. ;)

I wonder why people think the USA is so arrogant?

nope, no idea.

So what?

I'm not female, nor gay, so abortion and gay rights don't affect me, and honestly I don't care about those issues.

Ah. So because the Republicans only want to take away other people's freedom, you're perfectly fine with it.

:rolleyes:

So what?


Nothing, nothing. Just that when the US isn't as powerful as it is today, I hope for your sake that we don't respond in kind. And by we, I mean the world. And by respond in kind, I mean invade you, melt your infastructure then put in puppet officials that do whats best for us as apposed to you.

Actually that wont happen. But still, you're not going to have the biggest economy and military in the world for ever, so perhaps it would be good to make some friends before that happens.

Ah. So because the Republicans only want to take away other people's freedom, you're perfectly fine with it.

:rolleyes:

Oh I'd care if gays were being arrested for being gay, or beaten routinely, but I'm not worried about them getting married. If it happens, meh. If it doesn't? I won't lose sleep.

Same with abortion. It is legal now, and will stay legal.

Oh I'd care if gays were being arrested for being gay, or beaten routinely, but I'm not worried about them getting married. If it happens, meh. If it doesn't? I won't lose sleep.

Same with abortion. It is legal now, and will stay legal.

But you care about what will probably be a minor difference in your taxes? You are so concerned with that that you ignore the fact that the Republican Party is perfectly willing to spend money that will have to be taxed eventually, and on pointless wars abroad that don't enhance anyone's freedom--quite unlike the social programs the Democrats support?

You go so far as to write off privacy rights (and other civil liberties issues?), which the current Republican administration has disregarded to the point of outright rejecting the rule of law, as merely something that can be left to "some Dems" in the opposition?

Your position makes no sense.

But you care about what will probably be a minor difference in your taxes? You are so concerned with that that you ignore the fact that the Republican Party is perfectly willing to spend money that will have to be taxed eventually, and on pointless wars abroad that don't enhance anyone's freedom--quite unlike the social programs the Democrats support?

You go so far as to write off privacy rights (and other civil liberties issues?), which the current Republican administration has disregarded to the point of outright rejecting the rule of law, as merely something that can be left to "some Dems" in the opposition?

Your position makes no sense.

No I'm not satisfied with current government, but I'd rather have the current gov't than have democrats neuter America by turning into a socialist country.

I don't write off privacy issues, and I think privacy should be better protected, but that is why I said it is always good to have more than one party around to keep the dominant party in check (somewhat).

And I think civil liberties are pretty much fine the way the are. Abortion is legal, and will stay legal. And I really don't give a damn if gays marry or not. I think government should get out of marriage entirely.

No I'm not satisfied with current government, but I'd rather have the current gov't than have democrats neuter America by turning into a socialist country.

On what planet are the Democrats remotely "socialist"? Let's be concrete: whose freedom are they taking away? How? And what does any of it have to do with "socialism"?

And I think civil liberties are pretty much fine the way the are.

Um... have you been paying attention at all for the past six and a half years?

Vote for Huck-leberry-bee, if you'd like the country to go even further back into the darkages of puritanical laws, regulations & lack of social freedoms.

Vote for Obama, if you want to live in a country, that will be viewed as a bunch of wimps and sissy-crybabies (not that we already aren't.) And someone who most likely would be too afraid to stand up for this country.

On what planet are the Democrats remotely "socialist"?

Because they endorse agencies and policies spawned by and emphasized by the socialist movement. Much like the Republican party and mainstream America. Welfare, healthcare. Sure, they're not as Real Hardcore True Socialist as I'm sure you'd like, but to say that the modern US government has *nothing* to do with socialism doesn't ring true.

But, asserting that the Democrats are any more or less socialist than the Republicans isn't really supportable. Everyone's equally socialist. Or from your point of view, equally not-real-hardcore-true socialist. :p

Because they endorse agencies and policies spawned by and emphasized by the socialist movement.

That's a weak standard... especially since all of those agencies and policies were actually put into effect by non-socialists.

Was Otto von Bismarck socialist, too?

That's a weak standard...

I find it more useful than pretending there's nothing socialistic about the world in order to continually have a carrot/chimera to chase after.

especially since all of those agencies and policies were actually put into effect by non-socialists.

What's that got to do with anything?

Was Otto von Bismarck socialist, too?

What exactly does Otto von Bismarck have to do with the Democrats, Republicans or US government policy? No he wasn't a socialist, and he doesn't need to be a socialist.

I find it more useful than pretending there's nothing socialistic about the world

Who said that?

The claim I was contesting was that the Democrats wanted to turn the US into a socialist country, not that they support some things that in some sense are "socialistic."

What's that got to do with anything?

In enacting social programs, they were reforming capitalism, not replacing it.

What exactly does Otto von Bismarck have to do with the Democrats, Republicans or US government policy?

Nothing, but he enacted social legislation he borrowed from the German socialists, so if that's your standard....

Dear World,
We don't care what you think. You can go shove your opinions of our candidates where the sun don't shine.

With a big fuck you to the world,
USA



Dear World,
Please disregard the above poster. He is the perfect example of an ignorant nationalistic loudmouth who in fact is the minority in the US, just the most vocal. Most of us are not that stupid.

Signed,
Intelligent Americans

Dear World,
Please disregard the above poster. He is the perfect example of an ignorant nationalistic loudmouth who in fact is the minority in the US, just the most vocal. Most of us are not that stupid.

Signed,
Somewhat Intelligent Americans

Fixed for those that don't believe there is any such thing as 'intelligent Americans'

On what planet are the Democrats remotely "socialist"? Let's be concrete: whose freedom are they taking away? How? And what does any of it have to do with "socialism"?



Um... have you been paying attention at all for the past six and a half years?

Maybe not socialist in other countries, but they want to implement some policies that will push us in much more left direction than we are currently. And I don't that direction.


That's why I said 'pretty much'. There is room for improvement, such as more protection for privacy.

Dear World,
Please disregard the above poster. He is the perfect example of an ignorant nationalistic loudmouth who in fact is the minority in the US, just the most vocal. Most of us are not that stupid.

Signed,
Intelligent Americans

Dude...I'm not ignorant, nor stupid. I made that post to invite debate, though I do hold that believe. I am however, patriotic, and I guess that makes me a nationalistic. Oh well. I never thought nationalism was bad.

I do care about world opinion, just not when it comes to internal matters. America will choose who we please, and run our country how we please. Foreigners can criticize us all they want, but the matter is, most Americans care about America first and foremost.

I like Ron Paul because of his anti-imperialist attitude since I believe that US Imperialism is the root cause of a good number of our problems.

Plus it's really dumb and unfair to the rest of the world.

Maybe not socialist in other countries, but they want to implement some policies that will push us in much more left direction than we are currently.

Like what? The government already interferes pretty extensively in health care, so the rather modest "universal health care" proposals from the likes of Clinton and Obama are hardly a "much more left direction." What else is there?

And I don't that direction.

Why not? Whose freedom does it curtail?

Like what? The government already interferes pretty extensively in health care, so the rather modest "universal health care" proposals from the likes of Clinton and Obama are hardly a "much more left direction." What else is there?



Why not? Whose freedom does it curtail?

Eh, well. Health care is a royal fuck up I guess, and needs to be addressed, but Universal healthcare? No. That goes against everything I've learned about how people should live their lives. (which is that people make their lives themselves).

It is curtailing MY freedom, and everyone else's, because they are paying for other people's medical care, and can't spend their money how they want.

Fixed for those that don't believe there is any such thing as 'intelligent Americans'


Riiiiight.

Nationalism and prejudice ftw.

Eh, well. Health care is a royal fuck up I guess, and needs to be addressed, but Universal healthcare? No. That goes against everything I've learned about how people should live their lives. (which is that people make their lives themselves).

Great... but people necessarily "make their lives" within the existing economic system. Why shouldn't we have the collective freedom to arrange that economic system in a way that allows us to make our lives the way we wish?

It is curtailing MY freedom, and everyone else's, because they are paying for other people's medical care, and can't spend their money how they want.

I can't spend your money how I want. Does that curtail my freedom?

You're making a distributional assumption about freedom--that freedom is properly realized through the property allocations of free-market capitalism--that you haven't justified. You say it's "your" money... but on what basis? Why should it be yours? How does that assumption about your entitlement connect to freedom?

Doesn't universal health care enhance the freedom of people who currently have difficulty paying for health care?

Great... but people necessarily "make their lives" within the existing economic system. Why shouldn't we have the collective freedom to arrange that economic system in a way that allows us to make our lives the way we wish?

I can't spend your money how I want. Does that curtail my freedom?

You're making a distributional assumption about freedom--that freedom is properly realized through the property allocations of free-market capitalism--that you haven't justified. You say it's "your" money... but on what basis? Why should it be yours? How does that assumption about your entitlement connect to freedom?

Doesn't universal health care enhance the freedom of people who currently have difficulty paying for health care?

People can make their lives the way they want. Some people have some odds stacked against them, but people can, and have, overcome those odds. The current system needs some work, but I don't think universal health care is the answer. Health care isn't a right. It is earned through hard work, good genes, and a bit of luck. I think that's just fine. People don't deserve free rides from the rest of society.

And that is the point: you can't spend my money because its mine. Universal health care is the gov't taking my money and spending it to pay for random people's health care. I don't approve of that.

Why is it my money? Because I worked for it. That's why. For some people it is family money that is passed down from generation to generation, and that is just fine too.

Why should some people's freedom be limited to it so other's have more freedom?

Riiiiight.

Nationalism and prejudice ftw.

Lighten up KoL

People can make their lives the way they want.

We are bound to the economic system: the choices we have are only the ones offered to us.

To the extent we are free, we are only free collectively, as a society--we are free insofar as we have the democratic right to make the rules of the economy, to choose for ourselves which choices the economic system offers to us.

The blind adherence to laissez-faire on the part of so-called "libertarians" is thus ultimately the negation of freedom: we are denied the right to choose for ourselves what kind of society we wish to live in, instead having that choice made for us by the capitalist market.

Some people have some odds stacked against them, but people can, and have, overcome those odds.

This is a non-response. Some slaves escaped slavery. In no sense did that make slavery consistent with freedom.

Health care isn't a right. It is earned through hard work, good genes, and a bit of luck.

By the very definition of "earn", "good genes" and "a bit of luck" can never be relevant.

Plenty of people work hard and do not have access to affordable health care.

People don't deserve free rides from the rest of society.

Um, ensuring that everyone has access to health care doesn't entail giving anyone a "free ride."

Why is it my money? Because I worked for it.

What, you didn't know that taxes existed? No, you probably worked for the money you knew you would get after taxes.

Why should we assume that the rest should be yours?

Why should some people's freedom be limited to it so other's have more freedom?

Because that's the only solution we have to the old problem of social existence: how can I remain free in society, when my choices are inextricably bound up with the decisions of others?

We solve it through the social contract: we all sacrifice some freedom of action so that we can gain the only kind of freedom that is truly meaningful in society, the right to participate in the collective choice of what kind of society we should live in.

On what planet are the Democrats remotely "socialist"?

Pluto.

Oh, wait, it's not a planet anymore. Never mind.

We are bound to the economic system: the choices we have are only the ones offered to us.

To the extent we are free, we are only free collectively, as a society--we are free insofar as we have the democratic right to make the rules of the economy, to choose for ourselves which choices the economic system offers to us.

The blind adherence to laissez-faire on the part of so-called "libertarians" is thus ultimately the negation of freedom: we are denied the right to choose for ourselves what kind of society we wish to live in, instead having that choice made for us by the capitalist market.



This is a non-response. Some slaves escaped slavery. In no sense did that make slavery consistent with freedom.



By the very definition of "earn", "good genes" and "a bit of luck" can never be relevant.

Plenty of people work hard and do not have access to affordable health care.



Um, ensuring that everyone has access to health care doesn't entail giving anyone a "free ride."



What, you didn't know that taxes existed? No, you probably worked for the money you knew you would get after taxes.

Why should we assume that the rest should be yours?



Because that's the only solution we have to the old problem of social existence: how can I remain free in society, when my choices are inextricably bound up with the decisions of others?

We solve it through the social contract: we all sacrifice some freedom of action so that we can gain the only kind of freedom that is truly meaningful in society, the right to participate in the collective choice of what kind of society we should live in.

I don't want to live in the society you, I assume, are advocating. The current one isn't perfect, and needs work, but to change it radically like that? Nah.

Why is the rest of my money (after taxes-though those should be practically nothing) my money? Again, because I worked for it. If I didn't get something from working I wouldn't work. Working sucks-I'd rather have fun all day long than work, but I get a reward for working, so I do it. Why work if you get nothing out of it? Also, why shouldn't be mine if I worked for it? Answer that one, please.

Hard work, good genes, and luck all play a part. With hard work and luck, you can earn enough money to pay for medical care. With good genes and luck you won't need much medical care. With all 3 you won't need much medical care, and can do whatever you want in life.

You see, my problem with Obama is that there doesn't really seem to be any there there.

I have no doubt that he's a fantastic orator, and is clearly quite charming and charismatic, but what does he actually stand for? Other than his principalled early stand against the Iraq war, I'd be hard-pressed to name a single substantive policy initiative of his.

It's all well and good to stand for Hope, Change, and America, but it's not as if any American politician is going to campaign for despair, stasis and Kyrgyzstan, is it?

:rolleyes:

Yea, only white people can be racist, it is racist of WHITE people to try to point out the racisim of the perfection of all other colors!

I don't want to live in the society you, I assume, are advocating. The current one isn't perfect, and needs work, but to change it radically like that? Nah.

Wait, as far as I'm aware I've so far simply been advocating a democracy that is not averse on principle to intervening in the economy for the public benefit... which is in no way radical, and indeed, is not a bad description of our current political system.

I haven't even started talking about the benefits of socialism and anarchism yet, and already you accuse me of being too radical?

You people never let me have any fun. :(

Why is the rest of my money (after taxes-though those should be practically nothing) my money?

No, no, why is the money the taxes do take your money? My social contract logic already gives me good reason to respect your property after tax--the question is whether you can advance an argument as to why society should on principle refrain from taxing you to ensure universal health care.

You didn't work for that money--again, you knew there were going to be taxes. It isn't "yours" in any legal sense--after all, the government takes it away. So why is taxation unjust?

Working sucks-I'd rather have fun all day long than work, but I get a reward for working, so I do it.

If you're going to make the "incentives" argument... well, lots of other countries have universal health care and much higher taxes generally, and it doesn't seem to me like the incentives system has collapsed there.

Hard work, good genes, and luck all play a part. With hard work and luck, you can earn enough money to pay for medical care. With good genes and luck you won't need much medical care. With all 3 you won't need much medical care, and can do whatever you want in life.

What's your point?

Yea, only white people can be racist, it is racist of WHITE people to try to point out the racisim of the perfection of all other colors!

Exactly.

Let's join together and keep white people down!

Lighten up KoL


You need something in your post to show you were not being serious than buddy, because tone of voice or sarcasm cannot be detected easily over the interweb;)

Yea, only white people can be racist, it is racist of WHITE people to try to point out the racisim of the perfection of all other colors!


Youre right. Obama is racist. In fact, I saw him leading a Black Panther's rally.:rolleyes:



The reason we rolled our eyes is because those quotes presented that supposidly prove racism either are not racist at all or are snippets from a much large quote that in context are not racist either.


For example, with your quote, I could quote you as saying...

Yea, only white people can be perfection!


Totally changes the meaning, doesn it?;)

i see people on here arguing for socialism. all i have to say to you is use your brain for a millisecond and you'll knwo that socialsm and communsim are not good. just look at canada's systme. now that is screwed up worse than ours. ours may not be perfect but it is better than most.

In fact, I saw him leading a Black Panther's rally.

Ah, finally--a good reason to support him over Clinton.

i see people on here arguing for socialism. all i have to say to you is use your brain for a millisecond and you'll knwo that socialsm and communsim are not good. just look at canada's systme. now that is screwed up worse than ours. ours may not be perfect but it is better than most.

lolwut.
Also - communSim? Is that anything like SimCity?

Hillary or Barrack would suit me fine.


On this I voted for Hillary.

i see people on here arguing for socialism. all i have to say to you is use your brain for a millisecond and you'll knwo that socialsm and communsim are not good. just look at canada's systme. now that is screwed up worse than ours. ours may not be perfect but it is better than most.



What fucking evidence do you have that Canada's system is screwed up? Ive heard no such thing from anyone.


I also get the impression that you dont know what socialism is.

lolwut.
Also - communSim? Is that anything like SimCity?

Yup, build your own commune ;)

Yup, build your own commune ;)

*wants*

I also get the impression that you dont know what socialism is.

For those of you who don't know...
Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history.

*wants*

* gives * sort of (http://simcitysocieties.ea.com/about.php)

* gives * sort of (http://simcitysocieties.ea.com/about.php)

Orwellicious!

I want Ron Paul to be president!

*flees thread in a giggly fit*

:(:(No funny option?:(:(

"Funny" options are often a waste of votes.

"Funny" options are often a waste of votes.

Not when they're the best option.

Ah, finally--a good reason to support him over Clinton.

Racism is a good reason?

(Theoretically speaking, if he did speak at a BP rally.)

Ron Paul is my first choice, and any independent that best represents the ideals of life liberty and freedom my second choice. McCain and Clinton are out of the question. Obama would be the lesser of two evils in an election between McCain and Obama.

People can make their lives the way they want. Some people have some odds stacked against them, but people can, and have, overcome those odds. The current system needs some work, but I don't think universal health care is the answer. Health care isn't a right. It is earned through hard work, good genes, and a bit of luck. I think that's just fine. People don't deserve free rides from the rest of society.

And that is the point: you can't spend my money because its mine. Universal health care is the gov't taking my money and spending it to pay for random people's health care. I don't approve of that.

Why is it my money? Because I worked for it. That's why. For some people it is family money that is passed down from generation to generation, and that is just fine too.

Why should some people's freedom be limited to it so other's have more freedom?

So it's my own fault I'm disabled through a genetic condition. Screw you.

So it's my own fault I'm disabled through a genetic condition. Screw you.

I'm glad you finally realized it. ;)
Trollgaard's quite the bigot at times...

Racism is a good reason?

(Theoretically speaking, if he did speak at a BP rally.)



I was being sarcastic, and the poster was responding to my sarcasm.

I was being sarcastic, and the poster was responding to my sarcasm.

Actually, I was only being half tongue-in-cheek. If I thought Obama was a militant Black socialist, I would support him over Clinton in a second. My judgment that he--like Clinton--represents more of the same is what makes me so apathetic about this whole show.

In any case, the BPP, whatever its many flaws, was not ideologically racist. Undoubtedly some of its members were prejudiced against whites--I wonder why--but that is not a reason to issue a blanket condemnation of anyone who was ever a member or spoke at a rally.

In any case, the BPP, whatever its many flaws, was not ideologically racist. Undoubtedly some of its members were prejudiced against whites--I wonder why--but that is not a reason to issue a blanket condemnation of anyone who was ever a member or spoke at a rally.



Oh, I know that. But what better way to joke about a black person hating whitey? Really, there was no other way to effectivly make that joke...

Who do you want as president, I like Ron Paul but since i cant have him Huckabees ok

I'd like Bush again (I'm serious!) but since I can't have him, John McCain is ok.

I'd like Bush again (I'm serious!) but since I can't have him, John McCain is ok.


.....

Welcome to the forum.

You and me, we are going to have fun:mp5:

I'd like Bush again.

Why? Are you a comedian?

I'm going with Ron Paul, but he won't make the nomination.
So..McCain then.

Click Stand;13439930']I wonder if Jon Stewart just votes for whoever he thinks will be easiest to mock...

If I was a comedian, I'd be tempted to do that.

Why? Are you a comedian?

I wonder if Jon Stewart just votes for whoever he thinks will be easiest to mock...

So it's my own fault I'm disabled through a genetic condition. Screw you.

Nature's fault, fate, bad luck, but not your fault.

I'm glad you finally realized it. ;)
Trollgaard's quite the bigot at times...

Why did you bold my name? How was I being a bigot? I don't think I was being intolerant of other beliefs...I was disagreeing with them.

Why did you bold my name? How was I being a bigot? I don't think I was being intolerant of other beliefs...I was disagreeing with them.

I bold everyones name, and I'm sorry that you can't see it :(

I tried to post once before but apparently i haven't posted enough to have all my posts get through, or some such.

I am supporting Ron Paul all the way to the convention. If McCain doesn't secure the nomination by 60% of the Delegation, it becomes a brokered convention and anyone with 15% (if i remember correctly) of the delegates can at least barter for some conservative planks in whomever's presidential platform.

If enough ABM (Anyone But McCain) delegates unite, they can even force McCain off of the ticket. A highly unlikely scenario, and probably will never happen. But someone needs to broker for the little guy, and Ron Paul is the only candidate that consistently stands for limited constitutional government, liberty and freedom, and has the voting history to back it up.

America will choose who we please, and run our country how we please. Foreigners can criticize us all they want, but the matter is, most Americans care about America first and foremost.

But some people, they aren't responsible enough to govern their country, so we come and give them a helping hand.

But some people, they aren't responsible enough to govern their country, so we come and give them a helping hand.

Well, Americans will slap, or shoot, your hand away.

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. You want the world to leave your country alone, but you'll sure as hell interfere with someone elses country if it suits you.

Obama FTW.

Seriously, I'm a recovering conservative crackpot. Obama is the best candidate from either party out there. The huckster is probably the single worst human being in the race at this moment. A vindictive ass (remember that whole rapist thing? Yeah, that guy raped a Clinton, not only does he NOT deserve to be in jail, let's pin a medal on him... What? He killed some one after being released??). And then there's McCain... Uhhh, wow. The GOP has NOTHING that can compare to Obama. All they're really hoping for is that Hillary somehow manages to eek out a win for the candidacy so they can sound the feasting horn to all the disaffected republicans. "It's Hillary! Get 'er!!!"

The GOP won't see any kind of real power or influence for the next twenty years. Bank on it.

Huckabee scares me, he is to far to the right.

It scares me far more that a significant number of US citizens has no problems with his wishes to rape the US constitution by replacing "religious freedom" with "the freedom to be Christian".

Well, Americans will slap, or shoot, your hand away.

And complain violently when anyone else does just that?

Dude...I'm not ignorant, nor stupid. I made that post to invite debate, though I do hold that believe. I am however, patriotic, and I guess that makes me a nationalistic. Oh well. I never thought nationalism was bad.

I do care about world opinion, just not when it comes to internal matters. America will choose who we please, and run our country how we please. Foreigners can criticize us all they want, but the matter is, most Americans care about America first and foremost.

No, most Americans care about themselves first and foremost, like the general populace of all other nations.

No candidate offers hope for genuine change.
Only one man can rescue our country from its predicament in the hour of our darkest peril.
Only one man can salvage our economy, unite our people, restore our reputation abroad, and make us all proud to be Americans again.

Lunatic Goofballs.

This message paid for by Goofballs for America.

No candidate offers hope for genuine change.
Only one man can rescue our country from its predicament in the hour of our darkest peril.
Only one man can salvage our economy, unite our people, restore our reputation abroad, and make us all proud to be Americans again.

Lunatic Goofballs.

This message paid for by Goofballs for America.

That's a candidate I can get behind
if for no other reason than if I'm behind him he'll have a slightly harder time pieing me

That's a candidate I can get behind
if for no other reason than if I'm behind him he'll have a slightly harder time pieing me

That's the spirit. :)