NationStates Jolt Archive

As for voting for Bush: did so twice and proud of it. Bush has been great for the world and America. I am sure you can provide tons of facts to support your "inhuman menace" moniker?

1- What's disputable is your numeric claim.

2- Bush raped a country and would love to rape others. He struggled to remake the world to his image: Stupid, brutal, ignorant and in fear. The world will be a better place when he leaves office.

I would support anyone I thought had a chance of keeping yet another Republican from further harming the world. Obama happened to be black. Were he yellow, blue, magenta or green I would also support him. Because the world cannot afford another administration of warmongering, religious pandering and destruction.

Yet another triumph of emotion over logic.

Yet another triumph of emotion over logic.

Bush got elected on a platform of enforcing intolerance against homosexuals, keeping on a war based on fear and lies, and using the lowliest appeals.

It resulted in pain, death, and an economy in the ropes.

So who's using logic here?

If only they'd had the good sense not to show up in the first place.

Yes, well, one can't have everything.

And on topic, America was never a democracy.

Please source in the Constitution where the Courts are allowed to alter laws.
The law of Florida, and every other state, was that votes should be counted to effectuate the intent of the voters so far as that can be determined. When the SCOTUS overthrew this principle (there can be no reasonable dispute that more voters in Florida wanted Gore than wanted Bush), this overthrew the bedrock on which the legitimacy of all American law depends.

1- What's disputable is your numeric claim.

Then dispute it! Which recount showed a Gore win? I have yet to see one.

2- Bush raped a country and would love to rape others. He struggled to remake the world to his image: Stupid, brutal, ignorant and in fear. The world will be a better place when he leaves office.

What you see as rape I see as the liberation of over 50 million people from the hands of a tyrant and a group of 7th century theological sadists. I am sure that this means nothing to you considering the imagined reasons you have come up with for that liberation.

One has to wonder how, if Bush is so stupid, he has managed to thwart the stupidities of the Democrats for eight years. Really, who are the stupid ones?

Then dispute it! Which recount showed a Gore win? I have yet to see one.



What you see as rape I see as the liberation of over 50 million people from the hands of a tyrant and a group of 7th century theological sadists. I am sure that this means nothing to you considering the imagined reasons you have come up with for that liberation.

One has to wonder how, if Bush is so stupid, he has managed to thwart the stupidities of the Democrats for eight years. Really, who are the stupid ones?

Should I begin with the missing ballots or the fact that the ballots were made to cause confusion at the time of the vote between Gore and a third-party candidate?

And it's dirt easy to get your way with a country that's drunken on fear.

Also, given that the Iraqis don't want you there, guess what? Bush became the tyrant now.

I don't disagree with the war in Afghanistan. Which is why I said Bush raped ONE country.

What you see as rape I see as the liberation of over 50 million people from the hands of a tyrant and a group of 7th century theological sadists. I am sure that this means nothing to you considering the imagined reasons you have come up with for that liberation.

One has to wonder how, if Bush is so stupid, he has managed to thwart the stupidities of the Democrats for eight years. Really, who are the stupid ones?

Every aggressor is a liberator in his own mind.

B. Hussien Obama, the Pope of Hope, Selected not Elected in '08.

The law of Florida, and every other state, was that votes should be counted to effectuate the intent of the voters so far as that can be determined. When the SCOTUS overthrew this principle (there can be no reasonable dispute that more voters in Florida wanted Gore than wanted Bush), this overthrew the bedrock on which the legitimacy of all American law depends.

The law in Florida gave a solid date as to when a winner MUST be declared. Please source the Florida law which states this imagined "principle". The law was followed and the Courts extended that time period when they had no right to. The Supreme Court only stopped the Florida Courts from rewriting the law.

I am glad you say there is no reasonable dispute that more voters in Florida wanted Gore over Bush. Please tell me how you came to such a remarkable conclusion with such a vast lack of facts supporting it. Are you telepathic?

B. Hussien Obama, the Pope of Hope, Selected not Elected in '08.

Riiiiiight...

Bush got elected on a platform of enforcing intolerance against homosexuals, keeping on a war based on fear and lies, and using the lowliest appeals.

It resulted in pain, death, and an economy in the ropes.

So who's using logic here?

Me. Where is the intolerance vs. homosexuals? Are you perhaps relying upon a simplistic stereotype? Surely not.

If I recall correctly, which I do, his first election was not based on the war since the war was not being fought at that time. The second term was based on security. A concept that, for you, simply means fear and lies.

As for the lowest appeals: you should understand such appeals considering the hate and venom which you spew upon Republicans in general. Truly they are the living embodiments of evil and wish to conquer the world!

It is funny that with our huge growth over the last seven years, hardly reported at all by the way, that you call the situation we are in right now as an "economy on the ropes". Hardly the case. We are not even in a recession.

So yes, I am using the logic here.

B. Hussein Obama, the Pope of Hope, Selected not Elected in '08.

Fixed. If you're going to make yourself look like a fool, you should at least strive to make yourself look like a fool who knows how to spell.

Then dispute it! Which recount showed a Gore win? I have yet to see one.
The thorough examination of the ballots by the media consortium. Links to the data were posted the last time we went through this; I don't know if you were around. Of course, the examination of the ballots ought to have been officially; the SCOTUS had no business preventing that from occuring.
What you see as rape I see as the liberation of over 50 million people from the hands of a tyrant and a group of 7th century theological sadists.
In Iraq, the theological sadists are coming power NOW; whatever you may say of Saddam ("tyrant" is certainly accurate), he was a secularist, and what we have done is put regressive forms of Islam into power.
The law in Florida gave a solid date as to when a winner MUST be declared.
No, it gave a date for "certifying" but contemplated that challenges to the certified total could, of course, continue. A previous recount in Florida had determined that the mayor of Miami had not, in fact, won his election and ousted him from office even though it was a year and a half later.

As for the lowest appeals: you should understand such appeals considering the hate and venom which you spew upon Republicans in general. Truly they are the living embodiments of evil and wish to conquer the world!

The Republicans politicians? Yep.

Fixed. If you're going to make yourself look like a fool, you should at least strive to make yourself look like a fool who knows how to spell.

I have an arabic speaker in my house. Do you??:D Also, it is not nice to call names.

Should I begin with the missing ballots or the fact that the ballots were made to cause confusion at the time of the vote between Gore and a third-party candidate?

Oh yes, start with the missing ballots. Which ones were missing? As for the confusion with the ballots: they were created by Democrats! Any evil intent can be chalked up to their inability to make ballots idiot proof.

And it's dirt easy to get your way with a country that's drunken on fear.

Really? Like fear of Republicans? A nice emotional statement that has no validity.

Also, given that the Iraqis don't want you there, guess what? Bush became the tyrant now.

Have they told us to leave? I have seen no formal request for it. If presented with one will leave like we always do.

I don't disagree with the war in Afghanistan. Which is why I said Bush raped ONE country.

Very interesting. So you believe that some wars are good and others evil. Are the people of Afghanistan liberated? If they are then why aren't the Iraqis?

Very interesting. So you believe that some wars are good and others evil. Are the people of Afghanistan liberated? If they are then why aren't the Iraqis?

Iraq never attacked you, nor did it cover up the people who did.

B. Hussien Obama, the Pope of Hope, Selected not Elected in '08.

You know, in the democratic nomination thread where I said Hillary hadn't played the Muslim ****** card hard enough? I take that back.

Etiquette says that, in the event a guest and a host speak different languages, an acceptable way for the host to ask to guest to leave is to attack him with an IED.

So, that's, like, 10,000 formal requests?

Have they told us to leave? I have seen no formal request for it. If presented with one will leave like we always do.

Etiquette says that, in the event a guest and a host speak different languages, an acceptable way for the host to ask to guest to leave is to attack him with an IED.

Have they told us to leave? I have seen no formal request for it. If presented with one will leave like we always do.

Wow, I hope you're a troll doing this for the kicks.

Because, if you really believe this, I don't know what to say.

Let me tell you what would actually happen. We'd declare the people who presented us with such a request as insurgents and illegitimate leaders and do whatever the hell we pleased.

Bush got elected on a platform of enforcing intolerance against homosexuals, keeping on a war based on fear and lies, and using the lowliest appeals.

It resulted in pain, death, and an economy in the ropes.

So who's using logic here?
That's some nice rhetoric. Where're the facts?

That's some nice rhetoric. Where're the facts?

That statement is accurate for 04, but not 00.

The thorough examination of the ballots by the media consortium. Links to the data were posted the last time we went through this; I don't know if you were around. Of course, the examination of the ballots ought to have been officially; the SCOTUS had no business preventing that from occuring.

No media consortium found Gore to be the winner. I am sorry you believe there once was link to something that does not exist.

In Iraq, the theological sadists are coming power NOW; whatever you may say of Saddam ("tyrant" is certainly accurate), he was a secularist, and what we have done is put regressive forms of Islam into power.

I was referring to the Taliban as I thought you considered Afghanistan in your ignorant "rape" accusation.

Which begs a new question: is the secular oppression of humans acceptable to the religious oppression of people?

No, it gave a date for "certifying" but contemplated that challenges to the certified total could, of course, continue. A previous recount in Florida had determined that the mayor of Miami had not, in fact, won his election and ousted him from office even though it was a year and a half later.

The date was clear for certifying the vote. It is not the job of judges to determine a better date.

If you are referring to Miami Mayor Joe Carollo in the 1997 mayor's race you should consider that Carollo was reinstated as mayor after the courts found evidence of absentee voter fraud.

Actual fraud, not a recount. Funny how you failed to include that.

That's some nice rhetoric. Where're the facts?

Gee, I don't know, what about the wolves publicity stunt, the "gay marriage ban" stunt, and the fact that oil is about 5 bucks a gallon?

Etiquette says that, in the event a guest and a host speak different languages, an acceptable way for the host to ask to guest to leave is to attack him with an IED.

Those were set by the government right?

Those were set by the government right?

Arguably, yes.

Wow, I hope you're a troll doing this for the kicks.

Nope. Not a troll considering I have facts and logic on my side. A troll is just an asshole operating off of emotion...

Because, if you really believe this, I don't know what to say.

Then don't say anything.

Let me tell you what would actually happen. We'd declare the people who presented us with such a request as insurgents and illegitimate leaders and do whatever the hell we pleased.

So if Maliki, armed with a vote to have us leave, told us to leave we would kill him and disband his government? Such a comic book view of the world. I am sure I cannot convince you otherwise.

I have an arabic speaker in my house. Do you??:D Also, it is not nice to call names.

All right you got me, i can't spell hussein. But really, resorting to name calling after my first post? How afraid of the debate are you really?

So if Maliki, armed with a vote to have us leave, told us to leave we would kill him and disband his government? Such a comic book view of the world. I am sure I cannot convince you otherwise.

If Maliki did that, he'd eventually be declared an evil dictator - just like everyone else we've helped to power who later turned against US interests.

All right you got me, i can't spell hussein. But really, resorting to name calling after my first post? How afraid of the debate are you really?

You didn't actually offer anything in the way of debate. Disparaging comments about a candidate for the Presidency aren't arguments. They're idiotic ramblings.

Arguably, yes.

Then argue! Stupid little comments like this do not have any basis in fact.

Are you saying that the Iraqi government, the one voted for by the Iraqi people, is in the business of setting IEDs? Please state your evidence since the Iraqis have been quite helpful in reducing the insurgency and destroying AQs and al-Sadr's hold on Iraq.

No media consortium found Gore to be the winner.
You are grossly mistaken.
I am sorry you believe there once was link to something that does not exist.
Yes, there were links to it. I would hunt them again but I doubt you are actually interested.
I was referring to the Taliban as I thought you considered Afghanistan in your ignorant "rape" accusation.
1. It was "my" accusation about anything (you were arguing with somebody else).
2. Of course I understand that you were referring to Afghanistan (I do, in fact, think we did the right thing by going into Afghanistan, although we wasted the opportunity to either capture bin-Laden or help Afghanistan by going after W's Iraqi obsession instead).

My point was that in Iraq we have done the opposite of what we proposed to do in Afghanistan.
Which begs a new question: is the secular oppression of humans acceptable to the religious oppression of people?
Your sentence does not parse, but assuming you are asking whether secularist or religious-motivated oppressions are worse, I consider the religious-based oppression worse because they are likely to endure for a long time, rather than dying out when a particular strongman dies.
The date was clear for certifying the vote. It is not the job of judges to determine a better date.
It is the job of the judges to determine who actually won the vote. That remained their job after, as well as before, the certification date.
If you are referring to Miami Mayor Joe Carollo in the 1997 mayor's race you should consider that Carollo was reinstated as mayor after the courts found evidence of absentee voter fraud.

Actual fraud, not a recount. Funny how you failed to include that.
Removing the fraudulent votes from the CERTIFIED totals is, indeed, a recount, a post-certification recount. That was the court's job, to do that.

Gee, I don't know, what about the wolves publicity stunt, the "gay marriage ban" stunt, and the fact that oil is about 5 bucks a gallon?
You've got a lot of hate pent up there. But let's talk about gas. It's about $3.50 a gallon, or so. I'm not sure why you care about gas prices in the U.S., but since you do, you should realize that it's not most Republicans that have forced the price up. We sit on a tremendous amount of oil. Always have and we don't seem to want to touch it. We'd rather import oil. That's why the price is going up -- we don't explore and exploit our domestic supply.

You are grossly mistaken.

Yes, there were links to it. I would hunt them again but I doubt you are actually interested.

How convenient for you.

My point was that in Iraq we have done the opposite of what we proposed to do in Afghanistan.

How are they different?

Your sentence does not parse, but assuming you are asking whether secularist or religious-motivated oppressions are worse, I consider the religious-based oppression worse because they are likely to endure for a long time, rather than dying out when a particular strongman dies.

Like the Soviet Union? They went through many a strongman. Like China? They have had many a strongman since Mao. Both of these oppressive, secular states have killed far more people than religious institutions that have ruled countries.

It is the job of the judges to determine who actually won the vote. That remained their job after, as well as before, the certification date.

A judges job is to determine the law. NOT to determine a winner. The Florida law was being followed as written. You cannot change that fact.

Removing the fraudulent votes from the CERTIFIED totals is, indeed, a recount, a post-certification recount. That was the court's job, to do that.

Nice deflection but the criminal activity renders the previous declaration of a winner invalid. Where was the proven criminal activity in Bush vs. Gore? There was none.

You've got a lot of hate pent up there. But let's talk about gas. It's about $3.50 a gallon, or so. I'm not sure why you care about gas prices in the U.S., but since you do, you should realize that it's not most Republicans that have forced the price up. We sit on a tremendous amount of oil. Always have and we don't seem to want to touch it. We'd rather import oil. That's why the price is going up -- we don't explore and exploit our domestic supply.

The Iraq War drove up oil prices and wrecked your economy.

You know, besides the minor inconvenient of utterly destroying a country.

The Iraq War drove up oil prices and wrecked your economy.

You know, besides the minor inconvenient of utterly destroying a country.

To be fair, our economy is far from wrecked. And it's largely the fault of greedy bankers and idiots who took loans they couldn't afford.

The Iraq War drove up oil prices and wrecked your economy.

You know, besides the minor inconvenient of utterly destroying a country.

No it did not. I don't know how you come to such a conclusion but I am sure logic and reason are not a part of it. Let me give you a clue: market forces and supply and demand. Please do your homework before you jump in next time.

But hey, it's about beer:30 and I thank you for this exhilarating exchange and I hope you all have a great weekend!

To be fair, our economy is far from wrecked. And it's largely the fault of greedy bankers and idiots who took loans they couldn't afford.

Did waste some trillions.

For that matter, the Myrmi is using the "you disagree with me, it means you must haaaate meee" again. So Republican... :rolleyes:

Myrm, you are mistaken. Most of our oil is not imported. We continue to pump our domestic oil frantically, until the only unexploited sources left are deep-buried tar-sands and possible small fields out in the far Arctic, both of which will be enormously expensive and heavily damaging to extract; there continues to be debate over whether it is worth it to pursue those (on ANWR I say no way: at best there is only six months' worth there, and more likely there will be a lot of dry holes and something less than six months' worth, at the cost of ruining a pristine site forever), but even if we do it is not going to bring costs down. I don't know where you live that you pay "$3.50" for gas (that price is far in the rear-view mirror around here), but that is the cheapest that it is ever going to be again. That's because the easy oil is all gone.

Sorry, but I always like to pick on this kind of thing. Always.
We sit on a tremendous amount of oil. Always have and we don't seem to want to touch it.
That's because most of it (the Bakken stuff, also Alaska) costs $1000 a barrel to extract. If you want your gas to cost you $40 a gallon, then go for it. Otherwise, I'd stick to imports ;)

And as to the Alaskan stuff - if all of your oil is now costing $1,000 a barrel to extract, then your transit prices to get it anywhere even remotely useful are going to be horrific.

Just keep that in mind before you talk about how the US should have energy independence ;)

How convenient for you.
Not particularly, no. Do you want me to hunt the links down? I will, if you really care.
How are they different?
Not sure I understand your question. In Afghanistan we overthrew a religious tyranny, but bailed out allowing the religious tyrants to make a comeback. In Iraq we overthrew a secular tyranny and support the formation of a religious tyranny in its place.
Like the Soviet Union? They went through many a strongman. Like China? They have had many a strongman since Mao. Both of these oppressive, secular states have killed far more people than religious institutions that have ruled countries.
Stalin, individually, and Mao, individually, racked up quite impressive body-counts, to be sure. But neither the Soviet Union nor China was mass-murderous after those two were gone: oppressive and dreary countries to live in, to be sure, but not killing people by boxcar-loads either. The state which had the longest record of killing people by public torture would be the Papal States in central Italy all the way up to 1870: it really does require something like religion to keep that sort of thing going generation after generation.
A judges job is to determine the law. NOT to determine a winner. The Florida law was being followed as written.
It was being followed, all the way up until the SCOTUS stopped it. The law DOES require that the voters' intent be the standard for determining who the winner, and when that is in dispute, it is the courts' job to figure that out. From the Florida Supreme Court:
"[W]here the intention of the voter can be ascertained with reasonable certainty from his ballot, that intention will be given effect . . . ." As it happens, this repeats nearly verbatim the Florida statutory standard of FSA 101.5614(5),
Nice deflection but the criminal activity renders the previous declaration of a winner invalid. Where was the proven criminal activity in Bush vs. Gore? There was none.
Criminal activity is not the prerequisite for determining that an election count was incorrect. It is merely one example of how the intent of the voters can be thwarted.

Did waste some trillions.

For that matter, the Myrmi is using the "you disagree with me, it means you must haaaate meee" again. So Republican... :rolleyes:
See there it is again... That enormous chip on your shoulder. One wonders how you make it through the day carrying that burden.

I was talking about the way you hate Republicans; I couldn't care less about what you think of me. All I can do is smile, shake my head, and hope you grow out of it.

See there it is again... That enormous chip on your shoulder. One wonders how you make it through the day carrying that burden.

I was talking about the way you hate Republicans; I couldn't care less about what you think of me. All I can do is smile, shake my head, and hope you grow out of it.

Well, Republican politicians gave us the war in Iraq, intolerance, less separation between church and state, and so on. So, I guess the sensible thing to do is to hate them.

/threadjack.

I'm trying to think of a time when the popular vote actually did matter in the U.S. - certainly not in my lifetime.


It would have been quite interesting to see Clinton win by the rules wouldn't it have? The first woman president would have also been historic. Alas, she couldn't win the game. At least she got a lot of people excited this election year and can draw on them to support Obama.


These times we are living in are so far out. Seeing the Republicans angrily clutching at straws to try to give Obama a bad name is kind of sad because you can see the desperation as they know McCain has very little chance. If Obama was so easily beaten and had such a terrible history, I imagine we'd actually see some evidence. OH well, better luck next presidential election guys ;)


The town hall meetings proposal was a bad move on McCains part. I doubt the old guy will be able to keep up. He can barely keep his facts straight about some of the most pressing issues of our time. The man used to be respectable and then the year 2000 rolled around.

Sorry, but I always like to pick on this kind of thing. Always.

That's because most of it (the Bakken stuff, also Alaska) costs $1000 a barrel to extract. If you want your gas to cost you $40 a gallon, then go for it. Otherwise, I'd stick to imports ;)

And as to the Alaskan stuff - if all of your oil is now costing $1,000 a barrel to extract, then your transit prices to get it anywhere even remotely useful are going to be horrific.

Just keep that in mind before you talk about how the US should have energy independence ;)
The coastline is a different thing. There's enough oil there to fuel cars and homes for about 60 years according to oil experts. There are other things to think about, too. Futures for one. If we were allowed to explore and drill with less restrictions, we would see the futures prices plummet. That would bring the price per gallon down -- how much remains to be seen, but it would happen before the first new barrel of oil was drawn.

Social democracy is not socialism.

It's Socialism Lite, also known by its registered name I can't believe it's not Socialism®.

The coastline is a different thing. There's enough oil there to fuel cars and homes for about 60 years according to oil experts.
Aye, otoh there's people and wildlife on the coasts ;)
There are other things to think about, too. Futures for one. If we were allowed to explore and drill with less restrictions, we would see the futures prices plummet. That would bring the price per gallon down -- how much remains to be seen, but it would happen before the first new barrel of oil was drawn.
Uhu. Seriously, that stuff is only going to be worth drilling after, say, 40 more years. At least.

I do not feel he has enough experience. I do not like his health care plan and I do not like how he will meet with some of the world worst leaders in his first year w/o any pre-conditions for the USA. Also i think he is a celebrity superstar who is getting a huge wave from the media while Hillary CLinton is being treated like she is a monster. Also the obama supporters i've spoken to turn me off completely, they had so much hate for hillary since the begining it was disgusting. I belive that the Media created an image that is not completely true of Obama. After the speech what else is left of him. Our country is in too bad of a situation to take a gamble. His supporters are more focused on the idea having a black/multi racial president who is "change" and changes our image in thw world then worrying about what change do we need right now. I wanted Hillary to comes and clean everything up and when our country was in a better mode Obama would of been there long enough to know what needs to be change as far as how things is done and what not. He is not hillary who i belive is ready on day one.

The people who are really facing the heat of Bush's administration are not worried about a person's race but when they see this person getting all the celebs around them they feel left out. Hillary has connected with all voters wheter or not they choose to accept it. It is time we had someone who will fight for the American people in the white house and I think it is hillary CLinton. Now that she is being forced to concede I dont like obama at all, and i am a young black teen from NYC. I consider myself independent now but i will support Obama if he comes with Hillary

Better a gamble than a clearly bad choice (in either Clinton or McCain). What has Hillary accomplished in the Senate? Not very much. What's wrong with Obama's health care plan? Hillary wants to pay for health care with an additional payroll tax without doing anything to reduce costs, which is the major issue with our system. Such a system would simply put an even greater strain on the financial situation of the poor. Ignoring dictators doesn't make them go away and being stand-offish accomplishes nothing, so meetings with them seem a good idea. Besides, such meetings don't preclude other measures, such as sanctions, anyway. As for the whole "change" thing, change is definitely needed in our government, and neither Hillary nor McCain are likely to bring it. I would love to vote for an independent candidate, but our stupid plurality/majority (can't remember which) election system would make it a wasted vote, and essentially a vote for McCain.

Counting results of all primaries, not caucuses, including disputed contests in Florida and Michigan, Clinton leads the popular vote 17,461,845 to Obama's 17,244,762, according to CNN estimates. That number includes giving Obama all the "uncommitted" votes from Michigan. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/states/puerto.rico.html)

I am absolutely aghast at the fact that the Democratic Party is going to nominate the candidate who got fewer votes in the popular vote column. The superdelegates put Obama over the top, not anything in the pledged delegate count. I had always been under the impression that in our society, the man (or woman) who got the most votes is supposed to win. Yet now this is happening again, exactly as it happened in 2000 when George W. Bush lost to Al Gore in the popular vote tally but won in the electoral college.

At what point did our love of procedure (if indeed a procedure caused this to happen) become greater than our love of democracy? More to the point, are we even democratic any longer? It is clear that delegate systems like ours become wildly inaccurate when the race is close. How can a candidate who lost the popular vote but won the election be anything other than an illegitimate figure? I know people who STILL claim that Bush is illegitimate, and I have difficulty disagreeing with their assessment.

It never mattered. If it did then we'd be at the tail end of the General Election between Lieberman and McCain right now.

TO OP: It's called the Democratic Party.

Not America.

Never really did count. The establishment of the electoral college was a way of keeping the powerful in power because they thought farmers couldn't make the right decision.

Sad but only half true. The electoral college was implemented to decrease the difficulty of counting such a large number of votes when the communication systems weren't up to snuff. Now however it's uneccessary.

Sad but only half true. The electoral college was implemented to decrease the difficulty of counting such a large number of votes when the communication systems weren't up to snuff. Now however it's unnecessary.

Please don't tell me the world had to endure 8 years with a psychotic mass-murderer in the White House, despite a majority of votes for Al Gore in 2000, because of... tradition.

I would support anyone I thought had a chance of keeping yet another Republican from further harming the world. Obama happened to be black. Were he yellow, blue, magenta or green I would also support him. Because the world cannot afford another administration of warmongering, religious pandering and destruction.

Then why (http://www.antiwar.com/justin?articleid=12944) are you supporting Obama?

Then why (http://www.antiwar.com/justin?articleid=12944) are you supporting Obama?
Because he takes a less hawkish line about Iran than any other proper candidates, none of whom would even talk to Achmujenidad?

Because he takes a less hawkish line about Iran than any other proper candidates, none of whom would even talk to Achmujenidad?

He's no less hawkish than McCain on Iran. He said he would do "everything in my power" to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons (even though Iran gave up its weapons program years ago).

The only genuine pro-peace candidates this election were Paul, Kucinich, and Gravel.

Then why (http://www.antiwar.com/justin?articleid=12944) are you supporting Obama?

Mostly because I base my decisions regarding politicians on things they actually SAID. Such as McCain's outspoken desire to start wars.

He's no less hawkish than McCain on Iran. He said he would do "everything in my power" to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons (even though Iran gave up its weapons program years ago).

The only genuine pro-peace candidates this election were Paul, Kucinich, and Gravel.

Let's apply your logic, shall we?

You take "everything" to include war with Iran. But "Everything" is REALLY EVERYTHING. So it might also include dancing polka on the nude with two watermelons under his arms in front of Ahmadinejad while singing the National Anthem of Slovenia.

Think he'll do that? No? Then why make assumptions about what "everything" means?

He's no less hawkish than McCain on Iran. He said he would do "everything in my power" to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons (even though Iran gave up its weapons program years ago).
No, you're being wrong right there.

Everyone says they'd do 'anything' to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons. On the other hand, for McCain and the now-defunct Clinton, this does not involve talking to the actual leadership of Iran. Unlike with Obama.

So I don't see how he's actually being 'no less hawkish', let's be honest.
The only genuine pro-peace candidates this election were :
Paul
Terrible candidate in general.
Kucinich
Tragically unelectable in the US, also his policies would absolutely knacker an already horrific budget deficit.
Gravel.
Eugh, no.

Both of them would probably bristle at the comparison (which only makes me more eager to make it), but Justin Raimondo reads like the SEP's World Socialist Web Site: he pursues his ideological agenda by citing evidence without any regard for context and simple political realities.

Both of them would probably bristle at the comparison (which only makes me more eager to make it), but Justin Raimondo reads like the SEP's World Socialist Web Site: he pursues his ideological agenda by citing evidence without any regard for context and simple political realities.
Quite. It's utter bullshit from the word go.

Almost their entire 'About Us' bit does not compute with "The pressing need for "citizen experts" is the reason we set up Antiwar.com."

I'm sorry, but real experts do not let bias and selective sourcing get in their way. Men like Kershaw don't leave out context, or sources by leftists, they savour them, discuss them. That's actual expertise. Not simply indulging in mental masturbation.

It's Socialism Lite, also known by its registered name I can't believe it's not Socialism®.
If you think that socialism and social democracy are "basically the same thing," what other reductions do you employ in political discussion?

If you think that socialism and social democracy are "basically the same thing," what other reductions do you employ in political discussion?

Nazism and patriotism, perhaps? :p

, but our stupid plurality/majority (can't remember which) election system would make it a wasted vote, and essentially a vote for McCain.

We have a winner take all system which means that a strong independent might get a lot of votes but with few if any EVs. (Perot) It also means that a tiny majority of votes determine all the EVs. (*cough* .official 009% margin of votes in Florida 2000 *cough*)

Please don't tell me the world had to endure 8 years with a psychotic mass-murderer in the White House, despite a majority of votes for Al Gore in 2000, because of... tradition.

It'd also be very, very difficult to change (need to amend the constitution which among other things requires 3/4rds of states. Small states are overrepresented in the Electoral College and would probably vote against any change to transition to direct popular vote.)

It'd also be very, very difficult to change (need to amend the constitution which among other things requires 3/4rds of states. Small states are overrepresented in the Electoral College and would probably vote against any change to transition to direct popular vote.)

This is pretty absurd...

Translation of OP:


Whine whine whine, bitch bitch bitch, moan moan moan, cry cry cry, ignore cotnradicting evidence, ignore facts, ignore logic, fuzzy math.



To which the only worth while response is:

:rolleyes: