yeah. you liive in mass why vote? plus, ron paul would vote for rape victims in north dakota to be forced by the state to keep the baby. fuck him. vote kucinich if you are writing in anything. all the nut bag with pro-abortion
Ron Paul is cool n' all but why even vote at all if you're just going to write someone in?
to actually support someone who I feels is best for the job...what's wrong with that? Rather cast a vote for him than going with a lesser of 2 evils...
to actually support someone who I feels is best for the job...what's wrong with that? Rather cast a vote for him than going with a lesser of 2 evils...
With Sarah Palin in the mix on top of McCain being Bush Lite, the choice is pretty damn simple in my opinion regardless if you still don't like Obama all that much.
honestly, I want a 100% electoral tie. and then the house votes in obama and the senate is an exact tie with liberman going for palin (even though mccain tossed that dude under the bus) and dick cheney casts the deciding vote for palin as vp. that would be the best shitstorm ever!
it just would suck when someone mlk's obama and palin is the presidentwhore
I'm considering writing in Ron Paul. That or voting 3rd party. I'm convinced McCain and Obama are corporate puppets.
man, ron paul was a republican...you can't vote for him. there's only one nomination for each party and he's not runningg as a third party because he has morals and is loyal to his party
yeah. you liive in mass why vote? plus, ron paul would vote for rape victims in north dakota to be forced by the state to keep the baby. fuck him. vote kucinich if you are writing in anything. all the nut bag with pro-abortion
incorrect.
Ron Paul is against abortion....but he also against federal government intefering in our personal lives
I'm considering writing in Ron Paul. That or voting 3rd party. I'm convinced McCain and Obama are corporate puppets.
man, ron paul was a republican...you can't vote for him. there's only one nomination for each party and he's not runningg as a third party because he has morals and is loyal to his party
that does not matter!!!!!!!!
if enough people write him in a he wins, just because he didn't get the nomination, doesn't mean he can't be a republican in office.....
of course he could always jump on the Cynthia Mckinney bandwagon and call himself a member of the "Constitutionalist" party
post by orgymf@work at Oct 2,2008 9:20am
if enough people write him in AND he wins, that was....god damn i suck
post by orgymf@work at Oct 2,2008 9:22am
anyway....to answer the question of the thread, yes, i will write in Ron Paul, and anyone who doesn't is contributing to the already staggering number of people who mindlessly flocking like sheep to vote for a fossil, with an inexperienced running mate, or an inexperienced candiate, with an idiot running mate.
yeah. you liive in mass why vote? plus, ron paul would vote for rape victims in north dakota to be forced by the state to keep the baby. fuck him. vote kucinich if you are writing in anything. all the nut bag with pro-abortion
incorrect.
Ron Paul is against abortion....but he also against federal government intefering in our personal lives
Holy oxymoron, buttman.
post by orgymf@work at Oct 2,2008 9:28am
no josh, it's not an oxymoron, what i meant by that is, it is against his personal beliefs, but he does not support laws against it.
he does not support any laws that infringe upon our personal lives.
how many times will people be idiots about the abortion debate. Ron paul will put in place judges that will overturn rowe v wade. that will cause the states and or counties to once again pass their own laws. since morals are geographically centralized, there will be huge collection of states (where the stupid people that you want to have abortions live). then 16 year old girls will have to travel 400+ miles across state lines to get to abortions. oh yeah, crossing state lines or helping someone cross state lines for an abortion would also be illegal. so go ahead, vote for a world full of unaborted incest and rape babies.
yeah. you liive in mass why vote? plus, ron paul would vote for rape victims in north dakota to be forced by the state to keep the baby. fuck him. vote kucinich if you are writing in anything. all the nut bag with pro-abortion
I'd vote for Kucinich if he wasn't pro gun control, so fuck ron paul? fuck him too.
yeah. you liive in mass why vote? plus, ron paul would vote for rape victims in north dakota to be forced by the state to keep the baby. fuck him. vote kucinich if you are writing in anything. all the nut bag with pro-abortion
incorrect.
Ron Paul is against abortion....but he also against federal government intefering in our personal lives
Holy oxymoron, buttman.
He has his own set of morals which are well known, yet he abides by the constitution as the law of the land. No flip-flopping there.
how many times will people be idiots about the abortion debate. Ron paul will put in place judges that will overturn rowe v wade. that will cause the states and or counties to once again pass their own laws. since morals are geographically centralized, there will be huge collection of states (where the stupid people that you want to have abortions live). then 16 year old girls will have to travel 400+ miles across state lines to get to abortions. oh yeah, crossing state lines or helping someone cross state lines for an abortion would also be illegal. so go ahead, vote for a world full of unaborted incest and rape babies.
Thank you.
He may be against the Feds interfering, but he has no problem with state govt telling broads what to do with their cunts.
Yeah, because we're involved in a quagmire in Iraq, the economy is being destroyed by our own government, and we have a candidate like Barack Obama who supports the Global Poverty Act which would take billions of taxpayers money and ship it overseas in droves to 3rd world nations. Of course the goal wouldn't even be to teach them trades so that they can support themselves, but to create giant welfare states. He didn't vote for the war yet he's all for using taxpayers money to rebuild foreign nations like Iraq? Abortion is the last thing on my mind right now.
post by porphyria at Oct 2,2008 10:17am
There's no point in wasting your time voting if you're just going to write someone in. Might as well write in Santa.
Yeah, because we're involved in a quagmire in Iraq, the economy is being destroyed by our own government, and we have a candidate like Barack Obama who supports the Global Poverty Act which would take billions of taxpayers money and ship it overseas in droves to 3rd world nations. Of course the goal wouldn't even be to teach them trades so that they can support themselves, but to create giant welfare states. He didn't vote for the war yet he's all for using taxpayers money to rebuild foreign nations like Iraq? Abortion is the last thing on my mind right now.
That's a much better way to stop terrorism than our idiotic invasion of Iraq. People become terrorists because they are fucking pissed off. If the ragheads had all the creature comforts and brain-deadening forms of entertainment that we have, they wouldn't be flying planes into buildings and blowing up shit.
Better to spend the money on that than on making their lives worse therefore creating more terrorists.
post by Josh_Martin at Oct 2,2008 10:26am edited Oct 2,2008 10:28am
Rev, how come when I first get work my posts come out fine and then after a few hours this triple shit starts? This is weird.
post by Josh_Martin at Oct 2,2008 10:26am edited Oct 2,2008 10:27am
that will cause the states and or counties to once again pass their own laws.
That is exactly what I want.
America needs to separate into liberal and conservative spheres anyway; it's inevitable.
I think having states regulate many things, like abortion and drug legalization, lets citizens have the best of both worlds -- you can move someplace for its policies, and others don't have to subsidize it if it fails.
There will be conservative states where abortion is not illegal.
Yeah, because we're involved in a quagmire in Iraq, the economy is being destroyed by our own government, and we have a candidate like Barack Obama who supports the Global Poverty Act which would take billions of taxpayers money and ship it overseas in droves to 3rd world nations.
We've done this for years with foreign aid, and all it does is make others hate us, apparently.
Better to spend the money on that than on making their lives worse therefore creating more terrorists.
Yeah, it can't be because they honestly disagree with us and aren't whores to convenience, can it?
For the current generation, yeah probably.
I'm thinking more of future generations. People who didn't grow up hating us. Give the kids a taste of good ol' american teen rebellion.
post by Josh_Martin at Oct 2,2008 10:30am edited Oct 2,2008 10:31am
.
post by Josh_Martin at Oct 2,2008 10:30am edited Oct 2,2008 10:31am
.
post by monster_island at Oct 2,2008 10:37am edited Oct 2,2008 10:39am
Yeah, because we're involved in a quagmire in Iraq, the economy is being destroyed by our own government, and we have a candidate like Barack Obama who supports the Global Poverty Act which would take billions of taxpayers money and ship it overseas in droves to 3rd world nations. Of course the goal wouldn't even be to teach them trades so that they can support themselves, but to create giant welfare states. He didn't vote for the war yet he's all for using taxpayers money to rebuild foreign nations like Iraq? Abortion is the last thing on my mind right now.
Yeah, because we're involved in a quagmire in Iraq, the economy is being destroyed by our own government, and we have a candidate like Barack Obama who supports the Global Poverty Act which would take billions of taxpayers money and ship it overseas in droves to 3rd world nations. Of course the goal wouldn't even be to teach them trades so that they can support themselves, but to create giant welfare states. He didn't vote for the war yet he's all for using taxpayers money to rebuild foreign nations like Iraq? Abortion is the last thing on my mind right now.
That's a much better way to stop terrorism than our idiotic invasion of Iraq. People become terrorists because they are fucking pissed off. If the ragheads had all the creature comforts and brain-deadening forms of entertainment that we have, they wouldn't be flying planes into buildings and blowing up shit.
Better to spend the money on that than on making their lives worse therefore creating more terrorists.
It's our constant meddling in other's affairs and exploitations of foreign nations that breeds the animosity against the west. I can't agree with this socialist idea of giving third world nations our money so that they don't "hate" us. They just want to funnel the money in and not actually create any social programs that would teach them trades for their overall benefit. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.
post by porphyria at Oct 2,2008 10:49am
ANYTHING Obama/Biden will do is better than what McCain/Palin will.
Yeah, because we're involved in a quagmire in Iraq, the economy is being destroyed by our own government, and we have a candidate like Barack Obama who supports the Global Poverty Act which would take billions of taxpayers money and ship it overseas in droves to 3rd world nations. Of course the goal wouldn't even be to teach them trades so that they can support themselves, but to create giant welfare states. He didn't vote for the war yet he's all for using taxpayers money to rebuild foreign nations like Iraq? Abortion is the last thing on my mind right now.
They're both corporate candidates who are two sides of the same coin. I see no difference between both because none of them have our best interests at hand.
Yeah, because we're involved in a quagmire in Iraq, the economy is being destroyed by our own government, and we have a candidate like Barack Obama who supports the Global Poverty Act which would take billions of taxpayers money and ship it overseas in droves to 3rd world nations. Of course the goal wouldn't even be to teach them trades so that they can support themselves, but to create giant welfare states. He didn't vote for the war yet he's all for using taxpayers money to rebuild foreign nations like Iraq? Abortion is the last thing on my mind right now.
That's a much better way to stop terrorism than our idiotic invasion of Iraq. People become terrorists because they are fucking pissed off. If the ragheads had all the creature comforts and brain-deadening forms of entertainment that we have, they wouldn't be flying planes into buildings and blowing up shit.
Better to spend the money on that than on making their lives worse therefore creating more terrorists.
It's our constant meddling in other's affairs and exploitations of foreign nations that breeds the animosity against the west. I can't agree with this socialist idea of giving third world nations our money so that they don't "hate" us. They just want to funnel the money in and not actually create any social programs that would teach them trades for their overall benefit. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.
Look, i don't necessarily support it either, but the money is going over there regardless of who's in charge. Might as well do something better with it then we are now.
And like anus.com said, we've been sending billions in foreign aid for years.
This is nothing new.
post by Josh_Martin at Oct 2,2008 10:55am edited Oct 2,2008 10:56am
.
post by Josh_Martin at Oct 2,2008 10:55am edited Oct 2,2008 10:56am
Yeah, because we're involved in a quagmire in Iraq, the economy is being destroyed by our own government, and we have a candidate like Barack Obama who supports the Global Poverty Act which would take billions of taxpayers money and ship it overseas in droves to 3rd world nations. Of course the goal wouldn't even be to teach them trades so that they can support themselves, but to create giant welfare states. He didn't vote for the war yet he's all for using taxpayers money to rebuild foreign nations like Iraq? Abortion is the last thing on my mind right now.
That's a much better way to stop terrorism than our idiotic invasion of Iraq. People become terrorists because they are fucking pissed off. If the ragheads had all the creature comforts and brain-deadening forms of entertainment that we have, they wouldn't be flying planes into buildings and blowing up shit.
Better to spend the money on that than on making their lives worse therefore creating more terrorists.
It's our constant meddling in other's affairs and exploitations of foreign nations that breeds the animosity against the west. I can't agree with this socialist idea of giving third world nations our money so that they don't "hate" us. They just want to funnel the money in and not actually create any social programs that would teach them trades for their overall benefit. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.
Look, i don't necessarily support it either, but the money is going over there regardless of who's in charge. Might as well do something better with it then we are now.
And like anus.com said, we've been sending billions in foreign aid for years.
This is nothing new.
Maybe it's time for change? We are billions of dollars in debt, the value of our dollar is plummeting, and our economy is collapsing. How about we keep our own money.
If you really think Ron Paul in the White House would change any of that, (really rude comment removed because I don't feel like being an asshole today)
post by Josh_Martin at Oct 2,2008 11:04am edited Oct 2,2008 11:05am
.
post by Josh_Martin at Oct 2,2008 11:04am edited Oct 2,2008 11:04am
If you really think Ron Paul in the White House would change any of that, (really rude comment removed because I don't feel like being an asshole today)
I really do, although I'm not so delusional to think it's going to happen this election. I think he would be best for the job.
post by deathchick at Oct 2,2008 11:09am edited Oct 2,2008 11:11am
Yeah, because we're involved in a quagmire in Iraq, the economy is being destroyed by our own government, and we have a candidate like Barack Obama who supports the Global Poverty Act which would take billions of taxpayers money and ship it overseas in droves to 3rd world nations. Of course the goal wouldn't even be to teach them trades so that they can support themselves, but to create giant welfare states. He didn't vote for the war yet he's all for using taxpayers money to rebuild foreign nations like Iraq? Abortion is the last thing on my mind right now.
Good point, just wanted to chime in that while I don't support heaps of foreign aid (or much of any for that matter) most of that money goes directly to schools and public services, creating trades and educated people in the process. And at this point, if the government doesn't rebuild Iraq, that means more enemies for us. It'd be interesting to see what happens if we let the middle east manage itself, abandon all our military bases and aid projects. That includes the rooting out the neocon zionists in this government and cutting ties with Israel (yea I said it)
If you really think Ron Paul in the White House would change any of that, (really rude comment removed because I don't feel like being an asshole today)
Having a third party candidate might provide more change than we think.
Right now it's real cozy in Washington -- two big parties, lobbyists invest in them, everything moves along.
Having a firebrand, either Paul or Kucinich, in the white house might cause some shakeup of that.
I think the first myth we need to break down is that average people fit into either liberal or conservative camps "neatly."
I think that's important is disruption of business as usual, and people who are more committed to ideology than convenience, but not so committed they become dogmatic, Soviet-types (something both Obama and the Neocons had in common: they want to bring glorious democracy to the world!).
Having a third party candidate, especially one who says "I'm doing this because it's both right AND practical," would go a long way toward reforming American politics.
That and suppress the votes of anyone under 120 IQ points ;)
"Your guilty conscience may force you to vote Democratic, but deep down inside you secretly long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king. That's why I did this: to protect you from yourselves. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a city to run."
how many times will people be idiots about the abortion debate. Ron paul will put in place judges that will overturn rowe v wade. that will cause the states and or counties to once again pass their own laws. since morals are geographically centralized, there will be huge collection of states (where the stupid people that you want to have abortions live). then 16 year old girls will have to travel 400+ miles across state lines to get to abortions. oh yeah, crossing state lines or helping someone cross state lines for an abortion would also be illegal. so go ahead, vote for a world full of unaborted incest and rape babies.
the whole crossing state lines thing could have the positive affect of cutting back on teen pregnancies. thats a lot of work and youngters are more unmotivated than ever. and really, states rights aint a bad idea. who are we to push our new england culture and values on anyone else?