# Official Politics Thread



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

I see no way this could go terribly terribly wrong


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

I guess us Canadians aren't welcome. 

The apathy for our government in Canada seems pretty bad, and the candidates aren't really all that great either.


----------



## Near™ (Jun 20, 2007)

Perry has dropped down to third, thank God; him and his, 'Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are a ponzi scheme' killed him.

I have a lot of problems with Obama now (ObamaCare is crap, his stimulus bill was a joke and I am not sure how the Jobs Bill will turn out after all the changes that will inevitably happen if it even goes through) but I rather him be in office for another four years than have a Republican Candidate that is highly influenced by the Tea Baggers in office.


----------



## Dub (Dec 4, 2008)

NearSamcro™ said:


> Perry has dropped down to third, thank God; him and his, 'Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are a ponzi scheme' killed him.
> 
> I have a lot of problems with Obama now (ObamaCare is crap, his stimulus bill was a joke and I am not sure how the Jobs Bill will turn out after all the changes that will inevitably happen if it even goes through) but I rather him be in office for another four years than have a Republican Candidate that is highly influenced by the Tea Baggers in office.


Same here. It always seems that the Republican camp jumps from one candidate to another. Next year will be interesting.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

Near said:


> Perry has dropped down to third, thank God; him and his, 'Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are a ponzi scheme' killed him.
> 
> I have a lot of problems with Obama now (ObamaCare is crap, his stimulus bill was a joke and I am not sure how the Jobs Bill will turn out after all the changes that will inevitably happen if it even goes through) but I rather him be in office for another four years than have a Republican Candidate that is highly influenced by the Tea Baggers in office.


If I was forced to vote for a Republican, I would reluctantly choose Perry but it is difficult to rally behind Republicans who have a false perception of reality for middle class Americans right now. Obama is not bad. Problem lies in his calm demeanor and his bipartison propoganda. He knows Congress is run by the Republicans now and was trying to appease them before all the liberals called him out on it. Now you have witnessed the president calling them (the Republicans) out at his conferences/speeches recently.



stevefox122 said:


> I see no way this could go terribly terribly wrong


If it runs it course, it runs it course. The threads I have made that involved political legends and fables have garnered some interest. A meager amount (one or two threads maybe) have stretched 3-5 pages in length.



UnDeFeatedKing said:


> I guess us Canadians aren't welcome.
> 
> The apathy for our government in Canada seems pretty bad, and the candidates aren't really all that great either.


My fault. I remissfully forgot about our quiet neighbors to the north! That seems to be how things are here in America as well. People are fed up with politicians and are not as receptive as 08.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

If Holt was still here, he would be beyond excited to see a thread like this. 

Why won't Sarah run?


----------



## Near™ (Jun 20, 2007)

Father Flex said:


> If I was forced to vote for a Republican, I would reluctantly choose Perry but it is difficult to rally behind Republicans who have a false perception of reality for middle class Americans right now. Obama is not bad. Problem lies in his calm demeanor and his bipartison propoganda. He knows Congress is run by the Republicans now and was trying to appease them before all the liberals called him out on it. Now you have witnessed the president calling them (the Republicans) out at his conferences/speeches recently.


I may have came off as a bit bold, but I don't hold the opinion that Obama is bad, but I just have a few issues. Nonetheless, I do like a lot of things he has done or attempted to do. 

Obama is an amazing talker, that got me to vote for him in '08, not to mention I didn't like the opposition. I consider myself a Conservative-Democrat; I agree with both parties on certain issues;


----------



## vintage jorts (Aug 9, 2011)

Father Flex said:


> C'mon in, political pundants of all assortments (invitation to all those who want to discuss - that includes you, Aussies and Brits). Talk about ideologies, parties, candidates, government, corruption, etc, etc,. *This is not a thread to forcefully promote or attempt to disseminate your views onto someone else.* If I have learned anything in life, there's two things that are NOT worth arguing (for obvious reasons):
> 
> 1. religion
> 2. politics
> ...


You're into politics? Politicians have a reputation for being 2 faced. This may explain why you called me a cunt in the rep section.


----------



## Dub (Dec 4, 2008)

Headliner said:


> If Holt was still here, he would be beyond excited to see a thread like this.
> 
> Why won't Sarah run?


Cause she would be expose even more.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

Headliner said:


> If Holt was still here, he would be beyond excited to see a thread like this.
> 
> Why won't Sarah run?


She is mistaking for an inept politician. Partially because of how clueless she comes off in interviews, partially because of her recent irrelevant scandal with Glenn Rice, and partially because of her female composition. Overall, she did a tremendous job in Alaska. That state became much ethical after she cleaned house. Corruption was everywhere. She cut spending, has a genuinely good track record with the economy, and imposed regulations and more taxes on oil companies who were making off well.

She isn't my cup of tea but people despise her and find her dense in the head. Which is understandable, as she isn't a enigmatic public speaker and sucks at speaking, but yeah. Misconstrued.


----------



## Near™ (Jun 20, 2007)

Headliner said:


> If Holt was still here, he would be beyond excited to see a thread like this.
> 
> Why won't Sarah run?


As posted above me: over exposure and not to mention she basically played suicide with her polices the last time around and for her to turn it around wouldn't float well.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

NearSamcro™;10414267 said:


> I may have came off as a bit bold, but I don't hold the opinion that Obama is bad, but I just have a few issues. Nonetheless, I do like a lot of things he has done or attempted to do.
> 
> Obama is an amazing talker, that got me to vote for him in '08, not to mention I didn't like the opposition. I consider myself a Conservative-Democrat; I agree with both parties on certain issues;


It's all gravy. Anytime your slogan is "change we can believe in" you have to up the anty. Obama has not done so yet. It was a bit of a provocative campaign message but it was effective. I have some issues that I would like ironed out, too. I want him to figure out Guantanamo Bay and charge these terrorists federally with capital murder instead of allowing torturous activities down there, I would certainly like the troops removed to the extent that Ron Paul suggests, and I certainly want to see the economy turned around.

One thing working for him is he still has a vision and I don't think any candidate is as innovative as he can be.



NearSamcro™;10414280 said:


> As posted above me: over exposure and not to mention she basically played suicide with her polices the last time around and for her to turn it around wouldn't float well.


That too. Inconsistency can getcha'.


----------



## Dub (Dec 4, 2008)

Father Flex said:


> It's all gravy. Anytime your slogan is "change we can believe in" you have to up the anty. Obama has not done so yet. It was a bit of a provocative campaign message but it was effective. I have some issues that I would like ironed out, too. I want him to figure out Guantanamo Bay and charge these terrorists federally with capital murder instead of allowing torturous activities down there, I would certainly like the troops removed to the extent that Ron Paul suggests, and I certainly want to see the economy turned around.
> 
> One thing working for him is he still has a vision and I don't think any candidate is as innovative as he can be.


I think during that time everyone just loved hearing the word "change" and hearing the potential goodness that will come if Obama became president. At that point, the majority was in no way shape or form going to side with the Republicans. Isn't there some sort of plan in the works to keep troops in Afghanistan until 2024?


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

I must hand it to you Flex, I may have been wrong

This has been both kind and civil with a fairly non partisan view

I expected "MY FUCKING WAY IS BETTER" by now 

maybe tomorrow


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

She's not a total moron. She's not running because she can make so much more money with absolutely no responsibility talking what amounts to a whole lot of shit.


----------



## Mikey Damage (Jul 11, 2004)

I am a moderate who shares views with both Republican and Democrats.

I am anti-abortion, I am pro-bracketed taxes, I am pro high military-spending, I would like to see universal healthcare... that's all off the top of my head. I'd have to look at a chart to see more issues.

I do not vote, for I believe that most (not all) politicians are nothing but criminals who steal from the average American. They abuse their power, and use it to leverage for their own good. i don't think all are this way, but it truly seems like most are. I would like to trust them, but as of now, I cannot.

I don't really pay attention to the Presidential candidates too closely. I will follow the main headlines, and try to watch the debates. But that's about it.

As of now, looks like Mitt Romney will be the guy to represent the Pubs in the election.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

What is the downside of universal healthcare? I know its more taxes and far bigger lineups in hospitals with emergency rooms packed, but the positives outweigh the negatives imo. I would hate to live in a country without it.


----------



## Mikey Damage (Jul 11, 2004)

insurance companies serve no purpose, thus losing billions of dollars.

that's not a problem for a citizen, but that's a downside on the business side of it.


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

Universal health offers a service for a wider range of people but lower the quality of care (like it are not the salary is big attraction to the medical field)

People dislike the public education let alone matter of life or death

I currently am having surgery on my legs to fix overly tight tendons and very flat feet (I have pain when I walk)

My insurance covers most of the procedure but not being "vital" I doubt public health care would and I would most likely just be given a basic brace (I may be wrong)


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

The quality of care isn't lower, it is still expected to be high quality otherwise you can sue, the wait and line ups at hospitals are just much bigger and more time consuming. 

If a doctor says it is necessary I'm sure that you would get the surgery with universal health care.

That's probably the biggest reason why Mikey, a sad truth.


----------



## Steve Patriot (Oct 12, 2007)

Rrrrthgh boring....so...God Damn BORING~

Once again, the false dichotomy that governs political discourse results in some inane piffle about the `power` of our truthfully pious leaders.

Honestly, I mean... what is wrong with you people! Do you bleating jackasses believe that these jackals in some faucet, in some listless hearing, actually care about you? 

Ben Bernanke's vote counts for more than you, or any senator's vote. 

This dreadful cacophony of speculative emptiness makes me want to go shoot up a school full of babies. Let's be realistic with ourselves, this preening tactfulness won't last a day. I like it rough, let's get rough!

Bring it on, you Assyrian flavored nationalists. I'm waiting right here, with my ass over a barrel, waiting to be pulverized!

Here are some thoughts:

-Terrorism is not limited to starving Yemenis who tire of Western Internationalism.

-"Protection" has become an Orwellian contradiction.

-A populace more in tune gawking like chimpanzees over the personal lives of famous persons has no credibility in intellectual matters. _Panem Et Circenses__, *indeed*_.



Discuss. But please do your best to detach yourself from the stinking orthodoxies that contend for your souls.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

DubC said:


> I think during that time everyone just loved hearing the word "change" and hearing the potential goodness that will come if Obama became president. At that point, the majority was in no way shape or form going to side with the Republicans. Isn't there some sort of plan in the works to keep troops in Afghanistan until 2024?


He says he wants the Afghan people to be responsible for their own security. Roughly 30,000 troops are going to be removed by the end of 2012. According to what he has said (which lacks consistency), Obama wants to completely withdraw all troops from Afghanistan by 2014. That is contingent upon the Afghan government completing its transition to democracy and reform to a self-sufficient government.

We will see.



Mikey Damage said:


> I am a moderate who shares views with both Republican and Democrats.
> 
> I am anti-abortion, I am pro-bracketed taxes, I am pro high military-spending, I would like to see universal healthcare... that's all off the top of my head. I'd have to look at a chart to see more issues.
> 
> ...


Nice. I am fiscally liberal and socially conservative in many ways but, as Bill Maher said, "I like to consider myself practical above all else".



Steve Patriot said:


> Rrrrthgh boring....so...God Damn BORING~
> 
> Once again, the false dichotomy that governs political discourse results in some inane piffle about the `power` of our truthfully pious leaders.
> 
> ...


I am speechless...

Remember: they work for us and represent us. If anyone is unhappy, quit voting the two most popular parties in that have caused this mess. After all, they are the culprits. Go libertarian, rally behind the tea party, or simply vote independent.

Bitterness and harboring resentful feelings will get you nowhere.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

Obama had a news conference on the Jobs Act. The US Senate will vote on it next week.

Obama: "It will boost economic growth; it will put people back to work."
Obama: "Middle class families need help right now."
Obama: "This Jobs bill will cut taxes for every small business in America."
Obama: "We've got millions of construction workers who are laid off that can innovate our infrastructure."
Obama: "Wealthy Americans need to chip in and pay their fair share."

President Obama speaks about putting teachers, firefighters, and cops back to work. Sights a teacher in Boston by the name of Robert, who has two decades of teaching experience and a Master's degree, get laid off because of budget cuts. Also, the president talks about the danger in spending wrecklessly and vows he is working to fix it.


----------



## Bubz (Jul 19, 2007)

BNP rule! Fuck yeah! 8*D

:hmm:


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

Bubz said:


> BMP rule! Fuck yeah! 8*D
> 
> :hmm:


Elaborate?


----------



## Bubz (Jul 19, 2007)

It was a joke. BNP are the scum of the earth.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

I'm asking for clarification. Aware me on "BMP".


----------



## Bubz (Jul 19, 2007)

Lol, you bastard. BNP*, edited now.


----------



## holycityzoo (Aug 14, 2011)

I guess this thread is just to voice our political opinions? I'm down...

Personally, I view myself as a Libertarian. I believe the Federal Government should be limited in their actions, and liberty and freedom are essential to a functional society. I believe in the constitution is above all other laws in America, something those in Washington have forgotten. Specifically, I believe we should slowly start to dismantle the Federal Reserve, and many federal bureaucracies. I'm strongly against our current foreign policy. We should be practicing a non-interventionist strategy, that we had in the early 1900s. Think about how long it took us to enter WWII. Then, think about our current policy, and how quickly we would enter such a war, or start such a war for that matter. Our goal as a country should be limiting governments role in business, as it is the reason for the drastic income differences between the classes. The government should be limited to ruling on cases of fraud and ensuring private property rights. Matters of pollution should be handled in the courts, rather than by over funded bureaucracies. These are just some of my beliefs, don't really feel like ranting about it all day lol


----------



## Mikey Damage (Jul 11, 2004)

I think it encompasses all things politics. Not just opinions.


CNN was on TV today during work. The President(I think) of the Tea Party gave an interview. She spoke of the candidates, and said that the TP isn't ready to endorse anyone. However, she did mention Hermain Cain's name.

Hmm. I always thought he was a joke. Kinda like Al Sharpton. Guess not?


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

He's black so they have to name drop him or be called racists, which they are. It's the same reason Steele was the RNC Chairman/Spokesperson. That guy was funny. I miss him.

Do people really think the Tea Party is a separate entity from the Republican Party? It's just an illusion of a third party.


----------



## Mikey Damage (Jul 11, 2004)

agree re: tea party.

isn't hermain cain the one who said some controversial things about reading? or was that someone else...


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

The Tea Party isn't necessarily part of the Republican Party but it's far right views do coincide with the rightists in the Republican Party. They are supporters of the military industrial complex which is why the Koch Brothers love giving them a lot of money. It's pretty much a sub group sewn to the side of the Republican Party. Not grassroots at all.


----------



## holycityzoo (Aug 14, 2011)

Panther said:


> The Tea Party isn't necessarily part of the Republican Party but it's far right views do coincide with the rightists in the Republican Party. They are supporters of the military industrial complex which is why the Koch Brothers love giving them a lot of money. It's pretty much a sub group sewn to the side of the Republican Party. Not grassroots at all.


That's what it has become, but when Ron Paul started in in 07, it was actually in favor of ending all post-911 wars. The republican party has sort of hijacked the Tea Party into making it into some sort of sub party, but at the start the Tea Party was fairly different.


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

glad ontario is staying red


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

Hiplop said:


> glad ontario is staying red


Liberals won't win for awhile sadly. Not that it matters. I personally think all our candidates have more negatives than positives.


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

Liberals just won our provincial election bro, idk what you're talking about. But yeah, they are really the only good party around today. If they get a good candidate (someone exciting), they could easily win. Ignatieff is who screwed them over, the party still has strength


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

Talking about the federal, not just provincial, but yeah. Unless I see better candidates in the future I'll probably just stick with the liberals as I'm more left wing than right.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

I hate hearing all these tea party practitioners talk about how the tea party is a "grass-roots" movement when it is quite the contrary nowadays. 

As for Ron Paul, I like him and his consistency but find some of his policies borderline chaotic, especially the health care that has been pinpointed by the media recently. He does not stand much of a chance due to a lack of publicity but I find him the most unique and honorable candidate running. There is not an issue Bachman and Romney have not flip-flopped on; Perry is a tad bit too stern for my liking and more totalitarian than anything else.

Speaking of Perry, what does everyone think of the recent contreversy surrounding Perry? According to reports, he has a rock that reads "N*ggerhead" on it at one of his camp sites. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...use-next-week/2011/10/06/gIQA7IcPQL_blog.html

Did he not expect to catch flack for that? What a bigot.


----------



## GuruOfMarkness (Aug 10, 2011)

I wanna say I'm a Republican, but I care a lot about the poor. I do believe that we can't blame the rich for pissing away money though and taxing them pointlessly is unfair. Politicians either lie to you or just can't fulfill their promises. What we need to do is:

1. Cut government spending: We are in trillions of debt. We can't keep giving out money that we don't have. I'm all for helping the little man, but we can't keep taxing rich people if it will just go down the drain. 

2. New Fuel alternative: Gas is shooting up sky high and I don't think that it will go down anytime soon. The environment is certainly suffering from this too, so enough talking about it, and more working on it.

3. Immigration: I don't know what we should do about it, but there are waaaaaay too many illegal immigrants here. Every human deserves the chance to live the American dream, but we can't afford that privilege right now.


----------



## CM Dealer (May 27, 2008)

What's fucking sad is that Herman Cain came out with all this shit about how the protestors on Wall Street are unamerican and anti-capitalist when that is the same rhetoric segrgationalists used 50 years ago. If it weren't for protestors, he wouldn't even have the right to vote, so he needs to shut the fuck up and get his head out of his ass.


----------



## holycityzoo (Aug 14, 2011)

Father Flex said:


> I hate hearing all these tea party practitioners talk about how the tea party is a "grass-roots" movement when it is quite the contrary nowadays.
> 
> As for Ron Paul, I like him and his consistency but find some of his policies borderline chaotic, especially *the health care that has been pinpointed by the media recently.* He does not stand much of a chance due to a lack of publicity but I find him the most unique and honorable candidate running. There is not an issue Bachman and Romney have not flip-flopped on; Perry is a tad bit too stern for my liking and more totalitarian than anything else.
> 
> ...



The media has completely blown that out of proportion, and has made Ron Paul out to look like some one who wants people to die. They do this all the time with him and it's so annoying. When Ron Paul was a doctor we didn't have programs like medicare and medicaid, and people weren't turned away. 

Ron Paul


> In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate they are now, and received good care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm. Hardly anyone is aware of this today, since it doesn’t fit into the typical, by the script story of government rescuing us from a predatory private sector.


Ron Paul's solution is to increase competition in the medical market to help drive down prices. Also, Paul has stated that he is strongly in favor of giving Americans the ability to fully deduct all health care costs from their taxes.


----------



## Emarosa (Sep 12, 2007)

Herman Cain. 2012. Believe.


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

With regards to Ron Paul, socially, he is a Progressive(end Drug War, legalize prostitution, etc), economically, he's a Conservative(anti government, pro Christian ideals, etc.) . So it's kind of bittersweet for me.


----------



## holycityzoo (Aug 14, 2011)

Panther said:


> With regards to Ron Paul, socially, *he is a Progressive(end Drug War, legalize prostitution, etc)*, economically, he's a Conservative(anti government, pro Christian ideals, etc.) . So it's kind of bittersweet for me.



I'm not trying to insult you here, but that's the wrong definition of a Progressive. A Progressive believes in reform through government action. Ron Paul is the opposite of Progressive minded thinking.


----------



## ItsWhatIdo (Aug 15, 2007)

CM Dealer said:


> What's fucking sad is that Herman Cain came out with all this shit about how the protestors on Wall Street are unamerican and anti-capitalist when that is the same rhetoric segrgationalists used 50 years ago. If it weren't for protestors, he wouldn't even have the right to vote, so he needs to shut the fuck up and get his head out of his ass.


You really think these people protesting are going to make one ounce of a difference? Do you really think anything is going to change because a bunch of people spent their day causing a scene rather than trying to find a job?


----------



## holycityzoo (Aug 14, 2011)

ItsWhatIdo said:


> You really think these people protesting are going to make one ounce of a difference? Do you really think anything is going to change because a bunch of people spent their day causing a scene rather than trying to find a job?


While I do think the protest is rather unorganized, protesting is one of the great freedoms we as Americans are ensured by the Constitution. There have been many protests that have had a significant influence on social and political discourse. Do I think Occupy Wall St. is going to have an immediate affect? No, but the fact that it's being covered all over the world shows that it is having some sort of impact. At least people are realizing that things need to be changed.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

At the very least, it brings recognition and publicity to the crookedness (referring to Wall Street). The whole system needs reform. Capitalism, in general, is about conning your client and selling for a profit. This causes a litany of problems such as inflation/stagflation which is almost irreparable based on this philosophy known as capitalism. We devote way too many resources to correct this and it is almost foolish to keep doing so. It's a never ending cycle that continuously repeats itself.

Not to mention, the housing market is completely baffling, the student loan bubble is about to pop, and the jail systems are completely overcrowded and alternative sentencing is inconsequential. The current state of this society we are living in is reprehensible, aside from the freedom and opportunity.

I should end my rant before I give off the wrong impression via this tangent I'm running off on...


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

Father Flex said:


> At the very least, it brings recognition and publicity to the crookedness (referring to Wall Street). The whole system needs reform. Capitalism, in general, is about conning your client and selling for a profit. This causes a litany of problems such as inflation/stagflation which is almost irreparable based on this philosophy known as capitalism. We devote way too many resources to correct this and it is almost foolish to keep doing so. It's a never ending cycle that continuously repeats itself.
> 
> Not to mention, the housing market is completely baffling, the student loan bubble is about to pop, and the jail systems are completely overcrowded and alternative sentencing is inconsequential. The current state of this society we are living in is reprehensible, aside from the freedom and opportunity.
> 
> I should end my rant before I give off the wrong impression via this tangent I'm running off on...


Your kind of an idealist 

every system is about selling and every system is about doing the minimum for maximum rewards 

You can't change that unless you make everyone self less (in which case I will be board as hell)

but I'm doing well right now so maybe I'm "part of the problem"

Remember

You can always trust a dishonest man do what is good for himself

You can always trust a honest man to do what he _thinks_ is good for others 

give me the choice I'll work with the first


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

I can agree with that. I am an idealist, a conversationalist, and a philanthropist. I envision a utopia that is not realistic with the way man is encoded. Regardless, a lot of what I did mention are problems plaguing this country that need to be addressed.


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

I tend to have a very cynical view where I tend to look out for myself but I do think we do need more honest people to help others 

I just tend to shy away from causes and sides because people tend to get so wrapped up in thinking they are "right" they lose perspective on what they are really doing 

I don't like how politicians, protesters, activist leaders etc. tend to fall into the "I'm right and if you were as smart/moral as me you would see that I am clearly right" and it becomes pissing match of my side vs. your side which can get out of hand

I think nothing can be built when people keep tearing down because they disagree with it

Its why I tend to side with big business, they have one goal, profit, and they race to the end of time to get more and the average person the advancements that they make in their race 

Not to sound like an asshole of course


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

holycityzoo said:


> I'm not trying to insult you here, but that's the wrong definition of a Progressive. A Progressive believes in reform through government action. Ron Paul is the opposite of Progressive minded thinking.


I meant a Progressive in a social sense although you could just say he's a liberal. He has traits of both sides but more on the right. Just clearing it up.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

Brief update on some headlines:

-Romney is not endorsed by some because of Mormon religion
-Perry still questioned for being radical

AND:

The most noteworthy and esotoric of headlines: Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador.



> http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/11/justice/iran-saudi-plot/index.html?hpt=hp_t1


Relations between America and Iran are strained, to say the least. Unbelievable amount of dissension. Question is: since the Iranian government is not autonomous, is their a faction who plotted this or were all notified? Dramatic news there. You can count on one hand how many times a foreign country has taken a shot at a representative in our capital.


----------



## J-Rod (Mar 13, 2010)

Does Herman Cain remind anyone else of Teddy Long? I can picture him winning the nomination for the Republican party and saying that he and his running mate are going to face Obama and Biden in a tag team match.

Anyway, I consider myself Conservative. I am not going to go into a lot of detail about anything because I don't really follow politics that closely, but from talking to my grandparents, it sounds like Cain and Gingrich would make a good combination with Cain's mind for business and Gingrich's experience in politics. I like what Gingrich said at the televised debate about how the media tries to turn Republicans against each other, and how they need to stand together to get Obama out of office.

I don't really like Obama politically, but what I do like about him is his charisma and his ability to connect with young people.


----------



## CM Dealer (May 27, 2008)

J-Rod said:


> I don't really like Obama politically, but what I do like about him is his charisma and his ability to connect with young people.


Speaking as a young person who supported Obama, I think there is a big difference between Candidate Obama, who was a charismatic and inspiring speaker, and President Obama, who talks just like every other politician. He still has a large base of support among young voters, but on the other hand, I know a lot of people in their 20s who say they don't know who they will vote for in the next election.

Also, did anyone watch the debate last night? I heard Cain and his pizza promotion tax plan stole the show.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

Leave it to Bachmann to make a devil reference. "Turn the 999 upside down and you have a 666. That's all that needs to be said about Mr. Cain's tax plan."


----------



## Callisto (Aug 9, 2009)

I can't that piece of shit Rick Santorum.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Father Flex said:


> Leave it to Bachmann to make a devil reference. "Turn the 999 upside down and you have a 666. That's all that needs to be said about Mr. Cain's tax plan."


She said this in a debate? Man I wish I had watched and hope she sticks around. That is some idiotic gold right there.


----------



## AlecPure (Feb 5, 2010)

if Obamacare goes into play, it will be one of the worst things in American History. For one they want to make it mandatory and are considering fining people who do not take the Govt. Health Care.. Why should the Govt. be able to force you to get healthcare? how is it any of their business? 

It will shut down insurance companies, which in turn will cause many middle class people to lose jobs.. Yeah good ole' BO really cares about the middle class, yet one of the main things he puts all his weight behind would cut more jobs than he already has since he took office. 

anyway here is a story for you guys.. England has govt health care.. A friend of mine lives in London and his mother was diagnosed with breast cancer over the summer.. due to how the healthcare system is structured over there, they told her she would have to wait 7 month to even be put on a list for Chemo, due to all the people in line before her. She was also told, if for some reason a spot on the list doesn't open in 7 months, if her birthday passes while she is waiting and she turns 58 she will be removed from the waiting list as she will be too old.. That is what they told her, and that is what is going to happen to the healthcare system here, if Obama and the liberals have their way.. My friend and his mother decided to not go with the medical care in London and flew here to the US and they stayed with me. Within a day of them being here, his mother given test and was placed on chemo the very next day.. No waiting list, no age requirements, no jumping through hoops.. 

Now i know many of you will prob bash me and call me a republican, but i am far from that.. I consider myself a Constitutionalist.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

It will strengthen insurance companies, not put them out of business.


----------



## AlecPure (Feb 5, 2010)

MrMister said:


> It will strengthen insurance companies, not put them out of business.


and how will it do that? i really want to see how you spin this around lol


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

It's no spin. People will be forced to get insurance. Private insurance companies will be getting customers they didn't have before. Pretty obvious really.

Seriously, do you think large corporations are going to lose in America? :lmao


----------



## CM Dealer (May 27, 2008)

MrMister said:


> It's no spin. People will be forced to get insurance. Private insurance companies will be getting customers they didn't have before. Pretty obvious really.


I disagree. The vast majority of people who don't have insurance today can't afford it anyway. Saying the have to have it won't change the fact that they can either pay their electricity bill or get health insurance. Plenty of people go without car insurance even though that is mandatory to drive in most if not all states.

The lack of a public option is horrible, but a lot of the bill is indisputably good (like insurance companies not being able to discriminate based off pre-exsisting conditions, and kids being able to stay on their parents' health care plans for a few more years).


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

That's fine. Insurance companies still aren't going out of business. I'm sure plenty of private companies are going to create affordable policies that are profitable.

A public option is the only thing that would actually threaten insurance companies and that's exactly why we don't have one, nor will ever have one most likely.

And even a public option wouldn't kill private companies. I mean FedEx and UPS thrive in the same reality as the USPS.


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

lmao, bachmann is rivalling foxnews as the most unintentionally hilarious thing on tv these days


----------



## 777 (Feb 24, 2011)

AlecPure said:


> if Obamacare goes into play, it will be one of the worst things in American History. For one they want to make it mandatory and are considering fining people who do not take the Govt. Health Care.. Why should the Govt. be able to force you to get healthcare? how is it any of their business?
> 
> It will shut down insurance companies, which in turn will cause many middle class people to lose jobs.. Yeah good ole' BO really cares about the middle class, yet one of the main things he puts all his weight behind would cut more jobs than he already has since he took office.
> 
> ...


Straight talk from a Canadian who lives with universal healthcare.
Insurance is still alive and well here in Canada as healthcare will only cover essential/necessary services. Waiting lists are also a problem but there are private options available to those with the money to do so. Similar to your friends Mom, one could always get in quicker by paying cash, politicians and movie stars don't wait in the triage. 
Healthcare falls under provincial jurisdiction (similar to your states) while still under the umbrella of the Fed. Alberta for example, has different laws where you have to pay cash for healthcare but you also aren't taxed for it.
It's less the government forcing you to do something and more providing a social safety net so those who 'have not' are getting their basic needs met. We all pay into the provincial coffers through taxation and in the end our essential medical needs are taken care of...but it's not necessarily the best care, budgets are stretched, waiting lines are long and doctors are overbooked.

Tonnes of pros and cons with this topic, lots of different ways of structuring the system too. I wouldn't want to sway you either way, just telling you how things work up here.

But I will say this. I hate the idea of someone dying because they couldn't afford to see a doctor.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

Apparently Florida's Governor is attempting to find a way to reward college students whom go into science, medical, engineering, or math rather than liberal arts. In doing so, he (I'm blanking on the name) will cut aid or explore other avenues to accomplish this. So:

-less loans/grants for liberal arts majors
-increased funding and the same amount of loans for science, medial, engineering, and math majors

All this talk about infrastructure and everything else included in the Jobs Act (teaching, research, innovation, etc,.) has sparked this topic recently.



MrMister said:


> She said this in a debate? Man I wish I had watched and hope she sticks around. That is some idiotic gold right there.


Yes, she certainly did.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

I backed Obama, but can't honestly say he's doing a good job now.

Then again, I still have my own long-standing plan to run in 2020 in the back of my mind.


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

Even with universal healthcare, it would only meet it's true potential if it was managed well or else you'll run into some of the problems you had with the craptastic for profit healthcare system. A public option to the default healthcare plan is a good start. I wish I could go into more detail and sound like I know what I'm talking about but I'm literally dozing off right now.


----------



## Muerte al fascismo (Feb 3, 2008)

Father Flex said:


> Brief update on some headlines:
> 
> -Romney is not endorsed by some because of Mormon religion
> -Perry still questioned for being radical
> ...


Romney for me is the only credible candidate. He wouldn't embarrass in the world arena like some of the others on the table. Who cares what he practices in private. 

Realistically he's the only figure with enough presence and appeal to compete with the charismatic one.

As for Iran, the clerics and political leaders have too many attack dogs to keep track off. It's obviously a rogue wing getting itchy feet and wanting to get famous. If Iran's leadership wanted to take him out, the last thing they would do is attack him in the capital. They might have extremist beliefs, but they're not dumb. Iran has enough domestic problems with warring political factions. The Iranian economy also isn't exactly booming right now, so I doubt pissing off the USA in plain sight is a big priority right now.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

I did some research on it and I don't think it all adds up. It all sounds like propoganda and gesturing again from Washington. The Cartel and Iran conspiring together to pay these two guys (a naturalized American citizen via Iran) to murder the Saudi ambassador? I don't buy it. I think it's more to do with Iran announcing how furious they were that America continues to stick their nose in others' business. It is clear that they were upset about us being so heavily involved in the Persian Gulf but the media again went overboard by sensationalizing and embelleshing the story quite a bit.

It does not compute to me. Obama says Iran "has a price to pay", which is disappointing. I'm sick of all this wasteful spending on foreign affairs. Until I learn more, I'll hold my judgement but that is what I'm leaning towards right now.


----------



## Muerte al fascismo (Feb 3, 2008)

For a guy that won the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama does love starting up new military adventures. Just been reported Obama has sent 100 US troops to combat the LRA. Does Obama and Bush have a bet to see who can stir up the most trouble before they leave office?


----------



## trekster (May 25, 2010)

Any Ron Paul Supporters here?


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

I am fond of Congressman Paul. Not a fan-boy like some that blindly consider him the second coming of Jesus Christ but in a relatively weak GOP field, I would vote for him above every other potential candidate.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

I first read about him, in a Michael Moore book I think, a few years back, & was fully behind him. My sister got married in '07, & my bro-in-law wouldn't stop talking about him for '08... But I'm not near as behind him as I used to be.

In other news, read this on Yahoo this afternoon from Hogan...

Hogan said he was still sore about the president using his theme song, "I Am a Real American" when Obama addressed the 2011 White House Correspondents' Dinner shortly after he released his long form birth certificate earlier this year.
*
"I kinda was a little upset that he didn't ask me permission to use my music," Hogan added. "But the change of heart is that I think I should be president.* I know nothing about politics. I think a flat tax across the board would straighten everything out."

When told that the Hulk's idea sounds something like presidential candidate Herman Cain's "9-9-9 Plan," he responded, "Wow, yeah well he's not a real American like I am. . . . I've been around, people know me, they know everything about me, they know I'm for real, they know I know nothing about politics. I'll just make decisions on what's right or wrong."


----------



## X3iE (Sep 5, 2011)

*Cain Proposes Electrified Border Fence*

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/cain-proposes-electrified-border-fence/

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said Saturday that part of his immigration policy would be to build an electrified fence on the country’s border with Mexico that could kill people trying to enter the country illegally.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*Re: Cain Proposes Electrified Border Fence*

Electic fense? Fuck that pussy shit. Bring out the minefields


----------



## Mikey Damage (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: Cain Proposes Electrified Border Fence*



X3iE said:


> http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/cain-proposes-electrified-border-fence/
> 
> Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said Saturday that part of his immigration policy would be to build an electrified fence on the country’s border with Mexico that could kill people trying to enter the country illegally.


Uh, yeah. Won't happen.

Merging this with the political thread since it has politics implications.

Thanks for you cooperation.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

*Re: Cain Proposes Electrified Border Fence*



X3iE said:


> http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/cain-proposes-electrified-border-fence/
> 
> Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said Saturday that part of his immigration policy would be to build an electrified fence on the country’s border with Mexico that could kill people trying to enter the country illegally.


That will never happen in a westernized, ultra sensitive, liberal country like ours. There would be so much outrage.


----------



## Muerte al fascismo (Feb 3, 2008)

He's been watching to much WWF. A lot of the candidates are entertaining, but its sad to see the republican party in its current state.


----------



## trekster (May 25, 2010)

What did you guys think of last nights Republican Debate?


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

Embarassing. There was not a legitimate candidate on stage who reached out to the audience's needs - more propoganda, more arguing over semantics, more political gesturing. Some say it was Romney's best performance but I respectfully disagree. Perry can not articulate himself well enough. How'd you feel about it?

Ron Paul's $1 trillion spending proposal, for anyone who is not caught up on what has been happening lately. Guys like Rush Limbaugh and others have endorsed his model. It is worth the read.



http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/ron-paul-get-serious-about-the-budget said:


> Rep. Ron Paul challenged his GOP opponents at tonight’s CNN/ Western Republican Leadership debate to get real about cutting federal spending.
> 
> The U.S. Congressman from Texas was asked if his tax plan — which cuts $1 trillion from the federal budget by eliminating five cabinet departments and 15 percent from the defense budget — hurts American’s military.
> 
> ...


----------



## holycityzoo (Aug 14, 2011)

I am a big supporter for Ron Paul. I understand the guy has his faults, but he is the only consistent politician we have in Washington. The man has been saying the same stuff for 35 years and were finally starting to understand it. The problem with Ron Paul's agenda is that its far in depth. It really takes a good 10-20 minute conversation to really understand what he's all about. He's a economic minded person, and that's exactly what we need right now. His "Plan to Restore America" is brilliant, in my opinion. More people need to take him seriously and not just write him off as "another dumb Republican." He's really almost nothing like any other Republican candidate, and is probably the best potential nominee we've had in a very long time. It's too bad Americans will take him for granted or write him off as a nut and elect some corrupted facade of a conservative like Rick Perry or some bullshit. Neo-cons are not conservatives, and certainly not anywhere near a libertarian.


----------



## 777 (Feb 24, 2011)

holycityzoo said:


> I am a big supporter for Ron Paul. I understand the guy has his faults, but he is the only consistent politician we have in Washington. The man has been saying the same stuff for 35 years and were finally starting to understand it. The problem with Ron Paul's agenda is that its far in depth. It really takes a good 10-20 minute conversation to really understand what he's all about. He's a economic minded person, and that's exactly what we need right now. His "Plan to Restore America" is brilliant, in my opinion. More people need to take him seriously and not just write him off as "another dumb Republican." He's really almost nothing like any other Republican candidate, and is probably the best potential nominee we've had in a very long time. *It's too bad Americans will take him for granted or write him off as a nut and elect some corrupted facade of a conservative like Rick Perry or some bullshit.* Neo-cons are not conservatives, and certainly not anywhere near a libertarian.


Ross Perot fits this description, Nader has some neat ideas as well. Written off because people generally don't want to hear actual truths. Anyone straying too far from the political norm, either left or right, is gonna have an uphill battle. Unfortunately the world needs 'radical' change. Hard work and sacrifices will be required 'by all' for real change but nobody wants to hear that shit.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

I had to laugh the other night when Anderson Cooper put Herman Cain's pizza past on his "Ridiculist". Topped it off with this vid:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMNjrN2s75M


----------



## Cole Phelps (Jun 12, 2011)

How's obamma going in America i heard his losing popularity is that true ?


----------



## CM Dealer (May 27, 2008)

Obama's support has been pretty constant for the last year or so. His national approval rating is around 50%, but in states he won last election and needs to win to be reelected, his ratings are closer to 40%. IMO the republican nominee is more important to his reelection chances than anything he does. If some neocon crazy like Bachmann or Perry gets the nomination, the moderates will either not turn out or vote for Obama, but if someone slightly more moderate like Romney gets the nomination, he could be in trouble.

I'm watching the debate right now. Perry is like John Morrison, no matter how much people want to like him, his horrible mic skills doom him. Ron Paul never gets a ton of time to speak, and I'm not alleging a conspiracy here, because his lack of speaking time is tied to the lake of questions against him and answers mentioning him by the other candidates. Gingrich, as much as I think he is a sleaze, was actually quite honest and forthright during this debate, admitting that he supported an individual mandate and saying that it was unfair to compare Romney's health care law in Massachusetts to Obamacare. 

Bachmann can't seem to captivate the audiences and I expect she will drop out after the first few caucuses and primaries. It will be interesting to see who out of Paul, Romney, and Cain can win the nomination.


----------



## Cole Phelps (Jun 12, 2011)

thanks for the update


----------



## GuruOfMarkness (Aug 10, 2011)

CM Dealer said:


> Obama's support has been pretty constant for the last year or so. His national approval rating is around 50%, but in states he won last election and needs to win to be reelected, his ratings are closer to 40%. IMO the republican nominee is more important to his reelection chances than anything he does. If some neocon crazy like Bachmann or Perry gets the nomination, the moderates will either not turn out or vote for Obama, but if someone slightly more moderate like Romney gets the nomination, he could be in trouble.
> 
> I'm watching the debate right now. Perry is like John Morrison, no matter how much people want to like him, his horrible mic skills doom him. Ron Paul never gets a ton of time to speak, and I'm not alleging a conspiracy here, because his lack of speaking time is tied to the lake of questions against him and answers mentioning him by the other candidates. Gingrich, as much as I think he is a sleaze, was actually quite honest and forthright during this debate, admitting that he supported an individual mandate and saying that it was unfair to compare Romney's health care law in Massachusetts to Obamacare.
> 
> Bachmann can't seem to captivate the audiences and I expect she will drop out after the first few caucuses and primaries. It will be interesting to see who out of Paul, Romney, and Cain can win the nomination.


Spot on. Although the John Morrison one stung a bit.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

Inspiring. This follows all the news of cops abusing their power in New York.


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

Just what we need

more police demonizing to give the rabble even more of a persecution complex

then its ok to hurt cops because they are "bad" and you are "fighting the good fight"


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

Where did you come up with that? The government is here to serve the people and protect the people, for the people's best interest. They act as if they are under seige, as if this is the Libyan rebels trying to overthrow the Gadhafi regime. That's not what is happening. For the most part, these have been peaceful protests. Borderline tyrannical behavior there. I'd hate to throw in the cliche Locke quote so I will digress.

I grew up in a family of law enforcement officers so please don't make accusations like that - I find them quite offensive. If you weren't referring to me and I'm taking it too personally, then forgive me as I get your alterior thoughts, however wrong I think they may be.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

Father Flex said:


> Where did you come up with that? The government is here to serve the people and protect the people, for the people's best interest.


Of course that's their aim/purpose, but nobody's perfect & mistakes & accidents both happen.


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

No insult to you flex (I have a military family)

Its just that people (I tend to use rabble) generalize the police and view them as the "bad guys" 

Then everyone gets "noble" and its all a mess

I dislike mobs of all kinds because people go from a rational being to a pack animal

If some idiot (from either side) fired a shot or threw a firebomb then both sides would murder each other and burn down the city and both sides would think they did the right thing

To quote Men in Black (of all things)

A person is smart, people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

That's what I originally thought; wanted to make sure. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

I think that most cops are good people and when they overreact its because they know better than anyone what terrible things people can do

especially when they think they are morally right


----------



## GuruOfMarkness (Aug 10, 2011)

stevefox1200 said:


> I think that most cops are good people and when they overreact its because they know better than anyone what terrible things people can do
> 
> especially when they think they are morally right


Can anyone really blame them though? Their life is on the line every time they put on that uniform and some times even when they go home.


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

GuruOfMarkness said:


> Can anyone really blame them though? Their life is on the line every time they put on that uniform and some times even when they go home.


Not at all

Cops, firemen and anyone who has do a long, underpaid, unappreciated, and dangerous gets major respect from me 

I would snap and go postel (respect for mailmen as well)


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

Most of the main stream media is playing off the protests like a it's made up of a bunch of jobless hippies who want to be handed everything but then I see WW2 vets, firefighters, former and current Marines in the protests and you automatically know which news source is under who's money.


----------



## zombiemaster (Mar 5, 2010)

I never got all the praise for cops, firemen and (especially) soldiers.

They're just doing there job, why do they deserve a pat on the back more than a doctor? or a garbage man?


----------



## Trigger (Feb 19, 2008)

Why does a rubbish collector get less praise than a fireman? Because one of them picks rubbish up off the side of the street, the other walks into burning buildings to save people that might burn to death.

Yes they are doing their jobs, same as someone in an office, but the person in that office is in considerably less danger than people in law enforcement, firemen etc.


----------



## Steve Patriot (Oct 12, 2007)

We are at war with the Taliban. Therefore, we have always been at war with the Taliban

....!
















ALL I SEE IS FOUR


----------



## Wrestlingfanfirst (Aug 3, 2011)

Garry Johnson and Ron Paul for 2012


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

Is anyone planning on giving Obama the praise he deserves as commander-in-chief? I know many don't like how involved we are foreignly but his tactical prowess has contributed in the systemic removal of ominous terrorists, martyrs and tyrants. Very skillful in what he has done. Accomplished what he set out to do (aside from the hypocricy in saying he would remove troops when campaigning in 07).

OBL
Anwar al-Awlaki
Gadhafi

Not to mention all the rest of the terrorists detained at G-Bay currently.


----------



## holycityzoo (Aug 14, 2011)

As great as killing terrorists is, what does it really accomplish? These organizations run really deep, and I guarantee that someone is going to step up and take the leadership role these men had. You can not win a war on terror. Terrorism has been a part of society forever. It's how people get their way. Some times it's on a massive and horrific scale, or sometimes its something small. Either way, you can't not declare war on a bullying tactic. They can continue to kill leaders of these terror organizations, but it won't weaken them at all. The amount of money we are spending over seas is just ridiculous.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

holycityzoo said:


> As great as killing terrorists is, what does it really accomplish? These organizations run really deep, and I guarantee that someone is going to step up and take the leadership role these men had. You can not win a war on terror. Terrorism has been a part of society forever. It's how people get their way. Some times it's on a massive and horrific scale, or sometimes its something small. Either way, you can't not declare war on a bullying tactic. They can continue to kill leaders of these terror organizations, but it won't weaken them at all. The amount of money we are spending over seas is just ridiculous.


I'm sorry, but I must disagree. I'm not as much of an Obama-backer as I was when he ran, & I am not behind spending a ton of $ or lives overseas.

However, your statement begs one main question that I see:

If we kill the leader (or they die some other way), & someone else "steps up" & takes the leadership role, fine. You & I agree that will happen. But the odds are the person stepping-up is someone who was already a member, & the dead person will remain so. That leaves the group (simple math) with one less member. Also, odds are few-if-any members have the recruiting abilities (whatever they might be) of the now-deceased members.

The progress is undeniable.


----------



## 777 (Feb 24, 2011)

holycityzoo said:


> As great as killing terrorists is, what does it really accomplish?


Re-election?


----------



## zombiemaster (Mar 5, 2010)

Trigger said:


> Why does a rubbish collector get less praise than a fireman? Because one of them picks rubbish up off the side of the street, the other walks into burning buildings to save people that might burn to death.
> 
> Yes they are doing their jobs, same as someone in an office, but the person in that office is in considerably less danger than people in law enforcement, firemen etc.


Cops in countries where guns are illegal have almost ZERO chance of dying.

Firemen also rarely die.

Cops is the US also have very slim chances of dying.

Even soldiers have slim chances of dying.


> Over the past 10 years, more than 20,000 American children are believed to have been killed in their own homes by family members. That is nearly four times the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15193530

So yeah, A child in America gets killed by relatives more often than a US soldier gets killed by terrorists.



Father Flex said:


> Is anyone planning on giving Obama the praise he deserves as commander-in-chief? I know many don't like how involved we are foreignly but his tactical prowess has contributed in the systemic removal of ominous terrorists, martyrs and tyrants. Very skillful in what he has done. Accomplished what he set out to do (aside from the hypocricy in saying he would remove troops when campaigning in 07).
> 
> OBL
> *Anwar al-Awlaki*
> ...


No one cares about Al-Awlaki

The US had no involvement with Libya (That's why it was a success) - It was headed by France

Anyone who supports Guantanamo is a douche (Even Obama wanted to close it down)


----------



## Muerte al fascismo (Feb 3, 2008)

zombiemaster said:


> Cops in countries where guns are illegal have almost ZERO chance of dying.
> 
> Firemen also rarely die.
> 
> ...


Wrong. Along with the Qatari and British, the US supplied the majority of intelligence and reconnaissance on the ground with its drones and Spec Ops. Nato wouldn't have annihilated Libyan forces so quickly without this key ingredient. The mission simply wouldn't have succeeded without the US running the show behind the scenes. The Europeans don't have the logistical equipment to go in alone anymore.

As for Obama, he deserves military credit for breaking the back of OBL affiliated networks. His surgical strikes have all but neutralised them into irrelevance. The Taliban on the other hand look to be counting down the days till they overthrow the weak central government. You could also argue OBL has already achieved his objectives, using the same method of bleeding the Soviet economy dry. So it's really a mixed bag.


----------



## holycityzoo (Aug 14, 2011)

TJChurch said:


> I'm sorry, but I must disagree. I'm not as much of an Obama-backer as I was when he ran, & I am not behind spending a ton of $ or lives overseas.
> 
> However, your statement begs one main question that I see:
> 
> ...


I think what brings people to join these groups is the cause more so than the leader. Of course, a strong leader brings more "legitimacy" to the terror cell, but I think if someone joins a terror group, they are joining more for Allah than for their leader.



AbismoNegro777 said:


> Re-election?



There ya go.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

Muerte al fascismo said:


> Wrong. Along with the Qatari and British, the US supplied the majority of intelligence and reconnaissance on the ground with its drones and Spec Ops. Nato wouldn't have annihilated Libyan forces so quickly without this key ingredient. The mission simply wouldn't have succeeded without the US running the show behind the scenes. The Europeans don't have the logistical equipment to go in alone anymore.


Thank you for correcting his ignorance. I've been itching to do so but can't as I am at work. I'll give a more detailed response later but we were heavily involved (as pointed out) and al-Awlaki was instrumental in many successful and unsuccessful plots against the US. I certainly care, the people do, the media does, and the government does.

There is always going to be a replacement to fill the al Qaeda leadership role but justice was served. Mass atrocities like that can't be taken lightly, no matter how indeterminate the purpose may serve. About GBay: I have no problem with harboring enemies of the state there. I do have a problem with the torturous ways of interrogating them, however. 

Maybe you should do some reading. I'll post some links when I have access to a computer. Your posts (zombiemaster) are uneducated and are conveying misinformation, which isn't what this thread is about. I encourage vigorous debate and divergent opinions with merit, substance, and knowledge behind them.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

holycityzoo said:


> I think what brings people to join these groups is the cause more so than the leader. Of course, a strong leader brings more "legitimacy" to the terror cell, but I think if someone joins a terror group, they are joining more for Allah than for their leader.


I don't care if a group has the same opinions & aims I do; If I feel I can accomplish things better solo than the group can (which would be something largely based on who the leader is & how he leads, etc.), I'm not joining.


----------



## holycityzoo (Aug 14, 2011)

Father Flex said:


> Thank you for correcting his ignorance. I've been itching to do so but can't as I am at work. I'll give a more detailed response later but we were heavily involved (as pointed out) and al-Awlaki was instrumental in many successful and unsuccessful plots against the US. I certainly care, the people do, the media does, and the government does.
> 
> There is always going to be a replacement to fill the al Qaeda leadership role but justice was served. Mass atrocities like that can't be taken lightly, no matter how indeterminate the purpose may serve. *About GBay: I have no problem with harboring enemies of the state there. I do have a problem with the torturous ways of interrogating them, however. *
> 
> Maybe you should do some reading. I'll post some links when I have access to a computer. Your posts (zombiemaster) are uneducated and are conveying misinformation, which isn't what this thread is about. I encourage vigorous debate and divergent opinions with merit, substance, and knowledge behind them.


I agree 100%. Especially the holding on US citizens, regardless of their offence. Constitutional rights to due process can not be forgotten just because the crime is against the state.


----------



## Killswitch Stunner (May 23, 2011)

Hop aboard the Cain Train!!


----------



## holycityzoo (Aug 14, 2011)

Ron Paul wins the Ohio Straw Poll with 53.5% 


Herman Cain 25.47%
Mitt Romney 8.88%
Newt Gingrich 5.37%
Rick Perry 2.80% 
Jon Huntsman 2.10%
Rick Santorum .93% 
Michele Bachmann .47%
Write-In .47%.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

RP definitely has the young persons vote. That seems to be where most of his support derives from.


----------



## 777 (Feb 24, 2011)

Ron Paul came across very well on Meet the Press this morning. 

I don't think the GOP will back him though. This all feels like a buildup for Romney to take on Obama.


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

If Ron Paul wins I think I might go to Africa to sell aks to war lords

He's a butcher when you want a surgeon


----------



## gothmog 3rd (Dec 26, 2010)

I've got a political/philosophical question for you guys: If the freedom of one entity ends where it meets the freedom of another entithy, is freedom constant?


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

gothmog 3rd said:


> I've got a political/philosophical question for you guys: If the freedom of one entity ends where it meets the freedom of another entithy, is freedom constant?


Of course freedom, is not constant nor should it be

Absolute freedom is chaos and needs to be regulated so the herd does not kill its self 

Society is a child


----------



## 777 (Feb 24, 2011)

gothmog 3rd said:


> I've got a political/philosophical question for you guys: If the freedom of one entity ends where it meets the freedom of another entithy, is freedom constant?


Nope,

Freedom is concept that has yet to be defined or quantified conclusively.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

It certainly is constant.

It has yet to be defined, I agree. However, I don't see it as ever being defined or define-able, but I don't think that is a knock on it; I see it as going beyond any one person, which is not a knock against it but a point for it. It is certainly not chaos, & if anything, is one of the things that keeps us from that when & where we don't reach it.


----------



## gothmog 3rd (Dec 26, 2010)

stevefox1200 said:


> Of course freedom, is not constant nor should it be
> 
> Absolute freedom is chaos and needs to be regulated so the herd does not kill its self
> 
> Society is a child





AbismoNegro777 said:


> Nope,
> 
> Freedom is concept that has yet to be defined or quantified conclusively.


Neither of you seem to recognize the premise. If the freedom of one entity ends when it meets the freedom of another entity, then there is no room for anything else (wheater on globe or in a square). If you try to take something out, then it would be replaced by the freedom of one or more entities.

If you do not accept the premse however, then you are free to draw other conclusons.


----------



## 777 (Feb 24, 2011)

gothmog 3rd said:


> Neither of you seem to recognize the premise. If the freedom of one entity ends when it meets the freedom of another entity, then there is no room for anything else (wheater on globe or in a square). If you try to take something out, then it would be replaced by the freedom of one or more entities.
> 
> If you do not accept the premse however, then you are free to draw other conclusons.


Your assuming that freedom is a thing that actually exists outside of the perceptions of the people using the concept.
There is no such thing as "freedom".
The closest you'll ever find to a definition would be a Kris Kristofferson lyric, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."
And that's about as close to 'real freedom' as anyone will ever get.

No, one person's freedom can't supplant the freedom of another, why?, because neither was ever really free to begin with.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

AbismoNegro777 said:


> Your assuming that freedom is a thing that actually exists outside of the perceptions of the people using the concept.
> There is no such thing as "freedom".
> The closest you'll ever find to a definition would be a Kris Kristofferson lyric, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."
> And that's about as close to 'real freedom' as anyone will ever get.
> ...


Freedom does indeed exist outside one person's perception of it. The problem is it is largely impossible to supply or defend one person's perception of it w/o infringing upon another's.


----------



## 777 (Feb 24, 2011)

TJChurch said:


> Freedom does indeed exist outside one person's perception of it. The problem is it is largely impossible to supply or defend one person's perception of it w/o infringing upon another's.


I would argue that the world imposes it's will. You as an individual are not 'free' but 'obligated'.
From the moment you wake till the moment you sleep, you operate within the confines of the system around you.

Your a slave to your job, government, wife, kids, pants, shoes, lawn etc., etc., etc.,...
Your not free to say 'whatever' you want, your free to say whatever you want within the boundaries of what is acceptable discourse. 
You can't go wherever you like, there are rules, borders, boundaries and regulations.
Your not free to watch or listen to whatever you want either.

Don't kid yourself, freedom is an illusion. 
That said, I long for 'real freedom' in this world, but understand it's impossibility.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

AbismoNegro777 said:


> I would argue that the world imposes it's will. You as an individual are not 'free' but 'obligated'.
> From the moment you wake till the moment you sleep, you operate within the confines of the system around you.
> 
> Your a slave to your job, government, wife, kids, pants, shoes, lawn etc., etc., etc.,...
> ...


Well, I can agree with some of what you said, but not the rest.

I am obligated to act in some areas, but can decide how. In that way, I control what my pants & shoes do. Also, I should trim my lawn to a certain degree, but can rid of it in some places while letting it overgrow in others. As for what I say, there are definitely limits, but people cannot attack what they do not hear, nor am I limited in what I say to those who do not hold certain positions.

Also, if I do not hold certain positions, nor aim for certain offices/occupations, nor go into certain building,s I can be the one that controls my own fate(s).


----------



## 777 (Feb 24, 2011)

That sounds like a lot of 'certain conditions' to this freedom of yours.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

AbismoNegro777 said:


> That sounds like a lot of 'certain conditions' to this freedom of yours.


Freedom is undisputable; Your ears/eyes are not... Nor are they of any control to others.


----------



## 777 (Feb 24, 2011)

TJChurch said:


> Freedom is undisputable; Your ears/eyes are not... Nor are they of any control to others.


How cryptic.

I dispute the existence of 'freedom'.
I am fairly certain that my ears and eyes do in fact exist though.
But, your right, my ears and eyes don't control anybody else...or do they?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Freedom? That's just some people talking. Your prison is walking this world all alone.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

Nobody is free. We are all indentured servants to society, forced to uphold an image that society deems acceptable. Indoctrination exists in many instances. Freedom in terms of free will? I would subscribe to that notion.


----------



## gothmog 3rd (Dec 26, 2010)

AbismoNegro777 said:


> I would argue that the world imposes it's will. You as an individual are not 'free' but 'obligated'.
> From the moment you wake till the moment you sleep, you operate within the confines of the system around you.
> 
> Your a slave to your job, government, wife, kids, pants, shoes, lawn etc., etc., etc.,...
> ...


This is where I think you are wrong. You can easily quit your job, divorce your wife, move to another country/ vote for anothe government, leave your kids and soo on. You choose to stay with your wife and keep going to work because you choose to, not because you can't do otherwise.

Follow-up question: Socialist or just negative?


----------



## 777 (Feb 24, 2011)

gothmog 3rd said:


> This is where I think you are wrong. You can easily quit your job, divorce your wife, move to another country/ vote for anothe government, leave your kids and soo on. You choose to stay with your wife and keep going to work because you choose to, not because you can't do otherwise.
> 
> Follow-up question: Socialist or just negative?


A little from column A and a little from column B.

If you quit, or move, or leave your wife, your merely swapping one set of restrictions for another.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

EDIT:

Wrong thread. My fault guys. :lmao


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

AbismoNegro777 said:


> How cryptic.
> 
> I dispute the existence of 'freedom'.
> I am fairly certain that my ears and eyes do in fact exist though.
> But, your right, my ears and eyes don't control anybody else...or do they?


Not at all cryptic... And no they don't. Even if I see someone looking at something, it is my choice whether I want to direct mine to the same place/action or not.

I agree w/your later comment about swapping restrictions. However, here, we have something in our government that is "chock-full" pf rights & freedoms. also, there are several parts of life where many see restrictions that in actuality do not exist. That doesn't even bring into account if you don't put yourself under some of those restrictions in the first place.


----------



## 777 (Feb 24, 2011)

TJChurch said:


> Not at all cryptic... And no they don't. Even if I see someone looking at something, it is my choice whether I want to direct mine to the same place/action or not.
> 
> I agree w/your later comment about swapping restrictions. However, here, we have something in our government that is "chock-full" pf rights & freedoms. also, there are several parts of life where many see restrictions that in actuality do not exist. That doesn't even bring into account if you don't put yourself under some of those restrictions in the first place.


Sorry, would you mind being a little more precise with your language. I think I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean.

Are you referring to the Constitution? Here in Canada we have an almost identical document called the 'charter of right and freedoms'. Having said documents does not make you or I any more/less free though.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

AbismoNegro777 said:


> Sorry, would you mind being a little more precise with your language. I think I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean.
> 
> Are you referring to the Constitution? Here in Canada we have an almost identical document called the 'charter of right and freedoms'. Having said documents does not make you or I any more/less free though.


I was referring to the Constitution. If you have a document that is so identical, you must be looking at things as a pessimist. That, & not your reality, is the main problem.


----------



## 777 (Feb 24, 2011)

TJChurch said:


> I was referring to the Constitution. If you have a document that is so identical, you must be looking at things as a pessimist. *That, & not your reality, is the main problem.*


What does this even mean?

To paraphrase the great George Carlin, 'a pessimist is a disillusioned idealist,'.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

AbismoNegro777 said:


> What does this even mean?
> 
> To paraphrase the great George Carlin, 'a pessimist is a disillusioned idealist,'.


Basically, it means it is not how things are, but how you are viewing them, that is making it seem negative.


----------



## 777 (Feb 24, 2011)

TJChurch said:


> Basically, it means it is not how things are, but how you are viewing them, that is making it seem negative.


Maybe it's the way that you are viewing things that makes them seem positive? Perception is truth, yes?


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

AbismoNegro777 said:


> Maybe it's the way that you are viewing things that makes them seem positive? Perception is truth, yes?


Perception is said to be 9-10ths of reality. Even that, however, is only how the speakers see it... Never 100% of the truth, which itself is relative in some cases.


----------



## 777 (Feb 24, 2011)

TJChurch said:


> Perception is said to be 9-10ths of reality. Even that, however, is only how the speakers see it... Never 100% of the truth, which itself is relative in some cases.


Finally something we can agree on. LOL. 

On a positive, you have no idea how much fun this has been for me. Thanks.


----------



## holycityzoo (Aug 14, 2011)

You guys should read _The Philosophy of Freedom_ by Rudolf Steiner. I read it in one of my classes. 

"To live in love towards our actions, and to let live in the understanding of the other person's will, is the fundamental maxim of free men."

“Our highest endeavor must be to develop free human beings who are able of themselves to impart purpose and direction to their lives. The need for imagination, a sense of truth, and a feeling of responsibility — these three forces are the very nerve of education.”


Edit: Found a good review of the book, so you can understand his take on the matter for now

http://www.philosophyoffreedom.com/node/4289


----------



## gothmog 3rd (Dec 26, 2010)

AbismoNegro777 said:


> A little from column A and a little from column B.
> 
> If you quit, or move, or leave your wife, your merely swapping one set of restrictions for another.


Aren't all those restricions self-imposed? And aren't you free too choose which self-imposed restrictions to live within.


----------



## SPCDRI (Mar 15, 2010)

So, what political parties are Wrestling Forums people members of? I am a member of the American Third Position party.


----------



## gothmog 3rd (Dec 26, 2010)

SPCDRI said:


> So, what political parties are Wrestling Forums people members of? I am a member of the American Third Position party.


Stupid nmame for a party seing as "Third position can be anything not Libertarian or Socialist, which ironically includes both major americans party.


----------



## SPCDRI (Mar 15, 2010)

It is a more rightward version of it in some respects. I would call it right wing white ethnonationalism as it has a strong race realist position, wants mass deportation and a moratorium on immigration, work visas, refugees, etc. Anti Affirmative action, against pointless wars that hurt and kill whites for the financial betterment of others, class collaboration like fascism had, but pro labor, etc.

Here is the mission statement.



> The U.S. political system works in favor of the two entrenched, nearly identical Democrat and Republican parties, and against all “third” parties; especially those parties that are pro-American and anti-globalist. Nonetheless, the American Third Position, a new political party, intends to fill a tremendous need in the United States today by providing the leadership and elected representatives necessary to return our nation to its rightful owners — by liberating it from the ‘banksters and gangsters’ who are ruthlessly plundering our American blood and treasure.
> 
> The American Third Position Party believes that government policy in the United States discriminates against white Americans, the majority population, and that white Americans need their own political party to fight this discrimination.


The platform and policies are here broken down into sections at the website under a Programs tab.

www.american3p.org

Its slogans are Liberty Sovereignty Identity and By and For White America.


----------



## holycityzoo (Aug 14, 2011)

gothmog 3rd said:


> Stupid nmame for a party seing as "Third position can be anything not Libertarian or Socialist, which ironically includes both major americans party.


I really don't think the current Republican party can be considered libertarian. They come off as wanting "small government" however, they want bigger government in a lot of other areas. The politcal platform of the GOP is very contradictory. The current foreign policy of the GOP is a far cry from that of a libertarian, hence Ron Paul being an outcast.


----------



## AJ (Apr 8, 2011)

UK politics anyone?


----------



## CM Dealer (May 27, 2008)

Wikipedia said:


> The American Third Position Party is an American political party of the far-right, which promotes white nationalism. [2] It was founded in 2010, and defines its principal mission as representing the political interests of white Americans...claiming that a suite of traits that he attributes to Jews, including higher-than-average verbal intelligence and ethnocentricism, have eugenically evolved to enhance the ability of Jews to conspire to out-compete non-Jews for resources while undermining the power and self-confidence of the Aryan white majorities in Europe and America whom he insists Jews seek to disposess.


So are you a neo-nazi or ignorant?


----------



## 777 (Feb 24, 2011)

gothmog 3rd said:


> Aren't all those restricions self-imposed? And aren't you free too choose which self-imposed restrictions to live within.


Let's just say that I believe in an ideal which is Freedom, but that the actual reality does not meet the expectation and can in fact never be actualized. But, the ideal is also worth striving for and even fighting/dying for.

Some restrictions are self imposed, some are imposed by others. Regardless of who chooses what, restriction are evident.

Please don't mistake this 'philosophical' debate as not appreciating being less restricted than others. 

If the universe is ying and yang, than you can't have freedom without oppression. 

@holycityzoo. Read the review, am familiar with the concepts, am looking into reading the actual document. Not particularly convinced on the existence of freedom though. Thanks, cheers.


----------



## SPCDRI (Mar 15, 2010)

Kevin MacDonald is just one part of the American Third Position, a prominent but not a major part. The platform has no mention of Jews. I fail to even see why that interpretation of Jews as a race/ethnicity is false anyhow.

That undermines the credibility of the party as much as taking any out of context and controversial quote from a Republican or a Democrat, i.e., not at all.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

Most noteworthy news surrounding Obama as of late:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/26/politics/obama-student-loans/index.html



CNN said:


> (CNN) -- President Barack Obama took his economic relief plan on the road to Colorado Wednesday, highlighting new measures designed to help college graduates manage student loan debt.
> 
> One of the president's measures will push up the start date for more favorable terms on a special loan repayment program based on income. Another measure is designed to encourage graduates with two or more kinds of federal loans to consolidate them and get a small break on interest rates.
> 
> ...


----------



## Emarosa (Sep 12, 2007)

Herman Cain 2012.

DAT HARASSMENT.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

Emarosa said:


> Herman Cain 2012.
> 
> DAT HARASSMENT.


That's only true if the charges are. But what is true for sure is that Trump appeared on "The Daily Show" last night (interview was with Condoleeza Rice) via YouTube videos, attacking Jon Stewart for things he said/did regarding Cain, & calling him a racist.

http://popwatch.ew.com/2011/11/02/donald-trump-calls-jon-stewart-racist/

Frankly, as long as neither Trump nor Jon are running, they can say what they want, IMO.


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

How long until some police goons fire upon Occupy protesters? Not counting an isolated incident, I think the police as a whole are smarter than that. I remember hearing stories that during the Civil Rights protests, they would goad the protesters into acting aggressively so they would have an excuse to assault and arrest them. It's already happened but it could very well escalate.


----------



## HullKogan (Feb 22, 2010)

Fuck politicians, they're all crooks and scumbags who work for the corporations who pay their way into office.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

Well, I guess realism goes out the door here; Eh? And just a few weeks ago, on some thread here, people were defending cops.

Anyway, I wouldn't be shocked that cops aren't already attacking Occupy people, especially since there seems to be a new place/thing that people decide to "Occupy" every day.

As for politicians, 98% of them are selfish jerks, but who cares? If you don't vote, you have no right to complain. If you do vote you can guarantee the winner's gonna ruin your life.


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

SPCDRI said:


> So, what political parties are Wrestling Forums people members of? I am a member of the American Third Position party.


Both the canadian liberal party and the canadian NDP party



> Fuck politicians, they're all crooks and scumbags who work for the corporations who pay their way into office.


and clearly you're an idiot.

As you can probably tell, i'm strongly left wing.


----------



## HullKogan (Feb 22, 2010)

Well I assume you're Canadian, and I don't know too much about your country's politics, but here in the states they are all slime.


----------



## holycityzoo (Aug 14, 2011)




----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

Panther said:


> How long until some police goons fire upon Occupy protesters? Not counting an isolated incident, I think the police as a whole are smarter than that. I remember hearing stories that during the Civil Rights protests, they would goad the protesters into acting aggressively so they would have an excuse to assault and arrest them. It's already happened but it could very well escalate.


Shall be interested to see how it all unfolds.



HullKogan said:


> Fuck politicians, they're all crooks and scumbags who work for the corporations who pay their way into office.


Please leave. 



TJChurch said:


> Well, I guess realism goes out the door here; Eh? And just a few weeks ago, on some thread here, people were defending cops.
> 
> Anyway, I wouldn't be shocked that cops aren't already attacking Occupy people, especially since there seems to be a new place/thing that people decide to "Occupy" every day.
> 
> As for politicians, 98% of them are selfish jerks, but who cares? If you don't vote, you have no right to complain. If you do vote you can guarantee the winner's gonna ruin your life.


Still of the same opinion here. Lots of respect for cops. If I were to give up on pursuing becoming a lawyer, I would probably fall back on my criminal justice degree and be in the law enforcement realm career wise. NY and Brooklyn just cleaned out their police departments for ticket-fixing, money laundering, and other serious offenses. There has already been allegations of them abusing the crowds in New York, Dallas, and out on the west coast. 

Here's a link if interested:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/0...ix-scandal-to-be-promoted-in-secret-ceremony/


----------



## Emarosa (Sep 12, 2007)

Hiplop said:


> and clearly you're an idiot.
> 
> As you can probably tell, i'm strongly left wing.


How is he wrong? In US politics 95%+ of the politicians are bought and paid for by various interest groups. That's how they get money to have campaigns and be elected.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piCfDBHIuAg

It's long but start from 5:00. Both republicans and democrats take $.


----------



## holycityzoo (Aug 14, 2011)

We can all agree that the sponsoring of campaigns by corporate leaders is a big problem. What can we do to fix it? You need to limit the role of government, thus decreasing the impact these "donations" have on our political discourse. If you don't want government to be bought out, you need to take away the influence they have that would entice a corporate big wig to spend a large sum of money.

There's simply no other way, in my opinion.


----------



## impjim (Feb 20, 2010)

Ban donations to political parties altogether? Limiting it to a certain amount would be useless as you could just make hundreds of smaller donations.

The system isn't democratic, nor is it representative of the people if one man can secure his interests by paying large sums of money to fund the candidate.


----------



## Muerte al fascismo (Feb 3, 2008)

holycityzoo said:


> We can all agree that the sponsoring of campaigns by corporate leaders is a big problem. What can we do to fix it? You need to limit the role of government, thus decreasing the impact these "donations" have on our political discourse. If you don't want government to be bought out, you need to take away the influence they have that would entice a corporate big wig to spend a large sum of money.
> 
> There's simply no other way, in my opinion.


Or just introduce further limits on funding/political donations. I don't see a major issue with big business sponsoring candidates. If you don't throw them a bone, or give them some element of influence, surely they will just ship off to Asia and the Middle East, where there is less restrictions and accountability. 

As long as it's documented and easily obtainable who gives what, I doubt it matters much. Sure if the bureaucracy is found to be in collusion with the corporate world in bad practices, take them to task. Just for me, getting rid of this practice would be counter-productive.


----------



## Emarosa (Sep 12, 2007)

^ This is a dangerously idiotic post.


----------



## Muerte al fascismo (Feb 3, 2008)

It's being realistic.


----------



## Steve Patriot (Oct 12, 2007)

Something tells me Socrates didn't need a degree to validate his intelligence.

These presidential "debates" I endure when I dare view them, so short. Why is this?


----------



## Atlas (Dec 12, 2005)

Steve Patriot said:


> *Something tells me Socrates didn't need a degree to validate his intelligence.
> *
> These presidential "debates" I endure when I dare view them, so short. Why is this?


He taught at a university


----------



## holycityzoo (Aug 14, 2011)

Muerte al fascismo said:


> Or just introduce further limits on funding/political donations. I don't see a major issue with big business sponsoring candidates. If you don't throw them a bone, or give them some element of influence, surely they will just ship off to Asia and the Middle East, where there is less restrictions and accountability.
> 
> *As long as it's documented and easily obtainable who gives what, I doubt it matters much.* Sure if the bureaucracy is found to be in collusion with the corporate world in bad practices, take them to task. Just for me, getting rid of this practice would be counter-productive.


Not to insult you, but this is a very naive post. I think you underestimate the corporate influence on our public policy. Furthering limits won't do anything, because the incentive to buy out the people in legislature still remains. We can not have a relationship between government and business because, as we can see, it leads to corruption, and manipulation of monetary policy. The influence on public policy should only rest with the people, and when you allow corporations to influence these policies, you are limiting the power of the republic and decreasing liberty.


----------



## Emarosa (Sep 12, 2007)

Public financing of campaigns is the only way to go imo. Unfortunately, there's no political will to get this done because everyone in power is getting rich.


----------



## Deadman™ (Feb 9, 2004)

Here is my view on politics in the US. *And this is ONLY ON THE ECONOMY/DEBT (because it is what needs to be at forefront right now. (A LONG RANT)* I saw the analogy online and it fit perfectly.

For the most part, Democrats and Republicans are on the opposite sides of the coin when it comes to all major issues. The problem is, it's opposite sides of the* SAME COIN*. A coin that has proven itself *USELESS*. Americans are getting the government they deserve. I love my country. Hell, I signed up to defend this country before I left high school. There are new up and coming Senators and Congressmen on both sides that actually DO want to change the status quo of Washington, but there are so many old set in their ways career politicians there that nothing can get done. *There isn't ONE sitting congressman or senator that I want to still be in Washington when their term is over.* I don't care what "good" you have supposedly (or proven to have) done, enough BAD has happened on your watch that it is time to go. 

IMO, people need to lose that fear that they are "throwing their vote away" by voting for someone that doesn't have an "R" or a "D" by their name. Or isn't the one that won the nomination. If enough people "threw their vote away" (because let's face it it hasn't fixed shit yet) maybe DC would realize that people just want the people that they elected to do their jobs and not fuck things up worse. 

There are hundreds if not THOUSANDS of politicians in DC that are Ivy League educated people in Washington that don't have ONE COLLECTIVE BRAIN WHEN IT COMES TO COMMON SENSE. Hell, my grandmother only made it through the 8th grade, scrubbed floors for a living, had a husband that worked for a few years after he left the military before he was put on Veterans disability do to wounds from WWII, and raised a family with 4 kids (in other words, someone who would never make it to DC). She had the common sense that you don't spend more than you have and you save money when you can. That woman, who was done working by the time she was about 50, didn't have much. But when she died at 77 a few years ago. She had a house that she paid, had once had and sold a cottage. And had over $75000 in the bank. She would have made a better politician than ANYONE today.

There isn't ONE politician that is hurting for money if they lose their job. 



TOTALLY AGREE WITH THIS said:


> Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:
> "I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election.
> 
> The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971...before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc. Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure.
> ...


----------



## trekster (May 25, 2010)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxvHYgxhhdY

Ron Paul Tied for 1st in Iowa.

Thoughts?


----------



## holycityzoo (Aug 14, 2011)

trekster said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxvHYgxhhdY
> 
> Ron Paul Tied for 1st in Iowa.
> 
> Thoughts?


My thoughts?

FFFFUUUCCCKKK YEEEESSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Emarosa (Sep 12, 2007)

who's going to be the first to drop out of the GOP race? imo Santorum or Johnson. Not sure why either are running when their niches are already catered for.


----------



## CM Dealer (May 27, 2008)

I'm thinking Huntsman, which is a shame because he is the best of the Republican candidates by a good margin. If not he than probably Johnson.


----------



## Steve Patriot (Oct 12, 2007)

You can learn more on a wrestling forum than you ever will languishing in American College classrooms.




Oh yes. And your future won't be disenfranchised in the process!


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

Emarosa said:


> who's going to be the first to drop out of the GOP race? imo Santorum or Johnson. Not sure why either are running when their niches are already catered for.


Looking like Herman Cain nowadays. Last night, his camp said he is "reassessing" his campaign. This, of course, is after ANOTHER woman came out humiliating Cain and pointing out his flawed character and infidelity. The difference between this lady was that she insists it was all consentual. While the others claimed sexual harassment, fondling of body parts, and molestation.

We will see how this plays out. Newt has been on top of these polls recently. Perry continues to puzzle us with his rhetoric and mishaps.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

My AOL-connected toolbar tells me Cain is still running. I know Perry is gonna be on Leno later in the week, so we'll see how that goes.

Personally, I'm not as behind Obama as I was in '08, but I have yet to see the GOP show a candidate that I think can get enough votes to beat him. (Also, I'm a little upset over NBC people apologizing for the song when Bachmann appeared on "Fallon".)


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Cain suspended his campaign. That means he still wants donations for his bank account, but he's done.


----------



## Stax Classic (May 27, 2010)

Don't see why he had to suspend the campaign. The majority of politicians have affairs, it comes with the power of the office, and anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

He's a pussy. He was in over his head. He was generally clueless with a lot of issues. If you can't stand the heat of media scrutiny, there is no way you should be President of the United States.


----------



## Stax Classic (May 27, 2010)

Yeah, it was more a general comment about the mistress scandals of late, and not Cain. I'll vote for whoever the Repubs put forth against Obama, but I don't really like anyone they have, As long as it's not a deomocrat.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

He's still one of the worst Republican candidates to run for quite some time. Take away this mistress BS and he's still a terrible candidate.


----------



## reDREDD (Oct 12, 2008)

i like ike


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

redeadening said:


> i like ike


He's been dead for a few decades. Thoughts on Barry Goldwater?:side:


----------



## Stax Classic (May 27, 2010)

Maybe he means McCain? He's as old as Ike isn't he?


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

I like Ike too for the record.


----------



## USAUSA1 (Sep 17, 2006)

Republicans better pay Ron Paul not to run as a third party in the national election.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

Take away the affairs/mistresses, & this guy still had no shot.

I'd say Obama wins if the Reps can't find anyone better to oppose, but "Dubya" proved the better man doesn't always win.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

USAUSA1 said:


> Republicans better pay Ron Paul not to run as a third party in the national election.


Ron Paul won't run as a third-party candidate. He's too far on the fringe, plus he's a complete wuss when it comes to national defense.


----------



## Stax Classic (May 27, 2010)

If Nader runs every year (lulz), Paul can certainly run this year.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

Haystacks Calhoun said:


> If Nader runs every year (lulz), Paul can certainly run this year.


Odds are they will both lose every year to a Dem/GOP candidate, but if it were to be 1 of the 2, Paul has the better shot to win.

Being a wuss for nat'l defense? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we had a "draft-dodger" as President not long ago.


----------



## Steve Patriot (Oct 12, 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WA7rGotO-oI

:lmao :lmao

EDIT:
:lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## SPCDRI (Mar 15, 2010)

RON PAUL BITCHEZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111


----------



## CM Dealer (May 27, 2008)

I thought you supported that crazy anti-semite nazi guy SPCDRI


----------



## USAUSA1 (Sep 17, 2006)

I didn't say Ron Paul would win or have a chance but he would take away votes from the GOP candidate especially if it's Romney. It might seem like a small topic now but it can happen and very likely. Ron Paul have hardcore supporters and he is crazy enough to run as a third party compare to other guys. 

Ron Paul said he will not run but of course he would say that when he is still in the GOP race. Only time will tell. Republicans needs to talk(pay) him out of being a potential spoiler.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

USAUSA1 said:


> I didn't say Ron Paul would win or have a chance but he would take away votes from the GOP candidate especially if it's Romney. It might seem like a small topic now but it can happen and very likely. Ron Paul have hardcore supporters and he is crazy enough to run as a third party compare to other guys.
> 
> Ron Paul said he will not run but of course he would say that when he is still in the GOP race. Only time will tell. Republicans needs to talk(pay) him out of being a potential spoiler.


1] He wouldn't take votes from the GOP nominee; They take votes from themselves.

2] He said he won't run, but says that while still in the race? Admit it; You don't even know what you said there.


----------



## Steve Patriot (Oct 12, 2007)

America, trying its damnest to start World War III.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/isaf-u-spy-drone-iran-claims-brought-down-195224233.html

http://rt.com/news/iran-us-war-drone-013/


And none of you care.

What would happen, I wonder, if China was caught spying "American SOIL". I'd love to see the uproarious hypocrisy.

And it isn't _at all_ `paranoid` to suggest that, given those flashy bases in Australia.... to quell the hotbed of violence and "terrorism" plaguing the Asian Pacific. 


We're protecting New Zealand from Al Queda!

The same Al-Qaeda that just bankrolled their weaponry in Libya, enabled in the aftermath of NATO sponsored, eh..."humanitarian bombing efforts."




:lmao you can't forge this stuff :lmao I want to see these bastards suffer....Oh PLEASE continue doing this. 

Keep pissing China and Russia off! I'm giddy at the prospects and sights!


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

Steve Patriot said:


> America, trying its damnest to start World War III.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/isaf-u-spy-drone-iran-claims-brought-down-195224233.html
> 
> ...


That's an assumption, & it begins with the person that makes it.



Steve Patriot said:


> What would happen, I wonder, if China was caught spying "American SOIL". I'd love to see the uproarious hypocrisy.


I think you meant _on_ American soil, & I don't see anything hypocritical that would happen then.



Steve Patriot said:


> And it isn't _at all_ `paranoid` to suggest that, given those flashy bases in Australia.... to quell the hotbed of violence and "terrorism" plaguing the Asian Pacific.


On the contrary, it is very much so that way.



Steve Patriot said:


> We're protecting New Zealand from Al Queda!
> 
> The same Al-Qaeda that just bankrolled their weaponry in Libya, enabled in the aftermath of NATO sponsored, eh..."humanitarian bombing efforts."


I don't know about you, but I've never served in the military. Ergo, I am not protecting anyone but myself from much of anything often.




Steve Patriot said:


> :lmao you can't forge this stuff :lmao I want to see these bastards suffer....Oh PLEASE continue doing this.


You have a right to your opinions, but if you enjoy seeing people suffer, keep it to yourself. 



Steve Patriot said:


> Keep pissing China and Russia off! I'm giddy at the prospects and sights!


That makes none of us.


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

Everyone spies on everyone. I don't see spies getting caught as starting WW3. Some False Flag terrorist attack would be the perfect opportunity. We'll mourn for a couple thousand of our country men dying but will turn a blind eye to many more dying in other countries. That's what's wrong with our world. We're in our little bubble on this hick planet and we're still divided up hundreds of different ways. Religion, fossil fuels, land, Nationalism, money, etc. This is what fuels our conflicts and keeps us divided and avoiding unity.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

We're on the brink of WWIII. Too much happening lately.

-British embassy under seige.

-US Drone shot down by Iran.

-Britain takes out Iranian nuclear plant.

-America "accidentally" kills Iranian civilians in an aircraft and shows little remorse.

-Russia says if we invade Iran, they would consider getting involved.

-Putin is pissed and feels his election is being sabotaged by the Western world.

-America's jealousy of China is omnipresent. We keep hearing about China exploiting us from politicians and how crooked the Chinese supposedly are.

-Pakistan hates us.

-Europe is in a financial crisis.

-Saudi ambassador plot by Iranian naturalized citizen and the cartel (still don't buy it).

-America establishes bases near Australia.

-North Korea refuses to give into our demands about nuclear weapons.


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

Father Flex said:


> We're on the brink of WWIII. Too much happening lately.
> 
> -British embassy under seige.
> 
> ...


It'll get much worse before we get into a world war. Give it until the end of the decade. It's not looking good for the Western World I'm afraid and please folks, don't use COD as a base for predictions. That shit was so unrealistic. If Europe didn't get involved if Russia invaded the US or America didn't get involved if Russia invaded Europe then Russia would stand a chance on it's own but you got to remember that Russia is not as strong as it used to be. China/Russia/North Kore/Iran with a multitude of other nations would make up one side......maybe. It's all speculation from here If we avoided WW3 during the Cold War, I think we can toughen it out through this. But things have to change. That includes the USA too. Things may not get truly better until the Space Age. Discovering other intelligent civilizations out there would certainly unite us. Especially if they want to hurt us.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

Panther said:


> It'll get much worse before we get into a world war. Give it until the end of the decade. It's not looking good for the Western World I'm afraid and please folks, don't use COD as a base for predictions. That shit was so unrealistic. If Europe didn't get involved if Russia invaded the US or America didn't get involved if Russia invaded Europe then Russia would stand a chance on it's own but you got to remember that Russia is not as strong as it used to be. China/Russia/North Kore/Iran with a multitude of other nations would make up one side......maybe. It's all speculation from here If we avoided WW3 during the Cold War, I think we can toughen it out through this. But things have to change. That includes the USA too. Things may not get truly better until the Space Age. Discovering other intelligent civilizations out there would certainly unite us. Especially if they want to hurt us.


I agree. The worldwide economy will go into a downswing soon. Intervention and bailing out the European banks won't work. We witnessed, first hand, how America faired after utilizing that strategy. When we collapse into a full-blown recession, I see us going to another major war. History tends to repeat itself. This is what happened with WW2. People give FDR credit but it was winning the war that turned our fortunes around.

I'm more fearful of China then Russia. They are inheriting some serious revenue. We're paying for much of their new technological advancements, weapons, staffing their army, etc,. Credit to China for running a civilization how it should run. Don't ever see them asserting themselves.


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

Most Americans underestimate China. They are very strong and a lot more man power comes from over a billion people compared to just 310 million. Every nation is afraid to use nukes. I predict that a World War could go down without nukes being used. Iran, North Korea and Israel is who I worry about. They're like the children states compared to the USA, China and Russia. Maybe they think they don't stand to lose as much if they use nukes and we could all pay for it.


----------



## Stax Classic (May 27, 2010)

Don't forget Pakistan and India Panther, they're like the two kids in the backseat on a long car ride.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

Panther said:


> Most Americans underestimate China. They are very strong and a lot more man power comes from over a billion people compared to just 310 million. Every nation is afraid to use nukes. I predict that a World War could go down without nukes being used. Iran, North Korea and Israel is who I worry about. They're like the children states compared to the USA, China and Russia. Maybe they think they don't stand to lose as much if they use nukes and we could all pay for it.


Israel is probably our strongest ally next to Japan. The man power isn't a big deal. Face to face combat is an outdated military strategy nowadays. No point of meeting on the battlefield unless you're securing a territory. I don't think China is capable of transporting all their soldiers over to fight on our land. However, they would be a fierce opponent.

Turns out they have hidden tunnels under the area near the great wall and have some secret, high caliber weapons that went undetected by us. To say they don't have the military prowess we do is misguided. We're more battle-tested and devote more resources to our military than Russia and China combined but that's really about it.


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

I meant man power as in how many of your guys can die until you concede defeat. China can lose millions before it starts to worry. We can't. America, though, has the greatest natural barrier known. Two oceans on both sides of us. That's invasion repellent friends. We might be better off letting China invade rather than trying to invade them. Home field advantage and I think America can put up a devastating resistance effort. It's a long way back across the Pacific.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

Panther said:


> I meant man power as in how many of your guys can die until you concede defeat. China can lose millions before it starts to worry. We can't. America, though, has the greatest natural barrier known. Two oceans on both sides of us. That's invasion repellent friends.


You gotta be kidding me! That doesn't repel an invasion; That'd be how they get here. Not to mention if you shoot someone's plane, you destroy the plane & potentially kill them, but if you shoot a ship, so what?


----------



## Knockouts own Diva (Nov 28, 2011)

At least Paul is second in the runnings right now, But I hate that Huntsman and Johnson is getting fucked over so bad with the media. Talk about unfair amount of time given to them.


----------



## reDREDD (Oct 12, 2008)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...gay-doesnt-need-fixing.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Opinions on this incident?


----------



## 777 (Feb 24, 2011)

Bachmann is quite the character. I get the impression her heart is in the right place, if only she could pull back a little or just plain keep her mouth shut. Although this time she apparently did, lol.

She killed her bid as soon as she said she'd ban porn, when all she really had to say was that she didn't like it.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

Bachman, Perry, and Cain were all uninformed, unknowledgeable candidates who lacked a great deal of intellect. At least with Newt and Romney, you have two well-read individuals who appear to have some wisdom. I personally don't like any of the GOP running candidates but we will see how things materialize. We're starting to near closer to when all this really matters here in late January.


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

:lmao Who the hell would vote for this idiot?


----------



## JakeC_91 (Sep 30, 2010)

Panther said:


> :lmao Who the hell would vote for this idiot?


I agree with the 2nd statement of how kids can't openly celebrate Christmas anymore, but yet other religions can celebrate Dwali, Hawnakah, Eid with no reprecussions from anyone.......

The first part was :lmao worthy though.

Damn, I'd vote for the person who does a campaign video like the peter griffin PTA campaign video. Just having a random stool in anywhere.....


:lmao If I WERE american anyway.


----------



## SPCDRI (Mar 15, 2010)

CM Dealer said:


> I thought you supported that crazy anti-semite nazi guy SPCDRI


Who? I can't think of anybody running Independent or GOP that fits that description.


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

TJChurch said:


> 1] He wouldn't take votes from the GOP nominee; They take votes from themselves.
> 
> 2] He said he won't run, but says that while still in the race? Admit it; You don't even know what you said there.


He said he wouldn't run as a third party candidate if he doesn't get the GOP bid. His post made sense.



TJChurch said:


> You gotta be kidding me! That doesn't repel an invasion; That'd be how they get here. Not to mention if you shoot someone's plane, you destroy the plane & potentially kill them, but if you shoot a ship, so what?


It would sink. 



redeadening said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...gay-doesnt-need-fixing.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
> 
> Opinions on this incident?


The mom is an ass. I don't like Bachman and I don't support her policies but what I saw was a mother forcing her son to say something that made him horribly uncomfortable. If the kid had actually wanted to say that it would have been totally badass but I just felt bad for the kid more than anything.


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

JakeC_91 said:


> I agree with the 2nd statement of how kids can't openly celebrate Christmas anymore, but yet other religions can celebrate Dwali, Hawnakah, Eid with no reprecussions from anyone.......
> 
> The first part was :lmao worthy though.
> 
> ...


Kids can't openly celebrate Christmas? Since when?


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

Yeah I don't get that part either. I go to my little sister's winter chorus concert and they do songs about most of the major winter holidays, including Christmas. I think it's good that they teach kids that not everyone they meet will celebrate Christmas.


----------



## Steve Patriot (Oct 12, 2007)

Austerity be a harsh mistress....

....makes one ponder how Greece will play out now that Goldman Sachs has appointed a technocrat holocaust denying fascist, Makis Voridis to lord over Greece.










Voridis, in more spry times, wielding a hammer to club "leftish" students with during his breif tenure at the University of Athens law school. 

That man now controls the structural rebuilding of Greece.


----------



## AlecPure (Feb 5, 2010)

not sure how to post youtube vids.. but i wanted to share these

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7RaYbToq7Q&feature=channel_video_title

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP45zY


----------



## Steve Patriot (Oct 12, 2007)

"People can't handle the truth."

Wikileaks.

Done. 

Proven.


----------



## Freeloader (Jul 27, 2011)

Panther said:


> Most Americans underestimate China. They are very strong and a lot more man power comes from over a billion people compared to just 310 million. Every nation is afraid to use nukes. I predict that a World War could go down without nukes being used. Iran, North Korea and Israel is who I worry about. They're like the children states compared to the USA, China and Russia. Maybe they think they don't stand to lose as much if they use nukes and we could all pay for it.


I would agree that many countries are afraid to use nukes. If anyone uses a nuke, it will be a lone wolf or radical group of terrorists. If a country did use a nuke on another country, my money would be on Pakistan using one on India to be honest I suppose. 

The "war" on Christmas needs to end as well. If any candidate running said "I support saying Merry Christmas - fuck Hannukah and Kwanza" and had little else to their campaign, I'd probably vote for the person. That nonsense needs to die ASAP, because this is a Christmas celebrating country. Other people need to deal with it. The ACLU and their threatening of lawsuits is what kills this country from the inside, all the catering to the minority of people bitching for nonsensical "rights' they think they deserve. If you don't like hearing "Marry Christmas" then go pack your shit and move to Canada, Iceland, frickin Neptune for all I care. Just get out. 

Point of contention



> Israel is probably our strongest ally next to Japan. The man power isn't a big deal. Face to face combat is an outdated military strategy nowadays. No point of meeting on the battlefield unless you're securing a territory. I don't think China is capable of transporting all their soldiers over to fight on our land. However, they would be a fierce opponent.


Our greatest ally is England, up until Obama deliberately distance us from them a bit. Japan is an "ally" but a lot of their people are condescending towards Americans. Some polls (quoting National Geographic here) have shown Chinese people to have a more favorable opinion of America than Japanese people, surprisingly. Some Japanese still hate us for WWII, while China's citizens seem to become more and more "Americanized" as their country slowly begins to gain more rights. 

China cannot transport many people here....yet. Their war with us would be over something such as Freshwater more than political disagreements. Freshwater = a actual possible reality (we have the most Fresh water in the world, they have squat) so over that, maybe. I wouldn't bank on it anytime soon though.


----------



## 777 (Feb 24, 2011)

Freeloader said:


> I would agree that many countries are afraid to use nukes. If anyone uses a nuke, it will be a lone wolf or radical group of terrorists. If a country did use a nuke on another country, my money would be on Pakistan using one on India to be honest I suppose.
> 
> The "war" on Christmas needs to end as well. If any candidate running said "I support saying Merry Christmas - fuck Hannukah and Kwanza" and had little else to their campaign, I'd probably vote for the person. That nonsense needs to die ASAP, because this is a Christmas celebrating country. Other people need to deal with it. The ACLU and their threatening of lawsuits is what kills this country from the inside, all the catering to the minority of people bitching for nonsensical "rights' they think they deserve. If you don't like hearing "Marry Christmas" then go pack your shit and *move to Canada*, Iceland, frickin Neptune for all I care. Just get out.
> 
> ...



This is the kind of neglect/ignorance that makes America's friends angry. 
Your greatest ally economically is Canada, we celebrate Christmas up here too, and...Canada has the most fresh water, you guys buy it from us for dry places like California and Nevada. 


I know we're unassuming up here, but American's tend to disregard how much they depend on their Canadian neighbors, just like we depend on the US.

We have the resources the US needs and we're the first ones to watch your back when times get rough. Our nations live in symbiosis and you guys need stop pretending like Canada doesn't matter, because without us, you'd be fucked.


----------



## Boo Radley (May 21, 2011)

From what I've personally seen, Christmas just seems to get bigger and bigger, Christmas adverts in August, hell, even a whole TV channel devoted to Christmas films these days. You hear a load of knee jerking about how "Christmas is being banned coz it pisses off da Muslims" but I've never seen any of that shit. Every single Muslim I've ever met has no problem with Christmas or gets offended by it. I put this knee jerking down to the Daily Fail and the like, trying to whip up outrage from nothing for their own agenda. If you look into these stories, you'll probably find local councils as usual spending huge sums of money on Christmas but because they have cut one little thing for economic reasons, some idiot has decided it must be because "da Muslims are offended by Christmas" and the Daily Mail has jumped all over it.


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

> The "war" on Christmas needs to end as well. If any candidate running said "I support saying Merry Christmas - fuck Hannukah and Kwanza" and had little else to their campaign, I'd probably vote for the person. That nonsense needs to die ASAP, because this is a Christmas celebrating country. Other people need to deal with it. The ACLU and their threatening of lawsuits is what kills this country from the inside, all the catering to the minority of people bitching for nonsensical "rights' they think they deserve. If you don't like hearing "Marry Christmas" then go pack your shit and move to Canada, Iceland, frickin Neptune for all I care. Just get out.


 If I choose to say "Happy Holidays", then I'm going to do it. If you don't like it, then deal with it.


----------



## Freeloader (Jul 27, 2011)

777 said:


> This is the kind of neglect/ignorance that makes America's friends angry.
> Your greatest ally economically is Canada, we celebrate Christmas up here too, and...Canada has the most fresh water, you guys buy it from us for dry places like California and Nevada.
> 
> I know we're unassuming up here, but American's tend to disregard how much they depend on their Canadian neighbors, just like we depend on the US.


I didn't see anything I posted attacking of bashing Canada. Telling people to "move" there is simply a way of removing what is a problem here with "shhhh, don't say Merry Christmas!" which you may no experience there. As far as water goes, I should have specified the North American continent has the most fresh water, not America. Fair enough. I would however, contend that England is still perceived by many as our greatest ally from a political standpoint, but it doesn't mean we are _not_ allies with Canada. We're both invested in one another more than anyone else, our history (and Canada's to a degree) stem from England. 



> We have the resources the US needs and we're the first ones to watch your back when times get rough. Our nations live in symbiosis and you guys need stop pretending like Canada doesn't matter, because without us, you'd be fucked.


Ok sure you have some resources we need. But to balance that point, Canada has less to worry about in a war (in the event one was to happen we're assuming) because the United states military obviously stands in the way of anyone who would attack them, were a conflict to arise. So it goes both ways. 



> If I choose to say "Happy Holidays", then I'm going to do it. If you don't like it, then deal with it.


Be my guest. But people should *not* be told to *not* say Merry Christmas. 

http://www.leaderherald.com/page/co...afraid-to-say--Merry-Christmas-.html?nav=5008

"My wife was at a store in the Rotterdam mall to do some Christmas shopping. While at the checkout, she said to the girl waiting on her, "Merry Christmas," to which the girl replied, "Well, I'm not allowed to say that. We have to say happy holidays."

That's a joke.


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

Freeloader said:


> I didn't see anything I posted attacking of bashing Canada. Telling people to "move" there is simply a way of removing what is a problem here with "shhhh, don't say Merry Christmas!" which you may no experience there. As far as water goes, I should have specified the North American continent has the most fresh water, not America. Fair enough. I would however, contend that England is still perceived by many as our greatest ally from a political standpoint, but it doesn't mean we are _not_ allies with Canada. We're both invested in one another more than anyone else, our history (and Canada's to a degree) stem from England.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't agree with it but it's a company's way of knocking all of the holidays out at once. Not some attack on Christianity and Christmas. I say Happy Holidays to people who tell me Merry Christmas just to see their reaction. It's quite fun. Some don't care and others give me look like I'm Satan. I'm not one to "bless" anyone when they sneeze or even say thank you to someone who "blesses" me and some will keep saying "BLESS YOU!" until I thank them. It's the most annoying thing ever. In fact, I think there's a War on Bodily Sounds.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*I am not going to vote for Obama, but there is NO WAY I'm voting for this guy if he runs against Obama.







fuck!
*


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

I say Merry Christmas and think people who really concern themselves with which phrase is used to express the passing of the holiday season needs a fuckin' hobby.


----------



## CP Munk (Aug 13, 2011)

Oh my god rick perry is such a retard.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*Rick Perry is fucking stupid.*


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Gay soldiers is serious business guys.










You put two of them on watch duty and they'll probably have gay homoerotic anal sex instead of keeping the arabs away.


----------



## God™ (May 26, 2008)

You have to question the intelligence of Perry's campaign manager for giving that the green light.


----------



## 6789 (Oct 9, 2006)

Shouldn't this thread be in rants?? lol


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*No. People have behaved and they have had an intelligent take so far.*


----------



## CP Munk (Aug 13, 2011)

Im kinda glad i dont live in america TBH, It seems like it's getting more fucked every year.


----------



## Boo Radley (May 21, 2011)

CP Munk said:


> Im kinda glad i dont live in america TBH, It seems like it's getting more fucked every year.


I agree, I mean we moan about Cameron and Clegg leading our country with the only viable option some guy who looks and sounds like he has learning difficulties but I'd take any of them over that Christian nutter in the video. That seems to be the big difference between the USA and UK. In the UK, religion is a dirty word in politics and we don't like seeing it brought up but in the USA it seems like you have to prove what a good Christian you are to get any popularity with the voters. Wasn't there a load of shit with his opponents trying to "slur" Obama by saying he was a Muslim? Unbelievable!


----------



## 777 (Feb 24, 2011)

Freeloader said:


> I didn't see anything I posted attacking of bashing Canada. Telling people to "move" there is simply a way of removing what is a problem here with "shhhh, don't say Merry Christmas!" which you may no experience there. As far as water goes, I should have specified the North American continent has the most fresh water, not America. Fair enough. I would however, contend that England is still perceived by many as our greatest ally from a political standpoint, but it doesn't mean we are _not_ allies with Canada. We're both invested in one another more than anyone else, our history (and Canada's to a degree) stem from England.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok sure you have some resources we need. But to balance that point, Canada has less to worry about in a war (in the event one was to happen we're assuming) because the United states military obviously stands in the way of anyone who would attack them, were a conflict to arise. So it goes both ways.


Bashing would probably be less insulting, it never fails to amaze me just how little Americans know about Canada, including whether we celebrate Christmas or how intertwined our nations histories really are. For the record, we are almost exactly the same as you, from the liberal democracy to the ethnic mosaic. 
I specified that we are your number one 'economic' ally, and in our hearts we are your best friends even though you pretend we don't exist or matter for the most part. The term 'symbiosis' describes your 'both ways' theory, Canadians would never deny, but don't be surprised that we get upset when you ignore it.

Next time you want to list a bunch of what you view as crappier countries on which to pawn your problems, maybe you should think twice before you include a nation which is arguably your greatest ally.


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

The original version with no edits.


----------



## reDREDD (Oct 12, 2008)

his name is rick perry and he approved of that message


----------



## Huganomics (Mar 12, 2010)

Holy fuck, if any Republican other than Ron Paul wins the nomination...









At the moment, I'm pretty sure that he's the only one who could actually defeat Obama. Romney would probably be able to put up a good fight. A lot can change in the next several months though.


----------



## TankOfRate (Feb 21, 2011)




----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

Thoughts on the North Dakota oil boom?



> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/12/08/north-dakota-jobs-looking-for-people/?test=latestnews?test=latestnews


Giving some thought to postponing the remainder of law school and heading out there with a friend. I have two years experience with machinery and worked on a railroad throughout much of my undergrad. They're literally seeking applicants. Truck drivers are making close to 90K over there. If you decide to work on the oil rig, you can pull in close to 110,000 in your first annual year.

I can pay off my undergrad in one year. Work an additional 1-2 years after and pay off a mortgage on a house. Getting ahead in life like this seems like a great opportunity.


----------



## Freeloader (Jul 27, 2011)

CP Munk said:


> Im kinda glad i dont live in america TBH, It seems like it's getting more fucked every year.


Every country has problems, but there is nowhere else I would rather live. Europe is nice, but they have their own problems there as well. Everywhere has their own distinct issues. 



777 said:


> I specified that we are your number one 'economic' ally, and in our hearts we are your best friends even though you pretend we don't exist or matter for the most part.


Again, this goes both ways. I saw what you stated, and you're trying to still insist that the United States best ally in the world, is Canada. One of the best, sure, but I still say it's England overall. 



> Next time you want to list a bunch of what you view as crappier countries on which to pawn your problems, maybe you should think twice before you include a nation which is arguably your greatest ally.


I listed countries as options for these people to move whom complain about how it is here. Canada was listed because you have vast amounts of open land. If you want to argue the semantics, be my guest. I feel you are mad that I did not list Canada as the United States greatest ally, but would have as one of our three greatest allies.


----------



## Freeloader (Jul 27, 2011)

Father Flex said:


> Thoughts on the North Dakota oil boom?
> 
> Giving some thought to postponing the remainder of law school and heading out there with a friend. I have two years experience with machinery and worked on a railroad throughout much of my undergrad. They're literally seeking applicants. Truck drivers are making close to 90K over there. If you decide to work on the oil rig, you can pull in close to 110,000 in your first annual year.
> 
> I can pay off my undergrad in one year. Work an additional 1-2 years after and pay off a mortgage on a house. Getting ahead in life like this seems like a great opportunity.


I know this: There is indeed a lot of work out there, and places such as MdDonalds and Wal Mart are paying upwards of $20/hr for many entry level positions due to everyone splitting from there to take jobs at the oil rigs that need manpower. the hitch is that rent in homes is sky high now with so many people and less housing that normally required to support such a population. My father is currently up in Williston, ND, having ben in the oil field for a number of years before swapping to plumbing about 7-8 years ago. I considered going out there, but it's a big change, and not sure how much of a lock work is that way.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

For those who want to embark on finding some clarity in who Ron Paul is and what he stands for, I present a youtube video collage of all his responses at the ABC GOP Debate on 12/10/2011.








Freeloader said:


> I know this: There is indeed a lot of work out there, and places such as MdDonalds and Wal Mart are paying upwards of $20/hr for many entry level positions due to everyone splitting from there to take jobs at the oil rigs that need manpower. the hitch is that rent in homes is sky high now with so many people and less housing that normally required to support such a population. My father is currently up in Williston, ND, having ben in the oil field for a number of years before swapping to plumbing about 7-8 years ago. I considered going out there, but it's a big change, and not sure how much of a lock work is that way.


So I heard. Unemployment is at 3.8% over there and most who do not work would rather putz around than take responsibility and find a job. It seems like quite the opportunity. 80% of your time is spent working, while the rest is spent sleeping/eating/lounging. That would be hard to chew but for the opportunity to make close to 6 figures off the bat, it might be worth it.


----------



## Steve Patriot (Oct 12, 2007)

The manning of FEMA camps across the country, along with the passage of SB1867....should scare the living Hell out of every fucking person in this Orwellian/Huxlian shit heap.


----------



## BIFR (Apr 13, 2005)

The republicans with the exception of maybe Ron Paul have no chance of beating Obama. The only reason I will say that Paul can is because he would take alot of Democratic and Independent votes from Obama due to his anti-war and pro-civil liberty views.


----------



## Berringer (Jul 16, 2011)

Steve Patriot said:


> The manning of FEMA camps across the country, along with the passage of SB1867....should scare the living Hell out of every fucking person in this Orwellian/Huxlian shit heap.


 
A-fucking-MEN. I still can't believe that passed. This is not the country our brave soldiers have fought and died for anymore. The passage of SB1867 was a slap in the face to all of our citizens who still honestly believed in this nation.


----------



## CM Dealer (May 27, 2008)

FEMA camps? People still believe in those? In 2011? That bill was a piece of shit, but I'm not sure why everyone thinks they weren't being spied on before. You don't think that any of the information in those huge private databases ever ends up in the Pentagon or Langley Falls? Face it, the government can find you if they want to. With that said, you aren't about to be thrown in jail just because you voted for the wrong person or anything like that. There's a big difference between people on the fringes of society who are technically innocent disappearing to a Super Max and the thought-police descending on your house.


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

CM Dealer said:


> FEMA camps? People still believe in those? In 2011? That bill was a piece of shit, but I'm not sure why everyone thinks they weren't being spied on before. You don't think that any of the information in those huge private databases ever ends up in the Pentagon or Langley Falls? Face it, the government can find you if they want to. With that said, you aren't about to be thrown in jail just because you voted for the wrong person or anything like that. There's a big difference between people on the fringes of society who are technically innocent disappearing to a Super Max and the thought-police descending on your house.


do you really want to get them going?


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

The SOPA bill is the thing that pisses me off. Not only would this bill basicly put a lot of people out of work, it is trying to censor the net, possibly one of the last media for free expession. Then again that may be the point. And from what I understand, it is quite unconstituional. With this and all the other shit, I leave you this. This is what we are becoming.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

I've made no bones about my being conservative, but what Glenn Beck said last week just absolutely floored me. He comes out on Judge Napolitano's show and says that basically the Tea Party is supporting Gingrich because of race. Funny how this man no more than a couple of years ago was slinging around the race card on Obama, and now here he is doing the same to a group he stood behind and supported since the outset. 

Beck is an absolute tool for such a stupid remark. I have been to a few Tea Party functions, and I'm proud to say I agree with a lot of what they say. I accept the fact we're most likely not going to get a conservative on the likes of Bachmann/Cain or Huckabee and that Gingrich is not my idea of the perfect conservative candidate. 

That being said, Gingrich did reduce the federal deficit as Speaker of the House and knows his stuff when it comes to foreign policy. The idea that people would support him only because of race is every bit as stupid or ignorant as people who voted for or against Obama because of his skin tone. I could hang out and have a beer with Obama, I just don't agree with his policies and he has been a lousy president. 

Of course, I wonder if Beck is going to come out and support Romney after all is said and done, strictly because they are fellow Mormons perhaps? Then that makes Beck even more stupid. 

I'm done with Beck...it seems that Michael Savage is the only consistent conservative host out there anymore.


----------



## Near™ (Jun 20, 2007)

stevefox1200 said:


> do you really want to get them going?


FEMA just needs to be dismantled, restaffed and rebranded just like a wrestler... 

FEMA will never be in a favourable view to the people, most people I know treat it like it doesn't exist instead of the endless debates.


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

NearSamcro™ said:


> FEMA just needs to be dismantled, restaffed and rebranded just like a wrestler...
> 
> FEMA will never be in a favourable view to the people, most people I know treat it like it doesn't exist instead of the endless debates.


Bad booking killed FEMA


----------



## trekster (May 25, 2010)

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/

Moneybomb is today! Donate what you can.


----------



## Emarosa (Sep 12, 2007)

Gingrich dropping below Romney last I heard. RP's taking his numbers.


----------



## Bogey (Feb 11, 2008)

BruiserKC said:


> I've made no bones about my being conservative, but what Glenn Beck said last week just absolutely floored me. He comes out on Judge Napolitano's show and says that basically the Tea Party is supporting Gingrich because of race. Funny how this man no more than a couple of years ago was slinging around the race card on Obama, and now here he is doing the same to a group he stood behind and supported since the outset.
> 
> Beck is an absolute tool for such a stupid remark. I have been to a few Tea Party functions, and I'm proud to say I agree with a lot of what they say. I accept the fact we're most likely not going to get a conservative on the likes of Bachmann/Cain or Huckabee and that Gingrich is not my idea of the perfect conservative candidate.
> 
> ...


Don't know why people care about anything Glenn Beck says. He's an entertainer rather than a serious political commentator. The only reason he's been taken seriously is that unlike a Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert, he was put on an actual "news" channel.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

Bogey said:


> Don't know why people care about anything Glenn Beck says. He's an entertainer rather than a serious political commentator. The only reason he's been taken seriously is that unlike a Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert, he was put on an actual "news" channel.


Michael Cole is more of a news reporter than anyone on Fox News. As Mike Birbiglia says, "At least with Fox News, you KNOW it's not true."


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

Ron Paul on Jay Leno last night...














Surely was a vast platform for Paul and allowed him to expand on some of his methodologies.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

Kim Jong Il has died. More to come as details emerge...

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/north-korea-supreme-leader-kim-jong-il-died-15185454


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

Father Flex said:


> Kim Jong Il has died. More to come as details emerge...
> 
> Source: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/north-korea-supreme-leader-kim-jong-il-died-15185454


I got a weird feeling he had already chosen someone from Hollywood to play him in the biopic.


----------



## Huganomics (Mar 12, 2010)

Emarosa said:


> Gingrich dropping below Romney last I heard. RP's taking his numbers.


:hb


----------



## Svart (Jun 11, 2011)

zombiemaster said:


> Cops in countries where guns are illegal have almost ZERO chance of dying.
> 
> Firemen also rarely die.
> 
> ...


I realize this is an old post but please tell me you're joking. Once someone is hired as a cop they've put themselves in harm's way, with or without the uniform on. You're talking about a job that requires you to alter your lifestyle in such a way that you aren't always a target. And no matter how much we understand about psychology, we can't predict with certainty, just how people will react, especially when on the job.
And look no further than google for the proof..

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/11/eveningnews/main20052911.shtml
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation...50-slain-police-killed-in-ambushes/50138148/1
And I know this isn't Mexico but.. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...an-drug-war-town/story-e6frg6n6-1226109395674

The difference between a garbage man and a police officer is that a garbage man hasn't made it his sworn duty to serve and protect. Don't be stupid.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

I try to post some little gems of recent, relevant news in this thread. Here's a National Geographic documentary on the life that North Koreans face(d) on a daily basis. Very insightful and gives you a glimpse of the conformist nation of North Korea.


----------



## Amsterdam (Mar 8, 2010)

Obama / Biden 2012

That is all.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

Amsterdam said:


> Obama / Biden 2012
> 
> That is all.


Yeah... But not because people care that much for Biden, but because the GOP has yet to name a better contender.

On a semi-related note, my bro-in-law told me this week he heard/read that people aren't trying to kill Obama because they don't want Biden to get the job. He also hears with a similar situation perhaps taking place, there is talk wrestler-turned-politician Jesse Ventura is ready to be the VP candidate if Ron Paul runs for a non-GOP party's slot.


----------



## Amsterdam (Mar 8, 2010)

TJChurch said:


> Yeah... But not because people care that much for Biden, but because the GOP has yet to name a better contender.
> 
> On a semi-related note, my bro-in-law told me this week he heard/read that people aren't trying to kill Obama because they don't want Biden to get the job. He also hears with a similar situation perhaps taking place, there is talk wrestler-turned-politician Jesse Ventura is ready to be the VP candidate if Ron Paul runs for a non-GOP party's slot.


People that contemplate killing Obama, or at least try to undermine him in any way possible, need to get a life. Seriously. I say if you don't like the current President, that's fine. This is America. You have the ability to express that opinion at the voting booth every 2 years. Those that sit around and dwell on how much they hate BHO don't have anything better to do with their time. He's far from perfect, but he's not half as evil as his critics make him out to be.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

Amsterdam said:


> *People that contemplate killing Obama need to get a life. Seriously.* I say if you don't like the current President, that's fine. This is America. *You have the ability to express that opinion at the voting booth every 2 years.[*]


I agree with all but the boldface.

I am perhaps one of the biggest backers of people's right to their opinion. What you do not have is a right, or even reason to express it every place at every time.


----------



## TheCelticRebel (Jun 6, 2011)

Amsterdam said:


> People that contemplate killing Obama, or at least try to undermine him in any way possible, need to get a life. Seriously. I say if you don't like the current President, that's fine. This is America. You have the ability to express that opinion at the voting booth every 2 years. Those that sit around and dwell on how much they hate BHO don't have anything better to do with their time. He's far from perfect, but he's not half as evil as his critics make him out to be.


He's worse than Bush, at least Bush didn't pretend to be a liberal who cared about human rights.


----------



## Killswitch Stunner (May 23, 2011)

No, Bush just stuck it to us and smiled like an asshole.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

Killswitch Stunner said:


> No, Bush just stuck it to us and smiled like an asshole.


It's kinda like the old saying about walking like a duck; He smiled like one because he was one.


----------



## Wryder (Dec 4, 2011)

TJChurch said:


> It's kinda like the old saying about walking like a duck; He smiled like one because he was one.



+1

Dubya was America's greatest mistake in the last 20 years or so. Before that, it was Reagan. It's unfortunate, too, because Bush had the opportunity to go down as one of the all time greats, and he completely fucked it up. You put someone like Clinton in that position, and he immediately erases all the Lewinsky shit and climbs into the upper echelon of presidents.

I'll be voting for Obama in November, but only because I don't think any of the GOP candidates more accurately represent my views. I would contemplate a Romney vote, but I don't think ol' boy is gonna get the nomination. If he does, then I have a decision to make.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

People still give a fuck about Democrats and Republicans?

I'm a liberal, yeah, but I don't affiliate with no party because I won't let them speak or think for me. Different sides, same coin.

On a side note, even though the bitch is crazy and I pretty much disagree with her about almost everything, I'd bang Michelle Bachman. Swag me out.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

Wryder said:


> +1
> 
> Dubya was America's greatest mistake in the last 20 years or so. Before that, it was Reagan. It's unfortunate, too, because Bush had the opportunity to go down as one of the all time greats,...


To quote Ryan Reynolds during his TV-sitcom days, "When you say 'great', you mean like in a great tragedy, or a great waste of time."

Dubya didn't screw anything up; Screwing it up would be not living-up to one's potential. He did the best he could, but he never deserved to "win" that office. 



Wryder said:


> I'll be voting for Obama in November, but only because I don't think any of the GOP candidates more accurately represent my views.


I couldn't honestly tell you what a lot of the GOP's potential nominees' views are on a lot of things. I've looked over the list, though, & I don't think they've offered anyone yet who I like for the office better than Obama.

That said, I have said a party when asked at polls, but I try not to let that rule too much over who/what I vote for. Also, I started something years ago that would end with me running for the office in the next decade-or-so, & I haven't completely ruled it out, so who knows?


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

Im looking at one of the other parties to see if they have some ideas, because lets face it, the two we cling to now sure as hell don't


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

virus21 said:


> Im looking at one of the other parties to see if they have some ideas, because lets face it, the two we cling to now sure as hell don't


Or maybe they do; Who's to say?

I know I for one would rather they look like idiots before they try for my vote than tell us they have an idea &, whether they do or not, nothing comes of it.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

Big night tonight. 01/03/2012 marks the night of the Iowa Caucuse. Let's see what unfolds. Santorum has made a late charge. I, personally, am pulling for Ron Paul. I can imagine Perry making it to South Carolina and Bachman dropping out after Iowa tonight.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

Right now, the best move for Obama to make is... None. Be silent & still, & they don't get mad at you. It's his election to lose.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

15% of the votes are in. Here's how it looks right now:

*RON PAUL*: 24%
*Mitt Romney*: 23%
*Rick Santorum*: 23%


----------



## Steve Patriot (Oct 12, 2007)

Meanwhile, in the Persian Gulf.....


----------



## CM Dealer (May 27, 2008)

So apparently, Rick Santorum (crazy Christian bastard) is virtually tied with Mitt Romney (slightly less crazy Mormon) in the Iowa Caucus. I really don't care; the only republican I would even consider electing is Huntsman, and he's seemingly out of it so oh well. I really don't see any of the candidates knocking off Obama at this stage anyway. Its not like Obama is particularly well liked, but none of the Republicans are gonna draw independents or more moderate democrats.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

If Romney wins tonight, the bitching from the right can stop because he'll be the nominee against Obama whether people want to digest it or not. 

If Santorum wins tonight, then we'll be having a very huge clash between the sections of the GOP (establishment/traditional vs. social/religious/Tea Party) heading into the Convention in June.

I also think Bachman is dropping out of the race during this week as well since, I heard, her inner circle are already beginning to talk to her about it. Perry may follow soon as well.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

The Iowa Caucus means nothing. At least that's been the impression I get. New Hampshire seems to be more of a predictor. 

I'm hoping for Gingrich or Santorum to get the nomination. Obama will destroy either of them. Romney has the best chance. Actually Huntsman has the best chance, but Republicans hate him because he's too level headed and liberal. Same goes for Ron Paul. Actually Paul might be nuts, but he's too socially liberal/sane for this party.

I really don't think the Republicans stand a chance in the general election. They're going to hope for Jeb Bush to be the man in 2016.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

Newt will get clobbered by Obama. Not even having to use his past baggage alone.

Santorum is not a prime time candidate at all and that'll expose him if he gets the nomination.

Romney is the best chance at standing toe to toe with Obama but not even his base are fully exicted to get behind him and although he is a fiscal conservate, let's cut the bullshit. He's a liberal on all non-economic issues (healthcare, abortion, Iraq, etc.) He just goes the other way in order to woo the section of conservatives that will never buy him as one of them ever.

Everybody else is a lost cause. Although Paul has some good points I agree with him on, he's a national disaster waiting to self implode if he ever got the nomination.

This was suppose to be an election that Obama was possibly able to lose but he got lucky this year because the Republican candidate (except Huntsman) are so seriouslu flawed that there will be no choice but to vote either for Obama and no one and either way would be bad for the GOP.

Honestly, the GOP should just admit defeat for 2012 and just throw in the towel. Focus all your enegry and thought onto 2016 when Obama leaves and it's an open election again.


----------



## Emarosa (Sep 12, 2007)

Guys, no need to worry about caususing. Pat Robertson knows who the next president will be:

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.co...t-president-will-be/politics/2012/01/03/32682


----------



## Super Sexy Steele (Aug 16, 2002)

It's looks like it will be Romney or Santorum as the GOP nominee. Romney has the better chance against Obama but he's not strong enough with his party that he will beat Obama. The wild card might be Paul if he decides to run as a Independent. He could shake up the 2012 election somewhat. It's possible that Obama could have another landslide victory.


----------



## USAUSA1 (Sep 17, 2006)

PF69 said:


> It's looks like it will be Romney or Santorum as the GOP nominee. Romney has the better chance against Obama but he's not strong enough with his party that he will beat Obama. The wild card might be Paul if he decides to run as a Independent. He could shake up the 2012 election somewhat. It's possible that Obama could have another landslide victory.


http://www.wrestlingforum.com/anything/578019-official-politics-thread-20.html

After last night speech, Ron Paul is definitely running for president either as the GOP nominee or an Independent.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

The Caucaus means a lot, Mister. It narrows the field down and typically projects who is in it for the long haul. Perry to "reassess" the campaign now; Iowa is Bachman's birth state and she didn't fair too well so she might as well take her ball and go home. Huntsman would make for an excellent VP or cabinet member. Dude has a wealth of foreign relations experience. Not that Huntsman would attract a certain demographic base in the actual election, but the he is certainly as qualified as anybody.


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

Paul-Hunstman could very well work.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Good point Flex. In that regard, you're right, Iowa does matter.

I'd seriously consider a Paul-Huntsman ticket. They're both socially liberal enough for me see eye to eye with. Paul is out there with some of his stuff, but the way we do things DOES NOT WORK.


----------



## Steve Patriot (Oct 12, 2007)

Any of you ever seen "The Candidate"?

Does it bother any of you American politicians are elected with clever marketing schemes, and catchy phraseology?

Why are campaign commercials, responses in `debates`, and speeches so short? Any of you geniuses ever ponder why darkness is illuminated with flickers of light?


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

Steve Patriot said:


> Any of you ever seen "The Candidate"?


Nope.



Steve Patriot said:


> Does it bother any of you American politicians are elected with clever marketing schemes, and catchy phraseology?


Heavily, but I see no real way to change it, especially since I can't change how most of America votes, or for who, or for what reasons (in elections, or even "Idol" & the like).



Steve Patriot said:


> Why are campaign commercials, responses in `debates`, and speeches so short?


Because we are well aware they are lying, & see no reason for such lies to also waste scads of time.



Steve Patriot said:


> Any of you geniuses ever ponder why darkness is illuminated with flickers of light?


Has your genius told you I never figured that out b/c it's not true?

---

On another note, I saw this on Twitter last night...

Before you vote in the next election, you might want to read this comment below. Just sayin'.:

"Those captive to images cast ballots based on how candidates make them feel. They vote for a slogan, a smile, a perceived sincerity, & attractiveness, along with the carefully crafted personal narrative of the candidate. It is style & story, not content & fact, that inform mass politics."


----------



## 6789 (Oct 9, 2006)

This is an Aussie politician to be proud of - Bob Hawke skulking a beer at the cricket!!


www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5mBShX9fdU


----------



## starship.paint (Sep 27, 2010)

phew, no Bachmann.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

I really think Huntsman, Gingrich and Perry are pretty much done right now. Huntsman has never really gotten any traction. He blew off Iowa for New Hampshire, and he is way behind. Perry and Gingrich's campaigns are pretty much dead in the water right now. They are hoping to obtain some momentum in the South with the Bible Belters. 

I find very interesting that the evangelicals are so hell-bent on keeping Romney from being the nominee (both for his moderate views and being Mormon) that many are throwing their endorsements to a Catholic in Santorum. Many evangelical Christians despise the Catholics.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

I guess they despise Mormons and moderates more. The evangelical vote is so fucking overrated. Hispanics are where it's at. Evangelicals do get off their asses and vote, it's true, but their effect is overstated.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

MrMister said:


> I guess they despise Mormons and moderates more. The evangelical vote is so fucking overrated. Hispanics are where it's at. Evangelicals do get off their asses and vote, it's true, but their effect is overstated.


A lot of them stayed home last year and wouldn't vote for McCain, who they saw as a moderate. They don't have the clout they once did, because most folks want someone that might actually have a chance to win.


----------



## TheCelticRebel (Jun 6, 2011)

Judge Napolitano is the man.


----------



## Emarosa (Sep 12, 2007)

Steve Patriot said:


> Any of you ever seen "The Candidate"?
> 
> Does it bother any of you American politicians are elected with clever marketing schemes, and catchy phraseology?
> 
> Why are campaign commercials, responses in `debates`, and speeches so short? Any of you geniuses ever ponder why darkness is illuminated with flickers of light?


Is that with Clooney?


----------



## Huganomics (Mar 12, 2010)

:lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## Killswitch Stunner (May 23, 2011)

Obama will win again the same reason Bush won a second time. Some Democrats hate him now but they are not gonna vote a Republican in, they are not that stupid.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

As lame as Kerry was, at least he put up a decent fight and the election was quite close. I can't see any of these awful candidates giving Obama a hard time in the general election.

Romney is this super rich guy (he seems not that bright and out of touch too). Santorum is a religious zealot from 1952. No woman would vote for Gingrich. Paul is nuts. Huntsman is...well Huntsman actually might be able to challenge Obama, but the Republicans hate him.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

Killswitch Stunner said:


> Obama will win again the same reason Bush won a second time. Some Democrats hate him now but they are not gonna vote a Republican in, they are not that stupid.


That is not the reason Bush won, nor is it the reason Obama will win again... Though both of those victories did/will occur.


----------



## ItsWhatIdo (Aug 15, 2007)

I've decided Huntsman has my vote. I am tired of Evangelical Republicans deciding based on religion and not the good of the nation. We need a moderate that can play both sides to bring everyone back together. An extreme candidate will just further divide this country.

Huntsman has worked under Obama which shows he is interested in the good of the country, not just his own agenda. He has governor experience and has been an ambassador to other nations (i.e. China). I like his attitude, and his stance on most things (though like all candidates I do disagree in some areas).

He has my vote, and I think he would be great for this nation. If Romney or Paul win and represent the Repubs they will get my vote. Anyone else and I will go third party or abstain from casting a vote.


----------



## TheCelticRebel (Jun 6, 2011)

Rick Perry only got 1,265 votes(1%) and Michele Bachmann(Who already dropped out) got 228 votes.










Time for Rick Perry to drop out.


----------



## Huganomics (Mar 12, 2010)

DAMMIT STOP DOMINATING SO MUCH ROMNEY. 

I'd still vote for him over Obama/Perry/Gingrich/Shitorum though.

Nice to see that Huntsman had a solid showing. (Y)


----------



## Steve Patriot (Oct 12, 2007)

"Democracy is the worship of jackals by jackasses".

-H.L. Mencken


----------



## Hajduk1911 (Mar 12, 2010)

Romney and Obama are basically the same crap, only differ really on social issues which don't mean much to me. I don't understand why the US is so stuck on this two-party system, people need to wake up

I want to like Huntsman, but then again he is one of these guys who thinks the US needs to police the world, which turns me off to him

If Romney wins SC, its pretty much done even though most of the Republicans will stick around for a few more months


----------



## CM Dealer (May 27, 2008)

Huntsman is the best Republican imo. I'm a liberal, but I appreciate that he will cross the isle to get something done, and unlike Obama, and even Bush and Clinton before him, he has meaningful foreign policy experience. The "police the world" thing does bug me, but I think he may just be saying that to appeal to more conservative voters.


----------



## T-C (May 4, 2006)

annoying that romney is going to get in, he is just the same as obama. all you have to do is look at who gave him most of his campaign money, the banks. yea, good idea to put him in....


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

CM Dealer said:


> Huntsman is the best Republican imo. I'm a liberal, but I appreciate that he will cross the isle to get something done, and unlike Obama, and even Bush and Clinton before him, he has meaningful foreign policy experience. The "police the world" thing does bug me, but I think he may just be saying that to appeal to more conservative voters.


Doesn't matter since Huntsman has dropped out now, but Huntsman wouldn't have done jack across the aisle. He completely blew off Iowa for New Hampshire, if you're going to be president you should go everywhere. He wouldn't because he is against the use of ethanol and giving them subsidies. Not to mention in Utah he gave illegal immigrants driving privileges and continued to allow illegals to gain financial aid for college. 

As for the "policing the world", as an American I don't want to police the world. I know I want to deal with the threats other nations bring to our shores or could bring, but I would rather take care of America first. The problem is that if we told the world to take care of yourselves, the same people that accuse us of being a meddling superpower would call us a selfish superpower who doesn't care about the rest of the world. 

Ultimately, I think we're headed for a huge fight within the Republican Party over its future. It's a three-way dance among those who want to elect who they feel is the most electable candidate (Romney), the folks who think that the Republicans need to go back to the days of less government and less involvement in foreign affairs (Paul) and the conservative evangelical Christian base that do not want either a Mormon or a libertarian in office. I think they want to back Perry, but he's pretty much done unless he can pull a win out in South Carolina. Many want to back Santorum, but others won't because he's Catholic. 

It'll be interesting, but I think this race is still wide open and could be at least through Super Tuesday.


----------



## dlb223 (Jan 10, 2012)

The fact of the matter is, we're all doomed. I hate to sound like the world is ending, and this isn't that stupid December 21 conspiracy crap I'm talking about. There are zero good options in the upcoming election. Well, there's one: Ron Paul. The only good-guy politician. The problem with Ron Paul is that he's in the God-awful can't-figure-itself-out Republican party. Ron Paul is like a shiny gold coin that you find in a giant turd, but America is too blind to see it. America loves the smell of shit and will throw the biggest piece of turd into office just like it always does.


----------



## CM Dealer (May 27, 2008)

The race isn't wide open. Romney has pulled a big lead in South Carolina, and is already campaigning in Florida. Once he takes those two states, its game over. Even if all of the "conservative alternatives" except one were to pull out and support the one remaining candidate, it still probably wouldn't be enough. Romney has too much money and has deflected attacks way better than everyone else in the running.


----------



## ice_edge (Aug 4, 2011)

If people could just come around on the internet and discover that ron is the only choice and start making the right one there might be hope.


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

Well Huntsman's out of the race.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Huntsman's daughters are hot. That was the main reason I wanted him be the nomination.

Mitt is a Republican Kerry. He's totally uninspiring and a super rich guy. No one wants a super rich uninspiring guy as a candidate. That's why the Republicans have been trying to get anyone but him (and Paul) into the limelight.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

MrMister said:


> Huntsman's daughters are hot. That was the main reason I wanted him be the nomination.
> 
> Mitt is a Republican Kerry. He's totally uninspiring and a super rich guy. No one wants a super rich uninspiring guy as a candidate. That's why the Republicans have been trying to get anyone but him (and Paul) into the limelight.


Huntsman's wife is very easy on the eyes also. I'd hit it.  

Romney has flip-flopped so much he makes me dizzy. He introduced state-run health care for Massachusetts, then attacks it on the national level. He originally was against same-sex marriage, yet it was on his watch that he OK'd people to issue licenses to same-sex couples. He's basically a RINO and not a true conservative. 

The big question here is whether the Republican Party will sell their soul just to find someone who will beat Obama. It has to make the Tea Party nervous, not to mention the evangelical Christians within the party also.


----------



## Mister Excitement (Apr 17, 2006)

Mitt Romney is a serial killer.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

Obama is winning this election. This really is becoming more uneventful as the days pass. Romney is the only person in the race who can reasonably debate or go against Obama and he's getting slaughtered by the GOP who never bought him as a Republican anyways. Let's face it. Romney is a social liberal and fiscal conservative who's just using red meat to try and get the party to unite with him and it's failing so far in the race.

If I were the GOP, cut your losses on 2012. It's a losing battle. Aim high for 2016 when the Presidency will be open.


----------



## Huganomics (Mar 12, 2010)

I find it highly amusing/depressing when I watch the news and hear reporters saying "the voters said that they were mainly voting on who can beat Obama"......

....and then it's revealed that those voters voted for Romney or Gingrich. 

fpalm


----------



## Hajduk1911 (Mar 12, 2010)

these debates are going overboard, it seems like there is a new one every 2-3 days


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

Hajduk1911 said:


> these debates are going overboard, it seems like there is a new one every 2-3 days


"Perception is 9-10ths of reality."... That's be cause there _is_!!! They figure if they give them enough chances, one of them has to eventually not look stupid! But just like any other live televised event, you can hope, but not know the actual results until it goes on. Immediately following each debate, it becomes time to decide "How soon can we try this again?!"


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

Powerful moment there between Gifford and Obama. Inspiring. Interested in seeing these proposals about the middle class, clean energy, and making college more affordable.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

I debated this afternoon if I would watch, & chose not to. It will be accomplishments, not anything anyone says, that decides whether or not I vote for him.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

Obama has highlighted some of his low-points and shown humility. Tune in while you can. It's been pretty good.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

Really?!

Tweeted by a guy I grew-up with: Obama is using past tense in every situation where he talks about a problem that is still happening. #SOTU

Tweeted by "Chad Ochocinco": Not being rude but if they stand up and clap on every statement Obama says this could go on well over 3 hours.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

He has some out-of-the box ideas. Bright mind. Question is can he put this all together - and, more importantly, will the Republicans allow him to?


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

Father Flex said:


> and, more importantly, will the Republicans allow him to?


That really is the key question.

I've thought about this a few times over the past few months... We have one man called the leader of the country/"free world", & he often is elected based on things he says he will do/plans to do. Regardless, he can't do a lot of it unless the majority of a separate group allows it/says it's OK. As I think about it, the reverse makes as much (if not more) sense.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

TJChurch said:


> That really is the key question.
> 
> I've thought about this a few times over the past few months... We have one man called the leader of the country/"free world", & he often is elected based on things he says he will do/plans to do. Regardless, he can't do a lot of it unless the majority of a separate group allows it/says it's OK. As I think about it, the reverse makes as much (if not more) sense.


It's a double-edged sword. If you allow no regulation from anyone aside from the president, then tyranny becomes king and that adds more greed into the equation, which could potentially drastically change the outlook of the country's sovereignty. Conversely, we all see what the product is of having a sitting duck president in office who is held captive by Congress.


----------



## WutChagoNAdoBrothA (May 9, 2010)

Every time they stood up and clapped...

instead of them clapping I imagined they screamed 'WHAT!?"

it made it better


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

Father Flex said:


> It's a double-edged sword. If you allow no regulation from anyone aside from the president, then tyranny becomes king and that adds more greed into the equation, which could potentially drastically change the outlook of the country's sovereignty. Conversely, we all see what the product is of having a sitting duck president in office who is held captive by Congress.


I kinda wonder about these things, perhaps more than I should, or perhaps others need to more.

I grew up hearing people say that "If you don't vote, you can't complain." I have missed only one election since I reached voting age, & that was a year without the Presidency being elected. The person I vote for often wins...

...But the thing is, even if everyone I vote for (Congress & President) win, that's less than a dozen people in a group that (Congress alone) numbers over 400. So there is no guarantee that anything either/any/all of them speak on is going to get changed in any way, shape, or form.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

Never looked at it that way but that's an interesting point.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Loved that Obama totally called out insiders. Loved that he totally called out Congress/Wall Street/douchebags. GIVE ME A BILL I'LL SIGN THAT BITCH. Of all the awesome shit Obama said, I REALLY hope this banking/Wall St investigative team has big sharp fuck off teeth. And that they're all really hungry.

I'm not delusional nor naive however. I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## ice_edge (Aug 4, 2011)

You know I might as well just start posting videos here. U.S government and the media are just worth this.

This is a political thread so why not. I will post any video I deem interesting. Now remember. Don't bash the messenger. Bash the message:


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

Was there ever any doubt?


----------



## Shining_Wizard1979 (Sep 8, 2009)

BruiserKC said:


> Doesn't matter since Huntsman has dropped out now, but Huntsman wouldn't have done jack across the aisle. He completely blew off Iowa for New Hampshire, if you're going to be president you should go everywhere.


I agree that I would hope that they would try to win everyone's vote, but there was a candidate this week that basically siad they weren't even trying in Florida, because of campaign strategy.



dlb223 said:


> Well, there's one: Ron Paul. The only good-guy politician.


 He always seems very prickly to me when dealing with people. There are many doctors that are like that, and trust me, I work with doctors. I've had some talk to me like I'm stupid, and I was in a Ph.D. program in Biology before I decided to do what I'm doing now. I question whether he is in it "For the people" or whether it's just that his personal ideas presumably will collaterally benefit people. There's a difference. I can't remember who it was, but someone I know said they knew him (I'm in a neighboring District), and that he was kind of a douche.



TJChurch said:


> That really is the key question.
> 
> I've thought about this a few times over the past few months... We have one man called the leader of the country/"free world", & he often is elected based on things he says he will do/plans to do. Regardless, he can't do a lot of it unless the majority of a separate group allows it/says it's OK. As I think about it, the reverse makes as much (if not more) sense.





Father Flex said:


> It's a double-edged sword. If you allow no regulation from anyone aside from the president, then tyranny becomes king and that adds more greed into the equation, which could potentially drastically change the outlook of the country's sovereignty. Conversely, we all see what the product is of having a sitting duck president in office who is held captive by Congress.


Checks and Balances. It should encourage exactly what isn't happening, and that's free exchange of all ideas and execution of the best.



TJChurch said:


> I kinda wonder about these things, perhaps more than I should, or perhaps others need to more.
> 
> I grew up hearing people say that "If you don't vote, you can't complain." I have missed only one election since I reached voting age, & that was a year without the Presidency being elected. The person I vote for often wins...
> 
> ...But the thing is, even if everyone I vote for (Congress & President) win, that's less than a dozen people in a group that (Congress alone) numbers over 400. So there is no guarantee that anything either/any/all of them speak on is going to get changed in any way, shape, or form.


Perhaps you know this, but I'll write this anyway for those that don't. . . given the groups you mention actually have a set number (currently 536), you're actually only voting for 4 (the President, 2 Senators, and the House Representative for your District). 80% of that 536 is in the House of Representatives (legally set at 435), and 32% of the 435 in the House are from California, Texas, New York, and Florida. If you're from one of those four states or share an ideology with them, you have a good chance that your ideas are being well represented (if not over-represented) in the House.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

This shows just how ridiculous the whole thing is. Obama had two years basically to do whatever the hell he wanted and pissed that away. He only was forced into it when he was about to lose his supermajority in the Senate. Great speaker, brilliant politician, but he's not getting a whole hell of a lot done. 

Congress is every bit as inept here also. They scream about how they need to cut the budget down and no matter what happens we're just left with a bullshit compromise and kicking the can down the road. Like the 2-month-payroll tax extension. In another month or so we'll go through this again, not to mention the Wrestlemania coming up at the end of this year with the fight over the Bush tax cuts being extended. I think they just want them to expire, and then all our taxes will go up. 

We're not even being listened to for the most part...we're screaming from the pulpit to listen to what we want and we're getting blown off.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

What the fuck can you get done in two years in Washington? Come on, Washington being inefficient didn't start with Obama. It's been a clusterfuck there for decades. The only time they had their shit together in my lifetime was in the 90s really. Bottom line, while Obama isn't close to perfect by any means, he can't make Congress have a clue.

edit: Of course, then we get into the Iron Triangle and how corrupt Congress is.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

True...however all the opportunities were there. I don't agree with a lot of Obama's policies, but the chance to get things done was there and wasn't taken advantage of.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

Shining_Wizard1979 said:


> Checks and Balances. It should encourage exactly what isn't happening, and that's free exchange of all ideas and execution of the best.


Key-word there is "should", but it doesn't. Doubt they even try to let that happen, & that's w/o the influence of PACs, lobbyists, etc.



Shining_Wizard1979 said:


> Perhaps you know this, but I'll write this anyway for those that don't. . . given the groups you mention actually have a set number (currently 536), you're actually only voting for 4 (the President, 2 Senators, and the House Representative for your District). 80% of that 536 is in the House of Representatives (legally set at 435), and 32% of the 435 in the House are from California, Texas, New York, and Florida.


Knew much of that, actually.



Shining_Wizard1979 said:


> If you're from one of those four states or share an ideology with them, you have a good chance that your ideas are being well represented (if not over-represented) in the House.


True. Otherwise (46 of 50), "You've got no chance in HELL!"


----------



## USAUSA1 (Sep 17, 2006)

Really, the republicans elites really don't care who wins. They want either Christie or Rubio for 2016. Let's be honest, none of these guys running now can beat Obama. They are the "B team".


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

USAUSA1 said:


> Really, the republicans elites really don't care who wins. They want either Christie or Rubio for 2016. Let's be honest, none of these guys running now can beat Obama. They are the "B team".


I read this earlier, & then thought about it. Not sure I agree.

While I honestly can't tell you a Republican candidate I'd vote for right now, I can't say I'm heavily behind Obama if elections were this week. He hasn't looked/sounded stupid in a debate yet, but his time in the position has had its lows.


----------



## Bogey (Feb 11, 2008)

MrMister said:


> What the fuck can you get done in two years in Washington? Come on, Washington being inefficient didn't start with Obama. It's been a clusterfuck there for decades. The only time they had their shit together in my lifetime was in the 90s really. Bottom line, while Obama isn't close to perfect by any means, he can't make Congress have a clue.
> 
> edit: Of course, then we get into the Iron Triangle and how corrupt Congress is.


QFT. Even in the 90's though Clinton had to fight with Republicans a lot like Obama is now. Even when Congress was Democrat they couldn't agree with each other half the time unlike Republicans and their with us or against us creed.


----------



## Hotdiggity11 (Aug 24, 2006)

Congress struggles to maintain even a double digit approval rating. Obama averages around a mid-40s to upper-40s approval rating. The Supreme Court has pretty modest approval as well.


That should probably tell you that the Legislative Branch is the main problem at the moment.


----------



## Bogey (Feb 11, 2008)

The Judicial branch is pretty shitty as well. They get away with a lot of politics and corruption not to mention that they get to be there for life.


----------



## holycityzoo (Aug 14, 2011)

Gary Johnson 2016

Just you wait and see


----------



## TheCelticRebel (Jun 6, 2011)

Some relevant political images:


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

Personally, I prefer the pictures of Conan & Andy "impersonating" Newt & his wife.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

I'm gonna have nightmares now. Should be kinda awesome.


----------



## CM Dealer (May 27, 2008)

I'm going to have nightmares too, if Gingrich gets anywhere near the presidency. He's a sleaze who will do anything for the right price. You think the lobbyists and big business interests are bad now? Just wait until he's president, taking kickbacks from his old buddies on Capitol Hill and in the mortgage industry.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

It can't get much worse than the Supreme Court saying corporations are people and money is speech. The next step is openly stating corporations run shit.

But yeah, I cringe at the thought of Gingrich being the President. The ladies have our backs though. They fucking hate him.


----------



## ice_edge (Aug 4, 2011)

Corporations and bankers do run shit. 

Time to get real here folks.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

MrMister said:


> It can't get much worse than the Supreme Court saying corporations are people and money is speech. The next step is openly stating corporations run shit.


Colbert tried to get some corps-vs.-$ thing on the SC ballots recently, I read somewhere. The second we start letting him anywhere near our ballots rather than simply reporting on things, I am moving to Canada.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

You didn't get the satire apparently.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

MrMister said:


> You didn't get the satire apparently.


Not my fault; I never get things that aren't there.


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/mitt-romney-enters-danger-zone-140138035.html

Uh oh! Mitt's in the Danger Zone now!


----------



## Steve Patriot (Oct 12, 2007)

Watched a film (Amistad) about the African slave trade today in class...

Overheard this as response to a question about the mental state of slaves from a noble warrior straight out of the leagues of our brave fighting man and women. 

"It's all about the psychological breakdown and dehumanization that makes you an unquestioning drone."


Oh the _*IRONY*_...


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

Panther said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/mitt-romney-enters-danger-zone-140138035.html
> 
> Uh oh! Mitt's in the Danger Zone now!


Everyone knows where I stand politically obviously, but here's where I see things in general. 

Romney is seen by many as just not conservative enough for the Republican base. The way the process goes is bass-ackwards. You have to make sure your candidate is for your party and your platform first. That's where you get the backing and support to go after the independents. 

Obama has to do the same thing on his edge of the ledger to keep the support of his liberal base. He has to make sure that come the first week of September he has them behind him for the general election when he makes his nomination speech at the DNC. 

The general elections work at their best when you have two completely different platforms. Romney is just not that person for the Republicans.


----------



## exile123 (Mar 1, 2011)

CM Punk for president. The end


----------



## dele (Feb 21, 2005)

I'm not sure why the Republican Party would put Santorum on the ticket as presidential candidate. The guy has ZERO appeal to moderate 20-somethings (believe me on this one) and will be destroyed by Obama should he get the nomination. The Tea Party needs to bide its time and wait for someone with a little more appeal than a gay-bashing televangelist.


----------



## exile123 (Mar 1, 2011)

dele said:


> I'm not sure why the Republican Party would put Santorum on the ticket as presidential candidate. The guy has ZERO appeal to moderate 20-somethings (believe me on this one) and will be destroyed by Obama should he get the nomination. The Tea Party needs to bide its time and wait for someone with a little more appeal than a gay-bashing televangelist.


Well the problem with that is he perfectly fits the current tea party platform. I remember when they first started and were only talking about the Constitution and personal freedom for the first several months before the hardcore religious right hi-jacked their group. Now people like Santorum and Bachmann are pretty much the face of the Tea Party. So yeah, if you are looking for any real candidates from the Tea party, you will be waiting a long time. Unless they do some house-cleaning of course.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

I gotta be honest; I don't recall ever forming an opinion one way or the other about the so-called "Tea Party". Mainly, I just decided to not think about them much at all until they became truly another party, like having a candidate on the ballot for positions/office nationally or even locally.

That said, I was watching "The Chris Matthews Show" a bit on Sunday, & he said what I have felt for quite some time now (partly due to how much GOP candidates seem to be debating each other)... Obama has a decent shot to win not just because of what he's done (though killing top terrorist leaders can't hurt), but because the GOP & other parties don't have a great contender out there.


----------



## dlb223 (Jan 10, 2012)

exile123 said:


> CM Punk for president. The end


Or at least someone HONEST like he is (RON PAUL comes to mind)


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

dlb223 said:


> Or at least someone HONEST like he is (RON PAUL comes to mind)


Ron Paul actually comes to my mind quite a lot. I get rides to places with my sister, who (thanks to my bro-in-law, I think) has a RP bumper sticker on her windshield. They also have a yard sign for him. (Forget what it says offhand.)

I first read of him a few years back. Offhand, can't think of anything I have against him or anything he's said... Outside of the chance I doubt he'd live to finish the term.


----------



## exile123 (Mar 1, 2011)

dlb223 said:


> Or at least someone HONEST like he is (RON PAUL comes to mind)


Well I'll give him that, he seems about as "honest" as a political candidate can get, which isn't saying much. And I do agree with him on some issues but I also think some of his ideas range from bad to just nuts. Not Michelle Bachmann kind of nuts but still.... 

I don't know, I think I have reached the point where it doesn't even matter to me anymore. People always do the same shit once they get in office regardless of who it is or what political party they come from. Two sides of the same fked up coin.


----------



## dlb223 (Jan 10, 2012)

People think Ron Paul can't win and that's the only reason they don't support him (unless they disagree with his views, of course). It's stupid. Ron Paul has supporters all over the place, and if it was up to internet people, he'd be president.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

dlb223 said:


> People think Ron Paul can't win and that's the only reason they don't support him (unless they disagree with his views, of course). It's stupid. Ron Paul has supporters all over the place, and if it was up to internet people, he'd be president.


Not a chance. If it were up to THE IPC (Internet Political Communtiy), none might be President. Ron might be the best contender, but that's a hollow title when none are very good.


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

Ron's the best Republican choice but definitely not the best choice overall imo. Give Obama all the shit you want but he's the only thing standing between the White House and a Republican nutter.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

Panther said:


> Give Obama all the shit you want but he's the only thing standing between the White House and a Republican nutter.


Not only that, but I think most people seem to be expressing only one side or the other about him. The economy may still suck & all that, but (as some pundits out there have said) use a slogan of "Got rid of Bin Laden" (or something like that) & win this one straight away against anyone.

If only there was some way to regress TSA, rules in some public buildings, etc. now that a major terrorist is quite literally out of the picture.


----------



## Killswitch Stunner (May 23, 2011)

It doesn't matter, Obama will crush whoever survives the Replubican primary. He has 303 electoral votes in his pocket, this will be a landslide.


----------



## Steve Patriot (Oct 12, 2007)




----------



## shoe1985 (Dec 27, 2006)

For some odd reason I believe around election time the Bin Laden death picture will get released. Just a reminder to the American people that it was Obama who get him. Push up his numbers a little.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

shoe1985 said:


> For some odd reason I believe around election time the Bin Laden death picture will get released. Just a reminder to the American people that it was Obama who get him. Push up his numbers a little.


Not needed. He was alive during the Bush years, & isn't when Obama's re-election is being decided upon. That's all you need... Not to mention releasing such pictures that long after the fact may turn out to go against Obama.

What's that saying... "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger"? Yeah, well "what is dead & therefore can't kill you makes the guy that led the charge look stronger"... Or something like that.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

If the Republicans would do it right, they could re-take the White House, but they're trying their damnedest to piss it away. And at this point, being the man that got Bin Laden won't be enough. Ask Bush Senior how that worked out when he was the man who booted Saddam out of Kuwait. With gas prices going up right now, that could stall the progress our economy is seeing. I guarantee if we somehow reach $5/gallon or close to, Obama's done. 

If we were at peace right now and didn't have so many commitments the world over, Paul might be the best choice. But unfortunately we can't duck our head in the sand. And I sure as hell know I'm not happy with the whole handling of the burnt Korans. It was unintentional, and shouldn't have happened. But I have a major problem with apologies and we're not demanding an apology for people who burn Bibles, burn the American flag and murder our soldiers on purpose. 

The "October surprise" will have to do with Iran. It could be sooner, it will be Obama's chance to prove he's not weak on the Iranians. I'm not saying there will be war, but something will come down the pike so that he can show the world his strength.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

BruiserKC said:


> If the Republicans would do it right, they could re-take the White House, but they're trying their damnedest to piss it away.


If Christmas were in June, there would be fewer shopping days left... They aren't trying to let it go; It's not their fight. Right now, Obama has to _give_ it away, or he will get it again by default.



BruiserKC said:


> And at this point, being the man that got Bin Laden won't be enough


That sentence might be true if the GOP had anything positive at all on their side.



BruiserKC said:


> With gas prices going up right now, that could stall the progress our economy is seeing. I guarantee if we somehow reach $5/gallon or close to, Obama's done.


Speaking as someone who goes many places (including those where I spend money & the polls) without driving an inch, I disagree. Besides,, it is largely a 2-party system, so it comes down to that same point: Obama doesn't have to win it, as long as the GOP has no winners either.[/QUOTE]


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

Gotta' say I'll vote for anyone not named Obama or Romney. All in all, I've lost all hope seeing as RP has no chance in pulling this one out. Don't see much change coming along at all. Why are idiots like Santorum talking about stupid social issues like contraception instead of fiscal policies, energy independence, cutting the defecit, etc,? Washington still does not get it...


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

The Republicans social conservatism is making them lose the youth vote. Their Culture War that wages war against over 40% of Americans(if you count women) is proudly parading around their nutjob colors. You CANNOT claim you are for smaller government when you want government enforcing moral laws that infringe upon personal freedoms. Period.

That is the social side. The fiscal side is definitely a lot more complicated.


----------



## shoe1985 (Dec 27, 2006)

Panther said:


> The Republicans social conservatism is making them lose the youth vote. Their Culture War that wages war against over 40% of Americans(if you count women) is proudly parading around their nutjob colors. You CANNOT claim you are for smaller government when you want government enforcing moral laws that infringe upon personal freedoms. Period.
> 
> That is the social side. The fiscal side is definitely a lot more complicated.


Here is the problem with the Republican base. They say they want less government interference in our lives, but they have no issue going after something they disagree with to interfere in our lives. Sometimes you have to come to the middle and agree to disagree that not everyone wants the same things.

The Democratic party is so out of the loop anymore. They were supposed to make change, and if anything, just re-inflated the bubble for an even bigger collapse.

We are about to repeat what happened before, but this time we will not have a bailout, and it could make the Great Depression look like a small Recession. 

When I look at all the current crop of candidates left, all I do is shake my head. The one who I believe would have been great was John Huntsman. He really understood the problem and had a good plan. Sadly, because he worked for Obama with China, he had no chance.

Newt should not even be considered when the Republican party is about "family values."

Santorum was a terrible Senator, and being from PA, I hear people, mainly Republicans, ask how he could be a top contender?

Romney could be considered a Democrat.

Paul has a great domestic plan, but his foreign policy is so far away from the Republican's view of go to war and intervene in everyone's issues, haha funny the party that says less government wants to push for it, that he was never really considered.

Obama has failed. When he released his budget all I could do was shake my head. We need to get government out of our lives as much as possible, and let the people solve the problems. If a company fails, let them go under. Let new companies come up. Money should not stay in one person's hands, but be allowed to move around.


----------



## Amsterdam (Mar 8, 2010)

I'm voting Obama / Biden in 2012, just like I voted for Obama / Biden in 2008

I made up my mind years ago that I'd be a straight-ticket Democrat for life. Both major U.S. political parties are corrupt, and things are never going to change no matter what. Might as well choose a side from Day 1 and enjoy the show. Alot of people that share my view just don't vote at all, but I like to express my right to go to the ballot.


----------



## Bogey (Feb 11, 2008)

Father Flex said:


> Gotta' say I'll vote for anyone not named Obama or Romney. All in all, I've lost all hope seeing as RP has no chance in pulling this one out. Don't see much change coming along at all. Why are idiots like Santorum talking about stupid social issues like contraception instead of fiscal policies, energy independence, cutting the defecit, etc,? Washington still does not get it...


It always happens. I have no idea how abortion is always a major topic during presidential elections. Focus on more important shit.


----------



## Emarosa (Sep 12, 2007)

Bogey said:


> It always happens. I have no idea how abortion is always a major topic during presidential elections. Focus on more important shit.


Good issue in primaries to get the base. They just sweep it under the rug in the general.


----------



## TheCelticRebel (Jun 6, 2011)

Bogey said:


> It always happens. I have no idea how abortion is always a major topic during presidential elections. Focus on more important shit.


I think abortion should be illegal, but I don't think there's much of a chance of it being made illegal with all these phony, asshole politicians we have.

So, I don't know, I consider it a pretty important issue, but it's not necessarily good for candidates to focus on.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Flex did you seriously think Ron Paul had a chance in hell? 



TheCelticRebel said:


> I think abortion should be illegal, but I don't think there's much of a chance of it being made illegal with all these phony, asshole politicians we have.
> 
> So, I don't know, I consider it a pretty important issue, but it's not necessarily good for candidates to focus on.


Abortion sure. I get why and how people have a serious problem with it. But contraception? 

As dicey and complicated as abortion is, we still need to focus on energy and better fiscal policies. I actually don't have a problem with deficit spending in a recession. It's the deficit spending during a boom period that is fucking retarded. As for energy, we should've been off of foreign oil decades ago. Eventually we'd need to get off of coal too, but I'm fine with coal since it employs a lot of Americans.

Solar, coal, and wind supplemented with domestic/Canadian oil is what we should be on and should've been on for at least a decade. It's a pipe dream I know.


----------



## Ron Paul 2012 (Feb 27, 2012)

I hope to hell some how and some way Ron Paul wins. Talk about the under dog story of a life time.


----------



## Ron Paul 2012 (Feb 27, 2012)

*Interesting Ron Paul fact*

As you know 2012 is a very important year for America and I find voting for the right person is a must not just an option anymore. Because of this I am voting for the only honest person running for office via Ron Paul. I find it funny how just ten years ago pretty much all of the house and senate laughed at Ron Paul for suggesting what he was suggesting at the time but fast forward ten years later and it would seem Paul was right on about everything he said/predicted. Check this out below

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFLd_H3AZCA&sns=fb

Now after watching that I hope it helped convince you to believe in Ron Paul and make right for what we all failed to do back in 2002. This is our country so let’s take it back and show respect to our constitution.

Again this alone below owns anything Obama ever did for our country imo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFLd_H3AZCA&sns=fb


----------



## Killswitch Stunner (May 23, 2011)

Ron Paul should start using Vince McMahons 'No Chance in Hell' theme as his song, it would be fitting for him, seeing as he has 0% chance of even winning the primary.


----------



## T-C (May 4, 2006)




----------



## BIFR (Apr 13, 2005)

To be quite frank, Paul still does have a chance. The fact that he's racking up all the delegates in most states despite not actually winning the popular vote shows the power of his supporters. In the end, it's about getting the 1144 delegates needed to be the nominee. My best bet is it will be a brokered convention.


----------



## Ron Paul 2012 (Feb 27, 2012)

BIFR said:


> To be quite frank, *Paul still does have a chance. The fact that he's racking up all the delegates in most states despite not actually winning the popular vote shows the power of his supporters.* In the end, it's about getting the 1144 delegates needed to be the nominee. My best bet is it will be a brokered convention.


This^^^^^


----------



## Killswitch Stunner (May 23, 2011)

If we needed another racist in the White House, we would just bring Bush back.


----------



## T-C (May 4, 2006)

http://www.barackobama.com/african-americans/


----------



## Killswitch Stunner (May 23, 2011)

That's not racist.


----------



## T-C (May 4, 2006)

But Paul is a racist for something that he never even said, and has condemned since?


----------



## Killswitch Stunner (May 23, 2011)

T-C said:


> But Paul is a racist for something that he never even said, and has condemned since?


He had documents and when asked about it, he got mad and walked out. Seems pretty suspicious to me.


----------



## T-C (May 4, 2006)

Killswitch Stunner said:


> He had documents and when asked about it, he got mad and walked out. Seems pretty suspicious to me.


It was a newsletter in his name that other people sent in letters for. He signed them off but has since stated his regret on signing it off.

The racist thing is a load of horseshit that takes away from the real issues. Pretty symptomatic of modern day politics really.


----------



## Killswitch Stunner (May 23, 2011)

Actually, it's always been that way. Either way, Paul is nowhere near Romney or Santorum. He won't even win the primary, much less Obama.


----------



## T-C (May 4, 2006)

I'm not saying he will win, I just think you playing the racist card is off and symptomatic of how the media treats politics.


----------



## Killswitch Stunner (May 23, 2011)

Call it like I see it, but forget I even mentioned Paul. Obama is winning no matter who he goes against. Paul wasn't gonna win anyway, he's been behind even before the racist thing came out.


----------



## T-C (May 4, 2006)

I'm not talking about who will win, but you keep bringing it up. You strike me as someone who will just support whoever the favourite is as you want to be on the winning team for whatever reason. Whoever the next president of the United States is, nothing will change anyway, when change is what is really required sadly.

Obama ran his whole campaign on "change" and has only gone on to fuck things up further. But yea, sure, vote for him again.


----------



## Killswitch Stunner (May 23, 2011)

Ron Paul raised 2.8 million dollars in January. Obama raised 30 million, and people don't even care about Obama right now. Whoever wins the Republican primary is walking into a slaughterhouse.

And I don't vote cuz I don't trust any of them.


----------



## T-C (May 4, 2006)

Killswitch Stunner said:


> Ron Paul raised 2.8 million dollars in January. Obama raised 30 million, and people don't even care about Obama right now. Whoever wins the Republican primary is walking into a slaughterhouse.
> 
> And I don't vote cuz I don't trust any of them.


That's because Obama gets so much of his money from the banks who he then has to protect when he is in charge. Paul doesn't have those special interests looking over every decision he makes. Obama has to please all those banks and corporations that have given him the money to put him in the position that he is in.


----------



## ice_edge (Aug 4, 2011)

Ron Paul 2012 said:


> As you know 2012 is a very important year for America and I find voting for the right person is a must not just an option anymore. Because of this I am voting for the only honest person running for office via Ron Paul. I find it funny how just ten years ago pretty much all of the house and senate laughed at Ron Paul for suggesting what he was suggesting at the time but fast forward ten years later and it would seem Paul was right on about everything he said/predicted. Check this out below
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFLd_H3AZCA&sns=fb
> 
> ...


People are still day dreaming in America. One day they'll wake up though. Things will be really bad then they do though. 

They will all see how things really are before the end. 



T-C said:


>


Two party system in a nutshell right there. Rep was well deserved. That ep was really good. It was funny because it was true. 



Killswitch Stunner said:


> Ron Paul raised 2.8 million dollars in January. Obama raised 30 million, and people don't even care about Obama right now. Whoever wins the Republican primary is walking into a slaughterhouse.
> 
> And I don't vote cuz I don't trust any of them.


Well Obama does have the big boys in rolling in the dough so it's no surprise. 

Ron is still doing a great job.


----------



## Killswitch Stunner (May 23, 2011)

The why doesnt matter, point is he has it. And Paul does not.


----------



## T-C (May 4, 2006)

Killswitch Stunner said:


> The why doesnt matter, point is he has it. And Paul does not.


Because it compromises his position once he is in charge due to him needing to please the people that paid for him to get there.


----------



## Killswitch Stunner (May 23, 2011)

Every President does that, but I suppose you think Paul wouldn't. How naive.


----------



## T-C (May 4, 2006)

I'm not saying that Paul would or wouldn't do it. I'm just saying that it's a fucked up system and having the bankers in control is the main cause of the current economic situation.


----------



## BIFR (Apr 13, 2005)

Im not a supporter of any of the current candidates or Obama for that matter but one thing I've noticed is that Paul is consistent and is the only guy who wouldn't sell-out to the Special Interests. I remember reading somewhere that if he were president, he would only accept an income of 39 000 (which is what the average american earns). That speaks for itself that he can't be bought.


----------



## Ron Paul 2012 (Feb 27, 2012)

T-C said:


> It was a newsletter in his name that other people sent in letters for. He signed them off but has since stated his regret on signing it off.
> 
> The racist thing is a load of horseshit that takes away from the real issues. Pretty symptomatic of modern day politics really.



Not to say Paul being a raciest makes zero sense if you know his history and what he has done for the African American demo. When he was a doctor he used to give free medical service to the unemployed and deliver babies for all colors and creeds. He was good friends with Martin Luther King as well. Paul being raciest is so far off


----------



## UnsungZer0 (Nov 21, 2009)

Not to turn off topic or anything, but I legitimately feel as though, if Obama loses, we probably wont be seeing a non-white, christian (subject to change if Rommney wins), male in the white house for a long time. I'll be the first to tell you, as a black guy, that there were alot of people who voted for him because he's black. But with his loss, I feel like people will be thinking "Ok, the social experiment is over, no more of that shit." And for alot of people, that's all the need to vote against, other issues be damn. Just a thought...


----------



## T-C (May 4, 2006)

There are plenty of small minded people who may think that, but fuck them.


----------



## ice_edge (Aug 4, 2011)

Ron Paul 2012 said:


> Not to say Paul being a raciest makes zero sense if you know his history and what he has done for the African American demo. When he was a doctor he used to give free medical service to the unemployed and deliver babies for all colors and creeds. He was good friends with Martin Luther King as well. Paul being raciest is so far off


The thing is that's still a mainstream media talking point. As someone pointed out that's not even a real issue. 

Real issues are the freaking double dip recessions (upcoming massive depression), the unwinible imaginative wars and cracking down on the population in the name of keeping them safe. Those are the real issues. All that other nonsense is just mindless babble that has no merit.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

I was unaware (till I caught some of Fox News today) we still had people fighting overseas. Never been racist, nor had a job to lose, & I'm not medically cleared (wrestler term) to fight in wars. That said, I voted Obama in 08, but probably won't this year.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

> PHOENIX – An investigative “Cold Case Posse” launched six months ago by “America’s toughest sheriff” – Joe Arpaio of Arizona’s Maricopa County – has concluded there is probable cause that the document released by the White House last year as President Obama’s birth certificate is a computer-generated forgery.
> 
> The investigative team has asked Arpaio, who is at a news conference in Phoenix live-streamed by WND TV that began at 3 p.m. Eastern time, to elevate the investigation to a criminal probe that will make available the resources of his Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.
> 
> ...


Videos available at bottom of the link!

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/sheriff-j...icate-a-fraud/


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

The f' it matters... He has the job until November barring death.


----------



## CM Dealer (May 27, 2008)

Well if Joe Sheriff says its a forgery it simply must be  Remember, all of those lawyers and consultants were brought in on the taxpayer dime.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

Sheriff Joe for President.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

This is the Republican plan: If we spend taxpayers' money investigating him even after he gets the job, they don't have the money to spend on other things. Economy is still ruined, he isn't re-elected.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

They don't get it, TJ. It's embarrassing. Unfortunately, it's the state of American politics right now. Damned if you vote, damned if you don't.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

Father Flex said:


> They don't get it, TJ. It's embarrassing.


Deleted the part about "American politics", as I disagree. As for the part I kept, it might be embarrassing, if it weren't so genius... They haven't gotten it since *MANY* years ago. To start would mean more work on their part(s). Not to mention it's been proven that need not change for them to get elected. (Forget the iffy-ness in 2000, but to give Dumbo Dubya a 2nd term?!)


----------



## Crowking (Oct 19, 2011)

TehBlackGamer said:


> Not to turn off topic or anything, but I legitimately feel as though, if Obama loses, we probably wont be seeing a non-white, christian (subject to change if Rommney wins), male in the white house for a long time. I'll be the first to tell you, as a black guy, that there were alot of people who voted for him because he's black. But with his loss, I feel like people will be thinking "Ok, the social experiment is over, no more of that shit." And for alot of people, that's all the need to vote against, other issues be damn. Just a thought...


I really gotta disagree.

Even if he does get re-elected I think it will be a long time anyway, because people will remember how much shit he got from the other party once he was in office. It was ridiculous how polarized Congress became on the most mundane of issues that every congressional term under a new President has to deal with...it was transparent and obnoxious.

As far as security issues and the economy are concerned, I don't think it matters who you vote for...social issues on the other hand, I'd be voting Democrat regardless. Ron Paul doesn't have a shot of winning because the media treats him like a joke and after thought, and they have since Day One, plus he subscribes to the Austrian school of Economics which no credible western economist has supported in years, and I disagree with much of his states rights stance because I've seen what that's done in the 100+ years of struggle over Civil Rights in the South.

eg. "Oh, anti-lynching law? Sorry, can't pass it! State's rights!"

Unfortunately there is too much grey area in this country for a black and white policy to work. (No pun intended)

I can see a lot of Americans refusing to turn out to vote this year, and it will be the largely liberal minded ones who became disenchanted by the results of the last election, akin to the low voter turn out of 1984. Once people start to lose faith in the system, the less likely they are to participate in it as a silent form of protest. They may not see it that way, but refusing to vote because "the results don't matter" is an admission that the system is broken. The amount of corruption that has thrived in politics for the past 20 years hasn't been so bad since the Jacksonian period.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

I think you'll see a lot of conservatives stay home if it's Romney vs. Obama. Many of them don't feel like Romney is one of them but more of a RINO (Republican In Name Only).


----------



## Ron Paul 2012 (Feb 27, 2012)

Because Romney is a RINO

Ron Paul is the only true answer to our problems.


----------



## GOON (Jan 23, 2010)

BruiserKC said:


> I think you'll see a lot of conservatives stay home if it's Romney vs. Obama. Many of them don't feel like Romney is one of them but more of a RINO (Republican In Name Only).


For some reason, I don't see this happening. As a Conservative who supports Ron Paul (disregard my Santorum sig), I'd vote for Romney just based on the fact that he isn't Obama. When push comes to shove, I think those Conservatives will see Romney as the lesser of two evils and vote for him.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

Tomorrow may determine who the nominee is on the Republican side. Super Tuesday, 400+ delegates up for grabs. Ron Paul is predicting three wins but I don't see it happening. Newt is polling well in Georgia; Santorum and Romney are tied in early precincts in states like Ohio.

Gag.


----------



## Steve Patriot (Oct 12, 2007)

The Top 10 reasons to attack Iran.


1. Iran has threatened to fight back if attacked, and that's a war crime. War crimes must be punished.

2. My television says Iran has nukes. I'm sure it's true this time. Just like with North Korea. I'm sure they're next. We only bomb places that really truly have nukes and are in the Axis of Evil. Except Iraq, which was different.

3. Iraq didn't go so badly. Considering how lousy its government is, the place is better off with so many people having left or died. Really, that one couldn't have worked out better if we'd planned it. 

4. When we threaten to cut off Iran's oil, Iran threatens to cut off Iran's oil, which is absolutely intolerable. What would we do without that oil? And what good is buying it if they want to sell it?

5. Iran was secretly behind 9-11. I read it online. And if it wasn't, that's worse. Iran hasn't attacked another nation in centuries, which means its next attack is guaranteed to be coming very soon.

6. Iranians are religious nuts, unlike Israelis and Americans. Most Israelis don't want to attack Iran, but the Holy Israeli government does. To oppose that decision would be to sin against God. 

7. Iranians are so stupid that when we murder their scientists they try to hire a car dealer in Texas to hire a drug gang in Mexico to murder a Saudi ambassador in Washington, and then they don't do it -- just to make us look bad for catching them.

7. b. Oh, and stupid people should be bombed. They're not civilized.

8. War is good for the U.S. economy, and the Iranian economy too. Troops stationed in Iran would buy stuff. And women who survived the war would have more rights. Like in Virginia. We owe Iranians this after that little mishap in 1953.

9. This is the only way to unite the region. Either we bomb Iran and it swears its eternal love to us. Or, if necessary, we occupy Iran to liberate it like its neighbors. Which shouldn't take long. Look how well Afghanistan is going already.

10. They won't give our drone back. Enough said.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

GOON said:


> For some reason, I don't see this happening. As a Conservative who supports Ron Paul (disregard my Santorum sig), I'd vote for Romney just based on the fact that he isn't Obama. When push comes to shove, I think those Conservatives will see Romney as the lesser of two evils and vote for him.


The lesser of two evils really hasn't worked all that well. There are a lot of conservatives that felt the GOP settled for John McCain in '08. Granted, the economy going in the toilet pretty much made McCain SOL, but McCain was fairly moderate compared to folks like Paul and Huckabee. Conservatives, whether we agree or not, want someone for the most part that will be a complete contrast from Obama. Right now, Santorum and Ron Paul are those two, although Santorum would be more electable at this point. 

On another note, shame on Ohio's 9th Congressional District voters. They had the chance for pure gold when it came to a huge election this fall between Kucinich and Joe the Plumber, and they blew it. :cuss:


----------



## Steve Patriot (Oct 12, 2007)

Wake. The fuck. Up.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/03/07/imperial-death-mongers/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28675

"Russia is worried about the growing threat of a strike on Iran… If it happens, the consequences will be truly catastrophic. Their real scale is impossible to imagine.”

Vladimir Putin

the beginning stages of World War III are in play, and you fucking morons consume yourselves with this....this reality show...

Are you proud of yourselves?


----------



## Ron Paul 2012 (Feb 27, 2012)

Ron Paul is getting fucked over big time imo. This is such a screw job


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

Ron Paul 2012 said:


> Ron Paul is getting fucked over big time imo. This is such a screw job


Outside of the fact I don't see it as screwing him over to not give him something he'd never win in the first place.

I live in Ohio, & I voted, but not for Romney. That said, saw O'Reilly on TV today, & he said Romney will get the GOP spot, but not the full election. I'd be fine with that.


----------



## Emarosa (Sep 12, 2007)

Romney should beat Obama but he won't.


----------



## Ron Paul 2012 (Feb 27, 2012)

TJChurch said:


> Outside of the fact I don't see it as screwing him over to not give him something he'd never win in the first place.
> 
> I live in Ohio, & I voted, but not for Romney. That said, saw O'Reilly on TV today, & he said Romney will get the GOP spot, but not the full election. I'd be fine with that.


Sure don’t give the job to the last honest person running for higher office, but instead just give it to the same old same old who fuck up the country and have for the past 80 years. 

The media is screwing Paul over big time and you know it. They did the same thing to Gary Johnson who was by far the best person running for the job (I would say even better then Paul do to age) 

I really don’t understand how people in this country can be so dumb to vote in the same people that are killing our country year after year. Oh yeah I can because they listen to everything that they hear from the media and take it as the gospel truth.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

Ron Paul 2012 said:


> Sure don’t give the job to the last honest person running for higher office, but instead just give it to the same old same old who fuck up the country and have for the past 80 years.
> 
> The media is screwing Paul over big time and you know it. They did the same thing to Gary Johnson who was by far the best person running for the job (I would say even better then Paul do to age)
> 
> I really don’t understand how people in this country can be so dumb to vote in the same people that are killing our country year after year. Oh yeah I can because they listen to everything that they hear from the media and take it as the gospel truth.


Half of that is not true (about me anyway), & the other half doesn't matter.

I honestly sit here (lifelong Ohioan, realizing it's long been "a battlegrond state"), & wonder why the elections matter at all now. Some will claim the media is screwing a guy or two over, but the fact is the majority of candidiates are lying anyway. They will say what they think you wanna hear to get the job, & if they get it, will not do a single % of wehat they promised when "campaigning". On the rare occasion they actually try to get something decent done, Congress will either block the bill entirely or force them to add 80 other things to it. This will become even more true in 2 years when Americans, ticked-off by what the President has failed to accomplish thus far, vote the other party to get an overwhelming majority in Congress.

Forget "God Bless America" & "God Save The Queen"... Mix it: "Got Help America".


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

All these statistics and jargon coming from the GOP are completely 100% fabricated and false. Romney referred to Obama as a person who is not interested in tapping into America's oil sources and that the Republicans do a better job of that. Statistics show that Obama has done more drilling in his one term than Bush did in his previous two combined.

It's all the bullshit in politics that repulses me. You can see right through these candidates.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

Santorum took Alabama and Mississippi. Romney's still not getting his message across to the very conservative base of the Republican party. If Gingrich can't pull things out here down the road and he withdraws from the race and gives his delegates to Santorum, it will make for an interesting summer. I could very easily see a fight at the Rep convention.


----------



## ice_edge (Aug 4, 2011)

Steve Patriot said:


> Wake. The fuck. Up.
> 
> http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/03/07/imperial-death-mongers/
> 
> ...


I been saying this but many Americans still believe it's ok to protect the system that it's feeding on it's own people:no:.

They don't want to listen to reason. 

It's just better to sit around and let the reality makers (mainstream media) do the thinking. Everything is going to be alright...everything is fine, there is no conflict and we live and happy go lucky soft and bubbly unicorns and butterflies world. 

What else matters?


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Oct 19, 2011)

Maybe I missed it on here. But what do you make of the disarming of the troops when Panetta arrived? I believe even hardline leftist's at MSNBC were outraged at it. Saying it was "unprecedented" and stuff.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

WWIII was at it's closest in the 60s. We're not quite to that level just yet.


----------



## reDREDD (Oct 12, 2008)

I still like Ike


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

ice_edge said:


> I been saying this but many Americans still believe it's ok to protect the system that it's feeding on it's own people:no:.
> 
> They don't want to listen to reason.
> 
> It's just better to sit around and let the reality makers (mainstream media) do the thinking. Everything is going to be alright...everything is fine, there is no conflict and we live and happy go lucky soft and bubbly unicorns and butterflies world.


"Speak" for/about yourself, or not at all.

I for one am not one of those people, & if many are (or you believe many are), that is sad.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

Ace Ventura said:


> Maybe I missed it on here. But what do you make of the disarming of the troops when Panetta arrived? I believe even hardline leftist's at MSNBC were outraged at it. Saying it was "unprecedented" and stuff.


That was a crock and a half. Dubya has Thanksgiving dinner with the troops and they had their weapons on them then. What is Panetta afraid of? Or is he more worried about our reputation? Fuck this, let the Afghans sort their own shit out if they don't appreciate what we have tried to do.


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

BruiserKC said:


> That was a crock and a half. Dubya has Thanksgiving dinner with the troops and they had their weapons on them then. What is Panetta afraid of? Or is he more worried about our reputation? Fuck this, let the Afghans sort their own shit out if they don't appreciate what we have tried to do.


History has taught us that political systems can't be forced upon a country. Except if it's a dictatorship/oligarchy and those ALWAYS turn out bad. Democracy has to have general acceptance from the public. Islam and any form of Democracy cannot coexist. You can argue that a Theistic version can but Theocracy is NOT Democracy. Afghanistan doesn't want to change. All they want is themselves and their god. The Russians couldn't change them, America can't change them and other foreign powers couldn't either. Let's leave that shit hole as soon as possible.


----------



## zhzubair4 (Mar 19, 2012)

C'mon in, political pundants of all assortments (invitation to all those who want to discuss - that includes you, Aussies and Brits). Talk about ideologies, parties, candidates, government, corruption, etc, etc,. This is not a thread to forcefully promote or attempt to disseminate your views onto someone else. If I have learned anything in life, there's two things that are NOT worth arguing (for obvious reasons):


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

The Student Loan Debt Bubble

1. After adjusting for inflation, U.S. college students are borrowing about twice as much money as they did a decade ago.

2. According to the College Board, college tuition is absolutely soaring. The following comes from a recent CBS News article….

Average tuition and fees at public colleges rose 8.3 percent this year and, with room and board, now exceed $17,000 a year, according to the College Board.

3. Average yearly tuition at private universities in the United States is now up to $27,293. That figure has increased by 29% in just the past five years.

4. In America today, approximately two-thirds of all college students graduate with student loan debt.

5. In 2010, the average college graduate had accumulated approximately $25,000 in student loan debt by graduation day.

6. According to the Student Loan Debt Clock, total student loan debt in the United States will surpass the 1 trillion dollar mark in early 2012.

7. The total amount of student loan debt in the United States now exceeds the total amount of credit card debt in the United States.

8. Over the past 25 years, the cost of college tuition has increased at an average rate that is approximately 6% higher than the general rate of inflation.

9. Back in 1952, a full year of tuition at Harvard was only $600. Today, it is $35,568.

10. The cost of college textbooks has tripled over the past decade.

11. One survey found that 23 percent of all college students actually use credit cards to pay for tuition or fees.

12. According to recent Pew Research Center polling, 75% of all Americans believe that college is too expensive for most Americans to afford.

13. College has become so expensive that it is causing many college students to do desperate things in order to pay for it. For example, an increasing number of young college women are actively advertising on the Internet for “sugar daddies” who will help them pay their college bills.

14. The student loan default rate has nearly doubled since 2005.

15. Approximately 14 percent of all students that graduate with student loan debt end up defaulting within 3 years of making their first student loan payment.

The Quality Of College Education In America Stinks

16. The typical U.S. college student spends less than 30 hours a week on academics.

17. According to very extensive research detailed in a new book entitled “Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses”, 45 percent of all U.S. college students exhibit “no significant gains in learning” after two years in college.

18. Today, college students spend approximately 50% less time studying than U.S. college students did just a few decades ago.

19. 35% of U.S. college students spend 5 hours or less studying per week.

20. 50% of U.S. college students have never taken a class where they had to write more than 20 pages.

21. 32% of U.S. college students have never taken a class where they had to read more than 40 pages in a week.

22. U.S. college students spend 24% of their time sleeping, 51% of their time socializing and 7% of their time studying.

23. Federal statistics reveal that only 36 percent of the full-time students who began college in 2001 received a bachelor’s degree within four years.

Not Enough Jobs For College Graduates

24. Only 55.3% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 were employed last year. That was the lowest level that we have seen since World War II.

25. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the “official” unemployment rate for college graduates younger than 25 years old was 9.3 percent in 2010.

26. One-third of all college graduates end up taking jobs that don’t even require college degrees.

27. In the United States today, there are more than 100,000 janitors that have college degrees.

28. In the United States today, 317,000 waiters and waitresses have college degrees.

29. In the United States today, approximately 365,000 cashiers have college degrees.

30. In the United States today, 24.5 percent of all retail salespeople have a college degree.

31. The percentage of mail carriers with a college degree is now 4 times higher than it was back in 1970.

32. Right now, there are 5.9 million Americans between the ages of 25 and 34 that are living with their parents.

33. According to one recent survey, only 14 percent of all Americans that are 28 or 29 years old are optimistic about their financial futures.

34. Record numbers of Americans are going to college, but incomes for young American adults just keep falling. Since the year 2000, incomes for U.S. households led by someone between the ages of 25 and 34 have fallen by about 12 percent after you adjust for inflation.

35. Once they get out into the “real world”, 70% of all college graduates wish that they had spent more time preparing for the “real world” while they were still in school.

So is going to college always a bad idea? Of course not.

But it is a huge gamble.
http://endoftheamericandream.com/arc...ey-making-scam


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

zhzubair4 said:


> C'mon in, political pundants of all assortments (invitation to all those who want to discuss - that includes you, Aussies and Brits). Talk about ideologies, parties, candidates, government, corruption, etc, etc,. This is not a thread to forcefully promote or attempt to disseminate your views onto someone else. If I have learned anything in life, there's two things that are NOT worth arguing (for obvious reasons):


And they are...?! C'mon! If you're going to post in here telling us what to discuss & not to discuss, along with how to do it/not to do it, at least do so in complete thoughts!


----------

