Jump to content
Haruki

Ron Paul 2012

Recommended Posts

»Pharaoh Atem    15769
[quote name='Max' timestamp='1324668099' post='3058855']
[quote name='rei' timestamp='1324576498' post='3058134']
Rand Paul is fucking crazy.
[/quote]
I live in Kentucky.
[/quote]
I'm sorry.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brighteyes    2150
[quote name='Max' timestamp='1324668099' post='3058855']
[quote name='rei' timestamp='1324576498' post='3058134']
Rand Paul is fucking crazy.
[/quote]
I live in Kentucky.
[/quote]
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Pharaoh Atem    15769
ffs don't make me say it every time one of you move to Kentucky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3][quote][/size][/font]
[font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]Against the feds, I've got loads of negligence, to criminal levels. You say Obama doesn't have a good picture of Cali: I say that's fucked up and a sign of delegation failing at any point where bigotry is able to take root. For fuck's sake, what the fuck happened to states saying "hey, we got a problem" and the fed saying "alright, what do you think ought be done" and a conversation happening? I'll tell you what happened - it's never fucking existed, and that's the core of the entire critique. There is no teamwork, and I fucking insist on teamwork. The feds are negligent by not insisting on that same teamwork.[/size][/font][font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3][/quote][/size][/font]

The dialogue generally goes like this:
state: we have a problem, can you give us some money
fed: take care of it yourself, we don't have any money for you but we're more than happy to give unfunded mandates

fed: we don't like your medical marijuana dispensaries (i.e. Obama tries to wring some cheap votes out of being "tough on drugs")
cali: uhh, you were just fine with them before, and collected all the taxes they paid
fed: well now we're not
cali: plus we really can't afford to lose any more tax revenue
fed: too bad, just be happy we're not pressing criminal charges on top

fed: uhh, our prison are overflowing, can you house a bunch of inmates for us?
state: no, ours are full too and we're strapped for cash
fed: ok thanks *proceeds to transfer burden to states, with no additional funding*
state: *cuts education budget to build more prisons*

[font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3][quote][/size][/font][font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]If they did suddenly flypaper to Ohio, guess fucking what? Some people harmed by it can't vote with their feet, yet that is what you demand - you demand they escape or suffer.[/quote][/size][/font]

[font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]I do not demand it. Natural principles demand it, natural principles which cannot be overthrown, only played around and smartly accomodated (my aim). "Escape or suffer" is decreed by economics and evolution, and neither of the two will back down no matter how much you or I hate its decree (and you know I hate it).[/size][/font]


[font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3][quote][/size][/font][font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]Even the COMPLETELY DISENFRANCHISED deserve to live in peace, [/size][/font][font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3][/quote][/size][/font]

[font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]They do. But [s]God[/s] natural law has decreed otherwise, just as it has decreed some gazelles are to be eaten.[/size][/font]

[font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3][quote][/size][/font][font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]and the insistence that they should have to do something first to make it happen is immensely out of touch. I am not completely disenfranchised, but I am close-fucking-enough to it to know that it is extremely likely some time in my future. If I can get a half-sensible motherfucker like you to learn that, then it isn't in vain.[/size][/font][font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3][/quote][/size][/font]

[font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]Between being a full-time student, working two jobs including a graveyard shift, only buying textbooks for two days at a time so i can cram in study and then return the books, local douchebags waking you up in the middle of the night with fights and whistlenose mufflers, and having been on the verge of dropping out due to finances, I'm not as much of a Marie Antoinette as you think. Secondly, don't imagine berkeley students are trustworthy. cheating and study drugs abound. [/size][/font][font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]jewish and arab students have their micro-wars from time to time with rampant use of dirty tactics (crying sexual assault, organized heckling). the student government gets embroiled in a lawsuit or scandal every 2-3 years on average. (idk if parallax was there for the weiner/moghtader imbroglio)[/size][/font]
[url="http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/128401#.TvVXj9RSSPY"]http://www.israelnat...01#.TvVXj9RSSPY[/url]
[font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]some students have even committed armed robberies on campus.[/size][/font]

[font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]>I think Realpolitik skews you just as badly as distrust skews me. [/size][/font]<
I don't agree, but I'll allow that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Nut    671
just scanning through this thread, you guys should know that there is about 0% chance obama doens't get reelected.
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Paxman    4776
Damn dude did you take a statistics master class or something?
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Nut    671
[quote name='Swaggalo' timestamp='1325698068' post='3067109']
Damn dude did you take a statistics master class or something?
[/quote]

lol.

what people don't understand about the American electoral system is this; it's all about the general election! the general election is much different than the nomination battle taking place between all of the Republitards right now. winning the nomination as an extreme candidate (defined: rick santorum, michele bachmann, folks firmly on the far side of the political spectrum) is different than winning the presidency as an extreme candidate. extreme candidates usually fair poorly with independent voters, who are the most important voters in the election. Romney was the one guy who could have that kind of broad, far reaching support.

the only guy in the race who ever had a shot at actually winning the right configuration of states in the electoral college to beat Obama was Romney, and Romney's image will continue to crumble, as it already has. his colleagues in the race have lashed him repeatedly for his obvious shortcomings (flip flopping on the issues, being "plastic", being disconnected from ordinary Americans), and that will only get worse as the GOP nomination process continues to unfold. that process will unfold slower than ever before, too, considering the changes many states have made with regard to how they distribute delegates; many states will give their delegates to candidates proportionately for the first time, rather than "winner-take-all" as we're used to. this delegate change will likely allow more candidates (who hate Romney and would love to stick it to him for a chance at Obama) like Gingrich and Paul to stay in the race LONGER, as they will still earn delegates from the states they will ultimately lose to Romney, allowing them a slim sliver of hope, whereas in other years they would be DOA after the first couple primaries.

it's a giant recipe for disaster. not only for Mitt Romney, but for the GOP as a whole. their absolute BEST candidate for the job is REVILED by the ENTIRE base (which is now crazier than EVER) and party establishment.

btw guys, keep track of presidential polling in FLORIDA. if Obama wins Florida, nothing else matters. he auto-wins with Florida.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+rei+    34689
Bachmann pulled out like her daddy should have,
  • Upvote 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Starwind    1777
I don't think Romney could beat Obama. For that matter I don't think anyone in the Republican party can beat Obama in 2012 because there is 0 enthusiasm outside of the small libertarian wing. These people would be less likely to support an establishment republican than a Democrat... We are witnessing the death of a political party.
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+rei+    34689
at least yours will be exciting instead of depressing like Canada's

Our Liberal party was our longest running, and some would call 'natural governing' party as theyve consistantly reflected a very popular centre-left mindset with a few right wing tendancies that gave them more universal appeal. This election round they suffered their worst electoral defeat in history, giving up official opposition to the NDP - which is great as the NDP are a strong party and had one of the most charismatic leaders Canadian politics had seen in a few decades. If the Liberals are fucked, maybe people could rally behind this NDP guy... who uh, died in August.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+rei+    34689
which is too bad, he was really bright

Whatever, Trudeau 2015! [/dont tell my party]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Pharaoh Atem    15769
[quote name='Starwind' timestamp='1325700559' post='3067144']
I don't think Romney could beat Obama. For that matter I don't think anyone in the Republican party can beat Obama in 2012 because there is 0 enthusiasm outside of the small libertarian wing. These people would be less likely to support an establishment republican than a Democrat... We are witnessing the death of a political party.
[/quote]

How the hell are you all so positive about this

For that matter, how do you not expect folks to keep appealing to religion as a means to revitalize the Republicans?

Also, let's not forget that all it takes is one sort of political change that a certain swath of the country doesn't want, for a political party to find a new base. Find me today's analogue to Jim Crow and I'll find you today's analogue to the rebirth of the Red states - it was rejection of Civil Rights and protection of Jim Crow that gave the Reps-as-right-wing its first true power in the post-New-Deal world.

All they need is a body of disaffected people to latch onto, a body that feels a leftwing government is out to kill its way of life. That's what happened with Lyndon, and it's what can easily happen again. It's how Nixon conquered the South; it's how the south turned amazingly Red: it's how Strom Thurmond remained in office for decades. It all rode on the idea that the "great evil north" was out to impose its way of life on the rest of the country.



We are dealing with a country where people refer to the president as a nigger openly (re: The Internet + those Curious George dolls), and will willingly impair the economy as much as they damn well can just because Obama's in office (re: that one guy with the "not hiring until Obama's gone" bumper sticker). Rational thought as we know of it is NOT part of the forecast, man.


Maybe I listen to too much Rush Limbaugh, but as far as I'm convinced, you don't know this country's politics until you listen to hateful sacks of shit like him. Hell, I would try to hear what David Duke has to say, but I'm scared it'll make me even more negative about this stuff. I can hardly stand Farrakhan either, he comes off as almost as bad on some fronts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Nut    671
This entire sequence of events is really, truly a positive thing for America's future, in my opinion.

First let me riff about the potential death of the Republican party. Yes, I do think that is going to happen. When? Probably within the next handful of election cycles. The interesting part of the discussion is the part where we analyze how this happened and why.

How did it happen? Progress. Atem articulated quite well how Republicans came to power; the Republican party essentially mobilized a segment of the population that was not ready for progress, not ready for [b]change[/b]. I always try to change how people think of our two parties -- you should view the Democrats as folks who are interested in coming up with ideas, and you should view the Republicans as a party that, without advancing specific policy goals of its own, simply opposes the Democrats.

It's important to understand that, at least as far as the average Republican base voter goes, Republicans exist solely to oppose Democrats. How? By taking advantage of those voters who, because of any random bias they may have, are afraid of potential changes that might be implemented by Democrats. Changes that, of course, conflict with their own personally held beliefs, however ignorant they may be.

Democrats: Here's an idea.
Republicans: That idea is bad.

This is not how the party always functioned. Indeed, there exist within the Republican party a small segment of folks who simply have different ideas. I'm talking about your far right libertarians, people who read political philosophy and simply favor a different system. These people, of course, represent an extroidinarily small segment of Republicans as a whole. There are less and less of them because, over time, America figured out what works and what doesn't. The Democratic party has evolved over the years; indeed, many of today's Democratic policy goals are modified Republican ideas from the past. At one point we had two parties who were trying to figure things out; how do we cultivate an prosperous economic environment? how do we achieve equality? After a while, we figured it out.

Eventually there wasn't much left to debate. But we still had the Republican party, just sitting there without a real purpose. The party actually should have died in 1992, the last time any of their positions had any sort of legitimacy or advantage of Democratic philosophy. Today we see that no establishment Republican can effectively refute any of President Obama's policies. What can they do, then? Put the pedal to the metal mobilizing the extremists within their base, of course. That's why you see Rick Perry on TV screaming about...nothing in particular. We already know their economics are bad, their social policy is bad, their foreign policy has blown up in our faces, etc etc. There's nothing else to do but say... "Well, they want gays to marry!"

So the question is: Is this system sustainable?

The short answer is no.

The long answer is: The Republican party will, at some point, run out of voters who are scared of change. The Republican party, as it is composed today, really has no legitimate argument against MOST Democratic policy initiatives. The party exists, as I've stated before, to complete the two-party system. The part exists to oppose the other party.

Can a party that has been sustaining itself for generations almost entirely by playing to the fears of bigots who are reluctant to change continue to sustain itself indefinitely? Only on one condition -- as long as there are enough bigots reluctant to change.

The good part of the story? Those types of folks are running out. They're dying. You have to understand, the party has been sustaining itself MOSTLY on the backs of racists and evangelicals. That's basically what it is. Look at every big Republican issue where they squarely disagree with Democrats:

Abortion -- For evangelicals.
Guns -- For paranoid hicks.
Hawkish Foreign Policy -- For NASCAR patriots who make fun of France for no reason.

etc. etc. etc.

The list goes on.

The fact is, we are maturing as a society. Can we expect racism to vanish completely? Of course not. Can we say that, as future generations continue to integrate, we'll certainly see LESS racism than in the past? I'm going to go with yes. That would result in fewer votes being cast for a guy like Strom Thurmond, whose sole purpose is to hate. Can we expect religion to vanish completely? Of course not, and maybe that one shouldn't vanish. But can we say that as time goes on fewer and fewer voters will cast votes on the basis of religious viewpoints alone? Probably. That would result in fewer people going to the polls to vote for or against a candidate strictly because of their personal beliefs -- which got us in a lot of trouble back in 2000, if you can recall.

Why? I'm not sure, but it has happened all throughout history. It's very hard to pass extreme views (that don't make [u]logical sense[/u]) down from generation to generation to generation. I always think of racism or ardent religious fundamentalism as an ice cube, as a metaphor, anyway. I can pass an ice cube on to someone else, but by the time they get the cube it'll be smaller. By the time they pass it on it'll be smaller yet. Just like the ice cube, history has shown us that as we continue to become more enlightened, these extreme views will melt away, at least little by little. Future generations will understand better than we do why gays should marry, why blacks should be free. They'll understand those things because they follow logically, and because they honor the American creed.

What I'm trying to get to is this: in order to remain competitive as a party in a two-party system, you're going to need significant support from the electorate. The Republican party has cultivated its support largely by taking advantage of xenophobic-racist-evangelicals.

Slowly but surely, that generational mindset is dying out. They're scrambling to find votes right now.

It's a good time to be an American, which is something we haven't been able to say for...oh, the past decade or so.
  • Upvote 14
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Nut' timestamp='1325677165' post='3066974']
just scanning through this thread, you guys should know that there is about 0% chance obama doens't get reelected.
[/quote]

pretty much this. the whole thread has been an exercise in hypotheticals to me. even ron paul himself admits he has next to no chance of becoming president - a sharp contrast to the typical candidate campaign blustering
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quack    1840
[quote name='Nut' timestamp='1325732507' post='3067572']
Today we see that no establishment Republican can effectively refute any of President Obama's policies
[/quote]

kill yourself
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Pharaoh Atem' timestamp='1325725122' post='3067481']
[quote name='Starwind' timestamp='1325700559' post='3067144']
I don't think Romney could beat Obama. For that matter I don't think anyone in the Republican party can beat Obama in 2012 because there is 0 enthusiasm outside of the small libertarian wing. These people would be less likely to support an establishment republican than a Democrat... We are witnessing the death of a political party.
[/quote]

How the hell are you all so positive about this

For that matter, how do you not expect folks to keep appealing to religion as a means to revitalize the Republicans?
[/quote]

No offense but this is the most laughable post I've seen from you in a while, it has that "stuck in a bubble far removed from reality" smell all over it. Of course they're going to keep appealing to religion. But by this question you've shown yourself to be just as insane as they are by Einstein's definition. "Appeal to religion" is a dead [s]horse[/s] card that they keep playing out of desperation. It becomes progressively more ineffectual by the month and it's quite a circus to watch the fundie bloc desperately trying to hide their intellectual and moral bankruptcy behind this shriveling fig leaf. Bush has become a joke. Cain is a joke. Perry is a joke. Bachmann is a joke. Santorum is a joke. Ron Paul is considered a joke. Obama, as a politcally savvy barometer of the public mood, doesn't care to give more than the cheapest of lip service to "christianity".



[quote name='Pharaoh Atem' timestamp='1325725122' post='3067481']

Also, let's not forget that all it takes is one sort of political change that a certain swath of the country doesn't want, for a political party to find a new base. Find me today's analogue to Jim Crow and I'll find you today's analogue to the rebirth of the Red states - it was rejection of Civil Rights and protection of Jim Crow that gave the Reps-as-right-wing its first true power in the post-New-Deal world.

All they need is a body of disaffected people to latch onto, a body that feels a leftwing government is out to kill its way of life. That's what happened with Lyndon, and it's what can easily happen again. It's how Nixon conquered the South; it's how the south turned amazingly Red: it's how Strom Thurmond remained in office for decades. It all rode on the idea that the "great evil north" was out to impose its way of life on the rest of the country.

[/quote]

The "body of disaffected people" is what catapulted Obama to victory in 2008. Get with the times. I've lived that mythical south you speak of, i've spoken with members of its hardest lines. [i]These guys are losing[/i]. I don't how exactly how much of a hick backwater you're in but it definitely seems like you are being really skewed from living in one.


[quote name='Pharaoh Atem' timestamp='1325725122' post='3067481']
We are dealing with a country where people refer to the president as a nigger openly (re: The Internet + those Curious George dolls), and will willingly impair the economy as much as they damn well can just because Obama's in office (re: that one guy with the "not hiring until Obama's gone" bumper sticker). Rational thought as we know of it is NOT part of the forecast, man.
[/quote]

Big deal. Bush and Clinton were called all sorts of derogatory, racist names as well. But for some reason[i] you think these perennial ankle-biters[/i] (who most politicans disregard by default)[i] are actually relevant[/i] when it couldn't be further from the truth. I've made that mistake before as well so I can relate. I realize it's easy to get bogged down in ankle-biter-land if that's who you're surrounded by and exposed to. Because they take up such a big part of your vision, you start thinking they're more relevant than they actually are. I had a tendency to extrapolate my own experiences in ankle-biter-land to the rest of the world outside ABL, but once I got out, zoomed out, and looked at the big picture, I was able to laugh. Because you realize ankle-biter-land is just a ZIT on the face of a massive country.


[quote name='Pharaoh Atem' timestamp='1325725122' post='3067481']
Maybe I listen to too much Rush Limbaugh, but as far as I'm convinced, you don't know this country's politics until you listen to hateful sacks of shit like him. Hell, I would try to hear what David Duke has to say, but I'm scared it'll make me even more negative about this stuff. I can hardly stand Farrakhan either, he comes off as almost as bad on some fronts.
[/quote]

Assuming you have listened to Rush Limbaugh for more than 1 minute in the past 12 months, you have listened to too much Rush Limbaugh. Listening to nutty blowhards like him only serves to skew your already skewed perceptions even more. Because you start thinking the country is more like his laughable little following rather than the reality, where most of the country laughs at both Limbaugh AND his laughable little following. By subscribing/succumbing to this, by actually giving credence to their laughable story, you're making yourself look as laughable as they are.

I hope you found this post encouraging. But it was not my intent to encourage you.
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Pharaoh Atem    15769
So the best thing to do is to ensure that people do not hold the views of Rush and his cohorts, we agree there.

The secondbest thing to do is to get me back to a point where I don't think everyone's a dishonest bastard just waiting for a political excuse to bring back the 1700s, we agree there too.

What can be DONE to actually get someone to trust people? Back when I trusted, I trusted out of childish naivete. Tell a kid about the history of this country in detail, and it'll do to him what it's done to me, unless he has people in his life he can truly trust.

I hardly even trust Mr. Obama: I know his policies are in my interests, sure, but I also expect to be hung out to dry the moment it becomes politically convenient. I see his policies matching my interests as a matter of luck moreso than anything else - and for fuck's sake, his story's essentially a [i]modified version of mine[/i] set 20 years ago. If I can't trust him, who can I trust in a political sense?


The problem I draw with considering the Reps as nothing more than the "Party of No" is that there's always gonna be some sympathetic jetsetter who'll come up with an anecdotal tale that in a technical sense proves they do a little more than that. If we're gonna call them nothing more than the "Party of No", I'd prefer we do it only when we have the ability to utterly destroy those anecdotes. I wanna save the slogans and non-nuanced namecalling for when they don't stand a damnable chance at all. If we bring out little talk like that too soon, we'll only drive people to the Reps, and they'll only think of us as people with lofty words and no substance.

On Ron Paul, regardless of how much I disagree with countless positions of his, at least he comes up with ideas - bad ones, sure - but he's part of that further-right angle that wants a different sort of system in place, and that's leagues better in terms of actually spending-time-thinking than just saying "We will prevent the Dems from doing anything." But if I expect Mr. Obama to hang me out to dry despite his being Atem-from-the-past in terms of a lot of his childhood, then what in the bloody hell could I trust Mr. Paul with, especially considering the positions he holds in certain respects?

(Oh, and those letters from the 80s kind of cause some problems too for support amongst my kind, lol)

Point is, I feel stuck here - I see all these charts all across the net showing that all the well-nursed bigotries of the past are dying out, and I don't see it match how my daily life looks. I'm black, so I already walk on eggshells in one sense socially; god forbid my two blasphemies against God almighty enter the picture as well, or I'll look just like the burgeoning multicultural, godless, hedonistic threat to life-as-we-know-it the local area reviles so dearly.


I want you all to be grateful you reside amongst friends and companions that can be trusted, even if only a few.




How can we claim to know the body politic of this country if we aren't willing to force ourselves to listen to the darkest, most venomous political minds in this country all the time? Setting Rush aside is tantamount to ignoring a nutcase out of his being inconvenient to deal with - we have to be able, ready, and prepared to dismantle hatemongers, we can't just set them aside. That's why I listen to him, that's why I research those people who would leave me to freeze on the streets if I were less fortunate. I have to have an answer to them. When I am older and have to confront people who believe that stuff, I have to be able to rip their followers away from them and expose them to the faults in Rush.

That, and it's also worth noting that bigotry only acts wilder when it's cornered-yet-not-finished. Rick Perry symbolized that for me with that ad of his: with DADT gone, the only thing DADT people could do is openly say "we want it back and we'll put it back in place, and fuck everyone else."

Shit like that got APPLAUDED on national television: to the point where not even someone being a serviceperson matters as much as fucking over the homos.

What am I to do BUT distrust and despair about the fact that I don't control everything, that I can't just go to each single blasted bigot and hash out every last little issue with them and fix them? I am tired of waiting for justice; I demand it now, and I would make it happen now if I had the ability. But I don't.

I watch the news - I despair. Especially when crime is motivated not out of greed, but out of actually wanting to hurt someone for who they are and who they choose to be. I can't fix it; so all is as good as fucking lost until I can.

I am obligated morally to watch the news like a hawk for shit like that. I am not permitted a respite; being a good person requires me to keep abreast of shit, and it requires me to do what I can to fix it.






I think the problem for me personally is literally that I feel I am obligated to hunt down and root out ankle-biter-land, yet I lack the supplies to do so.

I think that the way I feel about these things isn't all that unique. I'm not the only political cynic out there who never expects good things. I also think the reason why I feel this way is common - I'm not the only person who's felt a sense of wanting to watch others' backs, yet felt powerless to do so.
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Nut    671
[size=3][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][color=#ffffff][quote name='Quack' timestamp='1325736948' post='3067648'][/color][/font][/size]
[size=3][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][quote name='Nut' timestamp='1325732507' post='3067572'][/font][/size]
[size=3][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Today we see that no establishment Republican can effectively refute any of President Obama's policies[/font][/size]
[size=3][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/quote][/font][/size]

[size=3][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]kill yourself[/font][/size]
[size=3][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/quote][/font][/size]

[size=3][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Well, you know, this forum is all about ideas. This forum is a place where ideas are exchanged. If you can find one thing that Obama is even LIKELY to be on the wrong side of concerning policy contrasting with that of Republicans I'd love to hear it. For the most part Obama is taking a reasonable, expected, measured stance on every major issue, even if some of his stances are unfavorable. Some of his views ARE unfavorable for SOME people, of course! But he'll never be unreasonable. Many policy positions maintained by virtually all relevant Republican presidential candidates are downright CRAZY, OUTLANDISH, and UNHEARD OF. Straight up. Some of the stuff they're saying....many of their potential actions in the Oval Office could put the security of the free world in danger.[/font][/size]

[size=3][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]This year's election will be unlike any we've seen in our lifetimes. Unlike any other political spectacle in our nation's brief history, America is sure to sway heavily to one side of the political spectrum. Approval numbers and primary winners matter not -- the choice on the ballot could not be any clearer to the American people. There will be a decisive choice. Our generation will claim its political theme and destiny in just about 10 months or so.[/font][/size]

[size=3][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Just the sheer fact that the President is pretty much somewhat average OR good OR in a handful of cases great on nearly every major issue (again, particularly great in foreign policy, healthcare, etc and at least average on virtually every other issue) should make him the obvious candidate for any reasonable, ordinary, non-hyperpartisan, citizen. He's clearly got a handle on nearly everything; the recovery is chugging along at an inspiring and encouraging pace, says people who understand the economic situation of the late 2000s and the subsequent rescue and overhaul managed by the President. Meanwhile, in Alaska, one campaign debacle could have put John McCain in office with Madam Moose-hunter. An incredibly old, crazy man who would have DESTROYED the American economy. Third-world country type of destroyed. But people don’t know that, because they don’t understand the enormous complexity of problems President Obama experienced even BEFORE taking office, when he essentially acted as President-ElectbutreallyPresident months before taking the oath of office. But people don’t read books, they don’t go out there and do their own independent research to justify their opinions. Many people catch Fox News or some other trash and form half-baked, unsubstantiated, unwarranted opinions influenced by bigoted radio-show personalities that I wouldn’t trust managing a Dairy Queen (try the dipped vanilla cones!).[/font][/size]

[size=3][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]And you have these IMBECILES running for the Republican nomination. It’s EMBARRASSING. Your very best candidate is a guy worth almost [u][i]three-hundred million dollars[/i][/u] who pretends he can relate with average Americans. Your best candidate looks like a guy who would play the President in a Disney Channel movie. It’s absurd how awful the party is. Every one of these candidates would trigger a war within one year in office. Furthermore, they have no idea how complex being President is right now. Most of the candidates don’t even meet the minimum required intelligence for being President, at least as far as most reasonable people would be concerned. I mean, watch one of the debates. You want any of these people walking around a desk with a big red button on it? I wouldn’t let these people dog sit for me. Get real.[/font][/size]

[size=3][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Meanwhile, the President is a once in a generation type of President, the kind history books make special note of. I’m not talking about William Henry Harrison. We’re talking, potentially, a guy who saved the country from the brink of destruction at the very last moment. It was reminiscent of Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt. Not that I’m making any comparisons.[/font][/size]

[size=3][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]But not enough people out there read about this stuff. You don’t read. You don’t research this stuff, ya know? Not you particularly, the original guy I’m replying to, I’m speaking in broad generalities here. It’s such a complex situation, most of the challengers in this election aren’t worthy of carrying Barack Obama’s jock strap.[/font][/size]
  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Pharaoh Atem    15769
See, now, Nut's posts in this thread remind me of old me - except more aggressive and less willing to cut the other side some slack. I'm guessing he's grown kinda pissed off about something regarding all this, something I haven't looked into.

I don't know what happened to me, but I just don't believe the stuff I believed before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×