PDA

View Full Version : Glen Beck: What it means to be a conservative. (great, but a little late...)




acmegeek
06-26-2008, 11:36 AM
Too bad he didn't think of this sooner...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/25/beck.conservatives/index.html

OhioMichael
06-26-2008, 11:52 AM
Hey Glen,

Since you believe so much in looking at historical content (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016852.html), we should add this to the list:

"A true conservative believes that Ron Paul Supporters are domestic terrorists"

rockandrollsouls
06-26-2008, 12:04 PM
Glenn is a hypocrite that gives real conservatives a bad name. Then again, I think Lew is a hypocrite a lot of the time, too.

People should just give me my own TV show instead. I rule.

fr33domfightr
06-26-2008, 12:31 PM
From watching his show a couple times, it's been obvious to me that Glen Beck is looking for perfection in a presidential candidate. In my opinion, that isn't being realistic. No candidate will be perfect. Therefore, I think it's best to vote for the one that best represents your views.


FF

Kludge
06-26-2008, 12:32 PM
From watching his show a couple times, it's been obvious to me that Glen Beck is looking for perfection in a presidential candidate. In my opinion, that isn't being realistic. No candidate will be perfect. Therefore, I think it's best to vote for the one that best represents your views.


FF

Secretly, Glenn is a Randian.

weslinder
06-26-2008, 12:36 PM
We're converting Glenn Beck. The Revolution is gaining ground.

RoyalShock
06-26-2008, 12:47 PM
Not a bad list of traits.

But where is the part about a conservative believing that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land?

That can no longer be taken for granted.

fr33domfightr
06-26-2008, 01:16 PM
Secretly, Glenn is a Randian.


As in Ayn Rand?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand



FF

anaconda
06-26-2008, 01:27 PM
Sounds like Beck is emulating Michael Reagan now.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/260608Beck.htm

Kludge
06-26-2008, 01:40 PM
As in Ayn Rand?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand



FF

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ayn_Rand_Collective

Yes, that does say Alan Greenspan.

constitutional
06-26-2008, 02:00 PM
Beck is an asshole. He can whine and bitch all he wants. It's too fucking late moron. FUCKING MORON. He called us terrorists, humiliated us and never mentions Ron Paul even though he represents all of those views.

Don't even link that asshole's articles here.

Here is what he is saying.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/25/beck-shoot-in-head/

Yeah, he comes closest to our views but I'm not making any sacrifices for assholes like these. Fuck them.

Kade
06-26-2008, 02:26 PM
You have got to be kidding me... you do know that Glenn Beck, just the other day, pretended he didn't know who Ron Paul was?

Neo-con.

rockandrollsouls
06-26-2008, 02:52 PM
You have got to be kidding me... you do know that Glenn Beck, just the other day, pretended he didn't know who Ron Paul was?

Neo-con.

Funny how you can go and call out Glenn Beck when you're even worse by going to vote for Obama. Sounds like we got a bit of a flip flopper here, eh? Get lost, traitor. You should be over at the Obama boards.

Oh, and take me out of your signature. Mine serves a purpose. It contains the usernames of people who have openly stated they will vote for Obama. I want people to be aware of those that aren't fighting for freedom. You don't like the fact that I won't let you put a halt in the movement, so I'm a "dull tool." Kid, how old are you? How about you defend your positions with logic and reason? I'm a neo-con because I called you out. Glenn Beck is a neo-con. Yet you're spotless and your the one going to vote for a borderline communist. At least it means something when I voice my opinion about a hinderance to the message of freedom. It means something when I call Glenn a hypocrite because I've been fighting for freedom; I'm voting for a freedom candidate. I'm not compromising my values. I'm fighting to restore the Constitution. Where do you get off passing judgement? You're voting against freedom. You are moving in the opposite direction of many of us here.

Again, I'm not letting people like you prevent me from taking my country back. Get in my way and I will run you down. Too many times have we made a little progress and given up. You gave up, Kade. Stand down and step aside. It's time for the dedicated ones to move forward.

mconder
06-26-2008, 04:02 PM
It's too bad Glenn wasn't a friend to Ron Paul when it mattered most. Instead he could find nothing better to do than berate him, even as we were in the beginning stages of total economic collapse. Glenn's just like the dirty politicians he serves, he says one thing and does quite another. Mark my words...if McCain wins, he will fall in line. What a spineless bitch. We will all suffer greatly now.

Indy4Chng
06-26-2008, 04:24 PM
He has given more time to Ron Paul then any other TV show. If we are not allowed to watch Beck where should we catch Paul and other libertarian principles.

He is too pro-war and religion intrusion for me but he does preach many libertarian ideas as well. Who else do we have. We need one step at a time. If it wern't for Beck I would't be here. But then again I am was not born of libertarian blood so I am not a true libertarian.

rockandrollsouls
06-26-2008, 04:53 PM
He has given more time to Ron Paul then any other TV show. If we are not allowed to watch Beck where should we catch Paul and other libertarian principles.

He is too pro-war and religion intrusion for me but he does preach many libertarian ideas as well. Who else do we have. We need one step at a time. If it wern't for Beck I would't be here. But then again I am was not born of libertarian blood so I am not a true libertarian.

I agree that Glenn has given Ron lot's of time, but that still doesn't make him a good person. To me he's hypocritical but I do acknowledge the fact he has given Ron substantial airtime.

mediahasyou
06-26-2008, 05:35 PM
Beck is a good man. He is supperb compared to the rest of the msm.

sophocles07
06-26-2008, 05:37 PM
From watching his show a couple times, it's been obvious to me that Glen Beck is looking for perfection in a presidential candidate. In my opinion, that isn't being realistic. No candidate will be perfect. Therefore, I think it's best to vote for the one that best represents your views.

Really? It’s clear to me from watching his show more than a couple of times, he’s a fucking idiot.

He had Ron Paul to choose. Now he bitches about the choices. His perfection is essentially whatever someone like Hannity would want, added in a bunch of Libertarian rhetoric—but which he really doesn’t seem to care much about, or think through.

Fuck this guy.


Beck is a good man. He is supperb compared to the rest of the msm.

*Vomits* (twice)

glts
06-26-2008, 06:13 PM
Glenn Beck is a poser, actor, pretender, sell out. If he was any good he would have lost his job by now. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

LibertyOfOne
06-26-2008, 06:18 PM
Fuck Glen Beck. He hates America.

Black Dude
06-26-2008, 06:26 PM
Beck is an asshole. He can whine and bitch all he wants. It's too fucking late moron. FUCKING MORON. He called us terrorists, humiliated us and never mentions Ron Paul even though he represents all of those views.

Don't even link that asshole's articles here.

Here is what he is saying.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/25/beck-shoot-in-head/

Yeah, he comes closest to our views but I'm not making any sacrifices for assholes like these. Fuck them.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/25/beck-shoot-in-head/

yep, Glenn Beck is a psycho.

mconder
06-26-2008, 06:32 PM
From watching his show a couple times, it's been obvious to me that Glen Beck is looking for perfection in a presidential candidate. In my opinion, that isn't being realistic. No candidate will be perfect. Therefore, I think it's best to vote for the one that best represents your views.

Great...I'll go with a Constitution of LP candidate.

rockandrollsouls
06-26-2008, 06:39 PM
Fuck Glen Beck. He hates America.

Glenn Beck eats children.
:D just kidding, but I thought it fit the theme. How many Glenn Beck "does this" lines can we come up with?

RevolutionSD
06-26-2008, 06:39 PM
Too bad he didn't think of this sooner...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/25/beck.conservatives/index.html

Mccain MAYBE?
I guess being "conservative" means blowing people up in foreign lands.:mad:

mconder
06-26-2008, 06:43 PM
Some of the Ron Paul supporters and so-called friends of liberty make me sick. You pukes were the same ones thinking Tucker and Wolf were going to catapult the movement into the limelight at any moment. Tucker...OMG!!! what a forked tongue little school girl he WAS. Don't even get me started on Wolf. If you think I'm being a little extreme, you think about that when you and your kids don't have enough money to drive to the grocery store, let alone buy groceries. We are knocking on the door of $200 a barrel / $7 a gallon gas. If we get there this country is F'ed. I gues that's what it will take for people like that guy who suggest, "Ron Paul isn't running anymore and there is no perfect candidate, so we just need to choose the one the best matches our views." What the hell do you think this was all about? Now, I'm left to decide between the one the least opposes everything I believe. Sure, you got Bob Barr, but that is unrealistic. RP was a real chance. Bob Barr will be a blip. I am writing in Ron Paul no matter what. I don't even care if he endorses anyone else.

rprprs
06-26-2008, 06:44 PM
Beck aside, what's really scary are many of the comments which follow his opinion piece.:eek:

anaconda
06-26-2008, 10:47 PM
Honestly, Glenn Beck sounds a tad mentally challenged. Not the brightest bulb in the knife drawer. Why not just ignore the poor fellow? We have bigger fish to fry. It just looks bad when Ron Paul supporters are goaded into getting angry with him. It probably makes his day when angry or incredulous Ron Paul supporters confront him with emails. It's probably the most attention he ever gets. Let's all just ignore him and, if he's a good little boy, maybe Dr. Paul might let him interview him at some point.

Anti Federalist
06-27-2008, 05:52 AM
Is it just me, or are all these guys sounding more and more like this guy?
http://static.flickr.com/48/117789732_32f4be5375_o.jpg

Kade
06-27-2008, 08:16 AM
Funny how you can go and call out Glenn Beck when you're even worse by going to vote for Obama. Sounds like we got a bit of a flip flopper here, eh? Get lost, traitor. You should be over at the Obama boards.

Oh, and take me out of your signature. Mine serves a purpose. It contains the usernames of people who have openly stated they will vote for Obama. I want people to be aware of those that aren't fighting for freedom. You don't like the fact that I won't let you put a halt in the movement, so I'm a "dull tool." Kid, how old are you? How about you defend your positions with logic and reason? I'm a neo-con because I called you out. Glenn Beck is a neo-con. Yet you're spotless and your the one going to vote for a borderline communist. At least it means something when I voice my opinion about a hinderance to the message of freedom. It means something when I call Glenn a hypocrite because I've been fighting for freedom; I'm voting for a freedom candidate. I'm not compromising my values. I'm fighting to restore the Constitution. Where do you get off passing judgement? You're voting against freedom. You are moving in the opposite direction of many of us here.

Again, I'm not letting people like you prevent me from taking my country back. Get in my way and I will run you down. Too many times have we made a little progress and given up. You gave up, Kade. Stand down and step aside. It's time for the dedicated ones to move forward.

I am standing up, you clown, and your idea of liberty and freedom is to ask others to get of your way? You are a dull tool. Again, I'm not the most loved person here, obviously, but I think the more rational people on here can see you are way over your head with this whatever attempt you are making at a flame... You've not read anything I've written, in my defense, or my decision's defense. If I am moving in the opposite direction of people here, you are implying that people here are anti-free speech, anti-free thought, promoting a police state, promoting more wars, and desire a greater expenditure of tax payer money on the military industrial complex, because those are things I strongly believe in...

You are being a conformist, and you are attacking people who disagree with you, for no discernible reason other than the same propagandized points you hear over and over again... you cannot think for yourself, and your attacks, which have been uttered continually by superior morons than you, don't hold water.

I have never given up, in fact, quite the opposite my dimwitted and barely legible friend. I will be on the side of freedom until my bones bleach the soil I was born on, and no single-minded tool is going to confuse my goal towards promoting liberty.

rockandrollsouls
06-27-2008, 12:11 PM
I am standing up, you clown, and your idea of liberty and freedom is to ask others to get of your way? You are a dull tool. Again, I'm not the most loved person here, obviously, but I think the more rational people on here can see you are way over your head with this whatever attempt you are making at a flame... You've not read anything I've written, in my defense, or my decision's defense. If I am moving in the opposite direction of people here, you are implying that people here are anti-free speech, anti-free thought, promoting a police state, promoting more wars, and desire a greater expenditure of tax payer money on the military industrial complex, because those are things I strongly believe in...

You are being a conformist, and you are attacking people who disagree with you, for no discernible reason other than the same propagandized points you hear over and over again... you cannot think for yourself, and your attacks, which have been uttered continually by superior morons than you, don't hold water.

I have never given up, in fact, quite the opposite my dimwitted and barely legible friend. I will be on the side of freedom until my bones bleach the soil I was born on, and no single-minded tool is going to confuse my goal towards promoting liberty.

No, you have it a little backwards. This is a Ron Paul forum. Obama does not share any of Ron Paul's views, so I can't understand why you are trying to argue here.

Let me sum it up quickly.

I am rational. Voting for Obama is not rational.

I'm not sure why you think I'm implying, but I'll tell you what I know. I know that you're vote for Obama is a vote for higher taxes, bigger government, violation of rights, and a slew of other things. That is contrary to what we've been fighting for.

I am conformist? I am conforming to liberty, freedom, and prosperity. I'd argue you are the conformist, Kade. Again, just remember what you're voting for. It's not even similar to what we've all been fighting for.

And finally, if you didn't give up, you were never a freedom fighter in the first place. Again, you're voting for a candidate that doesn't share any of the views we've been fighting for (assuming you're old enough to vote...).

I don't think I'm dull. In fact, I think I'm the only person making sense in this little argument we're having. Please, tell me, if you love freedom so much, if you are fighting for liberty, if you want to help bring about a real change, why are you voting for a hollow shell of a person? Why are you saying yes to socialization? Why are you supporting a candidate who funds the war? Why are you voting against a free market? Why do you want the government to control your life? Those are just a few of the many, many questions I'd like answered. Regardless of how you respond, you could never justify it.

I can't speak for everyone here, but if people don't like you I can take a shot at why. You don't know what freedom is and you're not fighting for it. You're not voting for Ron or a similar candidate. Instead, you troll the board and speak for Obama. You defend him at every crossroad. You don't belong here, and I'm sorry if that stings. I'd welcome you back if you got your priorities straight, but that doesn't look like it's happening any time soon.

Kade
06-27-2008, 12:32 PM
No, you have it a little backwards. This is a Ron Paul forum. Obama does not share any of Ron Paul's views, so I can't understand why you are trying to argue here.

Let me sum it up quickly.

I am rational. Voting for Obama is not rational.

I'm not sure why you think I'm implying, but I'll tell you what I know. I know that you're vote for Obama is a vote for higher taxes, bigger government, violation of rights, and a slew of other things. That is contrary to what we've been fighting for.

I am conformist? I am conforming to liberty, freedom, and prosperity. I'd argue you are the conformist, Kade. Again, just remember what you're voting for. It's not even similar to what we've all been fighting for.

And finally, if you didn't give up, you were never a freedom fighter in the first place. Again, you're voting for a candidate that doesn't share any of the views we've been fighting for (assuming you're old enough to vote...).

I don't think I'm dull. In fact, I think I'm the only person making sense in this little argument we're having. Please, tell me, if you love freedom so much, if you are fighting for liberty, if you want to help bring about a real change, why are you voting for a hollow shell of a person? Why are you saying yes to socialization? Why are you supporting a candidate who funds the war? Why are you voting against a free market? Why do you want the government to control your life? Those are just a few of the many, many questions I'd like answered. Regardless of how you respond, you could never justify it.

I can't speak for everyone here, but if people don't like you I can take a shot at why. You don't know what freedom is and you're not fighting for it. You're not voting for Ron or a similar candidate. Instead, you troll the board and speak for Obama. You defend him at every crossroad. You don't belong here, and I'm sorry if that stings. I'd welcome you back if you got your priorities straight, but that doesn't look like it's happening any time soon.

Let's break this down my ignorant friend.

Claim #1:

A vote for Obama is higher taxes.

Wrong. Obama's tax proposals are extremely favorable for the lower 60% of this country, and even over a long term, only inevitably hurt the top 1% exponentially.

If you believe that taxation should be progressive, IE, fair all the way around, you believe that greater earners should pay into the pot at equal rates... if you do not, you vote for McCain. McCain's claim to "lowering taxes" rest on his ability to decrease greatly the amount of money the highest earners, (well above 250k) pay... in a percentage that is greatly disproportional to lower earners.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/12/tpc_1_2.jpg
http://taxprof.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/12/tpc_2_2.jpg


Claim #2:

A vote for Obama is a vote for bigger government.

This claim might be true, but it is relatively deceiving... in our history, even during the New Deal, our government has never been this blatantly partisan, that even the Justice Department has made partisan appointments. The abuse of power is staggering, and we have never been closer to "Big Brother" than we have with George Bush, or the GOP, at the helm. The government has expanded under a Republican President, so I am voting for the other party. I may not be voting my purest principles, but I am voting rationally. I DO NOT want another Republican in office. Period.
I prefer smaller government, but I also believe we only have two choices right now, and one is adversely worse than the other.

Claim #3:

A vote for Obama is a vote for a violation of rights.

Where the hell did you get this from... it has been the GOP that has sought to violate our privacy rights, violate our freedom of speech with overburdening censorship, violate the separation of church and state, strictly enforce drug legislation, attempt to outlaw flag burning, attempt to outlaw gay marriages, attempt to outlaw stem cell research, stifled technology and research into new sciences, attempt to outlaw forms of sexual contact, end abortion rights, end birth control methods, attempt to spy on Americans, create a central police state involving state forces, and create a massive network of Secret Police called "The Department of Homeland Security", among many, many other things... Again, I will not sit back and allow my vote to shave off a chance for McCain to slip into the Presidency... I'm voting rationally.



and finally, your claim that I don't know what freedom is...

On the contrary my pimply pubescent troglodyte, I do. My idea of freedom does not gave shaved off by emotional appeals, by poor logic, by comparative analogies, by propaganda, by sorrowful crying, or my own proclivity. I have an extremely broad definition of freedom, that derives itself from hundreds and thousands of years of philosophy. I do not exclude things that I find morally reprehensible, I do no exclude freedoms that others might not consider freely, non-freedoms, nor do I fail to understand that freedom is not just something you are "allowed to do", rather, I consider freedom an ability, an ability derived from individuality, reason, universal values, and urges of responsible desires. You will not find a position I have taken on this board in contrast with someone's freedom, rather you will realize that the true myopic nature of your own pathetic views of freedom, and your stringent conformity and mild internet activism is a rather depressing acknowledge of an inability for you to think for yourself at all... completely defying the so called "self reliance" that you advocate as personal liberty.

Cheers.

rockandrollsouls
06-27-2008, 01:21 PM
Claim 1. He's still increasing taxes, smart guy. Not only is increasing taxation bad enough, he's taking a line from communism and taking wealth and redistributing it. You need to check your facts and check his voting record.

Claim 3. He's already fought against our gun rights reaffirmed by the 2nd amendment. He also wants to make community service mandatory and have a form of mandate for healthcare. Yes, he will use some form of mandate. Again, he wants government to run your life.


It seems to me like you haven't even research this man and just fell in love with his empty, generic rhetoric like the rest of the population.

You have it entirely mixed up, and it's sad. I don't think you belong here. You're just voting for the same candidate...Obama is Bush is McCain.

Not only that, the man has contradicted himself so many times how do you know what's true or not? You could argue for or against anything with him because he only says what people want to hear at a particular place and time and there's video and audio to prove he's contradicted himself on practically every issue he's spoken on. Which, mind you, is hardly any at all because he's so vague and full of it.

Now, you can use whatever fancy words you want to try and rationalize your poorly conceived opinion, but you're still voting for a continuation of the string of awful leadership we've had in this country.

And you have the nerve to call me out....you don't know who I've donated to, what I've donated, or what I've done. I may not be the holy grail of all political activists but I'm damn sure trying to get good candidates and office and supporting them with my money and time. That's certainly more than you can say! Go...go vote for Obama.

Let's cut to the chase. How about you fulfill your duty as an American and vote for a candidate that won't crap on the Constitution and hasn't already proposed plans that will do so? People that vote for unconstitutional candidates like Obama should be tried for treason, and I mean it. By voting Obama you vote against the Constitution. It's people like you that have sent our country down the tube and I'm absolutely sick of it. You can't rationalize it. You can't justify it. You're WRONG Kade. You're trying to wrap a big steamy log of poop in elegant lace and gold leaf. It's not happening. If it was up to me, I'd kick you off the board and let you worship in the Obama forums. You're idea of freedom is socialism and I won't tolerate it. Go look at his voting record, you traitor.

Don't try and wage personal attacks on me because it won't work and it won't make your choice look good. I don't need to defend myself. I've been spreading the message of freedom. You're another story. At the end of the day, I'm not you. I'm not voting for Obama. I'm not sending my country down the toilet.

Kludge
06-27-2008, 01:21 PM
*heads upstairs to pop some popcorn before reading*

Kade
06-27-2008, 01:27 PM
You're idea of freedom is socialism and I won't tolerate it. Go look at his voting record, you traitor.

Don't try and wage personal attacks on me because it won't work and it won't make your choice look good. I don't need to defend myself. I've been spreading the message of freedom. You're another story. At the end of the day, I'm not you. I'm not voting for Obama. I'm not sending my country down the toilet.

You didn't appear to answer or defend anything I've said... in fact you look like an idiot.

rockandrollsouls
06-27-2008, 01:31 PM
You didn't appear to answer or defend anything I've said... in fact you look like an idiot.

Or you're ignorant...there's plenty or reason in my post. I don't have to pick apart Obama or your logic because his flaws are evident. Look at his voting record and listen to the audio and watch the video of him contradicting himself.

Kade
06-27-2008, 01:34 PM
Or you're ignorant...there's plenty or reason in my post. I don't have to pick apart Obama or your logic because his flaws are evident. Look at his voting record and listen to the audio and watch the video of him contradicting himself.

I have. I'm by no means an Obama purist, in case you've convinced yourself otherwise... I am voting for him. I gave my reasons, and you haven't done much to refute those... posting youtube videos and the like doesn't make me think any less, or for that matter, any stronger for my personal choice. I am supporting the more liberal party for the Presidency, and I have defended this as such. Ignorant might be a hard sell, but one could simply look at my posting history to understand that I've already addressed your raving lunacy.

rockandrollsouls
06-27-2008, 01:36 PM
I have. I'm by no means an Obama purist, in case you've convinced yourself otherwise... I am voting for him. I gave my reasons, and you haven't done much to refute those... posting youtube videos and the like doesn't make me think any less, or for that matter, any stronger for my personal choice. I am supporting the more liberal party for the Presidency, and I have defended this as such. Ignorant might be a hard sell, but one could simply look at my posting history to understand that I've already addressed your raving lunacy.

You're the only one who's a lunatic here, Kade :rolleyes:. Your reasons are invalid. I addressed it in a previous post. It seems like people continually prove you wrong yet you're so stubborn you can't accept it.

Since you're voting for Obama you shouldn't be trolling the Ron Paul forums. You should be banned. Let's voteban Kade. You're not a Ron Paul supporter, you're not voting for any of the candidates he hopes gets votes, and you're not voting for any kind of freedom. So let me ask you then....why are you here? What's your purpose? To try and convert people to Obama? To be a hypocrite and call people names like "neo-con" when you're the worst one of the bunch? I'd like an explanation.

Kade
06-27-2008, 01:38 PM
You're the only one who's a lunatic here, Kade :rolleyes:. Your reasons are invalid. I addressed it in a previous post. It seems like people continually prove you wrong yet you're so stubborn you can't accept it.

Since you're voting for Obama you shouldn't be trolling the Ron Paul forums. You should be banned. Let's voteban Kade. You're not a Ron Paul supporter, you're not voting for any of the candidates he hopes gets votes, and you're not voting for any kind of freedom. So let me ask you then....why are you here? What's your purpose? To try and convert people to Obama? To be a hypocrite and call people names like "neo-con" when you're the worst one of the bunch? I'd like an explanation.

I'll ask for a simple answer... what in context have I said that was wrong?


All you can do is screech endlessly like a whining child. Say something useful for logic's sake!

Give me something of substance.

micahnelson
06-27-2008, 01:41 PM
Or you're ignorant...there's plenty or reason in my post. I don't have to pick apart Obama or your logic because his flaws are evident. Look at his voting record and listen to the audio and watch the video of him contradicting himself.


I could understand the ferocity of attacks against Obama if we had a decent republican candidate. Even on right wing radio, the reasons they give me not to vote for Obama are the same reasons I cannot vote for McCain- extremist pastor, doesn't respect individual rights, associates with lobbyists. Between the two, I believe Obama is less likely to go to war immediately. McCain is itching to go into Iran- Obama will reluctantly go into Iran when the DNC decides it wants to national security creds.

I could see supporting Obama because you think he is less likely to go to war and might be better than McCain on civil liberties... might.

I could see supporting McCain because you want there to be political gridlock in DC, don't want one party to be able to control anything.

Neither are very good reasons or options, but its not like we have any other viable choice unless you wanna protest vote for a third party.

I guess I'm just saying- its kinda dumb to get made at someone for voting for Obama when the alternative is not any better.

rockandrollsouls
06-27-2008, 01:43 PM
I'll ask for a simple answer... what in context have I said that was wrong?


All you can do is screech endlessly like a whining child. Say something useful for logic's sake!

Give me something of substance.

You're simply stubborn. It's not even worth trying to argue with you. When I provide something logical or mention Obama's contradictories or voting record you don't even respond to it. You resort to personal attacks. It's ridiculous. Now, do you want to respond to anything in my previous posts?

rockandrollsouls
06-27-2008, 01:46 PM
I could understand the ferocity of attacks against Obama if we had a decent republican candidate. Even on right wing radio, the reasons they give me not to vote for Obama are the same reasons I cannot vote for McCain- extremist pastor, doesn't respect individual rights, associates with lobbyists. Between the two, I believe Obama is less likely to go to war immediately. McCain is itching to go into Iran- Obama will reluctantly go into Iran when the DNC decides it wants to national security creds.

I could see supporting Obama because you think he is less likely to go to war and might be better than McCain on civil liberties... might.

I could see supporting McCain because you want there to be political gridlock in DC, don't want one party to be able to control anything.

Neither are very good reasons or options, but its not like we have any other viable choice unless you wanna protest vote for a third party.

I guess I'm just saying- its kinda dumb to get made at someone for voting for Obama when the alternative is not any better.

If he was voting for McCain I'd say the same. Again, Obama has eluded to preemptive war. He still votes to fund the current war. He wants to expand government. He has fought against 2nd amendment rights. He will raise taxes. He wants to tell you how to live your life, what health care to get, etc. etc. I could go on and on.

So why would you just sit by and say "Oh, Ok Obama seems to be a little better (even though he's not) so it's alright." If you could vote for Stalin, Hitler, or a less likely candidate like Jesus or something who would you vote for? The logic doesn't make any sense they are both awful and both deserve scolding. Keep in mind the point of this forum is to push for freedom...a place where freedom lovers can gather. Obama isn't for freedom and McCain isn't for freedom.

And by the way, it's not called a protest vote. It's called voting for a real candidate. I will NOT vote for someone that will ruin this country further. I will not vote for someone who doesn't follow the Constitution. I will vote for a REAL candidate. I don't care if you call it a protest vote because the media hasn't made them accessible and they are lesser known. I will vote for someone that values our law and land.

Kade
06-27-2008, 01:48 PM
You're simply stubborn. It's not even worth trying to argue with you. When I provide something logical or mention Obama's contradictories or voting record you don't even respond to it. You resort to personal attacks. It's ridiculous. Now, do you want to respond to anything in my previous posts?

You haven't said anything! Give me something useful. Garf, garf, garf.

Besides, you and I both know who started this, with their signature... I hadn't said anything to you, and I never, ever start with a flame or an insult... but I will always respond in kind.

rockandrollsouls
06-27-2008, 01:51 PM
You haven't said anything! Give me something useful. Garf, garf, garf.

Besides, you and I both know who started this, with their signature... I hadn't said anything to you, and I never, ever start with a flame or an insult... but I will always respond in kind.

Go back and read. I'm not playing games with you and I'm not retyping anything. You can be stubborn [Redacted by Moderator] or go and respond to my many questions. Here's a hint...look for sentences with question marks :eek:

Kade
06-27-2008, 01:54 PM
Claim 1. He's still increasing taxes, smart guy. Not only is increasing taxation bad enough, he's taking a line from communism and taking wealth and redistributing it. You need to check your facts and check his voting record.

Claim 3. He's already fought against our gun rights reaffirmed by the 2nd amendment. He also wants to make community service mandatory and have a form of mandate for healthcare. Yes, he will use some form of mandate. Again, he wants government to run your life.


It seems to me like you haven't even research this man and just fell in love with his empty, generic rhetoric like the rest of the population.

You have it entirely mixed up, and it's sad. I don't think you belong here. You're just voting for the same candidate...Obama is Bush is McCain.

Not only that, the man has contradicted himself so many times how do you know what's true or not? You could argue for or against anything with him because he only says what people want to hear at a particular place and time and there's video and audio to prove he's contradicted himself on practically every issue he's spoken on. Which, mind you, is hardly any at all because he's so vague and full of it.

Now, you can use whatever fancy words you want to try and rationalize your poorly conceived opinion, but you're still voting for a continuation of the string of awful leadership we've had in this country.

And you have the nerve to call me out....you don't know who I've donated to, what I've donated, or what I've done. I may not be the holy grail of all political activists but I'm damn sure trying to get good candidates and office and supporting them with my money and time. That's certainly more than you can say! Go...go vote for Obama.

Let's cut to the chase. How about you fulfill your duty as an American and vote for a candidate that won't crap on the Constitution and hasn't already proposed plans that will do so? People that vote for unconstitutional candidates like Obama should be tried for treason, and I mean it. By voting Obama you vote against the Constitution. It's people like you that have sent our country down the tube and I'm absolutely sick of it. You can't rationalize it. You can't justify it. You're WRONG Kade. You're trying to wrap a big steamy log of poop in elegant lace and gold leaf. It's not happening. If it was up to me, I'd kick you off the board and let you worship in the Obama forums. You're idea of freedom is socialism and I won't tolerate it. Go look at his voting record, you traitor.

Don't try and wage personal attacks on me because it won't work and it won't make your choice look good. I don't need to defend myself. I've been spreading the message of freedom. You're another story. At the end of the day, I'm not you. I'm not voting for Obama. I'm not sending my country down the toilet.

Okay [personal insult redacted by Mod], here is what you wrote... please, point out anything of substance here... I see NONE. ....nothing. and I literally mean nothing.

micahnelson
06-27-2008, 01:57 PM
And by the way, it's not called a protest vote. It's called voting for a real candidate. I will NOT vote for someone that will ruin this country further. I will not vote for someone who doesn't follow the Constitution. I will vote for a REAL candidate. I don't care if you call it a protest vote because the media hasn't made them accessible and they are lesser known. I will vote for someone that values our law and land.

I would never tell you not to, I'm just calling it a protest vote because that person won't become president.

After Super Tuesday all RP votes became protest votes. There was no chance of winning. I voted when I got the chance because I wanted my voice to be heard. I realized I wouldn't see a RP candidacy.

As far as the Obama/McCain thing... I think it would be better to try and persuade someone to vote for a candidate instead of showing why the others are not worthy of a vote. Obama and McCain will handle the next 4 years in a very similar manner, so a reason for voting one over the other is all conjecture.

If you have the Audacity to Hope that Obama will leave you with a little change in your pocket- Vote Obama.

If you have Faith in people older than your Grandfathers, then by all means, vote McCain.

I think between the two Id rather have a GOP controlled Senate or House with Obama as President. I think he is less likely to use Executive orders. But, I'm not voting because I don't want to be responsible for helping either of them. I'll vote 3rd party if a find a person I can dig.

Kade
06-27-2008, 01:59 PM
I would never tell you not to, I'm just calling it a protest vote because that person won't become president.

After Super Tuesday all RP votes became protest votes. There was no chance of winning. I voted when I got the chance because I wanted my voice to be heard. I realized I wouldn't see a RP candidacy.

As far as the Obama/McCain thing... I think it would be better to try and persuade someone to vote for a candidate instead of showing why the others are not worthy of a vote. Obama and McCain will handle the next 4 years in a very similar manner, so a reason for voting one over the other is all conjecture.

If you have the Audacity to Hope that Obama will leave you with a little change in your pocket- Vote Obama.

If you have Faith in people older than your Grandfathers, then by all means, vote McCain.

I think between the two Id rather have a GOP controlled Senate or House with Obama as President. I think he is less likely to use Executive orders. But, I'm not voting because I don't want to be responsible for helping either of them. I'll vote 3rd party if a find a person I can dig.

Even though I disagree with you, you are respectful, reasonable, and intelligent. I wish some on here showed half of your worthy standard.

rockandrollsouls
06-27-2008, 02:31 PM
Even though I disagree with you, you are respectful, reasonable, and intelligent. I wish some on here showed half of your worthy standard.

So people aren't up to your standards here? Maybe because it's not the Obama forum. Again, you didn't read anything and just resorted to a personal attack on me. You fit right in with the intelligence of the Obama crowd :D

rockandrollsouls
06-27-2008, 02:33 PM
I would never tell you not to, I'm just calling it a protest vote because that person won't become president.

After Super Tuesday all RP votes became protest votes. There was no chance of winning. I voted when I got the chance because I wanted my voice to be heard. I realized I wouldn't see a RP candidacy.

As far as the Obama/McCain thing... I think it would be better to try and persuade someone to vote for a candidate instead of showing why the others are not worthy of a vote. Obama and McCain will handle the next 4 years in a very similar manner, so a reason for voting one over the other is all conjecture.

If you have the Audacity to Hope that Obama will leave you with a little change in your pocket- Vote Obama.

If you have Faith in people older than your Grandfathers, then by all means, vote McCain.

I think between the two Id rather have a GOP controlled Senate or House with Obama as President. I think he is less likely to use Executive orders. But, I'm not voting because I don't want to be responsible for helping either of them. I'll vote 3rd party if a find a person I can dig.

I disagree....I wouldn't call it a protest vote. If anything, a vote for Obama and McCain is a protest vote....the masses brainwashed to protest against our Constitution!

micahnelson
06-27-2008, 02:42 PM
I disagree....I wouldn't call it a protest vote. If anything, a vote for Obama and McCain is a protest vote....the masses brainwashed to protest against our Constitution!

+1 Pithy
- 1 Informative.

People aren't protesting against the constitution when they vote for the Brand name candidates. They just don't know any better.

Typically a protest vote is defined as a vote you believe in, but know that it won't likely accomplish much besides allowing you to take a stand. Nothing negative or derogatory about a protest vote in my mind. Sometimes its all you can do, the proverbial giving of the finger to the establishment, proving they haven't fooled everyone.

rockandrollsouls
06-27-2008, 03:24 PM
+1 Pithy
- 1 Informative.

People aren't protesting against the constitution when they vote for the Brand name candidates. They just don't know any better.

Typically a protest vote is defined as a vote you believe in, but know that it won't likely accomplish much besides allowing you to take a stand. Nothing negative or derogatory about a protest vote in my mind. Sometimes its all you can do, the proverbial giving of the finger to the establishment, proving they haven't fooled everyone.

A vote needs to mean something. It sounds like if you don't vote for the front runners it's a protest vote? I don't like that. I'm voting for someone that is qualified. Call it what you want....

silus
06-27-2008, 09:38 PM
People that vote for unconstitutional candidates like Obama should be tried for treason, and I mean it.

As a supposed champion of freedom, the convictions you have in your beliefs obviously have corrupted you, AND your support of freedom. You actually believe if people vote against your own wishes, they are traitors that should be jailed?? You are clearly insane, and worse yet, you have no understanding of this nation's traditions. It matters not what the candidate represents as it relates to the citizens right to vote freely. But you would suppress the American citizens right to choose... I think its clear who should be tried for treason.

You belong in the times of extreme religious persecution. You would have done well rationalizing the killing of people in the name of your "goodness."

rockandrollsouls
06-27-2008, 10:09 PM
As a supposed champion of freedom, the convictions you have in your beliefs obviously have corrupted you, AND your support of freedom. You actually believe if people vote against your own wishes, they are traitors that should be jailed?? You are clearly insane, and worse yet, you have no understanding of this nation's traditions. It matters not what the candidate represents as it relates to the citizens right to vote freely. But you would suppress the American citizens right to choose... I think its clear who should be tried for treason.

You belong in the times of extreme religious persecution. You would have done well rationalizing the killing of people in the name of your "goodness."

Anyone with half a brain could tell I was being over dramatic. Why, are you a butt-hurt Obama supporter, too? :rolleyes:

He is an unconstitutional candidate, and it boggles my mind that people here, who are supposedly in support of the law of our land, would go and vote for someone like that. It's completely contradictory.

I might deserve to live in extremist religious times (:rolleyes:) but you deserve a class on sarcasm :p

So, anyway, are you going to contribute anything useful to the thread, or just try to bash and insult me on an exaggerated comment? I must really be touching some liberal nerves here if you can't respond to any of the legitimate logic and fact I've posted, yet you can blow a stupid one-liner out of the water.

Yes, let's avoid the pressing issues at hand and the dire state of our nation to instead make assumptions about me based on that comment. Some of you guys....oy vey.

silus
06-28-2008, 01:32 PM
Anyone with half a brain could tell I was being over dramatic. Why, are you a butt-hurt Obama supporter, too? :rolleyes:

He is an unconstitutional candidate, and it boggles my mind that people here, who are supposedly in support of the law of our land, would go and vote for someone like that. It's completely contradictory.

I might deserve to live in extremist religious times (:rolleyes:) but you deserve a class on sarcasm :p

So, anyway, are you going to contribute anything useful to the thread, or just try to bash and insult me on an exaggerated comment? I must really be touching some liberal nerves here if you can't respond to any of the legitimate logic and fact I've posted, yet you can blow a stupid one-liner out of the water.

Yes, let's avoid the pressing issues at hand and the dire state of our nation to instead make assumptions about me based on that comment. Some of you guys....oy vey.
Its funny how you first try to rationalize your statements and then attempt to turn it around by implying that one needs to be a liberal to challenge your statements. Let me clarify for you. The battle lines are no longer between liberals and conservatives. Its those that support the constitution, and those that dont. So you should check again where you stand. You're in full defensive mode...completely irrational.

Bush was being over dramatic when he joked about being a dictator...you must have chuckled along with him, right... Why dont you take responsibility for what you say. Why do you have to make excuses for yourself? If you need to exaggerate to make a point, maybe your points suck. Just a thought.

rockandrollsouls
06-28-2008, 01:46 PM
Its funny how you first try to rationalize your statements and then attempt to turn it around by implying that one needs to be a liberal to challenge your statements. Let me clarify for you. The battle lines are no longer between liberals and conservatives. Its those that support the constitution, and those that dont. So you should check again where you stand. You're in full defensive mode...completely irrational.

Bush was being over dramatic when he joked about being a dictator...you must have chuckled along with him, right... Why dont you take responsibility for what you say. Why do you have to make excuses for yourself? If you need to exaggerate to make a point, maybe your points suck. Just a thought.

So I take it you won't be contributing anything worthwhile to the thread.

And, to capitalize on your point, Obama doesn't support the Constitution so if you're voting for him I think it's safe to say you don't either. All I'm hearing from you is brash assumptions and ridiculous comparisons. You're like Bush blah blah etc. etc.



Why don't you answer some of the questions I've posed previously in the thread? Why don't you respond to anything else I've asked because it seems to me you're avoiding it. Again, did I touch a nerve? You came right out of the gate trying to get at me. I'd say it's a bit uncalled for.

If you want to be ridiculous and judge me based on that how about you defend this statement "Neo Cons are only welcomed in hell." But, then again, browsing your older posts it seems that you only call people names for not agreeing with someone else. A bit hypocritical, no? Fact of the matter is you're out of line here, and I'm asking you to stand down.

If you want to discuss an issue or answer one of my many questions feel free to do so. But your blatant and ridiculous attacks towards me are unwarranted, unfounded, and blown out of proportion.

silus
06-28-2008, 03:21 PM
So I take it you won't be contributing anything worthwhile to the thread.

And, to capitalize on your point, Obama doesn't support the Constitution so if you're voting for him I think it's safe to say you don't either. All I'm hearing from you is brash assumptions and ridiculous comparisons. You're like Bush blah blah etc. etc.


Why don't you answer some of the questions I've posed previously in the thread? Why don't you respond to anything else I've asked because it seems to me you're avoiding it. Again, did I touch a nerve? You came right out of the gate trying to get at me. I'd say it's a bit uncalled for.

If you want to be ridiculous and judge me based on that how about you defend this statement "Neo Cons are only welcomed in hell." But, then again, browsing your older posts it seems that you only call people names for not agreeing with someone else. A bit hypocritical, no? Fact of the matter is you're out of line here, and I'm asking you to stand down.

If you want to discuss an issue or answer one of my many questions feel free to do so. But your blatant and ridiculous attacks towards me are unwarranted, unfounded, and blown out of proportion.
You sound pretty damn insecure. A person can disagree with you in one area, without disagreeing in others. But instead you distort a specific criticism to imply that I support Obama. Fact is that I attacked a hypocritical statement, and you just rationalized it a joke. And now it seems that everything you say is for the purpose of defending a fragile ego.

And its pretty hilarious how you compare a bastardization of the constitution to an insult. Again, you need to get over your insecurity issues, this isnt personal. If a criticism is true, or at least partially true, you seem incapable of dealing with it honestly. Sad.

rockandrollsouls
06-28-2008, 04:02 PM
You sound pretty damn insecure. A person can disagree with you in one area, without disagreeing in others. But instead you distort a specific criticism to imply that I support Obama. Fact is that I attacked a hypocritical statement, and you just rationalized it a joke. And now it seems that everything you say is for the purpose of defending a fragile ego.

And its pretty hilarious how you compare a bastardization of the constitution to an insult. Again, you need to get over your insecurity issues, this isnt personal. If a criticism is true, or at least partially true, you seem incapable of dealing with it honestly. Sad.

You're not making any sense at all.

I asked what seriously touched a nerve and speculated. Anyone who can take a comment like that and contort it to make it seem like a plausible idea is just looking to start trouble. Yea, you're right. I mean, I'm fully capable of rounding up the millions that will vote for Obama and trying them of treason. Heck, why stop there. According to you I'm likened to a dictator. Since I'm so influential and powerful, we might as well ship them all out of the country :rolleyes:. You're being absolutely ridiculous and I don't know why you insist on trying to start trouble with me.
Do you care to comment on your statement then? Are you insisting that all neo-cons deserve to die? I mean, give me a break. This is absolutely absurd and it's not even worth arguing over.

How did I compare a bastardization of the Constitution to an insult? I simply implied that anyone who votes for Obama either hasn't read the Constitution or is compromising his principles. It's a fact. The man is closer to a Marxist than a Constitutionalist. So again, I don't know what you're throwing a fit about.

Aside from this, are you going to respond to anything in my previous posts? I think this is the 4th or 5th time I've asked you and Kade. There's plenty of material in there that you can try to pick apart if you want ;).

silus
06-28-2008, 04:21 PM
You're not making any sense at all.

I asked what seriously touched a nerve and speculated. Anyone who can take a comment like that and contort it to make it seem like a plausible idea is just looking to start trouble. Yea, you're right. I mean, I'm fully capable of rounding up the millions that will vote for Obama and trying them of treason. Heck, why stop there. According to you I'm likened to a dictator. Since I'm so influential and powerful, we might as well ship them all out of the country :rolleyes:. You're being absolutely ridiculous and I don't know why you insist on trying to start trouble with me.
Do you care to comment on your statement then? Are you insisting that all neo-cons deserve to die? I mean, give me a break. This is absolutely absurd and it's not even worth arguing over.

How did I compare a bastardization of the Constitution to an insult? I simply implied that anyone who votes for Obama either hasn't read the Constitution or is compromising his principles. It's a fact. The man is closer to a Marxist than a Constitutionalist. So again, I don't know what you're throwing a fit about.

Aside from this, are you going to respond to anything in my previous posts? I think this is the 4th or 5th time I've asked you and Kade. There's plenty of material in there that you can try to pick apart if you want ;).
According to you, if one does not have influence or power, then one does not need to take responsibility for what is said, or be taken seriously. I'm starting to agree with you. But the point was not what you said, but that you used the defense of the constitution as an excuse to trample over it. That is what touched a nerve. I mean, what you stated is not even consistent with your very own intentions, however outlandish they were. Normally people exaggerate in order to support their beliefs.

Also, why would I respond to anything in your previous posts? Maybe I agreed with them, maybe I did not. Why would you even ask?? My point was HIGHLY specific, and did not relate to anything you said previously. Is that so hard for you to understand? Again, if you stop with your insecurity, you might be able to see that I made but a simple, pointed criticism.

P.S. Did my statement imply all neo-cons should die? This goes back to you again having to resort to distortion and exaggeration to make your points. The pattern is obvious.

AmericaFyeah92
06-28-2008, 04:39 PM
what are we talking about again? ;)

rockandrollsouls
06-28-2008, 04:43 PM
According to you, if one does not have influence or power, then one does not need to take responsibility for what is said, or be taken seriously. I'm starting to agree with you. But the point was not what you said, but that you used the defense of the constitution as an excuse to trample over it. That is what touched a nerve. I mean, what you stated is not even consistent with your very own intentions, however outlandish they were. Normally people exaggerate in order to support their beliefs.

Also, why would I respond to anything in your previous posts? Maybe I agreed with them, maybe I did not. Why would you even ask?? My point was HIGHLY specific, and did not relate to anything you said previously. Is that so hard for you to understand? Again, if you stop with your insecurity, you might be able to see that I made but a simple, pointed criticism.

P.S. Did my statement imply all neo-cons should die? This goes back to you again having to resort to distortion and exaggeration to make your points. The pattern is obvious.

My point is that you took it a little bit too seriously for what it was; A sarcastic remark used for emphasis. And, I find it particularly hypocritical when you are no stranger to obtuse statements.

And, I'd expect you to respond because it's easy for you to jump on someone else without examining the things you've said. Do you fail to see the stick in your own eye? ;)

rockandrollsouls
06-28-2008, 04:44 PM
what are we talking about again? ;)

We were talking about Glenn Beck being a hypocrite for describing all of the material a conservative should have, ignoring Ron Paul, and not living by his own words.

Then Kade came in, took it upon himself to call Beck a neo-con, etc etc when he's going to go and vote for Obama (it's so easy to cast stones from a glass house...). Then things flared up.

AmericaFyeah92
06-28-2008, 04:58 PM
of course, of course.

The_Orlonater
06-28-2008, 07:54 PM
Yeah, Glenn is a hypocrite. Yeah, I also agree that Obama is an unconstitutional candidate. The man voted for so that telephone companies can spy on us while we talk!:eek: A war in Pakistan in 2009? No thanks. Raising taxes? No thanks, lower taxes are better for the economy. Universal(Forced) healthcare? I could go on, but I don't like the guy. I don't like his supporters either.

sophocles07
06-29-2008, 08:32 AM
A vote for Obama is higher taxes.

Wrong. Obama's tax proposals are extremely favorable for the lower 60% of this country, and even over a long term, only inevitably hurt the top 1% exponentially.

If you believe that taxation should be progressive, IE, fair all the way around, you believe that greater earners should pay into the pot at equal rates... if you do not, you vote for McCain. McCain's claim to "lowering taxes" rest on his ability to decrease greatly the amount of money the highest earners, (well above 250k) pay... in a percentage that is greatly disproportional to lower earners.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/12/tpc_1_2.jpg
http://taxprof.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/12/tpc_2_2.jpg

Where did these graphs come from?



Claim #2:

A vote for Obama is a vote for bigger government.

This claim might be true, but it is relatively deceiving... in our history, even during the New Deal, our government has never been this blatantly partisan, that even the Justice Department has made partisan appointments. The abuse of power is staggering, and we have never been closer to "Big Brother" than we have with George Bush, or the GOP, at the helm. The government has expanded under a Republican President, so I am voting for the other party. I may not be voting my purest principles, but I am voting rationally. I DO NOT want another Republican in office. Period.
I prefer smaller government, but I also believe we only have two choices right now, and one is adversely worse than the other.

I'm not exactly sure how you can say the DMC is any better than the GOP. The Democrats during the 60s committed the largest blunder in Vietnam perhaps in the history of the country. They also bombed Laos, Cambodia, meddled in Italy, generated a coup in Guatemala, screwed about in the France/Algeria situation, screwed around in Ecuador, Congo, Brazil (there, very badly), Peru, Dominican Republic, Cuba (as usual, but worse than usual), Inodnesia (death of 500,000 because of our aid), Ghana, Uruguay, Chili, Greece, Bolivia, Guatemala (again). Now, granted, all of this was underway in the 50s (and since WWII)--which is the main point, it doesn't matter which of the two leading parties you choose, they're both unthinkably horrible--under Republican administration. Nixon obviously continued these things. So did Carter (especially in East Timor). All of these foreign actions coincide with expansions of terror within the borders, expansion of government programs (War on Drugs, etc.) against its citizens. Reagan during the 80s continued this horror against the Constitution. Clinton was no different. Now, Bush has simply continued this--I, contrary to many, do not necessarily view Bush as below someone like L. Johnson in "presidental rankings", they both killed unheard of amounts of people, and both should be (and should have been) executed for their mass murder--to extremes. Voting in Obama, as a way of avoiding the GOP, seems to me to avoid the issue--that these two parties are INCAPABLE of reforming themselves. They are wed to all of the worst vices--including mass murder--and have no reason to "change." Obama has a face of a less vulgar, blatant war machine--but, just as with Clinton or Carter, he will not back away from playing the neo-conservative when the time comes. This is obviously a prediction--but history seems to indicate this.

Plus, to me, voting in Democrat as if he will "save" the country--which is how most (not you) are viewing it, as they are fucking IDIOTS--merely furthers the illusion that they are accomplishing something through voting for these parties, will result in the deaths of many people in third world countries around the world, will further run down the country via the Federal Reserve and inflation (this may come to a head in Obama's presidency); and, 4 or 8 years later, a country of fools will attach themselves again to another talking head rhetoric-full candidate, with the hope that he will "change" the country for them. This shit's been going on forever; it partly is the persistent weakness of people that vote for the "lesser evil" that causes it.

The_Orlonater
06-29-2008, 09:12 AM
+1 To everything you just said. If Ron Paul ain't in though, we all have to decide on a candidate.

rockandrollsouls
06-29-2008, 11:43 AM
This shit's been going on forever; it partly is the persistent weakness of people that vote for the "lesser evil" that causes it.

If I could have summed up my many posts, that would be it. So unbelievably true and it's only gotten worse.

Kade
07-02-2008, 08:15 AM
Where did these graphs come from?




I'm not exactly sure how you can say the DMC is any better than the GOP. The Democrats during the 60s committed the largest blunder in Vietnam perhaps in the history of the country. They also bombed Laos, Cambodia, meddled in Italy, generated a coup in Guatemala, screwed about in the France/Algeria situation, screwed around in Ecuador, Congo, Brazil (there, very badly), Peru, Dominican Republic, Cuba (as usual, but worse than usual), Inodnesia (death of 500,000 because of our aid), Ghana, Uruguay, Chili, Greece, Bolivia, Guatemala (again). Now, granted, all of this was underway in the 50s (and since WWII)--which is the main point, it doesn't matter which of the two leading parties you choose, they're both unthinkably horrible--under Republican administration. Nixon obviously continued these things. So did Carter (especially in East Timor). All of these foreign actions coincide with expansions of terror within the borders, expansion of government programs (War on Drugs, etc.) against its citizens. Reagan during the 80s continued this horror against the Constitution. Clinton was no different. Now, Bush has simply continued this--I, contrary to many, do not necessarily view Bush as below someone like L. Johnson in "presidental rankings", they both killed unheard of amounts of people, and both should be (and should have been) executed for their mass murder--to extremes. Voting in Obama, as a way of avoiding the GOP, seems to me to avoid the issue--that these two parties are INCAPABLE of reforming themselves. They are wed to all of the worst vices--including mass murder--and have no reason to "change." Obama has a face of a less vulgar, blatant war machine--but, just as with Clinton or Carter, he will not back away from playing the neo-conservative when the time comes. This is obviously a prediction--but history seems to indicate this.

Plus, to me, voting in Democrat as if he will "save" the country--which is how most (not you) are viewing it, as they are fucking IDIOTS--merely furthers the illusion that they are accomplishing something through voting for these parties, will result in the deaths of many people in third world countries around the world, will further run down the country via the Federal Reserve and inflation (this may come to a head in Obama's presidency); and, 4 or 8 years later, a country of fools will attach themselves again to another talking head rhetoric-full candidate, with the hope that he will "change" the country for them. This shit's been going on forever; it partly is the persistent weakness of people that vote for the "lesser evil" that causes it.


I don't disagree with what your saying... but times change... right now, the GOP is a party of theocratic fascists... it's not the lesser of two evils, it defeating a true evil.

silus
07-02-2008, 12:50 PM
Two Reasons why we must elect a Democrat:

#1 The Democratic party is more containable by the people. Historically speaking, the greatest tool used against a population is fear. Republicans have mastered this. Democrats are unskilled in these matters, which bodes well for any opposition. The role of the Democrats is simply to create a more dependent, interconnected society, limiting self-responsibility. That is essentially the main threat.

#2 Also, why it is so important that a Democrat is elected is so people do not continue to look at the Democrats as the best political alternative. If Republicans are elected, people will funnel even more time and energy into the Democratic party. What is good for our cause is that more voters become disenfranchised. I suspect that is what brought most of us here to begin with.

SeanEdwards
07-07-2008, 10:53 PM
And by the way, it's not called a protest vote. It's called voting for a real candidate. I will NOT vote for someone that will ruin this country further. I will not vote for someone who doesn't follow the Constitution. I will vote for a REAL candidate. I don't care if you call it a protest vote because the media hasn't made them accessible and they are lesser known. I will vote for someone that values our law and land.

And your vote won't mean shit, because it's going to be either McSuck or Olama that wins, no matter how much you kick and scream and whine.

Kade
07-08-2008, 07:39 AM
Two Reasons why we must elect a Democrat:

#1 The Democratic party is more containable by the people. Historically speaking, the greatest tool used against a population is fear. Republicans have mastered this. Democrats are unskilled in these matters, which bodes well for any opposition. The role of the Democrats is simply to create a more dependent, interconnected society, limiting self-responsibility. That is essentially the main threat.

#2 Also, why it is so important that a Democrat is elected is so people do not continue to look at the Democrats as the best political alternative. If Republicans are elected, people will funnel even more time and energy into the Democratic party. What is good for our cause is that more voters become disenfranchised. I suspect that is what brought most of us here to begin with.

These are two good points.

I am already disenfranchised... in the matter of just a few weeks. The FISA vote will secure my growing hatred...

Liberals will fight. Mark my words, the more this country places fascists in control, the more we will fight to replace them... that is why the Democrats are strong right now... if, or when they fail, they will be tossed for the next alternative.

Your second point is valid. If the libertarians move more left, stop talking all this social bullshit nonsense, they will act as a net for the disenfranchised liberals...

AmericaFyeah92
07-08-2008, 02:22 PM
If the libertarians move more left, stop talking all this social bullshit nonsense, they will act as a net for the disenfranchised liberals...

if they stop being libertarians and become statists, u mean?

and what "social bullshit" are u talking about?

Kade
07-08-2008, 02:38 PM
if they stop being libertarians and become statists, u mean?

and what "social bullshit" are u talking about?

Abortion, to name one.

AmericaFyeah92
07-08-2008, 02:43 PM
Abortion, to name one.

that's a conservative position, not a libertarian one. The vast majority of libertarians favor abortion rights.

Ron Paul is anti-abortion, yes, but he was running as a conservative first, libertarian second

Kade
07-08-2008, 02:49 PM
that's a conservative position, not a libertarian one. The vast majority of libertarians favor abortion rights.

Ron Paul is anti-abortion, yes, but he was running as a conservative first, libertarian second

A opportunist neo-con is running the Libertarian party right now... what are you suggesting to me?