ssj john wrote:Obama would be good, except I just don't think he has enough experience. He keeps saying he'll change things but he doesn't say how?
I would ask you to do a little more research into your politics. To say that "Obama would be good," and then say, "He keeps saying he'll change things but he doesn't say how?" is pretty contradictory -- and you managed to contradict yourself in two lines.
ssj john wrote:Right now Hillary and Obama both are running on a "Change" ticket. For the most part people want change... A change from Bush. But the kind of change Hillary and Obama have in mind is the destruction of America as we know it.
They're running on a "change" ticket for votes. Will they actually change anything? No.
I say that because, in order for someone to initiate change, they themselves have to demonstrate change. When you change something, you pretty much need to be different -- for that is what change is, it's going from what was to what will be, "what was" being the norm and "what will be" being something different -- which is why it's called a change.
People expect me to believe that Obama and Hillary actually mean that they'll change anything? When have they been different? When has that ever happened? When have either of them changed anything, or strived for a change? What do either of them say or do that makes me think that they aren't actually a "normal Democrat," a line of thinking that I'm already at odds with
? What makes them sympathetic to me, the American citizen?
The fact is, neither of them do anything that they say. They lambast Bush about the Iraq War -- Hillary frigging voted for it! They lambast Bush about the defecit, yet both of them are members of the Congressional pension program. They are both for gun control, despite the fact that damn near every statistic in the book says that gun control either does nothing to crime rates, or actually increases it
Do I want either of them? No.
Bflat5 wrote:Do yourself and your country a favor. Ignore anything and everything a politician says. 99.997% of it is total BS! Instead look at their voting records. That will tell you exactly what kind of garbage they'll drag into the white house with them.
I liked what Ron Paul says -- mostly because it's direct, pertinent to the question, and consistent from debate-to-debate and audience-to-audience
. The man means what he says, he literally uses the same words and phrases in every debate. Just listen to him say it, he says he's a "strict Constitutionalist" most every chance that he gets, and almost any time he's on a foreign policy issue, he'll say "don't police the world, no nation building." Seriously. Go check it out for yourself.
Hillary on the other hand, in a campaign speech in Iowa that she would keep certain troops in Iraq training the Iraqi police and safeguarding the essential spots. Meanwhile, her campaign simultaneously
put out a press release saying, quote: "Today in Iowa, Hillary Clinton announced her plan to end the war in Iraq and urged President Bush to act immediately."
You raise a good point, though -- even Ron Paul, even if he is dead serious and dead honest about everything he says -- we shouldn't trust him. We should inherently distrust him, we should inherently distrust government. It is our duty as the governed to ensure that what we receive from our government is truth -- and only truth.
So why then, do I support Ron Paul? Because his votes line up with what he says. He rants about our putrid financial system, about how printing money from thin air is utterly stupid... and I have to agree. What has Ron Paul done about it? Well, he does not participate in the Congressional pension program, he returns a portion of his Congressional office budget to the US Treasury each year, and he has never taken a government-paid junket. Those are matters that directly affect him -- the fact that he takes his stances to heart enough to turn down at least forty thousand dollars a year
means something to me. But that's not all, he has never voted for a tax increase or a bill requiring an "unbalanced" Federal budget (pork-barrel bill).
He has never voted for a federal restriction on guns, in fact -- he has stated that it's not unreasonable for ordinary people to be permitted to purchase automatic weapons. I like this fellow.
He voted against regulating the internet -- something that means something tremendous to me... because in my opinion, as long as the internet remains un-regulated, democracy will someday prevail over this faux-pas that we call a "republic."
Bflat5 wrote:Barak Hussein Obama... I strongly urge anyone who is even toying with the idea of voting for him to do some real research on him, his family and his past. To put it lightly, it doesn't exactly align with his claims of Christianity and his love for this country.
This is irrelevant. Do some research yourself -- because his middle name is Hussein, and because he has a Muslim background is perhaps more reason TO elect him as President. We're clearly COMPLETELY out of touch with the Middle East, dismissing all of those who'd put a bomb on their chest and blow themselves up as "religious zealots." No, I'm sorry -- I think it might be because they're pissed that we're over there, and that we'd been over there for a good decade prior to 9/11 because Saudi Arabia permitted us to use their airspace and Osama bin Laden warned the Saudi government not to, because we (the US) would never leave
How's that feel? Knowing bin Laden was right, and that we, the United States of America, carried out his prophetic warning? Again, though -- I digress.
I will never, ever make my vote based on how someone chooses to spend their Sunday mornings -- be it at church or in bed. Damn those people who do, in a nation of free religion.
Bflat5 wrote:No one should ever, EVER vote against their own country. Every vote for Hillary and Obama is exactly that.
This is highly opinionated. I agree with Abraham Lincoln when he said, "I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises. The great point is to bring them the real facts." Now, I'll be honest -- it's pretty narcissistic of me, but I think people who support Hillary and Obama are... mostly un-informed of a lot of their past.
I really think most people would be voting for Ron Paul... but then, I don't think many people give him a chance. He's an "un-electable." He's a crazy.
After all, Hillary and Obama have already admitted Ron Paul was right long before either of them: He never voted for it.
Bflat5 wrote:Our 2nd amendment is one of the most important we have. Why? Because it guarantees us that we have the right to defend ourselves against all enemies. It also protects our other bill of rights.
People like Joe Biden, Carolyn McCarthy, Nancy Pelosi, Clintons, Obama, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, etc. Want to see the 2nd amendment abolished.
Quote: "The day you hand your guns in, that means that the country's no good to live in anymore." - Nick Pilla, Restauranteur and Gun Owner in Great Britain
What people don't see, and what will inevitably be the doom of this country is that... politicians can and will get their way if people let them. If politicians want to ban guns, they will. They'll never get an outright gun ban passed today. But an assault weapons ban? Well, that makes sense, right? Of course.
And then in ten years, when the people are good and softened up and have forgotten the fight for assault weapons, who'll need a shotgun, or a small pistol?
And then in ten more years, who'll need anything that's semi-automatic...?
Fifty years, and you've lost your guns. People wonder why people fight such "logical" laws like the Assault Weapons Ban or a National Gun Registry -- because once you give an inch, once those smarmy politicians get that wedge forcibly in, they will take a mile.
"Don't let the American legislators put the short end of the wedge in, because once they find a way of doing it, and once it's successful, they will do it time and time again." - A British Guy.
Bflat5 wrote:Here's the problem, well besides telling us we no longer have the right to defend ourselves. They want to say the wording of the 2nd says "the people" refers to government and not us lowly little citizens. Ok, fine let's say that's true, it's not, but lets pretend it is. Our other bill of rights also refers to the freedoms of "the people". So when they are allowed to tell us the 2nd has to go, it won't be long for our other freedoms to die along with it. This whole freedom of speech thing irritates most politicians as it is, so the 1st amendment will be the next to go.
The First Amendment is already under fire: Ever heard of internet regulation? Perhaps the term "net neutrality" comes to mind?
I am a firm believer that the "old guard" of politicians are done. The internet truly is the great equalizer, quite like a gun. People are not stupid -- they are only as smart as the facts that they're aware of. If they're not given the whole story, well... they won't know the whole story.
The trouble is, it has always been difficult to get the facts. Voting isn't hard -- voting is easy. You go into a booth, scribble in a dot, and leave. Doing research on candidates? It's quite difficult, it is a task -- but it is becoming easier. It's very easy nowadays, especially with the internet, WikiPedia, Facebook, content on demand. It's incredible -- people don't see that we now truly have this medium through which we can communicate instantaneously
to people on the other side of the planet? With text, audio and video, with the ability to share ALL of the information available online? People, that's... that's something that no one ever believed could ever come true. That's the stuff of fairy tales, and yet here we are -- debating politics through that almost clairvoyant medium.
Call me crazy, but I think the internet is (it sort of already has) single-handedly going to usher-in a change in humankind. For once, it will finally be easier to talk, to distribute information whose credibility can be checked in an instant. True democracy, I think, is at hand -- and politicians are terrified of that. Isn't it funny that we now have a debate on how the internet should be regulated? Look at Iran, they do not permit any internet faster than 128K ISDN. Look at China, the "Great Firewall of China" restricts any sites but state-approved ones. The experts in subjugation know what's best, and we have a bill that they would admire in our Congress?
And wouldn't you know it -- the candidates that the Internet support are Ron Paul... and Barack Obama. Hmm.
Bflat5 wrote:If America was attacked tonight we won't have enough police or military to defend our people or country. What we do have here would be too busy protecting themselves, their families and the politicians, who by the way will be locked securely away in an underground bunker. The people of this country will be on their own... Who will protect you and your family?
Last edited Fri, 4th Apr 2008, 12:38pm; edited 1 times in total.