Who would/will you vote for in the 2008 Election?

[MiKe 51-50]

I dont think theres anything real wrong with mccain, theres some senior strategists that are screwing everything up. Look at how he picked palin, obviously his aides told him to do that. And they probably told him to "suspend" his campaign to go to washington to help the economy when in fact he really went to go to an interview with katie couric. WTF?

and look at him jumping from topic to topic on the campaign trail. His aides are trying to establish a point but each one doesn't stick so they keep throwing new ones in for him and it just makes it a whole lot worse. First he says obama palls around with terrorists, then talks about joe the plumber, then says obama is a socialist, and now is trying to distance himself from bush. his aides are screwing everything up

Yea, even mccain has second thought about palin pick.

[Love]

I dont think theres anything real wrong with mccain, theres some senior strategists that are screwing everything up. Look at how he picked palin, obviously his aides told him to do that. Mccain met her twice before picking her as VP. I don't think anyone would do that without outside persuasion. And they probably told him to "suspend" his campaign to grab attention when in fact he really went to go to an interview with katie couric. WTF?

and look at him jumping from topic to topic on the campaign trail. His aides are trying to establish a point but each one doesn't stick so they keep throwing new ones in for him and it just makes it a whole lot worse. First he says obama palls around with terrorists, then talks about joe the plumber, then says obama is a socialist, and now is trying to distance himself from bush. his aides are screwing everything up

how he runs his campaign should give you an idea of how he will lead

[Doppleganger]

i'd feel safer if Clinton was his running mate, the b1tch was a cunt but she had a good head on her shoulders...

I feel the exact same way. Too bad she's not his VP ><

Have you guys seen this video? This really really pissed me off. Seriously this shit is ridiculous.
Code: Select all

[boast]

probably for bob barr

[Tasdik]

Call me an asshole if you want, but I don't believe the US presidents should have Africa on their list of priorities at all. That's the business of other collaborative powers, like the UN. We don't run Africa, we aren't the reason they're starving. The constitution really isn't needed when you consider that Africans aren't subject to the US' bill of rights.

If we somehow support the UN with their business there then that's fine. But forget spending any of our tax money on it. Get yourself fed then worry about everyone else.

I'm Tasdik and I approve this message.

[Lum_Lum]

Obama/Biden

[John_Doe]

barotix, from the sounds of it I can say you would make a great theologian,

The founders intended for a republic based on federalism. The constitution does not give congress or the executive branch the authority to deal with social or economic issues; as for your, "where doesn't it?" that argument is fallacious. Using that logic one can render the constitution useless One cannot just simply render the Bill of Rights useless, the constitution to my knowledge dose not describe to any degree how much or how little influence which branch can inflict upon the people, the only thing the constitution does in my opnion is seperation of powers. You bring up the foundling fathers and what they wanted this nation to be like, and by the looks of it, it an't happening, so stop dwelling on the past for progress, as the great Enlightenment thinkers believe, intellectual knowledge is the only way to political, social, and economical progress. because it doesn't give narrowly defined restrictions on the federal government. What use is a constitution if it doesn't do it's job? Point out in the constitution were you believe it isn't doing it's job? All you've pointed out is what every 5th grader should know, how each branch of the government should function. But though admendments it cannot be set in stone. The constitution is not a blank piece of paper that can be interpreted at the will of a few men I'd rather have a group of representatives that I choose (representative democracy) to interpret the constitution then have everyone twist the constitution to thier will to fit thier need. Who knows maybe you like it that way, thats your view support individual interpretion of the constitution wether good or bad. As Voltaire said "humans were rarely good enough to govern themselves and need a strong monarch." . It has a defined purpose; a purpose that was defined many times by the founding founders in their letters and especially in the federalist papers. The only thing history can do here is allow a comparision, seeing as it was way different then when they had fundimental issues to deal with, drawing on the past will not help promote progress. The constitution was created to keep government weak, not strong. Your logic is counterproductive to the idea of a free republic based on federalism. The founders clarified this many times. We don't give any rights to make choices to any representatives. If your right, where is this right then? Give me an example of how a person may go and make a choose that would effect the state?
Federal

Congress

• Raise a Militia for defense. This does not mean draft.
  
• Raise a Navy.
• Coin gold and silver only.
• regulate interstate commerce (not intrastate).
• Raise indirect taxes. (Ex. Gasoline Tax)
• Raise direct apportioned taxes. This does not mean tax labor.
• Sign Treaties.
• Declare War.
• Protect the Constitution.

Executive

• Lead the Army.
• Lead the Navy.
• Veto Unconstitutional Bills.

Judicial:

• Strike down unconstitutional bills.

Everything else was to be decided by the local governments and the individuals within the local communities. Had the founders intended for European style parliamentary government where the majority ruled over the minority then they would have created that from the get-go. The founders made the amendment process so the constitution can be changed as time changes. And that is what has happened there is no rule set in stone about how the government should act, there is just the rights of people that governement cannot destroy. if they intended for a European government they wouldn't had seperated church from state.

Democracy is no better than monarchy; it is merely the autocratic rule of a majority at the expense of the minority. Freedom is best protected in a federalist republic or decentralized confederation. Again this is your view, what you view as best for individual freedom may not work in times like these.

If needed I can find the many times you bashed ether parties views and suggested your own

=/ That is not proposing what is best for society because the parties don't get to determine what is best for society. People in their own communities decide what is best for themselves. They don't go to work at the behest of government agents, they don't participate in commerce or trade because the government says so, and they don't act in accordance with government created morals. The constitution was created to prevent absolute autocracy in every form. The government has no right to force conformity. Here to me at least your talking as if the Bill of Rights didn't exist. It's role is to uphold contracts and to prevent the initiation of force. The constitution's job is to make sure the government does not participate in force against the people.

“But if the government undertakes to control and to raise wages, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to care for all who may be in want, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to support all unemployed workers, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to lend interest-free money to all borrowers, and cannot do it; if .... ‘The state considers that its purpose is to enlighten, to develop, to enlarge, to strengthen, to spiritualize, and to sanctify the soul of the people’ -- and if the government cannot do all of these things, what then? Is it not certain that after every government failure -- which, alas! is more than probable -- there will be an equally inevitable revolution?”

-Frederic Bastiat, “The Law,” June, 1850

This was suppose to prove what point?

Reality can be doubt, until it is beyond doubt you cannot judge what is true.

So there is no truth apparently. it basically means your truth can be doubt thus it cannot be the absolute truth so stop mouthing it everywhere.

A discussion is nothing more than two or more people expressing their views in a civil manner.

agreed, were not getting anywhere are we

[Bop]

i dont like either of the two main candidates...but of the two I have chosen the Obama/Biden ticket, I could vote for an independent but, like ppl say, pick a side of the fence :p

[Barotix]

Why do you keep twisting my words? The constitution is there to protect all our liberties from the encroachments of a large national government. To say otherwise is preposterous. I find it ironic that you say I shouldn't look to the past for answers to the present yet you quote Voltaire. The founding fathers anticipated all of our current woes, and they believed that we were fully protected from large European Style bureaucracies by the Constitution. You're advocating a totalitarian state that is absolute and unquestionable. The Constitution makes no provisions for such measures. In a country where the "Monarch" is always right the freedoms of the people are constantly thrown out the window, "for their own good." Since people are so unruly why doesn't government just take over and subsidize everything? Since people are incapable of taking care of themselves and making decisions for themselves, why doesn't government just provide for everything? Bastiat's quote was a direct attack on your Nationalist values. How dare you say I'm the one throwing out the bill of rights; it is you that posted, "where doesn't it." So I ask again; where does it give the Government the right to regulate our lives? If our lives are controlled by the state then what freedom do we have? What good is a bill of rights if the government can - at will - decide past events are invalid and suddenly make sweeping legislation to take away all our rights. What about supreme court decisions? Saying looking to the past does not bring prosperity is an absurdity in itself. We must learn from history to make sure we aren't doomed to repeat it. We must not twist history or we are doomed to repeat it.

Two Fallacious Arguments from you and yet you insist that you're right.

[John_Doe]

Why do you keep twisting my words? Show me where? ANd I will corret myself The constitution is there to protect all our liberties from the encroachments of a large national government. Please specify these so call liberities that the constitution is trying to protect from the Encroaching government? Seeing as the governement would have to go through getting the whole country to agree on an admendment to the constitution, I don't know how there gonna do this To say otherwise is preposterous. I find it ironic that you say I shouldn't look to the past for answers to the present yet you quote Voltaire. You are looking to the past for progress, I am simply stating my belief with Voltaire's quote that man are truely ever worthy of governing themselves. See how i don't slip it in like you did with your last statement as if making a person look bad if they don't agree with my view. The founding fathers anticipated all of our current woes, and they believed that we were fully protected from large European Style bureaucracies by the Constitution. The founding fathers if you must bring them up, heres another quote "The founding fathers did not believe in the average person's ability to make wise decisions, 1. In their opinion, voting was best left to wealthy, white property-owning males 2. The people who own the lant ought to govern it. John Jay, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. So if people support ether canadiadte who are you to keep slipping in "If someone said they support Obama/McCain because they agree with a strategy of preemptive war, totalitarian domestic policies, and false free trade legislation" or something of that matter, and who are you to say that the foundling fathers had anticipiated the economic, social, and political problems that we are facing today. As I've already stated there is no way our ideals and values today can be match to the ideas and values they had then. Its like comparing Christians to Protestants. You're advocating a totalitarian state that is absolute and unquestionable. When did I do that? This discussion started on the whole basis of you constantly bashing and attacking ether people of this forums choose of president and then slipping wether inderect or direct, your views ether they agreed with you or they supported some strategy of preemtive war, totalitarian domestic policies, and false free trade legistrations. The only I've done is attacking and questioned your views and how you advocated them, the fact that I can do that means your views can be doubt thus meaning it could and is probaly a bunch of theologian bs. The Constitution makes no provisions for such measures. In a country where the "Monarch" is always right the freedoms of the people are constantly thrown out the window, "for their own good." Since people are so unruly why doesn't government just take over and subsidize everything? They can't because we have the bill of rights, here again your slipping it in as if I support total governement control. When have I suggested during this whole thing that governement or a Monarch knew whats best for the people? The only thing I've been bashing is why you think you know whats best for the people, if needed i can bring up past post by you, an in doing so I've present my view and with that Voltaire's quote "humans were rarely good enough to govern themselves and need a strong monarch." and from the looks of it your already asuming from it that I'm in favor of monarchy or something. Since people are incapable of taking care of themselves and making decisions for themselves, why doesn't government just provide for everything? Cause it would cost alot of money, and I among many would protest. And here your assuming that I believe Humans cannot do anything for themselves, I've only stated that humans cannot govern themselves because it would eventaully be might=right. But its your view not mine. I know what I said, lets see how you read respond to it. Bastiat's quote was a direct attack on your Nationalist values. How dare you say I'm the one throwing out the bill of rights; it is you that posted, "where doesn't it." Here, when I wrote that to respond to your statement, it looked like you worte your respond as if the Bill of Rights didn't exist as if the whole system that our government runs on didn't exist, as if they already controlled every aspect of our lives. Again this is my reason as why I wrote that, you may interept as many way as you want. Here your assuming I have nationalist values, I have values but what they are can be a range of things, not just you and your bookworn difinition of Nationalist. Heres an example. anyone supporting Obama would consider him haveing socialist views right? Yet the Socialist party does not support nor endorse him, they in fact support Macain. go ahead check it yourself. So I ask again; where does it give the Government the right to regulate our lives? If our lives are controlled by the state then what freedom do we have? Here again your speaking as if the Bill of Rights didn't exist? And again I ask, point out these umm things that the government are controlling without our knowledge and that did pass through without our representitatives knowing? What good is a bill of rights if the government can - at will - decide past events are invalid and suddenly make sweeping legislation to take away all our rights. Point me to the info that your basing this theory from, again your presenting your theories, but not in the most correct way, I call it a theory cause I've yet to see evidence from you thus you can't prove it's fact nor will I try to prove its false because I have no reason to try to influence you and your thinking, at least not someone on the web, and yea the whole government is just gonna make a legistrations that takes away the Bill of Rights without taking any heat from the State, I'd love to see how that go down. What about supreme court decisions? What about them? Saying looking to the past does not bring prosperity is an absurdity in itself. We must learn from history to make sure we aren't doomed to repeat it. The only thing history provides is an answer to why things are as they are today. Again that is my view and if you feel that I am insisting I'm right then go ahead every individual listens to whatever they want to hear even if they twist it, see how I slipped that one in. You should know what I mean by know when I say that. We must not twist history or we are doomed to repeat it. Again I would love for you to point out this twist that we've doing to history? This statement has absolutly nothing to do with the decussion in whole but I would like to see this info of which you are basing your views.

Two Fallacious Arguments from you and yet you insist that you're right. When did I do that? there this whole discussion I've atk only your views with my views thus eliminating thier authenticy as truth or the right view. Not one time had I advocate that my views were the correct views.

Bunch of idiots. They don't seem to realize how much the American Negro is banking on* Obama's promises of false hope.

This is what I've been attacking from the start of this decussion, You agreed like everyone else on that thread that those 2 guys were idiot, yet you slip this in (this is your view is it not) and you know being the smart person that you are, you know it will stick to most people. Its like going to vote on the 4th and while your filling the form the guys sees your a Obama supporter and goes "Hey Joe we got another supporter of false hope." and the guy would be talking to Joe kinda quiet yet load enough for you to hear just so you actually have second thoughts about your choose. At least thats what I believe your doing, if you view it different then so be it. If others are willing to tolerate it then I'll just sit and eat my honey bun.

[Barotix]

When I pose a series of rhetorical questions and point out the absurdity behind each statement you take it as my view and attempt to argue against it. You argue against something I never implied, intended, posted, or expected. You Straw Man relentlessly. You make fallacious arguments, such as:

"Where doesn't it say government can't do all these things."

I rebut:
With that argument one can say; "Oh, since it doesn't say that Government can't eavesdrop on the conversations of citizens it must mean they can." That argument can be used to authorize legislation that strips of many of our liberties (rights) - this has already been done in the form of the 1978 FISA act, the Patriot Act, the Home Grown Terrorist Act, the Economic Rescue Plan, the following FISA acts, the executive order that gives the executive branch the power to declare martial law, suspend habeas corpus, take our guns (to prevent counter-government measures), arrest us without charges, and torture us for dissent. These acts were voted in by both McCain and Obama; with the exception of the executive order since it is an executive order and the 1978 FISA act; if you wish to deny the existence of these pieces of legislation then feel free to do so; denial of reality those not change reality. It is not my view that these pieces of legislation are totalitarian in nature, it is fact. - The Constitution makes no prevision, what so ever for these acts. If the Constitution is meant to protect a free people from government - as the founders intended - then such acts cannot and should not be tolerated. This is why I called your views nationalist because your arguments warrant totalitarian measures in the name of nationalism because the people were "rarely decent enough to govern themselves."

Again this is your view, what you view as best for individual freedom may not work in times like these.

Another nationalist statement. In times like what? In times of war against so called terrorism? That is the perfect opportunity for government to steal rights; under the guise of national security - it has already happened* patriot act and home grown terrorism act - do you honestly think the government knows what is best for every individual? Another Fallacious argument:

The government has no right to force conformity. Here to me at least your talking as if the Bill of Rights didn't exist.

You take my statement out of context and act as if the bill of rights is forcing conformity. The bill of rights insures our Social and Economic liberties. You Straw Man over and over and over again. Does it feel good to set up a false pretense and argue against it.

to interpret the constitution then have everyone twist the constitution to thier will to fit thier need. Who knows maybe you like it that way, thats your view support individual interpretion of the constitution wether good or bad.

Here you twist my words again. I do not believe you lack reading comprehension but maybe you should check your arguments as they are highly flawed and fallacious. I would rather not argue with someone that cannot read properly and wishes to put words in my mouth. Where did I say people should interpret the constitution as they wish? It was a counter-argument to your fallacious "where doesn't it say [...]" statement. If you cannot see the flawed logic in your own statements then how can I even argue against you? If you cannot weed out rhetorical jargon from my own views then what good is arguing?

I called you out on the Hypocrisy of your quoting Voltaire then making this statement:

The only thing history can do here is allow a comparision, seeing as it was way different then when they had fundimental issues to deal with, drawing on the past will not help promote progres

Just as the founders - according to you - had different issues to deal with so did the people of Voltaire's time; therefore, his statements are only applicable to his people and should be used as a comparison not a literal guide. It is easy to Straw Man, but I choose not to. Your argument can be used to render supreme court decisions null&void - "They were in different times - they had different issues - what applied then no longer applies now." It can also be used to render the Constitution itself useless as "it was created in a different time - with different issues - and does not apply to our time." Your argument used to point out your nationalist, totalitarian views. I'm sure Hamilton would be proud.

A warning, John Quincy Adams (In relation to our many unjustified wars, coups, and entangling alliances) -
"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of here voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. [...] She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxim of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would no longer the ruler of her own spirit"

And that is what has happened there is no rule set in stone about how the government should act, there is just the rights of people that governement cannot destroy. if they intended for a European government they wouldn't had seperated church from state.

The Constitution is to protect our natural human liberties. The separation of Church and State is there to protect us; it isn't there because the founders had a personal preference. They saw what happened when government chooses a religion and imposes it's morals on the populace, but this idea of imposing morals does not only apply to religion. The founders believed people should be free to trade, associate, live, and work as they saw fit. The only time government was meant to intervene was in the case of contracts. The AoC were superior in terms of securing our liberties and limiting the government in comparison to the Constitution that had to be explained one to many times by the founders. Simply because the Hamiltonians - who, might I add, had little intellectual credibility as compared to the Jeffersonians - believed in adopting the British System does not make it the proper system. The Jeffersonians believed the people were more than fit to be the runner of their lives and pockets. Jefferson, himself, may have not been present at the Constitutional Convention but his spirit was well embodied in those like Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington who stringently opposed the Constitution on grounds that it would be used to usurp the people of their liberties. Have you never read the federalist or anti-federalist papers? Their words echo to our days.

Cause it would cost alot of money, and I among many would protest. And here your assuming that I believe Humans cannot do anything for themselves, I've only stated that humans cannot govern themselves because it would eventaully be might=right. But its your view not mine. I know what I said, lets see how you read respond to it.

You would protest? Then why have you not protested the agriculture subsidies, the welfare-warfare the state, the usurpation of state sovereignty by the Lincoln Administration, why have you - and many others - not stood together in protest of the patriot act, the federal reserve, the federal income tax, the troops we have stationed in 130 countries, etc. I believe an Individual - like myself - can decide what is right for Himself. I do not believe an individual has the right to force his right or wrong views on others. I don't agree with Individual or government coercion. I do believe in civil persuasion through debating. I believe people should have freedom of choice that is unaffected by government mandates.

EDIT* If you've been paying any attention to the policies of the main parties you would see little fundamental differences. If you believe I am wrong then feel free to point out the fundamental differences in War, liberty, 16th&17th Amendments, the federal reserve, the constitution, and the role of the individual.

EDIT* Why are you calling me a theologian?
EDIT* They are our public servants; the founders never intended for an absolute state. Unless you're talking about Alexander Hamilton, Father of American Corportism and Central Banking.

[Kirkaldi]

Kirkaldi one side question for you, what is McCain trying to win ?

The competition, the war, and everything that must be won.

[Barotix]

Kirkaldi one side question for you, what is McCain trying to win ?

The competition, the war, and everything that must be won.

Who are we fighting? Running for president is not a competition. What else must be won?

[John_Doe]

When I pose a series of rhetorical questions and point out the absurdity behind each statement you take it as my view and attempt to argue against it. You argue against something I never implied, intended, posted, or expected. You Straw Man relentlessly. You make fallacious arguments, such as:

"Where doesn't it say government can't do all these things."

I rebut:
With that argument one can say; "Oh, since it doesn't say that Government can't eavesdrop on the conversations of citizens it must mean they can." Here you acting as if you knew what the Governement was thinking or how there doing thier job. You've listed a bunch of acts that went into effect because they pasted through the people we elected, not the government That argument can be used to authorize legislation that strips of many of our liberties (rights) - this has already been done in the form of the 1978 FISA act, the Patriot Act, the Home Grown Terrorist Act, the Economic Rescue Plan, the following FISA acts,These acts mostly the first few, if by strip our liberties do you mean of being a terrorist? Please specify these rights that we are losing? That are protected by the Bill of Rights. the executive order again point me to this info that that your basing this view of yours on? that gives the executive branch the power to declare martial law, suspend habeas corpus, take our guns (to prevent counter-government measures), arrest us without charges, and torture us for dissent. These acts were voted in by both McCain and Obama; with the exception of the executive order since it is an executive order and the 1978 FISA act; if you wish to deny the existence of these pieces of legislation then feel free to do so; denial of reality those not change reality. The altering of reality to fit your view also does not change reality. It is not my view that these pieces of legislation are totalitarian in nature, it is fact. - The Constitution makes no prevision, what so ever for these acts. If the Constitution is meant to protect a free people The constitution was meant to keep the powers of each branch in check the Bill of Rights was meant to protect the people from the majority/government from government - as the founders intended - then such acts cannot and should not be tolerated. This is why I called your views nationalist because your arguments warrant totalitarian measures in the name of nationalism because the people were "rarely decent enough to govern themselves." Here, your calling my views based on your views Nationalist, not because of totalitarian measures but because of your views of totalitarian measures.

Again this is your view, what you view as best for individual freedom may not work in times like these.

Another nationalist statement. In times like what? In times of war against so called terrorism? That is the perfect opportunity for government to steal rights; under the guise of national security - it has already happened* patriot act and home grown terrorism act Again what right did we lose under these acts that were protected by the Bill of Rights? - do you honestly think the government knows what is best for every individual? As stated before, I said what gives you the right to say whats the best for people, you brought up individual freedom, thus I brought up my view that humans are ever worthy of governing themselves, due to the fact that it would end in might=right, who said I supported government control? I merely threw my view of individual freedom out there. And you jumped upon it useing your reasoning labeling my a nationalist and government control supporter. Another Fallacious argument:

The government has no right to force conformity. Here to me at least your talking as if the Bill of Rights didn't exist.

You take my statement out of context and act as if the bill of rights is forcing conformity. The bill of rights insures our Social and Economic liberties. You Straw Man over and over and over again. Does it feel good to set up a false pretense and argue against it. I can say the same a thing about you, but I need not to.

to interpret the constitution then have everyone twist the constitution to thier will to fit thier need. Who knows maybe you like it that way, thats your view support individual interpretion of the constitution wether good or bad.

Here you twist my words again I was merely copying your way of slipping in my view in an indirect manner.. I do not believe you lack reading comprehension but maybe you should check your arguments as they are highly flawed and fallacious. I've yet to put up an agruement, merely attacking your views with mine, and pointing out why you should have any say to what people need. I would rather not argue with someone that cannot read properly and wishes to put words in my mouth. Where did I say people should interpret the constitution as they wish? It was a counter-argument to your fallacious "where doesn't it say [...]" statement. If you cannot see the flawed logic in your own statements then how can I even argue against you? If you cannot weed out rhetorical jargon from my own views then what good is arguing?

I called you out on the Hypocrisy of your quoting Voltaire then making this statement:

The only thing history can do here is allow a comparision, seeing as it was way different then when they had fundimental issues to deal with, drawing on the past will not help promote progres

Just as the founders - according to you - had different issues to deal with so did the people of Voltaire's time; therefore, his statements are only applicable to his people and should be used as a comparison not a literal guide. When did I suggest it be use as a literal guide? I used it as a basis of my view did I ask you to do the same? lol your asking me to not put bs in your mouth and here you go. It is easy to Straw Man, but I choose not to. I'll be the Straw Man if it makes you feel better Your argument can be used to render supreme court decisions null&void - "They were in different times - they had different issues - what applied then no longer applies now." It can also be used to render the Constitution itself useless as "it was created in a different time - with different issues - and does not apply to our time." Again point out where I said it wouldn't apply to our time? I've said that you should not looked to the past for progress, or anwsers, that they only allowed us to understand why things happen as they happen today. You've yet to answer me on each question I've ask since you pointed out my so called hypracy Your argument used to point out your nationalist, totalitarian views. I'm sure Hamilton would be proud.

A warning, John Quincy Adams (In relation to our many unjustified wars, coups, and entangling alliances) -
"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of here voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. [...] She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxim of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would no longer the ruler of her own spirit"

And that is what has happened there is no rule set in stone about how the government should act, there is just the rights of people that governement cannot destroy. if they intended for a European government they wouldn't had seperated church from state.

The Constitution is to protect our natural human liberties. The separation of Church and State is there to protect us; it isn't there because the founders had a personal preference. They saw what happened when government chooses a religion and imposes it's morals on the populace, but this idea of imposing morals does not only apply to religion. The founders believed people should be free to trade, associate, live, and work as they saw fit. The only time government was meant to intervene was in the case of contracts. The AoC were superior in terms of securing our liberties and limiting the government in comparison to the Constitution that had to be explained one to many times by the founders. Simply because the Hamiltonians - who, might I add, had little intellectual credibility as compared to the Jeffersonians - believed in adopting the British System does not make it the proper system. The Jeffersonians believed the people were more than fit to be the runner of their lives and pockets. Jefferson, himself, may have not been present at the Constitutional Convention but his spirit was well embodied in those like Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington who stringently opposed the Constitution on grounds that it would be used to usurp the people of their liberties. Again point me to these info that you are basing your theory from. Have you never read the federalist or anti-federalist papers? Their words echo to our days.

Cause it would cost alot of money, and I among many would protest. And here your assuming that I believe Humans cannot do anything for themselves, I've only stated that humans cannot govern themselves because it would eventaully be might=right. But its your view not mine. I know what I said, lets see how you read respond to it.

You would protest? Then why have you not protested the agriculture subsidies, the welfare-warfare the state, the usurpation of state sovereignty by the Lincoln Administration, why have you - and many others - not stood together in protest of the patriot act, the federal reserve, the federal income tax, the troops we have stationed in 130 countries, etc. And you have? If you did pic or it did not happen? You preach this self rightous individualism yet you have yet to prove that you have done such things, I can compare you to Al Gore and his view on Global Warming, and how his electrical bill is the highest anyone can think of for someone who advocates a Greener earth. Until you have shown proft of some sort of effort by yourself in this whole affair stfu with this theologian bs. I believe an Individual - like myself - can decide what is right for Himself. I do not believe an individual has the right to force his right or wrong views on others. With this in mind I would like to bring up my last post with that quote from you, stfu with your indirect slanders. I don't agree with Individual or government coercion. I believe people should have freedom of choice that is unaffected by government mandates.

EDIT* If you've been paying any attention to the policies of the main parties you would see little fundamental differences. Must I really point out these differences? If you believe I am wrong then feel free to point out the fundamental differences in War, liberty, 16th&17th Amendments, the federal reserve, the constitution, and the role of the individual. If I must play the philosophy card then I will. If your gonna label my responds Fallacious please do point out how, I will if needed correct myself, cause two people can play this game.

[Barotix]

Have you read the Patriot act or the Home Grown Terrorism act?

if by strip our liberties do you mean of being a terrorist?

The acts have nothing to do with foreign terrorist. They're all targeted at American citizens. What does the 400 page Economic Rescue Plan have to do with foreign terrorist?

Here you acting as if you knew what the Governement was thinking or how there doing thier job. You've listed a bunch of acts that went into effect because they pasted through the people we elected, not the government

/facepalm. The people we elect are the government. So, you're saying; A normal citizen cannot comprehend government. We're all just a bunch of ignorant fools, eh?

again point me to this info that that your basing this view of yours on?

I give you the specific names of these bills and you want me to give you info? Read the bills, ffs.

The altering of reality to fit your view also does not change reality.

Yeah because pointing out totalitarian bills that permit the government to strip us of our liberties is really altering realty. Sure, let's go with that buddy.

The constitution was meant to keep the powers of each branch in check the Bill of Rights was meant to protect the people from the majority/government

Why is it meant to keep the branches of government in check? Before the addition of the bill of rights - at the demands of the anti-federalist - the federalist believed the constitution inherently protected our rights because it kept government weak, small, and limited. What is your argument against that?

Here, your calling my views based on your views Nationalist, not because of totalitarian measures but because of your views of totalitarian measures.

Off of my views, you say? My views of totalitarian measures? Are you in some kind of denial? Have you read the patriot act? Have you at least read a paraphrased version of it? Are do you just by the BS media pundits spit?

Again what right did we lose under these acts that were protected by the Bill of Rights?

Patriot Act/HGTA/Executive Order:
The right to free speech.
The right to habeas corpus.
The right to trial by jury.
The right to life.
The right to privacy.
The right to dissent.
It gives the president the right to declare martial law in the case of what he considers a national emergency.
Question: What in the hell does any of that have to do with Terrorist when it's all targeted at American citizens.

The economic bailout rescue plan covers.
The right to property.
The right to associate on the market.
The right to economic freedom in general.
The economic rescue plan had nothing to do with terrorism or terrorist; it was a power grab by the executive branch and it worked. A little fear goes a long way.

I was merely copying your way of slipping in my view in an indirect manner.

Where did you slip in your view in this post:

to interpret the constitution then have everyone twist the constitution to thier will to fit thier need. Who knows maybe you like it that way, thats your view support individual interpretion of the constitution wether good or bad.

I've yet to put up an agruement, merely attacking your views with mine, and pointing out why you should have any say to what people need.

So let me get this straight. Citizens should not suggest that people should make up their own minds because individuals know whats best for individuals. If it isn't harming any other individual then how the hell does the actions of said individual affect any other individuals? You don't understand my views because I have not been injecting them. You did put up an argument. When I stated that the constitution did not grant certain powers you posted "Where doesn't it [...]" That is arguing and I have shown how that argument is fallacious.

When did I suggest it be use as a literal guide? I used it as a basis of my view did I ask you to do the same? lol your asking me to not put bs in your mouth and here you go.

You didn't; I said it shouldn't be taken as a literal guide.

Again point me to these info that you are basing your theory from.

....You can't be serious. My theory? What fcking theory? What educated guess am I making? Stop denying History and pretending there wasn't tension in Philadelphia.

And you have?

Don't try to twist shit around now. You made a statement. You said you would protest, but you don't even know those things have already happened. So, go on; protest.

You preach this self rightous individualism yet you have yet to prove that you have done such things

As a citizen of the United States my greatest power is freedom of speech. With the aid of the Internet and My Cell phone I am free to call My congressional district's office (congressional district 3 in G.A.) and make suggestions or complaints. Lately I have had little reason to complain to my Representative from the house of Representatives as his vote remained a solid no against the bailout. As for my Senators their aids have been hearing my voice on a daily basis. One man protesting with a sign out in the street won't do a thing. One Man taking a handout and getting people to do mass emails will make a difference. Getting involved in the community ain't hard.

With this in mind I would like to bring up my last post with that quote from you, stfu with your indirect slanders.

There is a difference between coercion and persuasion.

co⋅er⋅cion
   /koʊˈɜrʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [koh-ur-shuhn] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.

per·suade Listen to the pronunciation of persuade
Pronunciation:
\pər-ˈswād\
Function:
transitive verb
Inflected Form(s):
per·suad·ed; per·suad·ing
Etymology:
Latin persuadēre, from per- thoroughly + suadēre to advise, urge — more at sweet
Date:
15th century

1 : to move by argument, entreaty, or expostulation to a belief, position, or course of action 2 : to plead with : urge

Oh and while I'm defining words that you clearly don't understand:
Theologian.



Main Entry:
theo·lo·gian Listen to the pronunciation of theologian
Pronunciation:
\ˌthē-ə-ˈlō-jən\
Function:
noun
Date:
15th century

: a specialist in theology



Main Entry:
the·ol·o·gy Listen to the pronunciation of theology
Pronunciation:
\thē-ˈä-lə-jē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural the·ol·o·gies
Etymology:
Middle English theologie, from Anglo-French, from Latin theologia, from Greek, from the- + -logia -logy
Date:
14th century

1: the study of religious faith, practice, and experience ; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world2 a: a theological theory or system <Thomist theology> <a theology of atonement> b: a distinctive body of theological opinion <Catholic theology>3: a usually 4-year course of specialized religious training in a Roman Catholic major seminary

[SM-Count]

/facepalm. The people we elect are the government.

I thought I'd step in and point out the irony in the above, just for laughs.

[John_Doe]

:roll: Have you read the Patriot act or the Home Grown Terrorism act?

if by strip our liberties do you mean of being a terrorist?

The acts have nothing to do with foreign terrorist. So a terrorist is always foreign? They're all targeted at American citizens. It is there to target any american suspected of terrorist activity What does the 400 page Economic Rescue Plan have to do with foreign terrorist?

Here you acting as if you knew what the Governement was thinking or how there doing thier job. You've listed a bunch of acts that went into effect because they pasted through the people we elected, not the government

/facepalm. The people we elect are the government. So, you're saying; A normal citizen cannot comprehend government. Yes, when a normal citizen wants to well actually 2 want to go and kill 80 people then do a drive by shooting at a rallie by Obama, yes normal citizens cannot comprehend government. We're all just a bunch of ignorant fools, eh? Of crouse, you are suggesting now that every single voter out there is gonna make a smart choose base on thier principles and not because of his or her races,religion,background, racial or cultural difference. Sounds as if you living in a Metropolis

again point me to this info that that your basing this view of yours on?

I give you the specific names of these bills and you want me to give you info? Read the bills, ffs. Here let me calrify it, point me to any article that backs up your claim of constitutional lose of rights because of anyone of this acts without our consent now our representitives.

The altering of reality to fit your view also does not change reality.

Yeah because pointing out totalitarian bills that permit the government to strip us of our liberties is really altering realty. Sure, let's go with that buddy. Yeah, pointing out what you believe is totalitarian bills is altering reality. That's better.

The constitution was meant to keep the powers of each branch in check the Bill of Rights was meant to protect the people from the majority/government

Why is it meant to keep the branches of government in check? Before the addition of the bill of rights - at the demands of the anti-federalist - the federalist believed the constitution inherently protected our rights because it kept government weak, small, and limited. What is your argument against that? Give me the site/book or whereever your getting this from? Surely if it is so true you can give away your sources?

Here, your calling my views based on your views Nationalist, not because of totalitarian measures but because of your views of totalitarian measures.

Off of my views, you say? My views of totalitarian measures? Are you in some kind of denial? Have you read the patriot act? Have you at least read a paraphrased version of it? Are do you just by the BS media pundits spit? I'm in denial of what? That I have nationalist views? Why? I have nationalist views well at least to you, I have yet to denie anything I am merely stating why you would label as so.

Again what right did we lose under these acts that were protected by the Bill of Rights?

Patriot Act/HGTA/Executive Order:
Again point me to the information that beyond doubt says we've lose these rights due to these articles, or are they just the pickings of some smartass.
It gives the president the right to declare martial law in the case of what he considers a national emergency.
Question: What in the hell does any of that have to do with Terrorist when it's all targeted at American citizens. So, your just piss at the fact that the President uses the National Security to do what he wants to the citizens? Again, why not do something about it if your you feel so strongly that your rights are being taken away, why have I yet to hear of some guy and his rally of people who believe the president is forcing taking rights from our nose under the acts of National Security?

The economic bailout rescue plan covers.
The right to property.
The right to associate on the market.
The right to economic freedom in general.
The economic rescue plan had nothing to do with terrorism or terrorist; it was a power grab by the executive branch and it worked. A little fear goes a long way. Again point me to your infomation, o wait maybe its infomation your recieving from this representitive and senator's aids of years, no wonder you feel so truely confident about your theory. Provide me with contrete evidence, that this plan directly attacks or even indirectly attacks the rights that you claim above.

I was merely copying your way of slipping in my view in an indirect manner.

Where did you slip in your view in this post:

to interpret the constitution then have everyone twist the constitution to thier will to fit thier need. Who knows maybe you like it that way, thats your view support individual interpretion of the constitution wether good or bad. My view was that individuals cannot be trusted to justy interpret the constitution on thier own thus you ether agree with me or your a supporter of individuals twisting the constitution to thier need. Though do not get me wrong I was not intended for the purpose it was demostrating your way of preaching your views.

I've yet to put up an agruement, merely attacking your views with mine, and pointing out why you should have any say to what people need.

So let me get this straight. Citizens should not suggest that people should make up their own minds because individuals know whats best for individuals. Actually your saying bs here, I'm saying you have yet been given enough credit to be bsing this forum with your theologian bs. If it isn't harming any other individual then how the hell does the actions of said individual affect any other individuals? You don't understand my views because I have not been injecting them. You did put up an argument. When I stated that the constitution did not grant certain powers you posted "Where doesn't it [...]" That is arguing and I have shown how that argument is fallacious. O, rly, may i ask others who are reading to show me where Barotix has pointed this arguement of mine out as Fallacious, being intellectual individuals that he assume eveeryone to be, you guys should all be able to under Barotix's reasoning. if your gonna qoute me at least do it correctly i said "where in it does it said Government can't decide whats good for the people or as i like to call it State" and from the looks of it you assumed this is what I said "Because the constitution doesn't outline it they can go ahead and do it" I merely asked where in it does it said Government can't decide whats good for the people or as i like to call it State, you responded with an assumption that I believed because they don't the governement should already go ahead and do it, labeling its Fallacious you and your smartmouth. stfu with it already, you've already stray off my intial question "Why the hell do you think you have the right to say what is right for the people, and/or bash and attack people's choose of president." You took my statement up there and blew it out of proportion in order to not answer my intial question in this descussion.

When did I suggest it be use as a literal guide? I used it as a basis of my view did I ask you to do the same? lol your asking me to not put bs in your mouth and here you go.

You didn't; I said it shouldn't be taken as a literal guide.

Again point me to these info that you are basing your theory from.

....You can't be serious. My theory? What fcking theory? What educated guess am I making? Stop denying History and pretending there wasn't tension in Philadelphia. The fact that you yet to provide any evidence except quotes and a few copy and paste from here and there, means it can be doubt as random mumbling of some annoyed person is not true but I for one don't really give a crap about what your views are actually to try to prove your views false, I've merely rasie my own views agaisnt them to destroy your theorys authencity of truth. Again here your assuming bs about me, now I'm dening history? Ok what bs crap are you trying to say, when have I denied history throughout this discussion? I can already know what's gonna be in your next response.

And you have?

Don't try to twist shit around now. You made a statement. You said you would protest, but you don't even know those things have already happened. So, go on; protest. So now you even know that I didn't protest, and that I even didn't know those things didn't exist? Yea wonder how thats gonna work for you.

You preach this self rightous individualism yet you have yet to prove that you have done such things

As a citizen of the United States my greatest power is freedom of speech. With the aid of the Internet and My Cell phone I am free to call My congressional district's office (congressional district 3 in G.A.) and make suggestions or complaints. Lately I have had little reason to complain to my Representative from the house of Representatives as his vote remained a solid no against the bailout. As for my Senators their aids have been hearing my voice on a daily basis. One man protesting with a sign out in the street won't do a thing. One Man taking a handout and getting people to do mass emails will make a difference. Getting involved in the community ain't hard. I can easily write the same thing, lol this difference must be making such a difference where is this mass movement I'm suppose to be hearing about in the newspaper so close to the election date. Wait is it an underground movement?

With this in mind I would like to bring up my last post with that quote from you, stfu with your indirect slanders.

There is a difference between coercion and persuasion.
Must I find the other definition of theologeon for you? Or would it not be accept by you?

To the point as I've mentioned before, I don't give the **** what your views are, I've only tuned in when you started indirectly forcing your views upon others of this forums. They ether have to argue with you or they support a strategy of preemptive war, totalitarian domestic policies, and false free trade legislation, or false hope, it could just be me whos bother by this random slander by you who knows. Go ahead and keep throwing your bs at me I'll respond with my bs if needed.

[Barotix]

They ether have to argue with you or they support a strategy of preemptive war, totalitarian domestic policies, and false free trade legislation, or false hope, it could just be me whos bother by this random slander by you who knows.

Here's the problem. You seem to believe I think anyone that supports McCain/Obama supports all of those policies. Most people are voting because of race, religion, party, and a bunch of other things. I said - I repeat - If someone supports Obama/McCain because they understand what they have voted for and agree with entirely then there's no reason for me to argue against it. If someone agrees with Corportism and is voting on that basis - a principle - then why should I argue against their principles? Now, when someone lies to me and tells me Obama is Change without providing substantial evidence for this statement then I will call it false hope and false change; that is what it is - merely saying change all the time without offering some kind of change is not change - or if they tell me War is good then I'm going to ask why and argue against war. If you believe that is pushing views then so be it.


Didn't you hear about the Rally for the Republic by Dr. Ron Paul? It was on the same date as the RNC.
I'll cite the actual pieces of legislation and books after class. It's odd to meet someone that thinks those pieces of legislation have anything to do with terrorist - foreign or at home - it's just a power grab by the executive branch. People are angry and their tired of the status quo. I don't know how people will vote; I don't know if they will take my handouts seriously; I don't know if they take the freedom message seriously, but I do know this much; something big is happening.

[John_Doe]

They ether have to argue with you or they support a strategy of preemptive war, totalitarian domestic policies, and false free trade legislation, or false hope, it could just be me whos bother by this random slander by you who knows.

Here's the problem. You seem to believe I think anyone that supports McCain/Obama supports all of those policies. Again another wrong assumption about me, I said and read this time, I'm saying you are forceing people to ether accept your view (your view if I must explain it is that Obama and Macain both support this totalitarian policies and are horrible chooices for president when there are better people out there, if needed I can post recent post from you supporting this) or if they don't accept your view that they are in support of a strategy of preemptive war, totalitarian domestic policies, and false free trade legislation, or false hope, I had in no way said you think people support these because of thier choose, I've said that you've forced people to ether acept this view of yours or accept your view of the canidates, because of the indirect slanders you always put in your response to every topic that has been brought up in this election. Most people are voting because of race, religion, party, and a bunch of other things. That makes your assumption that indiviuals can justy govern themselves redundant. I said - I repeat - If someone supports Obama/McCain because they understand what they have voted for and agree with entirely then there's no reason for me to argue against it. If someone agrees with Corportism and is voting on that basis - a principle - then why should I argue against their principles? Now, when someone lies to me and tells me Obama is Change without providing substantial evidence for this statement then I will call it false hope and false change; that is what it is - merely saying change all the time without offering some kind of change is not change - or if they tell me War is good then I'm going to ask why and argue against war. If you believe that is pushing views then so be it. Again I've state over and over again that you force your views alwasy indirectly in your post, if you want I can find the recent post of you argueing and the recent post of you slipping slander/your views into your post as a ether y ou agree or support said view senerio. ".


That last pat was completely redundant to the whole descussion, your merely stateing over and over your views.

[Barotix]

You seem to believe I think anyone that supports McCain/Obama supports all of those policies.

Again another wrong assumption about me, I said and read this time, I'm saying you are forceing people to ether accept your view or if they don't accept your view that they are in support of a strategy of preemptive war, totalitarian domestic policies, and false free trade legislation, or false hope

Yeah, I'm totally slipping my views in. Sure, lets go with that.

I never said they support those policies ffs. I never said they agree with me or support those policies. You misinterpreted, took a post out of context, set up a strawman, and went on the attack. The entire last pages have been over a misconception. You believed I was forcing my view of a wasted vote on Xemnas - he said voting third party is wasting my vote and told me to enjoy my wasted vote - I responded with "likewise [...]." How is that pushing my views on Xemnas? Second, the post that you keep referring to is completely out of context:

If someone said they support Obama/McCain because they agree with a strategy of preemptive war, totalitarian domestic policies, and false free trade legislation then I will back off.

How am I pushing my views? If someone supports so-and-so because of this principle and that principle then why should I question their principles?
McCain supports the war in Iraq and the Bush Doctrine AKA Preemptive War.
Obama supports the Bush Doctrine AKA Preemptive War.
They both support the patriot act and the FISA act AKA Totalitarian legislation.
They both support NAFTA, CAFTA, and the WTO AKA False Free Trade.
If someone says they support Obama because of NAFTA and CAFTA, ok - they support the false free trade agreement.
If they say they support McCain because of the Bush Doctirne, ok - they support preemptive war.
If they say they support McCain/Obama because of their votes on FISA, ok - they support (or disprove of, depending on what the candidate voted) a totalitarian measure.
If they say they support McCain/Obama because he might find a new energy source, ok - they support renewable energy.
If they say they support McCain/Obama because of offshore drilling, ok - they support offshore drilling.
If they know the consequences of offshore drilling and believe success does not come without a sacrifice, ok - no problem with environmental damage.
These aren't my views. They're hypothetical.
Obama says he will bring change - he doesn't explain how - until he does it's false change, a promise of false hope. If someone calls their candidate lesser of two evils then it is their view that their candidate is evil. I just call them out when they use lesser of two evils. So please, quote where I "force others to adhere to my views in regards to the election." Make sure not to quote out of context. I guess questioning a promise of change is pushing my views. I guess questioning the legitimacy of Preemptive war is pushing my views. Bullshit.

[John_Doe]

if you wish...give me a sec.

You seem to believe I think anyone that supports McCain/Obama supports all of those policies.

Again another wrong assumption about me, I said and read this time, I'm saying you are forceing people to ether accept your view or if they don't accept your view that they are in support of a strategy of preemptive war, totalitarian domestic policies, and false free trade legislation, or false hope

Yeah, I'm totally slipping my views in. Sure, lets go with that.

I never said they support those policies ffs. I never said they agree with me or support those policies. You misinterpreted, took a post out of context, set up a strawman, and went on the attack. The entire last pages have been over a misconception. You believed I was forcing my view of a wasted vote on Xemnas - he said voting third party is wasting my vote and told me to enjoy my wasted vote - I responded with "likewise [...]." How is that pushing my views on Xemnas? Second, the post that you keep referring to is completely out of context:

If someone said they support Obama/McCain because they agree with a strategy of preemptive war, totalitarian domestic policies, and false free trade legislation then I will back off.

How am I pushing my views? If someone supports so-and-so because of this principle and that principle then why should I question their principles?
McCain supports the war in Iraq and the Bush Doctrine AKA Preemptive War. Again that is your view, what if I and others do not view it as so, will you label as stupid or ignorant?
Obama supports the Bush Doctrine AKA Preemptive War.
They both support the patriot act and the FISA act AKA Totalitarian legislation. Again that is your view, you cannot say what others may view that act as
They both support NAFTA, CAFTA, and the WTO AKA False Free Trade.
If someone says they support Obama because of NAFTA and CAFTA, ok - they support the false free trade agreement. Your view is that because of Obama supporting NAFTA and CAFTA, it is false free trade, again that is your view, What you view can varie from me to Xemmes to Dom, so unless you can provide any creditable proft that we should be taking your view of Obama's support as false free trade seriously in this whole matter your indirectly forceing your views upon others.
Questioning what you believe is prememtive war, lose of rights etc. fine with me, but when you present your views and constantly insist your view is the right view, who are you to say they support false free trade or totaliterian legistration can you give me any reason to take your view over thier view or any other person's view? If we can't trust the government what gives you any credit so that we should accept your view. of their acts.

after i finish class ill look through your whole post history and quote the examples I believe show that you are indirectly slandering the canidates.

[Reise]

Holy shit it's like a fortress of text.

[Barotix]

If we can't trust the government what gives you any credit so that we should accept your view. of their acts.

Serious question. Do you trust the government and your public servants? The Bush Doctrine:

I hate to quote the MsM, but since you believe these are my views how about we check out the Bush Doctrine:

Defining the "Bush doctrine" has been open to debate, but it essentially boils down to dealing pre-emptively with emerging threats.

"Preemption, rather than reaction" summarizes the Bush doctrine which congealed in the wake of a conservative and national backlash against the weakening of the United State's power and security in the world.

Source1
Source2
Articles on the Bush Doctrine
Preemption
The Bush Doctrine was used to justify the war in Iraq and is currently being used to justify the sanctions against Iran. What danger do these third world countries pose to us? If I kept searching I will find more post. It isn't my personal view. It is what the Bush Doctrine is: A policy of pre-emption. Preemptive War. How hard is that to understand? I'll deal with the pieces of legislation in a few hours. Most of your post stem from A]A misunderstanding of what these pieces of legislation do or B]A misunderstanding of my view.

Your view is that because of Obama supporting NAFTA and CAFTA, it is false free trade, again that is your view

No, that is not my view. There you go, again, twisting my words. Statement 1: Obama supports NAFTA and CAFTA. Statement 2: CAFTA and NAFTA give power to regulate trade between nations to an outside body. This is not my view: It is clearly written in the bill. These are not vague or obscure 18th Century Treatise. Most of it is written in plain English. The WTO regulates it all.

The definition of free trade does not go with those bills:
Again not my view:

The absence of tariffs and regulations designed to curtail or prevent trade among nations.

The absence of barriers to the free flow of goods and services between countries.

is the reduction of regulations and other constraints on businesses to increase international trade. Also known as "trade liberalization." To liberalize trade is to reduce tariffs and other barriers, so nations can import and export without restraints.

This means that there are no barriers to trade between and among countries. Countries with free trade do not have many rules and guidelines that make it hard or impossible for them to sell their goods and services to each other

Source
When you give the power to regulate or control international trade to something similar to government then the trade isn't free. Since the title of both acts have "free" and since both acts grant government regulation powers to an outside power the trade is not free, hence; false free trade. Not my view. Cold. Hard. Fact.

[/Pi]

Haven't read any of the posts here. Just wanna share something as I don't want to make a new topic on this:

http://www.bpmdeejays.com/upload/hs_sal ... 100108.mp3

[englishganxta]

that sickens me, as does this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjxzmaXAg9E

[izmeister]

[IguanaRampage]

So you would rather vote for false change? I don't see how the President is going to get us out of this mess. What is he going to do? Whip out his wand, issue a bunch of executive orders, gather his Keynesian friends, and magically conjure a fix? I never realized we we're voting in Magicians. I guess voting for more war, more economic/social intervention, and more fees is making a difference. The same question I raise to all Obama/McCain supporters: Why? Do these men really offer anything of substance or is it more of the same?

Yelled at? L-o-L. So, let me get this straight. If Obama loses (won't happen) all third party voters and people that didn't vote are to blame? Please. Read my signature. Daniel Webster wrote it.

And some of Daniel Webster's most influential speeches were quite inaccurate historically, so you can't really trust him completely. Though the guy saved the Union, props for that.

[Du De Wei]

im voting obama this year not because hes the lesser of 2 evil but because he is noticeably smarter than john mccain and if he can run the white house like he ran his campaign by being very organized and minor mistakes the country will benefit, btw my first choice was ron paul so barotix doesnt hump me with quotes from revolutionaries

[Blurred]

im voting obama this year not because hes the lesser of 2 evil but because he is noticeably smarter than john mccain and if he can run the white house like he ran his campaign by being very organized and minor mistakes the country will benefit, btw my first choice was ron paul so barotix doesnt hump me with quotes from revolutionaries

I noticed the McCain campaign is collapsing. It's obvious the contingency plan was to launch a smear campaign against Obama. It's nothing more than a desperate claw at influencing voters. By responding to, and discussing claims like this, it simply gives this kind of garbage undeserved credibility. And it takes the debate away from what it really should be about: policies.

If McCain cannot convince the American people that he should be elected President based on his qualifications and his proposed policies and ideas, then he does not deserve to be President of the United States. Period.

[Avalanche]

No offense Barotix, I'm guessing about >5% of this forum is reading those great wall of text/novel posts.