Cruor wrote:Not old enough to vote, but if I was it would go to Dennis Kucinich.
Agreed with him on most issues. He seems honest and genuine, and says what he means outright instead of pussyfooting around for his campaign's sake. It's unfortunate that he gets almost no airtime.
Foilin wrote:He's the Crazy lookin hobbit dude right?
Yes, and he's married to "a 29-year-old hippie chick from Upminster," according to FOX News.
But these things wouldn't matter if America wasn't so preoccupied with materialism and outward appearance.
i'm not focused on that, but i dunno. i would need to look into what he stands for and believes in. wasnt he totally anti war pacifist? i don't like that, call me red neck but ignoring threats is STUPID.
Foilin wrote:i'm not focused on that, but i dunno. i would need to look into what he stands for and believes in. wasnt he totally anti war pacifist? i don't like that, call me red neck but ignoring threats is STUPID.
Yes, he was against the war. But what threat are we fighting? Shit happened, but all of the sudden, the threat shifted from terrorists to potential WMDs in Iraq that we never managed to find? Sure, we plucked a dictator from his throne. That's great, but what if he wasn't even a threat to us in the first place? And what of Iran? Apparently they halted their nuclear program (which according to them was only for energy to support a growing nation) way back in 2003? And wasn't Ahmadinejad's vicious threat of a new Holocaust to Israel just an innocent mistranslation?
It would seem to me that we aren't fighting any threats in the Middle East. On the contrary, all we seem to be doing is stirring up shit and getting the brave men and women who serve our country killed. When a nation attacks us on our own soil, that is of course an invitation for war. Problem is, we weren't attacked by a nation.
Hmm, tbh they should also hold a vote in other countries for U.S. Presidency. Seeing as the President of the U.S. basiclly will have more say than probably thier current Minister/President/Prime minister of thier own country. I reckon R. Paul would get a shit load of support there too.
SF Straw Poll I paid my $33 for the dinner and vote. A $5 option was also offered to vote after the festivities. We patiently listened to the guest speaker support Fred Thompson and talk on the issues of water and budget problems in California. They then held a raffle, while all the "cheap" voters waited in the lobby. When they finally let them in, the room was flooded with Ron Paul supporters and the organizer notified us the poll was cancelled. I started the video after the initial announcement and pandemonium broke out. The sudden cancellation and an attempt to change the rules, understandably, upset quite a few people.
Cruor wrote:Yes, he was against the war. But what threat are we fighting? Shit happened, but all of the sudden, the threat shifted from terrorists to potential WMDs in Iraq that we never managed to find? Sure, we plucked a dictator from his throne. That's great, but what if he wasn't even a threat to us in the first place? And what of Iran? Apparently they halted their nuclear program (which according to them was only for energy to support a growing nation) way back in 2003? And wasn't Ahmadinejad's vicious threat of a new Holocaust to Israel just an innocent mistranslation?
It would seem to me that we aren't fighting any threats in the Middle East. On the contrary, all we seem to be doing is stirring up shit and getting the brave men and women who serve our country killed. When a nation attacks us on our own soil, that is of course an invitation for war. Problem is, we weren't attacked by a nation.
Very, very well said. Kucinich is a great guy as well. Ohio ftw!
Foilin wrote:... call me red neck but ignoring threats is STUPID.
You're not a redneck, just a neocon. Take action on threats and 'bad guys' and ask questions later.
So what if someone threatens us? You can't be forgetting we're still the #1 militarily.
Also, no one is calling for ignoring threats. It's called talking with people. We should use American lives as a last resort.
Peace ftw.
-edit-
If anyone wants to see constant coverage of Ron Paul and some police state stuff go: http://lewrockwell.com/blog/
Foilin wrote:... call me red neck but ignoring threats is STUPID.
You're not a redneck, just a neocon. Take action on threats and 'bad guys' and ask questions later. So what if someone threatens us? You can't be forgetting we're still the #1 militarily. Also, no one is calling for ignoring threats. It's called talking with people. We should use American lives as a last resort. Peace ftw.
-edit-
If anyone wants to see constant coverage of Ron Paul and some police state stuff go: http://lewrockwell.com/blog/
I Agree with you there, talking should always be the first step. but that doesn't always work, and now that sadam isn't there hundreds of thousands of lives will be saved. Chances are, that there were WMDs in Iraq we just got there too late more than likely, buried or in Iran. I hope we don't go to war with Iran, but if its last resort what has to be done, has to be done. Yes it is sad that our men and women died in Iraq, but they believed in what they were doing.
[quote="Foilin"] TBH a woman shouldn't be president. quote]
Would you mind explaining this rather than just throwing a half-cocked statement out there like that? Oh, and you guys realize, you have to be registered to a party (in most states) to be able to vote in the primaries. So, everyone that is clamouring for Ron Paul, you better go register REPUBLICAN, otherwise, you won't be able to vote for him in the Republican primaries.
I'm kinda screwed cuz in my state (FL) I can't vote in the primaries because I'm registered "No Party Affiliation"
Would you mind explaining this rather than just throwing a half-cocked statement out there like that?
I believe they can get to emotional, and atleast at this point its to prove something, not to do what they believe is best for the country i'm living in.
Foilin wrote:and now that sadam isn't there hundreds of thousands of lives will be saved.
It wasn't our place.
Foilin wrote:Chances are, that there were WMDs in Iraq we just got there too late more than likely, buried or in Iran.
Just going to disagree there and say I'm sorry you still believe this administrations lies.
Foilin wrote:I hope we don't go to war with Iran, but if its last resort what has to be done, has to be done.
Perhaps you should reread what cruor wrote. No reason whatsoever to be involved or scared over there.
Foilin wrote:Yes it is sad that our men and women died in Iraq, but they believed in what they were doing.
And our govt mislead them which it should never do.
Wasnt out place, correct. but it did have a positive affect.
I'm sure this administration has lied and is still lying just like the next one will. But Sadam no doubt had weapons
About Iran, so your saying if Iran has nukes pointed at a Major city or Capital City, we should ignore it? that seems retarded, even if its not aimed at us, we have people in those cities that will die.
Those soldiers signed up for it, not much they can do once they've signed away. even if they were mislead where were they to go?
Would you mind explaining this rather than just throwing a half-cocked statement out there like that?
I believe they can get to emotional, and atleast at this point its to prove something, not to do what they believe is best for the country i'm living in.
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Should emotions BE involved? Should people want to do things that are right for the right reasons? Not because of greedy self-interest? But, foremost, your assertion that women are more "emotional" is based on a social construction that women are more sensative, less able-bodied, more apt to be nurturing...weak, etc. Realize the social constructs that are glaringly before your eyes before you start making ridiculous comments like "no woman should be a president because they're too emotional" - Kid, face it, women make up a majority of the US AND global population. Women presidents have been successful in many countries, including German (Merkel), England (Prime Minister Thatcher), Chile, Phillipines, etc. The list goes on and is only growing. In truth, the United States is behind on this front. A woman should be president if she is qualified, just like a man should. In fact, I'm sick and tired of seeing old white men be president. They've f-cked up the country for centuries, it's now time to correct the ship!
Would you mind explaining this rather than just throwing a half-cocked statement out there like that?
I believe they can get to emotional, and atleast at this point its to prove something, not to do what they believe is best for the country i'm living in.
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Should emotions BE involved? Should people want to do things that are right for the right reasons? Not because of greedy self-interest? But, foremost, your assertion that women are more "emotional" is based on a social construction that women are more sensative, less able-bodied, more apt to be nurturing...weak, etc. Realize the social constructs that are glaringly before your eyes before you start making ridiculous comments like "no woman should be a president because they're too emotional" - Kid, face it, women make up a majority of the US AND global population. Women presidents have been successful in many countries, including German (Merkel), England (Prime Minister Thatcher), Chile, Phillipines, etc. The list goes on and is only growing. In truth, the United States is behind on this front. A woman should be president if she is qualified, just like a man should. In fact, I'm sick and tired of seeing old white men be president. They've f-cked up the country for centuries, it's now time to correct the ship!
BTW, I hate hilary and wont vote for her
you forgot India....a major contribution to the women in politics and sproof that they can be very successful....
signatures by Hostage Co. <3 ~PoP is DEAD! My sTyLe is Supa-Flat!!~
sirdingydang wrote:In fact, I'm sick and tired of seeing old white men be president. They've f-cked up the country for centuries, it's now time to correct the ship!
Would you mind explaining this rather than just throwing a half-cocked statement out there like that?
I believe they can get to emotional, and atleast at this point its to prove something, not to do what they believe is best for the country i'm living in.
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Should emotions BE involved? Should people want to do things that are right for the right reasons? Not because of greedy self-interest? But, foremost, your assertion that women are more "emotional" is based on a social construction that women are more sensative, less able-bodied, more apt to be nurturing...weak, etc. Realize the social constructs that are glaringly before your eyes before you start making ridiculous comments like "no woman should be a president because they're too emotional" - Kid, face it, women make up a majority of the US AND global population. Women presidents have been successful in many countries, including German (Merkel), England (Prime Minister Thatcher), Chile, Phillipines, etc. The list goes on and is only growing. In truth, the United States is behind on this front. A woman should be president if she is qualified, just like a man should. In fact, I'm sick and tired of seeing old white men be president. They've f-cked up the country for centuries, it's now time to correct the ship!
BTW, I hate hilary and wont vote for her
you forgot India....a major contribution to the women in politics and sproof that they can be very successful....
Would you mind explaining this rather than just throwing a half-cocked statement out there like that?
I believe they can get to emotional, and atleast at this point its to prove something, not to do what they believe is best for the country i'm living in.
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Should emotions BE involved? Should people want to do things that are right for the right reasons? Not because of greedy self-interest? But, foremost, your assertion that women are more "emotional" is based on a social construction that women are more sensative, less able-bodied, more apt to be nurturing...weak, etc. Realize the social constructs that are glaringly before your eyes before you start making ridiculous comments like "no woman should be a president because they're too emotional" - Kid, face it, women make up a majority of the US AND global population. Women presidents have been successful in many countries, including German (Merkel), England (Prime Minister Thatcher), Chile, Phillipines, etc. The list goes on and is only growing. In truth, the United States is behind on this front. A woman should be president if she is qualified, just like a man should. In fact, I'm sick and tired of seeing old white men be president. They've f-cked up the country for centuries, it's now time to correct the ship!
BTW, I hate hilary and wont vote for her
Ok, well what i said doesnt apply to ever Woman, there are many strong willed and smart women (not that others are stupid ) but. but i hate Hillary too, and will never vote for her, EVER.
you said "TBH a woman shouldnt be president" you didn't specify only certain woman. You made a broad, sweeping generalization that women shouldnt' be elected president. sorry, but that's ignorant.
I wish Obama would be president. It would help undo centuries of racial discrimination that we so unrightly forced onto the African-Americans of our great country.
dom wrote:I wish Obama would be president. It would help undo centuries of racial discrimination that we so unrightly forced onto the African-Americans of our great country.
I don't agree. I highly doubt that electing an African-American president can accomplish what you think it will. Sure, it would be a nice step. But, unfortunately racism still exists. But, the truely unsettling this is that instituational racism still exists. Sure, there are rednecks using the N word, blowing G.W. Bush and waving a confederate flag. But the fact is that there is institutional racial and gender discrimination and electing a black or woman president will not get rid of it.
dom wrote:I wish Obama would be president. It would help undo centuries of racial discrimination that we so unrightly forced onto the African-Americans of our great country.
how would that help anything....Black ppl have been in high Gov't positions b4 Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice....and they've done nothing but acted like tools...and your f*cking canadian what are you talking about "Our great country"....
signatures by Hostage Co. <3 ~PoP is DEAD! My sTyLe is Supa-Flat!!~
sirdingydang wrote:you said "TBH a woman shouldnt be president" you didn't specify only certain woman. You made a broad, sweeping generalization that women shouldnt' be elected president. sorry, but that's ignorant.
sirdingydang wrote:you said "TBH a woman shouldnt be president" you didn't specify only certain woman. You made a broad, sweeping generalization that women shouldnt' be elected president. sorry, but that's ignorant.
and Hiliary is the leading democratic candidate but unless she actually does something to hide the fact that she's a two-faced b1tch she won't win this election...worst case scenario Ron Paul gets elected so we have a Rep Admin and a Democratic Congress assuring that nothing will ever get done...
signatures by Hostage Co. <3 ~PoP is DEAD! My sTyLe is Supa-Flat!!~
and Hiliary is the leading democratic candidate but unless she actually does something to hide the fact that she's a two-faced b1tch she won't win this election...worst case scenario Ron Paul gets elected so we have a Rep Admin and a Democratic Congress assuring that nothing will ever get done...
No way in HELL the republicans will make Ron Paul their nominee. It will most likely be Giuliani
and Hiliary is the leading democratic candidate but unless she actually does something to hide the fact that she's a two-faced b1tch she won't win this election...worst case scenario Ron Paul gets elected so we have a Rep Admin and a Democratic Congress assuring that nothing will ever get done...
No way in HELL the republicans will make Ron Paul their nominee. It will most likely be Giuliani
Thats actually worse than Ron Paul imo....i'll have to read up more on Giuliani but he doesn't seem like a thinking leader...more like "give the conservative majority what they want so they'll vote for me and leave me alone" i don't see alot of change happening at all if he's elected...
signatures by Hostage Co. <3 ~PoP is DEAD! My sTyLe is Supa-Flat!!~
and Hiliary is the leading democratic candidate but unless she actually does something to hide the fact that she's a two-faced b1tch she won't win this election...worst case scenario Ron Paul gets elected so we have a Rep Admin and a Democratic Congress assuring that nothing will ever get done...
No way in HELL the republicans will make Ron Paul their nominee. It will most likely be Giuliani
I was tuning my radio one day and it tracked a secret CIA frequency. I heard two agents talking about how september 11th was planned, and Giuliani cooperated with them (letting them plant the explosives etc. without having to worry about being caught) and they were paying him off by assuring him his presidential win.
just throwing out a few names
