One REASON you Should Vote for OBAMA ( A MUST SEE) PLEASE CLICK

TodayIsAGreenday

Well-Known Member
why would they assassinate George? they love him!

edit

i lived in florida during the 2000 election.... i mean when the government just gives him the presidency... his brother is the governer of that state.... to me that seems like they like him and wouldnt want the man thats gonna start a war on terror to shadow all the money being made of said war dead
 

EarthlyPassions

Well-Known Member
Earthly Passions, don't be a sucker for a good speaker, they ALL speak well. Follow the money, Obama is for sale. Follow the voting record He votes for the Patriot Act, then he's voting OUT habeas corpus, he's voting in illegal wiretapping, he's basically voting out the 4th amendment. And he exacerbated the problem by voting for FISA (even Hillary knew better than to vote in favor of that fucking tripe!). The only thing "golden" about this boy is his honey-colored skin.
What What!?
Say it ain't so!
Maybe he did it so republicans would be more willing to vote him in? Gah! This is terrible. Why didn't it come up on my google search? Now who is there to vote for?

I was for Ron Paul till I saw that he wasn't going to win. But how can I vote for him now? He's out of the race isn't he?
 

ViRedd

New Member
Any Californians still remember the budget surplus George Deukmejian (sp?) left us with? (sigh) But NOW we've got The Governator. :|
Yes, I remember it, Seamaiden. Not only did we have a budget surplus, but the state returned the surplus monies to the citizens in the form of a rebate check, the size of which, was determined by the amount you were taxed. Deukmejian, like Reagan, realized that a government "surplus" is nothing more than the result of over-taxation.

Vi
 

Seamaiden

Well-Known Member
What What!?
Say it ain't so!
Maybe he did it so republicans would be more willing to vote him in? Gah! This is terrible. Why didn't it come up on my google search? Now who is there to vote for?

I was for Ron Paul till I saw that he wasn't going to win. But how can I vote for him now? He's out of the race isn't he?
Yes, it's true. I've found that Google, as with just about anything else, the answer you get often depends on the question you ask. I am writing Ron Paul in, as he hasn't pulled a Kucinich and dropped out entirely. I should take a count of all the people who say they're going to vote for Obama because he has the best chance of winning and Ron Paul doesn't. If they united... OH MAN! talk about an upset! It would take some serious vote-count meddling to work those numbers.

If someone like Barbara Lee were in the running, I would support her as well, because she's a woman with integrity. Integrity is my measuring stick! And my beating stick.
 

Seamaiden

Well-Known Member
Yes, I remember it, Seamaiden. Not only did we have a budget surplus, but the state returned the surplus monies to the citizens in the form of a rebate check, the size of which, was determined by the amount you were taxed. Deukmejian, like Reagan, realized that a government "surplus" is nothing more than the result of over-taxation.

Vi
I miss him.
 

EarthlyPassions

Well-Known Member
Yes, it's true. I've found that Google, as with just about anything else, the answer you get often depends on the question you ask. I am writing Ron Paul in, as he hasn't pulled a Kucinich and dropped out entirely. I should take a count of all the people who say they're going to vote for Obama because he has the best chance of winning and Ron Paul doesn't. If they united... OH MAN! talk about an upset! It would take some serious vote-count meddling to work those numbers.
It's very important to me that McCain doesn't win, as his policies against gays and women would severely reduce my quality of life, and trample my beliefs.

In light of Obama's voting record, I want to turn away, but if the democrats split their votes between Obama, Hiliary, and Ron Paul, won't McCain win for sure?
 

Seamaiden

Well-Known Member
It's very important to me that McCain doesn't win, as his policies against gays and women would severely reduce my quality of life, and trample my beliefs.

In light of Obama's voting record, I want to turn away, but if the democrats split their votes between Obama, Hiliary, and Ron Paul, won't McCain win for sure?
The real power does not lie in the presidency. It lies in Congress. It is our senators, representatives, congresspeople, who make the biggest inroads (or infractions). The president just signs his (or her) name. Ron Paul would never run as a Democrat, I believe he would run as Independent before that. It is my belief, and I have been saying this for years, that there are very few fundamental and factual behavioral differences between Republicans and Democrats anymore, they are, in fact, two legs of the same beast. They are both for sale to the highest bidder. They are both the parties of the disingenuous, they flip-flop, say what needs to be said to gain power then do what they please anyway, and have absolutely NO desire to uphold the Constitution or change the status quo.
 

ccodiane

New Member
Obama=Marxism

House+Senate(currently:neutral:)=lib

McCain=Marxism loses

my vote=McCain

McCain+Lieberman, Ridge, etc.=?(my vote=McCain)?
 

ccodiane

New Member
US war=government standing up for the "little guy"

You lib types should LOVE war. Good God ya'll, what are you good for........absolutely nothing, and I'll say it again..........absolutely nothing.
 

EarthlyPassions

Well-Known Member
The real power does not lie in the presidency. It lies in Congress. It is our senators, representatives, congresspeople, who make the biggest inroads (or infractions). The president just signs his (or her) name.
Yes, but if the president moves for something, stuff happens. Like when George Bush wanted an amendment for gay marriage to be banned. (I was in eighth grade, but I still remember how mad I was.) We only JUST managed to keep that from happening. I don't want to risk another president pushing stuff like that again.

Ron Paul would never run as a Democrat, I believe he would run as Independent before that.
I know, but I don't think his party alignment is what will keep him from winning. It'll be more like wanting to abolish the federal reserve, and the DEA. I support his views on these things now, after doing some research. But when I first read this, my initial thought was "Don't we need those things?"
Joe Shmoe isn't inclined to do research. I think that a lot of people would read that and immediately skip him as a candidate because of confusion.

It is my belief, and I have been saying this for years, that there are very few fundamental and factual behavioral differences between Republicans and Democrats anymore, they are, in fact, two legs of the same beast. They are both for sale to the highest bidder. They are both the parties of the disingenuous, they flip-flop, say what needs to be said to gain power then do what they please anyway, and have absolutely NO desire to uphold the Constitution or change the status quo.
Agreed! The whole bi-partisan thing is a sham, George Washington felt similarly.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"[/FONT]I was no party man myself, and the first wish of my heart was, if parties did exist, to reconcile them.[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"

[/FONT]But there are quite a few people who don't see that. And wouldn't bother to really search their hearts for their true positions on things, while doing fact checks for each of the candidates, to really choose who they want.
Easier to pick a side, and then listen to campaign ads for who sounds best.
 

TodayIsAGreenday

Well-Known Member
US war=government standing up for the "little guy"

You lib types should LOVE war. Good God ya'll, what are you good for........absolutely nothing, and I'll say it again..........absolutely nothing.

us war = government standing up for the little guy(that has oil)

if we were solely in the purpose for stepping in and liberating a nation wed gone into africa a long time ago...
 

Seamaiden

Well-Known Member
Obama=Marxism

House+Senate(currently:neutral:)=lib

McCain=Marxism loses

my vote=McCain

McCain+Lieberman, Ridge, etc.=?(my vote=McCain)?
They call themselves liberals (Democrats of the house & senate). That doesn't mean that they actually adhere to anything that might resemble "liberal ideals", though. Why did none of them read the PA? Oh! That's right, they want to look "Tough On Terror". :rolleyes: Better to get that puppy voted in, then we'll worry about sorting it out later. Besides, here in the United States of Amnesia we only remember whom had an affair with whom, and little else.

What's MADDENING is the sheer numbers of people who support Obama believing that he will end this war. He knows exactly on which side his bread is buttered, and a man who plans to expand the military is not the man who will get us out of the business of policing other sovereign nations. Of course, I'm sure you know I will NOT vote for McCain. ;)
Yes, but if the president moves for something, stuff happens. Like when George Bush wanted an amendment for gay marriage to be banned. (I was in eighth grade, but I still remember how mad I was.) We only JUST managed to keep that from happening. I don't want to risk another president pushing stuff like that again.
Fair enough, you have a special vested interest in such a topic. Believe it or not, while my own interest isn't quite so "vested", it is yet another that I am PASSIONATE about.
(snipped) but I don't think his party alignment is what will keep him from winning. It'll be more like wanting to abolish the federal reserve, and the DEA. I support his views on these things now, after doing some research. But when I first read this, my initial thought was "Don't we need those things?"
You left out the Department of Education (after "whose" inception our literacy rates have nosedived), and the IRS, because apparently the ability to levy tariffs just isn't enough for the feds (i.e. Congress).
Joe Shmoe isn't inclined to do research. I think that a lot of people would read that and immediately skip him as a candidate because of confusion.
You've got that absolutely right.
The whole bi-partisan thing is a sham, George Washington felt similarly.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"[/FONT]I was no party man myself, and the first wish of my heart was, if parties did exist, to reconcile them.[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"
[/FONT]But there are quite a few people who don't see that. And wouldn't bother to really search their hearts for their true positions on things, while doing fact checks for each of the candidates, to really choose who they want.
Easier to pick a side, and then listen to campaign ads for who sounds best.
Again, agreed, I think you're right. Tis a conundrum, is it not? Therefore, I am left with the prospect of simply being able to live with myself, and I cannot if I do not vote according to my integrity and conscience. (I can't say I agree with Washington, because I see a need and utility for even further division, politically, and what poses as "bipartisanship" is, in fact, one group helping the other maintain the status quo for each other. Luxury lunch, anyone?)
 
Top