Well ... they voted it down ...
- Thread starter GrowRebel
- Start date
desertrat
Well-Known Member
hey vi - here's a little something from the national review editorial board
Frank-Dodd 2008! by The Editors on National Review Online
to summarize, mccain has gone off the ledge on his mortgage plan. they praise the democrats by being fiscally conservative by comparison.
Bongulator
Well-Known Member
It's bizarre to see Democrats attacking the Republican Party presidential nominee...from the right! McCain has out-socialized even the Democrats! I wonder if McCain will vote for Obama, since Obama seems more in line with his ideology than McCain does himself. Freaky!
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Vi, I really still can not figure out why you support McCain (other than him being marginally better for this country than Obama) when there are other candidates that are still better for this union.
ViRedd
New Member
I can understand why you would feel this way, TBT. Here's the answer: I don't really like McCain, he's at best a liberal Republican or a middle of the road Democrat like Lieberman. In fact, prior to Palin entering the race, I was going to write in Ron Paul as I've been an admirer of his for many years and believe that his program would be the saviour of liberty in this country. But, we have to face facts ... Ron Paul, or any other third party candidate, for that matter, isn't going to win the presidency. That leaves McCain/Palin running against the most dangerous man to run for the presidency since FDR. IMHO ... we can't let that happen and be left with any fragment of liberty. I look at Palin as a member of the new generation of conservatives. She will be left long after McCain is gone. That's why I suggested in another thread the 2012 ticket of Palin/Jindal.
Vi
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Yes, but if we don't vote McCain maybe it'll send a message to the GoP that they can't run such worthless candidates if they expect support of their membership, and traditional backers.I can understand why you would feel this way, TBT. Here's the answer: I don't really like McCain, he's at best a liberal Republican or a middle of the road Democrat like Lieberman. In fact, prior to Palin entering the race, I was going to write in Ron Paul as I've been an admirer of his for many years and believe that his program would be the saviour of liberty in this country. But, we have to face facts ... Ron Paul, or any other third party candidate, for that matter, isn't going to win the presidency. That leaves McCain/Palin running against the most dangerous man to run for the presidency since FDR. IMHO ... we can't let that happen and be left with any fragment of liberty. I look at Palin as a member of the new generation of conservatives. She will be left long after McCain is gone. That's why I suggested in another thread the 2012 ticket of Palin/Jindal.
Vi
bongrippinbob
Well-Known Member
I don't think "us" voting for either candidate will matter one bit considering the president is elected by the electoral college, and not a popular vote.
Bongulator
Well-Known Member
I don't think Palin's going to be a viable candidate again, at least not nationally. If you wanna trot her out in 2012, more power to ya. But she won't win anything. As a Democrat, I hope she *is* on the Republican Party ticket in 2012. But really, if that's the best the Republican Party can find to nominate, that's...sad.
ViRedd
New Member
Well again ... I appreciate how you feel. Its exactly what I did when Bush the father and both times Bush the son ran. I voted straight down the Libertarian ticket. But this time its different. O'Bama is not my mother's Democrat ... not by a long shot. I'm tellin' ya ... the guy is down right dangerous, especially with a Democrat controlled congress and senate. In my honest opinion, we'll need McCain in the presidential seat to jam all the feel good, Marxist legislation right back down the Progressive's throats.
Answer me this, TBT ... would you be happy with two more, and possibly even three more, Ruth Bader Ginsbergs on the Supreme Court?
Vi
tipsgnob
New Member
I would be.................
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Not Really
zaqewq
Well-Known Member
money is the root of all evil!
greed should be expected when you give fat ugly men a means to get a blowjob from 3 hot stripers at once. take away the bentlys and the hottys would go back to reproducing with those who where phisicaly attractive and had traits on might want in there children.
Edit: give me a dictatorship. ill tell you the world could not be more of a utopia than if i was the supream ruler of everything. most likly id take a vote on everything that wasnt cut and dry. since i wouldnt be the dictator most likly i could think of a few good choices. my best friends mom for one. if bob marley was alive he would have made a good pick aswell. the proplem is the dictators are all assholes.
captialism(love of capital)
communisim(love of community)
hmm what would i pick?? hands down communism. i wouldnt want stalin or some other greedy prick running the show but with any compasionate human that truly did what was best for the people of earth it would be fucking great. the problem is we have never seen a country with a good dictator or person in charge of a communist goverment. typicaly because some crasy asshole would kill them and take over and somehow people dont stand up and fight back.
oh and about the bailout. 700billion huh? wow! i saw that america has lost 600k jobs well hmm. 700 billion thats what 280,000 25,000dollar jobs the goverment could make doing shit like cleaning up trash or something. you could half it and say make 560,000 12.5k a year jobs? thats much more than people working at burgerking make a year. imo that would be a usefull bailout.
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
As long as my community insists on robbing me or depriving me of my freedoms, my community can go to hell. This has nothing to do with love of money, it has everything to do with love of freedom.
You're proposing a system that relies on censorship, and denial of humanity, and expecting people to embrace it. You're asking people to surrender their freedom to an uncaring government, that will tell them that they can not worship in their own way, because the only god is Marx and Stalin.
Socialism is a philosophy that only be described as the worship of death. The only thing to look forward to under such a hateful system is DEATH!
Give me Liberty, or Give me Death!
I shall bow down not before any man, nor shall I ever call any man my master, nor shall I call any collection of men, my master.
VTXDave
Well-Known Member
How did you feel with the Kelo vs. New London ruling Bong?
tipsgnob
New Member
I think it was a gross violation of property rights and I think they misinterpreted the 5th amendment...
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Straight from Wikipedia....
Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now that you read Wikipedia on the subject, what do you think of Justice Ginsburg? She was one of the five justices voting in the affirmative.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
The Benevolent Despot is a fairy tale. Most dicators present themselves as benvolent. The pursuit of power and the efforts undertaken to retain power requires ruthlessness and there is nothing benevolent about that.
Greed and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. Greed and economics are exclusive to one another. Greed will never be eliminated. It is part of the human condition.
Your definitions of capitalism and communism are incorrect and misleading. Let's go to the dictionary.
Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. capitalism - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Communism: 1 a: a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed.
2 a: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d: communist systems collectively.
Communism - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Democrats should love the bailout because it is a government solution to a problem created by the government. Government said 'give more home loans to poor people', lenders said 'guarantee the loans'. Government said 'okay'. Now that the house of cards has fallen, the government steps in with a bailout. In fact, Republicans probably will lose the election because of the bailout.
It is more appropriate to ask why America loses jobs in the first place. It is over-regulation? Is it draconian taxation? Is it unreasonable union demands? Is it raising the minimum wage?
Bad policy causes companies to seek greener pastures where their economic activity is welcomed, not punished.