US presidential election

[Hanafuda]

The only difference is Obama was born in Hawaii, McCain was born in Panama (not a state or a territory).

Actually, pretty sure at the time McCain was born that the Panama Canal Zone was a U.S. territory. O/T, but worth pointing that out.

 

[smile72]

The only difference is Obama was born in Hawaii, McCain was born in Panama (not a state or a territory).

Actually, pretty sure at the time McCain was born that the Panama Canal Zone was a U.S. territory. O/T, but worth pointing that out.

I know but not all of Panama was a territory.McCain was born in the canal zone though so yes that was a U.S territory.

 

[MENU!]

He's only bad because he was left to clean up Bush's shit. It took Bush 8 years to fuck up America, it's going to take twice as long to clean it back up.

Now that's optimism!

 

[Lacius]

It is worth mentioning, however, that democrats did sue in Federal court to disqualify McCain over his birthplace as well. If McCain had won the 2008 election, I do believe there would still be democrats out there still saying he wasn't a 'natural born citizen' either.

That was more a question of eligibility, not whether or not his place of birth was part of a mass conspiracy. It was established that McCain met eligibility requirements and the issue was dropped, if you would even call it an issue. In no way is it the same thing as the birthers out there refusing to acknowledge the evidence.

Heck, there are still plenty of democrats who are still livid over the 2000 election and the Supreme Court's decision that stopped the recounts in Florida.

I'm still upset about the 2000 election. Sure, I've accepted it, but Gore won the popular vote. Likewise, it is probable that Florida went for Gore. It is arguably likely that if Florida hadn't gone for Gore, it would have if a disproportionate number of black people hadn't been disallowed to vote. I would say that none of this is relevant, but Republicans have a habit for employing voter suppression for political gain, especially now.

 

[BlueStar]

I like Ron Paul. He seems to stick with what he says.

Sticking to what you say when what you say is stupid is not an admirable trait.

 

[BlueStar]

This kind of statement shows me that you live in a bubble of your own facts

This is the problem with far-right wingnuts who have a paranoid victim complex. They get wound up in this positive feedback loop by gorging on all the media, talk shows, sites, blogs and forums run by like minded folk. And this is where you get the the "99.9999% of the media is Liberal, how can't you see it?!?!"

Of course if you spend all week looking at WND and listening to Beck and Rush Limbaugh BBCWorld is going to look liberal, in the same way as if you walk around all day wearing yellow sunglasses and then take them off everything looks blue.

 

[DigiTak]

Vermin Supreme. Free ponies for all.

 

[I_AM_BIB]

All the votes are bullshit. Simply because you only have a choice of a few people who are all going to ruin America, maybe not in the same way, but equally.

To argue that two political parties with radically different points of view will equally ruin the country is baseless. For example, in terms of the debt, we know that the Democrats have plans that are projected to reduce the deficit over time. Oppositely, all of the Republican plans cut taxes and raise the debt. Despite the fact that there will only be two viable choices, many important issues are at stake. The debt, women's rights, gay rights, the environment, investments in new technologies, energy, etc. To say that the results of the election will be inconsequential is absolutely not true.

It's a government of lies with their secrets hidden in false information. How can you ever believe the news nowadays when on the new people just say stuff you have no proof of. A obvious example, Osama Bin Laden killed. They wont show his body, hardly anyone "saw" it. And then they say they threw it in the sea.

You may tell this to their faces, but they always have excuses of the laws they invented. "Why wont you show it on TV?" "Oh because people might find it horrible." Bullshit. People don't need to watch it if they always give them warnings before. They have everything their way, why would we want any one of them?... You don't have a clue what they might decide next.

There are examples of the government lying (ex. the Iraq War). But to argue that the government is always lying sounds paranoid. For example, there's absolutely no reason to think that the government lied about the circumstances involving Osama bin Laden's death and disposal. Likewise, if you're arguing that the results of the presidential election are inconsequential because the government lies, then it should be noted that one could argue that the Republicans are more a party of lies than the Democrats. If lying is an issue for you, then the results of the presidential election absolutely matter.

But all this voting of people we have no clue of what they might do makes EVERYONE lose trust in the government. It's unfortunately a problem that the only choices on voting are all shit, why not have a large range? Maybe just rethink a new way of election, maybe new people!

 

[I_AM_BIB]

Paranoia is something most people have nowadays, i don't mind if you call me paranoid, but the government doesn't really set a good example to what they do do they? If we could just live in Religious freedom we would be fine, but we simply can't. What we should do is have certain rules to different states to all countries around the world, and different areas with different religions (no racial segregation), but let other people visit other areas, but not aloud to live there. This might seem a bit strange or offensive to some people, but it would cancel out most problems that simply start from religion.

 

[Coconut]

Wow, for a sec, I thought it said 'Presidential erection'

 

[KinGamer7]

Wow, for a sec, I thought it said 'Presidential erection'

Gives a whole new meaning to the 'None; they all suck' choice in the poll...

 

[NeoSupaMario]

Lol

 

[smile72]

Paranoia is something most people have nowadays, i don't mind if you call me paranoid, but the government doesn't really set a good example to what they do do they? If we could just live in Religious freedom we would be fine, but we simply can't. What we should do is have certain rules to different states to all countries around the world, and different areas with different religions (no racial segregation), but let other people visit other areas, but not aloud to live there. This might seem a bit strange or offensive to some people, but it would cancel out most problems that simply start from religion.

That is extremely paranoid and against everything America stands for, if you are going to discuss this country read the first amendment of our Constitution. And that also breaks many of our laws.

 

[Frogman]

I would vote for Obama if I lived in America that is...

 

[Sterling]

Definitely for Ron Paul. Whether you like him or not, I think he is the best future for this country. If he isn't on the ticket, I'm doing a write in.

 

[smile72]

Definitely for Ron Paul. Whether you like him or not, I think he is the best future for this country. If he isn't on the ticket, I'm doing a write in.

He still won't win whether he's on the ballot or not. And he would be one of the worst for the country, sure he gets us out of all conflicts,but he's much too state's rights like saying it's the state's right whether they should allow homosexual sex. He would be a terrible president. And to everyone (yes I know of Lawrence v.Texas)

 

[Sterling]

Definitely for Ron Paul. Whether you like him or not, I think he is the best future for this country. If he isn't on the ticket, I'm doing a write in.

He still won't win whether he's on the ballot or not. And he would be one of the worst for the country, sure he gets us out of all conflicts,but he's much too state's rights like saying it's the state's right whether they should allow homosexual sex. He would be a terrible president. And to everyone (yes I know of Lawrence v.Texas)

I'd rather vote for someone who I agree with than for the people who are on the ticket. Besides, I'm all for reduction of big government, and I personally don't have an opinion on homosexual marriage.

 

[Libertarian94]

Definitely for Ron Paul. Whether you like him or not, I think he is the best future for this country. If he isn't on the ticket, I'm doing a write in.

He still won't win whether he's on the ballot or not. And he would be one of the worst for the country, sure he gets us out of all conflicts,but he's much too state's rights like saying it's the state's right whether they should allow homosexual sex. He would be a terrible president. And to everyone (yes I know of Lawrence v.Texas)

I'd rather vote for someone who I agree with than for the people who are on the ticket. Besides, I'm all for reduction of big government, and I personally don't have an opinion on homosexual marriage.

The problem is that in some states people see homosexuality as wrong.
Now ask yourself, whats best of the following:
1. The federal government issues a mandate for homosexual marriages, creating more tension and diversity, and hatred between people.
2. People eventually sooner or later starts seeing it as acceptable, as other states do so, and thus don't really mind homosexuals getting married?

 

[Sterling]

Definitely for Ron Paul. Whether you like him or not, I think he is the best future for this country. If he isn't on the ticket, I'm doing a write in.

He still won't win whether he's on the ballot or not. And he would be one of the worst for the country, sure he gets us out of all conflicts,but he's much too state's rights like saying it's the state's right whether they should allow homosexual sex. He would be a terrible president. And to everyone (yes I know of Lawrence v.Texas)

I'd rather vote for someone who I agree with than for the people who are on the ticket. Besides, I'm all for reduction of big government, and I personally don't have an opinion on homosexual marriage.

The problem is that in some states people see homosexuality as wrong.
Now ask yourself, whats best of the following:
1. The federal government issues a mandate for homosexual marriages, creating more tension and diversity, and hatred between people.
2. People eventually sooner or later starts seeing it as acceptable, as other states do so, and thus don't really mind homosexuals getting married?

Forced change isn't good at all. Homosexual Marriages are becoming increasingly accepted. Change should happen slowly.

 

[emigre]

Forced change isn't good at all. Homosexual Marriages are becoming increasingly accepted. Change should happen slowly.

Little Rock?