for each name below, ask yourself, "Do I approve of __________ as the next president?"


biden
bloomberg
brownback
clinton
dodd
edwards
giuliani
gore
gravel
huckabee
kerry
kucinich
mccain
obama
paul
richardson
romney
schwarzenegger
tancredo
thompson


and post the names of those you approve of

(if you approve of none, post "none")

1/16/2008 2:38:39 PM

schwarzenegger? why is his name on that list?

1/16/2008 2:39:16 PM

1/16/2008 2:40:59 PM

1/16/2008 10:41:49 PM

^ + McCain

1/16/2008 10:44:55 PM

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

WHY DOES ANYONE WITH ANY BIT OF FUCKING LOGIC SUPPORT RON PAUL

HE WOULD SINGLE HANDEDLY MAKE GOERGE W. BUSH LOOK LIKE TEDDY FUCKING ROOSEVELT.

1/16/2008 10:58:02 PM

You're certainly one to talk.

1/16/2008 11:01:56 PM

Yes, because I'm running for president have written papers defending the gold standard.

Kill yourself.

1/16/2008 11:03:15 PM

More along the lines of making everyone look more intelligent simply by your presence.

Really. You make Hooksaw and TreeTwista look brilliant by comparison.

1/16/2008 11:05:33 PM

Quote :

"WHY DOES ANYONE WITH ANY BIT OF FUCKING LOGIC SUPPORT RON PAUL"

a) he openly discusses policy
b) he won't be swayed by special interest
c) he will fight to reduce federal government spending and size
d) the man has integrity and strength of character
e) he, unlike you or I, has studied large scale economic systems for decades, unlike ANY other presidential candidate
f) he will make tremendous strides toward repairing our foreign relations with the rest of the world
g) he will reintroduce the concept of personal responsibility to this country

1/16/2008 11:16:52 PM

Quote :

"HE WOULD SINGLE HANDEDLY MAKE GOERGE W. BUSH LOOK LIKE TEDDY FUCKING ROOSEVELT."

He'd make George Bush look like a badass, warmongering imperialist?

Yeah, that's about right.

1/16/2008 11:20:20 PM

the only one I really, really can't stand, but it doesn't matter anyway, is Thompson.

That guy makes Nixon seem like a saint.

1/16/2008 11:29:56 PM

# let a racist newsletter be published for twenty years in his name, and still employs the person who published it even after finding out about it, even though he told everyone that he fired the people involved

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

# gives interviews to white separatist organizations

http://www.vdare.com/pb/070912_paul.htm

# describes immigrants at the TSA as "not looking very American to me"

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/index1.html

# voted against the renewal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act

http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

# works with anti-psychiatry organizations because he doesn't believe in mental illness (including the CCHR, a Scientology front group)

http://www.liberty-watch.com/volume03/issue01/cinema.php

# describes the Constitution as "replete with references to God" (even though it is demonstrably not)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

# thinks that forced smallpox vaccinations are a bad thing even in the case of outbreak due to terrorist attack (which demonstrates a distinct lack of knowledge about how plagues work)

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/health-freedom/

# is a Creationist (jump to 2m 40s)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q


# uses eliminationist rhetoric in his campaign mailings

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/ron_paul_drops_an_antiimmigrant_mailing.php

# votes against a medal for Rosa Parks but sponsors legislation for medals for soldiers who never saw combat during the Cold War

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3417:

# sponsored legislation to "strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life" by "prohibiting the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style", amongst other things

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:HR07955:@@@D&summ2=m&

# introduced legislation defining life as beginning at conception

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.02597:

# legislation that would prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like--a bill which he has repeated reintroduced.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300:

# the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-764

# Believes in the New World Order Conspiracy

http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/ron_paul_first_bush_was_working_towards_nwo.htm

# believes that the International Baccalaureate program is U.N. mind control
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r109:E14AP5-0007:

# Abolish the Federal Reserve System

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2755:

(and advocate a return to the gold standard)

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm












Q E D



[Edited on January 17, 2008 at 12:03 AM. Reason : >.<]

1/17/2008 12:01:39 AM

Quote :

"# let a racist newsletter be published for twenty years in his name, and still employs the person who published it even after finding out about it, even though he told everyone that he fired the people involved"

He didn't write it, its been acknowledged and apologized for multiple times. Dr. Paul dealt with this in 1988. He is not racist, he has the backing and support of many minority leaders and the recent article digging this shit up was a blatant attempt to do anything possible to discredit him before the NH and MI primaries.

Quote :

"# gives interviews to white separatist organizations"

vdare is not a white separatist organization. Its an immigration reform group. There are various articles written by the organizations founder specifically denying any affiliation with race or gender bias. The whole point of the group is to limit immigration to keep the job pool open for native born citizens.

Quote :

"# describes immigrants at the TSA as "not looking very American to me""

The FULL quote was a sarcastic jab at the complete imcompetence of the TSA. He said it in the context of "screening" people by appearance, aka racial profiling and how the screeners didn't "look" any more American by the profiling tactics than the people being screened.

You forgot the latter part of the comment: "Not that I'm accusing them of anything, but it's sort of ironic."

Quote :

"# voted against the renewal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act"

All the act does today is mandate racial quotas in the work force. Which has no positive impact on race relations or the private sector in general. Of course he voted against it. To even suggest such a vote was racially motivated is ignorant.

Quote :

"# works with anti-psychiatry organizations because he doesn't believe in mental illness (including the CCHR, a Scientology front group)"

Please show me ONE credible source showing this. The link you posted has nothing to do with Dr. Paul, other than one offhanded metaphorical reference.

Quote :

"# describes the Constitution as "replete with references to God" (even though it is demonstrably not) "

Actually he referred to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in combination. Which, taken as a collective body of work, written and published by the same men in the same time period, does have significant references to God and is decidedly Christian based.

Also, Dr. Paul has never claimed to be an athiest. His purpose for that article is that freedom of religion is not secularism. By preventing Christians from celebrating Christmas in the public eye, you are infringing on their freedoms, not increasing the freedom of other religious groups.

Quote :

"# thinks that forced smallpox vaccinations are a bad thing even in the case of outbreak due to terrorist attack (which demonstrates a distinct lack of knowledge about how plagues work) "

They shouldn't. Plain and simple I want to retain the RIGHT to decide what happens to my own body. Because a plague is actually going to happen (you know, its happened so often by terrorist attack) . It's just another opportunity to remove the rights of the individual.

Quote :

"# is a Creationist (jump to 2m 40s)"

Has nothing to do with his ability to lead the nation. He was also referring to the theory of MACRO evolution, aka the origins of life. He has never said he is a creationist, simply that he doesn't accept the theory of macro evolution (which is hardly universally accepted in science either). He, unlike huckabee, separates his personal religious views, from policy.

Quote :

"# uses eliminationist rhetoric in his campaign mailings"

Eliminationist? Are you serious? what have you been smoking? By the link you posted I can only guess you are referring to his policies on illegal immigration. Notice the bold there. He doesnt want to stop immigration, he just wants to institute real policy change to make legal immigration possible for those who want it.

1/17/2008 1:00:46 AM

Quote :

"# gives interviews to white separatist organizations http://www.vdare.com/pb/070912_paul.htm ... # works with anti-psychiatry organizations because he doesn't believe in mental illness (including the CCHR, a Scientology front group) http://www.liberty-watch.com/volume03/issue01/cinema.php ... # Believes in the New World Order Conspiracy http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/ron_paul_first_bush_was_working_towards_nwo.htm ... # votes against a medal for Rosa Parks but sponsors legislation for medals for soldiers who never saw combat during the Cold War http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3417: "

Wow, I think I just lost all respect for Paul there.

I couldn't say I "approve" of any of the candidates, if you mean on a personal level. I'm sure there all very despicable people IRL (except maybe Gravel).

1/17/2008 1:02:03 AM

none

1/17/2008 1:11:11 AM

Quote :

"# voted against the renewal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act "

Barry Goldwater voted against the original legislation in 1964, despite his agreement with the overall premise of what it was trying to accomplish. His reasoning was, in short, that the Federal gov't had neither the responsibility nor the legal right to indulge in such intervention.

I'm sure Ron Paul's opposition was pretty much in the same vein.

Quote :

"# votes against a medal for Rosa Parks but sponsors legislation for medals for soldiers who never saw combat during the Cold War "

He offered to contribute money for her medal himself, and encouraged the rest of the Senate to do likewise, but stated that a medal for Rosa Parks shouldn't be paid for with federal tax money.




I don't agree with some of his positions, but most of these things he opposes are for the reason that they are unconstitutional and not the federal government's job.



Surely you are familiar with this famous quote from Barry Goldwater:

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution ... or have failed their purpose ... or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should be attacked for neglecting my constituents' 'interests,' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty, and in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

Ron Paul is very much the same way...it just seems completely foreign to see anyone in Washington heed the Constitution at all. Again, I'm voting for McCain, and I disagree with Paul on a few issues, but I wish we had more people like him in Washington...I wish the GOP would move generally much more in his direction.

1/17/2008 1:28:07 AM

Quote :

"# votes against a medal for Rosa Parks but sponsors legislation for medals for soldiers who never saw combat during the Cold War"

He offered to pay for the medal for Rosa Parks out of his own pocket. He voted against it because he didn't feel it was the taxpayer's responsibility.

Medals for honorable service in the MILITARY (notice, a federally paid job and service) is a completely separate thing. And active combat is not the only qualifier of a dangerous military occupation worthy of a medal.

Quote :

"# sponsored legislation to "strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life" by "prohibiting the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style", amongst other things"

Actually the bill proposed dozens of things, mostly the elmination of the federal dept of education and ensuing tax rebates for families wishing to home school their children. The part you quoted is a provision thrown in to eliminate special interest funding for homosexual activist groups.

Quote :

"# introduced legislation defining life as beginning at conception"

The declaration of independence guarantees life.

Quote :

"# legislation that would prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like--a bill which he has repeated reintroduced."

It's a state's rights issue plain and simple. Many states including NC still have various sodomy and fornication laws on the books, that are uninforced and long forgotten. Again you are making a retarded assumption, "the return of sodomy laws". It wouldnt happen, that's not the point of the legislation, and you know it.

Quote :

"# the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan. "

Wrong. US corporations had already long been barred from any interaction with Sudan or the Sudanese government. Every state (including Texas) had already divested. The federal government had divested.

He voted against it for this: "To require the identification of companies that conduct business operations in Sudan, to prohibit United States Government contracts with such companies, and for other purposes." The spending of federal tax money to identify non-US businesses that may be doing business with Sudan. That is not the domain of the Fed, and a complete fucking waste of money.

Quote :

"# Believes in the New World Order Conspiracy"

So? Romney believes in golden secret scrolls and Adam Smith. Hillary believes she is lucifer resurrected.

Quote :

"# believes that the International Baccalaureate program is U.N. mind control"

Yet another gross exagerration. It does teach the viewpoints of western european socialism, which is in stark contrast to the US virtues of personal responsbility, freedom and right to privacy.

Quote :

"# Abolish the Federal Reserve System"

You mean the one that has been a cluster-fuck from its inception? And why does this even matter? It wont happen, so whats the point in even bringing it up as a talking point.





---------------



You have yet to NEGATE any of the reasons I support him. All you did was come up with more fringe, off-base, out-of-context reasons why i shouldnt support him.

1/17/2008 1:32:02 AM

Spin whatever you want dude

I just torpedoed anything you could come up with outside the realm of grasping.

[Edited on January 17, 2008 at 1:42 AM. Reason : kek]

1/17/2008 1:40:45 AM

I neither find Congressional adhererance to the U.S. Constitution as something to be easily "torpedoed", nor the support thereof to be easily construed as "grasping".

If you want to just say "Fuck the Constitution, we'll just trust our government to do as it deems fit", then just admit it, and support Amendments that grant our legislators a legitimate blank check (at least comparatively).

Otherwise, there is no reason to be vehemently opposed to Ron Paul.



[Edited on January 17, 2008 at 1:47 AM. Reason : asdf]

1/17/2008 1:44:49 AM

Hey,

You're in good company:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/why-we-should-support-ron-388565.html

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28353&only

1/17/2008 1:57:06 AM

Wow, guilt-by-association. What an intellectually rigorous response! Just the kind we expect out of you.

1/17/2008 2:08:20 AM

Between TheDuke's completely red herring response and Noen going on one of his "I have no idea what im talking about but by god I'll fill an entire page with drabble" rants I don't think any more factual evidence needs to be presented by me.

Besides, plenty of presidential candidates pose with white supremacy groups and refer to black people as being "fleet footed"

Right?

1/17/2008 2:14:06 AM

Well, John McCain has repeatedly referred to Asian people as "gooks" and made racist jokes during the last fucking debate.

But, he's a war hero, so we shouldn't really give a shit. Instead we should rag on some ghost-written newsletters that came out 20 years ago, because that guy voted against the Iraq War and the PATRIOT Act, so he must be evil. Or something.

1/17/2008 2:16:55 AM

See now you're trying to justify something thats wrong by pointing out other people that do it.

I'm not advocating McCain or Obama, or Clinton, or Thompson.

I'm simply stating that Ron Paul is the worst of the GOP lineup save for maybe Mike Huckabee, and only then because Huckabee is electable.

The man argues for a return to the gold standard, and beliefs held by autistic retards like noen withstanding, that act alone would singlehandedly destroy the Nation. Yet he argues for it. Thats who you want as your president?

1/17/2008 2:20:05 AM

The worst? Really? Are you insane? The guy who actually doesn't advocate "doubling Gitmo," bombing Iran back into the Stone Age, pre-emptive warfare, an unlimited surveillance state (or worse, a complete nanny state), who doesn't use 9/11 as a pretext for everything, cross-dress and use public money to fund his affairs, or who doesn't belong to a magic-underwear cult, and he's the worst of them all?

Are you insane?

[Edited on January 17, 2008 at 2:30 AM. Reason : Honestly.]

1/17/2008 2:23:33 AM

Hay

Here's a guy thats of the same mindset as you

http://gawker.com/5002269/the-cruise-indoctrination-video-scientology-tried-to-suppress

1/17/2008 2:33:37 AM

So that's a "yes," then.

1/17/2008 2:35:17 AM

What I've posted isn't intended to change your mind, or noen's mind, or dukes. Its intended to make the lot of you look like fucking morons and it does that fairly well.

To reiterate, you are supporting a candidate who advocates:

-Disbanding the FDA, TSA, Dept Education, Federal Reserve
-Isolationism
-Return to the Gold Standard (there isn't even enough gold in the world to do this, let alone what happens to a gold supported monetary unit in a nation running huge trade deficits)
-Has ties to white supremacy groups, and while he doesn't advocate them, he won't renounce them. (endorsed by StormFront)
-Doesn't believe in evolution and supports creationism openly.

and these some of the more wide known exploits.

(The top 3 would completely destroy this nation if he could carry them out, which of course he couldnt but holding those views is retarded do begin with)

And all of you fumbled around with winded explanations trying to tone down exactly how ridiculous these statements were because you clearly hadn't bothered to look into any of the talking points in depth.

[Edited on January 17, 2008 at 2:46 AM. Reason : >.<]

1/17/2008 2:46:15 AM

I'm also reposting this:

http://gawker.com/5002269/the-cruise-indoctrination-video-scientology-tried-to-suppress

Just because you can actually see the crazy in Tom's eyes.

1/17/2008 2:49:18 AM

Quote :

"Spin whatever you want dude"

Who posted spin? I responded with the constitutional justifications, and put your spin IN CONTEXT.

Quote :

"Besides, plenty of presidential candidates pose with white supremacy groups and refer to black people as being "fleet footed""

Seriously? Spin much? Doubtful Dr. Paul even knew who the guys were, and no indication was made to that effect. He has repeatedly and vehemently denied any ties or allegiances to any white supremicist movement. There are no ties.

The guy meets thousands of people every day. This is the exact same spin machine BS that gave him crap for accepting donations from Don Black. An individual donating money does NOT correlate to supporting the donator's positions.

Quote :

"I'm not advocating McCain or Obama, or Clinton, or Thompson."

Who are you advocating for? Because if you don't SUPPORT anyone, and merely denounce everyone, then your arguments are completely irrelevent.

Quote :

"The man argues for a return to the gold standard, and beliefs held by autistic retards like noen withstanding, that act alone would singlehandedly destroy the Nation. Yet he argues for it. Thats who you want as your president?"

ad hominem, really high brow there fella.

Quote :

" -Disbanding the FDA, TSA, Dept Education, Federal Reserve -Isolationism -Return to the Gold Standard (there isn't even enough gold in the world to do this, let alone what happens to a gold supported monetary unit in a nation running huge trade deficits) -Has ties to white supremacy groups, and while he doesn't advocate them, he won't renounce them. (endorsed by StormFront) -Doesn't believe in evolution and supports creationism openly. "

I can't speak to the FDA, but the TSA has been shown by auditors to be almost completely incompetent, and an incredible waste of money and time. The Federal Dept of Education does absolutely nothing of value and the funds would be MUCH better off being redirected to the states.

He is not isolationist, he promotes free trade and non-interventionism. Just because you don't comprehend the concepts doesn't mean they dont exist.

As with all his policies, he isn't saying to immediately switch to an ASSET standard, but to transition over time (hence why he FIRST wants to balance the trade deficiet and reduce the Fed to a balanced level) DUURRRRRRR

He has openly and repeatedly renounced ALL ties to every racist/bigot group he's been asked about.

Doesn't fucking matter what the fucking hell he believes in for the origin of mankind. It couldnt be any more irrelevent.

Quote :

"And all of you fumbled around with winded explanations trying to tone down exactly how ridiculous these statements were because you clearly hadn't bothered to look into any of the talking points in depth. "

See, when you post sound-bytes and media snips, it requires CONTEXT to show how fucking stupid they are to begin with. Your talking points are typical bullshit that I've seen dozens of times before. The ONLY real talking point you have is the Federal Reserve issue, which is actually debateable. The rest of it are half-hearted and completely incorrect assumptions of the man's character based on a different governmental ideal (noteably, the one this country was founded on)

[Edited on January 17, 2008 at 3:02 AM. Reason : .]

1/17/2008 2:54:10 AM

Quote :

"What I've posted isn't intended to change your mind, or noen's mind, or dukes. Its intended to make the lot of you look like fucking morons and it does that fairly well."

You're supposed to make people look like fucking morons... by scattershot, ad homnem, and utter irrelevance?

Golly, I sure do feel foolish now.

1/17/2008 3:02:02 AM

The crux of my argument is neither long-winded, nor fumbling, nor really even related to whether or not his positions have merit or are, as you say, ridiculous.

His positions as a United States Congressman are governed by the Constitution of the United States. I know this seems to be a novel concept, but the fact that it seems so extreme and far-fetched speaks volumes about what our government has become over the last 75 years or so (and I don't mean that as a compliment).

Many things that Constitutionalists in federal government have historically opposed are not bad ideas--they are just bad ideas for the federal government to be engaged in.


Even if you disagree with him (which I do on certain issues--for example, the gold standard, certain immigration policies, etc), it is hard to bash him for his views that are clearly supported by the Constitution. Let's face it--we basically disregard that cornerstone document so flagrantly that we might as well just shitcan it altogether if we're not going to go back to abiding by it. Personally, I'd prefer the latter, which is--along with the viewpoint of a much more limited roll of gov't that naturally follows--why I like him.

I know that he's not going to get elected. I'm under no illusion that there is even a remote chance of it. Still, I like to see him gain popularity, support, and influence in hopes that it will be a wake-up call to the rest of the GOP, that they need to return to their limited gov't roots and stop ignoring the libertarian wing of the party.



Of course, if the big-"L" Libertarian Party would get their shit together and run less-extreme candidates with mainstream appeal, that would likewise probably force the GOP to turn back the clock, ohhh, about 45 years (or hell, I'd even settle for 28 years).

[Edited on January 17, 2008 at 3:04 AM. Reason : asdfasd]

1/17/2008 3:04:07 AM

the only ones that are still in it that i would ever even REMOTELY vote for are obama, mccain, clinton, romney or guilliani

my order would be obama, mccain, clinton, romney, and guilliani

i dont think its likely i will have to go past clinton, which is why i say remotely

1/17/2008 3:36:45 AM

Obama

McCain

Clinton

1/17/2008 3:47:04 AM

None of them really have my support. This is common, but I seem to agree with all of them on at least one issue and completely disagree on others.

I keep waiting for one candidate to really catch me with their charisma and maybe that will make up for the laws I see in all of them.

Politically I probably side with Rudy the most, but I absolutely distrust him as a person. I would vote for both Clinton and Obama before him. I agree with McCain's strategy in Iraq, which should still be seen as the most important issue. I'm sure I'll choose one very soon.

I was excite about Fred Thompson entering, but he has been a disappointment. He doesn't seem interested.

I also want to point out that preemptive strike or warfare is not a new action by the United States. Proactive government is a good thing. I recognize this. Iraq was not the first or second time we did this. I didn't necessarily agree with going over there, but I saw somewhere in this thread the buzzword "pre-emptive" strike" as if it was this crazy idea Bush came up with. That simply isn't true.

1/17/2008 4:28:14 AM

Quote :

"Politically I probably side with Rudy the most, but I absolutely distrust him as a person. I would vote for both Clinton and Obama before him. I agree with McCain's strategy in Iraq, which should still be seen as the most important issue."

1/17/2008 6:01:16 AM

Obama
Edwards
Clinton
McCain

1/17/2008 6:47:45 AM

1st choice: Obama
2nd choice: McCain

1/17/2008 7:47:27 AM

edwards
gore
kucinich
obama
paul
schwarzenegger

[Edited on January 17, 2008 at 8:43 AM. Reason : wow, SandSanta is a moron]

1/17/2008 8:26:00 AM

Romney
Obama
Paul

1/17/2008 9:29:32 AM

Romney
Bloomberg
Paul

1/17/2008 10:29:03 AM

You people confuse me.

For many of these lists, I cannot even imagine an internally consistent worldview that would allow for the order of the combination listed.

So I'm forced to conclude that most of you are just dumb.

And, for my part:

Paul
and almost Tancredo and Thompson, but they both are closer to making the cut than others.

[Edited on January 17, 2008 at 10:37 AM. Reason : a]

1/17/2008 10:35:46 AM

Quote :

"I also want to point out that preemptive strike or warfare is not a new action by the United States. Proactive government is a good thing. I recognize this. Iraq was not the first or second time we did this. I didn't necessarily agree with going over there, but I saw somewhere in this thread the buzzword "pre-emptive" strike" as if it was this crazy idea Bush came up with. That simply isn't true."

You're using a business-major buzzword for warfare? Seriously? "Pro-active?"

And it doesn't matter if Bush is hardly the first person to try it (which was never even implied) - it's still a dumb idea. Do we want to continue to do everything Bush is doing, simply because they've been done before? (Why bother with an election, in which case?)

1/17/2008 10:37:50 AM

It was not even pre-emption.

Pre-emption is bad. But Iraq was premeditated, unprovoked invasion. There was no threat to pre-empt, and that much was obvious from the beginning.

[Edited on January 17, 2008 at 10:41 AM. Reason : a]

1/17/2008 10:40:14 AM

Quote :

"For many of these lists, I cannot even imagine an internally consistent worldview that would allow for the order of the combination listed."

there doesn't have to be an "internally consistent worldview" (perhaps you're just a straight-ticket voter)

it's just a simple question of approval

1/17/2008 10:54:32 AM

Yes, but how can anyone approve of two candidates whose main messages contradict each other so thoroughly?

There does have to be a consistent worldview or standard by which you evaluate candidates, otherwise it is nothing but likeability.

I'm saying that there is no rational standard or measuring criteria that can be used and come up with some of the results listed. There has to be hierarchy of priorities and positions used to rank candidates, and to get Candidate X as #1, and anti-X as #2 shows that the person has just not thought it through very well.

Even if these are not ordered, as someone is surely gonna claim, it is still not possible to actually have priorities and positions of your own and 'approve' of some of these combinations.

[Edited on January 17, 2008 at 11:06 AM. Reason : a]

1/17/2008 11:03:46 AM

I hope you guys are collecting that purestrain gold.

1/17/2008 11:29:09 AM

I hope you are taking medication to manage your hemoroids.

Quote :

"I also want to point out that preemptive strike or warfare is not a new action by the United States. Proactive government is a good thing. I recognize this. Iraq was not the first or second time we did this."

Proactive government can be a good thing. Pre-emptive war is NOT proactive government. And Iraq was in no way being proactive. It was at the end of a chain of knee-jerk reactions from the hysteria created about "the war on terror" from 9/11. It was TYPICAL government at its best.

1/17/2008 11:35:06 AM

I'd like to point out that your collective response to everything I've posted is either "hurr source" or "I agree with this." Which actually is pretty telling about your political intelligence.

Also, roids. Good burn.

1/17/2008 11:37:59 AM