When it becomes Hillary v McCain - Page 4

toranokaze · 04-29-2008, 11:29 AM

Thats it I want a third party vote. Ron Paul perhaps, or will Natter rerun.

glatt · 04-29-2008, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I must agree. When one of you is a POW for some length of time come back and let us know how it worked out for your liberal sensitivities.

Sure it's understandable that he hates the "Gooks." They imprisoned him and tortured him. I may understand his hatred, and don't blame him for it, but does that make him a great candidate for president?

Radar · 04-29-2008, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I'm not a cynic. I just don't believe that a US president will change anything. If there is going to be change, the US population will have to stand up and take matters into their own hands.

Just by looking at Obama's key phrase you can see it. Change does not happen overnight. Change cannot happen from a small group of individuals. Change, in the sense that is being used, is sociological movement where the the majority has to take part if it is going to be successful. One large factor that helps Obama is that many just want to blame our problems on an elite class. Even though that "group" is responsible for many problems, the real issues lies within the social structure of the country itself. Racism is not just brought on the country by rich white men. It is a social structure that engulfs everyone, people of color included, and unless everyone is willing to change, racism cannot go away. That works exactly the same way for all social doctrines.

Obama will also not stop US imperialism. Some of his advisers are hawks and Obama will most likely be much closer to Bill Clinton in terms of foreign policy. Just look at Obama status on the socio-economic scale. He isn't that far from any of the Republicans including Bush and McCain.

Another thing is that even if Obama is pure, he will have a hard time working with congress if they are corrupt and no one is doing shit to change that as shown by other threads on this forum.

A President who has a congress controlled by his own party can accomplish a lot. Bush accomplished a tremendous amount of things. None of them were good for America, but he accomplished them. He accomplished spending more than a Democrat's wet dream with a Republican controlled Congress and him rubber stamping everything. He made it through his first 6 years without a single veto.

Radar · 04-29-2008, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt

Sure it's understandable that he hates the "Gooks." They imprisoned him and tortured him. I may understand his hatred, and don't blame him for it, but does that make him a great candidate for president?

He wasn't imprisoned and tortured by "gooks". He was imprisoned and tortured by the North Vietnamese. I also don't blame him for his feelings, but nobody who was locked up in a Tiger Cage, or tortured, or who uses racial slurs against the people of other nations, or who supports and wants to continue violations against the bill of rights, and unconstitutional wars of aggression, should be president.

piercehawkeye45 · 04-29-2008, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar

A President who has a congress controlled by his own party can accomplish a lot. Bush accomplished a tremendous amount of things. None of them were good for America, but he accomplished them. He accomplished spending more than a Democrat's wet dream with a Republican controlled Congress and him rubber stamping everything. He made it through his first 6 years without a single veto.

It is very easy to get a bunch of children together and get a room dirty but it nearly impossible to get a different group of children together and clean it up after them.

Radar · 04-30-2008, 12:08 AM

I guess that would depend on the kids. If you have a bunch of taggers in a room it will get tagged. If you next fill the room with boyscouts, the room will get cleaned up pretty quickly. I'm not saying the Republicans are taggers...they are thieves and murderers. I'm not saying the Democrats are boyscouts... they are just thieves.

Urbane Guerrilla · 04-30-2008, 01:10 AM

Well, let's see, we're in a war -- against the explicitly fascist, antilibertarian, totalitarian purveyors of the ol' Non-Integrating Gap-osis -- and the one war-fighter the Dems seem to have is Lieberman, who isn't in the running.

You know -- the very guys Radar doesn't want to fight. Not now, not ever, never. Funny -- they'd fight him, given a quarter of a chance.

Then too, there's the American habit of if one party dominates the Legislative Branch, put the other in the Oval Office as a check and balance. Doesn't stay that way all the time, of course, but you get it often.

I want a war fighter who can visit their just deserts upon humanity's antidemocratic enemies, whom mankind really should destroy. Doesn't matter much which segment of mankind does the destroying, so long as there are no living fascisto-communist-undemocrats left anywhere, except in an eviscerated, emasculated condition. Don't let them breed, for they will breed war.

Radar · 04-30-2008, 01:39 AM

The United States military isn't here to win or defend the freedom of any people but our own. It's a DEFENSIVE military and is here only to defend Americans from direct and imminent attacks. It's not here to liberate oppressed people abroad. It's not here to spread democracy or to defend it elsewhere. It's not here to increase libertarianism. It's not here to practice humanitarian aid missions or peace keeping missions. It's not here to overthrow dictators in other nations. It's not here to prevent other nations from building nukes. It's not here to be the police of the world and has no authority to do so even if it were. It is not here to defend human rights in other nations. It's not here to decide who our enemies are and whether or not we should destroy them.

The fact that a war-mongering, imperialistic, idiot like you doesn't like the Democratic candidates is the best endorsement they could get and proof that McCain should not, and will not ever get into the oval office unless President Obama invites him.

TheMercenary · 05-01-2008, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar

The United States military isn't here to win or defend the freedom of any people but our own. It's a DEFENSIVE military and is here only to defend Americans from direct and imminent attacks. It's not here to liberate oppressed people abroad. It's not here to spread democracy or to defend it elsewhere. It's not here to increase libertarianism. It's not here to practice humanitarian aid missions or peace keeping missions. It's not here to overthrow dictators in other nations. It's not here to prevent other nations from building nukes. It's not here to be the police of the world and has no authority to do so even if it were. It is not here to defend human rights in other nations. It's not here to decide who our enemies are and whether or not we should destroy them.

The fact that a war-mongering, imperialistic, idiot like you doesn't like the Democratic candidates is the best endorsement they could get and proof that McCain should not, and will not ever get into the oval office unless President Obama invites him.

And this from a guy who couldn't hack it in the military.

piercehawkeye45 · 05-01-2008, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar

I guess that would depend on the kids. If you have a bunch of taggers in a room it will get tagged. If you next fill the room with boyscouts, the room will get cleaned up pretty quickly. I'm not saying the Republicans are taggers...they are thieves and murderers. I'm not saying the Democrats are boyscouts... they are just thieves.

True, but for the sake of the the analogy, politicians are not boy scouts. Maybe if we had politician merit badges....

TheMercenary · 05-01-2008, 12:07 PM

DNC chairman under Bill Clinton: Unite behind Obama

WASHINGTON (AP) - A leader of the Democratic Party under Bill Clinton switched his allegiance to Barack Obama on Thursday and urged fellow Democrats to end the bruising nomination fight.
"This has got to come to an end," former Democratic National Committee Chairman Joe Andrew told reporters in his hometown of Indianapolis just days before Tuesday's crucial state primary. He said he planned to call all the other superdelegates he knows and encourage them to back Obama.

Bill Clinton appointed Andrew chairman of the DNC in 1999, and he led the party through the disputed 2000 presidential race before stepping down in 2001. Andrew endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton last year on the day she declared her candidacy for the White House.

In a lengthy letter explaining his decision, Andrew said he is switching his support because "a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue this process, and a vote to continue this process is a vote that assists (Republican) John McCain."

"The ship is taking on water right now," Andrew said at the news conference. "We need to patch those holes, heal the rift and go forward to beat John McCain."
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Urbane Guerrilla · 05-03-2008, 01:29 AM

I see by his post Radar doesn't actually want libertarianism to occur anywhere. Why then did he bother? He might as well have stayed over in the hard Left, whence he seems to have originated.

I want free peoples all over the globe, where Radar is quite explicitly content to leave them in their chains. Chains don't come off without a little crowbar work, you know. I say his views are quite immoral, quite unconscionable -- and quite eccentric, unless the man is at bottom a slavemonger, which on the evidence of his writing and the attitudes he has expressed since I first made his acquaintance, he is. His "don't do anything to free anybody ever" attitude would warm Hitler's cockles, and Stalin's too; the same thing warms them both, so he's not eccentric from a fascistocommunistic point of view. He's not happy with any freedom of thought except that freedom to agree with his -- all his isolationism, all his absence of foreign policy, all his just leaving the Gap to ruin and cause us of the Core more troubles. Phooey on that "idea." It's so poorly founded I'm surprised he allows himself to retain it; I certainly would not. I don't have his manifest xenophobia. Read between his lines and you can see it -- and explicitly in post #53 he lays out not a nation, but a sort of vast monastery, disconnected from the rest of the globe. I've said before that isolationism is a nonstarter; national isolationism would only really work in the absence of any other nation state anywhere on the Earth. This not being the case, some other approach to global socioeconomics seems called for.

Frankly, no American is an imperialist. Our temporary and halfhearted dabbling in it after the Spanish-American War goes to prove the point. It had its roots in mercantilist economic theories of international trade, and we never hewed to these, having started in laissez-faire capitalism, which unlike mercantilism's tying of cash crops and resources from the colonies and empire for manufactured goods returning to those colonies, and free trade elsewhere discouraged, we began as all about free trade, and we've stuck with it, even when we think it hurts, as in NAFTA. Capitalism trumps imperialism and makes globalism -- and makes globalism more efficient too. We preferred and prefer prosperity to naked power, as our national behavior shows. We aren't in, at bottom, any imperial habit. We also know the only real prosperity is a general prosperity. We've never lost sight of that.

be-bop · 05-04-2008, 06:19 PM

I hate politics and politicians even more,and have little idea of how the USA system works but an American guy I know who lives near me said that the USA won't vote in a woman and is not ready for a black president and the Republicans wll get in again,is that a possibility or is he talking nonsense?
I'm curious if that kind of opinion has been heard.

TheMercenary · 05-04-2008, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by be-bop

I hate politics and politicians even more,and have little idea of how the USA system works but an American guy I know who lives near me said that the USA won't vote in a woman and is not ready for a black president and the Republicans wll get in again,is that a possibility or is he talking nonsense?
I'm curious if that kind of opinion has been heard.

I think he has been out of the country to long. Anything can happen at this point.

Clodfobble · 05-05-2008, 12:41 PM

Merc's right be-bop, anything can happen--but rest assured, if McCain does win it will be for a wide variety of complicated political reasons, not because "America wasn't ready" for either a woman or a black man. If enough people really were opposed to them on that grounds, neither of them would have made it this far.

04-29-2008, 11:29 AM	#46
toranokaze I'm still a jerk Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Little Mexico Posts: 1,817	Thats it I want a third party vote. Ron Paul perhaps, or will Natter rerun. __________________ "Without deviation from the norm progress is not possible." - Frank Zappa It is the ignorance of ignorance that lead to the death of knowledge The Virgin Mary does not weep for her son, for he is in paradise. She weeps for the world , for we are in suffering.

04-30-2008, 12:08 AM	#51
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	I guess that would depend on the kids. If you have a bunch of taggers in a room it will get tagged. If you next fill the room with boyscouts, the room will get cleaned up pretty quickly. I'm not saying the Republicans are taggers...they are thieves and murderers. I'm not saying the Democrats are boyscouts... they are just thieves. __________________ "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." - George Carlin

04-30-2008, 01:10 AM	#52
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	Well, let's see, we're in a war -- against the explicitly fascist, antilibertarian, totalitarian purveyors of the ol' Non-Integrating Gap-osis -- and the one war-fighter the Dems seem to have is Lieberman, who isn't in the running. You know -- the very guys Radar doesn't want to fight. Not now, not ever, never. Funny -- they'd fight him, given a quarter of a chance. Then too, there's the American habit of if one party dominates the Legislative Branch, put the other in the Oval Office as a check and balance. Doesn't stay that way all the time, of course, but you get it often. I want a war fighter who can visit their just deserts upon humanity's antidemocratic enemies, whom mankind really should destroy. Doesn't matter much which segment of mankind does the destroying, so long as there are no living fascisto-communist-undemocrats left anywhere, except in an eviscerated, emasculated condition. Don't let them breed, for they will breed war. __________________ Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course.

05-01-2008, 12:07 PM	#56
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	DNC chairman under Bill Clinton: Unite behind Obama WASHINGTON (AP) - A leader of the Democratic Party under Bill Clinton switched his allegiance to Barack Obama on Thursday and urged fellow Democrats to end the bruising nomination fight. "This has got to come to an end," former Democratic National Committee Chairman Joe Andrew told reporters in his hometown of Indianapolis just days before Tuesday's crucial state primary. He said he planned to call all the other superdelegates he knows and encourage them to back Obama. Bill Clinton appointed Andrew chairman of the DNC in 1999, and he led the party through the disputed 2000 presidential race before stepping down in 2001. Andrew endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton last year on the day she declared her candidacy for the White House. In a lengthy letter explaining his decision, Andrew said he is switching his support because "a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue this process, and a vote to continue this process is a vote that assists (Republican) John McCain." "The ship is taking on water right now," Andrew said at the news conference. "We need to patch those holes, heal the rift and go forward to beat John McCain." http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1 __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

05-03-2008, 01:29 AM	#57
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	I see by his post Radar doesn't actually want libertarianism to occur anywhere. Why then did he bother? He might as well have stayed over in the hard Left, whence he seems to have originated. I want free peoples all over the globe, where Radar is quite explicitly content to leave them in their chains. Chains don't come off without a little crowbar work, you know. I say his views are quite immoral, quite unconscionable -- and quite eccentric, unless the man is at bottom a slavemonger, which on the evidence of his writing and the attitudes he has expressed since I first made his acquaintance, he is. His "don't do anything to free anybody ever" attitude would warm Hitler's cockles, and Stalin's too; the same thing warms them both, so he's not eccentric from a fascistocommunistic point of view. He's not happy with any freedom of thought except that freedom to agree with his -- all his isolationism, all his absence of foreign policy, all his just leaving the Gap to ruin and cause us of the Core more troubles. Phooey on that "idea." It's so poorly founded I'm surprised he allows himself to retain it; I certainly would not. I don't have his manifest xenophobia. Read between his lines and you can see it -- and explicitly in post #53 he lays out not a nation, but a sort of vast monastery, disconnected from the rest of the globe. I've said before that isolationism is a nonstarter; national isolationism would only really work in the absence of any other nation state anywhere on the Earth. This not being the case, some other approach to global socioeconomics seems called for. Frankly, no American is an imperialist. Our temporary and halfhearted dabbling in it after the Spanish-American War goes to prove the point. It had its roots in mercantilist economic theories of international trade, and we never hewed to these, having started in laissez-faire capitalism, which unlike mercantilism's tying of cash crops and resources from the colonies and empire for manufactured goods returning to those colonies, and free trade elsewhere discouraged, we began as all about free trade, and we've stuck with it, even when we think it hurts, as in NAFTA. Capitalism trumps imperialism and makes globalism -- and makes globalism more efficient too. We preferred and prefer prosperity to naked power, as our national behavior shows. We aren't in, at bottom, any imperial habit. We also know the only real prosperity is a general prosperity. We've never lost sight of that. __________________ Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course.

04-30-2008, 01:39 AM	#53
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	The United States military isn't here to win or defend the freedom of any people but our own. It's a DEFENSIVE military and is here only to defend Americans from direct and imminent attacks. It's not here to liberate oppressed people abroad. It's not here to spread democracy or to defend it elsewhere. It's not here to increase libertarianism. It's not here to practice humanitarian aid missions or peace keeping missions. It's not here to overthrow dictators in other nations. It's not here to prevent other nations from building nukes. It's not here to be the police of the world and has no authority to do so even if it were. It is not here to defend human rights in other nations. It's not here to decide who our enemies are and whether or not we should destroy them. The fact that a war-mongering, imperialistic, idiot like you doesn't like the Democratic candidates is the best endorsement they could get and proof that McCain should not, and will not ever get into the oval office unless President Obama invites him. __________________ "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." - George Carlin

05-04-2008, 06:19 PM	#58
be-bop Operations Operative Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: scotland/uk Posts: 664	I hate politics and politicians even more,and have little idea of how the USA system works but an American guy I know who lives near me said that the USA won't vote in a woman and is not ready for a black president and the Republicans wll get in again,is that a possibility or is he talking nonsense? I'm curious if that kind of opinion has been heard.

05-05-2008, 12:41 PM	#60
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	Merc's right be-bop, anything can happen--but rest assured, if McCain does win it will be for a wide variety of complicated political reasons, not because "America wasn't ready" for either a woman or a black man. If enough people really were opposed to them on that grounds, neither of them would have made it this far.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)