Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

I'm voting Gary Johnson, because I'm willing to sacrifice social programs and economic regulations if it means an end to the drug war and foreign interventionism. I'd honestly putting "not actively and intentionally ruining an enormous number of lives" as above "helping people out and trying to achieve a more balanced society" on the governments priority list.

He's like Ron Paul without being insane (on the monetary front, he manages to be merely mostly misguided, and actually has a few decent ideas), racist, homophobic, extremely pro-life or, and/or completely incapable of delegating to people who aren't going to continually and repeatedly push those sort of arguments and policies. (Choosing people to lead is one of the primary presidential responsibilities, after all!)

I'm honestly not sure why anyone would support Paul when Johnson seems superior in every conceivable way (although I DO understand why people would support Obama over Johnson, since, ya'know, priorities)

[Luke_Prowler]

I don't think Obama deserves half the hate he gets. Yes, he's made an assload of bad decisions, but considering he has been dealt the political version of the hand of death and trying to work a compromise with a group of people that litterally hates every fiber of his being, I say he's done okay with what he has to deal with.

Just to pick another topic, I feel like we haven't slung mud discussed Gingrich enough. I think I link in the progessive rage thread about something he did, but I can't for the life of me remember what it was about.

[Heron TSG]

MSH, the statement that you are not free is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I am free. As far as I know, aside from damaging or taking property or adversely effecting the health of another living creature, there is very little I cannot do. If the government orders the military to start shooting civilians like what's happening in Syria, I will fight to defend my freedoms. I keep an eye on the Senate and House logs to find out what they're doing. I have beef with it. That's why I plan on running for office in the future, so that I can change the situation somewhat. If I find the system to be flawed, I'll try to expose that. If you give up now and do not even try to make change, you do not deserve freedom. Surrender is not an option.

Just to pick another topic, I feel like we haven't slung mud discussed Gingrich enough. I think I link in the progressive rage thread about something he did, but I can't for the life of me remember what it was about.

I was under the impression that Gingrich was pretty much out at this point. The Republican party as a whole seems to hate him almost as much as the Democrats.

[Capntastic]

The problem with Obama is that the Democratic party can't get its act together and be a politically manipulative and abusive as the Republicans- he keeps compromising and they keep pulling the football away.  He's not a terrible person, he's made some decisions I don't agree with, but if you think that this awful term he's had is his fault alone, and not hugely influenced by the floods of opposition he has on every single move, then you just aren't seeing the whole picture. 

Politics is what gets in the way of Government Getting Shit Done.

Edit:  MSH, settle down and either have normal discourse like we're trying to attain, or take your rants elsewhere.  Aqizzar has stated that he's truly averse to such derails, and I'd hate for this thread to get locked.  No matter how bad America is right now, living here is still hugely better than North Korea or China.

[nenjin]

That last posted article really did put into perspective all the things that Obama has done that I don't approve of. It doesn't make me want to vote for Ron Paul, but it does make me glad that he is out there with a different view point. His apparent racial politics (or his inability to manage what the hell he makes himself part of) is really repugnant, and it's what makes his anti-federal stance disturbing to me instead of inspiring.

It's unfortunate that his speaking out against important issues isn't going to be remembered at all during the election year, and that there isn't another candidate who can take up the issues. I'd honestly vote for a progressive instead of Obama. They'd just have to be free of racism and a rabid desire to dismantle the Federal government brick by brick. Regardless of the extension of executive power under Obama and all that has entailed, I still count the Federal government as doing more to protect rights than destroy them. To me the fact we have a Federal government with power isn't the problem, it's always the people we hire to run it.

[Capntastic]

That last posted article really did put into perspective all the things that Obama has done that I don't approve of.

Regardless of the extension of executive power under Obama and all that has entailed,

Are you referring to the article I linked that explains why he signed that extension or something else?  It does not excuse the situation, but it explains how it came to be, and how it's not his 'fault.'  You're acting as if you only read the first half, which was included to explain the common misconception about the situation.

[nenjin]

My bad for not quoting it.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/

You're acting as if you only read the first half, which was included to explain the common misconception about the situation.

You should wait for me to answer your question before you try to stick me for my answer

[Criptfeind]

The last posted article was his, not Zrk2s. The words you said left zero chance of it not being Capntastics article.

[Aqizzar]

So, in summation, a codification of the smoke-and-mirrors legalese Alberto Gonzales cooked up was written into the Defense Authorization bill, because that has to pass or else the military suffers serious infrastructural shocks, and Obama signed it with a writ saying he won't enforce parts of it under his administration.  It will just still be there, unless another bill changes it before he leaves office.  That's pretty much par for the course with how this Congress has treated critically important ongoing authorizations, so yeah.

Anyway.  I'll get back to this thread tomorrow, and try to give a breakdown of what's going to happen in Iowa.  As long as I'm driving, I might as well give my own bullshit prognostication.  I can say this for now though - Rick Santorum actually had one of the most prescient descriptions of how people will view the Iowa Caucus results, right before he suddenly exploded in daily tracking (if you'll pardon the entedre).

[Heron TSG]

Rick Santorum actually had one of the most prescient descriptions of how people will view the Iowa Caucus results, right before he suddenly exploded in daily tracking (if you'll pardon the entendre).

Link? All I get is Urban Dictionary, and you know for what.

I just looked at Iowacausus.biz, and holy shit those polls. Is Ron Paul winning?

[nenjin]

I'd buy he's a warlock. I think he'd view having tiger blood as being un-American though.

[Criptfeind]

.biz

What's with the .biz?

[Heron TSG]

Corruption is a business, and it's booming.

More seriously, I have no idea.

[Aqizzar]

Rick Santorum actually had one of the most prescient descriptions of how people will view the Iowa Caucus results, right before he suddenly exploded in daily tracking (if you'll pardon the entendre).

Link? All I get is Urban Dictionary, and you know for what.

I'd love to find one for you, but I'm too knackered right now.  Point is, he gave an interview about a week ago, about how the candidates, the Iowa caucus goers, and the media are likely to look at the results.  There are basically three different Republican primaries taking place in the same vote, one for each arm of the trifecta of the conservative alliance the party has relied on since 1980.  There's the Libertarian Republican Primary, which consists of basically just Ron Paul; the Cultural Republican Primary, between Santorum, Bachmann, and Perry; and the Executive Republican Primary, of Gingrich, Romney, and Huntsman.  In other words, the three different wings of the party constantly pulling in their favor, producing the somewhat disjointed conception of "Republican" as "government by and for business that's 'small' in all ways except preemptive war and enforcing the New Testament as law".

Realistically, what he was getting at is that the actual plurality winner of the Iowa caucus won't be quite so important as the order and margins of the first, second, and third places.  At the moment, there's a strong suggestion it could be Paul-Romney-Santorum.  It'll all be chicken entrails on the wall on January 4th anyway.

[Capntastic]

and enforcing the New Testament as law".

Unless there's jots and tittles of the Old Testament they can use to reinforce their worldview.