If you voted for Obama[views:21136][posts:178]__________________________________ [Jul 23,2009 9:17pm - Dankill ""] Debate is good. |
| __________________________________________ [Jul 24,2009 12:30am - Conservationist ""] pam said: darkwornli said:I go by the fucking issues. EVERYONE on this board does EXACTLY that. It just doesn't suit your constant condescending bullshit lectures so you squish us all into whatever box you like and write people like me off as single-issue voters. The quoted portion is what I'm responding to. I don't think I was speaking about your motivations (personally). Regarding how most people approach voting: there's very little systemic or systematic view. Do you agree or not? |
| ____________________________________ [Jul 24,2009 1:10am - PatMeebles ""] pam said: PatMeebles said: darkwornli said:Besides, McCain would have outlawed abortion! I know you don't stand for that. Not only is that bigger government at work, that means no fetus for dinner. Wrong. He would've appointed a judge that most likely would want to overturn Roe, and return matters of abortion legality to the states. Which is a terrible, terrible fucking idea. How so? South Dakota voters rejected overwhelmingly a law to ban abortion. |
| _________________________________________ [Jul 24,2009 2:31am - ctb0rderpatrol ""] i for one think abortion legality should be a state issue, not a federal one. if dixie states want a population boom of fail babies, or a population drain of whores who think abortion is a good form of birth control, so be it. who are we to say they shouldnt decide that? |
| ______________________________ [Jul 24,2009 12:01pm - pam ""] PatMeebles said: pam said: PatMeebles said: darkwornli said:Besides, McCain would have outlawed abortion! I know you don't stand for that. Not only is that bigger government at work, that means no fetus for dinner. Wrong. He would've appointed a judge that most likely would want to overturn Roe, and return matters of abortion legality to the states. Which is a terrible, terrible fucking idea. How so? South Dakota voters rejected overwhelmingly a law to ban abortion. You are a man, therefor there is no possible way to explain to you what it is like to have control over your body voted on. I'm not worried about me, Massachusetts or most of the states, but the thought of places like Alabama outlawing safe abortion (and yes, they would) is fucking horrifying. But I don't expect you to understand. It's not your body being voted on. Human rights to their body and their privacy are not matters that should be up for voting. The fact that anyone thinks that is ok makes me sick. |
| ______________________________ [Jul 24,2009 12:02pm - pam ""] Potentially* being voted on, I should say. Thankful to Roe, I've never had to know what that feels like. |
| ______________________________ [Jul 24,2009 12:03pm - pam ""] ctb0rderpatrol said:i for one think abortion legality should be a state issue, not a federal one. if dixie states want a population boom of fail babies, or a population drain of whores who think abortion is a good form of birth control, so be it. who are we to say they shouldnt decide that? There's so much ignorance and assumption in that statement it's amazing. |
| ___________________________________ [Jul 24,2009 12:05pm - brian_dc ""] Look...I just want unwanted children to die. Let's not complicate this. |
| __________________________________ [Jul 24,2009 12:06pm - MikeOv ""] Coat hangers up twats FTW. |
| ______________________________ [Jul 24,2009 12:07pm - pam ""] Conservationist said: pam said: darkwornli said:I go by the fucking issues. EVERYONE on this board does EXACTLY that. It just doesn't suit your constant condescending bullshit lectures so you squish us all into whatever box you like and write people like me off as single-issue voters. The quoted portion is what I'm responding to. I don't think I was speaking about your motivations (personally). Regarding how most people approach voting: there's very little systemic or systematic view. Do you agree or not? I think in the end, people vote with their parties more than they do not, but there's a reason for that. There is a HUGE difference in ideology between the two major parties, why the FUCK would I vote against my ideology? And don't tell me any candidates last election had more of my values and wishes in mind on the Republican side than on the Democratic. And yeah, I did research. There is nothing wrong with aligning with a party, do some people vote blindly? Of course they do, but writing off everyone associated with a party the way you SEEM to always do is just as blind and stupid as voting without ever picking up a newspaper. |
| ___________________________________ [Jul 24,2009 12:08pm - brian_dc ""] I voted for Obama because Kanye West tweeted about it. |
| ____________________________________________ [Jul 24,2009 12:10pm - FuckIsMySignature ""] Barack Obama does not like white people. |
| _________________________________________ [Jul 24,2009 1:20pm - Conservationist ""] pam said: Conservationist said: pam said: darkwornli said:I go by the fucking issues. EVERYONE on this board does EXACTLY that. It just doesn't suit your constant condescending bullshit lectures so you squish us all into whatever box you like and write people like me off as single-issue voters. The quoted portion is what I'm responding to. I don't think I was speaking about your motivations (personally). Regarding how most people approach voting: there's very little systemic or systematic view. Do you agree or not? I think in the end, people vote with their parties more than they do not, but there's a reason for that. There is a HUGE difference in ideology between the two major parties, why the FUCK would I vote against my ideology? And don't tell me any candidates last election had more of my values and wishes in mind on the Republican side than on the Democratic. And yeah, I did research. There is nothing wrong with aligning with a party, do some people vote blindly? Of course they do, but writing off everyone associated with a party the way you SEEM to always do is just as blind and stupid as voting without ever picking up a newspaper. I don't think there's as big a gap as one might think. You may find your preference hinges on a few issues that may not be as structural to the future of a nation as they appear. I am conflicted as well. While I support the Republicans, I think a theocracy would have to be non-humanist (really great discussion going on about anti-humanist sacralization here). I like the idea of abortion, right to die, etc. The populist right opposes that. But I oppose the core idea of the left, which is anti-natural-selection, or that we must support and defend the rights of thieves, defectives, criminals, etc. Fuck those people -- get them away from my family. |
| _____________________________________ [Jul 24,2009 2:09pm - darkwornli ""] Conservationist said:But I oppose the core idea of the left, which is anti-natural-selection, or that we must support and defend the rights of thieves, defectives, criminals, etc. Fuck those people -- get them away from my family. So do I. So why does voting for Obama make me a leftist? I voted for him for the reasons stated above and nothing more. And of course, even thieves, defectives, and criminals have rights. Or at least according to Thomas Jefferson. Are you going to call him a leftist? George Washington opposed the formation of political parties. Today they are the bane of this country's existence. Why do you emphasize the rift in the political system by painting everything red and blue? I agree with many of your ideas. But my point is - people would say I lean toward the left, except the "core idea" of the left as you said is anti-natural selection, which I am NOT. I've said this before, stick to the issues, stop using the terms "liberal" and "conservative" if you want to be taken seriously. |
| ____________________________________ [Jul 24,2009 2:19pm - PatMeebles ""] I'm just waiting for the tax increases on the middle class. Did you all honestly believe you could pay for trillions upon trillions of new programs by just raising taxes on rich people? |
| _________________________________________ [Jul 24,2009 3:26pm - Conservationist ""] darkwornli said: Conservationist said:But I oppose the core idea of the left, which is anti-natural-selection, or that we must support and defend the rights of thieves, defectives, criminals, etc. Fuck those people -- get them away from my family. So do I. So why does voting for Obama make me a leftist? I voted for him for the reasons stated above and nothing more. And of course, even thieves, defectives, and criminals have rights. Or at least according to Thomas Jefferson. Are you going to call him a leftist? George Washington opposed the formation of political parties. Today they are the bane of this country's existence. Why do you emphasize the rift in the political system by painting everything red and blue? I agree with many of your ideas. But my point is - people would say I lean toward the left, except the "core idea" of the left as you said is anti-natural selection, which I am NOT. I've said this before, stick to the issues, stop using the terms "liberal" and "conservative" if you want to be taken seriously. I think the division between core ideas is important because it influences the interpretation of everything else. This was what I was trying to communicate with Pam on another thread (?) -- that if we don't pick a guiding philosophy, all we can do is collect issues. Among other things, finding that guiding philosophy would enable us to force the right to purge some of its nonsense, like fear of abortion. Thomas Jefferson, technically speaking, was a leftist -- although he had many conservative ideas. But keep in mind that he did not favor voting for criminals, or even for non-white men under 30, and that he had an almost Biblical sense of judgment that included removal of the bad. He came right out of the Enlightenment but stuck to his guns on some important ideas. I'm not even really concerned with the past so much as I am designing a positive political future for my kids. |
| _____________________________________ [Jul 24,2009 3:39pm - darkwornli ""] I wouldn't have let non-white men under 30 vote either. Guiding philosophy...isolationism, misanthropism, political pluralism...yesss.. |
| _________________________________________ [Jul 24,2009 3:52pm - Conservationist ""] Presidents typically receive 3,000 threats a year, says a Secret Service expert. Obama is outpacing the average. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte.../2009/07/17/AR2009071701785_pf.html ^^^ heh |
| _________________________________________ [Jul 24,2009 3:53pm - Conservationist ""] darkwornli said:I wouldn't have let non-white men under 30 vote either. Guiding philosophy...isolationism, misanthropism, political pluralism...yesss.. I'm good with all but question political pluralism. Forks in the political tree create identities for disagreement, without creating an urge to correct the problem, only fight over it -- or so it seems to me. |
| ________________________________ [Jul 24,2009 4:17pm - zyklon ""] Conservationist said:Presidents typically receive 3,000 threats a year, says a Secret Service expert. Obama is outpacing the average. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte.../2009/07/17/AR2009071701785_pf.html ^^^ heh And your so happy about that. What's your nick on stormfront? Supreme Racist |
| _________________________________________ [Jul 24,2009 4:18pm - Conservationist ""] zyklon said:And your so happy about that. What's your nick on stormfront? Supreme Racist I think it's funny, nothing more. Go back to revleft.com ;) |
| ________________________________ [Jul 24,2009 4:22pm - zyklon ""] You didn't answer the question |
| _____________________________ [Jul 24,2009 4:28pm - pam ""] Conservationist said:Presidents typically receive 3,000 threats a year, says a Secret Service expert. Obama is outpacing the average. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte.../2009/07/17/AR2009071701785_pf.html ^^^ heh Yeah... that's hilarious. Except it's not. |
| _________________________________________ [Jul 24,2009 4:32pm - BoarcorpseJimbo ""] Oh wait, another thread where people are bickering and bitching for no reason? I won't name names here, but there are at least a couple of you taking part in some "name calling" here that just the other day were bitching at me for the same thing. Don't take the interwebz too seriously kidz. |
| _________________________________ [Jul 24,2009 4:34pm - MikeOv ""] R.T.P.C. |
| _________________________________________ [Jul 24,2009 4:36pm - BoarcorpseJimbo ""] P.C.? |
| _________________________________ [Jul 24,2009 4:37pm - MikeOv ""] ..ha |
| _________________________________________ [Jul 24,2009 4:37pm - BoarcorpseJimbo ""] huh? |
| _____________________________________ [Jul 24,2009 4:37pm - darkwornli ""] Conservationist said: darkwornli said:I wouldn't have let non-white men under 30 vote either. Guiding philosophy...isolationism, misanthropism, political pluralism...yesss.. I'm good with all but question political pluralism. Forks in the political tree create identities for disagreement, without creating an urge to correct the problem, only fight over it -- or so it seems to me. More along the lines of an extremely decentralized government. True pluralism in this sense is almost tribal, which is great and all, beneficial for trade, but not so much for joint ventures like space exploration, and definitely leaves breeding ground for...disagreement. One can dream. Bring on the slow change to the resource wars toward the next ice age - then we'll see what happens. |
| _____________________________ [Jul 24,2009 4:40pm - pam ""] BoarcorpseJimbo said:Oh wait, another thread where people are bickering and bitching for no reason? I won't name names here, but there are at least a couple of you taking part in some "name calling" here that just the other day were bitching at me for the same thing. Don't take the interwebz too seriously kidz. I don't see name calling outside of someone calling Conservationist a racist. No one is bickering, it's a discussion. At least it is for me. |
| ____________________________________ [Jul 24,2009 4:46pm - PatMeebles ""] I repeat: just waiting for him to break his promise that everyone yelled at me verbatim for the last year: tax cuts for 95% of all Americans. |
| _________________________________________ [Jul 24,2009 4:50pm - BoarcorpseJimbo ""] pam said: BoarcorpseJimbo said:Oh wait, another thread where people are bickering and bitching for no reason? I won't name names here, but there are at least a couple of you taking part in some "name calling" here that just the other day were bitching at me for the same thing. Don't take the interwebz too seriously kidz. I don't see name calling outside of someone calling Conservationist a racist. No one is bickering, it's a discussion. At least it is for me. I wasn't talking about you Pam, but it's definately ITT. Doesn't matter though, just giggling to myself. |
| _____________________________ [Jul 24,2009 4:52pm - pam ""] BoarcorpseJimbo said: pam said: BoarcorpseJimbo said:Oh wait, another thread where people are bickering and bitching for no reason? I won't name names here, but there are at least a couple of you taking part in some "name calling" here that just the other day were bitching at me for the same thing. Don't take the interwebz too seriously kidz. I don't see name calling outside of someone calling Conservationist a racist. No one is bickering, it's a discussion. At least it is for me. I wasn't talking about you Pam, but it's definately ITT. Doesn't matter though, just giggling to myself. I know you weren't, I'm just sayin...this is pretty tame for us. haha. |
| ________________________________ [Jul 24,2009 6:15pm - zyklon ""] BoarcorpseJimbo said:Oh wait, another thread where people are bickering and bitching for no reason? I won't name names here, but there are at least a couple of you taking part in some "name calling" here that just the other day were bitching at me for the same thing. Don't take the interwebz too seriously kidz. Yeah that was Conservationist bitching at ya... |
| _________________________________________ [Jul 24,2009 7:11pm - BoarcorpseJimbo ""] no it wasn't, it was a bunch of normally chill regs. But once one of the "elite" decides something is below them, the sheep decide they too should look down upon it. |
| _____________________________ [Jul 24,2009 7:16pm - pam ""] Angry Jim is angry. |
| ____________________________________ [Jul 24,2009 7:18pm - RichHorror ""] This entire thing is stupid. The shit had nothing to do with race, it had to do with class. Wealthy Harvard professor fuckface gets treated like the rest of us for once and throws a hissy, talking shit to a cop and gets put in cuffs. HUGE SHOCK. |
| _______________________________ [Jul 24,2009 7:27pm - yummy ""] The president handled this stupidly. At a press conference Obama said he spoke to Crowley and suggested that the 3 of them should all sit down and have a beer. Crowley should have responded with, "Oh! Because I'm Irish?" I've had Mr. Crowley stuck in my head for 2 days. |
| ____________________________________ [Jul 24,2009 7:29pm - RichHorror ""] Obama had a knee-jerk reaction in public. Woopee. This is only news because race issues sell a lot of newspapers. |
| ________________________________ [Jul 24,2009 7:31pm - zyklon ""] pam said:Angry Jim is angry. Naw, he just likes to bitch a lot |
| _______________________________ [Jul 24,2009 7:33pm - yummy ""] Well fuck me for not just saying, you know rich, you're right. This entire thing is stupid. Speaking of race issues: Fuck greyhound. |
| ___________________________________ [Jul 24,2009 8:21pm - mattkings ""] Obama is a good actor. |
| _______________________________________ [Jul 25,2009 4:38am - nicrattlehead ""] Why am I pwned? Because his economic stimulus package has showed itself to be somewhat effective, and economic experts are expecting a turnaround in the next year? Because his original plan, which was hacked by the senate of course, would have returned our educational facilities to the quality that it was in thirty years ago? I am so distraught that I have a President who cares more about the education of young adults than he does about the funds necessary to turn them into mindless leathernecks. Am I pwned because he is concerned with my civil rights and ended torture as a legal practice? Or because he has embraced the research on stem cells, which could promise a plethora of medical advances? Because his green energy security act is one of the best policies this country has seen in decades, and could potentially return us to the forefront of industry and will allow us to compete with China and India's emerging economies? Because his handling of the WoT and militants in Africa and Asia has surpassed all of Bush's policies after the first week of the initial Afghan invasion? Because his foreign policies promise to return the United States to its rightful place as the beacon of the western world? I never voted for Obama or campaigned for him beliving that he would turn my country around in a day, a week, or even a year. I don't think the Op, or most Americans for that matter, have any understanding of the process in how laws in this country are past. It takes months, years even, for groundbreaking bills to pass through the senate. Many Presidents have drafted bills in the first year of their service, and after two terms still couldn't get them to pass through the House. Six months is NOTHING. So you should really just stfu and let the educated people decide whether or not Obama is an effective President, okay? Thx. |
| _________________________________________ [Jul 25,2009 8:45am - Conservationist ""] nicrattlehead said:So you should really just stfu and let the educated people decide whether or not Obama is an effective President, okay? Thx. Implication: I am not educated. That explains the fanboi post full of inaccuracies. Hint: educational facilities aren't the problem with the American education system. A sidestep. Hint: the green plan doesn't meet its goals. Another sidestep. I think as someone said above, Obama's an actor. Bush was better -- at least he got shit done. |
| _________________________________________ [Jul 25,2009 9:00am - BoarcorpseJimbo ""] "[Jul 24,2009 7:31pm - zyklon] pam said:Angry Jim is angry. Naw, he just likes to bitch a lot" You're silly! |
| _________________________________ [Jul 25,2009 10:14am - zyklon ""] Conservationist said: nicrattlehead said:So you should really just stfu and let the educated people decide whether or not Obama is an effective President, okay? Thx. Implication: I am not educated. That explains the fanboi post full of inaccuracies. Hint: educational facilities aren't the problem with the American education system. A sidestep. Hint: the green plan doesn't meet its goals. Another sidestep. I think as someone said above, Obama's an actor. Bush was better -- at least he got shit done. He got shit done big time!! By invading a country who had nothing to do with the war on terror. He's the reason we're in this mess. We spend 10 fucking billion a month. The guy is not in office, don't defend him! |
| ____________________________________________ [Jul 25,2009 10:31am - FuckIsMySignature ""] mattkings said:Obama is a good actor. and salesman. |
| ____________________________________________ [Jul 25,2009 10:33am - FuckIsMySignature ""] all hail President Rockefeller |
| ______________________________ [Jul 25,2009 10:34am - pam ""] Conservationist said: I think as someone said above, Obama's an actor. Bush was better -- at least he got shit done. LOL. yeah. He was awesome. :pukeface: |
| __________________________________________ [Jul 25,2009 11:01am - Conservationist ""] pam said: Conservationist said: I think as someone said above, Obama's an actor. Bush was better -- at least he got shit done. LOL. yeah. He was awesome. :pukeface: What do you object to about George W? Let's hear the solid reasons why he was so bad. |