|
U-Know! Forum » Mitt Romney drops out |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Edited Feb 08, 2008, 02:28
Feb 08, 2008, 02:28
|
||
|
dodge one wrote: You yell too much for me. It has got to be tough to know it all. peace. And that just mystifies me. Here was me thinking I was being fairly reasonable (or as reasonable as a person can be after being asked whether they thought a bunch of murdered people "had it coming"), but apparently I was 'yelling'. And what is it with people who make a nasty snide remark ("got to be tough to know it all") but then sign off "Peace"?
|
|||
handofdave 3515 posts |
Feb 08, 2008, 04:08
|
||
|
Methinks you're overlaying too much UK politics onto the US elections. OK, New Labor didn't turn out the way you wanted. Democrats aren't my cup of tea either. But it's a hard fact that cannot be avoided... the next president is going to be a Democrat, or a Republican. More specifically, McCain, or Hillary (or maybe Obama). As far as Republicans go, McCain is at least somewhat of a maverick... but he's still pro-Iraq occupation. And he's still a member of a party that's screwed this country up more than any other entity. So I'm voting Democrat. Not gladly. But the option you present is cold comfort! I'm not interested in a protest vote for the sake of being different... I WANT THE FUCKING REPUBLICANS OUT OF THE FUCKING WHITE HOUSE! And frankly, what is naive is the belief that there isn't any difference between the Dems and the Republicans. This is rhetorical hyperbole. True, in many cases the differences are minor, but just the fact that the Democrats have the guts to put their bets on a woman and a black man ought to be proof enough. The Republicans are still all about white male power as evidenced by their contenders. I'm not going to say anything more about it... Nader can serve a noble purpose by NOT getting into the race. All he'll serve to do is to become a distraction... and possibly a spoiler, again.
|
|||
|
Lawrence 9547 posts |
Feb 08, 2008, 14:59
|
||
|
I'm with Hand of Dave and Dodge One on this. After seeing this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080208/ap_on_el_pr/conservatives_bush Guess who will be appeased if we let McCain win...
|
|||
Vybik Jon 7720 posts |
Feb 08, 2008, 15:41
|
||
|
"Prosperity and peace are in the balance" You've got it, Dubya!
|
|||
postyesterdayman 931 posts |
Feb 08, 2008, 18:30
|
||
What a turd-smelling, fake, mannequin-esque milky-gray string of rat jizm with a used-car-salesman-smile this fucker is...good riddance!!!
|
|||
|
postyesterdayman 931 posts |
Feb 08, 2008, 18:50
|
||
Grufty, that's a very dangerous and ill-informed opinion and I have a feeling that you are not in the US, am I right? Yes, both the Repubs and the Dems are owned for the most part by lobbyists for various corporate and political agendas but to say that their would be little difference between McCain and Clinton/Obama is assinine. Clinton and McCain, I'll admit, would be too similar for my liking but Obama is different altogether...he has taken no money from lobbyists or huge evil corporations and that alone, despite ultra-cynical persons writing that off as mere 'posturing' (BULLSHIT), is a massive breath of fresh air and a statement of intent that I cannot believe gets ignored so often. I am not some positive idealist. I am cynical and disheartened as they come...but not so to the point that when I finally get what I have been begging for for years I cannot turn off the negative, bitching, dismissive, auto-pilot and embrace the moment and take ACTION!` I see a huge difference between him and Hillary and certainly McCain....If Obama gets in he will most definitely begin working on getting us the fuck out of the Middle East...McCain has already said he expects us to remain for 100 years and Hillary will keep us there for quite a while as well, I am sure. If you had family in Iraq I doubt you would be so ready with your flippant pronouncement that to vote in this election is inconsequential. And that is just one issue. Nader is not going to run but if he does...well, let me put it this way. People who voted for him last time as a 'protest' vote, as you advocate, certainly realize how fucking stupid and irresponsible they were by now...to do it again, well, as they say, those who don't LEARN from history are doomed to repeat it....
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Feb 08, 2008, 20:47
|
||
|
postyesterdayman wrote: Obama is different altogether...he has taken no money from lobbyists or huge evil corporations http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q1/C00431445/A_EMPLOYER_C00431445.html The list includes Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Forest Oil, Sempra Energy, and Reliant Energy. He, just like the rest, is beholden to Big Fossils. postyesterdayman wrote: If Obama gets in he will most definitely begin working on getting us the fuck out of the Middle East For as long as the world loves oil and America wants to be a power player, America must control the world's oil. even if you think there's some desire to reduce America's influence outside its borders, for as long as the American economy runs on oil, it needs friendly supplies guaranteed. That means staying in Iraq for quite some time to come. Sure, they'll hint at withdrawal, maybe even say (as Blair, Bush and Brown all have) that we might start doing it 'by the end of next year' if conditions are right. Then a year later conditions aren't right, but maybe it'll be 'by the end of next year' again. postyesterdayman wrote: Nader is not going to run but if he does...well, let me put it this way. People who voted for him last time as a 'protest' vote, as you advocate, certainly realize how fucking stupid and irresponsible they were by now i always feel really stupid when this issue comes up, because I genuinely don't understand it. Is it really being suggested that people should give their mandate to a regime that they despise, to actively support that which they consider to be utterly ruinous, rather than speak up for a position they do believe in? Because when you vote for someone you have no right to complain when they wield power in the manner they promised. And in the case of having Bush or Gore in the White House, it's just a different vehicle going over the same cliff. It's unsurprising that the vote is split 50/50. And really, if Gore couldn't put enough distance between himself and Bush, why is that anyone's fault but Gore's?
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Edited Feb 08, 2008, 21:18
Feb 08, 2008, 21:18
|
||
|
postyesterdayman wrote: ... but Obama is different altogether... he has taken no money from lobbyists or huge evil corporations and that alone, despite ultra-cynical persons writing that off as mere 'posturing' (BULLSHIT), is a massive breath of fresh air and a statement of intent that I cannot believe gets ignored so often. Well apologies for my "ill-informed" opinion, postyesterdayman. Out of interest, are you actually aware of where the hell Obama got the $100 million (yes, that's one hundred million dollars) he spent campaigning in 2007 if not from lobbyists and corporations? I'm aware that he claims "at least 20 million dollars" of his campaign funds come from private individuals unaffiliated with any corporation or lobby group. Well, that leaves 80 million unaccounted for, and the campaignmoney.com website lists Obama's name on the Exxon Mobil donations list a rather scary number of times. I suggest before you go calling someone else "ill-informed" on an issue, you might do a little research yourself. Or perhaps you don't include Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Sempra and the rest as "huge evil corporations"? I never met anyone who considered Exxon to be either small, or good, but I guess there's a first for everything.
|
|||
dodge one 1242 posts |
Feb 08, 2008, 21:20
|
||
Obama beholding to big oil/fossil fuels? I scrolled down the list that you have provided. I saw amounts of approximately 10,000 dollars from the oil companies. That's birthday card money to them. I'm sure they have sent as much or more to the Republican campaingers also..It's nought but butterin' bread on both sides. What do you expect Obama would owe any single contributer for those types of sums? Ya know, i'll say this Merrick, you and grufty are very well informed individuals. I'm just a working stiff with no colledge education,and it takes me ages to type replys with my 2 finger typing skills. But i do like to weigh in a bit without fear of having everything that i offer an opinion on methodically ripped to shred's. Both of you guy's obviously can kick digital ass with political knowledge. I did not mean to imply last night that i thought anyone on this site would think anyone had mass murder coming to them. It was a poor turn of phrase of mine to ask about it as a question. But i do not believe for a minute that George Bush {as big an ass as he is} could have mustered the impetous to invade Iraq Without the prior insult dealt the US on 911. I hate the way he's handled his administration. I travel all over the world with my work, People ask me what i think. I allways retort: What do you think? Then i listen. I have alot of Hope for the future. I do what i believe is right. For me at this point, it's voting democrat.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Feb 08, 2008, 21:40
|
||
|
dodge one wrote: I did not mean to imply last night that i thought anyone on this site would think anyone had mass murder coming to them. It was a poor turn of phrase of mine to ask about it as a question. Fair enough mate. I'm afraid so long as you left that question hanging there, I was always going to take an adversarial position. You see, there are actually people who believe that the attacks on September 11th 2001 were a justifiable response to US foreign policy. I am not one of those people, and resented the implication. All calmed down now though. Regarding the Obama thing though. I'm afraid I just don't understand how people can be fooled into thinking that a man capable of raising 100 million dollars to run a political campaign can possibly be a good representative for the average person. Also, his voting record is better than some, but anyone who votes in favour of The Patriot Act is fundamentally untrustworthy in my eyes. I think he does a fantastic job of not appearing to be just another corporate mouthpiece, but that's just what it is... an appearance. How that isn't obvious to everyone after 50 years of mass-mediated politics genuinely puzzles me.
|
| Pages: 4 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
