A handy chart. Certainly not a in depth analysis, but it lets you get the general idea about each candidates views quickly, without scouring the web for speeches and questions asked by backwater newspapers.
HA HA! Look at all of the X’s on Ron Paul.
-Gendou
[quote]gendou57 wrote:
HA HA! Look at all of the X’s on Ron Paul.[/quote]
What’s so funny? Anyone who proposes small government and foreign non-intervention is going to oppose a lot of programs. No tax cuts with increased spendings with this guy.
[quote]gendou57 wrote:
HA HA! Look at all of the X’s on Ron Paul. [/quote]
HA HA?
Look at Rudy’s column. It’s nothing funny seeing he’s for Gitmo, torture and wiretapping.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
A handy chart. Certainly not a in depth analysis, but it lets you get the general idea about each candidates views quickly, without scouring the web for speeches and questions asked by backwater newspapers.[/quote]
Hey thats pretty handy. Thanks Beowulf. Seems like this Paul charater has his X’s in the right places for me. Too bad I don’t know who the fuck he is, but oh well.
I still think Edwards is the likely Dem candidate, even though he’s way down in the polls — the Dems don’t want to blow this chance at pretty much absolute power (they’ll have overwhelming majorities in both houses). They’ll nominate a caucasian male, knowing how racist and sexist Americans are.
That being said, this is a handy chart, though it is, in essence, meaningless.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I still think Edwards is the likely Dem candidate, even though he’s way down in the polls — the Dems don’t want to blow this chance at pretty much absolute power (they’ll have overwhelming majorities in both houses). They’ll nominate a caucasian male, knowing how racist and sexist Americans are.
That being said, this is a handy chart, though it is, in essence, meaningless.[/quote]
I can’t stand the way Edwards talks with his hands as if he’s telling us stuff we’ve never heard or we’re too idiotic to understand. Though, unfortunately, I agree with your assessment about race and sex. It’s not enough that people can’t see they don’t actually stand for anything but new laws and bigger government that they’ll allow their racist and sexist beliefs to decide for them.
What is more condescending than not voting for someone because one thinks “other people” are bigots? Ha! The irony.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I still think Edwards is the likely Dem candidate, even though he’s way down in the polls — the Dems don’t want to blow this chance at pretty much absolute power (they’ll have overwhelming majorities in both houses). They’ll nominate a caucasian male, knowing how racist and sexist Americans are.
That being said, this is a handy chart, though it is, in essence, meaningless.
I can’t stand the way Edwards talks with his hands as if he’s telling us stuff we’ve never heard or we’re too idiotic to understand. Though, unfortunately, I agree with your assessment about race and sex. It’s not enough that people can’t see they don’t actually stand for anything but new laws and bigger government that they’ll allow their racist and sexist beliefs to decide for them.
What is more condescending than not voting for someone because one thinks “other people” are bigots? Ha! The irony.[/quote]
I once saw a video of a woman who was voting for the first time in her life, for Lieberman as VP. She voted because she’s Jewish.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I can’t stand the way Edwards talks with his hands as if he’s telling us stuff we’ve never heard or we’re too idiotic to understand.[/quote]
Take into account that he’s addressing people who, as a whole, elected Bush twice.
Be thankful he doesn’t use colorful pictures and toy animals.
[quote]pookie wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I can’t stand the way Edwards talks with his hands as if he’s telling us stuff we’ve never heard or we’re too idiotic to understand.
Take into account that he’s addressing people who, as a whole, elected Bush twice.
Be thankful he doesn’t use colorful pictures and toy animals.
[/quote]
No need…the Canadians weren’t paying attention anyway.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
No need…the Canadians weren’t paying attention anyway. [/quote]
You voted for Bush twice, didn’t you?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
No need…the Canadians weren’t paying attention anyway.
You voted for Bush twice, didn’t you?
[/quote]
Yup. Little did I know that he was born in a log cabin
outside of Shawinagan, Quebec.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Yup. Little did I know that he was born in a log cabin
outside of Shawinagan, Quebec.[/quote]
Yeah, it’s too bad there were no clues about his behavior, either from his past or during his first term in office!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I still think Edwards is the likely Dem candidate, even though he’s way down in the polls — the Dems don’t want to blow this chance at pretty much absolute power (they’ll have overwhelming majorities in both houses). They’ll nominate a caucasian male, knowing how racist and sexist Americans are.
That being said, this is a handy chart, though it is, in essence, meaningless.
I can’t stand the way Edwards talks with his hands as if he’s telling us stuff we’ve never heard or we’re too idiotic to understand. Though, unfortunately, I agree with your assessment about race and sex. It’s not enough that people can’t see they don’t actually stand for anything but new laws and bigger government that they’ll allow their racist and sexist beliefs to decide for them.
What is more condescending than not voting for someone because one thinks “other people” are bigots? Ha! The irony.
I once saw a video of a woman who was voting for the first time in her life, for Lieberman as VP. She voted because she’s Jewish.
[/quote]
I know a women who votes Republican “because they don’t let the niggers get my money”.
Individual examples are relatively meaningless.
Though most people vote because of some stupid bigotry or another.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Yup. Little did I know that he was born in a log cabin
outside of Shawinagan, Quebec.
Yeah, it’s too bad there were no clues about his behavior, either from his past or during his first term in office![/quote]
The sad part is the alternative was worse. That was the big problem wth the 2004 election. There were no choices. Shit or shit with nuts in it, I picked the one who smelled the least. Besides, I am a one issue voter anyway. So my choices are typically limited. They have to be on my side for the one issue.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
They have to be on my side for the one issue.[/quote]
Out of curiosity, what’s that one issue?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Yup. Little did I know that he was born in a log cabin
outside of Shawinagan, Quebec.[/quote]
Hint: Next time you go vote, remember that the (R) next to the candidate’s name indicates that he’s a (R)etard (exactly like the one we put after Jeff’s name). Just pick another one.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Besides, I am a one issue voter anyway. So my choices are typically limited. They have to be on my side for the one issue.[/quote]
Pat, I don’t know the issue involved and I don’t intend insult, so forgive me if this question is not really appropriate.
At some point, does the overall good of the nation outweigh your concerns on one or several issues? Alternately, do you feel the good of the nation revolves around that one issue in some respect?
[quote]pookie wrote:
pat36 wrote:
They have to be on my side for the one issue.
Out of curiosity, what’s that one issue?[/quote]
Abortion
[quote]vroom wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Besides, I am a one issue voter anyway. So my choices are typically limited. They have to be on my side for the one issue.
Pat, I don’t know the issue involved and I don’t intend insult, so forgive me if this question is not really appropriate.
At some point, does the overall good of the nation outweigh your concerns on one or several issues? Alternately, do you feel the good of the nation revolves around that one issue in some respect?
[/quote]
Absolutely, but I have yet to find an issue as important or as critical, in my opinion. I do have some utilitarian ethics in play, but the one issue, abortion, is the most important to me. The reason, and I am not arguing just explaining my reaoning is this.
I consider abortion to be murder. With between 1 and 1.3 million children killed each year, I concider it a priority. I can’t think of anything else that takes more lives except the great influenza pandemic of 1917. 34 million lives cut short, that’s how I see it and that is why I vote that way.
Many may flame and criticize, that’s their right, it’s not going to change me. I have thought this through on every level and that is my stance.