Campaign 2008

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Ron Paul was basically pointing all this out, in debate after debate, and, while he obviously got through to some people, most republicans just wrote him off as a kook.

 

Can America really afford to take 1 or 2 decades to figure out the truth about republicans? The US will probably be a police state by then.

[SamoaRowe 0]

Ron Paul was basically pointing all this out, in debate after debate, and, while he obviously got through to some people, most republicans just wrote him off as a kook.

 

Can America really afford to take 1 or 2 decades to figure out the truth about republicans? The US will probably be a police state by then.

 

THANK YOU! I've been ranting about this for a long time to coworkers.

[At Home 0]

As Patton Oswalt best said, I'm shocked at anyone who "supports Bush and isn't a billionaire, because... Bush fuckin' hates you."

[Lil' Bitch 0]

For the most part, McCain has gotten positive coverage. As its been stated earlier in this thread somewhere, that people are hoping Hillary gets the nomination because she's an easier opponent for McCain to defeat in the general election.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

It depends. Hillary's more of a fighter. You throw mud at her, she'll throw way more back. And she does have a lead in working class voters who are all miss the Clinton golden age and see this as a way to get Bill back in the white house.

 

 

[Guest (Loggins Name)]

I'll buy that the Republicans have become the party of big government, but that just means the Democrats are the party of bigger government. They're never going to just flip sides on that issue.

[snuffbox 0]

The sizes of the Reagan/Bushes' governements disagree with that. I realize that these kind of major paradigm shifts can be very dificult to swallow following so many years of having something else ingrained into our minds. But the facts are the facts. You can't increase the size of the government vastly beyond the recent Democratic example and just pretend that the Dems are bigger just because that's how it was for a long time. Nation-building, Dept of Homeland Security, huge borrowing and debts, etc. The parties are trading philospophies or, at the very least, the Dems are staying big but the GOP has long moved ahead of them.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

I think what's happened is that the GOP's pet expenditures (Iraq, THE BORDER WAR, etc) have just started to cost more than the Democrats' social safety-net shit. There simply isn't a real party of small government anymore. I'd argue that this is because the natural impulse of anybody who suddenly gains possession of real political power is to actually use that power and not to impose some sort of limitations on it. I'm a big dumb idiot.

[snuffbox 0]

Democratic party represents big-govt, Republican party represents bigger-govt. There is an actual small-govt party, Libertarian, and hopefully it will see a serious rise in popularity as people see that big and bigger are not the best choices for the American government.

[SuperJerk 0]

Well documented in your own mind, perhaps. Until you can provide some credible evidence or reliable sources for any of your "information," there's no point in me arguing with you about this fabricated controversy.

um. Are you serious? Do a basic google search. Even the wiki entry is one of the first results you'll get. NO ONE CONTESTS THIS, not even B.O. Hussein. You're an ignorant twit.

"NO ONE" contests this?

Yeah, let's see about that.

 

Perhaps you missed the interview with Barack's African grandmother that I posted a few weeks ago. According to her, only the grandfather was a Muslim.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-03...obama-kin_N.htm

 

Other sources:

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

 

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_b...bama_muslim.htm

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7112802757.html

 

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/..._a_muslim_1.php

 

Now that you've been proven wrong, will you please shut up about this?

 

 

 

If you only want to repeat libelous information, I am content to ignore you, as should anyone else with a brain.

Kindly check the definition of the word "libelous" while you struggle to unwrap your lips from around B.O. Hussein's cock. You and he should feel free to sue me at any time you please. I look forward to watching your case being laughed out of court.

 

*sigh*

 

Wrong again.

 

Adj. 1. libelous - (used of statements) harmful and often untrue; tending to discredit or malign

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/libelous

 

 

Your problem is that you inevitably bring it back to the messenger and not the message.

 

Ahem.

 

You goddamn fucking queers.

 

[Guest (Loggins Name)]

SuperJerk, I'm in a bad mood because the Cubs lost, so I'm suspending you for being you.

[Guest (Loggins Name)]

Seriously, I didn't fucking read any of that.

[snuffbox 0]

That's pathetic.

[Guest (Loggins Name)]

I'll let him out in like five minutes. I feel better already.

[snuffbox 0]

I would be impressed by how he completely obliterated the Ambassador but doing so doesn't require much more than a child's grasp on reality. Funny, though.

[SuperJerk 0]

even if his father was Adolf Hitler, that wouldn't disqualify him from being president.

The Current Events folder: it's a lot like the illegitimate son of Hitler.

[At Home 0]

I'll buy that the Republicans have become the party of big government, but that just means the Democrats are the party of bigger government. They're never going to just flip sides on that issue.

 

Um, except they have. Classical liberalism was the belief that the private sphere should be large and the public sphere should be small, i.e., little government intervention in peoples' lives.

 

And come on, libertarianism?

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

I can't believe Czech decided to just straight up own me with an edit. Goddamn.

 

EDIT: Oh wait I get it now. I really am a big dumb idiot.

[Guest (Loggins Name)]

I'll buy that the Republicans have become the party of big government, but that just means the Democrats are the party of bigger government. They're never going to just flip sides on that issue.

 

Um, except they have. Classical liberalism was the belief that the private sphere should be large and the public sphere should be small, i.e., little government intervention in peoples' lives.

Going to. The Democratic Party as currently constructed will not stand for small government, as far as I can tell.

 

[At Home 0]

I'll buy that the Republicans have become the party of big government, but that just means the Democrats are the party of bigger government. They're never going to just flip sides on that issue.

 

Um, except they have. Classical liberalism was the belief that the private sphere should be large and the public sphere should be small, i.e., little government intervention in peoples' lives.

Going to. The Democratic Party as currently constructed will not stand for small government, as far as I can tell.

 

Which is fine. The prevailing belief is that the government is there to help its people. We're pretty much over that "rugged individualism" bullshit of the Hoover years too.

[snuffbox 0]

The Democratic party is not getting any smaller. But, the Republican party has far surpassed them for size of government, spending, and restrictions on the populace. In spending so much more money it is certain that, no matter how much is borrowed from foreign nations, it will eventually have to implement a hefty tax raise (and it's already plenty high no matter what horseshit about cuts are ever said). The Dems are the party of big, the GOP for bigger. Of these two parties, if they remain the two in power, it should be obvious that the only capable of actually lowering spending and taxes is the one that would be cutting some of the other's hyper-spending. While it is certainly no gurantee that the Democrats would lower taxes, or that it wouldn't elect leadership that would, like LBJ before, think that a guns/butter strategy would pan out well, it the only one of the past several election cycles and (if Barack Obama is elected anyway) again this year that actually holds that possibility.

 

Judging by their nomination process this year, I see absolutely no indication that the Republican party will move away from its current trend. If enough of the American people collectively decide that they would like a true small-government option the Libertarian party could have a window to become the other of the Big Two.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

...the Libertarian party could have a window to become the other of the Big Two.

 

lol

[snuffbox 0]

I keep forgetting that it's been Democrats and Republicans since 1800.

[SuperJerk 0]

I keep forgetting that it's been Democrats and Republicans since 1800.

Henry Clay invites you to kiss the Whig Party's ass.

[Guest (Loggins Name)]

I keep forgetting that it's been Democrats and Republicans since 1800.

I keep forgetting we're not in love anymore. I keep forgetting things will never be the same again.

[snuffbox 0]

I'll never believe that.

[Ginger Snaps 0]

Ron Paul was basically pointing all this out, in debate after debate, and, while he obviously got through to some people, most republicans just wrote him off as a kook.

 

Yes.

 

Because he's a fucking kook.

[snuffbox 0]

If a big government is good, a bigger one is better! Or something.

[At Home 0]

If a big government is good, a bigger one is better! Or something.

 

I just like my roads, water supply, and free education. Thanks.

[snuffbox 0]

You can have an infrastructure and care for the welfare of the people without taking a third of everybody's warnings. A reduced government doesn't mean people will lose everything they depend upon.