American Elections '08

[Cops]

Sigh, I just can't win either way.

Pretty fucking much, you're right about him being a complete retard about politics and his approach to voting but you also burned my fucking bridges and pretty much everyone else's bridge (assuming they don't think faith determines your intelligence) by judging their intelligence based on their belief in god.

I hate Izor for being a complete idiot, but at least he doesn't know he's an idiot. It's not his fault, you're a lot fucking smarter than he is, start showing it. You've got a long fucking-way-to-go before I will ever let that intelligence based on faith shit go. Atheist superiority is just as much bullshit as religious superiority.

[MetalHeadz]

Things I say, clearly you're just hot headed over me pointing out your similarities to religious fundamentalists or your douchey approach to anyone religious.

If Izor is guilty of stereotyping presidential candidates then you're guilty of stereotyping religious people.

Sigh, I just can't win either way.

[Cops]

Things I say, clearly you're just hot headed over me pointing out your similarities to religious fundamentalists or your douchey approach to anyone religious.

If Izor is guilty of stereotyping presidential candidates (and hoping that they are exactly reflective of his own conservative-gun-toting-religious-Canada bashing ass)then you're guilty of stereotyping religious people.

[MetalHeadz]

I know I probably shouldn't, but I'm going to rebut Izor's last comment.

You arent even american....do i go sticking my nose up your ass in the canadian election?

I'm not in the business of defending things that Cops says, but bro, this is truly a horrible argument. You're saying that only Americans can possess opinions about American politics and that such a notion somehow devalues any external criticism of the system? Get a grip you sensationalist emo.

I'm not trying to join any political discussion here. I'm simply stating you all are overthinking it.

My vote is simple and involves minimal research.

You're underestimating the complexity of politics here. We're not overthinking anything, you're just too stupid to understand and too apathetic to care. It's good that you exercise your vote but (without sounding too prescriptive) you should try and understand who you vote for more carefully.

I have the same belief that many people, even some on these liberal forums, do that politicians are liars anyway, shocking as that may seem to you.

Hmm, rather pessimistic.

So despite how much they come on TV saying something, I really dont believe what they're saying too much. I'm not going to pretend to know these people like I already said, because I know they're being dishonest.

You KNOW they're being dishonest? Rather a bold claim. I don't think many politicians are intentionally dishonest - some are, granted - but it's such a cliche to assume they all are.

I see no other way of expressing my personal views than by voting for the party that best represents my own opinions on major issues.

What are your republican views by the way?

You acknowledge yourself that you are no expert in American politics. You even resent those who seem to express more knowledge than you on the matter. You then act like some officinardo, claiming to ideologically similar to the republicans. But how do you know what the republicans stand for if you take this rather lack lustre approach to politics. I bet you couldn't tell me more than 3 ideological differences between the republicans and the democrats. My guess is that your parents vote republican so you have a traditional predisposition to vote that way. I bet you also conform to the misconception that the republicans are more patriotic or have Americas best interests at heart. In other words, you vote republican not for political reasons (your a self-confessed political fool) but for sentimental and traditional reasons.

Re-evaluate.

[Cops]

You arent even american....do i go sticking my nose up your ass in the canadian election? I'm not trying to join any political discussion here. I'm simply stating you all are overthinking it. My vote is simple and involves minimal research. I have the same belief that many people, even some on these liberal forums, do that politicians are liars anyway, shocking as that may seem to you. So despite how much they come on TV saying something, I really dont believe what they're saying too much. I'm not going to pretend to know these people like I already said, because I know they're being dishonest. What I DO know however, is that if my beliefs are mostly republican and if I help vote republicans into office, republican policies will be set into place. Obviously I wont agree with everything I've come to accept that everything wont be my way in this world. Again I will ask how you can tell me that voting by party is dumb. I see no other way of expressing my personal views than by voting for the party that best represents my own opinions on major issues. Please keep in mind when you reply that this is America we are talking about. Really I've already won any argument that we are talking about because I get a vote, compared to the zero that you do.

As to your comment about 'what the party usually stands for' is it not the party that backs a candidate??? The party will not back someone that doesnt agree with a lot of their points of view...please understand these basic concepts before talking to me next time.

1) First problem with that is that because I am not American my views are not valid or just in a discussion. Just because I didn't live in Germany during the holocaust doesn't mean I can't say it was a bad thing. Just for the record, I live directly above you, what happens below me still concerns me and what happens above you should still concern you but then again you're the last person I'd think that would actually be concerned with things around him.

2) You're engaging in a political discussion, exactly what you said you wouldn't do. Which is exactly why I told you to look up the word hypocrite. Well you're at it you might also want to look up the word dense

Political parties give a broad definition of what they 'represent' what the candidates bring to the table are very, very different. Look at what type of government Guliani would have compared to Ron Paul. For sake of argument I'll give you the Republican platform which quotes Ronald Regan of all people. This is how people vote in a new Hitler, they think just because the guy is associated with a certain party that he isn't a complete douchebag that has twisted plans for re modeling America.

RONALD REAGAN
believed that people were basically good, and had the right to be free.
He believed that bigotry and prejudice were the worst things a person could be guilty of.He believed in the Golden Rule and in the power of prayer.
He believed that America was not just a place in the world, but the hope of the world.As Ronald Wilson Reagan goes his way, we are left with a joyful hope he shared.May God bless Ronald Reagan and the country he loved

We choose strength.
We choose results.
We choose optimism.
We choose opportunity.
We choose freedom.

What exactly of that list stands out at you and makes you say to yourself 'wow, this is completely different from what the democrats are saying'. They also say they believe in innovation and change yet they are more keen to stick to traditional values compared to the democrats. Look at the conservative family values, the evidence is right in front of you. I'm not even glorifying the Democratic party, they're full of shit too.

The party will not back someone that doesnt agree with a lot of their points of view

Wrong, look at Ron Paul do you think Republicans generally care about a free market or would most agree with the revolutionary changes he wishes to make? No not really, some might but the overwhelming majority don't. Gulioni also goes against the more traditional values that the Republican party stands for.

[Izor]

same applies on the democratic side anyways

[Money]

You arent even american....do i go sticking my nose up your ass in the canadian election? I'm not trying to join any political discussion here. I'm simply stating you all are overthinking it. My vote is simple and involves minimal research. I have the same belief that many people, even some on these liberal forums, do that politicians are liars anyway, shocking as that may seem to you. So despite how much they come on TV saying something, I really dont believe what they're saying too much. I'm not going to pretend to know these people like I already said, because I know they're being dishonest. What I DO know however, is that if my beliefs are mostly republican and if I help vote republicans into office, republican policies will be set into place. Obviously I wont agree with everything I've come to accept that everything wont be my way in this world. Again I will ask how you can tell me that voting by party is dumb. I see no other way of expressing my personal views than by voting for the party that best represents my own opinions on major issues. Please keep in mind when you reply that this is America we are talking about. Really I've already won any argument that we are talking about because I get a vote, compared to the zero that you do.

As to your comment about 'what the party usually stands for' is it not the party that backs a candidate??? The party will not back someone that doesnt agree with a lot of their points of view...please understand these basic concepts before talking to me next time.

well put, except the being republican part

[Izor]

You arent even american....do i go sticking my nose up your ass in the canadian election? I'm not trying to join any political discussion here. I'm simply stating you all are overthinking it. My vote is simple and involves minimal research. I have the same belief that many people, even some on these liberal forums, do that politicians are liars anyway, shocking as that may seem to you. So despite how much they come on TV saying something, I really dont believe what they're saying too much. I'm not going to pretend to know these people like I already said, because I know they're being dishonest. What I DO know however, is that if my beliefs are mostly republican and if I help vote republicans into office, republican policies will be set into place. Obviously I wont agree with everything I've come to accept that everything wont be my way in this world. Again I will ask how you can tell me that voting by party is dumb. I see no other way of expressing my personal views than by voting for the party that best represents my own opinions on major issues. Please keep in mind when you reply that this is America we are talking about. Really I've already won any argument that we are talking about because I get a vote, compared to the zero that you do.

As to your comment about 'what the party usually stands for' is it not the party that backs a candidate??? The party will not back someone that doesnt agree with a lot of their points of view...please understand these basic concepts before talking to me next time.

[Cops]

voting based on platform? what do you expect me to do? Research this thoroughly and join in on these forum discussions that never go anywhere? In the end, what does it matter what I do or how I vote to YOU? Who are you to tell me how I should cast my vote?

Voting based on party makes you look like an idiot. If you plan on posting and discussing politics on a presidential election at least understand what the different candidates represent, not just what the party usually stands for. Don't post on a thread and give your input then say you're not joining in on any sort of discussion when the mere fact that me quoting you completely pin points what an idiot you are, look up the word hypocrite in the dictionary.

I voted Bush last election, but I really wanted him to get reelected because I like his policies

I kind of expected this from you.

[Reaver]

My last statement was a sarcastic one but I should have pointed that out, so my bad there.

The point remains this, I'm pretty sure that everyone in America appreciates privacy and wants it in their lives. The constitution doesn't mention it. That's fine, you can be a constitutionalist and stand for everything the constitution stands for, and also stand for things that aren't covered in the constitution provided they're not negating something in it. Just because you support something that's not in the constitution doesn't mean you're no longer a constitutionalist. Ron Paul has given numerous examples of things that he's personally against, but has explained that he will allow it in his administration if the constitution prohibits the federal government from stopping it. This is what I refer to every time you try to say he's for or against something and I tell you that he's explained time and time again that he would have the state regulate it because, constitutionally, the federal government is supposed to have no say

[Kolar]

I'm sure he has a lot to say about it. It's just another medium, and being uneducated like most legislators on the issue he does not differ from his stance of free market policies.

Edit: I didn't say he doesn't talk about current events or newer things, just that his position on just about anything comes from his interpretation of the Constitution.

[H.M.S. Stargazer]

Oh, btw, Just hope the democrats win. It looks like its a toss up between obama and clinton.

[Reaver]

Wow, its a good thing that people like metalheadz and kolar have no voice in america

Actually it's kinda sad that on these forums, the people most informed about American politics are often not from America.

Edit: Kolar, the constitution is hundred's of years old. I don't think it mentions anything about the internet but I might have to check on that. I'd ask Ron Paul but since it's not mentioned in the constitution I doubt he has any political say on it.

[Kolar]

But it is in the Constitution, the Nineteenth Amendment. His entire political position is based on a strict interpretation of the document. How then can he be for something like privacy and personal liberty while professing the exact opposite by saying neither Church-State Separation or Privacy are not covered by the document?


Edit: I'm not trying to bust your balls here Reaver, this to me seems to be circular reasoning.

[Izor]

Wow, its a good thing that people like metalheadz and kolar have no voice in america