Barack Obama wins the Democratic Nomination

[Noah]

People use the word 'libertarian' but he was really a republican-circa-1930's. It's not as much as what he's for, as what he was against, which was Big Government (the one thing imo that's worse than Big Business). The racism thing... years ago he gave permission for some dudes to say "ron paul approves this message" on their newsletter, and they later wrote some pretty horrible shit. Paul asked them to remove his approval, but the Media only had to see one copy of the newsletter with the words "ron paul" somewhere near "kill darkie!" and that was enough for them. God forbid a reporter actually do some diligent reporting, especially on something as not-serious as, ohidunno, the fucking presidential ELECTION.

In that case: RON PAUL!

[DankNuggets]

In that case: RON PAUL!

i believe he was also against abortions and the UN

i dunno bout you, but i'm pro choice and the UN is completely necessary wether it's functioning well or not. No need to remove diplomatic ties with the rest of the world.

[Squeezer]

i believe he was also against abortions and the UN

i dunno bout you, but i'm pro choice and the UN is completely necessary wether it's functioning well or not. No need to remove diplomatic ties with the rest of the world.

From wiki: He supports abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service, most Cabinet departments, and the Federal Reserve.

He's also pro-gun to the extreme and wants to remove the federal education system. Things like that and the stuff Dank listed scare me about Ron Paul.

At the same time he's a strict follower of the constitution (I believe I heard somewhere that he carries a copy with him wherever he goes) who's in favor of abolishing the patriot act and maintaining net neutrality. I respect the guy but I like him better as a watchdog in congress. It suits this country better.

[Kolar]

who's in favor of abolishing the patriot act and maintaining net neutrality.

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Technology.htm

But:
# Voted NO on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting. (Feb 2005)
# Voted NO on banning Internet gambling by credit card. (Jun 2003)
# Voted NO on allowing telephone monopolies to offer Internet access. (Feb 2002)

He votes on principle alone every time, regardless if the legislation would do any good.

[Cops]

Because things like this help your cause so much more, Cops. Stop stooping to every random 15 year old's level every single time you feel insulted.

I wasn't insulted, nor did I stoop to his level considering that'd be pretty fucking low. When a person believes that America should invade Iran and that this war with Iraq is a complete success, then I'm inclined to call bullshit.

I pretty much explained why this election is important to Canada as well as most of the world, and why issues go past borders and country lines. I'm sorry if my disposition is anything but short with these people. Plus I've gotten shit on from you in the past so spare me that condescending bullshit about how I shouldn't sink to their level, it's neither warranted nor justified.

[D1st0rt]

He votes on principle alone every time, regardless if the legislation would do any good.

However, he does actually read the legislation he's voting on. Whether it would do any good is subjective anyway. At times he will be in favor of the concept a bill is fostering but will vote against it because of certain provisions that sneaky bastards tried to slip in undetected. Or it will be something like the "Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act" where he's all about saving lives but the bill wouldn't actually do anything except establish government funding for collecting and analyzing everyone's DNA.

I agree with him on not letting telco's give internet access, as an American I despise most of the communication industry and only trust them as far as I can throw them. If people want to gamble on the internet with their credit cards, we should let them (that whole freedom thing).

As for the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005, does this sound familiar at all:
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; "
The whole "think of the children" movement is bullshit, it is not the government's job to raise your kids. If they're old enough that they can watch tv shows without you knowing, they're probably already being subjected to that sort of content outside of the house.

He believes, as I do, that the internet should remain free and open. I differ with him on how to keep it that way, he suggests we should not have any regulation on it all. While I don't really like government regulation, service providers are poised to start regulating it themselves. In my mind Net Neutrality is regulation of other parties to prevent their regulation of the internet. The phrasing of the proposed legislation is probably not explicit enough in that regard, though I haven't read any of it.

[Noah]

I can see that the argument that he would be able to serve the community better as a watchdog. And maybe you are right about it.

He just swayed me so hard with the ideal behind the legalization, if there is one thing I want to define myself as is that I don't want to push my morals on others, or force it on them. If someone wants to do something that is against the law, but has no victims, or no chance of victims at all, I wouldn't say anything against it. This is why in the same way I think others shouldn't push their morals on me. If smoking grass is against your morals, that's fine, but don't push that on me. He is saying this, and he is saying that it's a better use of American money and manpower, which I completely agree with on a worldwide level. So he just really hit me spot on with that, and that is almost enough to drop my pants, offer him my butthole and shout RON PAUL with the rest of the internet!

I mean, legalizing it is much more than just putting one substance from one class to another, it's also says alot about attitude. I want someone with that attitude in charge, even if I don't support them on all levels. I struggle enough to support any politicians single or as a group because I *always* disagree with something.

[Rogue]

TSgt is the lowest rank that you can have an retirement without an actual ceremony and still get a TSP payment..thanks for trying..try again later

[Jerome Scuggs]

TSgt is the lowest rank that you can have an retirement without an actual ceremony and still get a TSP payment..thanks for trying..try again later

and 99 is the highest score you can get. thank you sir, as well.

[Kolar]

However, he does actually read the legislation he's voting on. Whether it would do any good is subjective anyway. At times he will be in favor of the concept a bill is fostering but will vote against it because of certain provisions that sneaky bastards tried to slip in undetected. Or it will be something like the "Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act" where he's all about saving lives but the bill wouldn't actually do anything except establish government funding for collecting and analyzing everyone's DNA.

I agree with him on not letting telco's give internet access, as an American I despise most of the communication industry and only trust them as far as I can throw them. If people want to gamble on the internet with their credit cards, we should let them (that whole freedom thing).

As for the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005, does this sound familiar at all:
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; "
The whole "think of the children" movement is bullshit, it is not the government's job to raise your kids. If they're old enough that they can watch tv shows without you knowing, they're probably already being subjected to that sort of content outside of the house.

He believes, as I do, that the internet should remain free and open. I differ with him on how to keep it that way, he suggests we should not have any regulation on it all. While I don't really like government regulation, service providers are poised to start regulating it themselves. In my mind Net Neutrality is regulation of other parties to prevent their regulation of the internet. The phrasing of the proposed legislation is probably not explicit enough in that regard, though I haven't read any of it.

As a politician you have to weight the good of the people against the good of a single person, I think he will always side one way no matter the cause, no matter the facts. None of it appeals to me on a rational level. I can understand issues of morality and ethics as it pertains to politics being dividing, but when you're dealing with the cold hard facts and numbers I think it should be very easy to make your case... I don't know why they don't just do that.

I listed those three not because I disagree with him but I believe they were good calls. Removing all regulations on the Internet is formalizing the status quo in the United States and Canada. Both the FCC and the CRTC are not going to do anything. Above all the technical issues I don't think these companies understand that nothing does more damage or hurt to your business then showing such contempt for your customer base.

Edit: And this 'vote with your wallet' mentality is flawed as far as the telecom industry is concerned. Traditionally in North America private residences have either a cable line, and or a phone line entering their home. In Ontario Bell Canada owns those lines, Rogers Cable owns the cable line. Both employ throttling on their network, both charge somewhere between 3-5 dollars per extra gigabyte going over a 60-90 gigabyte cap. Now I considered going with a third party DSL line over the Bell phone line (if it hasn't been degraded due to age enough) but Bell went ahead and started throttling their wholesalers so anyone who uses their service but over a Bell line is throttled. Cable companies do not have to sell off as much of their network to wholesalers as phone companies do so a third party cable provider is out of the question. So what recourse do I have? Call my MP? I mean really what else can I do besides that? I'm not saying I love regulation either. I wish we didn't have to waste our time and money to get some results, which could be put to better uses like education and health care and as for the telcos expanding their service.

[Pearl Jam]

I wasn't insulted, nor did I stoop to his level considering that'd be pretty fucking low. When a person believes that America should invade Iran and that this war with Iraq is a complete success, then I'm inclined to call bullshit.

I pretty much explained why this election is important to Canada as well as most of the world, and why issues go past borders and country lines. I'm sorry if my disposition is anything but short with these people. Plus I've gotten shit on from you in the past so spare me that condescending bullshit about how I shouldn't sink to their level, it's neither warranted nor justified.

And why should someone be anything but short with you when you pepper your posts with name calling and juicy little tidbits like 'your country needs to get off its dick-sucking knees'? It seems as if every other thread I read anymore is you going at it with some random shithead for 20 posts because he called you a doo-doo face. You say you aren't insulted, but you certainly don't word your posts as such. Thicker skin. You. Make it happen.

[Cops]

And why should someone be anything but short with you when you pepper your posts with name calling and juicy little tidbits like 'your country needs to get off its dick-sucking knees'? It seems as if every other thread I read anymore is you going at it with some random shithead for 20 posts because he called you a doo-doo face. You say you aren't insulted, but you certainly don't word your posts as such. Thicker skin. You. Make it happen.

I'd rather not get into a bitch fight with you but honestly for someone who's been nothing but an elitist shit-head to me I really don't think you have a leg to stand on. You've used this forum and even a radio station to bash people, so please once again spare me that bullshit. Last time I checked I left that Ward thread two pages ago, but more people have got into with him, even you've insulted him so don't play the 'laid back relaxed guy' who's never slammed anyone. I've backed off that thread. Just for your information though, threatening someone over the internet and calling them 'a doo doo face' is a completely different scenario.

If me saying 'dick-sucking knees' offends you, then I'm sorry I offended you or anyone else, you're right that was uncalled for, but I've seen a lot worse from you. Just because I can type one way does not mean you have a window into my thoughts, feelings, and emotions. The only thing I'll apologize for is that you might have taken it as a direct insult about your country, that I didn't intend it to do. I have nothing but high hopes for America and your economy to bounce back.

edit: on a personal note, I do realize I get into way too many e-arguments, and that just calling someone a knob and moving on is the better way to go. I'm working on it. But you gotta understand where I'm sitting on this issue, the people who are telling me to avoid these arguments are the ones who use to get into it with me.

[Jerome Scuggs]

Like I said before, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. It's like deciding whether to get your hand smashed with a hammer or a brick.

The middle east aside, if you're looking for a deal breaker, one option involves saving thousands of American lives, and the other involves the continued killing of American troops. Since it's clear that the Iraqis are fucked no matter what we do, we might as well save our own troops.

What an awesome game, the Middle East. Iran and bin Laden were actually anti-Hussein, but the kicker is the USA is responsible for all three parties becoming what they are.

I view this like I view politics at home - we've created a situation, and for some reason, people refuse to do anything that isn't "progress" or "reform", saying that if we were to pull-out, there would be an immediate crisis. I think an immediate crisis is worth the long-term stability. Instead of thinking about what's the best thing to do for the next day, or week, or even month... try to consider the implications down the line. An American pullout would signal a fundamental shift in our policies, as well as restoring credibility to our hard/soft hegemony. Not to mention, have you thought about the people who live around the Middle East? Surely Europe would have even more of an interest than we do in keeping the mideast stable - except European peacekeeping is generally more focused on actually keeping the peace.

Looking back historically, the mideast is carved up along really arbitrary lines. Most of the countries created by Britain, like Iraq, would do better as smaller countries where their governments could serve the people (kurds would rule kurds, shiites would rule shiites, etc). Once again, if Iraq was left to its own devices, these provinces would probably emerge after a little bloodshed - but it's not like people aren't dying over there right now.

You're right - the violence won't stop if we pullout... immediately. But one choice allows for an end to conflict and the eventual stabilization of the middle east, whereas the other option will merely perpetuate the sort of problems that bring about violence.

[404 Not Found]

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Technology.htm

But:
# Voted NO on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting. (Feb 2005)
# Voted NO on banning Internet gambling by credit card. (Jun 2003)
# Voted NO on allowing telephone monopolies to offer Internet access. (Feb 2002)

He votes on principle alone every time, regardless if the legislation would do any good.

Thank you Kolar! I am glad to see that someone else has made note of ontheissues.org

Great site to see how our elected idiots vote against and for the people...mostly against them with some lobbyist group with their hands in the pockets.

[Pearl Jam]

The middle east aside, if you're looking for a deal breaker, one option involves saving thousands of American lives, and the other involves the continued killing of American troops. Since it's clear that the Iraqis are fucked no matter what we do, we might as well save our own troops.

What an awesome game, the Middle East. Iran and bin Laden were actually anti-Hussein, but the kicker is the USA is responsible for all three parties becoming what they are.

I view this like I view politics at home - we've created a situation, and for some reason, people refuse to do anything that isn't "progress" or "reform", saying that if we were to pull-out, there would be an immediate crisis. I think an immediate crisis is worth the long-term stability. Instead of thinking about what's the best thing to do for the next day, or week, or even month... try to consider the implications down the line. An American pullout would signal a fundamental shift in our policies, as well as restoring credibility to our hard/soft hegemony. Not to mention, have you thought about the people who live around the Middle East? Surely Europe would have even more of an interest than we do in keeping the mideast stable - except European peacekeeping is generally more focused on actually keeping the peace.

Looking back historically, the mideast is carved up along really arbitrary lines. Most of the countries created by Britain, like Iraq, would do better as smaller countries where their governments could serve the people (kurds would rule kurds, shiites would rule shiites, etc). Once again, if Iraq was left to its own devices, these provinces would probably emerge after a little bloodshed - but it's not like people aren't dying over there right now.

You're right - the violence won't stop if we pullout... immediately. But one choice allows for an end to conflict and the eventual stabilization of the middle east, whereas the other option will merely perpetuate the sort of problems that bring about violence.

J-Rome: My arguement was to pull-out using a structured plan and not all at once. And this isn't black or white, dude. Neither one of us can say "if we do this, it leads to eventual stabilization." Possibly it does, yeah. Possibly it doesn't. I agree with getting out of there, but to just say "Fuck it, EVERYBODY OUT. GET TO THE CHOPPA" doesn't seem logical to me for a variety of reasons.

Cops: I say you're too quick to get offended and revert to name calling. You respond and start it off by calling me an elitist shithead. Heh.

I like that issues site also, by the way. Fairly informative.