why i might not vote for mccain

[actsnoblemartin]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080630/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_immigration

WASHINGTON - When it comes to immigration, Barack Obama and John McCain generally agree. It's just that they don't want to say so.

Instead, the White House rivals accuse one another of flinching when it mattered most, during and after last year's Senate debate on a bill that would have given millions of illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.

[DragonStryk72]

Stop looking at these two then, you're obviously neither a Dem nor a Rep, Martin. Honestly, I don't think you've fully figured that out for yourself, so don't beat yourself about it, and instead start looking at all the rest of the candidates that are in the ring for this.

Yeah, this election does seem like choosing the one who sucks less.

[Gaffer]

I only have one reason to vote for McCain. Obama.

And I really hate having to choose between two evils. Voting independent is the same as not voting.

Its a matter of shoot your self in the foot or shoot yourself in the head. If you don't shoot or shoot somewhere else the head shot is coming from someone else.

Obamanation isn't just a cute name to call obama. It's what will become of the nation if he gets in. You think things are bad now? Let him get in power.

[5stringJeff]

Bob Barr is the only candidate in the race who is tough on illegal immigration. From his own website:

"We must be aggressive in securing our borders while at the same time, vigilantly fighting the nanny state that seeks to coddle even those capable of providing for their own personal prosperity.... it is the duty of the federal government to secure our borders from criminals, terrorists and those seeking to take advantage of the American taxpayer."

Want real immigration reform instead of "McAmnesty?" Vote for Bob Barr!

[midcan5]

I could never vote for McCain based on his lack of respect for an individual to be able to control their own life. I know many disagree with a woman's right to choose but having grown up in the time of back alley butchered abortions when only the rich could get an abortion there is no way I want to see America retreat on personal freedom and cause more pain for women who made a mistake.

This too is bothersome but consistent with the more fascist government control of the other. "Does Mr. McCain really believe that granting political prisoners some basic rights is more horrifying than decreeing that an entire segment of the population is somehow less than human? Perhaps he does. It must be remembered that after the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., legislation was proposed to make his birthday a national holiday. Arizona was one of the last states to enact such legislation, and opposition to that legislation was led by a member of the House of Representatives, one John McCain...."

http://www.counterpunch.org/fantina06232008.html

[5stringJeff]

I could never vote for McCain based on his lack of respect for an individual to be able to control their own life. I know many disagree with a woman's right to choose but having grown up in the time of back alley butchered abortions when only the rich could get an abortion there is no way I want to see America retreat on personal freedom and cause more pain for women who made a mistake.

This too is bothersome but consistent with the more fascist government control of the other. "Does Mr. McCain really believe that granting political prisoners some basic rights is more horrifying than decreeing that an entire segment of the population is somehow less than human? Perhaps he does. It must be remembered that after the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., legislation was proposed to make his birthday a national holiday. Arizona was one of the last states to enact such legislation, and opposition to that legislation was led by a member of the House of Representatives, one John McCain...."

http://www.counterpunch.org/fantina06232008.html

So upholding the rights of an unborn child to live and voting against a state holiday is "fascist?" :rolleyes:

[midcan5]

So upholding the rights of an unborn child to live and voting against a state holiday is "fascist?"

Cells aren't children and since the republicans do not support child care at a level that would make all these births both possible and worth living it is time to consider the living and work hard to make abortion unnecessary.

[mundame]

Cells aren't children and since the republicans do not support child care at a level that would make all these births both possible and worth living it is time to consider the living and work hard to make abortion unnecessary.


That's not the issue. If the "republicans" did provide gold-plated toilets and French chefs to each illegitimate or handicapped child that would otherwise be aborted, it would STILL be against the woman's choice. And that is what matters.

What are you going to do, imprison each pregnant woman and tie her up till she gives birth?

This is not males' choice. That is all you need to know.

[Little-Acorn]

since the republicans do not support child care at a level that would make all these births both possible and worth living
Another example of the liberal mindset that believes "If government doesn't do it, no one will do it."

May as well point out that Republicans care for their children "at a level" where they grow and prosper just fine. Clearly they DO support child care as you try to pretend they don't.

They just don't support government doing it for them... unlike liberals.


and work hard to make abortion unnecessary.
Welcome to the Republican party. And keep your knees together.

[No_Socialism]

I only have one reason to vote for McCain. Obama.


That's the best reason to vote for McCain right there...

[5stringJeff]

Cells aren't children

No, but the cells in question are human. In fact, the "cells" in a fetus are those of unique human, in its early stages of development. Aborting a fetus and killing a child are both examples of taking the life of a unique human being.


and since the republicans do not support child care at a level that would make all these births both possible and worth living it is time to consider the living and work hard to make abortion unnecessary.

Health care is not a societal responsibility; it is an individual responsibility.

[mundame]

No, but the cells in question are human. In fact, the "cells" in a fetus are those of unique human, in its early stages of development. Aborting a fetus and killing a child are both examples of taking the life of a unique human being.



Well, be careful not to comb your hair, then: you might pull a hair root out, which is "uniquely human!!" Be sure you never scratch yourself --- don't want to detach any uniquely human skin cells!!!! And BE VERY CAREFUL never to let a single sperm cell fail to unite with an ovum ---- what a sinful waste of a potential human that would be!! And no woman must every be allowed to skip a month without being pregnant -- you'll have to monitor how soon they become mature enough at 12 so no "uniquely human" cell is wasted that might become a human being!!

Obviously to you any birth control of any sort would be illegal, if every cell is precious and has to become a human, by forcing pregnancy on all women all the time whether they like it or not.

[gabosaurus]

A vote for Hanoi John McCain is an endorsement of treason and collaboration with the enemy, the continuation of illegal immigration and thousands more dead Americans in illegal and immoral overseas conflicts.

[mundame]

A vote for Hanoi John McCain is an endorsement of treason and collaboration with the enemy, the continuation of illegal immigration and thousands more dead Americans in illegal and immoral overseas conflicts.


True, I agree. Well, not the treason part: I don't know what THAT means!


And a vote for Oobopaloobop Hussein is a vote for Marxist income redistribution from whites who earn money to blacks who sell drugs.


Not much of an election year. Believe I'll give it a pass.

[Abbey Marie]

So upholding the rights of an unborn child to live and voting against a state holiday is "fascist?" :rolleyes:

What's really mind-boggling is that two of our arguably greatest Presidents have to share a holiday. And without Washington, there is no U.S.A.

[Sitarro]

Bob Barr is the only candidate in the race who is tough on illegal immigration. From his own website:

"We must be aggressive in securing our borders while at the same time, vigilantly fighting the nanny state that seeks to coddle even those capable of providing for their own personal prosperity.... it is the duty of the federal government to secure our borders from criminals, terrorists and those seeking to take advantage of the American taxpayer."

Want real immigration reform instead of "McAmnesty?" Vote for Bob Barr!

Hey, I'm against illegal aliens too and I would take a stand against them. I would dig a U.S./Mexico Canal for ships to cut through to the Pacific from the Atlantic, I'll make it a mile wide and breed Tiger Sharks in it..... let those brown shits try to swim across that. At a mile across, there will be room for multiple ports across the country to cut down on trucking cost. And we can hire Mexicans to dig it!

Now, write in me for President, I have as much of a realistic chance as Barr.:laugh2::laugh2:

[Sitarro]

Cells aren't children and since the republicans do not support child care at a level that would make all these births both possible and worth living it is time to consider the living and work hard to make abortion unnecessary.

Would you say this aborted 4 and a 1/2 month little girl is just a bunch of cells? I have said it before, you're an idiot!

[Sitarro]

That's not the issue. If the "republicans" did provide gold-plated toilets and French chefs to each illegitimate or handicapped child that would otherwise be aborted, it would STILL be against the woman's choice. And that is what matters.

What are you going to do, imprison each pregnant woman and tie her up till she gives birth?

This is not males' choice. That is all you need to know.

The "choice" should have been made to not allow a male to impregnate her in the first place........ it's 2008, there is no reason for abortion except rape or the possible physical harm to the mother..... it's that simple.

[DragonStryk72]

I only have one reason to vote for McCain. Obama.

And I really hate having to choose between two evils. Voting independent is the same as not voting.

Its a matter of shoot your self in the foot or shoot yourself in the head. If you don't shoot or shoot somewhere else the head shot is coming from someone else.

Obamanation isn't just a cute name to call obama. It's what will become of the nation if he gets in. You think things are bad now? Let him get in power.

It is not, only if people keep taking the lemming route of voting only Republican or Dem just because is it the same as not voting. I do not waster my vote, and I do not have these moral qualms about who I am voting for that you seem to be having. Instead of the lesser of two evils, I take the more morally strong position of voting for the one I believe to be right for the job. If everyone who utters the tired phrase, "Voting independent is the same as not voting", would instead vote independent, we would have a viable 3rd
party.

But no, apparently that kind of thing is still too much scary magic for some.

[DragonStryk72]

Cells aren't children and since the republicans do not support child care at a level that would make all these births both possible and worth living it is time to consider the living and work hard to make abortion unnecessary.

The problem is that the government sucks horrendously at child care, why? because government has no place in raising children. It cannot manage tasks at such a level as properly raising a child requires. This has been the case for a long, long time, and yet still, we make this same mistake again and again. "This time we'll get it right" seems to be the operating theme, and every single time, it goes to hell, and it's "why didn't it work?"

It doesn't work because government is only useful in handling the bigger issues, protecting liberties, enforcing the laws, and doing its best to keep the economy moving. Most of the problem with the nanny state we are in is due to the fact that government keeps trying to everything to everyone, and fails time after time after time, only to pick up the pieces and go at it again, all the while slipping further into debt, and closer to insolvency, eroding our ability to strive and succeed for ourselves. The current welfare system comes across as a form of reward for making bad choices, and avoiding work, while working hard and pushing through on your own is almost now seen as a problem to be corrected.

The answer to child care does not lie in the hands of the government, but in the hands of the parents.

As to abortion, you speak of mistakes. I joined the Navy in order to prove my dad wrong, and that was a mistake, but it was a good one. Yes, there are bad ones as well, and I've made those mistakes too, all of which have taught me to be a better person, and no, there is nothing you can say that will convince that it is oh so hard on a girl if she has a baby. For one, there is an adoption demand that is now outsourcing to China because they can't get enough babies here, so that excuse is gone, and then second, I have seen far too many successful single mothers and fathers to cling to this antiquated belief that the kid is the reason for failure. We cannot protect the people from themselves, nor should we, because should we succeed, that is when humanity will cease to learn anything new.

[Sitarro]

If everyone who utters the tired phrase, "Voting independent is the same as not voting", would instead vote independent, we would have a viable 3rd
party.


Yea, we're the fools because we don't want to give the country to the Democrats so they have absolute rule...... it's much better to experiment with a non-viable candidate so you can feel special.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
Sure.

[Sitarro]

The problem is that the government sucks horrendously at child care, why? because government has no place in raising children. It cannot manage tasks at such a level as properly raising a child requires. This has been the case for a long, long time, and yet still, we make this same mistake again and again. "This time we'll get it right" seems to be the operating theme, and every single time, it goes to hell, and it's "why didn't it work?"

It doesn't work because government is only useful in handling the bigger issues, protecting liberties, enforcing the laws, and doing its best to keep the economy moving. Most of the problem with the nanny state we are in is due to the fact that government keeps trying to everything to everyone, and fails time after time after time, only to pick up the pieces and go at it again, all the while slipping further into debt, and closer to insolvency, eroding our ability to strive and succeed for ourselves. The current welfare system comes across as a form of reward for making bad choices, and avoiding work, while working hard and pushing through on your own is almost now seen as a problem to be corrected.

The answer to child care does not lie in the hands of the government, but in the hands of the parents.

As to abortion, you speak of mistakes. I joined the Navy in order to prove my dad wrong, and that was a mistake, but it was a good one. Yes, there are bad ones as well, and I've made those mistakes too, all of which have taught me to be a better person, and no, there is nothing you can say that will convince that it is oh so hard on a girl if she has a baby. For one, there is an adoption demand that is now outsourcing to China because they can't get enough babies here, so that excuse is gone, and then second, I have seen far too many successful single mothers and fathers to cling to this antiquated belief that the kid is the reason for failure. We cannot protect the people from themselves, nor should we, because should we succeed, that is when humanity will cease to learn anything new.

Guess what, you'll be getting government run everything by voting for Barr(Obama).

[DragonStryk72]

Guess what, you'll be getting government run everything by voting for Barr(Obama).

Ah yes, the "You must not vote how you want" argument. See my earlier point on this philosophy of cowardice in the voting booth. And btw, Obama would like to thank you for your support of the two party system

[Sitarro]

Ah yes, the "You must not vote how you want" argument. See my earlier point on this philosophy of cowardice in the voting booth. And btw, Obama would like to thank you for your support of the two party system

You will never get a viable third party by only running ego maniacs, with no prayer of ever getting elected, for President. The only way to get a third party with a chance is to elect a base of State and Federal Representatives and Senators. Otherwise, even if given the Presidency, they will never accomplish anything in Washington........... that is reality. Vote however way you want but don't pretend that you are doing anything revolutionary or right, you are just flushing a vote down the toilet and helping the Democrats........ again, that's reality.

[DragonStryk72]

You will never get a viable third party by only running ego maniacs, with no prayer of ever getting elected, for President. The only way to get a third party with a chance is to elect a base of State and Federal Representatives and Senators. Otherwise, even if given the Presidency, they will never accomplish anything in Washington........... that is reality. Vote however way you want but don't pretend that you are doing anything revolutionary or right, you are just flushing a vote down the toilet and helping the Democrats........ again, that's reality.

Ah yes, again with the cowardice, 'you can't change anything, so why bother?". why can't we do a full court press, go for small office as well as for big office? What is this hate you have of people actually voting for who they want to have as president, as opposed to just lining up with the rest of the sheep for the slaughter. Both Dems and Reps are screwing us, period, and no, I'm no longer voting for those people. I'm sick of the bullshit games, and I am sick to death of trying to pick the one that sucks less. Maybe you've gotten comfortable within compromising your ideals, but I have not, and will not, do so.

[5stringJeff]

Well, be careful not to comb your hair, then: you might pull a hair root out, which is "uniquely human!!" Be sure you never scratch yourself --- don't want to detach any uniquely human skin cells!!!! And BE VERY CAREFUL never to let a single sperm cell fail to unite with an ovum ---- what a sinful waste of a potential human that would be!! And no woman must every be allowed to skip a month without being pregnant -- you'll have to monitor how soon they become mature enough at 12 so no "uniquely human" cell is wasted that might become a human being!!

Obviously to you any birth control of any sort would be illegal, if every cell is precious and has to become a human, by forcing pregnancy on all women all the time whether they like it or not.

Your arguments are absurd. Combing my hair or scratching myself may remove cells, but the removal of those cells would not cause my death. And I never made an assertion about sperm or egg cells or "potential humans," only about actual humans with a full set of chromosomes.

[5stringJeff]

It is not, only if people keep taking the lemming route of voting only Republican or Dem just because is it the same as not voting. I do not waster my vote, and I do not have these moral qualms about who I am voting for that you seem to be having. Instead of the lesser of two evils, I take the more morally strong position of voting for the one I believe to be right for the job. If everyone who utters the tired phrase, "Voting independent is the same as not voting", would instead vote independent, we would have a viable 3rd
party.

But no, apparently that kind of thing is still too much scary magic for some.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

[midcan5]

No, but the cells in question are human. In fact, the "cells" in a fetus are those of unique human, in its early stages of development. Aborting a fetus and killing a child are both examples of taking the life of a unique human being.

So are the cells in ovum and sperm, all potential humans and except for a few orthodox religions no one recognizes those cells.

[5stringJeff]

So are the cells in ovum and sperm, all potential humans and except for a few orthodox religions no one recognizes those cells.

Again, you are confusing the issue. Sperm and egg cells are "potentially human" because they only have half the necessary chromosomes. Fetuses, on the other hand, have a full set of chromosomes - a full and unique set of human DNA. Therefore, fetuses are unique human individuals, while sex cells are not.

[Sitarro]

So are the cells in ovum and sperm, all potential humans and except for a few orthodox religions no one recognizes those cells.

What a silly sidetrack, Jeff answered it perfectly. Why haven't you responded to the photo I posted for you? Is that not a dead human baby girl in that photograph or are you going to claim airbrush(photoshop) work was done?

[Sitarro]

Ah yes, again with the cowardice, 'you can't change anything, so why bother?". why can't we do a full court press, go for small office as well as for big office? What is this hate you have of people actually voting for who they want to have as president, as opposed to just lining up with the rest of the sheep for the slaughter. Both Dems and Reps are screwing us, period, and no, I'm no longer voting for those people. I'm sick of the bullshit games, and I am sick to death of trying to pick the one that sucks less. Maybe you've gotten comfortable within compromising your ideals, but I have not, and will not, do so.

How Patrick Henry of you....... enjoy a Democrat Party government. The Executive Branch, Legislative Branch and Judicial, they will have it all, you'll have a super chance of getting your little third party going under them.

[DragonStryk72]

So are the cells in ovum and sperm, all potential humans and except for a few orthodox religions no one recognizes those cells.

Improper foundation to the argument, seeing as neither hair nor skin cells create life. Pregnancy (outside of rape), requires a consensual between two people (Okay, except for Jesus), vastly different from the cells in hair or skin, which in fact, partially need to be removed for the life of the person (Matters of grooming to remove dead cells that would otherwise spread infection).

A "potential human" is the sperm and ovum, not the fetus, which, if left to its own devices, would become a full human being. If you kill a pregnant woman, you are charged with the death of both the mother and the fetus, so obviously, that's murdering a child. It is no different than what occurs in abortion, a fetus which would otherwise be a full human child in a few months is destroyed.

[DragonStryk72]

How Patrick Henry of you....... enjoy a Democrat Party government. The Executive Branch, Legislative Branch and Judicial, they will have it all, you'll have a super chance of getting your little third party going under them.

About as good a shot as under the republican government, which was rife with 3rd party candidates..... oh wait no, because the Dems sat there the whole time admonishing people who voted for 3rd parties as voting for Bush, but yeah that was fair. and now, lo and behold, You have taken their tactic to heart. Way to go!!! you're with such great thinkers as Kerry, and Bush.

A vote for McCain or for Obama is a vote for changing nothing, it is a vote for continuing the same stupid, useless run around that has been running rampant the past few years. Grow a pair, and break away from the flock.

[mundame]

the fetus, which, if left to its own devices, would become a full human being.


Wrong. The fetus, left to its own devices, will quickly die and rot and return to the Earth.

Men can only grow fetuses by enslaving women to do it, unless the woman WANTS to, which is our individual choice, not yours.

[5stringJeff]

Men can only grow fetuses by enslaving women to do it.

http://img.qj.net/uploads/articles_module/94029/ernie-bert-wtf_qjgenth.jpg

[mundame]

You deliberately misquoted me, 5stringJeff. You said I said:



Men can only grow fetuses by enslaving women to do it.



Whereas in fact I said, "Men can only grow fetuses by enslaving women to do it, unless the woman WANTS to, which is our individual choice, not yours."


No misquoting, please.

[5stringJeff]

You deliberately misquoted me, 5stringJeff. You said I said:




Whereas in fact I said, "Men can only grow fetuses by enslaving women to do it, unless the woman WANTS to, which is our individual choice, not yours."


No misquoting, please.

I only quoted the part I was so astonished about. Do you really think that pregnancy is slavery?

[Yurt]

Wrong. The fetus, left to its own devices, will quickly die and rot and return to the Earth.

Men can only grow fetuses by enslaving women to do it, unless the woman WANTS to, which is our individual choice, not yours.

what are you on?

[mundame]

I only quoted the part I was so astonished about. Do you really think that pregnancy is slavery?


Can you work out the answer for yourself by processing the last part of my sentence??


Let me underline it to help you catch on:

Men can only grow fetuses by enslaving women to do it, unless the woman WANTS to, which is our individual choice, not yours.

[5stringJeff]

Can you work out the answer for yourself by processing the last part of my sentence??


Let me underline it to help you catch on:

Men can only grow fetuses by enslaving women to do it, unless the woman WANTS to, which is our individual choice, not yours.

And, in your opinion, at what point does the woman make such a choice? I believe that a woman - and man - make that choice when they agree to have sexual intercourse, knowing full well that it may lead to pregnancy, even if they use birth control (which fails from time to time).

[mundame]

And, in your opinion, at what point does the woman make such a choice?

When she realizes she is pregnant, of course.



I believe that a woman - and man - make that choice when they agree to have sexual intercourse, knowing full well that it may lead to pregnancy, even if they use birth control (which fails from time to time).


Here's the important point, Jeff:

It doesn't matter what you believe.

It only matters what women decide.

[5stringJeff]

Here's the important point, Jeff:

It doesn't matter what you believe.

It only matters what women decide.

I don't buy that. Does the father have no say in the matter? It takes two to tango, as they say.

[mundame]

I don't buy that. Does the father have no say in the matter? It takes two to tango, as they say.


Sure, if the woman agrees he can have a say.

Otherwise, not.



Although I must say, in the case of married women, it would be grounds for divorce to unilaterally move against a husband's desire for a child: that's the whole POINT of marriage, after all. That the man has a claim on the children.

Though sometimes such abortion would be very understandable: in the case of an imminent divorce, if he's infected from philandering, or if there is a fetus with birth defects whose care would be a lifelong burden on the mother (men usually take off in the vast majority of handicapped child cases --- they didn't sign up for all that). It would still be grounds for divorce, but I wouldn't criticize a woman who made such a decision in those cases.

[5stringJeff]

Sure, if the woman agrees he can have a say.

Otherwise, not.



Although I must say, in the case of married women, it would be grounds for divorce to unilaterally move against a husband's desire for a child: that's the whole POINT of marriage, after all. That the man has a claim on the children.

Though sometimes such abortion would be very understandable: in the case of an imminent divorce, if he's infected from philandering, or if there is a fetus with birth defects whose care would be a lifelong burden on the mother (men usually take off in the vast majority of handicapped child cases --- they didn't sign up for all that). It would still be grounds for divorce, but I wouldn't criticize a woman who made such a decision in those cases.

I believe we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I see neither divorce nor birth defects as a reason to abort a child. Would killing an infant be justified if a couple were divorcing? Would it be OK to kill a newborn if, after birth, it was discovered that it had birth defects? If the answer to those questions is no, then how can killing the same human being prior to birth be justified?

[mundame]

I believe we'll have to agree to disagree on this.


Just as well the law is on women's side, then.

[Yurt]

When she realizes she is pregnant, of course.


Here's the important point, Jeff:

It doesn't matter what you believe.

It only matters what women decide.


Just as well the law is on women's side, then.

i think the law is abhorent here and so is the idea that once a man creates a fertilized egg that becomes a fetus, the man no longer has a say. so women are just baby carriers to you? is the creation of life really that mundane to you?

[Hagbard Celine]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080630/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_immigration

WASHINGTON - When it comes to immigration, Barack Obama and John McCain generally agree. It's just that they don't want to say so.

Instead, the White House rivals accuse one another of flinching when it mattered most, during and after last year's Senate debate on a bill that would have given millions of illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.

This nation is made entirely of immigrants and immigrant families genius. Catching a sudden case of xenophobia doesn't change that fact. Your vote doesn't matter anyway. The president will be picked by the electoral college. The popular vote is just there to give us (the vulgar mob) the illusion of control while the ownership class distracts us with opiate wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage so that they can take all our freedoms away and control our policy makers through their lobbyists from their corporate offices.

[emmett]

Yea, we're the fools because we don't want to give the country to the Democrats so they have absolute rule...... it's much better to experiment with a non-viable candidate so you can feel special.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
Sure.

Sitarro!!!!! (Emmett yells loudly) Sitarro!!!!! Yoo-hoo!!!!! Sitarro!

Slow down for a second. You are an intelligent individual, I know this because i have read your stuff for years. May I indulge you for a minute please.

First of all, Obama may win anyway, even if there were NO Libertarian Party.

Furthermore, your point(s) about wasting votes has some merit. Not quite as much as you think though, and if I may be so bold as to point out, it AIN"T funny. Voting for the LP now is exactly what a person should do that believes they are the best choice for America. Now, you know as well as well as I do that their platform falls much more in line with the fundamental beliefs of American design than that of either of the two biggies. While voting for the "lesser of evils" may seem to be the thing to do in order to avoid electing the "wrong" candidate in THIS election, what about the long term.

Answer yourself this question, if the Libertarians recieve a larger vote count this election than expected, what will happen. What about next time? Let's take the Democrats, what do you think they will do if the LP gets say 3 million votes, and trust me brother, they ARE going to get 3 million votes. You are going to see pandimonium erupt. Daschle, Kennedy and Kerry, all sitting around the patio table up there at Ted's house trying to figure what the fuck went wrong. Democrats are nothing but powermongers, you know that. The average democratic senator or congressman does not give a rats ass about the real welfare of the people that vote for them. They simply go after the most vulnerable voters. If they were to see an immediate disappearence of these voters they will instantly adjust their platform toward that agenda. That is how the communists worked em through the 50's and 60's and that is the way the LP needs to work em now. Now tell me the communists didn't accomplish their agenda by using the Democratic Party and then place one of your laughy faces next to it. The LP can work the same way but in the interests of true Liberty going in the opposite direction.

You know in your heart that Bob Barr is a better chopice for president. Most conservatives do! The problem is that they want to "pick their platform". With Liberty, you can't do that. You have to have absolute Liberty or be prepared to deal with the compromises of it.

Here are some true or false questions for you.


Our two party system has fucked up our country.

Republicans now are as bad as Democrats about intrusiveness in our lives.

It is OK to sacrifice liberty to acheive security.

John McCain is a conservative.

Our economy is better today than 8 years ago.





Come on man. Now as for your saying that we can feel proud of ourselves for voting Libertarian. I have to tell you, I have never felt prouder than knowing I stood up for principle and refused to compromise my beliefs as an American. You better believe it my friend. Pride and ego are not the same Sitarro.

I'm not gonna patronize you with some quickie website that is set up to convert you to the Libertarian Party. You are far too intelligent and I have alot of respect for your arguments and debate that I have read through the years. You probably know more about the Lp than I do. What I will say however is that if you re-examine your core beliefs and look at what really is the "lesser of evils" you may find that electing either of the two candidates this election wuill do the same thing. If one of them wins and the LP gains ground however then we take a step closer to real victory, a day when Liberty is no longer laughed at like it is today. That my friend, will be a choice that IS NOT evil.

As always

Emmett

[Yurt]

This nation is made entirely of immigrants and immigrant families genius. Catching a sudden case of xenophobia doesn't change that fact. Your vote doesn't matter anyway. The president will be picked by the electoral college. The popular vote is just there to give us (the vulgar mob) the illusion of control while the ownership class distracts us with opiate wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage so that they can take all our freedoms away and control our policy makers through their lobbyists from their corporate offices.

are not all nations

yet only some are called "native"

[emmett]

Wrong. The fetus, left to its own devices, will quickly die and rot and return to the Earth.

Men can only grow fetuses by enslaving women to do it, unless the woman WANTS to, which is our individual choice, not yours.

Actually.................................

A fetus should always be the result of the union between two loving individuals who have chosen to be united together forever until one of them dies. They have chosen to create a life together so as to enhance their existance together and bring life (the greatest decision that can be made by TWO people) into the world. Since obviously only one can carry this fetus, well, if i had to explain that part.

Abortion, or the decision to abort or not, shouldn't technically ever be necessary. It happens because of a problem much deeper than rather a woman should be allowed to choose or not. The "CHOICE" should have been made prior to pregnancy. Anything else proves the woman as well as the man "unqualified" in so much as to say, wouldn't you think?

Our overwhelming problem about abortion and the "right to choose" debate is centered in the wrong basis. Both men and women should make better choices to begin with and then maybe we wouldn't be burdening only women with the choice of rather to kill. I don't think anyone could imagine what it would be like to be in that situation so I don't necessarily judge so quickly a woman who chooses to abort, I would rather spend my efforts trying to influence all to be more selective, patient and responsible.

Here is a thought for you. What if it was the man's choice ONLY, to decide if the pregnancy should be allowed to produce a child. Whoa! Don't react yet Mundame, think about it for a minute. I bet a woman would be alot less apt to get pregnate if that were the case, huh?

You are a great debater and an asset to the board. Press on!

[Hagbard Celine]

are not all nations

yet only some are called "native"

That's debatable. If a nation is made up of the decendants of the first people to settle there then I'd say they have a claim to being "native." I'd say Europeans, Asians, Indians, Native Americans, Aussie Aboriginees and Africans can all claim to be "natives." Everyone else is an immigrant. Especially any hyphenated Americans (including Euro-Americans) and Euro-Australians.

[5stringJeff]

That's debatable. If a nation is made up of the decendants of the first people to settle there then I'd say they have a claim to being "native." I'd say Europeans, Asians, Indians, Native Americans, Aussie Aboriginees and Africans can all claim to be "natives." Everyone else is an immigrant. Especially any hyphenated Americans (including Euro-Americans) and Euro-Australians.

I disagree entirely. My family has been in America for at least 8 generations on every branch of the tree I've been able to research (which is almost all of them). I'm as "native" an American as it gets.

[Hagbard Celine]

I disagree entirely. My family has been in America for at least 8 generations on every branch of the tree I've been able to research (which is almost all of them). I'm as "native" an American as it gets.

Yes, but your family immigrated here at some point--apparently eight generations ago.

[Yurt]

That's debatable. If a nation is made up of the decendants of the first people to settle there then I'd say they have a claim to being "native." I'd say Europeans, Asians, Indians, Native Americans, Aussie Aboriginees and Africans can all claim to be "natives." Everyone else is an immigrant. Especially any hyphenated Americans (including Euro-Americans) and Euro-Australians.

it is only debatable due to modern liberals. back in the "day" people roamed, explored, conquered, etc... the world was untamed. if you believe in evolution, then the monkeys rule it all as they are the true natives. lets say you believe in evolution and that monkeys do not rule the roost, then what stage of man is a true native? homo sapien? is that then the definition of "native?" if so, you have then defined a period of time, as there is no truue defined period, there is a massive grey area (BEFORE EUROPEANS) when someone is truly considered a native, unless of course you are considering europe.

maybe we should have remained in the cave hag. huh? not explored beyond our borders....

if you believe in the bible, then God scattered people across the world after the tower of babel. thus native really means nothing, as Adam and Eve are the true natives.

[5stringJeff]

Yes, but your family immigrated here at some point--apparently eight generations ago.

And the American Indians immigrated here, about 10K-16K years ago. My point is that, at some point, we ought to quit referring to everyone as "immigrants." I'm not an immigrant. I have no other home. Were I to "return" to Europe, where most of my ancestors came from, they would treat me like a foreigner - as such I am.

[Yurt]

And the American Indians immigrated here, about 10K-16K years ago. My point is that, at some point, we ought to quit referring to everyone as "immigrants." I'm not an immigrant. I have no other home. Were I to "return" to Europe, where most of my ancestors came from, they would treat me like a foreigner - as such I am.

no they didn't, they grew here

[DragonStryk72]

Wrong. The fetus, left to its own devices, will quickly die and rot and return to the Earth.

Men can only grow fetuses by enslaving women to do it, unless the woman WANTS to, which is our individual choice, not yours.

So now pregnancy is outlawed by the laws against slavery? Wow, way to try turning that one into something completely wrong. Consensual act, again, Consensual act, you will note I even excluded rape from that equation, and Jesus as well, though by your classification standards, God raped Mary. As I've said some many times, it seems, read the entire post, then respond. If a woman is mature enough to have sex consensually, then she is in fact also mature enough to raise a child.

This is referred to as personal responsibility, I know, outdated, and you hate hearing term, wherein people would be responsible for their own actions, but I tend to believe in the higher road that humans are an adaptable lot, and can overcome adversity if given the chance to.

Also, gotta add in another Darwin award for the first part, that instead of seeing what was quite obviously written, you decided to try the literal run.

Oh, and don't think I'm letting guys off the hook either. They're just as responsible as the woman, seeing as they have the sperm required for the egg to mature into a child. There is no excuse, the shear excess of birth control methods available today, let alone FREE birth control methods available, states that the only reason a woman is getting pregnant in consensual sex is a choice to go without birth control, period.

Now, I am also of the belief that a child is a creation of both people involved, and thus, if child support laws are to be true and just, then the man has just as much right in the decision as the female. Yes, there are men out there who are having the children that they want stripped from them, left out of the decision to keep the child alive, saying that it's the woman's baby.... until the child support comes into play.

I have actually watched a guy beg his girlfriend to keep the baby, that he would take care of it, and yes, he had the financial resources to make that statement, but the decision went against him, because he's only a man, and therefore can only be given credence where the kid's finances are concerned.

[Sitarro]

Sure, if the woman agrees he can have a say.

Otherwise, not.



Although I must say, in the case of married women, it would be grounds for divorce to unilaterally move against a husband's desire for a child: that's the whole POINT of marriage, after all. That the man has a claim on the children.

Though sometimes such abortion would be very understandable: in the case of an imminent divorce, if he's infected from philandering, or if there is a fetus with birth defects whose care would be a lifelong burden on the mother (men usually take off in the vast majority of handicapped child cases --- they didn't sign up for all that). It would still be grounds for divorce, but I wouldn't criticize a woman who made such a decision in those cases.


So if not married the man has no say unless the woman decides to have the child but then the man still doesn't have a say as the woman extorts 18 years of payments for the kid he had no say in....... no wonder I have stayed away from relationships and just pay up front for the service.

[actsnoblemartin]

I dont believe in voting for who sucks less, I believe in voting for who the best candidate is.

There is no proof mc-liberal will be any better then o-socialist.

Infact, they both will probably be terrible presidents, so were all screwed


I only have one reason to vote for McCain. Obama.

And I really hate having to choose between two evils. Voting independent is the same as not voting.

Its a matter of shoot your self in the foot or shoot yourself in the head. If you don't shoot or shoot somewhere else the head shot is coming from someone else.

Obamanation isn't just a cute name to call obama. It's what will become of the nation if he gets in. You think things are bad now? Let him get in power.

[emmett]

Ah.......we've gotten off subject here.

[actsnoblemartin]

youre an idiot.

were talking about illegal immigration, and the fact you dont get that, and that illegal aliens and their enablers and raping, stealing and ruining our country every day just makes you a part of the problem.


This nation is made entirely of immigrants and immigrant families genius. Catching a sudden case of xenophobia doesn't change that fact. Your vote doesn't matter anyway. The president will be picked by the electoral college. The popular vote is just there to give us (the vulgar mob) the illusion of control while the ownership class distracts us with opiate wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage so that they can take all our freedoms away and control our policy makers through their lobbyists from their corporate offices.

[actsnoblemartin]

Yes, but your family immigrated here at some point--apparently eight generations ago.

Their was no native american border patrol, or native american ins back in the day, but keep smoking the liberal bullshit.

[Hagbard Celine]

it is only debatable due to modern liberals. back in the "day" people roamed, explored, conquered, etc... the world was untamed. if you believe in evolution, then the monkeys rule it all as they are the true natives. lets say you believe in evolution and that monkeys do not rule the roost, then what stage of man is a true native? homo sapien? is that then the definition of "native?" if so, you have then defined a period of time, as there is no truue defined period, there is a massive grey area (BEFORE EUROPEANS) when someone is truly considered a native, unless of course you are considering europe.

maybe we should have remained in the cave hag. huh? not explored beyond our borders....

if you believe in the bible, then God scattered people across the world after the tower of babel. thus native really means nothing, as Adam and Eve are the true natives.

And you've revealed that you have zero understanding of evolutionary theory. This is where I decline to post with you further about this until you have educated yourself.

[Hagbard Celine]

Their was no native american border patrol, or native american ins back in the day, but keep smoking the liberal bullshit.

What's "liberal" about what I said? Did our ancestors not immigrate here? Are we not the descendants of immigrants? Oh, that's right. You're a f*cking idiot. Case closed.

[Hagbard Celine]

And the American Indians immigrated here, about 10K-16K years ago. My point is that, at some point, we ought to quit referring to everyone as "immigrants." I'm not an immigrant. I have no other home. Were I to "return" to Europe, where most of my ancestors came from, they would treat me like a foreigner - as such I am.

You're missing the point I'm making. The people who founded our country immigrated here. With the exception of modern native Americans, everyone who lives here is the product of immigration. I think it's ridiculous (and proof positive of the latent racism/xenophobia in American culture) that the majority of Americans now think that "illegal" immigrants are going to ruin our country. It's so ignorant it's laughable.
The way you talk about the "problem" doesn't even make sense. You act as if there are thousands pouring over the border via desert routes underneath fences on the "illegal immigrant underground railroad" but you haven't even thought about how ridiculous the logistics of something like that even is. The truth is that illegal immigrant workers are fueling a huge part of the development in this country and are providing cheap labor in all areas of the economy. The real "issue" people have is that they speak a different language and eat differnt food. It's typical ignorant bullsh*t. Just something else to b*tch and whine about while doing nothing to make anything better.

[DragonStryk72]

Their was no native american border patrol, or native american ins back in the day, but keep smoking the liberal bullshit.

Though, in retrospect, they probably should have just kicked us the fuck out

[actsnoblemartin]

thats true, but we dont have a time machine


Though, in retrospect, they probably should have just kicked us the fuck out