America's Choices: Left, Lefter, Leftest

2008-02-03 00:49:24

#1

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6958|Global Command

Juan McCain is another uberWarMonge and will stand at the Mexican border with a cache of false ID's for sexslave-traders, arms-runnerss, Islamist insurgents, Mexican underclass, and petty convicts of various sorts.

Juan McCain has said that he sees the USA as just one small state in a World Union, and a problematic State we are, who must take drastic action to save the planet [his fawning to Ubersocialist Scwarzenegger]

Hillary will quickly institute The Village. The State owns and manages your children, your family, your parents. The State is your Doctor.
The State is your banker - your salary goes to the State, which decides how much of your salary to render back to you as 'disposable income'

Barak will find commonality with dictators, despots, oligarchs, sultans & kings.
Barak will pay for your abortion, eliminate your national borders, pay extortion payments to hispanic activists, join the world socialist community.

McCain and Hillary are unabashed dictators-in-waiting, like Bush.

Barak is still a bit of a wildcard.

The end result may be that main street America looks like this;

https://www.bized.co.uk/images/favela.jpg

2008-02-03 00:54:47

#2

nukchebi0: Пушкин, наше всё; +387|6753|New Haven, CT

Vote for Ron Paul.

More importantly, it might make more of an impact if you could prove what you are saying about each candidate.

Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-02-03 00:55:39)

2008-02-03 00:54:57

#3

LividBovine: The Year of the Cow!; +175|6809|MN

I don't like any of them that much. At least you know where McCain stands though. He certainly doesn't tow the party line. Just a bit liberal overall for me.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

2008-02-03 00:55:52

#4

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6958|Global Command

LividBovine wrote:
I don't like any of them that much. At least you know where McCain stands though. He certainly doesn't tow the party line. Just a bit liberal overall for me.

Kind of...my point.

2008-02-03 00:56:08

#5

Reciprocity: Member; +721|7010|the dank(super) side of Oregon

whoever is the president will just be a president.

do you really expect anything to change?

if bush had his way, like you say juan and hillary will, wouldn't abortion be completely outlawed by now? wouldn't education have been fixed?

I understand what you're saying, I just dont get freaked out anymore.

2008-02-03 01:00:09

#6

LividBovine: The Year of the Cow!; +175|6809|MN

I guess my point was I don't liberals much at all, and I guess I would take the lesser of all evils, McCain. I haven't been watching close enough to know if there is anyone close to hum right now.

It seems like there is starting to be a little rallying behind him now.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

2008-02-03 01:00:32

#7

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6958|Global Command

Roe vrs Wade will be over turned and States Rights will prevail under the normal conservative party.

The almagation that is the Republican party under W IS SOMETHING NEW.

I like Ron Paul, pity we are being force fed two anointed choices.
Anointed shit.

2008-02-03 01:04:25

#8

LividBovine: The Year of the Cow!; +175|6809|MN

I wonder which side McCain will actually take on Abortion if he wins?

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

2008-02-03 01:17:43

#9

nukchebi0: Пушкин, наше всё; +387|6753|New Haven, CT

Write Ron Paul in, then.

California is still going to vote for Obama (I think he will win), no matter if you vote for him, McCain, or no one. Symbolically protest by voting for Ron Paul.

Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-02-03 01:19:14)

2008-02-03 01:23:15

#10

Nappy: Apprentice; +151|6658|NSW, Australia

Rudd ftw, there should be an american politics thread or write [AP] or something before the thread name if its american politics

2008-02-03 01:25:25

#11

Fenris_GreyClaw: Real Хорошо; +826|6948|Adelaide, South Australia

Nappy wrote:
Rudd ftw, there should be an american politics thread or write [AP] or something before the thread name if its american politics

...What?

America's Choices: Left, Lefter, Leftest

2008-02-03 01:26:49

#12

nukchebi0: Пушкин, наше всё; +387|6753|New Haven, CT

America=Australia if you aren't reading closely and live in the Southern Hemisphere.

2008-02-03 01:34:22

#13

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,991|7061|949

Hahahahaha.

How much pot did you smoke before you wrote that ATG?

Where do you read this stuff - or is it an amalgamation of all your worst nightmares?

2008-02-03 01:41:21

#14

TeamZephyr: Maintaining My Rage Since 1975; +124|6958|Hillside, Melbourne, Australia

nukchebi0 wrote:
Symbolically protest by voting for Ron Paul.

Or maybe someone a little less insane......

2008-02-03 01:55:04

#15

iNeedUrFace4Soup: fuck it; +348|6975

2008-02-03 08:04:36

#16

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6958|Global Command

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Hahahahaha.

How much pot did you smoke before you wrote that ATG?

Where do you read this stuff - or is it an amalgamation of all your worst nightmares?

I am living one of my worst nightmares.

Hillary Fucking Clinton is being spoken of as a likely president.

2008-02-03 08:25:33

#17

Sydney: 2λчиэλ; +783|7272|Reykjavík, Iceland.

Why is the US so paranoid about socialism?

2008-02-03 08:36:44

#18

(T)eflon(S)hadow: R.I.P. Neda; +456|7258|Grapevine, TX

It's not paranoia its: not freedom...

2008-02-03 08:46:17

#19

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6834|North Carolina

Say what you will about the candidates, but if they were running in a European election, they'd all be considered conservative.

The point is, it all comes down to perspective. Maybe, just maybe, America is waking up to the fact that it has become too conservative for its own good over the last decade.

Granted, I am conservative on border security as well, but the reason why I wouldn't vote for McCain is because of his foreign policy, not his amnesty BS.

2008-02-03 08:47:59

#20

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7030|132 and Bush

ATG wrote:

Looks like Caracas.... when I was there.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2008-02-03 08:49:42

#21

Sydney: 2λчиэλ; +783|7272|Reykjavík, Iceland.

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
It's not paranoia its: not freedom...

I'm sorry, what? Name one thing considered "freedom" that you have which I don't.

2008-02-03 09:17:44

#22

Marinejuana: local; +415|7014|Seattle

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
It's not paranoia its: not freedom...

Turquoise wrote:
Say what you will about the candidates, but if they were running in a European election, they'd all be considered conservative.

The point is, it all comes down to perspective. Maybe, just maybe, America is waking up to the fact that it has become too conservative for its own good over the last decade.

Granted, I am conservative on border security as well, but the reason why I wouldn't vote for McCain is because of his foreign policy, not his amnesty BS.

look up conservative and liberal in the dictionary. and in the last decade our spending, albeit for war, is far beyond anything that you would call conservative (even though you mean liberal--Orwellian doublespeak, its not your fault. the simplest way to halt the progress of debate is to give the most commonly used words conflicting meanings so that a colloquial interpretation is impossible). we need to quit attempting to reduce all of politics to these 2 philosophies, which in practice always result in the same socio-economic order of a ruling class and landless peasants. its such a waste of our time. "conservatives" and "liberals" beg for the same thing in 2 different colors of packages. one of them is dedicated to "private enterprise" in an ivory tower and the other one asks for the same thing with an official state seal. what a joke.

2008-02-03 09:21:34

#23

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6834|North Carolina

Marinejuana wrote:
look up conservative and liberal in the dictionary. and in the last decade our spending, albeit for war, is far beyond anything that you would call conservative (even though you mean liberal--Orwellian doublespeak, its not your fault. the simplest way to halt the progress of debate is to give the most commonly used words conflicting meanings so that a colloquial interpretation is impossible). we need to quit attempting to reduce all of politics to these 2 philosophies, which in practice always result in the same socio-economic order of a ruling class and landless peasants. its such a waste of our time. "conservatives" and "liberals" beg for the same thing in 2 different colors of packages. one of them is dedicated to "private enterprise" in an ivory tower and the other one asks for the same thing with an official state seal. what a joke.

Perhaps, I should have said "neoconservative." Neoconservative and neoliberal (I guess) are both big government.

Classical Liberalism, which is the same thing as what conservatism originally was (a.k.a -- Libertarianism), stands for smaller government.

The one question I have though is this... You seem like someone who is very adamant about maximizing personal freedom, correct?

2008-02-03 09:45:19

#24

Marinejuana: local; +415|7014|Seattle

Turquoise wrote:
You seem like someone who is very adamant about maximizing personal freedom, correct?

yes. which isnt anarchy. order in society depends on our lifestyles negatively impacting each other minimally. so a criminal is a person that deprives freedom from others, whether it be monopolization and empire building or the petty crimes and victimizations that we are all taught to recognize. i see the big difficulty right now as the design of a whole new criminal code that would keep people from being able to take over and exploit each other the way they have since roughly, the advent of agriculture. i think its more than possible in an intellectual sense, but the fact that this issue has barely entered our societies' collective consciousness for now, precludes any change. we'll just continue furling our brows and playing keith olberman vs. michelle malkin until theres no hope.

2008-02-03 09:47:58

#25

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6834|North Carolina

I take it that you are either a minarchist or an anarcho-syndicalist? Am I right?

BF2S Forums America's Choices: Left, Lefter, Leftest

LividBovine wrote:

Nappy wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

ATG wrote:

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Marinejuana wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Board footer