JREF Presidency Poll

[Oliver]

Okely Dokely, who's your favorite right now? :D

[Oliver]

There are even more third-party candidates, but the poll is limited to
20 options...

Third parties

Main article: United States third party presidential candidates, 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_presidential_candidates% 2C_2008)

Constitution Party

Candidates for the Constitution Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Party_%28United_States%29):

Don J. Grundmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_J._Grundmann)† of California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California) (Campaign site (http://www.truthusa.org/))
Bryan Malatesta† of Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas)[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_U.S._president#_note-34)
Diane Beall Templin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Beall_Templin)† of California[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_U.S._president#_note-35)
Green Party

Candidates for the Green Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_%28United_States%29) (Official Press Release (http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2007_06_27.shtml)):

Jared Ball† of Washington DC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_DC) (Campaign site (http://www.voxunion.com/jaredball/))
Elaine Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Brown)† of Georgia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_%28U.S._state%29)[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_U.S._president#_note-36) (Campaign site (http://www.elainebrown.org/))
Jesse Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Johnson)† of West Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia), former Mountain Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Party) candidate for US Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Senate) and Governor of West Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_West_Virginia)
Jerry Kann† of New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York) (Campaign site (http://kannforpresident.net/))
Cynthia McKinney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_McKinney) of Georgia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_%28U.S._state%29), former Congresswoman[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_U.S._president#_note-37)[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_U.S._president#_note-38)
Kent Mesplay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Mesplay) of California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California), California Delegate to the Green National Committee (Campaign site (http://www.mesplay.org/))
Kat Swift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kat_Swift)† of Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas), co-chair of Texas Green Party (Campaign site (http://www.prezkat.info/)) Potential candidates

Ralph Nader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader) of Connecticut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut)[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_U.S._president#_note-39) (Draft Movement (http://www.draftnader.org/))
Rebecca Rotzler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Rotzler)† of New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_%28U.S._state%29)[46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_U.S._president#_note-40)
Libertarian Party

Candidates for the Libertarian Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_%28United_States%29):

Daniel Imperato (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Imperato) of Florida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida) (Campaign Site (http://www.imperato2008.com/))
Bob Jackson of Michigan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan) (Campaign Site (http://www.bobjackson.org/))
Mike Jingozian of Oregon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon) (Campaign Site (http://www.jingo.org/))
Steve Kubby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Kubby) of California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California) (Campaign Site (http://www.kubby2008.com/))
Alden Link of New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York). (Campaign Site (http://www.link-for-pres.org/))
George Phillies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Phillies) of Massachusetts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts) (Campaign Site (http://phillies2008.org/))
Wayne Allyn Root (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Allyn_Root)† of Nevada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada) (Campaign Site (http://www.millionairerepublican.com/))
Christine Smith of Colorado (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado) (Campaign Site (http://www.christinesmithforpresident.com/))

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_U.S._president#Libertarian_Party

[FireGarden]

I voted as a JREF member in a JREF poll.

I am British not American, however. So there you go.

I've got no idea what Ron Paul's policies are beyond getting out of Iraq. He got my vote anyway.

[Oliver]

I voted as a JREF member in a JREF poll.

I am British not American, however. So there you go.

I've got no idea what Ron Paul's policies are beyond getting out of Iraq. He got my vote anyway.


And that's a wise decision for a non-American citizen. :)

[Oliver]

If there would be no Paul, I probably would be in favor of Obama as well.
I like the Idea that a non-whitey runs the country. But unfortunately, he
has no political relevant records at all...

[Tailgater]

I'm not ready to vote yet. I'm split with most of the candidates.

It's more of picking who I won't vote for at this point.

[Oliver]

I'm not ready to vote yet. I'm split with most of the candidates.

It's more of picking who I won't vote for at this point.


I think the thread wont be deleted - so just vote if you took your pick. :)
Or you could start a multiple-choice counter-thread - asking "Who wouldn't
you vote for?".

[DoubtingStephen]

As the most vocal, and nearly only, opponent in the US Congress of our war of imperialist aggression based on a pack of lies, Dennis Kucinich got my vote.

I realize that a snowball is more likely to get a membership on the board of directors in Hell than the good Representative is to be elected, but the poll asked who I liked, not which candidate I was most desperate to vote against. That will be next November.

Next year I expect to be voting against a guy that wears magic underwear. I expect the woman I vote for will lose.

[Tailgater]

I think the thread wont be deleted - so just vote if you took your pick. :)
Or you could start a multiple-choice counter-thread - asking "Who wouldn't
you vote for?".

That's ok. I have to go run data for a new preschool in the next town. I'll think about it till later. I actually do like Ron Paul in many ways. I have a thing for third party candidates to begin with. I admit I voted Ross Perot just to shake the boat. I'm +economic conservative/+social liberal, which I think many are turning to. As far as Iraq, I don't want us to stay there indefinitely, but I don't want us to pullout overnight. Progress has been made of lately and needs to be followed through with. I'm hoping that the recent progress and beginning withdrawal of surge brigades will continue and a start of complete withdrawal be happening by the time I vote.

[Oliver]

That's ok. I have to go run data for a new preschool in the next town. I'll think about it till later. I actually do like Ron Paul in many ways. I have a thing for third party candidates to begin with. I admit I voted Ross Perot just to shake the boat. I'm +economic conservative/+social liberal, which I think many are turning to. As far as Iraq, I don't want us to stay there indefinitely, but I don't want us to pullout overnight. Progress has been made of lately and needs to be followed through with. I'm hoping that the recent progress and beginning withdrawal of surge brigades will continue and a start of complete withdrawal be happening by the time I vote.



Well - the crux is that there will be chaos anyway as soon as
the US is out of Iraq. So it doesn't really matter if they stay
or leave ... And therefore progress isn't important at all unless
you're in favor of a police state in Iraq ... [In contrast to
freedom and democracy for Iraq]

[Dr Adequate]

I've got no idea what Ron Paul's policies are beyond getting out of Iraq. He got my vote anyway. Oh boy ...

[Darth Rotor]

Oh boy ...

Consider that me might be a voter in your country.

Good news, or bad?

@ Oliver:

You failed to include Alfred E. Newman and Kinky Friedman in your poll.

DR

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Kucinich is closer to my values on the issues that are important to me. And he's cute.

But I will probably vote for Obama, or Edwards if he can distinguish himself more.

In the general election, I will be voting against the other candidate.

[Wolfman]

Well, yet another non-American here (Canadian), but if I were to vote, my first choice based on my current knowledge of the candidates would be Obama. Why? Simply because the biggest international problem facing the world today is the conflict between the U.S. and Muslim nations. And out of every candidate, I think that Obama is the one in the best position to understand both sides. I doubt very much that he would find a solution -- I don't believe any real 'solution' would be possible within only 4 or 8 years of his potential presidency -- but he could at least set policies that could start things moving in the right direction.

I don't think he'll be "pro-Muslim", or soft on terrorists -- quite the opposite, I expect he'll be very hard on terrorist groups -- but I believe he's better equipped to understand the differences between the Muslim hardliners, and the moderates; and to establish policies that, instead of further alienating all Muslims (as the current administration is doing), will bring moderates more towards "our" side.

Personally, as a non-American, I don't give a crap about his ability to manage America's internal situation; and were I American, I don't know, my opinion might be different. But since the major impact that any US president will have on my life, and my country, will be in terms of international politics/conflict, I think that Obama is by far the best choice.

[Oliver]

Simply because the biggest international problem facing the world today is the conflict between the U.S. and Muslim nations.


HAHAHAHAAAA! http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/happy024.gif

[Rika]

As of now, I'd vote Obama, but eh...

(in any case, Oliver, just because you refuse to admit it...)

[Quad4_72]

Wait I think the poll is unfair. The republicans are listed first and it is confusing me. I demand a recount!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I picked Ron Paul, because I felt sorry for him and didn't want him to end up with only 1 vote (Oliver's).

And since I'm not really going to vote for him (absent suffering a major head trauma), I have now rendered the poll results meaningless.

[In My Spare Time]

The more I hear from Obama the more he cures me from wanting to vote for him, so I'm back to DK.

[daredelvis]

@ Oliver:

You failed to include Alfred E. Newman and Kinky Friedman in your poll.

DR

Pat Paulson (even though he's dead). Or, is Colbert the new Paulson?

Daredelvis

[FireGarden]

Oh boy ...

:D

[Garrette]

Well, yet another non-American here (Canadian), but if I were to vote, my first choice based on my current knowledge of the candidates would be Obama. Why? Simply because the biggest international problem facing the world today is the conflict between the U.S. and Muslim nations. And out of every candidate, I think that Obama is the one in the best position to understand both sides. I doubt very much that he would find a solution -- I don't believe any real 'solution' would be possible within only 4 or 8 years of his potential presidency -- but he could at least set policies that could start things moving in the right direction.

I don't think he'll be "pro-Muslim", or soft on terrorists -- quite the opposite, I expect he'll be very hard on terrorist groups -- but I believe he's better equipped to understand the differences between the Muslim hardliners, and the moderates; and to establish policies that, instead of further alienating all Muslims (as the current administration is doing), will bring moderates more towards "our" side.

Personally, as a non-American, I don't give a crap about his ability to manage America's internal situation; and were I American, I don't know, my opinion might be different. But since the major impact that any US president will have on my life, and my country, will be in terms of international politics/conflict, I think that Obama is by far the best choice.I suggest that is a self-defeating reason to vote for him. Rightly or wrongly, in the US he risks the "Only Mondale can go to China" syndrome.

[Undesired Walrus]

Ok, fess up, who voted for Alan Keyes?

It would be a right laugh with him in the oval office.

[Undesired Walrus]

Why Romney Darth? Thought you were a McCain man?

[Kerberos]

Ok, fess up, who voted for Alan Keyes?

It would be a right laugh with him in the oval office.

You can see who voted for what, at least I can (Cain in this case).

[zakur]

What? No 'Planet X' option? WTF kind of jref forum poll is this? ;)

[Tsukasa Buddha]

What? No 'Planet X' option? WTF kind of jref forum poll is this? ;)

LOL, I am so going to write in Planet X if it is Clinton v Giuliani.

[Beerina]

What? No 'Planet X' option? WTF kind of jref forum poll is this? ;)

All the candidates are a planet X option.

[CFLarsen]

I expect the woman I vote for will lose.

Against who?

[DoubtingStephen]

Against who?

Against the guy with the magic underwear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_garment).

[Ion]

As the most vocal, and nearly only, opponent in the US Congress of our war of imperialist aggression based on a pack of lies, Dennis Kucinich got my vote.
...
I voted Kucinich too.

Voting for Obama would be more realistic though.

[dudalb]

Against the guy with the magic underwear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_garment).

I don't like Romney,but I suggest attacking his religon is not a smart political move.

[DoubtingStephen]

I voted Kucinich too.

Voting for Obama would be more realistic though.

I liked Obama early on when he was talking about uniting the country, and popular feel good things like that. But as he begins to be more specific I see an increase in things I do not like, such as pandering to the religious right by associating his otherwise good name with evangelists who talk about curing homosexuality. If I want that kind of crap I can just vote Party of Jesus. At least Obama is an intelligent and well educated man, not much at all like many of his peers in the Senate. And he speaks English as if he learned it as a child, so there is one up on Our Glorious Christian Leader.

I do lean more toward the Democrats generally because they seem to be up to 4% less evil. But it has been clear to me for years that any primary contender I might like has a maximum of no chance at all of appearing on the actual election ballot unless I bring a ball point pen with me into the booth, and it's not easy to write on those darn computer screens!

I wish we had more than 1.01 major parties to choose from.

[latent aaaack]

Obama can't spell "flak" (indicating he's never read it in print), keeps comparing himself to Abraham Lincoln, and thinks he's bold and ambitious for talking directly with tyrant foriegn leaders rather than a tool. Intelligent - no, charismatic and good at pronouncing - yes.

GWB's greatest legacy is lowering the standard for future presidents, like having a really ugly person around you to make one look less ugly. He and Hillary also make the prospect of a military coup more likely.

[Skibum]

I'm undecided, chances are I'll end up throwing my vote away since I won't vote for either a democrat or a republican.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

What the **** is Paul doing at the top?

Who's voting for him?! Confess, and I won't have you institutionalized!

He doesn't believe in separation of church and state. He is uber pro-life. He wrote a bill that would prevent the SCOTUS from ruling on abortion, establishment, and sodomy laws.

I, for one, like sodomy.

He has never gotten a bill passed in all his years in Congress.

[DoubtingStephen]

I, for one, like sodomy.


Your avatar is really cute!

[Metullus]

There is no one on that list for whom I could, in good conscience, right now vote.

Not even close.

[The Painter]

I, for one, like sodomy.

Hi, how ya doin'

[Elizabeth I]

There is no one on that list for whom I could, in good conscience, right now vote.

Not even close.

That pretty much sums up my philosophy right now.

[Liszt]

Ron Paul is still winning, with Obama in 2nd place.

Bloody hell! Does Dr Paul win every online poll?!

[Pardalis]

If only life was virtual... ;)

[Oliver]

Ron Paul is still winning, with Obama in 2nd place.

Bloody hell! Does Dr Paul win every online poll?!


It's a public poll - so it will be hard to claim the "Paulians"
manipulated it. But more surprisingly Bullyani doesn't get
anything near the "official" polls. Mhmmm.

Oh, and did anyone see Hillary?

[Cain]

We need a televised three way debate between Alan Keyes, Mike Gravel, and Cynthia Mckinney.

[Dr Adequate]

Obama can't spell "flak" ... Didin't we debunk this?

Yes, I believe we did. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83128)

To quote a great man (me) : "If there's one thing feebler than a spelling flame, it's a spelling flame from someone who can't spell."

[OneShotKi11]

I voted Paul!

Because i totally hate everyone else!

Actually i am not for abortion and Ron Paul is against it but said he will leave that decision not up to him but the individual state! So in theory even if your state did outlaw it you could just go to another and get it done. Might make you consider your actions for once!

He doesnt like the fact that Religious displays are being removed from the public. I see it as pointless to enforce certain religious policies. Such as not being allowed to mention the word god in school. I think it makes people more tolerant of other cultures if they are confronted by them on a day to day basis.

I think the board of ED should be gone, and i would to be given the option to get out of Social Security. He said he would have a more reliable program started that seems more interesting to me.
If you want to stay in social security he says fine!

Getting rid of the CIA is a huge issue, but he does say he would still have people in departments for intelligence gather but minus the sneaky backdoor things the CIA is known for!!!
I think the boarders should be closed!!!!! I cant find a job with my Union because dam Mexican workers are working off the books for almost 10 times less then me! I am an ironworker for the state of NY, and almost every non-union jobsite is filled with mexican workers working in unsafe working conditions!

I believe we should bring our troops home, and i dont know why we have occupied bases all over the world. Unless we were trying to conquer all and make the United states of the World then i see it as a huge waste of my money. I want troops home being trained where they belong until called apon by a mindful president!

Zero icome tax is the greatest tease ever but is one of the issues i am unsure of. I dont know how we would maintain without one, but i have heard he has so sort of plan regarding that issue. I would love to hear it because even though it sounds good it just doesnt fit in!

I dont like getting involved in other nations affairs unless it is absolutely nessicary that something be done!
The united states does alot of good in the world when that good benifits us. You will never see us involved in the politics of a country that wouldnt benefit us being in them!
I would like a national health care with the option to still have privately run ones. For i am living with an injury i cant afford to even have looked by a doctor let alone taken care of. Other countries seem to manage with it, but other countries arent spending trillions a year on war. I also dont like the fact that we borrow so much dam money from china! If China wanted it all back we would be ruined!
I also am not sure why people think his claim that money should be backed by gold is outrageous! Money has to be backed by something or its worthless! If not backed by gold them by what?

Well those are my short quick opinionated answers to some things i have seen people speak about. Goodluck responding and i would love to see critisim, for i love to read other points of view for living in fear that i am always wrong!:boxedin:

[JoeEllison]

Ron Paul is still winning, with Obama in 2nd place.

Bloody hell! Does Dr Paul win every online poll?!

Barring cheating and manipulation, it is telling that Paul is a complete bat**** crazy nutjob and still seems like a better choice than the other right-wing lunatics. Since the general Republican strategy seems to be to take all of Bush's failed ideas(IOW, ALL of his ideas...) and go bigger and more wrong with them, Ron Paul's stupidity is at least new stupidity.

[Liszt]

It's a public poll - so it will be hard to claim the "Paulians"
manipulated it. But more surprisingly Bullyani doesn't get
anything near the "official" polls. Mhmmm.

Oh, and did anyone see Hillary?

this is my point - every time he wins a poll, I read that it was manipulated. And when he raises millions in one day, some show (can't remember what it was) said that it was given by "extremists"

But there is no manipultion in the JREF poll of course, and he still wins.

Why doesn't he take a VP running mate who is more "mainstream"? He could actually win next year.

Also, I've only seen him a few times in debates, but he seems, at the very least, an honest man. Certianly not "batmud crazy".

Maybe he's winning because he opposes the war, like 50% or so of americans, with most of the other candidates being pro war, and having to divide up the other 50% between them.

Actually, Ron Paul with Barak Obama as VP? That would be good.

William Hill, the bookies, now have Ron Paul in 2nd place - and they are not daft.

[davefoc]

I picked Ron Paul, because I felt sorry for him and didn't want him to end up with only 1 vote (Oliver's).

And since I'm not really going to vote for him (absent suffering a major head trauma), I have now rendered the poll results meaningless.

I don't always get the Scrut vote. Here I thought Cynthia McKinney would have been the clear choice and yet at least some of the Scrut vote goes to Ron Paul.

I notice WildCat voted for McKinney. It seems like the Scrut vote is being split. Perhaps the Scrut voters should coordinate their efforts a little better.

[Liszt]

I don't always get the Scrut vote. Here I thought Cynthia McKinney would have been the clear choice and yet at least some of the Scrut vote goes to Ron Paul.

I notice WildCat voted for McKinney. It seems like the Scrut vote is being split. Perhaps the Scrut voters should coordinate their efforts a little better.

scrut!?! erm...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=scrut

[Oliver]

What kind of lousy Forum is this if Paul can win in here??? :D
Seriously ... I thought the JREF members are opposed to Paul and rather
in favor of voting out of old habits.

Why doesn't the public polls confirm this as well??? Who's manipulating them???

[dudalb]

I will accept polls done by professional pollsters rather then internet polls that are notriously easy to flood .

[Dr Adequate]

I call shenanigans. Who the heck is voting for Ron Paul?

Previous polls have shown nothing like this balance of political opinion on these forums.

I suspect the hand of the Troofers.

[Dr Adequate]

He doesnt like the fact that Religious displays are being removed from the public. I see it as pointless to enforce certain religious policies. Such as not being allowed to mention the word god in school. Who has this policy? Please provide documentation.

Or is this something that fundie wingnuts have made up?

[Oliver]

I call shenanigans. Who the heck is voting for Ron Paul?

Previous polls have shown nothing like this balance of political opinion on these forums.

I suspect the hand of the Troofers.


The poll is public. Point out the "Troofers" ...

And no - being in favor of having an own opinion instead
letting the Government decide, isn't "Trooferism". Quite the
opposite ... Only an Idiot would the Government let decide
on behalf someones own opinion ... :boggled:

Are you an Idiot? :confused:

[Pardalis]

Are you an Idiot? :confused:

:scarper:

[Dr Adequate]

The poll is public. Point out the "Troofers" ... So it is. I retract my remarks and wish my American cousins luck with an economy based on shiny rocks.

And no - being in favor of having an own opinion instead
letting the Government decide, isn't "Trooferism". Quite the
opposite ... Only an Idiot would the Government let decide
on behalf someones own opinion ... :boggled: I take it that that would have sounded better in German.

Are you an Idiot? :confused: There's a broad consensus to the contrary.

[Darth Rotor]

So it is. I retract my remarks and wish my American cousins luck with an economy based on shiny rocks.


Oh man, do I now have to research the Polished Quartz Standard in economic theory?

It never ends. :cool:

*trudges off to library*

DR

[Oliver]

So it is. I retract my remarks and wish my American cousins luck with an economy based on shiny rocks.

I take it that that would have sounded better in German.

There's a broad consensus to the contrary.


Point out the alternative that is in favor of your opinion
instead dictating your opinion... Who is it? Obama, Hillary,
Giuliani???

What is wrong with being involved in the "decisionmaking"
INSTEAD "I'm the Decisionmaker"?

How can you even be opposed to your own free mind???? :confused:

[Kerberos]

this is my point - every time he wins a poll, I read that it was manipulated. And when he raises millions in one day, some show (can't remember what it was) said that it was given by "extremists"

But there is no manipultion in the JREF poll of course, and he still wins.

Why doesn't he take a VP running mate who is more "mainstream"? He could actually win next year.

Also, I've only seen him a few times in debates, but he seems, at the very least, an honest man. Certianly not "batmud crazy".

Maybe he's winning because he opposes the war, like 50% or so of americans, with most of the other candidates being pro war, and having to divide up the other 50% between them.

Actually, Ron Paul with Barak Obama as VP? That would be good.

William Hill, the bookies, now have Ron Paul in 2nd place - and they are not daft.
I have no idea who William Hill is, but if he has RP in 2nd place for the presidency or even the Republican nomination he is in fact daft. Furthermore if he's a bookie I'd love a link to his homepage. I want to check the odds for betting on RP not becoming president or getting the nomination.

[Admiral]

I picked Ron Paul, because I felt sorry for him and didn't want him to end up with only 1 vote (Oliver's).

In hindsight, this is at least a little funny.

[Dr Adequate]

Point out the alternative that is in favor of your opinion
instead dictating your opinion... Who is it? Obama, Hillary,
Giuliani??? Y'know, the poll is public.

What is wrong with being involved in the "decisionmaking"
INSTEAD "I'm the Decisionmaker"?

How can you even be opposed to your own free mind???? :confused: I am not opposed to my own free mind. My own free mind and I are in complete accord on all issues, sharing a high level of mutual esteem and regard. We have had a warm working relationship over many years, and I should like to take this opportunity to publicly quash any rumors of a rift between us.

[latent aaaack]

Didin't we debunk this?

Yes, I believe we did. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83128)

To quote a great man (me) : "If there's one thing feebler than a spelling flame, it's a spelling flame from someone who can't spell."

Granted, but the charismatic empty tv persona, the constant clamoring that he'll change the tone in DC and be a uniter, his lack of actual qualities and experience that would make him a logical choice for president, and his asking of his supporters to pray to make him "God's instrument" reminds me too much of GWB on steroids. Add in his messianic comparisons of himself to the US's greatest historical figure and you have to wonder exactly what candidate his supporters think they have with this peculiar mass media creation.

[Joe Random]

Since this is an Oliver thread I guess I don't need to be serious.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_4507473cb2abe9909.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9232)

Hail Ming.

[Liszt]

I have no idea who William Hill is, but if he has RP in 2nd place for the presidency or even the Republican nomination he is in fact daft. Furthermore if he's a bookie I'd love a link to his homepage. I want to check the odds for betting on RP not becoming president or getting the nomination.

William Hill is the largest chain of betting shops in the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hill_plc

(RP might have been 2nd in the rep nomination, not overall, sorry)

I just checked out their website - they have suspended ALL bets on the presidential election, for some reason. no easy money I'm afraid.

http://www.willhill.com/iibs/EN/sportsbook.asp

[dudalb]

Somehow a bookie is not what I would call a reliable source for political information.

[Liszt]

Somehow a bookie is not what I would call a reliable source for political information.

well, they are very good at making money. But the fact that they pulled the bets...someone was probably watching the polls with RP doing well, then read that they could be false, got cold feet etc. Interesting nevertheless.

[Dr. Fascism]

People here are dumb enough to support Barack Obama?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[dudalb]

People here are dumb enough to support Barack Obama?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I am not a huge Obama fan..he still seems to me more style then substance...but you,sir, are a troll.pure and simple.

[WildCat]

I don't always get the Scrut vote. Here I thought Cynthia McKinney would have been the clear choice and yet at least some of the Scrut vote goes to Ron Paul.

I notice WildCat voted for McKinney. It seems like the Scrut vote is being split. Perhaps the Scrut voters should coordinate their efforts a little better.
You ever seen Cynthia McKinney? She's got crazy eyes! No telling what she'd do if I didn't vote for her, the rest of you better sleep with one eye open.

[latent aaaack]

To the nine people that voted Clinton: out of curiousity how is she a better candidate than Edwards?

[Yurebiz]

I'm a twoofer and only came over because I've seen Oliver's thread over at LCF. I've distanced myself from JREF a while ago because.. JREF is just not worth my time... I think I speak for everyone who voted for Doc Paul here when I say that, either you get his message or you do not. Either you understand the full picture or you don't. Too bad for those who do not. It's useless trying to change your opinions on him in a few sentences over an internet forum because you certainly won't and never will, not in this setup.

That makes me another Ron Paul voting bot. lawd.
Hey Oliver, good job btw.

[Dr. Fascism]

I'm a twoofer and only came over because I've seen Oliver's thread over at LCF. I've distanced myself from JREF a while ago because.. JREF is just not worth my time... I think I speak for everyone who voted for Doc Paul here when I say that, either you get his message or you do not. Either you understand the full picture or you don't. Too bad for those who do not. It's useless trying to change your opinions on him in a few sentences over an internet forum because you certainly won't and never will, not in this setup.

That makes me another Ron Paul voting bot. lawd.
Hey Oliver, good job btw.

You truthers hurt the Ron Paul campaign more than anything.

JREF itself is not bad; these forums are kind of a black spot on it, though.

[dudalb]

I'm a twoofer and only came over because I've seen Oliver's thread over at LCF. I've distanced myself from JREF a while ago because.. JREF is just not worth my time... I think I speak for everyone who voted for Doc Paul here when I say that, either you get his message or you do not. Either you understand the full picture or you don't. Too bad for those who do not. It's useless trying to change your opinions on him in a few sentences over an internet forum because you certainly won't and never will, not in this setup.

That makes me another Ron Paul voting bot. lawd.
Hey Oliver, good job btw.

I think we have our arrogant post of the day here,folks.
Notice how much this sounds like a religious fantaic at work here,with it's whole "either you get it or you are stupid and/or evil" routine.

[Dr. Fascism]

I am not a huge Obama fan..he still seems to me more style then substance...but you,sir, are a troll.pure and simple.

The supposed "skeptics" support another "politics-as-usual" guy who pretends to be "for change". Sorry, I just find that supposed skeptics falling for Obama's ploy to be rather amusing.

Obama is very charismatic, and that should be a warning side of insincerity, as a charismatic politician is one that can say two things at once, or can talk out of both sides of the mouth simultaneously. Obama's rhetoric has shifted at times simply to help him get elected.

Skeptics my ass!

Also, how old are you? I've usually found people to have the type of grammar you have, along with the way you use "sir", to be most prominent amongst 13-year old kids on video gaming websites.

[Dr. Fascism]

You ever seen Cynthia McKinney? She's got crazy eyes! No telling what she'd do if I didn't vote for her, the rest of you better sleep with one eye open.

Are you a stand-up comic?

[Lisa Simpson]

I am not a huge Obama fan..he still seems to me more style then substance...but you,sir, are a troll.pure and simple.

Now, now. Let's be nice and not call names.

[Metullus]

Now, now. Let's be nice and not call names.Yup, calling someone a "troll" might be actionable...

[Dr Adequate]

I'm a twoofer and only came over because I've seen Oliver's thread over at LCF. I've distanced myself from JREF a while ago because.. JREF is just not worth my time... I think I speak for everyone who voted for Doc Paul here when I say that, either you get his message or you do not. Either you understand the full picture or you don't. Too bad for those who do not. It's useless trying to change your opinions on him in a few sentences over an internet forum because you certainly won't and never will, not in this setup.

That makes me another Ron Paul voting bot. lawd.
Hey Oliver, good job btw. * licks finger, makes "1" sign in the air *

[Dr Adequate]

Granted, but ... ... but the fact that you failed the first time won't stop you trying again with even weaker and less substantial points.

[Metullus]

* licks finger, makes "1" sign in the air *There are occasions, sir, that I regret that I am for the present unable to laugh without drooling.

This is one of those occasions.

[latent aaaack]

... but the fact that you failed the first time won't stop you trying again with even weaker and less substantial points.

I can understand why people in other countries would want anyone at all as US president as long they have opposite policies on use of force and unilateralism. But a lot of people inside the US don't want another president with a messiah complex who wants help creating 'God's kingdom right here on earth' as an 'instrument of God.' http://www.myjewishlearning.com/blog/history-community/action-figures/

His supporters are blind to the warning signs much as they were to Bush's because Obama is superficially an opposite of him.

Bush never implied several times that he was like George Washington, Napoleon, Churchill, or another great historical figure while campaigning no less.

But it's a moot point, he's unelectable and the country (thanks to complicity of ineffectual dems) is being handed to right wing authoritarians, the military, and/or some kind of dictatorship.

[Iamme]

I've got no idea what Ron Paul's policies are beyond getting out of Iraq. He got my vote anyway.

Get us just out of Iraq?, or the entire middle east, I wonder? Can you imagine if we leave what might happen between Israel, Palestine, Sytria, Iran,...maybe even Russia?

You don't suppose we'd have to come rushing right on back over there in 5 minutes after we left, do you?

Ron Paul's speeches remind me of these old geezers who say stuff like, " If I had my druthers, I'd take all these &%#!@#$%%&()^%^ and load them on a barge and sink it out in the middle of the Atlantic." He strikes me as that type. No offense to all the majority here who are voting for him. He scares me. I can see some Hitler in him. He's TOO decisive, I think. Act, then think.

[Jeff Corey]

Right on Iamme! That guy has some strange stuff goin' on. My gal Hillery is wafflin' a bit about givin' drivers licences to space aliens, and Gov. Spritzers is similarly the same. The other Republicker that got probed by E T might win the nomination, but we won't be fooled again by chips implanted into a pod person what morphs into a Texan. Watch out for those ATM type voting machines, they can change your vote with a Radio Shack remote control.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

[latent aaaack]

Fellow skeptics.....please. Not to beat a dead horse but look at this whole quote actually since Obama got the most votes.


"Sometimes this is a difficult road being in politics," Obama said. "Sometimes you can become fearful, sometimes you can become vain, sometimes you can seek power just for power's sake instead of because you want to do service to God. I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God in the same way that Pastor Ron and all of you are instruments of God."

He finished his brief remarks by saying, "We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/front_page/a_kingdom_right_here_on_earth.php

You may say that it's perfectly normal for christians to believe that they are God's instruments and he acts through them (I don't know - christians?), but all the other democratic and even republican candidates somehow managed to avoid triumphantly bellowing to the audience members of an evangelical megachurch for each of them to pray to make him an "instrument of God" if he's president in addition to the self-proclaimed second coming of Abraham Lincoln.

Why after 8 years of Bush, would someone with a messiah complex that makes Bush look humble get so much support compared to the other democratic candidates, especially among skeptics?

He said flat out that he believes politics and doing service to God are the same role as well as creating a kingdom on earth. Not even Huckabee has said something like that. Unless of course, he's lying despite being such a kind, unifying man.

I'm just fascinated with this charisma fueled media myth making machine.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Fellow skeptics.....please. Not to beat a dead horse but look at this whole quote actually since Obama got the most votes.


http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/front_page/a_kingdom_right_here_on_earth.php

You may say that it's perfectly normal for christians to believe that they are God's instruments and he acts through them (I don't know - christians?), but all the other democratic and even republican candidates somehow managed to avoid triumphantly bellowing to the audience members of an evangelical megachurch for each of them to pray to make him an "instrument of God" if he's president in addition to the self-proclaimed second coming of Abraham Lincoln.

Why after 8 years of Bush, would someone with a messiah complex that makes Bush look humble get so much support compared to the other democratic candidates, especially among skeptics?

He said flat out that he believes politics and doing service to God are the same role as well as creating a kingdom on earth. Not even Huckabee has said something like that. Unless of course, he's lying despite being such a kind, unifying man.

I'm just fascinated with this charisma fueled media myth making machine.

And that's all lip service, adding up to... I dunno... nothing in practical terms.
And yes, Huckabee and Edwards and pretty much any Christian has said something like that.

And this is vague nothingness. He is basically saying that he wants to do the right thing and that he is optimistic about America's future. He just said it in evangelical language.

Everyone panders. If you want someone who doesn't, you aren't going to find anyone.

And I think it is suitable that their faith in involved in their politics. Otherwise they wouldn't be truly faithful.

And being an instrument of God isn't a messiah complex. Whenever someone does something good or helps someone, they are an instrument of God.

Yes, it is dumb evangelical pandering. But does it really matter? Is he against gay rights and abortion? Does he think the schools should be teaching Christian values or Intelligent Design?

It is not the doomsday you are selling it as.

Find me a Presidential candidate that doesn't say this junk. You can't. Even Kucinich does. Heck, even Ron Paul.

I'm not saying that makes it right, I'm just saying it is not quite a valid reason for changing one's vote.

[latent aaaack]

You're right his apparent religious zealotry, self-aggrandizing, and bad foreign affairs judgement doesn't foretell any specific undesirable action, but this was true of GWB as well, but he got by on his personality as compared to Gore's.

I disagree that Obama's mixing of politics and religion is near average. I've never heard someone that isn't a religious extremist say that the purpose of pursuing political power is to serve one's religious beliefs, which is what Obama said.

You're right that it comes down to a matter of personal comfort level with a presidential candidate claiming to be comparable in potential greatness to Lincoln and saying that he will serve God as president as his primary motivation. In my value system if Bush has any messiah complex then Obama has a lot more of one.

I browsed some of belief net after reading your post and found this. I knew I wasn't the first to see the spooky similarity. This 'god o meter' done in conjunction with Time doesn't seem to be biased for or against candidates and puts Obama at 9/10, the most of any candidate in both parties.

It's sad that America doesn't learn but then again at least there's something to self-satisfyingly make fun of, like religion and hey...France, which all of a sudden has politically become remarkably similar to America come to think of it.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/godometer/democrats/barack_obama/

"Obama Copies Bush '04 Tactics (http://blog.beliefnet.com/godometer/2007/10/obama-apes-bush-04-tactics.html)"


God-o-Meter can tell that Barack Obama is going to make it very difficult to keep its needle below ten. The Associated Press (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/16/AR2007101600195.html) today sheds significant new light on Obama's well-documented string of "faith forums" in early presidential primary and caucus states, including that his campaign is advertising the events in church bulletins and signing up "congregation contacts" to build support.

God-o-Meter remembers way back in 2004 when the Bush-Cheney campaign was lambasted even by some Christian Right leaders (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-04-baptists-upset_x.htm) for using similar church organizing tactics. The AP reports that Obama is already drawing criticism from some quarters: Obama has drawn criticism from the Rev. Welton Gaddy of the liberal Interfaith Alliance, who said the senator "has sounded precisely like George W. Bush" in recent church appearances. And, like God-o-Meter has been saying for some time now:
"I don't think a Democratic presidential candidate has come close to doing anything like this before," said Mark Silk, director of the Leonard E. Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn. "If you are going to parse the different dimensions of how a presidential candidate does religion, he's doing them all."

[Tsukasa Buddha]

You're right his apparent religious zealotry, self-aggrandizing, and bad foreign affairs judgement doesn't foretell any specific undesirable action, but this was true of GWB as well, but he got by on his personality as compared to Gore's.

I disagree that Obama's mixing of politics and religion is near average. I've never heard someone that isn't a religious extremist say that the purpose of pursuing political power is to serve one's religious beliefs, which is what Obama said.

The effing huge exaggeration, it overwhelms me.

[latent aaaack]

I know I'm focusing on one quote for brevity's sake but it's consistent with his sanctimoniousness and his followers' Reagan follower-like vapidness.

What do you think he means by "I'm confident we can create a Kingdom right here on earth."? That doesn't sound like something Reagan or GWB would say, not a warning sign that he may not be all there?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I know I'm focusing on one quote for brevity's sake but it's consistent with his sanctimoniousness and his followers' Reagan follower-like vapidness.

What do you think he means by "I'm confident we can create a Kingdom right here on earth."? That doesn't sound like something Reagan or GWB would say, not a warning sign that he may not be all there?

Odd, it reminds me of Socialists.

[Dr Adequate]

... and the fundie loons have decided that it means he's secretly a Muslim.

Eh, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[JoeEllison]

Odd, it reminds me of Socialists.

Why not? That's a pseudo-religious cult too.:D

[ZenFountain]

Bill Richardson for me :cool:

-Get out of Iraq ASAP
-Won't raise taxes
-Restoring Fiscal Discipline
-More sensible drug policy, allowing medical marijuana and treating drug addiction as a social problem, not a criminal problem
-Moving towards universal health insurance, not socialized medicine
-Serious energy policy (vague, I admit)
-Protection of all civil liberties, including the 2nd amendment
-Opposes private school tuition vouchers, is for increased public school choice
-Has more foreign policy experience than any other candidate, more executive experience than any other Democrat

He's garrulous and sometimes awkward, but I agree with Richardson on almost every issue. I like Richardson because he is libertarian on social issues such as drugs, civil rights and guns while liberal in the areas I care about and believe the government has a role to play in. I suspect at the very least if another Democrat is nominated and wins, Richardson will be our next secretary of state.

[FireGarden]

Bill Richardson for me :cool:

-Get out of Iraq ASAP

Well if I'd known that, I'd have needed a coin!
:D

[ZenFountain]

What do you mean by that?

[FireGarden]

Sorry, ZenM
I haven't taken this as seriously as I should have.

My reason for voting for Ron Paul was he would get America out of Iraq. With two such candidates, I would flippantly need a coin.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Sorry, ZenM
I haven't taken this as seriously as I should have.

My reason for voting for Ron Paul was he would get America out of Iraq. With two such candidates, I would flippantly need a coin.

Ron Paul is the only Republican who wants the troops out now. All the Democrats want the troops to leave, they just have different time schedules and different beliefs on how many to leave behind.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Bill Richardson for me :cool:

-Get out of Iraq ASAP
-Won't raise taxes
-Restoring Fiscal Discipline
-More sensible drug policy, allowing medical marijuana and treating drug addiction as a social problem, not a criminal problem
-Moving towards universal health insurance, not socialized medicine
-Serious energy policy (vague, I admit)
-Protection of all civil liberties, including the 2nd amendment
-Opposes private school tuition vouchers, is for increased public school choice
-Has more foreign policy experience than any other candidate, more executive experience than any other Democrat

He's garrulous and sometimes awkward, but I agree with Richardson on almost every issue. I like Richardson because he is libertarian on social issues such as drugs, civil rights and guns while liberal in the areas I care about and believe the government has a role to play in. I suspect at the very least if another Democrat is nominated and wins, Richardson will be our next secretary of state.

Heh, the only thing I think of when I hear the name Richardson is him totally failing the gay debate. First he said homosexuality was a choice, and then he sort of rambled on about him not being a "scientist".

I know he's for Civil Unions, but he really sucked at speaking.

But other than that, I like him too.

[Oliver]

Where are all the so-called "Paul-Bots" now who allegedly fudge all the online polls?

[The Painter]

Ron Paul is the only Republican who wants the troops out now. All the Democrats want the troops to leave, they just have different time schedules and different beliefs on how many to leave behind.


All of the top 3 Democrat candidates have said they will NOT get out of Iraq before 2013. That is after the next presidential term is over. You do know that the Republicans want to get out of Iraq also, don't you? They just have different time schedules and different beliefs on how many to leave behind.

[billydkid]

Are you kidding me? Ron Paul is winning? Then why do I feel so friggin alone in here?

[Darth Rotor]

Ron Paul is the only Republican who wants the troops out now. All the Democrats want the troops to leave, they just have different time schedules and different beliefs on how many to leave behind.
I don't think that's right. As I understand it, Chuck Hagel is similarly inclined, but I'd need to check his platform and latest comments. I may be referencing some out of date positions.

Oops, ETA: Hagel announced on September 10, 2007 that he will retire from the Senate at the end of his present term and will not seek the presidency.

Missed that. :(

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Are you kidding me? Ron Paul is winning? Then why do I feel so friggin alone in here?

Because Ron Paul's popularity on the internet seems not to be reflected in the greater voting public.

That may change, if he finds a better platform packaging of his positions, or it may not.

DR

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Are you kidding me? Ron Paul is winning? Then why do I feel so friggin alone in here?

Because the statist view has a loud voice.

You know they are running scared when they move the insult from insane to racist.

I am sure pedophile will be next.

Maybe cannibal after that.

[Darth Rotor]

Because the statist view has a loud voice.

You know they are running scared when they move the insult from insane to racist.

I am sure pedophile will be next.

Maybe cannibal after that.
Eat me. :p

No, wait, don't, you might take that literally, as a vile cannibalistic Libertarian! :jaw-dropp

Just kidding. :D

Have a nice weekend.

DR

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Have a nice weekend.

DR

You as well. :D

[WildCat]

Are you kidding me? Ron Paul is winning? Then why do I feel so friggin alone in here?
I have a feeling most of them are single-issue voters, and once they go to the Ron Paul thread to defend him, they find out many things they didn't know and sulk off.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I have a feeling most of them are single-issue voters, and once they go to the Ron Paul thread to defend him, they find out many things they didn't know and sulk off.

Like the pedophilia and cannibalism?

;)

[WildCat]

Like the pedophilia and cannibalism?

;)
Worse than that, there's whispers that he's into necropyrobestiality.

[billydkid]

Because Ron Paul's popularity on the internet seems not to be reflected in the greater voting public.

That may change, if he finds a better platform packaging of his positions, or it may not.

DRNo, I mean, I feel alone in this forum - how is it Ron Paul is winning on this forum? We are having another big money bomb and 12/16 - I think people will be even more stunned than they were on 11/5. We had over 2000 people on the Ron Paul forum just a few minutes ago. When I first joined in the spring there were maybe 90 of us. My personal opinion and feel free to laugh at me - the only thing that will keep Ron Paul out of the White House is the GOP establishment who are determined than anyone but Ron Paul win the nomination.

Some have no idea how the Ron Paul message resonates with people. People who know Ron Paul and who do not have an agenda really love him, but the campaign is not about him - personally he is as exciting (but charming and comforting) as your grandfather or your most boring college professor - but people are hearing him and for many they are hearing these things for the first time and can not believe what they are hearing - something that sounds like the truth and genuine honesty.

You know, Ron Paul does not even have a speech writer and he seldom even uses notes. Do you know why that is? It's because he only has to say what he believes to be true. He's not stumped by any question because he doesn't have to consult with any handlers to determine what his answer is supposed to be. I have seen many new people come into the forum and they are invariably dazed and delirious. For the first time they feel they have someone speaking for them. And this is liberals and conservatives and socialists and Democrats and it's black people and white people and every other kind of person you can imagine. Rich people, poor people. Professionals and ditch diggers. It's pot smoking college freshmen and it's housewives who never even thought about politics. The media do not have a clue what is really going on.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

All of the top 3 Democrat candidates have said they will NOT get out of Iraq before 2013. That is after the next presidential term is over. You do know that the Republicans want to get out of Iraq also, don't you? They just have different time schedules and different beliefs on how many to leave behind.

Well, the Democrats want to immediately start withdrawing. And then leaving some behind. Edwards was attacking Clinton for leaving combat troops behind.

Republicans won't withdraw until we "win", with different definitions of "winning".

Sorry if I mischaracterized.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Well, the Democrats want to immediately start withdrawing. And then leaving some behind. Edwards was attacking Clinton for leaving combat troops behind.

Republicans won't withdraw until we "win", with different definitions of "winning".

Sorry if I mischaracterized.

Did not the Dems win the mid-term elections on the platform of ending the war?

Do not allow yourself to be fooled any longer.

[Admiral]

All of the top 3 Democrat candidates have said they will NOT get out of Iraq before 2013. That is after the next presidential term is over. You do know that the Republicans want to get out of Iraq also, don't you? They just have different time schedules and different beliefs on how many to leave behind.

Evidence? I haven't heard that definitively from them, though that might be a result of their equivocation.

[The Painter]

Evidence? I haven't heard that definitively from them, though that might be a result of their equivocation.

Next time do your own work. It was at the NH debate in Sept 2007. Maybe you should pay attention.


The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.
"I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation's first primary state.
"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
"I cannot make that commitment," said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070927/D8RTOBOG0.html




Republicans won't withdraw until we "win",

What's wrong with winning?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Next time do your own work. It was at the NH debate in Sept 2007. Maybe you should pay attention.



http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070927/D8RTOBOG0.html






What's wrong with winning?

Nothing, they just have different definitions.

[OneShotKi11]

Who has this policy? Please provide documentation.

Or is this something that fundie wingnuts have made up?

New York State Public school system is not allowed to mention the word God. As time has passed you are now not even allowed to celebrate religious holidays in any public school in New York!

The board of Ed introduced this policy and now it is law in New York State! Why dont you go prove me wrong since im a supposed wingnut! If it was not for me being sick right now i would have drove your claim through the floor but i really see no need to because this is a known fact in the NY State public school system!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Did not the Dems win the mid-term elections on the platform of ending the war?

Do not allow yourself to be fooled any longer.

Dude, Bush vetoed their time tables. And they had to do party whipping to pass even that.

How am I being fooled?

Story so far. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20071116/us-iraq/)

They finally seem to be willing to stop funding.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Dude, Bush vetoed their time tables. And they had to do party whipping to pass even that.

How am I being fooled?

Story so far. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20071116/us-iraq/)

They finally seem to be willing to stop funding.

The Dems control congress.

They can de-fund the war.

They have not.

They voted more funding.

They lied.

Give up the ghost of the mid-term election campaign.

They lied.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The Dems control congress.

They can de-fund the war.

They have not.

They voted more funding.

They lied.

Give up the ghost of the mid-term election campaign.

They lied.

Did you read the link?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Did you read the link?

Just did.

It is an excuse for not de-funding the war.

They do have the power.

They are not exercising that power.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Just did.

It is an excuse for not de-funding the war.

They do have the power.

They are not exercising that power.

They said they are going to stop funding it! The military has enough funds for about February.

How else are they going to stop the war, or "de-fund" it?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

They said they are going to stop funding it! The military has enough funds for about February.

How else are they going to stop the war, or "de-fund" it?

Would you like to bet that the Dems keep funding the war in February?

How long have they had power now?

Almost a year?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Tsukasa Buddha, I have the bet.

If the Dems fund the war after February then you have to start a thread extolling the brilliance of gnomes in general and Jerome in particular.

:D

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Would you like to bet that the Dems keep funding the war in February?

How long have they had power now?

Almost a year?

Yeah, they've waited a bit long to do this. But I suppose it is because the political gains of appealing to the anti-war base will outweigh the cost from Republican attacks.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Tsukasa Buddha, I have the bet.

If the Dems fund the war after February then you have to start a thread extolling the brilliance of gnomes in general and Jerome in particular.

:D

What is my punishment if I lose?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Tsukasa Buddha, I have the bet.

If the Dems fund the war after February then you have to start a thread extolling the brilliance of gnomes in general and Jerome in particular.

:D

And if all the major authoritative scientific organizations still support anthropogenic global warming, then you have to start a thread extolling the brilliance of Buddhas in general and Tsukasa in particular.

:p

[JEROME DA GNOME]

And if all the major authoritative scientific organizations still support anthropogenic global warming, then you have to start a thread extolling the brilliance of Buddhas in general and Tsukasa in particular.

:p

I would, but that is too subjective a conclusion.

Although, extolling the brilliance of Tsukasa would not be punishment.
:)

[Rika]

They actually can't because of a) political pressure b) veto.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

They actually can't because of a) political pressure b) veto.

A) Political pressure is an invalid excuse because they were elected to do exactly that.


B) Why do they not make the president veto a bill?

This would bring the issue to the fore-front of the American citizens conscious and thus present the question before the nation.

[Oliver]

Are you kidding me? Ron Paul is winning? Then why do I feel so friggin alone in here?


Because the other guys are out campaigning for Ron... :D
The results here are terrific. I really thought half the people
in here would vote for Giuliani in this poll... :boxedin:

[Oliver]

Woohoo! Isn't that awesome? - RP even gets most votes in here...

http://xs121.xs.to/xs121/07466/dawn.png
Image by me - hotlinking allowed, provided, supported by: xs.to (http://xs.to/)

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Okay Oliver, can you explain the "Love" part? Because I seriously don't get it.

[Oliver]

Okay Oliver, can you explain the "Love" part? Because I seriously don't get it.


The "Love"-part is about loving ones own country instead
supporting politicians who love their interests more than
"we the people".

This is how I interpret it. What's your interpretation?

[Loss Leader]

I said Kucinich because he won't pander, has a hot wife and seems to be the only person in America who doesn't know that he's not going to be the next President.

[XenaWarriorPrincess]

Because the other guys are out campaigning for Ron... :D
The results here are terrific. I really thought half the people
in here would vote for Giuliani in this poll... :boxedin:
I don't get this place... is it skeptics all around the forum or just in the conspiracy section??? I'm confused... I too would have assumed that the "The 9/11 President" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPLTkEDCrl0) would be the favorite here.

[littlehulkster]

The lack of votes for Richardson is disturbing.

[marksman]

Agreed.

[Oliver]

I don't get this place... is it skeptics all around the forum or just in the conspiracy section??? I'm confused... I too would have assumed that the "The 9/11 President" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPLTkEDCrl0) would be the favorite here.


Well, the point is: You can be a Skeptic and support Ron Paul
nevertheless. Personally I even think that supporting one of the
"Harp Players" isn't skeptical at all ...

[Rika]

A) Political pressure is an invalid excuse because they were elected to do exactly that.

Let me quote a standard republican ploy
"They don't care about the trooops!!!!eleventy-oen!"
^ That.


B) Why do they not make the president veto a bill?

This would bring the issue to the fore-front of the American citizens conscious and thus present the question before the nation.

Because they know they can't overwrite it, becaus while the american people get slightly irked about it, how mayn write letters to their congressman?

(Incidently, Oliver, do you just casually insult people?)

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Let me quote a standard republican ploy
"They don't care about the trooops!!!!eleventy-oen!"
^ That.


Yea, that's nice. But:

The Dems did not de-fund the war after being elected to do such!

The ability to admit you were lied to in the past will help your reasoning ability.

[Rika]

The Dems did not de-fund the war after being elected to do such!

Because.. they can't. They don't have the power. (For the record, I was not of the legal age to vote in the last election)

[The Painter]

Because.. they can't. They don't have the power. (For the record, I was not of the legal age to vote in the last election)

It is a matter of principle. The point is they are not trying. Whether they can or can not do it, they should at least try.

[BPSCG]

I picked Ron Paul, because I felt sorry for him and didn't want him to end up with only 1 vote (Oliver's).

And since I'm not really going to vote for him (absent suffering a major head trauma), I have now rendered the poll results meaningless.I voted for Chris Dodd for very much the same reason. He had zero votes, putting him behind Cynthia McKinney, who had two. Cynthia Freaking Moonbat Bedbug Crazy Loonietoon Woo McKinney?

Plus he has great hair. Only Jimmy Johnson (the football Jimmy Johnson, not the NASCAR one) comes close.

This is a scientific poll, right?

ETA: I see Wildcat was one of Cynthia Freaking Moonbat Bedbug Crazy Loonietoon Woo McKinney's votes, so he's obviously tuned into the proper spirit of the poll.

[JoeEllison]

Because.. they can't. They don't have the power. (For the record, I was not of the legal age to vote in the last election)

Actually, they completely do. They are just too weak-willed to do so, and too out of touch with America to understand that they would sweep every race next November if they did. People, gotta love them, are generally kind of dumb(present company excluded, unless you voted for Bush twice... :D) They respect standing up for something more than they respect being right. So, the Democrats could do both, and win huge votes. Or, they can keep playing it safe, and alienating the country.

[Rika]

They do not have the needed votes for a majority to override a Presidental veto (1)

Now, as for them trying?

Senators on Friday weren't able to muster enough support to bring dueling war-funding bills to a final vote, possibly ending debate on the issue until next year.

Sen. Harry Reid says Congress will only provide more war funding with restrictions.
1 of 2

The Democratic plan would have provided $50 billion in supplemental funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- mostly for Iraq -- with the condition that troops start being pulled from the country within 30 days.

The GOP plan would have provided $70 billion in supplemental war funding with no restrictions. The procedural vote was 45-53, 15 votes under the number needed to advance the bill.

The vote on the Democratic plan was 53-45, or seven short of advancing.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/16/war.funding/

Also, the people do not neccesarily want it:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jU_fLpTruCZ1lzSLweuAHwmVLOCg

[JEROME DA GNOME]

They do not have the needed votes for a majority to override a Presidental veto (1)

Now, as for them trying?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/16/war.funding/

Also, the people do not neccesarily want it:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jU_fLpTruCZ1lzSLweuAHwmVLOCg


They are trying to de-fund the war by funding it?

:boggled:

[JoeEllison]

They do not have the needed votes for a majority to override a Presidental veto

They don't need to override a veto in order to stop funding the war. All they have to do is stop funding the war.

[ZenFountain]

Ask yourself what happens if the Democrats de-fund the war.

1. Bush will not order troops out of Iraq, with or without funding.
2. The American people are angry about the war, but there is not nearly the amount of social unrest it took to end the Vietnam war.

If the Democrats fail to pass a bill giving the troops overseas funding, it will be a head to head with Bush they cannot win. When Americans see that the end result was more Americans dying because congress didn't send the Pentagon funding, their outrage will be directed at congress, not the President. I have been very unhappy with the way this congress has been operating, but on this issue I can at least understand the dilemma they are in. Bush has masterfully been able to exploit a relatively apathetic public to keep his war going and setup the Democrats to take the fall when we finally do pull out of that godforsaken patch of sand.

[Oliver]

Check this out! :

OBAMA'S MONEYBOMB (http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/maingroup/BaracksFridayProject)
Barack's Friday - Nov 16th

Total sum being raised: $4,650 from 72 people.

And Wednesday will be
Fred Thompson't moneybomb day (http://www.fredsgivingday.com/)

72 Pledges so far. (I wonder if this also means $4,650 for him...)

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Check this out! :

OBAMA'S MONEYBOMB (http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/maingroup/BaracksFridayProject)
Barack's Friday - Nov 16th

Total sum being raised: $4,650 from 72 people.

And Wednesday will be
Fred Thompson't moneybomb day (http://www.fredsgivingday.com/)

72 Pledges so far. (I wonder if this also means $4,650 for him...)

This is hilarious!

[Rika]

... They cannot as to defund the war they must pass a bill to do so.

And Bush will veto any such bill.

Got it memorized? [/axel]

ETA: And as ZenFountain has pointed out, FAILING to pass a bill to fund the troops means it simply backfires on them. Welcome to politics, where the idiot public's apathy provides nearly perfect ammunition for anyone with the capability of going mudslinging.

ETA2: Oh, incidently, while it is amusing to see they aren't getting as much money as Ron Paul, this could be because a lot of people are waiting for the primaries before serious money is thrown at candidates. Again, I'm waiting to see what happens.

[Oliver]

This is hilarious!


It's unbelievable. I cannot understand why Ron Paul isn't
the top front runner in the Media ... But the Teaparty will
rock the place - I can feel this already ... :D

[Oliver]

... and somebody already put the story on Digg:

Digg - Obama's $1Mil 'moneybomb' only raises $4640 (http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_s_1Mil_moneybomb_only_raises_4_640)

In a dismal failure, Barack Obama's Friday 'moneybomb' raised less than 1 percent of it's target.
Submitted:: 2 hr 5 min ago; Submitter:: scottharmon ...
digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_s_1Mil_moneybomb_only_raises_4_640 - 20k
Cached (http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:JHlms70VE-MJ:digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_s_1Mil_moneybomb_only_raises_4_640+moneybomb&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8) - Similar pages (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=related:digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_s_1Mil_moneybomb_only_raises_4_640)

[JEROME DA GNOME]

... They cannot as to defund the war they must pass a bill to do so.

And Bush will veto any such bill.

Therefore they either lied when they campaigned against the war or they were too stupid to know that they could not stop funding the war.

Which do you think it is?

[Ion]

I said Kucinich because he won't pander, has a hot wife and seems to be the only person in America who doesn't know that he's not going to be the next President.
...and also he opposes the war in Iraq from the start until now, he introduced in Senate a resolution to impeach Vice President Cheney, he said yesterday that he would dismantle the American school that trains Latin American dictators favoring U.S..

[Ion]

Ask yourself what happens if the Democrats de-fund the war.

1. Bush will not order troops out of Iraq, with or without funding.
...
Bush should be put down.

So that him not ordering troops out of Iraq doesn't matter.

Cut the funds now.

[Ion]

...

And Bush will veto any such bill.

Got it memorized? [/axel]

ETA: And as ZenFountain has pointed out, FAILING to pass a bill to fund the troops means it simply backfires on them...
It doesn't matter the politicking.

Cut the funds.

The crime started by Bush in Iraq in 2003 shouldn't be funded.

[gtc]

Therefore they either lied when they campaigned against the war or they were too stupid to know that they could not stop funding the war.

Which do you think it is?

Why does it have to be either/or? :)

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Why does it have to be either/or? :)

I am open to other reasonings.

Do you have a suggestion that correlates with the facts?

[Rika]

Sorry, Ion, it's not that simple.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Sorry, Ion, it's not that simple.

Is too!

Stop voting to fund the war which they were elected to stop funding.

[Oliver]

Is too!

Stop voting to fund the war which they were elected to stop funding.


I still don't know why they didn't do what they
were elected to. Cowards ... or Alzheimer?

In any way - I wouldn't vote for these folks again,
they can't keep their promises ...

[The Painter]

I still don't know why they didn't do what they
were elected to. Cowards ... or Alzheimer?

Cowards


In any way - I wouldn't vote for these folks again,
they can't keep their promises ...

Good for you. Even though you can't vote over here, I wish more people here had your passion.

[Rika]

.... Facts. Kryptonite.

I'm just going to bow out.

[BPSCG]

Bush should be put down.Ion, I know English isn't your first language, but are you aware that in the U.S., using "put down" in that manner means "euthanizing"? You take a sick animal to the vet and if the situation is hopeless, you have him "put down."

In the U.K., too, if neither I nor Monty Python is mistaken:
[Monty]
Mrs. Premise: We're going to have our budgie put down.
Mrs. Contusion: Ooh, is he very old, then?
Mrs. Premise: No. We just don't like it.
[/Python]

[Oliver]

Cowards

Good for you. Even though you can't vote over here, I wish more people here had your passion.


I will never understand the logic behind promoting "We the NOT YOU!" ...
Whereas the message is clear:

http://250kb.de/u/071120/j/42b57f62.jpg
Image by me - hotlinking allowed and supported by imagehoster 250kb.de (http://www.250kb.de)

[Rika]

Oliver. Stop spamming.

[Oliver]

Oliver. Stop spamming.


It's not spamming. Since my English is far away from being
perfect, my images speak for themselves in a multi-lingual
way. :)

On topic, by the way.

[Rika]

It may be on topic, but it's beginning to amount to a repeated campaigning for him on this forums. Something which is .. a little annoying.

[Oliver]

It may be on topic, but it's beginning to amount to a repeated campaigning for him on this forums. Something which is .. a little annoying.


This is America - the Land of the Free - the Land of lacking impossibilities.
What do you expect? :D

[Ion]

I still don't know why they didn't do what they
were elected to. Cowards ... or Alzheimer?

In any way - I wouldn't vote for these folks again,
they can't keep their promises ...
Oliver,

you are in Germany and don't see U.S. from close range like I do.

The Democrat Senators can't over rule Bush vetoes on bills that call for withdrawal from Iraq because they need 60 votes to do it.
They don't get them.
The Democrats are a slim majority in Senate, and the Republican Senators vote -like Bush wants- against the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
Yesterday's The San Diego Union Tribune quotes such a Republican Senator spouting the same old hypocrite Fascist claims of "...not surrender..." and "...chaos ensues if U.S. leaves..." Iraq, never mind that U.S. going there is a crime.

So, not enough Democrat anti-war Senators were elected.

Last week, Democrat Harry Reid didn't advance from Senate any new war funding bill until next year, saying the Pentagon can use its own money.
The Pentagon lays off now contractors in Iraq.
Also Reid made something smart last week, he kept the Senate going on symbolically (two Senators showing up, opening the door, and pretending to work a little) during the Thanksgiving vacation so that Bush won't make appointments during Senate recess like he did a few month ago.

Short of cutting the flow of money, the Democrats are tightening the faucet of supply.

Of course the best one would be Kucinich who is drastic.

In other news, in an international bridge tournament, five ladies put up a sign We didn't vote for Bush, and hypocrite right wingers who fund them censor their speech, never mind that they didn't protest the Support our Troops buttons before that.

In other news, there was a report on how much the war in Iraq drags down the U.S. economy with respect to investments, and today's The San Diego Union Tribune in page C5 under Dollar -an article gauging the weakening of the American economy and Dollar in the world- writes:

"..."There is a loss of confidence in both the dollar and the U.S.," said Riordan Roett, a professor at John Hopkins University in Baltimore. "It may only reflect the widespread dismay with the Bush administration, but it is obvious that the next administration, of either party, will have a steep uphill struggle."..."

The consequences from this idiot President is stupidity on the hands of everyone who supported his election in 2004.

[Darth Rotor]

Yesterday's The San Diego Union Tribune quotes such a Republican Senator spouting the same old hypocrite Fascist claims of "...not surrender..." and "...chaos ensues if U.S. leaves..." Iraq, never mind that U.S. going there is a crime.
"Chaos if the US leaves" is a reasonable prediction of what will take place without the US to act as a bit of a firebreak. For how long more a chaotic situation would last is an open question.
The consequences from this idiot President is stupidity on the hands of everyone who supported his election in 2004.
By your presented reasoning, the consequences are also on the hands of everyone who did not vote at all in the 2004 election, which was a bit over 30% of the eligible electorate. It is also on the hands of the opposition, who failed badly to get their champion elected.

Failure has a cost.

Lots of blame to go around, Ion.

I don't see you offering much in the way of concrete, achievable solutions.

DR

[Ion]

"Chaos if the US leaves" is a reasonable prediction of what will take place without the US to act as a bit of a firebreak.
...
I don't see you offering much in the way of concrete, achievable solutions.

DR
I do offer.

Withdraw U.S. from Iraq now.

Put in U.N. peacekeepers.

[Darth Rotor]

I do offer.

Withdraw U.S. from Iraq now.
OK, that is a concrete suggestion. It will take about six months to get them all out. Logistics is a mess, and messy. But that is a viable course of action.
Put in U.N. peacekeepers.
From what nations would these blue helmeted people come?

What peace will they keep? It isn't peaceful now.

Also, I have a few words for you, courtesy of the BBC.

August 14, 2003.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/19/newsid_3504000/3504255.stm

What would preclude such an event from sending the UN scurrying off a second time? Truck bombing is being turned into a macabre art form in Iraq.

DR

[Ion]

OK, that is a concrete suggestion. It will take about six months to get them all out. Logistics is a mess, and messy. But that is a viable course of action.

From what nations would these blue helmeted people come?
...
DR
Why didn't you ask these questions in 2003, when it was time to gauge if the war is just and worthy to start?

Because you didn't and made a criminal mess in Iraq, to bring peace there a U.N. peacekeeping force made of European and Latin American troops would enforce Iraq's interests and replace self-serving U.S..

Money, effort and interests would be shouldered by the world, beter than trouble maker self-serving U.S..

...
What peace will they keep? It isn't peaceful now.

Also, I have a few words for you, courtesy of the BBC.

August 14, 2003.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/19/newsid_3504000/3504255.stm

What would preclude such an event from sending the UN scurrying off a second time? Truck bombing is being turned into a macabre art form in Iraq.

DR
What precludes U.S. from building bases in Iraq for controlling Middle East (including its oil)?

This is the main problem started in 2003.

[Darth Rotor]

Why didn't you ask these questions in 2003, when it was time to gauge if the war is just and worthy to start?
Besides moving the goal posts, you are making an assumption in absence of fact. I was worried sick that going into Iraq to impose democracy at the point of a bayonet was going to break the place up bigger than Yugoslavia broke up, and messier, given its difference is size and location. However, that isn't the topic, the topic is

What to do now? So, please answer my question.

If the US pulls out, which is a doable operation, who will provide the blue helmeted troops? How many? From which nations?

What peace will they keep? Peacekeeping requires a peace to keep, good examples include the Camp David accords, and the Sinai peacekeepers who monitor that peace agreement, the peacekeepers in Bosnia after the Dayton Agreement was signed, and the peacekeepers in Cyprus.

What peace agreement in Iraq is to be monitored by UN peacekeepers? You have put the cart before the horse.

What UNSCR calls for blue helmets to support an internal peacekeeping in Iraq (again, like the Dayton Accords in Bosnia.)
Because you didn't, a U.N. peacekeeping force made of European and Latin American troops is better than self-serving U.S..
What "you" are you speaking to? It sure as hell isn't me.

OK, let us take your concrete suggestion into its practical phase.

Latin American nations (name them please) and European nations (name them please) should provide how many troops with blue helmets, and for how long?

Ion, how do you sell this plan in each nation's capital?
What precludes U.S. from buiding bases in Iraq for controlling Middle East (including its oil)?
Why does a dog lick its balls? Please stop drifting from the topic.
This is the main problem since 2003.
Farcically incorrect, Ion.

The problem is that there isn't a main problem, but rather a whole host of problems, many of which Bush, Cheney, and Rummy assumed away rather than mitigate with sound courses of action. (Or, more sober risk assessments before making a major strategic decision. ) They went ahead with their "hope as a method" political strategy anyway.

DR

[Ion]

...
If the US pulls out, which is a doable operation, who will provide the blue helmeted troops? How many? From which nations?

What peace will they keep?

What UNSCR calls for blue helmets to support an internal peacekeeping in Iraq (again, like the Dayton Accords in Bosnia.)
...
OK, let us take your concrete suggestion into its practical phase.

Latin American nations (name them please) and European nations (name them please) should provide how many troops with blue helmets, and for how long?

...

Nations would make peace in Iraq and keep it.

Hopefully without a Sharia constitution in Iraq anymore, but in the image of France and how France wanted in 2005 an European Union, a secular constitution.

No more Bush garbage religion, or Sharia and Islamic religion in Iraq's constitution.

Iraq's constitution and religion should be separate.

These nations would be the nations that opposed the war in Iraq, like Germany, France, Sweden, Canada, Mexico, Angola, etc..

Plus Latin American nations like Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela.

Plus nations that started the war, like U.S. and Israel, but in a team player role, not an unilateral self-serving role anymore.

Ion, how do you sell this plan in each nation's capital?
...
Farcically incorrect, Ion.

The problem is that there isn't a main problem,
...
DR
Selling the plan would be world's interest that Iraq is peaceful and progressive.

Iraq has the history for civilization (inventors of algebra, calculators of a calendar better than ours, etc.)

The main problem is U.S. invading and controlling Middle East through Iraq.

[Darth Rotor]

Nations would make peace in Iraq and keep it.
Really? How so? Peace enforcement is an order of magnitude harder than peacekeeping. What combination of nations has both the capability, the money, and the will to conduct a broad peace making, peace enforcing, and peacekeeping mission in Iraq?
Hopefully without a Sharia constitution in Iraq anymore, but in the image of France and how France wanted in 2005 an European Union, a secular constitution.
You are now doing what Bush and his team did: basing your plan on hope.

That is a recipe for disaster.
No more Bush garbage religion, or Sharia and Islamic religion in Iraq's constitution.
Don't you think the people in Iraq get to consider what they want in their constitution? If you insist that there is something they can't have, your approach is no better than Bush's approach. If no better, it is as unlikely to get support from Iraqi people, which means your approach fails. That support is required for a constitution to work.
Iraq's constitution and religion should be separate.
I don't think you have any idea what that means, and if you do, I'd like you to try and explain that thought more fully. See also above.
These nations would be the nations that opposed the war in Iraq, like Germany, France, Sweden, Canada, Mexico, Angola, etc..
OK. Based on history, some of those nations are reluctant to deploy their forces in division and brigade sized elements beyond their own borders, and some cannot.

Do you have any idea how many people it takes to do what you demand, peace enforcement? Hint: more than the number of NATO peace keepers/enforcers in 1995, added to the UN peacekeepers already there.
Plus Latin American nations like Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela.
OK. You presume they will do this.

Who funds it?
Plus nations that started the war, like U.S. and Israel, but in a team player role, not an unilateral self-serving role anymore.
You want Israeli peacekeepers in Iraq? Are you serious, or just being sloppy?
Selling the plan would be world's interest that Iraq is peaceful and progressive.
Takes more than altruism to sell a plan that demands a few billion a year in resources to execute.
Iraq has the history for civilization (inventors of algebra, calculators of a calendar better than ours, etc.)
Yes, and a history also of sectarian killing. So what? The problem is the here and now.
The main problem is U.S. invading and controlling Middle East through Iraq.
Uh, you are wandering backward again. The conversation is what to do under the situation where the US leaves. Please try to stay focused. You and I are having one of our more worthwhile conversations.

DR

[gtc]

Ion,

Please provide evidence that Israel started the war.

Note: The fact that there are lots of Jews in Israel does not constitute evidence that Israel started the war.

[MaGZ]

If there would be no Paul, I probably would be in favor of Obama as well.
I like the Idea that a non-whitey runs the country. But unfortunately, he
has no political relevant records at all...

You just want a non-White to run this country because you want American to go into rapid decline.

Come to think about it, this may be a good reason for me to vote Obama.

[Darth Rotor]

You just want a non-White to run this country because you want American to go into rapid decline.

Come to think about it, this may be a good reason for me to vote Obama.
MaGZ, if I read you correctly, you take the position that an Obama in the White House would speed the revolution that overthrows the status quo, and restores the WN paragon to prominence and power.

Am I close?

DR

[MaGZ]

Well, yet another non-American here (Canadian), but if I were to vote, my first choice based on my current knowledge of the candidates would be Obama. Why? Simply because the biggest international problem facing the world today is the conflict between the U.S. and Muslim nations. And out of every candidate, I think that Obama is the one in the best position to understand both sides. I doubt very much that he would find a solution -- I don't believe any real 'solution' would be possible within only 4 or 8 years of his potential presidency -- but he could at least set policies that could start things moving in the right direction.

I don't think he'll be "pro-Muslim", or soft on terrorists -- quite the opposite, I expect he'll be very hard on terrorist groups -- but I believe he's better equipped to understand the differences between the Muslim hardliners, and the moderates; and to establish policies that, instead of further alienating all Muslims (as the current administration is doing), will bring moderates more towards "our" side.

Personally, as a non-American, I don't give a crap about his ability to manage America's internal situation; and were I American, I don't know, my opinion might be different. But since the major impact that any US president will have on my life, and my country, will be in terms of international politics/conflict, I think that Obama is by far the best choice.

Obama is parroting the Jew line about total support for Israel. If he had to guts to take on the Jews even I would support him.

[MaGZ]

MaGZ, if I read you correctly, you take the position that an Obama in the White House would speed the revolution that overthrows the status quo, and restores the WN paragon to prominence and power.

Am I close?

DR

Close

Whites really have to learn to hate there government in order for there to be a revolution. As long as White people think America is still their country there will be no revolution. An African as President with an Amos and Andy administration will bring White America to near revolt.

I for one do not see Whites taking back all of America. I do see a White revolt winning part of the country.

[Darth Rotor]

Close

Whites really have to learn to hate there government in order for there to be a revolution. As long as White people think America is still their country there will be no revolution. An African as President with an Amos and Andy administration will bring White America to near revolt.

I for one do not see Whites taking back all of America. I do see a White revolt winning part of the country.
OK, do they then battle the Hispanics for the best part, after this initial victory, or let it go?

DR

[gtc]

You just want a