- This topic has 23 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I found it neat that people were fact checking. Haven’t read all the way through it yet so I’m not going to comment about it yet.
“Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we’re going to lay more pipelines … build more new-clear [ed: must be nuclear] plants … create jobs with clean coal … and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources.”
are they honestly bickering over her effing accent? wow. if you are suggesting that sarah palin is a flip-flopper, then take a look no further than obama. i’d be more concerned about him than with palin. He goes to some church forever, and then when the reverend is under fire from the media, all of a sudden he denounces it. WHAT?! albeit, perhaps he truly did change his mind about the church, but it certainly looks pretty suspect to me. i was going to vote for mccain before, simply b/c social healthcare is the most idiotic idea i’ve ever heard, but now that he nominated sarah palin for vp, it re-reinforced my vote. most of those are certainly out of context too, i’m sure.
edit:
personally one of my favorite lines from sarah palin’s speech:
“I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a “community organizer,” except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don’t quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren’t listening.”
i really hate the media nitpicking both candidates like its their job. i mean its just so annoying on the news sites hearing how McCain punched a baby then a channel over and Obama *edited*ed on a old lady. just so *edited* in my opinion. Politics are so *edited*ed.
(I KNO THEY DIDNT DO THAT SO DONT NITPICK ME)
I’m waiting for a monkey to run for president. I would absolutely vote for a monkey.
Err… nvm.. I already did that. (Vote for a monkey that is >.<)
Kappamerc said:
I’m waiting for a monkey to run for president. I would absolutely vote for a monkey.Err… nvm.. I already did that. (Vote for a monkey that is >.
You shouldn’t have voted for Kerry…
Nickname said:
You shouldn’t have voted for Kerry…whats not to love:
by far the cutest president we’ve had yet
Ephraim said:
I don’t get involved in forum debates over politics anymore as liberals just don’t understand reason. I’ve learned to accept this and let them believe whatever it is they choose to believe until history proves them wrong, which it usually does.
Having glanced over both articles I can say that the original article was written by a flaming, coolaid drinking liberal with no regard for facts or the politics and history of the people Palin was attacking. I think her speech was written to arouse the Republican party into action and from what I read she used accurate facts to do so. That’s what makes the speeches of conservatives so effective, they use logic, reason, and FACTS against their opponents. In the first “rebutal” alone they repeated the same phrase like four times, definately nit-picking but I guess repetition is what makes them feel effective.
I personally can’t wait for the McCain/Obama and Palin/Biden debates. When that happens you’ll see one party wipe the floor with the other as only one of the parties picked candidates that have a clue.
Of course, I did vote for Bush in 2004 so that means I’m a retardedly blind citizen. Only time will tell.
Poopie said:
MAJOR KILL YOURSELF NAO!!!!!!!!!nah… ill stand by what i said…. hes a cutie
One thing that really *edited*es me off is how the government fuels the “2 party system” with the debates. I really would like to see more than just two candidates take the podium and debate when they come on. it would give the candidates a chance to come ahead or fall behind because the way its set up now it just fuels what people have already chosen for themselves prior to the debates.
IMO
MajorMajorMajor said:
One thing that really *edited*es me off is how the government fuels the “2 party system” with the debates. I really would like to see more than just two candidates take the podium and debate when they come on. it would give the candidates a chance to come ahead or fall behind because the way its set up now it just fuels what people have already chosen for themselves prior to the debates.So who else is running that is guaranteed at least 20% of the vote? That’s what *edited*es me off the most when people flame about the two party system, there aren’t any other parties that have a realistic chance of winning. You can foster debate all you want but I would challenge you to find a third party candidate that has ever gotten more than 20% of the vote.
Something else, there’s been ALOT of loonies out there that said whatever they wanted because they knew they wouldn’t make it past primaries (Ron Paul). Not to mention some of their ideals are historically dangerous (fortress America by Ron Paul). Do you really want this caliber of person on stage with people that you know will easily out-perform them?
I’m all for Ross Perot of Ralph Nader…GO INDEPENDENT OR GREEN!!! and steal votes from the demos… : P
MasterP said:
So who else is running that is guaranteed at least 20% of the vote? That’s what *edited*es me off the most when people flame about the two party system, there aren’t any other parties that have a realistic chance of winning. You can foster debate all you want but I would challenge you to find a third party candidate that has ever gotten more than 20% of the vote.You are 100% correct. They will never get over 20% of the vote right now because the 2 party system is in place. Thats the problem. All it is, is a race of who has the most money and who is able to be two faced enough to garnish more than 50% of the vote. its terrible. I don’t care how much of an idiot you think I am or how much you loooove the GOP or the DNC, but the matter is that there are more than just 2 sides to an issue and there needs to be other voices heard so that issues can be resolved correctly.
Ron Paul, even though you may think hes full of BS, has the right idea. Create as big of a following as you can with or without the Democrats or Republicans to enact some sort of change. If McCain wins the presidency, his following will grow even more in the next 4 years. You say that you challenge someone to find a 3rd party candidate that got 20% or more, and i will tell u to watch the next 8 years turn into a political system with more than 2 parties. If ever a year to break that 20%, it would be this year or the next 12 years.
and Ephraim: oh GOD you are so right… i wanna snuggle with him all night long
The cool part about it now is that the candidates themselves are limited by public finance laws when running for office. Unless of course they opt out of them but there’s only been 1 candidate to do that so far (Obama). Any additional adverts and campaigning is done by third parties, which isn’t really that good but it shows which side has a more dedicated following. If McCain wins it will prove that money isn’t everything in electioneering and if Obama wins it will be the end of public financing of elections.
And yes, you’re right about the time being ripe for a third party. Tbh I’m surprised there isn’t a major third party candidate running this time but it’s too late now to get into the race. Had one come along late June they could have wiped the floor with both parties. It’s too late now as both parties seem to have rallied around their respective candidates. I doubt if they’ll get enough to challenge a major party but over the next decade the independents (which are traditionally democrat voters in disguise) may actually start to fight for their own beliefs instead of someone else’s.
MasterP said:
And yes, you’re right about the time being ripe for a third party. Tbh I’m surprised there isn’t a major third party candidate running this time but it’s too late now to get into the race. Had one come along late June they could have wiped the floor with both parties. It’s too late now as both parties seem to have rallied around their respective candidates. I doubt if they’ll get enough to challenge a major party but over the next decade the independents (which are traditionally democrat voters in disguise) may actually start to fight for their own beliefs instead of someone else’s.God you make me quiver with your logical genious
and I agree again, there were multiple 3rd party candidates but not one has come out as a forerunner to try and oppose
still gonna vote 3rd party… goodbye one republican vote to McCain
MasterP said:
I don’t get involved in forum debates over politics anymore as liberals just don’t understand reason. I’ve learned to accept this and let them believe whatever it is they choose to believe until history proves them wrong, which it usually does.truer words were never spoken good sir…
MajorMajorMajor said:
nah… ill stand by what i said…. hes a cutieOne thing that really *edited*es me off is how the government fuels the “2 party system” with the debates. I really would like to see more than just two candidates take the podium and debate when they come on. it would give the candidates a chance to come ahead or fall behind because the way its set up now it just fuels what people have already chosen for themselves prior to the debates.
IMO
i agree with this major. I’m pretty conservative and therefore, a republican, but i think the two party system is so freakin counter-productive. the democrats get so caught up in hating the republicans, and the republicans get so caught up in hating the democrats, that we get nothing done except fight each other for the majority. it’s so dumb. however, if there are more than two candidates, joe public has to do some more research, and is possibly deterred away from voting. however, idk if this is necessarily a bad thing, as if they aren’t dedicated to putting in the time to figure out who they like, perhaps they shouldn’t be voting anyway…if you get my gist…
MasterP said:
I don’t get involved in forum debates over politics anymore as liberals just don’t understand reason. I’ve learned to accept this and let them believe whatever it is they choose to believe until history proves them wrong, which it usually does.Having glanced over both articles I can say that the original article was written by a flaming, coolaid drinking liberal with no regard for facts or the politics and history of the people Palin was attacking. I think her speech was written to arouse the Republican party into action and from what I read she used accurate facts to do so. That’s what makes the speeches of conservatives so effective, they use logic, reason, and FACTS against their opponents. In the first “rebutal” alone they repeated the same phrase like four times, definately nit-picking but I guess repetition is what makes them feel effective.
I personally can’t wait for the McCain/Obama and Palin/Biden debates. When that happens you’ll see one party wipe the floor with the other as only one of the parties picked candidates that have a clue.
:wub_anim:
Thank you Master P… I couldn’t have said it better myself.
I’m just glad that McCain picked Palin as his running mate. It is good to see a truly conservative woman in politics.
The GOP needs to go back to it’s conservative roots and not pander to idiots. Conservative values will always ring true.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.