Thread: Tell me, Who should win the election?

IF a toad had wings he would not bump his ass.

Hillary Clinton is a socialist Wilma Flintstone on steroids with chronic PMS. Barack Obama said publicly he wants to invade our nuclear ally Pakistan, told terrorists they don't have to worry about our nukes if he's president, and referred to the leader of Canada as the "president" instead of "prime minister". Ron Paul refuses to acknowledge that Islamofascist terrorists are INSANE. I think Giuliani is the best possibility, even though I don't agree with him on everything. I really wish Condoleeza Rice would run.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Hillary Clinton is a socialist Wilma Flintstone on steroids with chronic PMS. Barack Obama said publicly he wants to invade our nuclear ally Pakistan, told terrorists they don't have to worry about our nukes if he's president, and referred to the leader of Canada as the "president" instead of "prime minister". Ron Paul refuses to acknowledge that Islamofascist terrorists are INSANE. I think Giuliani is the best possibility, even though I don't agree with him on everything. I really wish Condoleeza Rice would run.

lol.

Possible presidents making retarded statements didn't stop you from voting Bush, did it?

Originally Posted by Neruo

lol.

Possible presidents making retarded statements didn't stop you from voting Bush, did it?

The day he says we should invade a nuclear (or "nucular" in his case) ally or puts his nose in the air over being against a war he voted for, I will lead the charge to have a vote recall. Also, I don't think he should have ever even been the nominee. There were much better people for the job. It just came down to him and Al Gore and later him and John Kerry. Every time I have voted for a president, I was voting for the person that sucks the least. It's almost like the two parties that have any chance at all of winning nominate their worst candidates on purpose. They seem to say, "Let's see. Who has the most trouble getting through sentences and can't debate worth a damn or communicate with the public and other leaders? Bush! Yeah, let's nominate Bush!" Bob Dole is another example of that. What the Hell was that about?

Ron Paul.

I change my vote.

Mi Wang should win the election. He would be a great president.

I know I already posted this but...

Ron Paul.

I kinda like the fact that we have a Dick and Bush in the Presidency... makes me laugh atleast.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Hillary Clinton is a socialist Wilma Flintstone on steroids with chronic PMS. Barack Obama said publicly he wants to invade our nuclear ally Pakistan, told terrorists they don't have to worry about our nukes if he's president, and referred to the leader of Canada as the "president" instead of "prime minister". Ron Paul refuses to acknowledge that Islamofascist terrorists are INSANE. I think Giuliani is the best possibility, even though I don't agree with him on everything. I really wish Condoleeza Rice would run.

Ron Paul doesn't refuse that there is a terrorist threat. An Giuliani would be twenty times worse than bush. And then Condeolezaa Rice? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? The woman who thinks spreading peace in the middle east is giving our allies billions of dollars worth of weapons TO FIGHT our enemies with? Geeze, it sounds like you just let the media tell you who the best candidate is.

All Giuliani can say is "TERRORIST TERRORIST 9/11 TERRORIST" He would do everything bush is doing. Not to mention he still beliefs that propagandist bullshit that the terrorists hate us because we are rich and free. That doesn't even make sense.

Do a little research on these people you claim to support. Sorry to be so snappy about such a topic but hearing you say Condeolezza Rice should run just about made me have a heart attack.

Originally Posted by jaasum

Geeze, it sounds like you just let the media tell you who the best candidate is.

O yea. The media really has a boner for conservatives these days

Doesn't matter, they are still pushing the candidates they want. And FOX news still does have a boner for neo-conservatives

(being a conservative isn't a bad thing, it's all the neo-cons that are bad.)

Originally Posted by jaasum

Ron Paul doesn't refuse that there is a terrorist threat. An Giuliani would be twenty times worse than bush. And then Condeolezaa Rice? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? The woman who thinks spreading peace in the middle east is giving our allies billions of dollars worth of weapons TO FIGHT our enemies with? Geeze, it sounds like you just let the media tell you who the best candidate is.

All Giuliani can say is "TERRORIST TERRORIST 9/11 TERRORIST" He would do everything bush is doing. Not to mention he still beliefs that propagandist bullshit that the terrorists hate us because we are rich and free. That doesn't even make sense.

Do a little research on these people you claim to support. Sorry to be so snappy about such a topic but hearing you say Condeolezza Rice should run just about made me have a heart attack.

You need to do little research on what I said before you mischaracterize it. And I don't think I got this "snappy" with you when you claimed that a god can create itself. I even stopped questioning you at that point because the impossible notion worked as an answer in theory to what I was asking .

Ron Paul does admit that there is a terrorist threat. I didn't say he denies it. What I DID say is that he refuses to acknowledge that there is an Islamofascism insanity element involved in the equation. He places the entire blame on U.S. presence in the Middle East, as if that somehow forces terrorists to target masses of innocent people to no avail and keep us at higher troop levels than otherwise for even longer. If you will do some research, you will see that Giuliani has talked about a great deal more than terrorism. He has even expressed support for certain liberal positions. If you will read Bin Laden's letter to the U.S. and other documents, you will see that Al Qaeda, like other terrorist organizations, do hate us because we do not follow Islamic law. It is stated specifically. That is not the only reason, but it is a big reason. That is how they hate our freedom. They also hate the results of American freedom, specifically our pornography, sexual and drug oriented music, strip clubs, widespread alcohol consumption, etc. Giuliani is correct about that. What is the problem with how Rice supports arming our allies (not enemies)? They are allies, the people fighting on our side. Where's the problem? Bringing peace often does require fighting the tyranny that prevents it. Research world history. It has happened a great many times. And Condoleeza Rice is not even a candidate. Please show me where the liberally biased media said to vote for her. You need to save your heart attacks for situations where you understand what you are reading.

The islamofascist element would not exist without the West, we created it.

Originally Posted by DoomedOne

The islamofascist element would not exist without the West, we created it.

The organizers of the Islamofascist organizations and committers of Islamofascist violence did not create the organizations they created and did not decide to commit the acts they committed? Yes they did. Why do you not hold them at all responsible for the counterproductive acts they themselves decide to commit? You speak as if they have no choice, even thought their evil activity is counterproductive. Their refusal to accept democracy in Israel and the Hussein regime's take over of Kuwait are the reasons behind our presence in the Middle East. The irrational violence committed by the Islamofascists is exactly what gives us a reason to stay there. The terrorism is evil and irrational.

And it's England's fault America was created. And it's Rome's fault England gained its power. And it's Africa's fault people exist. And it's water's fault for harboring life. And its God's fault for making water. It's all God's fault. I mean, if God never created us we wouldn't be having any of these problems, WOULD WE?

Thats right Universal Mind, because Ron Paul isn't a moron. He didn't jump straight to,"AHH! Terrorists are evil crazy people who want to destroy the world!" Instead he said, Hey there is a reason the terrorists act like that, maybe we should figure out why.

Hes the only one asking the real questions. Such as, why? Giuliani says nothing but, "They hate, they hate our freedom, they hate our lifestyle." And NEVER asks the simple question of, "Why do they hate us?" Such a simple question, yet Ron Paul is the only one to ask it. Why is that? Maybe because hes the only person running who actually believes in something. Its easy to go off and blame everything on other people, it takes a real man to take a hard look at his own country and take responsibilty for what it does.

Originally Posted by Alric

Instead he said, Hey there is a reason the terrorists act like that, maybe we should figure out why.

That is where he is wrong. There is not "a" reason the terrorists want to kill innocents in mass numbers. There are several reasons. Ron Paul only talks about one, and that one reason blames only the United States and places no blame AT ALL on the irrational psychopaths who are trying to kill masses of innocents. The narrow-minded evil of the Jihad mentality is at the root of it all. To say that we are doing things to exacerbate the Jihad mentality that is already there is one thing. To say that the Jihad mentality is 100% the result of U.S. presence in the Middle East is entirely different. The Jihad mentality has existed since long before there was a United States. There is U.S. presence in Europe too. Are they trying to blow us up? There are obviously other variables that have to be dealt with, and Ron Paul won't deal with them. He is not qualified for the job.

Vote for me instead. It'll confuse the people counting the votes.

Originally Posted by Alric

Hes the only one asking the real questions. Such as, why? Giuliani says nothing but, "They hate, they hate our freedom, they hate our lifestyle." And NEVER asks the simple question of, "Why do they hate us?" Such a simple question, yet Ron Paul is the only one to ask it. Why is that? Maybe because hes the only person running who actually believes in something. Its easy to go off and blame everything on other people, it takes a real man to take a hard look at his own country and take responsibilty for what it does.

I suppose we should figure "why" pedophiles rape little kids before we punish them.

Honestly, who gives a shit why they are so crazy? Is that all you want to do? Explain? OK, you go ahead and waste time by explaining a narsicistic fanatil Muslim mindset. In the mean time, the people who understand the potential of fanatics will be busy taking a more direct response.

Do you not want these people off the face of the Earth?

See thats the thing right there. Ron Paul isn't a single answer man like Giuliani. First he talks about why, then he talks about what we can do. Infact he goes into far greater detail into the issue than everyone else running combined.

Ron Paul never blamed the US for it all. Heck hes the only person willing to actually close the boarders. Everyone else complains about how we need to stop the terrorists yet they grant them free access into and out of our country? Whats with that?

Seriously, I don't think you have even listened to Ron Paul more than once or twice. You ask the other people what they should do about terrorists and they say, "Terrorist are evil we need to kill them." You ask Ron Paul and he will talk for 5 minutes straight on why he thinks they are a threat, how to solve the issue, IN DETAIL. Not some bullcrap answer like, "We need to kill them." He will actually give a plan. Heck he may then though some history in because he just knows so much about it.

Originally Posted by Alric

See thats the thing right there. Ron Paul isn't a single answer man like Giuliani. First he talks about why, then he talks about what we can do. Infact he goes into far greater detail into the issue than everyone else running combined.

Ron Paul never blamed the US for it all. Heck hes the only person willing to actually close the boarders. Everyone else complains about how we need to stop the terrorists yet they grant them free access into and out of our country? Whats with that?

Seriously, I don't think you have even listened to Ron Paul more than once or twice. You ask the other people what they should do about terrorists and they say, "Terrorist are evil we need to kill them." You ask Ron Paul and he will talk for 5 minutes straight on why he thinks they are a threat, how to solve the issue, IN DETAIL. Not some bullcrap answer like, "We need to kill them." He will actually give a plan. Heck he may then though some history in because he just knows so much about it.

Really? He has talked about other reasons? The times I've heard him talk, he attributed it all to U.S. presence in the Middle East. He expressed that it is the cause, not a factor of influence. If he talks about lack of border control and other things, then that's great. Maybe he changed his mind. And Giuliani and others have talked about volumes more than killing terrorists. Mainly, using intelligence networks to prevent attacks, crippling terrorist governments, and spreading democracy in the Middle East are talked about a great deal more than killing terrorists.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

I suppose we should figure "why" pedophiles rape little kids before we punish them.

Honestly, who gives a shit why they are so crazy? Is that all you want to do? Explain? OK, you go ahead and waste time by explaining a narsicistic fanatil Muslim mindset. In the mean time, the people who understand the potential of fanatics will be busy taking a more direct response.

Do you not want these people off the face of the Earth?

what is this? willful ignorance? no lets not find out why...fuck that, fuck answers and fuck reason.

For example, if you found out that the reason the want to kill you is that you are occupying their country, you could stop them from wanting to kill you by leaving. ..Or you could just try to kill them faster.

back to topic.. the best way to vote is to pick up paving stones and toss them. But, don’t get caught up in the spectacle of opposition. Oppose the spectacle.

Originally Posted by shark!

For example, if you found out that the reason the want to kill you is that you are occupying their country, you could stop them from wanting to kill you by leaving.

That is false. Their demands involve more than that. No matter what unrealistic demands they have, we have to prepare to stop them and to capture/kill them. Handling terrorism is not as simple as saying, "Hey, you guys. What is it you would like from us? Just tell us whatever you want us to do, and we will do it. You're the boss." That encourages further demands and further terrorism. They have to be told to screw off and die. You don't get rid of bullies by giving them what they want.

By the way, Half/Dreaming is not going to be here to argue with you. He has headed off to fight the scum we are talking about.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is false. Their demands involve more than that. No matter what unrealistic demands they have, we have to prepare to stop them and to capture/kill them. Handling terrorism is not as simple as saying, "Hey, you guys. What is it you would like from us? Just tell us whatever you want us to do, and we will do it. You're the boss." That encourages further demands and further terrorism. They have to be told to screw off and die. You don't get rid of bullies by giving them what they want.

By the way, Half/Dreaming is not going to be here to argue with you. He has headed off to fight the scum we are talking about.

sorry maybe I mistyped, I meant it as an example of why you should learn about your enemy(not that that specific example is true or not)...but I was against the willful ignorance half mentioned in his post