Thread: Who will you vote for?

You forgot Mike Huckabee...

Mit Romney. Even though I don't think republicans stand a chance in 08.

Giuliani is the only Republican who has a chance of beating Hillary Clinton.

Giuliani makes no mention of the global freedom that the war in Iraq is supposedly meant to create. Instead, he seems to believe it is to destroy Islamic Fundamentalists. To that end, he would consider removing the government of Iran, a terrorist sponsor, but makes no mention of what he would put in its place. In Pakistan, Musharraf leads by subverting democracy, which would put his Islamic Fundamentalist opponents in charge. His rule may end soon, and Pakistan would become a nuclear-armed state with terrorist sympathies. Yet Giuliani seems unconcerned about these things, like his colleagues and many of the Democratic contenders.

If Ron Paul makes it through the primaries he will easily beat any democrat. His biggest challenge is getting to that point though.

Just a thought here on the polls but maybe people vote for whatever name is on the top , i wonder what results we would get if we put ron paul, barack and hillory on the bottom?

That's an excellent point, dragonoverlord. In fact, if I remember correctly, I've read that the order of the candidates on the ballot has an effect of about 2% in favor of the name on top, enough to tip the last two presidential elections. Only a couple of states have rules in place to minimize this effect, and the rest just decide an arbitrary order and run their entire election that way.

It's disturbing though, that 2% of the voters just vote for who's on top of the list.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The governments and certain individuals who in fact are Islamofascists (Islamic + fascist = Islamofascist) who are causing the atrocities.

No, you're combining the governments and the terrorists. The terrorists are here because of the governments, hence the fascists in the middle-east and the terrorists are not the same people.

Even if that is true, which you can only assume, we have very understandable reasons for fighting them. I don't agree with the way we allied with some of those governements with whom we had common enemies, but the idea was to fight the enemies better and not help those governments oppress their people. Alliance is not synomymous with full extent support.

I'm not assuming or speculating anything with that argument, that's how our country is laid out. Our economy is designed so unless we can continue to give money to the Rockefellers, Rothschild's, etcetera, we will eventually go bankrupt. We have to constantly expand and invade sending international companies around the world to replace local businesses or we plummet. Read any book ever written about the United States economy since the federal reserve, written by an economist, not a pundit.

Our moves were understandable though sometimes bad ideas. The Muslim terrorists came out of some of the bad ideas, some of the really good ideas, and the hopelessness and despair of oppression, which is most of what is at the base of their horribly sick mental states.

And who caused this despair and oppression? Maybe the country that keeps giving them chemicle weapons so they could spread death, cancers and birth defects around each other. For fuck's sake until the USSR got involved the middle east didn't even know the first thing about chemicle weapons. And I agree the USSR was openly invading countries and spreading fascism (not communism, they used communism as a facade to rally support) and perhaps our original response of giving Osama bin Laden lots of money and chemicles weapons was justified. I don't believe this is the way to go about things but I can believe here, unlike all other activity in the middle east the intent was to do good. Soviet fascism had to end, as much as they believed they were ushering in a new world era of freedom and equality ever since Stalin took office the whole construction became completely fascist and their afghanistan quagmire, due in part to Osama bin Laden, was part of their downfall. Heh, yeah, the one thing we did right in the middle east we can thank bin Laden for.

He was tied to the Soviet goverrnment and in on their plot to take over the world and impose a type of government you would hate. Is this the first time you've come across that claim? It's the official rationale, not the Art Bell story of the night.

Here's what I know. Nothing below is speculation. I knew August Cesar Sandino was given verbal support by the USSR. There is not one dime on record in transaction between the USSR and Nicaragua, though.

I also know that the Contras, who replaced Sandino after Reagan had him disappeared, were paid for by the United States. I also know the contras used to pull whole families out into the streets for rumors of resistance, and they would gut the families in front of their neighbors, children and all. I am not exaggerating, conversely I'm barely touching the surface of the atrocities brought on by the Contras.

You don't have any proof that we are shooting such weapons at civilians other than maybe some Art Bell and rabid leftist sites of hate.

Just because Fox News censors it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Look at Vietnam, they kept saying they were using strategic strategies, tactical tactics and other weasel words to kill the communists, and then press started coming back about villages being sacked because of rumors. I've talked to many Iraq war veterans and many have told me about the high civillian casualty rate. Of course the government will say some bullshit like "highly tactical" because they don't want us picturing the dead bodies of children. When those pictures came back from Vietnam, it brought an end to Vietnam, they don't want that. If we were really being so highly tactical then how come they refuse to let any pictures come back from Iraq?

And in response to your personal attacks, you sound like Darth Vader, dude.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

No, you're combining the governments and the terrorists. The terrorists are here because of the governments, hence the fascists in the middle-east and the terrorists are not the same people.

There are terrorists in the governements, and there are terrorists not in the governments. The fact that one results from the other is not a logical basis for concluding that they are not in the same category. Babies are here because of humans, yet the babies are humans.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

I'm not assuming or speculating anything with that argument, that's how our country is laid out. Our economy is designed so unless we can continue to give money to the Rockefellers, Rothschild's, etcetera, we will eventually go bankrupt. We have to constantly expand and invade sending international companies around the world to replace local businesses or we plummet. Read any book ever written about the United States economy since the federal reserve, written by an economist, not a pundit.

Read books by economists other than the ones who claim that. Even if that were a universal law, we still have had very legitimate reasons for our wars.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

And who caused this despair and oppression? Maybe the country that keeps giving them chemicle weapons so they could spread death, cancers and birth defects around each other. For fuck's sake until the USSR got involved the middle east didn't even know the first thing about chemicle weapons. And I agree the USSR was openly invading countries and spreading fascism (not communism, they used communism as a facade to rally support) and perhaps our original response of giving Osama bin Laden lots of money and chemicles weapons was justified. I don't believe this is the way to go about things but I can believe here, unlike all other activity in the middle east the intent was to do good. Soviet fascism had to end, as much as they believed they were ushering in a new world era of freedom and equality ever since Stalin took office the whole construction became completely fascist and their afghanistan quagmire, due in part to Osama bin Laden, was part of their downfall. Heh, yeah, the one thing we did right in the middle east we can thank bin Laden for.

I disagree, for the reasons I have stated many times. Many of our alliances have been mistakes. This is not an easy situation. But that does not mean we are fully responsible for what governments gone bad do. You should put the responsibility on them for their actions. And we do not "keep" giving them chemical weapons. Once that turns out to be a mistake, we go to war and try to get them back, and that really pisses off liberals. What would you like for us to do at this point?

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Here's what I know. Nothing below is speculation. I knew August Cesar Sandino was given verbal support by the USSR. There is not one dime on record in transaction between the USSR and Nicaragua, though.

Why would he have been given verbal support by the USSR if he was such a freedom loving angel? Google "Nicaragua Soviet", and you will find a whole ocean of information about their ties.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

I also know that the Contras, who replaced Sandino after Reagan had him disappeared, were paid for by the United States. I also know the contras used to pull whole families out into the streets for rumors of resistance, and they would gut the families in front of their neighbors, children and all. I am not exaggerating, conversely I'm barely touching the surface of the atrocities brought on by the Contras.

The Contras sucked, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend. We had to stop Soviet world conquest, which you just admitted was a huge problem. I'll work with Charles Manson and Ted Bundy any day if it is part of an overall plan to take down the Soviet Union. We also worked with the Soviet Union to take down the Nazis, but as you know, we sure as Hell did not agree with the Soviet Union's way of governing.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Just because Fox News censors it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Look at Vietnam, they kept saying they were using strategic strategies, tactical tactics and other weasel words to kill the communists, and then press started coming back about villages being sacked because of rumors. I've talked to many Iraq war veterans and many have told me about the high civillian casualty rate. Of course the government will say some bullshit like "highly tactical" because they don't want us picturing the dead bodies of children. When those pictures came back from Vietnam, it brought an end to Vietnam, they don't want that. If we were really being so highly tactical then how come they refuse to let any pictures come back from Iraq?

The military people I have talked to have told me about what all they go through to minimize civilian casualties. But of course the government does not want civilian casualties to be any kind of major focus. Civilian casualties are awful, but they are not enough reason to not save the entire world.

And please stop making the assumption that Fox News is my only news source. So many liberals assume that because I have some conserative views, and completely ignore just how extremely liberal some of my views are, that I only get my news from Fox News. It is an illogical conclusion, and I have said that enough times to raise questions about how honestly some people are debating.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

And in response to your personal attacks, you sound like Darth Vader, dude.

And in response to your personal attacks, such as that one, you sound like Jabba the Hut.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

And in response to your personal attacks, you sound like Darth Vader, dude.

Does this UM guy have a dream journal? Does he show any sign that he is even interested in lding? Look at these statements.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You keep making suggestions about the Illuminati. Think about your assertions. You should consider the possibility that some of us might be working for them.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If I were a member of the Illuminati, perhaps I would pretend to be an atheist who thinks a 9/11 conspiracy idea is absurd.

This happened as I was arguing he was not smart for believing all the stupid stuff he was promoting. He wanted to defend his ego so I convinced him to admit this. Then he tried to turn it into a joke but it was too late.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You talked about the people who are behind the American government, so you are talking about my people. Apparently you do not take us seriously. You must not think we exist or something. You are being watched.

Why did you delete your last post Mystic??? Here I'll put it back up for you.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Don't be confused it's obvious. It's likely there is more than Just UM on this forum. But I just being studying him in particular personally for a while. Interacting and noting carefully what he does. That's why I had so much attention on him. I noted how detached he is. The patterns he makes. Now I'm just going to blatantly conclude he's fake from what I observed and what he's being saying. Is like propaganda to a tee.

I'm not tryin to make you mad. I just think this post should stay up.

Ok. I thought the point was pretty clear already but if you insist keep it.

I think UM is being honest about what he believes. About a third of people in the U.S. agree with him, after all.

His arguments are defensible, just as anyone else's, and they derive themselves from fundamental disagreements that have only been barely glimpsed so far: common ends-justify-means disagreements and the role of government. Disagreements about esoteric historical events and self-righteous sparring get in the way of substantive argument.

Only because the ends do not justify the means and I'm trying to prove that through historical example. The ends have never justified the means, ever.

Sandino would have never allowed the Soviets to control his state, just look at his record rather than your russian-conspiracy websites. He ended illiteracy, hunger and homelessness. He kicked American corporations out to ensure the wealth generated by the country stayed in the country instead of being funneled to the United States. The Soviets, on the other hand, let their farmers starve to death and eventually turned their industries into vast monopolies ruled by bad policy. Just because he was applauded by a bunch of pigs that said stuff purely so they could maintain popularity with the proletariat doesn't mean he would have ever allowed Soviets to invade his country. The only way Nicaragua would have become a Soviet state is if they were invaded and taken by force.

And I'd like you to withdraw your statement that the contras were a necessary evil. It was ignorant and frankly very callous toward a people that have suffered so much because of our foreign policy.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Does this UM guy have a dream journal? Does he show any sign that he is even interested in lding? Look at these statements.

This happened as I was arguing he was not smart for believing all the stupid stuff he was promoting. He wanted to defend his ego so I convinced him to admit this. Then he tried to turn it into a joke but it was too late.

:bravo: Oh my God!!! You are taking me seriously on the Illuminati stuff???? You are truly priceless!

How would my membership in the Illuminati make me not interested in lucid dreaming? You have responded to some of my points about it. I can show you to tons of posts I have left about my experiences, theories, and goals concerning lucid dreaming. What does this have to do with the fact that I am in the Illuminati and watching you from a satellite right this second?

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Only because the ends do not justify the means and I'm trying to prove that through historical example. The ends have never justified the means, ever.

Not even World War II?

Why was Sandino favored by the Soviet government?

Even if he was not such a threat in my opinion based on my limited civilian information, I am just telling you there was a Cold War rationale involved in U.S. dealings with him. That does not mean I am a gung ho overthrow Sandino person.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I think UM is being honest about what he believes. About a third of people in the U.S. agree with him, after all.

His arguments are defensible, just as anyone else's, and they derive themselves from fundamental disagreements that have only been barely glimpsed so far: common ends-justify-means disagreements and the role of government. Disagreements about esoteric historical events and self-righteous sparring get in the way of substantive argument.

Thank you. I always appreciate somebody who can disagree and still be rational.

I told you, they favored him for bringing communist revolution to Nicaragua, but it was communist, the soviets were blatantly fascist. Communism was as meaningful to them as "tactical force" is for the US military.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

I told you, they favored him for bringing communist revolution to Nicaragua, but it was communist, the soviets were blatantly fascist. Communism was as meaningful to them as "tactical force" is for the US military.

There we go. He was not so pro-democracy after all. He was a communist revolutionary who was in bed with the Soviet Union, who was also communist, though not in 100% form. Communism and fascism go hand in hand, so they are not mutually exclusive. I am not sure about the way Sandino was handled, but I think it is great we ended up winning the Cold War, and our problem with Sandino was not that we wanted to steal his fruit.

You didn't answer my question about means justification by the ends. Do you think Ally involvement in WWII was an immoral position?

1. You need to take political science 101

2. Everyone loves using that argument for the ends justify the means but the world wasn't exactly transformed into a paradise because we went into world war 2. No, actually, two cities were wiped off the planet.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

1. You need to take political science 101

2. Everyone loves using that argument for the ends justify the means but the world wasn't exactly transformed into a paradise because we went into world war 2. No, actually, two cities were wiped off the planet.

1. You need to learn how to have a debate without getting personal. That insult also did not qualify as a counterargument. Look up "ad hominem fallacy".

2. You did not answer my question. Do you think Ally involvement in World War II was immoral? I am not talking about individual acts. I am talking about the big picture. Do you think the Allies should have refrained from fighting in World War II? Try not to dodge this time.

3. A lot worse than two cities' being blasted severely happened as a result of Ally involvement in World War II. But without it, the Nazis would have continued on with their world domination conquest, and stopping them would have required even more severe means and would have eventually been impossible. If the Nazis had pulled off their conquest, all non-whites, crippled, homosexuals, sick, and opposition would have been wiped off the face of the Earth. Imagine that picture. What do you suggest should have been done? Do you have a suggestion, or do you just want to insult what was done in response? What should have been done?

1. I know what an ad hominem is, doesn't mean I'm above using one to call a retard a retard when they show blatant retardation when it comes to politics. COmmunism is not fascism for one, they are nothing a like, communism was a tool to spread fascism because people want power and fascism grants such power, power is addictive and people will do and say anything to get power. They'll even use communism as a front. You can tell if they're a dictator of the proletariat or just a dictator based on the example they set. Sandino helped his people tremendously, the soviets did not.

2. You say because the USSR applauded the movement it means they were "in bed" which is just as fallacal as an ad hominem. t's like saying just because Hitler was a fan of Albert Einstein's works it means they were best friends.

3. There isn't a defined line ebtween good and evil. We helped remove a fascist madman, that was the good that came out of world war two, but we are still paying for the evil that we created.

4. You can't say that for sure anymore than I can say if we had listened to the Pacifists on ww2 we would have made better decisions.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

1. I know what an ad hominem is, doesn't mean I'm above using one to call a retard a retard when they show blatant retardation when it comes to politics. COmmunism is not fascism for one, they are nothing a like, communism was a tool to spread fascism because people want power and fascism grants such power, power is addictive and people will do and say anything to get power. They'll even use communism as a front. You can tell if they're a dictator of the proletariat or just a dictator based on the example they set. Sandino helped his people tremendously, the soviets did not.

2. You say because the USSR applauded the movement it means they were "in bed" which is just as fallacal as an ad hominem. t's like saying just because Hitler was a fan of Albert Einstein's works it means they were best friends.

3. There isn't a defined line ebtween good and evil. We helped remove a fascist madman, that was the good that came out of world war two, but we are still paying for the evil that we created.

4. You can't say that for sure anymore than I can say if we had listened to the Pacifists on ww2 we would have made better decisions.

1. You used nothing but an insult. That is ad hominem. That is a fallacy. You are arguing like a retard, and you are a horrible person. That is why it is ridiculous how you pretended to be a promoter of "love" two days ago. I know you see the hypocrisy.

2. That was not my point. You mentioned two separate statements I made and falsely claimed that my point was that one was the conclusion of nothing but the other. You committed the strawman fallacy. That's two fallacies in a very short time. Who is a retard?

3. That still does not answer my question. Why are you so determined to dodge? Are you ashamed of your answer? Again, what is your answer?

4. What would have stopped the Nazis from taking over more countries and committing more genocide? What would have? Do you remember how to answer a question? What could have stopped them? Now answer my recurring question, if you remember how to answer a question. Was Ally involvement in World War II the an immoral policy? Hello? Do you understand the question? Was Ally involvement in World War II an immoral policy?

1. Where is the hypocrisy in making myself a better arguer by arguing with you? You use just as many ad hominems as I do, they're natural. People have a hard time separating an attack on their ideas with an attack on themselves so they take arguments personally and respond in kind. And frankly it's hard for ana rguer to separate a retarded proposition with a retarded person, even though smart people can make retarded arguments, as you prove time and again.

2. Oh please, if that wans't your argument what is it?

3. Classic republican response. I answered you question, so stop badgering me. Not everything can be answered by yes or no, and I can't answer that with a yes or a no because I can't see what would have happened to the world if another option was taken.

4. Like mystic said I'm not going to argue this with you, you have to learn that lesson yourself.

1. Ad hominem involves the use of an insult in place of an argument. That is what you did. There was no argument, just an insult. I thought you were all about "love". What happened? A disagreement with a political view is not inherently an attack on the person. You really need to work on that paranoid perception. People can disagree and still have peace. Try it. Give peace a chance.

2. That he was in bed with the Soviets AND that the Soviets applauded his communism.

3. I am not a Republican. Review my social issues stances and my views on religion. You said that the ends NEVER justify the means, and I pointed out a very clear example of where they did. Either you are consistent with that view in regard to WWII or you are not. Which is it? Do you believe that justifying Ally means with the ends was a moral position? If not, then you are against Ally involvement in WWII. You claim you respect the rules of logic, right? Did you ever study the rule that says, "Either A or not A"?

4. You don't have to argue. Just tell me. What could have possibly stopped the Nazis other than Ally involvement? If you know some magical secret, you should share it with the world. I have no idea what else could have stopped the Nazis. Educate me.