 Originally Posted by guerilla
oh and to oneironaught
howcome you called me racist lol
I didn't really explain where I was coming from there. OK, I know how it sounded but, what I mean is that the premise of race at all in this discussion illustrates an underlying force that spawns from the bowels of liberalism. That force is the ultimate outcome of stroking egos and doing things for the wrong reasons. In each case, motives and ultimate decisions are based on irrelevant or misguided intentions. Selfishness and personal agendas come into play as well.
That demonic life force of a nation gone mentally insane is called political correctness. This includes such things as making exceptions and special concessions for those under some perceived injustice that doesn't actually exist. More specifically, in this case, I've heard too many people use the premise that a change in race or gender is what's needed. As if that's going to magically make the world love us and every evening sky be adorned with rainbows and disco balls.
My opinion is that we need to fix the system (Obama's "change" is not the right kind of change. It's another step closer to losing our national sovereignty and still more of our personal freedoms, such as the right to decide how our own money is spent).
The candidates are a product of society, as those special individuals (for better or worse) who are willing and able to step up to the plate and face a life of politics will do so. When the country is ready for a change it will happen. But it has to happen for the right reasons. That reason has to be that it's the right person, not simply that it's a new kind of hormone on the throne.
So I wasn't actually calling you a racist. I'll admit that even I wondered if I should have explained better what I meant. But I was only pointing out a weakness in the popular thought trap. I did realise that you were just making an observation - which I don't completely disagree with by the way. I just wanted to get us away from using the wrong reasons to do what each perceives to be the right thing. Sorry for the confusion though.
the reason i said we need a non white pres, is because its really sad how white men have dominated international politics for WAY too long, i dont see that as being a racist comment?, maybe to my own race its racist, but im white and im ashamed of my race what it has done in the past, and still continues to do,
Perhaps a bit off focus from the quality that most matters: that the candidate is the best person for the job; the best leader for a country in need.
well im moreso dissapointed in the HUMAN race, as a whole
We really are a sad species, aren't we?
i think you may have mis-read a few things i said, or i mis-typed something
I hope I've clarified my statement.
 Originally Posted by ranma187
"GH" what is your beef with ron paul? This is the first time I've seen americans believe in something good for the longest time. because of RP people are questioning this paradigm that we live under, this results in more critical thinking in the individual.
 Originally Posted by guerilla
also oneironaught, why say screw ron paul? he stands up for EVERYTHING you just said, hes is against the establishment, he is OUR SAVIOR,
please don't discredit him, he gets enough of that from all those pessimistic fools who say he has NO CHANCE
if i had a fucking dollar for every time someone said that, id be a millionaire
he DID have a chance, but the american people were too immature to step up to the plate and DO SOMETHING, americans are mostly apathetic and do not even vote, and when they do vote, they vote for morons
anyway, thats my defense of dr. paul 
Hehe. If I remember right, my beef with Ron Paul had to do with his wanting to bail on the war effort (I hope I recall that right). It's funny how when the war "is going well" you don't hear squat about it in the news media. Now, for example, there's a lot of success stories and great things happening but the media turns a blind eye to it all. That is, of course, until there's some sort of scandal or political gain to be had on the Liberal side. After all, the media is predominantly left-leaning.
My point is that the war is "going well". And it does so when there's not a bunch of interference by our own citizens trying to sabotage the military's efforts. It's disheartening to see just how little the average person understands about their own freedoms and how those freedoms are secured. Freedom is very fragile and must be guarded with enormous force. Don't ever take for granted the things you have in life. If you let your guard down you may lose them. We've become careless.
NOW, if that's incorrect, forgive me. It's been awhile since I listened to Ron Paul speak. But I know that some things he said blew the deal for me. So I understand that he stands up for a lot of what I believe. But I remember he had some differing stances on a few critical issues. I only wish I could recall exactly what they were. I've got to brush up on my Ron Paul lore to really speak any more about it.
 Originally Posted by psychology student
Why because it helps the poor people?
Ah, the biggest misconception fueled by the Liberal movement: "It's for the good of the little people." Never have more-false words been uttered. Gotta love politics; They ensure that no one will ever be happy until the day they die 
I hate politics.
|
|
Bookmarks