Politics 2008:The Caucuses and The Dem/Rep Conventions

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KAPPAtivating

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news...01/Obama.Aunt/


This is a poor attempt to miseducate the masses of people. I hope that the American public realizes this and continues to move forward with making a CHANGE in our country. I am appauled at this last-ditch effort and consider it a hit below the belt.

McFool needs to realized that this does not take away from the fact that his own campaign is riddled with contraversy over his poor choice for VP.

I agree.

[KAPPAtivating]

I had to take this picture while I was stuck in traffic after a local homecoming stepshow...

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pi...5&id=517283275

[KAPital PHINUst]

I went to vote early today, waited in line 4 hours--but it was well worth the effort, especially after having to wait more than a year to do it. And it felt so good to cast my vote for someone whom I felt was the most qualified, irrespective of popular opinion, and without treating my ballot like a racing form.

And best of all, it was on a paper ballot.

[Zephyrus]

Yeah, I'd rather have paper ballots. The computer ballots seem as though they can be changed without tracking it.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

I went to vote early today, waited in line 4 hours--but it was well worth the effort, especially after having to wait more than a year to do it. And it felt so good to cast my vote for someone whom I felt was the most qualified, irrespective of popular opinion, and without treating my ballot like a racing form.

And best of all, it was on a paper ballot.

Normally I don't care who others vote for because it's their business. And normally I'm all baout thinking outside of the box and not following the crowd. However, I am curious as to why someone would vote for someone who isn't even a viable candidate. That seems to be the equivalent of not voting or of throwing your ballot in the trash. Ron Paul has barely even campaigned. I don't even recall him participating int he debates. At least I can honestly say I know what McCain wants to do as president even though he is not my candidate of choice. Why not pick the lesser of the two viable evils? And why vote for someone who thinks you still belong in the back of the bus?

[Honeykiss1974]

Originally Posted by KAPPAtivating

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news...01/Obama.Aunt/


This is a poor attempt to miseducate the masses of people. I hope that the American public realizes this and continues to move forward with making a CHANGE in our country. I am appauled at this last-ditch effort and consider it a hit below the belt.

McFool needs to realized that this does not take away from the fact that his own campaign is riddled with contraversy over his poor choice for VP.

ITA! I mean seriously...if people based our character on that of the actions of my family members, much less someone that is the half-sister of the dad whom I've only met maybe one or twice....goodness gracious, I don't think we'd have anyone in office. Heaven knows I wouldn't be able to run for student body president - some of my family is ummm "unique".

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Normally I don't care who others vote for because it's their business. And normally I'm all baout thinking outside of the box and not following the crowd. However, I am curious as to why someone would vote for someone who isn't even a viable candidate.

Because I feel the candidate in question is the best qualified. That is supposed to be the true reason of why you vote. No other criteria should matter when you vote. NONE!

That seems to be the equivalent of not voting or of throwing your ballot in the trash.

So are you saying that I'm supposed to throw my desire to have a true Consitutional-based and bound nation through our national leadership in the trash for the sake of voting for something or someone I don't believe in?

Unlike a lot of voters, I vote with my heart, not with my head. Meaning, I don't analyze any extraneous factors other than which candidate's stance on the issues are most compatible with mine.

Why not pick the lesser of the two viable evils?

Because voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. That's like asking why don't you eat the food containing 50% arsenic over the food containing 100% cyanide. Poison is poison.

And I'll be slammed if I allow my vote to further the cause of tyranny and fascism in the United States, because I will be responsible in aiding and abetting the enemies of liberty. Consequently, Constitutionally speaking, that makes me an enemy of the state by default.

And why vote for someone who thinks you still belong in the back of the bus?

Show me where Ron Paul (not some random ghostwriter) actually said this.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

Because I feel the candidate in question is the best qualified. That is supposed to be the true reason of why you vote. No other criteria should matter when you vote. NONE!

If no other criteria mattered when people voted the electoral college would not be necessary. So, if a person is best qualified and also a staunch supporter of the KKK and an extreme white supremist everyone should vote for him/her because he/she is the best qualified? And what do your qualifications matter if you can't win?

So are you saying that I'm supposed to throw my desire to have a true Consitutional-based and bound nation through our national leadership in the trash for the sake of voting for something or someone I don't believe in?

No, I don't think she is saying that but I do think that she is saying that you are throwing your desire away by voting for someone who will not be elected President. And if Ron Paul is your standard then one of the two likely to be president would have more beliefs in common with you and Ron than the other and that would be the one you in some ways believe in (and the one that will bring the nation closer to where you want to see it).

Unlike a lot of voters, I vote with my heart, not with my head. Meaning, I don't analyze any extraneous factors other than which candidate's stance on the issues are most compatible with mine.

Yet another reason we have the electoral college. Extraneous factors are some of the most important factors when it comes to voting. It is the unexpected challenges and how you deal with them that matter most in this world. I must analyze these factors because they will help me to determine how I believe a candidate will act as president to protect this nation and its interest and how that candidate will truly go about upholding the constitution. When the financial crisis hit John McCain ran around like a chicken with its head cut off trying to get something, anything done and failed. He suspended his campaign which to me showed that he does not have the ability to remain stable and in control when things go wrong. This is further proven by his desire to have a spending freeze (which is completely misaligned with my needs as a college student with federal loans). The spending freeze is like calling time-out when you're about to become "It" in a game of tag. Its total crap and wont work. Even I know that when the economy is down government spends money to bring it back up. Basic economics. So, McCain's "extraneous factors" coupled with his stance on this issue disqualify him to me. You can tell more about a man from observing his life and his life choices than you can just listening to his words. A candidate can get up and lay out a stance that is 100% aligned with your beliefs, but his body language could scream "I'm lying" and he could be married to someone who has completely opposite beliefs. Since these two things are extraneous you would ignore them. I would not.

Because voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. That's like asking why don't you eat the food containing 50% arsenic over the food containing 100% cyanide. Poison is poison.

Yes, poison is poison. Which dose of poison are you going to get? If it is guaranteed that one version of poison will be administered to you then why wouldn't you vote for the lesser of the two poisons? Why would you allow others to choose which poison you shall recieve? That is what constitutes throwing away your vote. I'll vote for 50% arsenic (if I know I have a 50% chance of survival) over 100% cyanide (which is sure death) because I'd rather control the amount of poison I get than let someone else decide my death or possible life.

And I'll be slammed if I allow my vote to further the cause of tyranny and fascism in the United States, because I will be responsible in aiding and abetting the enemies of liberty. Consequently, Constitutionally speaking, that makes me an enemy of the state by default.

Well, one of the two major candidates is neither a tyrant nor a fascist. So, there's no need to worry.

As far as throwing away a vote goes I have done it. I did it when I voted last week. There was only one candidate to select and I did not like that candidate. My dislike was enough for me to write in the candidate I preferred or not vote at all for that position. In these cases the seats are local seats and the people do not have beliefs that I disagree with, they were just horrible people.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

Because I feel the candidate in question is the best qualified. That is supposed to be the true reason of why you vote. No other criteria should matter when you vote. NONE!



So are you saying that I'm supposed to throw my desire to have a true Consitutional-based and bound nation through our national leadership in the trash for the sake of voting for something or someone I don't believe in?

Unlike a lot of voters, I vote with my heart, not with my head. Meaning, I don't analyze any extraneous factors other than which candidate's stance on the issues are most compatible with mine.



Because voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. That's like asking why don't you eat the food containing 50% arsenic over the food containing 100% cyanide. Poison is poison.

And I'll be slammed if I allow my vote to further the cause of tyranny and fascism in the United States, because I will be responsible in aiding and abetting the enemies of liberty. Consequently, Constitutionally speaking, that makes me an enemy of the state by default.



Show me where Ron Paul (not some random ghostwriter) actually said this.

I don't think that Ron Paul is a candidate who really is all that interested in the Constitution. I have noticed that he tries to hide his racism by using the Constitution as the basis for his ideas.

The man opposes federal hate crime laws because he feels they infringe on someone having "thoughts." How much sense does that make? Hate crime laws don't make it a crime to have "thoughts." Hate crime laws make it a crime to ACT on those thoughts.

He also opposed making MLK day a holiday. That was not something written by a ghostwriter.

He is against affirmative action as well. Not a good thing because too many people fail to realize that there is a reason affirmative action was needed in the first place.

He opposed the celebration of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, being the only one in Congress to do so. Again, that was not something written by a ghostwriter. It came from his own mouth, along with the words "forced integration." In this instance he once again tried to hide his racism by saying that he was against celebrating it because it forced integration and essentially did not allow people to make decisions for themselves. It could be argued that the man is terribly naive, but the fact remains that he opposed celebrating it. Why would he do so?

And please explain how Obama supports tyranny and fascism? That's a new one on me. I don't think the majority of Americans would support him if that really happened to be the case.

Finally, while you criticize voters who use their head instead of their heart, many times going by your heart will get you in trouble. It is far more wise to really use your head in making such a decision. That means you are actually thinking about the issues and what the candidates are saying.

[deepimpact2]

I.A.S.K. you made some excellent points in your above response to his post.

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I don't think that Ron Paul is a candidate who really is all that interested in the Constitution. I have noticed that he tries to hide his racism by using the Constitution as the basis for his ideas.

The man opposes federal hate crime laws because he feels they infringe on someone having "thoughts." How much sense does that make? Hate crime laws don't make it a crime to have "thoughts." Hate crime laws make it a crime to ACT on those thoughts.

I see where you are coming from on this, and on the surface I would agree with you. The problem is, that there is too much opportunity for the government to abuse this to serve their own selfish ends and incite propaganda to the public through needless fearmongering. Hate crime laws do make it crime to act on initial thoughts. The problem is, all too often, the government intervenes when it appears that someone MIGHT perpetrate a hate crime based on some random frivolous detail, thus making it a crime to think such thoughts.

It is for this reason, I am against the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, and TSA, because they promote and perpetuate this very same line of reasoning, except it's under the guise of "the boogey man" is out to get us that they conveniently label as "terrorism", be it through Bin Laden, Al Queda, or some other elusive monster the government tries to brainwash us to fear.

He also opposed making MLK day a holiday. That was not something written by a ghostwriter.

You are correct on this point, he is indeed again making MLK day a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZED holiday. Now he is not against the state or local government recogizing MLK as a holiday.

He is against affirmative action as well. Not a good thing because too many people fail to realize that there is a reason affirmative action was needed in the first place.

He opposed the celebration of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, being the only one in Congress to do so. Again, that was not something written by a ghostwriter. It came from his own mouth, along with the words "forced integration." In this instance he once again tried to hide his racism by saying that he was against celebrating it because it forced integration and essentially did not allow people to make decisions for themselves. It could be argued that the man is terribly naive, but the fact remains that he opposed celebrating it. Why would he do so?

That is also correct, because again, that put the federal government in charge of us, instead of us in charge of the federal government. Now if affirmative action was legislated on a state by state basis, he would definately be okay with that.

We put too much on the federal government to legislate what should be legislated at the state, county, and local levels, and it is for this reason that our nation is in the fouled up state of affairs that it is in. We need to stop relying on the federal government to baby us, breastfeed us, and hold our hands from cradle to grave and learn how to be self-sufficient while co-existing in a free market economy.

The Civil Rights Act may ultimately prove to be a moot point, as our civil LIBERTIES are slowly being taken away through all these government-sanctioned Executive Orders and rogue lawmaking "acts". So why argue about someone voting against federally-mandated civil rights acts when the federal government as a whole are making subsequent laws that ultimately takes your civil rights away? That makes no sense.

And please explain how Obama supports tyranny and fascism? That's a new one on me. I don't think the majority of Americans would support him if that really happened to be the case.

This issue is a thread in itself, but to say the least, he voted for the Patriot Act, one the most radical series of laws that ultimately serve to strip you of your civil rights and civil liberties, and makes you a slave to the federal government. The Hurricane Katrina fiasco served as a testament to that (and a dry run of what we can expect from the federal government in the future). Obama also voted for the war in Iraq and will most likely keep the war continuing. I have heard NOTHING about him planning to bring the troops home.

Finally, while you criticize voters who use their head instead of their heart, many times going by your heart will get you in trouble. It is far more wise to really use your head in making such a decision. That means you are actually thinking about the issues and what the candidates are saying.

Oh, I agressively weigh the candidates' stance on the issues to my personal belief system. I am just not using factors such as probability of being elected and the school of popular opinion, and how well they can wow and audience, and all that other superficial nonsense.

Good post.

[deepimpact2]

I agree with you that we have to be careful when it comes to the federal government on certain issues. However, my concern is that if you leave some of these issues to states, that would result in chaos. For instance, some of the more racist states would choose to avoid enacting legislation that would make things more equal. Do you get what I mean?

But I agree with you on the Patriot Act and other similar issues.

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

So, if a person is best qualified and also a staunch supporter of the KKK and an extreme white supremist everyone should vote for him/her because he/she is the best qualified?

I said whom I feel is the most qualified. If I feel that being a white supremacist would disqualify him/her in my eyes, so be it. You vote should be based on YOUR OWN criteria of qualifications, no one else's. If we stopped letting the herd mentality dictate our election choices, then we are more than likely to get a better selection of candidates in the future.

And what do your qualifications matter if you can't win?

According to whom? If a POTUS candidate meets the basic criteria outlined in the U.S. Constitution, they have as much a chance of winning as anyone else. Again, we need to stop allowing outside peer pressure and the media to have so much credence in influencing our votes.

No, I don't think she is saying that but I do think that she is saying that you are throwing your desire away by voting for someone who will not be elected President. And if Ron Paul is your standard then one of the two likely to be president would have more beliefs in common with you and Ron than the other and that would be the one you in some ways believe in (and the one that will bring the nation closer to where you want to see it).

Quite the opposite; I would throw my desire away by settling for a standard far inferior to what I would like. By voting for the lesser of two evils, you voluntarily forfeit your true desire and settle for mediocrity by lowering your standards and accepting whatever agenda they push your way, which most likely will not be what you are truly looking for in a leader.

I place my vote on a BALLOT, not on a lottery ticket, a racing form, or any other gambling form.

A candidate can get up and lay out a stance that is 100% aligned with your beliefs, but his body language could scream "I'm lying" and he could be married to someone who has completely opposite beliefs. Since these two things are extraneous you would ignore them. I would not.

The beauty of Ron Paul is that he voted consistently with his belief system for over 30 years. His personal lifestyle also consistently aligns with his belief system, which aligns with his method of voting. One thing Ron Paul has never been accused of, and that is being a flip-flopper on the issues.

Yes, poison is poison. Which dose of poison are you going to get? If it is guaranteed that one version of poison will be administered to you then why wouldn't you vote for the lesser of the two poisons? Why would you allow others to choose which poison you shall recieve? That is what constitutes throwing away your vote. I'll vote for 50% arsenic (if I know I have a 50% chance of survival) over 100% cyanide (which is sure death) because I'd rather control the amount of poison I get than let someone else decide my death or possible life.

Poison is only guaranteed to be administered if you allow it to be. Again, it comes back to the herd mentality and peer pressure. If you settle for less, you will get less. If you vote based on outside influence and place glitter and fluff over substance, that is what you will get. I would much rather be force-fed poison than take it voluntarily, because it clearly indicates I will not accept poison in any form, nor will I find it an acceptable substitute for 100% food.

By the same token, I will not allow the federal government to dictate how I should live my life nor will they dictate my belief system. If the herd mentality allows it, that doesn't make me dumb to disallow it, nor does that make my expression of such disallowance through voting a wasted effort.

Well, one of the two major candidates is neither a tyrant nor a fascist. So, there's no need to worry.

With all due respect, I thing you're out of touch with the reality of the seriousness and severity of our political and economic state of affairs. Again, not trying to slight you in any manner, just being honest.

As far as throwing away a vote goes I have done it. I did it when I voted last week. There was only one candidate to select and I did not like that candidate. My dislike was enough for me to write in the candidate I preferred or not vote at all for that position. In these cases the seats are local seats and the people do not have beliefs that I disagree with, they were just horrible people.

You did not throw away a vote. You only throw away a vote when you settle for less than what you desire solely for the sake of conformity. So you did a great thing. Do not kick yourself for what you did.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

I see where you are coming from on this, and on the surface I would agree with you.

You are correct on this point, he is indeed again making MLK day a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZED holiday. Now he is not against the state or local government recogizing MLK as a holiday.

Why shouldn't it be a federal holdiay? He changed the Nation not just his state.

That is also correct, because again, that put the federal government in charge of us, instead of us in charge of the federal government. Now if affirmative action was legislated on a state by state basis, he would definately be okay with that.

If you put all of the above statements together what you get is "States Rights". Which we all know is another term for racism.



This issue is a thread in itself, but to say the least, he voted for the Patriot Act, one the most radical series of laws that ultimately serve to strip you of your civil rights and civil liberties, and makes you a slave to the federal government.
I agree that The Patriot Act was horrible, but the reason he voted for the patriot act was because he was lead to believe that the government needed this power to protect its citizens. In this case the P.A. had a specific purpose (to keep Americans safe) and if it was misused then congress could act accordingly.
The Hurricane Katrina fiasco served as a testament to that (and a dry run of what we can expect from the federal government in the future).
How was the government's lack of response to Katrina Obama's fault?
Obama also voted for the war in Iraq and will most likely keep the war continuing. I have heard NOTHING.
That's (what is in maroon above) all you needed to say. You clearly have not considered Obama's stance on the issues if you missed him railing on Clinton for voting for the war when Obama voted against it. Clearly you missed the debates where Obama hit McCain on this fact as well. Clearly you missed most of Obama's plan for Iraq. It calls for a total withdrawl of troops in 16 months. Infact, here it is: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/index.php


Oh, I agressively weigh the candidates' stance on the issues to my personal belief system.
No way!
I am just not using factors such as probability of being elected and the school of popular opinion, and how well they can wow and audience, and all that other superficial nonsense.
No one is considering these things. If you check my post above you'll see what I mean.

Good post. Agreed.

Wow.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

[/color][/b]

I said whom I feel is the most qualified.
I do vote on what I believe. In your post you said that you did not consider extraneous factors. Being a KKK supporter/white supremist would be an extraneous factor. It has nothing to do with the position. You wouldn't list it on your resume. If it was a disqualifier then a great many presidents would not have made it into the oval office.



According to whom? If a POTUS candidate meets the basic criteria outlined in the U.S. Constitution, they have as much a chance of winning as anyone else. Again, we need to stop allowing outside peer pressure and the media to have so much credence in influencing our votes.

No, they do not. Ron Paul has as much of a chance as Bill Clinton in '08. There are plenty of people who meet the basic criteria to be President but, have no chance. Hell, by the basic criteria (which are that a person be 35 or older, natural born citizen or citizen born overseas to two american citizen parents, and have lived in the US for 14 years) over HALF the US total Population has as much a chance at winning. Joe the Plumber could be president, but he truly does not have a snowball's chance in hell. Who is pressuring you? Can you please ask them to stop so that the rest of us do not have to hear about this outside pressure you are suffering from? I am not suffering from outside pressure. I TRULY know where the candidates stand on the issues most important to me and have made my decision accordingly. I just happen to agree with a huge heard of others.

[color=#ff8c00][color=darkorange]

Quite the opposite; I would throw my desire away by settling for a standard far inferior to what I would like. By voting for the lesser of two evils, you voluntarily forfeit your true desire and settle for mediocrity by lowering your standards and accepting whatever agenda they push your way, which most likely will not be what you are truly looking for in a leader.
By voting for the lesser of two evils you acknowledge that your true desire is no longer an option (ie:Ron Paul will NOT be president) and as such you will adapt your desires to align with what is possible. No candidate will be perfect and no candidate will always do what you want. If you accpet the agenda they push on you that is your choice. You do not have to. President _____ can push what he wants. IF it is something I do not like I can object to it and make my dislike known.

I place my vote on a BALLOT, not on a lottery ticket, a racing form, or any other gambling form.

You might as well be gambling. You'd have a better chance at getting your candidate in office that way.

The beauty of Ron Paul is that he voted consistently with his belief system for over 30 years. His personal lifestyle also consistently aligns with his belief system, which aligns with his method of voting. One thing Ron Paul has never been accused of, and that is being a flip-flopper on the issues.
That belief system also happens to be a racist one.



Poison is only guaranteed to be administered if you allow it to be.
Whether you want it or not either Obama or McCain will be our next president. The poison WILL be administered. The only way to avoid it is to denounce your citizenship and move to another country and never come back.
By the same token, I will not allow the federal government to dictate how I should live my life nor will they dictate my belief system. If the herd mentality allows it, that doesn't make me dumb to disallow it, nor does that make my expression of such disallowance through voting a wasted effort.
The Federal Government already does and will continue to dictate how you do live your life and how you should live your life. Is it a heard mentality if a large group of people believe in one thing and stand firm to that belief? I believe that my candidate is whats best for this nation and so do the others that are voting for him. If that makes us a heard then fine. Just recognize that you suffer from the same heard mentality. You and all of the other Ron Paul heard members. The only difference is that your heard is much smaller and much less effective than mine. And that your shepard wont be president and mine will.
[color=darkorange][b]

With all due respect, I thing you're out of touch with the reality of the seriousness and severity of our political and economic state of affairs. Again, not trying to slight you in any manner, just being honest.

Honestly, You're the one who is out of touch. Trust I am in touch and I'm loving the way it feels.

You did not throw away a vote. You only throw away a vote when you settle for less than what you desire solely for the sake of conformity. So you did a great thing. Do not kick yourself for what you did.

In the same vein you throw away a vote when you settle for loss for the sake of "non-conformity". I did not kick myself for what I did. I desired to kick other voters for not doing what was best for our community. I did throw away a vote. I cannot go to that person's office and demand accountability on the strength of my vote because I did not give that person my vote. Since that person will be in office I will have to demand accountability on the basis that the ofiice he/she holds allows for me to do so. One does have a greater power than the other. Slightly greater, but greater none the less.