Quake3World

duffman91 wrote:Ron Paul. If he's not listed in the Nevada ballot, then voting for Not-Obama.

So if Ron Paul isn't on the ballot you'd vote for:

1) a blatant liar who takes the stereotypical "lying politician" to well beyond the ridiculous (someone - frankly - that NO LIVING PERSON ON THIS PLANET would or should trust in any way, shape or form)

or

2) a religious nut who hates sex and firmly believes that there shouldn't be anyone having sex unless it's to make a baby

Are you serious? You would vote for either of these two flippant morons if you didn't have Ron Paul on the ballot? Seriously? Have you not heard the insane things those two have been saying the last several months, with thousands of cameras recording each and every insane word? Craziness that you can view anytime on YouTube or thousands upon thousands of websites that quote and discuss the insane things they've been saying?

Wow....just...wow.

its probably not a logic thing...

jus simple keep-away ey

It's one thing to hate Obama and want to vote against him. It's another to vote in a completely unqualified wretch simply because there's nobody else on "your team" to vote for, particularly when a vote for the completely unqualified wretch affects the whole country. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

But hey, Conservatives have never used their brains when voting and only care about "their team", so there is no real surprise here.

Hey duffman...instead of voting for an obvious idiot, can't you just tear your ballot in half or stay home? At least that way you can look yourself in a mirror.

I feel you might be holding back here GFY. You sure you don't want to let us know how you really feel?

One can only hope Durrman91 is trolling

GONNAFISTYA wrote:Are you serious? You would vote for either of these two flippant morons if you didn't have Ron Paul on the ballot? Seriously? Have you not heard the insane things those two have been saying the last several months...

as opposed to not having heard the insane things RP has been saying for his entire career?

GONNAFISTYA wrote:
Hey duffman...instead of voting for an obvious idiot, can't you just tear your ballot in half or stay home? At least that way you can look yourself in a mirror.

I'll start off by saying that American politics are a joke and this "two party" system is pathetic.

Ron Paul caught my eye a few years ago, and I found his views on economics and small government very attractive. The topics that currently matter to me (smaller government, the economy, alternative energy, and healthcare) were all eloquently addressed in his book "The Revolution." Currently, other candidates do not appeal to me.

I, a registered Democrat, do not agree with the current direction and focus of the Democratic Party. I feel that opportunities for positive change were wasted: mortgage crisis, auto industry, healthcare reform, the budget, and alternative energy. I'll focus on on the latter; Moderation and alternative fuels are a necessity. The Democratic Party and nuclear energy have never seen eye to eye. Obama's big promises of alternative energy ultimately led to a stand still with the Yucca Mountain project (Nuclear waste facility). This project is necessary in order to meet current waste storage demands in the Nuclear Power Plants that we currently have. It would also allow for many more facilities to be raised. Harry Reid, with Obama, have essentially stopped the already fragile nuclear growth in the US for the last four years. I disagree with this and feel strongly that this needs to be changed. Traditionally, Republicans are pro Nuclear Energy and will receive my vote this next election. I remind you that that the ballot is a reflection of this two party system.

I cannot stand for another 4 years of Nuclear Power stand-still and refuse to vote Democrat until after the next round of mid-term elections and/or the 2016 election.

But hey, clearly I'm a moron that hasn't thought about this before. Not like I've considered what I'm willing to sacrifice or anything.

Instead of being a jackass on a bulletin board, you could instead reply with your views and stay civil.

Go fuck yourself.

If you'd vote for Santorum in hopes that nuclear power will proliferate in this country, yes, you are a moron. Go fuck yourself.

Of the two, it seems obvious that Romney is the better pick, but let's be honest: the republican party has the evangelicals so far up its ass that it's not even recognizable from what it used to be. I haven't been blown away by Obama, but there's no chance I will vote for a republican as long as their candidates are running on statements like (paraphrasing) "homosexual sex is equivalent to bestiality," or "we need to take this nation back for Jesus."

Either party will take on a strategy to attempt to help the economy, and either party will have varying degrees of success. I am willing to concede that a republican economic strategy might be considerably better than the democratic alternative; that's something they historically have had as a strength. But for the most part, something will be done and the economy will improve at some rate.

However, there's no contest as to which party will bring with it the most damaging social effect. It just seems unconscionable to vote for someone like either Romney or Santorum with that in mind.

Mogul wrote:Either party will take on a strategy to attempt to help the economy, and either party will have varying degrees of success. I am willing to concede that a republican economic strategy might be considerably better than the democratic alternative; that's something they historically have had as a strength.

when was the last time a republican administration helped the economy? Reagan did, but only briefly and with a huge explosion of national debt as the tradeoff.

menkent wrote:

Mogul wrote:Either party will take on a strategy to attempt to help the economy, and either party will have varying degrees of success. I am willing to concede that a republican economic strategy might be considerably better than the democratic alternative; that's something they historically have had as a strength.

when was the last time a republican administration helped the economy? Reagan did, but only briefly and with a huge explosion of national debt as the tradeoff.

My thoughts exactly. There is this myth that any "conservative" or right-wing party will "help business" but that has never been the case historically.

It just goes to prove (along with this election) that conservatives are masters at controlling the perceptions of small-minded people, making them believe things that are demonstrably false.

And yeah, duffman....sorry dude, but if you're a "single-issue voter" then you're a moron and should go fuck yourself. Democracy deserves better than a narrow-minded approach to single policy when the voter should be weighing a party's stance on several policies.

And....like....wtf...you think Santorum, Gingrich or Romney will champion nuclear power when their entire party has its head up the ass of big oil?

menkent wrote:

GONNAFISTYA wrote:Are you serious? You would vote for either of these two flippant morons if you didn't have Ron Paul on the ballot? Seriously? Have you not heard the insane things those two have been saying the last several months...

as opposed to not having heard the insane things RP has been saying for his entire career?

No argument there. I'm firmly of the belief that Ron Paul is just as nuts as any candidate in history. People like him because they refuse to acknowledge - let alone listen to - the well-documented fact that he's a nutter.

Basically anyone who thinks that government should be run like a business will approach policy from a totally fucked up perspective.

Actually republican administrations are almost always the greater benefactors of technology initiatives, and new technology is a serious economic success driver.

That said, I am about as liberal as you can be while being able to claim myself as "sensible" with a straight face.

This election to me is about mainly about two things -- the economy and social issues. I just don't think there's going to be a huge difference between the parties, economically, but I think there's a huge negative effect waiting to happen socially with someone like Santorum in office. That goes a long way in settling my vote. Obama4lief niggaz.

may aswell get this smug cunt to decide



we can have a tv show, americas next prez, least we get to see a bunch of retards vomit words onto themselves before watching america fold itself into the 5th dimension because of shame

but simon cowell is like satan incarnate. he's not remotely qualified to be president of the u-

oh, wait...

Mogul wrote:Actually republican administrations are almost always the greater benefactors of technology initiatives, and new technology is a serious economic success driver.

again, no!
Manhattan Project: FDR
Apollo missions: JFK/LBJ
90's tech boom: Clinton (and Gore invented the interblags! ) - his personal role is likely debatable
wtf did Nixon do for new tech? Reagan? W? throwing massive kickbacks to big oil and military-industrial contractors is a far cry from supporting new tech. you could *maybe* argue that wholesale deregulation of industry gives r&d some sort of notional "freedom" ...except that the GOP is allergic to science, defunds education and research, bans whatever disagrees with Moses, and runs massive smear campaigns against scientists whose research jeopardizes the profit margins of their donors/plutocrat-overlords.

Under W, the budget for the NIH (National Institute of Health) roughly tripled. The National Science Foundation's budget was increased by over 40%. Funding for NASA went up by 20%.

During Clinton's years, NASA's budget dropped about 20%.

W's environmental record and his opposition to stem cell research is of course based on his (and his constituents') religious views, but at the end of the day in Washington, talk goes only so far, and where the money is spent is where values really lie. And in these cases, money talks.

But again, I stress that the economic differences between the two parties aren't even that great. I don't think so anyway. It's the social issues that separate them most. And the democrats have the clear high ground on those issues, hence, I'm voting Obama.

Mogul wrote:Under W, the budget for the NIH (National Institute of Health) roughly tripled.

What? Link?

Budget growth for the NIH started doubling under Clinton's admin, and continued until the middle of Bush's, when it was cut in 2003. It stayed flat then, and wasn't until 2008 that the NIH saw budget increases again.

I'm going to have to agree with menkent and others that despite the rhetoric, Republicans have no real history of improving the economy.

and shifting funding from universities to federal grants then politicizing science/research at the federal level isn't pro-science.

losCHUNK wrote:may aswell get this smug cunt to decide



we can have a tv show, americas next prez, least we get to see a bunch of retards vomit words onto themselves before watching america fold itself into the 5th dimension because of shame

Completely agree.
Because unfortunately we live in a time where the lethargic electorate decides their vote on what monkey tickles their emo bone most.
Of course, that has always been the case, but now it's different;

I'm afraid that now, with all these unprecedented means of being able to gather almost unlimited amounts of political info via various media, especially internet, people just counter-productively phase out. Cover eyes and ears, and don't care anymore.

Science has overtaken evolution...we really just want to see the monkey that jumps highest.

That's a terrific last line there, Plan B.

I'd be flattered, if it wouldn't be exemplary of how humanity seems to be somehow hellbound on fucking itself out of existence.

losCHUNK wrote:may aswell get this smug cunt to decide



we can have a tv show, americas next prez, least we get to see a bunch of retards vomit words onto themselves before watching america fold itself into the 5th dimension because of shame

You know...I could actually picture that working under the right conditions. Would be a good way to keep money out of campaigns while still giving them huge popularity.

So you think you can president.

What a delightful time we live in.

scared? wrote:so in the future if a total nutter has a chance i will prolly vote for him...

Is this guy good nuff for you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE