I've been following the primaries for the Republican and Democratic nomination for the President of the United States and I have to say it's very discouraging.

I'll start by saying outright that's I am neither Republican or democratic, but my candidate for the Republican nomination is Ron Paul. All of the remaining democratic hopefuls are nothing but bad, besides Mike Gravel. I've never been political aware until this election, but it has become apparent to me that the biggest problem with most Americans is sheer ignorance of any of the candidates and the issues that matter.

The media's censorship of the truth has even become evident to me, now that I am aware of all the issues. USA messes the world up, one nation at a time and that is something I am NOT proud of. If we continue electing the same people over and over again, we will continue to mess the world up.

And when a candidate preaches they will "change" things, it is nothing but a strategy to get the votes of the people. They will change nothing, and I hear it so much that it's sickening to me. If anyone were to research their candidates, they could easily tell that there would be NO change at all. Yes, I'm talking about Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. These are the contenders from across the fence that say they will bring change. The sad truth is that they won't, no matter what they say.

Personal liberties are being stripped from us, and they condidtion us to accept this, and adhere freedom of liberties to chaos. We have a man who wants to fight for the liberties of everyone, who wants to end our needless wars, kill the obnoxious income tax we have to pay, and reduce the size of the Federal Government to it's constitutional levels. This scares the media and the establishment, because they make SO much money off of the government and their regulations that do nothing but help huge corporations while hurting the citizens of this country as well as others around the world.




This is my rant, and I can't stress how important it is to do independant research in to the candidates. Don't watch a TV ad and decide your vote. Don't read an article in the paper and decide. Don't even watch a debate and decide, because the media even censors those!!

Anyways, I was hoping to stimulate an intelligent discussion with the members of this community. It only seems plausible since the economy is crashing, and the cause of this IS the government.


-Peace and Love

This post has been edited by baphometslayer: Jan 26 2008, 03:51 PM

Not to say that you're wrong, but why do you think that nothing will change? Personally, I tend to support Obama. I've listened to some of his speeches, read some of them, and I think he's quite intelligent and capable. The whole idea of change... I suppose it really depends on what it is that you want changed.

You have in no way elaborated on this and why. I'd like to see an elaboration/reasoning for this statement otherwise the rest of your post just seems too descant to be on the board.

Also the following below has been proven time and time again. (even though it may be up to interpretation)



Heh, who does this remind me of? *smug look @ Bush*

Ok now to my real point.

Although you seem to have a valid logical point, I'd have to side with Thingcubed here, when I say that change is possible, even though it may not seem that way. We have to hope for the best that the person elected actually get's something done and not someone who just wastes good time only benefiting their own wallet. I don't know about you all but electing a man who was CEO of a bankrupt company to run a country seems like pure idiocy to me. I'll side with someone who has excellent grades, great leadership quality, and isn't afraid to face off to the tyrants "Old Boys Club" that is Congress.

America isn't necessarily considered their home to them as much is it's considered great business market. I believe that if the economy continues at the rate that it's going we'll have no choice but to go to recession which means that this next president will be crucial to U.S. economic survival.

P.S. I want to hear Obama's plan about the deficit with China...

Thanks for the post, this was the type of discussion I was looking for. As far as the democrats go, the reason I think that we're really left with nothing is because they intend to continue our empire building. No one will address the issue. Everyone moans and whines about the economy, and the HUGE deficit that we've been building up. And the democrats come in and plan to bring more socialism to us. The only way to pay for this is to raise taxes, because as it is currently, all income tax collection go straight to paying of interest to our debt. It'd be fine if they had a plan on how to pay for their plans, but they don't.

I'll just make a list to boot.

Obama voted for the Patriot Act.
Obama does not oppose invading Iran. YAY, more wars. There's nothing like spreading democracy with a gun.
Obama voted to continue funding the Iraq war.
Obama doesn't oppose spending our tax dollars building foreign nations.

As you can tell, I have a different view of the war than most. People who believe that the terrorist attack us because we are free and prosperous are just simply uninformed, it's plain and simple as that. To get a better understanding of why they hate us, research the term "Blowback" as noted by the CIA, and our involvement in over-throwing and elected official in Iran during the 1950s.

I'm also a huge libertarian, and I very seriously doubt that the democrats will work to protect our liberties, specially not when they pass such acts as the Patriot Act, and intend to attempt to take my guns away from me. Criminals will still be able to get guns, so law abiding citizens can be left defenseless. No thanks.

Hillary Clinton is just.....Hillary Clinton. She won't be anything but a lap dog for the corporatism that is raping our country and its people.

I honestly don't know why anyone falls for "I am for change" trump speeches. Obama doesn't even write his own speeches, and to boot, he talks about change so much that it isn't likely he'll do anything. If he did get in to office, and turned around and pulled a Kennedy on us, then he would be a true hero in my eyes. But I don't see that happening from someone who collects so much funds for his campaigns from Corporate lobbying groups. It just isn't feasible.

It really just depends on what side of the fence you're sitting on. I'm neither Republican or Democratic, although I will be voting Republican in my State's primary, it won't be for anyone that even comes close to how corrupt and slimy Bush is. My candidate actually WOULD bring change, and his supporters realize that much without him putting the word in his speeches 20-30 times.

The size of our government is very much the problem in my opinion. It needs to be brought down to it's constitutional levels, and the Republic needs to be saved.

Well, I don't want to turn this into a "You're wrong, Obama's the best" post, but the facts you've stated there as to his voting record tend to be a little misleading.

Well... Obama wasn't even a member of the senate in 2001, so it's impossible for him to have voted on the original. As to re-authorizing it he did technically vote "for" it, but only after compromises were made, and even then he was not satisfied with it and said so at the time.


It is a bit misleading saying it that way. I think his worlds involve something along the lines of "leaving force on the table, combined with aggressive diplomacy." I don't think anyone who is elected President can say that "for no reason whatsoever will I ever invade Iran." Of course, I could be wrong.

Entirely true. Of course, from my point of view that was correct of him to do so. I wholeheartedly agree with him, that despite opposition to the war itself, we have a responsibility to make sure that the troops who are currently in Iraq receive all of the support they need.


Well, I'm not certain, but I assume you're referring to Iraq here. Granted, I don't think we should've gone in in the first place, but if we just pulled everything (troops, resources, money, etc...) out right now, wouldn't that be an even greater evil? Going in and destroying their working infrastructure (even if it was corrupt) and then leaving without rebuilding it would be a poor move in my opinion.

As for how they plan to pay for everything... well, I'll agree there, I'm not entirely certain if it's feasible. I think the Republicans are just as bad in this case though, I've read some of the promises Republican candidates have made and from an economic standpoint they just seem poorly thought out, designed entirely just to get them votes, not actually improve and stabilize the economy.


On the subject of Ron Paul, I think he has some interesting ideas but I find it hard to agree with him, and I can't see him as being an effective President for us. One thing I can't quite grasp is his belief that we should withdraw from the UN. What's your view on this?

I suppose this is just a matter of how you look at it. We do have the obligation of keeping our troops safe, but at the same time in my eyes we are engaged in a pointless war that we were bamboozled in to. The way I see it, if members of the senate were so opposed to the war, they should have been working to filibuster legislation that would hold Bush liable for criminal charges were he not to draft withdrawal plans. But the Senate would rather go on their vacations than trying to spend endless months doing that, and that's quite sad really.




This is definitely a sticky political mess that Bush has gotten us in to with Iran, but all he has done is used to fear to make people believe that Iran is a threat. Who are me to tell a third world country that they can't pursue Nuclear power? The way Obama and most of the other Democrats put it, it just sounds like they're trying appeal to anti-war voters, but they still have the intention of invading Iran. I would have much rather have heard that they were going to attempt to work things out in a diplomatic way, rather than a war mongering on.....with nuclear weapons no less.



I apologize, I should have clarified it was the Patriot Act 2. The Patriot Act is a blatant violation of our rights as American citizens. They use the premise of "National Security" as their reason for having it, but in truth we are more vulnerable than ever due to our Empire across the world which has stretched our forces and economy thin........sounds a bit like what happened to Rome before it fell eh? They didn't need have compromises in the Patriot Act, it needed to be completely done away with. If you've actually read the Patriot Act along with some of the newer revisions, it really is quite scary. Anyone that disagrees with the Government could be labeled a terrorist. That document is just a domestic form of control.



As it is now, we are in the process of re-arming the sunnis, Saddam's old henchmen. If we were doing things correctly over there, I would be all about staying and helping them rebuild. But as it is, the war is doing nothing but damage us. The industrial military complex has gain a grapple on Washington as well as the media(GE owns MSNBC, GE makes bombs for the war). Is rebuilding Iraq more important than keeping ourselves above poverty? It really is a very messy situation, and it takes a vast amount of information to fully understand what's going on and why. I've done a ton of researching, but even I'm still relatively in the dark. And this isn't just about Iraq. This goes for anywhere else. We don't need to be spreading democracy through the barrel of a gun, that is just Un-American and does nothing but tarnish how people see us across the globe.




Most Republicans have lost the ways of true fiscal conservatism. And yes, most of the Republican economic plans are just that, made to get votes. Ron Paul is probably the most seasoned in economics however, and he IS a true Republican. It's amazing that he is a fringe candidate when he's the most conservative on the stage. But then again, the media and lobbyist have a lot to lose should he get in office.



It's quite simple really. Being a part of the UN does nothing but undermine our National sovereignty. If we were a non-interventionist nation like our forefather wanted, we wouldn't even need to be a member of the UN.
But as it is, with all of our constant war mongering, we are a part of it. If Ron Paul were to be President, he'd strengthen our National Security by ending the reach of our imperialistic ways and bring all troops across seas in the 130 countries we occupy as of present home.

On Ron Paul. He would bring the government back down to it's legal level. The Federal Government has done nothing but grown out of control. We were supposed to be a Union of States, with the States governing over their own people. Now the Federal Government passes National laws, sometimes overriding State laws. All of the mainstream candidates will keep it this way, because they are funded by lobbyist, who benefit off the Federal Government having so much power over regulation and law making. The country needs to be given back to it's people and taken out of the hands of corrupt, and power hungry people.



PS - Thanks for the civil discussion, sincerely. I don't get many chances to have one such as this. I am usually very quickly attacked and ridiculed for no reason.

This post has been edited by baphometslayer: Jan 30 2008, 11:51 AM

One of the last people to actually write his own speeches (mostly) and respond to questions that weren't pre-planned was Kennedy. Most candidates don't speak their mind, everything they say wasn't written/thought of by themselves, they just tell the people what they want to hear (top candidates included for sure).