On July 24 2008 01:31 HnR)hT wrote: McCain's supercilious, moralistic liberalism on immigration and national question issues make him completely unacceptable. Similarly, Obama is automatically disqualified from consideration by his 20+ year association with his racist afrocentrist pastor. This leaves potentially Bob Barr, though his recent shift of positions to be more in line with the left-libertarian platform of the Libertarian Party (e.g. now he's for legalizing marijuana) leaves one underwhelmed... Where's none of the above?
So you would prefer that Bob Barr be more of an authoritarian?
On July 24 2008 01:21 Excalibur_Z wrote: I really don't want McCain to win, but I really really don't want Obama to win. The average conservative is really screwed in this election =( I'll probably end up voting for Bob Barr or some random name.
I'm angry at Romney for putting us in this position. And I'm even angrier at Mike Huckabee for putting Romney in his position. But I don't think I can ever be angry at Stephen.
On July 24 2008 01:21 Excalibur_Z wrote: I really don't want McCain to win, but I really really don't want Obama to win. The average conservative is really screwed in this election =( I'll probably end up voting for Bob Barr or some random name.
I'm angry at Romney for putting us in this position. And I'm even angrier at Mike Huckabee for putting Romney in his position. But I don't think I can ever be angry at Stephen.
so stupid, mccain would take any opportunity to take credit for the drop in the price of oil. even the whitehouse didn't go as far as to say changing the policy had this strong of a psychological effect
so stupid, mccain would take any opportunity to take credit for the drop in the price of oil. even the whitehouse didn't go as far as to say changing the policy had this strong of a psychological effect
so absurd
This is the same guy who blamed Barack Obama for the current high price of oil. I can't say that I'm surprised.
On July 24 2008 01:21 Excalibur_Z wrote: I really don't want McCain to win, but I really really don't want Obama to win. The average conservative is really screwed in this election =( I'll probably end up voting for Bob Barr or some random name.
I'm angry at Romney for putting us in this position. And I'm even angrier at Mike Huckabee for putting Romney in his position. But I don't think I can ever be angry at Stephen.
What?
romney not being strong enough to win, huckabee for splitting the vote, not sure who stephen is? colbert bump?
On July 24 2008 01:21 Excalibur_Z wrote: I really don't want McCain to win, but I really really don't want Obama to win. The average conservative is really screwed in this election =( I'll probably end up voting for Bob Barr or some random name.
I'm angry at Romney for putting us in this position. And I'm even angrier at Mike Huckabee for putting Romney in his position. But I don't think I can ever be angry at Stephen.
What?
romney not being strong enough to win, huckabee for splitting the vote, not sure who stephen is? colbert bump?
Okay, but Romney was not the "true conservative" that so many Republicans apparently want now, and neither was Huckabee.
Romney was resented by many proles for his too-obvious genetic superiority, and the disadvantage was compounded by the tendency of the electorate to favor familiar personalities all else being equal (and when you don't know anything, all else is equal by default). Too many voters behave as if they're electing an imaginary friend. Of course, MSM and conservative punditry did little to help.
On July 24 2008 04:18 HnR)hT wrote: Romney was resented by many proles for his too-obvious genetic superiority, and the disadvantage was compounded by the tendency of the electorate to favor familiar personalities all else being equal (and when you don't know anything, all else is equal by default). Too many voters behave as if they're electing an imaginary friend. Of course, MSM and conservative punditry did little to help.
On July 24 2008 04:18 HnR)hT wrote: Romney was resented by many proles for his too-obvious genetic superiority, and the disadvantage was compounded by the tendency of the electorate to favor familiar personalities all else being equal (and when you don't know anything, all else is equal by default). Too many voters behave as if they're electing an imaginary friend. Of course, MSM and conservative punditry did little to help.
On July 24 2008 01:06 GeneralStan wrote: LaRouche is fucking loony. He makes the average 9/11 conspiracist look like a well-grounded rational person.
His conspiracy theory is completely nonsensical and overarching, and all of his politics is through this odd perspective of what if a British Jew cabal really did run the world.
Just to nip it in the bud. Lets not talk about LaRouche 0_0
LaRouche is not "just the author of the conspiracy theory" or whatever you said. He is a leading world-famous economist, the author of the concept of Physical Economy. At present he is the only politician who stands for fundamental ideas of the US Constitution and the Declaration of Principles. He continues the economical and political tradition of Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. He continues the scientific tradition of Kepler, Gauss, Leibnitz and Riemann. He is a very moral and decent person.
It is incorrect to reduce him to his position against the unfair and immoral international politics of oligarchical capital. And it's very incorrect to give such description of this moral and reasonable position as you did.
Michigan's congressional Democrats are pushing for $4 billion in aid to the U.S. auto industry as part of a second economic stimulus bill, one that Sen. Barack Obama endorsed to UAW workers Friday.
...
Obama and other congressional Democrats have said they would push for a second stimulus plan in September that could reach $50 billion, an idea that the Bush administration has not favored so far.
Terrible.
I haven't read the article (and don't intend to for a while ), but what you quoted (auto-industry aid) sounds like it would be an obvious violation of trade agreements.
I will generally be concerned if he beats Obama, here is a man who has messed up time and time again in discussions which he states is his strongest area. Foreign policy. He makes Bush almost seems intelligent in some matters.
He is well known for his temper, and that is the last thing needed when it comes to leading the free world.
On July 24 2008 01:21 Excalibur_Z wrote: I really don't want McCain to win, but I really really don't want Obama to win. The average conservative is really screwed in this election =( I'll probably end up voting for Bob Barr or some random name.
I'm angry at Romney for putting us in this position. And I'm even angrier at Mike Huckabee for putting Romney in his position. But I don't think I can ever be angry at Stephen.
What?
romney not being strong enough to win, huckabee for splitting the vote, not sure who stephen is? colbert bump?
On July 24 2008 01:31 HnR)hT wrote: McCain's supercilious, moralistic liberalism on immigration and national question issues make him completely unacceptable. Similarly, Obama is automatically disqualified from consideration by his 20+ year association with his racist afrocentrist pastor. This leaves potentially Bob Barr, though his recent shift of positions to be more in line with the left-libertarian platform of the Libertarian Party (e.g. now he's for legalizing marijuana) leaves one underwhelmed... Where's none of the above?
I dont really understand the problem with his pastor
Why does it matter, I dont really get the uproar over what he said, people must be pretty sheltered if they think he said was all that outlandish and bad.
His pastor isnt him, not to mention there are tons of religious bigots who are friends/supporters of other candidates so why just pick Obama out?
EPT
), but what you quoted (auto-industry aid) sounds like it would be an obvious violation of trade agreements.
