Obama invokes race card

[[DvT]UY]

If you don't love this nation and put it above all others then you certainly don't need to be its President. Obama's Trinity Church of Christ seems to put their priority on Africa. That's cool, but I don't want anybody that doesn't put the US first as President....at least in their mind.

[{DvT}Rhino]

I think saying that Obama puts Africa ahead of the US might be a bit of a stretch, somewhat akin to saying that Rudy Guiliani belongs to a religious organization that sets its priorities based on orders from some guy in Vatican City (not an American and vaguely linked to the Nazi Party as a child). See how crazy it can get. I think Guiliani is an OK guy and a great American and similarly with Obama. I'm not concerned with reverse racism, or an Africa first campaign within an Obama administration. If elected President he will be under intense scrutiny (see FoxNews) to be fair, not that I think he will need that scrutiny to hold him accountable. I haven't checked out his voting record thoroughly, has he shown a propensity to vote for afrocentric legislation at the expense of other ethnicities? Seriously, I don't know the answer, however if he had, I bet Tucker Carlson would have let me in on it :-)

That being said, I really need to decide who I'm voting for in the Primary. So many candidates and Al gore didn't run

[Cheese]

had something larged typed up but i erased it because i'm sure i'd piss some people off. but long story short, ron paul for president! congress would keep his crazier ideas from actually happening (getting rid of fbi), but i'd rather someone that doesn't want my money in office

[Revox]

Absolutely Erad!

I can't exactly remember which one it was, the energy bill or the new spending bill (probably the latter) that came to light just before the holiday break... but it had something like 15k in earmarks in it. WTF? It doesn't surprise me, but the government already knows the majority of folks out there don't pay attention to it; and if they did, hopefully there'd be a lot more WTF? flags waving.

I guess the bottom line is that looking for the "perfect" candidate will never work. The "perfect" candidate does not exist. To think that there is one candidate out there who is spot on with every issue, personality trait, religious belief etc., is silly. We are a country of diversity... obviously we aren't going to agree on everything. Even if there was a candidate out there who seemingly was spot on about everything... they'd most likely be pandering to the public, or a certain group of voters to gain just that... votes.

To me, it's more about finding the candidate that has the same values as you do (or at least close) when it comes to the issues that are the most important to you. I unfortunately have not decided which candidate does that for me.

Frankly, the things I see and hear about in the media make me laugh. Every person on the face of this planet has done something they regret or wish they could change. To think that we're wasting more time and energy on digging into someone's past just to raise the eyebrows of the general public is pretty sad. We all would probably agree that the masses would rather watch ET for breaking celebrity news than they would spending the same time watching their local news channels. The tactics that are being used in these campaigns makes it more evident to me each and every day that this isn't an election about issues... it's a giant popularity contest.

::gets off soapbox::

Sorry, I don't want to start a huge rant. Certain things just bug me.

I think we should all do this blind date style. Put everyone behind a wall, use voice scramblers, and folks choose the candidate they like based on what matters... issues. Not gender, not religion, not race, not party affiliation. That'd be how I'd do it...hehe.

=)

[{DvT}Sapient6]

Originally Posted by {DvT}Rhino

I think Guiliani is an OK guy and a great American

Oh, I don't know. Guiliani is a horribly vindictive a**hole, and while these are qualities I can admire in a perverse, even deviant, manner... they aren't really qualities that I can reconcile with the phrases "OK guy" and "great American". I think we might be being more honest if we said "Guiliani is an OK skid mark and a great big fornicating douchebag."

Not that the republicans have much running that I would approve of, or anything... though it would amuse me if they nominated the guy who wears magical underwear.

[{DvT}Sapient6]

Originally Posted by Cheese

had something larged typed up but i erased it because i'm sure i'd piss some people off. but long story short, ron paul for president! congress would keep his crazier ideas from actually happening (getting rid of fbi), but i'd rather someone that doesn't want my money in office

ROFL, there's at least one in every bunch, eh?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by {DvT}Sapient6

ROFL, there's at least one in every bunch, eh?

i at least tried to qualify why i liked him. care to clarify what you mean?

i've always been libertarian, the less govt the better imo. hence he appeals greatly to me since he wants to get rid of a lot of wastefull programs and rely on a free market to handle things. for example, instead of requiring car companies to raise their mpgs, why not let the market decide that? obviously mpg and gas prices arn't bugging that many people because they're still buying 10mpg trucks. so you hear people complaining about prices all the time, well here's a clue: DONT DRIVE GAS GUZZLERS. enforcing companies to do things and endorsing certain technologies (hybrids) is the wrong way to do things. when gas gets prohibitavely expensive people will buy higher mpg cars and alternate technologies will be developed. last i checked politicians weren't scientists, engineers, etc, why the hell should they make decisions regarding these things? there's a lot more i could go on about but i don't feel like it.

[{DvT}Sapient6]

Originally Posted by Cheese

i at least tried to qualify why i liked him. care to clarify what you mean?

Your offer of discussing our views on libertarianism and government spending looks about as attractive to me as discussing separation of church and state with UY. You and I haven't gone there, but do we really want to? Would we accomplish something or would we just end up pissing each other off? My money is on the latter, so I'll opt to keep this light hearted.

I wasn't jabbing at you for supporting Ron Paul, nor do I care to take a swing at your political viewpoint. I was just making light of the hesitant tone of your post.

[ChemicalWarrior]

Originally Posted by Cheese

i at least tried to qualify why i liked him. care to clarify what you mean?

i've always been libertarian, the less govt the better imo. hence he appeals greatly to me since he wants to get rid of a lot of wastefull programs and rely on a free market to handle things. for example, instead of requiring car companies to raise their mpgs, why not let the market decide that? obviously mpg and gas prices arn't bugging that many people because they're still buying 10mpg trucks. so you hear people complaining about prices all the time, well here's a clue: DONT DRIVE GAS GUZZLERS. enforcing companies to do things and endorsing certain technologies (hybrids) is the wrong way to do things. when gas gets prohibitavely expensive people will buy higher mpg cars and alternate technologies will be developed. last i checked politicians weren't scientists, engineers, etc, why the hell should they make decisions regarding these things? there's a lot more i could go on about but i don't feel like it.

Historical evidence shows that a market left alone fails. I can't think of a single market in history that sustained itself without some higher level of intervention. Can you? While I do think Ron Paul would actually be very good for this country it comes from the fact that he wouldn't get anything too "radical" (negative word, not the right word for this at all, but I can't think of another) passed. I think he would help cut back spending, which in places it really needs it. But spending as a whole doesn't need to be truly chopped in half but rather spent in the correct places. The values of people these days are truly screwed up and those who so often claim the moral right are the ones most often in the moral wrong. This stems from the fact that the world is far to connected these days and far to dependent on each other. Most changes arise from being scared and not because someone had a good idea or thought. It's always been this way though, history teaches us that. It's simply much more obvious these days. Therein lies my issue with Ron Paul's stance though, this type of thinking is ignorant of how dependent we truly are. You can make a shift but then you set yourself up for falling behind. Isolationism is not the answer, history teaches us that.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by {DvT}Sapient6

Your offer of discussing our views on libertarianism and government spending looks about as attractive to me as discussing separation of church and state with UY. You and I haven't gone there, but do we really want to? Would we accomplish something or would we just end up pissing each other off? My money is on the latter, so I'll opt to keep this light hearted.

I wasn't jabbing at you for supporting Ron Paul, nor do I care to take a swing at your political viewpoint. I was just making light of the hesitant tone of your post.

i can argue without getting pissed off. until you insult me, which is how i took your post. to me it seemed like you were insinuating that i was one of those 'kooky ron paul supporters' with no intelligent reasoning behind it.

Historical evidence shows that a market left alone fails. I can't think of a single market in history that sustained itself without some higher level of intervention. Can you? While I do think Ron Paul would actually be very good for this country it comes from the fact that he wouldn't get anything too "radical" (negative word, not the right word for this at all, but I can't think of another) passed. I think he would help cut back spending, which in places it really needs it. But spending as a whole doesn't need to be truly chopped in half but rather spent in the correct places. The values of people these days are truly screwed up and those who so often claim the moral right are the ones most often in the moral wrong. This stems from the fact that the world is far to connected these days and far to dependent on each other. Most changes arise from being scared and not because someone had a good idea or thought. It's always been this way though, history teaches us that. It's simply much more obvious these days. Therein lies my issue with Ron Paul's stance though, this type of thinking is ignorant of how dependent we truly are. You can make a shift but then you set yourself up for falling behind. Isolationism is not the answer, history teaches us that.

i dont really think a completely free market is the best idea, i don't know of an example of when this has ocurred in history though. so whether or not it does good or bad is uknown, it seems to me that some things would work others may not. but the chances of going to a completely free market are almost nill so yeah

and i agree with the fact we can't be isolationists and that's one of the biggest things i disagree with ron paul on. he wants to take us out of the UN and whatnot and i just don't think that can happen with the way things are today. if we didn't learn that from wwII we have problems.