1st debate

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 8:06 pm

I haven't had the chance to view the whole thing yet, as I had to leave before it was done, but I saw over half so far.

Both of them sucked at keeping on point, which Lehrer also mentioned several times. They couldn't answer the direct question on how the current crisis would affect their presidency, what they would do, etc. They both danced around pretty good on that one. Then again, it is a bit of a premature question as congress hasn't even decided what to do. I would have liked to hear one of them have that for an answer, instead of the diversionary tactics they spewed. Rack Lehrer for calling them on it.

McCain was fidgety at times
Obama seemed fine when he was on script, stumbled a bit out side of it.

Obama overall was more poised than Mccain most of the time, although I don't see that as a quality that is very high up on the list as a qualification for being an effective President.

McCain made some solid points, but often buried his points in wandering anecdotes and quips.
Obama countered some of Mccains accusations well, others not so well, again the "off script" thing.

They both made several misleading accusations against the other, which is just a stupid tactic IMO as that can backfire like a mofo.

Mccains point about stripping down government spending to the bare essentials, and moving forward from there seemed interesting, if somewhat impractical in implementation.

Obamas point about agreeing with that same concept with the exception of adding in "financing for early childhood education" as an essential basic financial component of government was just straight up pandering to the soccer mommy crowd.

Claims of "Health Care reform" or "fixing the Health care system" by both were stupid. Neither has a clue how to fix that mess, and I heard nothing that hasn't been said for the last 15 years.

Obama tried very very hard to link Mccain directly to Bush, at times making statements that made it seem as if Mccain was Bushs Vice President. Pretty transparent attempts, most of them.

Mccain, despite the rambling stories, did not appear to come across as a Bush Clone, like Obama was alluding to.

Obama made some rather contradictory statements regarding the troops, the war, etc. He called the Iraq War "A mistake" that needs to be ended soon (that'll go over well with the pro soldier crowd), and then he turned around a few moments later and said we need to pour more troops into Afghanistan. Huh?

This was where I felt Mccain had an edge. Obama has no clue about military strategy, and Mccain countered all of his arguments fairly well, with solid facts.

I felt the same way regarding the diplomacy of dealing with countries like iran. Mccain countered Obama to the point where I felt Obamas lack of experience in this area was obvious.

Overall I'd give a slight edge in this debate to Mccain. Neither one brought it home for me, but If I had to vote tomorrow, it would probably be for Mccain. I just don't feel Obama has enough experience to be President, and I don't think Mccain would be a bush clone, as he has clearly seen how poorly that has turned out. I will view the last 40 minutes of the debate, but I don't think much will change, opinion wise unless one of them clearly stepped out in that time. They were both pretty consistent during what I did watch.

I'll be interested to hear the undecided crowd chime in on this, but for those extremists like Whitey and Bsmack who are already sold on their candidate and only saw how well their own guy did no matter what they did, save it and your poll links supporting what you think I don't give a fuck.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 8:15 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:I don't give a fuck.

That's obvious considering you're voting for McCain. The good news is that you'll be protected from your own stupidity by an Obama landslide.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 8:30 pm

Way to follow your own very predictable script to the letter, dipshit.

and what part of:

Whitey and Bsmack who are already sold on their candidate and only saw how well their own guy did no matter what they did

If you have nothing to add to the discussion but meaningless tripe, DON'T.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 9:08 pm

when they showed split-screen: when mCloon was talking, Onogga was sweating & scowling; when Onogga was talking, mCloon was laughing at him

i had the sound turned off btw

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 9:14 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:Way to follow your own very predictable script to the letter, dipshit.

and what part of:

Whitey and Bsmack who are already sold on their candidate and only saw how well their own guy did no matter what they did
If you have nothing to add to the discussion but meaningless tripe, DON'T.

I see you added your usual dose of unfunny to the mix. Is the concept of smack completely alien to you? How about this for a review? You are to funny what John McCain is to cool and laid back.

BTW, judging this purely as a debate, without taking into account the idiocy of McCain's positions, I called it a tie. Then I saw the polling numbers and what do you know? Seems that there's a lot of Americans who were just waiting to see if Obama could walk and chew gum at the same time because they're sick and tired of Republicans. It's the only explanation I can give you for those poll numbers you don't want to see.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 9:17 pm

I honestly did not have a solid opinion on either of these clowns before the debate. I think Mccain is too old, and he can be unpredictable at times, and I have to wonder if Palin had to step in to the presidency would she really be able to handle that? I also think Obama is way too inexperienced and his words proved that to me last night.

Not much to work with, but at least when I get to see them answer the same questions it gives me something to help me decide.

I will tune into to all four because I plan on voting. I am shading towards Mccain at this point, but we'll see. Three debates left.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 9:32 pm

BSmack wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:Way to follow your own very predictable script to the letter, dipshit.

and what part of:

Whitey and Bsmack who are already sold on their candidate and only saw how well their own guy did no matter what they did
If you have nothing to add to the discussion but meaningless tripe, DON'T.
I see you added your usual dose of unfunny to the mix. Is the concept of smack completely alien to you?

This is the Spin Zone, a political discussion forum, not a one liner factory. I didn't intend to be or attempt to be amusing at any point in this thread.

And there is nothing remotely interesting in your stale attempts at smack with the tired old "Obama Landslide" theory or commentary on me, which I could not care less about.

BTW, judging this purely as a debate, without taking into account the idiocy of McCain's positions, I called it a tie.

Finally. Light dawns on Marblehead. Feeble light, but light nonetheless.

Then I saw the polling numbers and what do you know? Seems that there's a lot of Americans who were just waiting to see if Obama could walk and chew gum at the same time because they're sick and tired of Republicans. It's the only explanation I can give you for those poll numbers you don't want to see.

Save me the "polls" bullshit. First of all, polls typically sample between 500 and 1000 people with a 5% error margin, they don't say where they live, what sex they are or what type of jobs they have. They've hardly ever been a barometer no matter which way they trend and certainly as time goes on they constantly change.

But I'm sure some Mccain supporter will come up with a poll that shows Mccain is leading, which I will also ignore, and not care to see.

If you poll the correct people in the correct part of the country you will get the answers you were hoping for.

Mississippi Neck · Post by **Mississippi Neck** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 9:44 pm

I thought McCain was a bit puzzling at times. Like WTF was that line about the average North Korean being three inches shorter than South Koreans? Thats good to know if I'm betting on a North Korea - South Korea basketball game...

That being said..I think if you're making a decision on who to vote for based on debates then you havent been paying attention for awhile. We're not voting for the smoothest talker, least I'm not. If Obama thinks he's going to reason with Iran, N. Korea, etc...he's even more dangerous than Johnny Mac thinks. Insert your insults and name calling below. Thanks.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:05 pm

Mississippi Neck wrote:I thought McCain was a bit puzzling at times. Like WTF was that line about the average North Korean being three inches shorter than South Koreans? Thats good to know if I'm betting on a North Korea - South Korea basketball game...

Yeah, he was a bit puzzling with his side stories, anecdotes and ancient sound bytes. It sounded like he might have been trying to make a "quality of life" point between the two countries, but I failed to see the reason he used the height thing.

btw - what's the line on an SK/NK Basketball game? :)

That being said..I think if you're making a decision on who to vote for based on debates then you havent been paying attention for awhile.

Paying attention to what? Speeches? WTF good are those scripted pieces of shit? I didn't bother to watch the self back slapping conventions either, and any time either of these two get up to speak in front of supporters it will always be a safe, prescripted suckfest. I don't see how any of that could help determine an opinion. Those speeches are the epitome of "smooth talking". At least in the debates there is a chance to see them have to wing it at times, and certainly a comparison of platforms is easier to see as well.

We're not voting for the smoothest talker, least I'm not. If Obama thinks he's going to reason with Iran, N. Korea, etc...he's even more dangerous than Johnny Mac thinks.

That part of the debate pointed out to me Obamas lack of experience. After Obama said that face to face talks were important and he would participate in them with the leaders of argentina, iran, NK,etc., Mccain countered with why that was a bad idea, and that it should not be at the presidential level with countries like that. Then Obama tried to dodge out of it by saying one of Mccains own advisers - Kissinger - agreed with him, which was not true. Kissinger felt any talks of that type should be at the diplomatic / secretary of State level, not the presidential one.

I agree with you - the fact Obama thinks he can sit down with any of those nutjobs across a table and accomplish something that would benefit the world or the US is a little naive, and dangerous.

Insert your insults and name calling below. Thanks.

So far, Only Bsmack has done that. I appreciate your input, and would have if it had been pro obama, although I might possibly have disagreed. Might.

The whole idea here is to present an opinion of the debate for discussion, not to go the tedious smack route against the poster.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:11 pm

Mississippi Neck wrote:I thought McCain was a bit puzzling at times. Like WTF was that line about the average North Korean being three inches shorter than South Koreans? Thats good to know if I'm betting on a North Korea - South Korea basketball game...

Yea, I found myself doing the occasional fill in the blank game with McCain's answers. What he was trying to say is that generations of forced famine and starvation have turned the DPRK into a bunch of TVOs.

Gee, I hope he's not as hard to understand during summit meetings.

That being said..I think if you're making a decision on who to vote for based on debates then you havent been paying attention for awhile. We're not voting for the smoothest talker, least I'm not. If Obama thinks he's going to reason with Iran, N. Korea, etc...he's even more dangerous than Johnny Mac thinks. Insert your insults and name calling below. Thanks.

Diplomacy is not the same thing as "trying to reason with". Diplomacy is about projecting power. The fact that Republicans seem to have forgotten that distinction is both puzzling and frightening.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:20 pm

I disagree. Certainly Bush and his choice of SoS in Rice is the weakest one two foreign diplomacy punch we've had in office in a long time, but I don't think you can blanket fault all republicans for that choice.

and given Mccains choice of an advisor in Henry Kissinger, that lends credence to that concept. McCain has made it clear he isn't about to follow Bushs' policies if elected.

He'd be stupid to do so, given what Bush has accomplished.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 11:12 pm

Bushice wrote:Mccains point about stripping down government spending to the bare essentials, and moving forward from there seemed interesting, if somewhat impractical in implementation.

This WILL happen in the not-to-distant future.

America can either do it now, by choice, or later, when there is NO choice -- the MUCH less desirable option.

But neither @ssclown on the stage has ANY intention of stripping gov spending down to the bare essentials ... NONE.

Seriously, for just one of MANY examples, if McLame is serious about what he said, how the hell can he couple that idea with allowing amnesty for floods of illegals?

Is that free?

Total farce.

Get these fucks off the stage.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 12:24 am

Too Late, Pop.

You have to vote for one, or the other, or

not vote, or vote for some third party with no chance of winning, which is pretty much the same thing as not voting.

A write in for Ron Paul = Not really voting, for all the impact it will have on the way things are.

Until a legit third party with a legit candidate appears on the horizon, this is what we have, and always will.

The incumbent powers that be will see to that.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 12:34 am

How is a legit third party candidate going to arrive on the horizon unless people say, "NO MORE" and actually cast their vote FOR the guy they WANT to win?

Circle the drain and do nothing, if you want.

I prefer to tell my children and grandchildren that I DID what I could (with my given vote) to stop the destruction of America.

Why the fuck vote for either of these guys when you KNOW that they're going to turn right around and shove it up your @ss?

No deal.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 1:09 am

IF

There was a LEGIT Third Party and,

IF

that party has a LEGIT candidate and

IF

That candidate represented the change we really need

I'd cast my vote that way.

Right now today,

Ralph Nader, will get the most meaningless votes, and he only muddies the waters.

Constitution Party?
Green Party?
Libertarian Party?

Have you SEEN those jokers? Jesus Christ it's pathetic. The Libertarian VP is a former Sports handicapper and TV host.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:11 am

Bullshit Bushice. Yes, there's a long way to go before the LEGITIMATE politicians in third parties are even included in the debate process. But I don't view voting for a guy in a third party as throwing away my vote. Vote who think best represents your views. If enough people do that that MAYBE, JUST MAYBE we can start getting the point across. Perhaps even to cause one of the major parties to incorporate some the third party platforms into their own.

It's not throwing your vote away in my opinion. I am weary of the "lesser of two evils" bullshit. There are damn fine politicians and leaders in third parties and when I find one I like, I vote for him or her.

You can't tell me Ross Perot's siphoning of votes in 1992 didn't have at least a little impact on politics - besides the obvious - in the 90's.

WAR H Ross Perot 92

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 9:15 am

OK then - what current 3rd party candidate combo (Pres AND VP) is worth vote for?

Pick one of those out and make your point.

Tom In VA wrote: You can't tell me Ross Perot's siphoning of votes in 1992 didn't have at least a little impact on politics - besides the obvious - in the 90's.

WAR H Ross Perot 92

You forgot two things. #1 Perot picked a guy for his VP whose biggest political sound byte was ""Who am I? Why am I here?"

#2 was that perot, at the peak of his popularity, dropped out of the race.

His overall political impact was not a positive one, not even for NAFTA. Perhaps if he had stuck with it all? Who knows. He didn't

I would have voted for him, but that drop out in mid summer and his choice of VP was it for me.

Let me know when another one of those comes along.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 9:28 am

Two points to be made, Bushice.

1. Ron Paul WAS in the republican race. You COULD have placed your support behind him, with a vote in the Cali primary. I'm sure you didn't. Why didn't you?

2. You're right, of course, that a third party candidate will not win this election. But Ron Paul has the right idea in gathering a few of the 'fringe' candidates under one tent, even though they have some differences. None of them will win, but if supporters of ALL of them vote for ONE of them, it WOULD make up a 'decent' percentage of votes. This is a way to 'get the ball rolling' to set the stage for a future effort to make a 3rd party candidate a viable (in the eyes of voters such as you) option.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 9:39 am

YOU saw Ron Paul as the answer, not me.

Most of the country disagreed with you as well. He averaged 3rd in the republican campaigns, and must have pissed off a lot of people to be excluded from debates.

If he REALLY wanted to stand out, why didn't he become a 3rd party candidate instead of being just another face in the crowded republican corral?

You can stop making this be about "My candidate is the best" anytime now.

and don't even try to pin his absence on me.

Maybe if he makes it to 77 he can run again.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:26 am

Bushice wrote:YOU saw Ron Paul as the answer, not me.

Most of the country disagreed with you as well. He averaged 3rd in the republican campaigns, and must have pissed off a lot of people to be excluded from debates.

Certainly he pissed off a lot of folks, but not by any actions of his.
His message pissed off/frightened the republican power core.

We can't have the government belonging to the ... PEOPLE, after all.

By voting for McLame or B.O., you are saying that one of THEM is more of the answer than the guy who's trying his damn best to give you back your government and your country.

Ponderous.

battery chucka' one · Post by **battery chucka' one** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 1:58 pm

Perot could have won in '92. The Democrats used slander (and blamed it on the Republicans) to drive him out. We need that sort of candidate again. Paul is not it.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:15 pm

battery chucka' one wrote:Perot could have won in '92. The Democrats used slander (and blamed it on the Republicans) to drive him out. We need that sort of candidate again. Paul is not it.

Perot was looking for leverage to get government contracts steered towards his new company. You think by handing the election to Clinton he might have succeeded?

Then again, you believe that a mystical sky being sent his son down to be brutally tortured and murdered by humans to satisfy his own blood lust caused by our sins. So believing Perot was a man of the people isn't much of a stretch for you.

battery chucka' one · Post by **battery chucka' one** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:23 pm

Bsmack, perhaps you'd like to give a little more proof before you toss such accusations at Perot.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:48 pm

battery chucka' one wrote:Bsmack, perhaps you'd like to give a little more proof before you toss such accusations at Perot.

And where is your proof about the Dems slandering Perot?

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 4:37 pm

poptart wrote:How is a legit third party candidate going to arrive on the horizon unless people say, "NO MORE" and actually cast their vote FOR the guy they WANT to win?.

The time for a 3rdparty to make a move for legitimacy is after an election, not before one.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 7:04 pm

poptart wrote:
Bushice wrote:YOU saw Ron Paul as the answer, not me.

Most of the country disagreed with you as well. He averaged 3rd in the republican campaigns, and must have pissed off a lot of people to be excluded from debates.
Certainly he pissed off a lot of folks, but not by any actions of his.
His message pissed off/frightened the republican power core.

Well -that IS the problem we have, isn't it? Anyone challenging the democrat/republican chokehold on government will run into that.

We can't have the government belonging to the ... PEOPLE, after all.

By voting for McLame or B.O., you are saying that one of THEM is more of the answer than the guy who's trying his damn best to give you back your government and your country.

Ponderous.

While I get where you are coming from, I still don't see ANYONE out there really worth voting for, so out of the two candidates who could win, I will choose the best of those.

Yeah, not much of a choice.

and I still don't buy into Ron Paul the way you do.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 7:19 pm

Why don't you 'buy into' Ron Paul?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:09 pm

poptart wrote:Why don't you 'buy into' Ron Paul?

He's a horrible anti-Semite. Have you heard his position on Israel/Palestine? Disgraceful!

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:02 am

I don't agree with some of his opinions, He's a little extreme in some of his views, and I think he'd get little done as president with a devisive congress that would constantly oppose his ideas. He's failed twice before in presidential runs and no one seemed to give a crap who he was until THIS primary.
Who is he? I have no idea. He's been invisible and not a standout member of Congress on the national stage. He's worked within his district, but - Where has been for three of the last five elections?

Plus - if he is all that - why aren't more people interested? He certainly made enough money to get the word out.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:56 am

BSmack wrote:Perot was looking for leverage to get government contracts steered towards his new company. You think by handing the election to Clinton he might have succeeded?

What company was that ? EDS ? They were already neck deep in government contracts when he was bought out in 1988.

His other company, purchased smaller government contractors that already had government contracts. Not sure what you mean by that.

Buschice,
NAFTA aside, The Contract with America was in part a response to many conservatives issues with the Republican party and was intended to assauged those - who were now in Perot's camp - while it did little to do, it does show that voting for whomever you think best that might be a third party CAN have an influence on the political landscape and send a message.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:58 am

poptart wrote:Why don't you 'buy into' Ron Paul?

So are you eyeballing Chuck Baldwin ? Apparently Paul is throwing his support for him.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 2:54 am

Bushice wrote:I don't agree with some of his opinions, He's a little extreme in some of his views, and I think he'd get little done as president with a devisive congress that would constantly oppose his ideas.

Yes, we're far better off when both sides agree ... to fuck over the people.[/sarcasm]

Hey, with Paul, at least you'd have one branch of the gov pulling HARD for the people.

Look at his voting record -- nearly 100% in accordance with the Constitution.

But have it your way, with both sides ignoring the Constitution and drilling you deeper up the shitpipe.

As for "who is he?"
If you, in this day and age of the internet, can't find out, that's YOUR fault.

The internet is one reason people took an interest in Ron Paul this time around.
Freedom of information that we now have, rather than just being spoon-fed what the news outlets want to tell us.

That, and the fact that people are FED UP with the status quo in Washington.
Paul's truths have opened eyes to what the deal is.

Tom, I might vote for Baldwin.
Primarily to weigh in for a 3rd party candidate, and also because I DO agree with him on most positions.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 3:03 am

poptart wrote: As for "who is he?"
If you, in this day and age of the internet, can't find out, that's YOUR fault.

You missed the point.

Why do I have to do a search to find out about him? Where is he hiding and why isn't this savior of yours all over the news?

The internet is one reason people took an interest in Ron Paul this time around.
Freedom of information that we now have, rather than just being spoon-fed what the news outlets want to tell us.

And yet, it was not enough.

That, and the fact that people are FED UP with the status quo in Washington.
Paul's truths have opened eyes to what the deal is.

And yet, it was not enough.

Are you getting the jist of this yet?

Your guy is important to you, and those others who believe in him.

But that would still end up being less than 2% of the voting population.

Not exactly a "wave of change", is it?

and it's not "My way", it is the way it is.

Voting for Ron Paul will NOT change that.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 5:47 am

BUshice wrote:And yet, it was not enough.

Because hords of people/sheep like you say you want to vote for one of the two current @ssclowns.
I guess because the media has told you to, or somethin' or other.
Sure no benefit to be found for the taxpayer/citizen in voting for dogshit.

Probably the most interesting statement you've made in our conversation is that Ron Paul is extreme in some of his views.

As I noted, his voting record is almost 100% in accordance with the Constitution.

Extreme.

The reality is that for decades, elected REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE have thumbed their nose at the Constitution.
They've just made up a bunch of bullshit on the fly and jammed it down our throats.

Think there is any correlation between that reality and the reality that our nation is now circling the drain?

So Ron Paul upholds the Constitution and he's the extreme one.

Tears.

What are the four most important issues to you?

1. I'd think, living in Mexifornia, you'd want the illegal flood to end.
McCain or Obama gonna git'er done for ya? bwaaaa ...
Ron Paul would do his DAMN BEST to get that done for ya.
High priority ... REALLY.

2. Our monetary system.
Have you heard Ron Paul speak to this issue?
Prolly his favorite.
If you think B.O. or J. McLame are gonna come anywhere close to dealing correctly with this you are one naive puppy.

3. Foreign policy.
Strong military, non-intervention, trade and dialogue.
SAVE money.
You know, like the Constitution outlines it for us.
The Ron Paul campaign had HUGE financial support from the military.
Think about that as the talking head tell you that his approach is fucked.

4. Government reform.
McCain slaps Palin on the ticket and all of a sudden he's the reformer.
bwaaaa hahaha
Sheeple are funnay.

Where the hell are B.O. or McFlame better for YOU than Ron Paul?

Cuckoo.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:02 am

poptart wrote:That, and the fact that people are FED UP with the status quo in Washington.

Fed up with the status quo?

That's funny, I don't see any dead bankers? Or dead politicians.

You sure we're fed up?

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 3:15 pm

BSmack wrote:
That's funny, I don't see any dead bankers?

Here's a nice start

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 5:51 pm

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote: Diplomacy is about projecting power.
And what power do you plan on projecting when nobody takes your threat of military force seriously?

That's the situation we're in right now. Tell me you knew?

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 6:27 pm

mvscal wrote: What exactly has he done during his years in Congress to attempt to enact his agenda ad what makes you think he would be better positioned as to enact it as President?

Mister Bushice wrote: Where is he hiding and why isn't this savior of yours all over the news?

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:13 am

What exactly has he done during his years in Congress to attempt to enact his agenda ad what makes you think he would be better positioned as to enact it as President?

Ok, roll over like the French.

You do realize that's what you're doing if you insist that you have to vote for one of the citizen-rapists the media is telling you you must vote for ... don't you?

Bushice, I listed 4 MAJOR issues and asked you to tell me how B.O or McFlame are better for YOU on those critical issues than Ron Paul.

I guess you're comfortable being dragged around by the nose by the media.

Amazing.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:49 am

Give it up, Pop.

The Sheeple have been well-trained over the past coulple of decades. After hearing that it's OK to absolve themselves of personal responsibility, they've actually started to believe it.

Cut them some slack. Not everyone can be strong willed and independent like you and I, bro. They believe that taking what belongs to others is morally OK. For myself, I find the idea vile, but I'm not nearly as prone to brainwashing as the Sheeple are.