political parties or the candidates themselves?


i think i value political party more....thats why i cant figure out why people might vote mccain...seems like if you are unhappy about the current administration you wouldnt vote for the incumbant party candidate...anyone out there that values the candidate more than the party?

5/12/2008 1:45:07 AM

oh god. another -huh, i'm a liberal and have no clue what i want in life- thread

typical. lol

5/12/2008 1:47:12 AM

lol typical rightwing moonbat that makes a wrong generalization

5/12/2008 1:48:32 AM

i mean it really gets me laughing over here.

twerpball.. just think, these are the types of whities that are gonna be voting for your obamalama candidate.. hahaha

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 1:50 AM. Reason : .]

5/12/2008 1:50:14 AM

i support clinton as pres and obama as vice



because it doesnt fucking make sense to have obama as pres and clinton as vice...and it doesnt make sense to NOT have them both in the whitehouse

5/12/2008 1:54:53 AM

well since the GOP has gone to shit these days, I would say candidate.....but every one of them sucks balls so I dont know. I think Im sitting this election out, or Im voting Paul for fun. In all honesty this country is going to shit for the next few years, enjoy the ride. I will still vote republican in local elections only because i cant in good conscience vote democrat. especially after they fucked up state gov. I wish the GOP would get its shit together or the libertarians would drop some crazy shit and win an election sometime this century.

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 5:20 AM. Reason : .]

5/12/2008 5:19:27 AM

The candidate means more to me. I am registered as "unaffiliated", though I strongly leaned Democrat during the past 8 years--I campaigned for Democratic candidates, volunteered at my local Democrat HQ, and of course spent meaningless hours on TWW arguing with Republicans.

But it seems like any loyalty I had to the Democrat is evaporating. It was essentially based on my affection for Bill Clinton and my dislike of George Bush. But with Bush leaving office and the Dems leaving the Clinton legacy behind, I can honestly say I don't like any of my options.

DNL, I think your stance gets less credit than it deserves thus far in this thread. After all, individual candidates cannot achieve much on their own and must work others to get anything done, and that ussually means working with people in one's own party. IOW: What any individual can do is largely determined by the party as a whole can do. So I understand your position and sympathize. But I just can't adopt for myself. I still kinda hope my matters and that I can help change the party by voting for candidates that I agree with.

But I don't think either position is idiotic on its face.

5/12/2008 5:48:49 AM

Candidate.

Ron Paul.

5/12/2008 9:16:03 AM

the candidate.....why would any free thinking individual be controlled by a political party. Furthermore, I am going to argue that if you vote a straight ticket during an election, you are a poster child of what is wrong with american politics, regardless of what one side or the other might tell you.

drunknloaded, you are the definition of cluelessness in politics today....and your delusion that every republican is like _____ or every democrat is like _____ is absolutely false.

5/12/2008 9:38:02 AM

candidate normally, but this time it might be party.

I'm not a fan of the republicans borrowing 5 trillion more on my behalf.

I mean, no thanks.

5/12/2008 10:44:38 AM

candidate. i think you have to listen to your conscience. if your principles are that strongly aligned with those of your party's, you should go ahead and vote based on the party.

i will always be a "progressive". generally that puts me left of center. so when the 'i need a label for you right now' crowd asks people to raise their hands for where they stand, i'll go ahead and self identify myself as a liberal. however, i am far removed from most lock-step liberal philosophies.

in most cases i would vote McCain over anyone else. i think the best thing for the world would've been if he got the nod in 2000.

5/12/2008 10:59:13 AM

Candidates; anyone that says otherwise is a tool.

Some hard-core republicans i know would probably vote for Hitler as long as he had an "R" next to his name.

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 11:12 AM. Reason : a]

5/12/2008 11:12:07 AM

some hard core Republicans cannot wait for another one of those to come around

5/12/2008 11:17:05 AM

just like you would vote for Josef Stalin (D) with Mao Zedong (D) as VP

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 12:22 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2008 12:22:01 PM

I don't agree with that ^.

from my experience though self labeled republicans tend to fall into the "as long as they are republican they have my vote" camp. There are also self-labelled democrats that also do this but not as much. I have quite a few friends that are democrats and fiercely Anti-Bush that are actually thinking of joining the McCain in 08' side. While i have yet to meet a republican that did the opposite.

Don't even try to accuse me of fighting for the liberal/democrat side because I am voting for McCain (R) this fall. Also, many of my posts in other threads are clearly and aggressively supporting the conservative stance on many economic issues. I guess anyone not supporting the war in Iraq or prohibition of drugs MUST be a liberal; right Oeuvre. A true republican follows the parties current agenda down point by point and NEVER defers from the mainstream opinion on any issue.





[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 12:41 PM. Reason : a]

5/12/2008 12:36:33 PM

Quote :

"I have quite a few friends that are democrats and fiercely Anti-Bush that are actually thinking of joining the McCain in 08' side. While i have yet to meet a republican that did the opposite."

Wait, you're saying that someone who supports Bush is difficult to convince to changing their position on something?

No way!

5/12/2008 4:18:21 PM

lol we all know how open minded hooksaw and ouerve are!

5/12/2008 4:57:30 PM

apples, meet oranges.


You guys put up the most conservative member of your party (a Liberman type) and I would seriously consider voting for Liberman over McCain.



So my options are insane left wing duo or "moderate" Republican, and it's a slam dunk who I would vote for.

If it were flipped and we had Jessie Helms running against Bill Richardson, are you saying that you would even consider voting for Helms?


Lets keep our arguments parallel here before going ad-hominem.

5/12/2008 5:01:10 PM

Quote :

"twerpball.. just think, these are the types of whities that are gonna be voting for your obamalama candidate.. hahaha "

Dude, shut the fuck up.

5/12/2008 5:04:04 PM

no, the democrats just need somebody with some balls who's seen what war is like and loves this country.

if they had that with hillary or obama this dumbfuck primary they've been pity partying over for a year now would be over. shit, i mean why couldn't obama finish her off for good 2 months ago? b/c he's a brand new grade A democrat schmuck with no voting record to smear and a pretty face.

5/12/2008 5:06:02 PM

what makes you think they don't love this country?

5/12/2008 5:07:18 PM

ohhh. idk. nothing in particular


god damn america


i have never been proud of my country


i have too many quotes to choose from.. lol

5/12/2008 5:16:42 PM

^ lol nice

5/12/2008 5:24:05 PM

Quote :

"You guys put up the"

i hope you are not referring to me as "you guys" i am no fucking liberal democrat or hillary/obama supporter

5/12/2008 5:39:58 PM

This thread makes George Washington cry.

5/12/2008 5:44:35 PM

no offense game cat


but you and marko have the same fucking problem


you post pictures with none or very little commentary and everytime i read a post like that i wonder what you and him are trying to convey

5/12/2008 5:50:06 PM

rember the great george washington, when you show up to vote for me. remember what a gun and religion clinger he was and all that he stood for. then stand up to the logic of this forefather and vote for me to take away these rights

5/12/2008 5:56:03 PM

Quote :

"no offense game cat but you and marko have the same fucking problem you post pictures with none or very little commentary and everytime i read a post like that i wonder what you and him are trying to convey"

well this pretty much explains everything

5/12/2008 5:57:48 PM

I like it when marko posts because he usually makes me chuckle.

5/12/2008 5:59:25 PM

oh well....i've been wanting to say that to marko for a while but i always forgot...gamecat just reminded me of it...its not like they will respond to my criticism anyway...i'm dnl...

5/12/2008 6:02:55 PM

you just arent clever enough to get what they post

its ok, someone has to be at the bottom

5/12/2008 6:03:54 PM

lol, yeah...thats it

5/12/2008 6:04:30 PM

candidate with a default to democrat party if i know absolutely nothing about the race.

though i often will vote for one republican women just for the hell of it

also - i know more then a few straight ticket dem voters, and yes, they are all total douchebags

5/12/2008 6:23:39 PM

drunknloaded

Quote :

"no offense game cat but you and marko have the same fucking problem you post pictures with none or very little commentary and everytime i read a post like that i wonder what you and him are trying to convey"

George Washington on Party Politics

Quote :

"They serve to Organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force--to put in the place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party; often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the Community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public Administration the Mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the Organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modified by mutual interests. However combinations or Associations of the above description may now & then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, & to usurp for themselves the reins of Government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. I have already intimated to you the danger of Parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on Geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, & warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally. This Spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human Mind. It exists under different shapes in all Governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common & continual mischiefs of the spirit of Party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise People to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the Public Councils and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill founded Jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot & insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence & corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country, are subjected to the policy and will of another. "

Read. You'll embarrass yourself less often.

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 7:01 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2008 7:01:13 PM

Quote :

"I'm not a fan of the republicans borrowing 5 trillion more on my behalf. I mean, no thanks. "

LOL, yeah there is a party for emotional overexaggerators. Sounds like you have found it. "No thanks" to what? Having a clue to whatever BS you spout out? 5 trillion MORE. hahah, gtf out. Please forward me the email you got that from.

5/12/2008 7:27:13 PM

^ what the fuck does this gibberish say.

Yes more. Regan, Bush, and Bush. Take balance of spending/revenue of national government at end of term - subtract balance at inauguration.

Result is negative (highly).

Result will be negative for McCain. Argument done. No emotion.

5/12/2008 8:04:19 PM

^^ he's talking about Bush's ridiculous love of deficit spending, relative to Clinton.

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 8:05 PM. Reason : ]

5/12/2008 8:04:37 PM

Results will be negative.. just as with Clinton's admin... your point? They all deficit spend. I dont agree with it, but its the truth. And you know what, obama will deficit spend too if elected. Spending is out of control, and increasing spending will not help matters.

You think raising taxes will fix it frog?

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 8:10 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2008 8:10:21 PM

^ the point is, when you made this statement:

Quote :

"LOL, yeah there is a party for emotional overexaggerators. Sounds like you have found it. "No thanks" to what? Having a clue to whatever BS you spout out? 5 trillion MORE. hahah, gtf out. Please forward me the email you got that from. "

You had no clue what you were talking about.

5/12/2008 8:13:07 PM

Quote :

"candidate normally, but this time it might be party. I'm not a fan of the republicans borrowing 5 trillion more on my behalf. I mean, no thanks. "

Yeah, I dont know how I didnt realize that he was talking about the history of all republicans with his talk of THIS TIME and 5 trillion MORE.

he is backtracking to cover his ass.

5/12/2008 8:18:29 PM

It's pretty obvious from the beginning that he was referring to the national debt, which did grow faster under Bush than Clinton (and was on a downward trend under Clinton as well-- and accelerated under Bush).

So in a partisan-hack kind of way, it's technically accurate to say that republicans (of which Bush is, and the majority of congress was for a while) borrowed 5 trillion on his behalf.

It's telling though that you didn't even realize the debt had grown 5 trillion in the past couple years, and the depth of your ignorance on this issue caused you to think it was made-up chain mail statistics. It almost seems you're more interested in keeping that (R) in power than any real issues of spending or gov. waste.

5/12/2008 8:24:02 PM

Yes, we should raise taxes. We should stop borrowing and save up to prepare for the burden on SS as the baby boomers retire - the next 4 years are critical.

In 2000, we were projected to have a capital account of 5 trillion by 2008 - thanks to the policies of the 90s. Instead we're about 9 trillion in the red.

Chelsea Clinton made this point when she visited ncsu. I've been making similar points as well.

--
But make no mistake, the economy will plummet further we a democratic president. Democratic congress + democratic president = not good. Wall Street will go down, growth will continue to stagnate. Federal programs will also increase and some irrevocably without a strong republican presence to block them.

I don't want these things to happen. I cringe to think about the state of the country after the November election with the democrats winning so much. Grim indeed.

But sadly, right now, this is the lesser of two evils.

5/12/2008 8:26:59 PM

No shit he was talking about the national debt.

He also said THIS time ill be voting for the party so the republicans dont borrow another 5 Trillion on his behalf.

So he either thought Bush added 5 trillion to the debt or McCain is going to have a 20yr presidency. Geez, guess which one I thought he meant.

Moron, do you think the national debt grew by 5 trillion over the last 8 yrs? Dont google it, just give me your opinion. And while you are at it, do you think that Obama will lower the debt?

Frog, you have to look at the proposed spending. Which one is increasing less. That is clearly mccain. Revenues are the highest in american history. The problem isnt income, its spending. Bush was awful at it, I feel obama or hill will be much worse. One thing to remember about the clinton years, they had a great republican congress that defeated his attempt to socialize medicine. Do you think you would have come close to a "surplus" if that would have passed?

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 8:33 PM. Reason : ..]

5/12/2008 8:30:19 PM

hey honkeytroll....maybe if gamecat or marko posted something to read rather than pictures i wouldnt have to look like an idiot?

5/12/2008 8:33:26 PM

if our gdp is like 13 trillion i dont get why 5 trillion matters...seems like we could pay it off quick...

5/12/2008 8:35:03 PM

^hahaha. they will technically. they'll theoretically be getting 4 trillion dollars in extra taxes their first year.

hope you don't make more than 30k dollars a year or you're going to be one of the suffocating ones like the rest of us that make money

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 8:36 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2008 8:36:44 PM

I would like to see us pay that off by cutting spending. But no...

Option I: Continue to borrow money
Option II: Increase taxes a retarded amount and maybe eventually slowly pay off our debt

I don't want to choose either of these options. But the responsible one is II. Sadly.

5/12/2008 8:41:07 PM

Frog you have to look at what they are saying, and if you believe obama he is going to massively increase spending.

Here is a website that tracks thier spending proposals.
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=141

For the record:

Obama 287 B
Clinton 218 B
McCain 7 B

In 2007 the govt took in 2.5Trillion

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 8:45 PM. Reason : ..]

5/12/2008 8:44:23 PM

i hope the liberals get under control.. b/c watch the massive fleeing from their party once they screw everything up and america starts to unravel by the few threads keeping it together

they already have enough problems as it is keeping the party together by the hinges with hillary and obama making a mess of things.

then you've got Soros / ACLU / naacp all laughing together in unison at the slow break up


that said, parties do matter. whichever one has the best interest of the heart of this nation matter to me. but at the root of parties are their people and the democrats have the worst of the barrel these days

5/12/2008 8:45:25 PM

Are you really that stupid or are you just trying to sound as ridiculous as possible?

5/12/2008 8:46:55 PM