I vote for Death2All in some sortof Presidential advisory role.
Death to Communists and Socialists.
Who is everybody's choice for president?
Moderators: Brian, Metalfreak, MS_39455, AtlantaMetal Staff
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... htm?csp=34
The federal government’s long-term financial obligations grew by $2.5 trillion last year, a reflection of the mushrooming cost of Medicare and Social Security benefits as more baby boomers reach retirement.
That’s double the red ink of a year earlier.
Taxpayers are on the hook for a record $57.3 trillion in federal liabilities to cover the lifetime benefits of everyone eligible for Medicare, Social Security and other government programs, a USA TODAY analysis found. That’s nearly $500,000 per household.
When obligations of state and local governments are added, the total rises to $61.7 trillion, or $531,472 per household. That is more than four times what Americans owe in personal debt such as mortgages.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."
It's a no-win situation for me.
As a huge proponent of mixed martial arts, I cannot elect such an adament hater of Ultimate Fighting as John McCain.
As an edger, I refuse to elect a smoker such as Barack Obama. The last thing this country needs is a President that bombs Prague due to a nic fit.
At this point, I'd have to throw my vote behind the Socialist Worker's Party. So what if their candidate was born in Nicaragua? It's not like that can stop him from becoming commander in chief...
...oh, wait.
As a huge proponent of mixed martial arts, I cannot elect such an adament hater of Ultimate Fighting as John McCain.
As an edger, I refuse to elect a smoker such as Barack Obama. The last thing this country needs is a President that bombs Prague due to a nic fit.
At this point, I'd have to throw my vote behind the Socialist Worker's Party. So what if their candidate was born in Nicaragua? It's not like that can stop him from becoming commander in chief...
...oh, wait.
-
ProstheticHead12
- Member
- Posts: 1371
- Joined: Sun September 19th, 2004, 7:53 pm
- Location: Athens, GA
i hope you're not serious. those have to be two of the dumbest reasons not to vote for someone.jswift wrote:It's a no-win situation for me.
As a huge proponent of mixed martial arts, I cannot elect such an adament hater of Ultimate Fighting as John McCain.
As an edger, I refuse to elect a smoker such as Barack Obama. The last thing this country needs is a President that bombs Prague due to a nic fit.
At this point, I'd have to throw my vote behind the Socialist Worker's Party. So what if their candidate was born in Nicaragua? It's not like that can stop him from becoming commander in chief...
...oh, wait.
Fuck it, Dude, let's go bowling.
It's going to be pretty difficult to find any candidate who doesn't enjoy alcohol and falls in line with sXe. Good luck.jswift wrote:It's a no-win situation for me.
As a huge proponent of mixed martial arts, I cannot elect such an adament hater of Ultimate Fighting as John McCain.
As an edger, I refuse to elect a smoker such as Barack Obama. The last thing this country needs is a President that bombs Prague due to a nic fit.
At this point, I'd have to throw my vote behind the Socialist Worker's Party. So what if their candidate was born in Nicaragua? It's not like that can stop him from becoming commander in chief...
...oh, wait.
Amen to that!Death2all wrote:These are just a few things I would love to hear out of a candidates mouth:
We need oil so we are going to start drilling where ever we can find it.
We have a high demand for gas so we are going to build more refiners.
We are going to reform the tax code or hell even abolish it.
We are going to reform or eliminate welfare and all entitlement programs.
We are going to shore up our borders and send any and all freeloaders to Mexico (Maybe sending some of our national born freeloads to Mexico along with them.)
However I'm 100% sure that McCain is not the man that will do ANY of that. He's proven himself to me to be way to moderate. He's abandoned a lot of the stance that made me vote for him in the 2000 primaries.
As much as I would have loved to be able to vote for Ron Paul, I'm thinking that I'll be voting for our own Bob Barr.
-
MikeLindgren
- Member
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Sat December 2nd, 2006, 5:55 pm
- Location: Marietta
- Contact:
I smoke enough cigarettes to bust a 3rd world country's GDP.
Obama was way cooler when he smoked.
John McCain deserved the presidency after getting his nuts hooked up to electrodes for 4 years. I don't think you can question his faithfulness. I can't think of anyone who would make a more respectable Commander in Chief...
Obama's gun stance pretty much negates my props-for-smoking kudos.
I have a Ron Paul sticker on my truck, but the shills won't ever let a Libertarian get fair press.
I'd be torn between Barr(one of my personal heroes) and McCain.
Obama was way cooler when he smoked.
John McCain deserved the presidency after getting his nuts hooked up to electrodes for 4 years. I don't think you can question his faithfulness. I can't think of anyone who would make a more respectable Commander in Chief...
Obama's gun stance pretty much negates my props-for-smoking kudos.
I have a Ron Paul sticker on my truck, but the shills won't ever let a Libertarian get fair press.
I'd be torn between Barr(one of my personal heroes) and McCain.
With so many people writing about what ails conservatism, and so much disagreement, the basic tenets of conservatism seem to be overlooked. In attaching an ever-broader policy base to the first principles of conservatism, we have not added to our base but have increased our opposition. In fighting on the flanks, we have ignored the center, and as a result, have lost momentum through poor definition and irresponsible governance.
What is the first principle of conservatism? Limited government. Our founders understood this, which is why they tightly constrained the jurisdiction of the federal government in the Constitution. Henry David Thoreau famously wrote “That government is best which governs leastâ€Â, and that encapsulates what has been the overarching philosophy of conservatism as applied to governance. Furthermore, it exists in opposition to and as a counterbalance for the competing philosophy of socialism, which postulates that government improves as it governs more.
These days, however, so-called conservatives in government appear more inclined to act on the latter philosophy than the former. Those running as conservatives from either party vote for ever-increasing federal roles in education, agriculture, the arts, and especially health care and retirement planning, despite the increasing deficits that the federal government has racked up. Entitlement programs will have a catastrophic collapse in the future, and instead of hitting the brakes, conservatives and progressives alike keep hitting the accelerator.
One might think that conservatives would at least recognize the perils of corruption in a bloated and overbearing federal government, distant from the oversight of individuals. Think again. The pork-barrel spending increased when so-called conservatives took power, pushed in no small measure by efforts to woo lobbyists who rely on increasing federal power and spending in order to get paid.
How did conservatives lose their way? They focused on everything but the core principle of limited government. Issues like gay marriage and mottos on coins took precedence. It’s not to say that there aren’t other issues that should concern the citizenry, but it is a matter of priorities, and the first priority of the “conservatives†who ran DC from 2001-2006 was re-election and spoils, not reducing government to a manageable and affordable level.
Take gay marriage as one example. In relation to the first principle of conservatism, why should this even be on the conservative radar screen, especially as a national issue? Instead of drumbeats for federal constitutional amendments, we should have insisted that government get out of the sacrament-recognition business. Let the churches determine the sacramental value of relationships, and let (state) governments enforce partnership contracts.
With every added issue, conservatives gain allies but also opponents. A narrow focus on reducing government would attract many more people than it repels. Most Americans believe that the federal government spends too much money, is too corrupt, is unaccountable to the citizenry, and creates massive inefficiencies. The first principle of conservative governance addresses all of that, and policies based on that principle would return both responsibilities and monies back to the states and local communities where they belong, so that citizens can more effectively oversee the issues in their own neighborhoods.
Trying to advance a broad agenda of issues that contradict the principle of limited government obviously hasn’t worked. All that produced was a spending spree that further bloated government and left the public with the impression that little difference exists between “conservatives†and “progressives†except in who gets the cash. If we tried actual, real conservatism by focusing on a return to smaller, less intrusive federal governance, the side issues will become more manageable in our communities. It would provide credibility to a movement that by its very nature should demand that government stay out of the bedroom and the boardroom and treat its citizens like sovereign adults rather than recalcitrant children unable to make their own decisions.
There isn't a single candidate that comes remotely close to what is stated above. The best thing that can happen to conservatism would be another Jimmy Carter like presidency which is what we will get if Obama is our leader. It will be a long time before we find our Ronald Reagan.
What is the first principle of conservatism? Limited government. Our founders understood this, which is why they tightly constrained the jurisdiction of the federal government in the Constitution. Henry David Thoreau famously wrote “That government is best which governs leastâ€Â, and that encapsulates what has been the overarching philosophy of conservatism as applied to governance. Furthermore, it exists in opposition to and as a counterbalance for the competing philosophy of socialism, which postulates that government improves as it governs more.
These days, however, so-called conservatives in government appear more inclined to act on the latter philosophy than the former. Those running as conservatives from either party vote for ever-increasing federal roles in education, agriculture, the arts, and especially health care and retirement planning, despite the increasing deficits that the federal government has racked up. Entitlement programs will have a catastrophic collapse in the future, and instead of hitting the brakes, conservatives and progressives alike keep hitting the accelerator.
One might think that conservatives would at least recognize the perils of corruption in a bloated and overbearing federal government, distant from the oversight of individuals. Think again. The pork-barrel spending increased when so-called conservatives took power, pushed in no small measure by efforts to woo lobbyists who rely on increasing federal power and spending in order to get paid.
How did conservatives lose their way? They focused on everything but the core principle of limited government. Issues like gay marriage and mottos on coins took precedence. It’s not to say that there aren’t other issues that should concern the citizenry, but it is a matter of priorities, and the first priority of the “conservatives†who ran DC from 2001-2006 was re-election and spoils, not reducing government to a manageable and affordable level.
Take gay marriage as one example. In relation to the first principle of conservatism, why should this even be on the conservative radar screen, especially as a national issue? Instead of drumbeats for federal constitutional amendments, we should have insisted that government get out of the sacrament-recognition business. Let the churches determine the sacramental value of relationships, and let (state) governments enforce partnership contracts.
With every added issue, conservatives gain allies but also opponents. A narrow focus on reducing government would attract many more people than it repels. Most Americans believe that the federal government spends too much money, is too corrupt, is unaccountable to the citizenry, and creates massive inefficiencies. The first principle of conservative governance addresses all of that, and policies based on that principle would return both responsibilities and monies back to the states and local communities where they belong, so that citizens can more effectively oversee the issues in their own neighborhoods.
Trying to advance a broad agenda of issues that contradict the principle of limited government obviously hasn’t worked. All that produced was a spending spree that further bloated government and left the public with the impression that little difference exists between “conservatives†and “progressives†except in who gets the cash. If we tried actual, real conservatism by focusing on a return to smaller, less intrusive federal governance, the side issues will become more manageable in our communities. It would provide credibility to a movement that by its very nature should demand that government stay out of the bedroom and the boardroom and treat its citizens like sovereign adults rather than recalcitrant children unable to make their own decisions.
There isn't a single candidate that comes remotely close to what is stated above. The best thing that can happen to conservatism would be another Jimmy Carter like presidency which is what we will get if Obama is our leader. It will be a long time before we find our Ronald Reagan.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."
-
ProstheticHead12
- Member
- Posts: 1371
- Joined: Sun September 19th, 2004, 7:53 pm
- Location: Athens, GA
Bob Barr is the poor mans Ron Paul. Based on his own platform, Barr will have to conduct a John Edwards campaign, running against pretty much his entire voting record during his Congressional career. On every issue Barr names, he voted in the manner in which he now criticizes.ProstheticHead12 wrote:I also support the doob blazing with everyone.
And Death2All - what about Bob Barr? He's not real specific on a lot of issues, but he is most certainly in favor of limited gov't.
Let’s count them up:
Iraq War: voted to authorize.
Eavesdropping and “suspending habeas corpus†(which hasn’t happened  and war detainees have never had it): Voted for the Patriot Act.
Runaway spending: voted for Medicare, Part D  which McCain opposed.
What will he use for a campaign slogan  “In hindsight, I was a lousy Congressman� That didn’t work for John Edwards this year in a major-party primary, and it won’t convince people to vote Libertarian, either.
Shit, let the blazing begin
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."
"There isn't a single candidate that comes remotely close to what is stated above. The best thing that can happen to conservatism would be another Jimmy Carter like presidency which is what we will get if Obama is our leader. It will be a long time before we find our Ronald Reagan."
I always find it amusing how modern day conservatives tend to exalt and embellish the presidency of Ronald Reagan. At this point, the most adament Reagan-ites want you to believe his skin was made of inpenetrable metal and he crushed the Kremlin with his mighty 800-mega ton dong.
Never mind the fact that as a child in the Bay Area, I couldn't leave my apartment because there were ajudicated psychopaths wandering the streets...thanks a lot, Reaganomics!
I always find it amusing how modern day conservatives tend to exalt and embellish the presidency of Ronald Reagan. At this point, the most adament Reagan-ites want you to believe his skin was made of inpenetrable metal and he crushed the Kremlin with his mighty 800-mega ton dong.
Never mind the fact that as a child in the Bay Area, I couldn't leave my apartment because there were ajudicated psychopaths wandering the streets...thanks a lot, Reaganomics!
a) Judges in the legal system are for one, not Ronald Reagan. Maybe you're referring to federal mandatory minimums, but that's still not Ronald Reagan.
b)As a child in Sacramento, I never saw any psychopaths. We had a nice house, dad a nice job and food always on the table. Thanks, 'Reaganomics'. I guess we were part of the evil rich white elite? News to me.
c)If you're trying to actually make a point, as opposed to revealing your childhood desire to suck Reagan's dick, maybe less cartoon-ish analogies would better server.
d) Reagan did not personally end the Cold War, which in all honesty, wasn't that 'cold'. It ended through osmosis of the Soviet economy, which was definitely helped along by strong policy, initiated by Ronald Reagan.
b)As a child in Sacramento, I never saw any psychopaths. We had a nice house, dad a nice job and food always on the table. Thanks, 'Reaganomics'. I guess we were part of the evil rich white elite? News to me.
c)If you're trying to actually make a point, as opposed to revealing your childhood desire to suck Reagan's dick, maybe less cartoon-ish analogies would better server.
d) Reagan did not personally end the Cold War, which in all honesty, wasn't that 'cold'. It ended through osmosis of the Soviet economy, which was definitely helped along by strong policy, initiated by Ronald Reagan.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests