A Word to the Third Party and Non Voters

page: 8
11
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

obviously from our earlier discussion you would know i dont exspect people to support either canidate even 50%...

but what i am saying is if you have an NRA hat on you probably care about gun rights. probably care about it a good deal. that is why you are wearing that hat. not like wearing a NAFTA hat or something.

i find that comendable to support gun rights as every true american should.

being that you take gun rights seriously enough to have an NRA hat on why on earth would you vote for obama? im not saying you have to agree with 100% of any canidate im just saying obama is the quintessential anti gun canadate.

i find it odd. thats why i asked the question. why are you being so defensive?




posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRepublic
 


I'm not being defensive, I'm trying to answer your question.


That's not me with the hat on, BTW,
but I 100% support the second amendment, so I'm giving you MY take on a person who is against gun control, but plans to vote for Obama.

If I were to vote for Ron Paul or John McCain or ANYONE I KNOW, there are going to be things I disagree with them on. Let me be clear, I totally disagree with Obama on his stance on gun control. I just don't think he'd ever get anywhere with it, so it doesn't bother me.

OMS will have to answer for himself.



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRepublic
 


The gun issue is a non-issue, in my opinion. Whatever Obama's position on it is, it will never happen that firearms will be outlawed in this country and peacefully surrendered. If Congress tries it, or any President tries it by Exec Order, it will mean instant armed rebellion, and they know it.

It's already been tried, and failed miserably. When the BS "assault rifle" ban was put into place during the Clinton era, a group in Southern California published an ad saying they would be gathered at such and such range on a particular date and if any LE wanted to come take their rifles, the LE were welcome to try. Nobody showed up, wisely.

So it's a non-issue.

I'm supporting Obama because McCain isn't even a pretense at anything different than what we've had the last 8 miserable freaking years. Obama at least pretends he'll do something different, and I'm with BH... maybe it's only a 5% or less chance he means it, but what the hey... with McCain, it's a guaranteed 0% difference.

I'm actually a Ron Paul supporter, and may in fact write him in when the time comes, but then again I may not. He won't win, even if he wins (Diebold, etc), and I'm not sure Obama will win even if HE wins.

But the last 8 years, I've been embarrassed at what passes for 'leadership' here. Obama can at least form actual sentences, with real words that mean something. He's not an obvious butt-monkey like W.

It does remain to be seen if Obama means what he says with all them $10 words...


(btw... it is not necessarily me with the hat, either...
)



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 


fair enough.
I wish they didnt steal the ron paul election from us also. the media just jammed mccain in there and there was definate vote fraud too. i guess your right about the government never being able to get our guns no matter who wins.

i think if the founding fathers saw this country today they would be disapointed in many diffrent things, but when they saw the gun oners of this country maybe it would give them a little hope.

we definatly arnt giving them up thats for sure. come and take it.



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



My take is this:

If I don't vote, I cast a ballot for no one because I don't believe in anyone running for the office. They are all LIARS, CHEATS, and CON MEN. They will tell you anything, promise you anything and deliver NOTHING !

Without the US Congress (both houses), the Office holder is NOTHING. He or She can do absolutely nothing.

And if you don't vote them back into office or vote for their replacements, they can do nothing. They already do NOTHING.

The VOTE does not COUNT in NATIONAL ELECTIONS. It is a FARCE, a LIE.

The Electoral College decides who the winner is and this year, there will be a SPLIT DECISION and if that happens on November 4th 2008, the VOTE will go back to the PEOPLE and the POPULAR VOTE will place the WINNER in office.



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 09:16 PM
link   
The real problem is the lack of an unbiased and free press. The press is neither of those. It certainly isn't unbiased, and it certainly isn't free. It is only free so long as it supports the goals of the power brokers. Look at Obama. Several years ago, virtually no one knew who he was, outside of people from Illinois. What people did not realize is that he had already been anointed by the power brokers. I remember seeing magazine articles, newspaper articles, and "news" programs doing bio's on him, basically to introduce him to the "nation". Think about it- until a few years ago, he led a very nondescript life, with no real political accomplishments. All of a sudden, his face is all over the place.
Next thing you know, he is running for president, against accomplished senators and other long-standing politicians. If you look at it logically, there is no way he should have won the nomination. But he did. I have to admit that his "handlers" did a beautiful job of getting him the nomination, without ever putting forth an accomplishment. That, in itself, is scary, that a person with no accomplishments, no experience, can be chosen the candidate for one of the two major parties for President.
The press calls him a "rock star". Gee maybe Madonna should have been the candidate!
The main stream media dutifully presented Obama to the nation, just as the power brokers directed. However, we are also to blame for not using our brains, and seeing what a sham it is to have someone like Obama as the candidate of one of the two parties.

A truly free and unbiased press would have the courage to expose what the power brokers do behind the scenes, but no such animal exists. The closest thing we have to a free press is the Internet. I'm sure it won't be long before that is controlled by the power brokers.


I, however, do not think that "not voting" is a solution. Since our constitution does not require a "quorum" of voters, all that would do, is allow the few to control what happens. What needs to be done is have EVERYONE vote, at all levels, and in all primaries. Organize, get involved, find candidates that you believe ARE qualified, then work for them. Refuse to buy the garbage that the MSM throws at you on the boob tube, or in the rag newspapers. Exercise your RIGHTS as CITIZENS. Don't just give in to the power brokers.



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


The corruption of the press in the US is certainly a huge contributor to the problem, but I'm not sure I'd agree it is the "real" problem.

I think there is an argument to be made that the "real" problem is a population that has been trained from childhood to not think, but rather regurgitate.

The failure of the press is obvious with 23 seconds' worth of thought... but too many Americans cannot produce that much critical thinking... they think that if CNN or FOX news or MSNBC says it, it must be so.

I've noticed a phenomenon during the Bush regime - a kind of BS meter. Pretty much every time W opens his mouth, mine pegs. And the same for McCain, Romney, Clinton (Hillary and Bill), etc.

I don't get the same reaction when I hear Paul or Obama or Kucinich talk. This could mean they are actually telling the (more or less) truth, or they believe they are, or they are better BSers than Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rummy... I don't have enough hard evidence yet to tell on that front. But it's refreshing to not have my BS meter pegged all the time... and is one reason for my support for those three. There are things on which I disagree with all of them, but Kucinich for instance has more courage in his toenail clippings than the entire Bush Administration all put together.

So, yes, absolutely, the mirage of a free and independent press corps in the US is definitely part of the problem. But I think it goes deeper than that.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 

You're right. If citizens were more critical in their thinking, then the MSM might not have the influence that they have. You do need both factors to create the problem that exists today.
The problem I have with Obama is two-fold. First, I'm concerned that he does not have the experience to handling the toughest job in the world. We have not seen him in a crisis mode. The second, and bigger problem that I have, is that he seems to say whatever the audience he speaks to, wants to hear. Agreed, that isn't very different from most politicians. However, I AM concerned about remarks such as he made in San Francisco about Americans and their religion and gun, as well as his waffling about Iraq- he seems to change his position every week. Does he really believe SOMETHING, or is he just reacting to polls? He hasn't been in Congress long enough to know where he really stands on many issues.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
The problem I have with Obama is two-fold. First, I'm concerned that he does not have the experience to handling the toughest job in the world.


Interesting thing about experience. Some of our best presidents have had very little. Lincoln had 8 years in the IL State Legislature and 2 years in the House. And some of our worst have had a LOT of experience. James Buchanan had over 30 years and is considered one of our worst.

This page rates the presidents and shows how much experience they had.

How Good are Experienced Presidents

Barack Obama has 10 years as a State Senator and 2 years in the US Senate. About the same amount as Lincoln, and more than FDR, Woodrow Wilson and John Adams. All considered very good presidents.



He hasn't been in Congress long enough to know where he really stands on many issues.


I'll just ask. Do you know where you stand on issues? How long have you been in Congress?

[edit on 31-7-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





About the same amount as Lincoln, and more than FDR, Woodrow Wilson and John Adams. All considered very good presidents.


Well, I'll agree with you about Lincoln and Adams. I strongly DISAGREE with you about Wilson and FDR.
Wilson was responsible for pushing and signing legislation establishing the Federal Reserve System. If you look at my signature, you'll know where I (and Jefferson) stand on that. I believe that the Federal Reserve has CAUSED the major financial problems that we have today.

FDR was responsible for destroying the gold standard and introducing the welfare state and the beginnings of socialism in the US.

If you are a supporter of Obama, I understand why you favor those two presidents. You are consistent, at least. Take a look at the thread I created a few days ago, and you'll see what I think about Obama and socialism/ communism.

abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus

Well, I'll agree with you about Lincoln and Adams. I strongly DISAGREE with you about Wilson and FDR.

...I understand why you favor those two presidents.


Take another look at what BH said:

Wilson and FDR "are considered" good presidents. BH did NOT say she considers them to be so.

Two very different things.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 





Wilson and FDR "are considered" good presidents. BH did NOT say she considers them to be so.

I'll let her speak for herself. People normally wouldn't make such remarks unless they also believed it. Context is everything.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Well, I'll agree with you about Lincoln and Adams. I strongly DISAGREE with you about Wilson and FDR.


Actually I wasn't giving my opinion on those presidents, I was relating the ranking of those presidents according to the link I posted. That's why I said they "are considered to be" good presidents.



If you are a supporter of Obama, I understand why you favor those two presidents.


I do not favor those presidents.



Take a look at the thread I created a few days ago, and you'll see what I think about Obama and socialism/ communism.


I didn't realize that was your thread. I have no interest in threads accusing Obama of being a socialist, a communist, a Muslim or a reptilian.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





I didn't realize that was your thread. I have no interest in threads accusing Obama of being a socialist, a communist, a Muslim or a reptilian.

If you didn't agree that they were good presidents, then why cite them, and use that fact in your argument. That is a total non-sequitur.

Actually, my thread merely points to a link that actually has the facts that Obama was mentored by communists, and freely advocates socialist policies. In addition, several of his supporters actually acknowledge that many of his ideas ARE socialist, and that in their opinion, there is nothing wrong with socialism.
It is not an accusation. It is self-admission by Obama, his actions, and his followers.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRepublic
...
why would someone with a NRA hat support obama?
...

IHMO, in the last couple of weeks, Obama has been deliberately and slowly shifting to the Right (politically). His supporters just follows him wherever he goes.



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
If you didn't agree that they were good presidents, then why cite them, and use that fact in your argument.


I don't agree or disagree. I don't know enough about those 2 particular presidents to have an opinion on how "good" they were. I don't necessarily agree with 100% of every source I post. That source listed other "good" presidents and their experience. My point in posting it is that experience isn't necessarily a Good Thing when it comes to being a good president. That's all.


You mentioned that Obama may not know where he really stands on many issues since he hasn't been in Congress long (lack of experience). And that's a logical fallacy. It isn't necessary to serve in Congress to know where one stands and have a firm stance on the issues, as we all know.



Actually, my thread merely points to a link that actually has the facts that Obama was mentored by communists, and freely advocates socialist policies.


I know what Obama advocates. I'm not voting for him because he's cute or inspirational or makes me feel good about me.

As regards "socialism", I'll refer you to this most excellent post written by member Valhall that I read yesterday, and am in complete agreement with.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Actually, my thread merely points to a link that actually has the facts that Obama was mentored by communists, and freely advocates socialist policies. In addition, several of his supporters actually acknowledge that many of his ideas ARE socialist, and that in their opinion, there is nothing wrong with socialism.
It is not an accusation. It is self-admission by Obama, his actions, and his followers.
I think you're being rather presumptious here PE by attempting to hold Barack Obama accountable for his statements and commentaries based upon what you perceived them to mean.

Just because he advocates socialist ideologies, doesn't necessarily make him a socialist. That's a logical fallacy as BH has said with such Clintonesque eloquence. Words can have more than one meaning as we have clearly seen in the last few months. I've been fooled myself many times over during the course of this presidential race.

Politicians are typically lawyers, and their language is not necessarily that of the common man. Though you may believe they said something, when you go back and carefully disect their statement into their component parts, you soon realize the language was very vague, and left plenty of room for later revision. It's very easy to misconstrue meanings and take things out of context nowadays..



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Actually, I believe your position is wrong. There is a real danger here, but the danger is believing that there is only one power in control. There are actually two powers vying for control. Freedom on the one side, and what we call Socialism on the other. The tragedy is that the American public does not elect by popular vote, but by the electoral college vote. Therefore, what the public wants has little bearing on the election of the President.

Wilson cracked open the door to Socialism, and Roosevelt threw it open the rest of the way. And throughout the years, the left minded educational system embedded a concept of government that differed from what our founding fathers had in mind when this country was formed. We have become a welfare and tax centered nation along with the increasing controls a Socialist government needs to gain dominance. We are losing the remaining bits of freedom that we, as a nation have available to us. Obama’s election will erase the last of those bits.

The conservative minded citizens of this country need to start to regain control, and this needs to begin at every level of local governance. Mayors, city council members and school boards need to be replaced with people who are conservative minded. Then we need to do the same with county and state level elected officials, and lastly with the federal level. It will take a lot of work to return to where we once were, but it will be worth the effort. But mostly, we need to cease the increasing greed and demand for excessive consumption of foreign goods.

We need to reduce the levels of regulation and control the government has over us. And we especially need to eliminate the power that UN controlled NGO’s like The Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, Firms like Nestle and others have over us through their political contributions to our elected representatives. They pull the strings in the capitols, not the public.

By voting for conservative minded candidates you can help to restore democracy. Do the research, see where the contributions come from, and how the elected representatives vote. If you want to change the direction of a politician, change where his contributions come from.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   
I forget the name of the effect. but i think voting 3rd party is pointless. as someone pointed out, its all about the lesser of two evils, and by voting for a 3rd party, your just taking away votes from the candidate that has similar views, therefore electing the candidate you REALLY didnt want elected. so just try to keep that in mind this year when voting for 3rd party candidates



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ledhead
 


and I see it as a person having the right to choose the candidate he or she desires. The loser of the two party system needs to remember that pointless vote you mention. Maybe next time they will do their job and earn that pointless vote you mention.





new topics
 
11
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join