Depressing picture - Page 2

On December 19 2007 14:15 Svenman87 wrote: Show nested quote + On December 19 2007 14:14 jkpickett wrote:   On December 19 2007 14:09 Svenman87 wrote: and everything i posted was correct... interesting :- guess this 20 yr old does have politics down in the USA. Does it hurt? does it make u want to cut yourself at night... 'WHY GOD!?!? WHY CANT I SEE!' kill urself it's so correct that it doesn't even dignify a response. well done. just for the record i once tried to explain calculus to a down syndrome and i had better success than dealing with a guy like yourself. please let SKoT handle your debates in the future. you stick to what you know with the little side quips. they are often amusing. ;D k well GL to Ron Paul.. Looks like he is well on his way to the oval office! NEVER STOP QUESTIONING! NEVER STOP DEBATING NEVER STOP VOTE RON PAUL

just out of curiousity, what state college do you go to and what candidate are you supporting?

On December 19 2007 14:15 Svenman87 wrote: ps if u want to ever be educated in how the world ACTUALLY runs and works... not this funny fantasy you and ron paul fan boi's are in... shoot me a pm.. I'd be glad to inform you.

i'd ask my dog first and probably get a more intelligent, informed answer. i'll pass on your waste of time offer, but i would love to hear what socialist you are supporting

also never underestimate the power of the internet...just look at the PPA for God's sake! there are a lot less members in that organization and they got shit done so why would i take your word on the Ron Paul Revolution???

I dont support any candidate..imo there isn't one that really comes to my mind

the problem with this country is NOT the president, it's our congress

Its ourselves... we put these partisans into office and now we cant get shit accomplished. First we have to fix our congress, this president wont be able to do shit regardless of who it is. we'll just be stepping on our own feet.

The PPA is a bad analogy imo. They are working towards a goal really noone else in the country cares about save for funda-christs

Ron paul has yet to break double digits, he will lose the primaries, attempt to go independent, split the vote, and obama will take office

On December 19 2007 14:29 Svenman87 wrote: I dont support any candidate..imo there isn't one that really comes to my mind the problem with this country is NOT the president, it's our congress Its ourselves... we put these partisans into office and now we cant get shit accomplished. First we have too fix our congress, this president wont be able to do shit regardless of who it is. we'll just be stepping on our own feet.

actually much truth to this also, but there are many things you can accomplish with the veto power. if you get a libertarian in as president that isn't the end all be all, but will get the ball rolling more towards other candidates coming out against the neocons and extreme liberals with all their restricting laws. it's not like ron paul is alone, but if he can win, then all those supporters can push forward their ideals. i think saying ron paul can't win is very accurate, but if the ideals get spread then the same goal is accomplished and change can be made. that would open the door for another libertarian in 2012.

i guess my above post is saying that we aren't hopeless if ron paul doesn't win this ONE election, but it sounds hopeless to not have a guy you support and just to say "we are screwed, oh well."

I'm all for change within our government, just not what Ron Paul is trying to push to.

Unfortunately I've yet to really come up with any sort of legitimate and effective way to push for a change in the congress. More people will have to notice this imo before it even gets addressed.

On December 19 2007 14:30 SKoT wrote: The PPA is a bad analogy imo. They are working towards a goal really noone else in the country cares about save for funda-christs Ron paul has yet to break double digits, he will lose the primaries, attempt to go independent, split the vote, and obama will take office

i wasn't saying because the PPA was somewhat successful that ron paul has a chance, but i wouldn't cling to the "fact" that ron paul has no chance when it's clear the message is spreading fast he's becoming a legitimate candidate. the PPA analogy was just pointing out the power of the internet.

and as for going independent, that is not true. he's said so on many occasions. all libertarians know that you must be a Rep/Dem in this broken system to get a look at being elected. it wouldn't be any good to run independent. you saying something like that shows you don't really know what you are talking about (no offense...that came off bad). and also "ron paul has YET (being the key word) to break double digits" he just raised money for the very reason of getting the message out to a broader audience. the important thing to remember is that his numbers are rising. they haven't reached double digits, but the very well could in a short time. plus many past nominees have been in a similar spot at this time. remember john kerry had no chance when howard dean looked like the sure thing. i just don't see how you guys can be so SURE of all these broad statements you make.

On December 19 2007 14:43 Svenman87 wrote: I'm all for change within our government, just not what Ron Paul is trying to push to. Unfortunately I've yet to really come up with any sort of legitimate and effective way to push for a change in the congress. More people will have to notice this imo before it even gets addressed.

i don't expect socialists to buy what ron paul is selling because liberty isn't the main goal of that system. i don't see though how communal government systems work with the lack of incentives that drive people to succeed. to each his own.

Because I oppose Ron I'm automatically a socialist? :-[

On December 19 2007 14:46 Svenman87 wrote: Because I oppose Ron I'm automatically a socialist? :-[

not automatically, but statistically speaking PROBABLY SO. i asked what you were, but you declined to elaborate just saying "what i believe is not what ron paul is pushing to"

plus there are varying degrees of socialism, but i think most democrats with their welfare this and that systems are also socialists to a large degree. (hell, even the new Republican NEOCONS are with their big government programs)

also many college kids are all about saving the world, peace, feed the hungry, etc. so i just assumed.

I've said before and I'll say again, I do not affiliate myself with any one political party... Im really on the fence when it comes to being a conservative or liberal [whatever that means today... god knows...] Leaning a bit more towards being liberal

Im in favor of letting abortions be put on health plans
Im in favor of gay marriage and gay rights
Im NOT in favor of welfare programs + or farm subsidies
We should reform our public school systems
cut taxes
increase sales tax
[NOT SAYING GET RID OF THE IRS]
Cut defense spending
reduce foreign aid
promote the death penalty and not give death row inmates 100 years in prison before getting killed
- u kill someone we kill u [ofc exceptions]

On December 19 2007 15:00 Svenman87 wrote: I've said before and I'll say again, I do not affiliate myself with any one political party... Im really on the fence when it comes to being a conservative or liberal [whatever that means today... god knows...] Leaning a bit more towards being liberal Im in favor of letting abortions be put on health plans Im in favor of gay marriage and gay rights Im NOT in favor of welfare programs + or farm subsidies We should reform our public school systems cut taxes increase sales tax [NOT SAYING GET RID OF THE IRS] Cut defense spending reduce foreign aid promote the death penalty and not give death row inmates 100 years in prison before getting killed - u kill someone we kill u [ofc exceptions]

i'm confused because you sound like i did at one point...a former Republican transforming to libertarian. a few of your stances are a tad inconsistent, but i'm sure if you read some good literature on a few of those points you would lean toward letting people do what they want (liberty) and economic responsibility with regards to government (smaller the better). also why are you so in favor of keeping the IRS and income tax? that was the one thing in your post that stood out to me.

By the way, I'm well aware he has said he wont go independent. But do you really think that his losing the repub nomination will stop him?

In any case, nobody can be SURE of anything.

im not for world peace, feeding the hungry or anything
however I do see advantages in a world government... which is realistically a thousand years away ;p
It'd be a lot easier without religion ;D

On December 19 2007 15:04 SKoT wrote: By the way, I'm well aware he has said he wont go independent. But do you really think that his losing the repub nomination will stop him? In any case, nobody can be SURE of anything.

yes i think it will stop him because i'd say 90% of the people in my party believe we can't win a big national office and thus have to run mainstream. he wouldn't run 3rd party, but may support someone who is like minded with him and back him financially. i guess they are somewhat one in the same. but yes no one can be sure.

On December 19 2007 15:05 Svenman87 wrote: im not for world peace, feeding the hungry or anything however I do see advantages in a world government... which is realistically a thousand years away ;p It'd be a lot easier without religion ;D

it's not religion itself that is hindering things, but instead the zealots enforcing their beliefs through public policy. i say you can worship whatever you want as long as you don't hinder others. the reason religion is a hot button topic is because of our Christian nation attacking a Muslim nation, but they are really angry with us because of our occupation. if we left them be, there wouldn't be these terror attacks and frivolous wars. also, are you hinting that you aren't for the 1st amendment?

I'm just saying it'd be a lot easier without religion ;p im not saying i'm against any amendment.

I'm with you on believe what you want to believe, just don't impose it on me... I'm an atheist [SUPRISE] and I really don't care what religion you are.

I AM however for a true separation of church and state. there's a lot out there in our government that promotes Christianity...

And I do think we'd still be attacked... extremist Muslims think anyone who isn't Muslim [or there TYPE] is obv going to burn forever and needs to be killed.

ps gotta go ... seeing a few movies tonight ^_^ peace nikkaz

On December 19 2007 15:19 Svenman87 wrote: I'm just saying it'd be a lot easier without religion ;p im not saying i'm against any amendment. I'm with you on believe what you want to believe, just don't impose it on me... I'm an atheist [SUPRISE] and I really don't care what religion you are. I AM however for a true separation of church and state. there's a lot out there in our government that promotes Christianity... And I do think we'd still be attacked... extremist Muslims think anyone who isn't Muslim [or there TYPE] is obv going to burn forever and needs to be killed. ps gotta go ... seeing a few movies tonight ^_^ peace nikkaz

yeah i'm about to go watch Detroit @ Celtics so last post for a while.
anyways, i agree that there is too much in the government involving religion and i also think the government itself is a secular religion to many people. just look at all the symbolism (flags, pledge of allegiance, even robes worn by judges, and the list could go on and on).
i also see why people like yourself think the extremists would attack, but their religion only teaches in some ways to be proactive in their attacks when they know their opponents are warring on them. our government wants you to believe that propaganda about us being forever a target because it allows for them to collect more taxes in an effort to "protect us" or as i see it "further the military complex". you can't look at the extremists anyways because there are extremists of every religion who don't mind strapping a bomb to their chest for a just cause. what you are doing when you believe something like that is taking the governments word for it. i mean you really think they want to just kill all people who aren't muslims? i actually wanted to see what they thought for myself and did some extensive research on the internet and saw that their religion isn't like that at all. i would challenge anyone to take what the government tells you will a grain of salt because they always have an agenda.