Conquer Club

question: why is ron paul only supported by the tin hat crowd?

Dekloren wrote:[ Poll ] WTF! Bush IS Trying to Kill Us!
[ Goto page: 1 ... 8, 9, 10 ] Posts 143 Views 1014

There's a very close 90%er.

Idiot. Each view is not unique. I could press F5 every 15 seconds on the first page of this thread and the view count would go right up.

Dekloren wrote:McCain Criticized for Racial Slursfgate.com — McCain during the 2000 campaign: "I hate the gooks, I will hate them as long as I live." Now that China is rising to power, do we want a person who says things like this leading our country?

... What does "gooks" have to do with China's rise?

... Grouping Vietnamese together with Chinese (and maybe Koreans, Thais and Japanese) will get the "RACIST!" finger pointing your way, eh?

...

Why don't you ask John McCain??

He said it.

mr. incrediball wrote:question: why is ron paul only supported by the tin hat crowd?

Because there is a little truth to the tin hat crows





Ron Paul or Obama is the only logical choice imho.
I believe they are the only 2 that can stimulate change to the status quo.

Obama's not any different than the others, but probably better than Hilary.

Vote RuPaul!

Snorri1234 wrote:Vote RuPaul!

Aren't you the cretin who wants Obama '08?

apparently trolling isnt off limits on the weekends.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Vote RuPaul!

Aren't you the cretin who wants Obama '08?

Watch it Nap. No one insults the Snorri and gets away with it.
Well, they do, but they normally end up with a face full of manure.

suggs wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Vote RuPaul!

Aren't you the cretin who wants Obama '08?

Watch it Nap. No one insults the Snorri and gets away with it.
Well, they do, but they normally end up with a face full of manure.

I'm getting a little edgy as France-Ireland approaches. This is not the time for Snorrarse or Viet-Tonk to piss me off.

the reason why obama gets all the attention is cause he's black, so we must dance around him like the queen

brooksieb wrote:the reason why obama gets all the attention is cause he's black, so we must dance around him like the queen

Pretty much.

Dekloren wrote:Why don't you ask John McCain??

He said it.

... But you are the one insinuating that the the term "Gook" might apply to the Chinese.

...

Nobunaga wrote:

Dekloren wrote:Why don't you ask John McCain??

He said it.

... But you are the one insinuating that the the term "Gook" might apply to the Chinese.

...

He used it in reference to his NVA captors. Given the atrocious torture he was subjected to, I dont blame him.

Saying that about McCain is just as much of a cheap and disgusting low-blow as accusing Paul of racism for his 90s newsletter.

Nobunaga wrote:

Dekloren wrote:McCain Criticized for Racial Slursfgate.com — McCain during the 2000 campaign: "I hate the gooks, I will hate them as long as I live." Now that China is rising to power, do we want a person who says things like this leading our country?

... What does "gooks" have to do with China's rise?

... Grouping Vietnamese together with Chinese (and maybe Koreans, Thais and Japanese) will get the "RACIST!" finger pointing your way, eh?

...

Gooks does not only refer to the Vietnamese. Ofcourse it was used as a slur against them, as it has been against the Koreans. But now it's just a slur aimed at all asians.

Noone is saying McCain is a racist, but is a person so oblivious to the meaning of his words fit to be the new president of the most powerfull nation on the planet?

Napoleon Ier wrote:He used it in reference to his NVA captors. Given the atrocious torture he was subjected to, I dont blame him.

If someone captured and tortured by the military of Zimbabwe or something kept referring to his torturers as "niggers", then he would be ridiculed and everyone would think it was stupid to say it.

brooksieb wrote:the reason why obama gets all the attention is cause he's black, so we must dance around him like the queen

Yeah totally, it has absolutely nothing to do with him being charismatic or interresting, it's because he's black. You totally nailed it there.

brooksieb wrote:the reason why obama gets all the attention is cause he's black, so we must dance around him like the queen

read the first post, at least. the question is why does he get all the attention when he's not the only black guy running? And it doesn't really matter if he wins. his VP will probably become the new president when he gets assainated like Lincon. Lincon for freeing the the black's, Obama for being a black. Oh, how ironic...

The1exile wrote:

Dekloren wrote:[ Poll ] WTF! Bush IS Trying to Kill Us!
[ Goto page: 1 ... 8, 9, 10 ] Posts 143 Views 1014

There's a very close 90%er.

Idiot. Each view is not unique. I could press F5 every 15 seconds on the first page of this thread and the view count would go right up.

Actually, in Firefox the right click menu gives you a 'renew every... (5 secs, 10 secs...) option. Save your keyboard a bashing, eh?

I dont think any of the Candidates are particuarly potential great presidents, but Obama's slightly better than the rest of Them, so logically the he becomes the person in the Sun..

If you've paid incredibly close attention to every last one of my posts over the last year or so, you know I'm a long-time Bill Richardson supporter. Richardson is a hardcore technocrat, with flair. I love him. And he's no longer running for President, so I've been posed with a quite a dilemma. With U.S. politics as they currently stand, I would only ever vote Democrat. Period. People who think that is confining and short-sighted--well, I won't say they're stoopid, but they don't have very nuanced understandings of U.S. American politics.

So, I'm left with the question, "Obama" or "Hillary"?

They are very similar on nearly all issues of import to me. I favor Hillary's health care model, but not incredibly so, since I think they're both in folly. If you want universal health coverage, single-payer health care is the only way to go. Ultimately, in my internal debate over Hillary and Obama, with their nearly all-encompassing policy similarities, it will come down to political style. Obama has a much, much more attractive political style. I'm not a Hillary-hater, BY ANY MEANS, but I am totally willing to admit that she's not incredibly likeable. Secondarily, I think there certainly is something to say for an opposition to the "oligarchy" that Hillary may represent. It reflects badly on the U.S., and as a hegemon in crisis, the U.S. needs to be very concerned about its image. With that in mind, I'm willing to bring race into the picture. A black President would reflect very well on the U.S., both in terms of domestic and international politics.

So, who will I vote for on March 4th? Barack Obama.

I personally see little to no difference between the substance of Clinton's and Obama's platforms (actually, from what I know, I think I prefer Clinton ever so slightly) but given the popular perception of Obama as the candidate of hope and his appeal to the fabled independent voter, I feel that the party should coalesce around him.

spurgistan wrote:I personally see little to no difference between the substance of Clinton's and Obama's platforms (actually, from what I know, I think I prefer Clinton ever so slightly) but given the popular perception of Obama as the candidate of hope and his appeal to the fabled independent voter, I feel that the party should coalesce around him.

I agree on every point.

If Hilary wins, the Democrat are certain to win the Presidency because of the womens vote.
So vote Hilary.
(They're aren't enough blacks yet to guarantee an Obama win).