Who you gonna vote for?

[Na_Pali_Coast_Kauai]

LOL.

For the clueless obamabots and retarded McCainophiles, you don't need to read what I'm saying. Get lost. I'm not violating any rules here. Nor am I off-topic. After all, it's called the "general discussion forum."

And don't think that everyone agrees with you.

 

[Bloodlessr]

Originally posted by Sir_Garland+Jun 10 2008, 10:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sir_Garland @ Jun 10 2008, 10:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by Bloodlessr@Jun 10 2008, 08:31 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Scythe

@Jun 10 2008, 02:21 AM
I'm curious... suppose you don't support any of the candidates... would you vote for the one you consider to be the lesser of two evils, or would you not vote at all?

Generally, that is what I would do, but I'm not voting for the President this year, none of candidates represent anything that is actually important to me. I'll vote for all the local stuff.

I completely understand however, I will be voting because although none of them would be my first choice (or second for that matter) I do know who I DO NOT want and I will have to vote for the lesser of the two evils in an attempt to keep that person from winning. [/b][/quote]
I understand your stance but I can't stomach voting for any of them.

 

[Na_Pali_Coast_Kauai]

^ I ALWAYS vote for the lesser of two evils, simply b'coz a perfect candidate does NOT exist. Nelson Mendela and Ghandi were saints, but they are/were NOT as competent as FDR or Bill Clinton are. They are not policy wonks. Nader is a policy wonk, but cannot get elected.

Increasingly, I'm thinking that between Obama and McCain, McCain is the lesser of two evils. That's is I'm likely votin' McBush.

Policy-wise, for me Obama is the lesser of two evils. Politically, I've NEVER seen anyone as dispicable as him! Back in December 2007, I still liked him a lot and was hoping he or Ewards would be Hillary's VP. But January 7th was his first act of divisive race-baiting. I was terribly annoyed but overlooked his camp's bogus accusation that Hillary had denigrated MLK as a mere brain fart. But when he accused Bill of race-baiting when Bill compared him to Jackson... That was it! I knew that this was a well-thought out strategy: His only path to the nomination was by lynching the Clintons.

But my likely vote for McBush (assuming Obama remains the nominee), is has a more brutal pragmatism: Iraq. Iraq is not just a horrific quagmire, but a powder keg which could rip the entire region apart resulting in things like $10/gal gas.

Iraq is their war. It belongs to the Republicans. And I frankly want them to karmically inherit the mess of their making. Obama is incompetent and will very likely screw it up if he pulls out too fast. (If he pulls out slowly, then he's lying right now. Even a slow pull out is still economically devastating, as well as militarily, etc.)

As for McBush. Well, he is simply a crazy wacko. He WILL screw Iraq up BIG TIME.

Iraq cannot be fixed without a herculean diplomatic effort bringing peace between Shia Iran and her Sunni Arab brethren countries. The Kurds too must make peace with both sides, particularly the Sunnis. A deal with Isreal would be icing on the cake. At any rate, McBush's constant saber rattling (scapegoating) towards Iran is not helping one bit. Such continued policy will only lead to disaster: Either the slow one we have been seeing for the last 5 years, or a total explosion of violence from insurgency to outright civil war, or even regional war.

Iraq can only be fixed by extremely aggressive and competent leadership and diplomacy. Bwaak, like Dubya, is merely a good campaigner, who is (was) protected by the media.

This is why I'm votin' McBush. I want the GOP to reap what they sowed in 1991/2003. Otherwise, Obama will be out in 4 years, with a utterly destroyed Democratic brand fully blamed for "losing" Iraq and we'd see GOP presidents not just for the following 8 years, but ad infinitum, ad nauseum, ad rectum...

 

[Na_Pali_Coast_Kauai]

Ok, this one. is for all the gullible and willfully ignorant obamabots out there:

It is another vid of Bwaak Obaba's self-contradictions. Note that there are quite a number of video couplets where in one vid he says one thing one day, week or year, and then in the other vid, he says the diametrical opposite. :huh:

Again, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Such brazen self-contradictions were deliberately left out of the corporate media's narrative of him as being some kind of messianic savior. Why? Because any inclusion of it, would immediately destroy that bogus narrative. We're talking about a GIANT STINKING PILE of TUZLA sized whoppers deliberately kept well out of sight of of the voting public. Naturally, all of these will conveniently surface for the first time in the comming weeks.

Remember how they severely damaged John Kerry in 2004 with this one? And it was only one self-contradiction!

I'm also familiar with at least two greatest hits vids of McCain self-contradictions caught on video on YouTube too, but can't locate them for now. I'll definitely post it for all the mindless McCainaninies out there as soon as I find them.

 

[Na_Pali_Coast_Kauai]

A quote from African American Ivy League professor Adolph Reed, who has known Obama for his political entire career, is poignant here.

He's a vacuous opportunist. I’ve never been an Obama supporter. I’ve known him since the very beginning of his political career, which was his campaign for the seat in my state senate district in Chicago. He struck me then as a vacuous opportunist, a good performer with an ear for how to make white liberals like him.

Obama’s style of being all things to all people threatens to melt under the inescapable spotlight of a national campaign against a Republican. It’s like what brings on the downfall of really successful con artists: They get themselves onto a stage that’s so big that they can’t hide their contradictions anymore, and everyone finds out about the different stories they’ve told different people.

Obama’s campaign has been very clever in carving out a strategy to amass Democratic delegate votes, but its momentum is in some ways a Potemkin construction—built largely on victories in states that no Democrat will win in November—that will fall apart under Republican pressure.

And then where will we be?

Source: The Progressive, May 2008


Reed's article is really good, but I fault him for not explicity using the terms "race-bait" and "race-card" which was so popular in the corporate media's narrative of Hillary. (Of course, Reed does say Obama and his black supporters incessantly, scurriously as well as squirrelously :naughty: make accusations of "racism" against the Clintons "in steadily more extravagant rhetoric".

The other thing is that Reed barely mentions the paramount role of the corporate media. Obama could never do anything or win any arguments on his own against the Clintons if it was for the corporate media constantly proping him up the whole way. To say Obama beat Hillary at anything is like saying Bush beat Gore on his own. Well, that's just a GIANT pile of Bushit.

Gore was defeated by the corporate media, Bush, the GOP, and Nader. And Hillary was defeated by the trifecta of the GOP, the corporate media, and the degenerate race-baiter Bwaak. None of these parties could independently beat Gore or Hillary on their own.

On stage, and in front of thousands of adoring obamabots, Bwaak was this MYTHICAL GIANT. But in the debates, he essentially lost every time, or at best tied Hillary. :huh: He, the mediocre "civil rights lawyer" who never argued a single case (or perhaps at most one appellate case?), was quite the mere mortal when he went one on one with Hillary, who was once ranked as one of the top 100 lawyers in the country.

 

[Scythe]

Originally posted by Na_Pali_Coast_Kauai@Jun 18 2008, 03:32 AM
^ I ALWAYS vote for the lesser of two evils, simply b'coz a perfect candidate does NOT exist.

I'm with centaur boy Garret on this one; if I were American I wouldn't vote for either candidate if the choice is between Mister Douche and Mister Turd. Just because there is no such thing as a perfect candidate doesn't mean you should settle for what's available right under your nose. There may not be a perfect candidate, but isn't it your duty for your country to find a bloke that is pretty darn near perfect?

Here in Belgium, we have to vote. Not voting is a crime. They did however give us a 'blanc vote' option if you don't wanna pick sides. The downside is that the blanc vote goes to the majority. The downside there is that afterwards the statistics give a wrong idea of the public's opinion.

The trick is to find a place that doesn't use computer voting yet and tick off all the names, then your vote is 'invalid' instead of 'blanc' and it doesn't go to the majority.

 

[Scythe]

Originally posted by Na_Pali_Coast_Kauai@Jun 15 2008, 05:07 AM
My reasoning her is very simple. And it is never wrong.

:huh:

 

[Scythe]

Originally posted by Na_Pali_Coast_Kauai@Jun 18 2008, 12:29 AM
And don't think that everyone agrees with you.

Actually, I think we do

 

[goodasgold]

I've decided to vote for Obama.

 

[Na_Pali_Coast_Kauai]

Originally posted by Scythe+Jun 18 2008, 02:39 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Scythe @ Jun 18 2008, 02:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I'm with centaur boy Garret on this one; if I were American I wouldn't vote for either candidate if the choice is between Mister Douche and Mister Turd. Just because there is no such thing as a perfect candidate doesn't mean you should settle for what's available right under your nose. There may not be a perfect candidate, but isn't it your duty for your country to find a bloke that is pretty darn near perfect?[/b]

Apparently you didn't bother to read my anti-Nader spiel above.

Trust me, it's precisely because of Nader and his voters that we now have Bush 43 & genocide in Iraq, $4 gas, etc., instead of the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Al Gore.

Originally posted by Scythe@Jun 18 2008, 02:39 AM

Here in Belgium, we have to vote. Not voting is a crime. They did however give us a 'blanc vote' option if you don't wanna pick sides. The downside is that the blanc vote goes to the majority. The downside there is that afterwards the statistics give a wrong idea of the public's opinion.

I totally believe in mandatory voting. A significant majority of the people who don't vote are liberals or liberal leaning. In 2000, polls showed that about 2/3 of the people who didn't vote would have voted for Gore. In 2000, only a little over 50% of the electorate even bothered to go to the polls.

<!--QuoteBegin-Scythe@Jun 18 2008, 02:39 AM

The trick is to find a place that doesn't use computer voting yet and tick off all the names, then your vote is 'invalid' instead of 'blanc' and it doesn't go to the majority.[/quote]
Well, the conservatives who fraudulently bitch & whine about illegal immigrants voting and call for picture ID's are mysteriously against voter verifyable paper ballots.

In fact, their real scheme is to make it harder for people to vote, i.e. drive down the vote. In a close election, every vote counts, i.e. 2000, 2004 and probably 2008 too. The more things you require voters to have, the less likely they're going to vote.

Walking voter fraud is not a big deal and hasn't been for decades. Minority voter fraud is essentially non-existent. Indeed, voter fraud in terms of the intimidation of minorities is a far bigger problem--yet even that too is not a big problem.

However, there was some very suspicious stuff concerning paperless voting in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. The conservatives won both times, both states, both Presidential contests... Go figure.


-----------------------
According to my best guestimation, McBush is the lesser of two evils. Indeed, the lesser of all evils, since Nader cannot win.

 

[Na_Pali_Coast_Kauai]

Originally posted by Scythe+Jun 18 2008, 02:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Scythe @ Jun 18 2008, 02:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Na_Pali_Coast_Kauai@Jun 18 2008, 12:29 AM
And don't think that everyone agrees with you.

Actually, I think we do [/b][/quote]
Don't be so sure.

1. This debate is still relevant. Hillary's supporters have Obama's balls in a vice.
2. Hillary's supporters find solace in this type of debate. So do many McCain supporters. undecided moderates and so on. Luke warm Obama supporters too.
3. Is it appropriate for AdTunes? Maybe, maybe not. But this is the "general discussion forum".
4. As events unfold over the coming weeks, this debate will be front and center on not just US television, but all over the world.


P.S. I like you're non-insulting frankness, even though I don't agree with you. The other thing is, people with thin-skin should not go around lobbing insults, both implied or direct, if they can't handle it being thrown back at them. Such people are called hypocrits. LOL.

 

[Na_Pali_Coast_Kauai]

Originally posted by goodasgold@Jun 18 2008, 03:46 AM
I've decided to vote for Obama.

Good for you.

LOL. I like and understand your sense of humor.

But hey, just don't click on this thread. Its not exactly mandatory to do so.


Believe me, I haven't even gotten to the interesting stuff yet. B)

 

[Scythe]

Apparently you didn't bother to read my anti-Nader spiel above.

Trust me, it's precisely because of Nader and his voters that we now have Bush 43 & genocide in Iraq, $4 gas, etc., instead of the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Al Gore.

:huh: You're not Garret, are you? Bloodlessr is. You said you always vote for the lesser of two evils, Garret said he wouldn't if even the lesser one smells like a rhino doodoo, and I agree with him... why would you think I didn't read your posts?

I totally believe in mandatory voting. A significant majority of the people who don't vote are liberals or liberal leaning. In 2000, polls showed that about 2/3 of the people who didn't vote would have voted for Gore. In 2000, only a little over 50% of the electorate even bothered to go to the polls.

But it seems they didn't believe in him enough to vote for him? *shrugs* In here, the people who don't want to vote do so because they want to send a message, not because they are lazy.

And it's actually starting to work... albeit very very very slowly.

 

[Scythe]

Originally posted by Na_Pali_Coast_Kauai@Jun 18 2008, 02:54 PM
Believe me, I haven't even gotten to the interesting stuff yet. B)

Really? I hadn't noticed <_<

 

[Na_Pali_Coast_Kauai]

Originally posted by Scythe+Jun 18 2008, 05:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Scythe @ Jun 18 2008, 05:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
You said you always vote for the lesser of two evils, Garret said he wouldn't if even the lesser one smells like a rhino doodoo, and I agree with him... why would you think I didn't read your posts?[/b]

Nevermind, thought you were talkin' to me...

Originally posted by Scythe@Jun 18 2008, 05:03 AM

But it seems they didn't believe in him enough to vote for him? *shrugs*

Right! But that's because the corporate media, Bush, and Nader were all trashing Gore driving up his negatives (i.e. negative public opinion ratings). This is politics 101. Your line of argument is quite mistaken, which is why I thought you didn't bother to read the anti-Nader rant I posted.

The reason why Obama has been able to raise so much money and attract so many people to his campaign rallies is precisely because they, the media, the GOP, even Hillary, have never attacked him on character issues. Once you suffer character attacks, that's it. If it is bad enough, people will stop giving money, and showing up for rallies. This was deliberately done in favor of Obama.


<!--QuoteBegin-Scythe@Jun 18 2008, 05:03 AM

In here, the people who don't want to vote do so because they want to send a message, not because they are lazy.

And it's actually starting to work... albeit very very very slowly.[/quote]

Here = ? Belgium ?

 

[Na_Pali_Coast_Kauai]

Originally posted by Scythe@Jun 18 2008, 05:03 AM
Really? I hadn't noticed <_<

LOL. I don't think you have a very good understand of American politics, and more importantly, American media.

Just wait and see what unfolds over the comming weeks.

 

[Scythe]

Originally posted by Scythe+Jun 18 2008, 03:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Scythe @ Jun 18 2008, 03:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Na_Pali_Coast_Kauai@Jun 18 2008, 02:54 PM
Believe me, I haven't even gotten to the interesting stuff yet. B)

Really? I hadn't noticed <_< [/b][/quote]
Allow me to elaborate:

You say

I havent even gotten to the interesting stuff yet

This implies that what will follow later on will be of better quality than what has been brought before us already.

It should be noted, however, that this statement traditionally follows material that was already of good quality. The statement in itself also brings with it the hint that what has been brought before us already was of substantial quality.

It's like eating some candy and realising that deep inside there is some really really sweet stuff... like.. concentrated sugar.

Furthermore, you enhance the statement by adding the following

B)

The infamous 'cool' smiley. Smilies are cool. The 'cool' smiley even more so. The total? A whopping cool².

Then I take your statement and add

Really? I hadn't noticed <_<

This is basicly your typical sitcom riposte. The kind of comment usually said by an intelligent, good-looking and fiendishly charming young man (who is blessed with a godly shaped butt to boot!) sipping some coffee.

By saying this I am insinuating that your material wasn't good to begin with, and that the 'interesting' stuff should come sooner rather than later. One might also percieve the underlying hint that the expectations for the future material aren't high at all. Also note the brilliant addition of another smiley here. Smilies are still cool, I get two thumbs up from Fonzie!

This strange phenomenon is known in some cultures as 'humor'. Some might appreciate it, some might not. However, even those who do not appreciate it generally find some degree of entertainment from it, and can not hide a slight chuckle.

LOL. I don't think you have a very good understand of American politics, and more importantly, American media.

Just wait and see what unfolds over the comming weeks.

Though some are known to completely miss the point. These bizarre creatures are known by many names, such as 'weirdo' or 'hey you in the bushes'. They are the dorkus malorkus, in latin, of the troll family.

This was Ken, and you have been watching Discussing on the internet: smart or foolish?. Please tune in next week when I will explain the physical uses of paper clips. Can they be used to generate power? Are they worth investing in? And how will they effect the economy in the northern provinces of Indonesia?

Find out next week; same Ken-time, same Ken-channel!

Ken and godly shaped butt, along with any other accessories are trademark tm 2008 LOL enterprises and protected by international law. Godly shaped butt sold seperately. We are not responsible for any damage reading this Ken broadcast might cause to your brain cells. Neither are we responsible for damage to your eyes caused by reading this rediculously small text. Really, why is this so small? Is there something worth hiding here?... hmm... nope. Not really. Are you still reading this? Geez... em... I watched a movie yesterday. Jessica Alba was in it. Her acting seems to get worse every movie. Fortunately I have developped a plugin for VLC player that mutes the movie whenever she says something. That made the movie much more enjoyable. She may be worse at acting than a drunk Charlton Heston with swollen tongue, she's darn fine to look at. I tell you, if I Had my way she'd be staring at my ceiling till Christmas. The movie itself was pretty good too. A bunch of people on a tropical island search for treasure on the ocean floor and stumble upon a crashed plane with tons of drugs inside. This one guy gets shot by a harpoon! Awesome. But anyway, where was I? Oh, yes, if this post offended you, please realise it was just for giggles, then proceed to bend over and remove stick from ass. If you think Jessica Alba is hot, please send a PM to Na_Pali_Coast_Kauai containing the word octopus. If you think she's not that bad an actress, please send a pm to Na_Pali_Coast_Kauai containing the word rofflecopter. If you wish me to send you the vlc plugin to mute her, please send a pm to Na_Pali_Coast_Kauai containing the words go obama go. Do not bother sending spam to Na_Pali_Coast_Kauai; our amazing anti-spam... stuff, will block it without breaking a sweat. Go ahead. Try it... try it again to make sure.

 

[Na_Pali_Coast_Kauai]

Scythe,

Put a cork in it. Like the other two troll, you're totally clueless.

Just to let you know, you don't need to spell out the insults explicitly. I understood it from the start. You and the other two trolls keep assuming that you're superior to the person you're talking down to.

Look, lets just see what unfolds in the coming weeks.

 

[Na_Pali_Coast_Kauai]

BTW, all of your insults are pretty lame.

goodasgold was the only guy who delivered a decent zinger...

But politics-wise, he's just like you. B)

 

[Scythe]

Originally posted by Na_Pali_Coast_Kauai@Jun 18 2008, 03:55 PM
But politics-wise, he's just like you. B)

You think we're cool! You just said it! and I quoted it so you can't change it back! :wub: