It will be Hillary in 08 - Page 3

Sounds like some kind of weird authoritarianism - you want someone who you believe has integrity, and it doesn't matter what policies they would enact? Lots of very, very bad people who have done very, very bad things have had a kind of "integrity."

I don't see Ron Paul as the "authoritarian".. if anything he leans towards the libertarianism end of the y-axis. Hillary, on the other hand...

Obama and Clinton are talking "change". Does anyone who supports either of these two candidates have a clue what they will do to alter course? What "change" are they supporting which is practical and achievable? Is this "change" (buzzword of the month) going to mean anything more than an ersatz gesture, with zero result?

Yeah, tell us, SJO, what change is practical and achievable?

You act as if Obama and Clinton have the bona fide option of being to the left of *Karl Marx* and just choose not to be. Time and time again, you refuse to acknowledge that there are some things that are politically impossible. You have no recipe for achieving and sustaining a liberal majority, only pie-in-the-sky demands. Obama (and Hillary in particular with her stellar health care plan) are coming the closest to change than we've seen in the longest time. And what are you doing? Voting for Ron Paul? That's damn near irresponsible for a liberal.

... but only if his veep was Bob Avakian or Sam Webb. That way Paul has a balanced ticket, and a real chance of being our next POTUS!

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Right, but Hillary has very little wiggle room. If she were to loose the general election it would have been lost last year. If Obama were to loose the election, it would have to be lost between his nomination and November. It's true things could change, but at least Obama has the potential. It's not about sheer static ability It's about potential.

Is this graphic purposely sorted from left to right by quantity of facial hair?

Who's second from the left? Marx, ?, Lenin, Stalin, Mao.

Engles?

Looks that way, and if you look real close you can see cardinals roosting in his beard.

Nothing, in a word. Under the current state of play, there is no foreseeable change that can qualify as genuine change. Under Hillary and Obama, change isn't even on the cards, despite all the clever "rhetoratory" (is that a real word?) . There are no electable candidates lined up who can effect change. I don't even acknowledge that the fringe candidates (ostracized by the media) would be able to effect change, even in the extreme unlikelihood of their being nominated (let alone winning the White House). Before there is any possibility of "change" occurring, we need to fix our election system to allow third party candidates with the interest of the people (who??) in mind to be in with a realistic chance. This will require a set of Constitutional amendments.. and is there any chance of the Republicrat status quo approving changes that undermine the Republicrat stranglehold on the system? Silly question of course. And even in the event of a 3rd party candidate (left or right) winning the presidency after electoral changes have been enacted, a change of CEO isn't going to do much to fix a M.O. that has been fundamentally messed up for decades, and progressively deteriorating.

On the other hand, there is highly visible change already happening, but it is not the kind of change that you, and other liberals are supposedly yearning for. Whether its Obama, Clinton, Huckabee or McCain in the White House, the change towards a society that few ordinary people truly welcome will not be arrested. This change is the inexorable march towards a society where there is no privacy, government is more self-serving and less accountable to the people, officials are increasingly less accessible to the public (more so the higher up the government spectrum), secrecy re. official business is the rule rather than the exception, maximum security is priority #1, surveillance is ubiquitous, cash becomes increasingly obsolete, the gap between the haves and have-nots widens exponentially, war is a first resort rather than a final action, and fear is the primary tool used to keep the rabble in line by the federal government aided by an increasingly centralized and complicit media... amongst many many others.

That kind of negative change, already happening now, will be maintained, whether a democrat or republican is in the White House.


You misunderstand what I said. I am merely having a gripe and voicing my disquiet. I have no demands. I have no expectations. (Expectation is a prison anyway). People are under some lah-de-dah pink-tinted impression/vision that a democrat like Clinton and Obama will successfully enact some magic panacea to fix the last 7 horrible years of wholesale crime, mass murder, corruption, cronyism, fearmongering, federally sponsored terrorism, wars based on lies, gross economic mismanagement and all the rest of the sick and sorry mess we now find ourselves. You talk about Hillary's "stellar health plan"... it's never going to get off the ground, I guarantee you. It's probably just election rhetoric anyway.

I have no answers for you. Just don't get suckered into some bogus insincere BS regurgitated by a pair of slick, wellfunded DC establishment shills like Clinton and Obama (or McCain or Huckabee). The complex program and policy set that sprang into action within hours of the Twin Towers going down will continue apace, with more efficiency than what has happened under the reign of King Chimpy "Codpiece" McFlightsuit. I don't welcome that possibility, or eventuality, in the least
.
I feel the only way positive change is going to happen, is the way it has happened historically: ie when so many people get so angry and pissed that they take matters into their own hands. However, such a drastic course of events is never going to happen in the US, no matter what. Even a full scale stock market collapse and subsequent depression worse than 1929 and the early 1930s isn't going to generate enough discomfort to trigger the general unrest needed to enable a real changing of the guard.

I feel the 232 year old experiment in liberty and self determination is over, "bar the shouting".


If liberals want Clinton or Obama, their best chance lies in the continued presence of Paul's campaign, by splitting the Republican/Conservative vote, just as Ross Perot did in 1992. Without the Perot/Reform Party vote (19%, largely disgruntled conservatives), another 4 years of G.H.W. Bush would have been a definite..

Yeah. That's Engelswho, interestingly, was the son of an industrialist in Wuppertal.

I am deeply, deeply concerned, though, that Trotsky is not included in that list.

I agree. It really does seem like Sammi Jo knows nothing whatsoever about RP's policies and about what would happen to the country if God forbid they were ever enacted. After 4 years of RP, the dead, dying and starving on the street, the lynched faggots and the multi-trillionaire oligarchy would make the great depression look like a walk through Oz.

Sammi, what about abortion? Do you agree with Paul there?

Do you agree with Paul on gay marriage?

Do you agree with Paul on Social Security (eliminate it)? Health care (private insurance only -- no services whatsoever for the uninsured)? Education (private funding only)?

Do you want every Southerner to have to swear allegiance to the bible, facing ten commandments in every courthouse, forced prayer in every classroom? Guns sold in 7-11?

Do you have any idea about what this man stands for?

His only good policy is his noninterventionist policy. But even then he'd back out of the UN instead of making international law stronger -- and more international.

From wikipedia:

He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[171] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[172][173] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[172]

--

Sorry, Ron Paul is the only real gay-rights candidate, and the best one for gays to vote for - libertarians in general are very good for gay rights. I don't know where you got all that "faggots dead in the street bit". The latest trend in attempts to discredit libertarian ideas is to lump them in with social conservatives, which is what you are doing here - they pretty much are the opposite of social conservatives.

Forced prayer in every classroom? Do you even read anything about him, or are you just making this all up?

Um maybe because he will make it all states' decisions? So there will be gay marriage in California. Yay. Will that marriage be recognized when you want to file your federal income taxes? Hell no. And what happens when that same couple wants to rent a hotel room on their business trip to Miami? Well the Floridans voted that two men can't share a hotel room. What happens when Billy-bob gets caught rolling in the hay with Zeke in a barn outside of Huntsville? They both get thrown in jail for ten years apiece because Alabamans passed the "anti-faggotry" law. We absolutely need federal protection of rights, and RP is against that.

Wiki:

"In 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would forbid all federal courts from hearing cases on abortion, same-sex marriage, sexual practices, and government display of religious symbols, texts, and images. The Act would make federal court decisions on those subjects nonbinding as precedent in state courts,[83] and would forbid federal courts from spending money to enforce their judgments.[84]"

The same would apply to school prayer. Same for abortion. What next? Allow Southern states to reintroduce slavery? Fuck, let's just dissolve the union altogether, shall we?

What you don't understand is that Anti-Federalism absolutely leads to the reversal of individual rights and liberties in those states where rights would be restricted. It is the worst thing that could happen to rights since the Civil War.

Hillary like, jumps the shark, like really...whatever.

I don't see Ron Paul as authoritarian either. I said I saw YOU as authoritarian, if you want a Great Leader of Integrity, rather than a human being whose policies you agree with the most.

That's unfair, and distorting what I said to the max. Don't we all want a president who is his own person, who displays some honesty, whose overriding concern is for the people of this country? Who? Oh, them. The phrase "Great Leader of Integrity" is yours, not mine: you reinterpreted my comment and superimposed something way out of context.

After the last 7 years of serial crimes and cronyism, anything would be an improvement. If we were making comparisons, my neighbor's bull mastiff would be a qualified replacement.

I'd rather have a corrupt bastard (or bitch ) in office who still, more or less, lives up to at least part of the good things he/she promises to do, instead of a honest politician marching the country in completely wrong direction, with great integrity. In fact, I'll gladly take a corrupt politician who maintains the status quo over an honest one who promises to make things, in my opinion, worse than the status quo.

Ron Paul's desire to give so much power back to the states, with greatly reduced Federal judicial oversight, amounts to a kind of authoritarianism -- majoritarianism, the will of the majority imposed upon individuals, with much less of a safe harbor for individual rights and liberties.

Yeah, and...?

Sammi Jo, Read what I've posted. Read what Shetline has said. Ron Paul... Sincere, honest, straightforward Ron Paul... favors policies that we KNOW will drive this country to complete destruction, economically, as the rich get way richer and the poor get way poorer (crime rate will expand exponentially), as well as socially.

Like BRussell says, your desire for integrity at all costs has destroyed your common sense.

Better the partially sold out candidate with some good ideas and some questionable motives than the honest candidate with ideas that will destroy us for sure.

Exactly!

No. "We" don't "know" any such thing. Stop lying. Only you seem to "know" (which really means conjecture based upon some fantasy of what you think will happen) this. You have continually posted this bullshit without any supporting facts, evidence or logic. We all get that you have a stick up your ass about Ron Paul. We get that you don't like his political philosophy of liberty and adhering to the constitution. Just stop asserting your opinion as fact. Saying it all multiple times doesn't make it any more true.

The ultimate form of libertarianism is anarchy. Fact. And the poor are the first to suffer. Fact.

We've seen the effects of Reaganomics. Money does not "trickle down". The rich invest with other rich people or simply keep amassing more capital, the middle class stops spending, unemployment skyrockets and the poor become desperately poor. This has been a factual observation by anyone who is honest and has been paying attention. Ron Paul Libertarian style free market economy means no minimum wage, no wage protection or tax concessions for the poor, no unions, and it is the poor who are the ones who will suffer. It will make the Great Depression look like Shangri-La. Meanwhile, anti-federalism gives backward states the right to nix any and all protection of personal rights and liberties. The South will be free to outlaw "faggotry" and force conserative Christianity upon the people. Like I said, it will be the worst thing to happen to rights and liberties since the Civil War. Wake Up!!!!

sslarson and RP political views are pretty much the same ideologically. classic libertarians.

What worked well enough 200+ years ago, in a largely rural and non-technological society, doesn't fit well with largely urban, technological, highly interconnected and interdependent societies that exist today.

I'll speculate that if RP were old enough, prior to WWII, that he would have opposed America's involvement in that war, and that if he were POTUS during those times we'd STILL be in the Great Depression.

Talking louder and repeating the same nonsense you've already said doesn't make your conjecture, opinions and fallacious arguments any more true, factual or logical.

It's become abundantly clear that you shouldn't be taken seriously.

This country suffered a long enough depression due to Mr. Roosevelt and his socialist-fascist policies thank you very much. Do a little reading.

OK so explain how "Free market Economy" helps the poor. Go ahead.

Explain how rights will be protected in Alabama and Mississippi if there are no Federal rules to follow. Please do.

... TYVM! Your POV is SO 18th century, exactly like Ron "Dr. No" Paul's.

Man it's lke history never happened for this guy. The GD happened because of the growth of the conglomerate, which is exactly what happens in a totally free market. It was only fair competition laws that saved this country, together with raising taxes and providing war-related employment accordingly (note providing war related employment WITHOUT raising taxes doesn't help the economy because it simply spreads debt).

Do a little reading that's not on the Milton Friedman Book Club's approved list.

And neither should your conjectures, opinions, and fallacious arguments be taken with any more seriousness. Seriously!

Wrong. My goodness. You need to get out from under that public school indoctrination about the Great Depression (and free-market capitalism and government).

By elevating the standard of living for everyone like it did during the 17th and 18th centuries. You have a terribly flawed view of history. You need to do some reading beyond the standard "capitalism is evil, government saved us" doctrine.


Do you mean the rights to be free from coercion, violence and force? First, by allowing people to defend themselves from such actions. Second, no one is claiming that the state would not have a legitimate role in protecting these rights of people. Unfortunately the state regularly violates these rights as a matter of policy.

... your indoctrination!

And seriously, this thread is about something that is clearly possible, not something that is clearly IMPOSSIBLE!

You actually hyphenate 'socialism' and 'fascism' and then ask us to take you seriously on political history and economics? And ask others to 'do a little reading'?

'Socialist-fascist'. Good heavens. I'm going to assume you were home-schooled and cut you some slack here, but... good lord, man.

I've never said capitalism is evil. In fact I STRONGLY believe it is necessary and beneficial to a point. But I also believe it should be balanced with protections. We've been through this before and you've ignored my point before, that it is equally as stupid to believe in pure capitalism as is is to believe in pure communism.

Go how does the gay man in huntsville defend himself from a community who hates gays? How does a black man defend himself in a community that hates blacks?

And, no, what RP wants is exactly that the state (Federal Government) would not have a legitimate role in protecting these rights of people.

Again:

"In 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would forbid all federal courts from hearing cases on abortion, same-sex marriage, sexual practices, and government display of religious symbols, texts, and images. The Act would make federal court decisions on those subjects nonbinding as precedent in state courts,[83] and would forbid federal courts from spending money to enforce their judgments.[84]"

That's just fucking insane!

LMFAO!

The same people who claim Scandinavian socialism wouldn't work in the US because the US is too populous compared to Scandinavian countries are claiming 17th and 18th century economic policies should be applied in the US!

Priceless.

"In 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would forbid all federal courts from hearing cases on abortion, same-sex marriage, sexual practices, and government display of religious symbols, texts, and images. The Act would make federal court decisions on those subjects nonbinding as precedent in state courts,[83] and would forbid federal courts from spending money to enforce their judgments.[84]"

I just had to post that again.

Oh now. Black people in Mississippi in 1962 were perfectly free to defend themselves.

Either you don't understand the history or you are being willfully ignorant. While FDR's "New Deal" was a basis of plain old socialism some of his programs were directly modeled after Mussolini's fascist Italy. This stuff isn't like some deep dark secret or anything.

Well people defend themselves against actions not beliefs, intents, feelings or opinions. So if someone hates you, there isn't much to defend against. If that someone choses to initiate a violent act against you, you can and should be able to defend yourself and your property against such violent actions.


Can you see (well, maybe you can't because you seem to be blind with rage) that what you're talking about is the federal government?

I trust that those of us who were actually taught history understand it a bit more than those who were fed selective reading. And we've already debunked your neo-McCarthyist attempts at vilifying socialism.

Hint WRT Italy: The leadership was fascist. The programs were not. They were socialist. Learn how to differentiate.