• Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
  • FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!

Deciding between Liberal and Conservative Politics

It's all media propaganda to think we actually have a voice. It's all a game. The media never once talked about how Ron Paul led in contributions over all other candidates combined from Military personel. But the media "says" these are the best and the brightest. :rolleyes: The best and the brightest apparently want a wacko, compared to some of those that vilified him in the media.

How can this kind of post be taken seriously. If you have a point to make it might be better if you didn't call a group of people the best and the brightest and then roll your eyes. They just tuned you out.

And your best argument against Ron Paul is that he is a wacko? Perhaps those comments are just a bit divisive and not conducive to serious debate.

Why don't you believe that the military contains the best and the brightest? Make the point without calling anyone names maybe. Why is Ron Paul a "wacko?" Try it without calling him a wacko perhaps.
 
If one becomes educated about politics I guarantee that person wouldn't be either. Partisan politics (rep&dem) makes no sense and is destroying the USA.

I'm not sure that this isn't how it has always been in American politics except during most of those 30 or over's formative years. When I was young huge democrat majorities sort of quashed debate. The majority was so large they just didn't have to put up with it and the minority just went along because there was little they could do.

If you have ever read Alex de Tocqueville's Democracy in America from the 1830s he makes the point that political divisiveness was the order of the day. I searched hard for the quote online because my copy of the book is on my office but with no luck. The passage is something about every issue being debated to the point of fights or something like that. Maybe this is built in to keep change from happening to quickly and to keep the tyranny of the majority at bay. :2 cents:
 
How can this kind of post be taken seriously. If you have a point to make it might be better if you didn't call a group of people the best and the brightest and then roll your eyes. They just tuned you out.

And your best argument against Ron Paul is that he is a wacko? Perhaps those comments are just a bit divisive and not conducive to serious debate.

Why don't you believe that the military contains the best and the brightest? Make the point without calling anyone names maybe. Why is Ron Paul a "wacko?" Try it without calling him a wacko perhaps.

You're reading my post wrong. Go back and read it again.

Media says: "US military are our best and brightest."

Media also says: "Ron Paul is certifiably insane.'" (They let some twit actually say that at a town hall meeting on Fox once, without challenging him)

Our military are supporting Paul more than all the other candidates combined. How can the media say one thing, and in the same breath say the other, when it's so contradictory?

Got it? :sleep:
 
You're reading my post wrong. Go back and read it again.

Media says: "US military are our best and brightest."

Media also says: "Ron Paul is certifiably insane.'" (They let some twit actually say that at a town hall meeting on Fox once, without challenging him)

Our military are supporting Paul more than all the other candidates combined. How can the media say one thing, and in the same breath say the other, when it's so contradictory?

Got it? :sleep:

I do. I'm sorry I didn't get that the first time. Perhaps I am not the best and the brightest! :D I hate when that happens.
 
Politicians are merely the middlemen/women between the will of the people and the prompt execution of that will.
They are corrupt, self serving and useless.
 
Politicians are merely the middlemen/women between the will of the people and the prompt execution of that will.
They are corrupt, self serving and useless.

Maybe the will is also corrupt,self serving and useless in many cases.:dunno:
 
Maybe the will is also corrupt,self serving and useless in many cases.:dunno:

Probably is. But we won't know until we try.
Political representation was created because people couldn't travel 100's/1000's of miles by horse everytime there was a vote required. The internet/cell phones/TV/radio have rendered their necessity moot for First World nations.
 
Probably is. But we won't know until we try.
Political representation was created because people couldn't travel 100's/1000's of miles by horse everytime there was a vote required. The internet/cell phones/TV/radio have rendered their necessity moot for First World nations.

So you are advocating a true democracy? Is that because you are not a fan of representitive democracy?

My initial thought is that isn't a great idea. The tyranny of the majority shows up many times in the writings about the American form of government. (Federalist Papers comes to mind) I don't think that Jefferson or Adams would think that a good idea.
 
So you are advocating a true democracy? Is that because you are not a fan of representitive democracy?

My initial thought is that isn't a great idea. The tyranny of the majority shows up many times in the writings about the American form of government. (Federalist Papers comes to mind) I don't think that Jefferson or Adams would think that a good idea.
Major decisions like war, major constitutional changes, etc. would require a super majority (6/10, 2/3, 3/4; whatever). All lesser decisions, a simple majority.
ALL politicians are corrupt to some extent; not their fault, nature of the beast. The beast MUST die for humankind to reach it's true potential.
 
Major decisions like war, major constitutional changes, etc. would require a super majority (6/10, 2/3, 3/4; whatever). All lesser decisions, a simple majority.
ALL politicians are corrupt to some extent; not their fault, nature of the beast. The beast MUST die for humankind to reach it's true potential.

and in this case, the beast is the Bush Administration?
 
scubamike--I've never called you an idiot. I don't know if you've said anything that warranted someone calling you an idiot. Maybe you have, maybe you haven't. I haven't read anything "truly fresh and original" from you in arguing that we, here in Freeones Land, need to consider voting for Repubs in November.

I have much, much more "issue ammo" at my disposal too. Let's talk about supporting the Troops, for example. Republicans are usually the first people to beat the war drum and call "peace people" cowards...but Republicans don't exactly care to support the troops medically and educationally when the war ends....Walter Reed ring a bell?

I don't mind calling him an idiot :)

Seriously, the democrats need control of the White House or else the sky will fall. McCain wants us in Iraq for 100 years and he isn't well informed on the economy. What the fuck are people supporting him? He clearly isn't the candidate we need right now.
 
I don't mind calling him an idiot :)

Seriously, the democrats need control of the White House or else the sky will fall. McCain wants us in Iraq for 100 years and he isn't well informed on the economy. What the fuck are people supporting him? He clearly isn't the candidate we need right now.

I agree on that. For one thing, he is really old. The presidency is a very very stressful job. The average president ages about 20 years while in office. What is he going to age to, death? So basically if he somehow wins, the voters are actually voting for the VP to take lead one day. I'm not sure but I think he chose Romney. There are some issues I do not agree with Romney 'cos they're too far right for me. I'm letting Obama and Clinton fight for the presidency.

oh yeah, am I still an idiot?
 
I don't mind calling him an idiot :)

Seriously, the democrats need control of the White House or else the sky will fall. McCain wants us in Iraq for 100 years and he isn't well informed on the economy. What the fuck are people supporting him? He clearly isn't the candidate we need right now.

Back when countries were not full of big pusses they didn't mind fighting a war for 100 years or so. Tongue in cheek even though I don't think that is exactly what he said.

So who do you think is well informed on the economy and why? Serious question because I don't think any professional politician knows dick about dick.

Give me a CEO, someone who started their own business, met a payroll, made decisions instead of pontificated...
 
Back when countries were not full of big pusses they didn't mind fighting a war for 100 years or so. Tongue in cheek even though I don't think that is exactly what he said.

So who do you think is well informed on the economy and why? Serious question because I don't think any professional politician knows dick about dick.

Give me a CEO, someone who started their own business, met a payroll, made decisions instead of pontificated...

i think i found one that meets your criteria:
ron paul
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul#Political_positions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul#Military_service_and_medical_career
 
Considering that Dubya was the first "MBA" in the White House...I think it's wise to keep a "businessman" very far away from the Oval Office. Dubya was also a terrible businessman...fwiw.

Mitt has his MBA but he also has a Law degree...which I find very useful for a president to have because they generally know to act "within accordance of the law" which, also, is something Dubya the business dork has had problem doing....

The best candidate for President is Barack Obama.
 
Give me a CEO, someone who started their own business, met a payroll, made decisions instead of pontificated...

[size=-2]Bush began his industry career in 1979, when he established Arbusto Energy, an oil and gas exploration company he financed with his education trust fund surplus and money from other investors, including Dorothy Bush, Lewis Lehrman, William Henry Draper III, Bill Gammell, and James R. Bath, the last of whom represented Salem bin Laden, a half-brother and cousin of Osama bin Laden. In 1984, Bush sold the company, hurt in the wake of the 1979 energy crisis, to Spectrum 7, another Texas gas exploration firm. Under the terms of the sale, Bush became CEO (Chief Executive Officer). Spectrum 7 lost revenue and was merged into Harken Energy Corporation in 1986, with Bush becoming a director of Harken.

In April 1989, Bush assembled a group of investors from his father's close friends, including fellow fraternity brother Roland W. Betts; the group bought an 86% share of the Texas Rangers for $75 million. Bush received a 2% share by investing $606,302, of which $500,000 was a bank loan. Against the advice of his counsel, Bush repaid the loan by selling $848,000 worth of stock in Harken Energy. Harken reported significant financial losses within a year of this sale, triggering allegations of insider trading. On March 27, 1992, the Securities and Exchange Commission concluded that Bush had a "preexisting plan" to sell, that Bush had a "relatively limited role in Harken management", and that it had not seen evidence of insider trading.

The subsequent SEC investigation ended in 1992 with a memo stating "it appears that Bush did not engage in illegal insider trading," but noted that the memo "must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result". Critics allege that this decision was strongly influenced by the makeup of the SEC at the time, which heavily favored Bush. The chairman at the time was Richard Breeden, a good friend of the Bush family's who had been nominated to the SEC by President George H. W. Bush and who had been a lawyer in James Baker's firm, Baker Botts. The SEC's general counsel at the time was James Doty, who had represented George W. Bush when he sought to buy into the Texas Rangers (although Doty recused himself from the investigation.) Bush's own lawyer was Robert Jordan, who had been "partners with both Doty and Breeden at Baker Botts and who later became George W. Bush's ambassador to Saudi Arabia".

In "House of Bush, House of Saud", Craig Unger notes that at the time of Bush's sale, Harken Energy "was expected to run out of money in just three days". In a last-ditch attempt to save the company, Harken was advised by the endowment fund of Harvard University to spin-off two of its lower-performing divisions. "According to a Harken memo, if the plan did not go through, the company had 'no other source of immediate financing.'" Bush had already taken out a $500,000 loan and sought Harken's general counsel for advice. The reply was explicit: "The act of trading, particularly if close in time to the receipt of the inside information, is strong evidence that the insider's investment decision was based on the inside information... the insider should be advised not to sell". This memo was turned over by Bush's attorney the day after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ruled that it would not charge Bush with insider trading. On June 22, Bush sold his 212,140 shares of stock anyway for a net profit of $848,560. The very next quarter, Harken announced losses of $23 million, which continued to the end of the year when the stock "plummeted from $4 to $1.25".

As President, Bush has refused to authorize the SEC to release its full report on the Harken investigation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_life_of_George_W._Bush[/size]
 
Top