PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

He voted for the invasion of Afghanistan, he is a conservative and a republican. Those are 3 strikes against him.

Ive been fighting the urge to jump into this thread for soooo long....


And now Alfonso has made me 'have to' post

America is not and never has been a democracy, the very fact that most people think that it is, should be indicative of how corrupt the system is.

As Garyb has already said, these various state elections mean nothing, the delegates can vote for whomever they choose. This follows through all the way up to the electoral collage during the big one.
Then theres the media manipulation of the events and the way in wich candidates are percieved. Its all BS. Oh yeah and please dont forget 911.
And of course we run into the Diebold machine problem again, never mind the irregularities with paper ballots. Gulliani with his 9.11% of the vote you gotta love that


damn

braincell wrote:He voted for the invasion of Afghanistan, he is a conservative and a republican. Those are 3 strikes against him.

the democrats supported and support the invasion and the iraq war. he has stated clearly, he signed off on the SPECIFIC task of corralling Bin Laden, not for occupation or endless war. he's calling for the withdrawl of US troops from all foreign bases, he may not be perfect, but there's NO candidate who is less a war monger. he also voted against the Iraq invasion.

really, he's more of a libertarian than a republican. he's a true conservative, which means lawful, respectful, small central government that stays out of people's private lives. THAT'S American.....

Neil B wrote:What amazed me at the primary before New Hampshire (Iowa? - it's my age) was a statement from the Barack Obama .
I only half heard it on our news but I'm sure I heard him say:
"First we'll sort America out and then we'll sort the world out" or words to that effect.

Well, I didn't know that the rest of the world was waiting for America to sort it out.

Hi Neil,
Just a quick point. That doesn't sound like Obama. Here's the text of Obama's speech in Iowa - I don't think you heard him right:
http://www.barackobama.com/2008/01/03/r ... bam_39.php

Cheers,
-John

John, he did say that he would bomb Pakistan. I'm still pulling for Edwards.

Thanks for that John
Well, it may not have been that particular speech but I stand corrected.

# In den Vorwahlen lassen die beiden großen Parteien (Demokratische Republikaner und Republikanische Demokraten) den kleinen Mann von der Straße entscheiden, wer denn nun für das Amt des Großen Bombenwerfers am geeignetsten ist. Das schöne: Alle getroffenen Entscheidungen waren bisher richtig!
# Von großer Bedeutung ist das sog. Profil der Kandidaten: Nur wer es schafft, rhetorisch begeisternd die Themen Waffengesetze, Umweltschutz, Kapitalismus und Bombenwerfen zu umschiffen, hat eine Chance. Redenschreiber vollbringen hier wahre Wunder und werden wie Zuchtpferde gehandelt.
# Noch wichtiger ist das Privatleben: Als Kind einen Knallfrosch in den Auspuff des Nachbarn gesteckt oder mit dem Essen gespielt – schon ist es vorbei mit der Aussicht auf's Präsidentenamt. Ungefährlich dagegen: eine Vergangenheit als Ku-Klux-Klan-Mitglied und/oder Starkstromalkoholiker. Ebenfalls kritisch: Sieben-Bier-Homosexualität, Familienmitglied mit Vorstrafe wegen Klebstoffschnüffelns.
# Alle Kandidaten bewegen sich stes in blau-weiß-roter Umgebung inklusive US-Flagge, was Patriotismus und eine Vorliebe für "französisch" symbolisiert. Bei Barack Obama stehen die Sterne in der Flagge allerdings auf dem Kopf, achten Sie mal drauf.
# Am Ende gewinnen dann zwei. Die Wahlautomaten bestimmen anschließend, wer der Wallstreet am meisten Gewinn abwirft und in dieser weiß angestrichenen Hütte (betreut) wohnen muß. Insofern hätte man sich das ganze Brimborium eigentlich sparen können.

You get to choose which billionaire will sell you out to corporations.
sometimes just your money, sometimes your health, sometimes your life.

bottom line.

that is reality. there is no hope without a solid grasp of what is real.

Ron Paul.

I agree actually.

Also, a bit curious to see how the N.H. recounts turnout.

well, both Obama and Paul have already shown discrepancies. in Paul's case, several districs which had reported ZERO votes have already changed, since the people who actually did cast votes for him stood up and complained. after analysis it seems that although those votes were hand counted properly, somehow they didn't get transferred to the master tally sheet....in Obama's case, exit polls and the final results were wildly different everywhere optical scanners were used, but not where hand counted ballots were used....

garyb wrote:well, both Obama and Paul have already shown discrepancies. in Paul's case, several districs which had reported ZERO votes have already changed, since the people who actually did cast votes for him stood up and complained. after analysis it seems that although those votes were hand counted properly, somehow they didn't get transferred to the master tally sheet....in Obama's case, exit polls and the final results were wildly different everywhere optical scanners were used, but not where hand counted ballots were used....

Yep. In the case of Paul's 'missing' votes they claimed that his count was so low in each case they 'didn't bother' registering it. A paranoid ear might hear that as someone suddenly 'remembering' that there was a small enough number of votes to account for the few complainers. The last presential election has been studied by quite a few political science courses, and some interesting data emerged in places where there seemed to be discrepancies. It's unfortunate that it takes 1-2 years for analyses to emerge as by then the majority of people don't even pay enough attention and the media just downplays it through ridicule.

yes, well the folks who run things have no respect for anyone anyway. we all know that so it's hard to get up the energy to fight against such systematic corruption, knowing that the entire process is meant to make the voter impotent in the final analysis(just pick your "authority" and submit!)...

a funny thing about the company(connected to diebold) that runs all the voting machines in new england, the people in charge and who are writing all the computer code are convicted felons....

and about choosing the "lesser of the two evils", either way one is choosing to be ruled by evil. this is NOT a choice....

watch out for the next episode:

http://gawker.com/5002269/the-cruise-in ... o-suppress

I would not vote for a homophobic antisemitic racist:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/ ... wsletters/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/ ... 1817.shtml

stardust wrote:But hey, there is the alternative to vote one of the real alternatives. I am trying not to seem naive, but at least there must be the less polluted choice.

cheers.

garyb wrote:Ron Paul.

Then you are probably in need to found your own party in the good old us of a