The Song Fight Bulletin Board

Hoblit wrote:

Billy's Little Trip wrote:

erik wrote:People can change their mind about things they post to the internet as easily as they change their minds about things they say out loud.

They can, true. But if a President goes back on his solid word, it will destroy the reputation of his party until it is fixed. Let history speak for itself. If Clinton's lie wasn't sexual in nature, and he was caught in an outright lie tricking his voters by "changing his mind" on his promises, the American people would become outraged, his party would have to do something to save face for the future of the party, and he would have been impeached for that just as easily. No one trusted him after that, even if most people forgave him for being a red blooded American man with no willpower over his wiener. He just has a sexual addiction...it's a real disease...look it up. Chazz Michael Michaels

and I mean, who DOESN'T want a blow job at work? I would totally take one right now! (I did get blow job at work once a really really long time ago at a job long since forgotten. TMI?)

*high five* ...damn, now I'm craving a sangwich.

Billy's Little Trip wrote:

erik wrote:People can change their mind about things they post to the internet as easily as they change their minds about things they say out loud.

They can, true. But if a President goes back on his solid word, it will destroy the reputation of his party until it is fixed. Let history speak for itself. If Clinton's lie wasn't sexual in nature, and he was caught in an outright lie tricking his voters by "changing his mind" on his promises, the American people would become outraged, his party would have to do something to save face for the future of the party, and he would have been impeached for that just as easily. No one trusted him after that, even if most people forgave him for being a red blooded American man with no willpower over his wiener. He just has a sexual addiction...it's a real disease...look it up. Chazz Michael Michaels

Ummmm, I have no idea what you're talking about. My point was that people should quit placing so much importance on things a candidate says using words as the main way they learn about who to vote for. It's not any better to hear a candidate say things using words, compared to learning about the same things on the internet.

Truth in advertising is good and well, but Bowflex can still claim that the Abfucker 2000 will give you rock-hard abs in just 5 minutes a day.

Basically, until campaign reform gets really serious, we'll have this stupid crap. Obama has taken a nice first step by not taking money from lobbyists, while McCain has several on staff.

Sober wrote:Obama has taken a nice first step by not taking money from lobbyists, while McCain has several on staff.

I agree, that is a step in the right direction and a wonderful stand to take. But Obama has just separated himself from lobbyists by getting money from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations. To stand by what he said about not taking money from lobbyists, he returned some amount (I think I read $43k and change) that he received "directly" from lobbyists. Oh no, $43k. He has raised over $385 mil and change to date. The only difference between Obama and McCain is that he has blue strings making him dance and McCain has red. Don't kid yourself. Stick to the issues, not the baby kissing.

I think the people holding the blue strings were pulling for someone else.

Jesus Goatfucking Christ.

How is it that Bob Barr is running for the Libertarian Party and not the Fascist Party?

That motherfucker is as NeoCon as you can get.

Fuck that guy in the ass.

Hard.

That's what I was saying.

There are rumors that he may select Ron Paul as his running mate. That'd make things interesting.

Lord of Oats wrote:Jesus Goatfucking Christ.

How is it that Bob Barr is running for the Libertarian Party and not the Fascist Party?

That motherfucker is as NeoCon as you can get.

Fuck that guy in the ass.

Hard.

I'm eyeing him as a real change and a break away from what is going on currently. I'm not sure where you get Fascist from, I'd say that the current Republican party and their forced morality values and micromanaging laws designed to infiltrate our daily lives is way more fascist than anything the Libertarian party is trying to accomplish.

I'm not a Libertarian, I'll never be a Libertarian, I'm just saying they look better to me than the other two. (right now) I mean, if we're really talking about CHANGE & 'pick yourself up by your boot straps', then the Libertarian party has something to offer instead of these two other people promising those things.

If they got Ron Paul to run along side Bob Barr I'd probably consider voting for Mickey Mouse... BUT still wouldn't make that decision for sure until I was up at the voting screen.

Obama is going to be on SNL tomorrow night. *sigh*

I bet it would be fun to be on SNL.

Yes, it would be fun. It's just an appearance, Michael Phelps is hosting. So it is a good move in keeping his "popularity" high. But my sigh is that it's just one more appearance that will not include answers on the issues. But I don't take life very serious for the most part, so I will enjoy it for it's entertainment value.

Which segues to this little link. I love the TV Funhouse skits. TV Funhouse ps it will start with an ad, so just f/f through it.

Also, if you haven't seen the last appearance that Obama made on SNL, it's a must see. His part was lame, but Amy Puller and Daryl Hammond were Hillaryous.

Well, personally, I AM a libertarian (improperly, e.g., philosophically).

My basic belief is this:

1. All governments, regardless of structure, inevitably become corrupt. (Ours is pretty bad at this point, I'd say.)
2. Therefore, government should be as small as possible.

Go look up Bob Barr on ontheissues. He's a big asshole Republican masquerading as a Libertarian. He wants to give your money and your civil liberties away to the wealthy. Sober has hit this nail right on the head.

On the other hand, Ron Paul and I still get along, issues-wise, despite whatever reservations you all had about his campaign financing or something. That would bring some balance to the ticket, but it doesn't matter, for three reasons:

1. Ron Paul has said in quite a few places that he wouldn't run as a third party. One of his irrational beliefs seems to be that the party of Abraham Lincoln is still alive somewhere and needs to be revived. Or the party of Thomas Jefferson? Honestly, Dr. Paul should probably be running as an Anti-Federalist, but whatever.
2. They won't win anyway, so who cares?
3. Voting for Bob Barr is like voting for Mussolini.

That's pretty good Roy, but I like this one better.

Lord of Oats wrote:Well, personally, I AM a libertarian (improperly, e.g., philosophically).

My basic belief is this:

1. All governments, regardless of structure, inevitably become corrupt. (Ours is pretty bad at this point, I'd say.)
2. Therefore, government should be as small as possible.

Go look up Bob Barr on ontheissues. He's a big asshole Republican masquerading as a Libertarian. He wants to give your money and your civil liberties away to the wealthy. Sober has hit this nail right on the head.

On the other hand, Ron Paul and I still get along, issues-wise, despite whatever reservations you all had about his campaign financing or something.

2. They won't win anyway, so who cares?
3. Voting for Bob Barr is like voting for Mussolini.

I'll go back and do some more homework. Everything I have read about the Libertarian party has more to do with moving away from government fingers and likewise Bob Barr has been the representative of the party's outline. I'll dig more into Bobb Bar himself. Ron Paul is a bit extreme for me.

You're right about this government being corrupt. I know this because I feel like its a futile in restoring it. I feel so strongly about it that I'm moving away from my own standards to make an attempt at changing it in any way possible.

They won't win? While it isn't a certainty, it is a probability. The (shudder) 'game' is to build momentum until they are a competitor. The more votes they get the more likely people will pay more attention to them next time around. Rinse, repeat until there are three (or four) parties competing evenly. (HA! Theory is fun.)

Voting for Bob Barr is like voting for Mussolini? C'mon man, that almost eliminates any worth the rest of your post suggested. I'll raise you, voting for Obama is kin to voting Hitler based on his charisma. McCain is Hirohito?

Billy's Little Trip wrote:But my sigh is that it's just one more appearance that will not include answers on the issues.

Google. It continues to exist.

erik wrote:

Billy's Little Trip wrote:But my sigh is that it's just one more appearance that will not include answers on the issues.

Google. It continues to exist.

Ha, and you think that WE don't get it.

Hoblit wrote:

erik wrote:

Billy's Little Trip wrote:But my sigh is that it's just one more appearance that will not include answers on the issues.

Google. It continues to exist.

Ha, and you think that WE don't get it.

Well, it's either that you don't get it, or that you're lazy. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

*slaps self in face.

Yeah Hoblit, I linked ontheissues.org a couple times, and even posted Barr's 4-way political plot, which reveals him to be a hard-right candidate. You do realize that he is in fact a long-time Republican, who's only recently went libertarian?

Once again, I agree with the libertarian platform in spirit, as long as it remains liberal on social issues. I do think that universal healthcare is a necessity, and I don't think that getting rid of the department of education is a good idea either.

I really disagree with the personal views of Bob Barr, and I think that he'd likely pay homage to his personal stances before his party stances in office.

I'm a door-to-door canvasser. I talk to a lot of people (usually around 40 per day) about the election, from a lot of different walks of life. Many of them support Obama. Many of them are democrats who, for whatever reason, don't support Obama. Many of them are republicans and/or support McCain. Many of them are third-party candidate supporters (incidentally, I run into more Ron Paul supporters than I do Bob Barr supporters -- "You can always write him in").

But, more and more, it's the undecideds that really bug me. I've run into no fewer than a dozen people in the last two days who said something to the effect of, "I haven't made up my mind yet. I'm waiting to see how they come out on the issues."

What? Really? With these two men, who are arguably more drastically different than any two opposed presidential candidates in history? In this day and age? To not know where Obama and McCain stand on the issues can only really be described as willful ignorance. If you don't know, it's because you don't want to know.

However, I get it. People are sick of the dog and pony show that is the campaign process. And right now, we're in kind of a dead zone because the conventions are over, but the debates haven't started yet. People are talking about superficial stuff. But do you know why they're not talking about the issues? Because they already have, and they've already said all there is to say on the issues. Obama and McCain got all their issues talk out of the way during the primaries. It's old news now. If you somehow missed it, It's still all over the Internet.

That said: I kind of agree with Hoblit and Tyrell. It's stupid that this "lipstickery" is such a built-in part of the game. It shouldn't be. The ideal election would be over in two weeks. That's all the time we need to get to know our candidates. But of course, just like we do with Halloween and Christmas and the 4th of July, we Americans spend so much time preparing for Election Day that it's crazy. Candidates have been putting money into their presidential campaigns since this time a year ago. That's silly.

Nonetheless, given that the election system is not currently as it ought to be, the best we can do is tune out the noise and vote based on the issues (or, y'know, emigrate). And voting for McCain or Obama is not akin to endorsing that kind of behavior, because all politicians do it. That's how they get where they are. When I vote for Obama, I'm not saying, "Gee, Barry, thanks for making those great wisecracks on the campaign trail." My vote for Obama says "I think that your actions as president will be better for the country and for the general well-being of all its citizens than the actions of any of the other people I might have voted for."

Besides which, no candidate is going to agree with you on 100% of the issues. I dislike Obama's gun control and offshore drilling policies, but I still think he's by far the best candidate on the list. If you hold out for the one guy (or gal) who wants to do everything you want to do for this country and nothing you don't, then you'll never be happy with the government. Or you should just write-in yourself.

In short: issues, people. The noise will only overtake the signal if you let it.

Lord of Oats wrote: My basic belief is this:

1. All governments, regardless of structure, inevitably become corrupt. (Ours is pretty bad at this point, I'd say.)
2. Therefore, government should be as small as possible.

It is a shame your basic belief makes no sense.

1. is probably true. But 2. does not logically follow from it

Why is a small corrupt government better than a big corrupt government?