Election of 2012....Who ya got?

Page 21 of 41 First ... 1920212223 ... Last

  1. Wow, Satanorum won Missouri!
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!


  2. Quote Originally Posted by ax1
    Wow, Satanorum won Missouri!
    A non binding straw poll
    •   
       


  3. Ron Paul would be my vote. But honestly, I have given up on our electoral system and our leadership in this country.

    To me Ron Paul is the last patriot. And when he stops trying to get into office, I will stop believing there is any shred of hope left for us.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    I lol'ed

  5. Quote Originally Posted by Zero V View Post
    Ron Paul would be my vote. But honestly, I have given up on our electoral system and our leadership in this country.

    To me Ron Paul is the last patriot. And when he stops trying to get into office, I will stop believing there is any shred of hope left for us.
    This is his final run, if he doesnt make it he will no longer run for congress.
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    This is his final run, if he doesnt make it he will no longer run for congress.
    Damn shame. He may not be perfect, but to me he is the best of what is out there.

    Although he has much greater support than people think he does. I still hate the fact the media blacks him out, but I love the fact you cant watch youtube videos without seeing the start of a 17 minute ad for him.

    My worries are that even if he did win, they would nullify it and declare someone else the winner.

  7. Doesn't Ron still get the most delegates out of Minnesota though? I am still confused on the whole dlegate thing. From what I heard is Paul is getting the most delegate supporters and even though Romney has been winning and is eligible for more delegates, no one is willing to be a delegate for him. Someone please explain all this too me. Also I love Ron, but part of me wishes Rand was running instead. Rand seems much more assertive than his dad, I think Ron can be too nice at times and that discourages people I think. Rand just seems like the type of guy that wouldn't take much ****.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by DerickVonD View Post
    Doesn't Ron still get the most delegates out of Minnesota though? I am still confused on the whole dlegate thing. From what I heard is Paul is getting the most delegate supporters and even though Romney has been winning and is eligible for more delegates, no one is willing to be a delegate for him. Someone please explain all this too me. Also I love Ron, but part of me wishes Rand was running instead. Rand seems much more assertive than his dad, I think Ron can be too nice at times and that discourages people I think. Rand just seems like the type of guy that wouldn't take much ****.
    True, but I can honestly say that I wouldn't mind a president that is considerate and compassionate. A man can still be a man and defend what is his and be kind to others simuiltaneously. It's a rare combination but the most effective one I believe. I feel like RP would be slower to speak and quicker to forgive than any other president that we've seen in office. We don't just need a president competent to get us out of economic trouble, we also need a role model for once. Haven't seen a decent leader in office since I was born actually.

    Looking back on all of this I laugh at what we (Americans) have brought on ourselves. We wanted "change". Boy did we get it, lol! I think people were voting for Obama just for the sake of change, whether it was good or bad change. The first thing my business professors taught us about implementing changes is that "not all change is good change". Careful planning, accurate data and good decision-making processes are key to success in knowing what to change and how to do it. None of these aspects are found in the white house, yet, the white house probably has the most structured policy and procedure guidelines compared to any other business out there. It's called the Constitution. RP is a man that understands the problem and also knows where to find the solution (Constitution). Not a single candidate out there has or will have the same approach as him. He is a rare and properly educated candidate imo that is too old to have selfish ambitions. His age hedges against selfishness if you ask me.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by fueledpassion

    True, but I can honestly say that I wouldn't mind a president that is considerate and compassionate. A man can still be a man and defend what is his and be kind to others simuiltaneously. It's a rare combination but the most effective one I believe. I feel like RP would be slower to speak and quicker to forgive than any other president that we've seen in office. We don't just need a president competent to get us out of economic trouble, we also need a role model for once. Haven't seen a decent leader in office since I was born actually.

    Looking back on all of this I laugh at what we (Americans) have brought on ourselves. We wanted "change". Boy did we get it, lol! I think people were voting for Obama just for the sake of change, whether it was good or bad change. The first thing my business professors taught us about implementing changes is that "not all change is good change". Careful planning, accurate data and good decision-making processes are key to success in knowing what to change and how to do it. None of these aspects are found in the white house, yet, the white house probably has the most structured policy and procedure guidelines compared to any other business out there. It's called the Constitution. RP is a man that understands the problem and also knows where to find the solution (Constitution). Not a single candidate out there has or will have the same approach as him. He is a rare and properly educated candidate imo that is too old to have selfish ambitions. His age hedges against selflessness if you ask me.
    The constitution is only a partial solution as it is not entirely relevant to today's world. 3/5 compromise anyone?

  10. Quote Originally Posted by AE14 View Post
    The constitution is only a partial solution as it is not entirely relevant to today's world. 3/5 compromise anyone?
    What part is irrelevant to you?
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!

  11. Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    What part is irrelevant to you?
    Yeah really, what part? It's a quick read if you just read the original constitution, AE.

    There are a few things that aren't relevant like the Navy's purpose in controlling the seas (that part doesn't matter anymore) and maybe a few amendments but other than that the Constitution is still a sound solution to our problems I believe. It outlines the purpose of each entity of government very well , IMO. In fact, I think any amendment that conflicts with the original document should be repealed since it renders the document useless. It was the thinking that the Constitution was out of date or irrelevant is what got us into this heap of mess over time. I'm not saying Obama or democrats are solely to blame either. This has been a long time coming since early 1900's really and countless administrations have screwed up royally trying to make central government bigger and states and local governments smaller.

    As far as the orignal document, it's golden really and sets up a crazy, almost unfathomable amount of freedom for men to live as they prefer. Granted, it does not in any way encourage unruly lifestyle but it does give morale, social ethics and certain religions a chance to thrive and dictate people's lifestyles rather than the government forcing that certain lifestyle on men in an oppressive, law-based society.

    I like the original structure of having a series of "mini-countries" made up of States that are universally protected by the Federal government not only by outsiders but also protected from each other in the form in the Interstate Trade Commerce act. However, our government has abused the ITC to gain further control of our country. 'If they can't control us, they'll control our money'. At least that is what the feds figured and it has worked well in their favor.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by fueledpassion

    Yeah really, what part? It's a quick read if you just read the original constitution, AE.

    There are a few things that aren't relevant like the Navy's purpose in controlling the seas (that part doesn't matter anymore) and maybe a few amendments but other than that the Constitution is still a sound solution to our problems I believe. It outlines the purpose of each entity of government very well , IMO. In fact, I think any amendment that conflicts with the original document should be repealed since it renders the document useless. It was the thinking that the Constitution was out of date or irrelevant is what got us into this heap of mess over time. I'm not saying Obama or democrats are solely to blame either. This has been a long time coming since early 1900's really and countless administrations have screwed up royally trying to make central government bigger and states and local governments smaller.

    As far as the orignal document, it's golden really and sets up a crazy, almost unfathomable amount of freedom for men to live as they prefer. Granted, it does not in any way encourage unruly lifestyle but it does give morale, social ethics and certain religions a chance to thrive and dictate people's lifestyles rather than the government forcing that certain lifestyle on men in an oppressive, law-based society.

    I like the original structure of having a series of "mini-countries" made up of States that are universally protected by the Federal government not only by outsiders but also protected from each other in the form in the Interstate Trade Commerce act. However, our government has abused the ITC to gain further control of our country. 'If they can't control us, they'll control our money'. At least that is what the feds figured and it has worked well in their favor.
    great points.

  13. Quote Originally Posted by carpee

    great points.
    For one it is a debatable document which is good, but leaves many things out of the discussion. However, I will just say this: 3/5

  14. Quote Originally Posted by AE14 View Post
    For one it is a debatable document which is good, but leaves many things out of the discussion. However, I will just say this: 3/5
    You say 3/5, but Ill take the 3/5 over the 0.25/5 that is still actually still considered valid by the white house.
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!

  15. Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    You say 3/5, but Ill take the 3/5 over the 0.25/5 that is still actually still considered valid by the white house.
    please expand.....

  16. Quote Originally Posted by AE14 View Post
    please expand.....
    Ok,

    Yo u sa y 3/5, but I ll ta ke the 3/5 o ver the 0.25 /5 that is still act u ally st ill co ns i dere d valid by th e white h ou se.

    j/k

    I meant if the government actually followed 3/5 of the constitution instead of the fact they have discarded it almost in its entirety this would be a much better situation to be in.
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!

  17. Quote Originally Posted by AE14

    For one it is a debatable document which is good, but leaves many things out of the discussion. However, I will just say this: 3/5
    How is it a debatable document?

  18. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    How is it a debatable document?
    Because it has been done so already....Should we follow, or not?....nah lets put it in a museum and just tell people they are free.
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!

  19. Ok debate able was not the right word. Outdated in certain respects is more like it. The 2nd amend is a great example.

    Also when mentioned 3/5 it was the slavery issue.

  20. Quote Originally Posted by AE14 View Post
    For one it is a debatable document which is good, but leaves many things out of the discussion. However, I will just say this: 3/5
    ew ew I know the answer to that one!

    The issues left out of the document was not to be discussed or regulated the national government. The federal system had very limited power for a reason - so the states could decide for themselves what specific laws to have. Thats why they were considered "mini-nations" as I stated before. This is the only way (for example) that California can adopt strong, progressive laws and where states like Tennessee, Mississippi and Arkansas can adopt strong conservative laws of the land without having national issues. The laws of each land was a reflection of the people of that land. Now, the federal government tries to represent everyone of every state with such a small group of congressman, lobbyists and media and its nearly impossible to do. The feds were never supposed to address the issues other than national protection and interstate trading.

  21. Quote Originally Posted by AE14
    Ok debate able was not the right word. Outdated in certain respects is more like it. The 2nd amend is a great example.

    Also when mentioned 3/5 it was the slavery issue.
    What's outdated? The second amendment surely isn't. Among reasons it was put in place as an additional check on unrestrained government power grabs.

    The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

    Disarming the people allows the government to do whatever it pleases. If you can use the argument that we should attack Iran to make sure they don't get nuclear weapons, then surely you can understand the American people retreading access to arms to avoid a president overstepping their boundaries and attempting to be even more of a dictator than Obama is.

  22. The constitution was written to limit federal power as much as possible. it lists what Congress is allowed to do, and the ways they are not to interfere with individual liberties. It even specifically states that any powers not directly stated in the document are reserved for the states to have power over.

  23. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    The constitution was written to limit federal power as much as possible. it lists what Congress is allowed to do, and the ways they are not to interfere with individual liberties. It even specifically states that any powers not directly stated in the document are reserved for the states to have power over.
    Correct! That directly supports my point earlier stating that issues not covered in the Constitution are to be handled by each individual state in their own way.

    I think the debate over the Constitutions effectiveness really lies in the question of whether or not you have read the actual document and not relied on what ur 9th grade American history teacher said. I think anyone who has attentively read the Constitution would agree that it gives very clear direction in the macro-government aspects of this nation.

  24. The Constitution is simply being marketed and attacked as a outdated thing of the past and they blame the problems today on the Constitution when reality is the problems of today are due to the illegal activities of the government against the Constitution's wishes. The corporate government has unofficially declared war against the constitution and their own monopolized mainstream resources are their mouthpiece, their missiles and weaponry of attack against it.

    Here is an example on how the media is incrementally conditioning the average viewer that the Constitution is a outdated ineffective thing of the past. Just a few days ago, the Wall Street Journal posted an article entitled "'We the People’ Loses Appeal With People Around the World" One part that sticks out is this quote that sums it all up, "The United States Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights." In my interpenetration of this quote along with the rest of the article they attempt to lead the reader to believe the international (NWO) standards gives more rights than the Constitution.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us...orld.html?_r=2

    Here is another major example with Council of Foreign Relations remember, and out cozy speaking CNN anchorman on Sunday Mornings Fareed Zakaria blaming issues nothing to do with the Constitution such as the tax code on the Constitution.



    And here he is with another attack piece making the Constitution appear as a thing of the past and that it needs to be corrected (at a time its not even put into use anymore.)
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!

  25. Fareed Zakaria, is actually a highly educated/bright guy. I'd say his opinion is actually informed as opposed to some others.

  26. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Fareed Zakaria, is actually a highly educated/bright guy. I'd say his opinion is actually informed as opposed to some others.
    Of course he is very educated, but that is no indicator of a persons intentions (Mao Tse Tung is educated). Fareed is a part of the corporate elite underground. He is a Council of Foreign Relations member as the top secret Bilderberg group and supports the elimination of the constutition and sovereignty of the United States to a World Government. Also want to mention he is a member of the Trilateral Commission. He is the mouthpiece of the most evil people currently on the planet and an enemy of this country.
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!

  27. Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    Of course he is very educated, but that is no indicator of a persons intentions (Mao Tse Tung is educated). Fareed is a part of the corporate elite underground. He is a Council of Foreign Relations member as the top secret Bilderberg group and supports the elimination of the constutition and sovereignty of the United States to a World Government. Also want to mention he is a member of the Trilateral Commission. He is the mouthpiece of the most evil people currently on the planet and an enemy of this country.

    You deem him evil because he holds an opposing view? Lol okay. I actually happen to agree with him, guess I'm evil too. Since you're "one of those" conspiracy theorists, just figured I'd tell you that I'm working on rebuilding the deathstar. :/

  28. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    You deem him evil because he holds an opposing view? Lol okay. I actually happen to agree with him, guess I'm evil too. Since you're "one of those" conspiracy theorists, just figured I'd tell you that I'm working on rebuilding the deathstar. :/
    LOL!

    Reps..
    PESCIENCE.COM

    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates

  29. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    You deem him evil because he holds an opposing view? Lol okay. I actually happen to agree with him, guess I'm evil too. Since you're "one of those" conspiracy theorists, just figured I'd tell you that I'm working on rebuilding the deathstar. :/
    No, not because of his view but because of his memberships and connections. Your not evil, you are not affilitated with the people he is affilitated with.

    Im not a conspiracy theorist, I hate conspiracy theories.

    Anyways the Bilderberger group Council of foreign relations are a part of the corporate elite who are economically destroying the USA and controlling Washington and I can assure you they have no interest in you or the sovereignty of this country.
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!

  30. Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    No, not because of his view but because of his memberships and connections. Your not evil, you are not affilitated with the people he is affilitated with.

    Im not a conspiracy theorist, I hate conspiracy theories.

    Anyways the Bilderberger group Council of foreign relations are a part of the corporate elite who are economically destroying the USA and controlling Washington and I can assure you they have no interest in you or the sovereignty of this country.
    How much Glenn Beck can one guy possibly watch? You know he holds about the same amount of education, as the guy who changed my tire last week...just saying.

    FYI- For a guy who claims not to be into conspiracy theories, no offense, you post the wackiest youtube videos made by some guy in his mom's basement.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Mdrol 53426 Oct.2012
    By Nova1723 in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-05-2010, 09:49 AM
  2. M-DROL batch 52707 MAY 2012.
    By supra888 in forum Cycle Info
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 11-04-2009, 06:08 AM
  3. Ordering A Pizza In 2012
    By purebred in forum Politics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-28-2009, 08:08 AM
  4. Letter from 2012 in Obama's America
    By David Dunn in forum Politics
    Replies: 177
    Last Post: 10-27-2008, 12:50 PM
Log in
Log in