McCain chooses Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska

AAAhmed46 · Post by **AAAhmed46** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:29 pm

Left wing propaganda:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVfU8g8dlNg

Right wing propaganda:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdV8tA2x ... re=related

AAAhmed46 · Post by **AAAhmed46** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 12:20 am

TSDguy wrote:AAAhmed,

1) The majority of Americans are mind bogglingly ignorant, especially of politics. I mean, like more ignorant than you can possibly imagine. Just disturbingly so. MOST have no idea how many Supreme Court justices there are, or even what their purpose is. Most have no idea what the 3 branches of the government are for that matter. Most have no idea what the Bill of Right is. These are all facts, unfortunately, and not exaggerations.

2) The powers that be are happy with the way things are, and with relatively few educated, intelligent folk running around the country, it's hard to get enough power to change things. That's one of the appeals of Ron Paul.

Don't blame the people, blame the media, they shape our information and even how we view reality(to a degree)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hiRC5ZDTXk

This show has a left wing bias, but DAMN they are right about this. The press has failed the people.

Jason Rees · Post by **Jason Rees** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:14 am

TSDguy wrote:
1) The majority of Americans are mind bogglingly ignorant, especially of politics. I mean, like more ignorant than you can possibly imagine. Just disturbingly so. MOST have no idea how many Supreme Court justices there are, or even what their purpose is. Most have no idea what the 3 branches of the government are for that matter. Most have no idea what the Bill of Right is. These are all facts, unfortunately, and not exaggerations.

Too true...

2) The powers that be are happy with the way things are, and with relatively few educated, intelligent folk running around the country, it's hard to get enough power to change things. That's one of the appeals of Ron Paul.

How is that an appeal of Ron Paul?

Jason Rees · Post by **Jason Rees** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:16 am

cxt wrote: And just as bad......or perhaps not .......people don't vote either.

In some cases, I'd have to say that's not so bad... I see some people, and I just cringe that they get a vote at all...

Jason Rees · Post by **Jason Rees** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:19 am

AAAhmed46 wrote:
Don't blame the people, blame the media, they shape our information and even how we view reality(to a degree)

That's a COPOUT. In the information age, there's no reason why people can't find out something approximating the truth about anything and everything. Alot of people are just too lazy, and alot simply don't care.

AAAhmed46 · Post by **AAAhmed46** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 2:50 am

Jason Rees wrote:
AAAhmed46 wrote:
Don't blame the people, blame the media, they shape our information and even how we view reality(to a degree)

That's a COPOUT. In the information age, there's no reason why people can't find out something approximating the truth about anything and everything. Alot of people are just too lazy, and alot simply don't care.

Alot of people don't know WHERE to look. Or how.

TSDguy · Post by **TSDguy** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 3:39 am

It's an appeal of Ron Paul because he's one of the most influential "third party" candidates this century. He's also inspired hundreds of thousands of formerly apathetic people who thought they couldn't change the establishment to stick up for what's right. Hell, I followed politics before Paul, and he inspired me. Whatever you believe politically, it's impossible not to admire the guy, unless of course you're a neocon.

People who can only figure out what's going on by watching Fox "News" don't deserve a vote. It's not hard to know anything about politics. Sure, blame the media for sucking, but blame people's laziness above all else.

Edit: Not that I really care what McF*cktard or Obama have to say, but I'm pretty sure Obama's 57 states comment was a joke. The guy went to Harvard. The other explanation I guess is that he meant to say territories, since they do get to vote.

Jason Rees · Post by **Jason Rees** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 4:27 pm

TSDguy wrote:It's an appeal of Ron Paul because he's one of the most influential "third party" candidates this century.

Wow. Really? How many delegates did he get again? Last I checked, he was still a Republican candidate. One completely shut out of his own party. You know what they say... "Those who never win and never quit are idiots." We've had far more influential third party candidates in the last hundred years. Alabama Governor George Wallace in 1968 got 13% of the vote. Ross Perot had the second-best popular vote showing ever for a third-party candidate, back in 1992. Ralph Nader has been accused of 'stealing' the election from Al Gore in 2000. Ron Paul is a mote in the eye of presidential political history compared to these guys.

Whatever you believe politically, it's impossible not to admire the guy, unless of course you're a neocon.

I don't admire the guy. For a member of congress, he ***** at working with other people, regardless of his ideas.

People who can only figure out what's going on by watching Fox "News" don't deserve a vote.

They're still more informed than those who don't bother to watch or read the news, period, and certainly no worse or better than those who watch nothing but CNN or MSNBC. The ones I disagree with the most, though, are the ones who vote straight party ticket.

Edit: Not that I really care what McF*cktard or Obama have to say, but I'm pretty sure Obama's 57 states comment was a joke. The guy went to Harvard. The other explanation I guess is that he meant to say territories, since they do get to vote.

It was a mistatement, same as the goofy things Bush says. I'm sure Obama didn't mean to say he was in MO when he was in KS, but he did say it. These gaffes happen all the time in politics. Usually the Dems blame it on idiocy or senility; in this case the opposition chalks it up to inexperience. Stuff happens.[/quote]

Jason Rees · Post by **Jason Rees** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 4:45 pm

I forgot Strom Thurmond, who as a Dixiecrat in 1948 won over 20% of the vote.
Oh, and Roosevelt won 27.4% of the popular vote and carried six states in 1912 as a member of the Bull Moose Party.

Ron Paul was never even a has-been.

TSDguy · Post by **TSDguy** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:02 pm

Really? His rally brought in more people than the RNC. I don't care if you don't like the guy, he has millions of supporters, which is pretty influential in my books. 20 percent of Alaskas delegates voted for him even with that loser Palin being the VP. Hysterical.

mhosea · Post by **mhosea** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:47 pm

Ron Paul won 5 of the 26 Alaskan delegates on February 5, coming in third behind Romney and Huckabee. Both winner, Romney, and the distant runner up, Huckabee, released their delegates, but Ron Paul didn't. IMO, they shouldn't ever "release" their delegates. Just record all the votes and give the nomination to the person with the most votes. Trying to make the vote unanimous is silly.

Jason Rees · Post by **Jason Rees** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:44 pm

TSDguy wrote:Really? His rally brought in more people than the RNC. I don't care if you don't like the guy, he has millions of supporters, which is pretty influential in my books. 20 percent of Alaskas delegates voted for him even with that loser Palin being the VP. Hysterical.

Who cares how many people his rally brought in? What does it accomplish? Nothing. All the money and people in the world don't change anything if nobody votes for him. And they won't. It would have been an accomplishment if he'd brought all those people TO the RNC... that might have had an impact. All that money should go to charity. At least it would do some good there. Again, among third party candidates, Ron Paul isn't even a footnote.

Mhosea... I agree completely.

AAAhmed46 · Post by **AAAhmed46** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 10:34 pm

Jason Rees wrote:
TSDguy wrote:Really? His rally brought in more people than the RNC. I don't care if you don't like the guy, he has millions of supporters, which is pretty influential in my books. 20 percent of Alaskas delegates voted for him even with that loser Palin being the VP. Hysterical.
Who cares how many people his rally brought in? What does it accomplish? Nothing. All the money and people in the world don't change anything if nobody votes for him. And they won't. It would have been an accomplishment if he'd brought all those people TO the RNC... that might have had an impact. All that money should go to charity. At least it would do some good there. Again, among third party candidates, Ron Paul isn't even a footnote.

Mhosea... I agree completely.

Atleast he didn't sell out like Obama and McCain.

McCain's voting record....he went from a maverick, but as time went on, he conformed more and more.

Obama, he went from a guy with a set agenda, then slowly changed his tune as the process went on, by the time he became the nominee for the dems, he basically was no different from Shillery Clinton.

Ron Paul on the other hand stuck to his views.

Oh, he never went far with it, but he didn't sell out. He gave everyone the finger the first day, and left giving the finger. He wasn't humbled, or knocked down like Obama and McCain. They walked into the room giving the finger to the system, and walked out of it, with shoes up their asses.

Jason Rees · Post by **Jason Rees** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 11:39 pm

You call it selling out, I call it finding something you can sell. Politicians do it all the time.

How do you know Obama was different to begin with? Or any of them for that matter? You only know as much as they're willing to tell or their campaign is willing to release.

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 11:52 pm

Can anyone name the last 3rd-party candidate to actually win the presidential election?