Would you rather......

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Clyde, Feb 7, 2008.

  1. be waterboarded than vote for McCain

    7 vote(s)
  2. be wateboared than vote for Hillary

    19 vote(s)
  3. vote for McCain than be waterboarded

    1 vote(s)
  4. vote for HIllary than be waterboarded

    0 vote(s)
  1. Clyde

    Clyde Jet Set Tourer Administrator Founding Member

  2. Valkman

    Valkman Knifemaker Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    I took the second one. Someone would have to shoot me, stand me up and use my dead hand to vote before I voted Hillary/Obama.
  3. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    I chose to be waterboarded (lol) than to vote for McCain. Let's face it, our candidate, Ron Paul doesn't have a chance (even though he would serve as the greatest president ever), and Obama is going to either drop out soon or become a hitman for the Clintons. Speaking of the Queen of Communism, I think Hillary will do a bang up job for Slavery, Inc.

    The NWO is still on track. T-minus 3 years, 11 months, 26 days.
  4. Tracy

    Tracy Insatiably Curious Moderator Founding Member

    :lol: [applaud]
  5. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    No option for "Vote for McCain. Then be waterboarded"?
  6. monkeyman

    monkeyman Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    How about waterboard them both and write someone else in.
  7. Blackjack

    Blackjack Monkey+++

    I will rot in hell before I vote for any of those corrupt, theiving, piece of crap, bought out, slimy human debris, big business whores.
  8. hartage

    hartage Monkey+++

    That is prob the source of 90% of our country's problems.
  9. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    Do you work for someone, or run your own business (large or small)? That determines if you are pimp or whore. (It is all a matter of which side of the fence you are found.) Professional politicians are in a class of their own.
  10. hartage

    hartage Monkey+++

    That is my point exactly. Politicians are not supposed to give preference to a group based on money. But because of politician GREED either for career gain or outright financial gain they have done so. There seems to be a general loss of ethics both on the big business side and the political side. The country suffers by their lapse in morals.

    Seems when a politican is FROM big business and becomes an elected offical it's like putting a fox in the hen house.
  11. Seawolf1090

    Seawolf1090 Retired Curmudgeonly IT Monkey Founding Member

    The Politicians are supposed to working FOR us! But little things like the IRS make sure that WE work to support THEM! I'd like to see the whole lot pulled from the Capitol and shown to the Unemployment Line. We could then choose our leaders from those we KNOW to be good people. Hold a competition that would highlite what the contestant DOES FOR the people, not for him/herself. No political parties need apply - it's strictly nonpartisan.

    Yeah, a pipedream. But at least I can dream - for now. I'm sure Hilary is working on the Thought Police . . .
  12. melbo

    melbo Hunter Gatherer Administrator Founding Member

    One .gov's Freedom Fighter is another .gov's Rebel, insurgent or guerrilla.
    All depends on the policy and who's wallet is to be affected.
  13. poacher

    poacher Monkey+++ Founding Member

    I think we are going to see "I have a Dream Obama" in the WhiteHouse. Hillary got spanked here in Ks for the primaries. Not only that but he seems to be gaining ground in the areas that the media claimed were pure Clinton. On a different note Huckabee took 67% of the vote to McCains 24%, and McCain had put more ads on the radio and Tv here.

    Oh and just to keep it on track.. Hillary has a better chance of Vince Foster endorsing her than of me voting for her.

    Take care Be safe Poacher.
  14. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    I see Ron Paul polled higher percentages than expected as well. It'll take major mojo to get him up high enough for a first ballot win. We can only hope. Glad the clinton got spanked, that's for sure.
  15. ozarkgoatman

    ozarkgoatman Resident goat herder

    Don't hold back now Blackjack tell us how you really feel. [LMAO][LMAO][LMAO]

    Although I couldn't agree with you more.

  16. misty

    misty Monkey+++

    I refuse to vote for McCain or Hitlery. I'm sick of the lessor of two evils. They are both evil and so is Obama. Ron Paul gets my vote. The rest don't deserve it. Ron Paul may not win but I'm not going to one of the ones to blame for Obama, Hilery or McCain. My hands will be clean!
  17. ColtCarbine

    ColtCarbine Monkey+++ Founding Member

    I'd rather poke out my own eyes than vote for either the lessor of two evils ever again. Looks like I'll be reverting to not voting or doing a write-in
  18. BAT1

    BAT1 Cowboys know no fear

    I'd give myself up to be water boarded on TV, if they would elect Ron Paul. I love freedom that much.
  19. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    The power lust in Hillary scared me in the 90's (that and her disdain for anyone in uniform...white house military staff were ordered to stay out of the hallways and not make eye contact with her.) Obama isjust another dem, Mccain seems to be a another "rino".Paul or nobody ,Hell, I'd vote for Nader before either dem.
  20. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    This is from the Alan Korwin newsletter "Page Nine". Sums it up fairly well.

    Obama, Clinton and McCain are superb candidates

    By Special Guest Columnist Craig J. Cantoni

    The presidential race is now down to three superb candidates. Why are they superb? Because, in their own way, they are willing to give Americans what they want. And down deep, most Americans want the same thing.

    You might think that Americans want different things, because they differ on Iraq, abortion, public expression of religion, illegal immigration, gun ownership, taxes and global warming. You're right, of course. That's why there are some differences between the three finalists on these issues.
    But on the most important issue, Americans want the same thing.
    What do they want?

    Regardless of party, they want the president (and the rest of government) to use government power for far more than the protection of life, liberty and property. They want government power used to remake the world into their narcissistic image, to tell others how to live their lives, and to infringe on the rights of others, especially on the right to keep the fruits of their labor. In other words, they want to use coercion against others, not realizing that others will retaliate by using coercion against them.

    In this very important sense, the nation is no longer a constitutional republic based on individual rights and liberty. The Progressive Era, the New Deal, the Great Society, and the neoconservative movement have transformed the U.S. to a nation where political might makes right. The individual is now at the mercy of the will of the plurality, or the collective, or marauding special-interest groups -- all of whom are backed by the rule of law, which in turn is backed by armed government agents.

    Barack Obama wonders why we all can't get along. Well, it's because politicians like him want to do things for some people by doing things to other people. And generally, the people he wants to do things to are the good people in society -- the people who defer gratification, invest in their future, lead virtuous lives, sacrifice for their children, and help their neighbors without being coerced to do so by the government.

    Coercion has become so accepted that the word "coercion" is not mentioned at all in Congress, in the establishment media, in K-12 schools, in universities, or in any other centers of influence. Instead, people speak euphemistically about the common good, volunteerism, social justice, equal opportunity, fairness, income equality, and other platitudes du jour. Of course, history shows that the greater the rhetoric about the collective, the greater the coercion against the individual.

    President Bush says he believes in "compassionate conservatism," but he really believes in coerced compassion. Sen. Clinton says "It takes a village," but she really believes in coercively taking the village's output for her political uses. Sen. Obama says that he wants to put hundreds of thousands of Americans to work in government job corps, but he doesn't say that millions of other Americans will be coerced to pick up the tab for something that is economic and social folly. McCain says that he wants to stop money in politics, but he has used coercion to limit political speech.

    Politicians embrace coercion because the American people embrace coercion. Farmers embrace it to obtain subsidies that raise the price of groceries for everyone else. The elderly embrace it to get free medicine at the expense of future generations. Spendthrifts embrace it to take the savings of the frugal through the tax code. Cities embrace it to take private property for the benefit of developers. Preservationists embrace it to tell homeowners what color they can paint their homes. Anti-smoking zealots embrace it to tell owners of bars and restaurants what they can do on their private property. Arts aficionados embrace it to have their cultural interests subsidized. Sports fans embrace it to have non-fans build their sports palaces. College students embrace it to get cheaper tuition at the expense of those who don't go to college. The stupid and greedy embrace it to be bailed out of their bad mortgages by those who are smart and financially conservative.

    Examples of the use of coercion in our supposed free country could run for hundreds of pages.

    Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain indeed have what it takes to be the president of the United States.

    For that matter, so does Vladimir Putin.

    An author and columnist, Mr. Cantoni can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary