I Voted For Hillary Clinton. (1437 hits)
Category: Politics -> DemocratsRating: -0.23 on 109 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Stabkill (View user info) at 2008-02-21 13:16:11 EST
This past Tuesday was the primary election in Wisconsin. I voted for Hillary Clinton, but Obama won. If Obama wins the democrat nomination, I'll vote for McCain.
I will miss the hilarious Obama ad where a man looks at Obama in a way no man should look at another man. Well, maybe if you are gay it is O.K.
It made me think about the whole election process and the term "electability". A lot of people think Obama is more electable than Clinton, but those people certainly aren't thinking outside of a very small box.
McCain isn't liked by many conservative Republicans. They see him as a Republican version of Hillary Clinton. As a matter of fact, the two get along pretty well and share similar views on many issues. If Obama is elected, it will be easier to get this base to stand behind McCain
rather than just be disappointed with both selections and choose neither.
I was thinking about how this election is going to turn out and I'm pretty much under the impression, at this stage, is that McCain will beat Obama and Clinton would beat McCain.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of voting for any candidate. You're going to vote for whom fits your own political views. But there are certain ways politics are that work, and certain ways they don't. You can't trust polls that say Obama leads in votes for all categories and that will carry over in the general election. It won't, and this is how I see things breaking down in a general election:
Obama Vs. McCain
-------------------
Young: Heavy for Obama
Black: Very Heavy for Obama
Hispanic: Split
Women: A slight edge for Obama
Men: Strong edge for McCain
Old: Heavy for McCain
Clinton Vs. McCain
-------------------
Young: Heavy for Clinton
Black: Heavy for Clinton
Hispanic: Edge to Clinton
Women: Heavy for Clinton
Men: Strong edge for McCain
Old: Slight edge to McCain
If I was a Republican, I'd want Obama to win. I personally think this is why the Drudge report appears favorable to Obama and anyone who has visited the site in the last few months.
We still have debates which will have an impact on the election and anything can happen between now and then. You can guarantee the media is going to be against McCain as most liberal outlets are already starting in on him. But you can guarantee the NRA isn't going to stand still if Obama is the candidate of choice. Anti-Abortion groups also will be out there. Obama can be painted as weak on crime as well. Illinois certainly isn't a model state of perfection in the U.S. either. One of only 3 states where you cannot legally carry a gun with a concealed weapon permit.
You are going to have extremely divisive people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton out there talking about Obama. Race will be an issue and you will see the race card being played. You can take that to the bank. "America can't accept a black president." and "The United States is racist."
Throw in Nader on the green ticket and things could get even worse for the Democrats. I do think this matters more if Hillary runs Vs. Obama. I still think she'd win.
I don't like McCain. I don't like Clinton. I really don't like Obama. I could honestly say, at this point, is that I would vote for Hillary but will vote McCain if Obama wins. Of course, anything can change from here until November.
At minimum, I'll be buying a Bushmaster M4A3 and some 30 round magazines if either Hillary or Barrack wins.
User Reviews
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-02-22 23:20:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2008-02-22 22:15:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Here's how, genius. The president can't DO anything but sign or veto bills. And since he's the only one in DC that wants to do any of that shit, his vetoes would be overridden in a heartbeat.
Christ, I figured a jet-setting computer genius who makes 200 grand a year and can charm the pants off any women in under 4 ms would be able to reason through why a crackpot President would be ineffective.
========================================================
don't patronize me, you little shit. you still haven't even made a clear argument.
DO what? what shit is he NOT GOING TO DO?
obviously no one expects most of Rob Paul's policies to ever become a reality. what i DO expect is that he would veto shit that i don't like based on what he has claimed his policies are. especially more taxes to pay for more shit we don't need to be paying for. so if congress overrides his veto with their 2/3 vote, the bill passes anyway. let's say someone is in office that i DON'T agree with and WILL sign bills that i don't agree with. the bill still gets passed, nothing has changed.
i hardly see how that's "ineffective", Einstein, but i guess you're just smarter than me.
what my HOPE would be if Ron Paul were in office is that he would find a way to get both parties to work together to make a change going in a better direction, if even very slightly. i guess i'm just some dumbass idealist. so were all those assholes that founded this country.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2008-02-22 22:15:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Here's how, genius. The president can't DO anything but sign or veto bills. And since he's the only one in DC that wants to do any of that shit, his vetoes would be overridden in a heartbeat.
Christ, I figured a jet-setting computer genius who makes 200 grand a year and can charm the pants off any women in under 4 ms would be able to reason through why a crackpot President would be ineffective.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-02-22 16:21:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
you still haven't explained why though. all you've done is offered an unsupported opinion.
don't get me wrong. you're entitled to your opinion as is everyone, but it makes my skin crawl when people can't explain their reasoning on how they came to a specific conclusion.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2008-02-22 16:09:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-02-22 14:29:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i'm interested to know what stuff you think Ron Paul "wouldn't follow through" on.
when Ron Paul says things like how he abolish the IRS, i'm pretty sure he understands and his supporters understand that it's not actually going to happen in your lifetime if it happened at all (which it probably won't). i would vote for Ron Paul based on his character and ideas. people don't actually believe putting Rob Paul in office would initiate some kind of amazing, drastic change. but they do believe it will shake things up a little. and who knows, it could end up being the catalyst for change in the direction that many people want.
what i believe Ron Paul WILL follow through on is his belief in following the constitution. i've read the thing. i agree with it.
-----
Mostly all of it. By running for president, he's neutering his ability to do anything.
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2008-02-22 15:41:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-02-22 15:39:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2008-02-22 14:54:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'd love to get the fuck out of the middle east myself, and leave them to fall back into riding camels past the rusted out wrecks of some sheik's maserati any day, but we just can't do that.
===================================================================
why not? i'm ok with that.
--------------------------------
Agreed completely with hidden. For the past and expected future cost of the Iraq fiasco, we could have installed solar in every building in America. Let's get the fuck out, stay out, and forget about it.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-02-22 15:39:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2008-02-22 14:54:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'd love to get the fuck out of the middle east myself, and leave them to fall back into riding camels past the rusted out wrecks of some sheik's maserati any day, but we just can't do that.
===================================================================
why not? i'm ok with that.
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2008-02-22 14:54:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You've been to Talil and know Al Asad is fucking huge too.
both of them are fully capable of supporting more than an entire air wing, which for the Marines is about 15,000 people and nearly 500 aircraft.
They're also two of the few runways capable of landing C-5 Galaxies. Thats a huge impact on moving equipment, people, and supplies.
Add all that to the centralized location giving you reach into the horn of africa as well as the former soviet republics, a hop next door to Iran, and marginalizing our dependence on the Saudis and it's a win-win in my book. I still support this view despite knowing I'll probably go back to Iraq two or three more times myself.
I'd love to get the fuck out of the middle east myself, and leave them to fall back into riding camels past the rusted out wrecks of some sheik's maserati any day, but we just can't do that.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-02-22 14:39:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
GodChicken- i agree with you almost 100% on everything you just said, except... i'm still not sure about airbases in the middle east. i'm not saying i disagree with it and i'm not saying i agree with it either. i tend to lean toward staying the fuck out of the middle east completely, but it's really hard for me to make a decision on that.
speaking of the middle east, i'm going back to Iraq next month. hopefully i don't get stuck there for too long. i'm only supposed to go for a month and that's really all the time i should need. the things i do for my career....
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2008-02-22 14:31:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-02-22 14:22:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2008-02-22 13:57:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot.
--George Orwell
========================================================
was that a shot at me? because i agree with the quote...
it seems like you're calling me "left-wing" by posting that quote immediately after one i posted. i guess if limited government, limited spending, more focus on issues at home instead of the current fucked up foreign policy, constitutional laws, and.... oh fuck it, i don't have the energy to argue. i'm hungover as fuck today.
============================
No, I just thought it was amusing and I felt like sharing it, since you had a quote too.
It's friday and I'm bored at work. This whole election is making me fucking miserable, because I agree with many things on the democratic side of the house, yet I am infuriated by the pandering to the popular vote both candidates are doing, saying they'll bring home the troops NOW, etc etc.
National strategic goals are not something you fuck with because the "Burger King crowd" doesn't see beyond the next term in office. McCain may lose voters by saying "stay" but he's goddamn right to perservere and take the beating, in service to a longer term viewpoint. Think about what all those bases in the Phillipines and Japan have meant in foreign relations over the years, whether as a staging point for wars or humanitarian relief efforts. I want to see 3 or 4 airbases in Iraq remain ours for the long haul.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-02-22 14:29:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2008-02-22 14:15:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-02-22 13:55:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
oh well, i at least like the quote from the top post-
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."
-Thomas Jefferson
kinda sounds like someone we've been talking about on this thread who believes in limited government....
-----
Everyone believes in limited government until they have a vested interest in creating the fear of the unknown that will bring re-election and a little more job security.
Ron Paul can talk until the cows come home. Even if he got elected, he wouldn't follow through on any of it.
===============================================
i'm interested to know what stuff you think Ron Paul "wouldn't follow through" on.
when Ron Paul says things like how he abolish the IRS, i'm pretty sure he understands and his supporters understand that it's not actually going to happen in your lifetime if it happened at all (which it probably won't). i would vote for Ron Paul based on his character and ideas. people don't actually believe putting Rob Paul in office would initiate some kind of amazing, drastic change. but they do believe it will shake things up a little. and who knows, it could end up being the catalyst for change in the direction that many people want.
what i believe Ron Paul WILL follow through on is his belief in following the constitution. i've read the thing. i agree with it.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-02-22 14:22:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2008-02-22 13:57:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot.
--George Orwell
========================================================
was that a shot at me? because i agree with the quote...
it seems like you're calling me "left-wing" by posting that quote immediately after one i posted. i guess if limited government, limited spending, more focus on issues at home instead of the current fucked up foreign policy, constitutional laws, and.... oh fuck it, i don't have the energy to argue. i'm hungover as fuck today.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2008-02-22 14:15:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-02-22 13:55:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
oh well, i at least like the quote from the top post-
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."
-Thomas Jefferson
kinda sounds like someone we've been talking about on this thread who believes in limited government....
-----
Everyone believes in limited government until they have a vested interest in creating the fear of the unknown that will bring re-election and a little more job security.
Ron Paul can talk until the cows come home. Even if he got elected, he wouldn't follow through on any of it.
Submitted by forthewin (user info) at 2008-02-22 14:11:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2008-02-22 13:57:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot.
--George Orwell
__________________
Every time someone quotes a witty analogy, I am instantly convinced they are right.
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2008-02-22 13:57:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot.
--George Orwell
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-02-22 13:55:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
oh well, i at least like the quote from the top post-
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."
-Thomas Jefferson
kinda sounds like someone we've been talking about on this thread who believes in limited government....
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2008-02-22 13:40:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Googled the Bushmaster (since Im a geek, obviously) and this was the second link that came up.
I attract your attention to the top left hand corner.
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/just-bought-bushmaster-m4-a3-459240.html
Idiots
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-02-22 13:16:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 21:27:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
People can judge accomplishments differently. Personally, I think Ron Paul's record bites ass.
He has co-sponsored a ton of legislation...none of which has passed. NONE. Not one. ZERO. Get it?
>>> and that means..... what? do you have the numbers on that? without the numbers, it sounds like you're just talking out of your ass to me. sorry. when people try to prove a point to me, unless they can back it up, i kinda just let it go in one ear and out the other.
He votes no a lot.
>>> i would too. i disagree with so many things politicians do it makes my head spin. war is one of the bigger ones. spending money like it's going out of style and then raising taxes some more is another one. i wasn't happy giving the governmet over 50 grand of my money last year, knowing what it's mostly going to instead of the things i think could really help our country out.
He throws in stuff into the budget for his district, and then votes no (he knows it will pass) to the budget.
>>> really? again, can you cite examples or is this just some crap you heard in passing or read on some dude's blog and then jumped on the bandwagon?
Ron Paul is ineffective as a congressman. He is effective at running for president by getting white nationalists, 9/11 truthers, anarchists, and other degenerate groups to get along so well they stand on a street corner waving signs as though they are best buds. (Speaking of bud, I'm sure there is plenty of that involved as well.)
>>> i really don't understand where this "ineffective" thing is coming from. so you think because both parties aren't in love with Ron Paul, congress is going to try to pass bills and Paul is going to just veto everything, thus creating a stalemate until both parties learn to work together better and override his vetos? if you consider getting a lot of bills passed as progress, then you are off your fucking rocker. if Ron Paul is voting no, it's because he sees the bill as unconstitutional. is that wrong? i bet you'll be first in line to argue that it's your constitutional right to bear arms (i think i remember you being a gun advocate; if i'm wrong ignore this) and then turn around and talk shit about Ron Paul only voting yes to things he considers constitutional when every single other congressman is voting the opposite. that's like christians taking the part in Leviticus about gays being an abomination and then COMPLETELY IGNORING the sentences that follow it, commanding more silly things like not shaving your beard (but it's completely ok to cut the hair on the top of your head), or not wearing clothes woven with two kinds of fiber, or not planting two kinds of seed in the same field.
personally i think it would be great to have a president that didn't bow to the pressure of congress. if they are voting to kill more people or spend more money and Ron Paul vetos that shit, i'm good with that. if they are voting on things that are unconstitutional or take away more of my civil liberties (patriot act anyone?) and he says "fuck no" to them, then i'm cool with that. if he stands up and tell congress they should be passing bills that help our country out right here at home, things like, oh i don't know, education reform... i'm cool with that too. i think we have lost our way a bit as a country because all this propaganda, and political retoric, and brainwashing and misleading information from the media, etc, is really hurting us and taking focus away from things that matter the most to us collectively on a personal level.
whatever. i guess i'm just a nutjob.
Submitted by netimportant (user info) at 2008-02-22 11:05:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
politics hurt my widdle brain :(
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2008-02-22 10:22:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i would agree with stabkill on ron paul.
he is an interesting character with a very attractive discourse but within your political context, i doubt he could get things done which really all that matters in politics.
i watched the debate on cnn last night while on the treadmill. the language topic was particularly interesting, since the majority of politics where i live revolve around this. you can tell americans are in the early stages of having their Two Solitudes as well.
the next president is gonna have a shitload of problems on his hands.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-02-22 04:48:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 21:27:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
People can judge accomplishments differently. Personally, I think Ron Paul's record bites ass.
He has co-sponsored a ton of legislation...none of which has passed. NONE. Not one. ZERO. Get it?
He votes no a lot.
He throws in stuff into the budget for his district, and then votes no (he knows it will pass) to the budget.
Ron Paul is ineffective as a congressman. He is effective at running for president by getting white nationalists, 9/11 truthers, anarchists, and other degenerate groups to get along so well they stand on a street corner waving signs as though they are best buds. (Speaking of bud, I'm sure there is plenty of that involved as well.)
=====================================================
COMPLETE AND UTTER *BULLSHIT*
i would explain why to you, but i'm so fucked up out of my skull right now that
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-02-22 04:42:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
There's something seriously grim about this post. Sort of puts me in mind of a man with lung cancer beating a child to get her to drag a box of candles to a shop on top of a really steep hill and the shop is Woolworths.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-02-22 00:31:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Edwards was the only major party candidate that I actually thought would've been a progressive President. I take Obama over Clinton. Clinton is way too close to "center" and this country needs somebody who is younger and much more progressive than her. There's no question she's in politics for the wrong reasons. Obama is not ideal but I guess I would be reasonably satisfied if he got elected.
McCain seems like a nice fellow, but a vote for a Republican is still a vote for tradition, religion, overconsumption, greed and everything else that's fucked up about this country.
Submitted by Falafel (user info) at 2008-02-21 23:57:57 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
What the hell are you all going on about gun control for? It doesn't matter if you ARE allowed to carry a weapon, it's the United States of America. If you shoot someone even in self defense, you're still getting sued up the ass.
Submitted by forthewin (user info) at 2008-02-21 22:27:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-02-21 20:56:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i disagree. i don't think congress would totally go against Ron Paul if he were in office. he sure as fuck isn't going to sway congress to abolish the IRS, CIA, FED, etc, etc... THAT is common sense. but i seriously don't think he's going to be some kind of lame duck that can't get anything done because everyone in congress is allied against him.
the man doesn't have a chance in hell at becoming president, but i really like his ideas. and he's a rational thinker when you compare him to most of the candidates. i remember the SC debates where he said we were attacked on 9/11 because of our foreign policy. then that dipshit Giulliani said it was a ridiculous statement without ever giving a counter-argument. EVERYONE CLAPPED. come on, do you really have to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out?
Ron Paul is a really smart guy and i have a ton of respect for him. he's got the biggest balls out of all the lousy candidates if you ask me. although, Hill may have bigger balls, but i mean that in the literal sense....
________________________
I think I have the exact same views as you on Ron Paul. Knowing the impossibility Ron Paul being president, I was really hoping Dennis Kucinich wouldn't have dropped out so soon. I think Kucinich would've made a great president, but it seems people that would make great presidents simply don't get elected. Once again, it's all coming down to the person logical people hate the least.
I mean, if you listen to the debates and what the candidates have been saying, Ron Paul is the only honest one that's not full of shit at the moment. I knew he'd never get elected, but I enjoy listening to him talk because he's actually an intelligent person. Every other candidate just rambles on with speeches that people cheer for. A bunch of bullshit rhetoric.
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2008-02-21 22:23:35 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
GW is the worst president evah and I do remember Jimmy Carter! The Presidnent that died of a cold after 30 days in office probably accomplished more than Dubya. I hope President Obama sends the ATF after you and then giggles like a little girl when they take your guns away from you and pistol-whip your sorry self.
Submitted by cshape (user info) at 2008-02-21 22:06:03 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"Illinois certainly isn't a model state of perfection in the U.S. either. One of only 3 states where you cannot legally carry a gun with a concealed weapon permit."
Yeah... I guess it isn't perfect because you can't carry a concealed weapon. Fucking retards.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 21:27:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
People can judge accomplishments differently. Personally, I think Ron Paul's record bites ass.
He has co-sponsored a ton of legislation...none of which has passed. NONE. Not one. ZERO. Get it?
He votes no a lot.
He throws in stuff into the budget for his district, and then votes no (he knows it will pass) to the budget.
Ron Paul is ineffective as a congressman. He is effective at running for president by getting white nationalists, 9/11 truthers, anarchists, and other degenerate groups to get along so well they stand on a street corner waving signs as though they are best buds. (Speaking of bud, I'm sure there is plenty of that involved as well.)
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-02-21 20:56:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i disagree. i don't think congress would totally go against Ron Paul if he were in office. he sure as fuck isn't going to sway congress to abolish the IRS, CIA, FED, etc, etc... THAT is common sense. but i seriously don't think he's going to be some kind of lame duck that can't get anything done because everyone in congress is allied against him.
the man doesn't have a chance in hell at becoming president, but i really like his ideas. and he's a rational thinker when you compare him to most of the candidates. i remember the SC debates where he said we were attacked on 9/11 because of our foreign policy. then that dipshit Giulliani said it was a ridiculous statement without ever giving a counter-argument. EVERYONE CLAPPED. come on, do you really have to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out?
Ron Paul is a really smart guy and i have a ton of respect for him. he's got the biggest balls out of all the lousy candidates if you ask me. although, Hill may have bigger balls, but i mean that in the literal sense....
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 20:38:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't think you're dumb, Hidden. Of course not. And I'm really not trying to argue anything. It actually is common sense stuff.
I'm not stating opinion when saying Ron Paul would be ineffective at getting his views into law. He needs congress, he doesn't have them. Obama does. McCain can also do it, but may have more difficulty at his more republican-leaning views.
Effective and good or bad are different things. Bush, like him or not, has been very effective.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2008-02-21 18:41:32 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
GUNNZ R KOOOL
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2008-02-21 18:05:17 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
EPIC FAIL.
Submitted by Crystle (user info) at 2008-02-21 17:38:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
From Hadley, who can read but not rate at the moment...
------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-02-21 15:46:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.creationmuseum.org/
WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HOW CAN YOU HAVE A MUSEUM WITH EXHIBITS THAT ARE NOT BASED ON ANY FACTS WHATSOEVER?????
-----
I'll just have to go and do a pictorial documentary so we can all have epic lulz.
make sure they know it's from me
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-02-21 17:37:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 17:20:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I could have also explained it this way:
I run on a platform that I'll send all blacks back to Africa. I win. But now I'm a President that has to make that happen. So I turn to Joe Biden and say "Give me legislation."? That isn't going to happen.
That's Ron Paul. (Except for the issue. You could make it "banish the FDA", "banish the FED", and "banish the IRS".)
Now, Obama goes in and says "Gun control." Snaps his fingers, he has a bill passed by the house and senate and one signature later, it is a law.
======================================================
once again, a VERY ineffective argument. you're comparing apples and oranges. doesn't work. sorry. take your example about Obama. are you saying that Ron Paul couldn't get the same exact gun control bill passed or that he wouldn't even deal with that issue?
Ron Paul never promised anyone he would get rid of all these agencies and institutions. he just said he believes we don't need them and if he had the power to get rid of them, he would. do you believe a man that smart and who has been in politics as long as he has actually thinks if he were president that he could get rid of the IRS or whatever other government agency? come on. THINK.
also, it's insulting to my intelligence to tell me these things. do you really think i'm that dumb? be honest.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-02-21 17:30:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
polls don't mean shit to me, but i do think that based on talking to people about congress, most people are dissatisfied with their performance. i mean fuck, we have congressional hearings about some baseball players doing steriods??? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME???
ATTN CONGRESS: GET BACK TO WORK. THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL HAS GOT THAT SHIT ON LOCK.
anyway, what i meant was, i think there's a chance both parties would work together in congress to get some shit done. now of course, i don't mean to say that i actually believe Ron Paul could get rid of the IRS or the Federal Reserve. that's about as likely as a president outlawing abortion (which is actually the basis of how many fundamentalists vote). i just think it would be awesome to have in him office and see what happens when you put someone very different than the usual cookie cutter candidates in office. can you imagine the possibilities? it could start a chain reaction of events that would yield a future not unlike the future as portrayed in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. anything is possible...
Submitted by BeforeEmily (user info) at 2008-02-21 17:25:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 17:20:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I could have also explained it this way:
I run on a platform that I'll send all blacks back to Africa. I win. But now I'm a President that has to make that happen. So I turn to Joe Biden and say "Give me legislation."? That isn't going to happen.
That's Ron Paul. (Except for the issue. You could make it "banish the FDA", "banish the FED", and "banish the IRS".)
Now, Obama goes in and says "Gun control." Snaps his fingers, he has a bill passed by the house and senate and one signature later, it is a law.
McCain, on the other hand, has to make deals to get his stuff passed through. Of course, since he's a moderate republican "RINO", he'll actually do pretty good as well. "Give me an amnesty bill." Snaps fingers, and there it will be. 60 votes to over-ride filibuster, right? Very likely.
I can't buy Paul throwing OSHA,FDA, FED, CIA, FBI, etc under a bus and then having enough votes to pass these things. He can't wave a magical wand and make it happen.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 17:13:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-02-21 16:06:32 CST (#)
Ranking: 0
stabby, i think you have little faith in Congress.
oh well. all these things we're throwing around are just opinions anyway. thanks for yours.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently, I'm not alone:
http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm
If it was up to me, I'd have a Democrat president and a Republican congress. That seemed to work real good.
Yes. That is an opinion, too.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-02-21 17:06:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
stabby, i think you have little faith in Congress.
oh well. all these things we're throwing around are just opinions anyway. thanks for yours.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 16:59:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Hidden, Ron Paul has made claims that he would do plenty of things...plenty of things that would require congress to create and pass legislation on.
A democrat, obviously, is going to have the easiest time of getting things passed. A republican will have less of a chance. Ron Paul doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell.
Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich have even been the only 2 folks to vote against certain bills. How the heck would either get something PASSED?
Even Obama, whom I'd actually rather see Ron Paul elected instead, would be wildly more effective. It wouldn't be close.
Effective = getting legislation passed that fits what he believes in.
Clinton was a genius in this area, Bush could just muscle it through.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2008-02-21 16:58:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Rhymenocerous (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:56:19 CST (#)
Ranking: 0
They believe in dinosaurs...but also believe that God created everything? So did God create, then destroy dinosaurs? Where are they on the timeline of the Earth's history?
-----------------------------
Between days five and six of Genesis, if you figure evolution into the creation process. Granted, most fundamentalist Christians DON'T...but I digress. Read "The Science of God."
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2008-02-21 16:55:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Political experts say that Mitt Romney has the number one thing that John McCain is looking for in a Vice President.
An organ donor card.
- Jay Leno
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-02-21 16:29:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I OFFICIALLY DECLARE THE CREATION MUSEUM NULL AND VOID
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-02-21 16:26:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 16:10:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Hidden, I don't think it is inaccurate to say the primaries and the general election are two different things.
>>> Correct.
The Republican party candidate is going to be McCain, period. Voting for Paul means absolutely nothing except to people who like Ron Paul and Ron Paul himself. I am neither of those people.
>>> uhhh... duh!
As a matter of fact, my vote meant little as Obama got the majority of the votes and "won" the state. They may divide delegates, I don't know. If I voted for Paul, another vote could have been tallied for Paul. In the end, a single vote means little. Collectively, they mean something. So, yeah... everyone should vote.
>>> that was the most ineffective argument i've ever read. moving right along...
I had a discussion about super delegates and how someone said "that is undemocratic". I told them it doesn't matter and they don't understand politics if they want to cry about it. They are certainly entitled to believe they don't like the way things operate, but the fact is... A party could appoint a single individual in each state to determine who is their party's candidate.
>>> i got nothing.
I try my best to "tell it like it is" and a lot of people hate that. It doesn't mean it isn't true. It certainly is my opinion loosely based on facts on this post, but my comment about Ron Paul was true. Paul fans HATE that attitude but I don't care because I don't like Ron Paul.
>>> i don't hate the fact that you don't like Ron Paul. it's cool with me.
I should have answered with the truth, eh? "I'd rather vote for Pee-Wee Herman than Ron Paul."
>>> works for me.
The only election that matters in these primaries now is Obama vs. Clinton. Voting for another candidate is pointless in terms of any real result and only serves a point for personal pride.
>>> are you suggesting that everyone should vote regardless of their choices? what if i don't like either candidate? should i still vote for one of them?
And people don't even get why Ron Paul won't run as an independent. He'd lose his seat in the house without that (R) behind his name. Then, he'd not only lose the presidential election but also his seat in congress.
>>> true.
I personally don't like the 2 party system, but am I going to vote for the Green party? Fuck that. Cynthia McKenney is trying to be the green party candidate for president, for Christ's sake!
>>> i believe that's called apathy and i believe that's what allows power hungry people to gain control. i could be wrong about that. Cynthia McKenney is a retard, BTW.
My ideal candidate doesn't exist in any party. They'd probably be 50% libertarian, 25% republican, and 25% democrat. And Ron Paul isn't that man. His "republican part" is in the part I'd place in wanting a democrat and his "libertarian" part is the part I want a republican.
>>> cool.
Also, Ron Paul would be the most ineffective president in our history because President's don't write legislation and congress won't pass what he'd want. Hell, he could even be removed from office if the republicans and democrats compromised. In a way, it would be nice to see the republicans and democrats work together... That can work out pretty good. Of course, they'd be working together to over-ride presidential vetos and get their legislation passed.
>>> uh.... i'm pretty sure everyone understands the president's role. so, going by what you just said, how would any other candidate be MORE effective if the same rules apply to them as would Ron Paul if he were president? you don't make any sense.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 16:20:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Rhymenocerous (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:56:19 CST (#)
Ranking: 0
HIDDEN I DONT GET IT.
They believe in dinosaurs...but also believe that God created everything? So did God create, then destroy dinosaurs? Where are they on the timeline of the Earth's history?
BAAAAAH I HATE ORGANIZED RELIGION!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you know exactly what point of the timeline those nutters think. I guess early bad-guy humans had pits of Velociraptors to throw people in instead of today's sharks and piranhas! Sweet!!!
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-02-21 16:15:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Tom-
ICOM Definition of a Museum
"A museum is a non-profit making, permanent institution in the service of society and of its development, and open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits, for purposes of study, education and enjoyment, material evidence of people and their environment. (...)"
where's all the "material evidence" from the bible that proves it's factual?
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 16:10:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Hidden, I don't think it is inaccurate to say the primaries and the general election are two different things.
The Republican party candidate is going to be McCain, period. Voting for Paul means absolutely nothing except to people who like Ron Paul and Ron Paul himself. I am neither of those people.
As a matter of fact, my vote meant little as Obama got the majority of the votes and "won" the state. They may divide delegates, I don't know. If I voted for Paul, another vote could have been tallied for Paul. In the end, a single vote means little. Collectively, they mean something. So, yeah... everyone should vote.
I had a discussion about super delegates and how someone said "that is undemocratic". I told them it doesn't matter and they don't understand politics if they want to cry about it. They are certainly entitled to believe they don't like the way things operate, but the fact is... A party could appoint a single individual in each state to determine who is their party's candidate.
I try my best to "tell it like it is" and a lot of people hate that. It doesn't mean it isn't true. It certainly is my opinion loosely based on facts on this post, but my comment about Ron Paul was true. Paul fans HATE that attitude but I don't care because I don't like Ron Paul.
I should have answered with the truth, eh? "I'd rather vote for Pee-Wee Herman than Ron Paul."
The only election that matters in these primaries now is Obama vs. Clinton. Voting for another candidate is pointless in terms of any real result and only serves a point for personal pride.
And people don't even get why Ron Paul won't run as an independent. He'd lose his seat in the house without that (R) behind his name. Then, he'd not only lose the presidential election but also his seat in congress.
I personally don't like the 2 party system, but am I going to vote for the Green party? Fuck that. Cynthia McKenney is trying to be the green party candidate for president, for Christ's sake!
My ideal candidate doesn't exist in any party. They'd probably be 50% libertarian, 25% republican, and 25% democrat. And Ron Paul isn't that man. His "republican part" is in the part I'd place in wanting a democrat and his "libertarian" part is the part I want a republican.
Also, Ron Paul would be the most ineffective president in our history because President's don't write legislation and congress won't pass what he'd want. Hell, he could even be removed from office if the republicans and democrats compromised. In a way, it would be nice to see the republicans and democrats work together... That can work out pretty good. Of course, they'd be working together to over-ride presidential vetos and get their legislation passed.
Submitted by Tom (user info) at 2008-02-21 15:59:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
HOW CAN YOU HAVE A MUSEUM WITH EXHIBITS THAT ARE NOT BASED ON ANY FACTS WHATSOEVER?????
==============================
All you have to do is be able to finance it.
Sorry.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS BE ABLE TO FINANCE IT!!!!!!
Submitted by Rhymenocerous (user info) at 2008-02-21 15:56:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
HIDDEN I DONT GET IT.
They believe in dinosaurs...but also believe that God created everything? So did God create, then destroy dinosaurs? Where are they on the timeline of the Earth's history?
BAAAAAH I HATE ORGANIZED RELIGION!
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-02-21 15:46:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.creationmuseum.org/
WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HOW CAN YOU HAVE A MUSEUM WITH EXHIBITS THAT ARE NOT BASED ON ANY FACTS WHATSOEVER?????
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Submitted by Wildman (user info) at 2008-02-21 15:44:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:38:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Why would anyone who cares about the future put their trust in someone who's 80 years old?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
uh, because they've seen it and done it before the others were even born?
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-02-21 15:41:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:27:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by MudWhistle (user info) at 2008-02-21 12:25:28 CST (#)
Ranking: 0
VOTE RON PAUL!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haha. I wanted to vote for someone who actually had a chance to win. A "protest vote" is lame. It means more if he ran as a 3rd party candidate on the general election as it opens up state ballot access and federal election funds.
=================================================
man, i hate it when you give you opinion on politics.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2008-02-21 15:37:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:35:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
HTBD, you've got to be kidding... Creation museum? I'd get kicked out as well.
-----
Someone start a paypal fund for bail money and I'll start planning and documenting the visit.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-02-21 15:29:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Tom (user info) at 2008-02-21 15:23:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I really hate the way people have a boner for Ron Paul. I was talking to some ETS-esque lunatic the other day at work who was telling me all this conspiracy shit about a North American Union, world wars, tracking devices, and how Ron Paul opposes all this. Dude, I'm sorry, I just can't vote for someone who opposes things that aren't real.
As for the more mainstream candidates, I like Barack Obama, but that's because I'm one of those ultra liberal losers. I'll take Clinton secondarily. Depending on how things look in October, I might end up voting for McCain, even though I think he's a douchebag. He might not be an awful president.
Wait and see.
==========================================================
what a totally rational thought process.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-02-21 15:28:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
if you say St. Louis is a shithole, you obviously know nothing about the city. where did you go, East St. Louis?? i've been to tons of big cities and i think St. Louis is one of the best. i have a great time every time i go.
and talk shit about the Cardinals all you want. at least their last WS win wasn't in 1908....
Submitted by Tom (user info) at 2008-02-21 15:23:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I really hate the way people have a boner for Ron Paul. I was talking to some ETS-esque lunatic the other day at work who was telling me all this conspiracy shit about a North American Union, world wars, tracking devices, and how Ron Paul opposes all this. Dude, I'm sorry, I just can't vote for someone who opposes things that aren't real.
As for the more mainstream candidates, I like Barack Obama, but that's because I'm one of those ultra liberal losers. I'll take Clinton secondarily. Depending on how things look in October, I might end up voting for McCain, even though I think he's a douchebag. He might not be an awful president.
Wait and see.
Submitted by lostnphound (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:55:15 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
BOING
Submitted by HotWillie (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:48:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
carter fucked up because he brought all those georgia crackers with him and the dems thought he was too uppity.
when he realized his aides were fucking stupid, he tried to do everything himself, which only perpetuated that perception.
obama will have a lot more help with the washington insiders.
he's really more like clinton without the constant erection.
which could make for a pretty damn good president.
black women don't put up with that shit.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:48:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:41:44 CST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:35:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The only thing I didn't like about Southern Illinois was the fact that they were Cards fans. Horrible!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only a Cubs fan will make that statement, eh?
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:41:44 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:35:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The only thing I didn't like about Southern Illinois was the fact that they were Cards fans. Horrible!
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:41:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:04:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Ltap (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:02:57 CST (#)
Ranking: -2
Look at it this way - McCain has all the old southern white powerbrokers to back him. Hillary Clinton has money and favours people owe her husband and her family. Barack Obama has nothing, he's from Hawaii and he's the poorest (money-wise) candidate in the entire thing, he's got to his current position on charisma alone. He would be a strong, fair, nominally "good" president. I think ultimately hillary clinton won't win no matter what, it's pretty much between Obama and McCain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see "Jimmy Carter" written all over Obama's face. And people think GW Bush was bad... They obviously are ignoring Jimmy Carter's presidency.
-----
I agree. Obama appeals to the same group of people that Carter did and for the same reasons. Clinton is simply unqualified to do the job but that won't stop people from voting for her. I'm betting that the Dem ticket will be Clinton/Obama, only because Clinton won't accept the VP slot behind Obama since her hubby already had the big chair and it'd be an embarassment to fall short. Although I'll more-than-likely vote for McCain, none of the candiates strike me as someone who could jump in and do a decent job right away. There really is only a selection of turds in the toilet bowl this election.
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:38:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Why would anyone who cares about the future put their trust in someone who's 80 years old?
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:35:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
HTBD, you've got to be kidding... Creation museum? I'd get kicked out as well.
I used to tell people "Have you accepted Satan as your lord and savior?" all the time. It makes me want to start that back up hearing about "creation museums".
I remember flying on a plane coming back from Korea and had a long conversation with a pilot of 707's. He was real cool... at the end of the conversation when the plane landed, he gave me one of those religious pamphlets pimping whatever faith he believed in. I said "thanks" but inside I was thinking "Thank GOD he didn't start in on this when the flight started!"
I used to say I could tell what women from Kentucky looked like. Fat, big round face with flattened "pig nose", acted like easy whores, and were bible thumpers...too many fit that stereotype.
Then I went to Louisville.
So I guess I can see what Scourge is saying about Illinois. I lived in one of the worst areas and remain a stone throw away from it. I get Chicago news channels over the air.
The only thing I didn't like about Southern Illinois was the fact that they were Cards fans. Horrible!
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:29:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:09:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Let me assure anyone who has not made the trip...
Chicago to St.Louis is a blast after doing the insanely boring Chicago to Paducah, KY route.
==========
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:13:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Chicago to St. Louis is nothing compared to driving the whole 8 hour length of Illinois in a day. Word.
------------
Neither suck as much as I70 across Kansas...from east of Denver to Topeka the "scenery" is flatter than....well, someone finish that and make it funny. I have made the Loveland, CO to benton, IL many times in the last 4 years...alone every time
Its about 8 hours (or more, I lose track) of BORING!
Submitted by SkullBiter (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:28:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I do not fucking care.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:23:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I can honestly say I've been to the four corners of Illinois. From Rockford (the most Ghetto town I've ever been to outside of St.Louis and Detroit), to the very end of the state. Well, I wasn't on that low-lying Island that is a bit further to the south, but I have stopped at that campground area where those two bridges on State 62 is. I used to drive from Clarksville, TN to Springfield, MO...another boring drive...VERY often.
I've been to Danville, too. While I wasn't there long, It did feel like it wasn't a place I'd ever want to ever go to again.
I actually haven't been west other than to St. Louis. Why anyone would need to go to Quincy is beyond me.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:18:37 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
what makes u think your political input matters?
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:17:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
alright, thanks for the answer. this is just a piece of your greater frustation with the political situation in illinois.
and i know all to well how illinois politics works. i'm a filthy soul-less lobbyist in springfield.
55 has the cars
dave's classic cars in staunton, and another, much larger one, that i can never remember the name of. he charges a buck to stop and look at them, but if you buy something he rebates your dollar. got sick of tire kickers and gawkers i guess and figured to make a buck off them if he had to deal with them.
and benton IS a shithole, but the countryside down there is gorgeous.
same with ALL of calhoun county. they have more hunting dogs than humans there. more fighting roosters too. little piece of appalachia blew over into illinois, i guess.
actually, all of that is pretty much the same with everything south of lake carlyle.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:13:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Chicago to St. Louis is nothing compared to driving the whole 8 hour length of Illinois in a day. Word.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:12:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm still trying to get up the nerve to visit the Creation Museum in Hebron, KY.
If I do go, I'm gonna run a pool for how far I make it before they throw me out.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:11:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
That's because Paducah blows.
Submitted by Lambchop (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:11:20 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
All the major news groups has Obama leading McCain by a larger margin than Clinton (48 to 41 Obama and 46-45 Clinton with a +-5 margin of error).
I don't know about where you live, but over here, I know many republicans who will vote Obama over McCain if he gets nominated, but will vote McCain over Clinton if she gets nominated.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:09:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Let me assure anyone who has not made the trip...
Chicago to St.Louis is a blast after doing the insanely boring Chicago to Paducah, KY route.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:08:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Because he's one bad mutha...
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:08:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If that's the case Snock then I'm changing my vote to SHAFT!
Submitted by Snock (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:07:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Obama is a cool dude. i would chill with him.
That's what I look for in a candidate, is how cool they are. Impersonable old white men have had their shot, now it's time to put some soul in the white house.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:06:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:02:26 CST (#)
Ranking: 0
OH...and that Benson, Illinois map is kind of neat. You can see that a railroad once went to the town. Looks like it is long gone.
--------------------------------
Yeah, it's been decades, and yet there are still segments of track in town that the locals refuse to remove. More trouble than it's worth, I guess.
What's really funny is that one of my wife's best friends and husband live there, and about 80% of the town is related to them, I shit you not.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:05:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:48:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
FATMANTPK, I remember Benton being on I-57 in my many trips from Fort Campbell back home. God, what a horrible drive that is. About 15 minutes in Wisconsin, 60 minutes in Kentucky, and the whole rest of that god awful drive in Illinois.
I used to take I-55 to Fort Leonard wood when I was stationed there. I get confused on the two... I-57 has the giant cross, right? Which one has all those old cars for sale? I think that's I-55. You'd know it if you passed it, that's for sure.
==========================================================
that's I-55 that has all the old cars for sale. i drive by it a lot when i drive from Chicago to St. Louis.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:04:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Ltap (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:02:57 CST (#)
Ranking: -2
Look at it this way - McCain has all the old southern white powerbrokers to back him. Hillary Clinton has money and favours people owe her husband and her family. Barack Obama has nothing, he's from Hawaii and he's the poorest (money-wise) candidate in the entire thing, he's got to his current position on charisma alone. He would be a strong, fair, nominally "good" president. I think ultimately hillary clinton won't win no matter what, it's pretty much between Obama and McCain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see "Jimmy Carter" written all over Obama's face. And people think GW Bush was bad... They obviously are ignoring Jimmy Carter's presidency.
Submitted by Ltap (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:02:57 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Look at it this way - McCain has all the old southern white powerbrokers to back him. Hillary Clinton has money and favours people owe her husband and her family. Barack Obama has nothing, he's from Hawaii and he's the poorest (money-wise) candidate in the entire thing, he's got to his current position on charisma alone. He would be a strong, fair, nominally "good" president. I think ultimately hillary clinton won't win no matter what, it's pretty much between Obama and McCain.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:02:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
OH...and that Benson, Illinois map is kind of neat. You can see that a railroad once went to the town. Looks like it is long gone.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:02:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yup. :)
It's about a 25-30 minute drive there from my house, and then another thirty seconds to drive though the whole town en route to I-39.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 14:00:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
CaptainThorns... HAHAHH! This picture says it all.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Benson,+IL,+United+States+of+America&sa=X&oi=map&ct=title
Gotta love the satellite view!
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:58:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I think it would be brilliant if the U.S elected a woman as president. 200 years of old, white, rich men has to go.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:55:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2008-02-21 12:50:52 CST (#)
Ranking: 0
Stabkill - I have family in Benton. it is a very, VERY redneck town between Mt Vernon and Marion on I57. Very few have heard of it, even fewer have stopped there
---------------
Sounds about par with Benson, a small redneck farm town off I-39 and IL-116...maybe 300 population, tops.
And yeah Stabby I believe I-57 is the interstate with the giant cross.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:52:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:42:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2008-02-21 12:40:05 CST (#)
Ranking: -2
Don't waste your vote...vote for Shlongy in '08.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll vote for your (real name) in a write in if it is Hillary Vs. McCain. Will that show up on any paperwork? It would kind of be cool, I suppose.
I've talked about this before on Uber but in EVERY single election - and I've voted every year since 1978 - I have written in my "real name" for SOME office...in New York and now in SC. I usually pick the race that I know NOTHING about...although I think- and I may be hallucinating - that I did write myself in for President one year.
I've been waiting for some TV talking head to say " And we have noticed a groundswell of enthusiasm for a ________ ______ as this is the 27th consecutive year that he has received a vote for __________."
IT NEVER HAPPENS THOUGH.
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:50:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Stabkill - I have family in Benton. it is a very, VERY redneck town between Mt Vernon and Marion on I57. Very few have heard of it, even fewer have stopped there
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:49:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I remember this from an old post:
Guy 1: I want to hold an election!
Guy 2: You're chineese and gay?
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:48:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
FATMANTPK, I remember Benton being on I-57 in my many trips from Fort Campbell back home. God, what a horrible drive that is. About 15 minutes in Wisconsin, 60 minutes in Kentucky, and the whole rest of that god awful drive in Illinois.
I used to take I-55 to Fort Leonard wood when I was stationed there. I get confused on the two... I-57 has the giant cross, right? Which one has all those old cars for sale? I think that's I-55. You'd know it if you passed it, that's for sure.
I guarantee I've stopped in Benson at some time or another as I've made that trips more times than I care to remember.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:46:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm not voting in either election this year.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:44:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Actually, scratch that. shitfuck would be a MUCH better write-in, what with his FBI shenanigans with Bart. :)
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:43:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Not that I can speak much higher of Peoria, the city closest to me, of course. :(
I voted Nader in '04 and I'll do it again, or maybe Ron Paul, unless ETS were running for president. Then I'd vote for HIM simply for the sheer amusement factor if he were to get elected.
Submitted by MudWhistle (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:42:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The Modern Postal Service: Agency or Business?
Until adoption of the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, the U.S. Postal Service functioned as a regular, tax-supported, agency of the federal government.
According to the laws under which it now operates, the U.S. Postal Service is a semi-independent federal agency, mandated to be revenue-neutral. That is, it is supposed to break even, not make a profit.
In 1982, U.S. postage stamps became "postal products," rather than a form of taxation. Since then, The bulk of the cost of operating the postal system has been paid for by customers through the sale of "postal products" and services rather than taxes.
Each class of mail is also expected to cover its share of the costs, a requirement that causes the percentage rate adjustments to vary in different classes of mail, according the costs associated with the processing and delivery characteristics of each class.
According to the costs of operations, U.S. Postal Service rates are set by the Postal Rate Commission according to the recommendations of the Postal Board of Governors. [See: Postal Service Says It Needs Even More]
Look, it's an agency!
The USPS is created as a government agency under Title 39, Section 101.1 of the United States Code which states, in part:
* (a) The United States Postal Service shall be operated as a basic and fundamental service provided to the people by the Government of the United States, authorized by the Constitution, created by Act of Congress, and supported by the people. The Postal Service shall have as its basic function the obligation to provide postal services to bind the Nation together through the personal, educational, literary, and business correspondence of the people. It shall provide prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all areas and shall render postal services to all communities. The costs of establishing and maintaining the Postal Service shall not be apportioned to impair the overall value of such service to the people.
Under paragraph (d) of Title 39, Section 101.1, "Postal rates shall be established to apportion the costs of all postal operations to all users of the mail on a fair and equitable basis."
No, it's a business!
the Postal Service takes on some several very non-governmental attributes via the powers granted to it under Title 39, Section 401, which include:
* power to sue (and be sued) under its own name
* power to adopt, amend and repeal its own regulations
* power to "enter into and perform contracts, execute instruments, and determine the character of, and necessity for, its expenditures"
* power to buy, sell and lease private property
* power to build, operate, lease and maintain buildings and facilities
All of which are typical functions and powers of a private business. However, unlike other private businesses, the Postal Service is exempt from paying federal taxes. USPS can borrow money at discounted rates, and can condemn and acquire private property under governmental rights of eminent domain.
The USPS does get some taxpayer support. Around $96 million is budgeted annually by Congress for the "Postal Service Fund." These funds are used to compensate USPS for postage-free mailing for all legally blind persons and for mail-in election ballots sent from US citizens living overseas. A portion of the funds also pays USPS for providing address information to state and local child support enforcement agencies, and for keeping some rural posts offices in operation.
Under federal law, only the Postal Service can handle or charge postage for handling letters. Despite this virtual monopoly worth some $45 billion a year, the law does not require that the Postal Service make a profit -- only break even. Still, the US Postal Service has averaged a profit of over $1 billion per year in each of the last five years. Yet, Postal Service officials argue that they must continue to raise postage at regular intervals in order make up for the increased use of email. [See: Postal Service Says It Needs Even More]
In it's private business persona, the Postal Service ventures into E-commerce with "USPS eBillPay," a popular online bill paying service and "Postmark America," an online store for postal oriented gifts, clothing and collectibles.
For email senders, USPS offers an email certification system which enables customers to create and send messages via the Internet through a secured postal account. Customers don't need an Internet service provider to send electronic messages.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:42:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2008-02-21 12:40:05 CST (#)
Ranking: -2
Don't waste your vote...vote for Shlongy in '08.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll vote for your (real name) in a write in if it is Hillary Vs. McCain. Will that show up on any paperwork? It would kind of be cool, I suppose.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:41:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You live in Rockford?
I'm sorry. :)
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:40:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:37:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Now granted, I lived in an armpit of Illinois that is quite possibly worse than Chicago. No, not Joliet...Rockford.
------
You ever hear of Benton? Its in Franklin county.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:40:05 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Don't waste your vote...vote for Shlongy in '08.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:37:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Scourge, it isn't just the weapons issue. Illinois, in my opinion, is overtaxed, weak on crime, and has a f'd up budget with corrupt politicans that take advantage of the population who really is ignorant about everything. Wisconsin is just as bad and getting worse. Of course state issues are different than federal ones most of the time, but Obama was a state senator as well otherwise it wouldn't be an issue to bring up Illinois politics as much.
I think taxing the elderly out of their homes is disgraceful.
The jockeying at the border between WI and IL for business is sickening. (The state that gives the most taxpayer money is almost always the winner.)
I don't like any state that the government gets overly involved in business affairs. Give a fucking good tax rate, build state coffers in good times, don't overspend, etc.
You know how politics work nearly everywhere? Deal with the most serious problems last so you can say "our roads/schools suck and now we have to tax you more" and then people buy it. Meanwhile, tax money goes to multi-million dollar companies along with the generations of dead beat welfare riders.
Now granted, I lived in an armpit of Illinois that is quite possibly worse than Chicago. No, not Joliet...Rockford.
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:37:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:32:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm
Urrrr!
I let myself get talked into getting rid of my handgun by some spazz relative and I want another one.
Suggestions?
---
I own and prefer the Ruger SP101 revolver, in .357 Magnum. it is my concealed carry pistol, although I rarely carry anywhere anymore.
It has a "bobbed" hammer so it will not catch on clothing or the interior of a purse/backpack when needed. it is heavy, due to solid construction with standard materials rather than "airweight" materials. It is available in many calibers.
http://www.officer.com/article/photos/1185626398885_web-rugersp101.jpg
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:35:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
UPS is private, USPS is federal.
Submitted by MudWhistle (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:33:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ok i have a serious question.
driving home yesterday i say a step van on the highway. It had a decal with the USPS Eagle on it and it said 'US Department of Postal Inspections' and have GOVT plates on it.
Isnt the USPS a privately owned business?
Did we actually set up a whole new division of Govt, that i'm paying for, for that fat fucker in there to drive around in a step van smoking cigarettes?
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:32:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm
Urrrr!
I let myself get talked into getting rid of my handgun by some spazz relative and I want another one.
Suggestions?
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:31:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Shots came from the grassy knoll!
Oswald didn't act alone!
Don't eat McDonald's burgers! The government is putting GPS tracking chips in the "beef!"
And I fucking fresh out of tinfoil, goddamn it!
Submitted by MudWhistle (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:30:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
CARRY A GUN!
IN NJ I NEED SEPARATE PERMITS JUST TO BUY A HANDGUN!
CARRY IT.....PISHAH!
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:28:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
'Illinois certainly isn't a model state of perfection in the U.S. either. One of only 3 states where you cannot legally carry a gun with a concealed weapon permit.'
The ability to carry a concealed weapon is what makes a 'model state of perfection'?
Who knew?
Not that I am against the right to carry a concealed weapon (I'm not), but this seemingly started out as some sort of pragmatic weighing of possible outcomes to determine how best to cast your vote, and then BLAMMO with the right to carry a gun thing.
This is the second or third time I've seen this from you recently.
Why is this such an issue for you?
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:27:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by MudWhistle (user info) at 2008-02-21 12:25:28 CST (#)
Ranking: 0
VOTE RON PAUL!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haha. I wanted to vote for someone who actually had a chance to win. A "protest vote" is lame. It means more if he ran as a 3rd party candidate on the general election as it opens up state ballot access and federal election funds.
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:27:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
At minimum, I'll be buying a Bushmaster M4A3 and some 30 round magazines if either Hillary or Barrack wins.
-----
I had a Bushmaster XM15 a few yers ago. NO complaints about it. it was adamn fine rifle. 30 round mags are a pain to fully load.
Submitted by MudWhistle (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:25:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
VOTE RON PAUL!
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:23:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2008-02-21 12:20:23 CST (#)
Ranking: 0
I hope the Secret Service doesn't see this
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAHA. I'd buy that weapon because I like it and they could be banned with a democrat president and democrat congress. I'd say with Obama it is a given these would be gone, with Clinton it is "more than likely".
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2008-02-21 13:20:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I hope the Secret Service doesn't see this