2008 Presidential Candidates

[Entropy]

1) You seem to be conflating "right" with "privilege." Rights belong to the people, under US law, so they cannot simply be revoked by fiat, the way privileges (like getting a driver's license) can.

Not true. Rights are also taken away routinely, for example you can lose your right to vote if you do bad stuff.

 

2) Citizenship is a right, not a privilege. Now it may be debated whether that is the right way to go or not. My personal opinion about the value and usefulness of citizenship is undecided at the moment. But the fact remains, that citizenship is a right in the US, not a privilege, and that birthright citizenship is specifically recognized in US law. So there is very little justification for the revocation of a right belonging to a person who did nothing wrong.

Not true.

The right of property can be invalidated even if you did nothing wrong. If I take my new born baby with me, grab a baseball bat, and kill someone to steal his money, then give the money to my new born baby, it does not mean that the baby has the right to keep the stolen goods.

 

3) You keep saying "I'm pretty sure", and you also soften your arguments with phrases like "in most circumstances." If you're not sure you're right, maybe you should do some research before arguing further.

How about you stop trolling? I am 100% sure that I am right (in this particular case), but as with everything, there are exceptions! I am not as arrogant as you to claim that my views are abolute!

 

 

Like I said, if you think you can get this particular cockamamie notion of yours passed into law, go try for it. I'll be there, cheering for your opponents, who, by the way, are taxpayers who change the laws the exact same way you do.

The illegal emigration issue is very important, and most of the people in this country want it addressed. And it will be addressed sooner or later, because the tax payers want it addressed!

 

 

And you continue to try not just to compare apples and oranges, but to base your argument on apples being oranges. There is a difference between a criminal action and protected speech. I explained the difference. Ignoring that won't change it. I told you how you were wrong in your supposition that a certain kind of speech is illegal. Appealing to the existence of other kinds of crime in the world is not the way to address that. You were in error. Accept it, own it, get past it.

 

No, it is YOU who is in error, and that's a fact! If you don't believe me, go ask a lawyer. The freedom of speech is not absolute, and there ARE LAWS that address this issue!

 

 

I'll say it for you again. I'd say it slowly, but this is written, so please read it slowly, so you can follow it:

 

1) Paul says he only votes for things that are authorized by the Constitution.

2) Paul says the PBAB is unconstitutional.

3) Paul votes for the PBAB.

 

Also, I'll ask you to consider this: If Paul says he only votes for measures that are authorized by the Constitution, then why did he vote in favor of a law that is obviously not authorized by the Constitution, since the Constitution nowhere addresses the matter of defining life in any way?

 

1. True

2. Still waiting for proof.

3. True

 

You missunderstand Ron Paul. He is not saying that the constitution should not be expanded, he is just saying that he is not voting for a law that the constitution disallows.

For example, in this particular case, the constitution has no say in what life is, so defining life is not against the constitution.

 

Finally, since you're so insistent upon specific references, kindly point out to me where either the Declaration or the Constitution states that the "life" they refer to is the life of unborn fetuses. No, Ent, that's your little construct that you brought to the table, on your own. I am not persuaded by it, not when the entire history of US jurisprudence is against you.

Exactly, life is not defined, and there is no violation of the constitution to try to define it.

[peino]

Not true. Rights are also taken away routinely, for example you can lose your right to vote if you do bad stuff.

Being born is not a bad thing to do.

 

Not true.

The right of property can be invalidated even if you did nothing wrong. If I take my new born baby with me, grab a baseball bat, and kill someone to steal his money, then give the money to my new born baby, it does not mean that the baby has the right to keep the stolen goods.

I still think you're conflating right with privilege. The "right of property" is a big part of libertarianism, but what that actually means, legally, is highly debateable. For instance, I think that you could make a legitimate argument that losing some property is less of a loss than losing citizenship -- especially since losing citizenship causes greater harm than losing property.

 

For instance, let's say your father steals something from his neighbor and gives it to you, then the legal system forces you to give up that property. You just lose property, which you could replace with other property, gotten legally.

 

Now let's say your parents enter this country illegally, and you are born here, then they get deported and you are deported with them. To where, exactly? Your parents are citizens of whatever nation they left, probably because they were born there. But you weren't born there. You were born here, so as far as that other country goes, you're not their citizen either. So now you have not only lost US citizenship, you have lost the right to live anywhere legally.

 

Both are examples of you suffering a loss because of someone else's wrongdoing, but do you really think they are comparable?

 

How about you stop trolling? I am 100% sure that I am right (in this particular case), but as with everything, there are exceptions! I am not as arrogant as you to claim that my views are abolute!

Sorry if I hurt your feelings, but I really did think you seemed to be trying to soften or deflect your own argument.

 

 

The illegal emigration issue is very important, and most of the people in this country want it addressed. And it will be addressed sooner or later, because the tax payers want it addressed!

Fine. I have no argument with that, even if I might want a different outcome than you. I welcome the debate and the legislation it might generate.

 

No, it is YOU who is in error, and that's a fact! If you don't believe me, go ask a lawyer. The freedom of speech is not absolute, and there ARE LAWS that address this issue!

No, it isn't.

 

And I have asked lawyers. I've worked for lawyers. I socialize with lawyers, argue with lawyers, debate with and against lawyers. Some of my best friends are lawyers. Rather than yelling "Go ask a lawyer" at each other about this, why don't we just let our opinions stand on this issue, until a lawyer comes along to pronouce which of us is right? (Note: I am just as confident that I am right, as you are that you are right.)

 

1. True

2. Still waiting for proof.

3. True

 

You missunderstand Ron Paul. He is not saying that the constitution should not be expanded, he is just saying that he is not voting for a law that the constitution disallows.

For example, in this particular case, the constitution has no say in what life is, so defining life is not against the constitution.

You will have to wait for the NS links which contain the exact proof (and which were compiled by a lawyer, btw; I can pm you his name, if you're curious). I have to ration my typing time. (In case, you haven't noticed in-game chat, I got bit on the hand by a feral cat. Typing aggravates the swelling.)

 

Exactly, life is not defined, and there is no violation of the constitution to try to define it.

So, according to this and the immediately preceding paragraph, we don't actually have to follow the Constitution in order to claim that we are doing so? If the Constitution doesn't include something we want to do, we can just make up stuff that has nothing to do with the Constitution and have the people accept it as the law of the land. Gosh, Ent, I thought you didn't like Bush, but that's the way he operates. Do you agree, then, with my opinion that Paul is just Bush v.2?

 

OK, my hand is hurting, so I have to quit. I'll check in on this again tomorrow night, or Friday (after I find out how much rabies shots cost and hurt).

[pepperspray]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDkyY...NmU=&w=MA==

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/16/...in3513409.shtml

short articles on RP

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Letter+vs.+s...ing-a0140711078

shorter one on letter vs. spirit

Edited November 22, 2007 by pepperspray

[Entropy]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/16/...in3513409.shtml

 

The author of this particular article is a fucktard. Except for #2, which is partially correct (but somehwat out of context), everything is total bullshit.

Fir example, why is that bitch thinking that:

3. Ron Paul is unserious. Suggesting that you will eliminate the IRS, the CIA, the FBI and other government agencies within weeks of taking office is ridiculous. These are bumper stickers, not serious reform proposals.

 

Who the fuck is she to claim that Ron paul said he will get rid of all 3 of them within weeks? He never said that, he said he intends to get rid of them, and start as soon as possible, but he never gave a time limit.

[pepperspray]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/21/...ce=search_story

600 people? sounds like EL... btw, I just realise $1 USD = approx. 5Kgc so I'll raise the ante on my original wager. it's of little consequence, really... his 15 minutes is up. That's my 2 cents. Wait he has a stance on cents too, no? http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul423.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine...nted=1&_r=1 has a number of paragraphs supporting the fucktard's article, to wit page 4 of this link

Edited November 22, 2007 by pepperspray

[Entropy]

And the fact that 600 people attended is a bad thing, or what?

And stop posting useless links, unless if they are relevant for the discussion in question.

 

You posted 5 links in two threads, with almost no comment on them. This is not a news aggregation service.

[pepperspray]

fine, i'm done...no more posting on this thread

[peino]

OK, Ent, you asked for relevant links, and you got 'em. Here at last are the links to the thread I mentioned earlier, in which all these arguments about Ron Paul were presented. EDIT: NOTE -- The relevancy of these links is in the connections to Ron Paul information, some of which comes from his critics, some of which comes direct from Paul himself, and much of which comes from his voting record, which I present so that readers can make up their own minds about him:

 

This is the entire thread. Read the first post, because it lays out the basic argument. Also follow the links within the first post (underlines):

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=...light=integrity

 

Following are selected posts from within the whole thread. I pulled most of these because they contain links to Ron Paul information. Some are just very good expressions of arguments I would make here, but am too lazy to type over again:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13...mp;postcount=18

 

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13...mp;postcount=45

 

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13...mp;postcount=66

 

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13...mp;postcount=77

 

and I've pulled the link from within post 77:

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-p...n-congress.html

 

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13...p;postcount=107

 

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13...p;postcount=127

 

Also posts 179/180. I won't link them because they contain links to a racist site that backs Ron Paul, which might be offensive to some people. I know it's offensive to me. Even if Paul doesn't like them, the fact that they like him is enough to make me reject him.

 

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13...p;postcount=209

 

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13...p;postcount=214

 

We The People Act. Note: If you don't like the other link that lists Ron Paul's voting record, use this site -- it's the Library of Congress. Should be unbiased enough for anyone (i.e., not "fucktards"):

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300:

 

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13...p;postcount=219

 

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13...p;postcount=221

 

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13...p;postcount=252

 

FURTHER EDIT: And before you try to dismiss all this data without even addressing it, as you did to Pepperspray's links, I will point out that all these links are posted in support of arguments/comments I have already made within this thread.

Edited November 22, 2007 by peino

[auror]

Being a Brit

 

is it true that Bush cannot run again this year because his term limit is up ?

 

 

if it is then who cares who the nxt president is, cannot be any worse or any more retarded

 

 

note: make sure you vote properly dont want any mistakes again

Yes, Bush cannot be re-elected in 2008, thank every god that I can think of. But there are plenty of next-gen Bush versions lining up to take his place. The world will not necessarily be rendered safer just because the corrupt, un-American liar in the White House is not named Bush. We must use our votes properly indeed.

 

Bush can be president for 2 more years if he runs as vice president, then the president dies or resigns.

[Entropy]

@paino

 

Ok, well, he once voted for something that was not 100% supported by the constitution. I wouldn't go as far as saying that he voted for something unconstitutional though.

 

But even so, he is still the candidate that follows the constitution most closely, and he is the most libertarian candidate out there.

 

As for posting links, I really don't feel like debating someone's post from a different forum, or read their stuff. If it's important, you can sumarize it yourself and then post a link, but I don't like links without pertinent comments to attached to them.

[peino]

Being a Brit

 

is it true that Bush cannot run again this year because his term limit is up ?

 

 

if it is then who cares who the nxt president is, cannot be any worse or any more retarded

 

 

note: make sure you vote properly dont want any mistakes again

Yes, Bush cannot be re-elected in 2008, thank every god that I can think of. But there are plenty of next-gen Bush versions lining up to take his place. The world will not necessarily be rendered safer just because the corrupt, un-American liar in the White House is not named Bush. We must use our votes properly indeed.

 

Bush can be president for 2 more years if he runs as vice president, then the president dies or resigns.

I'm not exactly sure how that would work, but I am nearly 100% certain that it would not happen -- though I am not sure Cheney would not try to get into the next administration again. However, if either Cheney or Bush ever again got anywhere near the presidency, I'd emmigrate.

[peino]

@paino

 

Ok, well, he once voted for something that was not 100% supported by the constitution. I wouldn't go as far as saying that he voted for something unconstitutional though.

 

But even so, he is still the candidate that follows the constitution most closely, and he is the most libertarian candidate out there.

 

As for posting links, I really don't feel like debating someone's post from a different forum, or read their stuff. If it's important, you can sumarize it yourself and then post a link, but I don't like links without pertinent comments to attached to them.

I know that I'm in pain, and I know I can be a pain, but it's spelled Peino, with an 'e' and three syllables.

 

And your view of the matter is...um...hm...what? I'll say it's irrelevant. YOU might not say he voted for something unconstitutional, but RON PAUL did say he voted for something unconstitutional, and that is clearly shown in his own quotes, found by following the links I posted. If you're going to keep insisting that Paul follows the Constitution when I have show you all the proof anyone could ever need that Paul routinely chooses to violate the Constitution, then I give up on you.

 

As for the links themselves, and whether they fit into this thread -- I already made my comments (and, btw, those comments ARE sumarizations of the arguments in the links). The supports to those comments came after the comments, but that doesn't mean there are no pertinent comments. I already stated that clearly. You can ignore that if you like, but it won't change the fact. I also made it clear that I posted the links BECAUSE OF THE LINKS THEY CONTAIN, which are the supporting documentation for everything I have already said here. I don't let myself get drawn into endless rounds of repeating myself by people who respond to arguments they can't beat by pretending they were never made. I don't do it in NS, and I won't do it here, either.

 

You asked for links showing where Paul said the things people have claimed he said. I provided them. Your refusal to read them will not make them stop existing. Anyone who wants to judge for themselves whether your view of Ron Paul is accurate can follow those links to the information.

 

I was never out to change your vote, Ent, but I could not stand by and let a one-sided presentation of Paul go without balancing it with more information. You think Paul supports the Constitution. I think he treats it like dirt, violates it to suit his own agenda, lies about it, and is the enemy of the Constitution and, by extension, of our entire system of law. You think he'd make a great president. I think he'd be just a repeat of the treasonous neocon bastards we've had since 2000. I leave my posted links for others do use to make up their own minds.

 

I'm done here. I won't post to this thread again, if it's just going to be a merry-go-round of the same arguments over and over.

Edited November 24, 2007 by peino

[Entropy]

[...] that Paul routinely chooses to violate the Constitution, then I give up on you.

Wow, hold your horses. What do you mean by "routinely"? Do you have other examples besides for this one?

 

As for the links themselves, and whether they fit into this thread -- I already made my comments (and, btw, those comments ARE sumarizations of the arguments in the links). The supports to those comments came after the comments, but that doesn't mean there are no pertinent comments. I already stated that clearly. You can ignore that if you like, but it won't change the fact. I also made it clear that I posted the links BECAUSE OF THE LINKS THEY CONTAIN, which are the supporting documentation for everything I have already said here. I don't let myself get drawn into endless rounds of repeating myself by people who respond to arguments they can't beat by pretending they were never made. I don't do it in NS, and I won't do it here, either.

That's fine, but you need to comment on each individual link, not just post 12 links and expect me to read them all. Some of them were outside of the context of this thread, many being just opinions, unsupported by evidence.

 

 

You asked for links showing where Paul said the things people have claimed he said. I provided them. Your refusal to read them will not make them stop existing. Anyone who wants to judge for themselves whether your view of Ron Paul is accurate can follow those links to the information.

Are you just saying that to piss me off? Didn't I make it clear that I DID READ the relevant link?

 

I think he treats it like dirt, violates it to suit his own agenda, lies about it, and is the enemy of the Constitution and, by extension, of our entire system of law.

.....

Now I am speachless. Can you actually provide some proof to that, since it's a very wild and unsupported accusation?

 

You think he'd make a great president. I think he'd be just a repeat of the treasonous neocon bastards we've had since 2000.

I never said he is perfect, or that I 100% agree with his position on anything, but he is the best candidate we have running for this election. And I did put my money where my mouth is, I donate 190 bucks to his campaign. With 190 bucks I can get a lot of things, you know?

 

I'm done here. I won't post to this thread again, if it's just going to be a merry-go-round of the same arguments over and over.

 

Oh, how convenient. You throw shit on people, and when asked to provide some proof, you are leaving.

Oh, and don't tell me to follow the links you posted. If you decide to come with some proof, I want links to a reliable news source or website, not links to other forums. Sites such as his site, or the congress site, or BBC, CNN, or any .gov site. No blogs or forums.

[peino]

Wow, hold your horses. What do you mean by "routinely"? Do you have other examples besides for this one?

The examples are in the links.

 

That's fine, but you need to comment on each individual link, not just post 12 links and expect me to read them all. Some of them were outside of the context of this thread, many being just opinions, unsupported by evidence.

As I said twice already, I already did. First came my comments/arguments, then came the links in support of them. Attaching my comments to each individual link would be "repeating myself."

 

 

Are you just saying that to piss me off? Didn't I make it clear that I DID READ the relevant link?

No, you didn't, but that's not really important. They're there for everyone to read, not to persuade you to change your mind.

 

.....

Now I am speachless. Can you actually provide some proof to that, since it's a very wild and unsupported accusation?

It's not an accusation. It's my opinion of the man, based on his past actions and statements. That's why it had the words "I think" in front of it. Since it's my opinion, I don't have to prove it. People can ignore it if they like.

 

I never said he is perfect, or that I 100% agree with his position on anything, but he is the best candidate we have running for this election. And I did put my money where my mouth is, I donate 190 bucks to his campaign. With 190 bucks I can get a lot of things, you know?

And that's your opinion of the man.

 

Oh, how convenient. You throw shit on people, and when asked to provide some proof, you are leaving.

Oh, and don't tell me to follow the links you posted. If you decide to come with some proof, I want links to a reliable news source or website, not links to other forums. Sites such as his site, or the congress site, or BBC, CNN, or any .gov site. No blogs or forums.

You mean like the link to Paul's site that you already posted, and the link to the Library of Congress which I already posted?

 

BTW, for those who aren't familiar with US government sites (foreign players), the Library of Congress is exactly what it sounds like. It's not a forum, it's not a media outlet, it has no agenda and no editorial slant. It's just the raw collection of public records and documents archived by the US government. This entire thread is about opinion. Ent has a positive opinion of Ron Paul based on some of Paul's statements. I have a negative opinion about Ron Paul based on some of Paul's statements. Any media outlet you go to -- including credible news sources like the BBC and CNN -- is going to have an opinion to promote too (editorial slant). Since opinions are completely subjective and personal, I see nothing to be gained by bashing our opinions against each other. I believe that, if we want people to make up their minds whether to support Paul or not, we should give them the basic facts about Paul -- and the Library of Congress archives of his speeches, sponsored/authored bills, and voting record are perfect for that.

 

So, here is Ent's opinion, here is mine, and there is the primary documentation about the man we're talking about. Let readers use all of this to make up their minds which of us they'll agree with (or they might think we're both wrong).

 

As for leaving the thread, I'm not leaving, I'm just going to shut up for a while. I made my argument and presented my materials. I don't have any new stuff to add until a new line of discussion on the topic opens up, and since I don't have a new line to introduce, it's time for me to sit down (having said my piece).

[Entropy]

Ok, please indulge me and post again the links, and ONLY the links that show that Ron Paul routinely violates the constitution.

[peino]

Ok, please indulge me and post again the links, and ONLY the links that show that Ron Paul routinely violates the constitution.

No.

 

Because, as you'd know if you'd looked at the links, it's not just one link.

 

You see, sometimes, you can't just take one source's word for something. Sometimes, you have to look at multiple sources, compare them and make up your mind. And that requires you to think it over. Sometimes.

 

So having looked at ALL of the sources I listed, I saw enough instances of Ron Paul violating the Constitution to decide that he does it routinely, after I thought it over for a while. I really don't care if that doesn't bother you. As I said, I'm not out to change your mind, just give the information to others so they can make up their minds the way you and I made up ours.

 

Ciao.

 

EDIT: If anyone wants to judge for themselves whether Ron Paul has violated the Constitution, and how often he does it, all they have to do is download his bills and his voting record from the LoC and then download the text of the Constitution and compare them.

Edited November 25, 2007 by peino

[Entropy]

Look, I do not give A FUCK on what some Joe Sixpacks writes on some forums. I want you to tell me which bills from his voting record are anti-constitutional, besides for the one you already mentioned (which is debatable anyway).

 

While you are not going to change my mind, if you are a man of your word, you have to back up your outrageous claims with reliable information.

Here is his voting record, please highlight the unconsitutional votes: http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category....can_id=BC031929

[Shadeslayer]

rudy giuliani in drag lol i hope guiliani doesnt win

[peino]

Look, I do not give A FUCK on what some Joe Sixpacks writes on some forums. I want you to tell me which bills from his voting record are anti-constitutional, besides for the one you already mentioned (which is debatable anyway).

 

While you are not going to change my mind, if you are a man of your word, you have to back up your outrageous claims with reliable information.

Here is his voting record, please highlight the unconsitutional votes: http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category....can_id=BC031929

For the fourth and last time, go to the Library of Congress and look at Ron Paul's voting record and sponsored/authored bills. Then look at the Constitution (you can get it from the LoC source). Then look at Ron Paul's own site. You already linked to Ron Paul's site. I already linked to the Library of Congress. I am tired of saying this to you, and I am tired of walking you through the same argument, which I and two other people already laid out for you at least three different times in this thread. You can post all the new links you like, they all contain the exact same information, and I have already told you which ones I'm talking about.

 

But here, I'll list a few of them for you again: PBAB, DOMA, and a House measure seeking to discriminate against Iranian college students (there's a link to it already in this thread), and the We The People Act (also linked in this thread). That's four just off the top of my head, and that's all the effort you're going to get from me -- no matter how much you "shout" in capital letters. I say all those laws violate the Constitution, and all of them were either voted for or actually authored by Ron Paul. There's more, but I'm bored with your bullheadedness on this issue. You have been told what my argument is. I will not tell it to you again.

 

Goodbye.

 

EDIT:

 

By the way, Ent, I off-the-cuff named four instances in which I say Ron Paul violated the Constitution, and if I felt like fighting with you instead of with orcs, I'd find more, but I have to wonder why it isn't bad enough if a member of Congress violates the Constitution just once. How many times does a politician have to violate the law and his oath of office before he can be considered unfit for the highest office in the government?

 

That's a rhetorical question. You don't have to answer. I'm leaving now.

Edited November 26, 2007 by peino

[Entropy]

Just throwing some bill names, without pertinent links to each of those bills (linking to the Library of Congress main site won't do), and not even explaining how those bills are anti-constitutional, is NOT proof that Ron Paul routinely violates the constitution.

 

I, for one, believe that you do not have enough arguments if you persistently refuse to provide adequate, individual links to those bills, and explain which part of them violates which part of the constitution.

[Mugwump]

I am very politically opinionated. I made one post expressing my views somewhat in this thread, and could continue debating the issues and candidates to the point of angering others here. I stopped with the one post.

 

The only opinion I can offer that I believe is important is concerning not politics, but arguing over it. Please don't if it jeopardizes the relationship between EL'ers! I think it might be wise for the sake of the game to keep all forum communication as civil as possible for the sake of the game the forums are part of.

 

Off topic is great, politics and the fate of nations are more important than Eternal Lands, but there are plenty of other websites to cock-fight over that stuff without shaking the delicate floorboards under the arenas of discussion this game already has opposing sides in (PK, NDD, EFE, update come to mind, and those are just this week!)

 

Please help me remember that the presidential elections are still a year away, and the wealthy people have been going at it for nearly a year already... what a stinking waste of money! Could have rebuilt New Orleans by now...

 

Take a deep breath. Think of EL. Adjust priorities. Take another deep breath. Think of RL. Join the Green Party! .... Smile!

[Scratch]

From my experience, it is my opinion that there isn't a nickels difference between all of them. Any of them will say whatever they think will get the most votes & then do whatever they feel like once in office.

 

Until they get rid of the electoral college & loosen up the election laws so that you, me & Radu can get on the national ballot, it will always be a choice between a terd sandwich & a giant douche.

 

I was going to go into a whole rant about the US being a republic & not a democracy by comparing the definitions to the US form of government with links & why this is whats wrong with the government & blah blah blah, but I tire of the political argument. So, I'll just post the most obvious reference & if you want to do the research, have at it.

 

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.",

 

(can you see the FNORDs or does it still hurt to look?)

 

 

Edit: spelling error

Edited December 13, 2007 by Scratch

[SL7yz0r]

All candidates are not like this, There are some true patriots on this list!

 

For one, John McCain cares about this country.

 

He spent years in a POW camp in Vietnam and was brutally tortured, his entire stay there!

 

When given the opportunity to be released back into the USA (because of his father)

HE REFUSED BECAUSE OTHER PRISONERS HAD BEEN THERE LONGER

 

His short temper for ignorance and stupidity has done anything but help his presidential race, but he is a true patriot.

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

And Ron Paul, isn't some puppet. He wants to bring this country back to constitutionalism with

less federal power and money, which will do anything BUT win votes. But what is good and

right for this country, he cares about.

 

-----------------------------------------------------

 

There are more but I just picked my two favorite to explain...

 

NOT ALL POLITICIANS ARE PUPPETS!

Edited December 20, 2007 by SL7yz0r

[Scratch]

NOT ALL POLITICIANS ARE PUPPETS!

 

never said they were puppets

 

Anyone associating themselves with either the Republicans or Democrats are immediately suspect of being a terd samich or a giant douche.

 

Besides, anyone that might want to return the power to the people will easily be locked out by the majority that want to keep the power in DC with the use of the electoral college. Read 'em & weep.

 

ZOMG! Conspiracy!

No, just simple history of the US government. In the early days, a few politicians were concerned about the general population being competent enough to make proper decisions. So, they put a few failsafe laws in place just in case.

[Entropy]

Then how about you do something about it?