Opinions - 2008 USA election..who should drug users support?

[Heretic.Ape.]

I've been breifly meandering over this thread and noticed that a lot of it is centered around a sort of debate between idealism and realism. The problem of reconsiling these is fairly simple if you understand one thing: politics is NOT the arena for idealism.
This does not mean that idealism is unimportant and cannot have a significant impact. Idealism is best addressed, as has been noted before but under a slightly misleading banner of "how to best change things", in the grassroots level. Idealism is about how you think and it is at the grassroots level that you have an opportunity to influence the thought of others through education, demonstration, et cetera.
The political arena is suited for addressing what we are stuck with right now. It is a temporal difference between these arenas, through grassroots work you instigate change so that in the future that change will (hopefully) find its way into the political arena.
I hope this can serve to clarify some of the rather heated (bordering on flaming) discussion. What people like nag and pink are talking about is the reality of the political arena. What some of the more idealistic members are talking about is idealism which really doesn't have a place in politics at the level being dicussed. Idealism is certainly not lacking in validity or importance but is merely irrelevent at the level of politics being discussed here.
Idealism should be applauded and its passion is the driving force for change. But it is best applied in areas where it is relevent and can have a desired impact.

Reputation Comments on this post:

You take yourself too seriously, nikka

[Shiacmkmleer]

I think Heretic you are right on this being an issue of idealism vs realism but I disagree with you Idealism is the only force that has a place in politics. When realist said “You can't take on his majesty's military” Idealists did. When realists said you can't end Jim Crow, Idealists did. The point is Idealist not realist are the ones who change things as realists tend to be significantly more moderate they don't exert any pull.

[Nagognog2]

I was one of the founding members of the North American Greens. We had set up computers worldwide in the early 1980's to share information with other green groups around the world. We were represented in the German parliament. Offering advice and expertise on pollution and political action - all sorts of things.

We had decided not to run candidates for national office such as the president. We would work on grass-roots locally and approach from that direction.

One weekend we had a large meeting set up at a major college in the New England area. As we were setting up, a group of people we had never seen appeared. They set about telling all the people there that they were the "real" greens and that we, the founders, were drug addicts. We were Nazis. We were commies. We were all sorts of nasty things! And they hijacked the meeting. Then they took over our communications. Our computer outfit closed up shop in the middle of the night. They even started sending out racist hate mail using some of our local groups' names.

We wanted our computers back up, and some guy we'd never heard of answered the phone at the outfit - finally. He would meet us at a Japanese restuarant in Cambridge, Massachusetts. We flew and drove in.

This guy wanted $5,000 up front from us. I asked him if he ever worked for the CIA. He said he had. I asked if he still did. He refused to answer. The same question, and refusal, was asked about the NSA. We did not give him $5,000. And we stiffed him with the bill for the food.

It was these "real" greens who ran Ralph Nadar as the Green Party. I know who they are. I was there from the very beginning.

Reputation Comments on this post:

very informative

[allyourbase]

texas was a widely divided state until in 1986 karl rove "found" a listening device in his office that he claimed was put there by the democratic opposition. the device had a battery life of six hours, and a range of a shocking 12 feet. the oppositions party office was in an adjacent COUNTY. since then theyve been further jerrymandering our disctricts to ensure republican wins. including huge tracts of rural NOTHINGNESS in URBAN congressional districts. southern doesnt mean stupid. sometimes the chips are stacked against change.

[Tokyo-expat]

Well for what its worth.... Obama has admitted doing coke, and I would think the fact that he admits it, and he is doing well he might have a more liberalized agenda regarding the Drug Situation. Of course even if he feels that way personally his advisers would never let him come out on our side of the fence as an actual policy stance.

Vote Obama!!

[zera]

Originally Posted by Tokyo-expat

Well for what its worth.... Obama has admitted doing coke, and I would think the fact that he admits it, and he is doing well he might have a more liberalized agenda regarding the Drug Situation. Of course even if he feels that way personally his advisers would never let him come out on our side of the fence as an actual policy stance.

Vote Obama!!

This is likely to have the opposite effect. Everyone thought this when Slick Willy Clinton came into office, oh how can someone who admitted smoking pot keep up this drug war madness, Clinton has to ease up on things, right? Wrong, under Clintons watch of eight years there were more drug arrests than under the twelve years of Just Say No Raegan and Bush Sr. combined. Clinton also pionereed all this asset forfeiture and loss of privacy bullshit that we have to live with today, in the name of fighting those dastardly drug lords.

I gurantee you Obamas history on drugs will be a political pressure point, he will be much more sensitive about appearing soft on drugs given his past. Consequently he will persecute drug users probably more so than any of the other alternatives, except maybe nut job McCain.

Also lets get one thing straight in this thread, given that its titled Who Should Drug Users Support. Democrats have prosecuted the drug war just as vigourously if not more so than Republicans, if you look at their records they are just as equally, and probably more so pro-prohibition than Republicans.

[allyourbase]

I think hes already there...he has no clear stance, other than saying that people should understand why others use drugs... I like the democratic side a lot better with this issue regardless. hill-dawg is talking about only sentencing nonviolent drug offenders to rehab, and really, bypassing the federal court system altogether, using "drug courts", but would we see any REAL change in stance on drugs that have proven not to be harmful (marijuana)? kucinich wants to legalize marijuana. john edwards would probably legalize pot, but wants to increase penalties for freebase cocaine vs powder cocaine, which any chemist would tell you is fairly absurd considering how easy it is to make one into the other and vice versa, and again supports the whole drug court notion. on the other side you have mccain, who has said publicly that he wants to impose the death penalty on drug dealers, and the amounts you can get charged with intent to supply with in some states....well lets just say if you live south of the mason dixon line and have more than 28 grams, its your ass. giuliani is not only for more of the same, but likes to impose what he calls "quality of life" policing, also known as the broken windows theory. the incarcerations for marijuana offences in ney york rose into the tens of thousands, after decades of being under a thousand, he supports drug education religiously, which has shown to be more like commercials for the drugs in question than anything else. romney has no legislative record, but was publicly opposed to decriminalization before he was governer. romeny is essentially more of the same, though he supports treatment centers, really its up to whatever the space god elohim whispers into his ear while he dreams about his distant planet populated with mormon sex slaves. remember that the mormon prophet joseph smith said that any mormon women who dated a black men would be killed on the spot, and that black people were cursed, and couldnt get into heaven except as the slaves of white men, not that mormon heaven is what secular americans would first envision at all.

Reputation Comments on this post:

well worded

[ojos_de_brujo]

Elections give you the right to choose between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich. (Southpark)

That's the fatalistic point of view.

The realistic one is to vote for the Democrats. There are more important things at stake here than whatever a candidate thinks about drugs. The war, the environment, the lack of social security, the creationists (they scare the shit out of me),..
I probably risk getting stabbed here at DF, but get your priorities straight.
You need to do anything to prevent another Republican from taking office.

Reputation Comments on this post:

well written

[Nagognog2]

George Bush wasn't elected in 2000. He was appointed by an appointed Supreme Court. Now to say this 'fact' doesn't matter. If you say it does - you are a traitor.

Heil Fucking Hitler.

[Nagognog2]

What did you think of Rich Tarrant, Baudmax? Wasn't he a better choice than that semi-Democrat Bernie Sanders?

[baudmax]

Originally Posted by Nagognog2

What did you think of Rich Tarrant, Baudmax? Wasn't he a better choice than that semi-Democrat Bernie Sanders?

I voted for Bernie, as I am personally convinced of and impressed by the integrity of his efforts. Tarrant(ula) was an obvious schemer, trying to buy a seat of power, an obvous puppet who would dance to master's song.

Peace and Divinity
Love is the Law

Baudeaux Machs

[Nagognog2]

You damned well have to present the facts to people. Otherwise, by the argument that it doesn't matter - no one would ever vote.

Pink and I meant no such thing at all! What Pink, who can correct me if I am mistaken, means is that you need to vote for that which will help facilitate the change in government that we all wish for. Voting Democratic does not make you a Democrat. It makes you a Realist. If this Nation drifts further to the right, voting will be outlawed and we will live under a military dictatorship. Freedom of speech will be curtailed. ALL news will be FOX News. Obey or Die! Then you can say "Ooops!" and be way too late.

The only way to roll this back and put people like the Ron Paul in the oval office is to do this step by step and inch by inch. Americans want everything handed to them NOW with the click of the mouse. It doesn't work that way in political matters. Especially when your Nation is on the edge of a precipice from which there is no coming back. Your Nation will be a Fascist Empire with nuclear weapons. Your news will be Bill O'Reilly. And to speak against this will get you investigated, and finally executed.

That is what we are trying to tell you. When this happens - don't blame me and Pink. We, at least, tried.

Reputation Comments on this post:

well written

[baudmax]

Originally Posted by Nagognog2

You damned well have to present the facts to people. Otherwise, by the argument that it doesn't matter - no one would ever vote.

Pink and I meant no such thing at all! What Pink, who can correct me if I am mistaken, means is that you need to vote for that which will help facilitate the change in government that we all wish for. Voting Democratic does not make you a Democrat. It makes you a Realist. If this Nation drifts further to the right, voting will be outlawed and we will live under a military dictatorship. Freedom of speech will be curtailed. ALL news will be FOX News. Obey or Die! Then you can say "Ooops!" and be way too late.

The only way to roll this back and put people like the Ron Paul in the oval office is to do this step by step and inch by inch. Americans want everything handed to them NOW with the click of the mouse. It doesn't work that way in political matters. Especially when your Nation is on the edge of a precipice from which there is no coming back. Your Nation will be a Fascist Empire with nuclear weapons. Your news will be Bill O'Reilly. And to speak against this will get you investigated, and finally executed.

That is what we are trying to tell you. When this happens - don't blame me and Pink. We, at least, tried.

Nagognog2, I did not for a microsecond think that neither you nor Pink did not care about the outcome, and I know in my heart that we are all agreed on the basic concepts of what direction where we'd like to see things go. I also have thought much lately of how applicable the analogy of boiling frogs relates to this argument, and what we've been going back and forth here about exactly. I think most people have heard the analogy of "How you boil a frog", namely, that tyranny comes through steady increment, as one might bring water to a boil. I'm sure you've heard that analogy before, tho I will just complete the thought for the sake of others, as this is my greatest fear of advance of tyranny. You can take a frog, and throw him in a pot, and slowly bring the water to a boil and he won't notice, and eventually will pass out and cook alive. If you were to get that water boiling, and try tossing the frog in, he'd jump right out instinctively, realizing the danger (and pain) he was in. This is the great danger of continuining to maintain an unjustified hope that we will get back on the right path, if we are patient long enough, vote democrat, etc etc. What we have needed, and I've argued this for years, is to decide some "lines in the sand" beyond which we will allow them to go no further without dire consequence, and yet nobody could ever decide on that line or where it should be, and it get's even murkier when something like 9-11 is engineered, our own little Reichstag fire to move the mass in the desired direction. We are now well past what could have been construed as even a wishy-washy-punk-my-butt line in the sand. We are in fact, in quicksand, and waist deep in it and had better start getting the gears rolling as far as literally holding people accountable for their criminality and taking whatever required actions are necessary to get us there. The people we are struggling against are the most dangerous sort of radicals, who have moved the frame of reference very rapidly, overwhelming most people who have no other reaction but fear. I encounter it, have encountered it now, most especially in the last year or so especially. People who you get talking to about "the way things are getting" will perhaps in some cases first express some genuine enthusiasm and amazement that yes, you are in fact speaking the truth, because what you said concurs with their sense of what is going on (they seem quite excited to discover that they are not alone, or insane in their suspicions), yet society (media) soothingly says, oh this is really for your own good, we have to give our leaders the benefit of the doubt, etc etc. the usual excuses and distractions from the ROOT issues. And then, "pragmatism" kicks in, and they start thinking, getting scared by potential dangerousness of what you told them (it was after all, easier to suspect it, but to know? How can you know what is happening and do nothing to stop it? Besides, what is Master were ever to hear of such disobedience...), and they refute it. Literally, I have had such a person tell me if the government comes for me, they won't help, and how much they support the govt (like there was a bug in the wall.. hmm .maybe there is...?) blah blah blah. Totally lost my respect there. All I can think is, what a whipped dog, people like that deserve to be slaves!

I respect your opinion, tho I must disagree on the basis that the democrats are not serious opposition. Most of them, as are most public officials, are either beholden to someone's favors who put them there, or else compromised in the sense that they have skeletons in the closet that they fear would be released if they were to get serious in dealing with the problem at hand. Not everyone of them, but quite likely a majority of our politicians are compromised in one of those two respects, and essentially, neutralized from taking effective action against the system. And if they do take a principaled stand, you can count on the media to mischaracterize them and demonize them, damaging their reputation, credibilitity, and re-electibility in the process. If all else fails in controlling an errant government figurehead, and if they really start to threaten the interests of the right people, they very well can end up: beat to death in the DC suburb where they live (but the wallet not taken); their plane goes down due to "mechanical failure"; they have a sudden "massive stroke"; perhaps, like even ex-CIA Director Bill Casey, end up "flipping their canoe and drowning in the bay" or more overtly they can simply be assassinated rather brashly in plain view of the public. Over the years, we've seen exactly these sort of "accidents", or variations on the themes. As they say, crude, yet effective.

Voting might as well as be outlawed, if we are only "allowed" choices which we despise, and which offer no representation. Save the money, quit the farce. Just another circus to keep us occupied, to waste all our efforts struggling "against" this or that candidate or policy, while our "representatives" are busy constantly introducing bible-sized volumes of gobbledygook legislation , with some little paragraph here or there, written vaguely, but intentionally with some nefarious purpose of conveying (un)intended new powers to government. Perhaps legislation that was prepared well in advance and sitting in a word processor file, waiting like a gun on a shelf, for the opportune moment when it can be pushed right through during a period of public hysteria (PATRIOT Act). It will of course be the "Give Children Free Lollypops Act" which will mandate total disarmament of the american civilian public, and make the slightest display of "disrespect" for Our Illustrious Leaders a capital offense of the highest order against the state, though those parts will be buried after page 2023, written vaguely to conceal the true intent of it's intended application. And our "representatives", will bray they didn't know it was in there, after having voting unanimously to pass it, like they always do. I mean, afterall, you can't expect legislators to actually read laws before they sign them do you? And besides, who could vote against Free Lollipops for Children?! This is the reality of what we are against.. tyranical laws passed by the boatload into law with little scrutiny, and then they are treated as the word of God, and it's next to impossible to get them reversed! How can you make incremental progress against that legislative landslide? As it is now, there is so much bad law on the books, there's not much to do than start anew from scratch with some guiding principles and strict prohibitions on the lawful scope of govt (like the US Constitution and Bill of Rights), and toss out the rest of the existing "law" for the criminal profanity it is! The current state of US Law makes Alice in Wonderland look sober in comparison! Freedom of Speech? Just don't you say "nappy headed ho" in joking banter, or likewise that if certain people "were to die/be killed" that it would save a lot more innocent lives (this is paraphrasing Bill Maher's comments on the recent mortar shelling at Bagram I believe, while Cheney was visiting)... But yes, we are still free to trade cupcake recipes. Don't spread videos questioning the truth about 9-11 tho.. BAD BAD BAD http://www.piratenews.org/ Yes Ze Homeland Zecurity seized their servers, tho a lot of their videos are still available on youtube.

And yes, they already can disappear anybody they want, and not even admit they have you. So much for due process, or habeas corpus. Anybody can be designated "enemy combatant" on their whimsical say-so, and that cannot be challenged in any court. We will become a Fascist Empire with nukes!? You haven't been paying attention, it's already here. Yep, BushCo's revised 'Nukular Doktrin' saying he reserves the right to pre-emptively nuke any country he feels is a threat, even if they don't have nukes! Everything is in place, they are putting the last touches on it, and when it's ready a suitable pretext (or economic implosion) will be the justification! The only reason they haven't done massive roundups is they don't have the manpower if they start to act overtly in this regard. I mean, you kick people in the face and tell them they are a slave, a lot of them may start to fight back; In fact, more than they are really prepared to deal with, I don't care how many camps they build. Even TV brainwashed Americans. Most of their power domestically is a fusion of illusion and natural conformity (wherein, as we've mentioned in the "Are Americans stupid?" thread, we've already agreed that conformity, and hence following orders and not questioning authority figures, is a primary goal of American public education). They socially engineer us on the whole to be docile, to not trust our own sense of reality when it conflicts with their accounting of things. And condition us that the good little technocrat dogs get bones, job promotions and wealth, and the BAD BAD BAD dogs, well, you know they end up in jail, or struggling their whole lives barely to get by.

Incidentally, a considerable number of Americans get all their news from FOXnews. Not much matter, as FOXnews has reframed the reference point for "acceptible" views in reporting, so most of the other networks are barely much better. Besides, they can always be punished if the government feels they are too 'hostile' in their reporting, then they may find themselves suddenly no longer allowed into the press conferences, and hence, not very employable reporters... Most people don't have much time to think about such "complex issues" as government conduct and policies, because they have to work 2-3 jobs when you factor their declining real wages with the real inflation rate of >=13% per annum (not of course the official 'cooked' inflation figures which absurdley exclude fuel and food cost inflation, like people don't eat or use gas, so it's irrelevant. Irrelevant... more like.. inconvenient! Reality can just be so.. inconvenient!

We are already quite well there, Nag. People have been struggling to prevent this for a very long time now, using "step by step and inch by inch" shoveling-sh*t-against-the-tide political methods; by voting for the lesser of two evils. We are potentially one "incident" away from total military dictatorship, tho practically speaking, they already on paper have all the legal powers of a military dictatorship, it is much more advantageous for them to use such powers selectively and quietly on those dangerous individuals that cannot or will not be controlled by fear, deception and circuses.

As I've said, I know we agree on a general vision of what we'd like to see, and really this is just a disagreement on the best method to get that outcome, especially since each seems to fatally sabotage the other. But seeing where we are at, I can come to no other conclusion than that such methods as you advocate, which have been attempted so patiently and faithfully by so many for so long, have unfortunately only resulted in the the dreadful reality we now are forced to confront. If we are to wait patiently for the world to become as we wish, we may be waiting a very long time. And I am a patient person, but I do seem to recall from the little bit of history that I soaked up in the course of my shoddy public education that seemed the American Revolution was fairly considered to be a success. And that all moved along rather rapidly, once the fighting came out into the open.

Peace and Divinity
Love is the Law

Baudeaux Machs

[emineo]

Hmm. Someone just had a booster

[Nagognog2]

Well, that old fart Frank Zappa agrees - it can't happen here...

"Oh, we're gonna get a tv dinner and cook it up
(No no no no no no no!)
Oh, get a tv dinner and cook it up
Cook it up
Oh, and it won't happen here
Who could imagine
That they would freak out in the suburbs!
(No no no no no no no no no no
Man you guys are really safe
Everything's cool)

I remember (tu-tu)
I remember (tu-tu)
I remember (tu-tu)
They had a swimming pool
I remember (tu-tu)
I remember (tu-tu)
They had a swimming pool
I remember (tu-tu)
I remember (tu-tu)
They had a swimming pool

And they thought it couldn't happen here
(duh duh duh)
They knew it couldn't happen here
They were so sure it couldn't happen here
But . . .

Suzy . . .
Yes yes, oh yes-I've always felt that
Yes, I agree man, it really makes it . . . yeah . . .
It's a real THING, man, it really makes it

FZ: Suzy, you just got to town, and we've been . . . we've been very interested in your development
Suzy: Forget it!

Hmmmmmmmmm
(It can't happen here)"

[Nagognog2]

So vote Libertarian. The fight ensues. And we are killed. That is the plan. Sorry to say this and flame but: You DOPE! If the fight comes on - WE LOSE!

Take it forward carefully, or we lose all those who could and would want to support. The majority of boiled frogs are not able to step out and risk it all. Families. Friends. So on.

Revolution doesn't work, kid. It's a band-aid - but it leads to the wheel spinning around again even more viciously. Study history. You are just plain wrong.

You are willfully encouraging a full-scale civil-war in the USA. This would leave our nation in ruins. Our best people dead. And the infrastructure to care for the survivors in shambles.

Vote Democrat!

[baudmax]

Originally Posted by Nagognog2

So vote Libertarian. The fight ensues. And we are killed. That is the plan. Sorry to say this and flame but: You DOPE! If the fight comes on - WE LOSE!

Take it forward carefully, or we lose all those who could and would want to support. The majority of boiled frogs are not able to step out and risk it all. Families. Friends. So on.

Revolution doesn't work, kid. It's a band-aid - but it leads to the wheel spinning around again even more viciously. Study history. You are just plain wrong.

You are willfully encouraging a full-scale civil-war in the USA. This would leave our nation in ruins. Our best people dead. And the infrastructure to care for the survivors in shambles.

Vote Democrat!

Nag,

You still have not addressed any of the inherent problems I pointed out in your anemic approach, and the poor results they've achieved to date. Perhaps you have some evidence of the efficacy of your "vote democrat" strategy which you have kept concealed, to surprise me and ultimately win me over to your side? Neither have I heard anything from any democratic presidential candidate that addresses any of these issues. Unlike Ron Paul, who does, along with personal integrity, have a proven voting track record on related issues. I've got family and friends myself, and I'd as soon as see them free to live their lives unmolested and unintimidated by psychopaths, tho I see few on the horizon will openly acknowledge the true state of affairs, much less confront it.

A civil war in the USA, if it were to occur, will be brought upon by the desperate, extreme actions of those in power, already growing more extreme by the day for anybody who cares to notice. I have been pretty clear all along about building public support for holding these clowns accountable and massively overhauling the government, and that arms are a last resort considering the consequences. But I also believe people have a Right to defend their lives and liberty if they are threatened by armed aggressors of any nature.

Peace and Divinity
Love is the Law

Baudeaux Machs

[Nagognog2]

I'm not going near you. Simple conclusion using logic and strategy: You hand the Nation back to the Republicans (American Nationalist Party) by your strategy. We do NOT. Period.

See you in November (2008)!

[Nagognog2]

Pink was getting steamed. You know that. I know that. We know that political discourse is one of the best ways to get into a fist fight. That's why many bars have signs warning that political discussion will get you thrown out.

I know this though: We will be hearing a lot more about this subject as we approach November of 2008. This is going to be the most smarmy, slimy, sickening mess in American history regards a presidential election. Get out your Haz-Mat Suit and gas-mask. It's gonna stink to high-heaven.

[Nagognog2]

So drug users should vote Republican? I don't think they'll let you smoke pot in concentration-camps.

[zera]

There are many many good reason to support the Democrats over the Republicans, I was just simply pointing out that the Dems position on drug policy is not one. I have noticed on the boards before that a lot of people seem to assume that the Democrats or Bill Clinton have a less prohibitionist attitude, I was just pointing out that this is simply not true.

[Nagognog2]

Actually, a friend of mine was picked up hitchhiking in way-northern New Hampshire on the road that bisects the White Mountain National Forest. The guy who stopped was John Sununu. He was running for governor, as a Republican, for the first time. He won. And he offered my friend some marijuana to smoke. And told him all the great reasons to tell all his friends to vote for him. My friend didn't bother to tell John Sununu he was from out of state. Or that he was only 17. But he did tell all his friends!

John Sununu went on to pass draconian drug-laws with mandatory sentences for possession. Now he works high-up in the Bush regime. When he isn't busy offering pot to 17 year olds out hitchhiking...

[Shiacmkmleer]

I know this though: We will be hearing a lot more about this subject as we approach November of 2008. This is going to be the most smarmy, slimy, sickening mess in American history regards a presidential election. Get out your Haz-Mat Suit and gas-mask. It's gonna stink to high-heaven.

Couldn't agree with you more Nagognog. But I am more looking forward to after the elections. If the republicans pull a three-peat in election stealing how many people will turn out in the streets to put a stop the madness and how many will stay at home?


But there is a different issue. Are the Democrats any better than Republicans? They take special interests “donations”too and they are just as hard on drugs. They offer us no change. They are just as corrupt. My friends the system as it is now is shot and voting Democrat won't help anything.

As I've said, I know we agree on a general vision of what we'd like to see, and really this is just a disagreement on the best method to get that outcome, especially since each seems to fatally sabotage the other. But seeing where we are at, I can come to no other conclusion than that such methods as you advocate, which have been attempted so patiently and faithfully by so many for so long, have unfortunately only resulted in the the dreadful reality we now are forced to confront. If we are to wait patiently for the world to become as we wish, we may be waiting a very long time. And I am a patient person, but I do seem to recall from the little bit of history that I soaked up in the course of my shoddy public education that seemed the American Revolution was fairly considered to be a success. And that all moved along rather rapidly, once the fighting came out into the open.

Damn right! We've been fighting in the voting booth against tyranny since it came to America, yet it still approaches. What are you going to do? Nagognog I echo Baudmax's question, Hell I'd like anyone to answer this

Perhaps you have some evidence of the efficacy of your "vote democrat" strategy which you have kept concealed, to surprise me and ultimately win me over to your side?

[Nagognog2]

Which part of: "I'm not going near you. Simple conclusion using logic and strategy: You hand the Nation back to the Republicans (American Nationalist Party) by your strategy. We do NOT. Period." - didn't you understand? Now go vote for your Libertarian spoiler. Hell - go out door-to-door and campaign for him. Give him your paycheck.

[Shiacmkmleer]

Originally Posted by Nagognog2

Which part of: "I'm not going near you. Simple conclusion using logic and strategy: You hand the Nation back to the Republicans (American Nationalist Party) by your strategy. We do NOT. Period." - didn't you understand? Now go vote for your Libertarian spoiler. Hell - go out door-to-door and campaign for him. Give him your paycheck.

Yea that is why I asked for you or someone else to.


(I'm not sure if this next part follows the rules, if it does not I will delete it right away)

And note to who ever left me negative feed back with the comment "the flaw in electoral college is why bush won," That simple is not true. Bush won because of massive fraud and a lack of ethics. The whole recount thing that got stopped? Could've easily thrown the election to Gore. African
Americans who tend to vote for Democrats? Yea 3% of them weren't allowed to vote because of the company “DBT” who was hired by the Republicans to say who could and couldn't vote. Now if the Republicans had thought they had to pull these shenanigans anywhere else in America to get their candidate elected they would've (compare independent polling results in 2004 election with “actual” result... there are more than nine states with a significant difference) http://www.bcrevolution.ca/images/exit_poll.gif
On another note perhaps I've been to hostile in this thread my apologies.

Reputation Comments on this post:

you shouldn't have gotten neg rep for asking people to prove their point in a logical argument -makes me wonder about th...