What were the Dems thinking

[HawksStock]

They currently have the 1st and 3rd ranking (most liberal) voting records running for president.

The only pieces of shit who would vote for that has to be a "yeah socialism" or "all repubs are evil" socialism. Socal shouldn't be held in the same regards, though. He has bush hate, which means he would vote against anyone who was a member of bushes political party. I do understand that people might want to punish party, but those votes exist no matter who the dems pick.

Personally as an Isolationist, strict constructionist, federalist; the party should be punished.

yet not with the risk of putting a blatant redistributionist, anti-constiution candidate forward, hell...
He's racist too.

Given that the majority of americans wouldn't commit treason, McCain is a lock.

That being said, maybe it's time to look at a third party. Imagine the money spent on iraq, for the fed to have that money something illegal (unconstitutional) had to happen. Trillion dropped into Nuclear plant would probably see most american's energy bills dropped by a quarter.

Now defense spending is constitutional, yet power can be argued to support interstate commerce for a (federalist papers approved) constitutional reason.

With the amount of money spent unconstitutionally, I could see our power costing a few bucks a year (not counting gasoline) if our money was spent in a constitutional way.

Why not do something to support McCain without voting for him. Let's say you have several conservative neighbors who can't make it to the polls, take them there... And vote for a true American like Barr or Paul. You'll still be fending off the socialists, but also be giving the gov. a reminder to stay the f**k out of your lives.

I can't see obama winning, so stop worrying about the blatant thief taking the election. The dem's made such a bad pick this year you should feel free to vote your hearts. Maybe we actually have the chance to make thing better with our vote this year.

[twinegarden]

YYYYYAAAAAAWWWWNNNNN!!!!!!

[HawksStock]

Sept 11, 2008 16:53:39 GMT -6 @twinegarden said:

YYYYYAAAAAAWWWWNNNNN!!!!!!

yahn, I'm brilliant as well. I bow to you smart man.

[twinegarden]

You're entire rant was both shallow and pedantic.

[HawksStock]

really right now(OR IN MY PREVIOUS POST) I'm trying to lure McCain voters. What dumb ass would try to subvert me...

the dumbest obama supporter... If you support the socialist, why would you not want me to take away from his supporters.

Uh, cuz I'm dumb. Drink your fucking bear idiot and don't call me son. My last post supportst your unelectable socialist, by asking his opponents to vote for real americans.

Stop trying to hold my jockstrap and you'll stop looking like a nat trying to hold up the empire state building.

[HawksStock]

Sept 11, 2008 17:48:11 GMT -6 @twinegarden said:

You're entire rant was both shallow and pedantic.

You act as if I was trying to away votes to your candidate, not worth the effort, only a fucking socialist would vote for the piece of shit you support.

[HawksStock]

Do I have to answer a fuck like this or will you all reign in your own crazies.

[Iowafan1]

HawksStock......you have made great points in your very own "HawksStock" kind of way. Hell, I'm about an inch from registering as a Libertarian. Just need to reconcile a Libertarian position or two against some deep beliefs that I have before I take that leap. In the meantime, trying to persuade any of these liberals to move to the right is a waste of your time and energy. After all, the entire preface of liberalism is a mindset of entitlement that says they should have the right or privilege to claim something that someone else has earned or owns. Think about it. When have you ever heard a liberal protest in support of a position that didn't in some way, shape or form, involve taking something away from someone who they felt "have too much" or "can afford it" or lowering standards for those in which they were "supporting"?

[socal]

Sept 11, 2008 16:52:10 GMT -6 HawksStock said:

Personally as an Isolationist, strict constructionist, federalist; the party should be punished.

Thus the "anti" isolationist stance of the GOP and their new dominatrix:

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.

But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to -- especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.

We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

It doesn't have to lead to war and it doesn't have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that's a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

Edit-



Edit 2:
Hope he doesn't need a rape kit:
www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/52266.html