Yeah.
I voted today, not that it made a difference. I didn't vote for McBama, though.
Yeah. I voted last Friday. Assuming my vote gets counted properly, that's one of about 20 or so votes that Baldwin will get in our county.
"Stone the Crow", by Down is a great song.
Assuming my vote gets counted properly, that's one of about 20 or so votes that Baldwin will get in our county.
I've thus far gotten 3 of the 5 other people of voting age in my immediate family to vote for Baldwin. I, of course, voted for him. I think I can deliver the other 2. So my county will have at least 6 baldwin votes.
Of course now it's time to watch SP's Turd vs. Douche.
Nate,
What are your thoughts on down-ballot voting? You're a whole lot more likely to stand before a judge for your county (not sure how Tennessee's organized, but we vote for judges here in Texas) than you will before President. Do you withhold your vote from good people because they end up with the same label as people you don't like at the top?
It's probably all pointless anyway. I recall one precinct that had 20 folks that voted for Ron Paul and their district counted zero votes for the man.
If I bother, I'm voting for Chuck Baldwin. I like lost causes.
I recall one precinct that had 20 folks that voted for Ron Paul and their district counted zero votes for the man.
That's encouraging. In nearly every state (he's actually on the ballot in Montana I believe) votes for Ron Paul are not legally allowed to be counted - of course, I wouldn't expect Ron Paul voters to be educated about the election process, these silly laws being a tool of The Man used to oppress the masses and all that.
Today is vote day in Americana? Whoah..missed that one.
This is genuinely worrisome. Obama will plunge the US into an era of outer darkness never before seen at a much faster rate than McAneity.
The above anon is moi.
Obama will plunge the US into an era of outer darkness
I'm not panicking yet, I know a few democrats, they're racist to the core. They wouldn't vote for Obama if John Kennedy himself told them to. This election, if Obama wins, will have been won by fraud. We can already see the attempt.
These early votes are an example of the odd circumstances. Tuesday November 4, is the official election day.
We have same day registration. If I happen to be of such a mood on the 4th as to cast a vote, it will be for Baldwin.
And Bill, that isn't even close to fair. Most of the liberals who supported Paul have already jumped ship. Those that remain might actually have learned something.
ok, well, obviously I know the definition of "early". I'll shut up now.
Bill,
Ron Paul's organization has sent information out several times asking his supporters not to vote for him because he's not on the ballot.
He has officially thrown his support behind CHuck Baldwin and asked his supporters to vote that way.
So the fact that people are still voting for Ron Paul, and are surprised that their write-in does not count... tells us what? That the typical Ron Paul supporter does not understand how elections work.
Ron Paul, consummate Manchurian Candidate, also endorsed Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader, care to explain those endorsements?
Ron Paul is no friend of freedom, quite the opposite.
Ron Paul, consummate Manchurian Candidate, also endorsed Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader, care to explain those endorsements?
He didn't endorse them, he endorsed the 4pt platform that all 4 3rd party candidates agreed on. He endorsed not voting for the 2 party system. He later endorsed Chuck Baldwin because Bob Barr is a fucktard.
Ron Paul is no friend of freedom, quite the opposite.
That's a lie. Ron Paul has been the greatest champion of freedom of any elected official at the Federal level in a hundred years.
Yeah, Bill. The only guy in Congress with a consistent and principled voting record is an enemy of freedom.
Spare us such drivel, please.
People... don't get mad at Bill... I mean... remember... SOMEONE has to read NRO.
>Ron Paul is no friend of freedom, quite the opposite.
That's a lie. Ron Paul has been the greatest champion of freedom of any elected official at the Federal level in a hundred years.
Yeah, and Mao Zedong's slogan was "Serve the People" and Lenin is famous for "Peace, Land, and Bread". Ron Paul is a true enemy of freedom, just look at his actions and read his words. Anti-Americans like Paul profess a love of liberty, yet they consistently take the side of the world's most vicious dictators - whenever those dictators happen to oppose the U.S. government. Paul's position is not "anti-government"; it's anti-American government. Paul does not have a political record or even a philosophy of support for individual rights and freedom. Rather, it is a record of support for an extreme "states' rights" brand of federalism that would give a green light to wholesale violations of individual rights at the state and local level.
Here's a good primer.
http://bidinotto.journalspace.co...37&h=ron%
20paul
The manipulative use, by Paul and too many libertarians, of vague, undefined smear terms such as "interventionist" and "neocon" permits them to blame the U.S. government for virtually anything it does in our legitimate, long-term self-defense, anywhere in the world. Actions to thwart coercive threats, such as forging defensive alliances, are "interventionism." Helping other nations counter a growing peril from a declared U.S. enemy nation (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Iran, etc.) is "interventionism." Sometimes, even trading with adversaries of dictatorial regimes (e.g., trading with Taiwan, an enemy of China) is "interventionism."
The only "moral" alternative they imply, therefore, is a de facto, hunkered-down pacifism: a steady retreat by the U.S. from any interactions in the world -- lest we diss some backwater bully, cross his arbitrarily declared boundary lines, offend him for his subjective notions of religious or cultural blasphemy, or thwart his laughable claims of "national sovereignty."
Part of the sloppy thinking at the root of "noninterventionist" lunacy is the tacit equation of individual rights with "national sovereignty" -- and also the equation of "economic interventionism" (against peaceful individuals) with "political interventionism" (against despotic regimes). Philosophically, these twin equations are completely bogus.
Only individuals have rights or "sovereignty"; and only those governments that recognize the individual rights of their own people have any legitimate claims to exist. Dictatorships thus have no "rights" or "sovereignty." Likewise, the concept of economic "interventionism" -- developed by the Austrian school of economics to describe coercive governmental interference with free individuals in the marketplace -- cannot be equated with political "interventionism" against governments, especially against dictatorships.
Ron Paul (along w
Bill... the author is a jackass. And you're an idiot if you find his points convincing.
Then it should be trivial to refute. Here's more amunition for you to use.
http://www.city-journal.org/
html...ace_racket.html
Its simple to refute.
The world is no different today than it was when Washington was president.
And in every single case... the US and the world... would've been better off if WE had followed Washington's advice on foreign policy.
No vote being cast here. Voting is for chumps.
> Voting is for chumps.
Probably. But some battles must be fought, even though you know you're going to lose. Especially when the cost of losing is so high, and the cost of fighting is some minuscule.
Um, Bill, what specifically about Ron Paul makes him "anti-American" or "anti-freedom?"
Were George Washington or Thomas Jefferson anti-American?
Let's see.. here's an exercise...
Let's take WWI for example.
Option A) We get involved... choose the wrong damned side... make sure the bad guys win... Treaty of Paris fucks over germany economicly.. which allows nutcase liberals to take over the country and damned near take over he world.
Or...
Option B) We stay out.. mind our own business.. Germany and Austria Hungry rape France and decide not to invade England... divide up Europe... and assimilate the pathetic french into their own culture. The Halocaust never happens.
Which would you prefer?
Bill, where has Ron Paul advocated not trading with Taiwan? By the way, to generalize the exchange of military-grade weaponry as 'trading' is dishonest. The sooner you admit to being a Wilsonian progressive the better off everyone will be.
"Rather, it is a record of support for an extreme "states' rights" brand of federalism that would give a green light to wholesale violations of individual rights at the state and local level."
Almost to silly to bother addressing, but I will.
Most states do have their own clauses that resemble the Bill of Rights in their own Constitutions.
Indiana specifically has jury nullification in its Constitution. Article 1, Section 19 here:
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic...const/
art1.html
I was watching Fox News in the cafeteria here at work this morning and McCain was blathering.
I've not watched any TV coverage of the man, except for a bit of YouTube videos.
This morning I came to a conclusion.
I don't know how the Republicans managed to nominate a guy that makes Ron Paul seem as slick as Bill Clinton, but they sure did.
He's as uncharismatic as Soundwave. (GEEK ALERT!)
Which would you prefer?
But the Germans were Nazis! And the French gave us the Statue of Liberty! And the Lusitania! And Democracy!
The world is no different today than it was when Washington was president.
Smoke much dope?
It's easier to get from Frankfurt to Baltimore today than it was to get from DC to New York in Washington's day. And, keep in mind that Washington was a big proponent of the various wars in Canada and what was then the frontier, against Spain and Fwance due to their mucking around with our trade. Today, as is obvious, it's just as easy to screw with our trade from Taiwan as it is from New York.
I voted for Chuck Baldwin today. I will have to check the results for my precinct after the election to see if they counted it.
Thank goodness there was a Libertarian running against my idiot Republican Congresscum Kevin Brady who voted TWICE for the "Make USA an Official Facist State and for other crappy purposes" act of 2008. I would have voted for his demoncat opponent if there had not been a Libertarian running.
"It's easier to get from Frankfurt to Baltimore today than it was to get from DC to New York in Washington's day."
Yeah. But we're the only country in the world capable of projecting power across oceans.
So...tell me... which of our interventions have been justified by protecting our trade interests????
So...tell me... which of our interventions have been justified by protecting our trade interests????
Um, we invaded Germany to protect our supply of hops?
which of our interventions have been justified by protecting our trade interests?
Is this some kinda trick question, or are you just that iggernant?
which of our interventions have been justified by protecting our trade interests?
Pretty much all of them, just for the record. The most notable, given the discussion, is our "meddling" in Iran, which Ron The Nut keeps harping on. We backed a British force that went in to get back British oil pumping stations that had been seized by opponents of the Shaw, and who were intending to nationalize oil production. There is not a more clear-cut example of American military intervention in foreign lands in support of existing trade treaties, and this is what Ron The Nut chooses to showcase as American interventionism. Ipso Facto - Ron The Nut considers trade to be "meddling".
Commenting by HaloScan
