Dubstepforum.com

scottie584 wrote:Ron Paul, woo. Don't know why anybody wouldn't vote for him, he's easily the most sensible and intelligent candidate.

The idea that the free market can take care of itself is neither sensible or intelligent.

Fact that the free market is the only sensible or intelligent idea aside. There's really not much a president can do, but they're commander in chief. So foreign policy is truly where they would have actual influence and make a difference. So it's pretty funny how Obama's supposedly the most sane choice if you consider that his biggest contribution to his country is being a bloodthirsty sociopath. But hell, who cares about war and dead people if you can have a pretty young face spewing pseudo-Marxist talking points.

scottie584 wrote:Ron Paul, woo. Don't know why anybody wouldn't vote for him, he's easily the most sensible and intelligent candidate.

unless you're not white and dislike racists

pkay wrote:

scottie584 wrote:Ron Paul, woo. Don't know why anybody wouldn't vote for him, he's easily the most sensible and intelligent candidate.

unless you're not white and dislike racists

Did you guys hear about some votes not getting counted in some places, allowing Romney to edge a victory on Ron Paul. And the only votes not being counted were Ron Paul's votes.
Fucking jokes, i feel kinda bad for him. It's not like he asked for all the conspiracy theory nuts to jump on his campaign.

LOL at Santorum complaining about seperation of church and state yesterday, incidentally. He's such an American Fundamentalist that even the 1st Ammendment is sacrilegious!

separation isn't an amendment... its "just a principle" as we were taught in school. it's sufficiently implied by the first amendment, as well as plenty of other statutes
And its obviously an important and good principle to govern by, and was upheld by the founding fathers who all the religious fundies worship, but still... they're idiots, so it doesn't matter

Today wrote:separation isn't an amendment... its "just a principle" as we were taught in school. it's sufficiently implied by the first amendment, as well as plenty of other statutes
And its obviously an important and good principle to govern by, and was upheld by the founding fathers who all the religious fundies worship, but still... they're idiots, so it doesn't matter

Hmm... it does say that government shall "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", which is pretty much the same thing, surely?

It is funny how precious US politicians get over the Constitution though... as if being written on a piece of paper makes an idea correct forever. Society evolves, so must its governance.

magma wrote:

Today wrote:separation isn't an amendment... its "just a principle" as we were taught in school. it's sufficiently implied by the first amendment, as well as plenty of other statutes
And its obviously an important and good principle to govern by, and was upheld by the founding fathers who all the religious fundies worship, but still... they're idiots, so it doesn't matter

Hmm... it does say that government shall "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", which is pretty much the same thing, surely?

It is funny how precious US politicians get over the Constitution though... as if being written on a piece of paper makes an idea correct forever. Society evolves, so must its governance.

But if anyone brings this up, no doubt they'd be labeled as an extremist, or communist.

magma wrote:

Today wrote:separation isn't an amendment... its "just a principle" as we were taught in school. it's sufficiently implied by the first amendment, as well as plenty of other statutes
And its obviously an important and good principle to govern by, and was upheld by the founding fathers who all the religious fundies worship, but still... they're idiots, so it doesn't matter

Hmm... it does say that government shall "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", which is pretty much the same thing, surely?

It is funny how precious US politicians get over the Constitution though... as if being written on a piece of paper makes an idea correct forever. Society evolves, so must its governance.

Though TBH none of the ideas in the Constitution have gotten any worse (except arguably the 2nd depending on interpretations).

collige wrote:Though TBH none of the ideas in the Constitution have gotten any worse (except arguably the 2nd depending on interpretations).

Indeed... it is a VERY good document, I was just poking fun at people who go on telly over there and manage to win ethical arguments by proving that their interpretation of the Constitution is correct or because it's "what the Founding Fathers would've wanted".

I have all kinds of love for your democracy.

I would argue the US isn't a democracy.

All Americans will be purged at the stake and replaced by cats and various creatures of a feline nature.

In all seriousness, Barrack could win I guess? He nearly cemented it with killing O'Tumma Tumma Bin Laden.

SCope13 wrote:I would argue the US isn't a democracy.

What would you say it is then?

An oligarchy. Democracy in this country has been hijacked by the extremely wealthy. The politicians don't listen to the people, they listen to whoever's going to send them the most cash money. Hell, we can't even protest anymore without getting pepper sprayed and beaten by people who're supposed to be protecting us.

pkay wrote:

collige wrote:The GOP honestly has no chance of putting up anyone that can stand up to Obama in an election. That said, no one on either side is really "good".

never underestimate the gay marriage, condoms, and religious card.

The GOP is starting to show its hand a bit already

you mean never underestimate the ignorance of the American ppl?

I think most Americans are more socially liberal than you give us credit for. The GOP focusing on gay marriage and condoms is exactly what Obama wants.

I think romney won the nomination a long time ago. I wish I was more optimistic about the general election, though. The growth of the economy till november will probably determine who wins, and with that it's fairly uncertain. There's a million things that could go wrong. Still, the bare fact an ex-wall street exec who specialized in debt-financed buyouts and stripping of firms will be running for president makes me think romney will lose, and the general election debates may be even more entertaining than the primary ones.

So it's Super Tuesday. Romney needs to knock Santorum down to have any real credible chance, Gingrich is hanging in there despite being practically bankrupt, and Ron Paul is being Ron Paul.


All eyes on Ohio?

no one voted for Newt Gingrich