I won't vote for obamney. I'm writing in Paul. And when you get four more years of obamas garbage or eight years of romneys crap, don't come b!tching at me. They're the exact same guy, just different parties. They're controlled by money and they act for money. They don't give a rats a$$ about America.
[QUOTE=birtikidis;517094]I won't vote for obamney. I'm writing in Paul. And when you get four more years of obamas garbage or eight years of romneys crap, don't come b!tching at me. They're the exact same guy, just different parties. They're controlled by money and they act for money. They don't give a rats a$$ about America.[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=#ffd700][B]You may be right - "they're controlled by money and they act for money", and personally I think you're also right about at least one of them ;) not caring a rats patootie about America. But to my mind, WHOSE money is controlling them is the key voting issue. If it came down to choosing between them, do you want to live in a country run by Romney's donors, or O'bama's? 'Cause that's what the real choice is. I suppose someone could say that O'bama would be freed from that influence once elected (because he's not going to need election money again), but I don't know how valid that line of thinking is.
Oh, if you're saying Dr. Paul will NOT be controlled by money, and has never been, that all his words and actions in the past were his choices to make and his alone, then he has a lot of 'splainin' to do. I'd be happy if he started with those racist violent pamphlets that were published by an organization set up with his money that he was the CEO of, and that went out over his signature. Last I heard he said he knew nothing about any of it, which isn't exactly the degree of hands-on control or competence I'm looking for in a President. It was money from those pamphlets that made him independently wealthy, so it's not like they were just an inconsequential part of his story.[/B][/COLOR]
Which guy is the one that cares? The one that made tens of millions off destroying jobs or the one who signed treaties making it attractive to move companies out of the country?
Donors bother you? Well Goldman Sachs was #2 donor for both. The rest of romneys were big banks and corporations. Obama? Mostly universities. But goldman sachs is the key.
and you're really going to focus on a pamphlet, one of many, that had racist comments. I'm more impressed by the TONS of small additions to legislation that Dr. Paul focused his energies on. He's also the only consistent candidate of all of them. But you can go ahead and focus on one thing from a long time ago.... And you can vote for the guy who either wants to take our rights away in Obama, or OU can vote for the guy who is already angling for more foreign intervention.
Both men are funded by the same companies so your not getting any change there... As far as those racist newsletters are concerned.... Its just pure rediculesness in my mind to believe Ron Paul could be a racist, this crap happened over 15 years ago and he has desavoid any views that were sent out in them.
I mean lets be honest, if you believe Ron Paul, a man who has stood for individual liberty and limited goverment for over 3 decades is a racist than you have been watching to much cnn, fox news or any other major news media outlet who has been proven to lie and miss inform people. Supporters of Ron Paul come from all walks of life with no limitations to color or creed....
Sure Ron Pauls views are "crazy".. I mean he wants to limit the size of governemnt, end all these wars we are in and audit the private entity known as the federal reserve!!!! Rediculas right ?! But something about the man speeks integrity and I respect that. Plus he is the only veteran in the race at this point and has been supported the most out of any candidate, including Obombya, from activite military men and women...
Does it really matter who we vote for?
[QUOTE=Shawn;517606]Does it really matter who we vote for?[/QUOTE]
You can't stop an idea when it's time has come. You can't make change if you stand aside and watch.
cliche I know but true nonetheless.
I think I'll write in Ron Paul. I was really disappointed with the way the media handled the debates. Paul wasn't given a chance IMO. He wasn't necessarily the best speaker and he wasn't a "media" darling like Newt and Romney. It was like a big chore for the media to give him Paul airtime compared to the others.
I really think Paul understood the complex issues and actually provided resolutions to such problems. People may not agree with them but at least he stood his ground and provided his true thoughts and DETAILED resolutions. The problem was, a lot of Americans #1 couldn't comprehend the complex problems and #2 understand his sometimes complex answers. Instead, they buy into the "hot air" resolutions provided by other candidates like:
"We need to cut the budget" --- Duhh, but how?
"We need to bring our troops back home" --- Duhh, but how?
"We need to remove our dependency on foreign oil" --- Duh, but how?
Anybody can say that and EVERYBODY understands that. I respected Paul not because I agreed with all of his views. I respected Paul because he actually provided detailed answers to complicated questions.
[QUOTE=birtikidis;517633]You can't stop an idea when it's time has come. You can't make change if you stand aside and watch.
cliche I know but true nonetheless.[/QUOTE]
I lost faith in mankind's ability to think for themselves. They will elect whoever CNN of FOX tells them to elect and it won't be Ron Paul.
[QUOTE=Shawn;517677]I lost faith in mankind's ability to think for themselves. They will elect whoever CNN of FOX tells them to elect and it won't be Ron Paul.[/QUOTE]
This is the issue. The media, as it is today, is the worst thing to plague this society since - I can't think of something this diabolical.
It's kinda sad that political satire like Daily Show and Colbert Report can often be more insightful than actual political commentary on several mainstream media outlets.