Republicrats?

In recent months, I have devoted a lot of my time and reading to the principles of libertarianism and our founding fathers.  With that being said, I have not posted here in quite some time, but I was just curious what your thoughts are on what I am about to say.

It occurs to me that every election we are given "two candidates with few disagreements on fundamentals who pretend that they represent dramatically different philosophies of government." (The Revolution: A Manifesto, 2008).  It has finally occurred to me that what Ron Paul is saying is correct.  Can anyone honestly tell me that their lives will be that much different if Obama is running things vs. McCain running things.  Everyone says Obama has fresh, new ideas... or wait, is that what the media wants you to think?  McCain is a better choice for taxpayers, are you kidding me?  They may seem different, but nothing is ever going to change.  The way the government is set up, we will never have radical change.  So to all you folks who engage in Obama vs. McCain political debates, I fear that it is merely for theatrics.  Change in American lexicon simply means more of the same.

We will never have a truly revolutionary president because the media, and our government, doesn\'t allow it.  It really is a shame.  I know times are different from when the founding fathers created this great country, but has there every been as much disregard for the constitution of the United States as there is today?  So you can go on preaching how your candidate is so much different from the opposition, but the fact of the matter is, you are only fooling yourself.

And yes, I know, the liberals are going to be freaking all over me for writing this.  And no, I don\'t support either candidate.

[Viper_Fujax]

we don\'t have a revolutionary president because the costs are too high to do so. Are civilians in utter chaos? no..we\'re doing just fine when it boils down to it. People talk as if there\'s some kind of change that\'s going to fix all/a lot of our problems, when there arent easy solutions. Many people have ideas on how to fix our economy..but would if we go with a change, and it doesn\'t work out...that could lead to something a lot worse than what we have going on right now.

I already know im going to get more of the same in terms of domestic problems with either president. But in terms of foreign policy, what we have now can change without that much risk, seeing as our policy is complete shit..and in those terms, mccain looks like another bush to me..so im voting obama

we don\'t have a revolutionary president because the costs are too high to do so.

Hmmm... that\'s not how I see it.  If we took on a foreign policy on non-interventionism America would be trillions of dollars richer.  We have a military presence in 130 countries.  How is that helpful?  There has been research proving that suicide bombings in Iran have been linked to American presence there.  If we remove ourselves from these countries and quit nation-building and stirring up emotions of resentment from these countries, not only will America become a whole lot richer, but it will save lives in the process.  I\'m not a pacifist, but if you ask me our current foreign policy is the equivalent of prodding at a hornet\'s nest.

But in terms of foreign policy, what we have now can change without that much risk, seeing as our policy is complete shit..

I agree, read above.  Believe it or not this is not a democrat vs. republican issue as you might believe.  John Kerry and Hillary Clinton both voted for the Iraq war.

and in those terms, mccain looks like another bush to me..so im voting obama

Yes, he looks like another Bush.  I hate to say it pal, but despite what you may believe, no matter who gets elected (among Reps & Dems) it will be more of the same.  Don\'t fool yourself into thinking that Barack Obama is everything Bush is not, that\'s what he and the media want you to think.  As I said, in political lingo, change is the equal to the shuffling of government spending and more of the same.

[Viper_Fujax]

i get what you mean. There\'s a fine line between thinking the government is able to get better and swimming in false beliefs, and being a realist and getting complacent. But the fact Obama was willing to talk to Iran while Mccain was on board with bush in that they think theyre unable to be talked to, is the only piece of evidence i personally have that the two will be different in foriegn policy. Im totally aware that iran\'s president is nuts and mccain/bush could be right, but the closed-mindedness keeps me from supporting either of them

Why are we even there to begin with?  I don\'t doubt for one second Obama will "talk" to Iran, but to expect him to achieve a peaceful resolution is ridiculous.  Just get the military presence out of there, it is costing a lot of lives and dollars.  Let countries settle things for themselves, we don\'t need to be policing countries and involving ourselves in their affairs... that\'s how wars get started.

I may get some serious flack here, but hear me out.  Woodrow Wilson indirectly caused World War II.  Why?  Because he helped the allies in World War I, thus leading to victory, thus leading to the treaty of versaille, which pissed off Hitler, which led to the holocaust, which led to World War II, which led to the bombing of Pearl Harbor.  Foreign entanglements are bad. If you think that makes us look weak and open to attack, let me ask you this.  Who would have to motive to attack us?  Also, with an army as powerful as ours, who would want to?

The point I\'m trying to drive across here is Obama\'s method is at the very best, a slightly better alternative.  The best method is to simply get the heck out of there before things get worse.

[Viper_Fujax]

you don\'t really have to worry about any serious flack till giga gets here . but as long as you rag on the dems he shouldnt be too bad.

I dont think its really fair to blame woodrow wilson for getting us involved in WWII. a big reason we got involved in WWI is because our ships of good that we were giving to britain were being shot/blown up. Im not too on top of WWI, since schools tend to brisk over it and rush to WWII, but that was just one of the main things i heard of. And no matter what, hitler would have found some reason to attack us, other than being pissed at the treaty of versaille..the guy was going napoleon, so he wouldn\'t leave us alone just because we didn\'t get involved in WWI. I\'d almost say al of hitler\'s excuses to fight were purely propoganda..if it weren\'t the jews, it\'d be someone else, if we didnt get inolved in WWI, it\'d be something else. But all that is looking back on the past, when vision is 20/20, and hypothetical talk which has no merit.

And i dont know how to deal with Iran. I dont think it\'s as simple as leaving them alone, especially when theyre the ones with potential nuclear weaponry. And if that comes to fruition, it\'s not the U.S. we\'re immedately worried about.

And no matter what, hitler would have found some reason to attack us, other than being pissed at the treaty of versaille..the guy was going napoleon, so he wouldn\'t leave us alone just because we didn\'t get involved in WWI. I\'d almost say al of hitler\'s excuses to fight were purely propoganda..if it weren\'t the jews, it\'d be someone else, if we didnt get inolved in WWI, it\'d be something else. But all that is looking back on the past, when vision is 20/20, and hypothetical talk which has no merit.

When you say Hitler attacked us, are you referring to the league of nations?  Which was a direct result of the treaty of Versaille.  I\'ve read numerous books citing that Hitler was headed towards a career as postmaster general of Germany before the treaty was signed.  Lets call a spade a spade, Hitler used that treaty as motivation for building his army.  If you look at it from a neutral perspective, the treaty was pretty damn unfair.  It flat out blamed Germany for everything.  Had we adopted a non-interventionist foreign policy, we might not have even been involved in World War II.  Who knows if such a treaty would have even existed, most likely not.

It would be great if we could even debate the foreign policy we have now, but aside from a few minor differences, it is shared by both major parties.

[Viper_Fujax]

yea, we definitly screwed germany over at the end of WWI, and were ignorant of the possible outcomes of just leaving them in ruins. But like you just said, hitler used the treaty has motivation to build his army. Again, im going into hypothetical situations, but I think Hitler would have used some other driving force to do what he wanted. But who knows how much influence/leverage hitler would have if the treaty was better.

But isn\'t there a pretty big arguement that isolationism doesnt work? we were isolationists before, then we were pretty much forced to get involved..i always thought pearl harbor was that watershed moment, but the fact we were involved in WWI messes up that thought i have

But isn\'t there a pretty big arguement that isolationism doesnt work? we were isolationists before, then we were pretty much forced to get involved..i always thought pearl harbor was that watershed moment, but the fact we were involved in WWI messes up that thought i have

It\'s not isolationism.  I still favor diplomacy, free trade, and freedom of travel.

Quoted from "The Revolution"...

The real isolationists are those who isolate their country in the court of world opinion by pursuing needless belligerence and war that have nothing to do with legitimate national security concerns.

I would just like to stop in here and say that I truly believe that no matter who is president my day to day life will not change. Therefore I just don\'t care. I\'ve never voted and I don\'t see myself giving a shit enough to vote anytime soon.



People have jumped on my case for this for years, but nobody has been able to change my mind.

[Living-In-Clip]

I won\'t jump on your case.
I agree with it a hundred percent.

I would just like to stop in here and say that I truly believe that no matter who is president my day to day life will not change. Therefore I just don\'t care. I\'ve never voted and I don\'t see myself giving a shit enough to vote anytime soon.



People have jumped on my case for this for years, but nobody has been able to change my mind.

I don\'t blame you one bit.  With the candidates our "Big Government" spits out every four years there\'s no reason to vote.  The government has too much power, and there\'s really no way to change that at this point.

[clips]

It\'s true,..nothing dramatic will come out of this presidency,...but i do believe that on some level whoever is in the white house makes some type of impact or we wouldn\'t have dems or republicans or independents,..even tho lately it seems like it doesn\'t matter who is in there. And i personally feel that it\'s big business that runs the white house & america itself.

The u.s. is in a big mess right now, and there are huge differences between both candidates,...i know that whoever is the next prez, that our problems is not going to solved in the next 4 years,...maybe not within the next 8 years....but it\'s going to be the critical decision making that\'s going to get this country back on track....I like Obama,..and yes he\'s fresh, and i don\'t hear the same \'ol political garbage that most politicians promise when they\'re campaigning.

Like i stated tho,...big business has a stranglehold on washington and whoever becomes prez also has to deal with the stubborness of the congress....sometimes the prez will veto something if the congress hasn\'t added this to a bill and congress won\'t approve this from prez,..etc, etc,....there\'s alot of redtape bulls**t that goes down in washington which results in alot of things not getting done...

Thats not necessarily true clips.

If Obama wins it will be very dramatic just b/c it is a first and says alot about our country as whole and how far we have come in 40+ years.

What, that we\'ve finally become so guilty about past racism that we\'re willing to elect a politically-insubstantial black man by the sheer virtue of his blacktitude?

Obama\'s message is CHANGE. That\'s so unique. It\'s not like every candidate of the non-incumbent party since Thomas Jefferson in 1800 hasn\'t fired that fucking cannon before.