By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
GameMusic on 23 November 2007
Edit Thread
Kasz216 said:
GameMusic said:
ssj12 said:
GameMusic said:

1. Gore

2. Kucinich

3. Colbert

4. Edwards

5. Richardson

6. Obama

7. Clinton

8. Ron Paul

9. A hamster on drugs

10. A republican (other than Ron Paul)


if thats your preferred list you deserve to be smacked. Edwards? Clinton? Obama? The other democrats but Gore? wtf is wrong with you.

Oh well.. i guess you want the country to collapse onto itself.


LOL, what's your problem with democrats other than Gore?

Gore: Environmental advocate. This is THE most important issue, hands down.

Kucinich: Record of strong support for individual rights, the 2nd most important issue.

Colbert: He's obviously a rather smart guy, and would most likely support progressive policies. He would also be less likely to frame the issues in politics-speak, which might actually lead to meaningful discussion in the media.

Those 3 would be superb.

Edwards: Consumer advocate.

Richardson: He supports medical marijuana.

Obama: Basically, he doesn't have a lot of a record, but at least he seems to be reasonably progressive compared to some.

Those 6 would each likely support (in varying degrees) environmental protection, medical care, individual rights, etc.

Clinton: She constantly speaks in PC terms, avoids questions, and worst, voted for the patriot act and the war. She basically is a booby prize candidate, only worth supporting to keep republicans out.

Paul: Like Colbert, he wouldn't be part of the establishment of newspeak and would open up the screwed up political system. He is a big supporter of individual rights, and would try to get rid of a lot of crap in the government. He would probably end the country's ridiculous corn subsidy which would do wonders for taxes, medical care, energy independence, and general health. However, he might go too far and go after social security and welfare, and wouldn't support public health care. Other than that he'd be #4.

Hamster: It wouldn't be like Bush.

Republicans: Most of them have supported the treasonous Bush and his attacks on individual liberty, taxes (he has raised taxes. the national debt = future taxes), government openness, and anything good in the universe. Giuliani can't do anything but brag about 9/11, as if he had anything to brag about. McCain has gone crazy since around 2000 (when he was a viable candidate) and is now supporting Bush and the war. The others are a bunch of bad jokes.


Mccain supports the War in Iraq because we are there now. That's what he's always said... and he's right.

It would be unfair for us to leave a war WE started... to let the people who didn't ask us to start the war in the first place kill each other.

You can say "but but... Bush started it" but guess what. Bush was made president. So that makes Iraq our responsibility now. Just because your a democrat and a republican made a decision doesn't mean you can pull out and wash your hands clean of the situation. Anything that happens after a pull out of troops is as much on your and my hands as it is Bush's.

It won't be "but there terrorists will attack us." or some BS like that but it WILL be bloody civil war and likely genocide... possibly followed by Turky and Iran invaded and splitting the country in half.

How are countries supposed to trust us when whenever we make a mistake we can pull up and leave in 4 years by going "Whooops that was that other political party... not us! Not our problem."

America uses blaming the other party for all the mistakes as a "get out of jail free card" and I'm sure other countries are sick of it by now.


 Nobody is calling for an immediate pullout (nice straw man).  McCain however wants to increase troop presence, and it's a lot more than the war.  Since 2000 he has said a number of things that make me believe he has become more like Bush.   See voting record.

 http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Homeland_Security.htm