patrick.net

Homeboy says

Oh, I see - Nader is for the "good" kind of welfare, but anyone else who is for welfare is for the "bad" kind of welfare.

Nevermind.

Obama is doing a fantastic job, and you're right Nader is not Liberal public enemy number one. He is really a Liberal, but he thought he could do better on his own, even against the behest of the Liberals begging him to run on the Democrat ticket. You're right sorry for any confusion I might have caused carry on.
I'm done arguing with revisionists, some people there just isn't any reaching. Belive what you want buddy. Just do me a favor, don't bitch at me for Voting for Nader. He is after all, how you put it... A Liberal.

Are you for or against welfare? - We had welfare in this country, a great system, that was there to provide help for anyone that needed it. A crutch for people that needed it when they needed it.
It needed to be fixed by prosecuting corruption and fraud. How was it overhauled by Clinton? By creating more venues to exploit through fraud. How has Bush and Obama fixed it even further? By making it impossible to qualify unless you are a small fringe of people that qualify. Mostly Latina, or Black females. Everyone else can go pound sand. This is not me, this every American in the last 4 years that thought it would be there for them. Google around before you replay with your manufactured Liberal response.

Are you for or against corporate involvement in public schools, i.e. "Charter schools"?
I'm against all Corporate involvement in any government or public entity.
Like contractors that supply gas to the USPS, bill 200 gallons although they only delivered 100 gallons. They actually go to truck to truck there is no way to actually meeter what was dispensed on the governments side. (True story, a coworker has the FBI contacting him about a company he worked for last year, investigating this very subject).

This is why I'm for government health care agency from the schools to the hospitals, and since it's federal grants that provide most research, the US government should get full license to all drugs they supply grants to research. But more on this later on your Healthcare question.

Are you for or against standardized test scores as a means to rank public school teachers?

I belive all schools in Ameirca deserve the same resources as the next, there should not be one single neighborhood in America where people pay a premuim to live because of the "public schools", if you want a leg up and you have the money. Then damn it send Jr. to a private school, like its always been. Liberals have hijacked the American education system as their private 'Prep School' for their precious spawn, while encouraging, fostering and protecting the rights of the bad students in the 'metal detector' schools.

Are you for or against nuclear power?
I'm for an energy policy that provides affordable energy. I'm against speculation in any sector. We were on the right track, I though we were working harder in the 80's to do away with nuclear energy, and provide better and safer alternatives. Some where along the way it got profitable to politicize all energy while touting a Unicorn Mythical magic power. Let's get real about the resources we have, then let's have an adult conversation on how to best utilize them.

Are you for or against socialized medicine?
I am, unfortunately Democrat Americans are not.
Nothing where pay you a premium will ever be called "Socialized Medicine".
If it smells like shit, then it damn well is. Insurance has investors that demand premiums inflate faster than wages. Health care should be not for profit, and should come from taxes, and staffed by federal workers. Every child in America with the grades, regardless of income or social class, should be educated in federal medical schools(but not limited to) to be Doctors, then have to work in the federal healthcare system for up to 8 or even 10 years. Before they can into private practice. This system should exist right beside a private health for profit industry.

Are you for or against military spending?
Yes to pay for Healthcare, and to stop bombing people and laming our youth, and creating shell shocked nut jobs, that are politicized and place on a fast track to take jobs, because Liberals or anyone feels guilty. Even if those Vets aren't qualified for those jobs. Also lets not forget, these kids signed up for these Wars.

Are you for or against gay marriage?
I'm neither for or against gay marriage.
Though in reality, marriage is a religious sanctity, the government does not have the right to write laws pertaining to the definition of Marriage.

HOW EVER!!!
I do believe all long term cohabitants should enjoy the same legal standing as married people. You might not believe it, but there are brothers, sisters or even best friends that live their whole lives together. Don't they deserve the same rights and say so as married or even would be Gay married couples? Or is this about "LOVE"?

There monogamous, symbiotic relationships that have nothing to do with love and marriage. Shouldn't a brother, sister or a friend that has lived, supported a sibling, or friend and for all intent and purpose have been a household unit by any definition sans the affair, deserve rights as well?

If you think not, then the Gay marriage argument is more about ramming the Gay agenda down the religious institution rather than having rights recognized.

premium,
a.
at an unusually high price.

CaptainShuddup says

Nader, Paul, and Kucinich, are for reforming the corruption in Washington, that makes every Liberal gesture an exercise in Irony.

Nader, Paul, and Kucinich are almost the very definitions of liberal. Ron Paul is a libertarian. Any true libertarian is by definition a liberal. Nader and Kucinich are socialist, but that's an economic philosophy, not a social one. Both are liberals as both advocate social freedoms.

And yes, I like these three politicians on government reform and human rights issues even though I disagree with all three on economic issues. I'd still support any of them.

Ron Paul and Ralph Nadar are actually good friends and have come together on many human and civil rights issues despite being polar opposites on economic issues.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/09/28/ralph-nader-hearts-ron-paul-ha

http://www.youtube.com/embed/QLdcB0ln9t8

Even Noam Chomsky gives proper respect to Ron Paul. If the double-dumb fucks in the Republican rank and file had the sense to nominate Ron Paul, Obama wouldn't get re-elected. By nominating 47% can suck my balls Romney, the Republicans have forfeited the election and no amount of election fraud (voter ID suppression) is going to change that fact. And to think, the Republicans literally rallied behind every alternative to Mitt Romney except Ron Paul

Tecumcari says

Dan8267 says

It's been mathematically proven that Al Gore won the election. No amount of time is going to change that fact.

Only if your 'math' uses conjecture on how people MEANT to vote.

Tecumcari says

Also, Presidents don't win elections from the popular vote but via the Electoral College.

Did you read the fucking paper? It does not use any conjectures and it addresses electoral college votes, not popular votes. Finally, it's not my math, it's math period and the math was done and shown in complete detail by Cornell University, Northwestern University, University of California, and Harvard University and published in the peer-reviewed political journal American Political Science Review. With those fucking credentials making a snarky remark is no refutation.

If you honestly think the math is flawed and all the peer reviews by highly qualified skeptics didn't catch it, than show a mathematical proof that their math is wrong. That's what a peer review board would do.

Just because you don't like the conclusion doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong. I've got a highly qualified peer-reviewed journal that shows all its work as proof that Al Gore won the election versus a snarky assertion that "math is wrong" to say Gore lost. Which side would anyone with a brain favor?

Dan8267 says

Even Noam Chomsky gives proper respect to Ron Paul. If the double-dumb fucks in the Republican rank and file had the sense to nominate Ron Paul, Obama wouldn't get re-elected

The Problem with Ron Paul was, he ran in a closed primary, the majority of his supporters were disillusioned Democrats, and hardcore Independents. His base was NOT allowed to nominate him.

Daily Trader says

"I mean, for fuck's sake, your last post seems to be saying he was unelectable because he kissed his wife. What the hell?"

That kiss more more than just a kiss. It was a failed attempt to make Gore not look so robotic.

It never ceases to amaze me how Americans like to seize on the unimportant in elections. Gore kissed his wife wrong. Obama "fist-bumped" with his wife. Obama looked at the floor. Dennis Kucinich is too short. etc.

Here's an idea: Maybe we could start judging presidential candidates by how good a job they would do as president, not by a bunch of fucking stupid irrelevant trivialities. But I guess I'm asking too much.

CaptainShuddup says

Belive what you want buddy. Just do me a favor, don't bitch at me for Voting for Nader. He is after all, how you put it... A Liberal.

Vote for whoever you damn well want to vote for. I don't care. I'm just calling you out for your inconsistencies. You don't understand the issues, and you don't understand which candidates are for which things. But that sure doesn't stop you from shooting your mouth off all the time.

Homeboy says

Gore kissed his wife wrong. Obama "fist-bumped" with his wife. Obama looked at the floor. Dennis Kucinich is too short. etc.

We have television to thank for that. Style is now more important than substance.