Americans: Who are you voting for?

[The Yankee]

I don't think you need a membership for this article since it was done today. The article is also too long, four pages, unless people really want to scroll past all that.


But if you really need the membership, it's free to sign up.

 

[Packer-Backer]

Nugent just likes gun because of the sport involved with hunting, although he mainly hunts with a bow. He is right on everything! Other than that I will vote for the Constitutional party, the country the way the founding fathers would have wanted it, not the way the dems say the founding fathers wanted it!

 

[The Yankee]

What the heck is the Constitutional Party? I never even heard of it....or just barely.

 

[Packer-Backer]

The republicans without any liberal republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger. They want to run the country like the founding fathers would have if they were alive, and they wouldn't listen to dumb atheists complaining about "In God We Trusts" or "One Nation under God". I don't even know the name of the candidate but I just know the party.

 

[DvR]

Well, I'm not too familliar with all the candidates, but according to the test it'd be Reverend Al Sharpton...
(Isn't a 'reverend' some sort of church related person?)

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
2. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (68%)
3. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (68%)
4. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (66%)
5. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (66%)
6. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat (58%) 7. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (58%)
8. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (53%)
9. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat (53%)
10. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (34%)
11. Libertarian Candidate (32%)
12. Bush, President George W. - Republican (14%)
13. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (13%)

 

[The Yankee]

Whatever works for you.

I'd rather not get into atheist bashing, since it just leads to religious bashing. Then again, I don't know how the fathers would run the nation as it is today.

 

[The Yankee]

DvR....Sharpton is an ordained minister.

 

[Packer-Backer]

I didn't intend bashing to everyone, just atheists who think uttering the word god is an endortion of religion! It is absurd! I'm sure 100%, not a single doubt in my mind, that if the founding fathers were running the country today Iraq, North Korea, France, Iran, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Russia would be under attack. But if Gore had one the election back then you would have to think up a different avatar, The Yankee.

 

[The Yankee]

I'm starting to wonder how the heck we'd pull off an attack on all those nations....and I don't think they'd all be under attack, but that's just difference of opinion.

As for Gore...no point in arguing now. Much as I didn't like the outcome of the 2000 race, it's kind of pointless to debate this now. Especially since wedon't know that everything else would be exactly the same had Gore been president.

 

[Shadylookin]

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
2. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (65%)
3. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (54%)
4. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (53%)
5. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (53%)
6. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (53%)
7. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (48%)
8. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat (43%) C
9. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat (40%)
10. Bush, President George W. - Republican (33%)
11. Libertarian Candidate (31%)
12. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (30%)
13. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (19%)

a mere 65% is the closest a candidate comes to my views. strangely 9/13 are democrates when i always considered myself to be in the middle and i only have 1 republican.

 

[cgannon64]

Originally posted by Packer-Backer
I didn't intend bashing to everyone, just atheists who think uttering the word god is an endortion of religion! It is absurd! I'm sure 100%, not a single doubt in my mind, that if the founding fathers were running the country today Iraq, North Korea, France, Iran, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Russia would be under attack. But if Gore had one the election back then you would have to think up a different avatar, The Yankee.

Sure...the founding fathers would have supported anything Bush would do, and then some. Didn't Jefferson say we should avoid foreign entanglements?

Remember, the Founding Fathers WANTED God in the pledge! That's why they put it there! [/sarcasm]

 

[The Yankee]

It's why I disagree with Pack's assessment, but this isn't the time nor place to argue it really. I don't have the energy to argue over it. Frankly, I see people use this argument and I'm starting to think they're just using the father's names to support whatever they like. It's not like they're giving reasons for why the fathers would support this or that.

Oh, and Washington warned against foreign involvment.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Packer: You live in Illinois, yes? PLEASE vote for the Constitutional Party. I'll make it worth your while!

I'm sure 100%, not a single doubt in my mind, that if the founding fathers were running the country today Iraq, North Korea, France, Iran, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Russia would be under attack.

Ah, because our first President endorsed it in his Farewell Address! Just look right here:

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim....

...The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

If that's not a rabid rabble-rousing cry for preemptive interventionism, I don't know WHAT is!

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Gannon and Yankee beat me to it because I actually bothered to look up sources...

"One nation under God" was put in the Pledge in 1954, not at the bidding of George Washington but at that of one of Joe McCarthy's neophytes.

 

[The Yankee]

Sources are for those people that want to.....um...find sources. Yeah!

Well, I won't get into this argument. It's rather pointless to me.

 

[cgannon64]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Gannon and Yankee beat me to it because I actually bothered to look up sources...

Meh. Post first, verify later, that's my motto.

EDIT: Hey Pontiuth is that his whole speech or just a sample? That would be pretty interesting if he used his whole speech to warn against foreign entanglements, and then the US goes and has the 20th century.

 

[The Yankee]

Why verify at all?

And to Pack's credit, the party does have the word Constitutional in it....so that could be something.

 

[cgannon64]

I should edit that. Post first, let Pontiuth verify later. That's my motto.

 

[The Yankee]

Originally posted by cgannon64


Meh. Post first, verify later, that's my motto.

EDIT: Hey Pontiuth is that his whole speech or just a sample? That would be pretty interesting if he used his whole speech to warn against foreign entanglements, and then the US goes and has the 20th century.

That would had to have been the shortest political speech ever if it was just that. I highly doubt that was the whole thing.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

No, there's also a whole lot of bull about not letting sectional issues break up the national unity. Strangely prophetic, but he was talking about economics, not slavery.

Anyway, speeches were shorter back then; the Kremlin - sorry, I mean Congress - was not obliged to applaud after each sentence.

EDIT: And Gannon has earned the honor of being included in my sig!