The Top 10 Reasons YOU Should Be Voting for John MCCain

This is so much nonsense. The reason why you don't get Ron Paul, is because you don't GET RON PAUL.

It's not about the man, it's about the message and the mission.

Sure people are impressed with him. His voting record, his electoral record, his consistency, his books, his demeanor, all make him eminently likable.

He's probably got 55,000 people signed up in a few short days for his Campaign for Liberty. A NYT Best Seller book about his political assessment and philosophy. And darn near total domination of the internets.

 

Your rejection of anything is irrelevant unless you can convince the majority that your view is superior to their own. That is why there is the legal right to take life and you aren't going to change that any time soon.

 

Democracy doesn't matter to me. It is illegal to take life by my moral code, and regardless of what majority decides my life is their property to take or destroy, I will resist with my every last breath.

Democracy is only a tyranny of the majority. And we've seen that when the means of information are controlled by the few, the majority are led to the conclusions of fundamentalists, extremists and lunatics.

 

So you are basing your opinion on emotional reasoning. Nobody cares what some shmuck from LA or New York or Miami or wherever thinks should be legal. It is legal. Get over it.

Reasoning like yours leads to vigilantism.

 

It's not emotional reasoning, it's philosophical reasoning, that goes back hundreds of years.

If I own myself, then no one else may presume to claim a greater title on my life.

Sorry, but I don't give a crap how many millions of people want me dead, it may be technically "legal" under one country's laws, but that does not make it moral or right.

Hmmm. Peace and non-violence leads to vigilantism?

Try liberty.

 

Taking the law into your own hands leads to vigilantism. It is vigilantism.

 

The law is always in my hand. Perhaps you are familiar with the notion of the consent of the governed.

 

Applicable in a direct democracy; it defines a direct democracy. Totally irrelevant in a representative democracy.

In a representative democracy there are specific people who are the lawmakers and specific people who are the lawkeepers. Reminds me of why I so hate representative democracies.

 

oh so you have a "legal right" to murder us?...but i dont understand if some country declared it "legal" to murder americans then this would not be murder is this what you are saying? it would be "legal"?

ahhh yes i forget the famous american double standard...when an american gun for hire murders people on the other side of the planet this is not in fact murder its "legal killing" but when some body tries to fight back the gun for hire this is murder because its "illegal"?

this is every amusing indeed...

 

See, this is what I mean by an emotional argument. You argue based on what you want to be correct rather than what is correct.

I really don't get why you called me American; I don't live in America. But maybe that's the USSR in you talking.

It is legal to go to war. Wanting war to be illegal doesn't make it so. Killing happens on both side of the battlefield. Murdering does not*. Civilians, as much as I would like to say otherwise, are collateral damage (unless specifically targeted). I'm a realist, not an idealist: Some things are.

 

something is not correct simply because a bunch of fat over-medicated politicians get together and make it "legal"...you cant claim bombing civilians is "correct"...no emotions involved in my arguments its plain common sense...

im not calling you american i was just giving an example how when an american dies it murder but when a non american dies its "legal killing"

if you are the USA or NATO then its legal to invade another country over LIES yes i know this ...its just that the "law" is anything your over medicated politicians make it...

you did not answer my question:

if country X (just for example) passed some silly law where its legal to murder/kill americans/europeans would this be "legal" or would it be just plain old murder? and if god forbid your family dies in such a "legal" attack would you consider them "colateral damage" or would you call it murder?

 

Laws change. What is correct does not change.

War is a political means. Military violence during war against civilians is terrorism. Look up the definition.

You're not a realist, you're a utilitarian.

 

You seem to be under the delusion that I disagree with you over the ideal that killing is wrong; I don't. I'm simply being rational and reasonable about this.

You are arguing an emotional argument. Your claim to "plain common sense" is proof of that. Bring facts not opinions or conjecture to the table and all of a sudden your argument has some basis in reality. Also, you put words in my mouth. I never said it is correct to bomb anybody. I said the facts are there: War is legal is correct. War is illegal is what you want to be correct.

To answer your question: A law passed in one country is not universal. Unless said country goes to war with mine, it is murder. If they target civilians, it is murder. If my family was hiding in a bunker with a dozen troops and it was blown up, that's collateral damage.

 

Wow. You put words in my mouth, then you claim I am doing the same to you.

I'll tell you what. I'll meet you halfway. You can go on my ignore list and I won't waste any more of my time responding to you. These days, that's where I put obvious trolls.

Have a wonderful day.

 

seorae:

I think you're new here, or at least I haven't seen a lot of posts from you in the P&R forums.

Please don't take guerilla's screwball behavior and representative of the entire group here.

The rational members of DP would love to see you keep posting here.

Don't let the bastards get you down.

 

Here's another excellent reason to vote for John McCain.

Sen. John McCain called Wednesday for the construction of 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 and pledged $2 billion a year in federal funds “to make clean coal a reality,” measures designed to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

In a second straight day of campaigning devoted to the energy issue, the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting also said the only time Democratic rival Barack Obama voted for a tax cut was for a “break for the oil companies.”

McCain said the 104 nuclear reactors currently operating around the country produce about 20 percent of the nation’s annual electricity needs.

“Every year, these reactors alone spare the atmosphere from the equivalent of nearly all auto emissions in America. Yet for all these benefits, we have not broken ground on a single nuclear plant in over thirty years,” he said. “And our manufacturing base to even construct these plants is almost gone.”

Even so, he said he would set the country on a course to build 45 new ones by 2030, with a longer-term goal of adding another 55 in the future.

“We will need to recover all the knowledge and skills that have been lost over three stagnant decades in a highly technical field,” he conceded.

...

Obama has said McCain’s support for additional offshore oil drilling is evidence that he would effectively give the country another term of the Bush presidency.

“I guess the senator has changed his position since voting for the 2005 Bush energy bill — a grab-bag of corporate handouts that I opposed,” McCain said. “Come to think of it, that energy bill was the only time we’ve ever seen Senator Obama vote in favor of any tax break — and it was a tax break for the oil companies.”

McCain opposed the 2005 measure and said at the time it was larded with billions in unnecessary tax breaks for the oil industry.​

There's almost nothing I despise as much as corporate handouts.

There are few things I love as much as nuclear power.

 

Guerrilla has an obvious agenda. All his points and posts go straight to that agenda. Don't take it personal. Even if he understands your point it would be against his agenda to concede to it and move on. Just take a good look at his agenda and present yours and avoid pointless pissing matches. I personally agree with many things G posts, until he starts in on the agenda. Then it all goes to the wind.

Back to the the topic.
Nuclear power YES!!!! Insane McCain.. NO!!!!!

 

I don't think you're going to get one without the other.

Obama's energy policy is focused on using the force of the U.S. government to prevent companies from manufacturing medium and large size automobiles and to prevent consumers from purchasing those automobiles.

Obama is also keying on legislating mandatory restrictions on the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Obama is trying to do the impossible -- send America back to the pre-Industrial age.

Does anyone else remember watching Jimmy Carter on television when he wore a sweater and told all Americans to turn their thermostats down?

That crap doesn't work in America. We don't need to learn to live on less power. We need to innovate ways to make more power -- safer, cleaner, and less expensive.

Nuclear is the only available solution that meets those criteria.

I keep telling you people, Barack Obama is Jimmy Carter. And we all know how horribly that administration turned out!

 

What?! Blacks do work! In fact, they work very well. I bought one last week and already my house is looking cleaner and my meals more delicious. I'm thinking about getting another one for yard work.

jkjk.

 

Just for the record, I never made the statement that guerilla attributed to me.

It was yet another lie in a seemingly endless stream of lies.