Bodero (236) 0 SFW Posts | 71 Space Comments | Favorites | RSS Feed Registered 2007-04-26 22:52:15 Comment Karma: -1 Featured Comments: 0 Member of :

Recent Comments from Bodero

Comment on ACT NOW (2009-04-14 15:30:30)
My[confined]Space turned into a hardcore porn site so gradually that I hardly noticed!
Comment on Practical Boob Reconnaissance (2009-04-09 13:47:03)
I think the big question is, what kind of appliance do you have to sign paperwork for? A Toyota Camry?
Comment on Obama's Tax Relief Plan (2009-04-08 16:24:35)
I approve of this message.
Comment on Ron Paul Blimp (2009-04-01 20:41:58)
NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN!
Comment on RPB - Ron Paul Blimp (2009-03-30 17:03:24)
@Puulaahi: "At least we have checks & balances." But that was the whole point of the initial shitstorm! One of the checks and balances are the federal government's limited role vs. the states: your balance was the ability to move within the US and experience a different philosophy when the checks of one state is out of whack. That's not even getting into the radically growing executive branch, both under President Bush and President Obama.
Comment on RPB - Ron Paul Blimp (2009-03-30 17:01:18)
@dieAntagonista: If those are the main issues that interested you, then that answers my question. Between the two, they have similar beliefs based on radically different thought processes (Paul believes in limiting the power of the government over individuals, Kucinich probably tokes up before going to the House everyday). As for the "boxes" (which I call ideologies), when you have opinions on the whole range of issues, there usually is some fiber connecting your rationale from issue to issue. Otherwise, you'll be caught up in hypocrisy. Ideology isn't a bad thing, but it's portrayed that way by intellectuals who feel that if you vote straight party line in an election, you're an idiot.
Comment on RPB - Ron Paul Blimp (2009-03-30 16:03:26)
@Puulaahi: So am I right to assume you have no political ideology? You are an "independent" whose political beliefs sway with the wind? No core framework of how to handle a situation and how you feel a government should operate?
Comment on RPB - Ron Paul Blimp (2009-03-30 15:59:07)
@dieAntagonista: Ok. Then explain how you could support both Paul and Kucinich.
Comment on RPB - Ron Paul Blimp (2009-03-30 15:44:44)
@Sticky: I didn't say economy. I mean a weakened image abroad. And even for many Americans, that is their desire. There really is no other rationale for Obama's neutering of the military and the war on terror.
Comment on RPB - Ron Paul Blimp (2009-03-30 15:41:19)
@Puulaahi: I have every right in the world. Wow, some people really hate to see themselves from the outside looking in. If it's not a pretty sight, they sure do get angry.
Comment on RPB - Ron Paul Blimp (2009-03-30 15:34:32)
@dieAntagonista: It is in your best economic interest to see a weakened America, and Obama is doing exactly that. Thus, for your viewpoint, he was the perfect candidate. It's pointless to relive the election again, because McCain is back to his reprehensible old self with his "bipartisan" crap (read: Republicans cave and liberals pass bills). He was the lesser of two evils, and what has happened in the first 70 or so days proves that. But that's all I'm going to say about an election with two terrible choices.
Comment on RPB - Ron Paul Blimp (2009-03-30 15:31:38)
@Puulaahi: So you've decided to act like a pompous ass because I correctly judged you. Sorry! How else can you explain my statement: You wanted a free market libertarian capitalist to win (who had an 'underground appeal'), and when he dropped out, you threw your support behind a big government statist (who had an 'underground appeal'). If the shoe fits...
Comment on RPB - Ron Paul Blimp (2009-03-30 15:20:43)
@Puulaahi: Not really, because as I said, they were polar opposites. Sure, you need someone to vote for if your candidate steps out, but would you then go and pick the exact opposite of who you were supporting prior? You probably hit it on your previous comment, "I would rather have an independent win but that’d never happen unfortunately." Of course, Ron Paul was a Republican and Kucinich was a Democrat, but they're "anti-establishment" and that's who you wanted to see in the Oval Office. You didn't care about policies, it was all image, and after Paul dropped out, Obama then had the image.
Comment on RPB - Ron Paul Blimp (2009-03-30 15:17:51)
@CathyLong: The slavery argument was ridiculous because states haven't had power to force slavery or involuntary servitude for 144 years. As for your discussion about gay marriage, I'll just say that I'm not here to care. Give 'em civil unions so they have the same benefits (health care, wills, etc) without the traditional religious name of marriage (since it isn't marriage). But my core argument is that the Constitution does not authorize Congress the power to statutorily pass such a bill, as your interpretation of "minority" is not concurrent with precedence established by the Supreme Court. Thus, the power is relegated to the states, just like the rest of marriage certification issuance.
Comment on RPB - Ron Paul Blimp (2009-03-30 15:13:17)
@dieAntagonista: Ridiculous? How the hell can you come to that conclusion based on the moves he's made compared to the previous 42 presidents? And my vote was for the lesser of two liberals, John McCain. But he was the very last person I'd have liked to see win the Republican primary, because the GOP has this forgetful memory where they, for some reason, can't remember that running "lesser liberals" than the Democrats doesn't actually win any elections. Throughout the campaign, I was a Thompson supporter until he dropped out, then a Romney supporter. But no one has addressed my core point - why did Ron Paul supporters back him when they (mostly) then went off to support his polar opposite, Barack Obama?