DO NOT VOTE FOR MCCAIN OR OBAMA IF YOU LIVE IN CALIFORNIA

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Oct 15, 2008
660
42
0
39
#41
naw i don't.
why should i, as a FREE human being, be forced to give birth to something i do not wish to for any reason?
If you have the States handle it then you can vote for it or against it instead of the federal government doing it for you.

why should that at all be in question?
I'm a Republican and I support abortion, but the questions should be left up with the states.

when at any time should we let men and women who we don't know to legalize or illegalize removing something from inside yourself?
Anytime you want.

yes because our tax dollars are pouring into warfare.
He is actually against welfare, he believes in self responsibility.


so what is he gonna do for my children's public education? what about when i become a teacher? will i be getting a better salary than the people building bombs for Iraq and the politicians that sit back and make more rules for people to 'live by'?
Look these up

"Education Improvement Tax Cut"

"Family Education Freedom Act"

"Teacher Tax Cut Act"

"Education Freedom Package"

your late on the train, everyone here already knows about him.
Apparently you dont.

no, your missing what i am saying. there SHOULD be no ruling government, no one to tell me that i can't plant a seed here or there, or whatever i wish, no one to reprimand me if i choose not to give birth to a live child. the sooner people realize how free they are suppose to be, just by BEING they will soon abandon their hopes and fears in the society they currently live in.
I agree.
 
Dec 2, 2006
6,161
44
0
#42
obama for president.

any third party is a waste of a vote and if Mccain was a great leader why wait until your 72 to run for president. He's on the downhill turn in his life. If he wins everyone knows its rigged(which it is) and riots all across the country will break out. 1 week!

oh yeah, we are far from free.
 
Apr 25, 2002
15,044
157
0
#43
any third party is a waste of a vote and if Mccain was a great leader why wait until your 72 to run for president. He's on the downhill turn in his life. If he wins everyone knows its rigged(which it is) and riots all across the country will break out. 1 week!

oh yeah, we are far from free.
How many times can you contradict yourself in one post?
 
Dec 2, 2006
6,161
44
0
#46
possibly.

p.s.

Obama is waste of a vote
but i rather take my chances with obama than an old senial fuck like mccain. i'm not in need of a handout but would like to see people who are and deserving get help. not the 5% of rich business owners that end up shipping jobs overseas to create bigger profits for no-one but themselves. I'm all for making the money, but ultimately greed is the downfall of this country.
 
Feb 8, 2006
3,435
6,143
113
#48
I will not be voting for mccain or obama. I am not a follower and don't vote for someon because everyone else does. Democrats and Republicans are the same behind the scenes.
 
Jun 24, 2006
1,259
59
0
41
#50
Check out the 92 election and you will see a third party can have a legitimate chance if allowed to be on a similar platform. Since Ross P. pulled 18.9 percent of the votes, the Republican and Democrats changed the parameters to run as a third party. There are a multitude of different hoops to jump through just to get on the ballot. Third parties aren't involved in the debates since 92, have you ever wondered why? something to think about.

Ventura 2012!
 
Oct 15, 2008
660
42
0
39
#51
Check out the 92 election and you will see a third party can have a legitimate chance if allowed to be on a similar platform. Since Ross P. pulled 18.9 percent of the votes, the Republican and Democrats changed the parameters to run as a third party. There are a multitude of different hoops to jump through just to get on the ballot. Third parties aren't involved in the debates since 92, have you ever wondered why? something to think about.

Ventura 2012!
Is this the reason?

October 3, 1988

LEAGUE REFUSES TO "HELP PERPETRATE A FRAUD"

WITHDRAWS SUPPORT FROM FINAL PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

WASHINGTON, DC —"The League of Women Voters is withdrawing its sponsorship of the presidential debate scheduled for mid-October because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter," League President Nancy M. Neuman said today.

"It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and honest answers to tough questions," Neuman said. "The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."

Neuman said that the campaigns presented the League with their debate agreement on September 28, two weeks before the scheduled debate. The campaigns' agreement was negotiated "behind closed doors" and vas presented to the League as "a done deal," she said, its 16 pages of conditions not subject to negotiation.

Most objectionable to the League, Neuman said, were conditions in the agreement that gave the campaigns unprecedented control over the proceedings. Neuman called "outrageous" the campaigns' demands that they control the selection of questioners, the composition of the audience, hall access for the press and other issues.

"The campaigns' agreement is a closed-door masterpiece," Neuman said. "Never in the history of the League of Women Voters have two candidates' organizations come to us with such stringent, unyielding and self-serving demands."

Neuman said she and the League regretted that the American people have had no real opportunities to judge the presidential nominees outside of campaign-controlled environments.

"On the threshold of a new millenium, this country remains the brightest hope for all who cherish free speech and open debate," Neuman said. "Americans deserve to see and hear the men who would be president face each other in a debate on the hard and complex issues critical to our progress into the next century."

Neuman issued a final challenge to both Vice President Bush and Governor Dukakis to "rise above your handlers and agree to join us in presenting the fair and full discussion the American public expects of a League of Women Voters debate."

Source: League of Women Voters
 
Apr 25, 2002
15,044
157
0
#52
Control of the presidential debates has been a ground of struggle for more than two decades. The role was filled by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters (LWV) civic organization in 1976, 1980 and 1984. In 1987, the LWV withdrew from debate sponsorship, in protest of the major party candidates attempting to dictate nearly every aspect of how the debates were conducted. On October 2, 1988, the LWV's 14 trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates, and on October 3 they issued a dramatic press release:

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.

The same year the two major political parties assumed control of organizing presidential debates through the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). The commission has been headed since its inception by former chairs of the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee.