Who Is voting for who on the siccness.
- Thread starter Mac Jesus
- Start date
Come on now, you make us sound like Deebo. Thats my oil punk!
Dumbya & Cheney had this war planned long before they ever were in office. Dumbya wanted to avenge his paw while him and Cheney got richer. Halliburton, Oil, etc, etc.
Bush is fuckin incompetent, how can you motherfuckers even listen to him speak without getting upset with yourself.
Dumbya & Cheney had this war planned long before they ever were in office. Dumbya wanted to avenge his paw while him and Cheney got richer. Halliburton, Oil, etc, etc.
Bush is fuckin incompetent, how can you motherfuckers even listen to him speak without getting upset with yourself.
Yup, most politicans thought we should at the time without playing politics like theyre doing now b/c we got a election coming up. Trying to use the war of Iraq against bush when most of them voted on it themselves even kerry. I see nothing but a joke coming from the kerry campaign. The UN resolutions werent working as well as we all know. After 13 resolutions, we werent getting nowhere with saddam. Sounds like you give Saddam more benefit out of the doubt than Bush. So you think saddam should still be in power?
Name isn't ColdBlooded for nothin. But 20sixx is cool and i know i can actually discuss shit like this with him, that's why i said "I'm sorry but i think" cuz it wasn't supposed to be offensive and it's just my opinion. Kweli and Mos Def on the other hand are bitchmade and they punked themselves infront of 1,000+ people, no gettin round that one.
I see now that you only hear what you wanna hear and don't actually soak things in. Kerry and the others voted to give the president the authority to go to war if needed. (as a last resort) After seeing how horrible the war has been handled they have changed their views. How hard is that to understand. Fucking republicians act like changing your view of something is such a wrong thing. If you walked in and your best friend was fucking your girl would he still be your best friend?
I just want to say, Bush has his good points and his bad points and politics are just manipulation and he is good! However he isn't good enough for me to believe his bullshit Now Kerry could be a fucking child murderer, but as long as he tells me and i get no surprises when kids are missing of my block than i KNOW. We are all gettting fucked but how deep, by, who, what, when and where is important to me! And as you know it's better to accept something than to be forced fed something! So with kerry i feel i can get lubed and i trust him enough to know he ain't great but he hasn't lied enough to me yet!
But Bush has me skerred and i dont want him near me he lies and he don't use lube or even spit! Ant's two cent! Thanks!
But Bush has me skerred and i dont want him near me he lies and he don't use lube or even spit! Ant's two cent! Thanks!
kerry is smarter than Bush. kerry is a lawyer and a experienced debater. kerry is a brain washer look it all these sheep in this forum for example backing this guy with all they got. Whatcha yall gonna hit me with next a Mt. St. Helens report. LMFAO!!!!! I aint no die hard Bush fanatic like these one-sided net warrior kerry supporters here, but Bush gets his support in the areas where kerry has low intelligence of, real shit!!!! :dead: :dead:
2-0-Sixx said:
Do you know the history of Socialist candidates in america in the last 100 years???
You sound like someone Lenin once described.
"Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder"
So what is your superior plan, CB? Should we boycott the elections, not participate in anything at all and just close our eyes and hope the revolution will occur when we open them?
Or perhaps we should support the Socialist candidate Walt Brown who no one in America has ever heard of and is on about 2 state ballots.
I think we have to be realistic here. A socialist candidate in America is not ready, unless they can magically get the resources and funding for a serious campaign. Until then, I think we have to build for the future, so that we can have our own candidate that can reach the masses.
I'm surprised you don't see the hypocrisy in your arguments. You say you support Nader because he can reach more people than a socialist, but bad mouth people that support Kerry because he can reach more people than Nader? You say people support Nader because they don't like the Dems/Reps but criticize people that are going to vote Kerry because they don't like the Repubs and Bush? You criticize people that are voting for Kerry that are far left because they see him as a lesser evil than Bush, but you support Nader because he's less evil than Kerry even though he's a capitalist which you swear you're against? You say a socialist isn't ready as a candidate in America because they don't have resources and funding, yet choose not to help build and support that, and instead support Nader? Say not to support Brown because he’s only on a few ballots and support Nader, yet criticize people that support Kerry while Nader is only on a few ballots?
Being realistic, “socialists” seeking some kind of electoral victory in this country will never see one unless they are willing to contribute support/resources/funding to a socialist party/candidate instead of giving it to someone else.
I'm not trying to tell you who to waste your vote on, just trying to figure out your motives and get you to supply some clarity to your stances since it doesn't seem to fit with your siccness commie identity.
What the hell is this supposed to mean? Are you referring to the Socialism/religion thread? Didn’t we basically agree?
No, no, no. You’re twisting it. Yes, I said Nader can reach more people but I’m talking about a certain layer of society- the radicals, left-wingers, the anti-war crowd, the open-minded etc. My argument is that socialists need to appeal to this layer, this small layer of society and sway them to socialist ideas. It is this layer of society that has the potential to breath life into the already left leaning Democrats, youth and workers of America.
I don’t see Nader as “evil” at all. Nader is a radical left wing candidate, it’s not like I’m supporting some random capitalist- Nader is anti-corporation, anti-war, anti-israel, pro-environment etc. He has many socialistic ideas such as universal healthcare; he opposes NAFTA, WTO etc.He speaks about nationalizing certain industries. His running mate, Peter Camajo, is a socialist and has written brilliant socialist literature in the past. I suppose you can think of it this way: it’s like supporting Hugo Chavez... Chavez is a radical, left wing individual who has done some great things, and most socialists like him and support him, but at the same time we are quick to criticize him and point out his mistakes and what he should be doing.
Remember comrade, I believe revolution is the only way real change can be made. My goal is not to one day elect someone like Nader into office and naively think real change can be made under a capitalist society, as in the case of Hugo Chavez. That’s not the case at all; I simply believe we need to build a strong base for the future so that we can have strong movements and one day, a revolution.
I don’t understand this at all. Who is to say we are not funding the socialist parties? By using Nader we are able to receive much more money than if we had our own candidate. As I explained before, by supporting Nader the Socialist parties are able to reach 100X more people than without supporting Nader. All of the literature, newspapers, stickers, etc. are purchased at rallies, speeches, marches etc. with large turnouts, because of Nader. This is money for the Socialist party.
You left out a crucial part of my statement, I said “NO ONE IN AMERICA KNOWS WHO BROWN IS.” That was my point. Who has heard of Brown? 1% of the population? Who has heard of Nader? Tens of millions. My arguement is that we socialists can get our message and our ideas out to greater amounts by participating in Naders campaign.
Should I be disagreeing with this statement?
I understand completely if you don’t see my logic or are confused or frankly don’t agree with me. I’m fine by all this, I just think you should come out and ask so we can have a civilized discussion and learn from each other rather than dishing little insults here and there.
No, no, no. You’re twisting it. Yes, I said Nader can reach more people but I’m talking about a certain layer of society- the radicals, left-wingers, the anti-war crowd, the open-minded etc. My argument is that socialists need to appeal to this layer, this small layer of society and sway them to socialist ideas. It is this layer of society that has the potential to breath life into the already left leaning Democrats, youth and workers of America.
I don’t see Nader as “evil” at all. Nader is a radical left wing candidate, it’s not like I’m supporting some random capitalist- Nader is anti-corporation, anti-war, anti-israel, pro-environment etc. He has many socialistic ideas such as universal healthcare; he opposes NAFTA, WTO etc.He speaks about nationalizing certain industries. His running mate, Peter Camajo, is a socialist and has written brilliant socialist literature in the past. I suppose you can think of it this way: it’s like supporting Hugo Chavez... Chavez is a radical, left wing individual who has done some great things, and most socialists like him and support him, but at the same time we are quick to criticize him and point out his mistakes and what he should be doing.
Remember comrade, I believe revolution is the only way real change can be made. My goal is not to one day elect someone like Nader into office and naively think real change can be made under a capitalist society, as in the case of Hugo Chavez. That’s not the case at all; I simply believe we need to build a strong base for the future so that we can have strong movements and one day, a revolution.
I don’t understand this at all. Who is to say we are not funding the socialist parties? By using Nader we are able to receive much more money than if we had our own candidate. As I explained before, by supporting Nader the Socialist parties are able to reach 100X more people than without supporting Nader. All of the literature, newspapers, stickers, etc. are purchased at rallies, speeches, marches etc. with large turnouts, because of Nader. This is money for the Socialist party.
You left out a crucial part of my statement, I said “NO ONE IN AMERICA KNOWS WHO BROWN IS.” That was my point. Who has heard of Brown? 1% of the population? Who has heard of Nader? Tens of millions. My arguement is that we socialists can get our message and our ideas out to greater amounts by participating in Naders campaign.
Should I be disagreeing with this statement?
I understand completely if you don’t see my logic or are confused or frankly don’t agree with me. I’m fine by all this, I just think you should come out and ask so we can have a civilized discussion and learn from each other rather than dishing little insults here and there.
