Iowa straw poll censorship?

Giuliani is not only a simpleton, but also an ideologue and

">a shameless exploiter of a national tragedy.

Americans can and must do better. And they must do better than Romney as well. Much better. You have a responsibility to the rest of the world (as well as to yourselves) to repair the damage this administration has done.

Don't worry. We'll be groveling to Clinton/Obama if the Repubs don't get some decent candidates.

Quote:

Original post by Ravuya Giuliani is not only a simpleton, but also an ideologue and ">a shameless exploiter of a national tragedy. Americans can and must do better.

I agree; I'm happy he's doing so badly - just a little surprised. (I have no real idea of Romney's platform because I actually haven't been following this stuff very closely - it kinda makes me sick.)

Romney's popular with the older crowd, which is who mostly participate in the straw poll from my understanding.They only make up a small portion of the population as well. I don't think there is really a republican running for the nomination that I'm interested in anyways. Which is why I didn't attend the poll. A balanced democrat needs to take office to see if we can get some reason back in our politics. A little less stupidity for the face of America.

Quote:

Original post by Zahlman (I have no real idea of Romney's platform because I actually haven't been following this stuff very closely - it kinda makes me sick.)

Romney is an animal torturing, fascist chickenhawk who wants to censor videogames and the Internet. This wouldn't be so bad, if he could tell the difference between YouTube and Myspace.

He is everything that the US should not be electing at this point. Electing him will put the world onto an even darker road than we are now, as Bush's unlawful excesses become institutionalized.

Quote:

Original post by Ravuya Quote: Original post by Zahlman (I have no real idea of Romney's platform because I actually haven't been following this stuff very closely - it kinda makes me sick.) Romney is an animal torturing, fascist chickenhawk who wants to censor videogames and the Internet. This wouldn't be so bad, if he could tell the difference between YouTube and Myspace. He is everything that the US should not be electing at this point. Electing him will put the world onto an even darker road than we are now, as Bush's unlawful excesses become institutionalized.

He's not into torturing just animals: he wants to double the size of Guantánamo so he can torture more "unlawful combatants" or whatever.

He's also a Mormon

Is he the one who mentioned Jack Bauer as if he were a real person, or was that another one of the deluded Republican candidates?

I don't see a problem with his individual religion as long as he doesn't try to roll it into the state like Bush did. Obama's a fairly devout Christian and I don't consider that an issue at all.

Quote:

Original post by Ravuya Is he the one who mentioned Jack Bauer as if he were a real person, or was that another one of the deluded Republican candidates? I don't see a problem with his individual religion as long as he doesn't try to roll it into the state like Bush did. Obama's a fairly devout Christian and I don't consider that an issue at all.

Yeah, but he suggests in the event of a home invasion that people should cower in their corners and hope the invader doesn't murder them. That doesn't work for me, especially in a world with reactionary policing of crimes.

Quote:

Original post by capn_midnight Quote: Original post by Ravuya Is he the one who mentioned Jack Bauer as if he were a real person, or was that another one of the deluded Republican candidates? I don't see a problem with his individual religion as long as he doesn't try to roll it into the state like Bush did. Obama's a fairly devout Christian and I don't consider that an issue at all. Yeah, but he suggests in the event of a home invasion that people should cower in their corners and hope the invader doesn't murder them. That doesn't work for me, especially in a world with reactionary policing of crimes.

So this is the deciding factor for you on which your selection will hinge? Not the economy, our foreign policy, energy independence, or long-term competitiveness, but this?

Quote:

Original post by Zahlman I agree; I'm happy he's doing so badly - just a little surprised. (I have no real idea of Romney's platform because I actually haven't been following this stuff very closely - it kinda makes me sick.)

The reason Giuliani didn't do better is probably that he didn't actively participate. Romney spent $5 MILLION dollars on it; his first-place status was pretty much given.

It costs $35 a ticket to place a vote in the Ames straw poll, and candidates are allowed to pay people's tickets, bus them over, bribe them to vote, anything at all. It's more a Republican party fundraiser--and a measure of each campaign's finances and organization--than an actual measure of the candidates' popularity.

Edit: Clarified the expenditure number for Romney. By the way, that's $1,107.18 per vote he got.

Quote:

Original post by Zahlman Sorry if this is old news, or repeated somewhere else (I don't see it), or factually incorrect (I don't have time right this second to go verifying it). ... (Who are these other guys? And is Giuliani really doing that badly?)

Haha, funny they excluded Ron Paul from that list. Check the video in my sig if you want to see more about him (youtube video).

Quote:

Original post by Ravuya Is he the one who mentioned Jack Bauer as if he were a real person, or was that another one of the deluded Republican candidates?

That was Antonin Scalia. U.S. Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia.

lol Wall Street Journal blog

Quote:

Original post by trzy Quote: Original post by capn_midnight Quote: Original post by Ravuya Is he the one who mentioned Jack Bauer as if he were a real person, or was that another one of the deluded Republican candidates? I don't see a problem with his individual religion as long as he doesn't try to roll it into the state like Bush did. Obama's a fairly devout Christian and I don't consider that an issue at all. Yeah, but he suggests in the event of a home invasion that people should cower in their corners and hope the invader doesn't murder them. That doesn't work for me, especially in a world with reactionary policing of crimes. So this is the deciding factor for you on which your selection will hinge? Not the economy, our foreign policy, energy independence, or long-term competitiveness, but this?

Oh no, I think Obama is a general moron on most things, but the right to bear arms is absolutely essential. It is the basis of all rights, as without it you cannot assert the others. The Founding Fathers understood this, that is why they wrote the 2nd Ammendment. It wasn't about hunting, and that argument is absolutely preposterous.

Above all else, one must maintain their ability to, at a moments notice, completely overthrow their own government. It's the only way to keep those bastards in check, and I think we've rather much failed in that duty, if you consider those very same issues you've mentioned. They've grown complacent in their job security and do whatever they please:
A) In the Economy: a Federal Reserve that manages interest rates in such a way to encourage lenders to give risky loans to risky people, creating a Ponzi Scheme in the housing market that is finally falling apart.
B) In Foreign Affairs: playing God in other people's countries to ensure a constant stream of pork for the military industrial complex. George Washington himself warned us not to "meddle in the afairs of the Europeans".
C) In Energy: ensuring gasoline is always the cheapest energy alternative, even if it means artifically subsidising its production, because they're taking kick-backs from the oil companies.
D) In Education: a broken public education system that stresses self esteem over actual results.

Quote:

Original post by capn_midnight Quote: Original post by trzy Quote: Original post by capn_midnight Quote: Original post by Ravuya Is he the one who mentioned Jack Bauer as if he were a real person, or was that another one of the deluded Republican candidates? I don't see a problem with his individual religion as long as he doesn't try to roll it into the state like Bush did. Obama's a fairly devout Christian and I don't consider that an issue at all. Yeah, but he suggests in the event of a home invasion that people should cower in their corners and hope the invader doesn't murder them. That doesn't work for me, especially in a world with reactionary policing of crimes. So this is the deciding factor for you on which your selection will hinge? Not the economy, our foreign policy, energy independence, or long-term competitiveness, but this? Oh no, I think Obama is a general moron on most things, but the right to bear arms is absolutely essential. It is the basis of all rights, as without it you cannot assert the others. The Founding Fathers understood this, that is why they wrote the 2nd Ammendment. It wasn't about hunting, and that argument is absolutely preposterous. Above all else, one must maintain their ability to, at a moments notice, completely overthrow their own government. It's the only way to keep those bastards in check, and I think we've rather much failed in that duty, if you consider those very same issues you've mentioned. They've grown complacent in their job security and do whatever they please: A) In the Economy: a Federal Reserve that manages interest rates in such a way to encourage lenders to give risky loans to risky people, creating a Ponzi Scheme in the housing market that is finally falling apart. B) In Foreign Affairs: playing God in other people's countries to ensure a constant stream of pork for the military industrial complex. George Washington himself warned us not to "meddle in the afairs of the Europeans". C) In Energy: ensuring gasoline is always the cheapest energy alternative, even if it means artifically subsidising its production, because they're taking kick-backs from the oil companies. D) In Education: a broken public education system that stresses self esteem over actual results.

QFT

Quote:

Original post by capn_midnight Above all else, one must maintain their ability to, at a moments notice, completely overthrow their own government.

Overthrowing the government with its multi-trillion Dollar military complex by a bunch of gun crazy redneck militias. Right. I'll be watching the show on TV from a safe distance. Then again, it's not as if such a putsch attempt is going to last for very long...

I don't know if you were being ironic or if you actually believe this. But fact is that many Americans do and still delude themselves into thinking that such a "plan" would even remotely work - using it as an argument to defend gun ownership. Well, it's definitely not, and using it as such is hurting legitimate arguments for owning guns.

Quote:

Original post by capn_midnight and I think we've rather much failed in that duty

No shit. There are those things commonly called elections for that. Or impeachment. At least they actually work at replacing a government in a manner that doesn't involve news headline ala "Terrorist tries to shoot president in attempt of overthrowing the government and is killed by secret service agents"...

You honestly think in this modern day and age you could just all pick up guns and overthrow the government?

You think that overthrowing the government through armed rebellion would result in anything other than a complete and utter catastrophe for the US -- and by extension North America and most of the world?

And if the right to bear arms is the basis of all other rights, does that mean Canadians have no rights? Our country was formed when we stopped using guns. How did that happen?

The founding fathers understood their times, not our times. There are far more important things than being able to have a gun in your house.

Quote:

Original post by LockePick You honestly think in this modern day and age you could just all pick up guns and overthrow the government?

It's funny that nowadays it would actually be easier to overthrow the government by using a notebook, a public wireless access point, and the right inside info and password sets, than it would be with all the guns you could imagine...

Quote:

Original post by Yann L Quote: Original post by capn_midnight Above all else, one must maintain their ability to, at a moments notice, completely overthrow their own government. Overthrowing the government with its multi-trillion Dollar military complex by a bunch of gun crazy redneck militias. Right. I'll be watching the show on TV from a safe distance. Then again, it's not as if such a putsch attempt is going to last for very long...

I think it's simply the threat of overthrowing the government... Let's see what happens when the gov tries to take peoples' firearms. Either millions of people will die or they will stop real quick....

I think you underestimate the number of people that own firearms in the US. Even if 1% resisted the government, it would be millions. I also don't see the military bombing civilian cities and stuff.... So it would have to be a house-to-house ground war.

Again, it's the mere possibility of an armed revolt. It would be political suicide for any politician to slaughter/imprison millions of citizens. It's a lose/lose situation, even if the government wins. But, if the gov doesn't mess with our guns. Then we can all be one big happy family :)

Also, the founding fathers didn't just understand 'their times'. They studied thousands of years of history to come to their conclusions. I fail to see how their conclusions are any different a mere 200 or so years later.

Quote:

Original post by Yann L Quote: Original post by capn_midnight Above all else, one must maintain their ability to, at a moments notice, completely overthrow their own government. Overthrowing the government with its multi-trillion Dollar military complex by a bunch of gun crazy redneck militias. Right. I'll be watching the show on TV from a safe distance. Then again, it's not as if such a putsch attempt is going to last for very long... I don't know if you were being ironic or if you actually believe this. But fact is that many Americans do and still delude themselves into thinking that such a "plan" would even remotely work - using it as an argument to defend gun ownership. Well, it's definitely not, and using it as such is hurting legitimate arguments for owning guns.

How do you think every revolution has happened? Vietnam held the multi-trillion dollar military complex back and that was a much smaller country that was easier to control. The Iraqis are holding us back right now, we aren't going to be able to hold that place despite our multi-trillion dollar military complex either. Yeah, it would devastate America, but if it was going to happen it would only be because America was devastated, people don't revolt until their life gets hard, we will watch our freedoms be taken away but when the food stops coming or the electricity goes off, thats when shit happens.