Slashdot Mirror
McCain, Clinton Win New Hampshire
Well the title says it. I figured some of you guys might be interested in the results of New Hampshire. Next week is Michigan, where I live. Somehow I don't expect any of the campaigns to ring me up.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I wouldn't vote for a Republican ever, and that includes Hillary Clinton.
I used to work for NetQoS. I no longer do, but want to keep the excellent karma attached to this account.
What the fuck is wrong with you people? Some more of "his type of independence"? You mean like dismantling the fucking government? That dude is INSANE. Give it up. And that's before you even get to the facts that he's at best a racist apologist. You fucking morons drive me NUTS!
The Farewell Tour II
> Some more of "his type of independence"?
:)
For a second there I though you were talking about McCain. Sorry, don't need the sort of 'independence' that causes McCain to wipe his ass on the 1st Amendment. Add in McCain/Kennedy (NCLB) and McCain/Bush (No Mexican Left Behind (in Mexico)) and he is the only sorta Republican (Paul is an idiotarian Libertarian running as an R) I would stay home for on election day.
> You mean like dismantling the fucking government? That dude is INSANE.
Ah, Paul. I actually kinda like most of that part of Ron Paul, too bad he isn't talking much about that, just losing WWIV by tossing in the towel. Sorry for saying something this unpopular but there ain't no such goddamn thing as 'ending the war.' The time for that sort of talk was 2003 when Congress was considering declaring War. Once it is ON there is a simple binary choice left, Win or Lose. Have the balls to say "This war isn't worth winning so I propose we just quit and toss this one into the loss column." Hell, it might actually be possible to make that argument as putrid as the political climate has become because of the War.
> And that's before you even get to the facts that he's at best a racist apologist.
We active Repubs have been worrying about how to cleanse shit like Paul (and worse, some of the same sort of neo-nazis from the ranks of the anti-jihad forces on the European front of the GWOT) at sites like LGF for a few months.
The pickings are really crappy this season. Lemme snark the rest of the field.
Clinton is a powermad socialist bitch. Nuff said.
Obama is a nice socialist with almost zero experience (One year in the Senate before effectively resigning to campaign full time) and enough small hints to scare the piss out of anyone who has done any digging at all. (Member of a 'church' that is Farrakan''s Nation of Islam with the serial numbers filed off being a good starting place for research.)
Edwards is a low IQ powermad socialist with delusions of being Huey Long reborn. I'm from Louisiana and can say "Senator Edwards, You ain't Huey Long." And has the sort of hair that says Metrosexual. (Ok, cheap shot.)
Rudy I could vote for. Two outta three ain't bad, even if I get an 'slightly unstable' vibe at t imes. But his biggest idea seems to be this notion that he can win the nomination in the Blue states and then expect the Red states to accept that and turn out in the fall. Yea.... Right.
Romney thinks he can triangulate in the Republican Party. Sorry, we are smarter than that. Why don't Mitt and Johnny get together and discuss hair care secrets or something while the adults work. And aren't we just getting through with dealing with the results of a moderately successful MBA running mostly to avenge his Father? Ok, Romney didn't spend the first half of his life as a hell raiser, but then just how many hell raising Mormans have you ever seen? (Just ain't in em.)
Or then there is Huck. God save us from that populist rabble rouser. Ok, he had the balls (but more likely desperation) to hitch his fortune to the Fair Tax. But I won't enumerate his other problems.... just too depressing.
Finally we have the great hope.... Fred! Who is making a final stand in SC and is almost certain to end up like Davy Crockett at the Alamo... with no avenging Army of Texas to settle the score afterwards. Good ideas, solid conservative, steady leader. Crappy candidate.
Biden and Dodd are at least adults but they got eliminated in the very first round. So much for experience counting. (Guess HRC wasn't taking notes.)
Richardson made a lot more sense before he got into the race and decided his core voters would be Dailykos and moveon. But he will also be exiting soon so it doesn't matter.
Tancredo was almost as batshit insane as Ron Paul, just in different ways. Was good to see the end of him.
Sorry if I forgot to snark your favorite fringe candidate, but they sucked too.
Democrat delenda est
Football Odds
> > Sorry for saying something this unpopular but there ain't no such goddamn thing as 'ending the war.'
> Sure there is. Libertarians don't believe in the initiation of force, but they do believe in returning force with force.
> "Never be the one to start a fight. Always be the one to finish it."
Looks like you missed my point. Being for 'ending the war' is like being for Mom or Apple Pie. EVERYONE wants wars to be over. I want us to crush our enemies and bring our troops home in triumph. Democrats want us to just come home with our tail between our legs in a humiliating defeat. And being gutless cowards they won't admit it. I haven't seen any difference between Ron Paul's position on the War and any of the leading Democrats. Once a War is begun the only certainty is that it will end, the choice is HOW it ends.
But in the end I don't give a damn what Libertarians believe. That is my number one problem with em, they don't live in the real world. We don't live in a Libertarian country and even if we did it wouldn't exist in a Libertarian world. Here on Planet Earth we Americans live in a nation state that practices a form of Welfare Socialism and exists in a world filled with nation states that follow a variety of political systems, none of which could be termed Libertarian.
Don't get me wrong, I think Libertarian ideas are the best way forward... More individual liberty, free markets and less government is the right polestar to be following. Much like I'm convinced that there IS a unified field theory, even if we have been chasing it in vain for the better part of a century. However once you assemble a dozen Libertarians thinkers and try to figure out what a society would look like if Libertarian principles were to actually be implemented one quickly realizes we don't have the whole theory worked out yet because the discussion starts looking like a bunch of String Theorists discussing similar yet incompatible details.
> Yeah, we'll probably lose a city or two in the first decade or two after we try non-interventionism.
And I really wonder about the comprehension problem with the notion they HAVE initiated force already. There is a big fucking hole in the middle of New York that was a SMOKING hole for a year. It was only by Bush ramming through a truly massive tax cut that we avoiding a total economic collapse that could very well have ended our civilization right there. Just how many of those kind of hits do you think we can sustain before we either collapse or become a police state? Do we really have to have mushroom clouds sprouting over a few major cities before you idiots will figure out the War has been going on for a while now, only we have been closing our eyes really tight and wishing it would go away?
I don't really expect Democrats to ever wake up because most of their leadership are quietly rooting for the other damned side anyway. But I really expected the idiotarian vs. non-idiotarian split amongst the Libertarians to be more in favor of survival.
Democrat delenda est
Do you mean the ones in the white cloaks and pointy-looking hoods?
Just because you can, does not mean you should.