Koolblue13 Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Hillary-Whitewater,15 convictions, $72 million from tax payers. Admitting to cheating on taxes. (guilt by association) The Mena scandal. (also the first connection of the Bush/ Clintons, working together behind the scenes) Multiple donations from well known drug smugglers. The magical $1,000 investment into cattle futures. Hiding files from her old law firm. Welfare reform, that directly helped Walmart to save millions, shortly after she served on thier board. Rudy-Hiring multiple people for his team, who have been connected to dealing coke, pimping hookers, taking bribes and molesting children. This is a consistant problem for somebody who will choose his new admin. Tax evasion issues, within his own security company. (more tax problems, just like Clinton) Has had reporters arrested. Paying the way for his mistress, with NY tax dollars. Enron like bookkeeping. Hiring peoples kids, to thank them for helping him to get elected, who in turn traveled the world on tax dollars. A legacy of corruption and telling us "it's okay if you get results". Taking from the poor and giving to the rich. Lobbied against cheaper meds from Canada, while enjoying working mostly for big pharm. Riding 9/11 like an old worn out mule, while lieing about that day, costing firefighters lives via corruption and turning away the victems families. Obama-Admitting to federal crimes and conspiracy, in a real estate deal. Admitted to using coke and smoking pot, just like GW. Shady land deals in Hawaii, working behind the scenes with the Clintons (suprise). "when you're running for president, you're going to do some sinning" WTF? Lost his own records, after trying to call out Hillary for losing hers. Taking donations from a two year old after saying he wouldn't take anything from anybody under 15. That's just funny. I figure these are the top three. All of which are loaded with corruption. I wouldn't want these people on my lawn, let alone my whitehouse. I don't know how this much can be overlooked. We scrutinize our athletes, before drafting them, why do we let federally criminal actions go unnoticed for POTUS canidates. We have had the same team working together for almost 27 years. There are multiple ties between the Clintons and Bushco, with ties to Obama being involved as well. We know Rudy is lil' Bush and we know the media is strongly influenced by political leaders and corperations and have the power to put these people out in front, ask Richardson(who might be the only Dem with enough experence to be the pres.) Why do we allow this to happen. Our country is falling in the crapper and we continue to argue over talking points and semantics. Why do some of the smartest people in our country not care to admit our guilt in allowing our government to become above the people, why does nobody speak out. Americans are afraid of thier own gov't and have become so comfortable being so, it's now been reduced to bumper sticker wisdom. Our founding fathers warned us of this, but why pay attention to the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 The ones on Obama are kinda weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Admitted to using coke and smoking pot, just like GW. So? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted November 30, 2007 Author Share Posted November 30, 2007 The ones on Obama are kinda weak.Agreed, but wanted to show how in line he is with the rest of the people we put in the whitehouse. Mostly the shady going ons, with the Clintons. Our last election was reduced to two members of the same SS. Now our top 3 is all tied into the same shady back door dealings and system minipulation for person profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oriolesfan93p Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 The ones on Obama are kinda weak. He hasn't been in the game quite as long as the others, give him a little more time they will add up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted November 30, 2007 Author Share Posted November 30, 2007 So?Both support the war on drugs. Don't tell me something is criminal, when you're doing it yourself. That's lieing. I don't want a lier in the whitehouse. Although Bushs admission as to why he lied about it, was noble. (sort of and still not completly honest) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Weirdo Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Good. The more chaos and uncertainty.. the better. I'm voting for Colin Bell anyway. Might not know him but his stance on the issues is right in line with mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Both support the war on drugs. Don't tell me something is criminal, when you're doing it yourself. That's lieing. I don't want a lier in the whitehouse. Although Bushs admission as to why he lied about it, was noble. (sort of and still not completly honest) They all lie, and I would consider that a white lie. Its not like their smoking pot and doing coke now. Is Ron Paul for legalization? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 It s a sad plate from which to choose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImmortalDragon Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 They all lie, and I would consider that a white lie. Its not like their smoking pot and doing coke now. Is Ron Paul for legalization? He wants to end the war on drugs, the laws belong to the states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Good. The more chaos and uncertainty.. the better. I'm voting for Colin Bell anyway. Might not know him but his stance on the issues is right in line with mine. Is he running? I heard there was some talk about it. That would be awesome if he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 He wants to end the war on drugs, the laws belong to the states. But does he want to legalize? That sounds more like he is just against the structure of the laws and not the laws themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Weirdo Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Is he running? I heard there was some talk about it. That would be awesome if he was. He has an internet spam campaign much like Ron Paul. He's gaining momentum. I think if he can raise enough money he'll be able to make a real impact on America. The issue I really agree with him on is illegal immigration. Get those ****s out of here. Now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 omg! Politicians are corrupt!? Say it ain't so! lol Do you honestly think our founding fathers were squeaky clean? And as far as no one speaking out...why would they? As long as no one messes with our 50" flat screens and 500 channels, no worries.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 So? Yeah--I voted for Bush because he did coke and pot. Then, I found out he quit. I felt betrayed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImmortalDragon Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 But does he want to legalize? That sounds more like he is just against the structure of the laws and not the laws themselves. I don't know what you're saying. The constitution doesn't allow for the federal government to come up with drug laws (remember we had to make an amendment to ban alcohol). The constitution allows the states to make up their own drug laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 I don't know what you're saying. The constitution doesn't allow for the federal government to come up with drug laws (remember we had to make an amendment to ban alcohol). The constitution allows the states to make up their own drug laws. What I'm saying is - he isn't against the war on drugs because he is pro drug, he's against it because he feels the laws were made in an unconstitutional way. Personally, I care more about legalization because its my body and my choice - not because crappy laws were made in a crappy way... though I'm against that, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 He has an internet spam campaign much like Ron Paul. He's gaining momentum. I think if he can raise enough money he'll be able to make a real impact on America. The issue I really agree with him on is illegal immigration. Get those ****s out of here. Now. Yeah I think it's only a matter of time before he really hits the scene and shakes up the world. I'd be surprised if it was this early though. I'm confused about what you're saying he is saying about illegals. I thought it was the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted November 30, 2007 Author Share Posted November 30, 2007 omg! Politicians are corrupt!?Say it ain't so! lol Do you honestly think our founding fathers were squeaky clean? And as far as no one speaking out...why would they? As long as no one messes with our 50" flat screens and 500 channels, no worries.... That's horse ****! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted November 30, 2007 Author Share Posted November 30, 2007 What I'm saying is - he isn't against the war on drugs because he is pro drug, he's against it because he feels the laws were made in an unconstitutional way. Personally, I care more about legalization because its my body and my choice - not because crappy laws were made in a crappy way... though I'm against that, too.I think it's the same as his view of aborsion. He personally is very against it, but doesn't think it's a job of the federal gov't to tell people they can or can't. It would be a state decision. The feds couldn't bust up a state run growing facility, to give to med users. If your state gov't says it's legal, it's legal. Same goes for gambling and prostituion.So yes, when Paul becomes POTUS, you can smoke pot rince, just so long as the state you live in says it's okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Weirdo Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Yeah I think it's only a matter of time before he really hits the scene and shakes up the world. I'd be surprised if it was this early though.I'm confused about what you're saying he is saying about illegals. I thought it was the opposite. You're right. I got him mixed up with another candidate named Scott from Massachusetts. He's the one who's against illegals. My brain gets mushy from the oxycontin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 So yes, when Paul becomes POTUS, you can smoke pot rince, just so long as the state you live in says it's okay. I gotta get on the wife about moving back to Denver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImmortalDragon Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 What I'm saying is - he isn't against the war on drugs because he is pro drug, he's against it because he feels the laws were made in an unconstitutional way. Personally, I care more about legalization because its my body and my choice - not because crappy laws were made in a crappy way... though I'm against that, too. He also believes that the WoD does not accomplish the goals it sets out to do and spends an enormous amount of taxpayer money at the same time. He cannot legalize drugs as president, those laws belong to the state. As a physician, I know all too well the wretched effects which reckless use of narcotic and mind-altering substances can have on people. I have seen the helpless children born to alcohol- and drug-addicted parents. And I have even witnessed the destruction of families in my community at the hands of those using these substances.For many years now, our federal government has waged a war on drug use. This "war" has been both figurative and literal. And yet at the same time, American taxpayers are forced to subsidize the very drug dealers and users who we are also trying to eliminate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 You're right. I got him mixed up with another candidate named Scott from Massachusetts. He's the one who's against illegals. My brain gets mushy from the oxycontin. Scott from Massachusetts is a prick. He doesn't have **** on Colin Bell. You should try suboxone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 The ones on Obama are kinda weak. that's precisely why he won't win, not crooked enough. McCain has the same problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpeg.3d05d94a5044fa9ada2aa8cc7156fc2a.jpeg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.