Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jinjiro
It's hard to really trust any candidate though.
|
Isn't that the truth. I can't see myself voting for any of the Democrats or any of the leading Repulicans. I have a feeling that I'm not going to vote (and I'll briefly explain why), but we have a year, so we'll see.
From a website I frequent:
Quote:
May 7. The 2008 presidential race is getting interesting! Basically, the framing of the whole discourse gets deeper in bull**** year after year, until all it takes is one candidate who stands up and talks straight, and the internet goes wild and the dominant media have to suppress it. This happened to some extent with Nader in 2000 and Dean in 2004. This year the Democrat to watch is Mike Gravel (pronounced gravEL), who is apparently the only Democrat -- the only Democrat -- to pledge not to start a nuclear war, or in propaganda-talk, "preemptively use nuclear weapons," or in extreme propaganda-talk, "leave all options on the table with Iran."
And the Republican to watch is Ron Paul. You might have seen that ABC news put up a debate poll that listed every candidate except Paul, and when they were swamped with complaints, they added Paul and he blew the other candidates away. He's pretty bad on the issues, but I would probably vote for him over the leading Democrats just because he owes nothing to the ruling powers. In reality, I expect not to vote but to endorse the bat**** crazy Rudolph Giuliani over Hillary Clinton, so he can finish Bush's job of destroying the American Empire and making the right look bad.
|
With some divergence, I basically agree with this.
I'm not extremely familiar with Mike Gravel, but I've seen some. He's an interesting guy, and doesn't seem like a terrible candidate. Unfortunately, though, he just didn't strike me as a strong leader. Maybe it's the "crotchety old man" or that I think he's beginning to lose his mind with age, but I just can't see him being a great leader—and I emphasize that word, since it's something I don't think we've had in a very long time.
Paul, on the other hand, strikes me as a very competent guy up to the task. He seems to approach things in a reasonable, studied manner, and he's a lot less emotional in the way he handles himself. The line that I think I agree with most from the above quote is "He's pretty bad on the issues, but I would probably vote for him over the leading Democrats just because he owes nothing to the ruling powers." I didn't really know what "he's bad on the issues" meant at first, and couldn't find much else about it. But recently at one of the conventions that I caught on TV (by chance) he started out with a 3-5 minute rally against abortion. I found out later that he at one point wanted to "leave it to the states" (a stance that seems fitting of him), but I can't tell if he's changed his mind. It's not that the abortion "issue" is something I feel terribly strongly about, but a 5 minute rant isn't something I can get behind. He also has 5 kids or some crazy ****.
That doesn't change the fact that he's the best candidate in many respects, though. The Republican party is supposedly all about "small" or "limited government," and he's the only one that seems to show that sentiment. Being that the "issues" are often superficial and trite, in many ways I think he's the best guy, even if that smaller government isn't in the direction I'd wish. I don't think he will win the presidency, though.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sNoW PIrAnHa
"I oppose legislation that increases the FDA‘s legal powers. FDA has consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, genetically modified foods, dangerous pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply. Meanwhile they waste public funds attacking safe, healthy foods and dietary supplements"
Thats terrible, the FDA needs more funding, more power, and more people. They've been understaffed and spread thin for so long (like our troops). They don't have enough power, they can't control all the tons of food that this country is producing. They need to be reorganized and the penalties against health violations need to be increased so that companies will actually give a **** when they get fines.
|
I don't think most federal agencies actually care. I think most of them are useless.
A book I just read had a bunch of cases that had documented evidence for the EPA simply "not caring." They're basically an agency that's there to make it look like we're doing something, when really, they're just ineffective. I say get rid of them all because it doesn't matter what you do with them, they're not going to make a difference.