I can't bring myself to vote for McCain...

[KitchenKitten99]

...and I would rather slit my wrists than vote for Obama. I was actually gonna sit this election out, because I had no candidate to get behind.

A friend of mine sent me this guy's link last night, (and I saw it on someone's sig line here today) and now I have someone to believe in. I am not sure about the likelihood of these two winning, but at least I can vote AND not have my conscience nagging at me that it is the wrong thing. Does anyone else feel the same way?

www.rootforamerica.com

[mundame]

...and I would rather slit my wrists than vote for Obama. I was actually gonna sit this election out, because I had no candidate to get behind.

A friend of mine sent me this guy's link last night, (and I saw it on someone's sig line here today) and now I have someone to believe in. I am not sure about the likelihood of these two winning, but at least I can vote AND not have my conscience nagging at me that it is the wrong thing. Does anyone else feel the same way?

www.rootforamerica.com (http://www.rootforamerica.com)



Sure, me.

No way I'm voting for the two major party crapoids.

I'd sort of like to be counted, though, and I figure the Libertarian vote will be counted by both parties as a missed opportunity to attract voters (and if large enough, even by some Libertarians, maybe!).

But I don't know. It might be a good spiritual exercise just to give voting a miss for the first time in my adult life. Democracy doesn't seem to be working; why bother with it.

[Yurt]

seems to me they make a good team, usually 3rd parties have weird vice presidents

[emmett]

...and I would rather slit my wrists than vote for Obama. I was actually gonna sit this election out, because I had no candidate to get behind.

A friend of mine sent me this guy's link last night, (and I saw it on someone's sig line here today) and now I have someone to believe in. I am not sure about the likelihood of these two winning, but at least I can vote AND not have my conscience nagging at me that it is the wrong thing. Does anyone else feel the same way?

www.rootforamerica.com

Hey Kitten! Go to the NEWSFLASH thread on Current Events, read it and then get back to me. You are a perfect candidate to get you a Libertarian Party card.

[KitchenKitten99]

seems to me they make a good team, usually 3rd parties have weird vice presidents

I like him though. I like the kooky-ness that he has. McCain and Obama are wallflowers compared to him.

[crin63]

I'm really torn as to what to do. At this point I'm considering McCain but only because of the judicial appointments I don't want Barry to make. I still may not be able to vote for McCain though.

[emmett]

I'm really torn as to what to do. At this point I'm considering McCain but only because of the judicial appointments I don't want Barry to make. I still may not be able to vote for McCain though.

Don't be torn crin. The time is right and so are you. Barr-Root (LP ticket) is the uniquely perfect statement to make and every American has the opportunity to help make it.

Walk in to the voting booth this November and vote for Bob Barr. Help us send a message to the two biggies that we are tired of it and have chosen to do something about it. Our message will be heard! Watch and see!

[Trigg]

Don't be torn crin. The time is right and so are you. Barr-Root (LP ticket) is the uniquely perfect statement to make and every American has the opportunity to help make it.

Walk in to the voting booth this November and vote for Bob Barr. Help us send a message to the two biggies that we are tired of it and have chosen to do something about it. Our message will be heard! Watch and see!

the problem with doing this is we'll end up with Obama for President.

Personnally I'm voting AGAINST Obama and if McCain chooses Romney as his vice pres than I will actually be happy to vote for him.

[5stringJeff]

Fuzzy, I'm absolutely voting for Bob Barr. I think you remember, back at USMB, I went by gop_jeff instead of 5stringJeff. I changed my nickname because I no longer consider myself a Republican, because the GOP has strayed so far from the course of small government and more freedom. Check out the "Why I'm Libertarian" link in my sig, which is a blog post I wrote a couple of months ago, and see if you can relate to what I went through.

BTW, I supported Root for the Presidential nomination, but I think Barr will do just as well.

[crin63]

Don't be torn crin. The time is right and so are you. Barr-Root (LP ticket) is the uniquely perfect statement to make and every American has the opportunity to help make it.

Walk in to the voting booth this November and vote for Bob Barr. Help us send a message to the two biggies that we are tired of it and have chosen to do something about it. Our message will be heard! Watch and see!

Its not a question of liking Bob Barr either. I watched him through the Waco & Ruby Ridge hearings while I was laid up after surgery. He was a solid guy.

I was at the point where I just wanted to see the Republican party bleed. Right now I'm just terrified of an Obama presidency. I've got some decision making to do.

Thanks for the encouragement Emmett.

[5stringJeff]

Its not a question of liking Bob Barr either. I watched him through the Waco & Ruby Ridge hearings while I was laid up after surgery. He was a solid guy.

I was at the point where I just wanted to see the Republican party bleed. Right now I'm just terrified of an Obama presidency. I've got some decision making to do.

Thanks for the encouragement Emmett.

We survived eight years of Bill Clinton. We could survive four years of Obama.

[KitchenKitten99]

Fuzzy, I'm absolutely voting for Bob Barr. I think you remember, back at USMB, I went by gop_jeff instead of 5stringJeff. I changed my nickname because I no longer consider myself a Republican, because the GOP has strayed so far from the course of small government and more freedom. Check out the "Why I'm Libertarian" link in my sig, which is a blog post I wrote a couple of months ago, and see if you can relate to what I went through.

BTW, I supported Root for the Presidential nomination, but I think Barr will do just as well.

I do remember the different name, I just figured you wanted something else for other reasons.

I no longer consider myself Republican as well, since there are very few of them who haven't sold out to the in-crowd. My current governor included. I don't know how many emails and letters I have sent him expressing my concern over his need to be a turncoat or RINO.

I also have enjoyed telling the Republican party callers who are asking for donations, just what I think about the party now and how they will not have my support, either financially or on the ballot, if things continue to be as they are.

[KitchenKitten99]

We survived eight years of Bill Clinton. We could survive four years of Obama.

There's one problem. Clinton had to answer to the GOP-controlled congress. If Obama wins, it is a Dem-controlled congress, with more seats up for grabs this time around.

Clinton was a cakewalk compared to what Obama is threatening to be.

[5stringJeff]

There's one problem. Clinton had to answer to the GOP-controlled congress. If Obama wins, it is a Dem-controlled congress, with more seats up for grabs this time around.

Clinton was a cakewalk compared to what Obama is threatening to be.

Except that the first two years, it was a Dem-controlled Congress. It wasn't until 1994 that Newt and the Republican Revolution was on the scene. 1993-1994 was when Clinton passed the assault weapons ban and the Largest Tax Raise Ever.

[Abbey Marie]

We survived eight years of Bill Clinton. We could survive four years of Obama.

I think of an Obama presidency as being more like Carter's than Clinton's, except that instead of having demure Rosalynn Carter behind the scenes, we will have USA-haters Michelle Obama and Rev. Wright.

[Yurt]

We survived eight years of Bill Clinton. We could survive four years of Obama.

whoa, maybe, but, not necessarily.

carter was a bumpkin, obama, as stupid as i think he is, is no bumpkin. he knows where the money comes from, carter just wanted to eat peanuts and walk the lawns.

clinton, not a bumpkin, akin to obama in terms of education, sauve and sophistication. and, unlike clinton, obama is at least 1/2 the first black president :D. however, clinton might have been more powerful in making changes towards a socialist state, except:

he liked to be popular, no matter what
his wife wanted to be prez (could be michelle, doubt it)
his libedo contained most of his intellect or desire, obama...don't know, but seems his only vice is racism, and cigs.
clinton's libedo made him inefective in his last 3 years due to his lies

[emmett]

seems to me they make a good team, usually 3rd parties have weird vice presidents

Go to www.rootforamerica.com and draw your own conclusion on how "weird" this guy is.

[midcan5]

I'm surprised more wingnuts are not voting for McCain based on the fact if we get another ideologue in the SC, more rights will be lost for the individual and for the states. We will move closer to a religious government controlling the lives of its citizens. We will have lost freedoms it took much pain and suffering to accomplish. It won't matter to most unless they are downwind of a toxic site, loved to see the Salmon run, or have made a mistake, so it won't really matter. And so it goes....

A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

[Sitarro]

I'm surprised more wingnuts are not voting for McCain based on the fact if we get another ideologue in the SC, more rights will be lost for the individual and for the states. We will move closer to a religious government controlling the lives of its citizens. We will have lost freedoms it took much pain and suffering to accomplish. It won't matter to most unless they are downwind of a toxic site, loved to see the Salmon run, or have made a mistake, so it won't really matter. And so it goes....

A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

again...... you're an idiot.

[KitchenKitten99]

A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.
Then how can you even fathom thinking of voting for Obama?

He wants to reach deeper into the pockets of ALL Americans for more money, to hand it to people who DID NOT EARN IT.

Obama wants to socialize healthcare. This means government interfering . Healthcare availability will go down, because when government controls something, it is rationed to control costs, therefore they decide who gets what kind of care and when. Think about the quality of something when it is rationed. Low chances of the elderly getting the care they need because the services are reserved for those that are younger and more able. Waiting 2-3 months on average for an MRI instead of same day or within a week's time here. Knee surgery pushed out 6 months or more, instead of within a few weeks of diagnosis.

Obama VOTED AGAINST DRILLING ON OUR OWN LAND! Government is once again interfering with the ability to become energy indepedent, because they won't even let us use our own resources to start the process.

Think about how government has INTERFERED with the very basic right to "Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness". Because of GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE, we have 16 different types of gasoline that are mandatory for oil companies to produce. Private businesses are forced to pay a minimum amount to employees, whether or not that employee's tasks are worth the wage.

Last year, the state of Minnesota had a $2.16 BILLION budget surplus. The Democrat-controlled legislature wasted it on money-pits like mass transit and government subsidies, pork spending and other crap we don't need. Somehow this Spring, they decided to increase the overall taxes in the state, including a sales tax increase and a gas tax increase, totalling just over $7 BILLION. Not million. BILLION. Most of it to pork-barrel spending and earmarks. Nothing that will actually help significantly.

The State and Federal government already makes a bigger profit off oil and gasoline sales than the oil companies and retailers combined. They get taxes off the purchase by the consumer, then they tax the business selling the fuel, and then they tax the oil companies that produce it. Triple-dipping! Again, government interference at its' finest.

The local government is more concerned about the private business of citizens and discriminating against smokers than they are about the energy-cost problem and the true reasons for the price-hikes.

McCain is no picnic, and his ideas and policies are really not much different than Obama. Really, I almost think that the difference between the two is only the letter in front of their names in the Capitol Hill directory.

Just don't go saying Obama is the man for the job, when his ideas are no better than former President Carter's. If you take some of Carter's speeches and addresses, they almost sound like Obama plagerized them, they're that identical to what Obama wants. And we know how well some of Carter's ideas worked.

Obama's ideas (if they're really even his originally) promise to hurt this country's population in more ways and far worse than anything McCain would do.

[avatar4321]

I'm surprised more wingnuts are not voting for McCain based on the fact if we get another ideologue in the SC, more rights will be lost for the individual and for the states. We will move closer to a religious government controlling the lives of its citizens. We will have lost freedoms it took much pain and suffering to accomplish. It won't matter to most unless they are downwind of a toxic site, loved to see the Salmon run, or have made a mistake, so it won't really matter. And so it goes....

A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

You've got to be kidding. I just can't believe someone can be this freakin stupid. And my clients do stupid things almost constantly. You are honestly going to tell me Senator Obama, who hasnt met a problem more government wouldnt "solve", is going to protect individual and state rights.

And you are the same person who last week was claiming that individuals don't have the right to bear arms.

[5stringJeff]

A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

This is delusional. But please, do tell us which policies Obama is proposing that would increase liberty in America.

[PostmodernProphet]

We survived eight years of Bill Clinton. We could survive four years of Obama.
but you think we couldn't survive four years of McCain????........

[5stringJeff]

but you think we couldn't survive four years of McCain????........

We would survive it... but ideally, we would vote for and elect a President who stands for freedom, not for more government control over our lives.

[midcan5]

"The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." Stephen Biko


I was glad to see some comments about the future loss of freedom in America should John McCain be elected. The loss is so obvious. I'll mention just one more recent loss before I get to replies. Law is at the foundation of our system of government and to use law as this administration did when it fired 'conservative' attorneys because they would not politicize the justice department demonstrates a scary development for freedom on all levels. It is something the Nazis would have done.

For those who can only name call or use ad hominem, I would suggest a small reading of history. If being smart is being part of a society that invades sovereign nations because of fear and propaganda, killing thousands, destroying a nation, causing so much sorrow, then I opt for idiot as a positive. The millions who die each year as we feed a war machine but argue over healthcare should make any sane citizen wonder at the values of humankind.

Freedom does not include freedom to do anything. Handguns should be regulated as any dangerous device is regulated and cities and states should be able within the parameters of law to make those guidelines. Hand guns are one of the top red herrings of an insane society that does not live in 1776 any longer.

The government is here to stay, we cannot return to some utopia - that never was - and pretend structure is not essential for individual freedom. I was watching a Peter Hart focus session on cspan the other evening and I feared for our country. And yet when the panel was given George, Dick, Barack, Hillary and asked to give one word replies, they hit them pretty accurately. Cheney at the bottom and Hillary at the top of positive evaluative words. But what struck me as truly ironic was the fact when complicated issues arose each and every one of the more conservative panelists mentioned government. But then who else could they mention, if our world is a social darwinist world of capitalism, who do you turn to, Bill Gates!

FuzzyKitten's itemized list. In order to debate these issues it is essential we get into those areas that are often murky. Murky can be a moral viewpoint, what do we want our world to look like. What anyone earns is based on the situation they live in, as such rich Americans can only grow rich in our society, they do not grow rich on their own. We can debate this more, but 50% tax for the rich has little impact on them.

Healthcare should be provided for all who need it. Those with extra money can can get face lifts till the cows come home. This would be a great thing as it reduces insecurity and allows many a life free of fear. It would allow a business a chance to take chances and it would make slave wages less appealing

Drilling, why ruin our world for a small percentage of crude that may have no real impact on anything except beauty.

Types of gasoline. How about contaminated food variety, or viruses of all kinds, or drugs with little regulation. Society makes choices, I opt for regulation as I want to be healthy and I want my children and theirs to be safe and healthy.

Surplus, Bush had a surplus but greed from his many benefactors caused him to waste it on tax reduction. Imagine if it had been used for UHC or SS. Or even to feed the poor of the world. God, if there is one, would be smiling down instead of shaking her head.

Local government is run by local people and local people like all people make good and bad decisions. I have to admit - I used to smoke - non smoking has made restaurants eating much nicer. And the workers get an added benefit. See how things can be viewed as good sometimes. Now I want those working poor to eat out too. lol

McCain is MacSame and his agreement with Bush is in almost perfect alignment. But hey, this is a free country, people elected Bush who has pretty much made a mess of things. They can continue down that path with McCain. I'll be Ok but those 25% of the working poor who will suffer and America will continue its slip to third world status.

PS I'm reading about you all. Joe Bageant's 'Deer hunting with Jesus' is a must read.

Obama will try and fail and try and succeed a little and hopefully we'll move forward and the social darwinism that started with Goldwater/Reagan will subside and America will once more take care of its own, build it own, and train its own.


A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

[5stringJeff]

A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

Since you really seem to be into individuals living their life without government interference, let's look at the rest of your post to see if your policy recommendations are in line with what you see as "the fundamental principle of America."


Handguns should be regulated as any dangerous device is regulated and cities and states should be able within the parameters of law to make those guidelines.

Any regulation on handguns is, necessarily and by definition, a loss of the right of an individual to lead his life privately without the government interfering. If I have a handgun - or 100 handguns - in my home, what is that to you? What is that to the government? By advocating handgun regulation (and I can only assume, in the context of the Heller decision, you mean local/state handgun bans), you advocate a decrease in freedom.


The government is here to stay, we cannot return to some utopia - that never was - and pretend structure is not essential for individual freedom.

The only structure that need be provided by government is that which protects the individual rights of all citizens. To impose greater "structure" on citizens is to unnecessarily interfere in their lives.


50% tax for the rich has little impact on them.

Wrong. It has the impact of taking half the money they earned. To confiscate money is to decrease the economic/financial freedom of those individuals.


Healthcare should be provided for all who need it.

By whom? The government, or the private sector? If by the government, then you have to tax the citizenry for it, and, as we have already established, more taxation = less freedom. That leaves the private sector, in which case deregulation (i.e. less government interference) of the health care industry would lead to more affordable care.


Drilling, why ruin our world for a small percentage of crude that may have no real impact on anything except beauty.

Again, you are advocating more government interference here, not less.


Surplus, Bush had a surplus but greed from his many benefactors caused him to waste it on tax reduction. Imagine if it had been used for UHC or SS. Or even to feed the poor of the world.

Ah, but again, more taxation = more government interference and less freedom. Imagine if citizens were able to keep even more of their money, and donate to charitable causes, such as feeding the poor.


So, on one hand, you claim that "the fundamental principle of America (is) the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering." On the other hand, all of your policy recommendations call for a greater amount of government interference in individual and business concerns. So which is it?

[Yurt]

Since you really seem to be into individuals living their life without government interference, let's look at the rest of your post to see if your policy recommendations are in line with what you see as "the fundamental principle of America."



Any regulation on handguns is, necessarily and by definition, a loss of the right of an individual to lead his life privately without the government interfering. If I have a handgun - or 100 handguns - in my home, what is that to you? What is that to the government? By advocating handgun regulation (and I can only assume, in the context of the Heller decision, you mean local/state handgun bans), you advocate a decrease in freedom.



The only structure that need be provided by government is that which protects the individual rights of all citizens. To impose greater "structure" on citizens is to unnecessarily interfere in their lives.



Wrong. It has the impact of taking half the money they earned. To confiscate money is to decrease the economic/financial freedom of those individuals.



By whom? The government, or the private sector? If by the government, then you have to tax the citizenry for it, and, as we have already established, more taxation = less freedom. That leaves the private sector, in which case deregulation (i.e. less government interference) of the health care industry would lead to more affordable care.



Again, you are advocating more government interference here, not less.



Ah, but again, more taxation = more government interference and less freedom. Imagine if citizens were able to keep even more of their money, and donate to charitable causes, such as feeding the poor.


So, on one hand, you claim that "the fundamental principle of America (is) the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering." On the other hand, all of your policy recommendations call for a greater amount of government interference in individual and business concerns. So which is it?

:clap: brilliant

[Yurt]

Since you really seem to be into individuals living their life without government interference, let's look at the rest of your post to see if your policy recommendations are in line with what you see as "the fundamental principle of America."



Any regulation on handguns is, necessarily and by definition, a loss of the right of an individual to lead his life privately without the government interfering. If I have a handgun - or 100 handguns - in my home, what is that to you? What is that to the government? By advocating handgun regulation (and I can only assume, in the context of the Heller decision, you mean local/state handgun bans), you advocate a decrease in freedom.



The only structure that need be provided by government is that which protects the individual rights of all citizens. To impose greater "structure" on citizens is to unnecessarily interfere in their lives.



Wrong. It has the impact of taking half the money they earned. To confiscate money is to decrease the economic/financial freedom of those individuals.



By whom? The government, or the private sector? If by the government, then you have to tax the citizenry for it, and, as we have already established, more taxation = less freedom. That leaves the private sector, in which case deregulation (i.e. less government interference) of the health care industry would lead to more affordable care.



Again, you are advocating more government interference here, not less.



Ah, but again, more taxation = more government interference and less freedom. Imagine if citizens were able to keep even more of their money, and donate to charitable causes, such as feeding the poor.


So, on one hand, you claim that "the fundamental principle of America (is) the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering." On the other hand, all of your policy recommendations call for a greater amount of government interference in individual and business concerns. So which is it?

a bump for midcan who still says the same thing about mccain but can't back it up and has never had the courage to answer the above.

[avatar4321]

...and I would rather slit my wrists than vote for Obama. I was actually gonna sit this election out, because I had no candidate to get behind.

A friend of mine sent me this guy's link last night, (and I saw it on someone's sig line here today) and now I have someone to believe in. I am not sure about the likelihood of these two winning, but at least I can vote AND not have my conscience nagging at me that it is the wrong thing. Does anyone else feel the same way?

www.rootforamerica.com

Vote for the other races even if you cant vote for President.

[Sitarro]

I've heard Root will give you a great deal on a clean, late model used car....... probably get a few hundred off for your vote.:laugh2:

[midcan5]

a bump for midcan who still says the same thing about mccain but can't back it up and has never had the courage to answer the above.

Sorry, missed this till now.

You can have a thousand guns so long as they are legal and registered. No loss of freedom there. But if you force me to start a family I cannot support because you allow your religion to enter government, that is a great loss of freedom.

Structure (government and its parts) is the system of law and policy that provides for freedom. Freedom does not exist if contracts are not honored and order does not exist. No loss of freedom there.

The only reason they have that money is because of a system of shared knowledge and a social, as well as a physical, infrastructure. Their additional use of it requires they pay for it. Remember our 90% fair tax. No loss of freedom there.

The private sector operates on profit, how would we get them to provide UHC, the only reasonable way would be as insurance paid for by taxes on individuals, the corporations, and the wealthy. SS is insurance, no reason healthcare couldn't work the same with money coming from everyone. Costs would need to be controlled, monitored, and regulated and those with large incomes could do what they do now. I don't see government programs as interference in our lives. I see it as I see law, essential to a working society. Healthcare would provide workers with more freedom to switch jobs or attempt other work related changes with one issue off their mind.

Drilling is a non issue in my mind. We have little of the world's reserve of the black stuff. But ruining the shorelines and the beaches is a loss of freedom as now I cannot enjoy them as I once did. If we the people decide we want it then so be it, if not so be it.

I don't see taxes as a loss of freedom, money doesn't equal freedom, it can be just the opposite. Taxes are the prices we pay for a modern society. And the individual is free as they can use those roads, attend those schools, ride that bus, enjoy a clean beach, or do none of those things and still be able to live their life as others will raise the food and get it to them. So when McCain Palin want to restrict how I can live my life they are going against a fundamental American principle: individual freedom.




A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

[Silver]

The above is such a pinheaded post, it defies a serious rebuttal...

It would be a waste of time....like arguing with an imbecile...

[Kathianne]

Sorry, missed this till now.

You can have a thousand guns so long as they are legal and registered. No loss of freedom there. But if you force me to start a family I cannot support because you allow your religion to enter government, that is a great loss of freedom.Who's 'forcing' you to start a family?' Oh, you mean restricting abortions? You saw this gaining support, where?


Structure (government and its parts) is the system of law and policy that provides for freedom. Freedom does not exist if contracts are not honored and order does not exist. No loss of freedom there.

The only reason they have that money is because of a system of shared knowledge and a social, as well as a physical, infrastructure. Their additional use of it requires they pay for it. Remember our 90% fair tax. No loss of freedom there. Says who?


The private sector operates on profit, how would we get them to provide UHC, the only reasonable way would be as insurance paid for by taxes on individuals, the corporations, and the wealthy. SS is insurance, no reason healthcare couldn't work the same with money coming from everyone. Costs would need to be controlled, monitored, and regulated and those with large incomes could do what they do now. I don't see government programs as interference in our lives. I see it as I see law, essential to a working society. Healthcare would provide workers with more freedom to switch jobs or attempt other work related changes with one issue off their mind.Of course you don't. You are an admitted socialist. Bully for you, but most Americans disagree with that, regardless of party.


Drilling is a non issue in my mind. We have little of the world's reserve of the black stuff. But ruining the shorelines and the beaches is a loss of freedom as now I cannot enjoy them as I once did. If we the people decide we want it then so be it, if not so be it.Well that's weird, as none has been opened up yet. Seriously, you have a problem.


I don't see taxes as a loss of freedom, money doesn't equal freedom, it can be just the opposite. Taxes are the prices we pay for a modern society. And the individual is free as they can use those roads, attend those schools, ride that bus, enjoy a clean beach, or do none of those things and still be able to live their life as others will raise the food and get it to them. So when McCain Palin want to restrict how I can live my life they are going against a fundamental American principle: individual freedom.

LOL! Seriously, are you drinking or getting high? You repeat yourself and make less sense as we go along.



A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.
Almost letting you have the last word.

[No1tovote4]

You don't have to vote "for" anybody. All you have to do is look at what would happen if the other person go in.

[gabosaurus]

I can't understand why you are unable to join the growing list of enthusiastic McCain supporters!

http://i38.tinypic.com/11uer1f.jpg

[Yurt]

i......uh......i.....uh........uh.........i'm trying to say.........uh........now let me think here.....



http://images.chron.com/blogs/beltwayconfidential/apobamafansbummed.jpg