If you HAD to vote for one of these as President?

It is impossible to say what the others think of the Constitution.

Unless you have any evidence that suggest that they would not respect it?

I covered the 'big gov' thing before, so will refer to my previous points re that.

Jack

 

None of the above.

 

Sarah Palin. Just so I can say I voted for Sarah Palin.

 

Noam Chomsky. Mainly because of his views on libertarian socialism.

 

I really can't choose between Chomsky or Duke.

 

Not much of a list but given those constraints I'd have to go with Colin Powell. He's shown the most responsible and knowledgeable political beliefs IMHO.

 

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-10-21/news/27078698_1_codes-biscuit-hugh-shelton

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/lifesty...-while-president/story-e6frfhk6-1225942034877

 

I am actually surprised, in a good way, that he is presently winning the vote.

 

The Idea that he is prooves to me that I need to buy moar ammo pronto.

 

Moar ammo?

*Scratches chin*

 

Buy MOAR & save ...

 

He was my second pick. I had to think hard between him and Gates. Ultimately I just decided we need a nerd in office.

Are you suggesting Bill Gates and Colin Powell don't?

Chomsky infuriates a large portion of people considered to be The Left, so this seems silly.

The site is filled with ideologues...
I would say that the left at least goes for intellectual ideologues rather than useless entertatiners who symbolically represent their side, but there was no leftist version of Palin on the list... and who would be the leftist Palin anyway? Anthony Weiner?

So none of us understand yet apparently, as no one is leading who doesn't love the country.
Next.

Yeah, after all, we're the ones who hate Hillary Clinton, right?
The problem is that there just aren't many women out there that represent an ideology in this day and age. Palin's about the closest right now. The feminist leaders of the past are kind of done.
Name a female Chomsky.

Unfortunately society is patriarchal.
And of course Palin, underneath her great feminist tactic of being born a woman believes in the traditionalism that supports the patriarchy responsible for this state.

That's why feminists who are worth a (*)(*)(*)(*) vote based on policy and ideology rather than what's between a candidate's legs.
Not that there are many great choices.
But Palin is an insult to feminism. A mockery. A cynical ploy.

I love it when the Right embraces PC.
You laugh in the face of any claims that racism and sexism exist, but as soon as you have a candidate who is exposed for being a right-wing nutjob (meaning that people actually listen to him/her), suddenly racism, sexism, and all matter of isms are alive and well.

Naked Partisanship is everywhere, but on the right it is to the point of self-parody.

 

Name a way in which we were freer or better off in 1793, than we are in 2011, that doesn't involve freedom afforded by space or a lack of technological advancement. Don't worry, I will wait.


PS. What I mean by that, is that a person living in the frontier was days away from any sort of authority, and therefore was free from government imposition(though much more susceptible to banditry, outlaws, etc). That isn't the case now, government is never more than a few hours away(less if you consider technology like satellites and computers). Similarly a person could not be caught on camera, because cameras did not exist. However, excepting those advancements in technology, I cannot think of a way in which the average person was freer nor better off in 1793 than they are now(that doesn't even take account the plight of black people and women).

 

I don't know what you're getting at. I never said that big govt was a threat to the nation in 1793. Obviously, it wasn't.

 

What do you mean? I asked you how people were better off in 1793, not how they were worse off.


PS. Unjust government was a HUGE threat in 1793, that was my point. Which is why I want to know how people were better off at that point than they are now.

 

I don't like any of them, but I'd probably go with Chomsky since he would probably shrink the state the most.

 

Uh, not unless you consider Federal Troops & Brownshirt Government Law Enforcement not a part of the State Apprachic ...

 

Unsurprisingly you clearly know absolutely nothing about Noam Chomsky. He is a libertarian. He would shrink government, he would just do so in a way you wouldn't like.


PS. I don't really like anyone on this list, but Chomsky is the best of the bunch IMO.

 

Chomsky likes big government just as much as the libertarians pretend that they don't.

 

Do you know anything about Chomsky? Or are you simply going by the few seconds you have heard some right wing hack radio/tv personality criticizing him as a leftist. Chomsky absolutely would shrink government in very real ways. And he most certainly does not like big government.


And though I think he is a brilliant in many ways, ultimately I think his solutions are quite impractical.

 

More than you actually know.

Funny how you know more about what goes on in right wing hack radio/tv than I do.

Not really.

That's your opinion buddy. Doesn't constitute anything but...your opinion.

 

Tell us - what ways?

I like him, btw.

Jack

 

It is my opinion based on actually having read some of his work, hearing him speak, etc. Your opinion, I am almost certain, is based on hearsay from right wing sources.

PS. Once again, Chomsky is a libertarian. He would shrink government, but as I said, just maybe not in a way right wingers would like. For example he would certainly shrink our military, and take us out of all foreign wars. That would be an incredibly substantial shrinking of government by objective standards, he just wouldn't shrink government always how right wingers want it shrunk. Because right wingers don't actually care about small government. They want government to do the things they like and want government to do, and don't want government to do other things they don't like and don't want government to do. It is exactly the same as liberals, right wingers are just better at using dishonest talking points.

 

I know right. Libertarian socialism? LMAO. A professor, of all things believes in it. Someone whose success and livelihood all revolves around the system he claims to despise. I could see a person who was in a grass skirt moving from cave to cave on BLM land claiming to be libertarian socialist.

Libertarian Socialist. No state. And no private ownership of anything. Hence, a caveman. 50 years of philosophy has lead him to the realization...cavemen...that's where it's at. LMAO

 

That is also your opinion and you are entitled to it. Regardless of how ignorant it is. And since it is based on merely an assumption it is completely ignorant.

He also advocates increase government role in other places.

Again with the assumption that I'm a right winger. Chomsky is no different from Bill Maher. They're libertarians who support big government in their own unique ways. All libertarians support bigger government. They just think that they don't. Whether it be the war on drugs or gay marriage, they support governments involvement. Whether or not they know it is up to them.