Which candidate supports genocide?

[FUNKbrs]

Look, I don't really care about the OTHER issues, like "foreign policy" or "the economy".

I'm galvanized on a single, hot button issue: Which candidate will assure the greatest amount of death and destruction by their election?

You see, I was FOR the Iraq war, not because I thought it was just, but because I wanted America to make an example of someone just in case a bunch of countries started thinking we were weak and and decided to invade. I didn't vote Bush; I voted Nader, but in retrospect I feel like Bush was the right choice for bringing about more deaths than the other candidates.

I think Barrack is smart, but his heart's just not in the right place. Until he honestly starts advocating ransacking other countries, he's just not going to be my candidate. I think Mccain MIGHT continue america's growing history of foreign destruction, but I just can't be sure.

In order to get my vote, I'm afraid I'm going to need to know which candidate REALLY has my interests in mind. Which candidate will follow in Andrew Jackson's footsteps and allow the next american genocide?

[yinyangman]

You know, the man I would suggest trusting is Barack Obama! His heart is always in the right place as long as he's Democratic. McCain's is not.

[darkfiretime1]

Oh you must mean that he says his heart is in the right place. That and his goons.

[FUNKbrs]

At 10/7/08 01:47 PM, darkfiretime1 wrote: Oh you must mean that he says his heart is in the right place. That and his goons.

Wait... Barack gets goons? Do they rough people up to get his point across? I mean, a candidate that has people beaten up in alley ways... that sounds like my guy.

Clinton had a couple people murdered, AND had an entire secret war in Iraq called Desert Fox which was pretty boss. Bush II has been REALLY good about just overtly obliterating other countries, so if I could, I'd re-elect him, or maybe another member of his family, like the governor of Florida, Jeb.

[Prinzy2]

I think you're missing the point. America, whether McCain or Obama runs it, isn't going to really pursue anymore genocidal endeavors. What you should be looking at is which candidate is going to piss the rest of the world off more. Patriotic freezer burnt vanilla ice cream or fresh rich chocolate ice cream, which do you hate more?

[AapoJoki]

Your best shot is Sarah Palin (after McCain dies). A fundamentalist like her will surely start a nuclear war with Ahmadinejad. Just keep voting for the evangelicals, they'll guarantee global destruction after bringing USA into the dark ages. There are some who even welcome nuclear holocaust as a biblical apocalypse.

[griek]

while i am not for the death of all things (me personally) and support barack, I think you should go McCain if you want more death and violence. Frankly, he ain't got much time left, and Palin will basically declare war on all the muslims, execute all the atheists, and burn all the witches. (...wait, witches?)

[FUNKbrs]

I think Mcain/Palin WANTS genocide, but I don't think they have the skill to pull it off. I mean, Mccain thought the US's economic fundamentals were sound, for crying out loud! Those just aren't the words of a man who's got the mental facility to kill off an entire race of people, even if he secretly wanted to. If Palin were heading the ticket, then yes, all aboard the Republican Hatred Train, but I just don't see it happening.

Now Barrack, he's an idealist, and it's quite possible if his health plan fails (which, if you've read it, it just might) EVERYONE in america will be denied sufficient healthcare. That's a whole lot of death and suffering! Obama is more likely to accidentally kill large numbers of people through inexperience, which in some ways is BETTER than having wily ol' Mccain impotently spitting vitriole at the muslim race. Plus, the people Obama allows to die horribly will be in the US, where I can watch with evil glee, while Mccain/Palin will almost CERTAINLY insist on only spreading death overseas.

[Prinzy2]

I'm glad you've finally seen the big picture.
Now, I'm off to rape, pillage, and murder, and not necessarily in that order.

[MrCongeniality]

McCain looks like a copycat of Bush Junior, and Bush Junior, with this war he is keeping us in and the torturing he's allowing to happen, is just another form of genocide.

[GangWarlord]

I dunno much about politics, but I've heard that McCain wants to support war. And that is the worst possible thing a leader can do.

[animehater]

At 10/7/08 06:06 PM, GangWarlord wrote: And that is the worst possible thing a leader can do.

Depends on the situation.

[GangWarlord]

At 10/7/08 06:15 PM, animehater wrote: Depends on the situation.

Well, if you're really in a corner and stuff, then fighting back in self-defense is okay. But generally wars just suck ass.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 10/7/08 06:19 PM, GangWarlord wrote:

At 10/7/08 06:15 PM, animehater wrote: Depends on the situation.

Well, if you're really in a corner and stuff, then fighting back in self-defense is okay. But generally wars just suck ass.

Thank You for that enlightening observation.

Now Funk, have you decided to try calling these candidates, maybe get a real feel for what they stand for. I think the real problem is that your undecided and what you need is a debate to help set you straight. I say we set something up in Auschwitz sometime soon and ask them directly.

[C-Doodlez-Man]

Well, in my opinion, anyone who doesnt do anything about it does support it. Your either apart of the solution or part of the problem. Thats where alot of our troops should be! Not in Iraq, in sudan!

[adrshepard]

I'm afraid neither of them have what it takes to make the US a major genocidal power again. Sure, we had high times with the Indians, but Africa is making a comeback. Darfur alone has given them a huge lead that will take decades for us to narrow.

Don't count us out yet. I'm still banking on an American second wind that will make the game for us before the Rapture.

[Achilles2]

Well, we all know McCain wants to stay in Iraq for "100 years" if possible, as he's stated himself. Such a futureless Civil War is going to take 100 years to finish, so your best bet is McCain. Plus, if he dies, you can be durn sure that Palin of Alyeska will definiaytely start woors with Mr. Putin.

I don't know about Obama. All this talk of "Change", "Economic growth", "Peace", and "Bipartisanship" just doesn't cut it. I want blood and war and nuclear explosions. Obama just doesn't offer that. I want my dollar to be lower than a dog's feces, and Obama just doesn't offer that.

[marchohare]

Gee, maybe if we're lucky there'll be another "terr'ist attack" on U.S. soil between now and January 20th, they'll declare martial law, suspend the inauguration, and Bush will become Emperor for the Duration!

Temporarily, of course.

Hey, has anybody heard from Dick Cheney lately?

[BetaOrionis]

If you want something done right . . .

>:D

[Finjodon]

What kind of person wants genocide? I'm so disgusted I'm not even sure if you're being sarcastic.

[SmilezRoyale]

Obama doesn't plan to end US militarism, the iraq war was an unpopular war, and obama opposes unpopular war... Let's go through the facts about Obama and his party

1) Does not oppose Afghanistan, and wants to commit more troops to Afghanistan
2) Believes in, supports, and desires to increase international aid.
3) previous democrats [Clinton and Johnson most notably] have
4) Votes almost consistently with the lines of the democratic party
5) Most democrats by standard Believe heavily in the faith of the united nations as an international governing force, and have not disagreed with the idea that the united states should not use military action under UN resolutions.
6) Most democrats don't like to beleive that the united states should or must 'police the world' but they do not show any indication that the united states should not be the the world peace keeper, or intervene in states like darfur.

I think a conclusion can be drawn that we will not see the end of 'war' under the presidency of Obama. Let's face it, the democratic party has never been anti war, even if american liberalism is.

[bcdemon]

Careful what you wish for FUNK, the next American Genocide may be your own, yourself included.

[FUNKbrs]

At 10/7/08 06:06 PM, GangWarlord wrote: I dunno much about politics, but I've heard that McCain wants to support war. And that is the worst possible thing a leader can do.

Unless of course there is, say, a human population surplus of several billion. In which case killing as many people as possible is probably a GREAT idea for insuring the sustainability of the human population.

mortified penguins:
Now Funk, have you decided to try calling these candidates, maybe get a real feel for what they stand for. I think the real problem is that your undecided and what you need is a debate to help set you straight. I say we set something up in Auschwitz sometime soon and ask them directly.

Yeah, but the "art of war" by Sun Tzu teaches that a true warlord is never clear about their intentions, so their plots can't be compensated for and thwarted. Basically, I'd be looking for the candidate who was the best liar, while at the same time making me believe that they ARE lying. See how fine a line that is to walk?

I need a candidate who can say "Alright, I know we've starved you and left your without even the barest of necessities for months, but just strip down naked and walk into this little room where I have no intention of following you and the little spigots will shoot out hot shower water." while all the time KNOWING the spigots actually spray mustard gas, and do this CONVINCINGLY.

At 10/7/08 07:26 PM, C-Doodlez-Man wrote: Well, in my opinion, anyone who doesnt do anything about it does support it. Your either apart of the solution or part of the problem. Thats where alot of our troops should be! Not in Iraq, in sudan!

I think they have the genocide in Sudan well in hand; they don't need our help. Where genocide will really benefit the US would be in India or China, or possibly Arkansas.

At 10/7/08 07:33 PM, adrshepard wrote: I'm afraid neither of them have what it takes to make the US a major genocidal power again. Sure, we had high times with the Indians, but Africa is making a comeback. Darfur alone has given them a huge lead that will take decades for us to narrow.

I know >:(

Don't count us out yet. I'm still banking on an American second wind that will make the game for us before the Rapture.

We've still got the Neutron bomb, so it wouldn't take long for us to catch up, if only we could get the right guy in office!

At 10/7/08 08:18 PM, marchohare wrote: Gee, maybe if we're lucky there'll be another "terr'ist attack" on U.S. soil between now and January 20th, they'll declare martial law, suspend the inauguration, and Bush will become Emperor for the Duration!

Man... I could only hope! It would have to be domestic, like OK city bombing, to make that work. C'mon militias! Don't let me down now!

Temporarily, of course.

LOL

Hey, has anybody heard from Dick Cheney lately?

Maybe he's busy plotting said bombing... It would be the answer to all my prayers!

At 10/7/08 09:33 PM, Finjodon wrote: What kind of person wants genocide? I'm so disgusted I'm not even sure if you're being sarcastic.

The kind of people who have a VERY firm grasp on the toll overpopulation takes on the individual? If you have 6 billion people, and only enough resources for 5, and you don't get rid of 1 billion people, you end up losing all 6. Thinkwith your brain, not with your remote control. And turn off the fucking Disney channel, for chrissakes.

At 10/8/08 09:12 AM, bcdemon wrote: Careful what you wish for FUNK, the next American Genocide may be your own, yourself included.

I gotta die somehow. It's not like I get to choose how I die anyway.

[AapoJoki]

At 10/8/08 10:29 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: The kind of people who have a VERY firm grasp on the toll overpopulation takes on the individual? If you have 6 billion people, and only enough resources for 5, and you don't get rid of 1 billion people, you end up losing all 6.

How do you come up with that calculation?

[JackPhantasm]

I love you Funk.

[Rideo]

Well, Mccain called Sakashivili a great man, so we know he definitely digs genocide.

[FUNKbrs]

At 10/8/08 11:28 AM, AapoJoki wrote: How do you come up with that calculation?

We're talking about bare minimums here. For instance, lets say your building 6 houses, but you only have enough bricks for 5. If you start building all 6 houses at the same time, NONE of the houses will EVER be complete, unless you can get more bricks. You end up with 0 complete houses, and you'll have to demolish at least one of them in hopes of retroactively completeing the other 5. However, if you build the houses one at a time, you'll have five COMPLETE houses, and one unbuilt house.

We're already in the "simultaneously building 6 houses" phase of things, where there are children using resources in countries where... they just. dont. have. that. luxury. If this continues, in order to keep the other people alive, they're going to have to resort to cannibalism, as they DO in places like Darfur. This isn't some "LOL THOUGHT EXPERIMENT" here. THIS IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.

Human beings can't be a "little bit" dead. They're either completely sustained by their resources, or they're not. And unlike the houses argument, when they use those resources, you can't get them back with any level of efficency. A hundred and fifty pound man can only live off a hundred and fifty pounds of meat for a year if he's lucky. However, a hundred and fifty pound man can live for more than 75 years!. That' s over a thousand pounds of meat on a STARVATION DIET!!!

The faster we kill off a large portion of the population, the less of this waste we're going to incur. The return rate of 1/75th of the invested food in an individual will never come into play, because that individual didn't live to be 75.

Of course I would PREFER these children never be born, but that's just not happening. We have to deal with realities, not "should have beens." The children have ALREADY been born. Now it's time to go back and correct that mistake before it's too late.

And don't bother calling me callous in this. The callous ones were the people creating these children KNOWING they had no future, and doing it anyway out of greed to possess a child, or out of hedonistic lasciviousness.

A perfect example of a country that has DIRECTLY benefitted from this theology is China, who were once a barely functional third world country after the british occupation and are now a thriving industrial power capable of driving up world luxury costs through force of demand.

Vote logic. Vote reason.

Vote Genocide

[Wonderful]

Yes, John McCain supports genocide. Last night in the debate he said himself, "I want to kill an entire race of people."

[marchohare]

At 10/8/08 06:10 PM, Wonderful wrote: Yes, John McCain supports genocide. Last night in the debate he said himself, "I want to kill an entire race of people."

Did he specify which one?