And some wonder why we don't want the current 3rd party?

[jimnyc]

Because they are a little nuts and more like activists than presidential material. Ok, not like, this one IS an activist, and I'm glad she got arrested. Maybe she believes in a cause, but so do all of the presidential candidates, every 4 years. But you don't need to get involved in things that are illegal in order to support something. If you wanted to be taken seriously, don't be out acting like Code Pink or Cindy Sheehan.


Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein arrested in TexasJill Stein, a presidential candidate from the Green Party, has been arrested in Texas while attempting to resupply protesters camping out in trees to oppose the Keystone XL pipeline, according to anti-pipeline activists.

The Tar Sands Blockade activists said she was released soon after being taken to the Wood County jail in Quitman, TX.

“Dr. Jill Stein has been released from Wood County Jail on a Class B Misdemeanor Criminal Trespass charge,” the group’s website stated.

Tar Sands has been protesting against the costruction of the Keystone XL pipeline for the last month. However, a spokesperson for TransCanada, the company in charge of the pipeline project, confirmed they are preparing to build around the existing blockade.

Jill Stein and two other women came to resupply the tree-sitters in Winnsboro, Texas. Stein and a freelance journalist were subsequently detained by TransCanada security, and handed over to the police.

http://rt.com/usa/news/jill-stein-arrested-texas-694/

[SassyLady]

Yeah, Roseanne Barr is running for President and her VP pick is Cindy Sheehan. Total fruitcakes. Their platform is that they want to legalize drugs. I think they are the Freedom Party candidates.

[tailfins]

I hope they get majorities in places like Madison, WI and Cleveland, OH. I don't want people who think Obama is too conservative to feel like they HAVE to vote for Obama. I'm just a nice guy that way.

[fj1200]

Oh Jim, just vote for ANY of them and watch the change roll across the land.

[Classic Liberal]

Because they are a little nuts and more like activists than presidential material. Ok, not like, this one IS an activist, and I'm glad she got arrested. Maybe she believes in a cause, but so do all of the presidential candidates, every 4 years. But you don't need to get involved in things that are illegal in order to support something. If you wanted to be taken seriously, don't be out acting like Code Pink or Cindy Sheehan.



http://rt.com/usa/news/jill-stein-arrested-texas-694/

But the Green Party is the irrational radical leftist environmentalist whack jobs akin to the Democrat Party that simply wants more of the Democrats insanity.

On the other hand, the libertarians are the true constitutionalist classical liberals and classical conservatives who promote the constitutional stuff like REAL LIMITED GOVERNMENT & REAL INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM.

The Democrats are BIG government Neo-Communist and the Republicans are BIG government Neo-Fascist. The only constitutionalist are the libertarians.

What we really need is NO PARTIES. We need way, way more CLASSICAL LIBERAL/CLASSICAL CONSERVATIVE LIBERTARIANS operating a much, much more LIMITED GOVERNMENT who are promoting INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. Otherwise, we’ll just get more of the same, lesser and lesser individual freedom and more and more humongous government and trillions and trillions more $ in national debt.

[jimnyc]

But the Green Party is the irrational radical leftist environmentalist whack jobs akin to the Democrat Party that simply wants more of the Democrats insanity

I see, so you weren't arguing to end the "rigged duopoly" and have every party in every debate and every ballot - you were speaking for the party that YOU support. When presented with a 3rd party that you supposedly argue for, now you find a way to discount them as well.

You are correct about some of the radicals, and some of these idiots and nutters are those YOU support as well. Again, if they present someone the people want, they'll move forward. THE PEOPLE DON'T WANT THEM, or the votes and polls would show that they do, which they don't.

[jimnyc]

What we really need is NO PARTIES. We need way, way more CLASSICAL LIBERAL/CLASSICAL CONSERVATIVE LIBERTARIANS operating a much, much more LIMITED GOVERNMENT who are promoting INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. Otherwise, we’ll just get more of the same, lesser and lesser individual freedom and more and more humongous government and trillions and trillions more $ in national debt.

In other words, eliminate all the parties that support ideals and agendas that you disagree with, and institute a government that solely supports what YOU want. No wonder Rev thanks your regurgitated crap, you both are nutters who don't even realize the hypocrisy of this crap. :lol:

[Classic Liberal]

I see, so you weren't arguing to end the "rigged duopoly" and have every party in every debate and every ballot - you were speaking for the party that YOU support. When presented with a 3rd party that you supposedly argue for, now you find a way to discount them as well.

But I don’t support any “party.” As George Washington warned, political parties are nothing more than special interest mobs. I support particular candidates who are particularly tuned in with the Constitution. Just so happens that the Libertarian Party manages to put more of them out than the duopoly.

As far as the ballot goes I support a more uninform requirement for appearing on every state’s ballot.

As far as the national debate for the Presidency goes I support the requirement that every candidate that manages to qualify for enough state ballots to have a possibility to win the electoral college be invited to and participate in every Presidential Debate, I don’t give a damn what party they represent even no party.


You are correct about some of the radicals, and some of these idiots and nutters are those YOU support as well.

According to you, but who are you……really? The Candidates I support are constitutionalist promoting the Constitution, real limited government and real individual freedom. Your problem with that is what?


Again, if they present someone the people want, they'll move forward. THE PEOPLE DON'T WANT THEM, or the votes and polls would show that they do, which they don't.

How are “the people” supposed to know who they want when all third parties are ignored by major media, un-bribed by Wall Street and the other special interest loot because they, (Wall Street and the other special interest), spent all of their bribery money on the duopoly that has a lock on government power and the national debate is off limits to third party candidates?


In other words, eliminate all the parties that support ideals and agendas that you disagree with, and institute a government that solely supports what YOU want. No wonder Rev thanks your regurgitated crap, you both are nutters who don't even realize the hypocrisy of this crap. file:///C:\Users\Owner\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\ clip_image001.gif

So who’s promoting “eliminating” anybody? On the contrary, I promote the idea of the more the merrier. I simply “PERSONALLY” despise political parties, but until the nation gets smart enough to outlaw them by constitutional amendment, we’ll all just have to tolerate them.

Your “nutter” thingy is simply nothing less than a personal insult, irrelevant to any debate, but relevant only to your incivility. Congratulations for your consistency!!!

[jimnyc]

According to you, but who are you……really?

Part of the 90-95% involved in the primaries and polls that don't want anything at all to do with the idiots you support. It's really that simple, so get used to it. Until such time that America wants the crappy candidates being put forth by the 3rd parties to date, you're simply shit out of luck. The Ron Paul's, Gary Johnson's, Jill Stein's and Roseanne Barr's of politics amount to not much more than a joke at this point. The polls and ballots only reinforce what I am stating. And you guys can rant all you like about how the duopoly has things rigged, but they can hardly rig national polls. I'm sure you'll claim otherwise, just like people in New Mexico have claims about UFO's.

[aboutime]

In other words, eliminate all the parties that support ideals and agendas that you disagree with, and institute a government that solely supports what YOU want. No wonder Rev thanks your regurgitated crap, you both are nutters who don't even realize the hypocrisy of this crap. :lol:



jimnyc: What all of that boils down to...according to what C.L. has said is....An Absolute Democracy. Better known as MOB RULE.

[Classic Liberal]

Part of the 90-95% involved in the primaries and polls that don't want anything at all to do with the idiots you support.

Why am I not surprised that you don’t want anything to do with REAL limited government & REAL Individual liberty?


Until such time that America wants the crappy candidates being put forth by the 3rd parties to date, you're simply shit out of luck.The Ron Paul's, Gary Johnson's, Jill Stein's and Roseanne Barr's of politics amount to not much more than a joke at this point. The polls and ballots only reinforce what I am stating. And you guys can rant all you like about how the duopoly has things rigged, but they can hardly rig national polls. I'm sure you'll claim otherwise, just like people in New Mexico have claims about UFO's.

Well of course Jimmy the national media’s ignoring of third party candidates, the fact that ballot access is cumbersome and even outrageous in some states and the fact that the duopoly and it’s major media allies have rigged a preposterous system to block third party candidates from the national debate and the fact that the duopoly has loaded itself with Wall Street and special interest bribery loot to smother the airwaves with preposterous 30 second duopoly political adds, I’ll argue that the polls certainly are rigged just by the actions of “all of the above.”

[jimnyc]

Oh well, sucks to be you then. I know where I live I was capable of voting for the 3rd party crap if I wanted to in the primaries. I was able to respond to polls which included them - but laughed at them instead. And you expect us to believe the rest of America had RP and other candidates removed from primary ballots? That national polls excluded them? Why am I not surprised that the sore losers would lie once again.

[Classic Liberal]

jimnyc: What all of that boils down to...according to what C.L. has said is....An Absolute Democracy. Better known as MOB RULE.

Actually what you have now is duopoly mob rule a duopoly dictatorship.

So, now you can explain if you can, if you dare attempt it, how what I advocate for is “Absolute Democracy.” Your every post proves that you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about!

[Classic Liberal]

Oh well, sucks to be you then. I know where I live I was capable of voting for the 3rd party crap if I wanted to in the primaries. I was able to respond to polls which included them - but laughed at them instead.

What primaries? Which 3rd party primaries were telecast nationally? Which 3rd part primaries were swarmed by the national media and their elections conducted with taxpayer’s facilities, voting equipment, ballots and utilities? Tell me about all of that Jimmy!


And you expect us to believe the rest of America had RP and other candidates removed from primary ballots? That national polls excluded them? Why am I not surprised that the sore losers would lie once again.

Who said national polls excluded them Jimmy? If you’re claiming it was me, please post my quote that proves it, ok?

Then you can tell us all about how much face time third party candidates got on major news programming. Tell us all about how they were invited to appear on Meet The Press, Face The Nation, Fox New Sunday and all the rest of the 24-7 news shows on cable. Oh yeah! Gary Johnson actually got 120 seconds one time on Fox Neil Cavuto, Whoopie!!!

[Gaffer]

So CL how many of those third party's have candidates running for congress, who are they and where?

[jimnyc]

What primaries? Which 3rd party primaries were telecast nationally? Which 3rd part primaries were swarmed by the national media and their elections conducted with taxpayer’s facilities, voting equipment, ballots and utilities? Tell me about all of that Jimmy!

Who said national polls excluded them Jimmy? If you’re claiming it was me, please post my quote that proves it, ok?

Then you can tell us all about how much face time third party candidates got on major news programming. Tell us all about how they were invited to appear on Meet The Press, Face The Nation, Fox New Sunday and all the rest of the 24-7 news shows on cable. Oh yeah! Gary Johnson actually got 120 seconds one time on Fox Neil Cavuto, Whoopie!!!

The media gives the public what they want, or they would be out of business. The American public doesn't want the candidates you like. No one really ever heard of Perot when he ran, then he started getting a lot of attention and airtime, as a decent chunk of America like him and his plan. The 3rd party candidates that are out there today aren't getting a lot of airtime and attention as the overwhelming majority of America has no interest in them. You simply can't handle the FACT that you like a candidate or candidates that no one else really has an interest in, so you lash out and blame the media, the "rigged duopoly" and other crap. Hell, Rev thought Ron Paul had a great chance and was a "great strategist", no complaints of the rigged duopoly and other crap. Then the excuses start to pour out when people like RP get scoffed at and disappear from the national stage, because America simply didn't want him either, and the primaries and polls showed as much. Blame the entire country, blame the duopoly, blame the media, hell - blame me - but until a 3rd party candidate is put out there that people actually think can make a difference, you're stuck whining and crying in your cereal bowl. Deal with it.

[jimnyc]

So CL how many of those third party's have candidates running for congress, who are they and where?

They are hidden by the MSM and the rigged duopoly is making it impossible for them to get elected in Congress. :coffee:

[Gaffer]

They are hidden by the MSM and the rigged duopoly is making it impossible for them to get elected in Congress. :coffee:

The interesting thing is, when I go to vote I don't see their names on the ballot either. Must be a conspiracy. :rolleyes:

[Classic Liberal]

So CL how many of those third party's have candidates running for congress, who are they and where?

Every 3rd party has candidates running for Congress as well as many local and state government post. It’s easy enough to find out who they are with a little time on an internet search if you’re really interested.

[Classic Liberal]

They are hidden by the MSM and the rigged duopoly is making it impossible for them to get elected in Congress. :coffee:

You finally got something right! They’re mostly ignored by media in general.

[Classic Liberal]

The interesting thing is, when I go to vote I don't see their names on the ballot either. Must be a conspiracy. :rolleyes:

Maybe you just weren’t interested in looking at anything on your ballot except the party candidates who brainwashed you 24-7 with major media. Funny thing, my ballot had several 3rd party candidates on it for the Presidency and the Congress and several state and local offices.

[jimnyc]

You finally got something right! They’re mostly ignored by media in general.

Because no one wants them in office.

[Classic Liberal]

The media gives the public what they want, or they would be out of business.

Sure Jimmy, that’s why media has a popularity rating just slightly above the Congress, huh? I think it goes something like this from the bottom up, serial murders, 0 popularity, lawyers, totally unpopular until you need one, politicians, only popular to party hacks, the Congress, only popular to state politicians they deliver the pork to and major media who no sane person believes and every sane person knows they lie.


The American public doesn't want the candidates you like.

The American public in general hardly knows the candidates I like, the duopoly has rigged the system to make them irrelevant.


No one really ever heard of Perot when he ran, then he started getting a lot of attention and airtime, as a decent chunk of America like him and his plan.

Ross Perot was a multi-billionaire, who bought major media time necessary to get his message to the public with his OWN money. He became popular with money and bought media time.


The 3rd party candidates that are out there today aren't getting a lot of airtime and attention as the overwhelming majority of America has no interest in them.

The “overwhelming majority” never get attention because they never get the free airtime major biased media gives to the duopoly.


You simply can't handle the FACT that you like a candidate or candidates that no one else really has an interest in, so you lash out and blame the media, the "rigged duopoly" and other crap.

And you can’t debunk the “FACT” that the majority doesn’t have any interest in them because major media ignores them and drools all over the duopoly candidates with “FREE” airtime. It’s not rocket science Jimmy. It’s perfectly apparent political bias and totally dishonest to deny it.


Hell, Rev thought Ron Paul had a great chance and was a "great strategist", no complaints of the rigged duopoly and other crap. Then the excuses start to pour out when people like RP get scoffed at and disappear from the national stage, because America simply didn't want him either, and the primaries and polls showed as much. Blame the entire country, blame the duopoly, blame the media, hell - blame me
Ron Paul was ignored by major media and Gary Johnson was totally ignored by major media. Ron Paul was slandered by Republican Neo-Con RINO hacks like Carl Rove, Hannity and O’Reilly all over Fox News. There was actually an active campaign on Fox to discredit Ron Paul but no other Republican candidate. Fox even canceled Judge Napolitano’s program “Freedom Watch” on Fox Business channel because the Judge was promoting Ron Paul.


- but until a 3rd party candidate is put out there that people actually think can make a difference, you're stuck whining and crying in your cereal bowl. Deal with it.


I don’t whine and cry Jimmy, I simply tell the truth which you cannot debunk. Your stupid childish school ground tactics of debate are amusing and your personal insults simply prove you’re inability of rational civil debate.

[jimnyc]

Oh well, I guess you and your "truth" will have to deal with being ignored. So sorry to hear about your unfortunate news.

[Classic Liberal]

Because no one wants them in office.

Because they’re partisan duopoly hacks licking the boots of the status-quo duopoly candidates to achieve access to the power the duopoly has cornered.

[Classic Liberal]

Oh well, I guess you and your "truth" will have to deal with being ignored. So sorry to hear about your unfortunate news.

But it’s your loss because the duopoly owns you and you don’t even know it.

[jimnyc]

Because they’re partisan duopoly hacks licking the boots of the status-quo duopoly candidates to achieve access to the power the duopoly has cornered.

That's terrible. Good thing America has no interest in these twits, or we might actually have an issue on our hands.

[jimnyc]

But it’s your loss because the duopoly owns you and you don’t even know it.

Interesting. I thought duopoly inferred "two". I know there's Democrat. I know there's Republican. I must be hallucinating about the candidates I've voted for in my life that were from neither party then.

[Classic Liberal]

Interesting. I thought duopoly inferred "two". I know there's Democrat. I know there's Republican. I must be hallucinating about the candidates I've voted for in my life that were from neither party then.

Oh! So then you’ve voted for those 3rd party candidates that nobody wants? Now that is interesting, care to name some?

[jimnyc]

Oh! So then you’ve voted for those 3rd party candidates that nobody wants? Now that is interesting, care to name some?

Are those candidates of the past currently running now? When I say the current crop of candidates being put forth by the 3rd party such, and America wants no part of them - you DO realize that I am not speaking about past elections, no? I can make it clearer for you if you ask politely! :laugh:

[Classic Liberal]

Are those candidates of the past currently running now? When I say the current crop of candidates being put forth by the 3rd party such, and America wants no part of them - you DO realize that I am not speaking about past elections, no? I can make it clearer for you if you ask politely! :laugh:

Now why did I know you wouldn’t produce any 3rd party candidates that you ever voted for Jimmy?

[jimnyc]

Now why did I know you wouldn’t produce any 3rd party candidates that you ever voted for Jimmy?

Because you're an idiot, and I never said the 3rd party candidates I voted for were for the presidency, as they have all pretty much sucked. I have voted 3rd party quite a few times in mayor races and local government, where they suck a whole lot less than idiots like Ron Paul and Johnson.

[Classic Liberal]

Because you're an idiot, and I never said the 3rd party candidates I voted for were for the presidency, as they have all pretty much sucked. I have voted 3rd party quite a few times in mayor races and local government, where they suck a whole lot less than idiots like Ron Paul and Johnson.

You’ll surely excuse me if I don’t believe you, right Jimmy?

To bad you’re not willing to articulate what you find that “sucks” about Ron Paul and Gary Johnson and real limited government and individual liberty and constitutionalism, huh Jimmy?

[Kathianne]

You’ll surely excuse me if I don’t believe you, right Jimmy?

To bad you’re not willing to articulate what you find that “sucks” about Ron Paul and Gary Johnson and real limited government and individual liberty and constitutionalism, huh Jimmy?

Perchance it's been done before, with others less rude than yourself. It's now less than 72 hours than polls will be open and most here plan on voting for the candidates we have, not the ones that were not chosen.

You may rant all you like, for certainly you fail in persuading anyone to take up your ideology.

[jimnyc]

You’ll surely excuse me if I don’t believe you, right Jimmy?

To bad you’re not willing to articulate what you find that “sucks” about Ron Paul and Gary Johnson and real limited government and individual liberty and constitutionalism, huh Jimmy?

And why would I care whether YOU believe me or not? It doesn't change my local voting habits and never will. And I didn't vote for these candidates for the reasons you claim to like Johnson or other shitty candidates. I voted for them as I looked at ever candidate individually, and these candidates closely aligned with what I wanted from our local government and what I thought was best for our township. The democrat and republican positions in my area didn't offer jack shit, so I didn't vote for them. I'm not getting into a long drawn out discussion about those 2 idiots you mention. The majority of the policies and things they want would NEVER make it through congress. It's akin to grammar school days and a candidate offering soda in the water fountains. And Ron Paul is just an old racist who still denies things he signed off of on his own letterhead. We don't need more racists in government. These guys simply have policies and outlooks that are doomed to fail and they are completely unrealistic.

[jimnyc]

Perchance it's been done before, with others less rude than yourself. It's now less than 72 hours than polls will be open and most here plan on voting for the candidates we have, not the ones that were not chosen.

You may rant all you like, for certainly you fail in persuading anyone to take up your ideology.

Yep, maybe if he searched he would learn some more instead of requesting people to relieve the BS we have already discussed about these candidates who have ALREADY FAILED.

[Classic Liberal]

Perchance it's been done before, with others less rude than yourself. It's now less than 72 hours than polls will be open and most here plan on voting for the candidates we have, not the ones that were not chosen.

You may rant all you like, for certainly you fail in persuading anyone to take up your ideology.

Perchance it’s not my agenda to persuade anybody to take up my ideology, but rather to point out how absurd and self-destructing your political ideology really is, huh Kat?

[aboutime]

Classic Liberal. You still have not answered my question about whether You were born this full of hatred, and stupidity. Or if you learned it in pre-school? Which still gives you time to correct your errors, and become a THINKING human being for the first time.

[fj1200]

^Are you still operating under the false impression that "classic liberal" = modern-day progressive?

[Kathianne]

Perchance it’s not my agenda to persuade anybody to take up my ideology, but rather to point out how absurd and self-destructing your political ideology really is, huh Kat?

and yet you've failed to bring anyone to agreeing with you. Sad, really.

[aboutime]

^Are you still operating under the false impression that "classic liberal" = modern-day progressive?



fj1200. Since you seem so determined to defend classic liberal in such rhetorical ways.

How bout you answer the questions directed at Classic Liberal? Since he refuses to answer my questions. Maybe you can.

Nobody really cares what DEFINITION both of you seem to need to stress here. We operate by the words we read being said.

Rhetoric, and Semantics is a Liberal game Obama plays that always pushes people away. Rather than hanging around to hear the truth Obama can't speak.

[Kathianne]

To anyone or no one.

Classic Liberal has so far posted as a very angry little man, who really, really, really wishes that political parties, known as partisans at the time of the Founders, would go away.

As Washington himself acknowledged; as evidenced by the writers of the Federalist Papers, the Founders knew the partisans would form, which indeed they did before Washington left office. To think they will suddenly leave, regardless of those like Ron Paul supporters or Green Party supporters is folly.

If CL really wants to bring his message, he should propose how and why it should be done.

[Robert A Whit]

In other words, eliminate all the parties that support ideals and agendas that you disagree with, and institute a government that solely supports what YOU want. No wonder Rev thanks your regurgitated crap, you both are nutters who don't even realize the hypocrisy of this crap. :lol:

Actually all he wants to do is unwind all the progress that Democrats made and do things the right way.

[jimnyc]

Classic Liberal has so far posted as a very angry little man

You have NO idea. His public side is tame compared to how he responds in private. I'll say no more, but sailors would blush.

[Kathianne]

You have NO idea. His public side is tame compared to how he responds in private. I'll say no more, but sailors would blush.

That's why you get the 'big bucks!' LOL!

[Kathianne]

Actually all he wants to do is unwind all the progress that Democrats made and do things the right way.

Yeah, with no plan of how and lots of insults for everyone. Great plan.

[aboutime]

You have NO idea. His public side is tame compared to how he responds in private. I'll say no more, but sailors would blush.



jimnyc: As a former sailor. That's saying something. But at least sailors have the decency not to respond "in-kind" to idiots.

[Kathianne]

jimnyc: As a former sailor. That's saying something. But at least sailors have the decency not to respond "in-kind" to idiots.

I'm pretty sure Jim hasn't over responded to the idiot.

[fj1200]

fj1200. Since you seem so determined to defend classic liberal in such rhetorical ways.

How bout you answer the questions directed at Classic Liberal? Since he refuses to answer my questions. Maybe you can.

Nobody really cares what DEFINITION both of you seem to need to stress here. We operate by the words we read being said.

Rhetoric, and Semantics is a Liberal game Obama plays that always pushes people away. Rather than hanging around to hear the truth Obama can't speak.

So the answer is yes, you are still operating under that false impression. The pedantic questions you ask are akin to me asking, "when did you stop beating your wife?" The issue is not semantics the issue is proper understanding of the English language and knowing what words mean. He states that he desires a limited government based on the Constitution, things that you purportedly desire as well, but repeatedly presume that he desires big government intervention simply based on his name.

[Robert A Whit]

I can report that in CA, our ballot was loaded with those wanting to be president.

I had to go well down the ballot to locate Romney and fill in the arrow.

Bad thing is, I put my ballot in the PO Friday so I know it went out that day. Then on TV I see that those sent by mail must be at the county office to be counted by 8 pm the latest. Now I fret the PO won't get it there on time. I have no way of finding out. It is but 30 miles to the voting center so I remain optomistic. Still, Romnay has no chance in Ca.

My ballot ran into two full pages and had things to vote for on all 4 sides. Postage was .65 cents.

[aboutime]

So the answer is yes, you are still operating under that false impression. The pedantic questions you ask are akin to me asking, "when did you stop beating your wife?" The issue is not semantics the issue is proper understanding of the English language and knowing what words mean. He states that he desires a limited government based on the Constitution, things that you purportedly desire as well, but repeatedly presume that he desires big government intervention simply based on his name.



fj. You attempt to impress yourself above was a success. Now, ask anyone else here if they are feeling the same.

[fj1200]

fj. You attempt to impress yourself above was a success. Now, ask anyone else here if they are feeling the same.

I would like to claim such but you didn't liken me to Obama. Rats. So how is your impression coming along?

[aboutime]

I would like to claim such but you didn't liken me to Obama. Rats. So how is your impression coming along?


Make up your mind. If I attempt to do an impression of you. It still reminds me of Obama.

[Robert A Whit]

Yeah, with no plan of how and lots of insults for everyone. Great plan.

I admit to not reading 100 percent of the posts. I like Romney. Is it up to ME to formulate his plan? I see that CL is getting insulted. Let me study all the posts. Maybe I am wrong.

HE is clearly against Obama. And against Democrats. While not supporting republicans, at least he is not backing democrats. :salute:

[DragonStryk72]

Because they are a little nuts and more like activists than presidential material. Ok, not like, this one IS an activist, and I'm glad she got arrested. Maybe she believes in a cause, but so do all of the presidential candidates, every 4 years. But you don't need to get involved in things that are illegal in order to support something. If you wanted to be taken seriously, don't be out acting like Code Pink or Cindy Sheehan.



http://rt.com/usa/news/jill-stein-arrested-texas-694/

Um... why is this proof against 3rd parties, cause... Nixon. Not saying what she did was right, but the thing is, this isn't proof against having a 3rd party because our top two parties have done worse already, so why do they still exist?

[revelarts]

And some wonder why we don't want the current 3rd party? (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37582-And-some-wonder-why-we-don-t-want-the-current-3rd-party)


Because they are a little nuts and more like activists than presidential material. Ok, not like, this one IS an activist, and I'm glad she got arrested. Maybe she believes in a cause, but so do all of the presidential candidates, every 4 years. But you don't need to get involved in things that are illegal in order to support something. If you wanted to be taken seriously, don't be out acting like Code Pink or Cindy Sheehan.
http://rt.com/usa/news/jill-stein-arrested-texas-694/


Yeah, Roseanne Barr is running for President and her VP pick is Cindy Sheehan. Total fruitcakes. Their platform is that they want to legalize drugs. I think they are the Freedom Party candidates.


Oh Jim, just vote for ANY of them and watch the change roll across the land.


sooo
The REAL reason you don't want or take seriously ANY 3rd parties is because of the candidates? Not all that other stuff that's been thrown around in other threads?


Look Jm and Fj i just get impression you guys just like the status quo. Ds and Rs only.

If Romney were running in a 3rd party would he be considered a reasonable candidate to vote for? Somehow i doubt it. Seems if they aren't in the R party no ones worth voting for.

[jimnyc]

And some wonder why we don't want the current 3rd party? (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37582-And-some-wonder-why-we-don-t-want-the-current-3rd-party)










sooo
The REAL reason you don't want or take seriously ANY 3rd parties is because of the candidates? Not all that other stuff that's been thrown around in other threads?


Look Jm and Fj i just get impression you guys just like the status quo. Ds and Rs only.

If Romney were running in a 3rd party would he be considered a reasonable candidate to vote for? Somehow i doubt it. Seems if they aren't in the R party no ones worth voting for.

What are you blabbing about? That's ALL I've ever said in any of the threads, that the current crop of 3rd party candidates SUCK. The rest is you making shit up because you're still mad that the "GREAT STRATEGIST" turned into the very dud I told you he would before the primaries even got started. I've voted 3rd party before because I liked the candidates and what I believed they could accomplish for my area, and the (R) running at those times absolutely sucked. So stop making shit up and realize that the 3rd party idiots running today are simply not wanted.

[revelarts]

ok jim bo

you guys go ahead and vote Romney and as FJ said, watch the change roll across the land.
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Abbey Marie]

So the answer is yes, you are still operating under that false impression. The pedantic questions you ask are akin to me asking, "when did you stop beating your wife?" The issue is not semantics the issue is proper understanding of the English language and knowing what words mean. He states that he desires a limited government based on the Constitution, things that you purportedly desire as well, but repeatedly presume that he desires big government intervention simply based on his name.

Until all the flaming began and made the posts less than desirable to read, that was my impression. Proabably a Mike Church listener.

I think some are getting confused by his screen name. :dunno:

[fj1200]

Make up your mind. If I attempt to do an impression of you. It still reminds me of Obama.

:facepalm99:


Look Jm and Fj i just get impression you guys just like the status quo. Ds and Rs only.

It's not a matter of the status quo, it's a matter of who has a chance to get elected and who would have a chance to enact change without completely alienating the rest of government. We agree on a whole lot of stuff but tossing a vote out to a third party just for the sake of it is wasted IMO.

Are you just kind of bumming because the Tea Party has accomplished a whole lot more while working within the system than the Libertarians working outside of it? My point is that it's just not a vote for POTUS that's necessary, it's votes for those down the line and holding representatives accountable for their actions. The Republicans are losing votes just by having, err, questionable candidates in Akin and Mourdoch just like they lost votes with the witch candidate in MD and the guy in CO who shot himself in the foot with his gay comment in '10. The Rs lost their chance at control of Senate then and they might have lost their chance at control of the Senate now so how much better do you think a third party candidate is going to do?


you guys go ahead and vote Romney and as FJ said, watch the change roll across the land.
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

You might want to check the subject of that whole sentence before misusing it. ;)

[Abbey Marie]

ok jim bo

you guys go ahead and vote Romney and as FJ said, watch the change roll across the land.
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

As a conservative, I don't want change. I want things to go back to the way they were before Obama was elected, and before "progressive" courts took over the other branches.

[fj1200]

Until all the flaming began and made the posts less than desirable to read, that was my impression. Proabably a Mike Church listener.

I think some are getting confused by his screen name. :dunno:

I think you're spot on although I don't know Mike Church. That some are confused by his screen name is quite sad IMO but doesn't explain how they are confused by other clearly conservative posters without "liberal" in their name. :confused:




p.s. see what trying gets me. :laugh:

[fj1200]

As a conservative, I don't want change. I want things to go back to the way they were before Obama was elected, and before "progressive" courts took over the other branches.

You probably need to go back to before W as POTUS or FDR. :poke:

[revelarts]

As a conservative, I don't want change. I want things to go back to the way they were before Obama was elected, and before "progressive" courts took over the other branches.


You probably need to go back to before W as POTUS or FDR. :poke:

Exactly Fj
it's Change that won't happen under Romney. just more of the same Big R policies.

[fj1200]

Exactly Fj
it's Change that won't happen under Romney. just more of the same Big R policies.

That remains to be seen in what Romney can actually accomplish when going up against a possibly divided Congress. The other problem may just be that it's the change that the country will accept; you can't turn the titanic on a dime and the best we can hope for short term is to just avoid the iceberg.

Toss your vote away on a third party in the primary but don't abandon the primaries. Goldwater begat Reagan, Ron just might beget Rand.

[revelarts]

:facepalm99:
It's not a matter of the status quo, it's a matter of who has a chance to get elected and who would have a chance to enact change without completely alienating the rest of government. We agree on a whole lot of stuff but tossing a vote out to a third party just for the sake of it is wasted IMO.

see when i read that FJ, what I hear is.

You know King George and Parliament are the only way we'll get any real redress on these issues, defying the appointed Governor is not reasonable. (Someone named ..uh.. SLIM chimes In, and says "and against the Law") and a war with England is unthinkable and ridiculous. There no chance of defeating the crown by those means, your radical talk of freedom and no stamp act taxes are good and we all really want that but it's not realistic....

it's just defeatist talk to me , sure the are odds slim but it's far from impossible to make a dent, ESPECIALLY compared to the what it took to win the freedoms we've inherited in the 1st place.



Are you just kind of bumming because the Tea Party has accomplished a whole lot more while working within the system than the Libertarians working outside of it? My point is that it's just not a vote for POTUS that's necessary, it's votes for those down the line and holding representatives accountable for their actions. The Republicans are losing votes just by having, err, questionable candidates in Akin and Mourdoch just like they lost votes with the witch candidate in MD and the guy in CO who shot himself in the foot with his gay comment in '10. The Rs lost their chance at control of Senate then and they might have lost their chance at control of the Senate now so how much better do you think a third party candidate is going to do?

I don't care if it comes from withen or without any party, as long as the change happens. All parties are welcome to the restore the constitution movement IMO FJ.

[fj1200]

see when i read that FJ, what I hear is.

You know King George and Parliament...

I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were still ruled by a monarch across the pond. :slap: Unless you and your half percent of the electorate are going to take up arms against DC you might want to look into how are country actually works.

[revelarts]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were still ruled by a monarch across the pond. :slap: Unless you and your half percent of the electorate are going to take up arms against DC you might want to look into how are country actually works.

aaand he dodges the bullet by Positioning the comment as fully literal.

ok FJ.

[fj1200]

aaand he dodges the bullet by Positioning the comment as fully literal.

ok FJ.

Let's see. Did I dodge a bullet or did I just decide to step off the:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Carousel-bunkyo-japan-2010.ogv/mid-Carousel-bunkyo-japan-2010.ogv.jpg

[Abbey Marie]

You probably need to go back to before W as POTUS or FDR. :poke:

Well, I'm realistic. And not everything about the good ol' days was good. I'll settle for the days before we started apologizing to other countries for being who we are, and before Obamacare, and before letting our guys die in the streets without sending them aid, etc., etc. And I will especially settle for integrity.

Also why I put the "and" in my comment.

[jimnyc]

ok jim bo

you guys go ahead and vote Romney and as FJ said, watch the change roll across the land.
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

And you go ahead and keep whining and making shit up because your idol went down in flames.

[jimnyc]

aaand he dodges the bullet by Positioning the comment as fully literal.

ok FJ.

http://www.playandroid.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/U-Mad-Bro-300x265.jpg

[Robert A Whit]

Until all the flaming began and made the posts less than desirable to read, that was my impression. Proabably a Mike Church listener.

I think some are getting confused by his screen name. :dunno:

I must be blessed to know the actual meaning of a true LIBERAL.

Words can be our friend or cause arguments.

Take the word homosexual for instance.

That single word defines either sex. Male or female, makes no difference.

But some dipwad decided he needed more than one word.

So he invented GAY!!!

I have yet to meet a homosexual that was gay.

Gay means happy. It has nothing to do with a state of actions. It is an emotion.

Same as happy is an emotion.

I notice that some posters apparently totally don't read each word. I suggest reading posts two times. Maybe three.

See if the words mean what you mean.

I often notice that poster A makes statement A but the reply back is very often to the extent that Poster A had said something entirely different.

I notice some of you agree with a poster then somebody that I thought was on your side gets bashed by you for words the poor sucker never even said.

I don't want to round up examples but let me offer this paraphrase to help out.

I read a statement by a poster where said poster totally agreed with another poster. And somehow the reader got it wrong so proceeded to attack the other poster.

I was amazed.

I prefer to not say the actual words given it causes problems.

But the general idea is try to read more carefully. And when replying, try to be even more careful.