Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Georgia in 2010?

[Will Dockery]

jeanie wrote:

we need all Republicans no more Demorcratic

I say we toss 'em both out.

[Will Dockery]

Bill in Dville wrote:

<quoted text>
Yep, it's funny that certain low information voters think that those that support the right side (although I'm a Libertarian) were OK with spending under W. I certainly wasn't.

Looks like we are officially sitting at the same table, Bill, since as of the last election, when fot the first time in my life I gave up on the Democratic party and voted Libertarian.

Hopefully in 2016 we will have a stronger run!

--
"Over You" / Will Dockery & The Shadowville All-Stars:
http://www.reverbnation.com/play_now/song_132...

[Yep]

Bill in Dville wrote:

<quoted text>
Yep, it's funny that certain low information voters think that those that support the right side (although I'm a Libertarian) were OK with spending under W. I certainly wasn't.

So your idea of doing whats right for the country is to support a candidate who has NO chance go get elected. You don't value your vote and have NO right to say a damn thing.

[Bill in Dville]

Yep wrote:

<quoted text>
So your idea of doing whats right for the country is to support a candidate who has NO chance go get elected. You don't value your vote and have NO right to say a damn thing.

I am TRULY amazed how someone I've never met can tell what I value and what I don't value. Once again, you're full of $hit, but no one's surprised. And, to tell someone they have NO right to say something, well, what I'm about to type will probably be wasted on you, you won't be able to comprehend it...

Oh yeah, you're probably "Einstein" from a year or so ago...

Go back a bit of time in Topix (if you can figure out how to do that) and see that I was the poster telling people voting for someone that has no rational chance of winning was wasting their vote, akin to voting "present" as the POTUSA did in the Senate MANY times. If you would have seen those posts, you'd see how "low information" you are.

I am certainly not a liberal (I can think for myself, don't need to live off the government teat and believe we are responsible for ourselves) and not conservative enough to be a Republican. I disagree with them them on several things, including religion and abortion.

If that isn't enough to "help" you figure things out, read this part REAL SLOW so it will sink in:

Romney was not my 1st choice for the Republicans. Nor my second. Probably not my 3rd, but most everyone else was gone by then. Anyone who had a reasonable chance that was running against BO would have received my vote.

I voted FOR Romney, but MY vote was a vote against BO, because I knew that Gary Johnson did not have a chance of winning. Same thing happened in the 2008 election.

'nuff said.

[General Robert E Lee]

Yep wrote:

<quoted text>
So your idea of doing whats right for the country is to support a candidate who has NO chance go get elected. You don't value your vote and have NO right to say a damn thing.

I would put out there, that a lot of people place no value on their votes, from any side, and those that do so, or those that do not vote, are clueless.

[Bill in Dville]

General Robert E Lee wrote:

<quoted text>
I would put out there, that a lot of people place no value on their votes, from any side, and those that do so, or those that do not vote, are clueless.

+1

I wish we could require people to take an information type test to determine whether or not they're able to vote. Some people are too clueless and uneducated to vote.

Also, I REALLY wish those that have lived off the government for a certain period of time (e.g., welfare brood mares) weren't able to vote...

[Aggie23]

Bill in Dville wrote:

<quoted text>
+1
I wish we could require people to take an information type test to determine whether or not they're able to vote. Some people are too clueless and uneducated to vote.
Also, I REALLY wish those that have lived off the government for a certain period of time (e.g., welfare brood mares) weren't able to vote...

This is something my husband and I have discussed, it seems self evident that those who receive "unearned" benefits from the government should be barred from voting until they are back to supporting themselves and contributing to the country. And this is not to say there should not be programs to help those in need, of course there should be, but it comes with consequences as well as benefits. There is a quote that is often attributed to Alexander Tyler, writing in the 1700's: "A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy...."

This problem was even recognized as long as 2000 years ago in the Roman Empire. A late 1st century poet, Juvenal, wrote complaining of the populace that voted for the candidate who offered them the most "bread and circuses" (free wheat and expensive gladiatorial games) as opposed to the best man for the position.

[average joe]

Two words= DEMOCRATS SUCK!!!!!!!!

[Synergy]

Aggie23 wrote:

<quoted text>
This is something my husband and I have discussed, it seems self evident that those who receive "unearned" benefits from the government should be barred from voting until they are back to supporting themselves and contributing to the country. And this is not to say there should not be programs to help those in need, of course there should be, but it comes with consequences as well as benefits. There is a quote that is often attributed to Alexander Tyler, writing in the 1700's: "A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy...."
This problem was even recognized as long as 2000 years ago in the Roman Empire. A late 1st century poet, Juvenal, wrote complaining of the populace that voted for the candidate who offered them the most "bread and circuses" (free wheat and expensive gladiatorial games) as opposed to the best man for the position.

Excellent post.+1

[Will Dockery]

Yep wrote:

<quoted text>
So your idea of doing whats right for the country is to support a candidate who has NO chance go get elected. You don't value your vote and have NO right to say a damn thing.

I've heard that so many times before... but why vote for someone you don't believe in?

As Gary Johnson himself says: "A wasted vote is voting for somebody you don't believe in and there were a lot of wasted votes tonight. There were more wasted votes tonight than I've ever seen. We all should be proud of ourselves because over the next four years none of us are gonna have to say we are responsible for this. I didn't vote for either one of 'em, I voted for Gary Johnson," Gary Johnson said.

Will Dockery: I couldn't stand Romney or Obama, so I voted third party for Gary Johnson... I just hope to see a valid third party arise in my lifetime to break up the corrupt Republican-Democrat monopoly. Both parties are ruining America in their own seperate ways and agendas. In my opinion. But enough of all that silliness, let's get back to what matters... the Local Music scene!

A. M.: I understand. I voted for Romney but only because he was the lesser of the two evils...and I knew if we split the votes it would be a guarantee that Obama would slide back in. Was a disaster regardless. Wish we had a no-party government with a presidential board instead on one man heading it all...

Will Dockery: I dunno... I'm old enough to remember Nixon, the quintessential Republican, and I detected a similar /sinister/ gleam in Romney's eyes. The problem with Obama seems to me that, like Jimmy Carter, he was just /too/ nice for the job of President. We need a real Leader again, which we haven't seen since at least Clinton, maybe Reagan. Yes, I actually thrived personally in the Reagan years. Reagan knew how to connect with all people, a talent the two bozos running this year both lack for very different reasons.

The Third Party will grow as more and more Americans wake up and reject the two party monopoly of Republican-Democrat.

--
Gone Too Far / Will Dockery & The Shadowville All-Stars:
http://www.reverbnation.com/play_now/song_115...

[Aggie23]

@Will Dockery
I understand your position, but I still look at it as though it would have been better to vote for whomever you thought was the best of two bads, knowing one of them would be the victor- and based on most of Johnson's positions I would presume the choice would be Romney.

And, while I have never been a proponent of third parties - thanks Ross Perot for giving us Clinton- it may be time for a third party, but my choice would be the Tea Party splitting off from Republicans. I am in complete agreement with you on the Republican establishment, but that comes from my position as a social and fiscal conservative. They caved from a position of strength last year and gave us the sequestration agreement, which somehow those of us "common folk" knew from the get-go was a mistake for the Republicans. Let's see, if we don't reach an agreement, taxes go up and Defense gets cut - sounds like a win/win for Democrats, where is the incentive to bargain? And I have yet to see Boehner truly display a backbone when push came to shove - maybe he'll surprise me yet. Would a Tea Party third party come to "power" anytime soon? No, but what does it matter if Republicans that do get elected go wishy-washy.

Sorry, but your assessment of Romney is way off base. First off, Nixon is not the quintessential Republican as far as the base is concerned. He was a typical moderate. Regrettably, he would fit in with our "establishment" Republicans. And come on, "sinister gleam". I think there are so many stories that have come out about his true character and what he has done to help people - he is just one who prefers to do his good works in private, I respect that.

Jimmy Carter - I used to believe he was a decent man who unfortunately was simply incompetent. However, his words and actions over the last decade have ripped that "nice" facade off entirely. And I wish Obama were as incompetent as Carter, unfortunately with the sycophantic media covering his tail every time something goes wrong (fast and furious, Benghazi, and the true nature of Obamacare as examples) we are now stuck with him for four more years - and there is a lot of damage he can do in that time.

So while I may be beginning to agree on a third party, you and I are far apart on which party we wish to see develop. I don't see us ever agreeing, but I do enjoy reading your point of view.

[all r crazy]

we need all new ones,

[Synergy]

Aggie23 wrote:

@Will Dockery
I understand your position, but I still look at it as though it would have been better to vote for whomever you thought was the best of two bads, knowing one of them would be the victor- and based on most of Johnson's positions I would presume the choice would be Romney.
And, while I have never been a proponent of third parties - thanks Ross Perot for giving us Clinton- it may be time for a third party, but my choice would be the Tea Party splitting off from Republicans. I am in complete agreement with you on the Republican establishment, but that comes from my position as a social and fiscal conservative. They caved from a position of strength last year and gave us the sequestration agreement, which somehow those of us "common folk" knew from the get-go was a mistake for the Republicans. Let's see, if we don't reach an agreement, taxes go up and Defense gets cut - sounds like a win/win for Democrats, where is the incentive to bargain? And I have yet to see Boehner truly display a backbone when push came to shove - maybe he'll surprise me yet. Would a Tea Party third party come to "power" anytime soon? No, but what does it matter if Republicans that do get elected go wishy-washy.
Sorry, but your assessment of Romney is way off base. First off, Nixon is not the quintessential Republican as far as the base is concerned. He was a typical moderate. Regrettably, he would fit in with our "establishment" Republicans. And come on, "sinister gleam". I think there are so many stories that have come out about his true character and what he has done to help people - he is just one who prefers to do his good works in private, I respect that.
Jimmy Carter - I used to believe he was a decent man who unfortunately was simply incompetent. However, his words and actions over the last decade have ripped that "nice" facade off entirely. And I wish Obama were as incompetent as Carter, unfortunately with the sycophantic media covering his tail every time something goes wrong (fast and furious, Benghazi, and the true nature of Obamacare as examples) we are now stuck with him for four more years - and there is a lot of damage he can do in that time.
So while I may be beginning to agree on a third party, you and I are far apart on which party we wish to see develop. I don't see us ever agreeing, but I do enjoy reading your point of view.

You and I were separated at birth. Truly great post!+++++1

[Will Dockery]

Aggie23 wrote:

@Will Dockery
I understand your position, but I still look at it as though it would have been better to vote for whomever you thought was the best of two bads, knowing one of them would be the victor- and based on most of Johnson's positions I would presume the choice would be Romney.
And, while I have never been a proponent of third parties - thanks Ross Perot for giving us Clinton- it may be time for a third party, but my choice would be the Tea Party splitting off from Republicans. I am in complete agreement with you on the Republican establishment, but that comes from my position as a social and fiscal conservative. They caved from a position of strength last year and gave us the sequestration agreement, which somehow those of us "common folk" knew from the get-go was a mistake for the Republicans. Let's see, if we don't reach an agreement, taxes go up and Defense gets cut - sounds like a win/win for Democrats, where is the incentive to bargain? And I have yet to see Boehner truly display a backbone when push came to shove - maybe he'll surprise me yet. Would a Tea Party third party come to "power" anytime soon? No, but what does it matter if Republicans that do get elected go wishy-washy.
Sorry, but your assessment of Romney is way off base. First off, Nixon is not the quintessential Republican as far as the base is concerned. He was a typical moderate. Regrettably, he would fit in with our "establishment" Republicans. And come on, "sinister gleam". I think there are so many stories that have come out about his true character and what he has done to help people - he is just one who prefers to do his good works in private, I respect that.
Jimmy Carter - I used to believe he was a decent man who unfortunately was simply incompetent. However, his words and actions over the last decade have ripped that "nice" facade off entirely. And I wish Obama were as incompetent as Carter, unfortunately with the sycophantic media covering his tail every time something goes wrong (fast and furious, Benghazi, and the true nature of Obamacare as examples) we are now stuck with him for four more years - and there is a lot of damage he can do in that time.
So while I may be beginning to agree on a third party, you and I are far apart on which party we wish to see develop. I don't see us ever agreeing, but I do enjoy reading your point of view.

In my opinion America needs a strong leader from a political party that isn't corrupt yet.

It can lean to either right or left, as I see values in both side I agree with, as long as he/it makes "the trains run on time".

[Will Dockery]

Synergy wrote:

<quoted text>
You and I were separated at birth. Truly great post!+++++1

Before I looked at the attribution I thought it was you at first, Synergy!

[Aggie23]

Will Dockery wrote:

<quoted text>
Before I looked at the attribution I thought it was you at first, Synergy!

LOL

[Columbus Native]

average joe wrote:

Two words= DEMOCRATS SUCK!!!!!!!!

republicans suck more and lost the presidential election by a landslide. We independents are'rt on our knees to the wealthy and come january your gods will cough up alot of money that they have been dodging for the past 11 years. Over the cliff we go and it will be a GOOD thing! Automatic large tax increases for the 1% who don't invest in America but the stock market where companies based in China and Mexico make Walmart stock go up.

[Aggie23]

Columbus Native wrote:

<quoted text>republicans suck more and lost the presidential election by a landslide. We independents are'rt on our knees to the wealthy and come january your gods will cough up alot of money that they have been dodging for the past 11 years. Over the cliff we go and it will be a GOOD thing! Automatic large tax increases for the 1% who don't invest in America but the stock market where companies based in China and Mexico make Walmart stock go up.

Congratulations, you get the win for the most ignorance expressed in the fewest words.

[Matilda]

Nathanael Greene wrote:

<quoted text>
Taxes will go up on everyone.

I love this. It's like you have had your head buried in the sand for months.

If you really believe that, I have some land in the Everglades I would like to show you.

It does make a good scare tactic though; but it ain't gonna happen.

[Synergy]

Columbus Native wrote:

<quoted text>republicans suck more and lost the presidential election by a landslide. We independents are'rt on our knees to the wealthy and come january your gods will cough up alot of money that they have been dodging for the past 11 years. Over the cliff we go and it will be a GOOD thing! Automatic large tax increases for the 1% who don't invest in America but the stock market where companies based in China and Mexico make Walmart stock go up.

Ummm....okay. rotfl