Comments
21 - 40 of 175 Comments Last updated Jan 25, 2013

“Boogie Chill'un”

Level 6

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Jan 13, 2013
 
FDR completely ignored the constitution at times.....I read something the other day that made me think "my God they'd crucify him today", he forced the public to turn in their gold. FORCED them. Could you imagine the "socialist " talk you'd be hearing Limbaugh and the gang scream?!?! LOL

BTW Kenny, facts have NO place in party politics.

“Statism is slavery”

Since: Jan 13

Somerset, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Jan 13, 2013
 
JumperJuice wrote:
FDR completely ignored the constitution at times.....I read something the other day that made me think "my God they'd crucify him today", he forced the public to turn in their gold. FORCED them. Could you imagine the "socialist " talk you'd be hearing Limbaugh and the gang scream?!?! LOL
BTW Kenny, facts have NO place in party politics.
Sad, but true.

Thing is, Democrats spit all over Republicans and Republicans spit all over Democrats, all the while both are big-government, collectivist parties. Both major parties and most third parties believe in the EXACT same failed Keynesian economic policy and macroeconomics, the EXACT same bloodthirsty interventionist foreign policy and imperialism, the EXACT same sentiment that government should legislate morality and social policy, and the EXACT same disregard for the Constitution, freedom, the non-aggression principle, and voluntary association.

While there are few decent Democrats and some good Republicans, both parties have represented bad politicians. And voters, who support and vote this system, continue the cycle like a battered house wife who protects her abuser. Until we break the pattern, things will never change. It's just easier to tow the party line and support the favorite party, nothing more than the path of least resistance and nothing less than being apart of the problem.

“Boogie Chill'un”

Level 6

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Jan 13, 2013
 
KennyKelly3 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sad, but true.
Thing is, Democrats spit all over Republicans and Republicans spit all over Democrats, all the while both are big-government, collectivist parties. Both major parties and most third parties believe in the EXACT same failed Keynesian economic policy and macroeconomics, the EXACT same bloodthirsty interventionist foreign policy and imperialism, the EXACT same sentiment that government should legislate morality and social policy, and the EXACT same disregard for the Constitution, freedom, the non-aggression principle, and voluntary association.
While there are few decent Democrats and some good Republicans, both parties have represented bad politicians. And voters, who support and vote this system, continue the cycle like a battered house wife who protects her abuser. Until we break the pattern, things will never change. It's just easier to tow the party line and support the favorite party, nothing more than the path of least resistance and nothing less than being apart of the problem.
Yes, I agree. There are a couple third parties out there that intrigue me. I'm inclined to go full on independent more than anything. There haven't been many candidates at the federal level I could get behind wholeheartedly. That said, I wonder if getting some diversity would lead to some moderation, which would facilitate finally cleaning up the mess. You never know until you try. The thing is we KNOW the other way isn't and does not work, so why keep trying it? Why keep ramming our head against the wall? Why not give something else a try?

“We Are Family”

Level 8

Since: Aug 12

Here, There and Everywhere!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Jan 14, 2013
 
...And time marches onward, like a ticking time bomb, into the future, one second at a time.

“Statism is slavery”

Since: Jan 13

Somerset, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Jan 14, 2013
 
JumperJuice wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I agree. There are a couple third parties out there that intrigue me. I'm inclined to go full on independent more than anything. There haven't been many candidates at the federal level I could get behind wholeheartedly. That said, I wonder if getting some diversity would lead to some moderation, which would facilitate finally cleaning up the mess. You never know until you try. The thing is we KNOW the other way isn't and does not work, so why keep trying it? Why keep ramming our head against the wall? Why not give something else a try?
I say stick with the major parties. Because of laws, only major parties can get things done. You can make change at the local and state levels with major parties. Ron Paul, Thomas Massie, Walter Jones, Justin Amash, Tom McClintock, David Schweikert, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Jim DeMint, and Tom Coburn are some good Republicans, and they're stirring a slight change.

If you do go third party, I suggest Libertarian. All others just want more of the same with their own brand. But independent, is the better way to go, if you ask me.

“Boogie Chill'un”

Level 6

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Jan 14, 2013
 
KennyKelly3 wrote:
<quoted text>
I say stick with the major parties. Because of laws, only major parties can get things done. You can make change at the local and state levels with major parties. Ron Paul, Thomas Massie, Walter Jones, Justin Amash, Tom McClintock, David Schweikert, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Jim DeMint, and Tom Coburn are some good Republicans, and they're stirring a slight change.
If you do go third party, I suggest Libertarian. All others just want more of the same with their own brand. But independent, is the better way to go, if you ask me.
I voted Libertarian this past election (Gary Johnson) and the old Reform Party before the shakeup (Perot). It's funny you suggested Libertarian, my wife and I took an online poll on issues, I was 87% and she was 92% in agreement with them. I am registered independent myself, hsve been from day one.
Paul Revere

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Jan 14, 2013
 
KennyKelly3 wrote:
<quoted text>
What? First of all, every president has circumvented the Constitution, even if only for a few things. Second, most presidents, including W. Bush and Obama has drastically done so. Third, measuring who is done it the most is like winning a trivial contest - it does not matter. Point is, we haven't had a good president, and BOTH major parties have bad presidents.
Also, every president in the latter half of the 20th century and all of the 21st century, have staff lawyers. LOL! Even Romney said he would consult with lawyers for his decisions.
If you think Adams, Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR are not as bad as Obama or W. Bush, then you should probably research history. Enough said on that one. lol! I'm sorry.
Also, Romney has PROVEN he was not better than Obama. Just look at his big-government record as governor, and his gun control, universal healthcare, and other anti-free market policies. lol! You're still stuck at the children's table playing party politics.
Facts are friends, not enemies.
I never said all Presidents haven't circumvented the Constitution. I've been trying to make the case that this President has not only circumvented it but, told us he was doing it, showed us how he was going to do it...then, did it. This is something, at a level we have ever seen before.
I would agree that FDR (aside from Carter) was probably one of the worst Presidents we have ever seen. Our entitlement mess can be directly tracked to him. And yes, both parties have contributed to making the problem worse. There are many pros and cons with Lincoln. I can read one book about him and feel like he did as well as could be expected. Then read another and come away thinking he was a fool. Very hard to look back (that far) and say with any certainty that he was either good or bad.
I think Romney would have had to have governed quite a bit differently as President than he did as Gov. He would have had to face the fact that Obamacare is just not very popular. Of course, many would have tried to hold him to his promise to repeal it.
Where I think he differs so markedly from Obama would have to be his approach to the economy. I just can't see Romney being as anti-business as Obama. Hell, I don't think we've seen anyone this bad, ever!
Nice, condescending remarks near the end of your opinion. Of course, they mean nothing in reality.
What third party candidate (in modern history) has ever had a snowballs chance of being elected? Sure, that may be a possibility...someday. However, Obama is President NOW. Our debt problems are here NOW. We can't sit around pontificating about the day when third parties MIGHT get a seat at your childrens table.
I'm sorry you don't like party politics but, it's what we have. You can either turn your nose up at it or try to change it by working from the inside.

“Boogie Chill'un”

Level 6

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Jan 14, 2013
 
To answer your question, Perot had a very good chance, until he withdrew. If Ron Paul goes third party I think he stands a good chance. In fact, if more people REALLY had the balls to put their money where their mouth is regarding change, more of them would have a chance. Instead, sheeple continue to send the same ol, same ol to office then sit back and bitch. In my opinion, if you can't go out on a limb and stand for a chance at REAL change, you have no room to complain. By going with the status quo, uttering partisan catch phrases about third parties and independents, you are part of the problem. The main reason these candidates "don't stand a snowball's chance in hell" is lack of exposure. The racket is painfully obvious to anyone paying the least bit of attention. The networks donate to campaign funds, the duopoly buys ad time in return ....my God sheeple, FOLLOW THE DAMN MONEY! Then there is the debate commission's refusal to allow third parties to debate. When the third parties hold debates against themselves, the mainstream media again comes to the duopoly defense and refuses to broadcast it. When Americans FINALLY get the sack to demand other voices be heard, and the pay to play syndicate is brought down, the tables will turn. But hey, let's just keep pointing fingers and complaining instead of actively seeking solutions ....it's working damn fine right now isn't it?

WAKE UP AMERICA!

“Statism is slavery”

Since: Jan 13

Somerset, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Jan 14, 2013
 
Paul Revere wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said all Presidents haven't circumvented the Constitution. I've been trying to make the case that this President has not only circumvented it but, told us he was doing it, showed us how he was going to do it...then, did it. This is something, at a level we have ever seen before.
I would agree that FDR (aside from Carter) was probably one of the worst Presidents we have ever seen. Our entitlement mess can be directly tracked to him. And yes, both parties have contributed to making the problem worse. There are many pros and cons with Lincoln. I can read one book about him and feel like he did as well as could be expected. Then read another and come away thinking he was a fool. Very hard to look back (that far) and say with any certainty that he was either good or bad.
I think Romney would have had to have governed quite a bit differently as President than he did as Gov. He would have had to face the fact that Obamacare is just not very popular. Of course, many would have tried to hold him to his promise to repeal it.
Where I think he differs so markedly from Obama would have to be his approach to the economy. I just can't see Romney being as anti-business as Obama. Hell, I don't think we've seen anyone this bad, ever!
Nice, condescending remarks near the end of your opinion. Of course, they mean nothing in reality.
What third party candidate (in modern history) has ever had a snowballs chance of being elected? Sure, that may be a possibility...someday. However, Obama is President NOW. Our debt problems are here NOW. We can't sit around pontificating about the day when third parties MIGHT get a seat at your childrens table.
I'm sorry you don't like party politics but, it's what we have. You can either turn your nose up at it or try to change it by working from the inside.
And wrong again, on many points. First, many presidents have announced they were bending the Constitution. Nixon did this for getting us off gold standard, Carter did this for foreign affairs, as did Reagan and Clinton on certain issues.

Second, by saying Lincoln did as well as can be expected is to ignore the myriad of atrocities he committed. The Civil War was fueled because of him, he imprisoned many journalists and northerners over sedition, he played with the banks until they screwed him over then did the same things that the banks would've done to screw us over. I can go on and on with Lincoln. Facts, my friend, facts.

Third, Reagan, Clinton, and W. Bush were governors who became presidents who didn't govern differently. They each were big-government and big-debt governors, like they were as presidents. Romney not only proved he would've followed the pattern (see: his 2008 and 2012 presidential debates), but he loves war and debt and proved both in his debates. Romney is just Obama with an "R" by his name, nothing more, nothing less.

Fourth, replacing a pro-war, pro-debt, anti-freedom president with another like him does nothing good. And that's what you suggest. How would Gore, Kerry, McCain, or Romney been any different? They wouldn't. lol!
Paul Revere

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Jan 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KennyKelly3 wrote:
<quoted text>
And wrong again, on many points. First, many presidents have announced they were bending the Constitution. Nixon did this for getting us off gold standard, Carter did this for foreign affairs, as did Reagan and Clinton on certain issues.
Second, by saying Lincoln did as well as can be expected is to ignore the myriad of atrocities he committed. The Civil War was fueled because of him, he imprisoned many journalists and northerners over sedition, he played with the banks until they screwed him over then did the same things that the banks would've done to screw us over. I can go on and on with Lincoln. Facts, my friend, facts.
Third, Reagan, Clinton, and W. Bush were governors who became presidents who didn't govern differently. They each were big-government and big-debt governors, like they were as presidents. Romney not only proved he would've followed the pattern (see: his 2008 and 2012 presidential debates), but he loves war and debt and proved both in his debates. Romney is just Obama with an "R" by his name, nothing more, nothing less.
Fourth, replacing a pro-war, pro-debt, anti-freedom president with another like him does nothing good. And that's what you suggest. How would Gore, Kerry, McCain, or Romney been any different? They wouldn't. lol!
Mr Kelly, I think you are allowing your negativity toward traditional politics to influence your position. Following your line of thinking, we've never had a small govt President.
First, we have no idea how Romney would have governed. It's easy to imagine but, impossible to ever know for certain. However, maybe you can help me with the specific text where he said he "loves war" or "debt". I must have missed that.
Regarding Lincoln, I can't approve of everything the man did but, he was dealing with a divided union. That's no excuse for the suspension of liberty but, to think he merely acted unilateraly is a simplistic approach.
Finally, if you think Romney wouldn't have been better than Obama, there's really nothing I can say that will sway your thinking. Obama is absolutely horrible and I've stated repeatedly why. I think as we go along, thru these next 4 years, you and others will see that he is far more dangerous than any other traditional politician that we've ever elected. God help us if he manages to gain control of the House in 2014.

“Boogie Chill'un”

Level 6

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Jan 15, 2013
 
....just exactly what is positive these days?

“Statism is slavery”

Since: Jan 13

Somerset, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Jan 15, 2013
 
Paul Revere wrote:
<quoted text>
Mr Kelly, I think you are allowing your negativity toward traditional politics to influence your position. Following your line of thinking, we've never had a small govt President.
First, we have no idea how Romney would have governed. It's easy to imagine but, impossible to ever know for certain. However, maybe you can help me with the specific text where he said he "loves war" or "debt". I must have missed that.
Regarding Lincoln, I can't approve of everything the man did but, he was dealing with a divided union. That's no excuse for the suspension of liberty but, to think he merely acted unilateraly is a simplistic approach.
Finally, if you think Romney wouldn't have been better than Obama, there's really nothing I can say that will sway your thinking. Obama is absolutely horrible and I've stated repeatedly why. I think as we go along, thru these next 4 years, you and others will see that he is far more dangerous than any other traditional politician that we've ever elected. God help us if he manages to gain control of the House in 2014.
You seem to want to repeat history. Every single president who was a governor governed the same way. They gave us more government, more debt, and their rhetoric matched their actions when it came to war.

On the contrary, we have had minarchist presidents. Democrat Grover Cleveland and Republican Calvin Coolidge were the only two. If you ignore record and go for rhetoric alone, our founders who were president could be construed as limited government, but facts show they increased government, debt, and even war.

Romney has SAID he wants war with Iran, continue the wars in the Middle East, grow the military, and not to mention he supports the PATRIOT Act, NDAA 2012, and other atrocious laws. And that's not going into his anti-free market policies on economics, which grows debt, and his support for some entitlement programs and taxation. I take it you never did research of Romney beyond his 2012 run in the general?

What's simplistic, is your knee-jerk defense of the State. Lincoln and the so-called "free-soilers" divided the nation themselves. I oppose and abhor slavery, but every other country ended slavery without war - our government even then loves war. We could've ended slavery without war. Lincoln didn't want to end slavery - given southern states were in the deliberation of ending slavery, whereas the northern ones weren't.

You have no facts to prove your case. I have given you some for mine. Romney AGREES with Obama on many policies. Besides social issues, what did they disagree on? They disagreed on angles, but not on issues. They love more government, more debt, more war, and less freedom. I sincerely hope you grow out of towing the party line.

“Boogie Chill'un”

Level 6

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Jan 16, 2013
 
True, the Civil War was more about money than anything. The northern textile mills were getting their lunch handed to them by the textile mills across the pond....who were buying cheap southern cotton. The union then imposed one of the highest levies in history on the export of cotton, something like a 53% hike. This led to secession, and then to northern aggression to protect their capital interests. The issue of slavery was used as a guise to garner support. Even then, the government was controlled by the industrialists.
Paul Revere

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Jan 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

KennyKelly3 wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to want to repeat history. Every single president who was a governor governed the same way. They gave us more government, more debt, and their rhetoric matched their actions when it came to war.
On the contrary, we have had minarchist presidents. Democrat Grover Cleveland and Republican Calvin Coolidge were the only two. If you ignore record and go for rhetoric alone, our founders who were president could be construed as limited government, but facts show they increased government, debt, and even war.
Romney has SAID he wants war with Iran, continue the wars in the Middle East, grow the military, and not to mention he supports the PATRIOT Act, NDAA 2012, and other atrocious laws. And that's not going into his anti-free market policies on economics, which grows debt, and his support for some entitlement programs and taxation. I take it you never did research of Romney beyond his 2012 run in the general?
What's simplistic, is your knee-jerk defense of the State. Lincoln and the so-called "free-soilers" divided the nation themselves. I oppose and abhor slavery, but every other country ended slavery without war - our government even then loves war. We could've ended slavery without war. Lincoln didn't want to end slavery - given southern states were in the deliberation of ending slavery, whereas the northern ones weren't.
You have no facts to prove your case. I have given you some for mine. Romney AGREES with Obama on many policies. Besides social issues, what did they disagree on? They disagreed on angles, but not on issues. They love more government, more debt, more war, and less freedom. I sincerely hope you grow out of towing the party line.
So, no governor ever made a good President? Really?
Again, I am asking for the actual quote, including context where Romney ever flatly stated he wanted a war with Iran? And don't mistake sabre rattling with intent to start a war.
And what wars did he vow to continue? The draw down is already in motion. It was happening even before the last election. You're saying he wanted to stop the draw down and start returning forces to the theater? Where's your proof???
I freely admit to having some problems with Romney's social platform. His flip on abortion was a major point of concern for me. But, there is absolutely no way you can tell me woulldn't have been better economically for the country than Obama.
I know perfectly well that the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery. And if I had lived at that time, owned a cotton mill in the south, I would have undoubtably fought for the south. Revisionists have pegged Lincoln as sort of crusader to end slavery. Of course that isn't true but, neither is it true that America could have survived for very long as a divided nation. Entirely my opinion of course.
You are the one who has made the claims about Romney re: war, Obamacare and taxes. I've asked for clearly defined statements from the candidate that back up your claims. So far nothing.
At this point in time, as I have stated repeatedly in this thread, party politics is the only way to change anything. You named some strong Conservatives a few posts back. I couldn't agree more that we need dozens and dozens more like them. But, they won't be elected via a third-party ticket. Meanwhile the clock continues to tick and Obama continues to stoke the fires of his "Change Train".

“Statism is slavery”

Since: Jan 13

Somerset, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Jan 16, 2013
 
Paul Revere wrote:
<quoted text>
So, no governor ever made a good President? Really?
Again, I am asking for the actual quote, including context where Romney ever flatly stated he wanted a war with Iran? And don't mistake sabre rattling with intent to start a war.
And what wars did he vow to continue? The draw down is already in motion. It was happening even before the last election. You're saying he wanted to stop the draw down and start returning forces to the theater? Where's your proof???
I freely admit to having some problems with Romney's social platform. His flip on abortion was a major point of concern for me. But, there is absolutely no way you can tell me woulldn't have been better economically for the country than Obama.
I know perfectly well that the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery. And if I had lived at that time, owned a cotton mill in the south, I would have undoubtably fought for the south. Revisionists have pegged Lincoln as sort of crusader to end slavery. Of course that isn't true but, neither is it true that America could have survived for very long as a divided nation. Entirely my opinion of course.
You are the one who has made the claims about Romney re: war, Obamacare and taxes. I've asked for clearly defined statements from the candidate that back up your claims. So far nothing.
At this point in time, as I have stated repeatedly in this thread, party politics is the only way to change anything. You named some strong Conservatives a few posts back. I couldn't agree more that we need dozens and dozens more like them. But, they won't be elected via a third-party ticket. Meanwhile the clock continues to tick and Obama continues to stoke the fires of his "Change Train".
You prove you have no idea what you're talking about. Did you even watch the debates? Do you even look at the records of politicians you support? No one can be this lost in their beliefs. lol! Romney has STATED, and if you want a quote, they're EVERYWHERE, that he wants to go to war with Iran and he wants to keep U.S. troops around the world. He has even said he doesn't care about the Constitution, and we should go to Ron Paul if we do.

I'm not going to hold your hand, you can go to Romney's website, Facebook page, and the many Youtube clips of his speeches, debates, and ads. I couldn't pick a more damaging one, they're all pretty damaging. Especially where he campaigned on gun control in the '90s and he SIGNED into LAW gun control as governor. All fact, my friend. lol!
Paul Revere

Oneida, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Jan 18, 2013
 
KennyKelly3 wrote:
<quoted text>
You prove you have no idea what you're talking about. Did you even watch the debates? Do you even look at the records of politicians you support? No one can be this lost in their beliefs. lol! Romney has STATED, and if you want a quote, they're EVERYWHERE, that he wants to go to war with Iran and he wants to keep U.S. troops around the world. He has even said he doesn't care about the Constitution, and we should go to Ron Paul if we do.
I'm not going to hold your hand, you can go to Romney's website, Facebook page, and the many Youtube clips of his speeches, debates, and ads. I couldn't pick a more damaging one, they're all pretty damaging. Especially where he campaigned on gun control in the '90s and he SIGNED into LAW gun control as governor. All fact, my friend. lol!
OK, so you can't provide the quotes where Romney clearly stated he wants a war with Iran. Thanks for finally admitting that. We all know if he had said that, Obama and his campaign would have been all over it in a heartbeat. Same is true for the Constitution remark. All would have been easy pickings for Obama during the campaign.
You're just slinging mud, hoping something sticks. Baseless assertions and distortions aren't very compelling.
Please tell me you aren't a typical Ron Paul supporter.

“Statism is slavery”

Since: Jan 13

Somerset, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Jan 18, 2013
 
Paul Revere wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, so you can't provide the quotes where Romney clearly stated he wants a war with Iran. Thanks for finally admitting that. We all know if he had said that, Obama and his campaign would have been all over it in a heartbeat. Same is true for the Constitution remark. All would have been easy pickings for Obama during the campaign.
You're just slinging mud, hoping something sticks. Baseless assertions and distortions aren't very compelling.
Please tell me you aren't a typical Ron Paul supporter.
I'll give you a few clips. There are MANY videos of Romney saying he wants war, but you're too lazy to look. And never bothered to even read who your candidate is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

That's just a few at the top of my head. And that's not including his '90s ads and debates. Romney wants war and debt like Obama. Either do the homework or keep that foot in your mouth. lol!

“Boogie Chill'un”

Level 6

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41
Jan 20, 2013
 
KennyKelly3 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll give you a few clips. There are MANY videos of Romney saying he wants war, but you're too lazy to look. And never bothered to even read who your candidate is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
That's just a few at the top of my head. And that's not including his '90s ads and debates. Romney wants war and debt like Obama. Either do the homework or keep that foot in your mouth. lol!
I see you got no reply....not surprising ....the silence is deafening. No one does their homework, that's why we have the idiots in office we have. Like Einstein said....doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. You guys say third parties are not a part of the solution, and I ask how do you know if you never try? I say diversity is a way to break up the stalemate. The current way sure as hell doesn't work, that's been PROVEN .

“Statism is slavery”

Since: Jan 13

Somerset, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42
Jan 20, 2013
 
JumperJuice wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you got no reply....not surprising ....the silence is deafening. No one does their homework, that's why we have the idiots in office we have. Like Einstein said....doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. You guys say third parties are not a part of the solution, and I ask how do you know if you never try? I say diversity is a way to break up the stalemate. The current way sure as hell doesn't work, that's been PROVEN .
Never tried? The biggest third party has been around since 1971, with only one electoral vote, and just NOW broke a million (and mostly due to the GOP railroading of Ron Paul delegates). They haven't put a dent into things. The Green Party had some success under Ralph Nader, then he saw how much it failed, so he abandoned them. The other third parties haven't done much.

Not to mention the bipartisan Congress and the biased FEC. No third party will go far until we have Liberty candidates in one of the major parties, or both.
zipyourlip

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44
Jan 20, 2013
 
KennyKelly3 wrote:
<quoted text>
Never tried? The biggest third party has been around since 1971, with only one electoral vote, and just NOW broke a million (and mostly due to the GOP railroading of Ron Paul delegates). They haven't put a dent into things. The Green Party had some success under Ralph Nader, then he saw how much it failed, so he abandoned them. The other third parties haven't done much.
Not to mention the bipartisan Congress and the biased FEC. No third party will go far until we have Liberty candidates in one of the major parties, or both.
Absolutely correct. That's why voters need to choose a side, and figure out who supports the things that puts food on their table. Republicans speak of Social Security and Medicare as entitlements, when we all know that those programs are supported by contributions from the working men and women of America. Instead of trying to make the changes to fund these programs for future generations, Republicans try to eliminate them, and let their buddies in the investment and insurance industries reap the benefits of those social safety nets. I can't vote for that, and I actually agree with Republicans on the need to rein in Medicaid and welfare spending. One must work to reap the benefits of those social safety nets, IMO. When the Republicans were infiltrated with far right Christians, and the social wedge issues they carry with them, they have lost any chance for many voters to identify with their crusade. Churches don't preach "liberty", they are in the hatred game. The Republicans are not the party of Eisenhower any longer, and they will continue to become a regional party, unless they change. There are no longer any Republicans in the House from New England, as proof that these trends will continue.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

72 Users are viewing the Somerset Forum right now

Search the Somerset Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Fancy Farms 8 min Tyler 1
G.e. glass plant somerset layoffs 23 min What 2
Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 34 min spaceship 128,947
why is it so hard to meet a decent girl (May '12) 50 min cooky 35
Aspen Dental 2 hr voter 2
Hey Hatti. (Jan '12) 3 hr Trouser Cough 20,076
Grimes for Senator 3 hr Tyler 15
Roses.. Closing Its Doors? 7 hr Tyler 9
•••
•••
•••
•••

Somerset Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Somerset People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Somerset News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Somerset
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••