Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Bodhi on October 08, 2007, 09:15:53 PM
-
I am.
I cringe at the future this country is making for ourselves. It scares me that the two party system has become so self serving that any attempt by the population to strike back is quickly or quietly swept away.
Mark my words. If it is one of the two parties that strangle this nation that gets in power again in 09 we (the nation) will continue to be ignored....
-
Talking about OsamaBama or Half-wit Hillary?
-
No Meat, you could add Giulliani (Anti-Guns Rights Advocate) or most all other Republicans to this mix....
I am seriously disappointed in what is there to inherit this nation... it's almost like a diseased herd....
-
Read Heinlein's first novel (last published, but first written) "For us, the living".
Take the lecturing about the "right way to do things" with huge grains of salt, but pay attention to the governmental and social problems he highlights as the things that are wrong with the US.
Then remember that he wrote the book in 1939.
Basically most, if not all, of the problems he lists in the book are still considered the problems we face today. They seemed critical back then, and we're still bumbling around in the dark almost 70 years later.
I'm not saying that all, or even most of the ideas in the book are correct (although there are a number of things that I think he is right about) but a lot of the problems he highlights are the very same evils that are dragging down the US today.
Even if you disagree with the politics, this book is a must-read. Doubly so if you like sci-fi and/or any of the other books Heinlein wrote.
-
Eagl, I am not a huge sci-fi fan. I will pick this up though for giggles. I still think "1985" is probably the closest... or maybe even "Minority Report" (shudders from thought and the lead actor).
I am flat out disguted with our system.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Eagl, I am not a huge sci-fi fan. I will pick this up though for giggles. I still think "1985" is probably the closest... or maybe even "Minority Report" (shudders from thought and the lead actor).
I am flat out disguted with our system.
When you read the book, remember that it was written at a time when social reform was a huge topic and the US was going through some massive changes. Heinlein understood the faulty premises behind communism and "true" socialism, and he was involved in a political movement designed to wrest control of the economy from the banks and give the govt the authority to directly address poverty without resorting to pure socialism or communism. In the process, he proposes radically reducing the government's ability to interfere with the lives of people who aren't actually harming anyone.
The book was therefore a fairly thinly disguised series of lectures on how a hypothetical society in 2087 might have solved some of these social and governmental failings. What makes it truly interesting is that although the US has changed a bit since 1939, in large part the problems are still the same.
So don't expect "good" science fiction... Instead, read it as a look back in time through the eyes of an intelligent visionary who was unafraid of proposing radical fixes to some of our stupider and more dangerous social problems.
-
Well if you are giving up on the society and country I understand the UK is a great respecter of civil liberties.
I'm not willing to give up on the country, this isn't the first time we have had problems with lousy politicians. I have a bit of faith that there will be a corection in the problem.
-
The party system wouldn't be so bad if people actually EXERCISED their freedom to chose, rather than letting themselves be railroaded up the bellybutton by the party line.
All you need to do is look at THIS board to see how frelled up we are as a nation. The Conservatives bash the Liberals just because they're Liberals, the Liberals bash the Conservatives just because they're Conservatives. NONE of the rabid sheeple bleating what the parties have crammed down their throats are even willing to stop and at least CONSIDER what the other side is saying before lighting up the napalm and Molotov Cocktails and letting fly at each other.
Blame it on the politicians all you want, the AMERICAN PEOPLE are still the ones that are letting them get away with ****ting on the Constitution and wiping their tulips with it, and disregard what's good for the PEOPLE, rather than what's best for their own agendas and the special interest groups they're bending over for all for their political muscle (be it the bleeding hearts, the ultra religious right, etc). Maybe if the majority of Americans actually exercised their voice in the government RESPONSIBLY instead of vomiting up the party line bull**** they've allowed themselves to be force-fed things might actually IMPROVE around here.
Does anyone in this nation even UNDERSTAND the implications of "Of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE."
I guess that's the one failure of any Republic. When government rests in the hands of the people, the ones who are TRULY to blame is not the system itself, but the ones who PUT those making the ****-up of things in power. Until the sheep grow wise to the sheppard, the cycle of stupidity will never end.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I am.
I cringe at the future this country is making for ourselves. It scares me that the two party system has become so self serving that any attempt by the population to strike back is quickly or quietly swept away.
Mark my words. If it is one of the two parties that strangle this nation that gets in power again in 09 we (the nation) will continue to be ignored....
I highlighted the ironic word for you.
The two party system never became anything. It always was.
-
While I am not a fan of Barrak Obama, I do find it quite offensive that Republicans would try to twist his name into that of a known terrorist that killed over 3,000 Americans.
Not only is it wrong, it is sick and down right UNAMERICAN!
This just proves how petty and selfish the "conservatives" are. Slander a man just on his name. Sad.
-
Originally posted by rpm
I do find it quite offensive that Republicans would try to twist his name into
So do I undestand correctly that you take offense at MoveOn too, or is it just Republicans you take offense with?
-
Originally posted by rpm
While I am not a fan of Barrak Obama, I do find it quite offensive that Republicans would try to twist his name into that of a known terrorist that killed over 3,000 Americans.
Not only is it wrong, it is sick and down right UNAMERICAN!
This just proves how petty and selfish the "conservatives" are. Slander a man just on his name. Sad.
Ted Kennedy called Barak "Osama Obama" and "Osamabama" while trying to introduce him at one of the rallies a while back. Any references I have heard after that point are continuing to polk fun at Kennedy, not trying to compare Obama to Osama.
But I am not hooked into the more radical types that might be doing what you describe.
BTW, the left is just as guilty of "slandering someone because of his name." Ever hear of "General Betrayus"?
-
I flipped on Hannity and Colmes between a duel commerical break in the Yankees and Cowboys games, and heard a Republican say he would not support McCain, Giullani, Thompson and a sleu of other candidates, because they claim to be Christian, yet would not make any decisions along the lines of the Catholic Church and the Popes stance.........LUNACY! This base is just as bad as the other base...
What really gets me lately is that I constantly hear people flinging around "We are the wealthiest and how great that is"....How great is it? I mean really...It sounds nice to say we are the wealthiest, but IMO it doesn't do many of us much good.
My two most important qualitys that I would look for in a candidate would be 1- Someone who listens to and entertains the idea of opposition, and is even willing to cross party lines to make the right decision for the United States....and 2- Someone who is willing to work for the people of the United States first! We have done a lot of great things (and er...bad) for people around the world, but we still have our handful of problems at home.....Maybe we can address them too.:rolleyes:
-
It was CNN that first called him Osama, just so you know. And it was the Clinton camp that started the Barack HUSSIEN Obama trick.
Alas, it matters not.
For the record, I am NOT scared. Angry? Yes. Disgusted? Yes. But not scared. I'm disgusted as much with so called conservative Republicans, who are weak on illegal immigration and the war on terror, and high on pork and growing a government already to large and ineffective, as I am with Democrats so weak on illegal immigration and the war on terror, as well as so bloated on pork, that they offer me no alternative to the poor excuse for conservative Republicans.
It's not that I'm happy with GWB, or most of the other Republicans. It's that Pelosi, Reid, Gore, Clinton, Kerry, and the rest of their ilk offer me even less.
-
Originally posted by rpm
This just proves how petty and selfish the "conservatives" are. Slander a man just on his name. Sad.
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... ...."Dubya" or (http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/953/bushmo3.png)
Would I be reaching if I took your quote and replaced "conservatives' with liberals....? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :O
-
I don't know of a terrorist with a name that rhymes with "Dubya".
Don't try and play the "high and mighty" card. Republican, Democrat, Independant, Green Party.... I don't care what party you belong to, it's unfounded slander and you should be ashamed to call yourself an American citizen to play along with it.
Judge the candidate on his record and qualifications. Not on what his name rhymes with. It's low, childish and petty.
-
Originally posted by rpm
I don't know of a terrorist with a name that rhymes with "Dubya".
Don't try and play the "high and mighty" card. Republican, Democrat, Independant, Green Party.... I don't care what party you belong to, it's unfounded slander and you should be ashamed to call yourself an American citizen to play along with it.
Judge the candidate on his record and qualifications. Not on what his name rhymes with. It's low, childish and petty.
I never played along with or condoned any of it...Both sides are wrong and childish if you ask me...And no high and mighty card here...I withdrew my membership from the GOP months ago, and don't allign myself with any political party.
-
I worry about what the future brings. But perhaps I'm not a worried as some because I am trying to prepare for it. And every crisis offers opportunities that are prepared for it. If events follow as I believe they will then the majority might suffer, but I think my family with survive and maybe even thrive.
-
We need a Cheeky Monkey Party.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
My two most important qualitys that I would look for in a candidate would be 1- Someone who listens to and entertains the idea of opposition, and is even willing to cross party lines to make the right decision for the United States....and 2- Someone who is willing to work for the people of the United States first! We have done a lot of great things (and er...bad) for people around the world, but we still have our handful of problems at home.....Maybe we can address them too.:rolleyes:
The problem with idealism is that sooner or later, you get dragged back down to earth...
1 - Good luck. Politicians, like the majority of this country, are obsessed with the party line. The party gives them their power-base, and they have to suck up to the party to get the nomination, so why on EARTH would they challenge that?
2 - Sorry again. The government doesn't work for the American people anymore, they work for the businesses and special interest groups.
It sucks and I agree with you on how I WISH it worked but this is real life, and real life sucks cheeky monkey balls.
-
Originally posted by Saxman
2 - Sorry again. The government doesn't work for the American people anymore, they work for the businesses and special interest groups.
Are there any business or special interest groups that do not have people?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So do I undestand correctly that you take offense at MoveOn too, or is it just Republicans you take offense with?
I take it you are referring to the NY Times "Petraeus Betray Us" ad.
I do not and never will condone such slander. General David H. Petraeus has been put between a rock and a very hard place. If President Bush had paid any attention at all to him and gave him command right after the fall of Baghdad, we would be looking at a very, very different Iraq today.
Instead, years later he was handed a broken kite and told to make it fly. The natives have been soured to our soldiers and insurgents have turned this into a civil holy war. Bush handed him a pig in a poke and made him dance. I'm not sure electricity and running water will get it done now.
David Petraeus is not at fault.
-
Originally posted by rpm
I take it you are referring to the NY Times "Petraeus Betray Us" ad.
I do not and never will condone such slander.
Good. Next time there is a shot below the belt from either (or any) side, whether it be MoveOn or Coulter, Clinton or Newt I am sure we will see it the same way.
-
Everything is fine. Turn on the TV and pass the cheesepuffs.
-
The situation in this country is beyond hopeless. I see no peaceful way to dethrone the ruling parties before they both drive this country into pablum.
-
Originally posted by rpm
We need a Cheeky Monkey Party.
I'm in!
Should we have a Prime Minister, King, Emperor or something else?
Anything is better than the "dogs chasing the garbage truck race" we have now.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I am flat out disguted with our system.
Thats about it in a nutshell
Originally posted by Maverick
I'm not willing to give up on the country, this isn't the first time we have had problems with lousy politicians. I have a bit of faith that there will be a corection in the problem.
When was the last time we didnt have lousy politicians?
Looking at the current feild. What ray of sunshine do you see on the horizon? Cause I cant see it
Not comming from the two big parties anyway
-
Originally posted by Saxman
The party system wouldn't be so bad if people actually EXERCISED their freedom to chose, rather than letting themselves be railroaded up the bellybutton by the party line.
All you need to do is look at THIS board to see how frelled up we are as a nation. The Conservatives bash the Liberals just because they're Liberals, the Liberals bash the Conservatives just because they're Conservatives. NONE of the rabid sheeple bleating what the parties have crammed down their throats are even willing to stop and at least CONSIDER what the other side is saying before lighting up the napalm and Molotov Cocktails and letting fly at each other.
Blame it on the politicians all you want, the AMERICAN PEOPLE are still the ones that are letting them get away with ****ting on the Constitution and wiping their tulips with it, and disregard what's good for the PEOPLE, rather than what's best for their own agendas and the special interest groups they're bending over for all for their political muscle (be it the bleeding hearts, the ultra religious right, etc). Maybe if the majority of Americans actually exercised their voice in the government RESPONSIBLY instead of vomiting up the party line bull**** they've allowed themselves to be force-fed things might actually IMPROVE around here.
Does anyone in this nation even UNDERSTAND the implications of "Of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE."
I guess that's the one failure of any Republic. When government rests in the hands of the people, the ones who are TRULY to blame is not the system itself, but the ones who PUT those making the ****-up of things in power. Until the sheep grow wise to the sheppard, the cycle of stupidity will never end.
BINGO! Give this man a cigar!
Thats right. So long as everyone votes the party rather then the person.
And only votes for one of the two biggies things will never change.
And we will get exactly the government we deserve.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Judge the candidate on his record and qualifications. Not on what his name rhymes with. It's low, childish and petty.
Problem is as usual adults rarely act more mature then children and are often worse with their childishness and pettyness.
And people love a catchphrase.
From "I like IKE" to "If the gove doesnt fit, you must aqquit." To "Its the economy stupid"
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt
-
I don`t see a lot of good change coming to this country until people are willing to rock their own boat to get it done.
At this point way too much importance is placed on who is elected President and not near enough on other matters.
We have let the Presidency become not much more than a figurehead . That is a big problem in itself.
In that area about all that can be done is to go with the lesser of two evils at this stage until and if change comes.
We need pretty much a groundup overhaul. The people of this country need to remember that it is our country and the words public servant is not just some catchy phrase.
-
oo, oo, i want to play too, the librules calling bush "shrub",
this is a fun game. :D
-
How about a twig?
-
When are you all going to wake up and realize they are robots!
Oh..and Soylent Green is people.
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
When are you all going to wake up and realize they are robots!
Then by gawd we should be demanding a Stepford wife in every house.........with a remote OFF switch.
:D
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Well if you are giving up on the society and country I understand the UK is a great respecter of civil liberties.
I'm not willing to give up on the country, this isn't the first time we have had problems with lousy politicians. I have a bit of faith that there will be a corection in the problem.
I have far from given up. I exercise my right to vote, as well as prepare for the alternative to this situation we face. Giving up and whining is a liberal option, and I am not a liberal.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
I don`t see a lot of good change coming to this country until people are willing to rock their own boat to get it done.
At this point way too much importance is placed on who is elected President and not near enough on other matters.
We have let the Presidency become not much more than a figurehead . That is a big problem in itself.
In that area about all that can be done is to go with the lesser of two evils at this stage until and if change comes.
We need pretty much a groundup overhaul. The people of this country need to remember that it is our country and the words public servant is not just some catchy phrase.
I could notdisagree with you more, Jackal.
The Presidency has been expanding it's powers more and more since 1900, but has grown more rapidly since the end of WWII. If the Presidency was a mere figurehead, Things like NAFTA and Iraq would not have happened. There are some things that congress can still do to block Presidential decisions, yes, but most in both houses do not want to cross the party lines to do it. Or, they don't want to risk the money they take in from lobbyists.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
I could notdisagree with you more, Jackal.
The Presidency has been expanding it's powers more and more since 1900.
That is due to the powers that sway the direction in which this office leans has increased in power. Thus the figurehead.
-
show me a democrat party that wants to decrease the size of government and cut taxes on everyone and cut government programs and defend the second amendment and arrest the employers of illegal aliens and....
supports school vouchers and I will vote for that party... give me a democrat pres who will veto any bill that does not fit into the above and I will vote for him/it
That would not be any democrat I can think of.
It would not be any republican but they come a lot closer.
The democrats and socialists are my enemy.. I hate them because they are what they are... they want power over me that is not their right. Of course I can't work with them... there is nothing they want that doesn't take from me.
lazs
-
It would not be any republican but they come a lot closer.
Only for now. The crop fielded by the Republican party nationally reflects the true leanings of the party leadership. You could add a D in front of Rudy and an R in front of Hillary and from a platform position there would not be any real difference. Socialized medicine! What about the prescription drug deal under bush? Big government, DHS anyone?
Thompson strikes me as more a social conservative than a real conservative, and that is another big government area I have no desire to support. That's why I will waste a vote on Paul, even though I don't believe he is the end all or that he will win.
Here's how the calculation works.
The Republican party leadership knows that either Hillary or Obama will be polarizing enough for the lesser of two evils voting thing. Rudy is as much Democrat as republican, so he might just pull in some Democrats along the way. Certainly not as polarizing to Democrats as the H&O Railroad are to the Republicans. And, I don't think the current Republican party has a philosophical problem with Rudy's anti 2nd, anti 4th anti BORs views anyway.
As far as the 2nd is concerned, I see Rudy as as much if not a greater threat. An anti-2nd Republican president and a democratic congress will pass restrictive gun control more easily than a Democratic president even with a democratic congress, IMO. Why? The Republican members of Congress will resist H&O (whereas they might not with Rudy twisting their arms), and there are now more than a few conservative southern Democrats worried about their reelection options. Will Rudy Veto any gun control measure brought before him anymore than H&O? I almost give Hillary more credit since as a cold, calculating politician she might be really smart about that and lock in MOR gun owners as Democrats for decades to come. It's not like gun control is a grass roots deal for Democrats anyway. It's an easy trade out.
And, regardless, the parties need to be taught that they are pushing the limits now. As long as their fear tactic of lesser of two evils is allowed to succeed, they will work towards a big nanny state where one day (soon, IMO) you will find even fewer differences between the Uniparty. Why should there be? By and large they all come from the same background, went to the same ivy league schools, take part in the same think tanks on how to best run the world (for the benefit of the elite class), thus have the same big lofty views on how to best manage, control and govern their child-like subjects. They have far more in common with each other than they do with us.
As long as they can play us as well as they do, they will win.
I think Paul will have some appeal, even as a third party candidate, to both Democrats and Republicans. The boards I frequent show cross appeal. A double digit shift of votes away from the anointed ones will send a message, regardless who wins and might at least buy us some time.
Charon
-
charon... only conservatives and republicans and individualists play the game you are going to.
The democrats don't vote enough third party to keep out their guy. Democrats don't think like that. freedom scares the crap out of em once you get past the freedom to abort or smoke pot or marry someone of your own gender.
The gun thing? I am not sure if you are right but I suspect you are not. I don't think even rudy would get toooo crazy.. not like osamabama or billary would.. they would encourage it.
Have you ever seen ruling democrats act restrained? nope... they take getting into power as a sign that we want socialism... that we want more government and more taxes. They simply can't help it.
People like finestein have said that if she could get 51 votes she would tell American.... "turn em in... turn em all in."
Is she going to fight harder to destroy the second under rudy or billary?
The NRA thinks not... The NRA hates rudy.. for good reason... but... the worst of the republicans is 10 times better than the best of the democrats.
For now... it is like abortion and illegal aliens... they, none of em... want to talk about it.. They want to make phony health care schemes and cut and run war stuff the most important issues...
They want to stick a wet finger in the air and pull out the non issues to talk about so as not to anger this base or that.
lazs
-
Thank you very much, lazs, for proving my point.
You think Dubya hasn't let his position go to his head? He milked the whole 9/11 War on Terror situation for his pet project in Iraq. He exceeded Presidential authority in bypassing the courts to order wiretapping without warrants. Etc. etc. etc.
"Baa-aa-aa-aa-aa"
-
I don't know Lazs. I think that while you have extremes on both ends (fascist and Socialist leaners) there is a great middle ground that has as much trouble (Nationally) with a Feinstein as they would with a Buchannan. I don't think most Democratic voters are actually full born socialists. Certainly not the Southern Democrats or the ones I know, one of whom is going to Vote for Paul. A great many social liberals are still fiscally conservative. A good number are gun owners. Living in California can skew reality (as can living this close to Chicago or another big blue city). But, Democrats in the rest of the country are not all Hollywood liberals or blissninnys or on the Welfare rolls.
Paul has direct appeal to both social liberals and fiscal conservatives and non interventionists which, if anything, is even a stronger pull for Democrats vs Republicans. His strongest detractors on other boards are the neocon big government, must rule the world with our wisdom and power set. Not traditional conservatives or mainstream democrats. And these are gun boards by and large, though he seems to get good play on various liberal forums that have been linked. His just being different, and a not your typical political tool, has great appeal in itself. Enough to win... well, we'll see.
They take getting into power as a sign that we want socialism
That would depend on how many votes a third party candidate received. Give Paul 10 percent of the vote in spite of all of their efforts to marginalize his positions and it will be a shockwave in Washington. Regardless, I think they would take a win as simply the fact that they did a better job on the lesser of two evils thing and media manipulation.
On the other hand, since Rudy is hardly your typical Republican of days gone by, I do think a Rudy win would indicate that you can run a RINO and not worry too much about the social conservative faction or the small government true conservatives. It would still be a lesser of two evils win likely, but it would show that such a cross platform candidate will not cause undue harm.
The NRA thinks not... The NRA hates rudy.. for good reason... but... the worst of the republicans is 10 times better than the best of the democrats.
Not if you live in NY City, or the Chicago Burbs, where I have my NRA D and F rated Republican Federal Congressmen and state legislators. How's Arnold doing with the .50 ban and that microstamping bill? And just exactly what did the Bush administration do to roll back abusive gun laws? He did promise to sign an AWB if it was brought to him.
IMO we have to stop this crap now, even if it has short-term risk to our pet issues. Pet issues and single issue voting is, after all, how they make the current system of lesser of two evils work. And, it's become increasingly hard for me to ignore the other elements of the BOR, which are also stressed by the Republican party, just for a few often shallow words of support for the 2nd.
Charon
-
Origanally posted by Charon
IMO we have to stop this crap now, even if it has short-term risk to our pet issues. Pet issues and single issue voting is, after all, how they make the current system of lesser of two evils work. And, it's become increasingly hard for me to ignore the other elements of the BOR, which are also stressed by the Republican party, just for a few often shallow words of support for the 2nd.
The only thing, Charon, that I saw in your post that made me stop for a sec, was we.
"We" is going to have to take some definition. White middle-class America? Are they still the largest percentage of voters? Or is it the Latino-Chicano influence? Gun owners? Retiree's?
This is the only thing. Otherwise, I could'nt agree with you more.
-
"We" is going to have to take some definition. White middle-class America? Are they still the largest percentage of voters? Or is it the Latino-Chicano influence? Gun owners? Retiree's?
That's the potentially discouraging part. I THINK there are enough people from most sub groups (even those with different world views in general) that are just pissed at how things have been run lately. A majority? Enough to make a difference, perhaps.
Beyond just some generic wish for change and a belief that the system is broken, is a smaller government something most people understand and would support these days from either either party... I'm not so sure. Is it something that they can be educated on in the face of the obvious spin attacks and media support? Tough call. Thank god for the Internet, at least for as long as it's still allowed to disrupt the controlled Washington political and MSM machine.
Charon
-
Charon....
With all due respect sir......
That's why I will waste a vote on Paul, even though I don't believe he is the end all or that he will win.
Don't think that......Your vote...no matter who it is for is NEVER wasted. I understand your point...but....its not wasted...its' merley cast for who YOU...an american voting....thinks will do the better job or holds the stance you agree with.
A VOTE is NEVER wasted. When you vote you do the single most inportant thing and american can do.....you try to make a differance.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
A VOTE is NEVER wasted. When you vote you do the single most inportant thing and american can do.....you try to make a differance.
ross Perot, the vote was not wasted, it helped elect a democrat.
-
Originally posted by john9001
ross Perot, the vote was not wasted, it helped elect a democrat.
Ross helped elect the democrat, by bungling the campaign. If he had stayed the course, and never dropped out, things could have been very different.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I have far from given up. I exercise my right to vote, as well as prepare for the alternative to this situation we face. Giving up and whining is a liberal option, and I am not a liberal.
But do you consistantly vote Rebublican?
If so your only contributing to the status quoe
as such are thus part of the problem.
The ONLY way we are ever going to force any kinf of change is by going outside of the big two.
Consistantly voting for Dem or Reb only gets you another tool.
Its like divorcing your wife then getting remarried.
Same headache. only the face has changed
-
Originally posted by john9001
ross Perot, the vote was not wasted, it helped elect a democrat.
That's not the point.
No matter your canidate , or who may win off of people voting for others outside the 2 party system , the vote is counted and is important.
If MORE people voted in the elections , it could be possible to show the 2 major parties that a significant part of the populace is fed up with thier B.S..
<--registered Republican.
Voting is frikin important and not wasted.
Maybe , the benifactor of the so called "wasted" vote was lucky that the losing party didn't have any better choice to offer up. Ever think of it that way?
If the DEMS win we're screwed hard.....If the republicans win we're screwed but with a kiss.
Either way , for ANYONE to try to cast a stone at a person who VOTES THIER CANIDATE no matter who it is calling it wasted because some other party benifits , is frankly FULL OF CHIT.
-
Don't think that......Your vote...no matter who it is for is NEVER wasted. I understand your point...but....its not wasted...its' merley cast for who YOU...an american voting....thinks will do the better job or holds the stance you agree with.
Chill out, man.
I understand that, and will have no trouble voting for Paul even though it may impact a lesser of two evils. I simply used "wasted" in the common language of lesser of two evil politics (which if you read my post you will see I disagree with). Didn't vote for Bush or Kerry in the last election either. Paul is a bit too extreme for me, though, but far less extreme than Hillary, Obama, McCain or Rudy from what I want to see happen in Washington. It's an honest vote.
I don't know that you can turn back the big gov. clock to the 1780s, 1860s or even pre New Deal. Don't know if it would be a good idea to turn it THAT far back. But, pre Great Society would be nice.
Charon
-
the lesser of two evils has always received my vote ... since 92 that has been the republican ticket as it will be again in 08
-
Originally posted by Charon
That's the potentially discouraging part. I THINK there are enough people from most sub groups (even those with different world views in general) that are just pissed at how things have been run lately. A majority? Enough to make a difference, perhaps.
Beyond just some generic wish for change and a belief that the system is broken, is a smaller government something most people understand and would support these days from either either party... I'm not so sure. Is it something that they can be educated on in the face of the obvious spin attacks and media support? Tough call. Thank god for the Internet, at least for as long as it's still allowed to disrupt the controlled Washington political and MSM machine.
Charon
That's what I was thinking, but the way I see it, You might have a whole populace that wants the existing gov't. gone, but each group has a different idea of what should take it's place. So what we have, is a situation getting steadily worse, with people wanting change, but afraid of the infighting and anarchy that change will bring. This is the real tool of power over the people. The populace is at 300+million people, but all divided into groups based on race, religion, wealth, etc...And getting all of these groups to agree on one way that this country should be run is an impossibility.
To put it into perspective: Let's say sometime down the road, the gov't. does something really harsh, or oppressive, the match that sets off the strife that some of the BBS members' here think will happen. Ok, Let's say we have the equivalent of a revolution (or a 2nd civil war) and the current gov't. and 2 party system is dispensed with. What then? You have so many different groups stepping forward to claim power, that the strife goes on. Until society is reduced back to subsistence farming.
That would be the "Postman" scenario. The other theory I have is something like the country splitting up into a bunch of smaller, individual "nations". Along what lines, however, is still up in the air because of economic, ethnic, or whatever different demographics. However, I can see what Bodhi meant about being afraid of the future. We are rapidly coming to the point where something is going to happen, because of strains along all the different divisions of American society.
When you throw enough ingredients into the "melting pot" you eventually come up with a poison, i'm afraid.
-
Is totally chilled....
No worries....I read your posts and on alot I agree.
<---buying stock in KY and Chapstik.....
When the politicians and screwing ya they are trying hard to kiss you *** for a vote.
Hmmmm possible (TM)
The KY Chapstik Parties:lol
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
That's what I was thinking, but the way I see it, You might have a whole populace that wants the existing gov't. gone, but each group has a different idea of what should take it's place. So what we have, is a situation getting steadily worse, with people wanting change, but afraid of the infighting and anarchy that change will bring. This is the real tool of power over the people. The populace is at 300+million people, but all divided into groups based on race, religion, wealth, etc...And getting all of these groups to agree on one way that this country should be run is an impossibility.
To put it into perspective: Let's say sometime down the road, the gov't. does something really harsh, or oppressive, the match that sets off the strife that some of the BBS members' here think will happen. Ok, Let's say we have the equivalent of a revolution (or a 2nd civil war) and the current gov't. and 2 party system is dispensed with. What then? You have so many different groups stepping forward to claim power, that the strife goes on. Until society is reduced back to subsistence farming.
That would be the "Postman" scenario. The other theory I have is something like the country splitting up into a bunch of smaller, individual "nations". Along what lines, however, is still up in the air because of economic, ethnic, or whatever different demographics. However, I can see what Bodhi meant about being afraid of the future. We are rapidly coming to the point where something is going to happen, because of strains along all the different divisions of American society.
When you throw enough ingredients into the "melting pot" you eventually come up with a poison, i'm afraid.
Everyone thinks Democracy is freedom. It's not. Usually about half the population gets screwed. When you have a population of 300 million, half is a lot of people.
-
It's already over, the RNC & DNC have taken total control of the process over the years and are not going to give up their power for something as silly as the good of the country. In reality, theres not much the little people can do about it, peacefully.
Make signs, burn candles, march, yell, protest.. they'll ignore you because they can, thats if you are not arrested for crossing the police tape or lacking the proper permit.
They know all to well that when election day arrives, hardcore party sheep would rather eat glass than vote for the other team. Independent voters sick of both parties are stuck in a hopeless situation of choosing between the Idiot and the handsomehunk, like trying to pick up a fecal loaf by the clean end... or by "throwing away" their vote on A 3rd party dude the ruling parties have declared as a fringe lunatic.
The sad part is the sheepeople who march in left, right lock step with the ruling elite.. voting under the false hope that this time, just maybe, the liars will actually deliver, or that the other teams liars will be stopped.
-
In reality, LS, any political system, be it Democracy, Communism, Monarchy, Dictatorship, whatever, is only as good as the people that implement it are.
As more and more politicians have gotten used to taking money to vote the way an interested 3rd party wants, the U.S. gov't. has gotten to the point that Right and Wrong, Justice and injustice, have less and less bearing on any matter. I would be willing to bet that if a Large enough corporation wanted to, and the went to enough of the individual representatives of gov't. that they could even have the constitution repealed.
This is not a gov't. of men who aspire to do good deeds.
They are the greedy, the contempt, the seeds of our downfall, when you cross they're palms with enough dollars.
-
term limits.
-
I'm through voting for Republicans or Democrats. They're both pathetic, inept, and NOT the lesser of the two evils". They ARE the two evils.
At this point I'd vote for Pooh Bear. I'll never understand why some can debate for hours about politicians who can give a rat's a** about you, as long as they are getting tax dollars.
BUT, ask a politician "Why do I have to be taxed for Social Security, and you don't?" I saw a State Senator this weekend and asked him. He got flush and walked away, I repeated my question louder. His old, wrinkly, I don't give a crap about Michiganders a** practically ran from me.
Piss on both parties, one has Dumbo as it's mascot and the other has "Number Seven" as it's mascot.
Being the President means you get to pick and choose who to be "adulterous" this weekend with. Meanwhile, IGNORING our educational system is foundering like the Goldfish at the end of the "Epic" video. It also means that the Corporations had the deep pockets, because the public sure as hell doesn't want either candidate in office.
-
Originally posted by john9001
term limits.
Swell. Now just who is it exactly that's going to turn that into law?
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
In reality, LS, any political system, be it Democracy, Communism, Monarchy, Dictatorship, whatever, is only as good as the people that implement it are.
As more and more politicians have gotten used to taking money to vote the way an interested 3rd party wants, the U.S. gov't. has gotten to the point that Right and Wrong, Justice and injustice, have less and less bearing on any matter. I would be willing to bet that if a Large enough corporation wanted to, and the went to enough of the individual representatives of gov't. that they could even have the constitution repealed.
This is not a gov't. of men who aspire to do good deeds.
They are the greedy, the contempt, the seeds of our downfall, when you cross they're palms with enough dollars.
No. You keep forgetting that even if a government is instituted by the best and the brightest, very easily can nearly half the population get screwed out of what they want.
Government has never been about right and wrong. It's been about taking power that is not theirs.
Greed is fine. There is nothing wrong with greed. However, when you start to rationalize taking what is not yours, then you've jumped both feet first into thievery. And this is what government is. Taking what is not theirs by force.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Greed is fine.
No it isn't.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
No it isn't.
Yes, it is. Greed has made everything you see. Greed is the forerunner of innovation. Greed is the forerunner of invention. Greed is what makes you work. Greed is what makes you do better. Greed is what makes you be better.
There is a difference between wanting more, and taking what is not yours.
Greed has driven people to make millions of dollars off of hard work. Greed has driven you to seek out better pay and a better job. Greed has driven you to find things that you enjoy doing.
Greed is a good thing.
However, Greed is the antithesis of Socialism. Socialists want more, but will never want to work for it. They will always try to take what is not theirs.
Greed is hard work. Socialism is theft.
-
"Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right; greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms, greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge — has marked the upward surge of mankind."
Truer words have never been spoken... Just don't judge them by the source.
-
I was wondering when that quote was going to come up. :D
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Greed has made everything you see. Greed is the forerunner of innovation. Greed is the forerunner of invention.
I disagree. This may be true in some cases, but not all. I can't make a list of innovations derived by greed, and those made for more altruistic purposes, but I can name one, and a very important one in my line of work:
The solid phase synthesizer, one of the most important developments in chemistry, biochemistry and medicine, was developed by Robert Bruce Merrifield of Rockefeller University. He earned the Nobel Prize in 1984 for his work.
He never patented this technology, because he believed it to be so important that there should be no restrictions on it's application or use. A truly altruistic act on his part.
-----
To be fair, there are plenty of examples which would support your statement: Andrew Carnegie is one. He actually believed he was doing workers a favor by paying low wages, keeping the revenue, then giving it back to them in the form of his own social works programs.
Edit: it was 1984, not 1987 and he was at Rockefeller University...my mind is getting rusty...
-
Originally posted by kamilyun
I disagree. This may be true in some cases, but not all. I can't make a list of innovations derived by greed, and those made for more altruistic purposes, but I can name one, and a very important one in my line of work:
The solid phase synthesizer, one of the most important developments in chemistry, biochemistry and medicine, was developed by Robert Bruce Merrifield of Rockefeller University. He earned the Nobel Prize in 1984 for his work.
He never patented this technology, because he believed it to be so important that there should be no restrictions on it's application or use. A truly altruistic act on his part.
Greed doesn't have to be greed for money. Robert Bruce Merrifield was guilty of another type of greed. Greed for knowledge. He wanted more of it than he needed, and he made sacrifices, and probably caused others to make sacrifices, to achieve it.
Wanting more than you need, be it dollars, tomatoes, speed or truth, are all examples of irrational yet self-justifying hunger. The altruism makes it easier to stomach, of course, but that hunger is the same.
Defined that way, greed is simply an instinct that drives us to continue to function even after survival has been assured.
-
OK charon... let's say that I am wrong and that voting for paul is a great way to protest.
Who do you think will get elected if 10% of the population votes for paul as an independent? A democrat or a republican?
You can be sure that the 10% who vote for paul will all be republicans and that will make the republican lose... worse.. the democrat will win.
We can sit and talk all we want about it but the truth is that only people who want freedom and individuality will ever vote for freedom..
freedom means less taxes and less government.. do you seriously think that any democrat will ever want that?
Arnie signed the .50 ban... I would hate to see what would have come up in front of his far left liberal opponent to sign tho...
lazs
-
Originally posted by kamilyun
I disagree. This may be true in some cases, but not all. I can't make a list of innovations derived by greed, and those made for more altruistic purposes, but I can name one, and a very important one in my line of work:
The solid phase synthesizer, one of the most important developments in chemistry, biochemistry and medicine, was developed by Robert Bruce Merrifield of Rockefeller University. He earned the Nobel Prize in 1984 for his work.
He never patented this technology, because he believed it to be so important that there should be no restrictions on it's application or use. A truly altruistic act on his part.
-----
To be fair, there are plenty of examples which would support your statement: Andrew Carnegie is one. He actually believed he was doing workers a favor by paying low wages, keeping the revenue, then giving it back to them in the form of his own social works programs.
Edit: it was 1984, not 1987 and he was at Rockefeller University...my mind is getting rusty...
How much money does a Nobel Prize winner get?
-
Who do you think will get elected if 10% of the population votes for paul as an independent? A democrat or a republican?
You can be sure that the 10% who vote for paul will all be republicans and that will make the republican lose... worse.. the democrat will win.
That's short term thinking.
If 10% of republicans vote independent, and the democrats win, what do you think the next republican candidate will think?
If the parties think their core vote is secure, then they never have to appeal to it.
If you always vote republican, no matter what their policies, why are the republicans going to adopt the policies you want? You have to stand up for what you believe in, even if it means temporary reverses.
-
so nashwan.. you would say that only the republicans are "smart" enough to see long term thinking?
Interesting.. meanwhile the democrats vote in lockstep for socialism... negros.. teachers .. unions... hispanics... anyone who thinks that they are a failure and will always be one.. that they can't compete.
If your thinking were correct then ross perot would have made a huge difference in the republican party.. they lost because of him.
Oh.. but wait... he was a nutter right? Not like old paul? give paul the stage and have him talk about cutting programs and...
the media will turn him into a nutter in a month. everything he says will be mocked and taken out of context.. libertarians are easy to make sound like nutters.. you just need to give em the stage and "analyze" what they said...
You just need to tell people how much pain they will cause... how much of other peoples money they will take from you.
lazs
-
OK charon... let's say that I am wrong and that voting for paul is a great way to protest.
Who do you think will get elected if 10% of the population votes for paul as an independent? A democrat or a republican?
You can be sure that the 10% who vote for paul will all be republicans and that will make the republican lose... worse.. the democrat will win.
Both parties are well aware of this calculation, on this and a dozen other issues. They know that they can use fear to manipulate our votes. Eventually, the "lesser of two evil"s can't be distinguished from "the greater of two evils". The Republican party today does not deliver on it's reputation. With a candidate like Rudy it's clear that the party leadership is unconcerned about those values moving forward. They might as well be running Feinstein where the 2nd is concerned.
If Hillary gets in I will not feel any worse than if Rudy wins. It's that simple. Neither party is fielding candidates that remotely represent my values. And the Republicans are not Republicans anymore.
We can sit and talk all we want about it but the truth is that only people who want freedom and individuality will ever vote for freedom..
freedom means less taxes and less government.. do you seriously think that any democrat will ever want that?
The Republicans will certainly not raise taxes, but they show little to no spending restraint across a broad spectrum of areas. Can't really have one without the other. It's not 1950 anymore, or the 1980s for that matter. Rudy is not a Republican and the party has not supported Republican values for some years now. Plus, I value the rest of the BOR perhaps a bit more than the current Republican leadership and certainly more than Rudy. I don't want to throw out the 4th for the 2nd (especially since Rudy is one of the worst enemies of the 2nd we have seen). Electing Rudy sends a further message that gun owners don't much care.
Arnie signed the .50 ban... I would hate to see what would have come up in front of his far left liberal opponent to sign tho...
From what I hear on the firearm boards, Arnie was elected over a real conservative. RINOS are RINOS. Hopefully he will have enough sense to Veto the microstamping legislation or California is likely to not only **** it's gun owners, but the rest of us, depending on how the manufacturers react.
I don't see either party as having a national platform anymore on anything. Republicans around the big blue cities are almost indistinguishable in their positions from Democrats. Rural Democrats are as Conservative as Rural Republicans. They change their values to suit political need. Every 4 months I deal with the latest Daley or Blago inspired gun control measure and you can see who votes for what.
My R federal congressman cosponsors AWB legislation and brags about it. My R state senator supports magazine capacity limits. It's at the point where the only way to achieve change is to get the *******s out and ride out the change (F rated is F rated, after all -- how bad can the evil Democrat actually be?). Maybe the next Republican candidate 4 years later will support the issues I support.
On the plus side with all this, is that nationally gun control is a loser. For the president to sign a bill it has to reach the president and the power to do that is waning. Even the media is getting the message (largely because they can now be ignored and bypassed by the Internet).
To me, unless we get REAL change in Washington, it's a complete wash long term on the 2nd. I imagine the national Democratic leadership has just as much interest in your being able to own a limited deer rifle or duck gun as the the Republican party leadership. As noted, Bush said he would sign an AWB if it was brought before him and he has not done anything I can see with the full control of the political process in Washington to move back from existing gun control legislation.
Charon
-
That's short term thinking.
If 10% of republicans vote independent, and the democrats win, what do you think the next republican candidate will think?
If the parties think their core vote is secure, then they never have to appeal to it.
If you always vote republican, no matter what their policies, why are the republicans going to adopt the policies you want? You have to stand up for what you believe in, even if it means temporary reverses.
Nashwan is absolutely correct.
Sure the Democrats play the same game Lazs. That is what politics has become. But, with the election of the Southern Conservative Democrats and MOR shifts because of Iraq they can no longer push the core hippie agenda and still keep power. It can evaporate next election as easily as it arrived.
In spite of finally being in the drivers seat in Congress/Senate, where's the extreme liberal legislation? Why is gun control not a major Democratic issue these days? Hell the VT incident came and went and the Democrats were working hard to avoid even discussing it in Washington. As Bill Clinton noted, the AWB cost them dearly in the 1990s -- and they learned from that.
Politicans want power. If they lose an election they lose power. They change to regain power.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
Nashwan is absolutely correct.
Sure the Democrats play the same game Lazs. That is what politics has become. But, with the election of the Southern Conservative Democrats and MOR shifts because of Iraq they can no longer push the core hippie agenda and still keep power. It can evaporate next election as easily as it arrived.
In spite of finally being in the drivers seat in Congress/Senate, where's the extreme liberal legislation? Why is gun control not a major Democratic issue these days? Hell the VT incident came and went and the Democrats were working hard to avoid even discussing it in Washington. As Bill Clinton noted, the AWB cost them dearly in the 1990s -- and they learned from that.
Politicans want power. If they lose an election they lose power. They change to regain power.
Charon
I concur.
Also alot ios made about how voting independant will only steal votes from the republican side.
Thats not entirely accurate. Particularly in this upcomming election.
NJ is by and large a Democratic state.
In fact most of the people I meet are democrats and usually vote that way...Untill recently.
I get to meet and talk to alot of different people. And What I am hearing more and more is even democrats that are so disgusted with even their own party and the two parties in general are outright planning on voting independant. the vast majoriity of those plan to vote libritarian.
Particularly if Hillary is the candidate.
Im seeing people on both sides of the isle so disgusted they are planning on voting independant for various reasons. But the two big ones are they are dusgusted with their own parties and aree finding that they agree with libritarian views. Or are planning on voting that way just to protest the big two.
Voting Rep. or Democrat for that matter just to kep the other side out is pretty mindless as it accomplishes nothing but the promise of more of the same from either side.
Voting outside the two biggies is not a wasted vote as it does send a message and particularly how close some of these elections have been these votes could have made the difference one way or the other.
It forces them to look at why they didnt get these votes.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
We can sit and talk all we want about it but the truth is that only people who want freedom and individuality will ever vote for freedom..
freedom means less taxes and less government.. do you seriously think that any democrat will ever want that?
lazs
How is it you figure that only the Republicans stand for freedom?
Thats rediculous.
Would push for freedoms as well as take freedoms from us
For example
Republicans are largely pro Gun freedom . Whil Democrats would infringe on the right to keep and bear arms
On the flip side.
Democrats are for giving people the freedom of the right to choose on abortion. While Republicans would take that right from the people
I could go on and on with comparisons going back and forth
Both sides fail on the religeous front.
While the Reps would push religeon in government
the Democrats would remove it entirely
I am curious though
If Rudy wins the nomination. Who would you vote for being as he is largely pro choice and Anti gun?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
the lesser of two evils has always received my vote ... since 92 that has been the republican ticket as it will be again in 08
The "Lesser of two evils" thinking is what is dooming this country to a fate worse than the Great Depression or even the Civil War.
Don't be afraid to go with the guy that actually says what you think, because he might just "spoil" the election for the party that you dislike, but doesn't seem as bad as the other.
Really, we shouldn't be afraid of either the Dem's or the GOP-We should fear what passes as an American voter, these days.
Too much front-runner mentality. Even if I don't vote for Ron Paul (Depends on if he get's a nom. or if he won't run independent) I'm still voting for an independent.
The Dem's and GOP have been here for far too long, for any good that they are doing. Let us be done with them.
-
The natives have been soured to our soldiers and insurgents have turned this into a civil holy war
Nonsense. please quit posting this democratic party line drivel while trying to pass it off as an original thought. Propagandist nutjob.
-
Ok... lets get something straight.. You want a republican to appoint judges to the supreme court if you care at all about 2nd amendment rights... this thing is gonna come to a head soon enough and you don't want liberal democrat appointed judges..
arnie in kalifornia was indeed the lesser of two evils... the democrat was an anti gun commie... at best. we got the better of the deal... bad as it was.
and charon... I am pragmatic... go ahead with "both parties" this and "both parties" that but the truth is... voting independent has only helped democrats.
Voting independent does not resonate with either party... ross perrot had a huge following and... after he destroyed the republican chances.. he... and his ideas.. were never heard from again.
You have to look at what has happened not at what you would like to happen.
Bad as rudi is.. I would want him putting judges on a lot more than billary or osamabama.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Defined that way, greed is simply an instinct that drives us to continue to function even after survival has been assured.
touche' :)
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
How much money does a Nobel Prize winner get?
Slightly less than a million $$, don't know the current $ to euro ratio :)
No one can target a Nobel Prize in chemistry.
And the point wasn't about the field he's in. I simply do not believe that all 'good' comes from selfish motivation (a more narrow definition of greed), although as Neubob pointed out, greed can be for knowledge (or anything).
It's a philosophical point, but I don't believe all human motivation for progress is greed. I'm pretty cynical, but not that cynical. I can guarantee to you that mine motivation in life is not greed, and I don't for second think that I'm alone. You could argue that I've contributed nothing to the world in the form of innovations, etc...we could take that to PMs. It's a sad world if everything is reduced to "how much can I get out of this for helping you"
-
Bad as rudi is.. I would want him putting judges on a lot more than billary or osamabama.
That's really the only part of the lesser of two evils deal I care about today, and a valid point. Something I will have to calculate out.
However, I'm not so sure I like what the "conservative" appointments have done so far with no knock searches, roadside sobriety checks or imminent domain. In fact, I believe from the voting records (as I remember them) I side more with the liberal justices in those cases. I'm not so sure Rudi would be all that better since his big government conservative justices might not favor the 4th, etc. Plus, we haven't seen yet how Bush's appointments will react to the Parker/Heller case yet, or if they will hear it at all.
But, clearly something to consider.
You have to look at what has happened not at what you would like to happen.
I'm aware of that. But, sometimes you have to risk things getting worse in the short term to create a long term change or improvement.
Charon
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Voting independent does not resonate with either party... ross perrot had a huge following and... after he destroyed the republican chances.. he... and his ideas.. were never heard from again.
Thing is though. If he hadnt pulled his in again/out again stunt and stayed the course the whole way through.
He argueably would have won
So the statemtn that voting independant doesnt reasonate with either party doesnt hold true.
-
Perot was NOT going to win. Regardless of whether or not he could make up his mind and decide if he even wanted to run.
Skuzzy has already nailed this one. When he said change will only start at the local level and work up, he was dead on correct. It will take YEARS, maybe a couple of decades, and then only if the movement stays alive. Voting "none of the above" ain't gonna work.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Perot was NOT going to win. Regardless of whether or not he could make up his mind and decide if he even wanted to run.
Skuzzy has already nailed this one. When he said change will only start at the local level and work up, he was dead on correct. It will take YEARS, maybe a couple of decades, and then only if the movement stays alive. Voting "none of the above" ain't gonna work.
I dissagree.
I think he had a exeptionally good chance of winning.
what did him in was the Im in Im out. Im in again.
in spite of this he still managed...
In the 1992 election, he received 18.9% of the popular vote - approximately 19,741,065 votes - (but no electoral college votes), making him the most successful Independent presidential candidate in terms of the popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election. Perot managed to finish second in two states: In Maine, Perot received 30.44% of the vote to Bush's 30.39% (Clinton won Maine with 38.77%); In Utah, Perot received 27.34% of the vote to Clinton's 24.65% (Bush won Utah with 43.36%).
And to take a slice away from Laz's claim that he only stole the conservative vote
"A detailed analysis of the voting demographics revealed that Perot's support drew heavily from across the political spectrum, with 20% of his votes coming from self-described liberals, 27% from self-described conservatives, and 53% coming from self-described moderates. Economically, however, the majority of Perot voters (57%) were middle class, earning between $15,000 and $49,000 annually, with the bulk of the remainder drawing from the upper middle class (29% earning over $50,000 annually). Politics: Who Cares by Peirce Lewis, Casey McCracken, and Roger Hunt (American Demographics, October 1994, vol. 16, no. 10) p. 23."
At one point in June, Perot led the polls with 39% (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton).
Well above the universally accepted margin of error
I also dissagree with Skuzzy as well. It wouldnt take decades.
Its been done before.
All thats really needed is a real leader with the financial backing to get him there
-
And you'd get a President who did not have a party in Congress to back him. IF you could get lucky enough to find someone and backing. You can bet Congress would not be falling all over each other to work with him, either.
-
like I said, it is about the lesser of two evils ..
if the girly-men bush haters here, the homos, the confused women and minorities (actually aren't the minority in many places these days) get their way - we'll see just how screwed up this country can get in a short 4 years especially if the dems maintain the majority in the house and senate in 08
I'll take ANY republican over billary and her to be announced Muslim side kick vp
-
Originally posted by Eagler
"Baa-aa-aa-aa-aa-aa"
Fixed.
As I said, it's the party-line sheeple that are the ones to worry about.
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Fixed.
As I said, it's the party-line sheeple that are the ones to worry about.
sry, I deal in realities - best worry about those with their heads in the clouds
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
And you'd get a President who did not have a party in Congress to back him. IF you could get lucky enough to find someone and backing. You can bet Congress would not be falling all over each other to work with him, either.
That depends.
On the flip side. Without the President. congress woudnt be able to get much done either.
To a certain extent they would have to work with him like it or not or risk the ire of the people.
Which leads me to the second point.
What he would have to do is take whatever issue to the public.
Win the support of the people and you win the support of congress
It would be politically suicidal not to.
-
Been out of town a few days...
Well Lazs, Arnie (with an R, as in Republican) just signed the microstamping law and lead ammunition bans. Maybe the Republicans should have fielded an actual Republican instead of a RINO. The Brady bunch is rejoicing ... literally.
Best case scenario -- technology proves to be unworkable.
But, likely scenario... technology works but is easily defeated by criminals. So, the mfgs then refuse to sell their newer semi-auto pistol lines in California. Or, they adopt this ineffective and cumbersome technology and sell them but at a premium cost in Cali and nationally. What do you bet we will soon see regulation on existing models to eliminate the existing models and revolver loopholes? No revolver sales, just sales of approved microstamping semi auto pistols.
The death of 1000 cuts continues.
All you (we) needed was a Veto. Will Rudy wield a veto on this as national legislation? Or the AWB? He's not married to a Kennedy, but then his track record is in lockstep with Teddy so I guess well just have to hope really, really hard.
Charon
-
I haven't done a lot of research , but I have heard good things about the candidate Ron Paul. Check it out. He is not well funded and is excluded from many mainstream talks. Again I don't kow much about him just relaying the info.
<>
Spazz
-
charon.. I did not know that. can you link me to the article on the bills arnie signed?
I would ask you tho... do you think the commie that was running against him would have not signed them? I can't imagine arnie being overall worse than the guy he beat in anything.
lazs
-
Here are some links:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=309077
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=309659
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=264884
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=3260
From Brady:
Gov. Schwarzenegger Signs Landmark Legislation to Solve Gun Crimes
For Immediate Release:
10-13-2007
Contact Communications:
(202) 898-0792 Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Sacramento, CA – Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law cutting-edge legislation that will provide police with an important new tool in solving gun crimes and apprehending armed criminals and gang members. AB 1471 passed both the Assembly last spring and the State Senate last month.
“We applaud Gov. Schwarzenegger for taking a bold step to solve gun murders in California. This ground-breaking law gives police officers a powerful tool to apprehend armed criminals and gang members before they strike again,” said Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke. “The Governor has set a new national standard for the rest of the country to follow.”
The Crime Gun Identification Act will require that all new models of semi-automatic handguns sold in the State of California starting in 2010 be equipped with technology to allow police to match bullet casings found at a crime scene to the handgun that fired the bullets. This technology, known as "microstamping," consists of engraving microscopic characters representing the make, model and serial number of a handgun onto its firing pin and other internal surfaces. These characters transfer onto the bullet shell casing when the handgun is fired. In instances of drive-by shootings, where the only evidence at the crime scene may be a casing from a fired bullet, law enforcement will be able to quickly obtain a critical lead.
Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-42), a former Los Angeles City Councilmember who recognizes that law enforcement needs more tools to combat gang violence, was the author of the bill. It was supported by the California Police Chiefs Association, the Orange County Chiefs’ and Sheriff’s Association, the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), and the Los Angeles Police Protective League, in addition to 65 police chiefs and sheriffs throughout the state.
Kay Holmen, the President of the California Brady Campaign Chapters, said, "Nearly half of all crimes go unsolved in our state. Microstamping technology will provide our police officers with solid leads for finding armed criminals before they do more harm. This new law will allow our police to trace the crime gun---without the gun.”
My worry, is that we will see this "sensible" crime fighting bill ported to Ill now, Mass most certainly and perhaps federally under Uncle Teddy. All it is is a back door pseudo ban an semi autos or a drive up the price measure. A file will eliminate a microstamp, fouling eliminates the ability to read a stamping much of the time, a revolver leaves no shell casings, a criminal can go to a range and pick up spent brass to scatter at the scene of a crime, etc. http://www.physorg.com/news97430920.html
Adds cost and complexity, forces mfgs to make tough choices on the Calif market -- a back door semi auto pistol ban. And the Govenator had to have known this. Some interesting issues related to reloading as well...
I agree. He's likely no worse than the Democrat. But, he's certainly no better. End result the same. That's why letting the party know (state or fed) that their choices are unacceptable is important. If not, some day soon there will be no real difference beyond spin and playing on the memory of what each party used to stand for. And just how conservative is Arnie on other issues in Calif? I don't personally know, honest question.
BTW, your point about the SC Justices is a critical one. I'm not so sure Rudy would be THAT different from Hillery though. A very moderate slight conservative at best, IMO. But the only real argument for me for the "lesser of two evils" thing this election.
Charon
-
thanks.. oh.. arnie did sign a bill that protects gun owners in an emergency from having their guns confiscated like in the katrina mess..
this is fairly important.
I still believe that if the commie had gotten in that 10 times more gun legeslation would have gone to him to sign by our totally democrat dominated legislators...
and.. he would have signed every one.
Would we be better with more of a republican than arnie? sure... would we be better with the commie instead of arnie? not even close. arnie tried a whold slew of conservative measures when he started and they were shot down.... slaughtered.. by kalifornia voters... I would say that in kalifornia... we get the government we deserve. not arnies fault compared to the voters.
as for hillary.... don't you believe it.. she would nominate the worst judges in history... simply look at her record as the woman behind the man... they fired every federal judge and put in the worst judges the world has ever seen...
Tell me charon... what has changed? why would she have a change of heart?
lazs
-
What chowderheads; microstamping, what a laugh. I'm sure there will be numerous ways to bypass/invalidate that one.
-
Tell me charon... what has changed? why would she have a change of heart?
I doubt very little. Though I do believe she will waffle quickly if any of her pet projects face strong resistance. She has those core values, I'm sure, but then I'm equally sure she values her personal power and reelectability even more. Of course, the same can likely be said for Rudy, though I think there is more long term potential for Rudy to have a bipartisan approach to things like "sensible gun control."
Still, the big issue is that the republican party is heading down a very similar trail -- a bit slower, but more similar than different for the likely end result. I'm not sure they will change their course unless the voters show then that they have to change their course.
What chowderheads; microstamping, what a laugh. I'm sure there will be numerous ways to bypass/invalidate that one.
I'm sure this will also be an issue we will now have to face here in Illinois. It worked in California, so lets try to slam it through here since the AWB has failed to make it over the top. I believe Mass is a foregone conclusion, and Teddy is apparently looking for a national push. By the time it's realized to be an obvious joke (by those without the common sense mechanical knowledge to realize that today) it will be entrenched.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Toad
What chowderheads; microstamping, what a laugh. I'm sure there will be numerous ways to bypass/invalidate that one.
Yep think sand paper not to mention what about simply buying another pin and putting it in the gun.
-
They will just make you fill out a 4473 to buy a new pin.
If you read Wiki, they list the pros/cons; criminals will be able to defeat this with about 5 mintues of effort. Of course, you'll have the dumb shirts that will not bypass the system; one tenth of one percent of those might even get caught because of this.
But hey... don't let that stop the government from wasting bajillions of OPM
(other people's money). The important thing is to pretend that you are doing something.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The important thing is to pretend that you are doing something.
ain't that the truth.
-
I imagine it will be like the old law that made people sign for ammunition... for decades we did it... the stores dutifully collected the data and.....
Not one...yep, not even one crime was ever solved with it.
so they dropped it.
This law is more about the democrats in power wanting to put another roadblock in the way of gun ownership.. to add another layer of expense and bother. If they can turn even one guy off from buying a gun then it is worth it to them.
Democrats are behind every abhorrent gun law these days charon... how can you not see it?
The most we can hope for is that a sympathetic supreme court will roll back all the unconstitutional gun laws on the books
Who do you want appointing the next supreme court justices?
lazs
-
I think I'd really like Ron Paul to pick the next nine justices.
He's probably the only pol in DC that has actually read the entire Constitution and probably more than once.
-
as would I toad but... we are not going to get that chance.
lazs
-
Democrats are behind every abhorrent gun law these days charon... how can you not see it?
Because the people I deal with regularly that try to take my guns away are Republicans, as often as not. This guy, for example: Mark Kirk (http://www.house.gov/kirk/)
Continue the Assault Weapons Ban
The 1994 assault weapons ban expired on September 13, 2004. Congressman Kirk supports extending the assault weapons ban. On July 8, 2004, he joined three of members of the House of Representatives in a letter requesting that Speaker of the House, J. Dennis Hastert, bring this critical piece of legislation up for a vote. He also urged the Administration to push for renewal of the assault weapons ban. On May 5 and June 18, 2004, he co-signed letters to the President and Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge urging action on the assault weapons ban.
Close the Gun Show Loophole
Congressman Kirk co-sponsored H.R. 3540 to close the gun show loophole. This bill requires criminal background checks on all firearms transactions occurring at events that provide a venue for the sale, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange of firearms.
An evaluation of gun trafficking investigations showed that gun shows rank as the second leading source of illegal guns recovered by federal law enforcement. In 1994, Congress passed the Brady Bill, which required gun stores to perform criminal background checks on all gun buyers. In just five years, these background checks have blocked 536,000 convicted felons and other illegal buyers from purchasing a gun. Congressman Kirk supports the Brady Bill because it keeps guns out of the hands of criminals.
Because the Brady Bill does not apply to private gun dealers, criminals who cannot buy at a gun store can skirt the law and obtain guns from private sellers at gun shows with no questions asked. Congressman Kirk supports closing this loophole in the law. This legislation would close the gun show loophole nationally.
Repealing the Tiahrt Amendment
Last week I introduced an amendment to the Justice Department Appropriations bill with Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) that would have lifted restrictions that prevent local police from accessing critical information about the guns they confiscate. Using a computerized database containing this gun trace data, agents in the Chicago ATF office were able to determine that more than 300 guns used in gang-related crimes in Chicago were originally bought at only four gun shops in Mississippi. The gun shops were Mega Pawn, Krosstown Trade and Pawn, and the North Delta Gun Shop in Clarksdale, and Route 61 Trade and Pawn in Tunica.
Thanks to the leadership of ATF Special Agent in Charge of the Chicago office Andy Traver, 19 people were arrested in March in connection with this Mississippi-to-Chicago gun smuggling network. But because of a provision in law known as the “Tiahrt Amendment,” the ATF cannot share the data they used to break up this gun running ring with local police. Our amendment would have given local police access to this powerful investigative tool.
There is a growing threat of gang violence in the suburbs. There are more than 3,000 gang members living north of Lake-Cook Road. These smaller police departments do not have the resources the Chicago Police Department has to fight gangs. Giving suburban police access to the ATF trace data can help keep guns off our streets and shut down the interstate trafficking networks.
Unfortunately, Democrats and Republicans who did not see it our way defeated the Kennedy-Kirk Amendment. But we are not done fighting to give suburban police the tools they need to keep guns and gangs out of our community.
What's not to love, Lazs. Hard to do any worse than an NRA F rating. I will vote for an A-C rated Democrat any day. I will vote for a F rated democrat if it gets Kirk out of office and opens his seat for a new Republican candidate 4 years down the road. He's not only a follower, he's a leader in the anti 2nd movement. This is the same guy I got to grill on that phone in "town hall meeting" BTW :)
Of course, the same is generally true with my state reps and senators -- all RINOS in my neck of the woods.
Arine is a republican. Rudy is a republican. Bloomberg is a Republican. I have no confidence that the 2nd Amendment is more safe in the long run -- unless you want a UK style sporting use definition of "bear arms" -- under the Republican party leadership than under the Democratic party leadership. What has Bush done for the 2nd with a Republican Congress? How many laws were repealed. The AWB sunsetted on its own, but the guy promised to sign a new one if it landed on his desk.
Charon