Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lazs2 on February 02, 2008, 10:26:31 AM
-
Ok.. comes up every thread about the candidates.. lets discuss it here.
If you vote for a marginal candidate.. one who's poll numbers are a given and small... ron paul or some topless dancer say..
Yes..it is a wasted vote and yes.. it works against the party that you would rather have in if that marginal candidate did not exist.
You aren't going to win and you won't send a message.. they have you factored in already.. your fringe vote is factored in and... counted on.
so what are you left with? two candidates.. one from democrats and one from republicans.. both seem very much alike.. both pander to the very poor and the rich contributors.. the reality is that both need to screw the worker.. the middle class.. to get what they want. both will do so. Our taxes will go up.. the money will be given to the worthless and illegal in our society or to defense contractors and oil men.
It will come from us.
The only point is.. no matter what they say.. they do vote and work along party lines. the pie is split pretty much in two.. for defense and to pay for socialism. one party cuts one part to pay for the other and... vice versa.
wars...defense.. your-0-peeeans don't pay for em.. they need every cent for growing socialist programs. we could be like them. except.. we can't.. our population is not like theres.. we would be a pidgeon feeder in the middle of the park.. so many pigeons we would drown in pigeon crap. The middle class can't support the numbers of worthless that the democrats want us to.
Public schools.. we will never have good schools with public schools.. we will never have vouchers with democrats.
taxes.. you can't pay for phony environmentalism and health care and social welfare with nothing.. you can start it for very little but.. look at LBJ's great society if you want to see the modern democrat in action... those programs sounded very humane at the time.. very... your-0-peean...
Look where they went... just look. look at what they cost then (when it sounded ok) and look at what they cost now!!! That is the "great society" that democrats have in store for us.
Republicans.. they cut social spending but boost defense. Not so bad so long as you can reign em in and keep em from being world police.. They may have learned.. we may have learned our lesson... this time.
On thing for sure.. democrats want higher taxes and republicans want lower taxes.
The trend now for democrats is to simply call em fees.. every agency that they come up with (for our own good) has "fees"
Soon... very soon... every single one of us will have $2 a gallon added to a gallon of gas to "combat man made..." whatever.. mostly to give jobs to college girls.
soon... very soon.. we will all pay $150 a month sewer bills. It will combat imagined threats. It will keep ocean beds from getting salty or less salty.. it will make sure that every insect is protected.
Soon you will be driving on toll roads cause the countless billions you give in tax is being spent on social programs..
democrats are running toward this.. republicans are being pulled toward it barely dragging their feet.. the activist lawyer groups are holding the reins for both parties.
Democrats will appoint (gleefully) the most insane activist liberal judges the world has ever seen.
I just want to slow the tide.. I will hold my nose and vote republican no matter who gets in.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Yes..it is a wasted vote and yes.. it works against the party that you would rather have in if that marginal candidate did not exist.
You aren't going to win and you won't send a message.. they have you factored in already.. your fringe vote is factored in and... counted on.
lazs
what am I left with?
My concience and my honor.
In knowing that I yes indeed sent a message.
That when all has been eroded by both sides and our liberties are completely gone.
At least I can say I stood up and said "no" rather then be a one of the sheep and just go along with the program of the big two.
Yes Laz. those of us who do vote for other parties do send a message. And that message is getting stronger.
As I stated in another thread I am seeing more and more of them "saying" they want to reach across the isle and work with the other party AND the independants.
Yes I know saying and doing are two seperate things. But the mere fact they are aknowledging the independants is significant as it wasnt too long ago that they wouldnt even be mentioned at all.
Independants are starting to be noticed.
So yes they are sending a message
As the independant movement gets stronger. And it is getting stronger.
They will have to be more then just factored in.
-
but is that message getting stronger? the primaries send the entire message.
It is where you can vote with little penalty for "conscience" ron paul has won nothing.. even when nothing is at stake.
If the same number vote for him.. unlikely.. in the real election.. it will be meaningless.
Honor? conscience? what honor is there in letting a democrat get in? what good is that for my grand daughter? never mind me.. I am more at the end than the beginning of my life.
All I have to do is move a little out on the outskirts .. away from the population centers.. a.. well and a septic tank and some solar power at my paid off place a little off the beaten path and I can live out my life while the democrats and socialists are picking over your bones. I will be dead before they get around to me.
If the bad guys vaporize a city... it will be a blue one and no where near me.
I can get by no matter what soooo.. vote your "conscience" .. you cant really hurt me.. I can get by... I spent my life making sure I could.
Just don't you dare... don't you dare act outraged and surprised by whatever a democrat pres with a democrat congress and liberal judges comes up with.
lazs
-
The fat lady ain't sung yet but she is warming up.
I'm still holding hope for Romney to beat McCain but it's withering.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
The fat lady ain't sung yet but she is warming up.
I'm still holding hope for Romney to beat McCain but it's withering.
Then tell Huckabee and Paul to get out. If you get rid of those two Romney wins hands down. I swear that mccain has promised Huckabee a juicy cabinet position if he doesn't drop out...
-
It's too late. Neither will concede before Tuesday.
-
Check your states voting record.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
Republicans haven't counted in my state for the past 24 years.
So either way.. i vote for Ron Paul. Then i vote for McCain or Romney, and a democrat wins anyway.
I voted for Dole, and clinton won. I voted for Bush Sr. and clinton won. :(
-
Holding my nose and voting for McCain is like catching my wife banging the pool boy, THEN accepting her apologies and letting her back because now she wants to be good wife. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens are libs who prolly want to retire, and are desperately wanting a Democrat president in place before they do so, and as long as it isn't Alito, Roberts, Thomas or Scalia, status quo will remain. (Ok, Kennedy also, who seems to be a fence-sitter) I doubt if our brave senate minority could get thru an actual conservative anyway, as McCain, sadly, is probably more conservative than most of THEM
-
If you vote for the Republican nominee and the Democrat wins, is your vote wasted?
If you vote for the Republican and your wife votes for the Democrat, are both your votes wasted because they cancel each other out?
If you vote for a candidate that ends up winning by more than a 1 vote margin, is your vote wasted because they would have still won even if you didn't vote, so what did you accomplish?
The purpose of voting is not to pick the winner. Voting is exercising your conscience.
The only wasted vote is the vote you didn't cast because you were too lazy to get out and vote.
-
In the primaries, it's not wasted because you can get even marginalized candidates enough delegates that they get the right to speak at the party convention. That ensures that their viewpoint and opinions will be heard, and possibly incorporated into the overall party position. It shows the party how much support a set of ideas may have even if the candidate forwarding those ideas is not electable or otherwise very popular.
That's why a primary vote for Ron Paul is a great idea if you like anything he says that the other candidates are ignoring.
In the general election, I think that classical game theory leads to the conclusion that voting for the lesser evil is better than voting for an ideal outcome that is unlikely.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
what am I left with?
My concience and my honor.
In knowing that I yes indeed sent a message.
That when all has been eroded by both sides and our liberties are completely gone.
At least I can say I stood up and said "no" rather then be a one of the sheep and just go along with the program of the big two.
Yes Laz. those of us who do vote for other parties do send a message. And that message is getting stronger.
As I stated in another thread I am seeing more and more of them "saying" they want to reach across the isle and work with the other party AND the independants.
Yes I know saying and doing are two seperate things. But the mere fact they are aknowledging the independants is significant as it wasnt too long ago that they wouldnt even be mentioned at all.
Independants are starting to be noticed.
So yes they are sending a message
As the independant movement gets stronger. And it is getting stronger.
They will have to be more then just factored in.
And as it gets stronger, the other voters who have lost hope might just end up voting their conscience the next time. Eventually the best candidate wins and we stop our bleeding.
Voting for the less of two evils? I doubt our founding fathers envisioned this pessimistic outlook.
-
Originally posted by myelo
If you vote for the Republican nominee and the Democrat wins, is your vote wasted?
If you vote for the Republican and your wife votes for the Democrat, are both your votes wasted because they cancel each other out?
If you vote for a candidate that ends up winning by more than a 1 vote margin, is your vote wasted because they would have still won even if you didn't vote, so what did you accomplish?
The purpose of voting is not to pick the winner. Voting is exercising your conscience.
The only wasted vote is the vote you didn't cast because you were too lazy to get out and vote.
Bingo! :aok
-
Originally posted by myelo
If you vote for the Republican nominee and the Democrat wins, is your vote wasted?
If you vote for the Republican and your wife votes for the Democrat, are both your votes wasted because they cancel each other out?
If you vote for a candidate that ends up winning by more than a 1 vote margin, is your vote wasted because they would have still won even if you didn't vote, so what did you accomplish?
The purpose of voting is not to pick the winner. Voting is exercising your conscience.
The only wasted vote is the vote you didn't cast because you were too lazy to get out and vote.
exactly.
-
Screw them all. I say WE as Americans do something so dam sneaky and underhanded that would break the necks of all the Politicians as they spin.
Stick it into both Parties butts...
That WE pick one uncaring unconcerning inDUHvidual and write in his name and when he gets elected he's as screwed as we are already!
Write in suggestion:
SKUZZY '08
:aok
Mac
-
Originally posted by lazs2
but is that message getting stronger? the primaries send the entire message.
It is where you can vote with little penalty for "conscience" ron paul has won nothing.. even when nothing is at stake.
If the same number vote for him.. unlikely.. in the real election.. it will be meaningless.
Honor? conscience? what honor is there in letting a democrat get in?
Just don't you dare... don't you dare act outraged and surprised by whatever a democrat pres with a democrat congress and liberal judges comes up with
lazs
For that matter. what honor is there in letting a republican get in?
What good is that for my daughter?
Both sides are eroding this country.
by voting one side or the other you ony contribute and condone that erosion. The continued path of loss of liberty.
Yes the message is getting stronger. Again for the independants to even be mentioned by the big two it has to be.
They used to never even get mentioned at all.
So they must be getting noticed. As is the message.
True maybe they dont stand a chance this election.
But even a baby must crawl before it can walk.
And it has to start somewhere.
Before a baby can go from just laying ont eh floor to crawling to walking it has to first try. to attempt to make that transition.
Without at least those first attempts. Nothing happens.
If all anyone ever does is follow the path of the sheep. Nothing happens ever. Nothing will ever change.
It will only get worse and worse untill there is nothing left.
Someone has to make that attempt and be a part of it. Or nothing ever happens.
I'd rather be on the side that at aleast attempted to make a change rather then just be one of the sheep condoning the status quoe voting for evil reguardless of side.
What you see is a movement and a voice that is building.
It is arguable that Perot could have won the election if he didnt pull the "Im in, Im out, Im in agai routine.
I know several who voted democrat instead of Perot for that reason alone.
The problem in voting for the lessor of two evils just to keep the other out is in the end. You're still voting on the side of evil.
Better to die fighting for liberty then to live under tyranny.
And Tyranny is exactly where we are headed with the two big players now no matter which way you slice it
And you sir. dont ou dare be outraged and surprised with whatever a republican pres appointed ultra conservative judge comes up with.
both sides ignore outright the consitution.
When it comes to the lessor of two evils. I'd rather side with the one that isnt evil
-
Originally posted by sluggish
Then tell Huckabee and Paul to get out. If you get rid of those two Romney wins hands down. I swear that mccain has promised Huckabee a juicy cabinet position if he doesn't drop out...
Romney isnt alot better either of the other 5
He insituted his social health care in his state.
Too bad they found out its gonna cost some 400 million more then they expected.
-
Originally posted by Speed55
Check your states voting record.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
Republicans haven't counted in my state for the past 24 years.
So either way.. i vote for Ron Paul. Then i vote for McCain or Romney, and a democrat wins anyway.
I voted for Dole, and clinton won. I voted for Bush Sr. and clinton won. :(
Same thing here in Jersey.
Most of the people I know support Obama. clinton. Or Paul.
NOBODY I personally know. Even die hard Republicans support ANY of the other 3 republican candidates.
But NJ tends to vote Democrat anyway. so its the same situation
-
Originally posted by myelo
If you vote for the Republican nominee and the Democrat wins, is your vote wasted?
If you vote for the Republican and your wife votes for the Democrat, are both your votes wasted because they cancel each other out?
If you vote for a candidate that ends up winning by more than a 1 vote margin, is your vote wasted because they would have still won even if you didn't vote, so what did you accomplish?
The purpose of voting is not to pick the winner. Voting is exercising your conscience.
The only wasted vote is the vote you didn't cast because you were too lazy to get out and vote.
there ya go :aok
and there is ALOT of people guilty of that.(not voting)
Yet do not hessitate to complain about who we get
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
And as it gets stronger, the other voters who have lost hope might just end up voting their conscience the next time. Eventually the best candidate wins and we stop our bleeding.
Voting for the less of two evils? I doubt our founding fathers envisioned this pessimistic outlook.
If you had bigger breasts and a cuter butt and a more feminine anatomy I'd marry you.
I could even deal with the whiskers as I've had Itallian girlfriends ;)
-
I'm registered Republican, so I can't vote for who I want in the primaries. So I wont vote until the Presidential Election.
I don't see anything extremely wrong with social programs. Our country is only as strong as our weakest links.
-
you don't have to vote for someone that has no chance to win to "send a message", you can send a message to the govt any time you want to, ever hear of e-mail?
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
I'm registered Republican, so I can't vote for who I want in the primaries. So I wont vote until the Presidential Election.
I don't see anything extremely wrong with social programs. Our country is only as strong as our weakest links.
This is the only thing that's wrong:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fc/Fed-budget-2007-chart.GIF)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2007
-
Seems to me the democrats are eager to defend the anti-social allowing that their belligerence is the fault of society excluding them. I can't say that they've actually done anything to change the condition of those left out of the American dream for the better but I suppose that is debatable.
If I simply withdraw apathetically do I not become one of those disenfranchised? If the democrats win the election are they not then obligated to take up my cause? I'm not sure which would be worse, supporting republicans even though they lost or having the democrats take up my case.
-
your-o-peans have had almost 1000 years longer to develope their countries, governments and taxes.
give it time young one, america will mature.
-
We are going to pay for certain people regardless. Ever heard the old saying "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"?
If we don't provide neo-natal care for new mothers, and health-care for children, we will end up paying their medical bills down the road when they develop serious health problems.
If we don't provide adequate schools and after school programs, we will end up paying for the welfare and correctional facility costs for those individuals.
We are going to pay for it either way. If we catch it on the front end, it will be cheaper.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
We are going to pay for certain people regardless. Ever heard the old saying "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"?
If we don't provide neo-natal care for new mothers, and health-care for children, we will end up paying their medical bills down the road when they develop serious health problems.
If we don't provide adequate schools and after school programs, we will end up paying for the welfare and correctional facility costs for those individuals.
We are going to pay for it either way. If we catch it on the front end, it will be cheaper.
Agreed---the thing is where do you draw the line. Right now, over 50% of our annual budget goes to such things, and it isn't even negotiable
-
Originally posted by john9001
you don't have to vote for someone that has no chance to win to "send a message", you can send a message to the govt any time you want to, ever hear of e-mail?
And those can be deleted without ever having been read.
The voting percentages, however, are not so easy to ignore. That is the message that is being discussed.
Of course, I wonder what that increasing percentage of votes' going to someone who cares might do-Like, force the two power blocks' that we have now to try to do the right thing? Possibly?
Or perhaps' force their hand...to do something more depraved. Like hasten their path of the destruction of the Constitution, to try to preserve their own hold over this country?
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
your-o-peans have had almost 1000 years longer to develope their countries, governments and taxes.
give it time young one, america will mature.
They are constantly changing too-I don't think that any European nation has had the same system's in place for 200-300 years' without major changes. (Correct me if I'm wrong, please.)
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
We are going to pay for certain people regardless. Ever heard the old saying "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"?
If we don't provide neo-natal care for new mothers, and health-care for children, we will end up paying their medical bills down the road when they develop serious health problems.
If we don't provide adequate schools and after school programs, we will end up paying for the welfare and correctional facility costs for those individuals.
We are going to pay for it either way. If we catch it on the front end, it will be cheaper.
**** that ****. Why are the competent always expected to pay for the failures?
No one is entitled anything. **** them if they didn't get the neo-natal care they wanted. If they want a better life, better health care, THEN THEY HAVE TO WORK FOR IT. It's ****ing ridiculous that they even expect a single cent of money of which they have not earned.
-
Well that is the reply of an extremely uneducated person.
People don't choose to be born into poverty. But they unfortunately are, even here in the U.S.A. Like I said earlier, your tax dollars are going to pay for them one way or another.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
**** that ****. Why are the competent always expected to pay for the failures?
No one is entitled anything. **** them if they didn't get the neo-natal care they wanted. If they want a better life, better health care, THEN THEY HAVE TO WORK FOR IT. It's ****ing ridiculous that they even expect a single cent of money of which they have not earned.
Laser, at this point, I have to ask, Who is paying for your College education?
Because in some instances, what you are saying, could be applied directly back to that. Even if you have a scholorship.
-
since myelo seems to be the only person capable of articulating (or regurgitating) and the others use it as an excuse.
The vote is indeed to pick the winner. It is beyond rare that we get to know much less pick the best man.
We are stuck with party lines. the candidates work along party lines... only...
the partys themselves morph over the years. I have seen it. right now.. the democrats are the party of socialism and fawn over your-0-peean "culture.
The republicans are not much better but.. it is a huge difference. it manifests itself not only in their voting and law making but in their all important appointment of judges.
I guess that in the strictest sense.. no vote is wasted. An individualist or conservative is not wasting his vote on some independent... he is voting for billary or osamabama. it is not really "wasted".
He is asking that the least conservative and most socialist candidate have a clear shot...
the expression "cutting off your nose to spite your face" keeps coming to me as I see some of the posts by the so called conservatives here.
As proof.. I would point out to you that the socialists and lefties on this board are the ones egging you on and telling you how right and sensitive and full of honor and conscience you are.
They will of course.. be voting for the democrat no matter what.
lazs
-
When the rubber hits the road I will of course vote for McCain over either possbile democrat. Doesn't mean I can't moan and groan over it though. I also threatend to leave the country if Hillary is elected but so far I haven't found a better place to go.
-
agree.
lazs
-
You guys might also take a long hard look at your gun collections and right to carry and ask yourself... "which of these guns will billary or osamabama let me keep?"
the answer of course is... none of em... not if they could have their way. they agree with the UN... the UN thinks that no gun that shoots over 100 yards should be allowed.
lazs
-
I'm gonna buy a couple more guns and plenty of ammo before the election and move to Idaho. :)
-
Romney won the Maine caucus yesterday despite BOTH of Maine's rino senators endorsing McCain---Ron Paul was a hair behind McCain---21-19% (There is apparently some sort of news blackout regarding any possible good news for Romney, as I only found this on http://www.Townhall.com) current delegate count has McCain up 93-77, with a Reuters/Zogby poll showing Romney up in Kalifornia, and McCain cant even win a majority of Republicans in his own state. McCain will likely win it, but its certainly not as over as msm makes it out to be
-
Originally posted by lazs2
You guys might also take a long hard look at your gun collections and right to carry and ask yourself... "which of these guns will billary or osamabama let me keep?"
the answer of course is... none of em... not if they could have their way. they agree with the UN... the UN thinks that no gun that shoots over 100 yards should be allowed.
lazs
I have yet to lose my guns no matter who is in power.
A gun takeaway program just won't happen regardless of the party in power unless we're talking an extreme totalitarian dictatorship.
That's not going to happen anytime soon outside of Hollywood.
I'm more concerned about government spending and balancing the budget.
So far the both parties have been big on deficit spending, the Republicans more so.
Does the National Debt mean anything to you?
Going the direction we are headed, your gun problem will be down on your list of things to worry about.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
I have yet to lose my guns no matter who is in power.
A gun takeaway program just won't happen regardless of the party in power unless we're talking an extreme totalitarian dictatorship.
That's not going to happen anytime soon outside of Hollywood.
I'm more concerned about government spending and balancing the budget.
So far the both parties have been big on deficit spending, the Republicans more so.
Does the National Debt mean anything to you?
Going the direction we are headed, your gun problem will be down on your list of things to worry about.
I guess you don't live in DC. Since they have in fact taken away people's right to have a gun there I guess you would agree it is an "extreme totalitarian dictatorship"?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I guess you don't live in DC. Since they have in fact taken away people's right to have a gun there I guess you would agree it is an "extreme totalitarian dictatorship"?
Did they force the citizenry to turn in their guns?
How did they enforce this?
San Francisco tried a gun ban. I don't think it 'took'.
I live in Califorinia so the gun laws are tougher than most elsewhere. I still have my guns.
Some of you are looking in closets chasing shadows. Looking under the bed for the bogeyman.
All the while not realizing that your govt has been bending you over and giving it to you REGARDLESS of whether it was controlled by Republicans and Democrats.
We're like the frog in the pot of water with the ever increasing temperature.
My concern is not only stopping this terrible deficit spending but bringing it to where we don't have a deficit.
You think the republican or democrat front runners will do this?
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Well that is the reply of an extremely uneducated person.
People don't choose to be born into poverty. But they unfortunately are, even here in the U.S.A. Like I said earlier, your tax dollars are going to pay for them one way or another.
And this is the reply of an unthinking socialist.
They CHOOSE to stay in poverty. The world is full of rags to riches stories. There is no longer any excuse for staying poor. That is except for laziness.
Laser, at this point, I have to ask, Who is paying for your College education?
Because in some instances, what you are saying, could be applied directly back to that. Even if you have a scholorship.
I'm paying for my education.
-
They forced them to disable their guns making them unusable for self defense. They did this by law making anyone not complying a criminal. Just because you call those who earnestly seek to strip you of your gun ownership right the "bogeyman", does not mean they aren't very real. If not for those fighting for your right to own a gun over the last few decades I have little doubt that you would be a criminal if you insisted on keeping what you have.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
They forced them to disable their guns making them unusable for self defense. They did this by law making anyone not complying a criminal. Just because you call those who earnestly seek to strip you of your gun ownership right the "bogeyman", does not mean they aren't very real. If not for those fighting for your right to own a gun over the last few decades I have little doubt that you would be a criminal if you insisted on keeping what you have.
Not talking only guns, but since you want to focus on it...
Well let's see here, real world, real results.
The vaunted Republican machine controlled the Presidency, Congress, and the Senate. Hmmm, DC still had their stupid anti-gun law(State thing, right).
We've had out of control deficit spending.
The Republicans are good for me, how?
I'm not asking you about the democrats as you support the republicans.
Name the last Republican President that proposed to Congress a balanced budget?
-
Ya'll can probably guess where I stand on the "wasted vote" topic... Suffice it to say, IMO you're being USED.
Anyway, what I wanted to say is this: I sure hope your gun collections give you comfort when the US goes bankrupt.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
Ya'll can probably guess where I stand on the "wasted vote" topic... Suffice it to say, IMO you're being USED.
Anyway, what I wanted to say is this: I sure hope your gun collections give you comfort when the US goes bankrupt.
No, no, no! You got it all wrong! As long as we got our guns, everything is fine and dandy!
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
Anyway, what I wanted to say is this: I sure hope your gun collections give you comfort when the US goes bankrupt.
what you say? If we give up our guns the democrats will balance the budget?
-
Heh, anti-gun nuts don't realize that the guns are precisely for the situations they're describing... Yea, my guns will be of great comfort if/when the food riots start :rofl
-
Originally posted by eagl
Heh, anti-gun nuts don't realize that the guns are precisely for the situations they're describing... Yea, my guns will be of great comfort if/when the food riots start :rofl
you missed my point... (or did you make it for me?) All this talk about how the Reps are marginally better than the Dems just because they'll "let us keep our guns"... I'm saying that keeping or not keeping our guns isn't going to stop the food riots from happening. They make give us an edge when that time comes, but they won't keep 'em from happening...
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
Ya'll can probably guess where I stand on the "wasted vote" topic... Suffice it to say, IMO you're being USED.
Anyway, what I wanted to say is this: I sure hope your gun collections give you comfort when the US goes bankrupt.
I would like to point out, bs, that with our Deficits', technically, we are already bankrupt, aren't we?
-
I'm not anti-gun, quite the opposite. I fully support self-defense laws and being able to shoot intruders. But lets play Devil's Advocate for a moment. Even in the worst case scenario, not all guns will be outlawed. Even Japan and Australia have rifles and shotguns. But the U.S. will never follow suite. Our constitution and special interests groups (NRA) provides for us to have weapons.
-
famous last words, "it can never happen here"
-
A vote for McCain is a vote for Ted Kennedy, as far as I'm concerned.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
I would like to point out, bs, that with our Deficits', technically, we are already bankrupt, aren't we?
Touche'
:aok
The purpose of voting is not to pick the winner. Voting is exercising your conscience.
The only wasted vote is the vote you didn't cast because you were too lazy to get out and vote.
:aok What more can be said than that?
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
I would like to point out, bs, that with our Deficits', technically, we are already bankrupt, aren't we?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
you don't know much about finance do you.
-
Here's an idea.......
DON"T VOTE
It's a sucker's game. As far as I can recall, I've never looked back and thought to myself "I'm SO glad we got him/her into office, look at all the progress we've made". With the exception of one or two candidates that I've endorsed then forgotten about, it seems that every elected official I have ever seen voted into office has managed to somehow betray the platform they were supposedly elected to pursue. All the money, all the man hours invested for what? Simply to hire some scumbags who will do nothing that does not benefit themselves regardless of the commitments made to their constituency?
No, I didn't vote for Reagan, too young. Probably shouldn't have been allowed to vote anyhow.
Seems to me the one positive thing we got out of the 50's and 60's, besides rock & roll was the fact that activism works. The do not call registry act is a prime example. Elected officials know full well what we want from our various levels of government, they' re just not scared enough to provide it.
I wonder what our political climate would be if we collectively chose to cease denigrating each other for our political beliefs and turned that energy towards speaking our minds, LOUDLY, to those who we employ to serve our interests.
Maybe it's just too much trouble and not enough fun. It also bears the question of how we would select our leaders otherwise. I bet if we tried we could figure out a solution. We have proven amazingly adept at solving greater conundrums.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
They are constantly changing too-I don't think that any European nation has had the same system's in place for 200-300 years' without major changes. (Correct me if I'm wrong, please.)
true, but they al had the same theory. get rich and screw the prols. :)
-
subaru.. don't even try to equate the republicans with the democrats so far as gun rights go... you will lose every time... every gun law.. every one that takes guns from citizens was thought up and brought forward and voted in by democrats.. the DC gun law was in for 30 years and put in by a democrat and has survived on democrats.. and democrat appointed courts...
Only now... under a republican has it been challenged.. the democrats are obsesesed with taking away guns. They are insane about it. It has probly cost them elections.. that is how insane they are about it.
The only way they took congress was all the democrats that got in all swore they are for a strong second amendment.. I believe they lied and will go along party lines tho.
As for the deficit.. what are the republicans spending on?
There are only two areas guys.. that is all we have left in this country.. one big chunk goes to defense and the other huge chunk (thanks to LBJ and the "great society") goes to social welfare. putting out birdseed..
You can spend it on either one and cut the other.. that is all the choice you have.
Republicans are spending on defense... that will get paid for.. we aren't paying for past wars.. they are paid for.
What doesn't get paid for is social programs.. they grow and grow and grow and grow and grow... 2 million a year for braces for people of some eskimo tribe becomes 20 billion a year in 10 years... we are all paying a couple bucks a month (used to be a penny or so) on our cell phones so that little negro children in harlem can have porn on the internet... it will be $10 a month soon enough..
social welfare.. I have heard aqua regurgitate the pap that he has learned about an ounce of prevention... about how all this pre and post natal care will save us all money..
Yep.. that is why food stamps and welfare have abolished poverty.. The easier some have life the more they waste any cash they get. It is a rare welfare sucess story... welfare has created more problems than it solved.. it creates poor.. it makes young girls see getting pregnant out of wedlock as a viable lifestyle... a way to get out of the house and set up homemaking...
has abortion cut down on illigitimate births? are we better off? we have free abortions and the best birth control in history yet... look at the rate?
the democrat socialist utopia doesn't work.. it would work but people refuse to act like the socialists think they should.. they act like (gasp)... individuals!
I want no part of the democrat utopia... I don't want any of their free stuff... Oh.. I will take it.. hell I paid for it but.... I won't vote for it or them... ever.
The best I can hope for under democrats is to get back as much of the stuff they stole from me as possible... but I am middle class.. I will always get less back than what I put in.
And vouchers... no democrat will ever allow you to choose.. democrats are about the teachers union not about choice or what is good for kids.
At the rate public schools are going we won't need to worry about anything because countries where the people cant read are third world countries.. democrats are making us a third world country with education. At best.. we will be bilingual idiots.
I don't like spending on defense. it has to be done tho.. but.. so far as social programs.. we would be 100 times better off taking the money spent on them and simply putting it in a big pile and burning it. At least the debt would not grow.
lazs
-
Here's an even better idea:
Do what you feel is right and don't let anyone else force their political ideology upon you....especially someone on a BBS.
-
And.. the reason we are in the shape we are in so far as the deficit and the way the pie is cut up is because of democrats.
The great society.. er.. the great socialism... the way it works is.. we spend half our money on defense and the other half on social welfare programs (roughly these are huge sums.
A democrat gets in.. he cuts defense... stops some war.. closes bases and lays off soldiers.. the savings is monstrous.. night and day.
Does he then just cut taxes and or.. reduce our debt? of course not.. he now has this money to spend on social programs.. every hair brained scheme they can think of.. this time.. the pet is.. socialized medicine.
One problem... the next war comes up.. the need for defense comes up..
Of course, by now.. the pie looks lopsided again.. 2/3 going to social welfare and 1/3 going to an almost dead defense industry.. we are still paying the same in taxes and the debt is still growing.. the social programs are growing in cost every year...
our soldiers go to war with nothing.. poor equipment etc.. everyone screams and defense is geared up again.. the sucker play continues..
We build up defense again. we go into debt and new fees and taxes are thought up to pay for the new pie with it's new and larger amounts. We are back to half going to defense and half going to social programs and the same old sucker play goes on.
If we didn't let the democrats increase social spending then in times of peace we really would have a "peace dividend" the your-0-peeans get away with their socialism because their pie looks a lot different than ours.. they don't spend on defense.. england has like the 26th largest military.
lazs
-
Thanks curval.. you are a good Ameri... oops.. wait.. you aren't an American at all are you?
lazs
-
Nope...just as you aren't European.
-
soooo I guess we are both happy?
Hell.. I'm so happy I don't even go to your-0-peean BB's or play online your-0-peean games.
lazs
-
Yup, I'll happily shut up about American politics (which I do anyway for the most part) if you will do the same about European (which you certainly never do).
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
I would like to point out, bs, that with our Deficits', technically, we are already bankrupt, aren't we?
No. The technical definition of bankrupt is financially insolvent. Deficit spending does not equate to insolvency. For example, just because an individual takes out a loan to buy something doesn't mean they are bankrupt.
Now ... uncontrolled deficit spending is still bad, for the same reason it's bad for an individual -- interest on the debt.
And Bush gets a D at best for fiscal performance. He started with a surplus and ended with a deficit, because he lacked leadership and didn't have the nuts to veto all the pork the republican congress wanted. Not to mention he failed to address the social security and medicare problems like he promised. Problems by the way that will be much more difficult to fix for the next administration because of the deficit.
But we aren't bankrupt.
-
Originally posted by myelo
No. The technical definition of bankrupt is financially insolvent. Deficit spending does not equate to insolvency. For example, just because an individual takes out a loan to buy something doesn't mean they are bankrupt.
Now ... uncontrolled deficit spending is still bad, for the same reason it's bad for an individual -- interest on the debt.
And Bush gets a D at best for fiscal performance. He started with a surplus and ended with a deficit, because he lacked leadership and didn't have the nuts to veto all the pork the republican congress wanted. Not to mention he failed to address the social security and medicare problems like he promised. Problems by the way that will be much more difficult to fix for the next administration because of the deficit.
But we aren't bankrupt.
Ty, Myelo, for the explanation.
-
But we aren't bankrupt.
that's why I said "WHEN" we go bankrupt. We're not there yet, but we're getting close. We're definitely living on credit though, and that usually doesn't turn out well...
every gun law.. every one that takes guns from citizens was thought up and brought forward and voted in by democrats.. the DC gun law was in for 30 years and put in by a democrat and has survived on democrats.. and democrat appointed courts...
so, you're saying no Republicans voted for brady or the AWB? Or is that another compromise you're cool with?
I hear ya on the social welfare gripes too, Lazs. But I'd like to point out that Social Security and medicare are currently much bigger problems than food stamps or braces for eskimos. Food stamps ain't gonna bankrupt us. Social security might, especially at the rate that obligation is growing...
-
bsd.. social security and medicare are socialist programs..
As for the gun bills you cited.. it matters not if a few bad republicans vote for em or a few good democrats vote against em.. the bottom line is it is a game they play but...
The bills get passed or not along strict party lines.
The individual votes are often just back room brokering for looks. Someone is up for election so they let him look good on a vote they already have sewn up.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
bsd.. social security and medicare are socialist programs..
no one's saying they aren't. what do you want to do about them? SS is going to bankrupt us within 10 years if we don't change something...
As for the gun bills you cited.. it matters not if a few bad republicans vote for em or a few good democrats vote against em.. the bottom line is it is a game they play but...
The bills get passed or not along strict party lines.
so they would have passed even if every Republican voted against them?
-
(http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/story.jpg)
I what? I got an endorsement? Who the Hell is Bozo?
-
That "bozo" is one of the 6 incumbent republicans who stood up and supported the "unelectable" Reagan over Ford in '76. What a kook!
-
Originally posted by lazs2
.. vote your "conscience" .. you cant really hurt me.. I can get by... I spent my life making sure I could.
Just don't you dare... don't you dare act outraged and surprised by whatever a democrat pres with a democrat congress and liberal judges comes up with.
I'm sure you'll have plenty of outrage for the both of you ... and more ... even if the blue city vaporization fantasy fails to materialize. ;)
-
I debated responding to Mac's jab at Paul, figured he was just trolling. Looks like I was right. Make fun of Ron Paul, accuse him of being a racist, call him unelectable, ignore him, anything but challenge his positions... Funny, that's pretty much how the media treats him too.
-
Originally posted by Speed55
Check your states voting record.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
Republicans haven't counted in my state for the past 24 years.
So either way.. i vote for Ron Paul. Then i vote for McCain or Romney, and a democrat wins anyway.
I voted for Dole, and clinton won. I voted for Bush Sr. and clinton won. :(
I'm in the same boat speed here is in, NY sucks
-
yep
-
Originally posted by lazs2
bsd.. social security and medicare are socialist programs..
Social programs. No ideology required to participate. A perception of threat of one to complain non-stop about them is though ... it seems. :D
Voting and representation. Funny how those work. And if you come back claiming that's "socialist" .... well .... *heh* :aok
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Social programs. No ideology required to participate. A perception of threat of one to complain non-stop about them is though ... it seems. :D
Voting and representation. Funny how those work. And if you come back claiming that's "socialist" .... well .... *heh* :aok
The participants don't define the program, Arlo. Were the Jews Nazi's for being carted off to death camps?
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
The participants don't define the program, Arlo. Were the Jews Nazi's for being carted off to death camps?
Apparently, neither do the staunchest opponents of the programs .... with any amount of realistic accuracy (and certainly not without a fair degree of hyperbolic rhetoric and fearful passion involved). Are neocons social scientists because they see the threat of socialism destroying the fabric of society in anything that doesn't involve making a buck? :D
-
Social Programs are fine so long as you can opt out of donating and benefiting.
-
Originally posted by moot
Social Programs are fine so long as you can opt out of donating and benefiting.
The problem with them is, though, is the number of people benefitting vs. those paying in.
When SS was first started, there were 4 people paying in, and something like 1 collecting. Now, it's more like 5 people collecting with only 1 paying in.
And, gov't. has raided the SS funds' whenever it's been in a real pinch. That hasn't helped it any.
I'll be honest with you on this note, lasz. I would support more defense spending if I thought it would mean the creation of thousands' of higher-paying jobs. However, with the price's that we pay for equipping the military anymore, it seems' like the money just sinks in to high-cost programs, with little in the way of economic returns, like jobs.
I do agree that we could use alot of those high-dollar systems' that we only get with profligate military spending. UAV's, enhanced body armor, battlefield robots, Stealth aircraft-all these things' improve the survival chances of the individual soldier, sailor, airman, or marine.
That said...we really need to fix our social systems' here, first. Putting a complete and immediate stop to illegal immigration would be a major relief to both healthcare, and SS in one stroke. I think the People of the U.S. could afford that, rather than the possible results' of those systems. Have any of you honestly thought about what would happen in this country, If SS, Medicare, and all of the other programs' were abolished overnight? I'd be curious to hear some of the reply's.
-
SS was never designed for anyone to ever collect. Think about what age you had to be to collect when it was first initiated, compared to how long the average American lived back then. It started off as a scam, and it still is. You'll never get back what you put into it.
-
so arlo.. you are wrong but won't admit it? No one I can think of would say that social security and medicare are not socialist programs..
As was pointed out.. they would not be if we were not forced at gunpoint to pay into them and if those who did not pay into it didn't get benifiets.
It is not complex.. you are creating gray areas where none exist.. muddying the water for no reason other than to hide in it.
someone said that illegals are a problem.. they most certainly are.. I don't like of the candidates positions but.. the worst positions are the ones the democrats have.
More people who should not be here will be here if we elect a democrat than a republican.. many who should not be here will be citizens by default and will not even speak the language.. they will know nothing of any political system except for the one that they left.. one of histories most corrupt. It is the way of life they know and apparently... yearn for. they will fly their mexican flags and speak only spanish. they will try to turn this country into the same craphole they left.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Xargos
SS was never designed for anyone to ever collect. Think about what age you had to be to collect when it was first initiated, compared to how long the average American lived back then. It started off as a scam, and it still is. You'll never get back what you put into it.
scam, yep. ponzi scheme is more like it...
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_May_Fuller
"Ida May Fuller (September 6, 1874 - January 1975) was the first U.S. citizen to be the recipient of a monthly benefit Social Security check on January 31, 1940, a check for $22.54. Fuller lived her entire life in Brattleboro, Vermont, retired in 1939 and had paid just three years of payroll taxes. Nevertheless, she received monthly Social Security checks until her death in 1975 at age 100. By the time of her death, Fuller had collected $22,888.92 from Social Security monthly benefits, even though she had contributed only $24.75 to the system. This is roughly an annualized return of 22%."
-
Originally posted by Xargos
SS was never designed for anyone to ever collect. Think about what age you had to be to collect when it was first initiated, compared to how long the average American lived back then. It started off as a scam, and it still is. You'll never get back what you put into it.
Gotta be one of the stupidest conspiracy theories evar. :D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so arlo.. you are wrong but won't admit it? No one I can think of would say that social security and medicare are not socialist programs..
As was pointed out.. they would not be if we were not forced at gunpoint to pay into them and if those who did not pay into it didn't get benifiets.
Yeah ... it's all me, Laz and you never had issues. Ahem. (Mmmmmright) ;)
You started out threatened and frustrated and just got worse from there. I'm thinking your system of representative democracy (your personal one) must be broken while mine still works. Don't get over it, though. :D
(Keep up your non-partisan, independent efforts at not drinking the agenda-aid. All differences of opinion [regarding yours] are a threat to society.) :noid :t
- Your favorite dev advocate .....
-
now don't get huffy and hurt arlo...
Just admit that you don't know what socialism is.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
now don't get huffy and hurt arlo...
Just admit that you don't know what socialism is.
lazs
You mean .... admit you're the expert on anything you think you're the expert on and worship you properly?
Neh. Not justified. :D
Laz, `ol boy, firstly .... anything that doesn't involve good `ol capitalism isn't the threat you think it is just because it doesn't involve capitalism.
Secondly ... socialism (or even social programs) isn't the enemy of capitalism. Even communism appears not to be. If you're still convinced, though, share that with the Chinese.
Thirdly, I don't have a burning agenda that requires a minimum of one new thread a day to whine about what I feel threatened about (often repetative - perhaps because I didn't get enough props for the last four hundred and thirty-nine I started.) So there's not really as much reason for me to share in your angst.
Fourthly, you really should try to relax more. It makes the button less obvious.
;)
-
No arlo.. I meant what I said.. you don't know what socialism is.
I really don't start all that many threads tho. and.. you do seem to reply to a lot of threads.. never any substance but.. we are forcing it out of you little by little.. more and more are seeing the real arlo.
Me... I'm an open book.
lazs