I figure the longer the shutdown the better chance for Obama or Michelle Antoinette to utter something so outrageous that the torches and pitchforks come out. And I'm okay with that.
They should go all in: stop mailing social security and federal pension checks. I suspect Congress would come around quickly then.
The longer this goes on, the more people will realize we don't really need all this government. Some parts yes, but a lot of it is just money sucking waste, sort of like unemployment benefits disguised as jobs.Moreover, there are pieces of the government that hire good people who do good (if not particularly necessary) things.
Now they are playing another move by passing individual funding bills. I like that.
People calling the 1-800-F1UCKYO number being on hold for hours and hours. Or being told to expect a callback at X time, and that call never coming.
Obama's job approval numbers are nose-diving.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
Obama's job approval numbers are nose-diving.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
not how i'd read that chart. steady since april. what's amazing is if it was ever as high as claimed for february.
That's February '09. What's interesting is the way it suddenly ticks down right there at the end.
Obama had similar numbers during much of his 2012 re-election campaign. And yet he was re-elected handily.
The "faithful" will always vote for him or his like regardless of their opinion of his job performance, as long as it will keep the evil (including losers such as Romney and McCain) Republicans out of office. But then, the Republican faithful will keep voting for "Romney" and "McCain".
Apparently not ...both McCain & Romney lost. :'(
Add to that the fact that Romney and McCain both sucked with bells on.
I read that as "Romney and McCain both sucked balls."
Which coincidentally is accurate as well.
The problem is, there are less of the "faithful" (including myself) now than there were in previous years. Add to that the fact that Romney and McCain both sucked with bells on.
I read that as "Romney and McCain both sucked balls."
Which coincidentally is accurate as well.
It's code! =D
No wonder we're stuck with four more years of President Empty Suit Obama. :mad:
You know, one could be mistaken into thinking you do "get it"! :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
[ar15] [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] [ar15]
[tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil]
Oh, don't worry, I "get it." And you "get it." We're ALL going to "GET IT" before O's last term is up! >:D
I am &**^&%^%&^ aware that there were plenty of people who did not vote for Romney because they thought he was some sort of milquetoast conservative republican, or because he'd done "Romneycare" in Massachusetts and mistakenly thought it was similar to Obamacare, or whatever. And those who disdained McCain in '08 because he has been labeled a RINO in many quarters.
When are we going to get our collective heads out of our butts as republicans and GET IT that there is NO SUCH THING AS A PERFECT CANDIDATE other than the one we see in the mirror when we shave? :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
We don't like candidate A 'cause he is the "lesser evil" so we vote for the imaginary Angel who doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hades of being elected so we wind up getting the vilest devil in office.
Well, we get the government we so richly deserve. :-*
YOU'RE sick of this??? Back of the line is thataway.
When you continue voting for "more-of-the-same, can't-hardly-tell-one-from-the-other", by strange coincidence, we get more-of-the-same, can't-hardly-tell-one-from-the-other. Your grudging vote for more-of-the-same, can't-hardly-tell-one-from-the-other counts EXACTLY the same as one from a "Whoohoo! This guy's EXACTLY what I want, in every single little detail!", and is taken as such by more-of-the-same, can't-hardly-tell-one-from-the-other - thus ENCOURAGING more-of-the-same, can't-hardly-tell-one-from-the-other.
If you never dare vote for someone who's *NOT* more-of-the-same, can't-hardly-tell-one-from-the-other out of some misguided fear of "throwing your vote away", then you've no moral right to complain about getting what you voted for. You'll never get different if you always vote for the same. And, really? The best the R's were willing to offer this last time 'round was the guy who couldn't beat the guy who couldn't beat Obama? This was their grand strategy for victory? Their savior? Puh-LEEEEZE.
If you, or they, want my vote, you'll damn well EARN it, or you'll do without. And neither the R's nor the D's has offered anything worth my vote. To me, that's one of the biggest problems with the two statist wings of the Modern American Political Machine - they both think that they ALREADY OWN my vote, and their adherents often seem to suffer under the same delusion. You're all indignant over my refusing to vote for the same crap politicians who are driving us at breakneck speed towards a cliff? Get your guys to offer someone better, someone willing to actually TURN THE FREAKING WHEEL, rather than back off a fraction of a hair on the accelerator, and you might actually persuade me to vote for that person. Matters not to me whether we go over the cliff at 125mph or 128 - we're still in for a long drop and a short stop either way.
And without the quest for the "perfect" (really, just for someone who's ACTUALLY better than the status quo, than the establishment, but that's too much like fact to be permitted in a discussion like this...), there'd never *BE* any "good". Offer us something better, and you might get the support your side so gladly THREW AWAY during Perpetual Election Cycle '12 (and '10, and '08, and...). But that's on you guys. You want better? Vote for it.
Those of us who DID dare vote for something different are getting the government those who voted for more-of-the-same, can't-hardly-tell-one-from-the-other deserve. And we hate that worse than you do.
I don't want perfect, I'd settle for good.
ACA or not, RomneywasIS a big gov statist that would expand government and curtail freedoms. He didn't deserve any votes.
Honestly, faced with the ACA and the Patriot Act side by side, Obama has done less damage to freedom then Bush.
Agree to disagree, but the ACA hasn't molested any kids in airports.
I think the credit valve is going to involuntarily slam SHUT in the next 3 months. And this is the beginning of it.
"You want better? Vote for it. I did --- in 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992....
The problem with the "quest for the perfect" [barf] is it makes the perfect the enemy of the good.
I'll say it again: the ONLY PERFECT candidate is what we see in the mirror. Unless YOU run for office you will always find something about a candidate you disagree with.
Despite what all the libertarian yahoos say Romney was not the same -- he disagreed with Obamacare and had promised on more than one occasion he would do what was within presidential power to repeal it. But because so many yahoos DID think he was just "more of the same yadda yadda" they stayed home. If the same people who'd voted for McCain had all come to vote for Romney then he would have won in 2012.
And if you think this is a "quest for the perfect", you're gravely mistaken. Like dogmush, I want something better. Paul wasn't perfect, by a long shot. Johnson wasn't either. For my money, and more importantly for my vote, either one was head, shoulders, and beyond better than either of the candidates for the Modern American Political Machine in '12.
The fact that McCain's supporters did not come out to vote for Romney (or, for that matter, anyone else) is a failure which is properly laid at the feet of the Romney campaign, and nowhere else. He failed to persuade them to vote for him. Which is REALLY damning, because it truly was the Republicans' race to lose at that point, and they did.
Don't mistake me - by no means am I claiming that we're better off with 0. But like I said, I see basically no difference between hitting that cliff edge at 125 versus 128, and nothing I saw in the '12 campaign demonstrated to me that Romney had any intention of hitting the brakes, let alone turning the steering wheel.
Romney, for that matter, badly miscalculated what he was up against; the democrat machine did a superb job of using the interwebz and modern tech to get out the vote for the dems in places that few if any would have expected.That was the mistake that McCain made. If the Republicans made it again with Romney, "fool me twice ... don't get fooled again."
But this was not really so much a Romney failure as a republican failure -- and the repubs had better get in high gear playing catch-up because we're one year + little away from the 2014 midterms.
That was the mistake that McCain made. If the Republicans made it again with Romney, "fool me twice ... don't get fooled again."
Oh, don't worry, I "get it." And you "get it." We're ALL going to "GET IT" before O's last term is up! >:D
I am &**^&%^%&^ aware that there were plenty of people who did not vote for Romney because they thought he was some sort of milquetoast conservative republican, or because he'd done "Romneycare" in Massachusetts and mistakenly thought it was similar to Obamacare, or whatever. And those who disdained McCain in '08 because he has been labeled a RINO in many quarters.
When are we going to get our collective heads out of our butts as republicans and GET IT that there is NO SUCH THING AS A PERFECT CANDIDATE other than the one we see in the mirror when we shave? :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
We don't like candidate A 'cause he is the "lesser evil" so we vote for the imaginary Angel who doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hades of being elected so we wind up getting the vilest devil in office.
Well, we get the government we so richly deserve. :-*
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgs.xkcd.com%2Fcomics%2Fopen_letter.png&hash=557ffe51ea7ce1daa128eb6261a5a8bf3a37fdab)
Ya know, I did vote for both McCain and Romney. I did it one handed cause the other hand was holding my nose. Look what that got me. I voted for Bush as well and that sure didn't do the country a whole lot of good.
So don't bother telling me who I need to vote for.
I'd rather tilt at windmills than keep voting for Democrat lite. I used to feel the same way as you but I am finished with voting for the status quo or worse.
Voting for the fauxpublicans is like throwing out the anchor and forgetting to attach it to the rope.
You can vote for anyone you like as long as you're happy with Communist Heavy. >:D
Can anyone tell me if this is for real?
http://instagram.com/p/fMKBmWhmvs/#
If so...the end of the Awkward Time is upon is.
They are Just Following Orders.
I agree Romney did fail -- but then, so did the voters who stayed home.
"Don't mistake me - by no means am I claiming that we're better off with 0. But like I said, I see basically no difference between hitting that cliff edge at 125 versus 128, and nothing I saw in the '12 campaign demonstrated to me that Romney had any intention of hitting the brakes, let alone turning the steering wheel."
You failed to see him straighten out Massachusetts' economy? You failed to see him get ...what was it the Olympics, straightened out?
:facepalm:
Romney had a excellent record of making silk purses out of sow's ears.
But I guess since his name isn't "Ron Paul" some people just will not "see."
Romney, for that matter, badly miscalculated what he was up against; the democrat machine did a superb job of using the interwebz and modern tech to get out the vote for the dems in places that few if any would have expected.
But this was not really so much a Romney failure as a republican failure -- and the repubs had better get in high gear playing catch-up because we're one year + little away from the 2014 midterms.
BTW I like Ron Paul and if we had a country to start from scratch he'd be perfect. But we're not living in 1776 we're living in 2013. I do think his son Rand Paul is a little saner, though. ;)
Can anyone tell me if this is for real?
http://instagram.com/p/fMKBmWhmvs/#
If so...the end of the Awkward Time is upon is.
They are Just Following Orders.
Work to get someone better on your side of the ticket or stop bitching when people decline to vote for D-Lite and either go elsewhere or stay home.:facepalm:
Again - the failures underlying Romney's unsuccessful run at election all had an R following their names, and they've been playing catch-up - badly - since the 2008 election cycle, if not prior to that. Persisting in trying to blame all the people Romney and his crew failed to inspire to vote for him is... unhelpful at best, and actually counterproductive, IMO.
125 vs. 128.
TG:
Yeah, not quite. Romney had a track record as being just barely to the right of Ted Kennedy. His flip-flops on a score of issues made Kerry's flip-flops in 2004 look amateurish. Anyone who was paying attention and had two brain cells to rub together knew Romney was not a sincere RINO, let alone a sincere conservative. You would have to make arguments such as, "He was lying when he ran against Ted Kennedy, but he's telling the truth now!"
Also, Romney made zero appeals to the white working class. Here BHO and the rainbow coalition of backstabbing socialists are busily buggering that demographic and Romney didn't have to guts to make explicit appeals to a rather large chunk of the electorate. Hilary Clinton made better/more appeals to the WWC in 2008. Because people who hate him and the WWC would call him "Raciss," Romney and the damnfool GOP consultancy just sloshed around in a puddle of their own odure. And that is what lost them the election.
To sum up: a flip-flopping coward is not the stuff to inspire voters to rush out and vote for him.
If he had, subsequent to his stint as Democrat-Lite Governor of Mass, busted his hump in the conservative trenches and engaged in the hard work that attracts arrows from the opposition, he might have been able to pull it off. But, he didn't. The path of Apostle Paul was not Romney's. His makeover was as quick as it was skin deep.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/10/08/clarifying-a-developing-story-turned-faux-outrage-veterans-arrested-at-war-memorial-its-not-dc-its-nyc-its-not-what-it-appears/ (http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/10/08/clarifying-a-developing-story-turned-faux-outrage-veterans-arrested-at-war-memorial-its-not-dc-its-nyc-its-not-what-it-appears/)
Says they were taken in NY.
Yes, he was running for senate IN A VERY LIBERAL STATE.
You need a little more knowledge of how the "game" < [barf] > of politics is played.... before you accuse me of "not paying attention." :police:
You need a little more knowledge of how the "game" < [barf] > of politics is played.... before you accuse me of "not paying attention." :police:Pretty sure we understand generally how politics is played. We also understand where playing politics with politicians has gotten us.
TG:
You have not been paying attention.
Back in 2008 I saw video from a debate between Romney and Kennedy, when Romney ran for the Senate. "Just to the right of Ted Kennedy" is accurate. Pro-abortion, anti-RKBA, you name it, Romney was slicing a smidge to the right of Teddy. But like a lamprey, lots of skin to skin (political) contact.
I am supposed to believe this "Republican," who would be to the left of any Democrat elected south of the Mason-Dixon, all the sudden was born again conservative?
I voted for McCain in the general in 2008 and Romney in 2012 with no enthusiasm. Had to force myself to "coyote vote(1)." I can well imagine plenty of card carrying Republicans deciding otherwise and I can not provide them with reasons to vote other than "Vote for the guy who never met a country he did not want to bomb. McCain 2008!" or "Vote for the guy who implemented Obamacare before Obama. Romney 2012!"
The base does not require perfection, but a candidate that doesn't despise them (like McCain does) or ran & governed as a liberal is not too much to ask of the supposedly conservative party.
(1) Pull the lever for McCain or Romney with my arm and then chew it off. I can't reach the lever with my foot, so no more coyote voting for me, thanks.
Electing Dubya repeatedly even after he forcibly sodomized anything resembling conservative ideology (Medicare Part D? No Child Left Behind? Patriot Act? TSA? etc etc) was what got us Obama, and running candidates who either openly hated their base (McCain) or were significantly to the left of Dubya (or were just amoral sociopathic liars if you accept TG's formulation of Romney) is what led people to not vote in opposition to Obama.
At least with Obama "leading" the charge, the Republicans actually fought back and stopped it.Yeah, that was one reason that Bush was able to get away with so much. Republicans gave him a pass or joined in with him doing catastrophically stupid stuff because he was a Republican. If Gore or Kerry had tried to do half the stuff Bush did, GOP legislators would have kicked and screamed the whole way.
Tell me again who forced him to live and run for office in that state?
And is your position that he was a lying sack back then, but was telling the truth in 2008 & 2012? Or was lying in 2008 and 2012 and the real Romney was on stage with Teddy Kennedy? Or is it your position that Romney is an amoral opportunist who will say whatever he thinks the audience wants to hear? Sort of like Bill Clinton without the charm.
I would point out that you are not providing much for a conservative or liberty-minded voter to work with. (Not showing outright hostility toward the GOP base like McCain did in 2000 is an improvement, I'll grant that.)
OK, let me try this:
ALL POLITICIANS ARE LYING SACKS, ALL THE TIME.
Need I expound on this more or is my position now CLEAR? >:D
It is not my job to provide "liberty minded" voters anything to work with.
You will forever find that your choices will remain Scuzzbag A, or Scumbucket B.
Have fun out there.
Life is dangerous.
Whether you like it or not, whether you support them or not, whether they have a chance of being elected or not because far too many people actually believe that idiocy about "throwing your vote away," it remains a fact that in many, MANY elections, our choices include more than just Scuzzbag R or Scumbucket D. And if our voting for Idealist L (or I, or any other letter besides R or D) means that your Scuzzbag R doesn't get elected, well, perhaps you should have tried harder to civilly persuade us. Certainly Romney and his campaign should have, rather than insulting us and wrongly depriving supporters of other primary candidates from their voices and votes at the convention.
It is if you want them to vote for a candidate YOU believe should be running the show, rather than for the one THEY believe would be best for that job. Republicans have as a party, over the past several election cycles, proven that they are NOT liberty-oriented - hell, they don't even adhere to their own statements of platform policy! It's on them and their supporters to show why people ought to bother trusting them, and they AREN'T DOING IT.
How is voting for a candidate who polls like 5% or whatever of the electorate NOT throwing away your vote?
Why vote at all?
It sanctions the violence of the State.
"Never in my whole life did I swear allegiance to him." --William Wallace.
"It matters not, he is your King." --TommyGunn
But, if you are going to accept the silly notion that voting is political choice or power, then a person is hardly a fool or reprobate for exercising the full breadth of field when going about his vote.
Each person jumping a parks service barrier is doing 1000 times the damage to authoritarianism policies of D's or R's than a damned voter.
Voting is adhering to the system, and the system is designed to muzzle your independence and compel compliance with the collective.
Get INVOLVED. Don't vote.
The above, while actually I agree with to an extent, is hardly any excuse to abandon them to an impossible-to-elect third party. They can be persuaded by those they represent, but when those people run off to the third party the politician will chalk them off and look for others to support him....and if those others aren't so conservative or so true to their platform then the politician will alter his in order to win that support. Thus goes a vicious cycle. We eat our own, and do it very well.
He can write them off, as Romeny did. Or, he can try to appeal to them since their vote for a third party (or not voting) was to encourage the leaders in the GOP to run a candidate that will actually improve the country, not continue down the same course with "minor tweaks" or "improvements".
You are arguing that their vote ensures a democrat win. (Short term.) I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you on that. They are disagreeing that voting for a spineless, flip-flopping weasel is the best option in the long run.
None of your arguments have done anything to sway those who think the long term future of the country is better served by watching a terrible candidate lose in hopes that the next candidate might learn the correct lessons.
Of course, your argument may also be that Politicians are too evil and stupid to learn that lesson. You may be right.
That is a reprehensible quote to attribute to me; I never said that, I never meant that, and if you think I did then your comprehension level is beneath that of a "See John Run" grade school reader. :mad:
Was Reagan being a "flip flopper" when he changed from a democrat to a republican, or did he undergo a true epiphany of philosophy and achieve a new understanding of how government should act?
Or did the partys themselves change ???
As I and my other socially-liberal/fiscally prudent friends like to say, we did not leave the party; the party left us.
How is voting for a candidate who polls like 5% or whatever of the electorate NOT throwing away your vote?
Sure, you get to feed your ego and run salve all over your conscience because you -- supposedly -- voted for the pure-as-the-driven-snow candidate
rather than the "lesser-of-two-evils" or "demo-lite" critter, but what does it really get you beside that? Society is still left to deal with, in our case, the biggest of the two evils: OBAMA.
As for trying to "civilly persuade" how the &^^% do you do that with people who blather almost incomprehensibly about "Obamaphone" and how he's so great will Romney is ...what was the descriptor that black woman used in that video? .... scum? Whatever. She is not civil to begin with. She wasn't even factually correct; it wasn't really Obama who passed out those cellphones; that program was started by Dubya. But we cannot ascribe anything "good" to him, only bad 'cause you see, that's what's PC this era.
If it's BAD then by all means lump it on Dubya's resume of tyrannical deeds but don't hang that millstone 'round the big O's neck even if he really did do it.
And trust me, I never was fooling myself into believing I was ever trying to "civilly persuade." I just calls it like I sees it and if the Devil yells in agony, so be it. And if the Angels start screeching and bawling, so be it.
The above, while actually I agree with to an extent, is hardly any excuse to abandon them to an impossible-to-elect third party.
They can be persuaded by those they represent, but when those people run off to the third party the politician will chalk them off and look for others to support him....and if those others aren't so conservative or so true to their platform then the politician will alter his in order to win that support. Thus goes a vicious cycle. We eat our own, and do it very well.
"It is if you want them to vote for a candidate YOU believe should be running the show, rather than for the one THEY believe would be best for that job."
???
Don't tell me you wouldn't be doing cartwheels of onanistic pleasure if the candidate you supported had been elected. I think we all feel that way atleast to a degree. Everyone likes to have their opinions vindicated by general acceptance -- it's an ego thing.
Since I bcame old enough to vote, there has only been one candidate for whom I voted , for whom I ever truly supported -- and even that man was imperfect.
President Ronald Reagan.
That's right. And he had once been a supporter of FDR.
But like that or not, Reagan did considerable thinking and writing about what drove him away from FDR, the democrat party, and toward conservativeism.
EVERY other political race since then has been .... well, as I said, "Scuzzbag A" versus "Scumbucket B."
And BTW, my opinion of Reagan is subject to re-evaluation as the situation demands.
Because the goal is not to "vote for the winner." It's to say, "This is the person I believe is best for the job, out of the candidates on the ballot."You can't really "vote for the winner" in a close election unless you have a crystal ball. The idea is to vote for the person who has the most realistic chance of winning who will either do the least damage to the country or do what can be done to help repair it. I don't feel Ron Paul could because I don't think he would have had enough support in congress to help ... although as a republican....maybe.
Do that, and by definition, your vote is not wasted.
It would seem, by your statements, that anyone who votes for anyone other than the winner of a given election should consider their vote wasted. Seems like a pretty petty way to look at our "regular peaceful revolution."
If you persist in utilizing strawman tactics, you're pretty much admitting defeat, you DO understand that, right? Since I *EXPLICTLY STATED* that my own preferred candidates were *NOT PERFECT*, that's what you've done, and I'm getting a little irritated by your continuing to lie about what I've said. Please stop.
A hazard of any given election, and part of the design of our political process and the structure of our nation.I know what a "self-fulfilling prophecy" is but fail to understand how it applies to what is essentially a numbers game, made up of voters (and the electoral college). It isn't by any means "foolish" to believe that a person who polls 5% is either impossible or atleast metaphysically very difficult to elect to office. That's just the way it works. It does no good to call the electorate foolish. We're still stuck with them and with the way things are.
If you're truly concerned, I'd recommend you contact the RNC and get them to start fielding better candidates, since you seem to believe that's where the answer has to lie, while I continue to advocate for more-libertarian candidates on my own side. And yours.
Ah, I see where the disconnect there is - I wasn't talking about you (or the Rs) trying to civilly persuade DEMOCRATS to vote Republican. I was talking about you (and the Rs) trying to civilly persuade libertarians and libertarian-minded Republicans to vote Republican. The Romney campaign, and many of its supporters, notably lacked said civility in their attempts to, well, quite frankly, drive said voters away. Certainly there were libertarians and libertarian-minded Republicans who were never going to vote for Romney, but there were plenty who might have, if his campaign and supporters hadn't worked hard to piss them off, and that's a critical failing in a political campaign.
Third-party candidates will, by definition, remain "impossible-to-elect" so long as fools continue to labor under the delusion that ANYONE is "impossible-to-elect". Look up the term "self-fulfilling prophecy."
While I certainly would enjoy a libertarian candidate winning major office, your description is... excessive, at best. I suspect my reaction in such a case would be roughly similar to yours if Romney had won. Would you describe your reaction in such a case as "cartwheels of onanistic pleasure"? Truly?:facepalm: Oh....kay. I will admit my rhetoric waxed .... flowery in a way that I probably ought to have thought better of. :angel:
As it should be. And that's how I look at EVERY election. Because anything else would be foolish. No human is perfect - but we can and should try to be better, and should especially demand better of those we've chosen to represent us in positions of power and authority. Voting for more-of-the-same does not fit that criteria, IMO.