Guys, I want you to take a pledge...

[Nitrogen]

Basically, the choices to me are thus:

1) A kick to the groin that supports an AWB.
2) A kick to the solar plexus that supports an AWB, and has supported all sorts of gun control that never passed.
3) A gunshot wound to the kneecap that supports an AWB
4) a shotgun blast to the kneecap that supports an AWB
5) Being lit on fire by a blowtorch that doesn't support an AWB.
6) a $20,000,000 lottery ticket, along with a 1 in 25,827,165 chance of getting it if you actually choose it.  (That's Ron Paul.)
Personally?  I'm going to choose the kick to the groin.
It's an excersise for the reader to match the choices up to actual candidates except for Ron Paul. 

I think we can all agree that the lineup we have to choose from is subpar at best.

[Finch]

Where did you come up with the idea that it's a solution?

Ummm, when the powers that be consider it a solution. No, I'm not going to search for a quote where Bush actually used the word solution, but considering this a tool or an action to fix the economy, that's pretty close be being considered a solution.

As much as I would love to wax semantics, I find the original discussion of voting for the lesser of two evils much more entertaining.

[K Frame]

"Ummm, when the powers that be consider it a solution."

That's funny, both the President and the Democrats, in their respective radio addresses today, NEVER called this a solution to the economic problems.

Roughly, they both called it a step forward, but certainly not the only thing that's needed.



"As much as I would love to wax semantics, I find the original discussion of voting for the lesser of two evils much more entertaining."

No semantics about it. The meaning of the word solution is very precise -- in essence, the thing that will fix the problem. The rebate has never been called that.

From the President's weekly radio address today: "By working together, we can provide our economy with a shot in the arm when we need it most."

From Byron Dorgon's Democratic Radio Address of today: "And also, the President and the Congress began quickly to work together in a bipartisan way this week to develop an economic stimulus plan that would try to give this economy a lift.... Frankly, there's a lot more that has to be done to put our economy back on track for the longer term."

Certainly nothing in their messages saying "This is the only thing we need to do to get the explosive American growth potential going again. Take those checks and spend spend spend, because if this doesn't work, we're out of ideas!"

And come on. You can multitask.

[Dannyboy]

This is just another reason to vote for Ron Paul, he is the only GOP candidate that can beat Hillary or Obama.

Really.  Really?  On what planet do you reside?  Or, more likely, what the hell have you been smoking/snorting/shooting?

[Tallpine]

I'll vote for whoever I want and bitch whenever I dang please.

Neither one does any good, of course ... 

[El Tejon]

In what election could Ron Paul beat anyone?

At an election held in someone's mother's basement?  At a pizza joint at 3AM?  An election where only employees of Starbuck's could vote?

[Bogie]

Democrats are running their publicity campaign based 99% on "change." Vote for someone other than the Evil Republicans. And they've been running that campaign since 2000.
 
Okay. Fine. Do exactly what they want. You may not be voting _for_ Hillary, but you're not going to be voting against her. And that's all they care about.
 
So, three years from now, when they've got the FBI combing through stacks of 4473s, cross-reffing all the dealer registration stuff, and they're talking about how you can "give back" your AR for a $400 "gift card," you can feel really happy that you voted like they wanted you to.
 

[Finch]

In what election could Ron Paul beat anyone?

He has yet to come in last place in any of the primaries or caucuses...so....HA! 

And come on. You can multitask.

I can. And I was. I leave that to your imagination.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

You don't understand, Bogie.  The object of the game is to claim moral superiority over others, not to influence the results of the political process. 

[CAnnoneer]

The object of the game is to claim moral superiority over others, not to influence the results of the political process. 

Ouch! 

[Tecumseh]

This is just another reason to vote for Ron Paul, he is the only GOP candidate that can beat Hillary or Obama.

Really.  Really?  On what planet do you reside?  Or, more likely, what the hell have you been smoking/snorting/shooting?

  He will draw votes from GOP members and Democrat party members. 

The only thing I am high on the gospel!

[Tecumseh]

In what election could Ron Paul beat anyone?

At an election held in someone's mother's basement?  At a pizza joint at 3AM?  An election where only employees of Starbuck's could vote?

  Well he did beat Fred Thompson in the primaries, raise more money than McCain, and took 2nd in Nevada. 

[matis]

Quoted from Headless Thompson Gunner:
"You don't understand, Bogie.  The object of the game is to claim moral superiority over others, not to influence the results of the political process."


Sure seems like it.

So, three years from now, when they've got the FBI combing through stacks of 4473s, cross-reffing all the dealer registration stuff, and they're talking about how you can "give back" your AR for a $400 "gift card," you can feel really happy that you voted like they wanted you to.[/b]

Not to mention putting liberal judges on the federal benches AND the Supreme court.  That, to me, is the worst part of a Democrat victory.  Those who want to "teach the Republicans a lesson" seem to overlook the wreckage wrought by "compassionate" liberal judges who consider themselves wiser than those who wrote the constitution.

I agree that there are no "good" choices.  But those who think there ever will be are lost in fantasyland.  From my experience I don't know of a better country to live in than the United States.

But all governments are corrupt -- it's the nature of the beast --  and "Democracy is the worst kind of government -- except for all the others." (Winston Churchill).

Government impacts my life in many ways.  The 2nd amendment is very important to me, but it is only one of the ways.  So I do my best to select the "least bad" choice.

If you refuse to vote for the lessor of the evils then you can never vote at all.

I will hold my nose, as they say, and vote Republican.



matis

[Finch]

But all governments are corrupt -- it's the nature of the beast --  and "Democracy is the worst kind of government -- except for all the others." (Winston Churchill).

Fortunatly we don't live in a democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic. Now if we can just get those slimey critters to understand that our government operates under the rule of law and that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

[matis]

Fortunatly we don't live in a democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic. Now if we can just get those slimey critters to understand that our government operates under the rule of law and that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

You're making my point.

You cannot get those slimy critters to understand because, in addition to their ignorance, they are corrupt.  Politicians fare better in a democracy -- fewer constraints upon their profligacy and power lust.


Most people today seem to believe that the US IS a democracy.  The very concept is almost revered.  And there is agitation to eliminate the electoral college.  I'm sure you know that the popular vote for senators was instituted to make it more "democratic".


matis

[Bogie]

Looking at the polls, the overwhelming thing that people say they are concerned with is that they want "change."

Well, they're gonna get it.
 
I'm guessing that not a lot of 'em have thought about what "kind" of change they'd like to have. But by golly, they want it.

I suspect that Hillary's folks are _desperately_ looking for new buzzwords - They've been pushing "change" since 2, and unfortunately now Obama's stuff seems like even MORE change, and since change is good...

Actually, it's a hoot watching the news... CNN, etc., are trumpeting that Obama's the leader in committed delegates. They're not saying a darn thing about the fact that Hillary's got more overall delegates than he does...
 
The internet musings I see are SO deja-vu... I remember WWIV and UseNet discussion groups, when Clinton won against Bush and Perot (who, the theory is, is _mightily_ peeved at the Bush family around some oil stuff, so he spent the money with the sole purpose of harpooning the election).
 

[Boomhauer]

The train's going to off the track. It's only a matter of time before it jumps the rails. Now, this election, I do believe, will determine whether we have a few more years or not to prepare. And by prepare, I mean buying it in bulk and stacking it deep, if you know what I mean.

If the Hildabeast or Obama wins, that's the fastest route to the failure of this Republic. They will screw it up economically, for sure, and quite possibly drop the ball when it comes to fighting the terrorists. Also, look for abuses of the Patriot Act like never seen before. So far, Bush hasn't used it to go after political enemies. But the Hildabeast will.

Getting McCain in will result in the same situation. Supposedly, one of his aides has already said "Mexico First". Reference Domestic Enemies if ya need more detail on THAT. That story was on World Net Daily, and of course, you leftists on this board immediately snub it based on that.

Romney might or might not institute an AWB, that is, if one does come into law. I don't think he will do too bad on economy. I can't get a read on how he will run the War on Terror or domestic security, or extensions of stuff like the Patriot Act, etc. (something I DON'T want to happen)

Guiliani is toast. Huckabee, maybe so. I certainly don't want his "change the constitution" crap. Thankfully, the Constitution is not easily amended.

And say that Ron Paul does overcome the odds and get elected? What would he actually get done? Probably not much at all. He would still have to overcome the resistance of the Senate and the House of Representatives, who don't want to stop their antics at all. He'd be an ineffective president...

Voting for Romney, much as I dislike to do so, is still better than voting for McCain, or Obama, or Hillary. It could very well give us a few more years to prepare for the really, really bad times...


And I think that if Obama keeps winning primaries, Hillary might have something done about it...

[SomeKid]

If you refuse to vote for the lessor of the evils then you can never vote at all.

matis

How is that God complex of yours doing?

[Tecumseh]

The train's going to off the track. It's only a matter of time before it jumps the rails. Now, this election, I do believe, will determine whether we have a few more years or not to prepare. And by prepare, I mean buying it in bulk and stacking it deep, if you know what I mean.

If the Hildabeast or Obama wins, that's the fastest route to the failure of this Republic. They will screw it up economically, for sure, and quite possibly drop the ball when it comes to fighting the terrorists. Also, look for abuses of the Patriot Act like never seen before. So far, Bush hasn't used it to go after political enemies. But the Hildabeast will.

Getting McCain in will result in the same situation. Supposedly, one of his aides has already said "Mexico First". Reference Domestic Enemies if ya need more detail on THAT. That story was on World Net Daily, and of course, you leftists on this board immediately snub it based on that.

Romney might or might not institute an AWB, that is, if one does come into law. I don't think he will do too bad on economy. I can't get a read on how he will run the War on Terror or domestic security, or extensions of stuff like the Patriot Act, etc. (something I DON'T want to happen)

Guiliani is toast. Huckabee, maybe so. I certainly don't want his "change the constitution" crap. Thankfully, the Constitution is not easily amended.

And say that Ron Paul does overcome the odds and get elected? What would he actually get done? Probably not much at all. He would still have to overcome the resistance of the Senate and the House of Representatives, who don't want to stop their antics at all. He'd be an ineffective president...

Voting for Romney, much as I dislike to do so, is still better than voting for McCain, or Obama, or Hillary. It could very well give us a few more years to prepare for the really, really bad times...


And I think that if Obama keeps winning primaries, Hillary might have something done about it...

  If Ron Paul does win, that is at least 4 years of freedom that we dont have to worry about.  I think Bush has done more to destroy the Bill of RIghts than anyone.  And I do think that Romney and Huckabee will use the Patriot Act to attack religious enemies and people who do not agree with the official doctrine of their church.  Guiliani will just turn the country to a police state.  Hillary and Obama will not be as bad as Romney or Huckabee in my opinion.

[Bogie]

Nope. If Ron Paul gets elected, we'll have four years of political lunacy, with the house and senate going at each other, with veto overrides every other week.
 
Oh, and another thing to pledge... Thus far, "Bush has used" the Patriot Act to go after "Americans" like Jose Padilla... All you folks who are screaming about him abusing stuff need to promise that you'll scream just as loudly when Hillary uses it, and the department of homeland security, to go after people who the Democrats feel threatened by... Remember those magical IRS audits that showed up on people who were giving the Clintons a hard time? Sheesh.

[SomeKid]

Nope. If Ron Paul gets elected, we'll have four years of political lunacy, with the house and senate going at each other, with veto overrides every other week.

I highly doubt the underlined part. Sure, he would get overridden a good bit, but how could most Republicans justify voting to override a fellow Republican time and time again on spending issues when he says too much is being spent? I think enough Republicans would realize they can't override him all the time or they themselves won't be re-elected. With a president who actively pushes for smaller government and less spending, I think most Republicans (and maybe even some Democrats) would realize that if they want to appear fiscally conservative and not look like tax and spend nutjobs, they have to go along a good amount of the time with him.

[Bogie]

Thing is, most of the Washington Republicans are going to see him as an outsider... Actually, that's also somewhat similar to the Obama bit - I think he'll have a hard time if he gets elected.
 
Remember - the president doesn't initiate legislation. He just rubber-stamps it...
 
If Romney gets in, we'll have four more years of "It's Romney's fault, him and his political cronies."

If Hillary gets in, there's gonna be one heckuva lovefest, and a complete ignoring of enemies getting destroyed...
 

[Fly320s]

Let's see if I got this straight.

1.  Rupublicans suck, but the Democrats suck more.
2.  Vote Republican anyway, or don't bitch at the result.
3.  Doesn't matter what the Republican front-runners want to do, just vote for them anyway.

Riddle me this, Batman, since the Republican party is slowly but surely sliding to the political left, should I slide with them to become a statist, or hope for a white knight?

[matis]

Riddle me this, Batman, since the Republican party is slowly but surely sliding to the political left, should I slide with them to become a statist, or hope for a white knight?

Too late, Fly320s.  If you are a law abiding citizen and pay your taxes in today's United States, you ARE a statist (de facto).  What practical difference do your beliefs and values actually make, anymore?


As for "white knight", I've never seen or heard of any real ones.  Look closely and you'll see that they are actually a sort of mottled-gray.  It's like the archer who always shot bulls-eyes.  First he shot his arrow, then he painted the circle around it.  In this case it's the historians who paint the circle.

Quote from: matis on January 26, 2008, 02:29:39 PM

If you refuse to vote for the lessor of the evils then you can never vote at all.

matis


How is that God complex of yours doing?

Oh, Somekid, I'm afraid it's gotten much worse.   

The more I learn Talmud, the more amazed I become at its profundity in dealing with life's complexities.


matis

[CAnnoneer]

Riddle me this, Batman, since the Republican party is slowly but surely sliding to the political left, should I slide with them to become a statist, or hope for a white knight?

Technically, you are right. But your underlying assumption is that there would be no major events to disturb the current political trends. I beg to differ on that point. Many major issues are coming to a head in perhaps less than a decade or two - social security, energy crisis, globalization plus 3rd world modernization, demographic catastrophe, climate change. All of these especially in combination will remake the world in such a radical way that current trends will be completely swept away, for the better or the worse.

From that perspective, voting Republican while waiting to see the new conditions is a conservative approach. Repubs will simply have insufficient time to devolve significantly meanwhile. I'd rather keep my guns and money while preparing for the world-changing events. Call me short-sighted.