goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: kstatefreak42 on September 27, 2012, 01:54:31 AM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVXCHnWNp10&list=UUhwwoeOZ3EJPobW83dgQfAg&index=39&feature=plcp
This guy confronts a poor misled sheep. This is what political parties do to the country. They are meant do divide us.
This lady in the video is perhaps the most BLIND person i have ever seen
-
17 minutes? Are you rough ridin' kidding me? It's 2012, I don't have time for this crap.
-
lost all credibility with an oath keepers shirt and that facial hair
-
Credibility? The guy is spitting fact after fact. And whats wrong with an oath keeper? they are men and women who took an oath to defend the constitution and they are continuing that even after they are done serving. Real dumb? lol
-
Credibility? The guy is spitting fact after fact. And whats wrong with an oath keeper? they are men and women who took an oath to defend the constitution and they are continuing that even after they are done serving. Real dumb? lol
so totally wrong about
Iran
Why the USSR failed
the abdication of power by the Congress to the executive
and the oath keepers have very low Constitutional IQ. Go read their platform points.
-
he did clown suit her with the bank talking point
-
he did clown suit her with the bank talking point
He did a clown suit on the point that the political parties are the same. They are both bought and paid for by the same people. The Bilderberg Group
-
This video is wholly inaccurate. The guy is leading sheep to the wolf.
-
blah blah blah
The Bilderberg Group hur hur hur sheep
-
What is inaccurate about the video stevedave.
"blah blah bilderberg" lol... You really dont get the magnitude of how sick these people are. These people violate the US Constitution and let a bunch of foreigners and elitest make America's Policy decisions... As a US Citizen that upsets me. But WHO SUPPORTS THE CONSTITUTION NOW A DAYS??? SO ABSURD
-
What is inaccurate about the video stevedave.
"blah blah bilderberg" lol... You really dont get the magnitude of how sick these people are. These people violate the US Constitution and let a bunch of foreigners and elitest make America's Policy decisions... As a US Citizen that upsets me. But WHO SUPPORTS THE CONSTITUTION NOW A DAYS??? SO ABSURD
the entire ending 2/3 is complete horse crap for one. he's just making stuff up. check you facts, don't follow along like a sheep.
-
YOU ARE ALL SHEEP
learn why by buying alex jones' documentary based on speculation and little hard evidence
-
BAAAAAA, BAAAAAAAA, BAAAAAAAAAA, :gets-some-of-his-own-crap-stuck-in-his-wool-because-he-needs-to-be-sheared:, BAAAAAAAAA, BAAAAAAA!
-
But we really should do away with political parties
-
Ya......... :lol:
-
But we really should do away with political parties
How do you keep 2 candidates with very similar views from splitting votes, allowing a guy who would be most Americans' third or fourth choice from winning?
-
But we really should do away with political parties
How do you keep 2 candidates with very similar views from splitting votes, allowing a guy who would be most Americans' third or fourth choice from winning?
Excellent point, nuts kicked.
-
:bill: supports Ron Paul
-
But we really should do away with political parties
you think it's ok to take away people's ability to form groups based on their common beliefs to support a candidate of their choice? this isn't communist russia, this is mother rough ridin' america friend.
-
i thought oath-keepers were those weirdo christians dudes that like fill texas stadium and stuff.
-
i thought oath-keepers were those weirdo christians dudes that like fill texas stadium and stuff.
kirk cameron
-
i thought oath-keepers were those weirdo christians dudes that like fill texas stadium and stuff.
no...that's promise keepers, started by...Bill McCartney (yeah, that same Bill McCartney).
-
abolish slavery.
-
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/why-i-refuse-to-vote-for-barack-obama/262861/
-
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/why-i-refuse-to-vote-for-barack-obama/262861/
This along with his continued support of the Patriot act, the construction of the largest spy center in NSA history in Utah for the purpose of covertly spying on all domestic communications without a warrant, his support of the NDAA clause that gives the right of an executive to arrest any American citizen and detain them without trail indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism, and the needlessly intrusive tactics of the TSA and DHS under Janet Napolitano are all major strikes against him. Not to mention the DoJ's lack of enthusiasm in effectively prosecuting those responsible for the 2008 financial crisis.
Instead of abolishing all political parties we need 4 - One for the progressives, one for the center-left, one for the fiscal conservatives, and one for the social conservatives. It'd provide a decentralization of power coveted by the right while giving the radicals and centrists from both parties a welcome opportunity to split off from each other. You'd still have opportunities for coalitions but not nearly as much disingenuous pandering to the more fervent elements of one's base.
-
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/why-i-refuse-to-vote-for-barack-obama/262861/
This along with his continued support of the Patriot act, the construction of the largest spy center in NSA history in Utah for the purpose of covertly spying on all domestic communications without a warrant, his support of the NDAA clause that gives the right of an executive to arrest any American citizen and detain them without trail indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism, and the needlessly intrusive tactics of the TSA and DHS under Janet Napolitano are all major strikes against him. Not to mention the DoJ's lack of enthusiasm in effectively prosecuting those responsible for the 2008 financial crisis.
Instead of abolishing all political parties we need 4 - One for the progressives, one for the center-left, one for the fiscal conservatives, and one for the social conservatives. It'd provide a decentralization of power coveted by the right while giving the radicals and centrists from both parties a welcome opportunity to split off from each other. You'd still have opportunities for coalitions but not nearly as much disingenuous pandering to the more fervent elements of one's base.
:flush:
-
But we really should do away with political parties
you think it's ok to take away people's ability to form groups based on their common beliefs to support a candidate of their choice? this isn't communist russia, this is mother rough ridin' america friend.
I agree but the 2 party system makes us choose between 2 bad choices. I don't really follow politics because of it. I know who most closely aligns with what I prefer and vote that way even though half their platform is thoroughly distasteful to me.
-
start another party :dunno: you can bring people from the others to your new one :dunno:
-
Ultimately, what the people pissed at the parties are pissed about is that people don't see things the same way they do. Someone who you almost 100% agree with was running at some point in this election. They didn't get the nomination or dropped out on their own. That's not a party fault, that's the voters.
-
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/why-i-refuse-to-vote-for-barack-obama/262861/
This along with his continued support of the Patriot act, the construction of the largest spy center in NSA history in Utah for the purpose of covertly spying on all domestic communications without a warrant, his support of the NDAA clause that gives the right of an executive to arrest any American citizen and detain them without trail indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism, and the needlessly intrusive tactics of the TSA and DHS under Janet Napolitano are all major strikes against him. Not to mention the DoJ's lack of enthusiasm in effectively prosecuting those responsible for the 2008 financial crisis.
Instead of abolishing all political parties we need 4 - One for the progressives, one for the center-left, one for the fiscal conservatives, and one for the social conservatives. It'd provide a decentralization of power coveted by the right while giving the radicals and centrists from both parties a welcome opportunity to split off from each other. You'd still have opportunities for coalitions but not nearly as much disingenuous pandering to the more fervent elements of one's base.
:flush:
Stevedave hates the truth
-
The first paragraph is nutty, second one is good.
-
The first paragraph is nutty, second one is good.
opposite
-
The first paragraph is nutty, second one is good.
opposite
Whoops, I had forgotten how well the 2 party system had performed lately.
-
Meh. It's not like the 4 party idea will ever become a reality. It's just what I think would be the best system in Congress, go ahead and hate all you want on a hypothetical.
Plus the rollback on civil liberties in this country is a problem. It's not necessarily that Obama's turned us into a fascist police state like the conspiracy nuts claim he has, but he's continued some terrible Bush policies and has helped lay a groundwork in place for more abusive leaders to clamp down on our liberties if this stuff doesn't get overturned. You don't have to believe in the Bilderberg bullshit to see that. It'd be one thing if we passed these policies in order to counteract a given threat (like if we were at war with China or something), but this is all aimed at a War on Terror that doesn't have an end date in sight.
Anyway, commence with your :flush:
-
Meh. It's not like the 4 party idea will ever become a reality. It's just what I think would be the best system in Congress, go ahead and hate all you want on a hypothetical.
Plus the rollback on civil liberties in this country is a problem. It's not necessarily that Obama's turned us into a fascist police state like the conspiracy nuts claim he has, but he's continued some terrible Bush policies and has helped lay a groundwork in place for more abusive leaders to clamp down on our liberties if this stuff doesn't get overturned. You don't have to believe in the Bilderberg bullshit to see that. It'd be one thing if we passed these policies in order to counteract a given threat (like if we were at war with China or something), but this is all aimed at a War on Terror that doesn't have an end date in sight.
Anyway, commence with your :flush:
it has nothing to do with that, it's that the 4 party doesn't solve any of your problems. the govt. doesn't mandate two parties. make 3, make 4, make 12. do whatever you want. your problems (and mine) are more to do with making the dumbfucks in this country (unfortunately most of the country) realize that they are dumbfucks and the AM radio and TV don't necessarily have their best interests at heart.
-
Meh. It's not like the 4 party idea will ever become a reality. It's just what I think would be the best system in Congress, go ahead and hate all you want on a hypothetical.
Plus the rollback on civil liberties in this country is a problem. It's not necessarily that Obama's turned us into a fascist police state like the conspiracy nuts claim he has, but he's continued some terrible Bush policies and has helped lay a groundwork in place for more abusive leaders to clamp down on our liberties if this stuff doesn't get overturned. You don't have to believe in the Bilderberg bullshit to see that. It'd be one thing if we passed these policies in order to counteract a given threat (like if we were at war with China or something), but this is all aimed at a War on Terror that doesn't have an end date in sight.
Anyway, commence with your :flush:
it has nothing to do with that, it's that the 4 party doesn't solve any of your problems. the govt. doesn't mandate two parties. make 3, make 4, make 12. do whatever you want. your problems (and mine) are more to do with making the dumbfucks in this country (unfortunately most of the country) realize that they are dumbfucks and the AM radio and TV don't necessarily have their best interests at heart.
partially correct. the unfortunate thing is that there are legitimate barriers to entry for alternative parties.
-
Set limits so all parties can only spend the same limited amount of money. I think that would fix it. Like NASCAR for you rednecks out there. Restrictor plates and crap. Vroooooooooooooooooom Green Party bitches.
-
Who's going to legalize hookers and weed?
I mean, if you want to buy an election, it's easily hookers and weed.
-
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=23084.0 (http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=23084.0)
-
proportional representation.
-
Does Ron Paul have the most butthurt supporters in the history of politics?
-
Does Ron Paul have the most butthurt supporters in the history of politics?
2nd. Ross Perot supporters in 1992 are still in the lead.
-
Meh. It's not like the 4 party idea will ever become a reality. It's just what I think would be the best system in Congress, go ahead and hate all you want on a hypothetical.
Plus the rollback on civil liberties in this country is a problem. It's not necessarily that Obama's turned us into a fascist police state like the conspiracy nuts claim he has, but he's continued some terrible Bush policies and has helped lay a groundwork in place for more abusive leaders to clamp down on our liberties if this stuff doesn't get overturned. You don't have to believe in the Bilderberg bullshit to see that. It'd be one thing if we passed these policies in order to counteract a given threat (like if we were at war with China or something), but this is all aimed at a War on Terror that doesn't have an end date in sight.
Anyway, commence with your :flush:
it has nothing to do with that, it's that the 4 party doesn't solve any of your problems. the govt. doesn't mandate two parties. make 3, make 4, make 12. do whatever you want. your problems (and mine) are more to do with making the dumbfucks in this country (unfortunately most of the country) realize that they are dumbfucks and the AM radio and TV don't necessarily have their best interests at heart.
Yep, I mean, they are creating reality tv shows (I am sure they will be unbiased) to "educate" people on Obamacare. They are also trying to get big tv shows to work it in their plots. I disagree with SD one point though. I am pretty sure they already know they are dumbfucks. No one needs to make them realize it. The scary part is that they don't even care that they are dumbfucks. As long as a Kardashian tweets out her lunch plans and Honey Booboo is on the stupid box every night, life is good.
-
Does Ron Paul have the most butthurt supporters in the history of politics?
2nd. Ross Perot supporters in 1992 are still in the lead.
and why wouldn't they? He had 1/3 of the polls.
and fwiw, I live in one of the top 5 largest cities in the country and have seen far more Ron Paul campaign support than BO or RR. Unfortunately, Gary Johnson is next.
-
Pike, dont even try to argue with him. He is a complete vegetable. Even if you throw out facts that are on PUBLIC RECORD and visible for all to see he will still deny it. He is just another indoctrinated dumbshit who has caused the further deterioration of our civil liberties ( who cares about those nowadays right?) :facepalm: .. and the allowing of both political parties to RAPE our economic system and concentrate ALL OF THE WEALTH TO THE UPPER 1% People like STEVEDAVE need to be left alone... they are already lost. Its better to focus the Liberty message to those who are not indoctrinated in this political ponzi scheme of a system we call DEMOCRACY LOL
-
this isn't communist Russia kstatefreak, we have a little thing called freedom.
-
SD, I see your point - why not just start your own party? I get it. There are other parties, but that's not the point. The point is Republicans & democrats are automatic bids. They're automatically in the debates. They're automatically on the ballot in all the states. They're automatically within a 50% slot of being the next president. GJ will never win, because a 3rd party is essentially still splitting the votes - and if either a d or an r will be the big winner - it's still a 50/50 chance for the r's & d's regardless of a green party candidate, libertarian candidate, communist candidate, marxist etc.
That's not a how the system is constructed; there are not rules that make this possible - it's a reflection of the monopoly that has been created within the political structure. Republicans & Democrats have a monopoly on the power. That's the issue.
Why does a political candidate even seek affiliation with a political party? You and I know they do so that dumb asses with blinders on will vote for them no matter what they really stand for. So why not abolish all political parties? There would be no more: "I'm a libertarian, so I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson!" or "I'm a Republican, so I'm going to vote for Mitt Romney!" or "I'm a democrat I'm going to vote for Barrack Obama!" Wouldn't it be amazing if people actually knew what they were voting for and not accepting the lesser of two evils? Why can't a debate be between Gary Johnson/Ron Paul/Mitt Romney/Barrack Obama/Michelle Bachman/Huntsman/Santorum/etc instead of a debate between the Republican vs. the Democrat?
What if all of the religions were consolidated to two categories: Jews & Christians. Can you imagine the "butt-hurt" athiest would feel? Mormons? Muslims? Hindu?
-
they are automatic because they are popular...just like a party you create would be if they got a large percent of the popular vote
-
they are automatic because they are popular...just like a party you create would be if they got a large percent of the popular vote
I think you miss my point. It's popular because it has a monopoly; The basic ideals behind republicans & democrats are popular - but we have candidates that you've been told are either democrat or republican; but with their political actions on paper - no names attached & no political affiliation - Romney would have just as many actions that democrats agree with that Obama would have republicans agree with and a whole slew of things that no one would agree with.
That's the "butthurt" that people are seeing with Ron Paul Supporters. I was more in line with republican type of thinking until Bush - I Didn't immediately jump democrat - It just made me pay closer attention. I now consider myself an independent. I think we would go much further in society if everyone was independent and measured the actions of our political leaders, not decipher their political affiliation and put on the blinders to everything else. You certainly wouldn't be getting the "well I don't agree with this candidate (A) - but I have to vote for him to get rid of candidate (B)". That's just a damn slippery slope of voting for consistently worse options.
-
they have a "monopoly" (they actually don't, but using your phrasing) because they are wildly popular...you are putting the cart in front of the horse.
-
No no no... Let me clarify - I'm not speaking clearly enough to make my point. Romney has a monopoly on republicans and Obama has a monopoly on democrats. In this current system, why are we ending up with nominees that don't fit into the ideals of what their political platform entail? Do you really know any democrats that would support a president that has a foreign policy that allows for innocent people to be killed and justify it as - well... They lived close to terrorist so it was necessary. That is a very republican line of thinking. Or any republicans that would support a president who flip flops on abortion, has a record of strict gun control, & enacted a form of socialized medicine when he was a governor - all very democrat lines of thinking. It's not so much the final two candidates in the november election as it is the selection process the year leading up to it. A removal of all political parties would solve this problem. Just incumbent vs. replacement contender. Why would anyone oppose that?
-
A removal of all political parties would solve this problem. Just incumbent vs. replacement contender. Why would anyone oppose that?
What would you call the group of people organizing their campaigns and stuff? The Mitt Romney party? Wouldn't they just figure out that it is way easier to campaign if you have a shitload of people with somewhat aligned views organizing together to support a candidate? Kind of like a political party?
-
No no no... Let me clarify - I'm not speaking clearly enough to make my point. Romney has a monopoly on republicans and Obama has a monopoly on democrats. In this current system, why are we ending up with nominees that don't fit into the ideals of what their political platform entail? Do you really know any democrats that would support a president that has a foreign policy that allows for innocent people to be killed and justify it as - well... They lived close to terrorist so it was necessary. That is a very republican line of thinking. Or any republicans that would support a president who flip flops on abortion, has a record of strict gun control, & enacted a form of socialized medicine when he was a governor - all very democrat lines of thinking. It's not so much the final two candidates in the november election as it is the selection process the year leading up to it. A removal of all political parties would solve this problem. Just incumbent vs. replacement contender. Why would anyone oppose that?
Well I can immediately think of lots of people who would oppose it, namely the vast majority of the country's registered voters that are registered as either a democrat or republican.
-
Are they afraid they wouldn't know who to vote for without an (R) or (D) next a candidates name?
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
-
The problem isn't political parties per say, it's the American public. 75% of the public is uneducated (stupid) and uninformed and yet will still vote. These people vote in two ways: they blindly cast a vote for whichever party they have aligned themselves with, or they go with the "cool" vote. Unfortunately, the cool vote nowadays is whichever candidate gives more handouts in the name of social equity. Like it or not, Romney was right when he said we have become a society of entitlement.
-
A removal of all political parties would solve this problem. Just incumbent vs. replacement contender. Why would anyone oppose that?
What would you call the group of people organizing their campaigns and stuff? The Mitt Romney party? Wouldn't they just figure out that it is way easier to campaign if you have a shitload of people with somewhat aligned views organizing together to support a candidate? Kind of like a political party?
Sure, call it the mitt Romney campaign. But then they would be forced to get sponsorship from people that are actually intellectually aligned with Mitt Romney - not closely aligned with a political party that Romney may or may not be closely aligned with. Everyone who has ever complained about RINO's or DINO's would know exactly what I'm talking about.
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
-
The problem isn't political parties per say, it's the American public. 75% of the public is uneducated (stupid) and uninformed and yet will still vote. These people vote in two ways: they blindly cast a vote for whichever party they have aligned themselves with, or they go with the "cool" vote. Unfortunately, the cool vote nowadays is whichever candidate gives more handouts in the name of social equity. Like it or not, Romney was right when he said we have become a society of entitlement.
I can agree with that, but I wouldn't call them stupid. Every media outlet is extremely biased and it takes a lot of time and effort to cut through the bullshit. But I think you get it - removing the cheat sheet of having an R/D next to a candidates name will either force people to not participate or pay closer attention.
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
-
I would also say 75% is grossly inaccurate - maybe 25% of the voting public which is only roughly 60% of the population.
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
-
Are they afraid they wouldn't know who to vote for without an (R) or (D) next a candidates name?
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
I don't know. I was just responding to your ridiculous claim.
-
Are they afraid they wouldn't know who to vote for without an (R) or (D) next a candidates name?
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
I don't know. I was just responding to your ridiculous claim.
My argument implying people are lazy and guilty of party line voting seems to be exemplified when stating these same people would not want political parties broken up. Having said that, you could have taken my question of "who would not want that?" as a rhetorical question; the only logical response is - which you correctly pointed out - are the people affiliated with the party. As I am stating it, those people are part of the problem.
I'm curious though - would anyone here argue with me if you didn't already dislike me as a Paulite? Have I argued with so many of you that I will immediately be labeled (C) for "Crazy" because you're all so used to disagreeing with me? (much like a (D) next to a democrat or (R) for republican) Can anyone not see how society does this every day and every where? Even here, people take some posters thoughts and ideas as gospel - SD, Trim, Rusty, Sys, Even you KK... What if you or one of these guys goes off the deep end? Seems kind of powertardish to label someone or some organization as god like and infallible and drink the Kool-aid so to speak. Isn't independence and free thinking one of the things this board was founded on? I'm not going to go as far as calling any of you incapable of critical thinking, but damn... having thoughts shot down with nothing more than "crazy" warranted as a response really gives the impression that that's the case.
I mean, categorizing something as "crazy" "Conspiracy theorist" or "stupid" without providing any substantial, logical, and/or well thought out response may rouse high fives from buddies - but it makes people appear childish & irrational to everyone else.
-
You can't force people to not join up under a party name. Why do the people who bitch the most about freedoms want them taken away when people decide to do things they don't agree with? It goes both ways.
-
people will vote for who they're told to vote for. It has nothing to do with popularity. For instance, most conservatives were indifferent to mitt romney at one point or another. But TPTB told them all that hes the "most electable" and the sheep followed the leader. As long as this is the case nothing will change in America
-
You can't take away their freedom to do that Pike, this is America.
-
You can't take away their freedom to do that Pike, this is America.
i unfortunately agree. I realize theres nothing we can do to end political parties. People will have to change it, and that is a long way off from happening.
-
The current legal structure makes it so that an outside party must spend an extraordinary amount of time and money to get on every state's ballot or in a presidential debate or anything having to do with any political race that is better than on the local scale. Who made the current legal structure? Democrats and Republicans. They made it so that it's legally next to impossible for any third party to mount a legitimate effort towards changing the two-party structure. That's not an issue of freedom, that's an issue of rigging the system so that the populace is made to feel that they don't have any legitimate alternatives with the resources to win an election.
At the very least I'd like to see things become more equitable for other parties so there's a more level playing field. If it turned out that in a vacuum the American public still wants two parties and only two parties, great. At least other organizations got a fair shot. But I'm not sure you'd see just two parties in a vacuum given how fractious our current political setup is and how much dissension there is between the centrists/pragmatists and true believers in both parties.
-
Here's the thing, you can't have a ballot with one million names on it. Which is what you would have. Anyone with enough support to mount a successful campaign will have no problem overcoming the obstacles to get on the ballot. Anyone who can't, has no shot to ever be voted into office. It's an excellent gateway.
-
Anyone with enough support to mount a successful campaign will have no problem overcoming the obstacles to get on the ballot.
That's the thing. You can't get "enough support to mount a successful campaign" without registering with one of the two parties who made the current set of election rules. Ron Paul attached his name to the Republican Party for a reason. Ross Perot was an extraordinary case because he had enough money to run for president outside of traditional party structures, and he wouldn't even have a chance today in today's climate with Super PACs dumping an ungodly amount of money into presidiential and congressional races.
You can have the most qualified candidate for a position get completely buried in an election because they either refuse to be part of one of the two major parties or they aren't friends with enough billionaires. What you're doing is employing the classic Republican argument that I believe--correct me if I'm wrong--you criticize fairly regularly: "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps!" In the case of elections outside of somewhere like Vermont, that's completely unreasonable for third party candidates in most cases.
Also:
Here's the thing, you can't have a ballot with one million names on it. Which is what you would have.
Lots of European democracies tend to make these sorts of things happen without "one million names" on their ballots, and they have higher voter turnouts than us. There obviously would be limits that would need to be in place, but the current structure we have is utterly prohibitive to political innovation and new ideas.
-
You can't force people not to pool their money for a candidate of their choice. This is America.
-
You can't force people not to pool their money for a candidate of their choice. This is America.
Why not make it easier for people to have more choices on where to pool their money? Let the free market decide instead of the government. This is America.
-
There are unlimited choices, your problem is the choices people are making.
-
SD is just fishing now.
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
-
Nope
-
Are they afraid they wouldn't know who to vote for without an (R) or (D) next a candidates name?
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
I don't know. I was just responding to your ridiculous claim.
My argument implying people are lazy and guilty of party line voting seems to be exemplified when stating these same people would not want political parties broken up. Having said that, you could have taken my question of "who would not want that?" as a rhetorical question; the only logical response is - which you correctly pointed out - are the people affiliated with the party. As I am stating it, those people are part of the problem.
I'm curious though - would anyone here argue with me if you didn't already dislike me as a Paulite? Have I argued with so many of you that I will immediately be labeled (C) for "Crazy" because you're all so used to disagreeing with me? (much like a (D) next to a democrat or (R) for republican) Can anyone not see how society does this every day and every where? Even here, people take some posters thoughts and ideas as gospel - SD, Trim, Rusty, Sys, Even you KK... What if you or one of these guys goes off the deep end? Seems kind of powertardish to label someone or some organization as god like and infallible and drink the Kool-aid so to speak. Isn't independence and free thinking one of the things this board was founded on? I'm not going to go as far as calling any of you incapable of critical thinking, but damn... having thoughts shot down with nothing more than "crazy" warranted as a response really gives the impression that that's the case.
I mean, categorizing something as "crazy" "Conspiracy theorist" or "stupid" without providing any substantial, logical, and/or well thought out response may rouse high fives from buddies - but it makes people appear childish & irrational to everyone else.
:gocho:
-
There are unlimited choices, your problem is the choices people are making.
Their choices are forced in many cases due to legal coercion. Many companies would likely rather support a fiscal conservative party and not deal with the religious folks that come with the Republicans. In many cases, the religious folks can be bad for profits due to "morality" concerns, so why force them to get in bed with those folks? The only reason they currently support the status quo is because the two parties have, in their own self-interest, made it prohibitively difficult to change the system from the outside.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww-bgr-com.vimg.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F09%2FScreen-shot-2010-09-22-at-4.30.16-PM.jpg&hash=bf5d93f9e66adefca55c11aa7285d643f9fe7699)
"You mean my company can now support a party that won't try and outlaw stem cell research because they don't have any religious nutballs to tell them they won't vote for them if they don't? Sign me up, like, today."
-Big Shot Science Company CEO
-
Nobody's forcing anyone to do anything
-
Nobody's forcing anyone to do anything
Agree to disagree. Go cats.
-
Indeed, go cats
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
-
Are they afraid they wouldn't know who to vote for without an (R) or (D) next a candidates name?
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
I don't know. I was just responding to your ridiculous claim.
My argument implying people are lazy and guilty of party line voting seems to be exemplified when stating these same people would not want political parties broken up. Having said that, you could have taken my question of "who would not want that?" as a rhetorical question; the only logical response is - which you correctly pointed out - are the people affiliated with the party. As I am stating it, those people are part of the problem.
I'm curious though - would anyone here argue with me if you didn't already dislike me as a Paulite? Have I argued with so many of you that I will immediately be labeled (C) for "Crazy" because you're all so used to disagreeing with me? (much like a (D) next to a democrat or (R) for republican) Can anyone not see how society does this every day and every where? Even here, people take some posters thoughts and ideas as gospel - SD, Trim, Rusty, Sys, Even you KK... What if you or one of these guys goes off the deep end? Seems kind of powertardish to label someone or some organization as god like and infallible and drink the Kool-aid so to speak. Isn't independence and free thinking one of the things this board was founded on? I'm not going to go as far as calling any of you incapable of critical thinking, but damn... having thoughts shot down with nothing more than "crazy" warranted as a response really gives the impression that that's the case.
I mean, categorizing something as "crazy" "Conspiracy theorist" or "stupid" without providing any substantial, logical, and/or well thought out response may rouse high fives from buddies - but it makes people appear childish & irrational to everyone else.
People think you're stupid because you post stupid arguments. Ron Paul has nothing to do with it.
As for this post, it is stupid. You setting yourself up as some sort of martyr because you think their is a cabal of posters that are "worshipped" is an apt example of the bizarre nature of your posts and certainly is a triple threat of "crazy" "conspiracy theorist" and "stupid." I'm not sure what you were suggesting about one of our potential breaks with reality, but if we started posting the paranoid, rambling, illogical crap you just did, people would call us on it.
As steve dave has repeated thrown back, the irony of claiming that everyone else is a sheep and to remedy that the U.S. needs massive interventions in elections policy all the while espousing "liberty" and "freedom" is so obvious that I can't believe you won't deal with the critique just because he's able to do it with humor and in one to two sentences.
-
Rather long winded version of "you're stupid". I don't know what to say?
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
-
Man, politics. Right?
-
Man, politics. Right?
The worst.
seriously.
-
Anyone want to talk about religion or how much money they make?
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
-
Anyone want to talk about religion or how much money they make?
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
Sure.
I think religion sucks.
I am making the equivalent of about 24k a year.
What now? :users:
-
The problem isn't political parties per say, it's the American public. 75% of the public is uneducated (stupid) and uninformed and yet will still vote. These people vote in two ways: they blindly cast a vote for whichever party they have aligned themselves with, or they go with the "cool" vote. Unfortunately, the cool vote nowadays is whichever candidate gives more handouts in the name of social equity. Like it or not, Romney was right when he said we have become a society of entitlement.
Yes. Those people who get welfare handouts are so cool.
-
Anyone want to talk about religion or how much money they make?
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
I would love to hear how much money "religion" makes.
-
I used to detest a two party system, and in some ways I still do, but someone made a point about multi-party politics once that made a lot of sense to me. What if some lunatic fringe group (i.e. Tea Party) actually drummed up 34% of the vote in an election where the Repubs. and Dems. were at 33%? Well, you'd get lunatic chaos.
I guess my main thing is that I like gridlock. I don't want one party running amok. I only want them getting together and only passing the really important stuff that means something tangible.
I realize that doesn't always happen, and this is a simplistic way of looking at things, but there's a reason that the stock market performs best when there's a Democrat in the Oval Office and Republicans owing Congress.
-
what would happen if the republicans ran the pac 12 conference and democrats ran the big 12
-
what would happen if the republicans ran the pac 12 conference and democrats ran the big 12
We would be the better academic conference? :dunno:
-
what would happen if the republicans ran the pac 12 conference and democrats ran the big 12
We would be the better academic conference? :dunno:
but get our asses beat in sports. it would basically be opposite day.
-
:thumbs:
-
Anyone want to talk about religion or how much money they make?
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
I would love to hear how much money "religion" makes.
Yeah.... that was pretty horrible sentence structure - my bad.
-
The Big Ten is run by the Whig party.
-
I used to detest a two party system, and in some ways I still do, but someone made a point about multi-party politics once that made a lot of sense to me. What if some lunatic fringe group (i.e. Tea Party) actually drummed up 34% of the vote in an election where the Repubs. and Dems. were at 33%? Well, you'd get lunatic chaos.
I guess my main thing is that I like gridlock. I don't want one party running amok. I only want them getting together and only passing the really important stuff that means something tangible.
I realize that doesn't always happen, and this is a simplistic way of looking at things, but there's a reason that the stock market performs best when there's a Democrat in the Oval Office and Republicans owing Congress.
This. Government works best when they're not working at all.
-
Great thread! Im glad peopleare being opened minded
-
I used to detest a two party system, and in some ways I still do, but someone made a point about multi-party politics once that made a lot of sense to me. What if some lunatic fringe group (i.e. Tea Party) actually drummed up 34% of the vote in an election where the Repubs. and Dems. were at 33%? Well, you'd get lunatic chaos.
I guess my main thing is that I like gridlock. I don't want one party running amok. I only want them getting together and only passing the really important stuff that means something tangible.
I realize that doesn't always happen, and this is a simplistic way of looking at things, but there's a reason that the stock market performs best when there's a Democrat in the Oval Office and Republicans owing Congress.
This. Government works best when they're not working at all.
Exactly. Politicians make new laws just to be making new laws. Sometimes, we have enough laws.
-
I used to detest a two party system, and in some ways I still do, but someone made a point about multi-party politics once that made a lot of sense to me. What if some lunatic fringe group (i.e. Tea Party) actually drummed up 34% of the vote in an election where the Repubs. and Dems. were at 33%? Well, you'd get lunatic chaos.
I guess my main thing is that I like gridlock. I don't want one party running amok. I only want them getting together and only passing the really important stuff that means something tangible.
I realize that doesn't always happen, and this is a simplistic way of looking at things, but there's a reason that the stock market performs best when there's a Democrat in the Oval Office and Republicans owing Congress.
This. Government works best when they're not working at all.
Exactly. Politicians make new laws just to be making new laws. Sometimes, we have enough laws.
At some point there has to be enough laws, right? At some point we reach reach the critical mass of government, and any addition could cause a failure.
-
Laws are for people ignorant of reason. So, is there a point where we elevate as society enough that some or all laws are not needed? We should be needing less laws as we go forward; at least with some issues.
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
-
Laws are for people ignorant of reason. So, is there a point where we elevate as society enough that some or all laws are not needed? We should be needing less laws as we go forward; at least with some issues.
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
Do you even interact with like normal people on a daily basis? We have most of our laws, or at least the most important ones, because many people are greedy, self-indulgent fucks who will act for their own benefit to the detriment of others without care or concern. This has been true throughout the course of human history. Base criminality for personal gain? You know theft, robbery, burglary, rape, etc.? Corporate malfeasance born of greed? You know, pollution, price-fixing, insider trading, etc.?
People still do this crap with regularity and there are laws in place prohibiting and punishing it all. What on earth do you think will happen if there aren't any? Nirvana? :sdeek:
-
this thread is a big couch fire of wtf
crazy's gon crazy
-
Laws are for people ignorant of reason. So, is there a point where we elevate as society enough that some or all laws are not needed? We should be needing less laws as we go forward; at least with some issues.
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
Do you even interact with like normal people on a daily basis? We have most of our laws, or at least the most important ones, because many people are greedy, self-indulgent fucks who will act for their own benefit to the detriment of others without care or concern. This has been true throughout the course of human history. Base criminality for personal gain? You know theft, robbery, burglary, rape, etc.? Corporate malfeasance born of greed? You know, pollution, price-fixing, insider trading, etc.?
People still do this crap with regularity and there are laws in place prohibiting and punishing it all. What on earth do you think will happen if there aren't any? Nirvana? :sdeek:
I would go with Utopia, where we are all equal and everybody pays their fair share and the whole world loves us.
-
this thread is a big couch fire of wtf
crazy's gon crazy
I bet you're a ron paul person, they try way too hard to be edgy(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthe-mainboard.com%2Fstyles%2Fdefault%2Fxenforo%2Fsmilies%2Fdrumroll.gif&hash=982ef812e7f614cad7f29988695575a7737c8166)
-
this thread is a big couch fire of wtf
crazy's gon crazy
I bet you're a ron paul person, they try way too hard to be edgy(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthe-mainboard.com%2Fstyles%2Fdefault%2Fxenforo%2Fsmilies%2Fdrumroll.gif&hash=982ef812e7f614cad7f29988695575a7737c8166)
i love the drum roll guy, we should have him in our arsenal here at goEMAW.com
-
Laws are for people ignorant of reason. So, is there a point where we elevate as society enough that some or all laws are not needed? We should be needing less laws as we go forward; at least with some issues.
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
Do you even interact with like normal people on a daily basis? We have most of our laws, or at least the most important ones, because many people are greedy, self-indulgent fucks who will act for their own benefit to the detriment of others without care or concern. This has been true throughout the course of human history. Base criminality for personal gain? You know theft, robbery, burglary, rape, etc.? Corporate malfeasance born of greed? You know, pollution, price-fixing, insider trading, etc.?
People still do this crap with regularity and there are laws in place prohibiting and punishing it all. What on earth do you think will happen if there aren't any? Nirvana? :sdeek:
Excellent point. I guess we should elect officials who are completely impervious to corruption/greed/self indulgence to make decisions over everyone’s lives.
Liberal.
:gocho:
-
:lol:
-
Laws are for people ignorant of reason. So, is there a point where we elevate as society enough that some or all laws are not needed? We should be needing less laws as we go forward; at least with some issues.
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
Do you even interact with like normal people on a daily basis? We have most of our laws, or at least the most important ones, because many people are greedy, self-indulgent fucks who will act for their own benefit to the detriment of others without care or concern. This has been true throughout the course of human history. Base criminality for personal gain? You know theft, robbery, burglary, rape, etc.? Corporate malfeasance born of greed? You know, pollution, price-fixing, insider trading, etc.?
People still do this crap with regularity and there are laws in place prohibiting and punishing it all. What on earth do you think will happen if there aren't any? Nirvana? :sdeek:
Excellent point. I guess we should elect officials who are completely impervious to corruption/greed/self indulgence to make decisions over everyone’s lives.
Liberal.
:gocho:
:runaway: