OT - the T bagger lost
nothermark
Another fine example of the republican foot gun.
Technobarbarian
"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message
news:qbs2f5lj8qhsl2buh...@4ax.com...
It's a bit misleading to say that the Republicans shot themselves in
the foot. This was done by Teabaggers and neocons who want to make-over the
Republican party in their social conservative image. Even in today's
circumstances, with many would be Republicans driven out by the extremists,
27% of Republicans identify as something other than conservative--of any
flavor. The people shot in the foot were moderate Republicans who have been
electing moderate Republicans who represent their point of view.
There's a strong chance that we'll see a repeat of this on a much
larger scale during the 2012 national elections, with, of course, similar
results.
TB
Ralph
ztopz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It's a bit misleading to say that the Republicans shot themselves in
> the foot. This was done by Teabaggers and neocons who want to make-over the
> Republican party in their social conservative image. Even in today's
> circumstances, with many would be Republicans driven out by the extremists,
> 27% of Republicans identify as something other than conservative--of any
> flavor. The people shot in the foot were moderate Republicans who have been
> electing moderate Republicans who represent their point of view.
>
moderate candidate. That the nut-case right wing tried to run out.
They succeeded and lost yet-another seat in the Congress
Of couse it didn't help that the Convervative Party candidate was a
moron (read his interviews, where he showed -no- knowledge of local
issues.)
> There's a strong chance that we'll see a repeat of this on a much
> larger scale during the 2012 national elections, with, of course, similar
> results.
>
I certainly hope not. Ridding the GOP of the moderate/centerist
would ensure that the GOP could never control Congress again. Win the
White House, maybe, but Congress, nope
Look around today and find a Teddy Roosevelt, Jeannette Rankin or
Nelson Rockefeller in the GOP today
Mike Hendrix
<Technobarbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message
>news:qbs2f5lj8qhsl2buh...@4ax.com...
>> http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/69058642.html
>>
>> Another fine example of the republican foot gun.
>
> It's a bit misleading to say that the Republicans shot themselves in
>the foot. This was done by Teabaggers and neocons who want to make-over the
>Republican party in their social conservative image.
This is the way I see it as well. The "Republicans" have been
"kidnapped" if you will. The social conservatives ie,. loonie toons
have kidnapped the party.
>Even in today's
>circumstances, with many would be Republicans driven out by the extremists,
>27% of Republicans identify as something other than conservative--of any
>flavor.
>The people shot in the foot were moderate Republicans who have been
>electing moderate Republicans who represent their point of view.
The moderate Republicans have been driven out.
>
> There's a strong chance that we'll see a repeat of this on a much
>larger scale during the 2012 national elections, with, of course, similar
>results.
That is the way I see it as well. If the Republican's totally ignore
the moderates ------- actually boot them out, they will stay on the
outside looking in.
mike
--
Milt Bradley
> http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/69058642.html
>
> Another fine example of the republican foot gun.
Obama's downhill slide begins today. He lost two blue states.
Bruce S
> http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/69058642.html
>
> Another fine example of the republican foot gun.
This is only a bad thing if a person believes that a Republican win is
always the best choice regardless of his political positions. A Republican
who is more liberal than her democrat opponent is no benefit for the long
term health of the Republican party. In this case, it would have been best
if the Conservative had won, but in the end, it makes absolutely no
difference if it had been the Republican or the Democrat - both were
liberals. This problem would not have existed had there been a primary,
instead of letting the party bosses simply pick the person they liked.
Bruce
Bruce S
Actually, you need to look at those polls again. Conservatives are 40% of
voters, Liberals are only 21%, with "Independents" making up the rest. As
poorly as the Republicans are doing right now, they could double their base,
by simply becoming a truly conservative party.
In that situation, the Republicans (Conservatives) would be 40% of the
voters, and the Democrats (using today's poll numbers) would also be about
40% of the voters (possibly less, since 20% of Dems describe themselves as
conservative). At that point, it would be a very clear choice between
Conservative ideas and Liberal ideas with the brain dead "moderates"
deciding whether they want big government or small government on a case by
case basis.
Since this is still a center/right country, having the Republicans come out
as a Conservative party, rather than trying to be Democrat lite, would give
the voters a real choice, and would put conservatives in office. As long as
the Republicans keep trying to be "Less Liberal" they will keep losing.
Look at the two Governor's races - the Conservative won in each case, simply
by promoting his conservatism.
Bruce
JanO...@aol.com
On the money analysis, Bruce. Our Liberal Left
RORT friends here are only seeing it from their
own glazed eye perspective. They refer to the
Republican Candidate in this district as a
"Republican Moderate." In no way is she a
Republican Moderate. Pure RINO....YES.
To the left of the Democrat Running.....YES.
Taking orders from the likes of ACORN and
the White House.....YES. Fence sitting DOLT...
...YES.
What self respecting Conservative or Republican
gives a good one what happened to her? Hoffman.
a meek never run before dude, pushes her over the
edge like she was butter. What the hell kinda REP
would that have been?
THAT is NOT any type of Republican Candidate
that is going to sit well with 90% of Republicans.
We might as well have one big GLOP of a party
called The Republicrat Party.
And in many ways that is just what we do have
right now.
Hoffman had a very good idea. He got close to
pulling it off but he was probably not the right
person to attempt this. What it has done from
my POV is given the Republican leadership a
BIG notice that they can't run a lame RINO
and expect to win anything but distain and a
joke of a candidate that folds up their tent and
flat gives up!?!? Then throws her support to the
Democrat?
I'm glad this happened. Either way with a Hoffman
win or this loss it's a good lesson for the future.
The 3 major media races last night sent a HUGE
message to the White House that the honeymoon
is not just over. The Public has filed for Divorce.
Short romance.
Jan Eric Orme
Carl A. in FL
news:0a8308dc-0e8c-4894...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
I have to agree, the "main-stream" GOP leadership nominated a
moderate candidate. That the nut-case right wing tried to run out.
They succeeded and lost yet-another seat in the Congress
moron (read his interviews, where he showed -no- knowledge of local
issues.)
------------------------------
LOL, if supporting card check is "mainstream," then I want no part of it.
Is supporting ACORN is "mainstream," in your opinion, then you don't have
what it takes to define Republicanism.
--
CHA in FL
http://sky.prohosting.com/chainfl/index.htm
Chuck Norris
wrote:
>On Nov 4, 7:51 am, "Technobarbarian" <Technobarbarian-
>ztopz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> It's a bit misleading to say that the Republicans shot themselves in
>> the foot. This was done by Teabaggers and neocons who want to make-over the
>> Republican party in their social conservative image. Even in today's
>> circumstances, with many would be Republicans driven out by the extremists,
>> 27% of Republicans identify as something other than conservative--of any
>> flavor. The people shot in the foot were moderate Republicans who have been
>> electing moderate Republicans who represent their point of view.
>>
> I have to agree, the "main-stream" GOP leadership nominated a
>moderate candidate. That the nut-case right wing tried to run out.
>They succeeded and lost yet-another seat in the Congress
> Of couse it didn't help that the Convervative Party candidate was a
>moron (read his interviews, where he showed -no- knowledge of local
>issues.)
She was a moderate? Shit, she changed party affiliation to -D the
same day.
>
>
>> There's a strong chance that we'll see a repeat of this on a much
>> larger scale during the 2012 national elections, with, of course, similar
>> results.
>>
> I certainly hope not. Ridding the GOP of the moderate/centerist
>would ensure that the GOP could never control Congress again. Win the
>White House, maybe, but Congress, nope
>
> Look around today and find a Teddy Roosevelt, Jeannette Rankin or
>Nelson Rockefeller in the GOP today
--
From earners to yearners. Obamanomics!
From makers to takers. Obamanomics!
Chuck Norris
nothermark
Probably a good Rockefeller Republican. That's what most of us are
around here.
nothermark
wrote:
Sounds good but you have to check on what values are being conserved.
Like you and Chuck turned out Libertarian scores, many of the
"Conservatives" vote strait Democrat.
Bruce S
Only those that are incredibly stupid. If a person really is conservative
(and by that I mean small government, fiscal conservative), and he votes a
straight Democrat ticket, he is voting against his own interests. That
makes him incredibly stupid any way you cut it.
Bruce
Bruce S
> "Bruce S" <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Since this is still a center/right country, having the Republicans
>> come out as a Conservative party, rather than trying to be Democrat
>> lite, would give the voters a real choice, and would put
>> conservatives in office. As long as the Republicans keep trying to
>> be "Less Liberal" they will keep losing. Look at the two Governor's
>> races - the Conservative won in each case, simply by promoting his
>> conservatism.
>>
>> Bruce
>
> Sounds good but you have to check on what values are being conserved.
> Like you and Chuck turned out Libertarian scores, many of the
> "Conservatives" vote strait Democrat.
By the way, where did you score? I seem to remember seeing you claim here
that you are a conservative despite the reality that you come out in favor
of the liberal/socialist side of every issue, so it would be interesting to
see if you are what you think you are.
Bruce
nothermark
wrote:
You hit the problem. Many, if not most, Republicans are not
Conservatives. Look up Rockefeller Republican. The Conservatives
hijacked the party and a lot of us can no longer be relied on to
support it as we are fiscal conservatives but social liberals.
Chuck Norris
Good God. Finally an honest comment from you. There was a time when
Rocky-Rs had a place but that place is hades now!
Chuck Norris
>
>Sounds good but you have to check on what values are being conserved.
>Like you and Chuck turned out Libertarian scores, many of the
>"Conservatives" vote strait Democrat.
Dreamer. I know on no Libertarian who would vote -D. Shit they are
farther apart than C<>D.
Bruce S
>> conservative (and by that I mean small government, fiscal
>> conservative), and he votes a straight Democrat ticket, he is voting
>> against his own interests. That makes him incredibly stupid any way
>> you cut it.
>>
> Conservatives. Look up Rockefeller Republican. The Conservatives
> hijacked the party and a lot of us can no longer be relied on to
> support it as we are fiscal conservatives but social liberals.
If you are a fiscal conservative and do not support either the Republican
party or the Libertarian party, you are an idiot. Plain and simple - their
social issues notwithstanding.
Right now there are two major parties, and one of them will be in control.
Unless you want big government, out of control spending, ever increasing
taxes, excessive government regulation, and still more intrusive government
involvement in your life, you have to vote for the lesser of two evils, and
that means Republicans.
BTW, I have no use for Rockefeller Republicans - they are nothing but
Democrat lite, and their path to socialism is just as sure, only marginally
slower. Of course, you have demonstrated here many times that you have no
conservative values at all, you are perfectly happy with big government
intruding in every aspect of the people's life, just as long as someone is
giving you some of the booty stolen from taxpayers.
I would be shocked to actually find anyone from the northeast who believes
in the Constitution.
Bruce
nothermark
<hamgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
Funny, that's where we would like to send the folks who hijacked the
party. ;-)
TonyD
> BTW, I have no use for Rockefeller Republicans - they are nothing but
> Democrat lite, and their path to socialism is just as sure, only
> marginally slower. Of course, you have demonstrated here many times that
> you have no conservative values at all, you are perfectly happy with big
> government intruding in every aspect of the people's life, just as long as
> someone is giving you some of the booty stolen from taxpayers.
>
> I would be shocked to actually find anyone from the northeast who believes
> in the Constitution.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
Amen, brother! Amen!
nothermark
wrote:
>nothermark wrote:
>> "Bruce S" <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Only those that are incredibly stupid. If a person really is
>>> conservative (and by that I mean small government, fiscal
>>> conservative), and he votes a straight Democrat ticket, he is voting
>>> against his own interests. That makes him incredibly stupid any way
>>> you cut it.
>>>
>> You hit the problem. Many, if not most, Republicans are not
>> Conservatives. Look up Rockefeller Republican. The Conservatives
>> hijacked the party and a lot of us can no longer be relied on to
>> support it as we are fiscal conservatives but social liberals.
>
>If you are a fiscal conservative and do not support either the Republican
>party or the Libertarian party, you are an idiot. Plain and simple - their
>social issues notwithstanding.
>
>Right now there are two major parties, and one of them will be in control.
>Unless you want big government, out of control spending, ever increasing
>taxes, excessive government regulation, and still more intrusive government
>involvement in your life, you have to vote for the lesser of two evils, and
>that means Republicans.
Not really. That is what we were banking on the last 25 years and it
has not worked. The conservatives running the party wiill kill the
country as fast or faster than the Democrats. The Iraq war was stupid
on a stick while the mortgage meltdown was at least 50% a Republican
problem. (Don't bother coming back at me about Barney and the boys, I
said 50% not 100.) Believe it or not, taxes as a fraction of the GDP
are the lowest they have been in years.
As far as government intrusion into my private life goes there is
nobody worse than a bible toting preacher of any ilk with any bible.
>
>BTW, I have no use for Rockefeller Republicans - they are nothing but
>Democrat lite, and their path to socialism is just as sure, only marginally
>slower. Of course, you have demonstrated here many times that you have no
>conservative values at all, you are perfectly happy with big government
>intruding in every aspect of the people's life, just as long as someone is
>giving you some of the booty stolen from taxpayers.
I never said I was a Conservative. I said I was a Libertarian. Or a
Rockefeller Republican. Most Conservatives are reactionary folks
afraid to fix problems because it might change their comfy little
world.
>
>I would be shocked to actually find anyone from the northeast who believes
>in the Constitution.
>
>Bruce
I have always been shocked you think the Constitution says you are
right. Wait a minute, it doesn't as a couple of amendments need to be
fixed to support you.
;-)
nothermark
<hamgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 4 Nov 2009 15:57:01 -0600, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>
>>
>>Sounds good but you have to check on what values are being conserved.
>>Like you and Chuck turned out Libertarian scores, many of the
>>"Conservatives" vote strait Democrat.
>
>Dreamer. I know on no Libertarian who would vote -D. Shit they are
>farther apart than C<>D.
More like they are pragmatists who vote for whoever will screw them
less.
Technobarbarian
"Bruce S" <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:006d880a$0$23486$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
LOL, if there was a law against abusing numbers you would be serving a
life sentence. Your 40% conservatives doesn't mean nearly what you think it
means. These are people who identify as conservative based on an undefined
notion. Once you provide even a very general definition you start losing
people. When you get down to the more specific definition a political
movement would need you lose even more people. These undefined conservatives
agree on almost nothing. When you get down to the specifics of specific
issues you can't get a consensus on anything among these undefined
conservatives. Just for an example, is your made-over Republican party going
to be in favor of legalized abortions or against? Either way, oops, you just
lost a big segment of these "conservatives".
When you look at the Governor's races they were decided on local issues,
particularly government spending. Only among the true believers is political
ideology an issue that affects ballots. If it was you would be dancing in
the streets over the results in the 23rd district in NY.
TB
Lone Haranguer
I think the Democrats are in worse shape. Obama was elected on an
anti-Bush vote but the ultra-progressives (socialists and
under-the-radar communists) are
running the White House and our foreign and domestic policy.
This is NOT what rank & file Democrats signed on for and many are
embarrassed to find they have put someone in the White House who ran as
a moderate and now has done a ninety degree turn to the left.
The vote on Tuesday confirms this observation.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
I bet there were a lot of recriminations and finger-pointing in the
White House Tuesday night.
LZ
Carl A. in FL
news:7lgfm9F...@mid.individual.net...
Oh no. 0bama was busy admiring himself in an HBO rerun of a propaganda
piece about his performance during the campaign. According to Gibbs, he
didn't bother watching election results.
He is by far too much or a narcissist to come to grips with the fact that
the country is fast catching on that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.
Bruce S
> "Lone Haranguer" <linu...@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>> I bet there were a lot of recriminations and finger-pointing in the
>> White House Tuesday night.
>> LZ
>
> Oh no. 0bama was busy admiring himself in an HBO rerun of a
> propaganda piece about his performance during the campaign.
Actually, that was a misunderstanding of what Gibbs actually said (and
corrected on FOX news a couple hours later). Since Gibbs is so incoherent
that he makes Bush look positively articulate, it is easy to understand why
newscasters were confused. Gibbs did say that Obama did not watch the
coverage, but he then went on to say that Obama didn't even watch the
coverage last year, when he watched the HBO special about himself. This
year, it appears that Obama may have been watching a basketball game.
http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20091104115945.aspx
Bruce
Mike Hendrix
Linus, I am not sure the "Dems" are in worse shape. I would agree
that voters are pissed/fed-up with both parties.
>Obama was elected on an anti-Bush vote
I will agree with that.
>but the ultra-progressives (socialists and under-the-radar communists) are
>running the White House and our foreign and domestic policy.
I would agree that the "change" voters wanted is not "this change".
Of course they don't want to go back to the "Bush/Cheney" days either.
>
>This is NOT what rank & file Democrats signed on for
I am not sure what rank & file Democrats signed on for. What put
Obama in office was the MIDDLE ---- the "swing vote". I am pretty
sure they did not sign on for what we are seeing.
However, that pocket of voters were "fed-up" with Bush/Cheney and the
Republican Congress.
> and many are
>embarrassed to find they have put someone in the White House who ran as
>a moderate and now has done a ninety degree turn to the left.
Linus, keep in mind that Obama and his cadre will only be there for
4-years if he doesn't get his act together. The Democratic majority
in the House/Senate will be out on their asses as well.
>
>The vote on Tuesday confirms this observation.
I am not totally sure what the vote on Tuesday confirmed. The two
governors being won by Republicans may be sending a message.
However, the Congressional seat in New York that went to a Democrat
sent an entirely different message.
Something tells me that a good 3rd party candidate may be able to pull
of a win in the near future.
mike
--
Bruce S
> "Bruce S" <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> BTW, I have no use for Rockefeller Republicans - they are nothing but
>> Democrat lite, and their path to socialism is just as sure, only
>> marginally slower. Of course, you have demonstrated here many times
>> that you have no conservative values at all, you are perfectly happy
>> with big government intruding in every aspect of the people's life,
>> just as long as someone is giving you some of the booty stolen from
>> taxpayers.
>
> I never said I was a Conservative. I said I was a Libertarian. Or a
> Rockefeller Republican. Most Conservatives are reactionary folks
> afraid to fix problems because it might change their comfy little
> world.
In the time you have been posting here, you have never posted anything that
would classify you as a Libertarian. I'll bet that if you follow that link
I posted a couple days ago and take the test (10 questions, takes almost a
minute), you will score as a Liberal, not a Libertarian.
>>
>> I would be shocked to actually find anyone from the northeast who
>> believes in the Constitution.
>>
>> Bruce
>
> I have always been shocked you think the Constitution says you are
> right. Wait a minute, it doesn't as a couple of amendments need to be
> fixed to support you.
First, just because I believe that a couple amendments need work, does not
mean I don't understand and believe in the Constitution. Unlike you, I
believe it means what it says.
Second, just to demonstrate that you understand the Constitution, why don't
you tell us exactly where in the Constitution it gives the Federal
government the authority to force people to purchase insurance they don't
want. I'm sure you can do better than Pelosi, who completely blew off the
question when it was posed to her the other day.
Bruce
Bruce S
>> 40% of voters, Liberals are only 21%, with "Independents" making up
>> the rest. As poorly as the Republicans are doing right now, they
>> could double their base, by simply becoming a truly conservative
>> party. In that situation, the Republicans (Conservatives) would be 40% of
>> the voters, and the Democrats (using today's poll numbers) would
>> also be about 40% of the voters (possibly less, since 20% of Dems
>> describe themselves as conservative). At that point, it would be a
>> very clear choice between Conservative ideas and Liberal ideas with
>> the brain dead "moderates" deciding whether they want big government
>> or small government on a case by case basis.
>>
>> Since this is still a center/right country, having the Republicans
>> come out as a Conservative party, rather than trying to be Democrat
>> lite, would give the voters a real choice, and would put
>> conservatives in office. As long as the Republicans keep trying to
>> be "Less Liberal" they will keep losing. Look at the two Governor's
>> races - the Conservative won in each case, simply by promoting his
>> conservatism.
>
> LOL, if there was a law against abusing numbers you would be
> serving a life sentence. Your 40% conservatives doesn't mean nearly
> what you think it means. These are people who identify as
> conservative based on an undefined notion.
It means exactly what I think it means - that there are all sorts of people
who self identify as conservatives. It does not define what a conservative
is, nor does it require that they all use the same definition, only that 40%
of people self identify as conservatives.
> Once you provide even a
> very general definition you start losing people. When you get down to
> the more specific definition a political movement would need you lose
> even more people. These undefined conservatives agree on almost
> nothing. When you get down to the specifics of specific issues you
> can't get a consensus on anything among these undefined
> conservatives.
This just points out why the Republican party needs to start identifying
themselves as the Conservative party, and defining just what a Conservative
party stands for. They need to be fairly general, as in defining themselves
as the party of small government and low taxes, in order to bring in the
biggest group of people, while staking out a claim on who and what they are.
> Just for an example, is your made-over Republican
> party going to be in favor of legalized abortions or against? Either
> way, oops, you just lost a big segment of these "conservatives".
If the Republicans have any sense (and I'm a Liberetarian, so my hopes for
them are small), they will drop any reference to abortion, gay marriage, or
any other social issue. The best platform for them as a party is to simply
state that issues of that sort are 10th Amendment States Rights issues, and
have no business being argued at the Federal level. If asked about
Constitutional Amendments, the appropriate response should be that the
Constitution was designed and implemented to limit government, not
individual freedoms, and that our failed expirment with prohibition
demonstrates just how badly things go when the Constitution is used to limit
liberty.
> When you look at the Governor's races they were decided on local
> issues, particularly government spending. Only among the true
> believers is political ideology an issue that affects ballots. If it
> was you would be dancing in the streets over the results in the 23rd
> district in NY.
I have no heartache over the result of the District 23 race. An unknown,
who has never run for any political office, running as a third party
candidate, with limited knowledge of the local issues, forced the mainstream
republican candidate to resign, and came with 3 percentage points of winning
the race. I would consider that a fairly solid endorsement of conservative
values. Had the Republicans held a primary, with a conservative winning
that primary, they would have won the election.
Bruce
Lone Haranguer
Not a big surprise in VA but a sea change for NJ.
>
> However, the Congressional seat in New York that went to a Democrat
> sent an entirely different message.
What was amazing was that the independent candidate was a big fat zero
and still pulled in a lot of votes.
>
> Something tells me that a good 3rd party candidate may be able to pull
> of a win in the near future.
The bat who wasn't even running any longer polled enough votes to make
the difference.
Too bad the Repubs didn't have a backup candidate. The 11 who picked
the bat should be kicked out of the party.
LZ
>
> mike
nothermark
wrote:
>nothermark wrote:
First, you keep accusing me of not believeing in the Constitution when
you do not kow what I believe. It is one of your ways of name
calling.
Second. The Constitution outlines the regulation some parts of our
lives but it specifically says that other parts can be regulated by
other means. Neither of us like some of the laws we live under but
most are not the Consitutional issue you try to make them.
Bruce S
> "Bruce S" <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Second, just to demonstrate that you understand the Constitution,
>> why don't you tell us exactly where in the Constitution it gives the
>> Federal government the authority to force people to purchase
>> insurance they don't want. I'm sure you can do better than Pelosi,
>> who completely blew off the question when it was posed to her the
>> other day.
>
> you do not kow what I believe. It is one of your ways of name
> calling.
You make it clear what you believe with every post you make. I don't have
to look very hard to find posts from you asking for more government
interference in the affairs of the citizens of this country. You want
government involvement in the health care system, you support government
bailouts of the banking and auto industries, and government stimulus
programs for the economy. None of those things are authorized in the
Constitution, so when you ask for them, you are demonstrating that you have
no respect for the Constitution, or the government it attempted to create.
> Second. The Constitution outlines the regulation some parts of our
> lives but it specifically says that other parts can be regulated by
> other means. Neither of us like some of the laws we live under but
> most are not the Consitutional issue you try to make them.
If you would bother to actually read the Constitution, you would already
know that the Congress is authorized to pass laws regarding 18 items.
Nowhere in that list is healthcare, social security, Medicare, welfare, or
any number of other things that they currently pass laws regulating. Now,
if you disagree with my assessment, I'll repeat my earlier challenge, read
the Constitution tonight, and find the section that authorizes government
involvement in the health care industry. Give it a try, I'll wait.
Bruce
nothermark
wrote:
>nothermark wrote:
Authorized as in made responsible for = yes
Precluded from poking their nose into = no
Ralph
>
> I think the Democrat still won because of the dumbasses that still voted
> for Scozzafava (spelling). Too stupid to realize she had pulled out. If
> all the votes cast for her had gone to Hoffman.
>
> To recap that race: Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman choked off
> funding and support for Republican Dede Scozzafava, who eventually left
> the race. Ms. Scozzafava then endorsed Mr. Owens, and he won by about
> 5,000 votes – as Scozzafava captured about 6,000 protest votes.
>
Or absentee votes that were mailed -before- she pulled out
Or didn't you think of that? (I'm guessing not)
JerryD(upstateNY)
Or absentee votes that were mailed -before- she pulled out<<<<<<
If Scozzafava (sp) and Hoffman were Democrats, the election would be on hold
while all the dates of the absentee ballots were checked.
Then all the ballots dated before she pulled out would go to Hoffman,which
let make him win the election.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
"news:9021115f-afa2-469a...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 6, 6:52 am, Frank Tabor <fta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think the Democrat still won because of the dumbasses that still voted
> for Too stupid to realize she had pulled out. If
Bruce S
Wrong - The Constitution is quite clear, yopu really should try to read it
some day.
Bruce
Chuck Norris
>
>First, you keep accusing me of not believeing in the Constitution when
>you do not kow what I believe. It is one of your ways of name
>calling.
>
>Second. The Constitution outlines the regulation some parts of our
>lives but it specifically says that other parts can be regulated by
>other means. Neither of us like some of the laws we live under but
>most are not the Consitutional issue you try to make them.
You have no clue as to what the Constitution is. The Const. dos NOT
outline the regulation some parts of our lives nor does it say what
other parts can be regulated by other means.
The Const specifically defines the roles of the branches of the
government and just how each is limited. The founders added the BoR,
to specifically define what the branches are ALLOWED to do, not what
we are allowed to do.
I believe a thorough understanding of the "Federalist Papers" in in
order for you. Even though it has no force in law, it certainly
explains the thoughts, beliefs and reasons behind the "Founding
Fathers" actions.
Mike Hendrix
wrote:
. I'll bet that if you follow that link
>I posted a couple days ago and take the test (10 questions, takes almost a
>minute), you will score as a Liberal, not a Libertarian.
Bruce, will you please post that link again. Somehow, I missed it.
Thanks
mike
--
Zandermax
"Chuck Norris" <hamgu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h8n8f59pdh5gbfcia...@4ax.com...
> On 5 Nov 2009 18:36:02 -0600, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>First, you keep accusing me of not believeing in the Constitution when
>>you do not kow what I believe. It is one of your ways of name
>>calling.
>>
>>Second. The Constitution outlines the regulation some parts of our
>>lives but it specifically says that other parts can be regulated by
>>other means. Neither of us like some of the laws we live under but
>>most are not the Consitutional issue you try to make them.
>
> You have no clue as to what the Constitution is. The Const. dos NOT
> outline the regulation some parts of our lives nor does it say what
> other parts can be regulated by other means.
>
Nor do you bubba, remember you thought municipalities where prevented by the
constitution to pass laws as they see fit.
Bruce S
>> I posted a couple days ago and take the test (10 questions, takes
>> almost a minute), you will score as a Liberal, not a Libertarian.
>
> Bruce, will you please post that link again. Somehow, I missed it.
>
> Thanks
>
> mike
http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
Bruce
Ralph
>
> The above was a quote from the CSM,http://patchworknation.csmonitor.com/csmstaff/2009/1106/in-ny-23-a-po...
>
> It was the first link I got to on a search. For an off year
> election, I doubt there were that many absentee ballots.
>
Em,. 5000 votes aren't many
Mike Hendrix
wrote:
>Mike Hendrix wrote:
------------------------------------
Thanks.
Now that I have taken the test -----
It says I am a Libertarian with a bend to the right.
Personal issues 70%
Economic issues 100%
Now, what does that mean since most folks (including you I think) keep
calling me a liberal.
Does that mean the test ain't for shit or does being a Republican mean
you have to be a Jesus Weezing, Gay hating, Abortion nut, that is
completely consumed by guns?
mike
--
Lone Haranguer
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 10:52:31 -0700, "Bruce S" <bruce...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>> "Bruce S" <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'll bet that if you follow that link
>>>> I posted a couple days ago and take the test (10 questions, takes
>>>> almost a minute), you will score as a Liberal, not a Libertarian.
>>> Bruce, will you please post that link again. Somehow, I missed it.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> mike
>> http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
>>
>> Bruce
> ------------------------------------
> Thanks.
>
> Now that I have taken the test -----
>
> It says I am a Libertarian with a bend to the right.
>
> Personal issues 70%
>
> Economic issues 100%
>
> Now, what does that mean since most folks (including you I think) keep
> calling me a liberal.
liberalliberalliberalliberalliberalliberalliberal
Your feet stink and you don't love Jesus.
You're bound for hell with an express ticket.
This is official. I checked with the Great White Oak.
LZ
bill horne
None of that stuff means squat. You are what you Vote for. And the
people you vote for are what their records say they are, regardless of
what they say.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
Mike Hendrix
wrote:
bill, sometimes you offer sage advice, ----- really you do. Then
sometimes you are completely out in space.
The Presidential elections I can remember ------- recent history
haven't given us much to wrap our arms around ------
C-students vs really smart people. A Texas post turtle vs some quacky
liberal are just some examples.
I remember voting for Goldwater then watching the returns and
recalling how out of touch I must have been with the American public.
Personally, I vote to send a message sometimes. With the
candidates/choices we have that is the only thing I can do.
mike
--
Bruce S
> "Bruce S" <bruce...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
>>
>> Bruce
> ------------------------------------
> Thanks.
>
> Now that I have taken the test -----
>
> It says I am a Libertarian with a bend to the right.
>
> Personal issues 70%
>
> Economic issues 100%
>
> Now, what does that mean since most folks (including you I think) keep
> calling me a liberal.
It means that you mostly pay lip service to Libertarian issues. You have
made the choice that the 70% you score on social issues is more important to
you than the 100% you score on economic issues.
Bruce
Bruce S
And no matter what he claims here, Mike votes Liberal.
Bruce
Lone Haranguer
When voting you should keep in mind one main idea; which candidate will
hurt the country more.
Anyone who couldn't see Obama for what he really was is simply a fool.
Plenty of warning flares were sent up but you ignored them.
LZ
bill horne
Got an example of one of my orbital flights?
> The Presidential elections I can remember ------- recent history
> haven't given us much to wrap our arms around ------
>
> C-students vs really smart people. A Texas post turtle vs some quacky
> liberal are just some examples.
>
> I remember voting for Goldwater then watching the returns and
> recalling how out of touch I must have been with the American public.
>
> Personally, I vote to send a message sometimes. With the
> candidates/choices we have that is the only thing I can do.
>
> mike
--
Lone Haranguer
> Mike Hendrix wrote:
>> Personally, I vote to send a message sometimes. With the
>> candidates/choices we have that is the only thing I can do.
>>
stick you in the butt......
LZ
Mike Hendrix
---------------------------
Jury is still out. While I am NOT happy with Obama he has had some
TOUGH issues to deal with left him by the previous administration. I
have to weigh how Obama handled them with how McCain would have
handled them.
I prefer how Obama is handling DOD and the WARs Bushie got us in but I
do think that McCain would have handled the economy more to my liking
(might not have bailed out GM & might not have so "overboard" with
stimulus and not bailed out the banks like Obama has) --------
however, Bush & Cabal really screwed up the economy when they had a
chance ---- tax cuts to stimulate the economy ----- well they
stimulated it into the unholy mess we are in currently.
Frankly, I do not see a candidate on the national stage that I like.
I did like Ron Paul but sadly, very few other people did. I realize I
am out of lock step with the majority.
mike
--
Mike Hendrix
wrote:
Yep,
" None of that stuff means squat. You are what you Vote for. And the
people you vote for are what their records say they are, regardless
of what they say."
VBG
mike
--
Lone Haranguer
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:24:07 -0700, Lone Haranguer
> <linu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>>> Personally, I vote to send a message sometimes. With the
>>>> candidates/choices we have that is the only thing I can do.
>>>>
>> Was the message attached to an arrow? Because I think it came back to
>> stick you in the butt......
>>
> ---------------------------
> Jury is still out. While I am NOT happy with Obama he has had some
> TOUGH issues to deal with left him by the previous administration. I
> have to weigh how Obama handled them with how McCain would have
> handled them.
>
> I prefer how Obama is handling DOD and the WARs Bushie got us in but I
> do think that McCain would have handled the economy more to my liking
> (might not have bailed out GM & might not have so "overboard" with
> stimulus and not bailed out the banks like Obama has) --------
> however, Bush & Cabal really screwed up the economy when they had a
> chance ---- tax cuts to stimulate the economy ----- well they
> stimulated it into the unholy mess we are in currently.
Show us a diagram of how tax cuts ruined the economy.
I can show you one where Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer,
Franklin Raines and their fellow Democrats
of ACORN stacked the dominoes and then sneeezed.
>
> Frankly, I do not see a candidate on the national stage that I like.
> I did like Ron Paul but sadly, very few other people did. I realize I
> am out of lock step with the majority.
>
> mike
Whenever you use the term "Bush Cabal" or "Cheney Cabal" you reveal that
you are an addicted Kool Aid drinker and get all your information
from the Huffington Post and Moveon.org.
LZ
Mike Hendrix
wrote:
>Mike Hendrix wrote:
---------------------------------
You are way, way wrong about that. It is the "Economy stupid". If I
did not invent that slogan then I was in the vanguard.
However, I do admit that the Jesus Weezers, gay bashers, gun nuts,
moralists, pro lifers, world policeman supporters, nation builders
etc., do get in my knickers. Those folks, waving the Republican
banner, have chased me away from the party ----- although I am still
registered as one of them.
mike
--
Bruce S
> "Bruce S" bruce...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> It means that you mostly pay lip service to Libertarian issues. You
>> have made the choice that the 70% you score on social issues is more
>> important to you than the 100% you score on economic issues.
>>
>> Bruce
> ---------------------------------
>
> You are way, way wrong about that. It is the "Economy stupid". If I
> did not invent that slogan then I was in the vanguard.
That is a lie on it's surface. If you had any interest at all in the
economy, you would not have voted for a known Socialist. And only a person
who was intentionally blind and stupid could have failed to realize that
0bama was a socialist several months before the election.
The simple truth is that your hatred of Bush was (is) so strong that you
didn't give a damn what damage 0bama was going to do to the economy, you
were going to punish the entire country to demonstrate your hatred. If you
cared, even a little bit, about the economy, you would have held your nose
and voted for McCain.
Bruce
bill horne
Explain where I ran up the gravity well with that.
Mike Hendrix
<linu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Mike Hendrix wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:24:07 -0700, Lone Haranguer
>> <linu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>>>> Personally, I vote to send a message sometimes. With the
>>>>> candidates/choices we have that is the only thing I can do.
>>>>>
>>> Was the message attached to an arrow? Because I think it came back to
>>> stick you in the butt......
>>>
>> ---------------------------
>> Jury is still out. While I am NOT happy with Obama he has had some
>> TOUGH issues to deal with left him by the previous administration. I
>> have to weigh how Obama handled them with how McCain would have
>> handled them.
>>
>> I prefer how Obama is handling DOD and the WARs Bushie got us in but I
>> do think that McCain would have handled the economy more to my liking
>> (might not have bailed out GM & might not have so "overboard" with
>> stimulus and not bailed out the banks like Obama has) --------
>> however, Bush & Cabal really screwed up the economy when they had a
>> chance ---- tax cuts to stimulate the economy ----- well they
>> stimulated it into the unholy mess we are in currently.
>
>Show us a diagram of how tax cuts ruined the economy.
Linus, the tax cuts in and of themselves did not "ruin" the economy it
was the continued excessive spending on top of the tax cuts.
By itself the tax cuts would be GREAT ----- SUPER what ever term you
like. Where Bushie and his Cabal screwed the pooch was the deficit
spending on top of the tax cuts.
>
>I can show you one where Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer,
>Franklin Raines and their fellow Democrats
>of ACORN stacked the dominoes and then sneeezed.
The banks went down when regulations were removed by "da-hammer" and
his group. There was no one watching the hen house. Bankers are like
Politicians, Congress critters, preachers and military officers
--------- they all need watching/regulating.
>>
>> Frankly, I do not see a candidate on the national stage that I like.
>> I did like Ron Paul but sadly, very few other people did. I realize I
>> am out of lock step with the majority.
>>
>> mike
>
>Whenever you use the term "Bush Cabal" or "Cheney Cabal" you reveal that
>you are an addicted Kool Aid drinker and get all your information
>from the Huffington Post and Moveon.org.
Linus, Bush and Cabal have gone down in the history books as the
absolute worst administration in the history of this country. There
was a time when I didn't think anyone could bump Jimmy Peanut but Bush
proved me wrong. Obama may bump Bush but he hasn't yet. Give him
some time he may yet bump Bushie into 2nd worst.
mike
--
>LZ
Mike Hendrix
wrote:
>Mike Hendrix wrote:
------------------------
No way. That would have sent a signal that "more of the same" was
acceptable. A message needed to be sent that what the Republicans had
been doing was not acceptable. Hopefully, the medicine/message was
delivered in a manner that will cause the Republican Party wake up and
change their ways.
mike
--
Bruce S
>
> The banks went down when regulations were removed by "da-hammer" and
> his group. There was no one watching the hen house. Bankers are like
> Politicians, Congress critters, preachers and military officers
> --------- they all need watching/regulating.
The only regulating banks need is a genuine capitalist system where the same
people who take the risks pay for their mistakes. While many people will
gamble with someone else's money, very few will take excessive risks with
their own money. The bailouts simply exacerbated the problems, by letting
them take risks without suffering any losses.
Bruce
Lone Haranguer
The Democrats voted for the spending and often proposed it.
Look it up.
We don't have excessive spending now? Obama has cost us millions of
jobs....which we will probably never regain and which are FAR more
damaging
than some tax cuts for people who were already carrying more than their
share of the load.
>
> By itself the tax cuts would be GREAT ----- SUPER what ever term you
> like. Where Bushie and his Cabal screwed the pooch was the deficit
> spending on top of the tax cuts.
Why don't you research how the Democrats voted on the spending bills?
Are Democrats part of the Bush cabal?
>
>> I can show you one where Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer,
>> Franklin Raines and their fellow Democrats
>> of ACORN stacked the dominoes and then sneeezed.
>
> The banks went down when regulations were removed by "da-hammer" and
> his group.
The banks would have never made shaky loans without Fannie Mae - Freddie
Mac, the CRAs and ACORN....ALL creations of Democrats.
There was no one watching the hen house. Bankers are like
> Politicians, Congress critters, preachers and military officers
> --------- they all need watching/regulating.
Barney Frank told Congress Fanny Mae was in great shape when Bush tried
to rein them in. Want to see that video again?
Try to stay attached to reality about who fought regulation.
http://www.bucksright.com/bush-proposed-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-supervision-in-2003-1141
A September 11, 2003 New York Times article shows that President Bush
proposed “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing
finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.” His
proposal: An agency within the Treasury Department to supervise mortgage
giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
>
>>> Frankly, I do not see a candidate on the national stage that I like.
>>> I did like Ron Paul but sadly, very few other people did. I realize I
>>> am out of lock step with the majority.
>>>
>>> mike
>> Whenever you use the term "Bush Cabal" or "Cheney Cabal" you reveal that
>> you are an addicted Kool Aid drinker and get all your information
>>from the Huffington Post and Moveon.org.
>
> Linus, Bush and Cabal have gone down in the history books as the
> absolute worst administration in the history of this country. There
> was a time when I didn't think anyone could bump Jimmy Peanut but Bush
> proved me wrong. Obama may bump Bush but he hasn't yet. Give him
> some time he may yet bump Bushie into 2nd worst.
Obama has already done irreparable harm. He's worn out his welcome.
His election was a fluke but the idiots who voted for him are still
whining about Bush.
LZ
>
> mike
Lone Haranguer
That is so stupid it makes my head hurt. It's like shooting your horse
100 miles from civilization just because it farted.
Are you better off now?
LZ
Chuck Norris
wrote:
>Frankly, I do not see a candidate on the national stage that I like.
>I did like Ron Paul but sadly, very few other people did. I realize I
>am out of lock step with the majority.
>
>mike
The problem with Paul is he looked like Parrot, sounded like Parrot
and acted only as a spoiler. He has(had) some good ideas but... Oh,
is the Bush Cabal worse than 0 and his hundreds of thugs from acorn
and Seiu etc?
At least Bush's buddies were accountable to someone. 0's crooks are
unknown and unaccountable. I will say, I bet 0 black legions are
better and more experienced at shooting people than Cheney.
Frank Howell
Those tax cuts that you say stimulated the economy, did congress vote them
in or did Bush suddenly have legislative powers? If anyone were to be blamed
for stimulating the economy and over heating it, that should be Alan
Greenspan. As Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, it was his policy of
increasing the money supply via lowering interest rates that allowed the
money supply to expand to the point where homes costing more then $500k were
the norm. Without that monetary expansion the housing bubble would not be
possible. His predecessor Ken Bernanke continued that policy. We know the
results of that policy. His penalty; a renewed appointment as Chairman of
the Federal Reserve Board.
When AIG went south in late 2008, the then President of the Federal Reserve
Bank Of New York, Tim Geithner negotiated the bailout of AIG and gave them
Par! Par when they were bankrupt? His reward? Secratery of Treasury.
But scratch all that and blame it on Bush! Bush was guilty of many things.
A long list to be sure, and the eye of eternity will judge him harshly, but
there are others who had far greater complicity.
Maybe we could turn Bush into the National Pinata and have an annual bash!
Maybe the grandest of all lotteries to win the chance to be the Grand Bush
Basher? Ok, ok maybe snark gone wild.
The status quo will only change when yours and I fellow citizens quite
voting for candidates who use legislative offices as a lottery platform to
win elections.
--
Frank Howell
Frank Howell
Well I have to agree with you. When the economy tanked, that was the
greatest gift Obama could receive. It made McCain and the "War" irrelevant.
Unfortunately electing a Democratic President and having Democratic control
of both houses will prove to be a lethal combination.
--
Frank Howell
Carl A. in FL
news:00b009b0$0$6700$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
Not to nitpick here, but Greenspan was Bernanke's predecessor. Bernanke is
Greenspan's successor.
The rest of your post is 100% on the mark.
--
CHA in FL
http://sky.prohosting.com/chainfl/index.htm
Frank Howell
Well you're right to nitpick. My bad.
--
Frank Howell
Mike Hendrix
Frank, you make good points ------ and I do not disagree with any of
them.
>
>
>When AIG went south in late 2008, the then President of the Federal Reserve
>Bank Of New York, Tim Geithner negotiated the bailout of AIG and gave them
>Par! Par when they were bankrupt? His reward? Secratery of Treasury.
Another good point and I do not disagree.
>
>But scratch all that and blame it on Bush! Bush was guilty of many things.
> A long list to be sure, and the eye of eternity will judge him harshly, but
>there are others who had far greater complicity.
I will agree with that --------------- BUT, Bush was driving the ship.
The Captain is ALWAYS responsible for what happens on his watch.
>
>Maybe we could turn Bush into the National Pinata and have an annual bash!
>Maybe the grandest of all lotteries to win the chance to be the Grand Bush
>Basher? Ok, ok maybe snark gone wild.
I would be OK by me. VBG
>
>The status quo will only change when yours and I fellow citizens quite
>voting for candidates who use legislative offices as a lottery platform to
>win elections.
Shit, we would stop voting. Or are you seeing something that is
escaping me?
mike
--
Mike Hendrix
Totally correct.
>Unfortunately electing a Democratic President and having Democratic control
>of both houses will prove to be a lethal combination.
You could be right. But, it could also be a God send. If they F'
things up like they appear to be doing then they will be voted out at
the first chance.
That would be a GOOD thing ------- if they were replaced with
something much better. Now, that is unlikely but it could happen. It
wasn't all that long ago that voters got pissed off and threw out the
bad apples and replaced them with Newt Gingrich and a gang Hell bent
on making "good" changes. Unfortunately, when they took their seat at
the trough they started pigging out just like the bunch they had
replaced. How sad that was.
But there is always hope that we can replace those free spenders and
meddlers with some freedom loving tight wads.
mike
--
Technobarbarian
"Mike Hendrix" <mikeh...@isp.com> wrote in message
news:cs6ef55cchm5eqgkr...@4ax.com...
We have yet to see any concrete examples of this. At this point the
Republicans are defining themselves in terms of what they're against instead
of what they're in favor of.
>>>
>>> mike
>>
>>Well I have to agree with you. When the economy tanked, that was the
>>greatest gift Obama could receive. It made McCain and the "War"
>>irrelevant.
>
> Totally correct.
Not completely true. If McCain had demonstrated some leadership at that
point instead of fumbling around and following along he wouldn't have been
irrelevant. He has a lot of responsibility for his own fate. If, for
example, he had chosen a running mate who was strong on economic issues
instead of one who was strong on slogans and cliches he would have been in a
much better position.
TB
Ralph
ztopz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Mike Hendrix" <mikehend...@isp.com> wrote in message
> > Totally correct.
>
> Not completely true. If McCain had demonstrated some leadership at that
> point instead of fumbling around and following along he wouldn't have been
> irrelevant. He has a lot of responsibility for his own fate. If, for
> example, he had chosen a running mate who was strong on economic issues
> instead of one who was strong on slogans and cliches he would have been in a
> much better position.
>
>
McCain's statements (summer 2008) that the "economy was fundamentally
sound", when "everyone" knew we were already in a recession hurt him.
McCain having Phill Gramm (one of the author's of the deregulation
that contributed to this mess) as his economic advisor hurt McCain
even more.
McCain picking an air-head for VP, with the "right" credentials was
just the last nail in the coffin of his campaign.
If McCain had stood up to the spokesmen for the "right" and picked his
first choice for VP (Lieberman) he probably would have won.
If McCain's campaign had figured out what the rest of the country knew
about the economy he probably would have won.
McCain was the best qualified of the candidates for President in 2008,
hell, he was the best in 2000. I will always believe that if Rove et-
al hadn't "Shift-Boated" him in the southern primaries the country
would be a lot better off today.
Lone Haranguer
> I will agree with that --------------- BUT, Bush was driving the ship.
> The Captain is ALWAYS responsible for what happens on his watch.
>
crooks in the Democratic party?
Franklin Raines should have gone to jail but of course the Democrats
rallied 'round him and protected him, just as they are now protecting
Rangel.
I get the definite impression you don't have a clue as to what went on
and only recycle what you read on Huffington Post.
LZ
JanO...@aol.com
>
> news:cs6ef55cchm5eqgkr...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 08:43:44 -0800, "Frank Howell"
> > <fphow...@usermail.com> wrote:
>
> >>Mike Hendrix wrote:
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> Mike Hendrix wrote:
That comment seems to be the popular Liberal Diatribe.
But I dare say, the people of Alaska don't agree.
Here below is recent mail from a friend:
---------------------------------------------------------------
This was sent to me by an old high school buddy. We went to school
from 3rd grade and graduated together. I tell you this because he
retired from the South Dakota Fish and Game Dept. as the second in
command. SD is a Democratic state and so by definition he is a
Democrat but, also level headed. Dale.
Howdy All;
The following story is written by an Alaskan fisherman about Sara
Palin.
I’d trust this man’s writing instead of today’s media.
*************************************************************
No matter where you fall in the wide spectrum of thought on Sarah
Palin's ability and as a person, this really captures the essence of
what she did as Governor of Alaska. I personally admire her if for no
other reason than she sends the left into a blind paroxysm of pure
HATRED toward her. It always makes me laugh when adults start foaming
at the mouth for no good reason.
By Dewie Whetsell, Alaskan Fisherman. As posted in comments on Greta's
article referencing the MOVEON ad about Sarah Palin.
The last 45 of my 66 years I've spent in a commercial fishing town in
Alaska. I understand Alaska politics but never understood national
politics well until this last year. Here's the breaking point:
Neither side of the Palin controversy gets it. It's not about
persona, style, rhetoric, it's about doing things. Even Palin
supporters never mention the things that I'm about to mention here.
1- Democrats forget when Palin was the Darling of the Democrats,
because as soon as Palin took the Governor's office away from a fellow
Republican and tough SOB, Frank Murkowski, she tore into the
Republican's "Corrupt Bastards Club" (CBC) and sent them packing.
Many of them are now residing in State housing and wearing orange
jump suits. The Democrats reacted by skipping around the yard,
throwing confetti and singing, "la la la la" (well, you know how they
are). Name another governor in this country that has ever done
anything similar.
2- Now with the CBC gone, there were fewer Alaskan politicians to
protect the huge, giant oil companies here. So she constructed and
enacted a new system of splitting the oil profits called "ACES."
Exxon
(the biggest corporation in the world) protested and Sarah told them,
"don't let the door hit you in the stern on your way out." They
stayed, and Alaska residents went from being merely wealthy to being
filthy rich. Of course, the other huge international oil companies
meekly fell in line. Again, give me the name of any other governor in
the country that has done anything similar. Each person that lives in
Alaska gets between $1200-$2000 per year for living there. What do VA
and CA Governors give you? Answer, a closed rest stop.
3- The other thing she did when she walked into the governor's office
is she got the list of State requests for federal funding for
projects, known as "pork." She went through the list, took 85% of
them and placed them in the "when-hell-freezes-over" stack. She let
locals know that if we need something built, we'll pay for it
ourselves.
Maybe she figured she could use the money she got from selling the
previous governor's jet because it was extravagant. Maybe she could
use the money she saved by dismissing the governor's cook (remarking
that she could cook for her own family), giving back the State vehicle
issued to her, maintaining that she already had a car, and dismissing
her State provided security force.
(never mentioning - I imagine - that she's packing heat herself).
I'm still waiting to hear the names of those other governors.
4- Now, even with her much-ridiculed "gosh and golly" mannerism, she
also managed to put together a totally new approach to getting a
natural gas pipeline built which will be the biggest private
construction project in the history of North America. No one else
could do it although they tried. If that doesn't impress you, then
you're trying too hard to be unimpressed while watching her do things
like this while baking up a batch of brownies with her other hand.
5- For 30 years, Exxon held a lease to do exploratory drilling at a
place called Point Thompson. They made excuses the entire time why
they couldn't start drilling. In truth they were holding it like an
investment. No governor for 30 years could make them get started..
This summer, she told them she was revoking their lease and kicking
them out. They protested and threatened court action. She shrugged and
reminded them that she knew the way to the court house. Alaska won
again.
6- President Obama wants the nation to be on 25% renewable resources
for electricity by 2025. Sarah went to the legislature and submitted
her plan for Alaska to be at 50% renewables by 2025. We are already at
25%.
I can give you more specifics about things done, as opposed to style
and persona. Everybody wants to be cool, sound cool, look cool. But
that's just a cover-up. I'm still waiting to hear from liberals the
names of other governors who can match what mine has done in two and a
half years. I won't be holding my breath.
By the way, she was content to return to AK after the national
election and go to work, but the haters wouldn't let her. Now these
adolescent screechers are obviously not scuba divers. And no one ever
told them what happens when you continually jab and pester a
barracuda. Without warning, it will spin around and tear your face
off.
Should of known better.
You have just read the truth about Sarah Palin that sends the media,
along with the democrat party, into a wild uncontrolled frenzy to
discredit her. I guess they are only interested in skirt chasers,
dishonesty, immoral people, liars, womanizers, murderers, and bitter
ex-presidents' wives.
So "You go, Girl." I only wish the men in Washington had your guts,
determination, honesty, and morals.
I rest my case. Only FOOLS listen to the biased media.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Strong on economic issues" enough for you TB?
Sound like slogans and cliches?
People like you would be left in the weeds by the
whirlwind if she did get into national office.
Dewie The Fisherman is waiting to hear from you and
others about how any other Governor has taken care
of "economic issues" like this.
An honest get things done woman polititian like this
scares the shit out of you, huh? Meanwhile the Drive
By Media and screeching liberal hate makes up all
kinds of CRAP about her and her family that has
absolutely NOTHING to do with performance on the
job! Same kinda Blue Dress BS that was layed on
Bill Clinton. Goose/Gander. Stop the BS and elect those
that will get things done.
Jan Eric Orme
Frank Howell
Dang! Why didn't I think of that. Creative destruction. :-)
Even better, is to remove most of the Depts and other useless cabinets at
the Federal level and let the States handle those functions that have any
value.
With so much money going to the Federal Government it's no wonder that it
evolved to Master-Slave relationship. The Feds would let the states have
money if they were obedient to Federal wims and mandates. Everything top
down. At least at the state level most people have a much greater chance to
affect change if they are unhappy with spending, policies, etc.
--
Frank Howell
Frank Howell
You mean like President Obaman choose Biden? You gots to be kidden!
The outcome would have been the same. In the context of the time, nothing
could have taken the taint off the Republicans except a loss.
--
Frank Howell
Frank Howell
Agreed, he will have his place in infamy history.
>>
>> Maybe we could turn Bush into the National Pinata and have an annual
>> bash! Maybe the grandest of all lotteries to win the chance to be
>> the Grand Bush Basher? Ok, ok maybe snark gone wild.
>
> I would be OK by me. VBG
>
>>
>> The status quo will only change when yours and I fellow citizens
>> quite voting for candidates who use legislative offices as a lottery
>> platform to win elections.
>
> Shit, we would stop voting. Or are you seeing something that is
> escaping me?
>
> mike
No I still vote Libertarian. They still have a platform that reduces the
Federal Government both in terms of power and size. They still believe the
only moral reason for war is self defense, ie we have to actually be
attacked. He who uses the fist first is the asshole.
--
Frank Howell
bill horne
Frequently, the fist first is the best defense.
Bruce S
>
> McCain was the best qualified of the candidates for President in 2008,
> hell, he was the best in 2000. I will always believe that if Rove et-
> al hadn't "Shift-Boated" him in the southern primaries the country
> would be a lot better off today.
McCain was the worst qualified of the candidates in the Republican
primaries. The country would have been much better off if Thompson,
Giuliani, or Mitt Romney had been the candidate. And while I disagree with
him on issues of national defense, Ron Paul would have been the best for the
economy, and the long term health of the country. Only a RINO or a Democrat
could have made McCain his first choice.
Bruce
Mike Hendrix
<fpho...@usermail.com> wrote:
Frank, that is what I call voting to send a message since the
Libertarian candidates to date have had absolutely no chance of
winning. My friend bill suggests that isn't the "correct" way to
vote.
Heck, I am not sure what is the "right" way to get my voice heard and
to change things.
I voted for Ron Paul in the Florida primary. Of course I pissed that
vote away ----- but so did all the other republicans voting in that
primary.
Ron is my kind of nut case.
mike
--
Mike Hendrix
wrote:
>Frank Howell wrote:
Possibly, but Nation Building has to be the LAST thing on the list.
mike
--
Technobarbarian
"Ralph" <n7...@callsign.net> wrote in message
news:5cc8f64d-73a3-4f31...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 8, 12:07 pm, "Technobarbarian" <Technobarbarian-
ztopz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Mike Hendrix" <mikehend...@isp.com> wrote in message
> > Totally correct.
>
> Not completely true. If McCain had demonstrated some leadership at that
> point instead of fumbling around and following along he wouldn't have been
> irrelevant. He has a lot of responsibility for his own fate. If, for
> example, he had chosen a running mate who was strong on economic issues
> instead of one who was strong on slogans and cliches he would have been in
> a
> much better position.
>
>
McCain's statements (summer 2008) that the "economy was fundamentally
sound", when "everyone" knew we were already in a recession hurt him.
I agree that this famous misquote hurt him, but what he actually said
was: "You know, that there's been tremendous turmoil in our financial
markets and Wall Street and it is - people are frightened by these events.
Our economy, I think, still the fundamentals of our economy are strong."
I know it's a minority point of view, but I agreed with him then and
now. If the "fundamentals" weren't strong we'd be in a MUCH worse position
than we are today.
McCain having Phill Gramm (one of the author's of the deregulation
that contributed to this mess) as his economic advisor hurt McCain
even more.
Yep, and his previous admissions that his own grasp of economic issues
were so weak that he depended on Gramm didn't help a bit. He lacked the
flexibility to understand the mistakes Gramm had led him to and make the
necessary adjustments.
McCain picking an air-head for VP, with the "right" credentials was
just the last nail in the coffin of his campaign.
Yep.
If McCain had stood up to the spokesmen for the "right" and picked his
first choice for VP (Lieberman) he probably would have won.
If McCain's campaign had figured out what the rest of the country knew
about the economy he probably would have won.
If he had presented a strong alternate vision, instead of weakly
following along, this might have been possible.
TB
Mike Hendrix
wrote:
>On Nov 8, 12:07�pm, "Technobarbarian" <Technobarbarian-
>ztopz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Mike Hendrix" <mikehend...@isp.com> wrote in message
>
>> > Totally correct.
>>
>> � � �Not completely true. If McCain had demonstrated some leadership at that
>> point instead of fumbling around and following along he wouldn't have been
>> irrelevant. He has a lot of responsibility for his own fate. If, for
>> example, he had chosen a running mate who was strong on economic issues
>> instead of one who was strong on slogans and cliches he would have been in a
>> much better position.
>>
>>
>
>McCain's statements (summer 2008) that the "economy was fundamentally
>sound", when "everyone" knew we were already in a recession hurt him.
Totally agree.
>McCain having Phill Gramm (one of the author's of the deregulation
>that contributed to this mess) as his economic advisor hurt McCain
>even more.
Agree.
>McCain picking an air-head for VP, with the "right" credentials was
>just the last nail in the coffin of his campaign.
Agree again.
>
>If McCain had stood up to the spokesmen for the "right" and picked his
>first choice for VP (Lieberman) he probably would have won.
His chances would certainly have been better, but would have been hard
for the right wing of the party to stomach. Folks like bill may not
have been able to "hold their noses" tight enough. VBG
>If McCain's campaign had figured out what the rest of the country knew
>about the economy he probably would have won.
It was possible. Still there was/is a considerable portion of the
country that does not want to be at war ---- at least in Iraq &
Afghanistan ----- and they certainly ain't into Nation Building.
>
>McCain was the best qualified of the candidates for President in 2008,
>hell, he was the best in 2000. I will always believe that if Rove et-
>al hadn't "Shift-Boated" him in the southern primaries the country
>would be a lot better off today.
I am not going to agree with that BS. VBG
mike
--
Lone Haranguer
Did you speak out when Clinton was doing it in Bosnia and Kosovo? I
don't recall that.
BTW, the Marshall Plan funding the recovery of Europe after WWII was
nation building and was hailed as a brilliant idea.
LZ
Bruce S
>
> Frank, that is what I call voting to send a message since the
> Libertarian candidates to date have had absolutely no chance of
> winning. My friend bill suggests that isn't the "correct" way to
> vote.
>
> Heck, I am not sure what is the "right" way to get my voice heard and
> to change things.
>
> I voted for Ron Paul in the Florida primary. Of course I pissed that
> vote away ----- but so did all the other republicans voting in that
> primary.
>
> Ron is my kind of nut case.
>
> mike
While I could not support Ron Paul in the Republican primary (I believe in
national defense), if he had been the Libertarian candidate, I could have
supported him in the general election. Bob Barr was actually, a
conservative Republican, not a Libertarian.
And thinking of Ron Paul, I saw his son, Rand, on TV yesterday. He is
running for the Senate from Kentucky. He is just as Libertarian as his
father. This might be a candidate to get behind.
Bruce
Bruce S
>
> No I still vote Libertarian. They still have a platform that reduces
> the Federal Government both in terms of power and size. They still
> believe the only moral reason for war is self defense, ie we have to
> actually be attacked. He who uses the fist first is the asshole.
The thing I feel worst about with last year's election (from a personal
perspective) is that it is the first time in almost 40 years that I did not
vote Libertarian. I knew exactly how bad 0bama would be for the country,
and convinced myself that voting for the "lesser of two evils" would be OK
this time. I was wrong of course, but in my defense, I really did not like
Bob Barr as a Libertarian candidate - he simply was not Libertarian enough.
Bruce
Lone Haranguer
> It was possible. Still there was/is a considerable portion of the
> country that does not want to be at war ---- at least in Iraq &
> Afghanistan ----- and they certainly ain't into Nation Building.
>
If Clinton hadn't shirked his responsibilities, there would never have
been a reason to invade Afghanistan.
Procrastinating and appeasement is what leads to wars. Even the dumbest
among us should have figured that out by now.
Lord knows there are plenty of examples in history to make the point.
A considerable portion of the country is made up of cowards. I met a
guy the other day who bragged about all the ways he used to dodge the draft
during Vietnam. Made me sick to see such craven cowardice and to be
proud of it. How do these people look in the mirror every day without
gagging?
LZ
Lone Haranguer
thinking and pipe dreams.
They just don't have enough converts.
There are too many who have been trained to expect the government to
take care of them and are willing to trade all their
freedoms for a government dole.
LZ
Bruce S
>>
> Unfortunately the Libertarian platform consists mostly of wishful
> thinking and pipe dreams.
> They just don't have enough converts.
>
> There are too many who have been trained to expect the government to
> take care of them and are willing to trade all their
> freedoms for a government dole.
> LZ
The Communist party has never won a major election in this country either,
but every item on their prewar platform is now considered mainstream
Democrat. The Libertarians do not need to win a major election, they need
to be enough of a political force that the Conservatives accept the
Libertarian platform of small, fiscally responsible, Constitutional,
government as their own.
Bruce
Technobarbarian
news:1a66acfa-fea1-48f8...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Most of the work of dealing with the CBC was done by the Federal
government. While the Bush administration flubbed some slam-dunks they got
it started and the Obama administration is working on finishing the job.
2- Now with the CBC gone, there were fewer Alaskan politicians to
protect the huge, giant oil companies here. So she constructed and
enacted a new system of splitting the oil profits called "ACES."
Exxon
(the biggest corporation in the world) protested and Sarah told them,
"don't let the door hit you in the stern on your way out." They
stayed, and Alaska residents went from being merely wealthy to being
filthy rich. Of course, the other huge international oil companies
meekly fell in line. Again, give me the name of any other governor in
the country that has done anything similar. Each person that lives in
Alaska gets between $1200-$2000 per year for living there. What do VA
and CA Governors give you? Answer, a closed rest stop.
I just love how people want a smaller government that spends less
money--right up to the point it involves their interests and their
pocketbook. We have some beautiful examples of that here. Most of the people
who are howling the loudest about the government are suckling at the
government's teat and if you really want to hear them howl talk about doing
anything that might constrict their milk flow. Some of them have done this
their entire life.
3- The other thing she did when she walked into the governor's office
is she got the list of State requests for federal funding for
projects, known as "pork." She went through the list, took 85% of
them and placed them in the "when-hell-freezes-over" stack. She let
locals know that if we need something built, we'll pay for it
ourselves.
This is pure unadulturated bullshit. AK was and is dependent on the
pork. Check out the highway to nowhere sometime when you need a laugh. I
posted about it recently. Palin was a supporter of the bridge to nowhere
until she figured out that AK couldn't afford it even with the Federal pork.
Maybe she figured she could use the money she got from selling the
previous governor's jet because it was extravagant. Maybe she could
use the money she saved by dismissing the governor's cook (remarking
that she could cook for her own family), giving back the State vehicle
issued to her, maintaining that she already had a car, and dismissing
her State provided security force.
(never mentioning - I imagine - that she's packing heat herself).
I'm still waiting to hear the names of those other governors.
For another laugh look at what Sarah charged AK for per diem while she
was staying in her own home.
4- Now, even with her much-ridiculed "gosh and golly" mannerism, she
also managed to put together a totally new approach to getting a
natural gas pipeline built which will be the biggest private
construction project in the history of North America. No one else
could do it although they tried. If that doesn't impress you, then
you're trying too hard to be unimpressed while watching her do things
like this while baking up a batch of brownies with her other hand.
More bullshit. With drastic modification Palin's plan has a very small
chance of happening. Without major modifications it stands no chance. The
most likely outcome is that AK pays their partner in this plan to get out
from under it. I also posted about the problems with her plan recently. Two
of the majors are proposing an alternate plan that doesn't require
government subsidies. The biggest sticking point is arriving on a agreement
with AK that lasts for a reasonable length of time. They don't want to sink
money in a pipeline and then have future politicians milking them
unreasonably.
[rest of BS snipped for brevity]
"Strong on economic issues" enough for you TB?
Sound like slogans and cliches?
I can only assume that you've never heard her talk or read the
available information on her recent speeches. She appears to both talk and
think in slogans. As an American I found the portions of her speech in Hong
Kong that she released embarassing, because, like it or not, as a former
serious contender for VP she does, in a sense, represent us. She delivered a
hackneyed stump speech to people who do understand economic issues. While
speaking to Chinese in China and working from a prepared speech she still
couldn't speak coherently on our relations with that nation. Many of them
were so bored that they either walked out or worked on more important chores
while she was speaking.
http://anotherblackconservative.blogspot.com/2009/09/reviews-are-in-sarah-palins-csla-speech.html
An honest get things done woman polititian like this
scares the shit out of you, huh? Meanwhile the Drive
By Media and screeching liberal hate makes up all
kinds of CRAP about her and her family that has
absolutely NOTHING to do with performance on the
job! Same kinda Blue Dress BS that was layed on
Bill Clinton. Goose/Gander. Stop the BS and elect those
that will get things done.
She's a political novelty act, and like all novelty acts she's
wearing thin very quickly. Palin's chances of being elected to national
office are so small that I don't worry about it. I do find her soap opera
entertaining. I expect her to be a very visible person for a long time to
come because it's the only way she can make enough money to live the
lifestyle to which she wishes to become accustomed.
TB
Lone Haranguer
Too many fence-straddling Republicans.....especially in the northeastern
states.
In order to reach your goal, you need more libertarian converts; enough
that the Republicans can feel the pressure.
The communists didn't need to win a major election. They just started
calling themselves Democrats.
LZ
Frank Howell
Winning would be nice, but my main reason for voting Libertarian is that
it's the only party that mirrors my political beliefs. I refuse to vote for
any of the so called "winners" just say I backed a winner.
>
> Heck, I am not sure what is the "right" way to get my voice heard and
> to change things.
>
> I voted for Ron Paul in the Florida primary. Of course I pissed that
> vote away ----- but so did all the other republicans voting in that
> primary.
>
> Ron is my kind of nut case.
>
> mike
--
Frank Howell
Frank Howell
Good grief! I didn't know Ron Paul named his son Rand. Let me ponder that
for a few minutes and figure where he got that from. :-)
--
Frank Howell
Frank Howell
I agree, but I swallowed my bile and still voted for him.
--
Frank Howell
nothermark
<linu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Mike Hendrix wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:00:58 -0700, Lone Haranguer
>> <linu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:24:07 -0700, Lone Haranguer
>>>> <linu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>>>>>> Personally, I vote to send a message sometimes. With the
>>>>>>> candidates/choices we have that is the only thing I can do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>> Was the message attached to an arrow? Because I think it came back to
>>>>> stick you in the butt......
>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------
>>>> Jury is still out. While I am NOT happy with Obama he has had some
>>>> TOUGH issues to deal with left him by the previous administration. I
>>>> have to weigh how Obama handled them with how McCain would have
>>>> handled them.
>>>>
>>>> I prefer how Obama is handling DOD and the WARs Bushie got us in but I
>>>> do think that McCain would have handled the economy more to my liking
>>>> (might not have bailed out GM & might not have so "overboard" with
>>>> stimulus and not bailed out the banks like Obama has) --------
>>>> however, Bush & Cabal really screwed up the economy when they had a
>>>> chance ---- tax cuts to stimulate the economy ----- well they
>>>> stimulated it into the unholy mess we are in currently.
>>> Show us a diagram of how tax cuts ruined the economy.
>>
>> Linus, the tax cuts in and of themselves did not "ruin" the economy it
>> was the continued excessive spending on top of the tax cuts.
>
>The Democrats voted for the spending and often proposed it.
>
>Look it up.
>
>We don't have excessive spending now? Obama has cost us millions of
>jobs....which we will probably never regain and which are FAR more
>damaging
>than some tax cuts for people who were already carrying more than their
>share of the load.
>>
>> By itself the tax cuts would be GREAT ----- SUPER what ever term you
>> like. Where Bushie and his Cabal screwed the pooch was the deficit
>> spending on top of the tax cuts.
>
>Why don't you research how the Democrats voted on the spending bills?
>Are Democrats part of the Bush cabal?
>>
>>> I can show you one where Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer,
>>> Franklin Raines and their fellow Democrats
>>> of ACORN stacked the dominoes and then sneeezed.
>>
>> The banks went down when regulations were removed by "da-hammer" and
>> his group.
>
>The banks would have never made shaky loans without Fannie Mae - Freddie
>Mac, the CRAs and ACORN....ALL creations of Democrats.
You would lose a bet on that. The investment banking lobby paid off
the government to change the rules. Part of th edeal was to also back
your targets but you cannot leave out that the securitized mortgages
were a banking idea and they drove the need for more mortgages to
securitize. Those instruments are still unregulated and still
vulnerale to another crash "because the ssytem is too big to be
allowed to fail". The only change so far is Barney put up legislation
to penalize the bankers if they get bailed again.
>snip<
Owen McKenzie
>
> Frank, that is what I call voting to send a message since the
> Libertarian candidates to date have had absolutely no chance of
> winning. My friend bill suggests that isn't the "correct" way to
> vote.
>
> Heck, I am not sure what is the "right" way to get my voice heard and
> to change things.
>
> I voted for Ron Paul in the Florida primary. Of course I pissed that
> vote away ----- but so did all the other republicans voting in that
> primary.
>
> Ron is my kind of nut case.
>
> mike
Does anyone else here wonder how many Libertarians there are out there that
don't vote that way because "they'd be wasting their votes".
Maybe if enough of "waste our votes" others will too & suddenly they won't
be wasted anymore.
--
Owen McKenzie
Posting from Largo, FL
Limit all US politicians to two terms.
One in office and one in prison.
Illinois already does this!
Lone Haranguer
> Mike Hendrix wrote:
>> Frank, that is what I call voting to send a message since the
>> Libertarian candidates to date have had absolutely no chance of
>> winning. My friend bill suggests that isn't the "correct" way to
>> vote.
>>
>> Heck, I am not sure what is the "right" way to get my voice heard and
>> to change things.
>>
>> I voted for Ron Paul in the Florida primary. Of course I pissed that
>> vote away ----- but so did all the other republicans voting in that
>> primary.
>>
>> Ron is my kind of nut case.
>>
>> mike
>
> Does anyone else here wonder how many Libertarians there are out there that
> don't vote that way because "they'd be wasting their votes".
>
> Maybe if enough of "waste our votes" others will too & suddenly they won't
> be wasted anymore.
>
He had some good ideas but they were overshadowed by his ignorance of
how to implement them in today's reality.
He acted like a magic switch would get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Theories are fine but you need someone more pragmatic who can explain
their plans to reach the end goal. I never heard those from Ron Paul.
We got the same vague promise we got from Obama. "Just elect me
president and I will
fix everything".
Not good enough.
LZ
Bruce S
> Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>
>> Frank, that is what I call voting to send a message since the
>> Libertarian candidates to date have had absolutely no chance of
>> winning. My friend bill suggests that isn't the "correct" way to
>> vote.
>>
>> Heck, I am not sure what is the "right" way to get my voice heard and
>> to change things.
>>
>> I voted for Ron Paul in the Florida primary. Of course I pissed that
>> vote away ----- but so did all the other republicans voting in that
>> primary.
>>
>> Ron is my kind of nut case.
>>
>> mike
>
> Does anyone else here wonder how many Libertarians there are out
> there that don't vote that way because "they'd be wasting their
> votes".
> Maybe if enough of "waste our votes" others will too & suddenly they
> won't be wasted anymore.
I agree, and the best part is that the Libertarians don't have to win, just
post enough numbers that the Republicans will take them seriously.
Bruce
Bruce S
The question you have to ask yourself is, would we be worse off right now if
you (and I) had voted for Ron Paul?
Bruce