Jump to content

Wow, Where to start with this gem?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 185
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You've posted quite often the past couple of days and it's been very revealing. We know quite a bit about you. You've pretty much admitted you'll vote for Obama just because he's a Dem. That, IMO, is pulling the levers blindly.

Remember, you can't judge someone from the opinions they type on a message board. Even though he does it all the time.

 

You know, PBills the victim act never gets tiring. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me ask you this. How does this country start pay off the deficit? Unfortunately due to ridiculous spending the tax payer will most likely have to pay off a large amount of this. Also, companies are laying off more and more with the Bush tax cuts. 62,000 lost their job last month? Companies are also heading out the U.S. at a ridiculous rate - that too has to stop or hopefully be slowed down.

 

And taxes fix the problem how??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, you can't judge someone from the opinions they type on a message board. Even though he does it all the time.

 

You know, PBills the victim act never gets tiring. :P

 

 

If it gets tiring don't read. Easy enough huh? :lol:

 

 

When do I judge unless I am getting hounded? I find it funny that people love to throw stones at another persons beliefs because they differ yet they talk all of the time about the Constitution, freedoms, etc., etc. and at the same time have a hard time sharing there own beliefs. Another gem is that people can say that the candidate I like sucks but at the same time vote for someone else in the hopes that that candidate can receive 5% for federal funding. That's lame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another gem is that people can say that the candidate I like sucks but at the same time vote for someone else in the hopes that that candidate can receive 5% for federal funding. That's lame.

 

Not surprised that you completely missed the point of voting for someone to cause a party to reach the 5% threshold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not surprised that you completely missed the point of voting for someone to cause a party to reach the 5% threshold.

 

 

Actually, no I didn't that Federal funding can "hopefully" help bring a third party into play at some point, as well as get noticed a bit more by the general public. I just don't agree with that philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, no I didn't that Federal funding can "hopefully" help bring a third party into play at some point, as well as get noticed a bit more by the general public. I just don't agree with that philosophy.

 

So you don't agree the competition would make the two current parties more trustworthy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you don't agree the competition would make the two current parties more trustworthy?

 

 

Of course it would. However nothing is going to happen until they actually have a candidate that can inspire, can stand out in a crowd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, no I didn't that Federal funding can "hopefully" help bring a third party into play at some point, as well as get noticed a bit more by the general public. I just don't agree with that philosophy.

 

Actually, yes you did.

 

The idea is, first and foremost, to shake up the two major parties. If anyone is unhappy about the direction of this country - and it has been complicity done from both sides of the aisle - the very first thing one should want to do is shake up the parties. Make them afraid of the people, that some are starting to realize you can vote a different way.

 

!@#$ what the general public notices, its about what the politicians notice.

 

The way to make someone change is to take a chunk of something away from them that they need. The big problem with our system is that it has devolved to the point that the electorate needs to be the ultimate check of power, something which hasn't happened before. The easiest way to do this is to take votes away from the two major parties, and give them to a third party.

 

One of two things will ultimately happen:

 

1.) (Most likely) - Both parties shift and reform a bit, fighting for those votes, as they make a difference in close elections.

2.) (Less likely) - A third party becomes a legitimate threat, causing a realignment in political parties to bring it back down to two.

 

There is no "philosophy" involved here. The Democrats and Republicans will do what they feel best wins them elections. Identifying with one party and voting for the "lesser of two evils" is an action which enables their actions to continue without consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, yes you did.

 

The idea is, first and foremost, to shake up the two major parties. If anyone is unhappy about the direction of this country - and it has been complicity done from both sides of the aisle - the very first thing one should want to do is shake up the parties. Make them afraid of the people, that some are starting to realize you can vote a different way.

 

!@#$ what the general public notices, its about what the politicians notice.

 

The way to make someone change is to take a chunk of something away from them that they need. The big problem with our system is that it has devolved to the point that the electorate needs to be the ultimate check of power, something which hasn't happened before. The easiest way to do this is to take votes away from the two major parties, and give them to a third party.

 

One of two things will ultimately happen:

 

1.) (Most likely) - Both parties shift and reform a bit, fighting for those votes, as they make a difference in close elections.

2.) (Less likely) - A third party becomes a legitimate threat, causing a realignment in political parties to bring it back down to two.

 

There is no "philosophy" involved here. The Democrats and Republicans will do what they feel best wins them elections. Identifying with one party and voting for the "lesser of two evils" is an action which enables their actions to continue without consequences.

 

 

So you listed another way for the third party to be noticed... by the campaigns. Yes, it will mess with the way they run their campaigns, where they spend their money etc.., etc. However, the third party still needs to be more than a pest to the major parties. A viable candidate will do this, large amounts of donations, federal funding so that they can compete with the big boys for air time, etc.

 

As much fun as this is - I have to get back to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you listed another way for the third party to be noticed... by the campaigns. Yes, it will mess with the way they run their campaigns, where they spend their money etc.., etc. However, the third party still needs to be more than a pest to the major parties. A viable candidate will do this, large amounts of donations, , etc.

 

As much fun as this is - I have to get back to work.

 

You are like talking to a complete and utter brick wall.

 

!@#$ campaigns, they have nothing to do with this. Its about eventually causing change in the parties and candidates.

 

federal funding so that they can compete with the big boys for air time

 

Do you even understand how the hell campaigns become eligible for federal funding? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Third party can be noticed in so many ways... can become viable in so many ways.

 

Right, because a 3rd party can just flip on a switch if they had a good candidate and immediately become a national player. I forgot about that law, sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, because a 3rd party can just flip on a switch if they had a good candidate and immediately become a national player. I forgot about that law, sorry.

 

 

 

Wow did I say that? Yes, third party - just flip the switch. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...