zero wrote: I believe that our constitution states that the U.S. has "freedom of religion" not "freedom from religion". That's why I vote Republican.

i could go on and on about this one. but ill simple state. same @!#$ ing difference. and btw, grow a brain. TY.



"There is no point in looking fast if your not."

Taetsch Z-24 wrote:Because more of them have served in the Military for this Nation.

(but no, I don't vote for a Party, My thought's are more in line with Ron Paul's)

Chris

Since when is serving in the military a prerequisite or a quality for presidency?


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

it isnt. thats a 'republican' thing.

i know im gonna catch some flack for this one...



"There is no point in looking fast if your not."

Ever hear of George Washington?


Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry

umm, no. whats your point?



"There is no point in looking fast if your not."

Big difference, Washington led a army for protection, today the military is for protection of another kind.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

I think what we can come two reckon out of this thread is that

A. Your 2 party system is flawed.

B. Both Sides in question are being played by the same actress, with a different wig. :p



My Cav
I give up...
i'm buying a VW those people love trees, so they should love eachother too... "Andy"

Short Hand wrote:I think what we can come two reckon out of this thread is that

A. Your 2 party system is flawed.

B. Both Sides in question are being played by the same actress, with a different wig. :p

i dont think the two party system is flawed, i think the people in the system is flawed.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

snds: No, it's flawed in it's very nature. The world is not black and white--it's not only many shades of grey but also may different hues of color. the 2-party system muddles everything up. Instead of actually trying to work to solve all of the problems as one candidate best sees fit, it's devolved into which party you're pigeonholed into, how how it's contrasted by the other party.

So, you get some asinine bull@!#$ like:

Repubicans are against abortion, Democrats are the opposite or republicans, therefore Democrats are baby-killers.

Or

Democrats are generally in favor of same-sex unions. Republicans are the opposite of democrats, therefore Republicans are homophobes.

As is the case with many debates, it devolves that quickly. Hence why i say any time i hear someone use the term "liberal" or "conservative" as a contrasting insult, I know i'm talking about someone that should chop their nuts off or remove their ovaries with a melon baller so they don't further contaminate the gene pool.

Anyhow, the problem with that is whatever contrast their is du jure, while everything else seems to walk right by us.

Personally, i think it's a sadder state of affairs in how this shoes the average intelligence of the american Joe and Jane Q Public. We can't think on anything except polar opposites and contrasts. There is no middle ground. Peeople don't vote for the person--they vote for the party.

Personally, I think George Washington had the best idea...Political parties are dumb--and IMNSHO, as dumb as the people that identify with them.

But hey, that's their choice.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

"it's devolved into which party you're pigeonholed into"



a two party system can work. its the people in the party who have fallen into the all or nothing mentality. you can have two sides and have compromise, a give and take a checks and balances, but its the people who are now in the party who have turned it into an all or nothing venture, and that is the real problem. you can lean to the left or lean to the right and still get things accomplished as long as both sides are willing to come up with the best solution for both parties involved. you just have people willing to compromise, right now you have two people fighting over a dollar, both men want the dollar and will do anything they can to get it. me, myself would prefer people in there who see a dollar and split it 50-50 so everyone gets a piece.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

Quote:

Personally, I think George Washington had the best idea...Political parties are dumb--and IMNSHO, as dumb as the people that identify with them.

Could not agree with you more.

Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry

[quote=Keeper Of The Light™ (Strazca)]snds: No, it's flawed in it's very nature. The world is not black and white--it's not only many shades of grey but also may different hues of color. the 2-party system muddles everything up. Instead of actually trying to work to solve all of the problems as one candidate best sees fit, it's devolved into which party you're pigeonholed into, how how it's contrasted by the other party.

So, you get some asinine bull@!#$ like:

Repubicans are against abortion, Democrats are the opposite or republicans, therefore Democrats are baby-killers.

Or

Democrats are generally in favor of same-sex unions. Republicans are the opposite of democrats, therefore Republicans are homophobes.

As is the case with many debates, it devolves that quickly. Hence why i say any time i hear someone use the term "liberal" or "conservative" as a contrasting insult, I know i'm talking about someone that should chop their nuts off or remove their ovaries with a melon baller so they don't further contaminate the gene pool.

Anyhow, the problem with that is whatever contrast their is du jure, while everything else seems to walk right by us.

Personally, i think it's a sadder state of affairs in how this shoes the average intelligence of the american Joe and Jane Q Public. We can't think on anything except polar opposites and contrasts. There is no middle ground. Peeople don't vote for the person--they vote for the party.

Personally, I think George Washington had the best idea...Political parties are dumb--and IMNSHO, as dumb as the people that identify with them.

But hey, that's their choice.qfMFt



Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in
America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the
same in any country. - Hermann Goring

And although what "Keeper" has said is true, one party has failed miserably in somewhat recent and in present US history.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:And although what "Keeper" has said is true, one party has failed miserably in somewhat recent and in present US history.

you are absolutly right, the political party has failed us miserably


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

^^True, the thing is, go back a bit, and the other party failed...and so on...and so on...

The whole point on why partisan politics fail is because it naturally leads to pigeonholing. A given party has certain criteria it expects it's members--especially those elected, to adhere to. Unfortunately, when you have someone that is more "moderate", I guess (if you want to look at political standing as an axial plot, rather than a 4-dimentional plot, but that's just my take on it), they will not be extolling the values that some members of the party expect, and thus, they lose votes.

If we eliminated the partisan system, candidates would be forced to stand on merit alone rather han preconceived notions on what the candidate stands for based on what's acceped per the party they've aligned themselves with. Further, it would force the layperson to consider their vote based upon their own personal values rather than which party they identify with. That way, it would make each canditate clarify their stances on many of the issues rather than just the one in the spotlight.

At least, that's my take on it. Personally, I could never see that happening--not without a major revolution.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

sndsgood wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:And although what "Keeper" has said is true, one party has failed miserably in somewhat recent and in present US history.

you are absolutly right, the political party has failed us miserably

THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Very true, and well said. It was with that in mind that I voted for the Bloc Quebecois in the Canadian elections. Not because I believe that they're superior to any other party, but because I know damn well what would happen to Canada if the country became a two party system. Best we remain with four parties, two major and two minor.

As flawed as it is, it is these two that only get voted in? You go outside of the box and OH BOY... major malfunction through out the country.
With that being said, why still vote for a party that has failed so miserably in recent history and present?




THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Just to piss you off.

Because less of them try to take away my second amendment right.
(is that a good answer for you now?)


Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry

Taetsch Z-24 wrote:Just to piss you off.

Because less of them try to take away my second amendment right.
(is that a good answer for you now?)


Chris

No that is a @!#$ty answer.

Non-Republican does not automatically mean they want to take away your gun rights. I fully support that and every other right, but if you really vote as guns being the key issue, I really think you need your head examined. Just what about every other right that the neo-cons have or would take away? Why is gun ownership the only one that matters?! If you really give a %#@& about rights, then ditch the Republican ticket(not in lieu of the Democratic one) and join the Libertarians and vote for Barr.

The current Republican party is far removed from the traditional Republican party(Ron Paul is just about the only legislator on a national level that is still representing traditional Republican ideals and they pushed him into the fringe) - its a total sham and not currently worth a damn thing. If things where different, I'd probably still be Independent but it would be the Republican party I'd most closely identify with. As thing are now - everything they currently stand for is $%&@ING STUPID.

Neither party is really that consistent in their own ideals but if any party is at least mostly moderates I'd would sadly be the Democrats who got sucked into the center by the vacuum created by the Republicans fleeing to the extreme right. Nothing left on the right except a bunch of loony extremists.




Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in
America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the
same in any country. - Hermann Goring

But does that change the fact that less of them are trying to take away my firearm rights?'


Im all for Ron Paul.

Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry

I doubt you really meant it T, but I gotta agree that you can't vote for only one issue. The reason behind this is that even if it's one close to your heart it can be exploited by politicians. They'll go "Yeah yeah yeah, gun rights!!!" and then sign in a bill requiring your kids to have tracking chips. Get my drift? Politicians use hot button issues as diversions for their true goals, which is running off with all the money.

But like I said, I'm rooting for the old Soldier with a bunch of cool war stories and vice president MILF. Then again, I'm not the one who's gonna pay when they screw up either.

Knoxfire wrote:I doubt you really meant it T, but I gotta agree that you can't vote for only one issue. The reason behind this is that even if it's one close to your heart it can be exploited by politicians. They'll go "Yeah yeah yeah, gun rights!!!" and then sign in a bill requiring your kids to have tracking chips. Get my drift? Politicians use hot button issues as diversions for their true goals, which is running off with all the money.

Yep fire arms ownership isn't the only issue, and its hardly the most important issue facing America today. Why not vote on who you think will be best equipped to handle the full range of today's issues?

Quote:

But like I said, I'm rooting for the old Soldier with a bunch of cool war stories and vice president MILF. Then again, I'm not the one who's gonna pay when they screw up either.

There are enough threads about the presidential candidates themselves, this is mainly about the Republican party in general.

We could have an accompanying thread about Democrats too, but I think this one was inspired by the massive complete and total failure that has been Republican control of both the Legislative and Executive Branches of Government. There is a reason they got punished in 2006 (and despite the spin - it wasn't about the Iraq War). I know the Democrats can be @!#$-ups too, but no where in memory has any party who had complete control and who therefore could and did @!#$ up everything. One thing is for sure - the "list of accomplishments" is few and far between.




Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in
America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the
same in any country. - Hermann Goring

I know. The Republican Neocons have proven to be even worse career politicians than the Democrats and I think that genuinely shocked people, even liberals who at least expected the Reps to be predictably pigheaded and conservative at least.

The thing with McCain is that even though he's a decent politician, he's totally trumped by the fact that Palin's not much of a politician at all. Any argument that Obama is inexperienced evaporates once his record is held up to Palin's. Her entire carreer in politics until 2006 had been minor appointments. If she's elected she will literally be the least experienced person ever to be Vice-President of the United-States. Couple that with her willingness to abuse her power for her own ends (legal or not) and the fact that McCain don't look too healthy and I'd be terrified to vote Republican if I was a Yank.

The main problem I see in this election is that both sides are babbling about "What they believe", which is a minor thing. Who cares what a man believes? Theodore Roosevelt loved hunting but was a noted conservationist. George S. Patton was rabidly antisemitic, once writing down "[others may believe]... that the Displaced Person is a human being, which he is not, and this applies particularly to the Jews, who are lower than animals." yet when his Third army liberated the Buchanwald camp he was so horrified and disgusted at what had happened there and how the locals kept saying that they didn't know what had been going on that he forced German citizens to march through the camp so they could see up close what they'd been willfully ignoring the last few years. Men are more than their beliefs, that's what makes us men. Some Conservatives will fight for Liberal values just as some Liberals will fight for Conservative values. If someone had good character I wouldn't care what side of the ideological fence he grazed on.

So it's not their supposed beliefs that make the current parties crap but their all-but-retarded way of doing things. When faced with a serious problem Democrats tend to freeze in the headlights like deer and then talk a big game while doing absolutely nothing, while Republicans go off half-cocked like scalded cats and do ANYTHING regardless of how ill-thought or ill-advised it may be just so they can say they did something.

You guys are in deep doo-doo, and I don't think you quite know how to get out. More people voted for American Idol than will vote in the coming elections. That's a sad state of things.

really ment what?

Chris



"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry