Schoolyard Taunting

[ImWithStupid]

And we got Sonia Sotomayor to replace him because Obama was elected, if the splinter groups and the guys sitting out like you had bothered to get behind the Republican we would not have Sonia Sotomayor, we would have gotten a real conservative.

I see you missed the point. Not surprised really.

and the guys sitting out like you had bothered to get behind the Republican we would not have Sonia Sotomayor, we would have gotten a real conservative

I did not like a lot of McCain's past, but he really had to change his direction and having people like Palin surrounding him would have made him much more conservative then Bush ever was, just like the wacko radicals that surround Obama keep Obama pushing these socialist ideas.

Palin was f'in tool to use and she wouldn't have changed McCain. McCain's past and record is so bad that he had to adopt a running mate that was far right, and thought if she was a woman she'd help with the women's vote.

But if all your getting is radical liberal nominations they can't keep the seat empty forever.

Again, missed the point.

Being as your direct actions got Obama elected it seems your the sellout, not me. I voted for a 75% conservative, you voted 175% to the left of me by helping Obama win the election because you could not be bothered to actually cast a vote for as much conservative as was possible to get.

First off, if you believe that McCain is a 75% conservative, you're less informed than I thought.

McCain isn't even half as conservative as GW, and that's a pretty low bar to get under. Settling for the lesser of evils is what gave us McCain as a candidate and a weak Republican party.

It seems you and Snaf really have no grasp of what the tea party movement is about. It's about supporting the most conservative candidate, despite the letter after their name, and if the Republican party wants to get behind it and actually court the best candidate, great, until they get it through their thick skulls, I guess they will keep losing, like in NY 23 where you would have voted for Skozzafava because that's who Newt Gingrich and the RNC said to vote for, not Hoffman who was the real conservative choice. Funny thing is, Michael Steele and Newt both appologized and ate crow, because they were only backing Skozzafava because they thought she was most likely to win and admitted it was the wrong approach.

In the choice of Stalin or Mao, how would you vote?

 

[ImWithStupid]

He adds about half way into this video that there are always consequences for acting to interveen.........."ALL BAD". So Ron Paul says the results of our actions have all ended with bad.

The final part he says "We should stay at home and mind our own business". If that is not clear cut isolationist, what is?

Well he's wrong. If we had not interveened in WWII, in Europe, the US would never have become the economic force of the world, nor would we have emerged a superpower and who knows where that would have left the world if the USSR was the only super power. Great Britain was too broke and in decline because of WWI and WWII.

As for "We should stay at home and mind our own business" I have always argued that we need to stop being the world's police force. We need to make other countries protect themselves. Let's see how well European countries can afford their socialistic policies when they have to protect themselves, but I see nothing wrong with a proactive approach to defense. I don't think we should have to wait to be attacked to protect ourselves. That's the problem with the current engagement policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, you can't engage unless already fired upon. It didn't work in Somalia in the 1990's and it's prolonging the current wars.

 

[timesjoke]

I see you missed the point. Not surprised really.

Don't turn to insults Joe, that is a show of weakness, we can disagree without going down that road.

You point was that Bush put foward a guy who was liberal, or at best middle to liberal, but where have I ever said Bush was a conservative? While McCain helped come up with the illegal amnesty bill he quickly backed off from it once public opinion was against it but Bush did not. That proves that at least McCain will listen to the voice of the people and will change his possitions to what they want.

I understood your point but your point was irrelivent, that was then and this is now and you can't live in the past. McCain had made promises he had to keep, unlike the liberals the conservatives do remember promises and will rip him apart if he did not stick to his promises.

Palin was f'in tool to use and she wouldn't have changed McCain. McCain's past and record is so bad that he had to adopt a running mate that was far right, and thought if she was a woman she'd help with the women's vote.

No matter what he thought of her, she would have been in a possition to push for the things she believed in and no matter what some people say, she is still 99% conservative and a far cry from the pure socialist we now have because people like you will never accept that sometimes you can't always get what you want and you have to accept compromise. Getting 75% of what you wanted to include much better justices would have been a huge win over what we now have.

Again, missed the point.

No, I answered the real point, Bush gave up, he accepted he could not get a conservative justice approved and let them control him, I do not believe McCain would have let them do that, just keep putting people before them and let the Congress look the fool for not approving someone just like Bush did with the budgets he refused to sign and the support for the war he demanded and would not back down. If he had taken the same stance on appointments he would have won.

First off, if you believe that McCain is a 75% conservative, you're less informed than I thought.

Again with insults?

McCain has I believe a 82% conservative rating withthe American Conservative Union, most of the non-conservative reputation he has gotten is for a couple big pieces of legislation, not his general outlook or vote record.

McCain isn't even half as conservative as GW, and that's a pretty low bar to get under. Settling for the lesser of evils is what gave us McCain as a candidate and a weak Republican party.

GW was way more liberal than McCain, at the end of his time in office Bush was kissing every liberal's ass he could find in an attempt to save some face for his presidency.


Where I see a drastic difference in McCain is where he will actually listen to his conservative voters....Bush would not.

It seems you and Snaf really have no grasp of what the tea party movement is about. It's about supporting the most conservative candidate, despite the letter after their name, and if the Republican party wants to get behind it and actually court the best candidate, great, until they get it through their thick skulls, I guess they will keep losing, like in NY 23 where you would have voted for Skozzafava because that's who Newt Gingrich and the RNC said to vote for, not Hoffman who was the real conservative choice. Funny thing is, Michael Steele and Newt both appologized and ate crow, because they were only backing Skozzafava because they thought she was most likely to win and admitted it was the wrong approach.

In the choice of Stalin or Mao, how would you vote?

So now your using the same liberal tactics of hugo?

Stalin or Mao? You have to say based on a couple small examples suddenly McCain and Palin are that bad? You toss the baby out with the bathwater with that kind of perfection expectation and that is why you will always be more helpful for people like Obama than you will ever be for the conservative movement. The tea party movement is not about who is the perfect conservative in every way, it is more about getting our elected officials to listen to us, I have traveled to 11 different cities to attend seperate tea parties and not one time has a single speaker talked about getting a perfect conservative in office, in fact there are even democratic tea party groups, did you know that?

The tea party is not just about conservative or liberal, it is about getting control back over Washington.

In fact, old school liberals were the real conservatives in the old days Joe, did you know that?


The point is to get people into office that will support common sense approaches to governing, how many people would be up in arms if the healthcare bill was smaller and more common sense? Almost none Joe, peopel are pissed off at the way things are being done, not the people who are doing it. With few exceptions, politicians are lawyers, and what is a lawyer?

A person trained and who has perfected the art of telling lies.

 

[timesjoke]

The fact is, I do know about Ron Paul's isolationist position and couldn't agree with him more.

So you were just pretending not to know? Agree with him, be my guest, but you can't say that it is right to turn our backs on our friends when even our own America would not exist as it is today without the help of friends like France. France gave us the help we needed to obtain our freedom and it is simply self serving to say that we will now withold our help to other people because we want to isolate.

Yeah... call me liberal, call me elitist, but you can't refute the fact that we are broke, government is growing exponentially, and perhaps the only way out of this is to do the opposite of what has been done so far?

Our actions up to now have made us the powerhouse we are today my friend, as Joe points out, our actions made the prosperity that followed possible. If we suddenly emptied out all our bases around the world as Paul wants us to do, there would be a free for all and considering that all foreign oil would stop flowing and the world trade would end, you can get ready to move back to the winderness if someone as radical as Ron Paul takes office.

Paying down our debts, securing our borders, auditing the Federal Reserve, etc should be considered before we slap another band-aid president into office. Which you did by voting for a 25% socialist.

All those things can be accomplished without isolating ourselves from the world, one is not exclusive to the other. But we will get a lot closer to conservative idea with a 75% conservative then we are going to get by turning 175% to the left.

A 100% socialist, like Obama, can work with a McCain or Palin because one is a quarter of the other.

I don't know, McCain and Palin are getting a lot of good shots in on Obama lately and he looks to be getting more and more desperate as Palin and McCain are being proven right.

There is a lot more to working together than just the three people you mention, most of the stuff Obama is doing is at the insistence of his advisors, Obama was backing down from the healthcare fight and promised to shift gears to jobs until his advisors talked him into taking a hard line and trying to force it. The kinds of people who would be surrounding McCain and Palin would have helped to keep the train on the conservative tracks just like Obama's advisors are keeping Obama on the socialist track.

Keep blathering on like a crazy person... you're just finding excuse after excuse to vote for the same old party lines.

And your just finding excuse after excuse to waste votes and actually help people like Obama get elected. If you do not support who can win, then your actually helping the other side.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

So you were just pretending not to know? Agree with him, be my guest, but you can't say that it is right to turn our backs on our friends when even our own America would not exist as it is today without the help of friends like France. France gave us the help we needed to obtain our freedom and it is simply self serving to say that we will now withold our help to other people because we want to isolate.

And the US helped to free France from Nazi occupation. Our debt to them has been repaid.

Our actions up to now have made us the powerhouse we are today my friend, as Joe points out, our actions made the prosperity that followed possible. If we suddenly emptied out all our bases around the world as Paul wants us to do, there would be a free for all and considering that all foreign oil would stop flowing and the world trade would end, you can get ready to move back to the winderness if someone as radical as Ron Paul takes office.

I'm not your friend, Times. I graduated high school, I know who won and who lost WWII.

World trade would not end with Ron Paul, but maybe foreign oil would. To that I say, "So long!", because we NEED to become energy independent from those ****ing oil sheiks. Drill here, drill now.

Free trade is one of the pillars of a capitalist society. We can trade freely with every nation on the map, but not until we have capitalism here first.

As I don't believe in complete and sudden withdrawal from any of our bases worldwide, I do believe in a steady withdrawal and let the locals defend themselves. If they can't, "Oh well... we have given you support for X-amount of years. If you can't take care of yourself by now, let some other country prop you up."

All those things can be accomplished without isolating ourselves from the world, one is not exclusive to the other. But we will get a lot closer to conservative idea with a 75% conservative then we are going to get by turning 175% to the left.

While isolating ourselves from the rest of the world sounds ugly and is meant to be detrimental, I can't see anything wrong with scaling back to heal the wrongs from within our country. Then, maybe, then we will be able to get involved in world affairs. Right now, we need to take care of ourselves and restore the Republic to what our Framers outlined.

Ohh... and a 75% conservative is more likely to compromise with a 100% socialist.

I don't know, McCain and Palin are getting a lot of good shots in on Obama lately and he looks to be getting more and more desperate as Palin and McCain are being proven right.

There is a lot more to working together than just the three people you mention, most of the stuff Obama is doing is at the insistence of his advisors, Obama was backing down from the healthcare fight and promised to shift gears to jobs until his advisors talked him into taking a hard line and trying to force it. The kinds of people who would be surrounding McCain and Palin would have helped to keep the train on the conservative tracks just like Obama's advisors are keeping Obama on the socialist track.

Hey... its easy to take shots at Obama. It's not too hard to do.

And your just finding excuse after excuse to waste votes and actually help people like Obama get elected. If you do not support who can win, then your actually helping the other side.

You're an idiot if you believe that there are good guys and bad guys, black and white... it's all shades of gray. The two party system is a complete and utter failure, they are out of touch with the average American, and they will pander to whatever constituency to possibly get re-elected.

The politician, even Ron Paul, might work to his/her own device, but it is the Constitution that should restrain their intent. More and more, the Constitution has become an obstacle to get around or over.

Right now, despite his shortcomings, Ron Paul and a few like minded individuals are the only people I put any trust in at all.

 

[ImWithStupid]

Don't turn to insults Joe, that is a show of weakness, we can disagree without going down that road.

You point was that Bush put foward a guy who was liberal, or at best middle to liberal, but where have I ever said Bush was a conservative? While McCain helped come up with the illegal amnesty bill he quickly backed off from it once public opinion was against it but Bush did not. That proves that at least McCain will listen to the voice of the people and will change his possitions to what they want.

I understood your point but your point was irrelivent, that was then and this is now and you can't live in the past. McCain had made promises he had to keep, unlike the liberals the conservatives do remember promises and will rip him apart if he did not stick to his promises.

Really? That's how you remembered the immigration debate? You are really trying to convice yourself that McCain backed off. He still had the same stance during the election, years later.

Again with insults?

Wow! There wasn't a single insult in my post. First the other thread on first dates and now here. Are you going to take your ball and go home.

Where I see a drastic difference in McCain is where he will actually listen to his conservative voters....Bush would not.

No. He will try to save his arse when an election comes around. Just like he has been lately because he has a serious challenger for this years election.

So now your using the same liberal tactics of hugo?

Stalin or Mao? You have to say based on a couple small examples suddenly McCain and Palin are that bad?

In fact, old school liberals were the real conservatives in the old days Joe, did you know that?

Again, you missed the point. I never said anyone was equal to either Stalin or Mao. In your little world where you would have voted for Skozzafava over Hoffman in NY 23, with your only options being Stalin or Mao, who would you vote for?

Before you begin patting yourself on the back about "old school liberals", liberal didn't mean what it means today. Ron Paul would be an old school liberal, not Obama. Did you know that, Louis?

Side note, since there's no way to prove one way or another, no need to reply as it's my opinion, but I'm throwing a big BS flag on your 11 cities tea party claim.

 

[timesjoke]

And the US helped to free France from Nazi occupation. Our debt to them has been repaid.

But did France owe us a debt before they helped us? Do you only support doing what is right if there is an obligation?

I'm not your friend, Times. I graduated high school, I know who won and who lost WWII.

We are friends in the world RO, you can hate me for daring to stand against you but that does not accomplish anything, and neither does trying to pretend like things would have been the same if we had stayed out of WW2. Most of the prosperity in America and Europe was because of our helping in WW2. That was good, but Ron Paul calles everything we have ever done with force bad.

I will not support another guy who blames America for things like 9/11. Him and Obama share a lot in common on that point and that is why that meyer idiot loved Paul as well.

World trade would not end with Ron Paul, but maybe foreign oil would. To that I say, "So long!", because we NEED to become energy independent from those ****ing oil sheiks. Drill here, drill now.

Free trade is one of the pillars of a capitalist society. We can trade freely with every nation on the map, but not until we have capitalism here first.

Hard to have trade when the world is at war.

When even a small battle is happening in the world trade declines and if every soldier is removed from every american base as Paul has promised, there would be world war again. The first place to have a big war would be the Muslims eliminating the Jews. Then north korea would be fighting south korea. Russia will go take a few stragglers back under their wing and a general state of chaos will take over....and that is not good for trade.

Trade is only possible with peace, and like it or not, peace only exists because of what we do.

As I don't believe in complete and sudden withdrawal from any of our bases worldwide, I do believe in a steady withdrawal and let the locals defend themselves. If they can't, "Oh well... we have given you support for X-amount of years. If you can't take care of yourself by now, let some other country prop you up."

We are not talking about what you want, we are talking about what Ron Paul has promised and he wants a complete removal as fast as possible.

And consider what that would mean at home. Suddenly all those troops comming home without a job. I am sure 300,000+ new people on unemployment would make things better......

While isolating ourselves from the rest of the world sounds ugly and is meant to be detrimental, I can't see anything wrong with scaling back to heal the wrongs from within our country. Then, maybe, then we will be able to get involved in world affairs. Right now, we need to take care of ourselves and restore the Republic to what our Framers outlined.

The problem is our republic only operates because of trade, we need massive imports to keep us working and if you isolate you will rip our Nation apart. We get about 70% of our oil from imports, how do you propose we survive that loss? At the very least we need to be able to sustain our own energy usage before we isolate.

Ohh... and a 75% conservative is more likely to compromise with a 100% socialist.

Not really, your just assuming they would but in practice, there is enough animosity to keep them from working together most of the time and as I said before, there will be enough real conservatives working as a buffer between them that they won't really have much of a chance to work together.

Hey... its easy to take shots at Obama. It's not too hard to do.

And the problem is this, McCain would not want to be facing the shots from both sides, he knows that the harder conservatives will be watching him close and any slip will earn him severe attacks. McCain would try very hard to stay true to his conservative promises. If nothing else he has proven to listen to the people, that is more then Bush ever did.

You're an idiot if you believe that there are good guys and bad guys, black and white... it's all shades of gray. The two party system is a complete and utter failure, they are out of touch with the average American, and they will pander to whatever constituency to possibly get re-elected.

Hey, it is me saying a 75% conservative is better than a 100% socialist, I am accepting the shades of gray as a reality and taking what I can get, it is you and a couple other people saying you will only vote for someone who is black or white and you will never accept shades of gray.

Take your own advise, accept the shades of gray closer to your own ideas instead of helping the complete opposite of your wants to get elected.

The politician, even Ron Paul, might work to his/her own device, but it is the Constitution that should restrain their intent. More and more, the Constitution has become an obstacle to get around or over.

Right now, despite his shortcomings, Ron Paul and a few like minded individuals are the only people I put any trust in at all.

So you trust them in one way while they rip America apart in different ways?

I will not swap one radical element for another. The liberals are controlled by their radicals and see how crazy they have become? Why would you want to emulate their behaviors just from a different direction? Isolating our Contry will kill about half the jobs and stop all travel because there would be no oil for gas. No products on the shelves because all out products come from over seas, hell the whitehouse is buying new stemware from over seas because nobody in America makes what they want here in America anymore. Most of the banks share ownerships and investments all over the world, you think this last bank collapse was big, let the wars start and see what happens.

Then you know what, watch as another civil war starts here because people are starving to death and there is no money exchanges anymore and we have to go back to the barter system because the dollar will be without any value at all.

The only thing keeping the USD as strong as it is, is the oil sales, once we isolate ourselves what little trade that is happening will be by the euro (something their trying to do anyway) and suddenly american dollars will be without value for international trade.

 

[timesjoke]

Really? That's how you remembered the immigration debate? You are really trying to convice yourself that McCain backed off. He still had the same stance during the election, years later.

No, your wrong on that, he was not pushing amnesty after that, in fact he said many times the voters have voiced their opinions and he would do as they want. He did say we needed some kind of solution but he was talking about guest worker programs where we actually identify who is in America, I support that as do most conservatives.

Wow! There wasn't a single insult in my post. First the other thread on first dates and now here. Are you going to take your ball and go home.

I see you missed the point. Not surprised really.

Why were you not surprised Joe? I am sure there is a nice reason why, lol.

No. He will try to save his arse when an election comes around. Just like he has been lately because he has a serious challenger for this years election.

All men are motivated to pay the bills Joe, I am sure you go out of your way to piss off your bosses right?

Of course not, so why expect anything different from a politician? That is the surprising part from the liberals lately, they are completely ignoring the voters when they usually toe the line with them, I guess the prospect of a new monster entitlement is just too much to pass up even if they get fired.

Again, you missed the point. I never said anyone was equal to either Stalin or Mao. In your little world where you would have voted for Skozzafava over Hoffman in NY 23, with your only options being Stalin or Mao, who would you vote for?

Both stalin and mao would be running for the democratic nomination so one would be eliminated leaving one of them against a Republican canidate that I would fully support because that would be my only option, I surely would not waste my vote to help one of them get elected as so many splinter groups who are normally fairly conservative have done recently.

Before you begin patting yourself on the back about "old school liberals", liberal didn't mean what it means today. Ron Paul would be an old school liberal, not Obama. Did you know that, Louis?

Side note, since there's no way to prove one way or another, no need to reply as it's my opinion, but I'm throwing a big BS flag on your 11 cities tea party claim.

Of course I knew that, it was my point, I know a lot more about politics than you do my friend.

You didn't even know the tea parties were not about getting pure conservatives in office so your just running with your assumptions again, and doubt my 11 cities if you want, here in Florida we have had more independent tea parties than most States. These parties have been happening for a long time and I have been to a lot of them. Interesting that you fall back on saying I lie instead of admitting you were wrong about the tea party movement, you didn't know there were democrat versions of the tea parties did you?

Instead of leaning on trying to take shots at me, it would be easier to just go get informed.

 

[snafu]

Any way you l lthest thinkgfromSome foorm of socilisim. I can'tWe have to live in some form of socialism. Sarah Palin is the farthest thing to that when it comes to Obama. Even hugo and RO has to see that. =ee what Ig so I'll have to clean

 

[ImWithStupid]

No, your wrong on that, he was not pushing amnesty after that, in fact he said many times the voters have voiced their opinions and he would do as they want. He did say we needed some kind of solution but he was talking about guest worker programs where we actually identify who is in America, I support that as do most conservatives.

BS false answer.

Why were you not surprised Joe? I am sure there is a nice reason why, lol.

You are very learned in the art of misunderstanding things and then taking them into circular arguments of ignorance.

All men are motivated to pay the bills Joe, I am sure you go out of your way to piss off your bosses right?

Of course not, so why expect anything different from a politician? That is the surprising part from the liberals lately, they are completely ignoring the voters when they usually toe the line with them, I guess the prospect of a new monster entitlement is just too much to pass up even if they get fired.

Yea. John McCain needs to worry about keeping his Senate job to pay the bills. He's a sellout just like you.

Both stalin and mao would be running for the democratic nomination so one would be eliminated leaving one of them against a Republican canidate that I would fully support because that would be my only option, I surely would not waste my vote to help one of them get elected as so many splinter groups who are normally fairly conservative have done recently.

Cop out answer and a dodge. It was quite obvious that you only had two choices. You fail.

I also see you show more ignorance of politics. You are implying that Democrat = communist. You fail again. You probably think that means Republican = Fascist.

Of course I knew that, it was my point, I know a lot more about politics than you do my friend.

You didn't even know the tea parties were not about getting pure conservatives in office so your just running with your assumptions again, and doubt my 11 cities if you want, here in Florida we have had more independent tea parties than most States. These parties have been happening for a long time and I have been to a lot of them.

Kind of like when you had to claim that you were "classy" if you have to claim to be more knowledgeable about politics than someone else, you probably aren't.

You don't seem to even know the difference between political party and ideology.

Just look below...

Interesting that you fall back on saying I lie instead of admitting you were wrong about the tea party movement, you didn't know there were democrat versions of the tea parties did you?

I never said anything about tea parties being republican or democrat. True tea party movement isn't either.

"democrat versions of the tea parties"!!! :lol:

Epic fail.

 

[hugo]

Ike had the right foreign policy approach. You don't fight wars with your own soldiers you stage coups. Cheaper, and the perfect strategy for the Middle East today. Ike knew firsthand the costs of war.

Our entangling alliance with Israel only does us harm.

 

[ImWithStupid]

Ike had the right foreign policy approach. You don't fight wars with your own soldiers you stage coups. Cheaper, and the perfect strategy for the Middle East today. Ike knew firsthand the costs of war.

Reagan did a good job with that in Afghanistan in the 80's. Too bad we didn't follow up after the Russians left.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

Everything.

A post worthy of a socialist. You reply with an argument that I never made. I never said "end occupation here" "stop all oil import now" et.al. Just another cheap socialist tactic of diverting attention, changing the subject, and shifting blame. Your argument is constant in the socialist's repertoire.

Conversing with you is exhaustive. Not because I believe you to be 100% spot-on accurate and I just want to pick a fight, but because your narrow-mind can not grasp concepts outside your little world.

I mean, Jesus Christ, how long did it take you to grasp that a classic liberal wasn't Ted Kennedy? A year or two?

-
-
-

And now we're all obliged to read that 75% conservative vs. a 100% socialist. Just go on and let it out.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

I never said anything about tea parties being republican or democrat. True tea party movement isn't either.

"democrat versions of the tea parties"!!! :lol:

Epic fail.

Tea Party Crashers

 

[timesjoke]

I was mostly talking about the possitions of Ron Paul, there is no middle ground, no gray area, no part measures, he wants the complete elimination of all troops from bases in other Countries.

My point about trade and oil is from how things will unravel "AFTER" Ron Paul withdraws American involvement in the world and turns isolationist. Most of the peace in the middle east is because of America, remember what happened to oil when Iraq invaded Kuait before America stepped in? That was a tiny speck and was ended relatively fast without must turmoil in the region because America was strong enough to contain it. If America refuses to contain things like that you can gurantee things will get out of hand.


Anyway,

You're an idiot if you believe that there are good guys and bad guys, black and white... it's all shades of gray.

Why is it your capable of seeing shades of gray in one way but your only capable of seeing a perfect pure conservative for voting purposes?

I am capable of understanding that I can't always get everything I want and I will accept a 75% conservative that gives me most of what I want in a President than the 100% liberal that will tear down most of the things I hold dear.

 

[timesjoke]

BS false answer.

So why did he promise to finish closing off the border? Have you seen that done with this new president? You only see what you want to see, sure McCain is a little softer on this because it is so much a part of life in his home state but if even he is willing to secure the border, than that shows he is moving tword what the people want, you most certainly cannot expect a liberal to close the leaks in the border, they want the votes, why do you think linerals do not want people to show identification to vote?

You are very learned in the art of misunderstanding things and then taking them into circular arguments of ignorance.

Sure, no insults, lol.

I do require someone to be clear on their statements, you many times are not. Now your just trying to justify why you refused to help the the most conservative canidate win and by your direct action to not vote, you actually helped the radical liberal get elected.
A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user. ~ Theodore Roosevelt

Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves and the only way they could do this is by not voting. ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt

Women, we might as well be dogs baying the moon as petitioners without the right to vote! ~ Susan B. Anthony

Yea. John McCain needs to worry about keeping his Senate job to pay the bills. He's a sellout just like you.

Like me Joe? I didn't help Obama get elected, you did by refusing to vote for the most conservative canadate, did you not say the tea parties for you was about getting the most conservative into office? Well McCain was the most conservative at that time and you refused to help him.

Cop out answer and a dodge. It was quite obvious that you only had two choices. You fail.

I also see you show more ignorance of politics. You are implying that Democrat = communist. You fail again. You probably think that means Republican = Fascist.

No, you attrempted to create a false/false answer specifically designed to give you the answer you wanted using a false premise that any vote for someone who is not 100% conservative is just as bad as voting for the two guys you mentioned.

Being as you went outside of reality for choices in an American election I would be voting in I did the same thing and while the Democrats are not completely communist, their idealogy is the closes to these two rulers and would be better accepted by the Democrats than the Republicans. No republican would ever let either get through the primary so my answer was the closest to reality your narrow example would allow.

My point has been like RO said, the world is made up on shades of gray, I will see that not every canidate will be white or black, I am capable of understanding the shades of gray, you guys will only see black or white, and the idiot part is if you can't get the perfect whilte canadate, you will instead help the other side out of spite.

Kind of like when you had to claim that you were "classy" if you have to claim to be more knowledgeable about politics than someone else, you probably aren't.

You don't seem to even know the difference between political party and ideology.

Just look below...





I never said anything about tea parties being republican or democrat. True tea party movement isn't either.

"democrat versions of the tea parties"!!! :lol:

Epic fail.

It seems you and Snaf really have no grasp of what the tea party movement is about. It's about supporting the most conservative candidate

No, you tried to say they were purely conservative, and that is the same thing, but where you mess up is there are pissed off Democrats and Independents who are also creating tea party groups out of frustration that the Government refuses to listen to the people. The movements are not based on one idealogy of political beliefs, it is much, much wider than that. The idea is these elected officials are supposed to be representing us, not themselves.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

I was mostly talking about the possitions of Ron Paul, there is no middle ground, no gray area, no part measures, he wants the complete elimination of all troops from bases in other Countries.

Why is this "gray area" of our foreign policy so hard for you to see?

The scaling back of our troops abroad will force countries, in which we have bases, to defend themselves.

We are supposed to be engaged in a "war on terror", but our borders remain liquid. As to why there is little homeland defense, I don't know... thus creating a gray area of understanding. (Afterthought: Though "free trade" appears in the acronym for NAFTA, it had nothing to do with it and everything to do with merging to create a North American Union. I guess, in contrast with the European Union.)

My point about trade and oil is from how things will unravel "AFTER" Ron Paul withdraws American involvement in the world and turns isolationist. Most of the peace in the middle east is because of America, remember what happened to oil when Iraq invaded Kuait before America stepped in? That was a tiny speck and was ended relatively fast without must turmoil in the region because America was strong enough to contain it. If America refuses to contain things like that you can gurantee things will get out of hand.

I don't claim to be an expert on American foreign relations, but I was over there with the 2nd Marine Division out of Camp Lejeune (Want my callsign, too?). We were in there and out of there, which is the kind of action that should take place. Not these prolonged, money-sapping engagements.

Still, if we didn't have something to lose (oil trade), we would not have gotten ourselves involved. There is a lot of gray area in our reasons to support this regime, condemn that regime in the Middle East but I believe it all revolves around their oil.

Why is it your capable of seeing shades of gray in one way but your only capable of seeing a perfect pure conservative for voting purposes?

I am capable of understanding that I can't always get everything I want and I will accept a 75% conservative that gives me most of what I want in a President than the 100% liberal that will tear down most of the things I hold dear.

I am only capable of seeing what I deem a viable candidate because I vote on principles and I never, ever, ever compromise.

You are voting in the gray area where there is a margin of error. That margin of error allows you to say things like, "Well, McCain was never a 100% conservative." or "I never fully agreed with McCain on that...". Whereas, I am voting on who I deem will defend our Constitution, uphold the values of our Founding Fathers, shrink the scope of government, and end the welfare state.

You have no intention of voting for things that will result in a little discomfort or inconvenience your little world in some way. So continue voting the same old socialists, neo-cons, and the lesser evil; and I will continue to vote for liberty.

 

[snafu]

Anyway you toss the ball Sarah and McCain would not be selling our childrens futures in the hopes of coming out of this resseion. And the other candidates didn't have a snowballs chance in hell to win. Who was that anyway? .

If you voted for any of those others you voted for Obama.

http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm

 

[RegisteredAndEducated]

Like me Joe? I didn't help Obama get elected, you did by refusing to vote for the most conservative canadate, did you not say the tea parties for you was about getting the most conservative into office? Well McCain was the most conservative at that time and you refused to help him.

This is what they're trying to point out... McCain was NOT the most conservative candidate. That's why many Conservatives did not vote for him. He's not even 75% Conservative. He's at best a centrist, even straying left of GWB. Hopefully, we can get some actual Conservatives on the ticket, instead of softies like McCain and Romney.

 

[eddo]

Anyway you toss the ball Sarah and McCain would not be selling our childrens futures in the hopes of coming out of this resseion. And the other candidates didn't have a snowballs chance in hell to win. Who was that anyway? .

If you voted for any of those others you voted for Obama.

http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm

I'm not really sure McCain would have made all that many decisions different than what Obama has done. and we all saw the restraint he put on Palin during the campaign.

as of now, the man doesn't even have my support for reelection for state senator. I am just not impressed on how he flops around like a dying fish depending on where he thinks he can get the most votes...




I will also add that I do not think a vote for Bob Barr or Ron Paul equates to a vote for Obama. Sure those votes could have been used to help McCain win, but at some point we have got to stand up to the crappy candidates that both the Repubs and Dems are cranking out and say "Dammit, we want something better!"

That's how I see the votes for Barr and Paul going. Each election cycle, more and more vote for someone other than the top two that are being shoved down our throats, and hopefully someday it will be enough to send a clearer message.