PDA

View Full Version : Poop So what is a crazy old school conservative to do?


FishingRod
10-30-2008, 11:43 AM
I am an old school conservative. By that I mean that for the most part I believe the Government to be incompetent and the less it involves itself in business or personal lives the better off we are. Their job (in my opinion) is to provide for the national defense, basic public services Polices, fire, ambulance and so fort. Basically to take care of the things that are just so big that they must be dealt with as a society. I am a huge proponent of personal freedom and personal responsibility. I don't think the Government has any business making laws for or against choices made by consenting adults. I don't think they have any business making laws regarding which adults can or cannot marry. I think the war on drugs is a waste of time, money and for the most part should never have in in the governments hands to make people do what they deem is good for them. I think illegal aliens shouldn't receive any government handouts because they are after all in our county illegally. Along with my philosophical believes I am a pragmatist and realize like most things there is a need for some balance. I'm ok with manufactures being required to dispose of hazardous waste in a responsible way and not just dump it in the river. Strangely I am entertaining the idea that socialized medicine may fall into this category. I know it makes me crazy but they way things are being handles now suck pretty bad as well and the bureaucracy running the system now is not much better than the Government. So what is a person today. I was at one time a Republican. I really liked what that party say during the time of Regan. Sadly since that time the republicans have run neck and neck with the democrats in spending our money like a bunch of drunken sailors. They under the (Bush administration) have been willing to trade our right to privacy for a claim of additional safety. The Democrats likewise have promised to expand the Government. They have promoted class envy and a redistribution of wealth. AKA Socialism. The election before last I drug myself kicking and screaming while holding my nose and voted for Dubya as the evil of two lessers between he and Algore. Last time even though I knew there was no chance to win I joined the Libertarian party ( who admittedly have some
batt$hit ideas of their own) and voted for the candidate that most closely mirrored my own beliefs. So what is a person to do. Vote for McCain who is far more liberal economically than myself who will continue to stack the deck with Judges more Evangelical and conservative than myself or, Barry, Just short of a communist economically, More in line with my thoughts from a judicial standpoint with a big exception for 2nd amendment rights. Are these two parties and candidates really the best our country can do?

I guess there is always Bob Barr ,

jidar
10-30-2008, 12:27 PM
I agree with everything in the OP on nearly every position with the lone exception that I never voted for Bush and I don't hate the democratic party.

I'm pragmatic and believe that the track record shows the democrats are better with the economy and I believed that in 2000. I also believe that Democrats have a more sane foreign policy that is less interventionist and thus is just better, which perhaps might be where we differ a bit.

BIG_DADDY
10-30-2008, 12:29 PM
I agree with everything in the OP on nearly every position with the lone exception that I never voted for Bush and I don't hate the democratic party.

I'm pragmatic and believe that the track record shows the democrats are better with the economy and I believed that in 2000. I also believe that Democrats have a more sane foreign policy that is less interventionist and thus is just better, which perhaps might be where we differ a bit.

What ever happened to being fiscally conservative? Friggen new age Republicans suck.

jidar
10-30-2008, 12:37 PM
What ever happened to being fiscally conservative? Friggen new age Republicans suck.

My most important political issue is a balanced budget. I believe that economy, military and social issues all see benefits from having a government with a sound balance sheet.

It's the core reasoning behind my dislike of the Republican party. I'm convinced that the supply side based theories that lead to "trickle-down" are flawed, and history has shown that to be true now through three presidents. Reagan, Bush Sr., and GWB. Meanwhile Bill Clinton ran in 1992 with balancing the budget being his single biggest issue, and he came through on that one.

People try to take that away from Clinton by saying it was all IT, but regardless of whether you buy that or not (I don't) I think a lot of us would agree that a republican in office would have continued the trickle down, cut taxes a huge amount, given the money to corporations, and we would have been $10t in debt in 2000 instead of 2008.

We can't keep doing this shit. It's not working. The federal budget can not be run with this idea that we can increase tax revenues by "trickle down" when time and again it does not happen.

patteeu
10-30-2008, 12:43 PM
What on Earth attracts you to Obama's "thoughts from a judicial standpoint"?

P.S. Don't give in to the siren song of nationalized healthcare.

Mecca
10-30-2008, 12:45 PM
It has to suck to actually feel you picked a party for fiscal conservatism and then realize your party got hijacked by the religious right.

FishingRod
10-30-2008, 12:46 PM
Just curious. I really was not a big fan the bailout in the first place but is there a list of the port that was added on to it and who put it there? Those a-holes represent the absolute worst in our Government. I don't care if they are Repubs, Dems, independents or what, they should be removed taken outside and thoroughly beaten about the head and neck, rinse and repeat.

MagicHef
10-30-2008, 12:47 PM
I guess there is always Bob Barr

I think you answered your own question.

Personally, the idea that you shouldn't vote for the person you think will make the best president just because there aren't enough other people voting for that person appalls me. Coincidentally, Barr, Baldwin and Nader are debating today at 4:30 Eastern. http://campaign.blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/10/30/watch-the-debate-live/

talastan
10-30-2008, 12:47 PM
I think it is a combination of everything..First you need to cut spending across the board.....Period. Balance the Budget that this sorry ****ing excuse for a congress has/or hasn't put together. Next you cut taxes...again across the board. You allow businesses to grow and hire more people. Corporations contray to popular belief aren't evil and need the ability to grow and innovate without Uncle Sam riding their a**.

It all starts with spending cuts IMO. Even Medicare/Medicaid and other Social programs, even if it is only temporarily. Someone has to be the one willing to take the heat to make the right decisions regardless of what people think. Like any family budget some things have to go and some have to get less money.

BigCatDaddy
10-30-2008, 12:48 PM
It has to suck to actually feel you picked a party for fiscal conservatism and then realize your party got hijacked by the religious right.

In what aspect has the "religeous right" changed policy?

Mecca
10-30-2008, 12:49 PM
In what aspect has the "religeous right" changed policy?

Well the only thing conservative about that party is their social issues beliefs....

***SPRAYER
10-30-2008, 12:50 PM
Fishing Rod, that was a great post. I think Fred Thompson would have been an ideal candidate for both of us.

What can we do? Nothing. Wait for the dictator. That's what I'm going to do.

jidar
10-30-2008, 12:51 PM
Just curious. I really was not a big fan the bailout in the first place but is there a list of the port that was added on to it and who put it there? Those a-holes represent the absolute worst in our Government. I don't care if they are Repubs, Dems, independents or what, they should be removed taken outside and thoroughly beaten about the head and neck, rinse and repeat.

This is a start.

http://www.taxpayer.net/search_by_category.php?action=view&proj_id=1429&category=Bailout&type=Project

patteeu
10-30-2008, 12:54 PM
I think you answered your own question.

Personally, the idea that you shouldn't vote for the person you think will make the best president just because there aren't enough other people voting for that person appalls me. Coincidentally, Barr, Baldwin and Nader are debating today at 4:30 Eastern. http://campaign.blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/10/30/watch-the-debate-live/

I don't have any problem with people who choose to vote 3rd party, but it's hard to make the case that it's a pragmatic course of action. fishingrod describes himself as pragmatic. Not that that necessarily means he has to always make the pragmatic choice, of course.

FishingRod
10-30-2008, 01:02 PM
What on Earth attracts you to Obama's "thoughts from a judicial standpoint"?



P.S. Don't give in to the siren song of nationalized healthcare.

I'm one of those people that wants to keep the Gov out of a womans uterus. I was not a big fan of the Patriot act either.

While the right talks a better game of pandering to the things I care about but their actions ???

I do find the intolerance in the name of tolerance from the Left as annoying as the I know what God wants and have his unlisted phone number so we can chat from the Right.

The problem with voting 3rd party is it can help elect the party that is further away from your own beliefs. Nader has been the biggest help to the Reps by taking votes from the Dems.

Frankly if you could take the congress and fill it up 1/2 Libertarians and 1/2 green party they would agree on so few things that only that which really needed to be done would get passed. Bring on gridlock.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-30-2008, 01:05 PM
Bring on gridlock.

That is exactly what i'm hoping for.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-30-2008, 01:06 PM
I think you answered your own question.

Personally, the idea that you shouldn't vote for the person you think will make the best president just because there aren't enough other people voting for that person appalls me. Coincidentally, Barr, Baldwin and Nader are debating today at 4:30 Eastern. http://campaign.blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/10/30/watch-the-debate-live/

Awesome Post and thanks for posting the debate info. ;)

Taco John
10-30-2008, 01:06 PM
I registered my protest by writing in Ron Paul.

Best vote I ever made.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-30-2008, 01:07 PM
I registered my protest by writing in Ron Paul.

Best vote I ever made.

So i guess you and i had a problem holding our noses. ;)

MagicHef
10-30-2008, 01:08 PM
I don't have any problem with people who choose to vote 3rd party, but it's hard to make the case that it's a pragmatic course of action. fishingrod describes himself as pragmatic. Not that that necessarily means he has to always make the pragmatic choice, of course.

I would argue that when it comes to pragmatism, there is a difference between the short term and the long term. Perhaps support for more conservative candidates coupled with a win by Obama will lead to a more conservative Republican party. I suppose as a younger person, I am willing to "help elect" someone I agree with less by voting for a 3rd party if it can lead to something I agree with much more in the future. Of course, this is all based on my hopes, which makes it not very pragmatic at all.

FishingRod
10-30-2008, 01:08 PM
This is a start.

http://www.taxpayer.net/search_by_category.php?action=view&proj_id=1429&category=Bailout&type=Project

This deserves its own post. We might actually have an interesting conversation instead of Obamma is a Commie and JM just batt$shit crazy.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-30-2008, 01:10 PM
This deserves its own post. We might actually have an interesting conversation instead of Obamma is a Commie and JM just batt$shit crazy.

I'm buying wooden arrows by the boatload. ;)

StcChief
10-30-2008, 01:12 PM
Fishing Rod, that was a great post. I think Fred Thompson would have been an ideal candidate for both of us.

What can we do? Nothing. Wait for the dictator. That's what I'm going to do. so he moved down from "the Messiah"

Fred Thompson would have been a good candidate, but didn't really seem to have his heart in it....

BigCatDaddy
10-30-2008, 01:13 PM
Well the only thing conservative about that party is their social issues beliefs....

And the reliegous right loves an unbalanced budget?

BIG_DADDY
10-30-2008, 01:13 PM
My most important political issue is a balanced budget. I believe that economy, military and social issues all see benefits from having a government with a sound balance sheet.

It's the core reasoning behind my dislike of the Republican party. I'm convinced that the supply side based theories that lead to "trickle-down" are flawed, and history has shown that to be true now through three presidents. Reagan, Bush Sr., and GWB. Meanwhile Bill Clinton ran in 1992 with balancing the budget being his single biggest issue, and he came through on that one.

People try to take that away from Clinton by saying it was all IT, but regardless of whether you buy that or not (I don't) I think a lot of us would agree that a republican in office would have continued the trickle down, cut taxes a huge amount, given the money to corporations, and we would have been $10t in debt in 2000 instead of 2008.

We can't keep doing this shit. It's not working. The federal budget can not be run with this idea that we can increase tax revenues by "trickle down" when time and again it does not happen.

I hate the spending and their ridiculous war on drugs. In all fairness Clinton had an ideal situation in a boom economy. To his credit he didn't fuck it up.

FishingRod
10-30-2008, 01:15 PM
I would argue that when it comes to pragmatism, there is a difference between the short term and the long term. Perhaps support for more conservative candidates coupled with a win by Obama will lead to a more conservative Republican party. I suppose as a younger person, I am willing to "help elect" someone I agree with less by voting for a 3rd party if it can lead to something I agree with much more in the future. Of course, this is all based on my hopes, which makes it not very pragmatic at all.


I'm sure Dubya was glad Nader decided to run. It is sad that voting for the person who best represents your views can actually help put the person way on the otherside in power.

By the way for the oldtimers- Fishingrod=LightningRod

***SPRAYER
10-30-2008, 01:15 PM
so he moved down from "the Messiah"

....


Oh, B.O. is going to create the dynamics in which a military dictator will emerge to initially "restore order".

FishingRod
10-30-2008, 01:22 PM
I think you answered your own question.

Personally, the idea that you shouldn't vote for the person you think will make the best president just because there aren't enough other people voting for that person appalls me. Coincidentally, Barr, Baldwin and Nader are debating today at 4:30 Eastern. http://campaign.blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/10/30/watch-the-debate-live/

To bad they don't have the money to do this when 99% of the people are not still at work.

I did get a Kick out of Badnerack SP? trying to crash debate between Dubya and Kerry last time. He got arrested.

donkhater
10-30-2008, 01:23 PM
I hate the spending and their ridiculous war on drugs. In all fairness Clinton had an ideal situation in a boom economy. To his credit he didn't **** it up.

He didn't **** it up for himself. The current economic crisis has roots beyond the last eight years.

patteeu
10-30-2008, 01:30 PM
I'm one of those people that wants to keep the Gov out of a womans uterus. I was not a big fan of the Patriot act either.

While the right talks a better game of pandering to the things I care about but their actions ???

I do find the intolerance in the name of tolerance from the Left as annoying as the I know what God wants and have his unlisted phone number so we can chat from the Right.

The problem with voting 3rd party is it can help elect the party that is further away from your own beliefs. Nader has been the biggest help to the Reps by taking votes from the Dems.

Frankly if you could take the congress and fill it up 1/2 Libertarians and 1/2 green party they would agree on so few things that only that which really needed to be done would get passed. Bring on gridlock.

I'm completely sympathetic to what you're saying here. Republicans have been a huge disappointment in the big government area, but there's no solution in taking your vote to the side that admits it wants even bigger government.

Maybe the "pragmatic" approach for you is to take the long view and vote for the 3rd party that matches your viewpoints the best knowing that it might lead to short term setbacks but hoping that in the long run the two major parties will adopt some of that 3rd party's more popular issues in order to lure their growing pool of voters.

The Republicans haven't given us a very attractive candidate to be sure, but from my pov, the democrats have made my choice easy by nominating a guy who is so "wrong" for me that I can't vote 3rd party as I've done in 3 of the last 4 POTUS elections.

Gridlock sounds good to me, too. I think a President McCain would, unfortunately, work with the dems in Congress to get some bad legislation passed, but at least having Congress and the WH under different party control will stop some of the worst legislative tendancies of the dems. A President Obama will provide no such check. The worst Republican legislation came during a period when the WH and Congress were under the control of the same party. IMO, we have no reason to expect anything different if we allow both branches to fall into dem hands. This time the minority might not even have the blocking power of the filibuster.

MagicHef
10-30-2008, 01:30 PM
I'm sure Dubya was glad Nader decided to run. It is sad that voting for the person who best represents your views can actually help put the person way on the otherside in power.

By the way for the oldtimers- Fishingrod=LightningRod

Yes, people that voted for Nader "helped elect" Bush, but now they have a candidate that seems to represent them much better, and that many people are very excited about. Wouldn't it be nice if the same happened to the Republicans in 4 years?

BIG_DADDY
10-30-2008, 01:31 PM
He didn't **** it up for himself. The current economic crisis has roots beyond the last eight years.

No question about that.

BIG_DADDY
10-30-2008, 01:32 PM
I'm completely sympathetic to what you're saying here. Republicans have been a huge disappointment in the big government area, but there's no solution in taking your vote to the side that admits it wants even bigger government.
.

REP

patteeu
10-30-2008, 01:38 PM
I would argue that when it comes to pragmatism, there is a difference between the short term and the long term. Perhaps support for more conservative candidates coupled with a win by Obama will lead to a more conservative Republican party. I suppose as a younger person, I am willing to "help elect" someone I agree with less by voting for a 3rd party if it can lead to something I agree with much more in the future. Of course, this is all based on my hopes, which makes it not very pragmatic at all.

I agree with your take (and posted pretty much the same thing before reading this post) in theory. I took this approach in 1992.

InChiefsHell
10-30-2008, 01:38 PM
3rd Party candidates hopefully will at least raise awareness...Hell, if it weren't for Perot Clinton would not have been elected...


...I voted for 'ol big ears twice. Then I vote for Bush, the I voted against Kerry, and now I don't know what the hell...I'll probably vote against Obama...

...but I ain't happy about any of this.

FishingRod
10-30-2008, 01:47 PM
I'm completely sympathetic to what you're saying here. Republicans have been a huge disappointment in the big government area, but there's no solution in taking your vote to the side that admits it wants even bigger government.

Maybe the "pragmatic" approach for you is to take the long view and vote for the 3rd party that matches your viewpoints the best knowing that it might lead to short term setbacks but hoping that in the long run the two major parties will adopt some of that 3rd party's more popular issues in order to lure their growing pool of voters.

The Republicans haven't given us a very attractive candidate to be sure, but from my pov, the democrats have made my choice easy by nominating a guy who is so "wrong" for me that I can't vote 3rd party as I've done in 3 of the last 4 POTUS elections.

Gridlock sounds good to me, too. I think a President McCain would, unfortunately, work with the dems in Congress to get some bad legislation passed, but at least having Congress and the WH under different party control will stop some of the worst legislative tendancies of the dems. A President Obama will provide no such check. The worst Republican legislation came during a period when the WH and Congress were under the control of the same party. IMO, we have no reason to expect anything different if we allow both branches to fall into dem hands. This time the minority might not even have the blocking power of the filibuster.

That sir is an intelligent post that clearly articulates my quandary. To Vote for McCain in some ways gives in impression that I approve of the direction the Republican party is going and that he in no small way is trying to drag it. To vote BO supports what I see as an attempt to Europeanize the Good old US of A

Actually I live in KS so it really doesn't matter Whom ever the Republican candidate is will take our few electoral votes. Always has always will. I have no issue with someone voting for BO or JM for that matter if they believe them to best represent where they want our country to go. It just pisses me off that we could run Satan on one side and a reanimated Hitler on the other and somewhere in the neighborhood of 90% of the voters would just mindlessly pull the Republican or Democratic lever just the same as they always do.

Leaning towards Bob Barr

BIG_DADDY
10-30-2008, 01:51 PM
That sir is an intelligent post that clearly articulates my quandary. To Vote for McCain in some ways gives in impression that I approve of the direction the Republican party is going and that he in no small way is trying to drag it. To vote BO supports what I see as an attempt to Europeanize the Good old US of A

Actually I live in KS so it really doesn't matter Whom ever the Republican candidate is will take our few electoral votes. Always has always will. I have no issue with someone voting for BO or JM for that matter if they believe them to best represent where they want our country to go. It just pisses me off that we could run Satan on one side and a reanimated Hitler on the other and somewhere in the neighborhood of 90% of the voters would just mindlessly pull the Republican or Democratic lever just the same as they always do.

Leaning towards Bob Barr


The biggest reason not to vote for Obama is letting the Dems run unchecked

Mecca
10-30-2008, 01:54 PM
The biggest reason not to vote for Obama is letting the Dems run unchecked

That sounds like a losing mantra.

MagicHef
10-30-2008, 01:55 PM
I registered my protest by writing in Ron Paul.

Best vote I ever made.

My mail-in ballot didn't have a write in option for President, only for Representative. I wasn't planning on writing anyone in, I just found it kind of odd.

I have no issue with someone voting for BO or JM for that matter if they believe them to best represent where they want our country to go. It just pisses me off that we could run Satan on one side and a reanimated Hitler on the other and somewhere in the neighborhood of 90% of the voters would just mindlessly pull the Republican or Democratic lever just the same as they always do.

Leaning towards Bob Barr

I definitely agree with this, and perhaps my anger that only the "anointed two" have any shot at winning is part of the reason I am more inclined to vote 3rd party.

StcChief
10-30-2008, 01:56 PM
The biggest reason not to vote for Obama is letting the Dems run uncheckedyep. and believing he is the new "Shell answer man"....

Issues with deficit balanced budget BS argument. Were we fighting a war under Clinton. NO
Did he gut the military to balance the budget YES and plans for 9/11 went unchecked with a weakened CIA etc.

I'm sure the wacko's are planning now waiting until after the election. Biden is right we will get hit, just how hard and where.

FishingRod
10-30-2008, 01:57 PM
The biggest reason not to vote for Obama is letting the Dems run unchecked



Yes that does worry me. For the most Part both Clinton and Regan had to fight with Congress. A balance between the two sides does help eliminate the worst ideas our elected officials come up with. And they have no shortage of crappy ideas of how to take our money and spend it.

BIG_DADDY
10-30-2008, 01:58 PM
That sounds like a losing mantra.

It's the truth. Either side left unchecked is bad. Didn't you learn anything besides I hate republicans after this last administration?

mecca Dem=good, rep=bad

Thanks for your input.

MagicHef
10-30-2008, 02:04 PM
Yes, people that voted for Nader "helped elect" Bush, but now they have a candidate that seems to represent them much better, that many people are very excited about, and who looks like he will be the next president. Wouldn't it be nice if the same happened to the Republicans in 4 years?

Forgot to add that part in.

FishingRod
10-30-2008, 02:17 PM
This has been for the most part, a civil open exchange of ideas. How strange.

whoman69
10-30-2008, 02:48 PM
I think you answered your own question.

Personally, the idea that you shouldn't vote for the person you think will make the best president just because there aren't enough other people voting for that person appalls me. Coincidentally, Barr, Baldwin and Nader are debating today at 4:30 Eastern. http://campaign.blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/10/30/watch-the-debate-live/

That should be hilarious. It will be 55 minutes of whining about the monopoly of the two party system and five minutes on the issues. I might suggest to any of these candidates that if they want to have someone take them seriously then someone in their party should hold a job higher than dog catcher.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-30-2008, 02:52 PM
That should be hilarious. It will be 55 minutes of whining about the monopoly of the two party system and five minutes on the issues. I might suggest to any of these candidates that if they want to have someone take them seriously then someone in their party should hold a job higher than dog catcher.

What is wrong with the dog catcher? subtract a candidate from either side and insert The Dog Catcher and he/she has my vote.

FishingRod
10-30-2008, 03:30 PM
That should be hilarious. It will be 55 minutes of whining about the monopoly of the two party system and five minutes on the issues. I might suggest to any of these candidates that if they want to have someone take them seriously then someone in their party should hold a job higher than dog catcher.


A cut-n-paste for Bob Barr

Masters from George Washington University in 1972,
and his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center (attending at night)[14] in 1977.
[5][8]
From 1971 (1970?[8]) to 1978, Barr was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)as an analyst of Latin American issues.

In 1986, Barr was appointed by President Ronald Reagan[9] to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia

Barr was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1994

Barr was later re-elected three times, serving from 1995 to 2003.[8] While in Congress, Barr served as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, as Vice-Chairman of the Government Reform Committee,[9] and as a member of the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Veteran's Affairs.[5][9]

Barr sat on the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association from 2001 to 2007.

Did I mention he was in the Movie Borat?

MagicHef
10-30-2008, 03:53 PM
That should be hilarious. It will be 55 minutes of whining about the monopoly of the two party system and five minutes on the issues. I might suggest to any of these candidates that if they want to have someone take them seriously then someone in their party should hold a job higher than dog catcher.

If you go to their websites, I think you might be surprised at how little "whining about the monopoly of the two party system," and how much discussion about the issues there actually is. Based on a quick glance at each, I would say there is less negativity about other candidates, etc. than on either the R or D websites.

BucEyedPea
10-30-2008, 03:56 PM
NOT VOTE

Sounds crazy, I know, but it does not give them a mandate and skeerz the b'jeezus out of 'em. :grr:
Heck if enough people voted their conscious and there were no polls, the results would be a lot different than voting like it's a horse race.

whoman69
10-30-2008, 04:01 PM
A cut-n-paste for Bob Barr

Masters from George Washington University in 1972,
and his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center (attending at night)[14] in 1977.
[5][8]
From 1971 (1970?[8]) to 1978, Barr was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)as an analyst of Latin American issues.

In 1986, Barr was appointed by President Ronald Reagan[9] to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia

Barr was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1994

Barr was later re-elected three times, serving from 1995 to 2003.[8] While in Congress, Barr served as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, as Vice-Chairman of the Government Reform Committee,[9] and as a member of the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Veteran's Affairs.[5][9]

Barr sat on the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association from 2001 to 2007.

Did I mention he was in the Movie Borat?

Bob Barr was a Republican when he was in the House. There are no members of his current party in a state legislature or in our national congress. They are thrilled when they can get 18% in an election.

whoman69
10-30-2008, 04:04 PM
If you go to their websites, I think you might be surprised at how little "whining about the monopoly of the two party system," and how much discussion about the issues there actually is. Based on a quick glance at each, I would say there is less negativity about other candidates, etc. than on either the R or D websites.

I've been to their website, which is how I know that none have been elected to a significant office. Every interview I ever see with these guys eventually gets down to the same thing. I seem to recall some whining about how they couldn't get in on the debates in 2004 despite being at less than 5% on national polls. These parties are a joke. Come back when you can win some elections on the state level, get some members of congress, put together some sort of grassroots program, then talk about being on the national stage.

MagicHef
10-30-2008, 04:51 PM
I've been to their website, which is how I know that none have been elected to a significant office. Every interview I ever see with these guys eventually gets down to the same thing. I seem to recall some whining about how they couldn't get in on the debates in 2004 despite being at less than 5% on national polls. These parties are a joke. Come back when you can win some elections on the state level, get some members of congress, put together some sort of grassroots program, then talk about being on the national stage.

So, you won't consider voting for any of them until they have more success in elections.

I remember in elementary school, whenever we would have a class vote the teacher would have us put out heads down on our desks and cover our eyes so that we wouldn't all vote however everyone else was voting, as children are very easily swayed by peer pressure. I'd like to think that adults in this country are more mature than that, but I realize that I'm being pretty unrealistic about this.

KC Jones
10-30-2008, 07:23 PM
Well... this guy was a Goldwater organizer and former national review publisher facing the same dilemna:

http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?nm=Core+Pages&type=gen&mod=Core+Pages&tier=3&gid=B33A5C6E2CF04C9596A3EF81822D9F8E

MagicHef
10-30-2008, 07:35 PM
Well... this guy was a Goldwater organizer and former national review publisher facing the same dilemna:

http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?nm=Core+Pages&type=gen&mod=Core+Pages&tier=3&gid=B33A5C6E2CF04C9596A3EF81822D9F8E

I don't want to speak for FishingRod, but given his economic concerns, I'm not sure a vote for Obama would represent him very well.

***SPRAYER
10-30-2008, 09:07 PM
Bob Barr is a stooge for the ACLU.

mdstu
10-30-2008, 09:08 PM
It's the truth. Either side left unchecked is bad. Didn't you learn anything besides I hate republicans after this last administration?

mecca Dem=good, rep=bad

Thanks for your input.

Does this mean that you voted for Kerry, to ensure that the Republicans didn't run the country unchecked?