278 replies to this topic

[Joker]

you've only argued against all those things in defense of Ron Paul... and I'm the village idiot? (only the village idiot would say such a stupid thing, really)

what a classic example of psychological projection. (I mean... look at your avatar...) this should go in a textbook.

No, I haven't argued against all those things in defense of Ron Paul...yes you're the village idiot

As usual for the village idiot, you're wrong and completely clueless. No surprise at all.

Now you can try and show me where I've done so or you can just continue babbling your lies and your nonsense to your imaginary friends.

My money is on you once again not being able to back up your crazy bullshit ramblings.

Say good night dick

[PeaceFrog]

come on dude... you can't be that forgetful

anyway... if you are, then good for you. I pay good money for that affliction.

I'm not your biographer, and frankly you're not interesting enough for me to go back and look up links to prove blah blah blah...

but if you've had a change of heart and are now in favor of all those things, then congratulations -- you're even flakier than Mitt Romney!

[PeaceFrog]

then again, you probably live on Bullshit Mountain.

oh and -1 point for the obscure TVLand reference

[hoagie]

Who references The Smothers Brothers anymore?!

[PeaceFrog]

Who references The Smothers Brothers anymore?!

someone who argues against gay marriage one week and then tries to convince people that they're voting for the green party candidate the next.

[hoagie]

Well, he is a joker, after all.

[PeaceFrog]

I know... at least he got that right.

here's the official green party position on gay marriage (notice it says nothing about "civil unions"):

http://www.gp.org/is...ageequality.pdf


The Green Party firmly believes that same-sex couples should have all of the same rights that heterosexual couples do and that the "Defense of Marriage Act" is a violation of civil rights. The rights of same-sex couples far outweighs the rights of what some people believe a married couple should be. In 2004 Jason West, the Mayor of New Paltz, N.Y. solemnized 24 same-sex weddings. Mr. West, a member of the Green Party, now faces prosecution for violating domestic relations law. When the California Supreme Court voided the thousands of same-sex marriage licenses issued by Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco in 2004, David Cobb, the Green Party candidate for that years' presidential election said this:
"The right to marry is an equal rights issue. Courts have historically been wrong and socially behind the times and the California Supreme Court is no exception. The Dred Scott decision said a black man was property and had no rights that a white man was bound to respect. In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court upheld Jim Crow segregation laws. The Supreme Court also upheld state laws preventing women from voting until the Nineteenth Amendment was passed, superceding all those prohibitive state laws. Like these earlier decisions, the decision of the California Supreme Court is an affront to human rights and human dignity and will not stand the test of time."
The Green Party shares David Cobbs' stance and optimism on same-sex marriage.

[Joker]

Who references The Smothers Brothers anymore?!

[hoagie]

I liked the Yoyo Man routine...

Joker is sort of a yoyo man too...

[moed_over]

Don't have time to read every post in this thread, but if you are disenfranchised with the current choices, then do something about it.

Sitting on the sidelines, patting yourself on the back for not participating is a poor way to handle your precious right to have your voice heard. The United States ranks 120th out of 169 countries in voter turnout, with 66.5% of registered voters actually voting. That is a figure that does not even include the unregistered population...an absolutely pathetic response.

Imagine the potential results if someone accessed the other 33%...your third party is waiting in the wings....

The problem is that the entire group is waiting for someone else to step up to the plate. So in essence, your lack of participation enables the continuation of the current situation.

I have to get back to my studying, otherwise I would also get into the amount of people in history that have died and would have died just to have the chance to exercise the right that you so easily chunk in the wastebasket.....

[Tim the Beek]

I've voted in just about ever election in the last 25 years, including casting votes at a number of town meetings, budget referendums, etc. Often voted third party and have had many discussions with people in the past urging them to vote. Spent time and money trying to get third party action happening at the local level.

How dare you insinuate that this comes easily to me?

[moed_over]

I've voted in just about ever election in the last 25 years, including casting votes at a number of town meetings, budget referendums, etc. Often voted third party and have had many discussions with people in the past urging them to vote. Spent time and money trying to get third party action happening at the local level.

How dare you insinuate that this comes easily to me?

Now THAT is a response that makes some sense. If your getting mad about what I said, then you are obviously not prepared to be one of those 33%...

Apathy is never a solution. Go vote and make your voice heard. Sounds like you started in the right direction Why are you even considering stopping now?

[MeOmYo]

Yep, he shoulda taken the time to read the whole thread.

[hoagie]

Yep, he shoulda taken the time to read the whole thread.

it helps

[moed_over]

Yep, he shoulda taken the time to read the whole thread.

Would love to, don't have the time. Bouncing between this and other things.

But, to everyone here, the right to vote and have your voice heard is something that has been fought for over many centuries. I vote Democrat, but would be open to third party candidates. The two-party system that exists now has only been solidified in the last 80 years.... I am in no way saying that it is easy, but the room for a third party exists, and with today's communication technology, is not nearly as hard as it once was to create.

My argument is that if you easily surrender your voice, nothing will come of it. In fact, lack of participation actually implies your consent, not taking the time to have it heard in the voting process...

[Tim the Beek]

Now THAT is a response that makes some sense. If your getting mad about what I said, then you are obviously not prepared to be one of those 33%...

Apathy is never a solution. Go vote and make your voice heard. Sounds like you started in the right direction Why are you even considering stopping now?

Not mad about what you said. I welcome opposing viewpoints. All the time.

But if they're delivered with condescension...with disdain, it's a fair bet you're going to get the same back from me, with an added helping of my giving less credence to the content of your argument because of the way in which you made it.

I am making my voice heard. I'm actually making my voice heard louder and in more places than the vast majority of the people who will be at the polls in November.

[Tim the Beek]

...lack of participation actually implies your consent, not taking the time to have it heard in the voting process...

No it doesn't. Not if I'm vocally stating what I think the problems are, and why I'm choosing not to participate. It doesn't at all.

[Tim the Beek]

apathy


ap·a·thy
   [ap-uh-thee] Show IPA
noun, plural ap·a·thies.
1.
absence or suppression of passion, emotion, or excitement.
2.
lack of interest in or concern for things that others find moving or exciting.

Yup, that's me.

[moed_over]

Not mad about what you said. I welcome opposing viewpoints. All the time.

But if they're delivered with condescension...with disdain, it's a fair bet you're going to get the same back from me, with an added helping of my giving less credence to the content of your argument because of the way in which you made it.

I am making my voice heard. I'm actually making my voice heard louder and in more places than the vast majority of the people who will be at the polls next month.

If you feel that my response was condescending, I do apologize, as that was very much not the intent.

[Tim the Beek]

If you feel that my response was condescending, I do apologize, as that was very much not the intent.

Good to know.

Just understand please, that while we may not agree on this, that my position isn't one I came to easily...

[moed_over]

Good to know.

Just understand please, that while we may not agree on this, that my position isn't one I came to easily...

It doesn't seem that way at all. You have your reasons well thought out. We are definitely on opposite ends of the argument though...

[Tim the Beek]

We are definitely on opposite ends of the argument though...

Nothin' wrong with that.

Also worth noting...I view these things as very personal decisions, and am not suggesting that the way I do things should be the way everyone else does them.

Prolly they shouldn't. Prolly.

[china cat]

Would love to, don't have the time. Bouncing between this and other things.

But, to everyone here, the right to vote and have your voice heard is something that has been fought for over many centuries. I vote Democrat, but would be open to third party candidates. The two-party system that exists now has only been solidified in the last 80 years.... I am in no way saying that it is easy, but the room for a third party exists, and with today's communication technology, is not nearly as hard as it once was to create.

My argument is that if you easily surrender your voice, nothing will come of it. In fact, lack of participation actually implies your consent, not taking the time to have it heard in the voting process...

what if you believe that even if a third party candidate (any anti-establishment candidate) won the popular vote s/he would never be allowed to assume the position (pun intended)

What if you believe there are powerful people pulling the strings who control the entire system and your vote doesn't mean shit?

If citizens were truly educated and their voices actually mattered and they voted for someone outside the status quo, I have no doubt rules would be changed (what happened to Ron Paul this year), people would be killed (Kennedy), results would be altered... There are forces at work that the American people don't have the first damn clue about. and it's the illusion of choice and their control of media that allows this "president chosen by the people" hoax to continue

right now, they worry not so much about having to be more subversive than they already are, because most of us don't even know what they're doing, they control the process, and the media (hell, not one of my students has heard of Jill Stein, most Americans haven't heard of her, so the establishment is quite content keeping their control at current levels.)



but that's just my opinion. I'm free to mine as you are free to yours

[Joker]

Henry Kissinger "Big-Time Motherfucker"

[PeaceFrog]

Ron Paul lost because he doesn't have the support of the Republican party. It was plain and simple... no conspiracy. No media blackout... just lack of support for his extremely radical ideas.

I predicted it would happen long, long, long before it even did... so how are people saying that it was something else?

Rewriting history?

[Tim the Beek]

Ron Paul lost because he doesn't have the support of the Republican party. It was plain and simple... no conspiracy. No media blackout... just lack of support for his extremely radical ideas.

I predicted it would happen long, long, long before it even did... so how are people saying that it was something else?

Rewriting history?

She didn't say anything about him winning.

Not that he was going to win in the end, but some of the last minute rule changes and invalidations of delegates by the RNC at the convention to prevent his name from being put into nomination, and to make it appear as if support for Romney was unanimous were blatantly disgusting to me and many other people who were paying attention.



Nothing to do with rewriting history, and I don't understand why you would insinuate that given the facts. It's really pretty insulting.

[PeaceFrog]

whatever, dude.

Ron Paul didn't have the support of the Republican party, so now you're not going to vote in order to protest the entire system.

You reject the entire system because the Republican primary didn't pan out the way you had hoped. It's your prerogative.

[PeaceFrog]

though I'm not at all a fan of Republican politics, I doubt they would have cast him aside the way they did if they liked him.

He's not known to be very co-operative with others (even other Republicans). It's either his way or the highway.

People don't want someone as stringent as he is representing them.

[Tim the Beek]

whatever, dude.

Ron Paul didn't have the support of the Republican party, so now you're not going to vote in order to protest the entire system.

You reject the entire system because the Republican primary didn't pan out the way you had hoped. It's your prerogative.

That's about as wrong an explanation of why I've come to the position I've come to as you could possibly come up with.

though I'm not at all a fan of Republican politics, I doubt they would have cast him aside the way they did if they liked him.

He's not known to be very co-operative with others (even other Republicans). It's either his way or the highway.

People don't want someone as stringent as he is representing them.

It doesn't matter to me if they liked him or not. Hell, it doesn't matter to me if it was someone other than Ron Paul who was treated this way. If Michele Bachmann had won the right, by winning a plurality in 5 state primaries, to have her name put up for nomination and they had changed the rules, I'd still point to it as one example (of many) of how corrupt and co-opted the political system in this country has become...and I was pondering, if she got elected President, the idea of moving to another country.

[PeaceFrog]

why are you looking at Republicans, and then blaming the entire political system in this country?

That's what I really don't understand...

misplaced blame.

[PeaceFrog]

seriously... Republicans are about to go the way of the Dodo... I don't really give a shit what they do any more.

[Tim the Beek]

You're the one who started talking about Republicans, not I. I'm only responding to the points you made.

[PeaceFrog]

I've heard it said many times before that there's no sense in getting a better deck seat on the Titanic...

well, that's exactly what Ron Paul trying to take over the Republican party is trying to do.

[PeaceFrog]

If you want to vote 3rd party, I'd say that this would be the year to do it.

[Joker]

That's about as wrong an explanation of why I've come to the position I've come to as you could possibly come up with.

Please tell me you're nor surprised at all that this would be the case

It doesn't matter to me if they liked him or not. Hell, it doesn't matter to me if it was someone other than Ron Paul who was treated this way. If Michele Bachmann had won the right, by winning a plurality in 5 state primaries, to have her name put up for nomination and they had changed the rules, I'd still point to it as one example (of many) of how corrupt and co-opted the political system in this country has become...and I was pondering, if she got elected President, the idea of moving to another country.

Yup, Dems pulled the same type of shit on their own delegates when they had the vote for amending their platform already approved and passed before it was even put up to the vote despite the fact there wasn't anywhere near enough of a majority to pass it.

[PeaceFrog]

good comparison it's exactly the same thing. Both Ron Paul, and whether or not God is officially in the platform are irrelevant.

[Tim the Beek]

I've heard it said many times before that there's no sense in getting a better deck seat on the Titanic...

well, that's exactly what voting in this Presidential election is trying to do.

Hey, something we agree on!

[PeaceFrog]

well, obviously you're free to do whatever you want, and you will... but it doesn't make any sense to me why you wouldn't vote for that Libertarian dude.

You're intentionally blowing it.

Don't let me stop you.

[PeaceFrog]

and this is why individualists will never prevail

[Tim the Beek]

Please tell me you're nor surprised at all that this would be the case

Nope. Kinda intrigued, but not surprised. I just don't let it get to me anymore.

[Tim the Beek]

...but it doesn't make any sense to me why you wouldn't vote for that Libertarian dude.

Or that Green chick, for that matter. You seem to have a pretty black and white way of looking at things much of the time. That leads to your making assumptions about people that aren't necessarily true. F'rinstance that some of us here are heartless Randroids, incapable of thought which deviates from a philosophy which someone else laid out, and looking to stick it to everyone we can.

That said, if you've read the whole thread, I'm not sure how it doesn't make sense to you, even if you disagree with me.

In summary - I've been voting for Greens and Libertarians and Democrats and Republicans for 25 years...for whomever I feel is the most honest and best qualified. And all I see is the system (systems, really, as the concentration of media ownership can't be ignored in all of this) becoming more corrupt, and the major parties becoming more and more alike.

If I don't believe that the system is reparable from within...if I believe that until some event or events occur which make the American people so uncomfortable that they wake up, that nothing's going to change (for the better)...and if I believe that my voting makes me complicit in what's going on, and in the co-opting of a system I was once proud of...then why would I vote?

That, by the way, is a rhetorical question...

[PeaceFrog]

you lost me at the part where you said that I seem to have "a black and white way of looking at things."

if that isn't the farthest thing from reality, then I don't know what is.

do want you want, and be proud of it. (not for a minute did I ever think I would stop you)

however, libertarian ideology and green party ideology are pretty stark in contrast to each other. It's intriguing to me that you would be just as likely to vote for one as you would the other. I'm also intrigued that you think you can accurately gauge a person's level of honesty without ever meeting them face to face.

Additionally, you were once proud of this system? And now you're not? What has changed?

The system was just as corrupt every other year that you proudly voted, only you weren't aware of it yet.

So, if there was a communist dictator running, but he or she was very honest and qualified -- you'd vote for him or her? That's so silly.

[Tim the Beek]

you lost me at the part where you said that I seem to have "a black and white way of looking at things."

if that isn't the farthest thing from reality, then I don't know what is.

It would appear less that way if you didn't have a habit of pigeonholing some of us into neat categories which we don't necessarily fit into.

It's intriguing to me that you would be just as likely to vote for one as you would the other.

I never said that. Given two candidates who were in all other respects equal, I'd probably vote LP. But there are plenty of Green concepts I agree with. Community-based economies is high on that list. That I don't want a lot of government interference in how that's carried out doesn't mean I disagree with it.

Then again, I'm much more concerned with ideas than with ideologies. Kinda always have been.

I'm also intrigued that you think you can accurately gauge a person's level of honesty without ever meeting them face to face.

It often has to do with someone who's willing to say less than popular things because they're the right things to say.

Additionally, you were once proud of this system? And now you're not? What has changed?

The system was just as corrupt every other year that you proudly voted, only you weren't aware of it yet.

I don't think so. I think it's been getting worse. Hell, 20 years ago there was such a thing as bipartisanship. Corporate influence, while it existed, was not the only thing driving the bus.

So, if there was a communist dictator running, but he or she was very honest and qualified -- you'd vote for him or her? That's so silly.

Dictators, by their very nature, are neither honest, nor qualified. It's silly to suggest otherwise.

Last word is yours. I don't feel like running around in circles. And that's what we tend to do.

[PeaceFrog]

it's silly to say that dictators can neither be honest nor qualified, and then you accuse me of pigeonholing people?

that's all I gotta say.

[PeaceFrog]

no, I got one more thing to say...

I've heard a lot about Hitler... but not once have I heard that he was unqualified, nor was he a liar...

now... that's all I gotta say.

[china cat]

[PeaceFrog]

Individualists, by their very nature, are not interested in helping others.

And that's why this election Libertarians will fail... BIG TIME

It's tragically funny...

[Tim the Beek]

Individualists, by their very nature, are not interested in helping others.

[Joker]

[Tim the Beek]