Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
i knowgore didnt lose by 1000In wins by less than 1000? Wasn't everyone blaming Naders Raiders for Gore's deficiencies? How secure is Franken without small i help?
he lost because he lost his HOME state
Ten goes to Gore, he wins
but he couldnt even win with those that knew him BEST
LOL
actually after they recounted, Bush won florida by over 1000.
i knowgore didnt lose by 1000
he lost because he lost his HOME state
Ten goes to Gore, he wins
but he couldnt even win with those that knew him BEST
LOL
actually after they recounted, Bush won florida by over 1000.
but Gore lost because he lost Tenn
had he won that, FL wouldnt have mattered
It starts in the local elections, this is where 3rd parties will win. After 8 years there will be enough 3rd party people to run for Senate, and President.
The Dems and Rep have a LOCK on forming viable new parties, folks.
It will take an ENORMOUS change in thinking of the Ameriocan public before their advantages can be negated.
Right now, as long as we're a people divided into two philosophically opposing camps, they're going to keep manipulating us.
Jusding from the posters on this board, few of us are willingly going to give up our poltical affiliations even though most of us understand that there's very little difference in these so called parties.
I voted for Obama, for example, even though I had very little doubt that he'd continue the same crooked game we've had all along.
They give us JUST ENOUGH differences in policies (policies which bearly matter) to make us keep pulling that lever for one or the other party.
They're very good at this manipulation you know.
They're very intelligent people who fully understand how to keep us at each other throats while they systematically give themselves (in both parties) all the advantages.
The Dems and Rep have a LOCK on forming viable new parties, folks.
It will take an ENORMOUS change in thinking of the Ameriocan public before their advantages can be negated.
Right now, as long as we're a people divided into two philosophically opposing camps, they're going to keep manipulating us.
Jusding from the posters on this board, few of us are willingly going to give up our poltical affiliations even though most of us understand that there's very little difference in these so called parties.
I voted for Obama, for example, even though I had very little doubt that he'd continue the same crooked game we've had all along.
They give us JUST ENOUGH differences in policies (policies which bearly matter) to make us keep pulling that lever for one or the other party.
They're very good at this manipulation you know.
They're very intelligent people who fully understand how to keep us at each other throats while they systematically give themselves (in both parties) all the advantages.
So what will it take for you personally to 'give up your political affiliations' and vote for a 3rd party candidate in a presidential election? If you couldn't do it in 2008 even though you seem to understand the system, what chance do others have?
Gingrich points out that the Republicans, and the Republican Administration of President Bush are also to blame for the huge increase in Federal spending, while he attacked President Barack Obamas monstrosity of a budget"
If the Republicans cant break out of being the right wing party of big government, then I think you would see a third party movement in 2012, Gingrich said during an address to students at the College of the Ozarks in Missouri.
Remember, everything Obamas doing, Bush started last year, he said.
If youre going to talk about big spending, the mistakes of the Bush administration last year are fully as bad as the mistakes of Obamas first two, three months.
In an article today, in NewsMax.com, Gingrich predicted that fed up Americans will instigate a nationwide rebellion at the polls, and said the increased government spending under Obama is literally irrational.
It seems that Newt believes that the Republican Party doesn't have a chance to recover before 2012 in its current fashion, and the current mood of revolt against these policies (all of them) will need a home other than in the Republican or Democrat Party.
It is in times of huge unresolved issues that new parties are born. The last successful new party was the Republican Party which replaced the Whig Party in 1854. Those Issues were about slavery and it's extension into the new states, as well as modernization.
The question might be, are the present unresolved issues of sufficient attention grabbing consequence as they were in 1854, and if they are won't a figure (like Lincoln) be needed to project that party to prominence?
Who would that person be? Will we be given any clue who that person may be by forthcoming character assassinations and hatchet jobs by the existing powers that be? If that were the case, then Newt has already suffered those attempts, and might be one of the most viable candidates, with some strong lieutenant; someone who will emerge in the interim. Those candidates will be given hatchet jobs by the MSM, Etal too, beginning now.
Here's Newt on the Financial Bail-Out back during the election, a long time ago but, except for the reference to McCain, it's as pertinent today as then. Remember though, here he's referring to the Bush Administration, not the Obama Adminstration.
The Dems and Rep have a LOCK on forming viable new parties, folks.
It will take an ENORMOUS change in thinking of the Ameriocan public before their advantages can be negated.
Right now, as long as we're a people divided into two philosophically opposing camps, they're going to keep manipulating us.
Jusding from the posters on this board, few of us are willingly going to give up our poltical affiliations even though most of us understand that there's very little difference in these so called parties.
I voted for Obama, for example, even though I had very little doubt that he'd continue the same crooked game we've had all along.
They give us JUST ENOUGH differences in policies (policies which bearly matter) to make us keep pulling that lever for one or the other party.
They're very good at this manipulation you know.
They're very intelligent people who fully understand how to keep us at each other throats while they systematically give themselves (in both parties) all the advantages.
So what will it take for you personally to 'give up your political affiliations' and vote for a 3rd party candidate in a presidential election? If you couldn't do it in 2008 even though you seem to understand the system, what chance do others have?
Not unless I can find a THIRD PARTY which reflects MY VALUES and MY goals, no, you cannot.
I will, just as most of us have been doing, will choose the least WORST party as I see it.
Yeah I can see how crooked the game is, but that doesn't mean that I can do much about it.
When somebody forms a truly NATIONALIST party, you can expect to see me getting involved in a meaningful way.
I'll be a busy working for them, as I am busy writing to you folks right now.
Until that time, however, I am as stuck in this briar patch as you guys are.
I don't LIKE liberals much, and I don't like conservatives much either.
What I want for my nation is so outlandishly recieved by most people that I know I will forever be marching to the beat of a very different drummer.
wrong, if Gore had won Tenn, Bush winning or losing FL wouldnt have mattered a biti knowactually after they recounted, Bush won florida by over 1000.
but Gore lost because he lost Tenn
had he won that, FL wouldnt have mattered
???
Florida wouldn't have mattered?
You mean, to Gore?
Florida sure mattered to Bush.
If Gore had won Tennessee, Bush couldn't have won without Florida.
eah, cause the dems are doing SO great nowGingrich points out that the Republicans, and the Republican Administration of President Bush are also to blame for the huge increase in Federal spending, while he attacked President Barack Obamas monstrosity of a budget"
If the Republicans cant break out of being the right wing party of big government, then I think you would see a third party movement in 2012, Gingrich said during an address to students at the College of the Ozarks in Missouri.
Remember, everything Obamas doing, Bush started last year, he said.
If youre going to talk about big spending, the mistakes of the Bush administration last year are fully as bad as the mistakes of Obamas first two, three months.
In an article today, in NewsMax.com, Gingrich predicted that fed up Americans will instigate a nationwide rebellion at the polls, and said the increased government spending under Obama is literally irrational.
It seems that Newt believes that the Republican Party doesn't have a chance to recover before 2012 in its current fashion, and the current mood of revolt against these policies (all of them) will need a home other than in the Republican or Democrat Party.
It is in times of huge unresolved issues that new parties are born. The last successful new party was the Republican Party which replaced the Whig Party in 1854. Those Issues were about slavery and it's extension into the new states, as well as modernization.
The question might be, are the present unresolved issues of sufficient attention grabbing consequence as they were in 1854, and if they are won't a figure (like Lincoln) be needed to project that party to prominence?
Who would that person be? Will we be given any clue who that person may be by forthcoming character assassinations and hatchet jobs by the existing powers that be? If that were the case, then Newt has already suffered those attempts, and might be one of the most viable candidates, with some strong lieutenant; someone who will emerge in the interim. Those candidates will be given hatchet jobs by the MSM, Etal too, beginning now.
Here's Newt on the Financial Bail-Out back during the election, a long time ago but, except for the reference to McCain, it's as pertinent today as then. Remember though, here he's referring to the Bush Administration, not the Obama Adminstration.
Newt was irrelevant 10 years ago. Smart man but he is always so all over the place.
There was already nationwide rebellion at the polls in 2006 and 2008. You will see an even greater rebellion in 2010 against Repbulicans. They are not interested in what the voters want, that is painfully clear. As recently as last Wednesday when they put forward that simple minded budget, everyone knew they had no plan, no response to Obama's budget and they are the party of no.
3rd parties need to get into LOCAL elections, and win, then prove they can GOVERNSo what will it take for you personally to 'give up your political affiliations' and vote for a 3rd party candidate in a presidential election? If you couldn't do it in 2008 even though you seem to understand the system, what chance do others have?
Not unless I can find a THIRD PARTY which reflects MY VALUES and MY goals, no, you cannot.
I will, just as most of us have been doing, will choose the least WORST party as I see it.
Yeah I can see how crooked the game is, but that doesn't mean that I can do much about it.
When somebody forms a truly NATIONALIST party, you can expect to see me getting involved in a meaningful way.
I'll be a busy working for them, as I am busy writing to you folks right now.
Until that time, however, I am as stuck in this briar patch as you guys are.
I don't LIKE liberals much, and I don't like conservatives much either.
What I want for my nation is so outlandishly recieved by most people that I know I will forever be marching to the beat of a very different drummer.
I choose not to be stuck 'in this briar patch'. I will either vote for a 3rd party that most closely matches my personal beliefs or not vote for anyone in a given election.
Ed, there are parties that fit your views. You either haven't looked for them, or don't have the balls to give your vote to anyone but the two parties you claim to hate so much.
Ed, there are parties that fit your views. You either haven't looked for them, or don't have the balls to give your vote to anyone but the two parties you claim to hate so much.
I don't know who Ed is, but I have voted my conscience for the last 10 years. I wish more people would. I don't just claim to dislike the two major parties, I really do dislike them, and I've given plenty of reasons why I do. If you like them, give reasons why they are good for the country.
wrong, if Gore had won Tenn, Bush winning or losing FL wouldnt have mattered a biti know
but Gore lost because he lost Tenn
had he won that, FL wouldnt have mattered
???
Florida wouldn't have mattered?
You mean, to Gore?
Florida sure mattered to Bush.
If Gore had won Tennessee, Bush couldn't have won without Florida.
Gore would have won the election
so, pass that on, tell your friends not to blame FL, blame Tennwrong, if Gore had won Tenn, Bush winning or losing FL wouldnt have mattered a bit???
Florida wouldn't have mattered?
You mean, to Gore?
Florida sure mattered to Bush.
If Gore had won Tennessee, Bush couldn't have won without Florida.
Gore would have won the election
... and carry the one ...
You're right. Obviously, I am mathily challenged sometimes!
