In Theory Liberals Should Not Be Allowed To Hold Office In America.

[occupied]

Getting rid of, or outlawing the Liberal Party wouldn't lead to One Party rule because others would rise up and fill the vacuum.

It's my opinion that we should outlaw both the Republican AND Democrat parties and see what happens.

It's always been my position that the respective letters D & R and catagorized ballots should be banned.

Make the people vote on knowledge not the fucking alphabet.

Let the people vote for whatever stupid reason they come up with and make it so easy that there is no reason not to cast a vote. Trying to make sure only the right people vote is dishonest and shows a lack of faith in the rabble to choose their leaders. That Idea sounds OK at first until you realize it would favor name recognition, in other words, incumbents. I thought you were in favor of unseating incumbents.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If I could pass one amendment, it would be to do away with political parties entirely.

why do away with Republicans when they have stood for freedom from big liberal govt since Jefferson?? You make no sense.

Repugnance party has only existed since Lincoln and used to actually have a sizable liberal wing. It's only since Reagan they got all monolithic and unreasonably ideological.

Before Lincoln was president? Or six years before that? And did you mean the modern Republican Party? Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe were Republican presidents.

yes and like modern Republicans these founders also believed in very limited govt

 

[AmericanFirst]

. It's only since Reagan they got all monolithic and unreasonably ideological.

how is the ideology of freedom from big liberal govt unreasonable when it is the purpose of the Constitution??

Even attempting to answer that question would force me accept a host of bad conservative "thought" as valid interpretations of how the government is supposed to be.

you mean our Founders really wanted big, ever growing liberal nanny govt?

Jefferson:
That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.

"The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."

occupied is a libtard, they mistakenly believe the founders were liberals.

 

[Kosh]

Getting rid of, or outlawing the Liberal Party wouldn't lead to One Party rule because others would rise up and fill the vacuum.

It's my opinion that we should outlaw both the Republican AND Democrat parties and see what happens.

It's always been my position that the respective letters D & R and catagorized ballots should be banned.

Make the people vote on knowledge not the fucking alphabet.

Let the people vote for whatever stupid reason they come up with and make it so easy that there is no reason not to cast a vote. Trying to make sure only the right people vote is dishonest and shows a lack of faith in the rabble to choose their leaders. That Idea sounds OK at first until you realize it would favor name recognition, in other words, incumbents. I thought you were in favor of getting unseating incumbents.

\

Says the far left Obama drone..

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Trying to make sure only the right people vote is dishonest.

dear its what the Constitution is for. Our founders had a grave fear of too much democracy, obviously. No surprise the typical liberal is clueless..

 

[Kosh]

In Theory Liberals Should Not Be Allowed To Hold Office In America.

Real liberals are not the problem, it is the far left that has Hijacked the Liberal title.

They are far more dangerous that any terrorist organization in the world.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Getting rid of, or outlawing the Liberal Party wouldn't lead to One Party rule because others would rise up and fill the vacuum.

It's my opinion that we should outlaw both the Republican AND Democrat parties and see what happens.

It's always been my position that the respective letters D & R and catagorized ballots should be banned.

Make the people vote on knowledge not the fucking alphabet.

Let the people vote for whatever stupid reason they come up with and make it so easy that there is no reason not to cast a vote. Trying to make sure only the right people vote is dishonest and shows a lack of faith in the rabble to choose their leaders. That Idea sounds OK at first until you realize it would favor name recognition, in other words, incumbents. I thought you were in favor of unseating incumbents.

I am in favor of term limits too. But my opinion is that if the "know nothing" partisans lose a purpose to vote then we will at least get leaders based on their positions. And who gives a fuck if the morons who litterally know nothing about what they're voting on lose interest?

 

[AmericanFirst]

. It's only since Reagan they got all monolithic and unreasonably ideological.

how is the ideology of freedom from big liberal govt unreasonable when it is the purpose of the Constitution??

Even attempting to answer that question would force me accept a host of bad conservative "thought" as valid interpretations of how the government is supposed to be.

you mean our Founders really wanted big, ever growing liberal nanny govt?

Jefferson:
That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.

"The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."

Our founders wanted lots of things but I am pretty sure they didn't want people who reject reason itself for blind anti-science political dogma to be the ideological guides of our nation.

Our founders wanted the freedom of choice for the people of these United States, something the libtards don't like.

 

[Kosh]

. Trying to make sure only the right people vote is dishonest.

dear its what the Constitution is for. Our founders had a grave fear of too much democracy, obviously. No surprise the typical liberal is clueless..

The far left does not have a clue what the Constitution is, they think it is just a GD piece of paper.

 

[occupied]

You deserve a country ruled by a single party with no fear of ever being voted out. Russia comes to mind, move there immediately.

Libtards are the ones that need to move to communist russia.

Whatsa matter? Don't you recognize conservative authoritarianism when you see it? Anti-gay, government and business in cahoots against consumers, No environmental or financial regulation, Russia is a free marketeer's wet dream.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Climate change,.

thats you first example? Dear, its been cooling for 20 years, not warming. Accumulated Cyclonic energy ( hurricanes) is down.

On Sept. 23 the United Nations will host a party for world leaders in New York to pledge urgent action against climate change. Yet leaders from China, India and Germany have already announced that they won’t attend the summit and others are likely to follow, leaving President Obama looking a bit lonely. Could it be that they no longer regard it as an urgent threat that some time later in this century the air may get a bit warmer?

In effect, this is all that’s left of the global-warming emergency the U.N. declared in its first report on the subject in 1990. The U.N. no longer claims that there will be dangerous or rapid climate change in the next two decades. Last September, between the second and final draft of its fifth assessment report, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change quietly downgraded the warming it expected in the 30 years following 1995, to about 0.5 degrees Celsius from 0.7 (or, in Fahrenheit, to about 0.9 degrees, from 1.3).

Even that is likely to be too high. The climate-research establishment has finally admitted openly what skeptic scientists have been saying for nearly a decade: Global warming has stopped since shortly before this century began.

First the climate-research establishment denied that a pause existed, noting that if there was a pause, it would invalidate their theories. Now they say there is a pause (or “hiatus”), but that it doesn’t after all invalidate their theories.

Alas, their explanations have made their predicament worse by implying that man-made climate change is so slow and tentative that it can be easily overwhelmed by natural variation in temperature—a possibility that they had previously all but ruled out.

When the climate scientist and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia wrote an article in 2006 saying that there had been no global warming since 1998 according to the most widely used measure of average global air temperatures, there was an outcry. A year later, when David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London made the same point, the environmentalist and journalist Mark Lynas said in the New Statesman that Mr. Whitehouse was “wrong, completely wrong,” and was “deliberately, or otherwise, misleading the public.”


We know now that it was Mr. Lynas who was wrong. Two years before Mr. Whitehouse’s article, climate scientists were already admitting in emails among themselves that there had been no warming since the late 1990s. “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998,” wrote Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in Britain in 2005. He went on: “Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

If the pause lasted 15 years, they conceded, then it would be so significant that it would invalidate the climate-change models upon which policy was being built. A report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) written in 2008 made this clear: “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more.”

Well, the pause has now lasted for 16, 19 or 26 years—depending on whether you choose the surface temperature record or one of two satellite records of the lower atmosphere. That’s according to a new statisticalcalculation by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph in Canada.

It has been roughly two decades since there was a trend in temperature significantly different from zero. The burst of warming that preceded the millennium lasted about 20 years and was preceded by 30 years of slight cooling after 1940.

This has taken me by surprise. I was among those who thought the pause was a blip. As a “lukewarmer,” I’ve long thought that man-made carbon-dioxide emissions will raise global temperatures, but that this effect will not be amplified much by feedbacks from extra water vapor and clouds, so the world will probably be only a bit more than one degree Celsius warmer in 2100 than today. By contrast, the assumption built into the average climate model is that water-vapor feedback will treble the effect of carbon dioxide.

But now I worry that I am exaggerating, rather than underplaying, the likely warming.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You deserve a country ruled by a single party with no fear of ever being voted out. Russia comes to mind, move there immediately.

Libtards are the ones that need to move to communist russia.

Whatsa matter? Don't you recognize conservative authoritarianism when you see it? Anti-gay, government and business in cahoots against consumers, No environmental or financial regulation, Russia is a free marketeer's wet dream.

 

[occupied]

. It's only since Reagan they got all monolithic and unreasonably ideological.

how is the ideology of freedom from big liberal govt unreasonable when it is the purpose of the Constitution??

Even attempting to answer that question would force me accept a host of bad conservative "thought" as valid interpretations of how the government is supposed to be.

you mean our Founders really wanted big, ever growing liberal nanny govt?

Jefferson:
That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.

"The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."

Our founders wanted lots of things but I am pretty sure they didn't want people who reject reason itself for blind anti-science political dogma to be the ideological guides of our nation.

Our founders wanted the freedom of choice for the people of these United States, something the libtards don't like.

Choosing to be stupid, callous and irrational deserves no respect.

 

[Darkwind]

If I could pass one amendment, it would be to do away with political parties entirely.

why do away with Republicans when they have stood for freedom from big liberal govt since Jefferson?? You make no sense.

Freedom from big liberal government will only be replaced with big liberal GOP government.

This is what I never seem to understand about people who are for limited government, yet want to impose more laws on everyone. They just happen to be laws that the replacement players agree with.

If you are a conservative and against big government and demand that government stays out of your house and your bedroom, then this means you are against government in the bedrooms of gays too.

If you are for limited government, then you do NOT promote traditional marriage while trying to ban homosexual marriage. You oppose both types of marriage because government should be limited from promoting any type of marriage.

If you are for limited government in Business, then you are for limited government in Unions.

If you are for limited government in anything, then YOU MUST be for that limited government for your own personal issues.

You cannot say limited for thee and not me.

I would return to supporting the GOP if they started taking away laws from the books. Until then, not so much.

 

[AmericanFirst]

how is the ideology of freedom from big liberal govt unreasonable when it is the purpose of the Constitution??

Even attempting to answer that question would force me accept a host of bad conservative "thought" as valid interpretations of how the government is supposed to be.

you mean our Founders really wanted big, ever growing liberal nanny govt?

Jefferson:
That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.

"The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."

Our founders wanted lots of things but I am pretty sure they didn't want people who reject reason itself for blind anti-science political dogma to be the ideological guides of our nation.

Our founders wanted the freedom of choice for the people of these United States, something the libtards don't like.

Choosing to be stupid, callous and irrational deserves no respect.

Then stop choosing to be stupid.

 

[occupied]

Getting rid of, or outlawing the Liberal Party wouldn't lead to One Party rule because others would rise up and fill the vacuum.

It's my opinion that we should outlaw both the Republican AND Democrat parties and see what happens.

It's always been my position that the respective letters D & R and catagorized ballots should be banned.

Make the people vote on knowledge not the fucking alphabet.

Let the people vote for whatever stupid reason they come up with and make it so easy that there is no reason not to cast a vote. Trying to make sure only the right people vote is dishonest and shows a lack of faith in the rabble to choose their leaders. That Idea sounds OK at first until you realize it would favor name recognition, in other words, incumbents. I thought you were in favor of unseating incumbents.

I am in favor of term limits too. But my opinion is that if the "know nothing" partisans lose a purpose to vote then we will at least get leaders based on their positions. And who gives a fuck if the morons who litterally know nothing about what they're voting on lose interest?

It's why parties have platforms, so you are not ignorantly voting. I see no problem with anyone voting a straight ticket if they so choose.

 

[occupied]

Even attempting to answer that question would force me accept a host of bad conservative "thought" as valid interpretations of how the government is supposed to be.

you mean our Founders really wanted big, ever growing liberal nanny govt?

Jefferson:
That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.

"The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."

Our founders wanted lots of things but I am pretty sure they didn't want people who reject reason itself for blind anti-science political dogma to be the ideological guides of our nation.

Our founders wanted the freedom of choice for the people of these United States, something the libtards don't like.

Choosing to be stupid, callous and irrational deserves no respect.

Then stop choosing to be stupid.

Wow, the famed and devastating rubber and glue retort, that stung. Excuse me while I apply a small bandage to the wound.

I could list a whole raft of crazy conspiracy theories that were swallowed with glee by the conservative base, but I am certain you STILL believe them all. Stubbornly clinging to debunked bullshit that serves but to confirm your phantom fears is a choice, a stupid choice.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Getting rid of, or outlawing the Liberal Party wouldn't lead to One Party rule because others would rise up and fill the vacuum.

It's my opinion that we should outlaw both the Republican AND Democrat parties and see what happens.

It's always been my position that the respective letters D & R and catagorized ballots should be banned.

Make the people vote on knowledge not the fucking alphabet.

Let the people vote for whatever stupid reason they come up with and make it so easy that there is no reason not to cast a vote. Trying to make sure only the right people vote is dishonest and shows a lack of faith in the rabble to choose their leaders. That Idea sounds OK at first until you realize it would favor name recognition, in other words, incumbents. I thought you were in favor of unseating incumbents.

I am in favor of term limits too. But my opinion is that if the "know nothing" partisans lose a purpose to vote then we will at least get leaders based on their positions. And who gives a fuck if the morons who litterally know nothing about what they're voting on lose interest?

It's why parties have platforms, so you are not ignorantly voting. I see no problem with anyone voting a straight ticket if they so choose.

If you are implying that even half of the people who vote know why they're voting as they do beyond the letter you're more naive than I thought. A straight ticket based on knowledge is one thing. A straight ticket because of a letter is damaging to our nation.

I have NEVER voted a straight ticket because if I'm not familiar with either candidates I simply don't vote. My ignorance should not impact or outweigh a voter with knowledge

 

[occupied]

Getting rid of, or outlawing the Liberal Party wouldn't lead to One Party rule because others would rise up and fill the vacuum.

It's my opinion that we should outlaw both the Republican AND Democrat parties and see what happens.

It's always been my position that the respective letters D & R and catagorized ballots should be banned.

Make the people vote on knowledge not the fucking alphabet.

Let the people vote for whatever stupid reason they come up with and make it so easy that there is no reason not to cast a vote. Trying to make sure only the right people vote is dishonest and shows a lack of faith in the rabble to choose their leaders. That Idea sounds OK at first until you realize it would favor name recognition, in other words, incumbents. I thought you were in favor of unseating incumbents.

I am in favor of term limits too. But my opinion is that if the "know nothing" partisans lose a purpose to vote then we will at least get leaders based on their positions. And who gives a fuck if the morons who litterally know nothing about what they're voting on lose interest?

It's why parties have platforms, so you are not ignorantly voting. I see no problem with anyone voting a straight ticket if they so choose.

If you are implying that even half of the people who vote know why they're voting as they do beyond the letter you're more naive than I thought. A straight ticket based on knowledge is one thing. A straight ticket because of a letter is damaging to our nation.

I have NEVER voted a straight ticket because if I'm not familiar with either candidates I simply don't vote. My ignorance should not impact or outweigh a voter with knowledge

Trying to change voting laws to get better politicians is futile, People who decide to get into politics are all pretty much the same, self-serving narcissists looking for some power and prestige without having to actually do anything productive.

 

[Old Rocks]

How many years did it take before the nation was able to absorb Louisiana. .

too stupid dear the size of the country has nothing to do with the size of the government.

LOL. Well, what else would one expect of this ceritifiable poster?