"Smaller government" advocates

[kaz]

You can vote anyway you want, but if you don't vote for one of the major candidates, you just voted for the other one.

Our country has never been this partisan before, and DumBama has a lot to do with that. On the right, the Tea Party people are pulling the party that way. On the left, we have a President that was supported by the US Communist party both elections. You can't get more left than that. In fact, the admitted Socialist, Bernie Sanders is the top contender in some places, and nationally, the second contender for the left.

As our party divide widens, it makes it less and less likely we'll ever see a successful third party candidate.

I disagree, a vote for tweedledum isn't a vote against tweedledee when they are in the end the same. Voting for someone else says you want neither, voting for one isn't voting against their clone, at least not in a meaningful way

How meaningful it is is irrelevant. It's the outcome that matters.

The last election between Romney and DumBama is a good example. Some Republicans didn't care for Romney, so they stayed home. That's how Obama won his reelection. By not voting, they did usher in another four years of Obama.

People who see the choice of republicans or not voting, wow, such intelligence......

I don't even understand what in hell that's supposed to mean. What I said is that Republican voters stayed home because they didn't like Romney. They didn't want to get their coats on, drive through the snow, get to the voting booth and punch a hole for somebody they didn't even like.

The point I was making was that people have loads of choices. There were something like 30 people on the ballot. These people, saw only two choices. Vote for the Republicans, or not vote at all. Do you think this is a good level of intelligence for voters to have?

That doesn't change his point. He is referring to Republicans who couldn't get a woody for Romney. The confusion was you thought you made a point, but it didn't counter his point. The way to do that is acknowledge his point then say something like they should look third party then. Not make a point in response to his that makes it sound like you're addressing his point when you are not.

I'm the one advocating third party in the discussion, but I didn't say that for that reason, it wasn't addressing this point

 

[frigidweirdo]

I disagree, a vote for tweedledum isn't a vote against tweedledee when they are in the end the same. Voting for someone else says you want neither, voting for one isn't voting against their clone, at least not in a meaningful way

How meaningful it is is irrelevant. It's the outcome that matters.

The last election between Romney and DumBama is a good example. Some Republicans didn't care for Romney, so they stayed home. That's how Obama won his reelection. By not voting, they did usher in another four years of Obama.

People who see the choice of republicans or not voting, wow, such intelligence......

I don't even understand what in hell that's supposed to mean. What I said is that Republican voters stayed home because they didn't like Romney. They didn't want to get their coats on, drive through the snow, get to the voting booth and punch a hole for somebody they didn't even like.

The point I was making was that people have loads of choices. There were something like 30 people on the ballot. These people, saw only two choices. Vote for the Republicans, or not vote at all. Do you think this is a good level of intelligence for voters to have?

That doesn't change his point. He is referring to Republicans who couldn't get a woody for Romney. The confusion was you thought you made a point, but it didn't counter his point. The way to do that is acknowledge his point then say something like they should look third party then. Not make a point in response to his that makes it sound like you're addressing his point when you are not.

I'm the one advocating third party in the discussion, but I didn't say that for that reason, it wasn't addressing this point

Again, if Republicans couldn't get "woody" for Romney, why not go vote for someone else?

Surely out of 30 candidates they could have found one that they thought might have something worth voting for.

Instead, they see the choice as either Republican candidate or nothing.

How many people have said there were only two choices to vote for in a presidential election, and claim democracy is dead. It's ironic, don't you think. Killing democracy with stupidity while bemoaning the lack of democracy/

No, I didn't counter his point, I never intended to. I made my own point. Do you have a problem with this?

 

[kaz]

How meaningful it is is irrelevant. It's the outcome that matters.

The last election between Romney and DumBama is a good example. Some Republicans didn't care for Romney, so they stayed home. That's how Obama won his reelection. By not voting, they did usher in another four years of Obama.

People who see the choice of republicans or not voting, wow, such intelligence......

I don't even understand what in hell that's supposed to mean. What I said is that Republican voters stayed home because they didn't like Romney. They didn't want to get their coats on, drive through the snow, get to the voting booth and punch a hole for somebody they didn't even like.

The point I was making was that people have loads of choices. There were something like 30 people on the ballot. These people, saw only two choices. Vote for the Republicans, or not vote at all. Do you think this is a good level of intelligence for voters to have?

That doesn't change his point. He is referring to Republicans who couldn't get a woody for Romney. The confusion was you thought you made a point, but it didn't counter his point. The way to do that is acknowledge his point then say something like they should look third party then. Not make a point in response to his that makes it sound like you're addressing his point when you are not.

I'm the one advocating third party in the discussion, but I didn't say that for that reason, it wasn't addressing this point

Again, if Republicans couldn't get "woody" for Romney, why not go vote for someone else?

Surely out of 30 candidates they could have found one that they thought might have something worth voting for.

Instead, they see the choice as either Republican candidate or nothing.

How many people have said there were only two choices to vote for in a presidential election, and claim democracy is dead. It's ironic, don't you think. Killing democracy with stupidity while bemoaning the lack of democracy. No, I didn't counter his point, I never intended to. I made my own point.

I just addressed this

Do you have a problem with this?

Don't be a dick. It's a message board, Holmes

 

[frigidweirdo]

People who see the choice of republicans or not voting, wow, such intelligence......

I don't even understand what in hell that's supposed to mean. What I said is that Republican voters stayed home because they didn't like Romney. They didn't want to get their coats on, drive through the snow, get to the voting booth and punch a hole for somebody they didn't even like.

The point I was making was that people have loads of choices. There were something like 30 people on the ballot. These people, saw only two choices. Vote for the Republicans, or not vote at all. Do you think this is a good level of intelligence for voters to have?

That doesn't change his point. He is referring to Republicans who couldn't get a woody for Romney. The confusion was you thought you made a point, but it didn't counter his point. The way to do that is acknowledge his point then say something like they should look third party then. Not make a point in response to his that makes it sound like you're addressing his point when you are not.

I'm the one advocating third party in the discussion, but I didn't say that for that reason, it wasn't addressing this point

Again, if Republicans couldn't get "woody" for Romney, why not go vote for someone else?

Surely out of 30 candidates they could have found one that they thought might have something worth voting for.

Instead, they see the choice as either Republican candidate or nothing.

How many people have said there were only two choices to vote for in a presidential election, and claim democracy is dead. It's ironic, don't you think. Killing democracy with stupidity while bemoaning the lack of democracy. No, I didn't counter his point, I never intended to. I made my own point.

I just addressed this

Do you have a problem with this?

Don't be a dick. It's a message board, Holmes

You think I'm being a dick. Fine, your problem. I think you're being a dick for writing Holmes all the time, so, maybe we're equal.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, by disallowing, I meant that no government ever stopped any marriage, they just didn't recognize it, and yes, that was by the will of the people.

Of course as I stated earlier, when marriage becomes such a joke, you will realize why we had limitations on it in the first place. When sister can marry brother, mother can marry son, Grandpa can marry dog, it will be easy to recognize how the 14th was bastardized by liberal activists. After all, if we can't disallow gay marriages because of government benefits, we dan't disallow anybody, and that will be future of marriage in our country.

Before you respond by saying that will never happen, think of how people would have reacted if you could transport yourself back 40 years ago, went to a bar, and told people you were from the future, and that gays would be allowed to marry under the rule of law, they would be able to sue a bakery out of business for refusing to participate; they would be able to adopt children. They probably would have beaten the hell out of you and told you that would never happen in our country.

Liberalism is like cancer. It works slowly, but destroys everything in it's path. By the time you realize it, it's much too late to do anything about it.

But direct family relations can't marry, and no animal can ever consent to marriage, so.... you're talking some fantasy novel, not reality.
If we can't disallow anyone, then maybe marriage will stop being about benefits, and just be about marriage, and then, maybe, it'll all make some sense.

Okay, 40 years ago people would say that gay marriage wouldn't happen. But there's a big difference between gay marriage and marrying your dog, or marrying someone who you already can have many of these benefits from.

No, Liberalism isn't a cancer, without liberalism you'd be working down a mine or a substance farmer.

Many of the Founding Fathers were liberal for their time. CHANGE is bad for some people. What do you think George III thought about the change in 1776? Probably wasn't happy at Liberalism being like cancer, right? However for the MAJORITY of people Liberalism worked.

Now, we can generalize here till the birds come home. I'm more Liberal than Conservative, however I'm more or less my own person. I see stupid shit on both sides. Liberalism isn't necessarily good because it's Liberalism, the same from Conservatism.

What is good is people who have principles and they stand by those principles and those principles come from thought, and there are reasons why things should happen. This doesn't necessarily happen for most people, regardless of their political leanings.

So when the left shout down the right or the right the left, it baffles me, because they're generally both talking crap.

The reason people can't marry a family member or pet is because it hasn't been challenged yet. Give it a few years or decades, you'll see what I'm talking about.

The Supreme Court cannot rule that marriage is explicit to hedero and homo couples. Marriage of any kind isn't covered in the US Constitution. They used an amendment not intended for such perversion to justify their ruling. And since you can't use any amendment to apply to certain people only, it has to apply to everybody. And that's why if the SC hears a case of a mother and son marriage, they have to rule in their favor. Those two people should not be denied benefits that other married people have. That is now written in stone.

No, I don't think I will see what you're talking about, actually. Your claim is based on nothing.

You didn't include children in your spiel, why? Because children are minors, they can't consent to marriage. Sex with a minor is rape. The same goes for anyone or anything which can't consent. That would be animals.

Okay, if marriage applies to all people, does this mean children? No, it does not. Why? Because children have limited rights and limited responsibilities. What rights do animals have under the constitution? None, not one right for animals is protected.

So, an animal doesn't have a right to get married, it can't consent to marriage anyway, and all marriage has to be consenting, so, that defeats that part of the argument.

As for family members, again, they already get a lot of the stuff handed out by the govt anyway.

But if you say no two people should be denied benefits that other married people should have, then this means SINGLE PEOPLE should get such rights. Which then blows all your argument out of the water anyway.

Animals don't have to give consent because they are animals. They are owned by the owner and has to do what the owner says. Animals don't give consent to eating dog food, animals don't give consent to living outside or in a dog house, animals don't give consent to being put to sleep when the owner feels like getting rid of the pet or the pet is otherwise too ill.

What kind of benefits do family members get from the government, I would like to know?

My father is 84 years old now, I could certainly use his SS check after he's gone. The only way that could happen is if we legally married. I mean, this is about equality of government benefits, isn't it?

Other than that, if a single person drops dead on his or her 65th birthday, nobody sees a dime of all that SS money the person (and their employer) contributed. It's gone.

Animals have to do what the owner says, however marriage requires that both sides are consenting. So how is an animal going to consent?
A child is "owned" by the family, yet, they can't consent to the child having sex at the age of 10, this is child abuse.

Benefits from family relations are like inheritance laws. Not all laws are there, but again, it's possible that other things happen.

But, the reality is, it would be better if the govt didn't give any benefits to anyone. I'd be happy with that.

So would I, but that's a moot point now that the gays and Supreme Court changed marriage forever in this country. Like I said, it's a can of worms that should have never been opened up.

I would love to see the Supreme Court rule against man marrying dog because the dog didn't give consent. LOL! All the owner has to say is if the dog barks once, he means yes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You can vote anyway you want, but if you don't vote for one of the major candidates, you just voted for the other one.

Our country has never been this partisan before, and DumBama has a lot to do with that. On the right, the Tea Party people are pulling the party that way. On the left, we have a President that was supported by the US Communist party both elections. You can't get more left than that. In fact, the admitted Socialist, Bernie Sanders is the top contender in some places, and nationally, the second contender for the left.

As our party divide widens, it makes it less and less likely we'll ever see a successful third party candidate.

I disagree, a vote for tweedledum isn't a vote against tweedledee when they are in the end the same. Voting for someone else says you want neither, voting for one isn't voting against their clone, at least not in a meaningful way

How meaningful it is is irrelevant. It's the outcome that matters.

The last election between Romney and DumBama is a good example. Some Republicans didn't care for Romney, so they stayed home. That's how Obama won his reelection. By not voting, they did usher in another four years of Obama.

People who see the choice of republicans or not voting, wow, such intelligence......

I don't even understand what in hell that's supposed to mean. What I said is that Republican voters stayed home because they didn't like Romney. They didn't want to get their coats on, drive through the snow, get to the voting booth and punch a hole for somebody they didn't even like.

The point I was making was that people have loads of choices. There were something like 30 people on the ballot. These people, saw only two choices. Vote for the Republicans, or not vote at all. Do you think this is a good level of intelligence for voters to have?

What's the point of going through the trouble of voting if the person you're voting on doesn't even have a chance at making it on the news? Here in Ohio we had a clown by the name of Dennis Kookcinich. That idiot stayed in the race until they just about kicked him out. He had like 3% of the votes or something, and then the idiot ran the next time as well.

All Dennis did was embarrass himself. He accomplished nothing and spent a lot of money for nothing.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Again, if Republicans couldn't get "woody" for Romney, why not go vote for someone else?

A candidate has to appeal to the middle to get elected and that leaves both extremes unhappy. Simple enough?

 

[ScienceRocks]

I think small government is useless government that allows bad shit to occur. We need accountable government with enough powers to regulate, enforce anti-trust laws and invest in our country when needed.

The idea of smaller government isn't wise if you wish to be a first rate nation.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Again, if Republicans couldn't get "woody" for Romney, why not go vote for someone else?

A candidate has to appeal to the middle to get elected and that leaves both extremes unhappy. Simple enough?

The extremes are full of nut cases and mentally ill people. Politics is about doing what needs to be done in a ever changing world.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Do you think this is a good level of intelligence for voters to have?

dear thanks to liberals, voters are not selected for intelligence but rather for merely existing. Do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I think small government is useless government that allows bad shit to occur. We need accountable government with enough powers to regulate, enforce anti-trust laws and invest in our country when needed.

The idea of smaller government isn't wise if you wish to be a first rate nation.

100% stupid and liberal of course and 100% opposed to the central principle of our Constitution which Matt is too stupid to understand.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The extremes are full of nut cases and mentally ill people..

if our Founders were nut cases for wanting tiny tiny govt and producing the greatest country in human history by far say why or admit you're far too stupid and liberal to be here.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think small government is useless government that allows bad shit to occur. We need accountable government with enough powers to regulate, enforce anti-trust laws and invest in our country when needed.

The idea of smaller government isn't wise if you wish to be a first rate nation.

The bigger the government--the smaller the citizen.