We kinda suck at picking leaders

[ihopehefails]

Its really not leaders that we should worry about but policies. Politicians should just do what the majority of their voters want and let the voters decide policy. That is what politicians should do and should not concern themselves with "leading" because they are just pegs that fit whatever hole we the voters create with our own debate. They can be a braindead retard as long as the vote for what we tell them to vote for and everything will be fine because the role of policy creation should be in the hands of the voters and not in the hands of the elected politicians.

Wrong!

Those in office are actually a check and balance against the simple majority. We are a Republic not a strict democracy. You might want to check into what that means.

I'm not sure what you are saying. I know its a republic but its a democratic one where elected officials have limited powers given to them in the constitution but over the things they do have power over they must follow the simple majority. Not doing so is nullifying the people which removes a vital check against government abuse. Do you really want politicians to veto the will of the majority in favor of the minority?

 

[Big Black Dog]

Maybe I'll jump on the Paulie bandwagon and vote for Ron Paul.

I'm sure Ron Paul's balls are shriveled and have minimal sway.

I take it that you are rather fond of the Red Sox?

 

[saveliberty]

Its really not leaders that we should worry about but policies. Politicians should just do what the majority of their voters want and let the voters decide policy. That is what politicians should do and should not concern themselves with "leading" because they are just pegs that fit whatever hole we the voters create with our own debate. They can be a braindead retard as long as the vote for what we tell them to vote for and everything will be fine because the role of policy creation should be in the hands of the voters and not in the hands of the elected politicians.

Wrong!

Those in office are actually a check and balance against the simple majority. We are a Republic not a strict democracy. You might want to check into what that means.

I'm not sure what you are saying. I know its a republic but its a democratic one where elected officials have limited powers given to them in the constitution but over the things they do have power over they must follow the simple majority. Not doing so is nullifying the people which removes a vital check against government abuse. Do you really want politicians to veto the will of the majority in favor of the minority?

Okay, you are clueless, so I'll help. The framers of the Constitution realized the general populous might be easily swayed by an issue of the moment, so they made sure it was possible to let the minority opinion speak. To confirm this you simply have to remember the Senate has to pass a measure as well as the House, but has much longer terms of office. An example of this in action would have been the desegregation of the south in the 60's. Those states did not want to follow the law. The government enforced it none the less.

If it was a matter of figuring out what the public wanted and implementing, we would just have regualr voting sessions on issues all the time without a Congress. The only check you have as a citizen is your vote. Once in office it is pretty hard to effect change. Oh there are means, but it is hard to meet that standard. Note a simple majority is not enough in some cases like a Constitutional Amendment.

 

[ihopehefails]

Wrong!

Those in office are actually a check and balance against the simple majority. We are a Republic not a strict democracy. You might want to check into what that means.

I'm not sure what you are saying. I know its a republic but its a democratic one where elected officials have limited powers given to them in the constitution but over the things they do have power over they must follow the simple majority. Not doing so is nullifying the people which removes a vital check against government abuse. Do you really want politicians to veto the will of the majority in favor of the minority?

Okay, you are clueless, so I'll help. The framers of the Constitution realized the general populous might be easily swayed by an issue of the moment, so they made sure it was possible to let the minority opinion speak. To confirm this you simply have to remember the Senate has to pass a measure as well as the House, but has much longer terms of office. An example of this in action would have been the desegregation of the south in the 60's. Those states did not want to follow the law. The government enforced it none the less.

If it was a matter of figuring out what the public wanted and implementing, we would just have regualr voting sessions on issues all the time without a Congress. The only check you have as a citizen is your vote. Once in office it is pretty hard to effect change. Oh there are means, but it is hard to meet that standard. Note a simple majority is not enough in some cases like a Constitutional Amendment.

This sounds like a great idea but that would be to time consuming so we got representative democracy where we elect people to vote as the people would normally vote as if they were voting directly. And if people get swayed by the moment then so be it. Its the right of the people to impact how their government is going to be even if they make dumb decisions in the process because most checks in government are against government and is never a check against the people's wishes. Creating a system that puts checks on the wishes of the voters creates a government that nullifies the people and one that nixes the people out of the decision process that the government makes.

 

[Ravi]

Of course, if you let only the mainstream media do your thinking for you throughout the race (as most of the electorate does), you may very well have actually thought Paul was running Libertarian, considering how many times they made sure they mentioned that word when they spoke of him.

I'm sorry, I actually voted for 2. I voted for one of the R candidates in my gubernatorial primary back in June. He was basically the Ron Paul of that race.

Funny...I always thought Ron Paul was a Libertarian and he just used the GOP as a means to an end.

 

[Shogun]

Ron Paul is a REPUBLICAN, no?

The one and only that I've ever voted for, yes. In my primary. Not because he had an R, but because he was the kind of conservative that I actually like.

And in the general I voted 3rd party.

riiiiighhht.... but, how does a vote for him, a Republican, become an expression for a third party?

 

[MarcATL]

sorry - trying to put words into Obama's mouth that he didn't say - even in the form of a poem - doesn't make Obama a divider.
If you've opted out of the process, then you've divided yourself out. Can't blame anyone but yourself. And if you are trying to put dividing words into someone else's mouth ..... who is the divider??????

You either missed the point or I did not articulate the point appropriately.
It was not a poem. ANd yes, I did put words in his mputh...bnut made it cler that I did so.

The point is, he knows how Ameericans are...He does not need to say ALL.....yet most in America will her ALL.

GO ask around...ask people what they think of Wall Streeters......hear what they have to say.

But whatever....I dont have time for this debate....busy day.....you made some sound points but we do not see eye to eye.

Lets sit back and watch how things pan oput.

Take care.........think I am done on this site....too few posters like you and too many like shogun....SOmetimes when I read some responses to others I am embarrassed to be part of this club if you know what I mean.

<S>.....

Clearly the old dude is the divider. Clearly.

Peace out old dude...don't let the door hitcha where the good Lord spitcha.

I dont get it. I thought this was a board for debating. I say what I feel...you say what you feel.

Never questioned your integrity nodog and Ravi.....we do not see eye to eye...heck...both of you seem to frown on me as a person for my beleif...I dont get it.

Anyway....I do NOT put words in his mouth...I used it as an example...and made it clear he did NOT say those things.....yet THAT is what you are attacking.

Remember...it is not what you say...it is what those that listen hear.

That being said...I find it interesting how many times a week Gibbs says "I have the treanscript right here....the Presidnet did not say that"

Why do you think that is?

You don't get it? No one is attacking you old dude, you are telling straight up lies on our President and you are feeling bad and attacked that people are calling you on it? Have you lost your cotton-pickin' mind??!??

We've always been divided. It's just recently that we've become aware of it.

I would suggest that there are those who have been well aware of the differences for quite some time now. Perhaps it's just that NOW a new group of folks find themselves in the minority. Guess it is a wake-up call for THEM.

Thank you. Its always ignored until its YOU.

LOL!!

All this talk about that lunatic Ron Paul and not one. single. mention of the great patriot Kucinich (sp). Check out his track-record, he's done more good for the citizens of this country than numerous presidents combined. And yet. not ONE mention of him.

And folks are in h ere talking as if they don't let the "mainstream media" sway their mind.

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!

You guys kill me.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Ron Paul is a REPUBLICAN, no?

The one and only that I've ever voted for, yes. In my primary. Not because he had an R, but because he was the kind of conservative that I actually like.

And in the general I voted 3rd party.

riiiiighhht.... but, how does a vote for him, a Republican, become an expression for a third party?

the same way a vote for Obama supposedly was to become an expression for change....

 

[Oldandtired]

Obama went in front of the cameras last week and announced how the healthcare debate is America in action as it was designed to be (paraphrased). He complimented the vigor of the debate and praised how both sides expressed their sentiments as they should have the right to do...In other words, he tookthe high road and left the piodium with his most loyal followers saying what a great leader he is.

However, nowhere did he mention how just 3 months earlier, he demanded congress to draft and vote on a bill in a mere 2 weeks.

So, in other words, he demanded a process with no debate...and when his denmands were not met, he not only took the position of "a debate is healthy and necessary"....but gave the IMPLICATION that he wanted the debate.

So, no...he did not lie...hge simply used words to let people believe one thing about him when in fact, it was not the truth about what he truly wanted.

THAT is the point I was trying to make yesterday. He does not lie...he allows people to believe what he wants them to believe without leaving a trail to catch him as he intentionally misleads them.

Thus why Gibbs seems to always have "the transcript" available.

Axelrod is a genius...Obama is his puppet.

 

[Shogun]

The one and only that I've ever voted for, yes. In my primary. Not because he had an R, but because he was the kind of conservative that I actually like.

And in the general I voted 3rd party.

riiiiighhht.... but, how does a vote for him, a Republican, become an expression for a third party?

the same way a vote for Obama supposedly was to become an expression for change....

but Obama was always a democrat and never assumed to be a split from a major party. You don't really know what the hell you are commenting about, do you?

 

[Oldandtired]

riiiiighhht.... but, how does a vote for him, a Republican, become an expression for a third party?

the same way a vote for Obama supposedly was to become an expression for change....

but Obama was always a democrat and never assumed to be a split from a major party. You don't really know what the hell you are commenting about, do you?

So you couple democrat with liberal and republican with conservative?

Obama ran as a democrat who was going to govern from the center.

I have yet to see it.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

riiiiighhht.... but, how does a vote for him, a Republican, become an expression for a third party?

the same way a vote for Obama supposedly was to become an expression for change....

but Obama was always a democrat and never assumed to be a split from a major party. You don't really know what the hell you are commenting about, do you?

Obama is a socialist who calls himself a Democrat...just because he can't advertise it as a membership in another political party doesn't mean it's not true. you really don't know what your talking about do you? You voted for him...and his agenda of "fundamental change."

 

[Shogun]

the same way a vote for Obama supposedly was to become an expression for change....

but Obama was always a democrat and never assumed to be a split from a major party. You don't really know what the hell you are commenting about, do you?

Obama is a socialist who calls himself a Democrat...just because he can't advertise it as a membership in another political party doesn't mean it's not true. you really don't know what your talking about do you? You voted for him...and his agenda of "fundamental change."

Listen, retard... "change" is not a political party. I asked Paulie a specific question about Ron Paul despite RP being a republican. Specifically, I asked how a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for a third party. Now, i know that your giant swollen pussy is bleeding and will continue to bleed until the next election. that's ok. But if you really want to be taken seriously then you are going to have to try a little harder to stay relevant than to regurgitate a bunch of WND talking points.

Obama isn't a socialist. You convey what kind of a batshit crazy nut job you are for even posting as much. Sure sure.. you are a fucking crybaby. Have your little tantrum reaction to having your ass handed to you in the last election... But, spare me the convoluted bullshit just because your titsie bah bah fell on the fucking floor last year.

Good grief. Go join a militia already so the rest of us can get you Ruby Ridged.

 

[Paulie]

Ron Paul is a REPUBLICAN, no?

The one and only that I've ever voted for, yes. In my primary. Not because he had an R, but because he was the kind of conservative that I actually like.

And in the general I voted 3rd party.

riiiiighhht.... but, how does a vote for him, a Republican, become an expression for a third party?

Why does one presidential vote for a major party preclude my overall position on the 2 main parties? I hate the 2 main parties because I believe they are one and the same. Every generation however, there seems to come along a candidate that becomes the antithesis of the "more of the same" mantra that is tied to the 2 party system. I don't think that EVERY CANDIDATE in the 2 parties are scum, only MOST of them, including every single one that is tied to the establishment at large.

Paul was that guy. He was my one and only reason to vote for a main party. I voted HIM, not the party. I'm not a republican, I'm a free market, fiscal conservative that doesn't agree with our current monetary policy status quo, and he's the only candidate in the primary that I thought fit that position.

Like I said though, in the general, I voted 3rd party.

I've said before around here that I'm only registered Republican so that I can vote for the conservative candidates that I LIKE who realize they have a much better chance at winning if they play along with the obviously corrupt party system.

My kind of conservative shouldn't be confused with the kind of "conservatives" you've seen over the years that have fucked this country over. I believe you know this, because you yourself said that you were leaning towards Obama or Paul during the primaries. Don't think for a second that I forgot that conversation we had about that back in the day. I'ts always been one of the reasons I like you around here.



Now...to deal with Rav's continuous idiocy on this board...

Funny...I always thought Ron Paul was a Libertarian and he just used the GOP as a means to an end.

Rav, this is because you lack usage of some very important parts of the brain.

The man's been a Republican his entire career. He only RAN as a Libertarian in '88 to make a statement. Not only that, but Libertarian is so much less a PARTY, and so much MORE an ideology.

Reagan himself said this:

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals&#8211;if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can&#8217;t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don&#8217;t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.

Kind of like how some conservatives have created a party called the Conservative Party.

Please stop being an idiot while I still like you around here

 

[Shogun]

Yea, Paulie, Im not sweating you for voting this last time for a republican. I believe yu when you say that you want a third party... But, RP was not third party. Had he won in 08 the rest of the GOP would have sat in the same places were it RP or Mccain. If RP wants to break from the gop and go third party then great; you'd have made a valid sxtatement then. But, he hasn't. I don't think he will. And I think that says a lot about where his party affiliations are despite the call for voting for third parties. A vote for RP is still pulling the lever for the GOP. At least Nader ran a Green party campaign instead of Democrat. Had he ran democrat, there would be no chance of the same benefit of the doubt that you give RP.


anyway. it's over now. Have a great day, Paulie!

 

[Paulie]

Well the only other thing I can say is that when repeatedly prodded by his supporters to run 3rd party after the primary looked to be a wash, his response was that he'd never get the MSM recognition, never get into the debates, and never be taken NEARLY as seriously by the electorate.

There's nothing wrong with using the party to gain in your ideology. The man ran on a platform that not even 10 years ago was the platform that the GOP electorate fucking elected the chimp on.

All Paul wanted to do was try an open up their eyes. He was in essence, trying to SAVE the party from the establishment takeover.

So at this point, when it comes to the 2 party system regarding the electorate as a whole in this country, we're fucked.

There were much better choices than Obama for liberals as well, but the 2 party strangehold fucked that up for you as well.

Bottom line is I want a candidate of principle, not a candidate of party.