# This is a fit topic for the Ron Paul supporters



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The subject is: do you use your vote to make a political statement, or do you use your vote to win an election?



> Voting for a third party candidate serves only one practical, immediate purpose, and that is to help elect someone even more antithetical to your beliefs.


http://www.intellectualconservative.com ... -a-winner/


----------



## wiskodie1 (Sep 11, 2006)

Hi plainsman
hope all is well with you and yours.
thanks for posting the topic, I got a long response for it, hope you like it 

This is a very good subject. Phillip Ellis Jackson Ph.D. from the University of Chicago makes some very strong points in his article. I especially like how he calls everyone a kook that doesn't agree with him. he starts out a subject with trying to stereo type people in order to add credibility to his beliefs and also tries to distance his readers from a subject by placing preconceived notions in their heads. I have no doubt that he is a smart man, but that doesn't make him right. Of course he states very plainly that he does not like Ron Paul or agree with his views. That is his whole motive for writing the article in the first place and shows his agenda, which is to dissuade his readers from supporting Ron Paul. Of course this is all fine and good, we live in a free country he has the right to speak his mind, but to believe what he said because you agree with him on his dislike of Ron Paul, Or chose to disagree with him on the subject because you support Ron Paul is simple to easy. So I'm about to have a little fun with the topic 

Ok I support Ron Paul. There's my agenda for the rest of this post. Ill do my best to be fair.

Hillary has already won her party's nomination,
I agree with this whole heartedly, and I believe the blue bloods of this country need her to finish pushing the Bush administrations agenda. (yes, I know they are different Parties)

do we use our vote to make a statement, or to win an election?
I look at this statement as a blatant deception, which enforces the notion that Ron Paul does not stand a chance to win the Republican nomination, this view has been consistently and frequently repeated in the main steam media (I believe the main stream media of this country has been bought and paid for long ago, of course not all of their reports are false, but then again the best lies are the ones with the most truth mixed in them.) For him to infer that we Ron Paul supporters are casting our vote for any other reason then to WIN is false! That we are willing to vote for Ron Paul as a third party Candidate is our way of showing this country that we will not sit Ideally by and be controlled by fear and hate. And we intend on WINNING by third party if it comes to it.

In the primaries one should feel free to vote for whichever candidate they feel best represents their interests. If Bozo the Clown was on the ballot in South Carolina and you felt a particular affinity for bulbous-nosed circus performers - go for it and proudly put your name in the "Bozo-yes!" box
Oh I really like this statement, and view it as having two objectives. The first objective would be to insinuate that your free choice to vote is all fine and good so long as you don't participate in free choice during the 2008 general election. At that time your mind has been made up for you and you better fall in line with your party and like it. the second objective is to simple put the thought of bozo the clown being elected into the readers head. With that notion already floating around in our heads, his later statements about Ron Paul, while still being stated very diplomatically will still allow the readers and there thoughts of Mr. Bozo to easily blur in our minds to an image of Ron Paul wearing a big frizzy wig and round rubber nose. Which will help his views of voting on a third party candidate took equally as ridiculous a Ron Paul dressed up as a clown. This tactic works very well and is used all over the media, but lets see what happens when we replace Mr. Bozo with someone else and see if it changes anything.
In the primaries one should feel free to vote for whichever candidate they feel best represents their interests. If George Washington the famous revolutionary war General was on the ballot in South Carolina and you felt a particular affinity for his exemplary performance in freeing this country from British rule - go for it and proudly put your name in the "Washington-yes!" box
Do you think that might change the outcome of his article? I can't say that it would trash the whole article and make it all look insane but I think it might very well change its outcome enough. Which remember is to dissuade people reading it from voting for Ron Paul.

It's at this point that I'm usually bombarded with objections that "principles matter most" and "we need to send a message" to the powers-that-be because they chose the wrong person to head the ticket. Add to this the particulars of the 2008 election cycle where now "religion matters" (at least, having the correct religion matters), the number of wives one had (and how they divorced the previous ones) matters, and the protection of the Constitution (as viewed and interpreted by the Constitution's self-appointed protectors) matters, and we have all the makings of a supposedly practical-philosophical counter-argument. "I won't vote for that SOB because [fill in the 2008 particulars], and doing so will show the world that principles matter most as I send a message to Washington."
Ok my read on this whole paragraph is pretty much, fall into line with your party and like it. yes there are some people that you might have personnel disagreements with, Giuliani, Romney, and Ron Paul. but lets not argue about the fact that they are not perfect, its petty and wrong to judge those that intend on taking the highest office in the land. I really like how he decided to make "Constitution's self-appointed protectors" sound like a bad thing. Like saying what gives this guy the right to standup for his country, the nerve of him? And the statement also gives the impression that it's the government job to look into those things and the people of this country don't need to worry about that sort of stuff. Yep that's it, pat me on the head and send me back to bed for showing my ignorance on the topic. Sorry I thought it was my job to question government and uphold my rights, but now that I know better I think ill leave it all up to the big boys in Washington. Hey look! Is that fresh green grass over there? I better go see if it's good to eat. BAHHAAAAA!

Where Rudy was personally pro-choice but said he would nominate strict constructionist judges (i.e. the only individuals who can actually do something about elective abortion),
Nice good old fashion pump for his personnel candidate I guess

no one in their right mind expects the new president (Hillary, Obama or Edwards) to unceremoniously yank a couple hundred thousand troops and support staff out of Iraq overnight - or even be finished by the end of their second term in office.
ok this looks easy, Ron Paul is crazy and anyone that supports him is a nut job for thinking that we can just walk away from this war. We have no choice but to permanently occupy Iraq. Sorry I disagree, this war is found less and illegal, the only reason I can see that we are still there is because we never had a real pull out strategy to begin with, we invaded that country for control of there oil.

One of the problems with having academic debates about real world issues is the tendency to believe that by describing the world in a way that pleases you, the world is somehow transformed into that caricature. Whether Roe v. Wade was properly decided or not, it exists. And it will continue to exist until it is overturned within the dynamics of the present legal/political system. And when it is eventually overturned, abortion will not disappear; it will return to 50 individual states for 50 individual decisions, where this battle will be fought in perpetuity in 50 different legal/political venues. This doesn't argue against supporting a pro-life candidate in the primaries. Rather, it simply asks you to understand how the decision to overturn abortion will actually be made. Nominating a strict constructionist Supreme Court Justice is the first real step, and this process begins with a choice made by the President of the United States. Which of the two parties' candidates is more likely to start this process in motion? If the choice for 2008 is between Never and Doubtful, I'll still take Doubtful rather than boycott that choice and focus instead on the third party option, namely No Chance in Hell
Um&#8230;lets see? I think this one reads. Anyone that disagrees with my point of view is living in fantasyland. And to prove my point I'm going to pick the biggest no win topic in the country to back up and cover all of the rest of the carp I have said. Then he pumps one for Giuliani again, then he makes sure he points out two parties as the only choice. And fishiness up with what a good little American he is going to be by falling in step with his party which helps support that a third party vote is a throwaway. And Ron Paul has no chance in hell to win. Nice!

The same logic applies to illegal immigration, foreign wars, and a myriad of other supposedly Constitutional matters. Exactly what kind of a "statement" is made by abandoning a party that rejected your primary candidate to form a third party effort that is automatically doomed to failure? Reagan lost his bid for the GOP nomination in 1976 with a lot more support than Ron Paul will ever receive. Rather than bolt and undertake a useless electoral exercise, he stayed and transformed the Republican party. Wallace bolted in '68 and '72 and helped elect a different party. Anderson in '80, Perot in '92, and Nader in 2000 all helped produce a similar outcome. The fact that I liked some of these outcomes is meaningless political analysis. The question isn't whether a third party will help or hurt the Democrats or Republicans. We know that answer is yes, with the only question "which party" in "which year" for "which one-time historical reason"? The real question is what exactly did a Nader voter do to advance the Nader platform by going 3rd party instead of continuing to fight within the Democrat or Republican parties. And the same question applies to Wallace, Anderson, Perot, and all of the other third party losers throughout American history.
Yep there he goes, covered all of the rest of the topics with his debate on pro-life/pro-choice. Then he tries to instill in his readers that these matters should not be resolved or considered as being topics for review by the guidelines set forth in our constitution. What??? Is that what he just tried to do? Ok moving on&#8230; oh yeah. Then he pumps his readers with the waist of a third party vote as being doomed to failure. So don't vote for Ron Paul! Then he goes on with strengthening this throwaway vote by grouping Ron Paul with all of our countries recent past third party candidates , which are also known as losers and a bunch of crazy people. And finishes up with about half a dozen verbal poundings that enforce the idea that third party votes are a waist, have never done anything good, and will not work for Ron Paul. With a beautiful finish that Ron is a loser. Very classy!

Voting for a third party candidate serves only one practical, immediate purpose, and that is to help elect someone even more antithetical to your beliefs. America does not have a parliamentary system, so pretending that it does to justify a third party vote is just plain silly. Moreover, Presidential elections are about the next four years, not the next fifty. Voting third party in 2008 to influence the vote in 2020, 2032, or 2052 isn't just silly, it's downright ignorant. Electing a candidate in 2008 can certainly influence future elections, though the farther out in time the more difficult it is to sustain that influence without repeated additional reinforcement (that is, additional electoral victories of like-minded candidates). Voting for the New Vegetarian party in 2008 with an eye toward shaping policy in 2009, let alone 2020, is the height of personal hubris. Kooks are routinely ignored, not incorporated into policy making; that is, unless that kook is a billionaire or holds a position of already-established influence. Moreover, these kinds of kooks tend to work within the two-party structure, which is why George Soros and Moveon.org are taking over the Democrat political machine instead of building a new one from scratch.
Oh my god this is getting long! But if you really want to change someone's mind in this country, then you really have to beat them with the same talking points over and over they don't have to be true or anything like that, you just need to make everyone hear the sky is purple enough times and sure enough it will start turning purple. So this paragraph looks to be all about enforcing the idea that Ron Paul is a Kook! Doesn't stand a chance to win! Third party votes are a throwaway! Hell by this time I'm even starting to wonder if the guy isn't right? LOL J/K it still looks like a bunch of anti Ron Paul, everyone that likes him is crazy propaganda that I have been reading for months.

Like it or not, the American political system has evolved to a point today where only two parties have a viable opportunity to win a national election. Any political strategy that ignores this reality is nothing more that a self-masturbatory flight of fancy. Should Ron Paul win the Republican nomination, I'll vote for him in the general election rather than waste my vote on a third party candidate. I share almost none of Paul's reasoning on the nature of the Constitution, but as looney as I think he is, I understand the political process well enough to know two things.
Oh god not this again. Lets see. he is getting hard on us for being bad little sheep. Blah, blah, blah, zero chance of a third party candidate, blah, blah, blah, then he goes on to show that he is a man of the people and will do the big thing by voting for Ron Paul if he makes the nomination, which by doing so should inspire all of his readers to fall inline with there party regardless of who it is, calls the guy a Looney a few times then revs up his readers for the two undeniable facts of life that he is going to unveil for all of us to see. Oh boy I can't wait to see what they are!!! 

First, except for a very narrow range of purely-presidential prerogatives - a range made even narrower by Paul's own view of the Constitution - there is little Paul can actually do to implement his programs without a national consensus. (Unlike scientific theory, "consensus" is actually a good thing in politics, since it allows for an action that may change again when a different consensus is formed.)

Oh now this is juice! First he starts out with a quick jab to the ribs, implying that Ron Paul's views of the constitution are wrong. Which I will have to whole heartedly disagree with, if anything is constitutionally wrong around here it's the bush administrations reckless disregard for the document that governs our great country. And then our writer tries for the round house to the head by telling all his readers that even if he does get into the office that we won't be able to do anything anyway. There by helping to enforce his opinion that Ron Paul is a lost cause and should not be voted for. Well sorry to say, but I'm not working this hard to promote the man and get him into office just so I can go back to eating grass. I AM SICK OF THE CORRUPTION! And I am not taking about the good old day's idea that government is corrupt. I'm talking about their recent increased actions which are proving to be a whole new step up in the corruption game. I was willing to play the sheep so long as they didn't overstep themselves in Washington, and guess what, they did and here I am! A great many of Ron Paul's supporters are too. Why in to world would anyone think that we are not going to push our state representatives into taking action after all of our hard work to get him their. They do what we ask or we vote them out of office on the next election, and if we have to push for a national consensus to get this country back on track, then I will use it, and enjoys knowing that it could take the blue bloods another 30 years to get back to the point they are today.

And second, the chances of Paul actually winning the Republican nomination are on par with my winning the Megabucks lottery, so it's an empty symbolic gesture on my part to say I'd support him. Nevertheless, it does illustrate the significant difference between my political symbolism and those of a third party supporter. As unlikely as it is that either Paul or I will achieve our goals, the probability is not zero. Lightning could strike the next Republican party debate stage and kill off everyone but Ron Paul, who then becomes the only registered nominee in all the state primaries; and someone has got to win the next $300 million lottery, and that someone might be me. Not so a third party presidential election victory, where the probability isn't near zero, it's actually zero. I'll take any bet, from any individual, with any odds you want that when the votes are counted in 2008, it will either be a Democrat or Republican who has been elected president.
His second unveiling turned into nothing more then telling his readers that the sky is purple another half a dozen times. Wow I didn't see that one coming. And he finishes it up with a bet. I'll take any bet, from any individual, with any odds you want that when the votes are counted in 2008, it will either be a Democrat or Republican who has been elected president. I guess this is his way of shutting people like me up. Sort of says, spare me you petty words and thoughts, put your money where you mouth is. And well I'm not about to track this guy down and offer to make his bet, I will put my money on the table, all of you can view it on December the 16th when we drop the next money bomb on Ron Paul, then you tell us we are all talk and no show! How much cash are the rest of our republican candidates getting in the form of campaign contributions from their average Joe supporter?

Everything I've said above will undoubtedly fall on deaf ears of the true believers, who just know in their hearts that standing up for their principles and sending a message to Washington will transform American politics regardless of the reality of the political process. It's simply much too hard to work within the Republican party to change opinions, and much more fun to be a renegade patriot than an actual meaningful voter.
LOL, oh I love this one, fall on deaf ears! LOL I think he is referring to all of the people that decided not to enjoy his kool aid party. Yep ok sure go ahead and accuse we Ron Paul supporters of being completely incapable of ration thought Just because we don't feel like opening our mouths every time someone wants to feed us crap. The rest of his article goes on to explain to us ignorant people that since none of our lives are perfect we should not judge those running for office, then he spends a bit more time explaining to us that the sky is purple. And how insane it is to vote for Ron Paul as a third candidate should he not make the republican candidate. With one final pump for us all to get in line with our party and like it, and that we should be grateful for being ably to vote for someone we consider second-best, I'm sure he then expects all of his readers to going back and munching on some grass for the next couple years.

So let me make a quick final statement about all of this, first, this guy that wrote this Article has a Ph.D. he should be able to talk circles around most of us, I guess he decided to dumb it down a bit for us poor stupid folk. Second I don't agree with him, nor do I consider his article very insightful or educated. But that's just me

I am voting for Ron Paul! I'm in it to win it, End of story!

Happy hunting
Matt


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

i didnt read that article but from what i saw in your post it is garbage!!

wiskodie1, well written post way to read between the lines i think a lot of people fail to do that. i think a lot of people are "addicted" to our broken two party system. they assume there's no better choice than the names with the capital R or D behind them because theyre too lazy to find out for themselvs who they do agree with. if that were not the case you wouldn't see people trying to sabotoge support for ron paul. people are bombarded by so much garbage like that article, that they fail to use logic and reason to analyze a candidate. to everyone else here is my logic and reason in supporting ron paul. our free society is sick and our constitution is disrespected by our elected officials. ron paul is the only candidate i feel would actually do some good for this country, he gets my vote. if you listen to ron paul talk, without the spin of the mainstream media you will realize what he's all about, one word youtube!!! ONE MORE THING, LAST I CHECKED RON PAUL IS RUNNING FOR THE REPUUBLICAN NOMINATION WHATS ALL THIS THIRD PARTY B.S. IN IT TO WIN IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
Ive said it before and ill say it again ron paul is mobilizing people! there is something happening in this country and if you havent caught on maybe you should find out about the ron paul revolution swampbuck over and out


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> ONE MORE THING, LAST I CHECKED RON PAUL IS RUNNING FOR THE REPUUBLICAN NOMINATION WHATS ALL THIS THIRD PARTY B.S.


A very simple answer to that one. Ron Paul has publicly said he is a Libertarian. After all he did run as a Libertarian Presidential candidate in 1988. Nothing wrong with that but he also stated he made the switch and registered as a Republican so he could get on the platform of a predominantly Republican district. A little deception from the git-go on his part don't you think. If the first thing he does is lie, why should anyone believe anything else he says? I guess if you are against farm subsidies you would like him as he said he wants to end them, that is all of them. He says he is against social security but seniors understand that. Sure they do.

Yes you are right, by all means listen to him talk and by all means look into his past. You may just be a little surprised.


----------



## wiskodie1 (Sep 11, 2006)

Hey good to hear from you cwoparson, hope all is well in your world.
I figured you were never going to get involved with all the fun again!

Thank you for your post, I'm sorry to say but it looks like someone lied to you, you put a bit of bad info on the subject that I will be more then happy to point out.

Well it's simple really
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

"Ron" Paul (b. August 20, 1935) is a Republican United States Congressman from Lake Jackson, Texas, a physician, and a 2008 U.S. presidential candidate. Originally from Green Tree, Pennsylvania, he has represented Texas districts in the U.S. House of Representatives (1976-1977, 1979-1985, and 1997-present). Paul placed a distant third in the 1988 presidential election, running as the Libertarian nominee while remaining a registered Republican. After his 1961 graduation from Duke University School of Medicine and a residency in obstetrics and gynecology, he became a U.S. Air Force flight surgeon, serving outside the Vietnam War zone.

Does that say "while remaining a registered Republican?
Yep that's it he has been a registered Republican his whole carrier. 
So how does that make him a liar? He decided to run as a third part Candidate 20 years ago? Were do you get your info at? www.ThinAir.com?

glad to be of service, feel free to call on me any time
Happy hunting 
Matt

P.s swampbuck thank you for posting, I needed a bit of support on the subject.

WOHOOO!!! HERE COMES THE MONEY BOMB!!!!!!!!!!
GO RON PAUL
December 16th 2007 Boston tea party


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> But if you really want to change someone's mind in this country, then you really have to beat them with the same talking points over and over they don't have to be true or anything like that, you just need to make everyone hear the sky is purple enough times and sure enough it will start turning purple.


Examples: 


> this war is found less and illegal





> we invaded that country for control of there oil.





> I have no doubt that he is a smart man, but that doesn't make him right.


That is true so often. Hitler was smart, so was Stalin, and many others. I don't think they were right. I may get an argument from some liberals about Stalin. 

Wiskodie1, I liked your response. It was good until you repeated what liberals have for the millionth time "illegal war, control of oil". At that point hmmmmm, well, time will tell.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

wiskodie1 ... gee whizz ... did you compose all that or was it a copy and paste 

What I can say on the base toipic here is this ... I voted twice for Ross Perot.

My motive was a hope and a prayer he might somehow win (extravigantly wishful thinking I admit) and to make a "Statement."

Well in both cases what I got for my efforts was BILL CLINTON a man who never got 50% of the vote in either of the elections he won.

That there is one scarry frigg'in thought.

My advise is ... don't fall for that $hit and the advise comes form a guy who has been there and done that TWICE


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

No matter how you slice and dice it Ron Paul is a Libertarian. As to whether he remained a registered Republican while on the Libertarian ticket in 1988 I don't even know if that is legal or not but I'd sure cast a eye of suspicion on that reported fact by your source. But he has publicly stated on several different occasions that our political system is not democratic enough to allow a third party candidate as we are a two party system and for that reason he will remain on the Republican party platform. As I said before there is nothing wrong with being a Libertarian and Paul will admit to it when questioned. The only reason the Republican party tolerates him is because he caucuses with the Republicans. If not for that they would have taken a chance of a Democrat taking his district by putting up a not so well know Republican in his district.

In 1988, Paul left the Republican Party to become the Libertarian nominee for president. He returned to the GOP fold - and to Congress - in 1996, and has served there ever since. You want to get a inside picture do a search of blogs and take note of all the Libertarians telling everyone to register as Republicans in non open primary states do they can vote for Paul. That should be a eye opener.


----------



## Lardy (Oct 15, 2007)

I have done a bit of studying on our two party system and did a paper on it last year. From what ive seen Republicans and Democrats together are tearing our country up from the inside. Id be willing to bet that more than 75% of americans believe in parts from each parties views. Notice how I said americans and not american voters. One of the main reasons I decided not to vote was that I felt like I was in one of those lesser of two evils situations and I know a lot of other people felt that way too.

This is why the system is so messed up. Year after year we get two far left and far right canidates to vote for. Just a different face with the same views. Its not fair at all, millions of people are getting cheated out of representation because of this.

Look at many of the european nations. They have governments where proportional representation is used. Now if a third party were to recieve 15% of the votes they would gain 15% of the seats. In our system it could be 49% republican and 51% democrat but the winner takes all of the power even though half of the country doesnt support the winner. Its just not a fair system.

I think its rediculous to try and make someone feel bad for voting for a moderate canidate. People who vote based off whats best for their party arent voting for the right reasons, but if youre views happen to be on the far left or right then youre one of the lucky people that actually gets to vote for someone you agree with year after year.

Oh yea

uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: 
uke: uke: uke: ROMNEY uke: uke: 
uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke:

Had to throw that in there


----------



## Lardy (Oct 15, 2007)

I have done a bit of studying on our two party system and did a paper on it last year. From what ive seen Republicans and Democrats together are tearing our country up from the inside. Id be willing to bet that more than 75% of americans believe in parts from each parties views. Notice how I said americans and not american voters. One of the main reasons I decided not to vote was that I felt like I was in one of those lesser of two evils situations and I know a lot of other people felt that way too.

This is why the system is so messed up. Year after year we get two far left and far right canidates to vote for. Just a different face with the same views. Its not fair at all, millions of people are getting cheated out of representation because of this.

Look at many of the european nations. They have governments where proportional representation is used. Now if a third party were to recieve 15% of the votes they would gain 15% of the seats. In our system it could be 49% republican and 51% democrat but the winner takes all of the power even though half of the country doesnt support the winner. Its just not a fair system.

I think its rediculous to try and make someone feel bad for voting for a moderate canidate. People who vote based off whats best for their party arent voting for the right reasons, but if youre views happen to be on the far left or right then youre one of the lucky people that actually gets to vote for someone you agree with year after year.

Oh yea

uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: 
uke: uke: uke: ROMNEY uke: uke: 
uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke:

Had to throw that in there


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Lardy, what you are saying is absolutely true and I feel the say way about single item voters. I'm talking about people that won't vote because of their stand on abortion or gun control or religion. They never look at the picture as a whole and make a choice of the best balance. I know you've heard it before but I believe a no vote is a vote for the worst candidate. I may not get all I want from the candidate but I'll get more than if their opponent wins.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

CWO.....I'm very reluctant to enter into any discussion that has no clear cut way to determine who is right, but I have to make one point concerning why someone would base their vote on only two or three issues.

Since our elected leaders are our "representatives", and as such are supposed to make decisions on our behalf, why would you or anyone else be comfortable allowing a person who is "scared" of law-abiding citizens owning guns, and also thinks it's perfectly OK to suck the brains out of a perfectly formed fetus' head to make important decisions on your behalf?

Isn't that akin to taking medical advice from Dr. Kevorkian or letting Michael Jackson baby sit your children?

If I've mistaken your position, I apologize. But I can't for the life of me understand how any of us could trust a candidate to think as any of us here would like if they differ from us on those two issues.

What am I missing?


----------



## Lardy (Oct 15, 2007)

I agree too some extent on the no vote deal. Another thing with our two party system that sucks is when I go to the voting booth and make my pick it really doesnt matter who I pick the only way it would make a difference is if the difference was a single vote. In prop. rep. it would be a lot easier to rally up groups of people that hold the same views as you do because they know truly numbers will make a difference. The two party system makes a single vote so miniscule its basically worthless.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

As much as I disliked Russia in the past, and still am not fond of them, they did have one thing right. More important than term limits is getting someone to take the Russian system of voting serious. Until then a third party never will have a chance.
What they do is let as many people run as want to just like us. Where they differ is the top two have a run off. In other words back when Clinton, Bush sr., and Perot run Perot would have been eliminated. Then the run off would have been between Clinton and Bush. Under that scenario Clinton never would have been president. Did you notice how the democratic party panicked when Jesse Jackson talked about running. There is nothing they would rather see than Ron Paul run as a third party. Say hello to president Hillary if he does.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Csquared said:


> CWO.....I'm very reluctant to enter into any discussion that has no clear cut way to determine who is right, but I have to make one point concerning why someone would base their vote on only two or three issues.
> 
> Since our elected leaders are our "representatives", and as such are supposed to make decisions on our behalf, why would you or anyone else be comfortable allowing a person who is "scared" of law-abiding citizens owning guns, and also thinks it's perfectly OK to suck the brains out of a perfectly formed fetus' head to make important decisions on your behalf?
> 
> ...


Csquared, what I was speaking of was the single issue voter. The person that is locked in on only one issue in their life. Let me put it this way.... if you have two candidates and the first candidate is for abortion, is for gun control, and wants to raise taxes. The second candidate is for gun control but is against abortion and raising taxes. You yourself are against all three of these things so what do you do. To me the logical choice would be to vote for the second candidate even though I'm against all three also. To not vote and sit it out just because the logical choice pits one belief of mine against one of the candidates beliefs takes a chance on candidate number one getting into office.

Frankly speaking I've never been all that concerned in the beliefs of any of the presidential candidates if they are consistent and I know where they really stand. Presidents are very limited in their power but it is the people that a President appoints to office that concerns me. The attorney General, the Federal Reserve Board chairman, the Supreme court, and so on and so on. That is where I think a President can hurt us if they are to far to the right or left. I take more stock in who controls congress, especial the House of Representatives than I do the President.

So when the primaries are over with and we come down to a choice of two candidates I will weigh them both and the one that tips the scales more in the direction to my beliefs gets my vote. As it stands now none of them from either side is all that impressive. A few look good, a few look bad and the rest are just the typical political hacks that stick their finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing.

On a side note, if I'm not mistaken late term abortion where as you described a fetuses brains are sucked out has been against the law since 2003 and just this past April the Supreme Court upheld that law. I haven't heard any candidate say they supported that procedure.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

To me right now one of the most important people in this country is John Paul Stevens. He will be 88 years old next spring and has to be considered the most likely next person replaced on SCOTUS.

I dread the thought of missing an opportunity to move the Court a little more to the "constructionist" side of the scale.

Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, Kennedy and Scalia are all between 69 and 75. Not real old, but they are the older of the group. I view the next four to twelve years as being crucial to the future of America with respect to the Constitution.

Yes, I do have a "Single Issue Voting Premise" I hold near and dear.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Couldn't agree with you more but I think your single issue voting premise has more to do with party than a two candidate choice. One party is a certainty and the other is a crap shoot.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

CWO, sorry for posting a note so simplistic it made you think you needed to explain how the executive branch compares to the legislative branch of our government. With some exceptions, the president represents only his party's ideals, so we have some common ground on the importance of the president, which is exactly why I voted for Bush twice....and all of us here are better off with the current Court as a result. But I've been voting for the lesser of two evils for years! I haven't been able to vote for a president I actually liked since Reagan!

And as to your statement that partial-birth abortions are now illegal.....so to speak, never forget it was not a unanimous vote.......so some of those "no" voters are still "representing us". I hope that scares the hell out of you!!!!!!!! 

In closing, please give us an example of a president being TOO FAR to the right?


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> In closing, please give us an example of a president being TOO FAR to the right?


None that has actually been in office that I'm aware of but there have been several in the past that has run for the office. That was my point, look at the big picture always.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

What I'm trying to learn, CWO, is what possible negative trait could a president bring to Washington as a result of being too far to the right?


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

PS.....you didn't tell me if you were scared or not :wink:


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> What I'm trying to learn, CWO, is what possible negative trait could a president bring to Washington as a result of being too far to the right?


Remember in 1987 when Pat Robinson announce he had a divine endorsement from God and was running for President. Can you imagine the far right Robinson sitting in the oval office with his finger on the little red button waiting for God's instructions. Now that scares the hell out of me. Need I say more.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

You ABSOLUTEY need to say more, because you already inferred above that you had a solid understanding of what the president can, and CAN'T do from that position, but now you say he could push "the little red button" if a voice inside his head told him to.

And don't make the mistake of confusing the Christian right with the far right, unless you also believe that all leftists are Atheists.

Do you?

So aside from inferrences that God fearing people are psychotic and can't be trusted, can you think of any other reasons why, in your mind, a far right president would be a bad thing?


----------



## Lardy (Oct 15, 2007)

Csquared said:


> What I'm trying to learn, CWO, is what possible negative trait could a president bring to Washington as a result of being too far to the right?


In my opinion this seems like a dumb question to ask. When has any extremist been good for a country?


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> So aside from inferrences that God fearing people are psychotic


I made no such comment and you know it. You ask for an example of someone that was to far right and I gave you one. What do you think is in that brief case handcuffed to the guy that is at the Presidents side every where he goes. His lunch. Apparently you think no one is to far right to be a danger to this country.

Do you??

If it bothers you that for the most part those on the far right are self proclaimed Christians then I can't help you there and it matters not whether you like it or not. It is obvious now that your questions weren't for clarification but a childish attempt to argue. When you decide you can quote me in context, not put your ridiculous words in my mouth and discuss the issue like an adult, let me know.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

cwoparson

```
Can you imagine the far right Robinson sitting in the oval office with his finger on the little red button waiting for God's instructions.
```
csquaraed

```
And don't make the mistake of confusing the Christian right with the far right, unless you also believe that all leftists are Atheists.
```
csquared


> So aside from inferences that God fearing people are psychotic


cwoparson


> I made no such comment and you know it.


cwoparson


> If it bothers you that for the most part those on the far right are self proclaimed Christians then I can't help you there and it matters not whether you like it or not.


cwoparson


> It is obvious now that your questions weren't for clarification but a childish attempt to argue.


Well cwoparson, it looked that way to me also, so don't be to hard on csquared. In your last post it looks like you deny your inference, then in the next paragraph restate it. That leaves me confused. I don't think a request for clarification is unreasonable or childish.

I also don't agree that single issue voters are less thoughtful than anyone else. We all must weigh our social conscience. Three issues may be more important than two, or one may be more important than five. A person who finds abortion intolerable may think it is more important than his right to own firearms, more important than national security, or more important than his right to freedom of speech. Every individual must follow what their conscience dictates. My intention isn't to get on your case cwoparson, it's just that in the past I had a very arrogant acquaintance who thought he was more sophisticated than a single issue voter. Perhaps he was, or perhaps he was lacking conviction.

To far left, to far right???? Maybe I'm wrong, but I just assumed csquared was talking about within the realm of sanity.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

CWO, I see on 12/13 in the thread concerning fair chase you consulted your dictionary. If you were inclined to do that again you would note the specific differences between a comment and and an inferrence.

So no, you didn't make that specific comment, but yes, you did infer it.

And as far as me putting ridiculous words into your mouth, well I rarely have to resort to that, and certainly didn't have to this time. You very eloquently, albeit accidentally perhaps, did a very good job of that all by yourself!

I hope your blood pressure has returned to normal by now :wink:


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

If you are going to suggest someone look up a word meaning, you're going to first have to learn to spell the word. Sorry sport but it takes someone better than you to get my blood pressure up.

Plainsman I guess you are easily confused. Pat Robinson was as far right as one could be. The fact he used Christianity as a excuse for his whacked out ideas made him even more dangerous. More than once he publicly stated the constitution had no bearing on his life and decisions because God gave him the answers he would need to run the country. That made him dangerous, very dangerous. That is no way saying God fearing people are psychotic and you either know that or you're attempting to add fuel to the fire. No, I inferred nothing of the sort. You both are sounding like the radical Muslims that get their shorts in a wad every time Mohammad is mentioned outside their liking. Do you really believe just because someone calls themselves a Christian they are above being labeled a extremist.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Do you really believe just because someone calls themselves a Christian they are above being labeled a extremist.


Not at all, but I also beleive that being Christian doesn't automatically make you an extremist either. I just found it strange that you couldn't pick an example that didn't include religion.



> Plainsman I guess you are easily confused.


I'm not so confused that I can't see I have a bad temper on my hands. Get over the short fuse, or your going to have a hard time here before the election even gets close.


----------



## Lardy (Oct 15, 2007)

What about the extremists in the middle east that we look down upon? Why do we consider them extremists? I think a lot of the extremists in history have some sort of unusual religious beliefs. Hitler and Henry the 8th are pretty good examples.

I'd be willing to bet as well that the majority of heavy right wingers are christian extemists and that the left winged extremists may not all be atheists but their christian faith is easily questionable.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Lardy, I certainly understand those things. I understood cwoparson also, but I also understood how csquare took his comment. There was simply better examples, and better ways to put it than make Robertson's religion the center of his disgust.
It was unfortunate wording, resulting in an unfortunate argument between two people who perhaps agree on many things. Unfortunate example and short fuses don't mix well. 
But your certainly entitled to ask why I think the way I do. I agree with much of what both these guys have to say.
I have not gone back to read your posts, but welcome to the form no matter which way they slant.
Oh, by the way, I think csquare was talking about the sane right when asked how can they be to far right. It's a common mistake to put questions that way amoung reasonable men not looking for a weekness in your argument.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

OK guys, I'll sum up MY position on this once and for all.

Even more troubling to me than CWO's belief that the Christian right and the conservative right are interchangeable groups is this notion that the only thing "good" for this country is the sacred middle ground.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it fair to say that this country is founded on "middle ground"? Didn't Jefferson and the boys get together and throw all their differing ideas around, most likely in a way that would have made our discussion here sound more like a Sunday school lesson in comparison, until they were able to reach some "middle ground" that they were all comfortable putting their name to?

If that is true, then you should be beginning to see why it sickens me so when I hear others refer to THAT middle ground as the "extreme" right. To me, one of the most blatant problems with this country is this mindset that anything that mirrors the constitution, word for word and idea for idea, is "extreme" and "too far right".

So to me, this current middle ground that we're all supposed to consider a "benchmark" for political sanity is already WAY too far left from what this country was founded on for me to "jump on board".

And CWO, aside from your belief that anyone who uses too many "r" s worships Allah, I would not be surprised to learn you and I aren't as far apart on the issues as some of your posts may have indicated.

And if you feel you were goaded into a "fight"...well try not to take it too personally. Unfortunately, many times the "truth" can't rise to the top until a little heat is applied!

Thanks to all!

Dan


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Dan, my remark about spelling was meant as a jab to your comment about word understanding. Pretty much petty on both of us. But now you make the comment that I was inferring the Christian right and the conservative right are interchangeable groups and that bothered you. Only thing I said was the right (Republican party) was made up of predominantly Christians. They are a very large part of the Republican base, probable the largest part and the Republicans do court their vote. Thats why they are called the Christan Right. Why would something like that bother you.

I talked about one man and a single excuse that man used as reason for his extremist views. Plainsman thinks that is a bad example and should not be used. Why not? Why would anyone be afraid of the truth. That smacks of the same reasoning of the far left that doesn't want to call terrorist Muslim terrorist because it offends the Muslim community. I guess maybe it is the thing about old put grandpa in the attic so no one will see him and cast a bad light on the family name.

I consider myself as much a Christian as anyone else but I'm not bothered or get upset when someone points out a extremist person that happens to use his faith as a base and excuse for those extreme ideas. Why some people get so upset and insist on defending the indefensible is something I've never understood. I could just as easily have used Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton as racist which I believe they are, who use the color of their skin but is that saying all black people are racist? Of course it is not.

Now you just said the middle ground was to far left for your liking while just a few sentences before that said the far left thinks the middle ground is to far right. Well, in my opinion that is exactly what makes up the far right and far left. They both refuse to come to a middle ground. Jefferson and the boys first had to sit at the same table before that middle ground was reached and keep in mind that is always a take and give proposition.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

I fully agree with cwoparson. that last paragragh was pure genious


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

CWO, I would dearly love to beat this horse up with you...really, I would! But with all due respect, you're getting harder to follow the more you talk, and I think we've both said MORE THAN ENOUGH for others to see where we stand, and from that they can determine for themselves if they agree or disagree.

But one point I MUST make before I go back to reading about guns is that you couldn't be farther off on your explanation of how the Christian right got their "label".....

They're "right" because they believe in a literal and verbatim interpretation of the Constitution and resist any "liberal" twisting of the founders' intent.

The term "Christian" right comes from the fact they believe the Bible should be translated into the law of the land....a perfect blending of legality and morality.

That is where I part ways with them. I have a very strong belief in God, but also believe very strongly legality and morality are like oil and water, hence will NOT perfectly mix.

So back to my original statement, if you want to "follow the money" to define political vs religious groups, then you would also conclude that the left is the "non-Christian left", based solely on the fact that most non believers and Agnostics also tend to be leftists.....but please don't forget that is YOUR logic....NOT MINE!

As far as the question directed to me concerning statements by Plainsman? Well he has made it through almost 5,000 posts with no help from me, so I'm sure he can handle that one on his own also, so I suggest you take it up with him!

Thanks again for the discussion. Reminds me of just how mundane life might sometimes be if we all agreed!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Now you just said the middle ground was to far left for your liking while just a few sentences before that said the far left thinks the middle ground is to far right. Well, in my opinion that is exactly what makes up the far right and far left. They both refuse to come to a middle ground. Jefferson and the boys first had to sit at the same table before that middle ground was reached and keep in mind that is always a take and give proposition.


What has happened in the past couple of hundred years, (mostly in the last 40 years) is that the middle ground has moved much further to the left. Compared to when Jefferson and the boys talked about this it is out of sight left. I don't think I am required to sacrifice my convictions to come to middle ground. I consider myself right, but centrally located in the right. If communism was a one and way far right was a ten I would consider myself about 7.5, unfortunately we are no where close to five now days, our current middle ground is about a three. We need to get back to what is truly middle ground.

I don't think the right is known as the Christian right. I think they are two different but related entities. There is the right, then there is the Christian right. The right is concerned about taxes, spending, national security etc, while the Christian right is more concerned about abortion and things like that. Not all people on the right are Christian, and not all Christian right are radical. I'm not defending Robertson, I am just defending the Christian right. The example you used of Robertson may have been correct, but you simply could have used a less offensive way to make your point. The statement about thinking he heard God talking to him went further than needed for a simple example.



> Dan, my remark about spelling was meant as a jab to your comment about word understanding. Pretty much petty


I agree, I don't like it when people put emphasis on spelling or punctuation, I am more interested in content of what they have to say. We could be here all day if we want to be editors. For example I could have told you I think you need a question mark at the end of this quote don't you?



> Do you really believe just because someone calls themselves a Christian they are above being labeled a extremist.


I often make the same mistake. We had a fellow called Militant Tiger, and he got off on correcting spelling and grammar of others. He seen himself as one of the intellectual elite. By no stretch of the imagination was he even close. So lets stick with the subjects. Personal jabs don't get people to middle ground. They are intended to offend. I guess the thought is if I can't convince you I will offend you and attempt to make you look stupid to others. Not good.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> Quote:
> Dan, my remark about spelling was meant as a jab to your comment about word understanding. Pretty much petty
> 
> I agree, I don't like it when people put emphasis on spelling or punctuation, I am more interested in content of what they have to say. We could be here all day if we want to be editors. For example I could have told you I think you need a question mark at the end of this quote don't you?
> ...


Couldn't help but notice you took two paragraphs to say what I said in seven words which was "Pretty much petty on both of us". Then again since you left out "on both of us" from your quote the only logical conclusion is maybe the intent was to give the appearance of scolding me only as the sole offender. Oh well...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Sorry perhaps my mistake. I only seen you mention spelling, so yes I did leave out the word "both". Yes your right I was sort of scolding and if others were whining about spelling I was scolding them also. I want the opinion of common people, you don't need a PhD in English to comment here. So I hope you also see the positive side to my comments. 
I'm not ticked at all, just being proactive on a form that often gets heated. I expect it, but not this early and especially among people with so many points in common.


----------



## uglyman (Dec 25, 2007)

Ron Paul will win the nomination but I fear he will be targeted.

Ive video of a Neo Ccon calling for assasination of him & his supporters.
the establishment is very nervous.

Goodbye IRS, Goodbye Iraq & the 130 bases in 65 nations we have.

Israel seeks pipeline for Iraqi oil

US discusses plan to pump fuel to its regional ally & solve energy headache

Ed Vuillamy in Washington
4/20/2003
The Guardian, UK

Plans to build a pipeline to siphon oil from Iraq to Haifa Israel are being discussed between DC, Tel Aviv & Baghdad. Reconstruction of an old pipeline to Haifa, inactive since 1948, when the flow from Iraq's northern oilfields to Palestine was re-directed to Syria is envisioned, solving Israel's energy crisis.


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

uglyman said:


> Ron Paul will win the nomination but I fear he will be targeted.


Glad to see the conclusion of this thread nice work everyone.


----------

