Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - way OT - 3rd party
There's a wide range of political opinion on this newsgroup. But one
thing most of us seem to agree on is that neither of the current political parties is doing its job. That got me to thinking about 3rd parties. In the Internet age, it should be easier to organize a 3rd party except for one drawback. Every one I'm familiar with has been on one edge or another of the political spectrum. As such, they alienate a large percentage of voters from the beginning and if they are at all successful wind up as a spoiler. That means they throw the election to the party furthest from their views. Not exactly the desired effect. But is that the only way to fly? Could a 3rd party be formed whose main agenda consisted of "throw the bums out" or "clean up Washington" or the like? Put up a slate of more or less middle of the road candidates, some leaning left and some leaning right to keep things balanced? Forget the presidency and even the senate. If such a party could win even 10%-20% of house seats they would wake up the powers that be. Their opinions would have to be considered for any legislation to pass unless one of the existing parties took an overwhelming number of seats, which is unlikely. Is such a thing possible? And no, I don't want to run, but I'll make phone calls and type envelopes :-). -- Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw |
#2
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - way OT - 3rd party
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message ... There's a wide range of political opinion on this newsgroup. But one thing most of us seem to agree on is that neither of the current political parties is doing its job. That got me to thinking about 3rd parties. In the Internet age, it should be easier to organize a 3rd party except for one drawback. Every one I'm familiar with has been on one edge or another of the political spectrum. As such, they alienate a large percentage of voters from the beginning and if they are at all successful wind up as a spoiler. That means they throw the election to the party furthest from their views. Not exactly the desired effect. But is that the only way to fly? Could a 3rd party be formed whose main agenda consisted of "throw the bums out" or "clean up Washington" or the like? Put up a slate of more or less middle of the road candidates, some leaning left and some leaning right to keep things balanced? ================================================== ================================ What you are proposing is electing people that actually represent the majority. Blasphemy! |
#3
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - way OT - 3rd party
On 12/29/2011 7:57 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
There's a wide range of political opinion on this newsgroup. But one thing most of us seem to agree on is that neither of the current political parties is doing its job. That got me to thinking about 3rd parties. In the Internet age, it should be easier to organize a 3rd party except for one drawback. Every one I'm familiar with has been on one edge or another of the political spectrum. As such, they alienate a large percentage of voters from the beginning and if they are at all successful wind up as a spoiler. That means they throw the election to the party furthest from their views. Not exactly the desired effect. But is that the only way to fly? Could a 3rd party be formed whose main agenda consisted of "throw the bums out" or "clean up Washington" or the like? Put up a slate of more or less middle of the road candidates, some leaning left and some leaning right to keep things balanced? Forget the presidency and even the senate. If such a party could win even 10%-20% of house seats they would wake up the powers that be. Their opinions would have to be considered for any legislation to pass unless one of the existing parties took an overwhelming number of seats, which is unlikely. Is such a thing possible? And no, I don't want to run, but I'll make phone calls and type envelopes :-). Unfortunately the way the system works is a vote for a 3rd party candidate only detracts from the votes for the party of similar views. For the last several presidential elections the vote has been about 50/50 +/-1. If the 3rd party is conservative, their votes will be subtracted from the more conservative major party's 50%, thus the more liberal party wins. (Liberal 50% 3rd party 10% + conservative party 40%) hence the all of the conservatives loose as the liberals win. (If Ross Perot had not run the Republicans would have take the White house.) The way a 3rd party could influence the election is if the conservative group promoted a very liberal candidate so the 3rd party would detract from the less liberal candidate, and then the sponsors of the 3rd party vote for the more conservative major candidate. Machiavellian but it would work. |
#4
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - way OT - 3rd party
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
... There's a wide range of political opinion on this newsgroup. But one thing most of us seem to agree on is that neither of the current political parties is doing its job. That got me to thinking about 3rd parties. In the Internet age, it should be easier to organize a 3rd party except for one drawback. Every one I'm familiar with has been on one edge or another of the political spectrum. As such, they alienate a large percentage of voters from the beginning and if they are at all successful wind up as a spoiler. That means they throw the election to the party furthest from their views. Not exactly the desired effect. But is that the only way to fly? Could a 3rd party be formed whose main agenda consisted of "throw the bums out" or "clean up Washington" or the like? Put up a slate of more or less middle of the road candidates, some leaning left and some leaning right to keep things balanced? Forget the presidency and even the senate. If such a party could win even 10%-20% of house seats they would wake up the powers that be. Their opinions would have to be considered for any legislation to pass unless one of the existing parties took an overwhelming number of seats, which is unlikely. Is such a thing possible? And no, I don't want to run, but I'll make phone calls and type envelopes :-). -- Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw It is already happening. Two members of the Senate do not belong the the Democrats or Republicans. The biggest stumbling block is local statutes regulating elections. The Ds and Rs have the rules locked in their favor. The Primary system is the best example; if you are not a D or R, the first time your name appears on a ballot is November. Then they make the rules for the legislatures. Those rules favor ONLY a two party system. All of them have to go. The system may even need to go. -- -- |
#5
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - way OT - 3rd party
Larry Blanchard wrote:
There's a wide range of political opinion on this newsgroup. But one thing most of us seem to agree on is that neither of the current political parties is doing its job. That got me to thinking about 3rd parties. In the Internet age, it should be easier to organize a 3rd party except for one drawback. Every one I'm familiar with has been on one edge or another of the political spectrum. As such, they alienate a large percentage of voters from the beginning and if they are at all successful wind up as a spoiler. That means they throw the election to the party furthest from their views. Not exactly the desired effect. But is that the only way to fly? Could a 3rd party be formed whose main agenda consisted of "throw the bums out" or "clean up Washington" or the like? Put up a slate of more or less middle of the road candidates, some leaning left and some leaning right to keep things balanced? Forget the presidency and even the senate. If such a party could win even 10%-20% of house seats they would wake up the powers that be. Their opinions would have to be considered for any legislation to pass unless one of the existing parties took an overwhelming number of seats, which is unlikely. Is such a thing possible? And no, I don't want to run, but I'll make phone calls and type envelopes :-). A fool's errand. The last 3rd party to make a difference was the Bull Moose party and its nominee Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. Roosevelt drew enough votes from the Republican Howard Taft to give the election to Woodrow Wilson. No third party since, not George Wallace, not John Anderson, not Ross Perot, not anyone, has made one smidgen of difference. Both major parties approve of "protest" voters supporting 3rd parties. It gets the lunatics out of the party machinery so the serious folks can get on with business. |
#6
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - way OT - 3rd party
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m... Larry Blanchard wrote: There's a wide range of political opinion on this newsgroup. But one thing most of us seem to agree on is that neither of the current political parties is doing its job. That got me to thinking about 3rd parties. In the Internet age, it should be easier to organize a 3rd party except for one drawback. Every one I'm familiar with has been on one edge or another of the political spectrum. As such, they alienate a large percentage of voters from the beginning and if they are at all successful wind up as a spoiler. That means they throw the election to the party furthest from their views. Not exactly the desired effect. But is that the only way to fly? Could a 3rd party be formed whose main agenda consisted of "throw the bums out" or "clean up Washington" or the like? Put up a slate of more or less middle of the road candidates, some leaning left and some leaning right to keep things balanced? Forget the presidency and even the senate. If such a party could win even 10%-20% of house seats they would wake up the powers that be. Their opinions would have to be considered for any legislation to pass unless one of the existing parties took an overwhelming number of seats, which is unlikely. Is such a thing possible? And no, I don't want to run, but I'll make phone calls and type envelopes :-). A fool's errand. The last 3rd party to make a difference was the Bull Moose party and its nominee Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. Roosevelt drew enough votes from the Republican Howard Taft to give the election to Woodrow Wilson. No third party since, not George Wallace, not John Anderson, not Ross Perot, not anyone, has made one smidgen of difference. Both major parties approve of "protest" voters supporting 3rd parties. It gets the lunatics out of the party machinery so the serious folks can get on with business. Neither party could withstand three successive "Throw The *******s Out!" elections. Forget a capital 'T' third party - vote Against All Incumbents. -- -- |
#7
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - way OT - 3rd party
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:45:12 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote: A fool's errand. The last 3rd party to make a difference was the Bull Moose party and its nominee Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. Roosevelt drew enough votes from the Republican Howard Taft to give the election to Woodrow Wilson. So it can make a difference. No third party since, not George Wallace, not John Anderson, not Ross Perot, not anyone, has made one smidgen of difference. So we should stop and embrace the present corrupt parties? Rather than accept the status quo, do something to change it. Both major parties approve of "protest" voters supporting 3rd parties. It gets the lunatics out of the party machinery so the serious folks can get on with business. Who would those serious folds be? Certainly none of the present slate of Republicans strutting in front of the camera. Nor the guy in office, nor most anyone in Congress. You are welcome to accept and vote for second rate candidates though, rather than try to find good ones. |
#8
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - way OT - 3rd party
On 12/29/2011 08:04 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:45:12 -0600, wrote: A fool's errand. The last 3rd party to make a difference was the Bull Moose party and its nominee Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. Roosevelt drew enough votes from the Republican Howard Taft to give the election to Woodrow Wilson. So it can make a difference. No third party since, not George Wallace, not John Anderson, not Ross Perot, not anyone, has made one smidgen of difference. So we should stop and embrace the present corrupt parties? Rather than accept the status quo, do something to change it. Both major parties approve of "protest" voters supporting 3rd parties. It gets the lunatics out of the party machinery so the serious folks can get on with business. Who would those serious folds be? Certainly none of the present slate of Republicans strutting in front of the camera. Nor the guy in office, nor most anyone in Congress. You are welcome to accept and vote for second rate candidates though, rather than try to find good ones. You can find all the "good ones" you want. The problem is getting them elected. The majority of the electorate is clueless. The majority of them couldn't tell you who the VP or their congressman is, let alone what their position on issues is or what that position means to the country. They'd vote for Justin Bieber if his name was on the ballot. -- "Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery" -Winston Churchill |
#9
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - way OT - 3rd party
There is a third-party movement afoot called America Elects. CNN has the following story today: http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/29/politi...html?hpt=hp_t2 It will be interesting to see if this gains any traction. Larry On 12/29/2011 6:57 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote: There's a wide range of political opinion on this newsgroup. But one thing most of us seem to agree on is that neither of the current political parties is doing its job. That got me to thinking about 3rd parties. In the Internet age, it should be easier to organize a 3rd party except for one drawback. Every one I'm familiar with has been on one edge or another of the political spectrum. As such, they alienate a large percentage of voters from the beginning and if they are at all successful wind up as a spoiler. That means they throw the election to the party furthest from their views. Not exactly the desired effect. But is that the only way to fly? Could a 3rd party be formed whose main agenda consisted of "throw the bums out" or "clean up Washington" or the like? Put up a slate of more or less middle of the road candidates, some leaning left and some leaning right to keep things balanced? Forget the presidency and even the senate. If such a party could win even 10%-20% of house seats they would wake up the powers that be. Their opinions would have to be considered for any legislation to pass unless one of the existing parties took an overwhelming number of seats, which is unlikely. Is such a thing possible? And no, I don't want to run, but I'll make phone calls and type envelopes :-). |
#10
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - way OT - 3rd party
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 22:05:02 -0600, Gramp's shop
wrote: There is a third-party movement afoot called America Elects. CNN has the following story today: http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/29/politi...html?hpt=hp_t2 It will be interesting to see if this gains any traction. Perhaps. I view it with a cynical eye and raised eyebrow after seeing who started it. On 12/29/2011 6:57 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote: There's a wide range of political opinion on this newsgroup. But one thing most of us seem to agree on is that neither of the current political parties is doing its job. That got me to thinking about 3rd parties. In the Internet age, it should be easier to organize a 3rd party except for one drawback. Every one I'm familiar with has been on one edge or another of the political spectrum. As such, they alienate a large percentage of voters from the beginning and if they are at all successful wind up as a spoiler. That means they throw the election to the party furthest from their views. Not exactly the desired effect. But is that the only way to fly? Could a 3rd party be formed whose main agenda consisted of "throw the bums out" or "clean up Washington" or the like? Put up a slate of more or less middle of the road candidates, some leaning left and some leaning right to keep things balanced? Forget the presidency and even the senate. If such a party could win even 10%-20% of house seats they would wake up the powers that be. Their opinions would have to be considered for any legislation to pass unless one of the existing parties took an overwhelming number of seats, which is unlikely. Is such a thing possible? And no, I don't want to run, but I'll make phone calls and type envelopes :-). Ross Perot, for whom I proudly voted, won 20% of the vote in 1992. That was our best chance. The Reform Party would have been our ticket out of this mess the totally corrupt Reps and Dems have brought us down to. BUT, the PTBs and Reps and Dems did everything in their power to see him out of it. They even threatened his daughter during the '96 race and made Perot drop out. -- Live in the sunshine, swim the sea, drink the wild air… -- Ralph Waldo Emerson |
#11
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - way OT - 3rd party
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:45:12 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote: A fool's errand. The last 3rd party to make a difference was the Bull Moose party and its nominee Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. Roosevelt drew enough votes from the Republican Howard Taft to give the election to Woodrow Wilson. So it can make a difference. Definitely yes. You'll need a candidate who was a former president, implemented the equivalent of the Panama Canal, busted the trusts (i.e., Standard Oil), winner of the Nobel Prize, and so forth. Now it just so happens I know a fellow that fits that bill. His resume includes: Yale graduate, War hero, Congressman, Chairman of the Republican Party, Ambassador to the United Nations, Ambassador to the People's Republic of China, Director of Central Intelligence, Vice President of the United States, President of the United States, and many lesser posts. But I don't think anyone has approached him... No third party since, not George Wallace, not John Anderson, not Ross Perot, not anyone, has made one smidgen of difference. So we should stop and embrace the present corrupt parties? Rather than accept the status quo, do something to change it. Exactly right. Choose the party closest to your views and get to work changing it. To do so via a third party process is equivalent to building the nation's best-selling car company from scratch. Both major parties approve of "protest" voters supporting 3rd parties. It gets the lunatics out of the party machinery so the serious folks can get on with business. Who would those serious folds be? Certainly none of the present slate of Republicans strutting in front of the camera. Nor the guy in office, nor most anyone in Congress. You are welcome to accept and vote for second rate candidates though, rather than try to find good ones. I don't think you realize the complexity of a party's apparatus. It's not just the office holder. There are, literally, tens of thousands of employees within a party plus an equal number of active financial supporters. For example, in a congressional district that might be vulnerable, a candidate recruitment group will come into being. They'll seek out, wine and dine prospects for the position. Research will be done, polls taken, pitches made. Money will be collected to sustain the candidate during the campaign (his family will need to be fed). There will be a dozen or so "elders" who promote and create the candidate and his initial campaign. From there, the campaign grows (or not). No, it's not like somebody pops up and says "I want to be a congressman (or govenor, or whatever)". There is a massive, and I do mean massive, background process that is never seen by the public. |
#12
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - way OT - 3rd party
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:35:28 -0500, Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 12/29/2011 7:57 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote: But is that the only way to fly? Could a 3rd party be formed whose main agenda consisted of "throw the bums out" or "clean up Washington" or the like? Put up a slate of more or less middle of the road candidates, some leaning left and some leaning right to keep things balanced? Unfortunately the way the system works is a vote for a 3rd party candidate only detracts from the votes for the party of similar views. See my quote above - much of my post was dedicated to overcoming that problem. -- Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw |
#13
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - way OT - 3rd party
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 22:05:02 -0600, Gramp's shop wrote:
There is a third-party movement afoot called America Elects. CNN has the following story today: http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/29/politi...ct/index.html? hpt=hp_t2 It will be interesting to see if this gains any traction. It is interesting. But according to the article, they're concentrating on a presidential ticket. As the article says, "The U.S. Constitution requires the House of Representatives to pick the president if no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes." That pretty much dooms any 3rd party presidential run. That's why I suggested running candidates for the house. -- Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw |
#14
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - way OT - 3rd party
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 05:51:02 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
It will be interesting to see if this gains any traction. Perhaps. I view it with a cynical eye and raised eyebrow after seeing who started it. Seems to me to include moderates from both parties. Not necessarily my favorites any more than yours. But a lack of compromise got us where we are now in DC. I'm willing, are you? Ross Perot, for whom I proudly voted, won 20% of the vote in 1992. That was our best chance. The Reform Party would have been our ticket out of this mess the totally corrupt Reps and Dems have brought us down to. FWIW, I voted for him as well. But I knew it was a futile protest. As I pointed out in a previous response the rules would have thrown the election into the house unless he got a majority of electoral votes. That's why I suggested candidates for the house. While each state sets its own rules for house elections, they're generally less restrictive than those for presidential elections. -- Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw |
#15
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - way OT - 3rd party
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:33:05 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote: On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 05:51:02 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote: It will be interesting to see if this gains any traction. Perhaps. I view it with a cynical eye and raised eyebrow after seeing who started it. Seems to me to include moderates from both parties. Not necessarily my favorites any more than yours. But a lack of compromise got us where we are now in DC. I'm willing, are you? What, to compromise? I'll give it a "we'll see", OK? Ross Perot, for whom I proudly voted, won 20% of the vote in 1992. That was our best chance. The Reform Party would have been our ticket out of this mess the totally corrupt Reps and Dems have brought us down to. FWIW, I voted for him as well. But I knew it was a futile protest. As I pointed out in a previous response the rules would have thrown the election into the house unless he got a majority of electoral votes. I thought the electorate was mad enough then to get the job done, but I heard it over and over again after the election "I just didn't know. I wanted someone I could trust." Like, gag me with a spoon. That's why I suggested candidates for the house. While each state sets its own rules for house elections, they're generally less restrictive than those for presidential elections. Yeah, getting good people into the house and senate come first, and maybe even last. CONgress controls things, not the President. -- Live in the sunshine, swim the sea, drink the wild air… -- Ralph Waldo Emerson |
#16
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - way OT - 3rd party
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:11:24 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote: On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:35:28 -0500, Keith Nuttle wrote: On 12/29/2011 7:57 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote: But is that the only way to fly? Could a 3rd party be formed whose main agenda consisted of "throw the bums out" or "clean up Washington" or the like? Put up a slate of more or less middle of the road candidates, some leaning left and some leaning right to keep things balanced? Unfortunately the way the system works is a vote for a 3rd party candidate only detracts from the votes for the party of similar views. See my quote above - much of my post was dedicated to overcoming that problem. Uh, Keith, voting for one guy in a two way race detracts from the votes for the other party, too. Doh! -- Live in the sunshine, swim the sea, drink the wild air… -- Ralph Waldo Emerson |
#17
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - way OT - 3rd party
Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:11:24 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard wrote: On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:35:28 -0500, Keith Nuttle wrote: On 12/29/2011 7:57 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote: But is that the only way to fly? Could a 3rd party be formed whose main agenda consisted of "throw the bums out" or "clean up Washington" or the like? Put up a slate of more or less middle of the road candidates, some leaning left and some leaning right to keep things balanced? Unfortunately the way the system works is a vote for a 3rd party candidate only detracts from the votes for the party of similar views. See my quote above - much of my post was dedicated to overcoming that problem. Uh, Keith, voting for one guy in a two way race detracts from the votes for the other party, too. Doh! It's the reverse with a vote for a 3rd party candidate. Voting for a Ross Perot wannabe subtracts votes from his nearest party, the Republicans. Voting for a Ralph Nader type subtracts votes from the Democrats. |
#18
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - way OT - 3rd party
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 22:05:02 -0600, Gramp's shop wrote: There is a third-party movement afoot called America Elects. CNN has the following story today: http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/29/politi...ct/index.html? hpt=hp_t2 It will be interesting to see if this gains any traction. It is interesting. But according to the article, they're concentrating on a presidential ticket. As the article says, "The U.S. Constitution requires the House of Representatives to pick the president if no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes." That pretty much dooms any 3rd party presidential run. Specifically, it's the NEWLY ELECTED House and each state gets one vote. Right now, I THINK the Republican state majorities outnumber the Democrats, but I couldn't find that breakdown. |
#19
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - way OT - 3rd party
On 12/30/2011 8:47 PM, HeyBub wrote:
[...] Fortunately, our current president cannot be, in the coming campaign, charismatic. Shouting "Hallelujah" and "Come on down," and "The seas will retreat!" are totally unbecoming for a president. If he acts that way, he'll be labeled a clown. He already has the ears for it... |
#20
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - way OT - 3rd party
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:47:36 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
Ron Paul - He has no concept of how the world works, but is quite eloquent in creating an imaginary world that's made of gingerbread and unicorns. That's the best definition of him I've seen yet :-). Every time I hear him say something sensible, he immediately destroys it in the next sentence. -- Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw |
#21
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - way OT - 3rd party
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:47:36 -0600, HeyBub wrote: Ron Paul - He has no concept of how the world works, but is quite eloquent in creating an imaginary world that's made of gingerbread and unicorns. That's the best definition of him I've seen yet :-). Every time I hear him say something sensible, he immediately destroys it in the next sentence. Libertarians are kinda like the Celtic tribes that the English kings used to hire to fight their wars: Brave, loyal, fierce as hell. You just didn't want them to, you know, actually RUN things. |
#22
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - way OT - 3rd party
On 12/31/2011 5:18 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote: On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:47:36 -0600, HeyBub wrote: Ron Paul - He has no concept of how the world works, but is quite eloquent in creating an imaginary world that's made of gingerbread and unicorns. That's the best definition of him I've seen yet :-). Every time I hear him say something sensible, he immediately destroys it in the next sentence. Libertarians are kinda like the Celtic tribes that the English kings used to hire to fight their wars: Brave, loyal, fierce as hell. You just didn't want them to, you know, actually RUN things. For heaven's sakes, we can't be having those with a brave, loyal, fierce attitude, you know, the attributes that originally instituted the place, to actually run things, now can we. -- www.eWoodShop.com Last update: 4/15/2010 KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious) http://gplus.to/eWoodShop |
#23
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - way OT - 3rd party
"Swingman" wrote in message ... On 12/31/2011 5:18 PM, HeyBub wrote: Larry Blanchard wrote: On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:47:36 -0600, HeyBub wrote: Ron Paul - He has no concept of how the world works, but is quite eloquent in creating an imaginary world that's made of gingerbread and unicorns. That's the best definition of him I've seen yet :-). Every time I hear him say something sensible, he immediately destroys it in the next sentence. Libertarians are kinda like the Celtic tribes that the English kings used to hire to fight their wars: Brave, loyal, fierce as hell. You just didn't want them to, you know, actually RUN things. For heaven's sakes, we can't be having those with a brave, loyal, fierce attitude, you know, the attributes that originally instituted the place, to actually run things, now can we. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We have very few of those left. Most are defeatists, like Heybub, who's motto is "There's no point in trying, we can't win". |
#24
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - way OT - 3rd party
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 17:44:45 -0600, Swingman wrote:
On 12/31/2011 5:18 PM, HeyBub wrote: Larry Blanchard wrote: On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:47:36 -0600, HeyBub wrote: Ron Paul - He has no concept of how the world works, but is quite eloquent in creating an imaginary world that's made of gingerbread and unicorns. That's the best definition of him I've seen yet :-). Every time I hear him say something sensible, he immediately destroys it in the next sentence. Libertarians are kinda like the Celtic tribes that the English kings used to hire to fight their wars: Brave, loyal, fierce as hell. You just didn't want them to, you know, actually RUN things. For heaven's sakes, we can't be having those with a brave, loyal, fierce attitude, you know, the attributes that originally instituted the place, to actually run things, now can we. giggle Yeah, we need to maintain the quasi-feudal path we've been on, and keep calling it a democratic republic. Just ask him. -- Live in the sunshine, swim the sea, drink the wild air… -- Ralph Waldo Emerson |
#25
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - way OT - 3rd party
CW wrote:
"Swingman" wrote in message ... On 12/31/2011 5:18 PM, HeyBub wrote: Larry Blanchard wrote: On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:47:36 -0600, HeyBub wrote: Ron Paul - He has no concept of how the world works, but is quite eloquent in creating an imaginary world that's made of gingerbread and unicorns. That's the best definition of him I've seen yet :-). Every time I hear him say something sensible, he immediately destroys it in the next sentence. Libertarians are kinda like the Celtic tribes that the English kings used to hire to fight their wars: Brave, loyal, fierce as hell. You just didn't want them to, you know, actually RUN things. For heaven's sakes, we can't be having those with a brave, loyal, fierce attitude, you know, the attributes that originally instituted the place, to actually run things, now can we. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We have very few of those left. Most are defeatists, like Heybub, who's motto is "There's no point in trying, we can't win". Ah, but you can succeed - if you go about it the right way. The libertarians have been trying the same thing for, what, 60 years with exactly the same result each time: failure. Recall the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over hoping for a different result. They have not won. They will not win. They cannot win. The way TO win is to get involved with either the Democrats or Republicans. Change from within. |
#26
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - way OT - 3rd party
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 21:39:08 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
The way TO win is to get involved with either the Democrats or Republicans. Change from within. While I consider myself pretty much a moderate, the current occupation of the Republican party by the tea party and the religious right would drive me up a wall if I attempted to work with them. That leaves the Democrats and their "we know what's good for you" attitude. Sigh. It would be so nice if just once I didn't have to pick the lesser of two weevils. -- Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw |
#27
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - way OT - 3rd party
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 21:39:08 -0600, HeyBub wrote: The way TO win is to get involved with either the Democrats or Republicans. Change from within. While I consider myself pretty much a moderate, the current occupation of the Republican party by the tea party and the religious right would drive me up a wall if I attempted to work with them. The motivations of the religious right and a moderate conservative do not, usually, result in a conflict on the result. Take reducing welfare. The religious right may be motivated in cutting welfare claiming that should be the province of the charitable-minded in the community of the faithful. The conservative's inclination may be to reduce government expenditures by cutting-off those able to work. Two different approaches, same outcome. Point is, the agenda of your colleagues should be irrelevant to the result. Why not a good result for both? Consider the Keystone Pipeline endeavor. The unions want the jobs, the conservatives want the oil. It's a win-win even though the unions have no truck, generally, with conservatives and vice-versa. That leaves the Democrats and their "we know what's good for you" attitude. Sigh. It would be so nice if just once I didn't have to pick the lesser of two weevils. You don't. On the election for president, there will probably be eight or more candidates (Communist, Socialist, Flat-Earth, etc.). Your choice, then, is between a vote that matters and one that doesn't. |
#28
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - way OT - 3rd party
"HeyBub" wrote in message m... CW wrote: "Swingman" wrote in message ... On 12/31/2011 5:18 PM, HeyBub wrote: Larry Blanchard wrote: On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:47:36 -0600, HeyBub wrote: Ron Paul - He has no concept of how the world works, but is quite eloquent in creating an imaginary world that's made of gingerbread and unicorns. That's the best definition of him I've seen yet :-). Every time I hear him say something sensible, he immediately destroys it in the next sentence. Libertarians are kinda like the Celtic tribes that the English kings used to hire to fight their wars: Brave, loyal, fierce as hell. You just didn't want them to, you know, actually RUN things. For heaven's sakes, we can't be having those with a brave, loyal, fierce attitude, you know, the attributes that originally instituted the place, to actually run things, now can we. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We have very few of those left. Most are defeatists, like Heybub, who's motto is "There's no point in trying, we can't win". Ah, but you can succeed - if you go about it the right way. The libertarians have been trying the same thing for, what, 60 years with exactly the same result each time: failure. Recall the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over hoping for a different result. They have not won. They will not win. They cannot win. The way TO win is to get involved with either the Democrats or Republicans. Change from within. ================================================== ================ I really didn't expect that you would come back and confirm that you are a defeatist but, apparently, you are proud of it. |
#29
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - way OT - 3rd party
On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 18:02:42 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote: On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 21:39:08 -0600, HeyBub wrote: The way TO win is to get involved with either the Democrats or Republicans. Change from within. While I consider myself pretty much a moderate, the current occupation of the Republican party by the tea party and the religious right would drive me up a wall if I attempted to work with them. The self professed "tea partiers" on TV aren't the same as those out here in America, nor are their goals, nor is the TV coverage of them. Grab a copy of Rasmussen/Shoen's _Mad as Hell_ for more info. http://goo.gl/HfVOU It's an eye-opener. That leaves the Democrats and their "we know what's good for you" attitude. Don't forget the "Pay Here" signs. Between them and Shrub, I think commas on pay stubs have been outlawed. Sigh. It would be so nice if just once I didn't have to pick the lesser of two weevils. Methinks you misspelled "absolute evils". sigh -- Win first, Fight later. --martial principle of the Samurai |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
OT Hey don't forget the Tax Tea Party | Woodworking | |||
party wall | UK diy |