NYTimes Connections
- Steely_D - May 16, 2024 - 3:57pm
NY Times Strands
- Steely_D - May 16, 2024 - 3:47pm
Radio Paradise Comments
- Steely_D - May 16, 2024 - 3:46pm
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- RPnate1 - May 16, 2024 - 3:33pm
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests
- Bill_J - May 16, 2024 - 3:15pm
Other Medical Stuff
- pilgrim - May 16, 2024 - 1:06pm
Your Local News
- Proclivities - May 16, 2024 - 12:51pm
USA! USA! USA!
- thisbody - May 16, 2024 - 12:27pm
Today in History
- ScottFromWyoming - May 16, 2024 - 12:20pm
Alexa Show
- thisbody - May 16, 2024 - 12:15pm
What can you hear right now?
- thisbody - May 16, 2024 - 11:00am
Things You Thought Today
- thisbody - May 16, 2024 - 10:25am
Wordle - daily game
- islander - May 16, 2024 - 7:13am
Joe Biden
- Steely_D - May 16, 2024 - 1:02am
Climate Change
- R_P - May 15, 2024 - 9:38pm
Strange signs, marquees, billboards, etc.
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 15, 2024 - 4:13pm
how do you feel right now?
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 15, 2024 - 4:10pm
China
- R_P - May 15, 2024 - 1:40pm
Dialing 1-800-Manbird
- oldviolin - May 15, 2024 - 1:13pm
What the hell OV?
- oldviolin - May 15, 2024 - 12:38pm
Israel
- R_P - May 15, 2024 - 12:16pm
Song of the Day
- oldviolin - May 15, 2024 - 11:50am
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - May 15, 2024 - 11:48am
Science is bullsh*t
- oldviolin - May 15, 2024 - 11:44am
NASA & other news from space
- Beaker - May 15, 2024 - 9:29am
Artificial Intelligence
- thisbody - May 15, 2024 - 8:25am
Human Rights (Can Science Point The Way)
- miamizsun - May 15, 2024 - 5:50am
Play the Blues
- Steely_D - May 15, 2024 - 1:50am
Music library
- mbellenberg - May 15, 2024 - 1:01am
Animal Resistance
- R_P - May 14, 2024 - 6:37pm
2024 Elections!
- R_P - May 14, 2024 - 6:00pm
May 2024 Photo Theme - Peaceful
- fractalv - May 14, 2024 - 5:02pm
Fascism In America
- Red_Dragon - May 14, 2024 - 4:27pm
punk? hip-hop? metal? noise? garage?
- thisbody - May 14, 2024 - 1:27pm
The Obituary Page
- thisbody - May 14, 2024 - 12:41pm
Social Media Are Changing Everything
- Red_Dragon - May 14, 2024 - 8:08am
Internet connection
- ai63 - May 14, 2024 - 7:53am
Congress
- Red_Dragon - May 13, 2024 - 8:22pm
Ukraine
- R_P - May 13, 2024 - 5:50pm
What The Hell Buddy?
- oldviolin - May 13, 2024 - 1:25pm
Surfing!
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 13, 2024 - 1:21pm
Bad Poetry
- oldviolin - May 13, 2024 - 11:38am
What Did You See Today?
- kurtster - May 13, 2024 - 10:35am
See This Film
- Red_Dragon - May 13, 2024 - 8:35am
Podcast recommendations???
- ColdMiser - May 13, 2024 - 7:50am
News of the Weird
- Red_Dragon - May 13, 2024 - 5:05am
Mixtape Culture Club
- Lazy8 - May 12, 2024 - 10:26pm
Trump
- Steely_D - May 12, 2024 - 3:35pm
Those Lovable Policemen
- R_P - May 12, 2024 - 11:31am
Vinyl Only Spin List
- kurtster - May 12, 2024 - 9:16am
The All-Things Beatles Forum
- Steely_D - May 12, 2024 - 9:04am
Baseball, anyone?
- Red_Dragon - May 12, 2024 - 6:52am
Poetry Forum
- ScottN - May 12, 2024 - 6:32am
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- miamizsun - May 11, 2024 - 10:37am
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see
- oldviolin - May 11, 2024 - 8:43am
Beer
- ScottFromWyoming - May 10, 2024 - 8:58pm
It's the economy stupid.
- thisbody - May 10, 2024 - 3:21pm
Oh dear god, BEES!
- R_P - May 10, 2024 - 3:11pm
Tornado!
- miamizsun - May 10, 2024 - 2:49pm
The 1960s
- kcar - May 10, 2024 - 2:49pm
Name My Band
- GeneP59 - May 10, 2024 - 9:35am
Marko Haavisto & Poutahaukat
- thisbody - May 10, 2024 - 7:57am
Living in America
- Proclivities - May 10, 2024 - 6:45am
Virginia News
- Red_Dragon - May 10, 2024 - 5:42am
Outstanding Covers
- Steely_D - May 10, 2024 - 12:56am
Democratic Party
- R_P - May 9, 2024 - 3:06pm
RP on HomePod mini
- RPnate1 - May 9, 2024 - 10:52am
Interesting Words
- Proclivities - May 9, 2024 - 10:22am
Breaking News
- maryte - May 9, 2024 - 7:17am
Guns
- Red_Dragon - May 9, 2024 - 6:16am
Spambags on RP
- Steely_D - May 8, 2024 - 2:30pm
Suggestion for new RP Channel: Modern / Family
- Ruuddie - May 8, 2024 - 11:46am
Gaming, Shopping, and More? Samsung's Metaverse Plans for...
- alexhoxdson - May 8, 2024 - 7:00am
SLOVENIA
- novitibo - May 8, 2024 - 1:38am
Reviews and Pix from your concerts and shows you couldn't...
- haresfur - May 7, 2024 - 10:46pm
|
Index »
Regional/Local »
USA/Canada »
Mitt Romney
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next |
bokey
Gender:
|
Posted:
Aug 23, 2012 - 11:40am |
|
Mitt Romney rhymes with shit hominy. Obama rhymes with, hmm can't think of one. I'll just put him in the "shit hominy" category also. Pick your poison. It's all gonna be more of the same.
|
|
Manbird
Location: La Villa Toscana Gender:
|
Posted:
Aug 23, 2012 - 11:19am |
|
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Mar 8, 2012 - 6:31pm |
|
Lazy8 wrote: Gosh, thanks.
I got what you're saying, I just disagree. Everyone is "evolved enough" to engineer their own life. No one is "evolved enough" to engineer someone else's.
I've seen some examples that put the lie to that.
|
|
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 8, 2012 - 6:03pm |
|
hippiechick wrote:I should have said a large percentage of...
Pretty sure you are evolved enough to get what I was saying. Gosh, thanks. I got what you're saying, I just disagree. Everyone is "evolved enough" to engineer their own life. No one is "evolved enough" to engineer someone else's.
|
|
hippiechick
Location: topsy turvy land Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 8, 2012 - 5:28pm |
|
Lazy8 wrote: Speak for yourself.
I should have said a large percentage of... Pretty sure you are evolved enough to get what I was saying.
|
|
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 8, 2012 - 5:26pm |
|
hippiechick wrote:US citizens are currently not evolved enough to be engineers. Speak for yourself.
|
|
hippiechick
Location: topsy turvy land Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 8, 2012 - 5:16pm |
|
Romulus wrote: The question is, do we want power centralized in the hands of a few, or do we want decentralized, localized power in the hands of many, closer to the people where it is fluid, adjusting and changing as needed based on the will of the people.
Do we want to be engineered, or collectively, voluntarily be engineers? Huge difference.
US citizens are currently not evolved enough to be engineers.
|
|
Romulus
Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 8, 2012 - 10:53am |
|
RichardPrins wrote: You wanting a hands-off approach to society isn't a form of engineering to match what you'd want to see? Seems to me the only difference is in who's doing the engineering (top-down vs. bottom-up). In the end both all sides want the power to produce a desired outcome.
PS: The engineering being in all cases driven by political ideology (however strong, weak, good or bad it might be in the eyes of the followers)
The question is, do we want power centralized in the hands of a few, or do we want decentralized, localized power in the hands of many, closer to the people where it is fluid, adjusting and changing as needed based on the will of the people. Do we want to be engineered, or collectively, voluntarily be engineers? Huge difference.
|
|
R_P
Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 1:41pm |
|
Lazy8 wrote: Yes, hands-off really means hands-off. Change via evolution rather than threat of violence.
It remains (to be) engineering based on ideology.
|
|
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 1:36pm |
|
RichardPrins wrote:You wanting a hands-off approach to society isn't a form of engineering to match what you'd want to see? Seems to me the only difference is in who's doing the engineering (top-down vs. bottom-up). In the end both all sides want the power to produce a desired outcome. Yes, hands-off really means hands-off. Change via evolution rather than threat of violence.
|
|
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 1:34pm |
|
Beaker wrote:Ah. I get it just fine, thanks. This is perhaps where you misunderstand the electorate masses. Yes, there are hordes of sheep in both GOP and Dem camps. And whatever the total number of sheep plus the swayed Indies that can be convinced to go along with the sheep, are what a winning race makes.
Want to be different and truly stand out? Put up a flag called Libertarian, run a stellar candidate with impeccable credentials, and watch the potential for sea-change in American politics truly have an opportunity to make an impact, as voters finally en mass choose person over party. Ron Paul is not the stellar candidate the Libertarians should be looking for. IMO, your typical and most numerous type of voter would rather be a sheep than vote for a nutty discredited guy like Ron Paul.
And thanks for the reply. I feel so worthy that you would take 1.5 minutes out of your day to respond to me directly. I'm thrilled. Really.
I'm afraid this really isn't getting thru. I don't want a stellar candidate to overwhelm people's political preferences with his personality, I want to change those preferences. I want lasting change, not a personality cult. And I don't care if my party ever wins an election. I'm in this for the long haul. You're welcome. Just one of many services I offer.
|
|
R_P
Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 1:33pm |
|
Lazy8 wrote:... (I want a hands-off approach to society in general so it can evolve, they want to engineer it to match what they want to see) ... You wanting a hands-off approach to society isn't a form of engineering to match what you'd want to see? Seems to me the only difference is in who's doing the engineering (top-down vs. bottom-up). In the end both all sides want the power to produce a desired outcome. PS: The engineering being in all cases driven by political ideology (however strong, weak, good or bad it might be in the eyes of the followers)
|
|
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 1:15pm |
|
Beaker wrote:I agree. Which was my point about building credibility for the Libertarian movement by electing solid, respected folk, to congressional and state office.
As for Ron Paul, I'm sorry, he's a fail - a non-starter. By mere virtue of being in office for a bunch of sessions is not of itself suitable qualification to be seen as a credible candidate for your highest office. Not unless your electorate intentionally wants to roll your economy, global trade, and place on the world stage backwards in time many decades. I get it—you don't like him. I really, honestly understand that. I'll understand it the next time too. You aren't getting something tho: it isn't about him, and it isn't about winning this election. When that sinks in maybe we can have a civil discussion about the matter.
|
|
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 1:13pm |
|
steeler wrote:Only one question: Ron Paul is carrying the banner for Libertarian beliefs, but he is running as a Republican. I've heard his explanations for that, and for why he won't run in General Election if not the Republican nominee.
So, is the attempt here to change the thinking within the Republican party to move it more in line with Libertarian philsophies, or is it to establish the Libertarian Party as a brand? Is Paul stumping for a split in the Republican party — does not seem like it; in fact, he seems to be saying that he himself is not leaving the party.
Sorry. Another question that just popped in my head: I've read and heard the points about Paul positing views that are neither squarely in Republican or Democrat camps; that Paul offers planks that should appeal to some of those in both parties (anti-war for Dems; steep budget cuts for Repubs, etc). Do the Libertarians feel more kinship with Republicans (obviously, Paul does), and if so, why? One at a time: There are people withing the libertarian movement who want to not just advance the agenda but reform politics in general, and they don't think they can do it from within the incumbent parties. They want to build a party and challenge the incumbents head-to-head, and they need to break their monopoly (on things like ballot access) to do it. This is a long, exhausting slog. Others have less patience and are willing to be co-opted to get the agenda advanced. Both have good points, both have their hearts in the right place. Dr. Paul is trying to subvert the Republican party from within and he has to make Republican noises to do it. Libertarians have an actual political philosophy. Neither of the incumbent parties do; they are coalitions of interests with no unifying philosophy but a desire for power. We really don't have a home in either place, but when I talk to Republicans I can usually finish my sentences. They often pay lip service to the idea of liberty (at least on economic issues) but don't back it in practice. Democrats are (in general, and in my experience) overtly hostile to the idea of liberty and for the most part can't even imagine the world I want to build. There are issues we can work together on (issues of personal freedom sometimes have some common ground) but our basic approaches are so different (I want a hands-off approach to society in general so it can evolve, they want to engineer it to match what they want to see) it's hard to make even that work. Both claim to want my support. One tells me he's with me, but he's lying. The other tells me he opposes everything I believe in and means it. In that respect we are more welcome in the Republican camp...so long as we don't wear too much tie-dye when we tiptoe thru the never-ending tent revival.
|
|
miamizsun
Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP) Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 12:55pm |
|
Beaker wrote: I agree. Which was my point about building credibility for the Libertarian movement by electing solid, respected folk, to congressional and state office.
As for Ron Paul, I'm sorry, he's a fail - a non-starter. By mere virtue of being in office for a bunch of sessions is not of itself suitable qualification to be seen as a credible candidate for your highest office. Not unless your electorate intentionally wants to roll your economy, global trade, and place on the world stage backwards in time many decades.
i only glanced at the results last night and he was like 10% or close across the board better than i thought politics is force which is why RP doesn't fit in regards
|
|
steeler
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 12:32pm |
|
Lazy8 wrote: Surely the Republicans could have put better candidates forward, since they have a lot more members. But they didn't.
The process we have now where other candidates and surrogates and enemies in the media do everything in their power to destroy anybody they disagree with has left us with meager choices. I would rather see Colin Powell vs. Alan Simpson vying for the Republican nomination, but they aren't running. They aren't willing to put themselves thru it, or to put their families thru it (OK and Simpson's too old, but you get the idea).
Every election this same argument happens within the party: do we spend the vast resources necessary to put forth a presidential candidate or do we concentrate on school board races? The answer is always the same: a presidential candidate gets vastly more attention than a roomful of city councilmen. We won't attract candidates to lesser races unless they know we exist, and running a presidential candidate is the best way to make that happen.
For the first time in a long time the libertarian movement has two first-class candidates in the presidential race. No, neither one will win. That isn't the point. Until people see and alternative they can't choose it. Ron Paul is on his third presidential campaign. The first two times he was ignored and openly mocked by the press. Now he is seen as a serious contender in some areas. He may come to the Republican convention with enough delegates in tow to have some influence on the result.
This takes time, and it takes more than one try. You can't wait for momentum, you have to build it.
I think you are right about a third party needing to build its brand by competing in Presidential elections. It does become a bit of a chicken-or-egg decision. Only one question: Ron Paul is carrying the banner for Libertarian beliefs, but he is running as a Republican. I've heard his explanations for that, and for why he won't run in General Election if not the Republican nominee. So, is the attempt here to change the thinking within the Republican party to move it more in line with Libertarian philosophies, or is it to establish the Libertarian Party as a brand? If it is the latter, running as a Republican seems to be a roundabout way of establishing the Libertarian Party brand. Is Paul stumping for a split in the Republican party — does not seem like it; in fact, he seems to be saying that he himself is not leaving the party. Sorry. Another question that just popped in my head: I've read and heard the points about Paul positing views that are neither squarely in Republican or Democrat camps; that Paul offers planks that should appeal to some of those in both parties (anti-war for Dems; steep budget cuts for Repubs, etc). Do the Libertarians feel more kinship with Republicans (obviously, Paul does), and if so, why?
|
|
sirdroseph
Location: Not here, I tell you wat Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 12:16pm |
|
Lazy8 wrote: Surely the Republicans could have put better candidates forward, since they have a lot more members. But they didn't.
The process we have now where other candidates and surrogates and enemies in the media do everything in their power to destroy anybody they disagree with has left us with meager choices. I would rather see Colin Powell vs. Alan Simpson vying for the Republican nomination, but they aren't running. They aren't willing to put themselves thru it, or to put their families thru it (OK and Simpson's too old, but you get the idea).
Every election this same argument happens within the party: do we spend the vast resources necessary to put forth a presidential candidate or do we concentrate on school board races? The answer is always the same: a presidential candidate gets vastly more attention than a roomful of city councilmen. We won't attract candidates to lesser races unless they know we exist, and running a presidential candidate is the best way to make that happen.
For the first time in a long time the libertarian movement has two first-class candidates in the presidential race. No, neither one will win. That isn't the point. Until people see and alternative they can't choose it. Ron Paul is on his third presidential campaign. The first two times he was ignored and openly mocked by the press. Now he is seen as a serious contender in some areas. He may come to the Republican convention with enough delegates in tow to have some influence on the result.
This takes time, and it takes more than one try. You can't wait for momentum, you have to build it.
That would be awesome! He'd sure get my vote! However the culture warriors would have none of it.
|
|
Romulus
Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 12:10pm |
|
Beaker wrote: If given only those two choices, then, most certainly YES.
Lolwut! At least you're honest. I think a lot of other 'R's' feel the same. It's very amusing to hear that an R would vote for Obama as the lesser evil against Ron Paul. lol
|
|
Romulus
Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 12:05pm |
|
Beaker wrote: Aww. Don't get testy now! We truly do want to get into the head of a Luap Nor Ron Paul supporter.
Newsflash: There are 435 House of Representative seats and 100 senate seats. Not to mention the opportunity for Libertarians to become your state Governors.
Having Ron Paul occupy one of those seats for a whole bunch of years does not make a significant, credible libertarian presence in the slate of folks currently elected and/or in office.
And your suggestion that there's a conspiracy at work to keep Libertarians away from public office says a bunch about your ability to have a realistic and reasoned look at the picture without a jaundiced view.
Fruit is good for you.. don't be offended! 3rd parties can't compete. It's like expecting Fred tackle shop to do well next to a Wal-Mart. It's not a conspiracy, just a fact. They don't have the resources and the house rules are made by the duopoly. Nor do they have any backing. But I'm not a party guy anyway.. Yes L's could do better, but I don't care about party, I vote based on issues. It's too bad to get along in a party people are pushed to compromise their beliefs and voters are all to willing to ignore that. Party is meaningless..its just a vessel.
|
|
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 12:04pm |
|
Beaker wrote:Libertarians will be taken seriously when they've got a successful track record of effective representation as witnessed by significant numbers of them holding senate and congressional seats over the course of several election cycles. Pushing a nutcase such as Ron Paul into the bright spotlight that is a run for POTUS seems counter-productive. Surely for the good of the Libertarian movement, they could have found a better representative for this (and last) contest. Put a serious candidate forward, and the Libertarians will be taken seriously. Until then,its just a waste.
my 2cents Surely the Republicans could have put better candidates forward, since they have a lot more members. But they didn't. The process we have now where other candidates and surrogates and enemies in the media do everything in their power to destroy anybody they disagree with has left us with meager choices. I would rather see Colin Powell vs. Alan Simpson vying for the Republican nomination, but they aren't running. They aren't willing to put themselves thru it, or to put their families thru it (OK and Simpson's too old, but you get the idea). Every election this same argument happens within the party: do we spend the vast resources necessary to put forth a presidential candidate or do we concentrate on school board races? The answer is always the same: a presidential candidate gets vastly more attention than a roomful of city councilmen. We won't attract candidates to lesser races unless they know we exist, and running a presidential candidate is the best way to make that happen. For the first time in a long time the libertarian movement has two first-class candidates in the presidential race. No, neither one will win. That isn't the point. Until people see and alternative they can't choose it. Ron Paul is on his third presidential campaign. The first two times he was ignored and openly mocked by the press. Now he is seen as a serious contender in some areas. He may come to the Republican convention with enough delegates in tow to have some influence on the result. This takes time, and it takes more than one try. You can't wait for momentum, you have to build it.
|
|
|