Many of us look at the 2010 and 2012 elections as more of the very last chance to apply a tourniquet above a severed artery. Even if the patient lives, the damage will be massive.
If the tourniquet doesn't work, God help us.
How are you going to decide the best tourniquet to send to Washington? The tourniquets we sent in the past were not the answer and need to be removed quickly before the loss of blood flow kills the patient
txted
Easy...
1 - they're not in the DNC
2 - they're not in the GOP
3 - they are not politicians
4 - they are small business owners
5 - they have a lot to lose, personally, by even
tha'ts a good start.
You can't really, but what you can do is realize that most politicians are basically just like people with personality disorders - they need a lot of "love" and attention, and if they don't get it from you, they're going to get despondent and start wandering around looking for someone else to feed their need, and they will eventually run into the other side.
The best response, then, is to simply make sure that they never forget that you're paying attention to them, and that you continually tell them what you want them to do (i.e., what they have to do to keep the "love" and attention coming) - I am as guilty as anyone else, so I'm not simply moralizing here - it would probably be a good idea to get into the habit of writing a letter a week to each of your Congress-bitches, sort of like the "newsletters" that some families send out at Christmas time. Also, whenever you get the urge to write a letter to the editor, at least follow through on that urge by writing a letter to your Congress-bitches. Also, when they get something right, send a letter congratulating them on it (the carrot) and, conversely, when they do something wrong, send a letter excoriating them for it (the stick) - sort of like what you'd do if you were housebreaking a puppy (which, in a very real sense, you are).
If we eliminate any GOP members, won't we guarantee another victory for the DNC? Can we realistically believe a tea party or independent candidate won't split the conservative vote guaranteeing another victory for the democrats?
txted
I will never vote GOP/DNC again. Fawk them. They've destroyed the country. If voting for a TRUE patriot causes other havoc, I'll live with it knowing I stood up for the country. I'm done voting on who will fawk us less.
And if everyone voted that way, we'd be in a much better position overall.
If we eliminate any GOP members, won't we guarantee another victory for the DNC? Can we realistically believe a tea party or independent candidate won't split the conservative vote guaranteeing another victory for the democrats?
txted
I will never vote GOP/DNC again. Fawk them. They've destroyed the country. If voting for a TRUE patriot causes other havoc, I'll live with it knowing I stood up for the country. I'm done voting on who will fawk us less.
And if everyone voted that way, we'd be in a much better position overall.
Okay, it's to late to save America. There is nothing we can do. Only true patriots should be elected. (how will you recognize that "true patriot"? Am I right so far?
txted
There are those who think that life has nothing left to chance take,
A host of holy horrors to direct our aimless dance.
A planet of playthings,
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot perceive
"The stars aren't aligned,
Or the gods are malign..."
Blame is better to give than receive.
Chorus:
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill.
There are those who think that they were dealt a losing hand,
The cards were stacked against them; they weren't born in Lotusland.
All preordained
A prisoner in chains
A victim of venomous fate.
Kicked in the face,
You can't pray for a place
In heaven's unearthly estate.
Chorus:
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill.
Each of us
A cell of awareness
Imperfect and incomplete.
Genetic blends
With uncertain ends
On a fortune hunt that's far too fleet.
Chorus:
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill.
Okay, it's to late to save America. There is nothing we can do. Only true patriots should be elected. (how will you recognize that "true patriot"? Am I right so far?
txted
Too late? Not sure. But highlighted, to me, is common sense. As for recognizing, see my previous list.
insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I.E. voting for either DNC or GOP.
No, insanity is sitting around on our collective asses again and expecting that we can just let politics and politicians fly on auto-pilot without the least bit of routine input from us, and still count on them to take care of our interests as if they were our personal trustees. That is where the stupidity lies.
Until we can clean out the Progressives from both the Dims and Reps, the two parties are to be considered to halves of the same, entrenched power structure, resisting the will of us people for it's continued survival, if not profit. Neither party can be trusted to listen to the voices of it's constituents now - one would think that the three major elections last month would have made that painfully clear.
As I've posted here before, we are at the agonizing point in our country's history where it is too late to work within the system - from either party - to repair the damage inflicted upon her, and too soon to just shoot the ~600-odd bastards that did this to her.
Not to be a rain on the parade but like it or not the two party system is going to be what is for the forseeable future..to think otherwise may be fun to talk about but is more idealism then reality.
My opinion..where we can elect true conservatives make damn sure that is what is running.
Means getting out and attending meetings,townhalls etc.
Areas where you take the best you can get short of a dem well then so be it,the world isn`t perfect.
Not to be a rain on the parade but like it or not the two party system is going to be what is for the forseeable future..to think otherwise may be fun to talk about but is more idealism then reality.
My opinion..where we can elect true conservatives make damn sure that is what is running.
Means getting out and attending meetings,townhalls etc.
Areas where you take the best you can get short of a dem well then so be it,the world isn`t perfect.
The problem is the GOP keeps backing centrists over conservatives, or worse backing liberal republicans over conservatives. Scuzzyfava against Hoffman was a perfect example. Crist over Rubio is another one.
At a certain point one simply has to agree to disagree. My views are on record on this thread, so I see no point in swaggering around trying to measure up who's got the bigger opinion. Merry Christmas, and all that jazz.
Not to be a rain on the parade but like it or not the two party system is going to be what is for the forseeable future..to think otherwise may be fun to talk about but is more idealism then reality.
My opinion..where we can elect true conservatives make damn sure that is what is running.
Means getting out and attending meetings,townhalls etc.
Areas where you take the best you can get short of a dem well then so be it,the world isn`t perfect.
At this time, I believe the DNC & GOP are equally full of self righteous, self serving, corrupt bastards. I do not believe the DNC or GOP brand makes them what they are. They simply chose to become what they are. I would like to elect an independent or tea party candidate to represent me in Washington in the future. Unfortunately those brands don't guarantee honesty either. Greed and corruption will be present under those brands if we elect the wrong people. It is also a fact that we can stick to our guns and principles and vote for a new brand and then simply accept the fact that our vote will not mean anything except to us.
I think I prefer to vote for the best people I can find who have a hope of actually being elected to the office. I have to vote for the GOP for that reason. In my mind, it isn't the brand that is bad, it is the people in it. Even if you do stick to your guns and say the heck with the GOP and DNC, how are you going to decide who is a good, honorable candidate since the brand can't guarantee it?
txted
At this time, I believe the DNC & GOP are equally full of self righteous, self serving, corrupt bastards. I do not believe the DNC or GOP brand makes them what they are. They simply chose to become what they are. I would like to elect an independent or tea party candidate to represent me in Washington in the future. Unfortunately those brands don't guarantee honesty either. Greed and corruption will be present under those brands if we elect the wrong people. It is also a fact that we can stick to our guns and principles and vote for a new brand and then simply accept the fact that our vote will not mean anything except to us.
I think I prefer to vote for the best people I can find who have a hope of actually being elected to the office. I have to vote for the GOP for that reason. In my mind, it isn't the brand that is bad, it is the people in it. Even if you do stick to your guns and say the heck with the GOP and DNC, how are you going to decide who is a good, honorable candidate since the brand can't guarantee it?
txted
I have posted on this elsewhere, and I've dlegated this article to sone of our site writers verse in this very issue.
The short answer is this.
Political Parties are NOT supposed to be the defining source for relevant issues. Positions on issues comes from individual perspective, NOT group mandates.
To that end, people think of others in the context of their political affiliation, and NOT with their individual position on issues. THIS IS KEY.
For years, I have not thought in the context of "Democrat" vs. "Republican." I've thought in terms of "Totalitarianism" vs. "Capitalism." In addition, there are two main subset scales that are rarely considered, which are "social" and "economic."
When looked in this context, I think: What is the best way I can advance my own internal agenda with as many people as possible?
The hodgepodge comes in our plurality requirement for election, as opposed to requring a majority in a multiple party race. To that end, a third party becomes an EMOTION-based distraction. For instance, there are three major presidential elections that have, in effect, been decided by active third party action:
1. The 1912 Presidential election: Theodore Roosevelt, a classically libertarian/conservative president, was a former two-term president from 1901-1908. He was very concerned that his hand-picked successor, William Howard Taft, was so awful as a president. Roosevelt could not displace Taft off the republican ticket, so he ran as a third party called "The Progressive Party." This party has absolutely zero connection with the current statist "progressive" movement, by the way. It was also nicknamed the "Bull Moose" party as well. Anyway, Woodrow Wilson won the presidency with less than 42 percent of the vote. Together, Roosevelt (27%) and Taft (23%) garnered 50% of the vote; certainly most of that vote would have gone to Taft had Roosevelt not been in the election.
2. The 1992 Presidential election: We all know what happened. Ross Perot came out with the "Reform" party, and got 19% of the vote, while GWH Bush got 38%. Arguably, people who voted for Perot were dissatisfied with Bush's performance, but exit polls would have given enough votes for Bush had Perot not been in the race to win comfortably.
3. While the Green Party didn't have a significant effect on a national basis, the 100,000 votes that Ralph Nader received in Floriday would unquestionably have gone to Al Gore by a large margin. Certainly, 70,000 more votes would have gone to him, and he would have easily won Florida and the presidency.
In all three cases, the effect of a third party candidate prevented the mainstream (ie, republican or democrat) candidate most affiliated with the third party, and led to the election of the OPPOSITE party.
Many people call this a problem with the current system. Frankly, I agree to an extent; I actually believe runoff elections should be mandated if more than two candidates are running in a race, and the votes come to less than 50%. But that is another matter.
The more pragmatic answer, though, is SEPARATE the POLITICAL PARTY ORGANIZATION with the POLITICAL PARTY ISSUES. This sounds a bit confusing, but it's based on something a bit more easy to understand about human nature, which is this: We don't always know what we LIKE, but we MORE than likely know what we DON'T LIKE.
So if we look to the Republican Party NOT as a political PHILOSOPHY, but as an ORGANZATION OF INDIVIDUALS who share common conservative and libertarian philosophies, then we can more easily understand the nature of how to address our concerns politically. In extension, the Democratic Party can be looked at as an organization that would negate our own philosophies; therefore, it is more important to unite in the NEGATION of such an action than it is to try to highlight unique attributes of OUR shared philosophy.
Think of it as this: Let's say a football team has a rift between two coaches. One coach wants to run all the time, the other wants to pass. But the IMPORTANT objective is not just to win the goal on whether the team should run or pass. The OBJECTIVE is to beat the other team...PERIOD! After the goal is achieved, THEN it becomes important to sift out the differences between the elements of the victorious team.
But if one of the coaches said, to hell with the other coach; I'm going to take players and start a THIRD team, then this would actually result in 2 teams being so denuded that the remaining team, the original opponent, would womp either of the two split teams. At THAT point, it becomes moot whether the original team could run or pass; neither team now has the wherewithall to do anything but to subject tot he whims of the oppressor.
So, the conclusion is this: We MUST be united in our fight against the statists. To that end, we need a SINGLE organization to muster our forces. That organization happens to be the Republican party. BUT... we don't have "Republican" principles. There IS no such thing, to be blunt. We have CONSERVATIVE or LIBERTARIAN principles. The key is to UNDERSTAND this VERY IMPORTANT POSTULATE, becuase this is NOT going to change.
I have it on good authority that the Democratic Party, probably instigated by Rahm Emanuel, will muster instigators to promote a conservative third party. In fact, this is probably a lot easier than trying to get everyone to defend the democrats. Of course, this will NOT get reported by the press, but if I were to look at a political election as a war, this would be the tact I'd play if I didn't have truth and rationality on my side.
But that's neither here nor there: We must STOP ALL PRETENSE that a third party will HELP our cause. It's easy to emotionally disconnect yourself from the process, but it ultimately bites you.
I'll have more on this later, but these are the basics behind the debate.
Hee, hee, someone else whose "short answers" are longer than most people's "long answers"! Other than that, I tend to agree with most of what GOP has to say.
Political Parties are NOT supposed to be the defining source for relevant issues. Positions on issues comes from individual perspective, NOT group mandates.
Actually, the short answer was in the single paragraph below, which is this:
Then I decided to let my fingers do some dancing... :bow:
As long as people believe they hvae only two choices, and are afraid of voting for the best candidate for fear of letting "the other guy win," then you are 100% correct...
How are you going to elect a true conservative in the GOP? Hell, the GOP won't even nominate them (district-23)...
It seems I hear the same people say "it's impossible to change" that I heard say "xxxxxx will never happen in the USA!"
In reality, though, my biggest challenge I have to face is the fact that many conservatives have a visceral reaction to the word "republican." That is why my main focus is separating the structure (Republican Party) from the political philosophy (conservative/libertarian/constitutionalist). And that is the element that Rahm will be trying to exploit, more than anything, and in fact will be his most important objective in 2010. In fact, I've been reading some people on the left are so worried about this they want to suspend the elections. This will get more and more play all next year, and look for the media to start wistfully thinking along those lines.
Bottom line: We need to win under the Republican Banner BEFORE we can think of splitting. I sincerely believe that the TRUE American mindset, when rationality becomes key, is between Libertarians and Conservatives. But first things first...GET RID OF THE FREAKIN' STATIST TOTALITARIANS!
All I can say is that if you think there is a massive groundswell for a third party then you will likely be disappointed because there isn`t one nor has there been much success ever with third party or independent challenges.
Perhaps that is a bad thing and could be debated...however it is also the real thing.
Hopefully there is enough hatred of what is being done to this country to compel Republicans in 2010 to nominate and run conservatives but if the public isn`t there then who knows.
Either way a third party isn`t going to be the alternative,don`t like that then sorry but it just isn`t.
I can`t change that and pretending otherwise isn`t going to either.
I am not sure if you are working up to saying that Libertarians as in the official party sense are going to knock Republicans into the abyss but that will simply never happen based on their party platform which is a confusing mish mash of liberal,isolationist and conservative ideas framed as a utopian hope.
It will not attract the large body of the public and never has so again if that is the point then sorry once more.
Bottom line: We need to win under the Republican Banner BEFORE we can think of splitting. I sincerely believe that the TRUE American mindset, when rationality becomes key, is between Libertarians and Conservatives. But first things first...GET RID OF THE FREAKIN' STATIST TOTALITARIANS!
It definitely has to happen at a local level first. I'm not evening thinking of a 3rd party or non-party sweep in 2010. But unless we start sending clear messages that the status quo, which is exactly what you'll get w/ a Republican congress in 2010, is okay, then we're fawked. I may be off in my thinking, but you're off if you think 2010 is going to mean lower spending and smaller gov't. They had 6+ years of republican rule and did the exact opposite. What makes you think that past behavior nolonger predicts future?
Time for Drastic Measures (http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-17412-Macon-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d24-Time-for-drastic-measures)
December 24, 7:46 AM
Macon County Conservative Examiner
Robert Moon
Now that we have been painted into a corner with the passage of this Constitution-trampling explosion of government, we have only 4 options left before things get ugly:
1) Vote them out in 2010. This option requires much patience and will not actually mean anything unless those elected actually reverse all the spending, bailouts and takeovers.
Most likely, Democrats will be punished for a few years while Republicans ride the tidal wave of public outrage into office, at which point they will throw us some symbolic scraps from the table, rather than making a serious commitment to uprooting federal tyranny. It is absolutely critical that we get actual conservatives into office and eject the RINOs in 2010.
2) Legal challenge in the courts. There is a chance that the Supreme Court could reverse this law based on the "Commerce Clause" debate (a few states being bribed and blackmailed into submission at the expense of all the others).
3) Nullification. This is where states stand up for their 10th Amendment rights and declare that, since this law is blatantly unconstitutional, they refuse to acknowledge that it was even passed.
And no, the Founders never intended for the federal government to be the sole determiner of the size and scope of its own power. State nullification was always intended as a natural check against federal encroachments.
4) Civil disobedience (the only option that requires no waiting). The politicians are now coming home to face their constituents. Escalate things by organizing a disruptive demonstration, like a sit-in.
While government creates 111 new federal bureaucracies and destroys the free market system that 84% of us are happy with, the politicians have exempted themselves from the rationed, inferior care the rest of us are left with. But they cannot exempt themselves from us.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, when government becomes adversarial to the people, it is both the right and the responsibility of the people to rise up and "alter or abolish" that government. Government gets its power from us.
It is time to step up and take back what is ours.