Big Pimpin wrote:Over the past several years, the Republican Party has become something I'm not particularly proud of and, frankly, don't much care for any more. That being said, I didn't find this humorous at all. Maybe it's just me.
Become Libertarian!
Done and done.
Small government, personal freedom... how can you go wrong?
Big Pimpin wrote:Over the past several years, the Republican Party has become something I'm not particularly proud of and, frankly, don't much care for any more. That being said, I didn't find this humorous at all. Maybe it's just me.
Become Libertarian!
Done and done.
Small government, personal freedom... how can you go wrong?
By throwing your vote away to a third party.
I keeed, I keeed.
No you don't, that couldn't be more true... the only thing less effective than voting for Ralph Nader would be voting for Michael Badnarik.
Of course, voting for Nader is effective because traditionally it takes a vote away from the democratic candidate... but I'm all for people voting for who they want, rather than choosing between a lesser of two evils.
It's still a two-party country and sometimes you have to vote and hope for the best. I'm not registered libertarian either since PA doesn't have open primaries.
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....
Coppermine wrote:... the only thing less effective than voting for Ralph Nader would be voting for Michael Badnarik.
i did , but only because nobody else was qualified, but then again neither was Badnarik.
This season, I do enjoy seeing Ron Paul pissing people off by being right, even though I'm highly skeptical of his presidential chops. He made a great speech on the House floor yesterday about patriotism.
Coppermine wrote:... the only thing less effective than voting for Ralph Nader would be voting for Michael Badnarik.
i did , but only because nobody else was qualified, but then again neither was Badnarik.
This season, I do enjoy seeing Ron Paul pissing people off by being right, even though I'm highly skeptical of his presidential chops. He made a great speech on the House floor yesterday about patriotism.
Ron Paul is the only Republican in the race I would consider voting for. He is right and it's both sad and telling to watch the far-right smear him.
A friend of mine in Texas said that when Paul was elected he was the most right-wing pol in power there. Now, he's one of the most left - and he hasn't changed his stance one iota.
I don't agree with him on a lot of topics, obviously, but he seems to be an honest man. If it were a Hillary v. Ron Paul election, I'd take him in a second.
Coppermine wrote:... the only thing less effective than voting for Ralph Nader would be voting for Michael Badnarik.
i did , but only because nobody else was qualified, but then again neither was Badnarik.
This season, I do enjoy seeing Ron Paul pissing people off by being right, even though I'm highly skeptical of his presidential chops. He made a great speech on the House floor yesterday about patriotism.
Ron Paul is the only Republican in the race I would consider voting for. He is right and it's both sad and telling to watch the far-right smear him.
A friend of mine in Texas said that when Paul was elected he was the most right-wing pol in power there. Now, he's one of the most left - and he hasn't changed his stance one iota.
I don't agree with him on a lot of topics, obviously, but he seems to be an honest man. If it were a Hillary v. Ron Paul election, I'd take him in a second.
Very sad and interesting, and sad & angering. Have you read The K Street Gang?
Absolutely Adequate wrote:A friend of mine in Texas said that when Paul was elected he was the most right-wing pol in power there. Now, he's one of the most left - and he hasn't changed his stance one iota.
Who considers Paul anywhere near the left? People often mistake Libertarians for having left leaning social views, but despite their "anything goes" mentality on some issues, that's not left at all. Also, I am not up to date with all of the elected officials in Texas, but Paul is the farthest-right presidential candidate, somehow I doubt he is farther to the left than most of Texas.
by Absolutely Adequate » Thu May 24, 2007 10:41 pm
Art Vandelay wrote:
Absolutely Adequate wrote:A friend of mine in Texas said that when Paul was elected he was the most right-wing pol in power there. Now, he's one of the most left - and he hasn't changed his stance one iota.
Who considers Paul anywhere near the left? People often mistake Libertarians for having left leaning social views, but despite their "anything goes" mentality on some issues, that's not left at all. Also, I am not up to date with all of the elected officials in Texas, but Paul is the farthest-right presidential candidate, somehow I doubt he is farther to the left than most of Texas.
The problem is that the republican party's marriage in the late 70's, early 80's completely changed what we think of as "conservative" in America. Once they began that merger, we saw the beginnings of big-government Conservatives, neo-cons, etc. They became more concerned about gay marriage and the brain-dead than they did about traditionally conservative positions. And now the right's lunatic fringe (Rush, Malkin, Hannity, etc) have turned on Paul because he doesn't represent modern day republicanism.
I guess the problem is that "conservative" and "republican" have become synonymous in the minds of most Americans even though they are almost polar opposites.
Absolutely Adequate wrote:A friend of mine in Texas said that when Paul was elected he was the most right-wing pol in power there. Now, he's one of the most left - and he hasn't changed his stance one iota.
Who considers Paul anywhere near the left? People often mistake Libertarians for having left leaning social views, but despite their "anything goes" mentality on some issues, that's not left at all. Also, I am not up to date with all of the elected officials in Texas, but Paul is the farthest-right presidential candidate, somehow I doubt he is farther to the left than most of Texas.
The problem is that the republican party's marriage in the late 70's, early 80's completely changed what we think of as "conservative" in America. Once they began that merger, we saw the beginnings of big-government Conservatives, neo-cons, etc. They became more concerned about gay marriage and the brain-dead than they did about traditionally conservative positions. And now the right's lunatic fringe (Rush, Malkin, Hannity, etc) have turned on Paul because he doesn't represent modern day republicanism.
I guess the problem is that "conservative" and "republican" have become synonymous in the minds of most Americans even though they are almost polar opposites.
aye. With the exceptions of Ron Paul, Jeff Flake, Ronny Reagan, and few others all to varying degrees, the apples have fallen very far from the Barry Goldwater tree. 'right' and 'left' are very mishmashy descriptors, for lack of a less scientific term.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by ironman » Thu May 24, 2007 12:24 pm 
, but only because nobody else was qualified, but then again neither was Badnarik.
