[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Israel - R_P - Jun 17, 2024 - 12:46pm
 
Ukraine - R_P - Jun 17, 2024 - 12:36pm
 
Predictions - Proclivities - Jun 17, 2024 - 12:10pm
 
20+ year listeners? - fractalv - Jun 17, 2024 - 11:44am
 
NYTimes Connections - Bill_J - Jun 17, 2024 - 11:17am
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 17, 2024 - 11:00am
 
Wordle - daily game - ptooey - Jun 17, 2024 - 10:42am
 
NY Times Strands - Bill_J - Jun 17, 2024 - 10:04am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Jun 17, 2024 - 9:44am
 
Trump - Steely_D - Jun 17, 2024 - 8:38am
 
What did you have for dinner? - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 17, 2024 - 8:35am
 
2024 Elections! - R_P - Jun 17, 2024 - 6:40am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Jun 17, 2024 - 6:13am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - Coaxial - Jun 17, 2024 - 4:38am
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 16, 2024 - 8:57pm
 
June 2024 Photo Theme - Eyes - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 16, 2024 - 8:55pm
 
Things You Thought Today - Red_Dragon - Jun 16, 2024 - 8:22pm
 
What Did You See Today? - Manbird - Jun 16, 2024 - 2:39pm
 
Geomorphology - kurtster - Jun 16, 2024 - 1:29pm
 
Outstanding Covers - Proclivities - Jun 16, 2024 - 11:07am
 
Artificial Intelligence - thisbody - Jun 16, 2024 - 10:53am
 
The Chomsky / Zinn Reader - thisbody - Jun 16, 2024 - 10:42am
 
Name My Band - thisbody - Jun 16, 2024 - 10:24am
 
The Dragons' Roost - oldviolin - Jun 16, 2024 - 9:35am
 
Football, soccer, futbol, calcio... - thisbody - Jun 16, 2024 - 8:35am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - heinlein2302 - Jun 16, 2024 - 2:29am
 
No stream after station ID - arlen.nelson969 - Jun 15, 2024 - 2:29pm
 
Business as Usual - kurtster - Jun 15, 2024 - 9:53am
 
favorite love songs - maryte - Jun 15, 2024 - 8:58am
 
Song of the Day - oldviolin - Jun 15, 2024 - 8:08am
 
RightWingNutZ - thisbody - Jun 15, 2024 - 1:28am
 
USA! USA! USA! - R_P - Jun 15, 2024 - 12:37am
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - Antigone - Jun 14, 2024 - 7:05pm
 
What Makes You Laugh? - Antigone - Jun 14, 2024 - 7:04pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - oldviolin - Jun 14, 2024 - 3:15pm
 
China - R_P - Jun 14, 2024 - 2:59pm
 
what the hell, miamizsun? - oldviolin - Jun 14, 2024 - 2:08pm
 
Religion - Steely_D - Jun 14, 2024 - 1:28pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Jun 14, 2024 - 8:56am
 
Climate Change - R_P - Jun 14, 2024 - 7:37am
 
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy - Proclivities - Jun 14, 2024 - 6:42am
 
Just Wrong - ptooey - Jun 14, 2024 - 6:22am
 
Florida - R_P - Jun 13, 2024 - 3:35pm
 
Democratic Party - thisbody - Jun 13, 2024 - 9:08am
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - thisbody - Jun 13, 2024 - 8:56am
 
Animal Resistance - thisbody - Jun 13, 2024 - 8:04am
 
Sonos - konz - Jun 13, 2024 - 7:47am
 
New Music - lievendegrauwe - Jun 13, 2024 - 12:43am
 
The Green Thread: A place to share info about living a gr... - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jun 12, 2024 - 11:48pm
 
Derplahoma! - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 12, 2024 - 9:29pm
 
The Obituary Page - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 12, 2024 - 9:16am
 
Guantánamo Resorts & Other Fun Trips - R_P - Jun 12, 2024 - 8:41am
 
Joe Biden - rgio - Jun 12, 2024 - 8:28am
 
Right, Left, Right of Left, Left of Right, Center...? - kurtster - Jun 11, 2024 - 10:36pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 11, 2024 - 3:51pm
 
Breaking News - Isabeau - Jun 11, 2024 - 2:29pm
 
Calling all RP Roku users! - RPnate1 - Jun 11, 2024 - 12:50pm
 
Words that should be put on the substitutes bench for a year - sunybuny - Jun 11, 2024 - 4:38am
 
Europe - thisbody - Jun 11, 2024 - 1:23am
 
Marijuana: Baked News. - R_P - Jun 10, 2024 - 12:01pm
 
Streaming Marantz/HEOS - rgio - Jun 10, 2024 - 11:43am
 
Is there any DOG news out there? - thisbody - Jun 9, 2024 - 12:38pm
 
Quick! I need a chicken... - thisbody - Jun 9, 2024 - 10:38am
 
Economix - Bill_J - Jun 8, 2024 - 5:25pm
 
Snakes & streaming images. WTH is going on? - rasta_tiger - Jun 8, 2024 - 2:16pm
 
Great guitar faces - thisbody - Jun 8, 2024 - 10:39am
 
TEXAS - maryte - Jun 8, 2024 - 9:21am
 
NASA & other news from space - Beaker - Jun 8, 2024 - 8:23am
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Jun 7, 2024 - 10:03pm
 
Republican Party - kcar - Jun 7, 2024 - 8:11pm
 
Lyrics that are stuck in your head today... - Manbird - Jun 7, 2024 - 8:04pm
 
What the hell OV? - oldviolin - Jun 7, 2024 - 7:42pm
 
Can you afford to retire? - JrzyTmata - Jun 7, 2024 - 2:05pm
 
Old timers, crosswords & - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 7, 2024 - 12:09pm
 
Military Matters - R_P - Jun 7, 2024 - 11:31am
 
Index » Regional/Local » USA/Canada » Mitt Romney Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Post to this Topic
bokey

bokey Avatar

Gender: Male


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

Manbird Avatar

Location: La Villa Toscana
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 23, 2012 - 11:19am


Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar

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

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


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

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


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

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 8, 2012 - 5:26pm

 hippiechick wrote:
US citizens are currently not evolved enough to be engineers.
 
Speak for yourself.
hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


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

Romulus Avatar

Gender: Male


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

R_P Avatar

Gender: Male


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

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


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

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


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

R_P Avatar

Gender: Male


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

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


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

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


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

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


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

steeler Avatar

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

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male


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

Romulus Avatar

Gender: Male


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

Romulus Avatar

Gender: Male


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

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


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.
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next