Paranormal Panther Posted July 31, 2016 #201 Share Posted July 31, 2016 7 hours ago, Gromdor said: Do you think Trump is the best candidate for social Darwinism then? Getting rid of programs like social security/disability, Medicaid/Medicare, etc. would save the US a lot of money. Trump won't get rid of those programs, as you well know. They are third rails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranormal Panther Posted July 31, 2016 #202 Share Posted July 31, 2016 7 hours ago, ChaosRose said: I've heard of the Constitution. Have you read it? Maybe you should also borrow that copy after Trump's done with it. That's a moot point. Obama's already done with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbenol Posted July 31, 2016 #203 Share Posted July 31, 2016 25 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said: Bush started the fire when he started the Iraq War. That disaster led to so much death and destruction. Would he get a pass from you if he was a Democrat? Would you go after the Clintons if they were Republicans. They're not the Crips and the Bloods. People, in both political parties, are part of the "fire problem". It's up to libertarians to extinguish the inferno. The old paradigm is just a distraction from achieving this. Well said. Will you vote for a third party? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranormal Panther Posted July 31, 2016 #204 Share Posted July 31, 2016 7 hours ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said: No, he didn't. Do you remember what actually happened on the 11th of September, you know, before Bush's run as POTUS was barely out of the starting gate? Bush wasn't flying those aircraft. And if you want to lay blame on a POTUS for that, try Clinton the First...he had several chances to apprehend Osama before any of this happened, and decided that using his power as POTUS to chase skirts was much more important than the well-being of this country. He did certainly pour gasoline on it, but it has existed for centuries. Shrillary won't be content to watch this country burn, she wants an active hand in making sure of it, and then salting the earth afterwards. Get out of your partisan straitjacket! Yes, Clinton is part of the conflagration, so I'll start with him. Happy? He and Bush are two peas in a New World Order (maybe we should blame Daddy Bush for playing with matches) pod. What in Sam Hill did Iraq have to do with 9/11? Was it worth one life or one cent to destabilize a whole region to achieve ostensible hegemony for neoconservative eggheads who have no chance of facing guns in the front lines? I don't care if the arsonists are Democrats. I don't care if the fire bugs are Republicans, and you shouldn't, either. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranormal Panther Posted July 31, 2016 #205 Share Posted July 31, 2016 7 hours ago, Gromdor said: I think he might be referring to Bush #1 and the Soviet War in Afghanistan where we supported the Mujahedeen and Osama Bin Laden. That's a good point, but I referred to the tragic Iraq War after 9/11. It brought chaos to the whole world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranormal Panther Posted July 31, 2016 #206 Share Posted July 31, 2016 11 minutes ago, Arbenol said: Well said. Will you vote for a third party? I don't yet know. I'm not a big fan of Clinton or Trump, and I might vote for the latter by default because I agree with him on a few key issues. I like candidates like Rand Paul, but I know how things are right now, and I know that libertarians face huge challenges right now. A vote for a third party seems like a tilt at windmills, to tell the truth. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorvir Posted July 31, 2016 #207 Share Posted July 31, 2016 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said: Get out of your partisan straitjacket! Yes, Clinton is part of the conflagration, so I'll start with him. Happy? He and Bush are two peas in a New World Order (maybe we should blame Daddy Bush for playing with matches) pod. What in Sam Hill did Iraq have to do with 9/11? Was it worth one life or one cent to destabilize a whole region to achieve ostensible hegemony for neoconservative eggheads who have no chance of facing guns in the front lines? I don't care if the arsonists are Democrats. I don't care if the fire bugs are Republicans, and you shouldn't, either. Instead of my partisan straightjacket, you should don your conspiracy theory helmet. I don't care either, if it's Dem or Repub. However, I don't ignore the fact that the problems in the ME existed long before any Bush or Clinton, hell before any USA. Edited July 31, 2016 by Thorvir Hrothgaard 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarocal Posted August 1, 2016 #208 Share Posted August 1, 2016 16 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said: I don't yet know. I'm not a big fan of Clinton or Trump, and I might vote for the latter by default because I agree with him on a few key issues. I like candidates like Rand Paul, but I know how things are right now, and I know that libertarians face huge challenges right now. A vote for a third party seems like a tilt at windmills, to tell the truth. Ive personally heard "Wasted vote" or "ensuring the opposition gets elected" has been stated about 3rd party candidates at least as far back as Reagan /Carter. Perhaps with the never Trump republicans and Bernie supporters who now know that the Democratic party conspired against their candidate in favor of Clinton enough will decide to vote Libertarian/Green party to ensure that those parties get a sizable chunk of the vote which will be the only thing to scare the two big parties into any type of action resembling reform. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarocal Posted August 1, 2016 #209 Share Posted August 1, 2016 11 minutes ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said: Instead of my partisan straightjacket, you should don your conspiracy theory helmet. I don't care either, if it's Dem or Repub. However, I don't ignore the fact that the problems in the ME existed long before any Bush or Clinton, hell before any USA. While problems have existed there historically, colonizing empires leading to partitioning and later proxy battles between the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. have only exacerbated the turmoil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbenol Posted August 1, 2016 #210 Share Posted August 1, 2016 31 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said: I don't yet know. I'm not a big fan of Clinton or Trump, and I might vote for the latter by default because I agree with him on a few key issues. I like candidates like Rand Paul, but I know how things are right now, and I know that libertarians face huge challenges right now. A vote for a third party seems like a tilt at windmills, to tell the truth. I'm only aware of US politics as an observer from afar, but listening to how people talk on here it seems that many will vote for the person they dislike the least. That seems a sorry state of affairs. I've read several posters who said that they were tempted to vote for a third party but wouldn't because it was a wasted vote. It occurs to me that if everyone who said this actually did vote third party it would be anything but a wasted vote. It may not affect the outcome this time round, but would be a grand gesture to the circus this election is becoming and make third parties a viable option for the future. If anything, this pantomime of an election shows how much the two party monopoly needs to be challenged 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranormal Panther Posted August 1, 2016 #211 Share Posted August 1, 2016 1 hour ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said: Instead of my partisan straightjacket, you should don your conspiracy theory helmet. I don't care either, if it's Dem or Repub. However, I don't ignore the fact that the problems in the ME existed long before any Bush or Clinton, hell before any USA. There's no conspiracy or theory. It's a fact that the Iraq War made things much worse. I agree that the Middle East always has been a huge mess, though. That's why we should stay far away from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranormal Panther Posted August 1, 2016 #212 Share Posted August 1, 2016 1 hour ago, Jarocal said: Ive personally heard "Wasted vote" or "ensuring the opposition gets elected" has been stated about 3rd party candidates at least as far back as Reagan /Carter. Perhaps with the never Trump republicans and Bernie supporters who now know that the Democratic party conspired against their candidate in favor of Clinton enough will decide to vote Libertarian/Green party to ensure that those parties get a sizable chunk of the vote which will be the only thing to scare the two big parties into any type of action resembling reform. I hope that happens. I also hope that the protest voters don't put Clinton in the White House like the Perot voters put her wife in the White House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranormal Panther Posted August 1, 2016 #213 Share Posted August 1, 2016 1 hour ago, Arbenol said: I'm only aware of US politics as an observer from afar, but listening to how people talk on here it seems that many will vote for the person they dislike the least. That seems a sorry state of affairs. I've read several posters who said that they were tempted to vote for a third party but wouldn't because it was a wasted vote. It occurs to me that if everyone who said this actually did vote third party it would be anything but a wasted vote. It may not affect the outcome this time round, but would be a grand gesture to the circus this election is becoming and make third parties a viable option for the future. If anything, this pantomime of an election shows how much the two party monopoly needs to be challenged We're on the same page. Unlike many clueless people who pretend to know what my country is like, you hit the nail on the head. I'm sick and tired of the lesser-of-two-evils option each four years, and you likely know the old saying about that. I also hate the fact that votes, for third choices, are wasted votes. I wish that we could have four or more parties to break the gridlocks and the logjams. It's just that people don't vote for alternatives, even when they say that they will. It's likely best to start at local levels since the congressional composition is frozen in time. Go from the bottom to the top. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarocal Posted August 1, 2016 #214 Share Posted August 1, 2016 19 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said: I hope that happens. I also hope that the protest voters don't put Clinton in the White House like the Perot voters put her wife in the White House. Perot voters did not put Clinton in no matter what the media says. That is an assumption based on every vote for Perot would have went to Bush. The same happens now with people who "feel theBern" and it is not a given they would have voted without a energizing candidate like Ross or Bernie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted August 1, 2016 #215 Share Posted August 1, 2016 Prior to 1776, it was Great Britain, so that works. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranormal Panther Posted August 1, 2016 #216 Share Posted August 1, 2016 51 minutes ago, Jarocal said: Perot voters did not put Clinton in no matter what the media says. That is an assumption based on every vote for Perot would have went to Bush. The same happens now with people who "feel theBern" and it is not a given they would have voted without a energizing candidate like Ross or Bernie. The media was right in this case. Perot was an economic conservative. He supported financial downsizing. He was for economic accountability and responsibility. Clinton voters weren't known to follow his fiscal philosophy. Maybe some of them did, but they weren't the majority of the Democratic base. Bush voters and Perot voters were closer on this particular issue. I doubt that Perot appealed to most Clinton fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likely Guy Posted August 1, 2016 #217 Share Posted August 1, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, pbarosso said: you seem not have read machiavelli... You seem to believe Machiavelli. Just because it was written doesn't make it right or true. Edited August 1, 2016 by Likely Guy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
preacherman76 Posted August 1, 2016 #218 Share Posted August 1, 2016 On July 30, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Leonardo said: That would make Trump more patriotic than Hillary, because he would want war to "Make America Great Again", not just to have a war. You don't think Hilary wants war? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
preacherman76 Posted August 1, 2016 #219 Share Posted August 1, 2016 I'd like to see a time where a man could provide for his whole family again with one job. When we were a industrial nation that actually made things. Or when we didn't have huge sections of the population in welfare. Or when congress was the only people who could declare war. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted August 1, 2016 #220 Share Posted August 1, 2016 3 minutes ago, preacherman76 said: I'd like to see a time where a man could provide for his whole family again with one job. When we were a industrial nation that actually made things. Or when we didn't have huge sections of the population in welfare. Or when congress was the only people who could declare war. Did not know that somebody but Congress can declare war nowadays either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmbiguousInsight Posted August 1, 2016 #221 Share Posted August 1, 2016 I would say America was great (if it ever was) post WWII. By the time Nam' was going on, it had fallen from grace. Blame the television Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted August 1, 2016 #222 Share Posted August 1, 2016 3 minutes ago, AmbiguousInsight said: I would say America was great (if it ever was) post WWII. By the time Nam' was going on, it had fallen from grace. Blame the television Rather blame those who wanted to "reign in" a philosophy aimed to fail anyway... and that got Vietnam too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmbiguousInsight Posted August 1, 2016 #223 Share Posted August 1, 2016 8 minutes ago, questionmark said: Rather blame those who wanted to "reign in" a philosophy aimed to fail anyway... and that got Vietnam too. Are you reffering to communism? Communism sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted August 1, 2016 #224 Share Posted August 1, 2016 Just now, AmbiguousInsight said: Are you reffering to communism? Communism sucks. Well, yes, and therefore it failed without needing a war. But tell that to our Chicken Hawks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmbiguousInsight Posted August 1, 2016 #225 Share Posted August 1, 2016 Just now, questionmark said: Well, yes, and therefore it failed without needing a war. But tell that to our Chicken Hawks. ... Communism NEVER works. My opinion on the main topic, at least part of it, is that when the war was televised, it "opened" the eyes of the masses. Suddenly no one supporter our troops or wars, another all pride we took in being Americans vanished. Then the smelly hippies who protested the war became educators in many universities throughout the country and essentially brainwash kids. I don't know. I am gorilla. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now