100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Ever notice.... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Hell, i keep telling everyone exactly how to make things better, but many times it just falls on deaf ears (or eyes). People just want more of the same. (How else do you think Obama got elected?  ) I even wrote my congressmen, and told them they should call me before making any decisions from now on. (This was after the bailout).  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saw this site a few days ago and read up about it. Seems a bit Utopian but an interesting read nonetheless.
http://www.thevenusproject.com/intro_main/essay.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you think it could possibly be because McCain lost? Just an idea. Sorry Winx. I think there would be just as much venom coming from the Obama side if he had been the one that lost. Right now, the Obama supporters get to gloat. Had McCain won, his supporters would have been the ones doing the gloating. What you're saying is correct. But..when my child the day after the election, all they heard about was bad things about Obama. I've seen it on here too. Sooo...are you saying that you see a different kind of bi*tching? I see a lot of venomous, pointless threads about verbal gaffes, insults toward others' intelligence, etc. Same old crap basically. My main point is that everyone has something to say....but they really aren't saying a damned thing. If someone doesn't think the Dems have the right idea....that's fine. Come up with a better idea. If they think the Reps don't have the right ideas...that's fine. After 8 years of a Rep. President...who can blame them? Again...come up with a better idea. 8 years ago...we elected a " far right " President. After 8 years of that, the people of this country decided that it was time for something different. Unfortunately, I think they went too far to the left with their choice. We have gone from one extreme to the other, and I honestly don't think things are going to get any better because of it. I have nothing against Obama. I personally hope he does a good job. I just think that we should have gone a little more toward a Centrist type of person to try to pull us out of the mess we are in. Unfortunately, due to the influence of the media, and the gullibility of all the sheeple that allow the media to tell them what to do, a Centrist candidate will never get the necessary coverage to garner any real support. I wasn't pointing out or pointing a finger at anyone in particular here. However. Did you allow the media to tell you who the right person to vote for was?? My guess would be probably not. Did you any research on any of the other candidates that were on the ticket?? My guess would be...maybe a little bit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hell, i keep telling everyone exactly how to make things better, but many times it just falls on deaf ears (or eyes). People just want more of the same. (How else do you think Obama got elected? ) I even wrote my congressmen, and told them they should call me before making any decisions from now on. (This was after the bailout). But it's fine to bailout Wall Street??? But it's not ok to bailout what could be, once they get things straightened out, the country's largest employers. The same employers that pretty much created the Middle Class in this country? I do think that any bailout should be done with the specific limitation that it goes to create jobs in THIS country, rather than sending jobs across the boarder even more than they already have. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saw this site a few days ago and read up about it. Seems a bit Utopian but an interesting read nonetheless. http://www.thevenusproject.com/intro_main/essay.htm  Very cool.Ive been reading about similar topics recently such as "singularity".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I did alot of research not only the canidates but important isssues to me. I beleive its time for a third party but will not be owned by one.. Good. Too many people are owned by the parties as they exist now as it is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everytime the Republicans lose a presidential election there is a lot of talk about a 3rd party, but it will never happen because there isn't a real need for a 3rd party. It would just cause the Republicans to lose if its a conservative party ,and it would cause the Dems to lose if its a lib party, because it would just steal votes from the party that it is the most like it,and cause the other party to win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everytime the Republicans lose a presidential election there is a lot of talk about a 3rd party, but it will never happen because there isn't a real need for a 3rd party. It would just cause the Republicans to lose if its a conservative party ,and it would cause the Dems to lose if its a lib party, because it would just steal votes from the party that it is the most like it,and cause the other party to win. Mirror....look it up....the founding fathers NEVER intended our system to be a two party system. A third party would be good for everyone because it would, by necessity, be a party between the two extremes that are present now. Rather than voting for something because of " the party line " a third party would be more inclined to vote in favor of the good of the country. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hell, i keep telling everyone exactly how to make things better, but many times it just falls on deaf ears (or eyes). People just want more of the same. (How else do you think Obama got elected? ) I even wrote my congressmen, and told them they should call me before making any decisions from now on. (This was after the bailout). But it's fine to bailout Wall Street??? But it's not ok to bailout what could be, once they get things straightened out, the country's largest employers. The same employers that pretty much created the Middle Class in this country? I do think that any bailout should be done with the specific limitation that it goes to create jobs in THIS country, rather than sending jobs across the boarder even more than they already have. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everytime the Republicans lose a presidential election there is a lot of talk about a 3rd party, but it will never happen because there isn't a real need for a 3rd party. It would just cause the Republicans to lose if its a conservative party ,and it would cause the Dems to lose if its a lib party, because it would just steal votes from the party that it is the most like it,and cause the other party to win. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everytime the Republicans lose a presidential election there is a lot of talk about a 3rd party, but it will never happen because there isn't a real need for a 3rd party. It would just cause the Republicans to lose if its a conservative party ,and it would cause the Dems to lose if its a lib party, because it would just steal votes from the party that it is the most like it,and cause the other party to win. Mirror....look it up....the founding fathers NEVER intended our system to be a two party system. A third party would be good for everyone because it would, by necessity, be a party between the two extremes that are present now. Rather than voting for something because of " the party line " a third party would be more inclined to vote in favor of the good of the country. The founding fathers didn't have any problems with political parties(theres always been a conservative party and a liberal party). The system was designed to support political parties. So, I dont know where you got that information from. How would a 3rd party be good for everyone by neccessity? How are the two parties extreme if they are representing the issues that the American people want them to represent? And I dont accept your premise that a 3rd party wouldnt vote "party line". They would automatically be choosing with one of the other parties on every issue.(Because they can only vote "yay" or nay"). And who says the parties we have now arn't voting for the good of the people (or what they perceive to be so)?If a 3rd party was truly neccessary then we would have one already. We kinda do now,(The Independent party)and they are totally ineffective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Mon 11/10/08 12:14 AM
|
Everytime the Republicans lose a presidential election there is a lot of talk about a 3rd party, but it will never happen because there isn't a real need for a 3rd party. It would just cause the Republicans to lose if its a conservative party ,and it would cause the Dems to lose if its a lib party, because it would just steal votes from the party that it is the most like it,and cause the other party to win. The left wing is pretty happy with the new line up coming next year (they have all the cards)so Im not sure that any 3rd party is gonna come from them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everytime the Republicans lose a presidential election there is a lot of talk about a 3rd party, but it will never happen because there isn't a real need for a 3rd party. It would just cause the Republicans to lose if its a conservative party ,and it would cause the Dems to lose if its a lib party, because it would just steal votes from the party that it is the most like it,and cause the other party to win. Mirror....look it up....the founding fathers NEVER intended our system to be a two party system. A third party would be good for everyone because it would, by necessity, be a party between the two extremes that are present now. Rather than voting for something because of " the party line " a third party would be more inclined to vote in favor of the good of the country. The founding fathers didn't have any problems with political parties(theres always been a conservative party and a liberal party). The system was designed to support political parties. So, I dont know where you got that information from. How would a 3rd party be good for everyone by neccessity? How are the two parties extreme if they are representing the issues that the American people want them to represent? And I dont accept your premise that a 3rd party wouldnt vote "party line". They would automatically be choosing with one of the other parties on every issue.(Because they can only vote "yay" or nay"). And who says the parties we have now arn't voting for the good of the people (or what they perceive to be so)?If a 3rd party was truly neccessary then we would have one already. We kinda do now,(The Independent party)and they are totally ineffective. They are only ineffective because the media doesn't allow them to BE effective. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everytime the Republicans lose a presidential election there is a lot of talk about a 3rd party, but it will never happen because there isn't a real need for a 3rd party. It would just cause the Republicans to lose if its a conservative party ,and it would cause the Dems to lose if its a lib party, because it would just steal votes from the party that it is the most like it,and cause the other party to win. Mirror....look it up....the founding fathers NEVER intended our system to be a two party system. A third party would be good for everyone because it would, by necessity, be a party between the two extremes that are present now. Rather than voting for something because of " the party line " a third party would be more inclined to vote in favor of the good of the country. The founding fathers didn't have any problems with political parties(theres always been a conservative party and a liberal party). The system was designed to support political parties. So, I dont know where you got that information from. How would a 3rd party be good for everyone by neccessity? How are the two parties extreme if they are representing the issues that the American people want them to represent? And I dont accept your premise that a 3rd party wouldnt vote "party line". They would automatically be choosing with one of the other parties on every issue.(Because they can only vote "yay" or nay"). And who says the parties we have now arn't voting for the good of the people (or what they perceive to be so)?If a 3rd party was truly neccessary then we would have one already. We kinda do now,(The Independent party)and they are totally ineffective. They are only ineffective because the media doesn't allow them to BE effective. Its because the few independents that have ever gotten elected ended up siding with one of the major parties because you can only vote "yay" or "nay" on an issue. Either your for it, or your against it. Therefore your either for one party or the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By voting " nay " you aren't necessarily siding with one party or the other. You may only be objecting to the language of whatever it is that is being voted on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By voting " nay " you aren't necessarily siding with one party or the other. You may only be objecting to the language of whatever it is that is being voted on. Therefore, you would be siding with one party over the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have always had a liberal party and a conservative party. So we have always basically had the same two parties, except they have had different names down through the decades.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By voting " nay " you aren't necessarily siding with one party or the other. You may only be objecting to the language of whatever it is that is being voted on. Therefore, you would be siding with one party over the other. No. You would not. You are making it too simplistic. To disagree with the language is not giving validity to either side. To vote " nay " in an attempt to get the language changed to favor neither side, but what would be better ( in their opinion ) for the country as a whole, would only be voting for just that. Not a commitment to either of the other two parties. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Mon 11/10/08 12:34 AM
|
|
By voting " nay " you aren't necessarily siding with one party or the other. You may only be objecting to the language of whatever it is that is being voted on. Therefore, you would be siding with one party over the other. No. You would not. You are making it too simplistic. To disagree with the language is not giving validity to either side. To vote " nay " in an attempt to get the language changed to favor neither side, but what would be better ( in their opinion ) for the country as a whole, would only be voting for just that. Not a commitment to either of the other two parties. But a third party would have a liberal orientation or a conservative orientation. Therefore it would hurt the party it is the most like(by taking votes from it), and help the other party win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
....that there is an awful lot of venom being spewed around here...but no one seems to have any real ideas on how things can be made better???? It's pretty typical of things here in this country. " Let's all sit around and b*tch about everything being screwed up, but let's not actually come up with an idea. We'll leave that to the government, since they do such a fabulous job of everything. Then when they screw it up, we can b*tch about that too. "
|
|
|
|
|
