Robert Prasch points out that Democrats are just as susceptible to the standard anti-third-party propaganda slogans as Republicans:

The fact is that the Obama Administration, like the Clinton Administration before it, knowingly engaged in a cynical wager. They bet that they could pursue a host of policies fundamentally odious to their core supporters and yet be reelected. The calculation depended on the premise that rank-and-file Democrats would have no other option. Unsurprisingly, the Obama Administration and its surrogates have invested considerable time and energy convincing its former supporters that there is no option.

Anyone who has ever gone shopping knows that their bargaining power depends ultimately upon his/her willingness to walk away. The ability to walk away explains why the service we get from our local dry cleaner is significantly better than what most of us get from our local cable provider. When you have a choice, and demonstrate a willing to take that choice, you become empowered as consumer (I might add that the same is true of labor markets, which explains why most employers prefer a higher level of unemployment than their employees). Right now, a deeply cynical reelection campaign is betting that progressives will be too afraid of Romney to seek to empower themselves. This, let us remember, has been the strategy pursued by an increasingly right-wing Democratic National Committee for close to thirty years. Every four years we are asked to vote for the lesser evil. In a couple of weeks we will all learn if this plea will pay off again. The question is, will we learn? Will we learn to bargain with a faithless leadership of the Democratic Party? If not this election, then when?

I skimmed over the article and that article could have been written by a Neocon progressive. I had to make sure the article was really written by a Neolib progressive. There really isn't any difference between the two parties or their hence men.

The only question is, does one prefer the Republicans or the Democrats to collect and spend the money.

If you cant tell the difference in kicking God out of school and kicking Mohammed in, you need a neuro eval.

the differences between dhimmicrat and Republican is so great, even a child can see them.
Telling, that Barak can't........................

Nor I but I'm willing to see the difference. I just can't find any after 65 years. Of course, I'm with the liberty movement so that may explain why I don't see any difference.

My point is that a heavy majority of the American population consists of enthusiastic blue-pill addicts (context: The Matrix), and they're equally eager for their blue-pill fix regardless of whether they're Democrats or Republicans.

Both think you are delusional.

Some of the Differences�

1.-We Conservatives (Goldwater/Reagan Conservatives) have had many problems with Governor Romney and his Liberal record in Massachusetts.
But Mitt did demonstrate an ability to achieve real results working with a legislative body that was controlled by the opposition party.
They were liberal results for sure, but not as bad as what the liberal opponent running against Romney would have produced if he had won..

The potential of President Romney working with a conservative legislative body is enormous.

2.-We Goldwater/Reagan Conservatives have found precious little to fault Romney as a CEO. Whatever advantages his family name provided, Romney did well with them. Better than most.

3.-The life styles and morals of these two family men could not be greater.
Ask yourself as a Conservative; which man�s hand would you shake to close a deal, Obama�s or Romney�s?

So, how many members of your liberty movement hold public office?

I'm typically more interested in judging whether something is truth or not, than who the source is. If for some reason I find myself agreeing wtih a liberal, AnCap, NeoCon, or any other label; I don't get offended. Right is right, truth is truth; forget the labels.

I guess there is no difference in Scalia and Ginsburg, either?

+1

Good post, Kevin.

Barak,

I hate to admit it, but you�re right on this one. Until we�re willing to walk away, we�ll never get their attention.

35% -45% of the voting public walks away every year, even in record voting turnout years. No one notices them, so no, you won't get anyone's attention.

Y'all are like 7 year old children that go and pout in the closet, thinking you'll fix everyone. What y'all don't realize, is no one cares the minute you left the room.

You seem to care...first time anyone doesn't vote for your guy, you can't wait to call them an idiot.

I don't think I've ever called you or Barack an idiot. Naive, yes....idiots...no.

+2

Yep.



I'm so [bleep] sick of being lied to by politicians. Neither of these men is anything other than a bought-and-paid-for shill. Neither has any interest in representing the vast majority of the population. Both will continue the path we are on- which is to game the system to move wealth from the vast majority of us, to the very weathy, via direct intervention.

I'm not saying there aren't differences. Obama leans socialist in his policies. Romney is a demonstrated enemy of the middle class as he, personally, destroyed jobs for personal gain. Romney will get us into full-scale shooting wars where I doubt Obama would. Romeny is likely to be marginally better on guns. Obama is pro-choice, while Romney lies and pretends to be pro-life to garner votes. And so on.

But in the end they exist for one thing and one thing only: to facilitate the transfer of wealth from the readers of this forum, to people whose lifestyles and wealth we cannot even imagine. If the events of the last 15 years or so have not made that clear to a person, then there's no convincing them; they will just vote on the social "smokescreen" issues.

there is a bit of difference between the two at the 17 decimal point level of detail.

the advantage goes to Romney.

now, how much better off will we be in four years?

4 more years of Zero and you won't be able to walk out of the schitt we will be in.

I laugh every time I see that photo. Thanks for lightening things up, that was good!!

They've been saying that for every president I can remember...Hell, Jefferson said that about Adams 200 years ago.

yes, that "principled" Liberty movement refusal to vote just gets lost in the general DGAF non-voters, and neither impresses nor influences the real political parties. and voting for a sub 1% candidate only sends the message that those voters are really deeply stupid about the effect of third parties in close states.

"The blue pill! Gimme the blue pill, quick! Screw the red pill, I need the blue pill!"

Hey, I still vote; I�m just not voting for Romney or Obama. And like I said, In Arkansas it really doesn�t matter. But I�ll vote on just about everything else that�s on the ballot.

For things that matter to me, Romney won�t be the cure to Obama; just a new set of problems.

Neither one. Oh sorry you said a conservative, that leaves me out.

Well I admit liberty is an ideal that has come and gone. Just listening to the political ads saying which candidate will redistribute the wealth shows me that liberty is a passe ideal.

Ah yes the stupid speak.

I notice that too.

You've called me an idiot.

Right on!!!!

So if you were a third party candidate you would tell all those on welfare they would be cut off and plan on saving the country that way? You wouldn't have a chance as the third leg most people would consider you to be.

DITTOS! Probably said it about Washington too.

Actually the Democrats in Montana are encouraging people to vote Libertarian if they won't vote Democrat. I have no idea of what the means to be honest.

The third leg is a lame excuse and nothing more than a do nothing safe house for whiners.

You fail to understand the question.

In order to show the difference between the R and the D as represented by the two men running the choice is to chose between the two.

You can vote or not vote for anyone you choose, but I ask about the obvious difference between Obama and Romney not none of the above.

Which man would you go hunting with, not whomever would you prefer to hunt with.

a third choice would be great. is ross perot running this year?

Your posts the past few months have done little to prove me wrong.

He endorsed Romney...

Because even the moonbats understand that a vote for a third party candidate, is a vote for Obama.

No, it's not.

The two main parties are killing this country. A 3rd party vote is saying I�m not going to play along just because one of the two is going to be elected. At some point you have to look yourself in the mirror and realize that you were PART of the problem�in addiction terms, at best you�re an enabler. If you�re okay with that, fine; but don�t say I�m a jerk because I won�t play by your rules anymore. I want to look my kids in the eye and tell them at some point I stopped contributing to the problem.

Third parties strike me as people who stand on the sidelines yelling at the teams on the field about how to play the game. Those on the sidelines have never been on the field of play, nor are they sufficiently in touch with reality to play the game.

I think if someone supports a guy who shuts off drilling in the Gulf because it's not safe at 3,000 ft and gives Brazil $4 billion to take the same rigs and drill at 6,000 feet and cuts off drilling on US federal lands and gives Columbia $2 billion and Mexico $1 billion to drill and shutsoff A few hundred coal mines and doubles the price of gasoline i may have pretty good reason it consider the guy an idiot.

This is especially so if the guy SAYS he supports the 2ND and he supports a Zero whos atty general says we need to d away with private gun ownership and the Zero puts 2 liberals on the SC who won't support the Second A. I have a pretty fair case for the guy presenting a double case of stupidity.

I didn't say you're a jerk or stupid or an idiot, I said you're naive.

I disagree about being an enabler. I try to change my party from within.

Voting 3rd party merely removes your opinion from the equation. The kid that picks up his ball and goes home, has no effect on the game. The kid that stays and keeps trying to make the game fair, however small his voice may be, has an effect.

Obama's constituents have an effect on his party platform. Romney's constituents have an effect on his party platform.

Don't you think Romney would have loved to have left Pro-Life off of his platform and negated the single biggest voting cry for the left? His Pro Life constituents made themselves heard.

The NRA makes us heard. Romney choosing Paul Ryan was solely because of the Tea Party and fiscal conservatives being heard.

Does it really take a genius to realize there are a lot of people on this earth and the POTUS, and liberals and the UN wanting to end our 2A rights. Is it too much of a mental leap for people to forsee having to apply at the court house to pick up their gun for a hunting trip as is already done in some places. Is it too great a mental leap to consider the possible ramifications when some people in high position in our govt think it is just fine to give real assault weapons to foreign criminals while we can't even own an assault weapon.
Sorry, I think anyone who really trusts our govt for their security is an idiot. Our govt couldn't even protect one of our ambassadors, who was a lot more important to our govt than most of us.

"Republicans and Democrats not that different after all"

Whether Democrats or Republicans have more control of our government makes very little difference. The citizenry will continue to be used like draught animals and their rights, freedoms and property taken from them.

"Your vote counts."

HA!

Voting third party is to ignore the �third party� building inside the GOP.

In 2008 the Tea Party pulled off a landslide election that Libertarians can only dream about.

Romney and the GOP and the MSM do not want to talk about it, but the Tea Party is still around and about to deliver a Conservative Senate to the GOP.

You looking for a difference between the D and the R; look no further then the difference between the N Pelosi House 2007/11 spending spree and the reduced budgets passed with the TP vote in the 2011/12 House and sent to die in the H Reid Senate.

These are the folks that will rein Romney to the Right and hold his feet to the Conservative fire.

These are the folks building a new Conservative force in this country and Ron Paul and Gary Johnson can only set on the sidelines, eating peanuts and commiserating about what might have been.

Well said.

Why would anybody hunt with either of them? They're politicians.

I wouldn't take a leech or a maggot hunting, even though leeches and maggots are God's creatures, each with an important purpose to fulfill. And I wouldn't dream of dishonoring leeches and maggots by hunting with a politician. Shudder.

What class, but you would help a muzzie be POTUS.

Before throwing America away show people at the state level the third party is viable. We can't afford 4 more years of "O" turd muncher extraordinaire..

All real grass roots start at State level or below and that hasn't happened yet.

Here is your hunter Bows, lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1ZTIbr8MuY

Think I'd rather take my chances with Cheney...

What these guys are making clear is nothing more than "third party" propaganda by a shrinking group of society with no traction. Hence, the only attention they can get is on forums such as this one.

Isn't there some kind of rule about dumping any thread that Barak, DD and JO all participate in or is it just wishful thinking?

I understand the question. Neither one. I vote present.

They remind me of babies that sit in their highchair's wailing incessantly with soiled diapers waiting for an adult to wipe their asss and change their Pampers.

Well I guess it takes an idiot to know an idiot. Welcome to the idiot's club.

And you call me an idiot.

And your point is what?

Well there you go again being an idiot.

And your point is what?

For you conservatives I'm happy that you are happy but for some of us the conservative movement isn't for us and it doesn't make us happy.

I am a bow hunter and I would go hunting with Paul Ryan anytime.

RD, the propaganda is from the your party:

* Run another RINO and dry-hump the proposition he will go into the nearest phone booth after the election and come out a small spending/.gov conservative *

If you like to hunt, if you like to shoot, if you like to fish, I've never seen a gun ban passed by a repulican controlled congress or senate. I have seen it passed by demokrat controlled congress and senates. I have only seen demokrat presidents sign this type of legisaltion. Anti-gun and anti-hunting run deep in the demokrat party leadership, while I can't say none in the republikrats, they are few and far between. The tea party elected members are pulling to the right as hard as they can, but we need more of them. When I say the right I mean the constitution. KDJ

Being neither a Republican nor Democrat I don't sit in my highchair wailing waiting for someone to change my diapers and wipe my azz I do it myself.

I wouldn't touch a politician, Muslim or otherwise, with a ten-foot pole. I might get some on me.

Aside from that, I couldn't give a hoot who's POTUS. The question is unimportant and irrelevant--I care more about Britney Spears' toenail fungus.

As far back as I can remember, every campaign speech I've heard from candidates, regardless of their political affiliation, has rang that same tone.........less gov....less spending........let's take back America.....rah rah rah !!!!


If you actually believe that any politician has any intention of doing that, well then I have some swamp land for sale unlike any other previously offered for sale.

It's not the people who abandon the proven-futile political process and take it upon themselves to go out and get things done who are immature or irresponsible.

I think that label would fit better on the people who just sit back and vote for a politician, and then wait for the government to solve their problems.

So you admit to eating in a highchair with [bleep] in your diaper and wailing incessantly.

The gov will not solve the problem. They are the problem. You would be very hard pressed to find any post of mine that even remotely stated that I felt gov was the answer or solution to any of my problems.

At my age I'm probably not far from returning to the highchair and diapers.

I was just answering your point. It's Republicans and Democrats who sit around and wait for government to show up and fix things not anarchists. Don't try to make this into something it's not.

And not just any adult. It must be the adult of their choice. God forbid that one have an accident, or they would sit in schitt till their ass rotted out.

I understand or at least I think I do�well maybe a little�
My point is that the Tea Party in 2010 demonstrated more potential to make real changes then any third party since 1912.

This is the 100th birth year of the Progressive Party, Theodore Roosevelt�s �I�m fit as a Bull Moose Party�

Only third party to ever come in second.
Wilson's 42% 435 electoral votes
Roosevelt 27% 88 electoral votes
Taft 23% 8 electoral votes

No need for any wisecracks about me being old enough to vote in that election and who did I vote for.

I can't speak for the others on here but I don't vote third party because I expect them to win and do good things because I don't. I vote third party here in Montana to keep things interesting and to keep the third party on the ballot.

As MacLorry said and I will have to agree with him on this, any third party to become viable has to become a party of statism. In other words, in order for any third party to win said party must become a part of the problem. Nobody really wants the problem fixed. Everybody wants the same old same old.

If Romney wins, it'll be amusing watching the rat pack here make 'scuses for the trillion dollar deficits in a few years.

They've already established that the moment a prez leaves office, they are no longer responsible for the mess they hand over (cough GWB cough) so from day one it'll be all Romney's fault.

I've used the train analogy here before. Trains go in a direction, at a speed. They are not maneuverable. They neither start nor stop quickly. Ours is hurtling towards an abyss and we argue like ninnies about what color the napkins should be in the dining car...... or who should be the next engineer to drive it down the tracks, at a speed, in a direction, which are almost entirely predetermined by the accumulation of physics (inertia, momentum) that have already occurred.

Yea, but $2 gas would be nice.

Might happen briefly but in general it's only going up over the next decades....

And what isnt, after Zero printing $40 billion/mo. to keep the stock market looking good. Oh, another reason to ditch the Zero.

That's an amazing financial forecast there Jeff. You work for E.F. Hutton or sumptin ?

Yea, it's scarey to see a fire member come up with such intellectual prognostications on a public forum.

I was at the St. Louis Museum of Transportation last weekend and I learned a few things.

Trains run both ways. In fact, they don�t care if they be pushin� or pullin.�
They have brakes. It takes a lot of effort but they can and do stop.
Train tracks have switches and side tracks to park slow freight while the Express Limited roars by.

I�m still waiting for someone, anyone to explain why a Conservative Legislature and a Moderate President won�t be any different than the Conservative House fighting a H Reid Liberal Senate and that Socialistic President we have now.

Without question, the intel I've recieved here on the fire from folks like Jeff O and Big Stick is priceless.

Now you can invest with confidence cause schitt is going up.

Wait a minute......let me get a pen so I can write this stuff down.......be right back.

Don't be dorks. Eyeball hypothesized $2/gal gas as if that was a reasonable expectation, presumably if, what, Romney let 'em drill baby drill?

Ain't gonna happen. Even factoring inflation it's only headed up as a general trend, and likely, cripplingly so.

Now GFY's.

Anyone that tells you there ain't a differance is a lying POS.

Bad thing is, schitts going up cause Zero is ruining the value of the dollar (by printing so many) in favor of the Chinese yen, in order to make us a third world economic nightmare.

Hey, the dimocraps have said for years they think we should pay the same for gas as their buds in Europe. You just thought they were lying as usual.

I bet it has since you have yet to have a thought or argument that you could intelligently convey. One liners and cheap shots have your post count significantly inflated.

Congrats?

Eyeball has been here for a year and a half and she has over 10,000 posts.....asking her to not be a dork would mean she'd need to leave her Moms' basement and get a life.

I don't think she has it in her....

Jeff, the EPA has already stated they have over 500 critters on list to stop drilling from Texas to Canada. First two being the dunes sagebrush lizard of west Texas they dropped till after the election and the prairie chicken that can't mate if a drilling rig is fracking around within a hundred miles. Thatntakes us to the canada. Them preventing the killingnof p. chicken killing hawks is really nothing compared to those fracking rigs. When gas gets to $8-10/ gal. his boss in Saudi Arabia will really bless Zero as he will really be raking it in. Suckers like you will be saying we got to save the p. chicken. Green energy will become more viable.

The Keystone deal will be forgotten to help his buddy Warren Buffet make more billions shipping Canadian oil south on his RailRoads. A few hundred million in The caymans in Zeros name will make that a gold mine for Buffet.

Was that a one liner ace hole?

Actually it was an observation sweetheart.

BTW...Keystone ain't oil for us. There's a reason it goes to a Seaport....I'll give you a second or two to ask your Mom why that is.

Now run upstairs and ask her.

What I said would (will) be true regardless of all that nonsense, eyeball.

Drill all you want- it's still going up up up. It will change everything. Perhaps for the better in a few ways.

I say (will) because once the squeeze starts all them lizards and hawks go out the window and that oil gets drilled anyway.

I think many folks here would disagree, but you're entitled to your opinion.

I guess one liner's and cheap shots are not my exclusive domain.


Congrat's ?

Not on federal land with Zero it hasn't.

No wonder you support Zero. You are a freaking Queer. I'm not your type because I'm white. Fuggin [bleep].

Good. It's still there then. Think of it as a strategic reserve. It's not like we won't be needing it in 20 years. Right now there's plenty on the global market and we can afford to buy it, at least more so than we'll be able to in 20 years after the baby boomers go through the entitlements and truly bankrupt us.

How long do you think we would last as a third world country on this earth? We wouldn't be needing it in 20 years. Oh, but you probably agreed with Clinton when he said we could afford drastic cuts in the military and covert intelligence since there were no threats to world peace.

Of course they have similarities!

One nose per face, to begin with.

But they have significant differences, too, and only a biased fool concentrates on the similarities and ignores (to make his point) the distinctive differences. Worse, of course, are those whose inherent biases are so deep-seated that they're intellectually incapable of discerning those distinctions.

Not really all that hard-pressed.

When you are at great pains to make sure you vote for the right politicians and not the wrong politicians, the assumption underlying your argument is that the government under the right politicians will solve at least some of your problems.

But there aren't any right politicians: they're all wrong, and the government will make all your problems worse regardless of which politicians you elect.

Like the liberal progressive movement that fuels them the epa is furiously digging their own grave.

They've been trying to push the whole thing (all lib agendas rolled into one) too hard and too fast.

They thought the stage was set. Thought they were all ready for an easy win. That's their problem, they don't think too clearly, let alone with any accuracy.

When their little dingleBarry entered the stage they thought their time had come. They all jumped in with both feet from every angle, from every far out left field idea, every lunatic high earth orbit vision, they believed time had finally come to make all their make believe fairy tale euphoric dreams come true.

Many still believe. Still digging furiously.
Look at their whacko campaign ads, desperately trying to save it.

Little o has done one good thing for America. Count it, one.
He encouraged them to expose themselves. And expose themselves is the only thing they're accomplishing.
Even moderates and independents are looking on in amazement and calling them wild eyed whackos.

Americans needed an eye opening. They're gettng it!


On the topic, in some ways Team D is very similar to Team R, and V.V.
In many ways they're different.
In TOO many ways they're indistinguishable.

The tea party is rising up. D and R will soon BOTH look like third parties... and destructive lunatics. They'll keep rising, and soon reach their apex, because people's eye are being opened.
From the left and the right, and as well the so called left and so called right, millions will be coming aboard.


But right now is Team D and the left lib progressives turn.
One fight at a time, guys.
One fight at a time.

Yep.
Lesser of two evils....
for now.

But not forever. Thank God.

Only one nose
Yeah.
But right beneath all those noses is a tongue with two tips.
And they all too eagerly use both, at the same time, all too often.

Of course. Tis the nature of governments.
It's all about that throne raising. They're still trying...

And, to the point of the original article, they're both far too easily indoctrinated by anti-third-party major-party propaganda.


"Significant," here, depends heavily on your perspective.

From one perspective--say, the perspective of somebody looking to buy a bolt-action rifle--a Remington and a Mauser and a Tikka may all have significant differences.

But from the perspective of somebody looking to buy a high-speed printer, there are no significant differences between the Remington and the Mauser and the Tikka: they're all completely incapable of solving--or even addressing--the problem at hand, and arguing about their differences is a complete waste of time.

The problems plaguing this country cannot be solved, or even addressed, by politicians or governments or political parties. It is not the nature of politicians or governments or political parties to solve problems (except the problems of a few exceedingly rich or powerful people). It is the nature of politicians and governments and political parties to create problems.

So I leave you all to argue over the finer points of the differing nature of the problems that will be caused by victorious Republicans as over against the problems that will be caused by victorious Democrats.

I'm interested in solving problems, not creating problems. Therefore, the differences that are so important to you all couldn't make a bean's worth of difference to me.

Jeff, Zero said "fundamentally change this country". That means - change the fundamentals. Our fundamentals are govt of, by and for..., the 1st, and 2nd A. They are working to take your guns because they plan to take your guns. Two more of zeros buds on the SC and they will take your guns. It's been done before in totalitarian regimes (fundamental ...). They want to take your guns so they can control you (fundamental ....).

If a guy says no tax increase of one thin dime and he raises your taxes $2300/ yr (but calls it a mandate) he can certainly claim he didn't raise your taxes a damned dime.

You go a head and trust the guy you just saw on the last debate who said he was trying to help the coal industry out, and be thankful you don't work in the coal industry.

Gun confiscation isn't a problem right now. It's much less of a problem than it would be right now if McCain had won. Obama is one of the best friends the Second Amendment ever had--not because he likes it, but because everybody knows he doesn't like it and so guns and ammunition and gun parts have been flying off the shelves for four years.

Of course the government wants to take your guns; but it also wants to confiscate your 401K retirement money, and I'd say that's a whole lot more likely--because it's already got your 401K retirement money, for all intents and purposes, and can grab it with the stroke of a pen as soon as it figures the political fallout would be manageable.

It doesn't have your guns; you have your guns. Millions of people will not turn in their guns when ordered to do so. The government will have to send thugs to take those guns. Many of those thugs will end up dead, which will make the available supply of replacement thugs shrink somewhat. And once the confiscation is complete, there will be many, many guns the confiscators have missed. (Trust me: I know.)

401K confiscation depends on the stroke of a pen; gun confiscation requires much more--essentially, a general political climate where guns and gun owners are generally hated and feared. That climate was well on its way to forming under Baby Bush, and it would have continued forming under McCain. But Obama has set the gun-confiscation cause back for years.

Yes, they'll still come for your guns, if they're still around then; but there are more pressing things to worry about that are far more important.

Bulls eye, Barak. Exposing of one of the lib agendas I mentioned. Even if not exposed entirely for what it truly is it lost a lot of support it otherwise would have had.

Shot themselves in the foot, they did.
Again and again and again.

And at the same time make the availability of gov issue guns, ammo, and other equipment/toys, more available.

I've heard guys say that many of us won't even need guns if such a SHTF thing came to pass.
We'll use theirs.

Yes Barak, Only demokrats have talked about taking your 401k and only demokrats have passed gun bans. And for the most part only demokrats are anti-hunting. KDJ

So as you can see there is no difference!

Well said...if just one of them really believed that, we would have had less government, less spending, etc. Reagan said he would reduce government; he expanded it on a scale never seen before, and until Obama came along, he took the prize. Bush version 1.0 expanded government, Clinton expanded government, Bush version 2.0 went buck wild with the government checkbook, and now Obama. None of them have any intention of reducing the size of the government one iota.

Under Romney government will grow, government spending will expand.

Wasn't that only Pelosi and Reid talking about how we Whois be fair with our 401s? Do they count?

The Fed directs such things, not the president.

Oh schitt. And they always do that to keep things humming when a republican is trying to be re- never mind.

True. The state always prefers totalitarianism. Makes operating as the state that much easier. Except in the very rare cases (Ron Paul comes to mind), the only thing preventing holders of state power from following through with that preference is the fear of losing hold of state power as a consequence.

No one at all has seriously discussed gun confiscation on a nationwide basis, yet you folks are--righteously--concerned about it. Government confiscation of retirement money, under various pretexts, has happened many times before, and it's going on right now in Italy. The fact that US officials are talking about it at all certainly means the idea has occurred to them. As the economic situation continues to deteriorate, the government is going to become increasingly desperate and willing to tolerate previously unheard-of levels of public outrage.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that they have intellectuals working right now on pretexts for confiscating retirement that will be acceptable to as much of the lower-income end of society as possible.

As if they try to pull such in a single, nation wide, sudden act rather than being sneaky with the boiling frog MOA.

PS They did, for the most part anyway, take them up in Australia where many,as you, said it would never be allowed by the populace.

Finn,

AcesNights has you wired. You are a chimer. You have yet to contribute an independent intellectual thought. Rather, you are quick to chime in with Steve_Goebbels because you believe he's attained an educational position far beyond your ability; therefore, at least according to you, he must be smart. Here's a clue for you: any half-wit can earn an Internet JD and call himself smart.

Both Steve_No & PISJR are neocons, which are really repackaged liberal Democrats. That you'd gleefully stoop to their levels in prayer some of their illusory competence would fall off them and settle on your dumb ass reveals you to be an intellectual lightweight. You espouse Obamaesque policies, yet you ain't got muzzle energy to figure it out.

Keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool. However, you've done opened it and removed all doubt.

Originally Posted By: Raisuli
BOWSINGER has identified Steve_Goebbels as a poster (as opposed to man) whom he thinks is intelligent, and he's thrown in with him in effort to scrape off what he believes intelligence Steve_Goebbels possess. 'SINGER ain't got muzzle energy to realize that Goebbels is Pied Piperin' him to the edge of the precipice that will plunge him into slavery.

Since Raisuli posted this there has been a 55 vote spike for S and 2 more negatives for R.

POLL NUMBERS FOR TODAY:
OK boys and girls, VOTE ONCE:
Who has posted the most coherent and intelligent posts on Campfire?

Raisuli:
-13 votes +5 votes
OR
Steve-No:
778 votes

The negative vote for Razzi has increased from 3 to 7 to 9 to 11 to 13.
That is not possible, someone has hacked into the system and somehow inserted negative numbers.
They must cut that out and stop doing that stuff immediately! JUST STOP IT!

Right on!

I live right next to the trains and your analogy is pretty spot on.

How are things going for you right now? Do you live near the coast?

According to the news I get in Montana NJ is in the ocean right now.

I was at the St. Louis Museum of Transportation last weekend and I learned a few things.

Trains run both ways. In fact, they don�t care if they be pushin� or pullin.�
They have brakes. It takes a lot of effort but they can and do stop.
Train tracks have switches and side tracks to park slow freight while the Express Limited roars by.

I�m still waiting for someone, anyone to explain why a Conservative Legislature and a Moderate President won�t be any different than the Conservative House fighting a H Reid Liberal Senate and that Socialistic President we have now.

No offense intended but are you really that dense. There hasn't been a conservative president since Calvin Coolidge. All presidents and Congresses have been liberal/socialist/welfare statists. I realize that a real conservative/libertarian can't get elected dog catcher so it's not surprising that the nation state is headed over a cliff.

You missed one argument, at least. That is the idea that the right politician will do less to cause us harm.

Oh, I'm sure they're planning to boil the frog. I agree with you about that. But Obama dumped several dozen pounds of ice in the water, and now there are a whole lot more guns out there than there were before.

Eventually the temperature in the pot will rise again, and the people who own those guns will die, and their descendants, indoctrinated with the anti-gun Zeitgeist, will toddle them down to government gun-buyback programs and so on.

But there are more immediate things to worry about in the meantime.

A succession of good high-profile horrific mass murders--with guns, of course--would serve to raise the temperature a little, anyway...but the Batman guy did his worst, and that event has pretty much disappeared into the Memory Hole without having much effect.

Strategic mass murders can change the culture, but it's much harder for them to persuade people who have guns now to give them up. For that, you need them to get old and die while you indoctrinate their children in compulsory government confinement schools.

It's by no means impossible; but it's not quick.

You missed one argument, at least. That is the idea that the right politician will do less to cause us harm.

DITTOS!

Right on!

Obvisouly, you did not read Jeff's post on the train. Try reading the post before you type.

I have a news flash for you sir. There is more to life (the "Hunter's" Campfire) than what you blowhards contribute to the 24HourCampfire. My first several years here were mostly spent in the Hunting Optics section, two things you know nothing about, and have posted in mostly the hunting rifles, custom rifles, deer hunting, general hunting, ATV's, custom knives and fresh water fishing. I also buy and sell in the classified section regularly. Of course you and Asswhole@Eight couldn't see that because you have no experience with rifles, knives, fishing.......you know the great outdoors. You clowns are chained to the great indoors.

Now does that merit a big Congrat's ?

Raisin head is two faced (dimocrap). He espouses dislike for Zero (a lie) and proposes we vote third party.

Finn,

I owe you no vita of my hunting experience. I do know that politicians have and will determine whether I am able to continue to enjoy my cherished sport. Having worked in a fact-based career for nigh on twenty years, I can discern rhetoric from authenticity. Neither Obama nor Romnut will protect and defend our Second Amendment. I have fished extensively off Baja's coastline on multi-day trips and I have fished the Eastern Sierra extensively. Every year I am forced to navigate more & more regulations that serve no other purpose than the dissuade sportsmen from enjoying their sports.

Neither candidate is a friend of sportsmen. Either one will jeopardize our Second Amendment. The ABO crown loves to spew a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Obama. BS. A vote for Romnut is a vote to continue Obama's freedom-destroying agenda. The Patriot Act and NDAA are legislation that have as their intended purpose of controlling us. Romnut supports both.

I am wise enough to know that with either, we will lose. To insist that I support any candidate who is harmful to what little freedom we have left is abject stupidity. Therefore, I couldn't care less who loses, for with either we lose.

I don't think you get it, which means you'll never get it; therefore, you're part of the problem.

Eyeball, how many Democrats have you supported in your lifetime?

I have not ever and will not ever support a Democrat. I know you cannot write the same.

I didn't miss it. That's the standard lesser-of-two-evils argument against which this entire thread was started. I'm aware of the argument; I just reject it.

The opinions expressed here and the attitudes that they expose lead to one conclusion �

� perfection is impossible, therefore no one thing that's possible is better than anything else.

Wrong again. Oh, maybe my Grandfather was a dimocrap at one time and I supported him in his old age, but he never ran for any office other than to be a mason.

AH HAH!

It's amazing how some won't vote for Romney since he isn't perfect and can't save the US, though he may help postpone it's demise. Some of those same perfectionists will someday jump at spending their last dime on cancer treatment that won't cure them either, on the hope it will give them a little more time.

I can't speak for others but I don't expect to spend my last dime to stave off the enviable.

If we can't save or turn around the ship of state than we might as well just let the ship sink and the sooner the better.

Those that won't vote for Romney because he is not perfect,then turn around and say they will vote for Gary Johnson,who is not perfect either. Go figure.

Nobody expects Johnson to win.

That a damned fine reason to vote for him Derby.

Makes a lot of sense vote for a loser.

Well, sort of. Not exactly. My statement of it would be more like, "Everything the government does will unavoidably be deeply destructive, deceptive, and counterproductive; therefore, spending one's time reforming the government is profoundly inferior to spending one's time evading, circumventing, subverting, and defying the government and making it increasingly irrelevant to the average person's way of life."

Birds of a feather....

It's not supposed to be a horse race.

Do you mean the inevitable?

How does one think well without knowing the language that he's supposedly thinking in?

I noticed it too, but assumed it was a product of his spell check program.

That helps keep the Libertarian Party on future ballots.

Look, I'm anarchist, I know that government always causes problems and never provides solutions. If we want things fixed we must get rid of politicians and governments.

To make you a little happy I did vote for some Republican politicians out of loyalty because I knew them personally.

+1

DITTOS.

I can't spell worth a chit. Never could. I think it's because of two things lack of proper phonics and a slight speech impediment.

The computer actually has gone a long ways to improve my spelling. You should have seen what it was like before the computer. It took me weeks to write a three paragraph letter. Word processing and spell check is my friend although sometimes it lets me down.

LMAO.

Ok, Shriner too.

My uncle was both a Shriner and a 32nd degree Mason. He was buried with full honors, like he was a head of state. He was also among the first CIA officers, recruited into it from WWII Army Intelligence.

I'm not a Mason, but my father and both grandfathers were � not to mention a passel of uncles. Grandfather Fountain missed just two words in the oral recitation that qualified him to teach all thirty-two degrees of Masonry � whatever they are.

That's got to be on a par with (or beyond?) one of Spencer Tracy's monologues in Judgment at Nuremberg � eleven minutes, and he did it in one take, according to director Stanley Kramer.

He beat me.

That was my point JO. You have none to contribute.

The distinction between enviable and inevitable is a matter of spelling?

And the Campfire provides the opportunity to preview and to approve every post before it gets cast willy-nilly into cyberspace.

"You hear that, Mr. Anderson? That is the sound of enviability."



Well, okay, maybe not.

No offense taken, but you have not answered the question and I did say Moderate President.
Goldwater and Reagan fit my definition of real Conservatives. One of them were elected president twice with landslides.

Are you so dense to not see what happened in the more conservative House in 2010 when they demoted N Pelosi?

Too dense to understand that Character counts and the difference between O and R is huge.

Obvisouly, you can�t spell Obviously and my post was in response to Jeff�s post after reading how wrong he was.

Let me explain to you two bookends.
Trains are not landslides; they can be stopped, they can be turned around, they can back up.

Just like what is happening to our country, everything goes in cycles, history is the study of cycles.
Reagan replace Carter; Romney will replace Obama and if need be a better Conservative will replace him.

Good times follow bad, boom follows bust and back again. Trains tracks run both ways.
So the train analogy is a good one if you get your facts right.

Well, someone here (probably derby dude) said that your arguments can be taken to a "logical conclusion". Well, this isn't one of them. You try to steer conversations (and thoughts) toward your way of thinking. I've said this many many times now that I don't think the gov is the answer to any of my problems. Not sure how you think that by my casting a vote for President makes me complicit to your anti-gov conspiracy theories so I won't speculate why. I guess if I buy gasoline, I am also complicit, because the gov. collects taxes (wait I meant extorts taxes) from the gas companies and therefore, I am part of the vast conspiracy if I buy gas who's taxes support big gov....? Sounds like another "logical conclusion" right ?