RightWingNutZ
- R_P - May 28, 2024 - 12:02pm
Radio Paradise Comments
- timothy_john - May 28, 2024 - 11:45am
Israel
- R_P - May 28, 2024 - 9:47am
You might be getting old if......
- kurtster - May 28, 2024 - 9:36am
Trump
- Lazy8 - May 28, 2024 - 9:28am
Today in History
- DaveInSaoMiguel - May 28, 2024 - 9:12am
Baseball, anyone?
- Proclivities - May 28, 2024 - 9:03am
NY Times Strands
- ptooey - May 28, 2024 - 8:18am
Mixtape Culture Club
- ColdMiser - May 28, 2024 - 8:05am
Wordle - daily game
- ptooey - May 28, 2024 - 8:04am
NYTimes Connections
- Bill_J - May 28, 2024 - 8:02am
What makes you smile?
- black321 - May 28, 2024 - 6:20am
May 2024 Photo Theme - Peaceful
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 27, 2024 - 9:46pm
Photos you have taken of your walks or hikes.
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 27, 2024 - 9:43pm
RP Daily Trivia Challenge
- ScottFromWyoming - May 27, 2024 - 8:24pm
Poetry Forum
- Manbird - May 27, 2024 - 7:20pm
Climate Change
- haresfur - May 27, 2024 - 6:07pm
The Obituary Page
- rgio - May 27, 2024 - 4:10pm
fortune cookies, says:
- thisbody - May 27, 2024 - 3:50pm
Name My Band
- GeneP59 - May 27, 2024 - 2:26pm
Song of the Day
- oldviolin - May 27, 2024 - 11:12am
Favorite Quotes
- oldviolin - May 27, 2024 - 11:08am
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - May 27, 2024 - 9:29am
USA! USA! USA!
- thisbody - May 27, 2024 - 7:54am
First World Problems
- ColdMiser - May 27, 2024 - 7:33am
Funny Videos
- thisbody - May 27, 2024 - 7:20am
Internet connection
- thisbody - May 27, 2024 - 7:12am
Ways to Listen to RP on WiiM Plus
- earthbased - May 27, 2024 - 6:56am
Things You Thought Today
- thisbody - May 27, 2024 - 6:36am
Roku App - Roku Asterisk Menu
- earthbased - May 27, 2024 - 5:49am
Sonos
- haresfur - May 26, 2024 - 9:32pm
John Prine
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 26, 2024 - 5:34pm
New Music
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 26, 2024 - 5:24pm
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- jarro - May 26, 2024 - 1:58pm
Artificial Intelligence
- R_P - May 25, 2024 - 11:05pm
What Makes You Laugh?
- thisbody - May 25, 2024 - 10:42pm
Fascism In America
- R_P - May 25, 2024 - 6:16pm
The Dragons' Roost
- miamizsun - May 25, 2024 - 12:02pm
Media Matters
- Beaker - May 25, 2024 - 10:59am
2024 Elections!
- kurtster - May 24, 2024 - 9:43pm
Dialing 1-800-Manbird
- oldviolin - May 24, 2024 - 3:42pm
What's that smell?
- oldviolin - May 24, 2024 - 3:41pm
Business as Usual
- R_P - May 24, 2024 - 12:49pm
It's the economy stupid.
- R_P - May 24, 2024 - 12:38pm
Bob Dylan
- Steely_D - May 24, 2024 - 10:50am
Rock mix sound quality below Main and Mellow?
- R567 - May 24, 2024 - 9:11am
Odd sayings
- GeneP59 - May 24, 2024 - 8:08am
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy
- Red_Dragon - May 24, 2024 - 6:55am
Nederland / The Netherlands
- R_P - May 23, 2024 - 10:03am
Music News
- Beaker - May 23, 2024 - 8:30am
Interviews with the artists
- Beaker - May 23, 2024 - 8:12am
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 22, 2024 - 8:51pm
Science is bullsh*t
- GeneP59 - May 22, 2024 - 4:16pm
Maarjamaa
- oldviolin - May 22, 2024 - 3:32pm
Gotta Get Your Drink On
- ScottFromWyoming - May 22, 2024 - 3:25pm
Coffee
- haresfur - May 22, 2024 - 12:12am
Most played: what's the range? Last 30 days? 90?
- theirongiant - May 21, 2024 - 2:20pm
What Did You See Today?
- Steely_D - May 20, 2024 - 1:24pm
Shawn Phillips
- Isabeau - May 20, 2024 - 6:20am
The Corporation
- Red_Dragon - May 20, 2024 - 5:08am
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests
- GeneP59 - May 19, 2024 - 4:08pm
What can you hear right now?
- GeneP59 - May 19, 2024 - 4:07pm
China
- Isabeau - May 19, 2024 - 2:22pm
TV shows you watch
- Steely_D - May 19, 2024 - 1:13am
Music library
- nightdrive - May 18, 2024 - 1:28pm
Paul McCartney
- miamizsun - May 18, 2024 - 4:06am
Virginia News
- Steely_D - May 18, 2024 - 2:51am
Gnomad here. Who farking deleted my thread?
- Red_Dragon - May 17, 2024 - 5:59pm
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see
- ScottFromWyoming - May 17, 2024 - 1:43pm
DIY
- black321 - May 17, 2024 - 9:16am
Other Medical Stuff
- kurtster - May 16, 2024 - 10:00pm
Your Local News
- Proclivities - May 16, 2024 - 12:51pm
Alexa Show
- thisbody - May 16, 2024 - 12:15pm
Joe Biden
- Steely_D - May 16, 2024 - 1:02am
Strange signs, marquees, billboards, etc.
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 15, 2024 - 4:13pm
|
Index »
Regional/Local »
USA/Canada »
Mitt Romney
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next |
bokey
Gender:
|
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
Location: La Villa Toscana Gender:
|
Posted:
Aug 23, 2012 - 11:19am |
|
|
|
Red_Dragon
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
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
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
Location: topsy turvy land Gender:
|
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
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 8, 2012 - 5:26pm |
|
hippiechick wrote:US citizens are currently not evolved enough to be engineers. Speak for yourself.
|
|
hippiechick
Location: topsy turvy land Gender:
|
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
Gender:
|
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
Gender:
|
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
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
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
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
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
Gender:
|
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
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
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
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
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
Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP) Gender:
|
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
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
Location: Not here, I tell you wat Gender:
|
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
Gender:
|
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
Gender:
|
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
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
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.
|
|
|