I don't know about the Kenyan world view stuff, but I'll agree about Obama being an opportunist and “In the Alinksy tradition, he was being the person he needed to be in order to achieve the position he needed to achieve . . . He was authentically dishonest.” To be a successful politician at the highest levels anymore, they most likely are "authentically dishonest" and dishonest period. I include Gingrich himself in that description, along with a whole bunch of others.
Pot calling the kettle black, in my humble opinion.
"Kenyan, anti-colonial world view." Let's assume that Gingrich is correct- is an anti-colonial world-view bad? Can we assume that Gingrich is proposing the contrary, Washington embarking on empire-building?
Frankly, faulting Pres. Obama for having tasted life outside the U. S. is an odd route to demonstrating he is out of touch with how the world operates.
Mr. Gingrich might perform analysis on his own political relevancy. ...As in shouldn't the politician who was reprimanded for complicity in the House Banking and Post Office scandal stop throwing rocks in a glass house?
Gingrich with his ivory-tower, think-tank hypotheses is lacking an essential ingredient: common sense.
"The African colonial (AC) is a person who by means of their birth or lineage has a direct connection with Africa. However, unlike Africans like me, their worldviews have been largely shaped not by the indigenous beliefs of a specific African tribe but by the ideals of the European imperialism that overwhelmed and dominated Africa during the colonial period. AC's have no real regard for their specific African traditions or histories. AC's use aspects of their African culture as one would use pieces of costume jewelry: things of little or no value that can be thoughtlessly discarded when they become a negative distraction, or used on a whim to decorate oneself in order to seem exotic. (Hint: Obama's Muslim heritage).
On the other hand, AC's strive to be the best at the culture that they inherited from Europe. Throughout the West, they are tops in their professions as lawyers, doctors, engineers, Ivy League professors and business moguls; this is all well and good. It's when they decide to engage us as politicians that things become messy and convoluted.
The African colonial politician (ACP) feigns repulsion towards the hegemonic paradigms of Western civilization. But at the same time, he is completely enamored of the trappings of its aristocracy or elite culture. The ACP blames and caricatures whitey to no end for all that has gone wrong in the world. He convinces the masses that various forms of African socialism are the best way for redressing the problems that European colonialism motivated in Africa. However, as opposed to really being a hard-core African Leftist who actually believes in something, the ACP uses socialist themes as a way to disguise his true ambitions: a complete power grab whereby the "will of the people" becomes completely irrelevant."
This came out in June of '09, long before Gingrich's comments.
I just did, so an anti- colonial and an African Colonial are the same thing? I'm just a dumb country boy and I hate semantic confusion. Also, I don't get what Obama wants to make us a colony of? Please don't say the 5th Caliphate or whatever it's called.
Peter, from the article you cite, I see a lot of characterization of the "AC" but not any substance to tell me those characterizations are true.
How are we to trust that the author simply isn't arguing against a straw man?
I find this statement particularly suspect," ... their worldviews have been largely shaped not by the indigenous beliefs of a specific African tribe but by the ideals of the European imperialism that overwhelmed and dominated Africa during the colonial period."
The imperialists and neocons (pretty much the same thing; also, this article comes from a neocon site) do their best to legitimize localist thinking at every turn. Their goal is a world dominated by American hegemony and therefore anyone who stands in the way of that just can't possibly have pure motives.
All I'm saying, outside of specific, documented examples, I'm not going to take the author's word for it that this is a true characterization of the ACs.
So that said, an anti-colonial view is a damn good view for an American leader to have. It's what the country was founded on and up until the mid 20th century dominated conservative thinking.
That said, Newt doesn't know what he's talking about. Even if you grant the underlying slur that Obama was born in Kenya and not in Hawaii (as he factually and unequivocally proven that he was), there's nothing in Obama's bio to suggest that he could have at all been influenced in his development by "Kenyan anti-colonial" thinking.
Dave, yes they are the same. I don't think he wants to make us a colony of anyone, but he certainly doesn't want the US to prosper based on his actions.
"It may seem incredible to suggest that the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. is espoused by his son, the President of the United States. That is what I am saying. From a very young age and through his formative years, Obama learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction. He came to view America's military as an instrument of neocolonial occupation. He adopted his father's position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder. Obama grew to perceive the rich as an oppressive class, a kind of neocolonial power within America. In his worldview, profits are a measure of how effectively you have ripped off the rest of society, and America's power in the world is a measure of how selfishly it consumes the globe's resources and how ruthlessly it bullies and dominates the rest of the planet."
"From a very young age and through his formative years, Obama learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction."
How does Dinesh D'Souza know that's true? Do you accept it as true just because he says it's true? Based on what?
I'm not defending Obama. I'm saying, I see a lot of intellectual dishonesty going on in this meme. People making outlandish statements without a shred of documentation.
OK, Peter, I read the Forbes thing too. I see what you and your buddy Newt are saying. I think D'Souza is carrying it too far. I am against American Imperialism, but I don't support reparations. I agree Obama has socialist tendencies and i don't like that. I can't for the life of me understand why he reveres his father, when in fact the guy obviously liked making babies, but not raising them (which is really being the father) Obama II himself has spoken out about men causing children, but taking no responsibility for raising and supporting them. Anyway, my real problem with this goes back to my first comment. Newt Gingrich and many other right wing Republicans are seeing an opportunity to cause Obama's popularity to decrease further. They are also seeing libertarian ideals become more mainstream politically. They are using that by both making up crazy stuff about Obama and one world governments and Muslim world rule etc etc; and by doing what Gingrich accused Obama of:“In the Alinksy tradition, he was being the person he needed to be in order to achieve the position he needed to achieve . . . He was authentically dishonest.”
Obama, in my opinion, is vulnerable, he could be defeated in the next election. Not by Newt Gingrich though. I don't like that the GOP is working hard to usurp voters who might actually pay attention and vote for true outsiders and put control back into the hands of "we the people", at least to start heading that way. The GOP or the Democratic Parties are not going to change. They are blue versus red M&M's, there's not enough difference between Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama to spit at. They both are big government supporters, elitists and self-servers.
Peter, in your own words, what do you support in Gingrich's claim? Obama's international record amounts to withdrawing troops from Iraq and attempting to wind-down the war in Afghanistan. Considering his policy parallels the majority of Americans' wishes (August CNN poll reveals 62 percent oppose war in Afghanistan), characterizing it as based on "Kenyan, Anti colonial world view" seems a stretch of imagination. I've yet to see Obama attired in a shuka!
...Reparations?! One should look at the unoccupied and never-to-be-complete buildings that dot Iraq. The Bush Buddy Building Boom made billions for profiteers (at U. S. taxpayer expense), and the Iraqis have no intention of utilizing them. Some legacy for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Republicans would do well not to mount that grandstand.
C.M. it is obvious to me that Obama hates our allies. He treats the leaders of Britain and Israel like children. When he met Brown, Brown and his wife obviously spent a lot of time thinking about the gifts that they gave to the Obama family. He gave Brown some DVDs of American movies in the wrong DVD format:http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2009/03/07/obamas-briti…
Not to mention they might have been regifted from Speilberg. He sent back the bust of Winston Churchill that the Brits gifted to the President which at the time was Bush 43.
That all this perceived outrage about Obama's anti-Americanism is smoke and mirrors, designed to cover up the Repubs desire to return to power. Period. Obama may not be good for the country, in my opinion; but neither are the other guys.
Mmmm...Concord grapes and Gala apples! My cholesterol is too high so I skipped the Oreo's and had some fruit instead. My blood pressure is 112/72, what's yours?
Dave,
I'm a conservative libertarian. But I know supporting a third party candidate only splits the vote for the conservative and lets the weak kneed liberals win. Which is why I am a registered republican so I can help move the party to my wishes which I will do tomorrow.
Well all I can do is share the information. Open discussions on a site like this about politics and government is the beauty of being an American, may it ever be so. Have a good day, and let us know how you like the new voting machines.
I don't trust anyone from the area that should be a separate state.
However should he lose the primary I hope he drops out of the general and doesn't screw us by staying on the ballot allowing Cuomo to rise to power like his father. Mario the Pius.
I'm not endorsing Paladino -- not by a long shot -- but if he wins the GOP nomination, it will be a test of just how broad voter anger is ... I wouldn't count Cuomo as a shoe-in, but I wouldn't bet against him either.
Last I heard, Paladino and Lazio were in a dead heat.
I don't think Lazio would be anything close to an anti-establishment candidate and against Lazio, Cuomo wins in a walk.
That's my amateur political horse race handicapping.
Unless you happen to like "business as usual" as apparently a lot of folks in NY do, vote for someone other than the Democrat or Republican candidate, every candidate for Governor who gets 50,000 or more votes wins an automatic spot on the next ballot for the party he/she represents. Slow change is better than no change. Without a real 3rd, 4th, 5th party, we will keep on getting more of the same. Does anyone really think NYS will be different with Cuomo, Lazio or even Paladino in the Gov's chair? "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Albert Einstein
I agree with Dave in part. Nothing will change with Cuomo or Lazio. Things will change with Paladino, but not in a way I'm sure we want. I see no real choice that meets my criteria in this election.
Dave, all that will do is split the vote and perpetuate the problems. You need to register for a party and swing that party into a direction that agree with. Creating a whole new party just lets the guy who most different from the other two win. Don't believe me? Look at Perot.
I voted for Perot in 92 and 96, not necessarily because I liked him, I thought he would help move the country in a better direction than anyone else on the ballot. Do you think Bush would have been re-elected in 92 if not for Perot? I think he probably siphoned more voters from Clinton than Bush. That's like blaming Ralph Nader for Gore losing in 2000. Bush I and Gore beat themselves.
Other people have commented above that Andrew Cuomo is going to win in a cakewalk. That being the case, voting for the Repub. candidate is the truly wasted vote. A vote for anyone who is not a D or an R is a vote for more and better choices for New Yorkers and against party bosses and big money donors. I'm for that.
I'm shocked that you of all people would have the "It's better to be a unrepresented Republican than 3rd party loser" line of thought.
I am disgusted with Republicans. They stand for nothing except telling people what is or isn't moral. They have no record of saving money, no record of creating jobs and their stand on defense has been horrible. They are led by people who have little in the way of vision and they cheer on morons like Rush Limbaugh. Why would people like Dave and I want to try and change that?
Just because something has always been that way doesn't make it right or logical. I would rather "waste" a vote on someone who I belive in, then give a vote to a Republican just so I don't have a Democrat in office. They are one in the same to me.
Yeah, that's for sure, Peter. I just keep throwing my opinion around, once in a while someone looks at me like they are actually having a thought and I am encouraged. I used to have a "Don't blame me, I voted for Perot" bumper sticker about 5 cars ago. I just don't bother anymore. Check out Warren Redlich, Libertarian Candidate for NY Governor's website, when you have a few minutes. Guy makes a lot of sense.
I have no problem with you wanting to change it, I just don't think the 3rd party is the way to do it. I think you need to invade one of the parties and move them through primaries and candidates who support your agenda, much like the tea party is doing.
But I do think the republicans are the lesser of two evils.
And I don't think Rush is a moron, and I don't think a vote is ever wasted unless you vote without knowing the issues.
Well we'll agree to disagree on the Rush point. :-)
I understand where you're coming from; and I respect it. I just don't want to keep the machine going the way it is. At the end of the day, I am not a Republican and I couldn't be one to try and ursurp it. I would rather spend my time and energy with a candidate that will do a good job then play a game that has done nothing for us.
I had to go look this up to
I had to go look this up to see exactly what old Newtie said: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/246302/gingrich-obama-s-kenyan-ant…
I don't know about the Kenyan world view stuff, but I'll agree about Obama being an opportunist and “In the Alinksy tradition, he was being the person he needed to be in order to achieve the position he needed to achieve . . . He was authentically dishonest.” To be a successful politician at the highest levels anymore, they most likely are "authentically dishonest" and dishonest period. I include Gingrich himself in that description, along with a whole bunch of others.
Pot calling the kettle black, in my humble opinion.
"Kenyan, anti-colonial world
"Kenyan, anti-colonial world view." Let's assume that Gingrich is correct- is an anti-colonial world-view bad? Can we assume that Gingrich is proposing the contrary, Washington embarking on empire-building?
Frankly, faulting Pres. Obama for having tasted life outside the U. S. is an odd route to demonstrating he is out of touch with how the world operates.
Mr. Gingrich might perform analysis on his own political relevancy. ...As in shouldn't the politician who was reprimanded for complicity in the House Banking and Post Office scandal stop throwing rocks in a glass house?
Gingrich with his ivory-tower, think-tank hypotheses is lacking an essential ingredient: common sense.
http://www.americanthinker.co
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/obama_the_african_colonial.html
"The African colonial (AC) is a person who by means of their birth or lineage has a direct connection with Africa. However, unlike Africans like me, their worldviews have been largely shaped not by the indigenous beliefs of a specific African tribe but by the ideals of the European imperialism that overwhelmed and dominated Africa during the colonial period. AC's have no real regard for their specific African traditions or histories. AC's use aspects of their African culture as one would use pieces of costume jewelry: things of little or no value that can be thoughtlessly discarded when they become a negative distraction, or used on a whim to decorate oneself in order to seem exotic. (Hint: Obama's Muslim heritage).
On the other hand, AC's strive to be the best at the culture that they inherited from Europe. Throughout the West, they are tops in their professions as lawyers, doctors, engineers, Ivy League professors and business moguls; this is all well and good. It's when they decide to engage us as politicians that things become messy and convoluted.
The African colonial politician (ACP) feigns repulsion towards the hegemonic paradigms of Western civilization. But at the same time, he is completely enamored of the trappings of its aristocracy or elite culture. The ACP blames and caricatures whitey to no end for all that has gone wrong in the world. He convinces the masses that various forms of African socialism are the best way for redressing the problems that European colonialism motivated in Africa. However, as opposed to really being a hard-core African Leftist who actually believes in something, the ACP uses socialist themes as a way to disguise his true ambitions: a complete power grab whereby the "will of the people" becomes completely irrelevant."
This came out in June of '09, long before Gingrich's comments.
But, Peter, Newt Gingrich
But, Peter, Newt Gingrich called him anti-colonial, your description is of an "African Colonial" so............?
Read the article Dave.
Read the article Dave.
I just did, so an anti-
I just did, so an anti- colonial and an African Colonial are the same thing? I'm just a dumb country boy and I hate semantic confusion. Also, I don't get what Obama wants to make us a colony of? Please don't say the 5th Caliphate or whatever it's called.
And when you are done with
And when you are done with that article read this one that Newt did.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/politics-socialism-capitalism-pr…
Peter, from the article you
Peter, from the article you cite, I see a lot of characterization of the "AC" but not any substance to tell me those characterizations are true.
How are we to trust that the author simply isn't arguing against a straw man?
I find this statement particularly suspect," ... their worldviews have been largely shaped not by the indigenous beliefs of a specific African tribe but by the ideals of the European imperialism that overwhelmed and dominated Africa during the colonial period."
The imperialists and neocons (pretty much the same thing; also, this article comes from a neocon site) do their best to legitimize localist thinking at every turn. Their goal is a world dominated by American hegemony and therefore anyone who stands in the way of that just can't possibly have pure motives.
All I'm saying, outside of specific, documented examples, I'm not going to take the author's word for it that this is a true characterization of the ACs.
So that said, an anti-colonial view is a damn good view for an American leader to have. It's what the country was founded on and up until the mid 20th century dominated conservative thinking.
That said, Newt doesn't know what he's talking about. Even if you grant the underlying slur that Obama was born in Kenya and not in Hawaii (as he factually and unequivocally proven that he was), there's nothing in Obama's bio to suggest that he could have at all been influenced in his development by "Kenyan anti-colonial" thinking.
Howard, did you read the
Howard, did you read the Forbes article?
Dave, yes they are the same. I don't think he wants to make us a colony of anyone, but he certainly doesn't want the US to prosper based on his actions.
"It may seem incredible to
"It may seem incredible to suggest that the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. is espoused by his son, the President of the United States. That is what I am saying. From a very young age and through his formative years, Obama learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction. He came to view America's military as an instrument of neocolonial occupation. He adopted his father's position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder. Obama grew to perceive the rich as an oppressive class, a kind of neocolonial power within America. In his worldview, profits are a measure of how effectively you have ripped off the rest of society, and America's power in the world is a measure of how selfishly it consumes the globe's resources and how ruthlessly it bullies and dominates the rest of the planet."
Why would we want a leader like that?
"From a very young age and
"From a very young age and through his formative years, Obama learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction."
How does Dinesh D'Souza know that's true? Do you accept it as true just because he says it's true? Based on what?
I'm not defending Obama. I'm saying, I see a lot of intellectual dishonesty going on in this meme. People making outlandish statements without a shred of documentation.
Dreams from my Father is his
Dreams from my Father is his documentation.
And when it comes right down to it. I trust anyone more than I trust Obama.
OK, Peter, I read the Forbes
OK, Peter, I read the Forbes thing too. I see what you and your buddy Newt are saying. I think D'Souza is carrying it too far. I am against American Imperialism, but I don't support reparations. I agree Obama has socialist tendencies and i don't like that. I can't for the life of me understand why he reveres his father, when in fact the guy obviously liked making babies, but not raising them (which is really being the father) Obama II himself has spoken out about men causing children, but taking no responsibility for raising and supporting them. Anyway, my real problem with this goes back to my first comment. Newt Gingrich and many other right wing Republicans are seeing an opportunity to cause Obama's popularity to decrease further. They are also seeing libertarian ideals become more mainstream politically. They are using that by both making up crazy stuff about Obama and one world governments and Muslim world rule etc etc; and by doing what Gingrich accused Obama of:“In the Alinksy tradition, he was being the person he needed to be in order to achieve the position he needed to achieve . . . He was authentically dishonest.”
Obama, in my opinion, is vulnerable, he could be defeated in the next election. Not by Newt Gingrich though. I don't like that the GOP is working hard to usurp voters who might actually pay attention and vote for true outsiders and put control back into the hands of "we the people", at least to start heading that way. The GOP or the Democratic Parties are not going to change. They are blue versus red M&M's, there's not enough difference between Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama to spit at. They both are big government supporters, elitists and self-servers.
Don't get sucked in.
Peter, in your own words,
Peter, in your own words, what do you support in Gingrich's claim? Obama's international record amounts to withdrawing troops from Iraq and attempting to wind-down the war in Afghanistan. Considering his policy parallels the majority of Americans' wishes (August CNN poll reveals 62 percent oppose war in Afghanistan), characterizing it as based on "Kenyan, Anti colonial world view" seems a stretch of imagination. I've yet to see Obama attired in a shuka!
...Reparations?! One should
...Reparations?! One should look at the unoccupied and never-to-be-complete buildings that dot Iraq. The Bush Buddy Building Boom made billions for profiteers (at U. S. taxpayer expense), and the Iraqis have no intention of utilizing them. Some legacy for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Republicans would do well not to mount that grandstand.
Peter, I read the articles
Peter, I read the articles you asked me to, how about checking these out for me:
http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-issue-warning-to-tea…
http://www.fff.org/comment/com1004i.asp
C.M. it is obvious to me
C.M. it is obvious to me that Obama hates our allies. He treats the leaders of Britain and Israel like children. When he met Brown, Brown and his wife obviously spent a lot of time thinking about the gifts that they gave to the Obama family. He gave Brown some DVDs of American movies in the wrong DVD format:http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2009/03/07/obamas-briti…
Not to mention they might have been regifted from Speilberg. He sent back the bust of Winston Churchill that the Brits gifted to the President which at the time was Bush 43.
He gave the queen an ipod which contained his speeches.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/what-does-one-g.html
He snubbed Netanyahu: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/…
What do you want me to get
What do you want me to get from them Dave?
That all this perceived
That all this perceived outrage about Obama's anti-Americanism is smoke and mirrors, designed to cover up the Repubs desire to return to power. Period. Obama may not be good for the country, in my opinion; but neither are the other guys.
Mmmm...Concord grapes and
Mmmm...Concord grapes and Gala apples! My cholesterol is too high so I skipped the Oreo's and had some fruit instead. My blood pressure is 112/72, what's yours?
Dave, I'm a conservative
Dave,
I'm a conservative libertarian. But I know supporting a third party candidate only splits the vote for the conservative and lets the weak kneed liberals win. Which is why I am a registered republican so I can help move the party to my wishes which I will do tomorrow.
Well all I can do is share
Well all I can do is share the information. Open discussions on a site like this about politics and government is the beauty of being an American, may it ever be so. Have a good day, and let us know how you like the new voting machines.
Which one are you voting for
Which one are you voting for Peter, Kinky Carl or Layzyo?
Paladino. I don't trust
Paladino.
I don't trust anyone from the area that should be a separate state.
However should he lose the primary I hope he drops out of the general and doesn't screw us by staying on the ballot allowing Cuomo to rise to power like his father. Mario the Pius.
"Which one are you voting for
"Which one are you voting for Peter, Kinky Carl or Layzyo?"
Like it matters.
Prince Andrew is going to win in a rout.
vegas odds: cuomo to win, bet
vegas odds: cuomo to win, bet $2000 to win $100
anyone else $100 to win $1900
Bud, That sounds about right.
Bud,
That sounds about right.
I'm not endorsing Paladino --
I'm not endorsing Paladino -- not by a long shot -- but if he wins the GOP nomination, it will be a test of just how broad voter anger is ... I wouldn't count Cuomo as a shoe-in, but I wouldn't bet against him either.
Last I heard, Paladino and Lazio were in a dead heat.
I don't think Lazio would be anything close to an anti-establishment candidate and against Lazio, Cuomo wins in a walk.
That's my amateur political horse race handicapping.
If Jesus ran against him, it
If Jesus ran against him, it might be close!
"I wouldn't count Cuomo as a
"I wouldn't count Cuomo as a shoe-in, but I wouldn't bet against him either."
If this newsman gig of yours doesn't work out you've got a great future as a weatherman.
Unless you happen to like
Unless you happen to like "business as usual" as apparently a lot of folks in NY do, vote for someone other than the Democrat or Republican candidate, every candidate for Governor who gets 50,000 or more votes wins an automatic spot on the next ballot for the party he/she represents. Slow change is better than no change. Without a real 3rd, 4th, 5th party, we will keep on getting more of the same. Does anyone really think NYS will be different with Cuomo, Lazio or even Paladino in the Gov's chair? "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Albert Einstein
I agree with Dave in part.
I agree with Dave in part. Nothing will change with Cuomo or Lazio. Things will change with Paladino, but not in a way I'm sure we want. I see no real choice that meets my criteria in this election.
Dave, all that will do is
Dave, all that will do is split the vote and perpetuate the problems. You need to register for a party and swing that party into a direction that agree with. Creating a whole new party just lets the guy who most different from the other two win. Don't believe me? Look at Perot.
I voted for Perot in 92 and
I voted for Perot in 92 and 96, not necessarily because I liked him, I thought he would help move the country in a better direction than anyone else on the ballot. Do you think Bush would have been re-elected in 92 if not for Perot? I think he probably siphoned more voters from Clinton than Bush. That's like blaming Ralph Nader for Gore losing in 2000. Bush I and Gore beat themselves.
Other people have commented above that Andrew Cuomo is going to win in a cakewalk. That being the case, voting for the Repub. candidate is the truly wasted vote. A vote for anyone who is not a D or an R is a vote for more and better choices for New Yorkers and against party bosses and big money donors. I'm for that.
Yeah, good luck convincing
Yeah, good luck convincing the voting masses of that.
Peter, I'm shocked that you
Peter,
I'm shocked that you of all people would have the "It's better to be a unrepresented Republican than 3rd party loser" line of thought.
I am disgusted with Republicans. They stand for nothing except telling people what is or isn't moral. They have no record of saving money, no record of creating jobs and their stand on defense has been horrible. They are led by people who have little in the way of vision and they cheer on morons like Rush Limbaugh. Why would people like Dave and I want to try and change that?
Just because something has always been that way doesn't make it right or logical. I would rather "waste" a vote on someone who I belive in, then give a vote to a Republican just so I don't have a Democrat in office. They are one in the same to me.
Yeah, that's for sure, Peter.
Yeah, that's for sure, Peter. I just keep throwing my opinion around, once in a while someone looks at me like they are actually having a thought and I am encouraged. I used to have a "Don't blame me, I voted for Perot" bumper sticker about 5 cars ago. I just don't bother anymore. Check out Warren Redlich, Libertarian Candidate for NY Governor's website, when you have a few minutes. Guy makes a lot of sense.
Phil, I have no problem with
Phil,
I have no problem with you wanting to change it, I just don't think the 3rd party is the way to do it. I think you need to invade one of the parties and move them through primaries and candidates who support your agenda, much like the tea party is doing.
But I do think the republicans are the lesser of two evils.
And I don't think Rush is a moron, and I don't think a vote is ever wasted unless you vote without knowing the issues.
Well we'll agree to disagree
Well we'll agree to disagree on the Rush point. :-)
I understand where you're coming from; and I respect it. I just don't want to keep the machine going the way it is. At the end of the day, I am not a Republican and I couldn't be one to try and ursurp it. I would rather spend my time and energy with a candidate that will do a good job then play a game that has done nothing for us.