Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,451,396 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
Illegals honey not immigrants, No one is calling for that but you. My comment which you missed even though it's in your post, is about the ones who enter this country illegally and have a baby for the sole purpose of citizenship.
No one is calling for cutting meals and job training but you honey. Read my post again after the booze wears off, then comment. Try to keep up next time.
Now tell me why YOU think it is okay to steal others money for YOUR causes.
Thanks for the ''terms of endearment'', but I'm straight and already married...(or maybe you oughta change your handle to ''Loveshercountry'')!
Utah's 4th congressional district is considered 61% Republican. She only gained 48% of the vote. She lost because the people of that district did not agree with her.
And i have not heard much of Jim Matheson, but considering he is in a district that red and continued to win, I would doubt he is "big government"
You mind showing your reasoning for calling him that ?
Well I'd be the first to admit that I don't know much about Matheson; I gather that he's a a centrist/moderate Dem in order to have been elected so many times in that district. But he is still a Democrat. Especially in the context of a party led by the likes of Pres. Obama and Minority Leader Pelosi, that likely translates to one more vote for 'big government.' If he bucks the party, he's not going to get the lollipops for his district that he needs to stay in office.
And again, judging by her campaign rhetoric, Mia Love is pretty close to being libertarian. So it befuddles me why Libertarians would effectively support someone who agrees with them 10-20 percent of the time over someone who agrees 80-90% of the time.
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,300 posts, read 4,406,723 times
Reputation: 2394
We Libertarians will vote our way with no mind given as to who it may help or not help. We only hurt the Republicans in this particular race. But, we are working to hurt both of the major parties. Your whining only pleases me.
We Libertarians will vote our way with no mind given as to who it may help or not help. We only hurt the Republicans in this particular race. But, we are working to hurt both of the major parties. Your whining only pleases me.
Hmmm that's interesting, and could help explain some of the impetus underlying the LP. Seriously it is something I have wondered about, since I am largely of libertarian-orientation in my political beliefs. I wonder if there is an emotional impetus driving some in the LP, just as with the BDS-left.
Consider how Bush governed pretty well to the left, yet was rabidly hated by the left. My conclusion was that the BDS-left were driven less by policy than by the fulfillment of certain emotional needs.
It could explain a lot. And I don't mean this as a put-down--I'm just sincerely trying to understand.
Hmmm that's interesting, and could help explain some of the impetus underlying the LP. Seriously it is something I have wondered about, since I am largely of libertarian-orientation in my political beliefs. I wonder if there is an emotional impetus driving some in the LP, just as with the BDS-left.
Consider how Bush governed pretty well to the left, yet was rabidly hated by the left. My conclusion was that the BDS-left were driven less by policy than by the fulfillment of certain emotional needs.
It could explain a lot. And I don't mean this as a put-down--I'm just sincerely trying to understand.
My conclusion centers on Bush v Gore as far as the far left hating Bush rabidly.
That and taking the country into war in Iraq (especially the anti-war left here) and the waterboarding.
Throw in the "no child left behind", etc.
There is logic to it, they just use the "emotional appeal" to corral voters, it seems.
Well I'd be the first to admit that I don't know much about Matheson; I gather that he's a a centrist/moderate Dem in order to have been elected so many times in that district. But he is still a Democrat. Especially in the context of a party led by the likes of Pres. Obama and Minority Leader Pelosi, that likely translates to one more vote for 'big government.' If he bucks the party, he's not going to get the lollipops for his district that he needs to stay in office.
And again, judging by her campaign rhetoric, Mia Love is pretty close to being libertarian. So it befuddles me why Libertarians would effectively support someone who agrees with them 10-20 percent of the time over someone who agrees 80-90% of the time.
Please explain how a candidate that is pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-immigration and pro-war is close to being a libertarian.
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,300 posts, read 4,406,723 times
Reputation: 2394
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
Hmmm that's interesting, and could help explain some of the impetus underlying the LP. Seriously it is something I have wondered about, since I am largely of libertarian-orientation in my political beliefs. I wonder if there is an emotional impetus driving some in the LP, just as with the BDS-left.
Consider how Bush governed pretty well to the left, yet was rabidly hated by the left. My conclusion was that the BDS-left were driven less by policy than by the fulfillment of certain emotional needs.
It could explain a lot. And I don't mean this as a put-down--I'm just sincerely trying to understand.
I don't take it as a put-down. But, it really isn't an emotional drive. History has shown us that both of the major parties will say what they feel we all need to hear, but when they are elected - they do the exact same things. Everything from "Read my lips" to "W's" claim that we should not be nation building in the world. These two examples are only the ones that first come to my head, but both parties behave the same way but vary only in minute ways. The two parties are just different shades of the same color. We just want another color. It may be that the Libertarians would end up no better, in due time. If that is the case, then we will start something else. But, as of now - a vote for a Mainstream Democrat is a vote for a Mainstream Republican (and vice-versa). So, when we hear that we cost a Republican or a Democrat an election, we don't see any difference.
Since when is stopping the out of control cost of college by going back to Universities making the loans instead of government giving them away, extreme?
Since when is following the Constitution and allowing the states to decide how to run their school lunch program, extreme?
Since when is stopping people from profiting on the illegal act of crossing the borders without permission and jumping ahead of those that follow the rules, extreme?
Keep your head buried in the sand.
We all need to acknowledge that common sense and fiscal responsibility are considered extreme; by progressive extremists.
I can only surmise that the moral of "The Grasshopper and the Ants" has been lost to this generation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
