| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 4:59 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Let's get back to the OP. Which Demublican is it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ron Paul has opposed every single bill on alternative energy . One thing is for certain he doesn't get it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I know it is just about impossible right now but I think almost ANY third party president would be an improvement, if for no other reason than to smack some sense into the Republocrats. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| only someone who wasn't opposed to government funding of alternative energy and someone who wanted to get rid of the gas tax. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| only someone who wasn't opposed to government funding of alternative energy and someone who wanted to get rid of the gas tax. |
I'll at least agree with the first part of that statement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| but I think almost ANY third party president would be an improvement, if for no other reason than to smack some sense into the Republocrats. |
The president proposes. Congress disposes.
How many minutes after his inauguration would it be before the leadership of Congress (still Democrats/Republicans) told the 3rd Party president that he could whistle all he wanted but he wasn't getting a thing on his agenda until he dropped his drawers and bent over and grabbed his ankles. And then said, "Thank you very much." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| but I think almost ANY third party president would be an improvement, if for no other reason than to smack some sense into the Republocrats. |
The president proposes. Congress disposes.
How many minutes after his inauguration would it be before the leadership of Congress (still Democrats/Republicans) told the 3rd Party president that he could whistle all he wanted but he wasn't getting a thing on his agenda until he dropped his drawers and bent over and grabbed his ankles. And then said, "Thank you very much." |
If the president made popular proposals which then were shot down by the House and Senate, they would suffer politically. At some point, all three factions would have to find some way to work together to accomplish something.
It might be an improvement to slow down the legislative process. There are too many damn laws now on the books as it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| only someone who wasn't opposed to government funding of alternative energy and someone who wanted to get rid of the gas tax. |
I'll at least agree with the first part of that statement. |
Question:
If you propose government funding of alternative energy, how do you suppose government raise revenue for the funding?
Raising the gas tax, a consumption tax, seems quite logical to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
If the president made popular proposals which then were shot down by the House and Senate, they would suffer politically. At some point, all three factions would have to find some way to work together to accomplish something.
|
It would go much more like the Child Health Care thingie recently passed by Congress.
Congress, which actually makes the laws, would pass popular legislation and put the 3rd Party president in the position of constantly vetoing popular legislation. Then we'd probably see him run out of town on a rail by the outraged citizenry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
El Exigente
Joined: 10 Sep 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Obama`s Hard Line Neo-Con Agenda
Posted: 2010/10/03
From: Mathaba
| Quote: |
| In less than two years, Obama outdid Bush, adopting the worst of the previous government`s policies, establishing more bad ones of his own, and accelerating America faster on the road to despotism. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
You know things are dire when Thomas Friedman is calling for a 3rd party.
| Quote: |
| We need a third party on the stage of the next presidential debate to look Americans in the eye and say: �These two parties are lying to you. They can�t tell you the truth because they are each trapped in decades of special interests. I am not going to tell you what you want to hear. I am going to tell you what you need to hear if we want to be the world�s leaders, not the new Romans.� |
But I'm skeptical of his following claim:
| Quote: |
| I know of at least two serious groups, one on the East Coast and one on the West Coast, developing �third parties� to challenge our stagnating two-party duopoly that has been presiding over our nation�s steady incremental decline. |
Well ok, I do not doubt there are such developments, I'm just skeptical it will come to much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Friedman supported every policy that has led to the American decline. Every single one. Financial un-regulation, wars in Iraq/Afgan (he was a big booster for Iraq), free trade, off shoring. His books are nothing more than "Ruling Class Justifications for Dummies".
..
A third party will need funds to compete with Republicans and Democrats. To gain those funds it will have to sell out to the same agenda that have the two existing parties.
..
How about publicly financed elections? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 4:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
How about publicly financed elections? |
It sounds good, but would you prevent people from publicly supporting one candidate or the other?
Could they print and hand out fliers stating they support candidate X, or would that circumvent "public financing"? If it's allowed, could I take up a collection and get a TV ad supporting a candidate?
The implications for free speech would be severe, though it definitely sounds good on the outside. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
