# Gravel... Phillies... Jingozian... Ruwart... Kubby... Root... et al... LOL!



## spyderman (Apr 29, 2002)

Wait, wasn't Gravel a Dem??? Phillies needs to buy the Phillies so his name would have meaning... Squinty eyed Jingozian needs a hair stylist bad! Kubby likes da doobbies... Root's a Jew and has got kids, and is an SOB, and the "anti-politician," and went to school with Obama at Columbia???

Geez! No wonder this country is in trouble!!!


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

You're right, McDonald's chicken nuggets really do suck.


----------



## spyderman (Apr 29, 2002)

So does Salt Lake City...especially when you want a drink.



FondriestFan said:


> You're right, McDonald's chicken nuggets really do suck.


----------



## DrRoebuck (May 10, 2004)

What the hell are you talking about?


----------



## spyderman (Apr 29, 2002)

Those are the Libertarian candidates. Just listening to them speak is the best entertainment going! 



DrRoebuck said:


> What the hell are you talking about?


----------



## thatsmybush (Mar 12, 2002)

Not as much fun as lying about sniper fire and invoking the potential assasination of Obama via RFK...but I thought the debate last night was pretty good. 

Anything substantive?...or because you back a major party candidate...you think that making fun of their name, religious heritage, or the way they comb their hair or facial features...is enough. 

Nice depth there...ashtray deep?


----------



## KenB (Jul 28, 2004)

thatsmybush said:


> Nice depth there...ashtray deep?



I see you're in a charitable mood this fine morning.


----------



## spyderman (Apr 29, 2002)

thatsmybush said:


> Not as much fun as lying about sniper fire and invoking the potential assasination of Obama via RFK...but I thought the debate last night was pretty good.
> 
> Anything substantive?...or because you back a major party candidate...you think that making fun of their name, religious heritage, or the way they comb their hair or facial features...is enough.
> 
> Nice depth there...ashtray deep?


So, getting past your personal attacks, who's your favorite and why? 

I could barely contain myself while the flinty-eyed Jingozian spoke... And Dr. Phillies was more than laughable... But you did inherit Gravel... That's just great, you can have him... Root sounded like he was the first man on the moon too... LOL!


----------



## paper warrior (Nov 24, 2001)

darn did I miss that? I'd definitely vote Libertarian- especially if McCain capitulates I mean submits a interview on Limbaugh.


----------



## thatsmybush (Mar 12, 2002)

paper warrior said:


> darn did I miss that? I'd definitely vote Libertarian- especially if McCain capitulates I mean submits a interview on Limbaugh.


Bob Barr has been tapped as the parties nominee.


----------



## thatsmybush (Mar 12, 2002)

KenB said:


> I see you're in a charitable mood this fine morning.


I thought I was being charitable...I didn't suggest whether Spidey's post was cigarette ashtray deep...or cigar ashtray deep. There is a substantial inch difference between the two.


----------



## spyderman (Apr 29, 2002)

thatsmybush said:


> I thought I was being charitable...I didn't suggest whether Spidey's post was cigarette ashtray deep...or cigar ashtray deep. There is a substantial inch difference between the two.


Hmm, are you really so weak minded to allow yourself to be goaded into making more personal attacks?


----------



## thatsmybush (Mar 12, 2002)

spyderman said:


> Hmm, are you really so weak minded to allow yourself to be goaded into making more personal attacks?


There is a difference between saying that your POST lacked depth and calling me weak minded.

FYI...


----------



## KenB (Jul 28, 2004)

thatsmybush said:


> Bob Barr has been tapped as the parties nominee.



I still like Root better. At least he got the VP nod.


----------



## paper warrior (Nov 24, 2001)

I recall the '90s that Bob Barr has some baggage as the Clintons demonized hem for "hypocracy." Though I would have thought the natural heir for the Ron Paul revolution would have been Gravel though I'm not in the Beltway now with this superficial analysis.

In any case let's face facts- democracy and libertarianism don't mix since you can't promise nothing to nobody.


----------



## paper warrior (Nov 24, 2001)

Like I said I missed this Convention but my tin foil hat buzzing in my head again- could Barr's selection represent the NRA's dissatisfaction with McCain since he might be not perceived as a 2nd Amendment absolutist? just another conspiracy theory here.


----------



## Starliner (Mar 7, 2002)

This is all a fine display of democracy in action, but the pragmatist within reminds me that in reality it's little more than a fantasy circle jerk which ultimately will go nowhere. A quixotic quest, doomed to noble failure. None of these guys has any mass to register much of a blip on the radar screen - and this election, I daresay those who buy into the idealism of all this are making themselves as insignificant as the votes they shall cast in November. Unfortunately, that's the reality in the USA today.


----------



## paper warrior (Nov 24, 2001)

maybe you just release your frustrations by voting for them. If the next President doesn't work out at least you have a lame excuse it wasn't your fault- that'smy excuse.


----------



## KenB (Jul 28, 2004)

Starliner said:


> This is all a fine display of democracy in action, but the pragmatist within reminds me that in reality it's little more than a fantasy circle jerk which ultimately will go nowhere. A quixotic quest, doomed to noble failure. None of these guys has any mass to register much of a blip on the radar screen - and this election, I daresay those who buy into the idealism of all this are making themselves as insignificant as the votes they shall cast in November. Unfortunately, that's the reality in the USA today.



There's only one practical way to change that reality. You're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem.

As I've said before, neither the Dems or the Pubs come close to representing my beliefs. I will not sell out. My integrity is worth more to me than that.


----------



## Starliner (Mar 7, 2002)

KenB said:


> There's only one practical way to change that reality. You're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem.


Faulty reasoning IMO. The Libertarian solution is not practical at all in that its chances are nil. And to think this is the only way to change that reality is also wrong IMO. It's not an either/or, black/white problem, and neither is the solution.



KenB said:


> As I've said before, neither the Dems or the Pubs come close to representing my beliefs. I will not sell out. My integrity is worth more to me than that.


Given the cold, hard fact of what will happen - the Democrat candidate or the Republican candidate will win - your decision appears selfish in that you've given up your chance to contribute to the success of whichever side you feel will be best for the country, just so you can say your own personal integrity remains intact.


----------



## KenB (Jul 28, 2004)

Starliner said:


> Faulty reasoning IMO. The Libertarian solution is not practical at all in that its chances are nil. And to think this is the only way to change that reality is also wrong IMO. It's not an either/or, black/white problem, and neither is the solution.
> 
> 
> 
> Given the cold, hard fact of what will happen - the Democrat candidate or the Republican candidate will win - your decision appears selfish in that you've given up your chance to contribute to the success of whichever side you feel will be best for the country, just so you can say your own personal integrity remains intact.



I feel that both the Democrats and the Republicans have failed in their mission. Neither represent the best interests of the People. Neither is good for the nation. Why on earth would I support them? I wasn't saying the libertarian way was the only way; I was saying that people voting for what they believe in rather than for the lesser of two evils is the only way to change the reality. People who do so only contribute to the problem because they sanction the behavior of the two parties. 


Voting for the status quo will get you the status quo. I will not contribute to the assphucking of America. Obama, Clinton, McCain are the status quo.


----------



## thatsmybush (Mar 12, 2002)

Starliner said:


> Given the cold, hard fact of what will happen - the Democrat candidate or the Republican candidate will win - your decision appears selfish in that you've given up your chance to contribute to the success of whichever side you feel will be best for the country, just so you can say your own personal integrity remains intact.


Bullshiat...

So what? I think the people who vote for the continued hegemony of the major parties are being selfish in selling out their interests and the greater interests of their country. Why? Because they want to back someone they might see in a tux dance around shunning champagne and looking wooden in January? I will vote on my beliefs...that is democracy...and for someone to suggest that my voting for a third party candidate is selfish? Well I have had enough of seeing the selfish interest of the two parties, one who decided to shred the constitution and the other that turned the power on while sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending how outrageous it all was.


----------



## Starliner (Mar 7, 2002)

thatsmybush said:


> Bullshiat...
> 
> So what? I think the people who vote for the continued hegemony of the major parties are being selfish in selling out their interests and the greater interests of their country. Why? Because they want to back someone they might see in a tux dance around shunning champagne and looking wooden in January? I will vote on my beliefs...that is democracy...and for someone to suggest that my voting for a third party candidate is selfish? Well I have had enough of seeing the selfish interest of the two parties, one who decided to shred the constitution and the other that turned the power on while sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending how outrageous it all was.


What is, is. You want change - find an avenue that will spark that change. Yes, it is selfish when the protection of one's own personal image is used as reason to follow dead-end paths leading to nowhere. Personal integrity is measured in far more meaningful ways than where the hole is punched in the voting booth. Too often the choices we face in life are not to our liking, but we make one anyway based upon what we perceive as the better of them all, and because we want our say to be added to the scale which we know will tip either towards the choice we made, or away from it.

The way I see it, when eventual victory will be bestowed upon one of two choices, and you are of the opinion that one of those choices is superior to the other, and unless you are absolutely against both of them, wasting your vote on a third choice with no chance to win is worthy of nothing.


----------



## KenB (Jul 28, 2004)

Starliner said:


> The way I see it, when eventual victory will be bestowed upon one of two choices, and you are of the opinion that one of those choices is superior to the other, and *unless you are absolutely against both of them*, wasting your vote on a third choice with no chance to win is worthy of nothing.


Have you not been listening? Not only am I absolutely against them both, I feel they're both absolutely against _us_.

I find the notion that I should cast my vote for what I consider to be evil..... insulting at best. If they were the only choices, I wouldn't vote. The avenue to spark change is to choose something else. Keep voting for horseshit and you'll keep getting horseshit. You sound more concerned that my vote will impact your party's chances of victory. If so, good.


----------



## thatsmybush (Mar 12, 2002)

Starliner said:


> What is, is. You want change - find an avenue that will spark that change. Yes, it is selfish when the protection of one's own personal image is used as reason to follow dead-end paths leading to nowhere. Personal integrity is measured in far more meaningful ways than where the hole is punched in the voting booth. Too often the choices we face in life are not to our liking, but we make one anyway based upon what we perceive as the better of them all, and because we want our say to be added to the scale which we know will tip either towards the choice we made, or away from it.
> 
> The way I see it, when eventual victory will be bestowed upon one of two choices, and you are of the opinion that one of those choices is superior to the other, and unless you are absolutely against both of them, wasting your vote on a third choice with no chance to win is worthy of nothing.


I find the main stream alternatives to be equally loathesome. 

My mantra in life is to limit those things in life which disgust me, limit duties that I abhor, or jobs that I hate going into...why should I put aside the way I live my life and pull the lever for someone who I find as useful as a pint of liquid drano in my eye?

Have you not been watching what these politicians have been doing to our country? The war that was started...and then in 06 were told would end? Only to find that there is no intention of doing that? Are you not paying attention to Bankrupcy Bills, NCLB, the prescription fiasco, war profiteering, spying, torture, deficits, earmarks, graft, waste, etc? Why the hell would I vote for these people when I wouldn't trust them to pick up my trash.

So I show my worth... it starts when fewer people act like thoughtless lemmings.


----------



## thatsmybush (Mar 12, 2002)

KenB said:


> Have you not been listening? Not only am I absolutely against them both, I feel they're both absolutely against _us_.
> 
> I find the notion that I should cast my vote for what I consider to be evil..... insulting at best. If they were the only choices, I wouldn't vote. The avenue to spark change is to choose something else. Keep voting for horseshit and you'll keep getting horseshit. You sound more concerned that my vote will impact your party's chances of victory. If so, good.


Not only that...it is the only attack point they have. Wasting votes or "corrupting" their precious election. 

Screw that...if they at least wanted to debate issues...let's go. But since it has been so long since the two parties cared about issues...my guess is that they lack practice at it.


----------



## KenB (Jul 28, 2004)

thatsmybush said:


> Not only that...it is the only attack point they have. Wasting votes or "corrupting" their precious election.
> 
> Screw that...if they at least wanted to debate issues...let's go. But since it has been so long since the two parties cared about issues...my guess is that they lack practice at it.



They're pretty good at character assassination though. Gotta give them props for that.


----------



## Starliner (Mar 7, 2002)

KenB said:


> Have you not been listening? Not only am I absolutely against them both, I feel they're both absolutely against _us_.
> 
> I find the notion that I should cast my vote for what I consider to be evil..... insulting at best. If they were the only choices, I wouldn't vote. The avenue to spark change is to choose something else. Keep voting for horseshit and you'll keep getting horseshit. You sound more concerned that my vote will impact your party's chances of victory. If so, good.



My party? I couldn't give a $h!+ about party. Was an Anderson hopeful in '80. Perot when he seemed possible. Stayed home in '00 because I was absolutely against both. And at the time angry enough to feel that it would be good for this country to get its wake-up call if Bush were to win. A big _Thank You_ to all Ralph Nader voters for helping make this vision come true. 

Let's just say I don't agree with your assessment of evil.... of horseshi+... when looking at each candidate. It seems as if your beef is beyond them and with the two parties overall. OK, then consider the avenue of changing them from within. Look at what the Religious Right has done to the Republican party - proof that change can be done from within.

I see Obama as an agent of change for the Democratic party. He engenders a grass-roots level of positive energy and hope, more so than any politician I can remember in a while. And this is the kind of stuff that is needed to cause those shifts to happen from within. I'm glad he's not got the 'experience' that comes from years of glad handing, eye winking and pats on the back done by the typical pol. I'm glad he knows the Constitution, having taught it. 

He's come just at the right time, and therefore this year he's got my vote.


----------



## DrRoebuck (May 10, 2004)

It gets complicated. If Hillary won I would have voted for Nader. But then as this thing has droned on I've been able to see McCain throw away one previously held principle after another, all in the name of appealing to the Bush loyalists, war mongers and religious right. The thought of McCain extending the Bush administration by another 4 years -- 4 critical years -- might be enough for me to vote for _anyone_ who could beat him.


----------



## KenB (Jul 28, 2004)

Starliner said:


> My party? I couldn't give a $h!+ about party. Was an Anderson hopeful in '80. Perot when he seemed possible. Stayed home in '00 because I was absolutely against both. And at the time angry enough to feel that it would be good for this country to get its wake-up call if Bush were to win. A big _Thank You_ to all Ralph Nader voters for helping make this vision come true.
> 
> Let's just say I don't agree with your assessment of evil.... of horseshi+... when looking at each candidate. It seems as if your beef is beyond them and with the two parties overall. OK, then consider the avenue of changing them from within. Look at what the Religious Right has done to the Republican party - proof that change can be done from within.
> 
> ...


I see Obama as the Great Big Lie, just like Bill Clinton was. Hillary... she'll be just as bad or worse than Bush and has the voting record to prove it. McCain will probably be dead before his term is out and we all know how much integrity he has anyway. The three candidates are typical of their parties. They don't represent me. They don't represent pretty much anything I believe in. Frankly, they represent all that is wrong with America. I unapologetically won't sign on to it.


And... changing them from within.... HA! That's a hoot. I don't have enough money or clout to even register on their radar screen let alone influence their platforms. Except, however, when I vote for a 3rd party. THAT gets their attention right quick. THAT gets their supporters all riled up about how I'm costing them the election. THAT gets them to consider MY positions. We're ALL supposed to have a voice, no? I'm using mine in a way I know gets attention.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Changing from within always sounded a lot more like enabling than changing.

If I continue to vote for people I disagree with just because they are the lesser of two evils, why would they change? Same goes for the religious right. They keep voting for jerks who don't give a crap about their views, and use them as the big dumb voting block. Sorry, but I won't participate in that sham anymore.

If the dems lose California in the general because too many people like myself decided to vote Green...well, that would be a nice big wake up call for the party. Also, it's not going to happen anyways, my vote is worthless in the presidential election.


----------



## Starliner (Mar 7, 2002)

thatsmybush said:


> Have you not been watching what these politicians have been doing to our country? The war that was started...and then in 06 were told would end? Only to find that there is no intention of doing that? Are you not paying attention to Bankrupcy Bills, NCLB, the prescription fiasco, war profiteering, spying, torture, deficits, earmarks, graft, waste, etc? Why the hell would I vote for these people when I wouldn't trust them to pick up my trash.
> 
> So I show my worth... it starts when fewer people act like thoughtless lemmings.


Don't tie Obama to the war. You can be cynical and believe that he would have been another lemming like Hillary was and voted for the war, or you can take him for his word given at the time - doing Iraq was a bad choice. I take door #2.

Will your candidate bring about the changes you want? A snowbird's chance in hell that'll happen.


----------



## DrRoebuck (May 10, 2004)

KenB said:


> I see Obama as the Great Big Lie, just like Bill Clinton was.


Besides your own cynicism, what makes you see that in him? To be more specific, what makes you see that in him but would _believe_ it in someone else?


----------



## thatsmybush (Mar 12, 2002)

Starliner said:


> Don't tie Obama to the war. You can be cynical and believe that he would have been another lemming like Hillary was and voted for the war, or you can take him for his word given at the time - doing Iraq was a bad choice. I take door #2.
> 
> Will your candidate bring about the changes you want? A snowbird's chance in hell that'll happen.


Has Obama not voted for the continuation of the war's funding? Well that would be yes...yes he has. Consider him a co-conspirator then...he has had opportunities to vote his supposed conscience, to establish a party core that could stop this war at its spigot...and he has chosed the path of least political resistance.

The difference between your candidates and mine? I can prove that the candidates from the major parties don't.


----------



## KenB (Jul 28, 2004)

DrRoebuck said:


> Besides your own cynicism, what makes you see that in him? To be more specific, what makes you see that in him but would _believe_ it in someone else?




His voting record. It says "business as usual."


----------



## KenB (Jul 28, 2004)

SilasCL said:


> If the dems lose California in the general because too many people like myself decided to vote Green...well, that would be a nice big wake up call for the party.



It does have that "Ignore us at your peril" ring to it, doesn't it?


----------

