PDA

View Full Version : Flip....Flop,Flip......Flop



Tracker
07-06-2008, 11:23 AM
Oh, now all the oblather boys are saying. "Well, when we said we were going to pull all the troops out right away. We didn't mean right away. We just said right away not the be confused with right away.Say, I have this nice used Sedan over here that was owned by a old lady from Ark, err, New York that only drove it to a political rally.

vinny
07-06-2008, 12:03 PM
Oh, now all the oblather boys are saying. "Well, when we said we were going to pull all the troops out right away. We didn't mean right away. We just said right away not the be confused with right away.Say, I have this nice used Sedan over here that was owned by a old lady from Ark, err, New York that only drove it to a political rally.

Tracker,
Here's a few for ya from a man who claims has great judgement and is anchored in his convictions!

FLIP-FLOP #1: In His Remarks To The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Obama Said That Jerusalem Should Be The Undivided Capital Of Israel, But Later Said The City's Future Should Be Negotiated By Israel And The Palestinians:
FLIP-FLOP #2: Obama Now Claims That He Will Only Meet With Foreign Leaders At A Time Of His Choosing If It Will Advance U.S. Interests, But Previously Said He Would Meet With Rogue Leaders His First Year In Office Without Preconditions
FLIP-FLOP #3: Obama Has Pivoted In His Opposition To Legislation Labeling Iran's Revolutionary Guard A Terrorist Organization
FLIP-FLOP #4: Obama Now Claims That He Opposed Palestinian Elections In 2006, But He Supported Them At That Time:
Obama's Top Ten Flip Flops

Want some more?

1. SPECIAL INTERESTS. In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as "special interest" money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of "working people" and says he is "thrilled" by their support.

2. THE CUBA EMBARGO. In January 2004, Obama said it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba" because it had "utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro." Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not "take off the embargo" as president because it is "an important inducement for change."

3. ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should "crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants." He replied "Oppose." In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation."

4. DECRIMINALIZATION OF MARAJUANA. While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.

5. NAFTA. During the primary season, Obama hammered Hillary Clinton for her support of NAFTA as First Lady, calling the free trade agreement "devastating" and "a big mistake." Now, in an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee said that NAFTA has indeed been positive for the US in some ways, and that his earlier criticism - while trying to convince white blue collar voters in some states to vote for him - was 'overheated and amplified.'

6. THE DEATH PENALTY. Ten years ago, when Obama was running for statewide office in an ultra-liberal Chicago district, he opposed the death penalty. As Obama announced this week, he now supports the ultimate penalty.

7. HANDGUN BAN. For 8 years--before becoming a US Senator--Obama sat on the board of a non-profit which contributed $2.7 million to efforts advocating for a complete ban on handguns. (Before that, Obama filled out a questionnaire in 1996 stating that he supported a ban on the manufacture, sale AND POSSESSION of handguns.) But starting with his primary campaign in the gun popular Midwest, Obama now opposes such legislation, and claims to support gun owner's rights.

8. PROPOSED FISA LAW IMMUNITY FOR TELECOMS. In October, 2007, Obama pledged that if the FISA bill contained an immunity provision for telecoms, he would not only oppose the bill, he would help block it through a filibuster. This week, he voted for the bill, telecom immunity provisions and all.

9. PUBLIC FINANCING FOR OBAMA'S GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN. In November, 2007, Obama issued a written pledge to opt into the public campaign finance system for the general presidential election, if the Republican nominee also did so. John McCain immediately accepted the pledge, which acceptance Obama acknowledged in writing in November 2007. After he became the Republican nominee, McCain opted into the public finance system (as he pledged to do), but Obama broke his pledge and opted out.

10. THE WAR IN IRAQ. In 2004--when Obama was running for the United States Senate-- Barack Obama not only said that he was open to a U.S. troop increase in Iraq, but warned against a premature troop withdrawal as a "slap in the face to the troops fighting there" which could make Iraq "an extraordinary hotbed of terrorist activity." Fast forward to Obama's presidential campaign premised in large part on an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

These 10 examples evince 180 degree changes by the Senator from Chicago on fundamental issues going to the core of Obama as a candidate, and provide important indications of whether the "change" candidate will do what he promises to do in the campaign to court our votes.

Legitimate questions are also raised as to whether Obama is accurately portraying himself during the election process, or is he simply feinting to the middle like the good basketball player he is? How many more Obama flip-flops can we expect before November 2008, and to what extent can the "change" candidate continue to portray himself a different kind of politician who rejects "politics as usual"?

Also another note. While he has flip flopped on many issues Barack Obama has had to backtrack on foreign policy issues, just recently on Jerusalem. He tried to outdo John McCain at AIPAC by insisting that Jerusalem remain the undivided capital of Israel. The Palestinians erupted in anger at that statement, and by the end of the day they had Obama backpedaling...not sure if its a flip flop. I guess its debatable!
To cut and Paste saves so much time, especially when there is so much available.
vinny

Chuck Bogardus
07-06-2008, 12:11 PM
And now someone will announce that the only thing to do in this situation is "stay home, and not vote."

Which has been a democratic strategy for the past seven and a half years.

Yote
07-06-2008, 01:26 PM
could always hold a gun to liberals heads and Force them to vote YOUR way. Isn't that the REPUBLICAN way? Force? War? We'll bomb you off the face of the earth! We'll take away your food and impose sanctions that will starve you and your children! In other words: WE ARE GOING TO FORCE OUR WILL ON THE WORLD. There is always someone else bigger, tougher, stronger and just as arrogant capable of stepping in the ring and kicking our butts. Be careful what you wish for..... you might find it!!!

Rstiefel,

You kinda rambled on in that post and it really doesn't make sense to me. Could you emphasize exactly what you are referring to?

Tracker
07-06-2008, 01:27 PM
You seem to be running around with your hands over your ears, with your eyes closed yelling "Laa Laa Laa Laa" Reading your posts remind me of Charlie Browns teachers voice- Wa Waa Wa Waa, Wa Waa Wa Wah. It has the same substance too.

vinny
07-06-2008, 01:36 PM
could always hold a gun to liberals heads and Force them to vote YOUR way. Isn't that the REPUBLICAN way? Force? War? We'll bomb you off the face of the earth! We'll take away your food and impose sanctions that will starve you and your children! In other words: WE ARE GOING TO FORCE OUR WILL ON THE WORLD. There is always someone else bigger, tougher, stronger and just as arrogant capable of stepping in the ring and kicking our butts. Be careful what you wish for..... you might find it!!!

I'm not one to blatantly cast blame, but if you were to poll the American public and ask them "Which party has weakened the U.S. the most" the answer would be overwhelmingly, "Democrat"! Up until the Dems basically dissolved are defenses we were the most powerful nation on the planet. So if we are vulnerable you can thank your own voting record, that is if you have the courage to admit it.
vinny

cntryboy1289
07-06-2008, 01:40 PM
Guys you will have to forgive him, he afterall just had his canidate trashed by the facts that even he can't recover from. That is the Liberal way of trying to turn us from the truth, yell loudly and speak nonsense!!!!:D

cntryboy1289
07-06-2008, 01:56 PM
I have no problems reading, but thanks for telling the truth about our education system!!


When you repsond to a topic, usually one addresses the issue at hand. Neither of your posts did that. This is why people respond to you like they do. I don't hold your opinion of us as a country but you are entitled to it, but try to repsond to a topic with what it is about, thanks!!;)

RStiefel
07-06-2008, 02:24 PM
Maybe this would be easier understood. How about some fairness here to all, and list an HONEST grouping of the flip flopping by John McCain. Let's not exclude past flip flopping simply because it is something from the past. Flip flopping is flip flopping.

vicvanb
07-06-2008, 02:29 PM
"Which party has weakened the U.S. the most"

Sorry, Vinny, but there's more than one way to skin cats and more than one way to weaken the country.

Many are now arguing that the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld $3 trillion Iraq war will produce major economic damage in future decades, and severely weaken the country as a result. Check the value of the falling US dollar to get a clue of what's ahead.

Osama was right--the oil producing middle east countries can bankrupt the USA--all that was needed was to bog us down in a prolonged morass of a war costing trillions. Bush stepped right into the jaws of the trap, and Osama is still at large. Who's the dummy?

If Bush&Co. were Democrats I'd be agreeing with you. But they are REPUBLICANS. The cat got skinned by a different bunch this time!

Yote
07-06-2008, 02:31 PM
have as much trouble understanding my threads if you would actually read them. Maybe that's due to the way you were educated by the crazy liberals who wrote the text books used in our school system. You make it sound as though freedom of choice should have been removed from our constitution.

Excuse me??:confused:

I ask a simple question about a post that appears you hastily wrote and now my education is being attacked?

You, sir, need to get a grip. To this point I've given you more credit than another certain someone. Seems the civility that keeps being screamed about around here only pertains to everyone but certain individuals. Dadgum if y'all ain't the first to call foul and then the first to foul.

I get it though. Do as I say, not as I do.

cntryboy1289
07-06-2008, 02:42 PM
I believe Vicvanb already posted about McCains flippedness. This one simply reported on Obamas. I don't see the shortage of fairness in the two, but if you need it to be done, why not put up a post listing both of their flipflops.

I critisize both canidates and have said so many times that I will vote for neither of them. Some might call that a vote for the Dems anyway, but I wouldn't call it that.

I think what we as a country need to do is elect the third canidate and teach both parties that until they come up with a decent canidate, we will continue to vote against them both, but that's just my two cents. Might stir things up and put us back on the right path, that of a better America!!!!!

cntryboy1289
07-06-2008, 02:47 PM
You are always speaking of this many, just who are they?

No one president does anything on his own. He has to go to Congress to declare war on anyone. I believe if you go back and check the record, most everyone of them voted to enter into this war we are in.

It was the previous president who was the paper champion and Bush has done a lot to bring us out of the slump we were in after Clinton left. We shall see just who it is that can do better, but I doubt it will ever be a democrat since all they know how to do is tax tax tax and spend spend spend!!!

RStiefel
07-06-2008, 02:49 PM
And how many of these posts do you think don't get off topic very quickly. I don't recall directing my statement directly to you.

cntryboy1289,
I agree with you completely. The third party would shake things up.

vinny
07-06-2008, 03:14 PM
And how many of these posts do you think don't get off topic very quickly. I don't recall directing my statement directly to you.

cntryboy1289,
I agree with you completely. The third party would shake things up.

Great idea! I've been thinking, my wife always follows that with an "OO" if enough citizens demanded a "None of the above" as a choice on election day then the powers to be would recognise that a few million people are unhappy with our only two choices. This might give some group incentive to create a third party. Where there is a demand there should be a supply. Or, it might force both parties to rethink their strategies.
Crazy idea or is there some merit to the thought?
vinny

RStiefel
07-06-2008, 03:24 PM
Nothing crazy about it. How many of us are willing to unite and take that stand?

cntryboy1289
07-06-2008, 03:31 PM
I know we think it is too late, but there is a third choice running now.

Think about it, there will be Congress no matter who is elected. Couldn't hurt a thing by voting in someone other than who the parties give us and maybe next election they will both come up with viable canidates.

vinny
07-06-2008, 03:59 PM
I know we think it is too late, but there is a third choice running now.

Think about it, there will be Congress no matter who is elected. Couldn't hurt a thing by voting in someone other than who the parties give us and maybe next election they will both come up with viable canidates.

RS

Count me in!

cntryboy

Isn't the third choice a "Nut"?
vinny

cntryboy1289
07-06-2008, 04:17 PM
Well, I used to like him a lot years ago, but I think Clinton got the best of him. He was a very intelligent man and asked some very pertinant questions when he was on the hearings dealing with most of the Clinton investigations.

The point of the discussion though is the message we could send by voting him into office. The President isn't a king and he could only do so much to begin with, no matter whether he be a Dem or Rep or anyone else. It would send a message that no matter who is in office, the rest of them had better work together to get things done or they will be out of office pretty soon as well.

It could happen and work if we all took a stand!!!:cool:

rudedog
07-06-2008, 06:03 PM
I've been voting third party for a number of elections now.
Just because I don't really care for the other parties.
So i guess I'll just keep voting for the nuts,in the third party, after all I am from California the land of fruits and nuts.
I guess it all comes down to what you want in your cereal,nuts or liars and crooks.
Rudy Manuel:p

Mr. D
07-06-2008, 06:11 PM
The only problem with voting 3rd party is if your vote allows the greater of the two evils to get elected. Some who voted for a 3rd party in 2000 might have liked to change their vote to Gore if they could go back. Of course that assumes having the most votes would ever win Florida! :rolleyes:

Bill Wynne
07-06-2008, 06:15 PM
I think we have clear cut choices with the two parties now. You can vote for the democrat or the republican. There cannot be more of a difference.:)

Can anyone remember the last time we had a President from a third party?

Concho Bill

blunt shooter
07-06-2008, 06:27 PM
Great idea! I've been thinking, my wife always follows that with an "OO" if enough citizens demanded a "None of the above" as a choice on election day then the powers to be would recognise that a few million people are unhappy with our only two choices. This might give some group incentive to create a third party. Where there is a demand there should be a supply. Or, it might force both parties to rethink their strategies.
Crazy idea or is there some merit to the thought?
vinny

In Aus, we were given that choice, only to have it ripped away, and the party leader jailed. The One Nation party and its leader Pauline Hanson,
wanted a lot of good things for our country, sensible, fair and heart felt with the grass roots working people and any one who wanted a level playing field, and a fair go. These ideas were not well received by the two major parties or
bleeding heart lib's, special interest groups, any one on dole or benefits, vested interest in status quo, which was personally beneficial, and that group who's ears are only painted onto the sides of their heads.
The twisting of statement. Misrepresentation. Lies. Irrational fear based on these 3 points was something to behold.
Utopian ideals seem to have no place in real world politics, run by economists and banks.
U.S. elections reverberate around the globe.
I pray we will be OK.

Paul Fielder
07-06-2008, 06:29 PM
I think we have clear cut choices with the two parties now. You can vote for the democrat or the republican. There cannot be more of a difference.:)

Can anyone remember the last time we had a President from a third party?

Concho Bill

....I have no problem w/ a 3rd party candidate but they MUST have a chance to WIN and have a Reagan like conservative view to have any chance of receiving my vote.

My main problem with 3rd party candidates is I think they KNOW they cannot win (as do their voters) and have other motives. I have said this before, but if 3rd party becomes the standard and we end up splitting the popular vote 3 ways, then it's time to have run offs!!!!!!!!!!! No president should be in office with say 45% or less of popular vote and that may be the case if 3rd party joins in the fun.

Unfortunatly, I think the 3rd party will get us obama for this election. THAT is scary and wish the 3rd party guys would think about the next round of scotus and what they want for that life time appointment.

pf

rudedog
07-06-2008, 07:21 PM
You guys are right a third party doesn't stand a chance.
Why? Could it be because they aren't taking money from the top special interest groups or lobbyist.
As long as we keep voting the same why, we'll keep getting the same kind of candidates,by the way we vote we are just condoning them.
I know earlier in a post I said that i would vote third party again as i have in the past, but this year I have to vote for the less of two evils, Johnnie boy.
I just wish they would give out free anal lube, so it won't hurt so bad the next four years,but then again, they already know we like it,so why change.
Rudy Manuel
P.S. And you think California is the gay State.
:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
All right y'all let it fly I can take the heat!!!!!!
:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)

vinny
07-06-2008, 07:38 PM
Bill
I know we have two clear cut choices but for me McCain certainly doesn't support my hard core conservative issues he's too moderate and Obama doesn't support my moderate issues he's as left as they come. My thinking is this: Lets say 8 million people decide not to vote because they don't like either candidate. 8 Million votes unaccounted for. Why not let those voices be heard with a "a none of the above" choice in the voting booth?. This could, I repeat could have a positive effect on the two parties.

Paul,

If understand what you said, your figuring on more unhappy Republicans voting "None of the above" then you are Dems. Am I right. That being so Obama would win.
I guess a third party candidate would have to fall in the middle forcing the Republicans to nominate a true conservative and the Democrats having to nominate a JFK style Liberal.
Too complicated for me!
vinny

vinny
07-06-2008, 07:40 PM
You guys are right a third party doesn't stand a chance.
Why? Could it be because they aren't taking money from the top special interest groups or lobbyist.
As long as we keep voting the same why, we'll keep getting the same kind of candidates,by the way we vote we are just condoning them.
I know earlier in a post I said that i would vote third party again as i have in the past, but this year I have to vote for the less of two evils, Johnnie boy.
I just wish they would give out free anal lube, so it won't hurt so bad the next four years,but then again, they already know we like it,so why change.
Rudy Manuel
P.S. And you think California is the gay State.
:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
All right y'all let it fly I can take the heat!!!!!!
:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)

Thanks for the laugh, thats funny!!!!!
Sad part is YOUR RIGHT!
vinny

cntryboy1289
07-07-2008, 12:06 AM
I have to disagree myself. If enough people voted against the two parties, said third party canidate would win hands down. No where is it written that we have to vote democrat or republican!!

I think our country would be so much better off if we did away with the party system and just voted for the better canidate. I don't vote a party in any of the elections I vote on, I simply pick the best man or woman running. In our local elections, they run on a party ticket there as well and I cannot tell you who is what because I don't care. I have voted for people of both parties simply because I knew them and liked them better.

I simply think if we don't send them a message, they will never change except for the worse. You can either follow along like sheep or take a stand and send a message. Not voting doesn't send one at all, it only means less votes to count. Voting for a third party is no different than voting for the other two choices, take a stand vote no matter who you vote for!!

rudedog
07-07-2008, 12:30 AM
+ 1:cool:

Paul Fielder
07-07-2008, 08:33 AM
Paul,

If understand what you said, your figuring on more unhappy Republicans voting "None of the above" then you are Dems. Am I right. That being so Obama would win.
I guess a third party candidate would have to fall in the middle forcing the Republicans to nominate a true conservative and the Democrats having to nominate a JFK style Liberal.
Too complicated for me!
vinny

I think you are correct that the nut will pull mostly JM votes on this election. My requirement to get my vote is to have views that are in line w/ my conservative way of thinking & I could care less what party they were. Show me a solid Dem who is less govt., lower taxes, pro gun / life etc and I'll throw one that way or for them or the 3rd party....I don't care, BUT they must have a shot at winning & throwing a vote to #3 just out of disgust when there is no evidence the candidate has a shot is ignorant in my opinion and I am sorry if I step on toes with that comment.

I hate polls but we have to admit that some of the more reliable ones usually get pretty close. If #3 is showing only 10% of the vote coming down the home stretch, what should the candidate and voter do?? A candidate of character would throw their support behind the lesser of evils & tell his supporters why and to help him get the word out so he can come back stronger in 4 years. THAT would impress me!! If they stay in the race w/ no chance of winning, then it tells me they have other motives than the moral high road & what is best for the U.S. Just another politician who is just in it for themself or to sabatoge the election.

pf

cntryboy1289
07-07-2008, 10:03 AM
I would think Mr. Barr is that conservative that you described when you said he would have to meet your requirements of Reagan like conservative.

It is your vote just as it is everyone elses and you vote it the way you feel best doing. I just do not believe that a man should pull out simply because a poll says he is not going to win though. Once you enter, you have the right to stick it out! I would rather see a canidate take a thumping than to see him or her bow out gracefully myself. Shows the the moxy that I would like to see one of them have if you ask me, not the turn tail and run type of attitude so many of them have.

Paul Fielder
07-07-2008, 10:17 AM
I really don't know anything about the man....the only time I see or hear of Barr is on the couple of forums I visit like this one.

I read the paper daily(and beginning to hate it)....he sure isn't doing much to get his message across. Is he saving all his money for TV adds the week before the election?? If he has any chance, I would like to see him stirring the pot now....just a little confused to his strategy and thought process to get elected. Is he even on the campaign trail?? I would think the national media would throw us a bone every now and then or he's saving his contributions for his retirement??

pf

cntryboy1289
07-07-2008, 11:18 AM
I can't answer that question for you but I sure can check into it for you and report back what I find.

cntryboy1289
07-07-2008, 11:35 AM
Well I emailed and asked his group that very question and will give you their repsonse as soon as I get it. You can check him out at the following link:

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/about/

He gave a very good response to those that say what was suggested here that he drop out of the race on his website. He said it is kind of funny that this far out anyone would have an excuse already as to why they lost.

I like the man and plan on casting my vote for him!

Paul Fielder
07-07-2008, 11:53 AM
.....I just don't see how he can win if he's not trying to get in the lime light this close to the election Jeff. I agree and think a 3rd party win would wake up all our elected officials but Barr is way too relaxed on his approach.

I hate to sound negative on the man but it looks to me he knows he can't win and doesn't or isn't willing to spend the money to reach the voters. The fact he is not in the news raises flags to his true intentions. I would say watch / follow the $$$$ and he is either saving it for retirement or for a more serious 2012 run when we are REALLY in the toilet??

I don't like his strategy & won't throw my vote away unless I see some action on his part. I still think JM is the only logical vote as of today.

pf

cntryboy1289
07-07-2008, 02:13 PM
Paul, he has been in the news lately, the national papers have been silent on him, but he has been active in his campaign and been on the national networks as late as of the 4th. I am not sure if that is his fault or theirs, but I sent an email and will wait to see what they say. I'll let you know what they tell me whether or not it is just more of the same as you spoke of or what.

I realize that he may not be the choice for you and that is ok!! I just think he may be a viable choice for those of us that do not want to cast a ballot for either of the two shake and bakes they have up for the office. Both know rhetoric but neither have had a genuine thought or idea during this whole campaign and I just choose to not participate in their game anymore.

Let's play out a scenario if you will: Let's say we start a movement and elect who we want no matter what the two parties say about it. Reckon what message that would send them? It might just tell them we are fed up with them and can do without them. Then we do the same thing in congressional elections as well as state elections, pretty soon we might just take back our country and set it back on the right path!!!!!

I know its a tall step, but Rome wasn't built in a day and I doubt anything worthwhile is either. Sure would be nice though wouldn't it???:D

Phil Deese
07-07-2008, 08:38 PM
Barr are any other third party vote is a waste....how many have ever won the big prize. Most of this is just a plan by the lib's to give Osama the presidency....don't bite on it!! Send your money to McCain and Nader.

Phil Deese
07-07-2008, 08:38 PM
Barr are any other third party vote is a waste....how many have ever won the big prize? Most of this is just a plan by the lib's to give Osama the presidency....don't bite on it!! Send your money to McCain and Nader.

Phil Deese
07-07-2008, 08:47 PM
Why can the oil producing countries bankrupt the country??? Because the dem's won't let us drill here!!! Remember the caribou can't pay your bills.

vicvanb
07-07-2008, 09:29 PM
And drilling ANWR may not pay your bills.

No one knows if ANWR has a liitle or a lot of oil. The oil exploration data there are secret. Big oil is not talking. The government estimates have a very large range.

Even if ANWR has the maximum estimates of oil it won't eliminate our dependence on foreign imports.

Your solution of drill everything in sight with no regard for other values is short-sighted. Oil is finite and using it up ASAP will create more problems than it solves.

rudedog
07-07-2008, 09:58 PM
I know that this thought will not be received well, but here it goes.
Each election we run scared about which candidate to pick and we pick the least of 2 evils,and we keep losing,and we keep wining.
Because picking the least of 2 evils is not winning its stagnating.
If every rifle match had top shooters and you know you can't win,just stay home thats what your saying about the third party.Thats like why have sports if the underdog team thinks their going to lose, why play, stay home and drink beer on the money you save from not playing.
The third party I'm sure doesn't have unlimited funds like the other parties if they have 10% of the funds of either party I would be surprised.
You my not like the candidate very much, but you don't really like who your voting for anyway.
What do you think the other parties would think if the third party got 30% of the votes.Think it might have them worried for a change.
Rudy Manuel:confused::confused::confused:

cntryboy1289
07-08-2008, 11:47 AM
I won't argue with anyone over this, but the only reason the third party doesn't stand a chance is because so many people just like yourselves say they don't have a chance and just keep their heads aimed forward into their stalls and keep right on eating sour oats and vote Republican or Democrat!!!!

You have the right to choose, status qou that has gotten this country to the point it is in now, or do something about it to shake it up!!!! The responsibility is yours to choose your own fate.

Sirloadsalot
07-10-2008, 02:21 PM
Does voting do any good any more?? (Does any one not remember the "FLORIDA FARSE?) I do it all the time, but doubt very much its doing anything. They know damn well who they(BIG OIL, AND Other SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS) are are putting in office long before we vote.:mad:
The almighty dollar has bought and payed for the USA long ago. If you aint rich, you dont count.:(