On Sunday, March 22, 2015 at 6:09:47 AM UTC-7, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 3/22/2015 9:01 AM, Tom Nofinger wrote:
On Sunday, March 22, 2015 at 5:43:04 AM UTC-7, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/22/2015 8:32 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
...is about to start:

"Sen. Ted Cruz plans to announce Monday that he will run for president
of the United States, accelerating his already rapid three-year rise
from a tea party insurgent in Texas into a divisive political force in
Washington."

That would be the Teabagger Derby, of course, in which a plethora of
really crazy Republicans affiliated with the Teabagger Party, announce
they are running for POTUS.

Who will be next after Ted? Michele Bachmann? The $9.99 Pizza Guy? The
Newties?

Should be fun to watch.



Remember Harry. Even *you* could run if you wanted to.

Actually, I think he should. I would vote for him.

You would?

--

Respectfully submitted by Justan

Laugh of the day from Krause

"I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here.
I've been "born again" as a nice guy."

Only in a primary, hoping he would get a nomination, and watch the other demo-clowns eat him alive in the debates.

On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 12:57:17 -0400, wrote:

That is the problem with the two party system. If you don't fit into
their category exactly, you are out.
Johnson could run as a democrat in New Mexico or Montana but he
wouldn't stand a chance on either coast ... in either party.
He is too liberal for the republicans and to conservative for the
democrats.

It leaves people like me who are socially liberal and fiscally
conservative with no place to go.

===

Exactly right. As far as I'm concerned both of the major parties are
controlled by loonies.

On 3/23/15 12:57 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 12:16:46 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 3/23/15 11:50 AM, wrote:


Did you ever listen to Gary Johnson?


Yup. Perfectly decent guy. He'd have a chance running for the Democratic
nomination and presidency, but as a Libertarian nominee, he's never
going to get elected, and the Repugnants would never nominate him.

That is the problem with the two party system. If you don't fit into
their category exactly, you are out.
Johnson could run as a democrat in New Mexico or Montana but he
wouldn't stand a chance on either coast ... in either party.
He is too liberal for the republicans and to conservative for the
democrats.

It leaves people like me who are socially liberal and fiscally
conservative with no place to go.


Sure, a lib could win a statewide race or even a congressional district
rate but I don't see anything more than a "spoiler" against the total
vote in a national race. In a parliamentary system, which we don't have,
the lib party might do ok.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

On 3/23/2015 1:17 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 12:57:17 -0400, wrote:

That is the problem with the two party system. If you don't fit into
their category exactly, you are out.
Johnson could run as a democrat in New Mexico or Montana but he
wouldn't stand a chance on either coast ... in either party.
He is too liberal for the republicans and to conservative for the
democrats.

It leaves people like me who are socially liberal and fiscally
conservative with no place to go.

===

Exactly right. As far as I'm concerned both of the major parties are
controlled by loonies.



It has become increasingly difficult for me to remain optimistic about
this country. Never felt this way before. We have a totally
dysfunctional government. Half the world hates us. Long term allies
are abandoning us. Russia is reigniting the cold war.
Over a dozen countries harbor ISIS or ISIS affiliates who want to kill
us. The number of people on means-tested welfare is at an all time
high. Unemployment numbers are skewed to appear to be improving but
anyone actively searching the job market knows differently.

This reminds me of the Carter years "malaise" but for different reasons
and I think it's worse.

Americans simply don't feel good about their country anymore. We need
some fresh, strong leadership to deliver the country out of this
psychological depression. Need someone to raise spirits, deliver some
realistic reasons to be proud again and let that optimism fuel the way
to a real recovery, international respect and leadership.

On 3/23/2015 2:37 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/23/2015 1:17 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 12:57:17 -0400, wrote:

That is the problem with the two party system. If you don't fit into
their category exactly, you are out.
Johnson could run as a democrat in New Mexico or Montana but he
wouldn't stand a chance on either coast ... in either party.
He is too liberal for the republicans and to conservative for the
democrats.

It leaves people like me who are socially liberal and fiscally
conservative with no place to go.

===

Exactly right. As far as I'm concerned both of the major parties are
controlled by loonies.



It has become increasingly difficult for me to remain optimistic about
this country. Never felt this way before. We have a totally
dysfunctional government. Half the world hates us. Long term allies
are abandoning us. Russia is reigniting the cold war.
Over a dozen countries harbor ISIS or ISIS affiliates who want to kill
us. The number of people on means-tested welfare is at an all time
high. Unemployment numbers are skewed to appear to be improving but
anyone actively searching the job market knows differently.

This reminds me of the Carter years "malaise" but for different reasons
and I think it's worse.

Americans simply don't feel good about their country anymore. We need
some fresh, strong leadership to deliver the country out of this
psychological depression. Need someone to raise spirits, deliver some
realistic reasons to be proud again and let that optimism fuel the way
to a real recovery, international respect and leadership.


Do you think things will change for the better once the current
administration is put out to pasture?

--

Respectfully submitted by Justan

Laugh of the day from Krause

"I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here.
I've been "born again" as a nice guy."

On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 14:48:10 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote:

On 3/23/2015 2:37 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/23/2015 1:17 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 12:57:17 -0400, wrote:

That is the problem with the two party system. If you don't fit into
their category exactly, you are out.
Johnson could run as a democrat in New Mexico or Montana but he
wouldn't stand a chance on either coast ... in either party.
He is too liberal for the republicans and to conservative for the
democrats.

It leaves people like me who are socially liberal and fiscally
conservative with no place to go.

===

Exactly right. As far as I'm concerned both of the major parties are
controlled by loonies.



It has become increasingly difficult for me to remain optimistic about
this country. Never felt this way before. We have a totally
dysfunctional government. Half the world hates us. Long term allies
are abandoning us. Russia is reigniting the cold war.
Over a dozen countries harbor ISIS or ISIS affiliates who want to kill
us. The number of people on means-tested welfare is at an all time
high. Unemployment numbers are skewed to appear to be improving but
anyone actively searching the job market knows differently.

This reminds me of the Carter years "malaise" but for different reasons
and I think it's worse.

Americans simply don't feel good about their country anymore. We need
some fresh, strong leadership to deliver the country out of this
psychological depression. Need someone to raise spirits, deliver some
realistic reasons to be proud again and let that optimism fuel the way
to a real recovery, international respect and leadership.


Do you think things will change for the better once the current
administration is put out to pasture?

I don't think they could get much worse. I have to agree with Luddite on this. It's
depressing as hell.
--

Guns don't cause problems.
Gun owner behavior causes problems.

On 3/23/2015 2:48 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 3/23/2015 2:37 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/23/2015 1:17 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 12:57:17 -0400, wrote:

That is the problem with the two party system. If you don't fit into
their category exactly, you are out.
Johnson could run as a democrat in New Mexico or Montana but he
wouldn't stand a chance on either coast ... in either party.
He is too liberal for the republicans and to conservative for the
democrats.

It leaves people like me who are socially liberal and fiscally
conservative with no place to go.

===

Exactly right. As far as I'm concerned both of the major parties are
controlled by loonies.



It has become increasingly difficult for me to remain optimistic about
this country. Never felt this way before. We have a totally
dysfunctional government. Half the world hates us. Long term allies
are abandoning us. Russia is reigniting the cold war.
Over a dozen countries harbor ISIS or ISIS affiliates who want to kill
us. The number of people on means-tested welfare is at an all time
high. Unemployment numbers are skewed to appear to be improving but
anyone actively searching the job market knows differently.

This reminds me of the Carter years "malaise" but for different reasons
and I think it's worse.

Americans simply don't feel good about their country anymore. We need
some fresh, strong leadership to deliver the country out of this
psychological depression. Need someone to raise spirits, deliver some
realistic reasons to be proud again and let that optimism fuel the way
to a real recovery, international respect and leadership.


Do you think things will change for the better once the current
administration is put out to pasture?


All depends on who is the replacement. I don't see Hillary as having
what it takes. She'll be too busy ducking answers to questions and
asking why we don't simply respect the fact that she's the first woman
president.

On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 14:25:19 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 3/23/15 12:57 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 12:16:46 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 3/23/15 11:50 AM, wrote:


Did you ever listen to Gary Johnson?


Yup. Perfectly decent guy. He'd have a chance running for the Democratic
nomination and presidency, but as a Libertarian nominee, he's never
going to get elected, and the Repugnants would never nominate him.

That is the problem with the two party system. If you don't fit into
their category exactly, you are out.
Johnson could run as a democrat in New Mexico or Montana but he
wouldn't stand a chance on either coast ... in either party.
He is too liberal for the republicans and to conservative for the
democrats.

It leaves people like me who are socially liberal and fiscally
conservative with no place to go.


Sure, a lib could win a statewide race or even a congressional district
rate but I don't see anything more than a "spoiler" against the total
vote in a national race. In a parliamentary system, which we don't have,
the lib party might do ok.

===

The two party system we have now is certainly not getting the job
done. Congressional term limits would be a good start but it's not
enough.

On 3/23/15 5:01 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 14:25:19 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 3/23/15 12:57 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 12:16:46 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 3/23/15 11:50 AM, wrote:


Did you ever listen to Gary Johnson?


Yup. Perfectly decent guy. He'd have a chance running for the Democratic
nomination and presidency, but as a Libertarian nominee, he's never
going to get elected, and the Repugnants would never nominate him.

That is the problem with the two party system. If you don't fit into
their category exactly, you are out.
Johnson could run as a democrat in New Mexico or Montana but he
wouldn't stand a chance on either coast ... in either party.
He is too liberal for the republicans and to conservative for the
democrats.

It leaves people like me who are socially liberal and fiscally
conservative with no place to go.


Sure, a lib could win a statewide race or even a congressional district
rate but I don't see anything more than a "spoiler" against the total
vote in a national race. In a parliamentary system, which we don't have,
the lib party might do ok.

The biggest problem libertarians have is they do not draw the
corporate bribe money the Ds and Rs get because part of their fiscal
policy is cutting the corporate welfare from the government.


That may be *a* problem libertarians have, but I don't believe it is
*the* problem.

*The* problem, in my opinion, is that any number of libertarian
candidates for high office are crackpots and therefore in the minds of
the average voters, the libertarian party and its candidates are mostly
crackpots.

The GOP, of course, is also infested with crackpots, but on the national
ticket, they typically do not pick one as the standard bearer except, of
course, in 2008, when MooseMama made it onto the ticket.


--
Proud to be a Liberal.

On 3/23/15 5:20 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 15:02:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



All depends on who is the replacement. I don't see Hillary as having
what it takes. She'll be too busy ducking answers to questions and
asking why we don't simply respect the fact that she's the first woman
president.


If this was not such a corrupt government and so many scams going on,
I would suggest a 20 cent hike in the gasoline tax that went for
absolutely NOTHING BUT fixing roads and bridges.
The thing that prevents me form being serious about it, is how badly
the government is in spending money like this on what they were
supposed to be collecting it for.
In states like Florida, it would actually go into the roads but up
north, where they really need infrastructure improvements, the money
gets siphoned off into totally unrelated programs.
That is why Florida only has around 2% of their bridges in trouble and
that is up in the double digits in California, New York and the North
East states.


Wrong. The reason is that Florida doesn't have a freeze-thaw cycle that
lasts half the year, it seems, as the northeast states do. *That* and
the salt are the killers of road infrastructure.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.