usda select
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2010
- Messages
- 930
- Reaction score
- 158
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Do you still have doubts about what brought them down?The only one who needs to demonstrate some conciliatory behavior is you because I never once questioned whether a plane hit the towers.
Okay...lets go with the murder red herring yet again...why is it you can't stay topical? Anyway, if the spouse had been the target of a shooting once before, wouldn't it make sense to take out a high policy because there is a greater likelihood that the spouse's income will be suddenly cut off sometime in the future? So wouldn't that quell the suspicions of the absurd amount of insurance?Suspicions can have a reasonable basis, however. For instance if someone took out an absurdly high life insurance policy on his or her spouse before the spouse was murdered it is reasonable to suspect that person of having his or her spouse killed.
How the hell did you interpret that out of what I said?
Unless you're now saying that they don't bother to count votes, you're de facto saying that the reason write-in candidates are not getting elected is that there isn't enough of the electorate writing in the names of candidates. In any event, your crazy notion that somehow the candidates are "selected" for you is blown out of the water."When has a write-in candidate won anything save maybe a local election? Also, not every state allows just any name for a write-in candidate. I mean, you can write whatever the hell you want on a ballot that doesn't mean it's going to count for anything."
The system is rigged against anyone that isn't already entrenched in the establishment. Media report based on the perceptions of their "chances" invariably connected to how entrenched they are in the establishment.
Total nonsense.
Have you ever read "Game Change"? The odds on favorite to win the Democratic Nominee was Hilary Clinton. She had Super Delegates lined up--these are people severely entrenched in the Party that pledged to vote for her. She ran a disastrous campaign strategy that was totally slated toward the General Election. Obama won Iowa and established himself as a viable candidate. He had won precisely one state-wide election before that. He had one, I believe, on house race in Illinois before that. To say he was firmly entrenched is simply not true. He entrenched himself as time went on. You'll also note that well after the head of steam built for Mr. Obama, Hillary Clinton won victories in the large states of Texas and Ohio where sophisticated voters and large urban populations were apparently less impressed with the black candidate.
On the GOP side, Mike Huckabee--WHO?--had a sizable delegate count at the Convention. Mitt Romney--WHO?--was considered a front-runner for most of the contest. In the end, John McCain did win but at one point, his candidacy was a couple of days from folding due to being out of money.
Nobody was more "establishment" to use your phrase than Hillary Clinton; 8 years as First lady, 8 years as US Senator--nearly 20 years being in the forefront of Democratic Politics and nobody was more "establishment" than John McCain whose candidacy suffered almost to the point of extinction.
Yet the overall winner was a decidedly non-establishment Obama.
To further illustrate how silly your notion of "pre-selection" is; please tell us who has been pre-selected for the 2012 GOP Presidential race? The Iowa Caucus is 17 months away and I can't even tell you who is going to be on the ballot yet. Much less who is going to be win the race.
See above to fully digest just how wrong you are about Obama. You simply do not know history or are too wrapped up in your cynicism to remember much.Also the manufacture personality cult surrounding certain candidates also puts one above the other.
Since 2004, maybe earlier, people were pushing Obama as a possible future president and the media was gushing with propaganda preparing people for that. The same goes for every major candidate. Then look at say Ron Paul where there was clear and blatant suppression and vilification of his candidacy.
As for Ron Paul, he has crazy ideas and is treated as crazy by the Public. Which is why he never won state-wide races in Texas. Nobody suppressed Ron Paul. He was on the debates and people simply didn't buy his foolish policies.
No...you amended what I said in your response. I simply pointed out that the political patronage hasn't seemed to hurt the republic very much since we went from being a back-seat nation in 1910 to being the only indispensable country at the turn of the century a decade ago. I would not use the term "corrupt" to describe why President X didn't interview 529,000 lawyers for the job of Attorney General. I wouldn't use the term "corrupt" to describe the fact that 529 lawyers were not interviewed. I wouldn't use the term "corrupt" to describe the fact that 52.9 people were not interviewed for AG. I wouldn't use the term "corrupt" to describe why, likely, 5.29 lawyers were not interviewed. People develop reputations noticed by or have a relationship with the President who appoints them. If you want to call that "corrupt", feel free to do so. But I don't think you'll get very far arguing that there should be this massive monster.com search of resumes; the new President would never get around to governing.Are you arguing that corruption is a good thing or acceptable? Maybe if you are arguing corruption is inevitable I could be sympathetic towards that argument.
It is not that simple. On some level the Tea Parties did start off as a grassroots movement, an essentially meaningless that likely would have never had an impact on history. Only after a faction of the establishment hijacked the movement did it explode.
I don't really know enough about the Tea Party movement to comment. I do know that a small group of people is all that has ever changed the world in any measurable way. Ninety years ago; women got the right to vote. Do you think the "establishment" gave two sh**ts about their rights? In the 1960's, there wasn't any sort of massive underground movement that had the endorsement of the "establishment", small groups of people who were focused on what they wanted began to sway public opinion. The media coverage--also part of the establishment--put their camera on the events and wow, things got done because it swayed the rest of the country.
To attempt to stay topical; look at the fledgling "truth movement" and you guys making fun of Mark Bingham's final words and thoughts, cashing in on these conspiracy theories that would have to go through fifty or so revisions to elevate to the realm of them being merely laughable, and the almost seismic shift from one theory to the other. If you're wondering why you do not get a camera turned on you; it's because you've been a wretched excuse for a movement.