Wow, FoxNews and their minions have been so full of it.

[USN_Hokie]

Without reading 4 pages of posts, can someone explain how we jumped from Benghazi to single moms in this thread?

[hokie80]

Without reading 4 pages of posts, can someone explain how we jumped from Benghazi to single moms in this thread?

Oakton.

[hokie80]

I'm just surprised that the "ghey" wasn't brought into this as well.

[Marine Hokie]

How so?

You're a tax and spend conservative who wants to steal from the taxpayers (much of which goes to the already rich). You just don't want it to go to single moms and their kids. You still advocate for a giant government.

Sure you are. You're a tax and spend liberal. You spend all day calling me a fracktard for not wanting to steal from the rich to give to single moms and their offspring. Your demands are through your giant government you advocate. Of course you're greedy and egotistical to think such things and demand me pay for your morality, but I still have a say in how your theft is spent.

swing and a miss.

[awesome guy]

How so?

You're a tax and spend conservative who wants to steal from the taxpayers (much of which goes to the already rich). You just don't want it to go to single moms and their kids. You still advocate for a giant government.

Sure you are. You're a tax and spend liberal. You spend all day calling me a fracktard for not wanting to steal from the rich to give to single moms and their offspring. Your demands are through your giant government you advocate. Of course you're greedy and egotistical to think such things and demand me pay for your morality, but I still have a say in how your theft is spent.

swing and a miss.

All of it, it's just unsubstantiated crapola.

[Marine Hokie]

Do you think the military budget should be higher or lower than it currently is? Do you think it should be more or less than the rest of the world's combined?

How so?

You're a tax and spend conservative who wants to steal from the taxpayers (much of which goes to the already rich). You just don't want it to go to single moms and their kids. You still advocate for a giant government.

Sure you are. You're a tax and spend liberal. You spend all day calling me a fracktard for not wanting to steal from the rich to give to single moms and their offspring. Your demands are through your giant government you advocate. Of course you're greedy and egotistical to think such things and demand me pay for your morality, but I still have a say in how your theft is spent.

swing and a miss.

All of it, it's just unsubstantiated crapola.

[VoiceOfReason]

Kind of like how you try and use the Bible to make your points?

I'm not legislating how they live, I'm legislating how they treat their children. I consider divorce for no good reason abusive to the children. I support no fault for childless couples or ones with adult children. Kids 0 to 18? Suck it up or have a good reason. I don't see such victims in drinking or sodomy laws, so don't support them.

You've obviously never been the child of a couple that should be divorced. If you think it is best for the child to grow up in a home where the husband and wife don't love each other, you are clueless...

Exactly.

AG speaks alot about situations he has no real experience with.

Well played

[VoiceOfReason]

oh please. I'm not going to respond to your hatred with hatred. I'll just point out the hypocrisy of you calling me selfish because you want to take my money and do what you want with it. IE, you're the selfish one. You're the one demanding to control what is not yours, not I.

I'm not sure where you're coming from with pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness is no justification to abandon your children. Even the craziest of liberals can agree with this.

I am not advocating spending your money at all. I am saying that if two persons no longer love each other and want to find their happiness elsewhere, who are we to deny this to them. Yes, you can show statistics about kids in stable homes vs. one parent families. However, there are MANY factors that contribute - not just divorce. What kinds of things happen when you keep two people together against their will? Domestic violence and child abuse come to mind.

Point is... you cannot see all ends here. And it is really none of your business. Who elected you King Solomon? I will fight for the right for you to live your life the way you choose (however pathetic that may be)... and will fight for the right to keep you out of everyone else's life. Even if you are a bitter taxpayer.

Sure you are. You're a tax and spend liberal. You spend all day calling me a fracktard for not wanting to steal from the rich to give to single moms and their offspring. Your demands are through your giant government you advocate. Of course you're greedy and egotistical to think such things and demand me pay for your morality, but I still have a say in how your theft is spent.

You have no idea about my beliefs obviously. In your defense, it is hard to understand another person without actually reading and thinking about what they write.

[VoiceOfReason]

That party will never exist because it is in contradiction with itself. You can't favor progressive social causes and also tight on government spending. The two can't co-exist.

I see what you are saying. I think you misinterpret what I mean.

When you say "social causes", I presume you are lumping in welfare, school subsidies and all other government relief for the less fortunate. If that is the case, then yes, I can understand how you see the contradiction. But that is not what I am saying.

What I would love to see in a 3rd party is the mixing of two concepts that I believe an overwhelming majority of Americans would support:
(1) Progressive stances on social issues (not causes) like gay marriage, abortion and contraception, safe gun policy that respects the 2nd Amendment and ignores the NRA, immigration policy that gives the immigrants of today the same opportunities your grandparents had to enter the country, freedom to practice your religion AND freedom from everyone else's religion, etc. In other words... get the government, powerful lobbies and imposed religion out of people's lives.

(2) Responsible and transparent tax and spending system. Understand that Social Security, Healthcare, Defense (plus debt service) are 80% of the government spending. Taxes must be adjusted up... or spending must be adjusted down to eliminate the shameful policy of passing debt to our children. The goal should be to balance the equation without substantially transferring the load to the poor and working middle class.

No contradictions there... and likely broad support. Too bad it will never happen. Sigh

[Hokie5150]

Cynthia McKinney was nominated to her "not-republican" Green Party in 2008. Did you consider her or any of the other "not republican" candidates, or just the democrat? Libertarian party candidate? Socialist party candidate?

Excellent question, Marine! No, I did not consider a "third party" candidate. In my youth I tried that once... and if there was ever a time where I had "been duped"... that was it. Like it or not, America has a two party system. IMHO, any other vote is a wasted vote. In my youth, I thought there was such a thing as a "protest vote"... and I was wrong about that. A protest vote is just a losing vote.

No disrespect to any of these candidates, some of whom may have some good ideas. They just need to get those ideas picked up by one of the major parties.

And nice inclusion of the Socialist Party... but I am far from a socialist. There is plenty of room to the left of this board without coming anywhere near socialism

Even if what you say is true about America being a two party system, those parties have changed over the years. Is there something about the current DNC/GOP machine that appeals to you?

[ip_law-hokie]

Cynthia McKinney was nominated to her "not-republican" Green Party in 2008. Did you consider her or any of the other "not republican" candidates, or just the democrat? Libertarian party candidate? Socialist party candidate?

Excellent question, Marine! No, I did not consider a "third party" candidate. In my youth I tried that once... and if there was ever a time where I had "been duped"... that was it. Like it or not, America has a two party system. IMHO, any other vote is a wasted vote. In my youth, I thought there was such a thing as a "protest vote"... and I was wrong about that. A protest vote is just a losing vote.

No disrespect to any of these candidates, some of whom may have some good ideas. They just need to get those ideas picked up by one of the major parties.

And nice inclusion of the Socialist Party... but I am far from a socialist. There is plenty of room to the left of this board without coming anywhere near socialism

Even if what you say is true about America being a two party system, those parties have changed over the years. Is there something about the current DNC/GOP machine that appeals to you?

There is something about a two-party system in general that appeals to me.

[Marine Hokie]

What is it specifically?

There is something about a two-party system in general that appeals to me.

[ip_law-hokie]

What is it specifically?

There is something about a two-party system in general that appeals to me.

It provides a buffer from the extremist on both sides, and trends toward the middle.

[HokieJoe]

I heard that same exact thing throughout 2011 and 2012.

and 08 when she lost to Obama? Check out her numbers, only hard left nut jobs support her. Benghazi showed she can't handle that call at 3 am.

Had she been nominated in 2008, she would have won. She is a "Not-Republican"... she wins automatically when the majority of the country votes.

Nice qualifier. And that is precisely her problem.

[HokieJoe]

Chuck, the reason you never made it to combat is because you'd have done more to endanger the entire troop than you would've done to help. They knew this about you the day you enlisted. You weren't looking to serve...you were looking for a meal ticket. And that's why you mopped so many floors.

Thanks for serving and being a leech. You continue to do all of us very proud.

Wow, dude. I hardly ever agree with El Chuckalero, but this seems pretty harsh.

[Major Kong]

Chuck, the reason you never made it to combat is because you'd have done more to endanger the entire troop than you would've done to help. They knew this about you the day you enlisted. You weren't looking to serve...you were looking for a meal ticket. And that's why you mopped so many floors.

Thanks for serving and being a leech. You continue to do all of us very proud.

Wow, dude. I hardly ever agree with El Chuckalero, but this seems pretty harsh.

Yeah I somehow missed free's reply...that is way out of bounds.

I might not agree with chuck on some many things but there is no way I would disparage his enlistment...I have xtreme gratitude to his service to our country.

[HokieJoe]

They fought it and brought up legislation. They just flat out lost on the issue.


I think it's much better they present a valid reason for divorce rather than "we don't want to be married". They should show cause.

Why are you so interested in other people's business? Amazing how conservatives preach getting government out of people's lives... unless the intervention is "good for them" according to their own religious beliefs.

A married couple wants a divorce. So? Let them find their happiness.
Two men want to get married. So? Let them find their happiness.

How does either event effect you? Why do you think your religious beliefs should trump the rights of others to find happiness in their own lives?

It's not a question of whether it effects a 3rd party or not. It's a matter of how it affects the children these couples might have. No children involved? I agree, it's none of my business. OTOH, I don't give a damn that a couple can't jump right into a divorce as easy as they jumped into marriage and kids. Once innocents are involved, the game changes. They took the decision to have children, so BFD if they have to jump a few more hoops before getting divorced. They owe that much to their offspring. Marriage and children shouldn't be a matter of convenience for the 'adults' involved.

[133743Hokie]

What is it specifically?

There is something about a two-party system in general that appeals to me.

It provides a buffer from the extremist on both sides, and trends toward the middle.

Disagree. The two party system is moving more and more to the left and right extremes. As a result, the "independent" middle continues to grow.

[Marine Hokie]

Right, it's just something people say. The "extremes" of both parties get plenty of what they want. For example, the left gets enormous social programs and the right gets an enormous military. There isn't much in the way of a middle.

What is it specifically?

There is something about a two-party system in general that appeals to me.

It provides a buffer from the extremist on both sides, and trends toward the middle.

Disagree. The two party system is moving more and more to the left and right extremes. As a result, the "independent" middle continues to grow.

[Hokie5150]

What is it specifically?

There is something about a two-party system in general that appeals to me.

It provides a buffer from the extremist on both sides, and trends toward the middle.

Disagree. The two party system is moving more and more to the left and right extremes. As a result, the "independent" middle continues to grow.

There is no right or left...only tyranny or liberty.

[133743Hokie]

What is it specifically?

There is something about a two-party system in general that appeals to me.

It provides a buffer from the extremist on both sides, and trends toward the middle.

Disagree. The two party system is moving more and more to the left and right extremes. As a result, the "independent" middle continues to grow.

There is no right or left...only tyranny or liberty.

Disagree. Both extremes want control, just of different things and in different manners.

[VoiceOfReason]

Cynthia McKinney was nominated to her "not-republican" Green Party in 2008. Did you consider her or any of the other "not republican" candidates, or just the democrat? Libertarian party candidate? Socialist party candidate?

Excellent question, Marine! No, I did not consider a "third party" candidate. In my youth I tried that once... and if there was ever a time where I had "been duped"... that was it. Like it or not, America has a two party system. IMHO, any other vote is a wasted vote. In my youth, I thought there was such a thing as a "protest vote"... and I was wrong about that. A protest vote is just a losing vote.

No disrespect to any of these candidates, some of whom may have some good ideas. They just need to get those ideas picked up by one of the major parties.

And nice inclusion of the Socialist Party... but I am far from a socialist. There is plenty of room to the left of this board without coming anywhere near socialism

Even if what you say is true about America being a two party system, those parties have changed over the years. Is there something about the current DNC/GOP machine that appeals to you?

Indeed the parties HAVE changed over the years. And as they changed, I switched parties. There is nothing about the DNC/GOP machine I particularly like. I do think there is room for a third party... but it would have to be a serious well funded effort, covering the right set of values and issues that appeal to the most Americans. A fringe element would have too little appeal to be successful.

[VoiceOfReason]

What is it specifically?

There is something about a two-party system in general that appeals to me.

It provides a buffer from the extremist on both sides, and trends toward the middle.

I disagree. I think the two party system gives MORE voice to the extremists on both sides. I believe the majority of Americans reside in the political middle and are turned off by Tea Party extremists / prayer warriors on the right as well as the tax-and-spend, run-up-the-debt liberalism on the left.

How has the GOP provided a buffer from extremists when their own more moderate candidates are getting "primaried" out by the extremists in their own party?

[VoiceOfReason]

I heard that same exact thing throughout 2011 and 2012.

and 08 when she lost to Obama? Check out her numbers, only hard left nut jobs support her. Benghazi showed she can't handle that call at 3 am.

Had she been nominated in 2008, she would have won. She is a "Not-Republican"... she wins automatically when the majority of the country votes.

Nice qualifier. And that is precisely her problem.

I don't follow. Why is it a problem to be more popular as more of the voters are represented? Unless you are running for Congress in an off-year election...

[ip_law-hokie]

What is it specifically?

There is something about a two-party system in general that appeals to me.

It provides a buffer from the extremist on both sides, and trends toward the middle.

I disagree. I think the two party system gives MORE voice to the extremists on both sides. I believe the majority of Americans reside in the political middle and are turned off by Tea Party extremists / prayer warriors on the right as well as the tax-and-spend, run-up-the-debt liberalism on the left.

How has the GOP provided a buffer from extremists when their own more moderate candidates are getting "primaried" out by the extremists in their own party?

Those districts in which more moderate candidates have been primaried out have been redneck, extremist districts. Motivated by hate and racism, they are not representative of America, thankfully. Just little neck enclaves.

And in many the non-neck districts where the nut has won the primary, the general election went for the moderate candidate over the extremist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk