The Bible and Love and Christians

[CensoredAlso]

Youre right about people after the presidency. Jimmy Carter for instance to me is probably one of the only ex presidents I consider to be a true Christian, as witnessed in his words and deeds since leaving office. Everyone hates Carter but unlike the Bush crook family, Nixon, etc I think he was/is a genuinely good person. So I think Dr Tooth is right about presidents maybe being able to be more philanthropist types after the presidency

Oh I agree, Carter ended up being much more successful as an Ex-President. There are lots of other ways to help the country besides politics.

 

[Drtooth]

Youre right about people after the presidency. Jimmy Carter for instance to me is probably one of the only ex presidents I consider to be a true Christian, as witnessed in his words and deeds since leaving office. Everyone hates Carter but unlike the Bush crook family, Nixon, etc I think he was/is a genuinely good person. So I think Dr Tooth is right about presidents maybe being able to be more philanthropist types after the presidency

I'm just frightened halfway to Hades of that Michelle Bachman psycho, though... so, yeah... The O-man has the potential to do some great philanthropic things, but I kinda want him to stick around 4 more years ONLY because the opposing party has a LOT of scary, creepy, crazy people on their side.

That and what Romney did to Massachusetts was a crime. The crummy health care plan he gave us was alright... but other than that, he blew all the rainy day money. And the ads that his puppet woman successor ran back in 2004 while he was ditching the state to run for president.

 

[CensoredAlso]

I'm just frightened halfway to Hades of that Michelle Bachman psycho, though

I seriously doubt right now that she'd win. Some people like her but she doesn't have enough clout or substance.

but I kinda want him to stick around 4 more years ONLY because the opposing party has a LOT of scary, creepy, crazy people on their side.

So you want him to continue to do a less than mediocre job during a job recession? Do you really think things will be any different under the Democrats, compared to the Republicans? And if not, then why are we still voting for EITHER party?

Things will never change in this country as long as we keep voting for one bad party just to spite the other bad party, and then vice versa. It's insane. They're both hurting us. Neither is helping.

 

[Drtooth]

I seriously doubt right now that she'd win. Some people like her but she doesn't have enough clout or substance.

Never say never... she is a VERY scary political candidate. She is way too extreme for this country, she's way too extreme for a dictatorship. And worst of all, I can NOT abide Libertarian "Everyone for themselves so I can hug my bag of money" views. They kinda don't like public education... the extreme ones do.

So you want him to continue to do a less than mediocre job during a job recession? Do you really think things will be any different under the Democrats, compared to the Republicans? And if not, then why are we still voting for EITHER party?

Hey, less than Mediocre is all I was hoping for. That's the problem with the "recession." the economy is actually REALLY REALLY good, but that's because the wealthy still control all the money. THEY are the ones refusing to create American jobs. I mean, seriously... does anyone expect a politician to wave a magic wand and get Best Buy to hire everyone in a 3 mile radius? Can they get Starbucks to hire people that aren't friends of the people who work there? No.

Here's why we're in a recession... companies, CEO's and stock holders ONLY care about short term gains. They don't care about the long term losses that crush them and the entire country. It's been that way since the 80's with Reagan era deregulation and the non-stop corporate tax breaks and handouts. The economy is ONLY good because the rich have more money. Technically, we've been in a recession since the 80's by that account.

But above all, everyone on the right scares the crap out of me right now, since they had to go even further right than ever before so they can appeal to kooks that make up stories about birth certificates, death pannels and Elvis's alien clone being a member of the socialist mutant ninja frogs or something.

I'd LOVE to say, "YAY! Unelectable third party" and then whine that someone I REALLY don't like vs someone I don't care for is running things (like everyone I know who voted for Nader and cried about Bush)... If we ever want a third party (and to say they're incorruptible is a lie and everyone knows it.... politics IS corruption no matter who or what), we need an ORGANIZED unified middle man party... not these weirdo extreme leftists and libertarians and rich guys with money and too much time on their hands.

 

[CensoredAlso]

I'd LOVE to say, "YAY! Unelectable third party"

If more people would stand up for their right not to have to vote between two losers, these third parties wouldn't be so unelectable down the line.

But instead we keep settling for Loser #1 or Loser #2, and then wonder why nothing's getting better.

Everytime we vote for either of them, we're basically saying we don't want things to change. The results are our own fault...

 

[frogboy4]

If more people would stand up for their right not to have to vote between two losers, these third parties wouldn't be so unelectable down the line.

But instead we keep settling for Loser #1 or Loser #2, and then wonder why nothing's getting better.

Everytime we vote for either of them, we're basically saying we don't want things to change. The results are our own fault...

It would likely take a generation of messy election cycles to achieve what you're saying. Even if we had a flood of independent candidates, it would still spoil the vote for the lesser of the two party evils and we'd get the greatest partisan evil for a while. What you're saying can be done, but you've got to be prepared for how messy it will get and how long it would stay that way. That's the reality of it. And even then, these independents would still be funded by special interest groups. There's no way around that, so I'm not sure it really would be all that different. I do like what you're saying.

 

[Drtooth]

It would likely take a generation of messy election cycles to achieve what you're saying. Even if we had a flood of independent candidates, it would still spoil the vote for the lesser of the two party evils and we'd get the greatest partisan evil for a while. What you're saying can be done, but you've got to be prepared for how messy it will get and how long it would stay that way. That's the reality of it. And even then, these independents would still be funded by special interest groups. There's no way around that, so I'm not sure it really would be all that different. I do like what you're saying.

AND there's too many of them AND they're disorganized. It took generations to get into the trap and generations to get out. To even get a third party, we'd need to have ONE uniform third party. What do we have? Third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth parties, none of them middle of the road, more special interest than the special interests.

It's ALL no win.

Third party idealism isn't a bad thing, but there are just too many dark realities when it comes to politics.

 

[frogboy4]

AND there's too many of them AND they're disorganized. It took generations to get into the trap and generations to get out. To even get a third party, we'd need to have ONE uniform third party. What do we have? Third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth parties, none of them middle of the road, more special interest than the special interests.

It's ALL no win.

Third party idealism isn't a bad thing, but there are just too many dark realities when it comes to politics.

It's kind of an unfortunate law of human nature to be a "joiner". It probably wouldn't take long for the middle-of-the-road candidates to create their own party or pair-off with an existing one.

 

[beaker]

Is Michelle Bachman the one that had to spend time and money to make a tv ad proclaiming "she's not a witch"? This is why most of America laughs at so much of *other* America as uneducated hee haws who listen to Glenn Beck. Thinking someone is a "witch", or that Obama somehow went back in time and changed his newspaper birth announcement and fudged his birth certificate...or that somehow hes been a secret commie Islamist member this whole time. Or that massive climate change isnt happening. Or that Obamacare would "kill grannies".

This is why a lot of people think most of conservative America are idiots. Claiming they want "small government, end to wasteful spending" yet signed off on Bush's massive Orwellian government/massive wasteful spending agenda for 8 years.

I'm not too big a fan of Obama, but given the eye rollingly lame and uncharasmatic current crop of 2012 contenders for the GOP, they might as well hand Obama the second term right now.

 

[CensoredAlso]

It would likely take a generation of messy election cycles to achieve what you're saying. Even if we had a flood of independent candidates, it would still spoil the vote for the lesser of the two party evils and we'd get the greatest partisan evil for a while. What you're saying can be done, but you've got to be prepared for how messy it will get and how long it would stay that way. That's the reality of it. And even then, these independents would still be funded by special interest groups. There's no way around that, so I'm not sure it really would be all that different. I do like what you're saying.

You're right, it would be messy and it would likely take years. Absolutely. Interestingly, our country's government was founded in much the same manner, lol.