"Occupy" Protests

Finnforest wrote: Understood Robert, he's amazingly hot right now, but seriously, Obama has close to 45-50% range nailed down.  In what scenario could Paul get close when the Republican would be competing directly with him.  I do not believe Obama voters are going to woo'd by Paul enough to defect, esp when the "hope and change" trillion dollar ad blitz begins.

Well, you're right, and that's what's sad about it all.

Finnforest wrote: I agree, and if I honestly though Paul could pull from Obama to any significant degree I'd be more upbeat, but it's all going to come from the R.  Now, if people don't really care if Obama beats the R, then I understand voting Paul/3rd party completely.  I'm just speaking about those who believe there is a benefit to having O lose.  I suppose all of this is old hat and really boring.  And off-topic.   Thought we were in the other thread there.

Well, a lot can happen in a year.

I think it also has Guy Fawkes head candy pieces and weed-brownie chunks.

Finnforest wrote: Of course you bought the Playboy just for the political coverage, I understand.  I think I voted for Clinton that year, then switched to Nader for a while.  You're most correct about the other stuff on the ballot being important too, but I just can't see how people will ignore math on the presidential race.  What do you gain by high fiving over a small percentage when it helps put your opposition in power?  I respect Paul for going for the nomination and would be happy for him if he wins, but to run Indie in this election....wow, he would be literally handing it to Obama.  Pat and MoM are really gonna blast me, but that's how I feel.  I felt exactly as they did in 96/00, but I just don't anymore.

Paul has indicated that he will not run indie so it doesn't really matter.

That's how people stay in power. People are afraid to vote for anyone who would actually change anything because they're "unelectable". There is no opposition if Paul doesn't win the nomination. There's just defeat. If you're being attacked by two violent gangs, you can side with one of them and call yourself a winner all you want. You're still going to be a slave to the winning gang. Yeah there's some differences here and there, but they're just stylistic ones.

I won't admit defeat to act like a winner. 

Pat, understood, but do you really feel the Supreme Court picks are that unimportant, as a constitutionalist?   I would think you appreciate Bush for the justices he got in there.  Lifetime appointments seems like a bigger deal than you make it sound.  

Coolidge had been reluctant to choose Hoover as his successor; on one occasion he remarked that "for six years that man has given me unsolicited advice—all of it bad." -Taken from wikipedia of course. 

It's sad that people actually think that Hoover had a laissez-faire economic policy. The "Hoover Dam" is called just that for a reason.  

Edited by Dudemanguy - December 13 2011 at 17:27

Finnforest wrote: Pat, understood, but do you really feel the Supreme Court picks are that unimportant, as a constitutionalist?   I would think you appreciate Bush for the justices he got in there.  Lifetime appointments seems like a bigger deal than you make it sound.

The Supreme Court shows what a conflict of interests checks and balances really is.  The SC interprets a document that limits the power of the other two branches...who are responsible for nominating and installing new justices. 

....pull my finger

Slartibartfast wrote: Epignosis wrote: Finnforest wrote: Pat, understood, but do you really feel the Supreme Court picks are that unimportant, as a constitutionalist?   I would think you appreciate Bush for the justices he got in there.  Lifetime appointments seems like a bigger deal than you make it sound.   The Supreme Court shows what a conflict of interests checks and balances really is.  The SC interprets a document that limits the power of the other two branches...who are responsible for nominating and installing new justices.  Interesting, well perhaps the ability to remove justices by the other branches for ethical misconduct should be stronger.  But it only becomes a conflict of interest they are all dominated by one party and act in such a manner as to say, override the people and decide a presidential election.