In all seriousness the the question is How.....Do we not vote at all? Do we write in what we see as acceptable?

The parties keep propping up these HorseChit candidates and we end up having to vote for one of them......or don't vote at all....which to me is fundamenally wrong.

And if we don't vote, we still get stuck with one of them. It's a lose lose situation. It's too bad all the best and brightest people go into human resources and stay out of politics.

The Best and brightest are too smart to run for public office......Its an Idiots Folly

Perfect example of how much a media and the parties play a roll is Ron Paul. He is not a fringe candidate this election and has a very broad supporting base. However, he is ignored by the media and his own party because he goes against the corrupt, pathetic, Corporate-whore mold.

So true. The media and the political parties follow the safer "corrupt, pathetic, Corporate-whore mold" of winning by supposedly superior marketing rather than by adherence to principles. Yeah, they pretend and make a good show of principled behavior, but it's, at bottom, a dog-eat-dog war of winning or losing.

The media has learned that Ron Paul is "interesting" and in small bites can garner a spike in viewers or readers. So they'll give him occasional looks, but never too seriously. He's too dangerous to seriously analyze, and to be given "equal time" with the really serious run-of-the-mill politicians who are safely ensconced in the "corrupt, pathetic, Corporate-whore mold." He's (hush, hush) a "Constitutionalist"--one of those antiquated curmudgeons that think the Federal Government should be bound by Constitutional limitations--and a few other "controversial" ideas about the Federal Reserve and so on. It is obvious that the Constitution is "outdated" and basically irrelevant to "modern times." So the media will not objectively (not possible) involve itself with serious discussions about the relevance of the Constitution. It will occasionally give credence to some new exposition of how it doesn't meet our current needs. We are, after all, so different than humans were 200-300 years ago. We certainly don't need individual liberty so much as we need government to guide us through the complex maze of modern life. There are too many of us to be allowed to roam about the landscape at will. We need constant watching to prevent doing harm to one another, and we need constant help to manage the few years we inhabit the public space so that we don't mess it up too badly and so we don't fail too badly which would make us even more of a burden on "society." So Ron Paul is prudently marginalized. The Tea Party is as well. They too are outside the whorish corporate mold.

I think Ron Paul gets MSM attention because he's a novelty of sorts, in that he's consistently about the only elected Republican willing to speak his mind and present views contrary to the GOP talking points. Nothing like Ron Paul to go on a tirade about the Iraq war in a room full of Republicans.

I think his running is mostly to continue to inject his message into the dialogue. He certainly has a small but dedicated base, and when bussed in can even almost win a straw poll. It's amazing that Bachmann beat him by a narrow margin considering the lengths she went to get votes.

While he's a bit outside of the mainstream, Paul should certainly get some props for consistency, non-conformance and while I don't agree with some of his views an understanding for the substance of issues.

-spence

wow...an "outside the mainstream constitutionalist"...tell me...who is the constitutionalist on the democrat side?

Obama...right Spence?

Bachmann: I'll bring back $2 gas - Aug. 18, 2011

THAT'S HER CAMPAIGN? :rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

yea that ought to solve everyones problems. :rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

Not to mention that it's completely impossible. Just goes to show how disconnected from reality the woman is. Unless she means $2.99/gal.

According to the GasBuddy gasoline price tracking web site, the price of a gallon of regular gas was around $1.79 when Mr. Obama took office.

1.81 actually :uhuh:

Michele Bachmann Promises $2 Gas: Why That's a Fantasy - Ecocentric - TIME.com

You should take a macro economics class or two. I wouldn't expect you to understand why $2/gal gas is virtually impossible in the short-term, but someone running for president should have a clue.

Well I'm stumped... teach me JD.

look two posts up

I'd mention the timeline of the massive recession but you guys would accuse me of that "context" thing again.

Perhaps Bachmann is actually promising another big recession?

-spence

Why,, none of them have that as a qualification...

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lq...unibo1_500.jpg
Sadly, this applies to most elected officials though...

"I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment (OBAMA'S ELECTION) when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth."

funny, the same knuckleheads that lapped up and voted for this crap can't wait to jump on Bachmann with both feet :uhuh:

noone takes you seriously anymore, so go right ahead....:)

Like economics, you seem to have trouble understanding what it means when someone says neither candidate was a good choice but they chose the lesser of two evils.

For someone who doesn't take me seriously you sure spend a lot of time plotting your cut and paste.

-spence

MOST EXCELLENT. Maybe JohnR can make that his avatar :rotf2:

"The only way we can try to reduce the price of gas effectively — or at least, shield Americans from the economic burden of high prices — is through more fuel-efficient cars,"

I didn't see this coming:rotf2:

Would it start with the booming economy Bush inherited?

I don't think this recession is solved there Spence...I'm pretty sure your guy has us heading into a deeper recession..

Ya mean like the example our President just set by using 41 vechicles including SUVs , big cars and a new million + dollar bus he used on his trip last week?

Wonder if he'll use the taxpayers 1 + million $$ bus for his 2012
campaign? Something like FDR's private train car as they drove across
the nation with him waving from the back of the train?.

He will. Along with the Republican nominee, Vice President and Speaker of the house.

I agree with the gist of your comment with the caveat that most officials may have read the Constitution, but may not have understood it. Not that it is hard to understand, but that they have accepted its current distortion.

The picture, though telling of current congressional ignorance of the Constitution, is obviously political in that it's Bachman's face rather than a group picture of Congress, the POTUS, and the SCOTUS. She may have made a gaff or two about the Constitution, but she seems to have a deeper understanding of it and its original intent than most. One supposed gaff was her questioning of Geithner wanting to know where in the Constitution he and the Federal Reserve had the power to act as they had the past two years. He said that the power was granted by Congress. Sounds reasonable? This was supposed, by her critics, to show her ignorance of the Constitution. Actually, nowhere in the Constitution is Congress allowed to delegate its powers to autonomous, unaccountable, independant agencies. This also applies to the myriad of independant regulatory agencies created by Congress--EPA, FDA, etc.. They are units of government having self-contained legislative, executive, and judicial powers. Little agencies of tyranny with no accountability. Congress can, blamelessy, have unpopular legislation and regulation passed by these agencies. The Constitution gives Congress specified powers of legislation and regulation for which it will be responsible and answer to at election time. It does not give Congress the power to bypass that responsibility by delegating it to another unelected agency which is not accountable to the people.

Ya JD, but who do think paid for his bus?
Him, or you and I ?

What's a million + $$$ right?
That thing has to be armored so take a
guess of mpg and carbon Boot print.

You haven't read up about the bus at all, have you? The Secret Service has historically leased buses, installed reinforcement, installed security systems and communication systems and then, when the lease is up, they have to strip it all out.

These buses aren't a new concept within their protection system. The difference is now that they own the cow, instead of buying the milk. In the long term, I'd bet that it will provide a net-savings.

:rotf2::rotf2: and help put Americans back to work!!...Oh wait.."made in Canada"

I didn't say that you weren't amusing and in constant need of correction..just impossible to take seriously with your constant distortions of reality :uhuh:

As it stays in some garage until he takes it on his next campaign trip?

Michele should have taken it to the vineyard.

If it's a distortion why correct it?

-spence

I thought these were to be used by the SS when protecting anyone, the assumption is that Republican officials and candidates will be included as well.

It seems like the SS has made a long-term cost effective decision that's a better use of taxpayer money.

-spence

Bush inherited an economy slipping into a recession as the tech bubble burst, but even with 9/11 nothing like the credit bubble in 2008.

The thing is, people believe the President has way more influence over this stuff than they really do. The major economic trends are driven by larger factors than US policy, we may influence, but don't dictate.

-spence

huh? I'm sure that you'd love to have all of your distortions and spin stand without correction or challenge...

If that's the case, we need to have the SS make the decisions for our budget and spending.

Oh thats right, we don't have a budget.

Scott, it's been several years...I'm just waiting for a decent retort.

-spence