mrdeltoid

Home at last!

255 posts in this topic

8 minutes ago, Rael said:

Yea, The Weekly Standard had a reporter embedded at the Libertarian convention. Quite the freak show. Sad really as it is a party philosphy (if not taken to extremes) that I could really get behind. 

Everything is relative. Yes, I have seen/heard/read about 'them'. And by mainstream standards ....yes ... some appear to be out there somewhere.

However I will say this; If you think about our Founding Fathers...is it reasonable to assume that people may have thought that they were out there also? Particularly in the British Empire?

As I said....it is all relative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Guido2 said:

Everything is relative. Yes, I have seen/heard/read about 'them'. And by mainstream standards ....yes ... some appear to be out there somewhere.

However I will say this; If you think about our Founding Fathers...is it reasonable to assume that people may have thought that they were out there also? Particularly in the British Empire?

As I said....it is all relative.

Wealthy slave and land owners that didn't want to pay taxes doesn't sound "out there".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Guido2 said:

OOOhhhhh ohhhhh.... that is what I read about in the paper when I first got to MD.

Bunch of guys hauled to jail for throwing milkshakes at each other at the Double T. ;)

So lets see that makes about ohhhhh 4 or 5 that are still in MD. I am including matt...he only recently moved and comes back frequently. :D

I think I will just accept this as my 'urban legend'. OK

 

I was born and bred in baltimore and except for a couple of years have spent all of my time in md.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ivanbalt said:

Wealthy slave and land owners that didn't want to pay taxes doesn't sound "out there".

No disagreement there. And I don't want to get into a historical debate...but don't you think things like 'no taxation without representation' were generated to get the unwashed on board....to the eventual benefit of the wealthy....in the form of manpower ie eventually the Continental Army and such?

Sort of kidding here....so you are saying that the 1%ers etc.....are now are version of 'Wealthy slave and land owners'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dr Johnny Fever said:

I was born and bred in baltimore and except for a couple of years have spent all of my time in md.

OK now we are up to 6 :lol: Thanks for the reply!

I guess I can sleep tonight. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Guido2 said:

No disagreement there. And I don't want to get into a historical debate...but don't you think things like 'no taxation without representation' were generated to get the unwashed on board....to the eventual benefit of the wealthy....in the form of manpower ie eventually the Continental Army and such?

Sort of kidding here....so you are saying that the 1%ers etc.....are now are version of 'Wealthy slave and land owners'?

In words, the founding fathers were radical.  In practice, not so much.

Those at the top manipulate the government to their benefit.  American and human nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ivanbalt said:

In words, the founding fathers were radical.  In practice, not so much.

Those at the top manipulate the government to their benefit.  American and human nature.

So in a roundabout way we agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Guido2 said:

So in a roundabout way we agree?

Afraid so.  B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ivanbalt said:

Afraid so.  B)

A grudging response....but I'll take it. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Rael said:

Been in Timonium/Parkville/Cockeysville for 51 of my 54 years. You are in fact quite wrong. Back in the day we used to get together in person and there were many local attendees.

I still own a home in the Hereford Zone and I am back most weekends and pay plenty of taxes in Maryland.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hst2 said:

Was your entire state represented in Congress by the party that lost the state's presidential election?

There is another interesting dynamic in play here. More and more corporations are moving from rural locations to urban ones. Cities are increasingly becoming where economic growth is happening, yet because Republican gerrymandering crams urban voters into decreasing numbers of districts, our government is increasingly run by representatives who have no contact with this growing, dynamic economy, except that their voters are on the losing end of it.

No, Just most of it.  

 

And just like you didn't care when I was Gerrymandered into Elijah E. Cummings and the Hereford Zone lost it's voice in DC I don't care.  If Maryland refuses to fix it's suppression of rural voters why should I care if urban voters in Ohio and PA get hosed? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, aboutwell said:

In the final result... yes... 

Which mean half the country's voters are losers in pretty much every presidential election. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

13 hours ago, aboutwell said:

In the final result... yes... 

I don't agree. A vote for a candidate with even a remotely reasonable chance to win is not a wasted vote. 

I feel a third party vote is a wasted vote because they almost ever have a reasonable chance to win. Hell, they never have a reasonable chance to win 15% of the vote in most cases. Utah was a rare case last year with 3 viable options. 

Edited by Heisenberg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Heisenberg said:

I don't agree. A vote for a candidate with even a remotely reasonable chance to win is not a wasted vote. 

I feel a third party vote is a wasted vote because they almost ever have a reasonable chance to win. Hell, they never have a reasonable chance to win 15% of the vote in most cases. Utah was a rare case last year with 3 viable options. 

I agree.  Voters that would have supported a decent Democratic candidate sent a clear message by voting against both Hillary and Trump.

The question is if the DNC will get it and offer some new blood in 2018 or will be get the same old insider retreads 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 hours ago, Guido2 said:

I am beginning to suspect the the greatest percentage of posters fall into the category you describe. In fact I am beginning to think that Bmore_ken and myself are just about the only ones that actually live in MD. Interesting.

There are several of us who live in Harford County which is in Maryland. :)

And I was born and raised in Baltimore City and have spent 62 of my 70 years living in Maryland.

Edited by mrsmlh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, demopublican said:

He was Bush's pawn and a lying scumbag 

I'd pretty much have to agree... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, demopublican said:

I agree.  Voters that would have supported a decent Democratic candidate sent a clear message by voting against both Hillary and Trump.

The question is if the DNC will get it and offer some new blood in 2018 or will be get the same old insider retreads 

With regard to the election results, the vote is "lost" or "wasted"... with regard to messages sent and Party building it is not... my work for the Clinton campaign last year was not "lost" or "wasted"... my vote on election day was... we only had "winners" and "losers" in the final results, you know... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, demopublican said:

No, Just most of it.  

 

And just like you didn't care when I was Gerrymandered into Elijah E. Cummings and the Hereford Zone lost it's voice in DC I don't care.  If Maryland refuses to fix it's suppression of rural voters why should I care if urban voters in Ohio and PA get hosed? 

To be fair, the Dems won 60% of the vote, they should only have 60% of the Congressional delegation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Just now, hst2 said:

To be fair, the Dems won 60% of the vote, they should only have 60% of the Congressional delegation.

That is not how election laws are written.  

 

And fair has nothing to do with it.  What is this?  Kindergarten? 

Edited by demopublican

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, flyboy56 said:

But certainly you want to vote for the party your views are more closely aligned even if it is not the D or the R. Like Cub fans, you have to keep the faith.

I agree... as long as the candidate abides by those Party views... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bmore_ken said:

Which mean half the country's voters are losers in pretty much every presidential election. 

Have been for years... sometimes up to as much as 60% of them... 

Presidential elections have only winners and losers... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, aboutwell said:

With regard to the election results, the vote is "lost" or "wasted"... with regard to messages sent and Party building it is not... my work for the Clinton campaign last year was not "lost" or "wasted"... my vote on election day was... we only had "winners" and "losers" in the final results, you know... 

Good for you for getting out and working on a campaign. I just wish the DNC had found a candidate with less baggage or that she had run a more aggressive campaign. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, demopublican said:

Good for you for getting out and working on a campaign. I just wish the DNC had found a candidate with less baggage or that she had run a more aggressive campaign. 

Her big problem is that she's just not a very good politician but by all accounts she's a very nice person. As a candidate she sucks.  Her best bet would have been to fire all the supposed experts telling her what to do and say and just be herself.  But, like most of the old school politicians, she was hell-bent on having "experts" manage both her and her campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

31 minutes ago, banner1124 said:

Her big problem is that she's just not a very good politician but by all accounts she's a very nice person. As a candidate she sucks.  Her best bet would have been to fire all the supposed experts telling her what to do and say and just be herself.  But, like most of the old school politicians, she was hell-bent on having "experts" manage both her and her campaign.

One of those "experts" was her husband and "the most gifted politician of our generation.":lol:

You would think he would have done better by hil.:(

Hillary and the dems believed their own propaganda-that's what cost her the election.

Edited by Dr Johnny Fever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dr Johnny Fever said:

One of those "experts" was her husband and "the most gifted politician of our generation.":lol:

You would think he would have done better by hil.:(

I doubt very seriously that Bill was instructing her on what to wear, what to say, etc. etc.  She had people for that and none of them were Bill.  About the only thing Bill could have taught her is something that simply cannot be taught.  It's a gift she simply doesn't have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now