It isn't so much the way replies are ignored, it's the way seven post later the denial comes that any replies or refutations were made at all.
But she's right. If she wants to use this thread to thpe the exact same thing over a hundred times, why should we flame her for it?
Oh, well. With a slightly later join date but more posts, and having also voted for Ron in '88, I presume I have your blessing too. Thank you very much.
But, especially now that both parties are openly betraying their bases, I submit that it's logical for the whole country to vote third party. Or, at least, those who aren't bureaucrats, arms dealers, major bankers, pharmaceutical drug pushers, and others who are allowed to rob us blind in exchange for bribes to the major party politicians. And provided that third party wasn't set up by Billy Kristol.
I'd rather this site be free of commercial messages for that non-sponsor of this site. And free of clickbait for that site, as I am obviously not going to outbid Trump for Rockwell's expensive affection.
Why is Rockwell promoting the two party system, and why are we being spammed with it? Just to ensure we stay away from Lew and refuse to give him clicks?
Isn't it past time for him to change the name to breitwell.com or lewrockbart?
Impeaching a witness is always relevant. The case is made. The only thing left to do is to decide if the continuing objections have merit. And since you appear to be the sole source of continuing objections...
Oh, come now. Why should liberals have a monopoly on professional victimhood? That wouldn't be fair at all.
How is that possible? He has taken both sides of most issues. There are issues on which he has taken more than two sides. He's even more of a smorgasbord than Romney was.
You should agree with him almost half the time. I don't know how you avoid it.
Except in the tax code and in the way government allows insurance companies to cover one kind of 'spouse' but not the other.
The socons are learning what the libertarians tried and tried to tell them for decades--that when you use government to encourage one kind of behavior, you set a precedent that allows a future iteration of the government to encourage another kind of behavior. But they didn't listen to us, and now they're learning the hard way.
Is it wrong of us to say we told them so?
It won't be long before there's enough contradictory material for a long and hilarious video. Title it The Bipartisan Trump: The Universal Candidate Too Yuge For Positions
Or better still: The Trumponome!
Really? But he says he's not for guns in classrooms twice, and he says he's for guns in classrooms once. So, if you poll only Donald Trump, it appears on that day Donald Trump is against guns in classrooms by a two to one vote. Yet despite the fact that a two to one vote is overwhelming, you come out saying that for guns in classrooms won.
We can tell you aren't a Democrat, or you'd believe his democratically-elected position. Obviously you think the side of his mouth that said he's for guns in the classroom--once--is the side of his mouth that will be elected and made the Official Side of His Mouth.
I guess Trump has the best words because you can choose whatever words of his you think are best.
Well, both a flip and a flop in one paragraph is pretty impressive. But I won't be completely blown away until he stands firmly on both sides of a single issue within the breadth of a single sentence--and makes LE like it.
Just thought I'd bump this thread, so someone can say she thinks he flunks nearly as badly as her candidate for the seventeenth time. Because God for bid she not get the last word.
If we decide Johnson's a liberty candidate, are we (as we have been accused of) grading on a curve? Is he a non-liberty candidate who just looks like one because the rest of the field is such a pair of tyrants? I don't think so, myself. But if desperate times really do call for desperate measures, does it matter?
You keep saying that and keep saying that and keep saying that. But when asked how, you only say,
Step One: Circus
Step Two: ?
Step Three: Liberty
How many times are you going to spam us with Circus ? Liberty Circus ? Liberty Circus ? Liberty before you figure out we heard that?
Tongue is high in saturated fat, heart is high in nutrients. Then you also have the liver, kidneys, brain, eyeballs, cheek, and fatty parts all went first. Sometimes lean muscle meat was discarded if there was a lack of scarcity.
A lot of people have spent a lot of time fighting for this cause and that cause. And I have seen most of them choose not to support someone who gives nuanced answers to what he or she will do about them, in favor of someone who categorically says he or she will fix it and categorically lied about that. Kind of like a couple of Bushes and abortion. And each time, I would say, can't you see they're lying? And they would say, I don't care, I'm going to send a message!
And every one of those problems are still problems.
No, actually I said both positive things and negatives things. But I'm sure it felt like one big commercial message to you, considering how much of your spin I un-spun along the way.
You seem awfully damned sure the LP will steal more disgusted Republicans who refuse to march in lockstep than disaffected Sanders Democrats.
You're the only person who's sure of that. Or are you really just afraid the LP will win?
I remember a time when someone taking nuanced policy positions and trying to reduce them to big, broad, black-and-white brush strokes for propaganda purposes would lead you to call that someone various colorful names.
If I were to call you those same colorful names, would you rush to waste the mods' time by tattling on me?
It's the sort of plan that wouldn't appeal to someone too stupid to see the value of forcing a brokered convention.
Who was it? You tell us.
Is this why you were asking if some hypothetical person is stupid? Was that a 'When did you stop beating your wife' question?