You have no substance, no standing and are off topic again. Maybe you should start your own thread. Preferably in Canada.
No. Buchanan will turn once he gets some power. He will go the far, far right. Dobbs would be surrounded by a hostile Congress, and since the people have a lot of bread, and even more circuses, they will not notice. My personal leaning fit that of Ghandi, so the last poly sci test told me. Ghandi managed to piss off just about everybody, because he was a nationalist, and a nationalist alone. The founding fathers had this same issue. Jefferson and Hamilton, as someone here pointed out, would have killed each other if left alone long enuf, but the they loved country more. I don't think that exists, now. Patriots today love country as long as it fits with their own personal view. libtards and teabaggers. Heads they win, tails I lose.
Honestly, I think your stance on things is, as they say, "lost in translation". i.e. many, many independents, Libertarians, etc are often mistakenly labelled as advocates for the "other" party simply because they voice their concerns over whatever hot button topic arises that week. The only solution is to ALWAYS preface your remarks as you've done above lest you be categorized as a part of the partisan mess and not the ultimate solution..i.e. both parties are tragically flawed and doomed to repeat these mistakes forever, unless/until their power bases are removed and viable candidates in the upcoming generations do a complete about shift (which is something I firmly believe WILL happen). It's a generational dynamic and the youth of today are getting shafted by a lowered standard of living, crushing debt burdens, and terrible job prospects. Meanwhile, they are eyeing many of the concerns you've listed above and realizing that it goes beyond the bickering two party garbage.
+1 Every other day, in the real world, I am a conservative or a liberal. Never a libertarian, I think that our populace does not understand the concept.
your analogy of the doctor and the budget is a faulty one. we can do one now, and the other after we do the first.
Ricter, give it a rest. you cannot draw a comparison like that with all the variables involved. sure, in theory if every single variable was the exact same, and the culture of the people was the exact same, etc. then yes. but no two countries are alike enough to fairly compare them. why do i have to explain this to you? did you skip your morning coffee?
no, regardless of who you were shellacking, you were previously at least coherent. now you rant off topic and i dont even read past the first two lines, because it's a mixture of Dennis Miller and Spike Lee.
And that lack of thoroughness my friend is the reason why, ultimately, this mentality that you a very few of your brethren share will only be known about in the history books that deign to give you space in their documents.
Actually what Tsing Tao said is 100% true. The reason why Captain Obvious seems like he went off the deepend is because he will walk into any discussion and turn it into "Republicans support welfare for rich bankers" he says it every single time like a broken record. The truth of the matter is that there isnt a single self respecting conservative out there who wanted the bank bailout, even though it got paid back. He seems to be stuck in the past, and since there is absiolutely nothing anyone can do to change the bank bailouts now it seems quite looney to sit and obsess over them, and try to change every single topic that comes up on ET into a vendetta against the banks/bankers. Especially given all the other problems going on in this country. Pay attention to Captain Obvious' posts, and see for yourself, he comes into every single thread no matter how far off topic and turns it into a vendetta against banks.