http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2010-01/coakley-quayle2.jpg

I take it you dont like Brown being exposed as a far rightwinger?Have to say Coakley is no prize either,its a very close race and I dont like either one of them!

I take it you dont like Brown being exposed as a far rightwinger?Have to say Coakley is no prize either,its a very close race and I dont like either one of them!

He is only a "far right-winger" from a far left point of view. If you look at where polls consistently show this country to be, ideologically, he is not that far right...

I take it you dont like Brown being exposed as a far rightwinger?Have to say Coakley is no prize either,its a very close race and I dont like either one of them!
He's pro-choice.

Thats not what Coakleys is saying,but streching the truth and deceit is what a lawyer does best.This race is going to be close and for the first time in years I think my vote will count,its good to be an independent and not have a blind allegiance to any one party!!

Thats not what Coakleys is saying,but streching the truth and deceit is what a lawyer does best.This race is going to be close and for the first time in years I think my vote will count,its good to be an independent and not have a blind allegiance to any one party!!

Oh great. Another fence sitter.

I'm sure you're so much more enlightened than the rest of us "right-wingers". :rolleyes:

There is no way as an 'independent' you are voting for Brown so quit pretending you are an independent.

Just fess up. You are a Massachusetts liberal and be happy with yourself. Maybe Martha can protect "teddy's seat" for you.

To call out Brown for being a right-winger is a joke.

its good to be an independent and not have a blind allegiance to any one party!!What are you talking about? :confused:

What are you talking about? :confused:

He doesn't know....

He is only a "far right-winger" from a far left point of view. If you look at where polls consistently show this country to be, ideologically, he is not that far right...

+1
From his web site (http://www.brownforussenate.com/issues).

Abortion
While this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor

Marriage
I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. States should be free to make their own laws in this area

Oh great. Another fence sitter.

I'm sure you're so much more enlightened than the rest of us "right-wingers". :rolleyes:

There is no way as an 'independent' you are voting for Brown so quit pretending you are an independent.

Just fess up. You are a Massachusetts liberal and be happy with yourself. Maybe Martha can protect "teddy's seat" for you.

To call out Brown for being a right-winger is a joke.


yup, you must know me pretty good. for the record I did not vote for Deval Patrick or Obama!!

[QUOTE=fossten;616681]What are you talking about? :confused:[/QUOTE

I am talking about people that vote someone in just because they are a democrat or republican or voting for someone because they are black or a woman

Thats not what Coakleys is saying,but streching the truth and deceit is what a lawyer does best.This race is going to be close and for the first time in years I think my vote will count,its good to be an independent and not have a blind allegiance to any one party!!

The view you seem to be expressing here can be just as blindly dogmatic as you assume either side is when you talk about a "blind allegiance". To simply ASSUME, a priori that the truth lies somewhere in between the two ideologies is exceedingly irrational and dogmatic.

I would even go so far as to say it is more irrational then holding that same view on either end of the ideological spectrum, because at least from a philosophical point of view, the two ends of the ideological spectrum are intellectually consistent. However, being in the middle is grasping at an ultimately non-existent "middle ground" between the two competing worldviews.

+1
From his web site (http://www.brownforussenate.com/issues).

You agree with me?! Well, that means I have to change my position.! :p :p

I am talking about people that vote someone in just because they are a democrat or republican or voting for someone because they are black or a womanWho here has professed to having done that? Unless you're making a comparison, it means you're just openly boasting about being an Independent. If that's the case, my response is, so what?

What I am saying is, she is twisting the truth.One smear is that Brown is against giving contraceptive to a rape victims.The truth is that Brown supports a Catholic hospitals right not to go against its religious beliefs and dispense such products.
Why should I be locked into voting for someone based on his/her party? If someone has a good idea and a plan why should I vote against it because it did not come from my party?.I think we need a 3rd party, something in-between praise god and pass the ammo on one side and lets create a welfare nation on the other, only my 2cents worth.

Why should I be locked into voting for someone based on his/her party?

Why not view a party affiliation as an indication of that person's worldview, their principles, what they think the role of government is, etc?

I think we need a 3rd party, something in-between praise god and pass the ammo on one side and lets create a welfare nation on the other, only my 2cents worth.

There can be no serious third party because there is no real middle ground, ideologically. If you try and create one, then it is intellectually inconsistent and it's policy prescriptions are self-defeating...

[QUOTE=shagdrum;617631]Why not view a party affiliation as an indication of that person's worldview, their principles, what they think the role of government is, etc?





There can be no serious third party because there is no real middle ground, ideologically. If you try and create one, then it is intellectually inconsistent and it's policy prescriptions are self-defeating...[/QUOTE

Good answers, you got me thinking !!!!:eek:


So is a 2 party system self defeating? Unless one party becomes a majority in both the house and senate they have their hands tied and cant get anything done?

So is a 2 party system self defeating? Unless one party becomes a majority in both the house and senate they have their hands tied and cant get anything done?

You make it sound like a bad thing when government doesn't do anything.
It's SUPPOSED to be slow and deliberative. When that happens, it prevents emotional legislation and "just do something" governing.

You make it sound like a bad thing when government doesn't do anything.
It's SUPPOSED to be slow and deliberative. When that happens, it prevents emotional legislation and "just do something" governing.

Point well taken,! .I know there is no simple solution to todays problems and whatever the plan is, somebody somewhere is not going to like it.

Point well taken,! .I know there is no simple solution to todays problems and whatever the plan is, somebody somewhere is not going to like it.Heh, that said - if you want to form a 3rd party that attracts Democrat voters, I'm all for it. :D

Point well taken,! .I know there is no simple solution to todays problems and whatever the plan is, somebody somewhere is not going to like it.

But it's also important to recognize the federal government has very limited powers in our lives. So, the vast majority of the time, the federal government is getting involved in problems that it really has no constitutional right to involve itself.