Dems place 'spoiler' candidate in Tea party..
 

I mean cmon really?

Smacks of underhanded desperation.

Even I am supprised at this.

http://www.courierpostonline.com/art...iler-candidate

That's been a tactic for years, from both R's and D's. Runyan's problems stem from the fact that he has run a poor campaign.

So you were just as outraged when Republicans recruited homeless people to run as Greens in AZ in order to hurt Democrats, right?

You saw it as underhanded desperation then too, right?

You were just as surprised then, right?

Let us not forget the Mysterious Campaign of Alvin Greene!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Greene

You trying to say that Democrats are too stupid to know who they're voting for in their own primary? :DL

http://www.reoiv.com/images/random/strawman.jpg

(and I didn't even mount an argument)

Then that doesn't really apply does it?

Don't confuse him. Without a party line to spout he's pretty much lost... :)

I keep waiting for the day when some of you finally acknowledge that both parties are just one side of the same scummy coin pulled from the bottom of a septic tank. Heads or tails, it's still gonna stink like ****.

All crap like that bothers me. A few years back, Dems were handing out cigarettes to the homeless to get them to the polls here in Milwaukee.

All of those dirty tactics should be considered outrageous by all, and the people who perpetuate them should be scorned by the more serious candidates.

Agreed. Just pointing out the hypocrisy, that's all.

Well, I could try to explain, but you're from Texas, so you probably wouldn't understand even if I DID use single syllable words.

Don't put words in my mouth.

(Gosh, if only there were a concept which could describe what you just did!!!)

That's just rude.

You're just saying that in a desperatly pathetic (pathetically desperate?) attempt to blind me to your party affiliation. Such underhanded subterfuge won't work on me! I don't belong to a party or take sides, but your side is a bunch of moronic losers!

Which side are you on, anyway? :O::D

http://positiveimperative.com/wp-con...nce_lg_wht.gif
How do you pick which side of the coin you like when both of them are covered in filth and stink so bad they could melt the varnish off a foot locker? I'd just as soon do away with the barnyard and circus animals altogether.

:yep:

There are folks on both sides who will gladly accuse you of that. I feel one way on some subjects and another way on others, and I wonder about anyone who takes any full party line. But people who are so far to one side or the other that all they can do is throw mud at anyone not like themselves?

They have nothing real to say, but they insist on saying it anyway.

Indeed, well said.

Some people simply prefer for their thinking to be done on their behalf rather than having to stress themselves into approaching anything resembling a well thought-out conclusion. To me no one is more of an idiot than the single-issue voter, who for instance, believes in a so-called "pro-choice" philosophy and has subsequently relegated all of their political beliefs to be in line with that singular, strong opinion. (That was just an example.)

While I'm fairly certain I'm not as jaded with our political process as Ducimus, I must admit to some measure of incredulity. However, it's far more directed at the voters than the politicians.

In my opinion, to hate the politicians for their pandering ways is silly and distracts from the real problem - the voters. You can piss and moan all you want that the politicians try to say only what we want to hear, but you can't escape the fact that they only do so because we actually want to hear them do it.

This is why I see this election as so remarkable - I can't remember social issues being so irrelevent. I think the voter may actually be waking up from the practice of "tell me what I want to hear", at least in some small part. Considering the "purple" nature of most demographics (save perhaps the blacks who almost unanimously support Obama) even a small move towards prioritizing national sustainability and solvency issues over social issues seems to be progressive.

Conservatives have long had the black eye of some rather exclusionary social ideologies which have served to negate the inherent attractiveness of fiscally conservative policy. For the first time in my lifetime, I see those who are concerned with financial policy all but ignoring the convergent realities of the social typifications which go hand in hand with said policy.

Maybe for once people are starting to realize that their beliefs on, say, gay marriage matters little if they have no job and therefore no true means to promote that social opinion.

The bottom line is that I'm encouraged - social policy is merely about a consensus reaching new paradigms. Fiscal policy is about allowing people to be in a position in debating such issues in the first place. Finally it seems that people are waking up and focusing on the latter rather than throwing away their votes on the former despite the fact that such a vote in practicality changes nothing.

Like people who swallow crap from a crazy radio host that makes no sense and still insisists its true long after most of the partisan hacks and the politicians have had to stand up and say oooopps we was wrong about that line as it was taken out of context:yeah:

Aaand, he immediately shows his one-sided "mine is better than yours" political jive, again not recognizing that he is exactly the same as the people he laughs at. :dead: