Imawhosure

Well Mr Napfirst, I can prove I never worked in Indy, although I am not sure how. In the world according to LH, I must have done something terrible there to be remembered. I don't know if I should take credit for such a thing even if I was nowhere near, or laugh at the secret squirrel as he thinks he has me pegged in some facility he believed I worked at. To be honest LH is a very big ASSet to this board. Why? Because we all know he is highly intelligent, (at least I think he is) and yet his intelligence doesn't stop him from getting it bassackwards. He is like the Hollyweird elite, who are holier than thou because they look good. (even though we can't confirm or deny if LH looks good as of yet) If someone looks good, we are supposed to believe them as they fly around in private planes, even as they tell us the whole problem is global warming. Don't do as I do, do as I say. The rhetorical refrain of true socialists. I suppose they are above us. LH is probably really a good guy, and I seriously think that. He is just a weak minded person who has been convinced by these shang-ri-la people, and actually believes it can be achieved. Feel sorry for him, and have pity upon him. Sooner or later, the light bulb will go on. It may take until he is 35, or maybe 40, but go on it will. At that time, he will become a vociferous advocate of conservatism, of this, I have no doubt. Why? Because he is far from stupid, he is just misguided; which is really ok. He is one of the last of progressives (along with Spaniard) to defend there ideas on here, the rest have run away as they have seen failure, and do not want to be tied to it. Failure will eventually make them advocates of reality. They continue to spin the failures faster than Beannie and Cecil hats, but can't escape truth. Makes no difference, the light will come on.......hopefully sooner than later. We should take no satisfaction in being correct. Our method is certainly not a method that promotes love, kindness, and understanding. Being right makes us nothing more than being correct, not loving. Hey they will fight a while longer, but rest assured they will capitulate, unless they want to lie through their pearly white teeth.........which I doubt, since they are both wanting to be on the correct side of things. Carry on Napfirst, and you also enjoy your day. Free thinking without intrusion from the workplace does have its rewards; namely being ahead of the curve of those who will follow behind us.

It is honestly unfortunate for all Ford employees that everyone did not see the Camry as you did. It is also very unfortunate for Conservatives that politics were not seen the way you did in (not so much 2008.....but 2012 for sure) and will they be seen that way in the future! Camry is a post toasty if anyone is paying attention to the ratings in 2014. So are the progressives. Are you suggesting we pick the best of one, but pick the also ran of the other? For some reason. I didn't think so.

Well my friend Napfirst..............there are people on here who know what facility I have worked in, Mr Cap for one, and I think if I remember correctly, you do too. If you do, please inform Langston that he is barking up the wrong tree. I am really tired of people tying me to ideas that have absolutely nothing to do with me. Personally, I am kinda like you, a free thinker, who doesn't tie themselves to a political party. I never suggested for an instant that democrats are a bunch of dummies with unusable ideas, just the ones in power. You are retired, aren't you Napfirst? I suppose these young progressives who know everything would like us both to go to Florida and just retire. Maybe they are correct. Maybe we should use the meager wealth we have created, and leave the country to these young, no it all, whippersnappers. Of course, if we do this, we have abandonded our children, grandchildren, and the next generation. Somehow, I do not think our forefathers would have supported us doing this. They may yet win the day, but at least those we leave behind will not curse us for doing absolutely nothing, as future freedoms were stripped away.

Let us not make this thread about us Langston, but rather about what it is supposed to be. With that being said, I will give you a few tidbits....... 1. I did not work in Indy, never worked in Indy, so whomever your source is happens to be wrong. So whatever you think I did there is bogus, as I have never been in Indy, just driven through it. 2. Why I spell it Keynisian Koolaiders is simple............ it has more syllables. I could have spelled it correctly, but then it wouldn't sound as good as it does. 3. Attacking you is not my main objective at all. In fact, you might be a pretty decent guy as far as I know. I know you have a wealth of information, and that is certainly not bad. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Back to the thread-) A. Variables. Variables? No solution is the exact solution for every problem, economic or not. The difference though is simple--------->as we live todays economy, the ideas we are using has come mostly from your playbook. Where are we after 5yrs? How much more do we owe? When we talk about other periods in time things went South with other ideas employed, we see non of these outcomes. While I know you would never personally attack me; what would you say if I was on here telling everyone that my ideas were the right ideas, the economy looked like this after 5yrs of doing my ideas, and virtually every other time we had to get out of a mess, we used Keynes ideas? Would you say I was crazy? How about an ideologue? Incompetent? Maybe none of those, but you sure would be rolling your eyes all over the place, and not be happy to boot if anyone bought into such illogical logic. B. The case you make is quite compelling; problem is historical data doesn't back you up. I mean even one of your own guys admits it. http://blog.heritage.org/2009/01/14/were-spending-more-than-ever-and-it-doesnt-work/ And, while I won't post them here for bandwidth reasons, many European countries had much lower unemployment rates than we did under FDR until the war. His policies were not working, period. Let me close by saying that the right way is not necessarily the loving way, nor the compassionate way, and probably not even the cuddly way. But facts are strange things to get around Langston................. if the right thing to do, was the easy thing to do, then most people would do the right thing. More and more we see these policies as fail, and the only way to prove they are the correct policies is success. Not to mention, these policies kinda go against the grain of the constitution, which is a double no-no. I have no problem whatsoever of you espousing such things, but at least put forth the reality that we have to change/alter what our founding fathers said to accomplish your goals. Hey, you may be right.......errr no, correct. We may need the Langston/Obama plan to succeed down the road. I am willing to consider accepting it, once you show me/us that socialism works well for everyone. Good luck, don't work to hard, and hope you have a great day.

1. A likely story, but as usual, if you say it is so, we are supposed to believe it like your economic theories that do not work, just look at Obama. 2. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look back in history to know what has/has not worked. You are hoping it does, but that is not the case. 3. Your argument is always there are errors. It is never about what did happen, but rather there are errors. In the world according to you, it doesn't make any difference if things were good, or bad, or terrible under the policies, but rather you attempt to discredit the good times and explain them away as errors, then justify the terrible times.............as it was not implemented correctly. Typical progressive. A. If you want someone from Japan to take your position, then maybe I should take someone from North Korea. Take your own position, and support it through logical discourse. B. What makes you think I am disagreeing on this one? All I am saying is that we will pay for it down the road. It could very well be better to deal with it then as opposed to now, and we shall see. I will not try and claim you are wrong, or correct on this one. C. I can't waste my employers time sitting on a computer like some people. I have to add as much content as I can, thus giving the people who can waste time a period to think. You may use it well, and if your thinking wasn't so short circuited, you could actually be an asset. 4. I would never personally attack you; unless you believe that me strongly suggesting that Kenesisian koolaid is bassackwards is dissing you. If that is the case, I sincerely apologize to you and your cabal. If you want to drive yourselves off the economic cliff; feel free, as long as you leave the rest of us alone. 5. I know his name is Keynes, and I also know Barrys name is Barack. But, if Barry can call himself whatever he wants, and create policies that screw us, I think I should be excused for re-naming his economic methods author; especially since his authors method has never worked since its inception. Therefore.....Barack is really Barry, (dingleberry or Mr Obysmal in my book) and Mr Keynes is Mr Keynisian Koolaid. Sounds fair to me; or all of the sudden, you don't believe in fairness? I thought that is what you supported! Your arguments are invalid, not because you can post links to counteract mine, but because you can't show a link where your theories work. You are taking the basic rino theory of, "going against something," instead of being "for something," and showing that it works. Me saying that Clinton was incompetent, then posting Monica Lewinsky threads does nothing to countermand the growth his administration enjoyed. Look here----------->I am really open minded. I am worried about the economics of this country, and its debt. Show us that Keynes works! Show us where it has been implemented and has succeeded. It shouldn't be hard. You are versed in this method, so show everyone by countries that have used it. My only suggestion is that you do not use the UK, because if you do, what you are going to find is that the loss of services is dramtic; but hey, maybe that is what you want to use. If so, be my guest. Who am I to argue with you. I mean, then we can argue over what Americans will lose, instead of over what Americans will get. And so, your job is simple---------> I know that Keynes theory is not that old, so I can't demand a look far back in time that has used it. But what I can ask is...............show us someone who used something close to this method as a country, that is still in great shape. I can show just this century where anti Keynes theories were used to resurrect economies, eventhough some didn't know they were using them; but I will give you great latitude here..............find someone even using close to what Keynes expounds ANYWHERE in the last 200yrs that is still doing well, more than 75 years after they used the method. We can all agree to disagree, but more than likely, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Geeze, race is always brought in some kind of way. OK, I can do it to. Black people, are good people, who just want to get ahead like the rest of us. If Mr Obama cared about African Americans, he would do his level best under economic principles that actually have been proven to work through out history. Instead, he listens to these Keynesian Koolaiders.....and because he has taken their prattle to heart, the black kids of America are on the outside looking in within the walls of these liberal stronghold cities. Nice way to give them a leg up as they enter the workforce there Mr Obysmal. You are really compassionate. http://www.blackyouthproject.com/2014/01/92-of-black-male-teens-unemployed-in-chicago-83-nationally/ By the way, my drunk uncle sent me that; which just proves empirically that a totally drunk uncle, is still 5 times smarter than a sober, progressive, Keynisian Koolaider-) As a great President once told us; and every progressive on here never want you to hear those words----------> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhYJS80MgYA And for those of you who doubt what I say, I put forth this question------> Keynsians are soooo smart, if you don't believe it, just ask them, lol. So, if they know all, see all, and can predict with Keynisian Koolaid certainty how to fix economic whoas, then it should be extremely easy for them to predict things........like say.......what would happen without using their great policies after WWII was over. There are 100s of links to their predictions, I am using this one because I think it spells out quite well their incompetence at ANYTHING. http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/09/finance-economy-great-depression-opinions-contributors-jason-e-taylor.html But if you want to moan and groan about it being a conservative link, much to your chagrin, once you put the question to Google, even liberal sites show you screwed the pooch. But then, I have many predictions that you Koolaiders said waiting in the wings that were......are you ready....are you sure....... ALL bassackwards; and hell, I got 1/2 of them from that crusty old drunk uncle too-)

Because as long as it is spent on progressive ideas, deficit spending is just wonderful; just ask LH and the rest of them, and they will tell you. It is exactly why their debate points are inconsistent. Once you take removing troops from Iraq, where has Obysmal removed spending from anything that GW funneled money to? In fact, in most areas he has added spending that far exceeds the growth of the population in domestic spending, and has kept everything he and the people on this board railed against. This is exactly why it is so difficult to debate anything with them. Either they know you are telling the truth and make you prove your point with links that they then can then link silly stuff to, or they just don't know because they are idealogues who do not care. Here, I submit to you this------------> http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/notsogreat-depression I ask..........how many people have actually ever heard of this depression? Is it taught in our schools? If not, why not? How about------------>because the solution that brought us back so quickly does not jibe with the solutions that progressives/Keynisian koolaiders support. And then, and then, and then, we have this. You have heard LH and his buddies constantly spin on JFKs tax cuts, why they were put in, and how it is all bogus when compared to Ronald Reagans. OK, don't listen to ME, don't listen to LH, and don't listen to his buddies either. Instead, listen to JFK himself, and draw your own conclusions. The clip is 2 minutes as he proposed it on national TV, and any time LH and his cohorts in re-written history tries to tell you different, you will know they are full of bull! http://youtu.be/aEdXrfIMdiU And then we have this----------> http://www.taxeducationfoundation.org/briefs/2012-01.htm In this instance we talk about Reagan, and of course I have no doubt that LH and friends will link 30 opposing pieces to this. Why is that possible? Because Reagan is the most modern President to employ this method of extraction from economic disaster, and so he is the one most attempted to discount by progressives to sway you from this method. Smaller government stops progressives from using vast amounts of the treasury to buy votes, create their utopian Shang-Ri-La, and thus must be avoided at all costs by them. Reagan is the devil to their ideas, and it doesn't make a difference if regular Americans suffer by avoiding these ideas; it is more important that they get the country they want. And then, (I won't link it as there is so many) we have the economic outcome of Obysmals policies. He has followed the Keynisian Koolaiders ideas, and here we are. Of the examples I have given you above, all of them worked, there is no doubt about it, and both Carters and Obysmals Keynisian Koolaiders ideas failed miserably. Unless they are feeling extremely threatened, every example I have given above will be attacked except for JFKs. They will make excuses for him, as he is seen as the 'saint" of the democratic(progressive) party; although if he was alive today, he would be shunned as a supply sider by the progressive party in Washington. So then, who are you going to believe when LH and his cabal start adding in their supposed links? History (that teaches all things) that shows that these events actually did happen; that the economy did grow and people went to work, that unemployment dropped tremendously, that we turned around far faster under these historical examples than what Obysmal has done in 5, going on 6 years........... or as usual, is everyone going to let them convince you your eyes are lying to you, you do not see what you actually see, and that they have the right plan that has never worked before.....proven by the policies of Obysmal, and lets go full speed ahead, and damn those pesky facts that torpedo all of their "fail" theories! Once you know, it doesn't mean your ideas will win, it just means that you fought for the truth. It also means when you are faced with the nonsense put forth by LH and his cabal, you understand they are either lying to your face, or that they are to illiterate (or indoctrinated) to understand the truth. In either case, the best course of action is to ignore them. 1.Why argue with someone whos sole intent is to lie, no matter what the truth is.......... or 2. why argue with someone who when faced with empirical proof you are correct still is to dull or dimwitted to figure it out and still wants to argue with you. Ignore, ignore, and then.....IGNORE MORE! Find those who you can at least talk to. While it may be fun to prove these people wrong, it gets you nowhere. They don't care if you are right wanting to save your country, they only care about their progressive, Shang-Ri_la.

Sorry I brought this thread back Nick, I apologize.....but I did it for a reason. For Mr Cap and all of you others who have listened incessantly to those who want you to drink the Keynisian Koolaid, I offer you this-----> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XbG6aIUlog and there are so many more too, but I think this is an excellent start for Mr Cap and friends. I was going to put in the depression of 1920 too, but I was afraid many of you had never even known there was one. Funny, when things go terribly economically, but policies exactly opposite of Mr Keynes would suggest are employed and they work out beautifully, they are either re-wriiten, or expunged from civil discourse. Mr Cap, you amongst all others must spend the 30 minutes to watch this. It not only cements your believes, it gives imperical proof these keynsian koolaiders have no idea about anything, (kinda like their MMGW experts) their predictions were bassackwards, and the next time one of these world famous posters on here who promote Mr Keynes theories pipe in, not only will you not respond and roll your eyes, you will probably laugh at them, along with everyone else too!

Just a reasonable question I read on another forum----------> If voting is a right of citizens of this country if they are eligible, and if asking voters to have a form of ID to vote to prove who they are..........then why is it if owning a gun is also protected under the constitution, why is it we demand they jump through hoops, pay taxes to acquire hand gun permits, etc? Seems to me that if both of these activities are basically covered under the constitution or its amendments, we can't say with a straight face that one is an unfair tax, and the other is not.

Obama never has to be elected to anything again. He has toned everything down to try and get his "people" re-elected. It is really a sad commentary that both partys try and hide what they really want, trying to get those people in the center to vote for them. Contrary to what "progressives" would have you believe.........Americas center feels we have moved to far left. We can debate "how far to the left" we have gone, but what ever the centers definition is, they believe we have eclipsed that threshold. (Obysmalcare cemented it) Predicting (No way will I ever do that again) how America feels about this 10 months from now is just guessing. The progressive propaganda machine is very, very, very, good. If anyone can take urine and turn it into lemonade, it would be them. Both partys lie like dogs, but the progressive party has taken it to a new level unseen in American history by pure manipulation of the masses, and with every kind of media along the help of Hollyweird, it will be an uphill battle. We should all be aware that the collapse of Obamamania will have nothing to do with a collapse in "progressivism" for 2014, or "Hillarymania" come 2016. If we can't cut deals with libertarians in different states, then all of our mantra should be...........anyone but progressive, unconstitutional, democrats.

I just want to know why our great neighbors to the North, and the South; are so worried about what we are doing. I personally do not care if Canada goes totally socialist or not. Do any of you? We already know that our friends to the South are worried about any immigration bill coming along. Since our neighbors to North want to interject their knowledge into the problem, if we accept all these illegals, will the Canadians do it also? And if they don't, why not, and should we ever consider their input again? Oh well, unless we see the Canadians fighting for illegal aliens rights.......while their laws basically say....SCREW YOU......then listening to any of these "progressive wannabees" is laughable. Our logic is simple---------->fix YOUR OWN house before you even contemplate dictating how we fix ours. Oh, and by the way......enjoy your over 50% tax rate. If you do, good for you.........if you don't.........thank people like Edstuck....Edstock.......or whatever the persons name is that thinks he/she can manipulate American politics, but refuses to accept the solution if it doesn't fit his Shang-Ri-La modus aperendi!

Does anyone know who is giving the republican response?

We will have to see how it all goes. The last thing we need is for conservatives/libertarians to slice the pie up in the primaries, then have a rino slide into the general because of it. I really do not care which conservative it is either. I figure-------->2 debates, whomever is poling the best at that time, get on the bandwagon and ride him/her to the Presidency. Along with that, I refuse to give anymore donations to the RNC.(I came to that conclusion after the rinos hosed Cruz, Lee, and Paul over the filibuster of Obysmalcare) Instead, I send a few bucks here and there to specific candidates. Rinos are just big government stand ins. We have to dismantle big government, period. So it makes no difference to me if it is a progressive or a rino running it, both scenarios are all bad.

Mr Obysmal and the progressives are collapsing before our very eyes. Problem is, rinos are in charge of the republican party. We have got to get together and push a conservative candidate through the primaries, and into the general election. If we do not, we will end up with another closet progressive who doesn't mind big government, just wants his/her party to control it. We NEED to get with libertarians and support some of their candidates in the states they want elected, so as we can have them help us push through a conservative one out of the republican party in the presidential primaries.

Hey, I figured I would post this for Mr Cap, Firedford motor, and the rest of you nice people of all political persuasions that think Mr Obysmal is; well rather obysmal, lol. This was from sometime during his first term, and it is as pertinent today as it was then. Now progressives, I am WARNING you to not view this as it might ruin your week, possibly month. And you people of anti Obysmal persuasion, whatever you do, do NOT view this with your mouth full of food or drink, as you might end up spitting on your computer from laughing so hard. Also, be warned that once you hear this, every time you see President Obysmal, you will probably break into laughter.

Then we can agree to disagree. I believe wholeheartedly that there are quite a few blue states wanting their "states rights" power back. I am also firmly convinced that if something is good for a red state that a blue state proposes, that red state would support that idea in the senate......if the senators were controlled by the state, and not by political partys. If your job is controlled by state legislators who want/do not want legislation to pass, then you are going to vote their will. It really seems obvious to me, I do not understand the disconnect.

Spaniard, let me see if I can explain; not that I am sure you will agree with it, but I will try and give you the best reasoning I know of------> 1. Repeal of the 17th amendment...................... The reason for this is self explanatory; in the constitution, the House was set up to be the "peoples house." The representatives were closest to the people, were elected by small areas of the people, and so were most in tune with the people, as far as what they wanted in each specific area. The Presidency was set up for all to vote for. The leader all of the districts in the house collectively thought would be best to "guide" us forward. But the senate......ah the senate was different. You see, the amount of people you had in your state determined how many congressional districts you had. (in the house) This meant that very populated states could impose their will upon less populated states, because they had more members in the house. So, to protect each state and its rights, the senate was born, where each state; no matter how big it was or how populated it was, each got 2 members. The senators job was to protect the rights of their individual states, period. These senators were chosen by the state legislators, and were controlled by the states. If the state was a farming state, you better believe that the senators were all about farming; if a ranching state, they were for ranching; oil, they were all about oil, etc. If they did not do the states bidding as far as what YOUR state legislators agreed upon, they would not be re-installed. If larger more populated states tried to impose their will on the rest, the smaller states senators would band together to quash the whole thing. To get anything done, there had to be more consensus and horse trading where everyone got something, for senators to capitulate. Because of the 17th amendment, we no longer have senators who represent the states wishes, but rather political partys wishes. (and that includes republicans too) Instead of doing what is best for their states; under the control of the state legislators, they do as they wish and represent their own ideas, or the ideas of their political party. There is no doubt, that there are red and blue states that would certainly band together for many things in both their states interest, but instead it is split by politics of party, which is really not representative of states wishes. And finally............we the voter who hopefully work everyday, really have no idea what it is our state legislatures have decided for our states on many issues; at least no where near the idea that full time legislators do from our states. Both the republican and democratic partys give vast amounts of money to these senators to get re-elected, if they have been good soldiers for party politics; which has nothing or very little to do with their states will. As of this point in time, nobody represents your state in Washington; nobody. Your house member represents you in your district, but your state is SOL. That is not supposed to be how it works, it was not set up that way, and this is how Washington can dictate on high from their perch in the nations capitol. Let me put it to you this way-------------> I don't know if you are a republican, a democrat, or an independent, but I will just say you are party A. Suppose your state is totally a party A. state. 65% of your state votes party A, and you are happy with it. Theoretically, you have a representative.......which is good........more than 1/2 of your representatives are party A. and that is good, and the way it is supposed to be since you have control of the state, you have 2 party A. senators. Now then, one of your party A. senators does something not so hot, but the Washington elite of his/her party dumps loads of cash into his/her campaign fund, and he/she wins party As. primary. When the general election arrives, some people from party A. can't really stand what the senator did, so vote for the candidate in party B. and that person gets elected because the people in party B vote them too. Now the person for party B who just got elected, goes to Washington and votes with his/her party, against the wishes of his/her state legislators who are all/mostly partyA. If the senators were put in place the way they were supposed to be, your state legislators would surely have thrown out this senator, and if not, he/she would have to do the bidding of your state legislators, increasing YOUR PERSONAL power in Washington for your state. Instead, you got the shaft. Your personal power by voting for state legislators that will put in someone who reflects your states will, far exceeds the power your representative holds. Your 2 senators are 2 of 100. And, as far as purple states that are split, the state legislatures would undoubtedly name 1 of each party, A and B. But the kicker is........neither could go off the reservation going against what is best for your particular state as agreed upon by your state legislators in conference, or they would lose their jobs! The point is not what they agree to do nationally, but when they decide by themselves to go against the will of the state they represent. That is what that body was created for, and without the state legislators controlling them, they are free agents to do whatever, their, little, heart, desires. That is not how the system was set up, and is exactly why the system was set up the way it was in the first place.

Oh FCS Langston, you are not incompetent, just a progressive. If you want me to waste bandwidth, I can post links to the same plank without comments 35 times over, although I think the mods would not appreciate it. But since you seem rather SENSITIVE to the posting, you either don't like the comments; or more than likely, don't want your progressive friends realizing who they actually support, lol. Well......friends of Langston, if you are really interested, just put the "planks of Marxism" into google, and they will give you links that repeat the same planks I posted, with and without the comments. They are there, all in history, and now you know what kind of program you support..........and so does everyone else if they do the same thing. Understand, I am not dissing Langston at all. I just figure that if you want to trumpet who you are and what you believe in all over Blue Oval, then everyone should have a correct definition of what that is. I am just trying to heeeeelp him and define it. Look at the planks, and decide for yourself. I won't call him anything, because I have deep respect for him. I will let you decide. Hey, look here--------> I can get along with a Marxist as well as anyone else. Just don't tell me that Marxism is the American way. I am not claiming that Langstons ideas make him one mind you, rather that we always have to be on the lookout for those who would try and wrap themselves in the red, white, and blue; when what they really have on their minds is the hammer sickle! Not that he does, of course.

Then we are in agreement Mr Cap. I learned a very sad lesson in 2012. I was involved in extreme failure by words that nobody but the candidate had any control over. That candidate took victory, and turned it to utter defeat; even as he was way ahead in the pols until his words turned him into a goat. I have come to the sad conclusion that in big elections, we have to support real politicians. People with vision won't make it, because saying what is true, might be true, or what you believe to be true, if you don't carefully choose your words while explaining it; you can not get elected. Do you know that 30% of a national candidates costs are for handlers to tell them how to answer questions? All questions, lol! If that persons handlers didn't PREDICT that question and tell them how to answer it if asked by the media; doesn't make a difference if they answered it any different than someone else running, they just didn't answer it right, or correct. Out of 500 questions, 499 can be answered vanilla, but get 1 wrong or answer it off the cuff, and that is the only thing voters are going to hear about. We both know that Obama was/is a creation of his handlers and the media. Progressives are brilliant at this; with help of a willing MSM of course. All I can tell you through my experiences is--------->choose someone who can win, that can reflect as much of your beliefs as possible, with money for handlers, because the very best sometimes is missing some of the main ingredients to get there. It is a very sad admission indeed for me to agree with progressives------------->For many of these races, it takes big, big, BIG money indeed to get them elected. Much of that money will be funneled to places you probably aren't even aware of. But if you do not funnel the money there, you will probably lose for sure; not because you have an inferior candidate, but rather because the candidate is asked questions, for which they have no answers that were supplied for them in their briefs. Good luck Mr Cap. You and your friends, please, carry on! Eventually we will merge if there is still time left. At that time, we will work together.

Spaniard, you only need 2/3 of the states to call a convention. By my count, that is 33, or 34. To pass what is offered, you only need 75% to agree. That is less than 40. The meeting had 34 I believe, with 5 more committing to come already to the next one, which makes it 39. I would also like to re-iterate, that quite a few blue states want the feds out of their proverbial hair too. I do not think the scope of the changes would be that broad, because it takes so many states to ratify. But removal of the 17th amendment, and term limits put upon congress; that is something I believe almost all state legislatures, both red and blue, could agree upon. Yes, but only one of the two partys for the forseeable future is going to get the White House. That is exactly why going to a 3rd party cements the democrats to holding it almost forever. You can't govern like that because there will be no consensus if they are confident they can veto everytime, and there is no way congress can over ride. 15 or 20yrs ago, I would have said yes, hell yes. But with the window closing so fast on restoring the republic as it gets further and further out of hand, I have to say no; at least in Presidential elections. For congress or state offices, absolutely yes though.

Now see, you didn't even follow the thread. If you had, you would know this is about a form of government that some support, and not who runs the government. That being said..........I have consistently said over, and over, and over again, that history will show that GW and Obama will forever be tied together. They have collectively sent us down this path more than any one else, and history will blame both of them together for the pain we will have to go through to fix it, or the collapse that will happen if we can't.

And so I seen FMccap. It is not time for a 3rd party, but rather to throw out the rinos from the republican party since they are closet progressives anyway.

Update for the article 5 meeting----------> 1. They agreed to meet again in the 1st quarter of 2014. 2. More states have agreed to come to the next meeting. 3. Washington elites are not happy (no kidding) While the meeting was held very close to the vest to keep the MSM out of the political aspect of it, the scuttlebutt coming out of this meeting which can neither be confirmed or denied, is that 2 issues came to the forefront that were almost unanimously accepted by the participants--------->1. repeal or removal of the 17th amendment, and 2. Initiating a way by amendment or otherwise to invoke term limits upon both houses of congress. Now, these 2 changes alone would return a lot of power to the states, and in fact totally rebalance the senate. And for those of you not aware since I did not see a thread, let me be the first to inform you of this------------->http://weaselzippers.us/john-mccain-censured-by-arizona-republicans-in-landslide-vote-for-long-and-terrible-record-of-legislating-like-democrat/ In my humble opinion, Flake is next, along with a host of others. This is why the meeting; if the underground reports are to be believed, so extensively concerned themselves with repeal of the 17th amendment. While many of us will work towards a conservative/libertarian President and congress, please be mindful to open the second political front in case plan A does not come to fruition. If Washington is getting nervous, then you know it is a logical course to bring them back in line, and the best part is--------->they can not do a damn thing about it.