The point of this thread was just to make clear that he's 4th overall according to the marist poll.
I want to give Obama another chance to finish this horrible mess that was started back in the W's days..
One term proves jack shit.. In fact I don't know if 2 terms will but hopefully by then the US is on the right track.
An imperfect messenger but a perfect message? That's some pathetic cliche that doesn't delve into any substance of how RP's policies will work..
why am i not surprised by stilns comments in this thread. do you even know why hes 4th in florida? do you even care, or do you just see something and run like dog chasing a car?
heres a news flash for you, RP didnt campaign in florida for 3 simple reasons, half their delegates where stripped, its winner take all, and you need ~$10mil to campaign there.
the real question is, did you make a similar thread regarding michigan and obama in 08, or are you going to make one regarding newt in va?
and just for the record, you do realize that someone like RP, or kucinich, or a 3rd party candidate doesnt have to actually win an election to be successful. as long as they are able to get their message across and have other pols adopt some of their beliefs, then its a win. its a win for the RP supporters if romney or newt propose to end the fed, end our foreign military affairs, cut $1 trillion out of the budget next year, instead of the asinine proposed $4 T in the next 10 years which is largely based on projected revenue increases.
The point of this thread was just to make clear that he's 4th overall according to the marist poll.
I want to give Obama another chance to finish this horrible mess that was started back in the W's days..
One term proves jack shit.. In fact I don't know if 2 terms will but hopefully by then the US is on the right track.
An imperfect messenger but a perfect message? That's some pathetic cliche that doesn't delve into any substance of how RP's policies will work..
why am i not surprised by stilns comments in this thread. do you even know why hes 4th in florida? do you even care, or do you just see something and run like dog chasing a car?
heres a news flash for you, RP didnt campaign in florida for 3 simple reasons, half their delegates where stripped, its winner take all, and you need ~$10mil to campaign there.
the real question is, did you make a similar thread regarding michigan and obama in 08, or are you going to make one regarding newt in va?
and just for the record, you do realize that someone like RP, or kucinich, or a 3rd party candidate doesnt have to actually win an election to be successful. as long as they are able to get their message across and have other pols adopt some of their beliefs, then its a win. its a win for the RP supporters if romney or newt propose to end the fed, end our foreign military affairs, cut $1 trillion out of the budget next year, instead of the asinine proposed $4 T in the next 10 years which is largely based on projected revenue increases.
Where it is actually worse is this..when you shift responsibilities from one party to another, (especially when one is not more efficient) there is always additional loss on aside from the fact that the party is not capable in the first place. So not only are things not improving, they get worse.
Have you ever been in a leadership role in any capacity? Have you ever had to make decisions that will benefit many if not most, but possibly will affect others negatively in the process?
Guess I got my answer. And yes I knew the answer before I asked.
Its disturbing that you think this way. It really is. You have set up the situation to be completely intractable.Stuck in the shit forever so to speak. What you want to happen isn't possible. You want perfection, in a miserably imperfect process. Such is life.
This philosophy would allow everyone else to rot, at the expense of a tiny minority that is already in the toilet.
Where it is actually worse is this..when you shift responsibilities from one party to another, (especially when one is not more efficient) there is always additional loss on aside from the fact that the party is not capable in the first place. So not only are things not improving, they get worse.
Have you ever been in a leadership role in any capacity? Have you ever had to make decisions that will benefit many if not most, but possibly will affect others negatively in the process?
Guess I got my answer. And yes I knew the answer before I asked.
Its disturbing that you think this way. It really is. You have set up the situation to be completely intractable.Stuck in the shit forever so to speak. What you want to happen isn't possible. You want perfection, in a miserably imperfect process. Such is life.
This philosophy would allow everyone else to rot, at the expense of a tiny minority that is already in the toilet.
Ok..I am more than willing to address the issue so here goes.
I've probably asked this question 10 times and nobody has an answer..lets ask it again.
Which state has a long term track record of performing a federal function BETTER, which means more efficient, cost effective and a net benefit to the citizen?
Find one..now find 5, now find 10, now find 20, now find 50.
You are asking for the federal government to not perform certain functions because it fails to do so in a way which the state can, so tell me with proof what state performs functions better.
I am seriously waiting..while you make sarcastic comments I will wait for an answer.
The question is serious..it is one that RP should have ANSWERS to..he does not have answers. He knows a bunch of people are pissed off at the government so he floats general ideas with ZERO depth to them..NONE..RP has nothing to back up his entire platform.
Where it is actually worse is this..when you shift responsibilities from one party to another, (especially when one is not more efficient) there is always additional loss on aside from the fact that the party is not capable in the first place. So not only are things not improving, they get worse.
You forget our conversation about this very point recently so quickly Wall?
Ok..I am more than willing to address the issue so here goes.
I've probably asked this question 10 times and nobody has an answer..lets ask it again.
Which state has a long term track record of performing a federal function BETTER, which means more efficient, cost effective and a net benefit to the citizen?
Find one..now find 5, now find 10, now find 20, now find 50.
You are asking for the federal government to not perform certain functions because it fails to do so in a way which the state can, so tell me with proof what state performs functions better.
I am seriously waiting..while you make sarcastic comments I will wait for an answer.
The question is serious..it is one that RP should have ANSWERS to..he does not have answers. He knows a bunch of people are pissed off at the government so he floats general ideas with ZERO depth to them..NONE..RP has nothing to back up his entire platform.
Where it is actually worse is this..when you shift responsibilities from one party to another, (especially when one is not more efficient) there is always additional loss on aside from the fact that the party is not capable in the first place. So not only are things not improving, they get worse.
You forget our conversation about this very point recently so quickly Wall?
Plus Wall your quoted question pre-supposes that there have been many instances in the past where the states have been given the ability to try to perform a federal function. That's not exactly a fair framing of the question, as the states shouldn't be handling (nor are they equipped to handle) things that are truly federal functions. Now we can argue about whether or not somethings are federal functions (hello Education!), but your question as posed is not exactly equitable.
Plus Wall your quoted question pre-supposes that there have been many instances in the past where the states have been given the ability to try to perform a federal function. That's not exactly a fair framing of the question, as the states shouldn't be handling (nor are they equipped to handle) things that are truly federal functions. Now we can argue about whether or not somethings are federal functions (hello Education!), but your question as posed is not exactly equitable.
Plus Wall your quoted question pre-supposes that there have been many instances in the past where the states have been given the ability to try to perform a federal function. That's not exactly a fair framing of the question, as the states shouldn't be handling (nor are they equipped to handle) things that are truly federal functions. Now we can argue about whether or not somethings are federal functions (hello Education!), but your question as posed is not exactly equitable.
Refresh my memory on the conversation.
I disagree with your conclusions here..of course you are entitled to the opinion but I dont agree with what I think you are saying.
The FEDS historically get involved when issues are of a national scope or intra-state where there are differing laws from state to state..OR where the states just arent getting it done and the FEDS step in due to the failure of a state and there needs to be a national standard or rule which can override the state.
So I think that most federal laws and involvement occurs because the state screwed up or there are conflicting standards..
And yes I dont think states can handle things properly in many if not most areas, and for sure not at a level higher or better than the FEDS. So complain all you want about the states, to me if you want to dump federal involvement, the states have to be capable of BETTER performance, efficiency and execution. I do not think that even a small minority are capable..which means all of what RP wants to do is a shell game with more lost than if you keep things as they are..then the FEDS have to step back in again (as they did in the first place).
Plus Wall your quoted question pre-supposes that there have been many instances in the past where the states have been given the ability to try to perform a federal function. That's not exactly a fair framing of the question, as the states shouldn't be handling (nor are they equipped to handle) things that are truly federal functions. Now we can argue about whether or not somethings are federal functions (hello Education!), but your question as posed is not exactly equitable.
Refresh my memory on the conversation.
I disagree with your conclusions here..of course you are entitled to the opinion but I dont agree with what I think you are saying.
The FEDS historically get involved when issues are of a national scope or intra-state where there are differing laws from state to state..OR where the states just arent getting it done and the FEDS step in due to the failure of a state and there needs to be a national standard or rule which can override the state.
So I think that most federal laws and involvement occurs because the state screwed up or there are conflicting standards..
And yes I dont think states can handle things properly in many if not most areas, and for sure not at a level higher or better than the FEDS. So complain all you want about the states, to me if you want to dump federal involvement, the states have to be capable of BETTER performance, efficiency and execution. I do not think that even a small minority are capable..which means all of what RP wants to do is a shell game with more lost than if you keep things as they are..then the FEDS have to step back in again (as they did in the first place).
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.