The two party "lock" exists because people aren't voting for anyone else, bLatch.
So again, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld both served as Republican governors of Democratic states, are on the ballot in all 50 states and currently carry 10%+ of the vote with very limited media exposure and without the kinds of resources that the big parties have developed over more than a century of exploitation against the people of this country. To suggest that they are comically out of touch with the American people is... comically out of touch.
So again, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld both served as Republican governors of Democratic states, are on the ballot in all 50 states and currently carry 10%+ of the vote with very limited media exposure and without the kinds of resources that the big parties have developed over more than a century of exploitation against the people of this country. To suggest that they are comically out of touch with the American people is... comically out of touch.
I love that the two great achievements you hold up are that they got on the ballot (requires a few thousand signatures in most states and the wherewithal to file on time), and that they manage to scrape together a tiny minority of the polls (which has not in the past translated to actual votes - at this point in 2012 Johnson was polling at 6%. He got <1% on election day). 10% is terrible. But apparently we have to use kiddie gloves for the libertarians and give them a pat on the back for it. And also give them an invite to the debates, because while 10% is a great achievement, 15% is apparently impossible.
You know how many votes a party that is in touch with American voters earns? 40-50%. As far as libertarian candidates go, Johnson and Weld are not terribly out of touch. But their newfound party is. Johnson got booed at the libertarian debates for saying he thinks driver's licences aren't the worst idea in the world (every other candidate on stage vehemently opposed them), and for saying that he would sign the civil rights act. Johnson might even have a political future - not as president, but maybe in congress - but the mere choice to take up the libertarian mantle is comically out of touch. It's not a serious party, and no serious candidate would run under their banner. Johnson surely knows this - when he wanted to be president in 2012, he first ran as a republican, and only joined the libertarian ticket when it was clear the republicans weren't interested.
So again, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld both served as Republican governors of Democratic states, are on the ballot in all 50 states and currently carry 10%+ of the vote with very limited media exposure and without the kinds of resources that the big parties have developed over more than a century of exploitation against the people of this country. To suggest that they are comically out of touch with the American people is... comically out of touch.
I love that the two great achievements you hold up are that they got on the ballot (requires a few thousand signatures in most states and the wherewithal to file on time), and that they manage to scrape together a tiny minority of the polls (which has not in the past translated to actual votes - at this point in 2012 Johnson was polling at 6%. He got <1% on election day). 10% is terrible. But apparently we have to use kiddie gloves for the libertarians and give them a pat on the back for it. And also give them an invite to the debates, because while 10% is a great achievement, 15% is apparently impossible.
If getting on the ballot in all states is so easy, why is it that no other third party can do it?
10%+ can't be that insignificant as crooked Hillary is making a concerted effort to buy their votes. And really, it's no surprise, as it is a more powerful demographic than the Muslims or illegals that she normally panders to.
You know how many votes a party that is in touch with American voters earns? 40-50%.
40% * 3 = 120%. Mathematically impossible.
As far as libertarian candidates go, Johnson and Weld are not terribly out of touch.
Exactly.
But their newfound party is. Johnson got booed at the libertarian debates for saying he thinks driver's licences aren't the worst idea in the world (every other candidate on stage vehemently opposed them), and for saying that he would sign the civil rights act. Johnson might even have a political future - not as president, but maybe in congress - but the mere choice to take up the libertarian mantle is comically out of touch. It's not a serious party, and no serious candidate would run under their banner. Johnson surely knows this - when he wanted to be president in 2012, he first ran as a republican, and only joined the libertarian ticket when it was clear the republicans weren't interested.
They are indisputably the 3rd largest political party in this country.
10%+ can't be that insignificant as crooked Hillary is making a concerted effort to buy their votes. And really, it's no surprise, as it is a more powerful demographic than the Muslims or illegals that she normally panders to.
If this language is indicative of how you really think... quit fooling yourself and just vote for Trump.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
If getting on the ballot in all states is so easy, why is it that no other third party can do it?
Because the other third parties are dumpster fires of incompetence? The Green party, for example, failed to get on the ballot in South Dakota (and like two or three other states). You need to get 3,000 signatures to do that. It's not exactly a high bar.
10%+ can't be that insignificant as crooked Hillary is making a concerted effort to buy their votes. And really, it's no surprise, as it is a more powerful demographic than the Muslims or illegals that she normally panders to.
10% is significant when it's another brick in your coalition - even 1% can make or break elections. It's insignificant when it's all you have.
40% * 3 = 120%. Mathematically impossible.
I'm not saying 40% is the benchmark for whether you're in touch. I'm saying that that's what parties which are in touch currently get.
Exactly.
So are Johnson and Weld just in it to plunder the party's resources and organization in order to get their name out and get some attention for their circus of a candidacy, or are they actual believers? If we were in a Twilight Zone episode and Gary Johnson won the election, would he fill his cabinet with Libertarian party stalwarts, or would he ditch them at the first opportunity for republicans?
They are indisputably the 3rd largest political party in this country.
The two party "lock" exists because people aren't voting for anyone else, bLatch.
You're putting the cart before the horse. A good chunk of the reason no one votes for 3rd Party candidates is because of the stigma label "3rd Party." Many people don't ever go past that phrase to even learn about platforms or candidates. The only time they even really come up is when a high profile positions (namely the presidency) has only unpopular people running for it. That's not "no one votes for them;" that's "no one knows they even exist."
10%+ can't be that insignificant as crooked Hillary is making a concerted effort to buy their votes. And really, it's no surprise, as it is a more powerful demographic than the Muslims or illegals that she normally panders to.
If this language is indicative of how you really think... quit fooling yourself and just vote for Trump.
That's absurd. Why would I vote for him when we disagree on almost every major issue?
You're putting the cart before the horse. A good chunk of the reason no one votes for 3rd Party candidates is because of the stigma label "3rd Party."
Not even remotely the case. The stigms of the label third party comes from the fact that people very rarely vote for them, and people very rarely voting for them comes from their extremist and alienating viewpoints, and many times detachment from reality.
This has been a demonstrated fact throughout our country. We generally tend to have two dominant parties, with a third party only coming into prominence when the two dominant parties either are not addressing a major issue, or have candidates that are exceedingly unpopular. This is because the two dominant parties tend to be centrist, with the third party occupying an extreme viewpoint and/or based entirely around a single issue.
You're putting the cart before the horse. A good chunk of the reason no one votes for 3rd Party candidates is because of the stigma label "3rd Party."
Not even remotely the case. The stigms of the label third party comes from the fact that people very rarely vote for them, and people very rarely voting for them comes from their extremist and alienating viewpoints, and many times detachment from reality.
This has been a demonstrated fact throughout our country. We generally tend to have two dominant parties, with a third party only coming into prominence when the two dominant parties either are not addressing a major issue, or have candidates that are exceedingly unpopular. This is because the two dominant parties tend to be centrist, with the third party occupying an extreme viewpoint and/or based entirely around a single issue.
Hardly a huge leap to suggest that the man who invoked the name of Allah during the attacks in St. Cloud was motivated by radical Islam.
And you responded exactly the way I knew you were going to.
1. At the time of your post, we only had information that one of the attacks was motivated by ISIS, and no information whatsoever on the other two.
2. Even if we knew they were all motivated by radical jihadists, that is not the same as being motivated by Islam. It's similar to the difference between saying an attack was the result of someone subscribing to Irish nationalist terrorism, versus saying an attack was the result of someone being Irish.
You're putting the cart before the horse. A good chunk of the reason no one votes for 3rd Party candidates is because of the stigma label "3rd Party."
Not even remotely the case. The stigms of the label third party comes from the fact that people very rarely vote for them, and people very rarely voting for them comes from their extremist and alienating viewpoints, and many times detachment from reality.
This has been a demonstrated fact throughout our country. We generally tend to have two dominant parties, with a third party only coming into prominence when the two dominant parties either are not addressing a major issue, or have candidates that are exceedingly unpopular. This is because the two dominant parties tend to be centrist, with the third party occupying an extreme viewpoint and/or based entirely around a single issue.
You're making a huge assumption that people know 3rd Parties are extremist or have alienating viewpoints. That may be the case for you, to a lesser extent me, and a small part of the population, but in my experience, when I've dropped the phrase "Green Party," people are generally familiar with the names Ralph Nader or Jill Stein, and about the Party themselves they think either spoiler effect, "who?", and/or vaccines, which is not coincidentally the only issue oriented headline Jill Stein made in multiple sources around the time of the conventions when Bernie Sanders was making his switch to Hillary Clinton. There's so many more things to (dis)agree with the party on, yet they don't come up. Why? I say because they're not reported. Some people go out looking for all their options. Some people don't and stick with what's presented to them. You and I fall into the former, and you are disregarding the latter while what I'm saying is the latter is much bigger than you are giving it credit for, even if with the Green Party the current result of both is the same (the vast majority vote for Democrats instead).
And as a fun aside, I talked to our State Democrats about the State Green Party, and they don't think our State Green Party is either extreme and only mildly alienating. In fact, since I live in a Red State, about half the time two Parties are in complete cooperation because there is a host of issues they both agree they either of them could handle better than Republicans. It was described to me as a Bernie v. Hillary kind of thing: tense, yet good sportsmanship as opposed to the toxic partisanship of Republicans v. Democrats. The criticism that my local Democrats levied was that the Green Party has no ground game and their staunch rejection of large donations (i.e. via unions or people with a stronger progressive vision) is starving their organizing efforts.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
You're putting the cart before the horse. A good chunk of the reason no one votes for 3rd Party candidates is because of the stigma label "3rd Party."
Not even remotely the case. The stigms of the label third party comes from the fact that people very rarely vote for them, and people very rarely voting for them comes from their extremist and alienating viewpoints, and many times detachment from reality.
This has been a demonstrated fact throughout our country. We generally tend to have two dominant parties, with a third party only coming into prominence when the two dominant parties either are not addressing a major issue, or have candidates that are exceedingly unpopular. This is because the two dominant parties tend to be centrist, with the third party occupying an extreme viewpoint and/or based entirely around a single issue.
You're making a huge assumption that people know 3rd Parties are extremist or have alienating viewpoints. That may be the case for you, to a lesser extent me, and a small part of the population, but in my experience, when I've dropped the phrase "Green Party," people are generally familiar with the names Ralph Nader or Jill Stein, and about the Party themselves they think either spoiler effect, "who?", and/or vaccines, which is not coincidentally the only issue oriented headline Jill Stein made in multiple sources around the time of the conventions when Bernie Sanders was making his switch to Hillary Clinton. There's so many more things to (dis)agree with the party on, yet they don't come up. Why? I say because they're not reported. Some people go out looking for all their options. Some people don't and stick with what's presented to them. You and I fall into the former, and you are disregarding the latter while what I'm saying is the latter is much bigger than you are giving it credit for, even if with the Green Party the current result of both is the same (the vast majority vote for Democrats instead).
And as a fun aside, I talked to our State Democrats about the State Green Party, and they don't think our State Green Party is either extreme and only mildly alienating. In fact, since I live in a Red State, about half the time two Parties are in complete cooperation because there is a host of issues they both agree they either of them could handle better than Republicans. It was described to me as a Bernie v. Hillary kind of thing: tense, yet good sportsmanship as opposed to the toxic partisanship of Republicans v. Democrats. The criticism that my local Democrats levied was that the Green Party has no ground game and their staunch rejection of large donations (i.e. via unions or people with a stronger progressive vision) is starving their organizing efforts.
Just a few minutes on the platform page for the Green Party:
Eliminate Corporate Personhood: Legislation or constitutional amendment to end the legal fiction of corporate personhood.
End Corporate Limited Liability: Make corporate shareholders bear the same liabilities as other property owners.
Maximum Income: Build into the progressive income tax a 100% tax on all income over ten times the minimum wage.
Hardly a huge leap to suggest that the man who invoked the name of Allah during the attacks in St. Cloud was motivated by radical Islam.
And you responded exactly the way I knew you were going to.
1. At the time of your post, we only had information that one of the attacks was motivated by ISIS, and no information whatsoever on the other two.
2. Even if we knew they were all motivated by radical jihadists, that is not the same as being motivated by Islam. It's similar to the difference between saying an attack was the result of someone subscribing to Irish nationalist terrorism, versus saying an attack was the result of someone being Irish.
The St. Cloud attacker cried out "Allah!" while stabbing people and the bomber responsible for the attacks in Manhattan and New Jersey was Ahmad Khan Rahami, a naturalized citizen from Afghanistan and you expect us to believe that radical Islam has nothing to do with these attacks? Come on man, please don't be disingenuous.
Yet we can't talk about radical Islam. Can't even admit that this has anything to do with Islam at all. Neither can we discuss the U.S.' ridiculous foreign policy that involves bombing whoever and arming whoever else for God only knows what reasons. What's the plan to combat terrorism again? Cross our fingers?
You're putting the cart before the horse. A good chunk of the reason no one votes for 3rd Party candidates is because of the stigma label "3rd Party." Many people don't ever go past that phrase to even learn about platforms or candidates. The only time they even really come up is when a high profile positions (namely the presidency) has only unpopular people running for it. That's not "no one votes for them;" that's "no one knows they even exist."
THIS is the point. There is more reason to include them in the debate than just them having strong odds of winning. The presence of a third party voice with a substantial amount of support (which 10% is) goes a long way to push the narrative toward what that 10% wants to hear and/or achieve. Just like Bernie being in the primary pushed the primary narrative to the left for democrats, despite him never having a real chance of getting the nomination, inclusion of Libertarian [or any party of sufficient size really] voice in the debates would go a long way toward getting that voice heard.
We live in a representative democracy. There is no candidate that will fully represent my beliefs and politics (honestly, short of me running, there never will be -- this is true for everyone). So, the best bet is to either elect someone who is close to me, or use a voice to push the electable people closer to me than they are currently. In this election cycle there is no viable candidate that I can justify voting for, so the try and shift the narrative in the manner I think is most helpful is the best form of politics I have available.
Eliminate Corporate Personhood: Legislation or constitutional amendment to end the legal fiction of corporate personhood.
I've yet to meet a person saying this who actually understood what corporate personhood is.
We've never met :).
In all seriousness though, after taking corporations at law school and going over the exact concept and why it exists what I found was that... even the majority of law students (now lawyers) who could succeed in that class don't understand what it actually is.
Eliminate Corporate Personhood: Legislation or constitutional amendment to end the legal fiction of corporate personhood.
I've yet to meet a person saying this who actually understood what corporate personhood is.
My layman's understanding of it is basically that for the sake of things such as lawsuits, taxes, ect, a corporation is treated like a person and has certain rights. So Mcdonalds itself could sue you rather than the CEO, or in an LLC, anyone with a piece of stock wouldn't be liable for damages if there was say, a case of food poisoning in those trash patties.
It's obviously much more complex than that, but eh. It would be asinine to get rid of it at this stage, and as far as removing the LLC type of business model, my basic understanding of economics would tell me that it would drastically (in a bad way) effect the stock market.
The St. Cloud attacker cried out "Allah!" while stabbing people and the bomber responsible for the attacks in Manhattan and New Jersey was Ahmad Khan Rahami, a naturalized citizen from Afghanistan and you expect us to believe that radical Islam has nothing to do with these attacks? Come on man, please don't be disingenuous.
A. You did not know anything about who was responsible for the NY and NJ bombings at the time of your post, because that information was not released/unknown at the time. Which rather demonstrates my point.
B. I didn't say that these attacks are completely unrelated to radical Islam. What I did say was that there is a difference between violent jihadist Islamist violence and Islam as a whole, just as there is a different between terrorism done in the name of Irish nationalism and presuming that someone is a terrorist because he's Irish. I have already explained this. So either you're distorting what I said willfully, or you didn't understand the distinction, and failure to understand the distinction rather demonstrates my point.
Yet we can't talk about radical Islam. Can't even admit that this has anything to do with Islam at all.
We must face the fact that ISIS is a murderous, violent movement driven by Sharia ideology, not by the religion of Islam.
Nevermind that Johnson doesn't seem to understand what Sharia is (Sharia is sort of like the Talmud - it's just all the rules a Muslim lives by. Even moderate, peaceful Muslims have their version of Sharia.), but it seems like Johnson agrees with Highroller here.
And yeah, a lot of people don't understand that distinction, but there's also some willful ignorance if you claim not understanding the law invalidates the points or reasons those people oppose what they believe corporate personhood is.
Well, whoever wrote the Green platform didn't exactly spend any effort clarifying what they think corporate personhood is or what's bad about it, so *shrug*.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So again, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld both served as Republican governors of Democratic states, are on the ballot in all 50 states and currently carry 10%+ of the vote with very limited media exposure and without the kinds of resources that the big parties have developed over more than a century of exploitation against the people of this country. To suggest that they are comically out of touch with the American people is... comically out of touch.
I love that the two great achievements you hold up are that they got on the ballot (requires a few thousand signatures in most states and the wherewithal to file on time), and that they manage to scrape together a tiny minority of the polls (which has not in the past translated to actual votes - at this point in 2012 Johnson was polling at 6%. He got <1% on election day). 10% is terrible. But apparently we have to use kiddie gloves for the libertarians and give them a pat on the back for it. And also give them an invite to the debates, because while 10% is a great achievement, 15% is apparently impossible.
You know how many votes a party that is in touch with American voters earns? 40-50%. As far as libertarian candidates go, Johnson and Weld are not terribly out of touch. But their newfound party is. Johnson got booed at the libertarian debates for saying he thinks driver's licences aren't the worst idea in the world (every other candidate on stage vehemently opposed them), and for saying that he would sign the civil rights act. Johnson might even have a political future - not as president, but maybe in congress - but the mere choice to take up the libertarian mantle is comically out of touch. It's not a serious party, and no serious candidate would run under their banner. Johnson surely knows this - when he wanted to be president in 2012, he first ran as a republican, and only joined the libertarian ticket when it was clear the republicans weren't interested.
If getting on the ballot in all states is so easy, why is it that no other third party can do it?
10%+ can't be that insignificant as crooked Hillary is making a concerted effort to buy their votes. And really, it's no surprise, as it is a more powerful demographic than the Muslims or illegals that she normally panders to.
40% * 3 = 120%. Mathematically impossible.
Exactly.
They are indisputably the 3rd largest political party in this country.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Because the other third parties are dumpster fires of incompetence? The Green party, for example, failed to get on the ballot in South Dakota (and like two or three other states). You need to get 3,000 signatures to do that. It's not exactly a high bar.
10% is significant when it's another brick in your coalition - even 1% can make or break elections. It's insignificant when it's all you have.
I'm not saying 40% is the benchmark for whether you're in touch. I'm saying that that's what parties which are in touch currently get.
So are Johnson and Weld just in it to plunder the party's resources and organization in order to get their name out and get some attention for their circus of a candidacy, or are they actual believers? If we were in a Twilight Zone episode and Gary Johnson won the election, would he fill his cabinet with Libertarian party stalwarts, or would he ditch them at the first opportunity for republicans?
So they're first among losers?
You're putting the cart before the horse. A good chunk of the reason no one votes for 3rd Party candidates is because of the stigma label "3rd Party." Many people don't ever go past that phrase to even learn about platforms or candidates. The only time they even really come up is when a high profile positions (namely the presidency) has only unpopular people running for it. That's not "no one votes for them;" that's "no one knows they even exist."
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
That's absurd. Why would I vote for him when we disagree on almost every major issue?
- Whining about Muslims.
- Whining about illegals.
- Whining about Crooked Hillary.
Sounds like a match to me.candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
We do have that in common - that neither of us would use the 3 terror attacks in the U.S. yesterday as a reason to whine about 'Islamophobia.'
But we disagree about:
-The wall
-Mass deportation
-War
-Torture
-Economic policies (all of them)
-Taxes
-Personal freedoms (e.g. the drug war, prostitution, etc.)
So no, I'm not going to vote for him.
This has been a demonstrated fact throughout our country. We generally tend to have two dominant parties, with a third party only coming into prominence when the two dominant parties either are not addressing a major issue, or have candidates that are exceedingly unpopular. This is because the two dominant parties tend to be centrist, with the third party occupying an extreme viewpoint and/or based entirely around a single issue.
You forgot whining about civil rights activists.
The fact that you attribute all three to "Islam" maybe might be the problem we're criticizing about you.
Hardly a huge leap to suggest that the man who invoked the name of Allah during the attacks in St. Cloud was motivated by radical Islam.
1. At the time of your post, we only had information that one of the attacks was motivated by ISIS, and no information whatsoever on the other two.
2. Even if we knew they were all motivated by radical jihadists, that is not the same as being motivated by Islam. It's similar to the difference between saying an attack was the result of someone subscribing to Irish nationalist terrorism, versus saying an attack was the result of someone being Irish.
You're making a huge assumption that people know 3rd Parties are extremist or have alienating viewpoints. That may be the case for you, to a lesser extent me, and a small part of the population, but in my experience, when I've dropped the phrase "Green Party," people are generally familiar with the names Ralph Nader or Jill Stein, and about the Party themselves they think either spoiler effect, "who?", and/or vaccines, which is not coincidentally the only issue oriented headline Jill Stein made in multiple sources around the time of the conventions when Bernie Sanders was making his switch to Hillary Clinton. There's so many more things to (dis)agree with the party on, yet they don't come up. Why? I say because they're not reported. Some people go out looking for all their options. Some people don't and stick with what's presented to them. You and I fall into the former, and you are disregarding the latter while what I'm saying is the latter is much bigger than you are giving it credit for, even if with the Green Party the current result of both is the same (the vast majority vote for Democrats instead).
And as a fun aside, I talked to our State Democrats about the State Green Party, and they don't think our State Green Party is either extreme and only mildly alienating. In fact, since I live in a Red State, about half the time two Parties are in complete cooperation because there is a host of issues they both agree they either of them could handle better than Republicans. It was described to me as a Bernie v. Hillary kind of thing: tense, yet good sportsmanship as opposed to the toxic partisanship of Republicans v. Democrats. The criticism that my local Democrats levied was that the Green Party has no ground game and their staunch rejection of large donations (i.e. via unions or people with a stronger progressive vision) is starving their organizing efforts.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Just a few minutes on the platform page for the Green Party:
Those are pretty radical, alienating ideas.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
The St. Cloud attacker cried out "Allah!" while stabbing people and the bomber responsible for the attacks in Manhattan and New Jersey was Ahmad Khan Rahami, a naturalized citizen from Afghanistan and you expect us to believe that radical Islam has nothing to do with these attacks? Come on man, please don't be disingenuous.
Yet we can't talk about radical Islam. Can't even admit that this has anything to do with Islam at all. Neither can we discuss the U.S.' ridiculous foreign policy that involves bombing whoever and arming whoever else for God only knows what reasons. What's the plan to combat terrorism again? Cross our fingers?
THIS is the point. There is more reason to include them in the debate than just them having strong odds of winning. The presence of a third party voice with a substantial amount of support (which 10% is) goes a long way to push the narrative toward what that 10% wants to hear and/or achieve. Just like Bernie being in the primary pushed the primary narrative to the left for democrats, despite him never having a real chance of getting the nomination, inclusion of Libertarian [or any party of sufficient size really] voice in the debates would go a long way toward getting that voice heard.
We live in a representative democracy. There is no candidate that will fully represent my beliefs and politics (honestly, short of me running, there never will be -- this is true for everyone). So, the best bet is to either elect someone who is close to me, or use a voice to push the electable people closer to me than they are currently. In this election cycle there is no viable candidate that I can justify voting for, so the try and shift the narrative in the manner I think is most helpful is the best form of politics I have available.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
We've never met :).
In all seriousness though, after taking corporations at law school and going over the exact concept and why it exists what I found was that... even the majority of law students (now lawyers) who could succeed in that class don't understand what it actually is.
My layman's understanding of it is basically that for the sake of things such as lawsuits, taxes, ect, a corporation is treated like a person and has certain rights. So Mcdonalds itself could sue you rather than the CEO, or in an LLC, anyone with a piece of stock wouldn't be liable for damages if there was say, a case of food poisoning in those trash patties.
It's obviously much more complex than that, but eh. It would be asinine to get rid of it at this stage, and as far as removing the LLC type of business model, my basic understanding of economics would tell me that it would drastically (in a bad way) effect the stock market.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
B. I didn't say that these attacks are completely unrelated to radical Islam. What I did say was that there is a difference between violent jihadist Islamist violence and Islam as a whole, just as there is a different between terrorism done in the name of Irish nationalism and presuming that someone is a terrorist because he's Irish. I have already explained this. So either you're distorting what I said willfully, or you didn't understand the distinction, and failure to understand the distinction rather demonstrates my point.
Umm, we talk about Islam all the time.
Drone airstrikes seem to be doing pretty well.
Nevermind that Johnson doesn't seem to understand what Sharia is (Sharia is sort of like the Talmud - it's just all the rules a Muslim lives by. Even moderate, peaceful Muslims have their version of Sharia.), but it seems like Johnson agrees with Highroller here.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~