Thread: VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT! by Frosty Wooldridge

AlamoAlliance

Your post began:

It’s a good start as to why we must vote out most incumbents from Congress.

Do you believe that is an answer to this illegal immigration problem or not?

One of the missions of any group or forum is to attract membership. I submit that it's this kind of infighting, accusations, general nastiness and insinuations that drive people away.

We sure do want membership. We are seeking persons that can be intellectually honest and act rationally as an American to bringing about solutions to illegal alien invasion and protect our sovereignty. Simplistic solutions as "Vote the ins out" are not what we're about. We intend to choose Patriot candidates carefully and support them.
I don't see Crockett's challenge as personal. However, if your ideas are to prevail in a thread with him you'll need to bring a lunch. He is an avid defender of America. Please hang in and get to know us some.

Originally Posted by AlamoAlliance

Well sir, the title of the thread plainly states "VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT! by Frosty Wooldridge".

When you click the link to read the article, you will see, word for word, the exact same beginning of his article. As far as I know, this is standard forum "ettique" when posting an article.

I can however see how the confusion might come about as to who is the author of the statement. I apologize for my part, if any, in the confusion.

What I cannot understand is the total lack of respect for anyone elses opinion and the insinuation of "intellectual laziness". Perhaps Mr. Wooldridge believe's that most incumbents should be voted out of Congress. Perhaps he meant to write "Senate" and it was a typo, I don't know. But I do know that he is a valuable asset to our cause and has done far more than most of us to advance it.

Either way, your post was insulting and in my opinion, completely uncalled for. I see many statements on many forums that I do not agree with but I tend to refrain, as much as possible, from insinuating a lack of intelligence of the author, especially if that poster is on my side.

One of the missions of any group or forum is to attract membership. I submit that it's this kind of infighting, accusations, general nastiness and insinuations that drive people away.

I yeild the floor to any comment or rebuttal you may feel necessary. As for me, this is my final word on the subject.

As it happens, I did read his article, and he makes clear that he intends to say that incumbent members of both houses should be voted out. He names five or six (or thereabouts) specific individuals who should be retained.

Regardless of your opinion of Mr. Woolridge and his value to the cause, I reserve the right to call an opinion I find absurd as I see it. The idea that merely "voting out the incumbents" will accomplish anything or not in fact worsen the situation is just goofy. It's like believing that milking the venom from a snake means that there's not an endless supply of equally deadly venom still to come. The trick is rather to find the snakes least likely to bite and make the best of their leadership.

The alternative is completely upending the entire system by which representatives are selected and increasing the number of members of the House of Representatives so that the number of represented citizens per representative is somewhat on par with that at the time of this nation's founding, so as to allow more direct influence by the represented. It would probably also entail returning appointment of the Senate to the states. Accomplishing that means rooting out even deeper problems in this nation, like dislodging the banking/corporate powers and the shyster lawyers (including most of our judiciary) who serve them that hijacked this nation and its legal system many decades ago. Dislodging them would probably require this nation's regaining its true financial footing calling the banking powers on the fraudulent debt note system they use to keep us subjugated in perpetual debt and indentured servitude. Failing that, we are pretty much left with making the best of the status quo.

Making the best of the status quo means that the same powers with the same virtually endless supply of money and resources (such as the power of the subservient press that they have bought and paid for) will continue to decide who rises to an electable position by providing the necessary money and press and suppressing the dirty laundry that would otherwise be aired. It also means accepting that if a decent citizen runs for office from outside the system and that he has no dirty laundry to worry about, the assassin press will concoct some innuendo or slander him or her with false characterizations to nip any such candidacy in the bud.

So you can engage in fantasy about "kicking the bums out" and electing real honest representation or you can come around to the fact that ousting someone who has voted with you 80% of the time probably means bringing in someone who will vote against you 70% of the time.

As for your final comment about "nastiness and infighting," I would suggest that my first post was entirely reasonable, particularly if you were aware of the rash of operatives from one or another party who have tried to use this board to press a partisan agenda, more often than not by suggesting the ousting of "all" incumbents. It doesn't take much to figure out that if the Congress is currently held by the GOP, then voting all incumbents out of office means giving control back to the Democrats. Considering the voting record of the Dems on immigration issues, even when compared with the fairly unsatisfying record of the Republicans, it is clear to see what a mistake returning power to those guys would be. Is that what you and Frosty want? That sure as hell is what you'll get if his wish comes true. Anyhow, that's the background for my original comment, and your feigned outrage over that simple commentary is what has led to this exchange in which you have certainly contributed to the negative tenor.

Originally Posted by loservillelabor

AlamoAlliance

Your post began:

It’s a good start as to why we must vote out most incumbents from Congress.

Do you believe that is an answer to this illegal immigration problem or not?

[quote:1k0tfnd1]One of the missions of any group or forum is to attract membership. I submit that it's this kind of infighting, accusations, general nastiness and insinuations that drive people away.

We sure do want membership. We are seeking persons that can be intellectually honest and act rationally as an American to bringing about solutions to illegal alien invasion and protect our sovereignty. Simplistic solutions as "Vote the ins out" are not what we're about. We intend to choose Patriot candidates carefully and support them.
I don't see Crockett's challenge as personal. However, if your ideas are to prevail in a thread with him you'll need to bring a lunch. He is an avid defender of America. Please hang in and get to know us some. [/quote:1k0tfnd1]
Well, LL, what he's claiming is that the words are not his, but rather those of the author of the linked article. I feel that it's disingenuous, however, for a person to offer up such a quote without commentary and to then feign offense at being taken to task over its contents.

My problem, as you correctly suggest, is that oversimplification merely exacerbates the problem. Swell-sounding catch-phrases like "vote the bums out" may have a certain ring to them, but they do little to actually ameliorate the situation.

If you are not sure, voting them out is a pretty safe bet nowadays.

People are on to what politicians stand for like no other time in my life though.

A new wind is coming.

More out of Frosty's article;

Did this little slime-butt get under your skin with his taunting? If America is to survive this invasion, you, dear reader, you fellow voter, must stand up, speak out, and vote most incumbents out of office. Save Tom Tancredo, Steve King, Mike Price, Nathan Deal, J.D. Hayworth, Ron Paul, James Sensenbrenner and a few other patriots, we need to clean out the deadwood in the House and Senate.

Let’s start with some of the big ones. Dick Mountjoy faces Dianne Feinstein of California in November while Ken Chase tries to unseat Ted Kennedy. Both enjoy a good chance of being elected because their opponents are two of the most vocal open-borders and amnesty-for-all advocates in the country.

These constitute two of the most important races in our nation in the upcoming election. Go after the big ones and the rest tumble like Humpty Dumpty. Your voice must speak out, “Serve us and our Constitution or we will fire you!”

Originally Posted by StokeyBob

If you are not sure, voting them out is a pretty safe bet nowadays.

People are on to what politicians stand for like no other time in my life though.

A new wind is coming.

So then WHO do you vote for, Stokey? Hey, if there's a true independent with a realistic chance of getting elected, I'm not only all for it, I put my vote where my mouth is. But most of the time voting out the incumbent just leads to more of the same and often much worse. As the old saying goes, you're better off with the devil you know than the devil you don't. Right now, the reality is that voting out the incumbents means replacing a GOP majority with a Dem majority. Looking at how the Dems have been voting readily demonstrates the folly of that approach.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by StokeyBob

If you are not sure, voting them out is a pretty safe bet nowadays.

People are on to what politicians stand for like no other time in my life though.

A new wind is coming.

So then WHO do you vote for, Stokey? Hey, if there's a true independent with a realistic chance of getting elected, I'm not only all for it, I put my vote where my mouth is. But most of the time voting out the incumbent just leads to more of the same and often much worse. As the old saying goes, you're better off with the devil you know than the devil you don't. Right now, the reality is that voting out the incumbents means replacing a GOP majority with a Dem majority. Looking at how the Dems have been voting readily demonstrates the folly of that approach.

And herein lies the conundrum

That's one of my thought.s Vote for the devil you know or the devil you don't?

The lesser of two evils? The latter seems like it has been going on for eons.

I'm just having a problem "believing" what some of them say, or any of them say at this juncture. I'm not for the Dems, that's for sure. Lots of scandals involving the Republicans over the recent past. Don't want to waste a vote on some third or fourth party.

What to do, what to do?

I'm not real fond of the Republican running for Senate here, but can't stand the incumbent Democrat. So .. perhaps in this mixed up state of mind ... vote for the Republican whom I don't know at all. Can also vote for the other Representative Republican, and hope he follows his father's example.

Guess after reading CrocketGhost's and 2ndamendis' thoughts, helped me out. Thanks....

Just a thought.

We have been locked into the voting for our party for quite some time now.

How's that working for us?

If you have someone who is great - and who has been fighting for the right causes all the years they have been in office - then vote for them. But we are going to have to admit to ourselves that those people are few and far between - obviously. Either they are not truly working for the right things - or they are not capable. Either way, they dont' need to be there.

If you vote out all encumbents (with miniscule exceptions), will it be a mistake? Possibly. If we continue to maintain the status quo and keep the same old bunch in Washington, will it be a mistake. I think we have ample proof it would be.

A representative that is not 'representing' you is not a good thing - no matter what party jersey they wear.

Remember, it isn't etched in stone, we actually get a shot every 2 years to change the landscape somewhat. It isn't a one time thing.

Now bring on the insults - but a devil is a devil - no matter what party.

Originally Posted by nntrixie

Just a thought.

We have been locked into the voting for our party for quite some time now.

How's that working for us?

If you have someone who is great - and who has been fighting for the right causes all the years they have been in office - then vote for them. But we are going to have to admit to ourselves that those people are few and far between - obviously. Either they are not truly working for the right things - or they are not capable. Either way, they dont' need to be there.

If you vote out all encumbents (with miniscule exceptions), will it be a mistake? Possibly. If we continue to maintain the status quo and keep the same old bunch in Washington, will it be a mistake. I think we have ample proof it would be.

A representative that is not 'representing' you is not a good thing - no matter what party jersey they wear.

Remember, it isn't etched in stone, we actually get a shot every 2 years to change the landscape somewhat. It isn't a one time thing.

Now bring on the insults - but a devil is a devil - no matter what party.

Well, what I'm saying is that we need to stop stop making blanket votes of ANY sort. That means that voting all incumbents out is a mistake, voting a straight party ticket is a mistake, voting a single issue (generally speaking) is a mistake, voting pro-labor or anti-labor is a mistake, etc.

If Americans want an improvement in the condition of our government, then we need to spend some time away from the television set getting familiar with the issues and the candidates. More importantly, we need to get involved in candidate selection LONG before the actual elections. It's the only way that we'll ever end up with candidates that aren't beholden to the corporate and governmental powers that be. I realize that, by definition, most of the people posting here are not among the snoozing apathetic types of which I speak. It is, however, possible that we can do more to make those types realize the untapped power that they may exercise with the slightest expenditure of time and effort. We need to break the cycle of major party dominance, but in the national elections for which the candidates are already determined, we should vote based on the voting records of those candidates.