looks like four more - Page 5 - Jeep Wrangler Forum
Jeep Wrangler Forum

Go Back   Jeep Wrangler Forum > General Discussion Forums > Off-Topic

Join Wrangler Forum Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools

Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them on WranglerForum.com
Old 11-08-2012, 12:04 AM   #121
Jeeper
 
Desperado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Skagit County, Washington
Posts: 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hillbilly Mac

I appreciate you thinking so. I've met many who do not.
That definitely isn't a handout. As said before, that's just payment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ed98208

Ironically the states with the greatest poverty, the highest illiteracy, lowest education levels and highest collection of entitlements and federal funding are red states. Those states with the highest incomes, most education, least federal funding and lowest number of people collecting entitlements are blue states.
Now normally I'd say that the reason that the poor states are red is because those states are generally very socially conservative, and that probably draws the religious right to the republican party, but there have been studies that show how even in poor places like Alabama and Mississippi, the poorer republicans don't like the idea of a handout. Not sure if they're too accurate though.

__________________
Bear94: "Hey just remember. No one ever really grows up."
GoldenSahara00: "That is some Peter Pan wonderland stuff right there ^"
99Wrangler4x4: "Inside joke sigs! GENIUS!"

GoldenSahara00: "I beat up a few bigger kids back in HS "
Desperado is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 12:23 AM   #122
Jeeper
 
Old Dogger's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: THE NORTH POLE
Posts: 3,826
We all better hide the titles to our Jeeps, because Obama/Osama has sold our Bonds to China and yes one of these days they will can it in and want their money! Well Obama has bankrupted our country and China will repo everything, because they own us!!!
And those of you that don't believe this, well just set back and watch it happen..........
It is hard to believe how many morons that we have in this great country of ours that would vote him back in.

Old Dogger is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 08:25 AM   #123
The Bad Guy

WF Supporting Member
 
daggo66's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NJ exile living in Baltimore
Posts: 22,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Con Artist View Post
Gary Johnson was the best man for the job. Too bad 95% of America weren't smart enough to see it.
The problem was that he was not a viable candidate. Anyone who voted for him needs to face the fact that they actually voted for Obama.
__________________
Tom

"I've got two things in this world, my balls and my word and I don't break them for no one."
daggo66 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 08:37 AM   #124
The Bad Guy

WF Supporting Member
 
daggo66's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NJ exile living in Baltimore
Posts: 22,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by fan of fanboys View Post
No government hand outs? So if you use free public school, free public library, or anything else the government just hands us based on tax payers dollars can't vote? That's an interesting stance you have.
Have fun with your semantics. Those are things that are available to everyone. Why don't you include the police and fire departments in your ridiculous analogy? Everyone knows that government handouts refers to welfare and extended unemployment.

I personally know someone who was on unemployment for a year and a half and when it finally ended had to scramble and find a job. She never even bothered trying during that time. People are actually turning down legitimate jobs because for a few dollars less, they don't have to do a damn thing with unemployment and food stamps. Jobs are available, but no one wants to work any more. Romney was 100% on point about the 47%. My wife is trying to fills jobs where she works, but no one wants to work. One day she had 5 interviews set up and not one of them showed up. One day someone showed up for an interview and placed their I-Phone on the desk. Interview over.

The price I pay for health insurance took a huge jump last year because of Obamacare and I received less coverage. I expect to be hit with an even larger increase this year.
__________________
Tom

"I've got two things in this world, my balls and my word and I don't break them for no one."
daggo66 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 09:02 AM   #125
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 52
In order to continue on unemployment you have to verify you are actively looking. Not sure how that works exactly, or how viable it is to check up on people though. Burdensome and expensive to do I'm sure.

I have a friend who was later off from a teaching position last year. He's had trouble finding work that pays more than the unemployment. I think he has something lined up. He's a conservative like me, and he's sick of being out of work, but in the choice to provide for his family it makes no sense to take significantly less money to get off unemployment.

Healthcare is expense and benefits are going to skyrocket again this year. Nothing fixes this short of tort reform.
Qdogfox is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 09:30 AM   #126
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Kearneysville, WV
Posts: 3,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by daggo66 View Post
The problem was that he was not a viable candidate. Anyone who voted for him needs to face the fact that they actually voted for Obama.
Of course he was viable. He was on the ballot. I chose not to vote, but instead went and voted because a friend of mine did not get a chance and she wanted to vote. I threw in a vote for her. Whether it was Obama, Romney, or Santa Claus, I told her I'd throw in a vote for the candidate she supported...just so happens it was Obama. Personally, my choice would have been Gary Johnson, but let's be honest, he never had a chance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by daggo66 View Post
Have fun with your semantics. Those are things that are available to everyone. Why don't you include the police and fire departments in your ridiculous analogy? Everyone knows that government handouts refers to welfare and extended unemployment.

I personally know someone who was on unemployment for a year and a half and when it finally ended had to scramble and find a job. She never even bothered trying during that time. People are actually turning down legitimate jobs because for a few dollars less, they don't have to do a damn thing with unemployment and food stamps. Jobs are available, but no one wants to work any more. Romney was 100% on point about the 47%. My wife is trying to fills jobs where she works, but no one wants to work. One day she had 5 interviews set up and not one of them showed up. One day someone showed up for an interview and placed their I-Phone on the desk. Interview over.

The price I pay for health insurance took a huge jump last year because of Obamacare and I received less coverage. I expect to be hit with an even larger increase this year.
Tom, what you're forgetting is this. When you work, you are contributing to unemployment. Unemployment is a benefit available to you, it's not like welfare where the government is supporting you. Unemployment is coming out of your previous employer's pocket, not the government's.

Secondly, WHY would you wanna work for less than what you could make by sitting on your ass doing nothing? While I'm all about working, I'm not going to go work for less than what I'm getting from unemployment. Financially, it doesn't make any sense. Unemployment requires you to look for a minimum of ONE job per week, or at least that's how it used to be. I'm not sure if that's changed since about 6 years ago, the last time I was on unemployment.

As for your views that nobody wants to work, you're absolutely right. Everybody wants a handout. The days of the proud, hard-working American are long gone, and it started with our generation. I'm not sure how old you are, but I'm 38, and I believe my parents' generation were the last of the hard-working generations. For some reason, my generation is the "I'm Entitled" generation, and it's very sad. Look no further than how children act these days; gone are the days of disciplining your misbehaving child with a spank on the ass, now you get arrested. While this doesn't make someone a parent, parents are afraid to be parents. Nowadays it's all about catering to the child, which is preposterous. When we get older, there will not be any social security, welfare, or anything else. If nobody's working, there isn't any money.
Con Artist is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 09:32 AM   #127
The Bad Guy

WF Supporting Member
 
daggo66's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NJ exile living in Baltimore
Posts: 22,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qdogfox View Post
In order to continue on unemployment you have to verify you are actively looking. Not sure how that works exactly, or how viable it is to check up on people though. Burdensome and expensive to do I'm sure.
They simply ask. No one ever says, "No, I didn't look." They never check.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qdogfox View Post
I have a friend who was later off from a teaching position last year. He's had trouble finding work that pays more than the unemployment. I think he has something lined up. He's a conservative like me, and he's sick of being out of work, but in the choice to provide for his family it makes no sense to take significantly less money to get off unemployment.
That's part of the problem, it shouldn't be more than you could make by working. When I was laid off, I made finding a job my full time job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qdogfox View Post
Healthcare is expense and benefits are going to skyrocket again this year. Nothing fixes this short of tort reform.
Healthcare reform is definitely needed, however giving it to people at the expense of others is not the answer.
__________________
Tom

"I've got two things in this world, my balls and my word and I don't break them for no one."
daggo66 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 09:35 AM   #128
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Kearneysville, WV
Posts: 3,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by daggo66 View Post
They simply ask. No one ever says, "No, I didn't look." They never check.
They DO check, Tom. Get busted and that's fraud. Pretty stiff penalty, I believe.


Quote:
That's part of the problem, it shouldn't be more than you could make by working. When I was laid off, I made finding a job my full time job.
Yes, me too, but that's the type of people WE are. That's not how people are these days.

Quote:
Healthcare reform is definitely needed, however giving it to people at the expense of others is not the answer.
You're absolutely right. Not a fan of Obamacare, as we're in enough financial trouble as is.
Con Artist is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 10:58 AM   #129
Jeeper
 
InvertChaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NoVa
Posts: 7,910
Quote:
Originally Posted by daggo66

The problem was that he was not a viable candidate. Anyone who voted for him needs to face the fact that they actually voted for Obama.
That is not true at all. These are not my words but here is why:

"The current two party system encourages people to vote for lesser of two evils. Look at the dialogue...it's not I'm voting for (), it's I'm voting against () because I'm scared if he is elected. Hell look at the campaigns politicians run, it's more negative than positive. They know that the psychology of people is not to vote for who they like but to vote against fears/dislike. That's why over 80% of political campaigning is negative and fear-driven.

The media and the system (debates, balloting, laws) even promote the 2-party system. Third parties have to poll at least 15% of a national ballot to be included in the main debates. Not only is that number too high, but the question in the poll they ask respondents is "Do you vote for Romney, Obama, or neither?" Who the hell when asked that is going to say 'neither'. They try to keep it "fair" by making the order random between Obama and Romney, but 'neither' is always last. Yeah, that's fair. When the third parties had a debate, C-Span and only one news channel showed the debate. Which news channel was it? Al-Jazeera. A foreign news channel was the ONLY news channel to show the third party debate. Was it even mentioned by the major news channels? Nope.

Wasting a vote? Are you kidding? By voting for the party or the candidate that best represents who we are and what we believe in, we are making a statement that WE WILL VOTE FOR THE BEST CANDIDATE and not the lesser of two evils, which the media and the system pushes. I would like to believe that if you ask the people "do you want less taxes and more freedom?" more than 5% of the population would say 'yes'.

Which brings me to the 5%. If the libertarian party gets 5% of the vote, we get a lot of benefits for the next election cycle. The LP is automatically on every ballot (which is a huge thing...the republican party used the legal system to take us out of a few states and costing the party millions of dollars in legal fees), and we have the option of accepting federal money to benefit the campaign. Personally, I think if the Libertarian party gets offered the money, they turn it down based on principle and as a publicity stunt, but still, it'd be a huge step to be in that position.

Also, it's funny because both parties are mad at us. I've been vocal about my support for Johnson and the LP, as well as my complaints on the system. I hear from my Romney-friends that "I'm voting for Obama" and my Obama-loving girlfriend (eww that hurts to say...) that "I can't believe you're wasting your vote...it's like voting for Romney", to which I say, "nope, I'm voting FOR Johnson". They have now come to respect my decision and they know that it's based on principle and it's not some crazy gimmick.

The problem is that both of the major parties are now so similar. They both want more power and just see different ways to make the federal government more powerful. I think the federal government should be limited to providing things that states cannot provide themselves. To explain this, I talk about the power of a vote. The president is voted to office from millions and millions of votes, so my vote is practically meaningless (moreso when you throw the electoral college into the mix...that's another topic...lol). The guy running for mayor in my small home town is usually decided by hundreds or thousands of votes. So why does president have so much more power than my local representative? If I want my vote to truly matter, the local government (or even state...) should have more power in my life (i.e. tax money allotment and say in what I do with my life).

The great thing is that with some momentum, the Libertarian party has a great opportunity to have a huge effect. I actually wish the Libertarian party would focus their efforts on running for house and senate seats. With only 5-10% of a legislative body, the libertarian party would control it, swinging the vote to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Let's look at the Senate...100 seats. Let's say it's 48 Republicans (fiscal & social conservative), 48 Democrats (fiscal & social liberal) and 4 Libertarians (fiscally conservative and socially liberal). That's 52 for social liberally votes and 52 for fiscally conservative votes. THAT is the reason why both parties are SO scared of the Libertarian party. AND they know that there's enough of the population that are fiscal conservative and socially liberal that there's a chance a third party could get enough power (5-10%) to be a controlling voting bloc!"

So while you vote AGAINST someone, I will be voting FOR someone.
__________________
|2004 Jeep TJ "Green Machine"|4.0L 5 speed Dana44|33x12.50x15 Goodyear Duratracs|2.5" RC coils + 1.25" body lift|OME NitroSport shocks|4.56 gears|Skid Row Engine Skid|BCC Sliders|Currie AntiRock|
InvertChaos is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 11:08 AM   #130
Jeeper
 
Desperado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Skagit County, Washington
Posts: 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by InvertChaos

That is not true at all. These are not my words but here is why:

"The current two party system encourages people to vote for lesser of two evils. Look at the dialogue...it's not I'm voting for (), it's I'm voting against () because I'm scared if he is elected. Hell look at the campaigns politicians run, it's more negative than positive. They know that the psychology of people is not to vote for who they like but to vote against fears/dislike. That's why over 80% of political campaigning is negative and fear-driven.

The media and the system (debates, balloting, laws) even promote the 2-party system. Third parties have to poll at least 15% of a national ballot to be included in the main debates. Not only is that number too high, but the question in the poll they ask respondents is "Do you vote for Romney, Obama, or neither?" Who the hell when asked that is going to say 'neither'. They try to keep it "fair" by making the order random between Obama and Romney, but 'neither' is always last. Yeah, that's fair. When the third parties had a debate, C-Span and only one news channel showed the debate. Which news channel was it? Al-Jazeera. A foreign news channel was the ONLY news channel to show the third party debate. Was it even mentioned by the major news channels? Nope.

Wasting a vote? Are you kidding? By voting for the party or the candidate that best represents who we are and what we believe in, we are making a statement that WE WILL VOTE FOR THE BEST CANDIDATE and not the lesser of two evils, which the media and the system pushes. I would like to believe that if you ask the people "do you want less taxes and more freedom?" more than 5% of the population would say 'yes'.

Which brings me to the 5%. If the libertarian party gets 5% of the vote, we get a lot of benefits for the next election cycle. The LP is automatically on every ballot (which is a huge thing...the republican party used the legal system to take us out of a few states and costing the party millions of dollars in legal fees), and we have the option of accepting federal money to benefit the campaign. Personally, I think if the Libertarian party gets offered the money, they turn it down based on principle and as a publicity stunt, but still, it'd be a huge step to be in that position.

Also, it's funny because both parties are mad at us. I've been vocal about my support for Johnson and the LP, as well as my complaints on the system. I hear from my Romney-friends that "I'm voting for Obama" and my Obama-loving girlfriend (eww that hurts to say...) that "I can't believe you're wasting your vote...it's like voting for Romney", to which I say, "nope, I'm voting FOR Johnson". They have now come to respect my decision and they know that it's based on principle and it's not some crazy gimmick.

The problem is that both of the major parties are now so similar. They both want more power and just see different ways to make the federal government more powerful. I think the federal government should be limited to providing things that states cannot provide themselves. To explain this, I talk about the power of a vote. The president is voted to office from millions and millions of votes, so my vote is practically meaningless (moreso when you throw the electoral college into the mix...that's another topic...lol). The guy running for mayor in my small home town is usually decided by hundreds or thousands of votes. So why does president have so much more power than my local representative? If I want my vote to truly matter, the local government (or even state...) should have more power in my life (i.e. tax money allotment and say in what I do with my life).

The great thing is that with some momentum, the Libertarian party has a great opportunity to have a huge effect. I actually wish the Libertarian party would focus their efforts on running for house and senate seats. With only 5-10% of a legislative body, the libertarian party would control it, swinging the vote to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Let's look at the Senate...100 seats. Let's say it's 48 Republicans (fiscal & social conservative), 48 Democrats (fiscal & social liberal) and 4 Libertarians (fiscally conservative and socially liberal). That's 52 for social liberally votes and 52 for fiscally conservative votes. THAT is the reason why both parties are SO scared of the Libertarian party. AND they know that there's enough of the population that are fiscal conservative and socially liberal that there's a chance a third party could get enough power (5-10%) to be a controlling voting bloc!"

So while you vote AGAINST someone, I will be voting FOR someone.
I remember reading this exact article. I could not have said it any better. My parents, who both vote Republican, even admitted that Johnson was much more qualified than Romney, but voted for Romney anyway because they didn't think Johnson had a chance.
__________________
Bear94: "Hey just remember. No one ever really grows up."
GoldenSahara00: "That is some Peter Pan wonderland stuff right there ^"
99Wrangler4x4: "Inside joke sigs! GENIUS!"

GoldenSahara00: "I beat up a few bigger kids back in HS "
Desperado is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 11:27 AM   #131
I HAVE A BELLYBUTTON!

WF Supporting Member
 
cavediverjc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: On the grassy knoll...
Posts: 7,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by fan of fanboys

Of course something outside of his hand but when in charge you get all credit and blame. They know this when accepting the job.
You JUST got done saying that the economy wasn't Obama's fault, that he inherited it from Bush (that old song and dance), then you go on to say what I quoted from your previous post. You're talking in circles. I don't know if it's because you think we're all too stupid to see through it or what, but it's getting irritating. We get that you hated Bush. Great. You can't keep blaming him for our current troubles. Obama just inherited a ridiculously high unemployment rate...from himself. The time has come to stop blaming Bush for Obama's shortcomings. Maybe, just maybe, he's not the Golden Messiah that so many people think he is? Maybe he's in over his head?

I've stayed out of this thread so far and don't plan on contributing any more. I won't change your mind about my opinion, and you certainly won't change mine by speaking in circles.
__________________
Americans sleep safely in their beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do them harm...

Happiness is a Barrett M82A1 .50 caliber and a target at least a click out........

I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes, if you f**k with me, I'll kill you all.....
cavediverjc is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 11:35 AM   #132
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Kearneysville, WV
Posts: 3,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by InvertChaos View Post
That is not true at all. These are not my words but here is why:

"The current two party system encourages people to vote for lesser of two evils. Look at the dialogue...it's not I'm voting for (), it's I'm voting against () because I'm scared if he is elected. Hell look at the campaigns politicians run, it's more negative than positive. They know that the psychology of people is not to vote for who they like but to vote against fears/dislike. That's why over 80% of political campaigning is negative and fear-driven.

The media and the system (debates, balloting, laws) even promote the 2-party system. Third parties have to poll at least 15% of a national ballot to be included in the main debates. Not only is that number too high, but the question in the poll they ask respondents is "Do you vote for Romney, Obama, or neither?" Who the hell when asked that is going to say 'neither'. They try to keep it "fair" by making the order random between Obama and Romney, but 'neither' is always last. Yeah, that's fair. When the third parties had a debate, C-Span and only one news channel showed the debate. Which news channel was it? Al-Jazeera. A foreign news channel was the ONLY news channel to show the third party debate. Was it even mentioned by the major news channels? Nope.

Wasting a vote? Are you kidding? By voting for the party or the candidate that best represents who we are and what we believe in, we are making a statement that WE WILL VOTE FOR THE BEST CANDIDATE and not the lesser of two evils, which the media and the system pushes. I would like to believe that if you ask the people "do you want less taxes and more freedom?" more than 5% of the population would say 'yes'.

Which brings me to the 5%. If the libertarian party gets 5% of the vote, we get a lot of benefits for the next election cycle. The LP is automatically on every ballot (which is a huge thing...the republican party used the legal system to take us out of a few states and costing the party millions of dollars in legal fees), and we have the option of accepting federal money to benefit the campaign. Personally, I think if the Libertarian party gets offered the money, they turn it down based on principle and as a publicity stunt, but still, it'd be a huge step to be in that position.

Also, it's funny because both parties are mad at us. I've been vocal about my support for Johnson and the LP, as well as my complaints on the system. I hear from my Romney-friends that "I'm voting for Obama" and my Obama-loving girlfriend (eww that hurts to say...) that "I can't believe you're wasting your vote...it's like voting for Romney", to which I say, "nope, I'm voting FOR Johnson". They have now come to respect my decision and they know that it's based on principle and it's not some crazy gimmick.

The problem is that both of the major parties are now so similar. They both want more power and just see different ways to make the federal government more powerful. I think the federal government should be limited to providing things that states cannot provide themselves. To explain this, I talk about the power of a vote. The president is voted to office from millions and millions of votes, so my vote is practically meaningless (moreso when you throw the electoral college into the mix...that's another topic...lol). The guy running for mayor in my small home town is usually decided by hundreds or thousands of votes. So why does president have so much more power than my local representative? If I want my vote to truly matter, the local government (or even state...) should have more power in my life (i.e. tax money allotment and say in what I do with my life).

The great thing is that with some momentum, the Libertarian party has a great opportunity to have a huge effect. I actually wish the Libertarian party would focus their efforts on running for house and senate seats. With only 5-10% of a legislative body, the libertarian party would control it, swinging the vote to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Let's look at the Senate...100 seats. Let's say it's 48 Republicans (fiscal & social conservative), 48 Democrats (fiscal & social liberal) and 4 Libertarians (fiscally conservative and socially liberal). That's 52 for social liberally votes and 52 for fiscally conservative votes. THAT is the reason why both parties are SO scared of the Libertarian party. AND they know that there's enough of the population that are fiscal conservative and socially liberal that there's a chance a third party could get enough power (5-10%) to be a controlling voting bloc!"

So while you vote AGAINST someone, I will be voting FOR someone.
VERY WELL put! Very true that people vote AGAINST what they DON'T like or fear, and I am guilty as charged when I used to vote. I never thought of it this way, so thanks for bringing that to mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Desperado View Post
I remember reading this exact article. I could not have said it any better. My parents, who both vote Republican, even admitted that Johnson was much more qualified than Romney, but voted for Romney anyway because they didn't think Johnson had a chance.
It's not that your parents voted for Romney "because they didn't think Johnson had a chance," they voted for Romney because they KNEW Johson didn't have a chance. It's pretty sad that people feel so helpless when it comes to electing a candidate. Had I thought Johnson had a chance, I would have taken the time to vote for him.

Not sure what the deal is but these independent parties really need to amp up their campaigns to ensure they do become a viable option that people will consider. Everyone forgets about the independent parties.

Remember Jesse Ventura; yeah, that same former Navy Seal who used to wear a pink boa and beat Hulk Hogan's ass every Saturday morning? He sat in on a debate between both, a Democrat and a Republican, and those two just bickered back and forth while Jesse pretty much just sat there. They simply ignored him because they didn't think he was a threat. Sure enough, guess who won? That same guy. Just his presence made a difference because the people of Minnesota saw him, reminding them that there was another choice. "Wait a minute, there ARE more than these two to choose from!" I am confident that if an independent could get into this same "circuit" of Democratic/Republican debates, things in this country could be very different, and I think the Democrats and Republicans both know it, hence the reason they try to roll the independents under the bus.
Con Artist is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 11:37 AM   #133
The Bad Guy

WF Supporting Member
 
daggo66's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NJ exile living in Baltimore
Posts: 22,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Con Artist View Post
Of course he was viable. He was on the ballot. I chose not to vote, but instead went and voted because a friend of mine did not get a chance and she wanted to vote. I threw in a vote for her. Whether it was Obama, Romney, or Santa Claus, I told her I'd throw in a vote for the candidate she supported...just so happens it was Obama. Personally, my choice would have been Gary Johnson, but let's be honest, he never had a chance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by InvertChaos View Post
That is not true at all.
So while you vote AGAINST someone, I will be voting FOR someone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desperado View Post
I remember reading this exact article. I could not have said it any better. My parents, who both vote Republican, even admitted that Johnson was much more qualified than Romney, but voted for Romney anyway because they didn't think Johnson had a chance.

When I said "not viable", what I meant was that he had zero, absolutely zero, chance of winning.
__________________
Tom

"I've got two things in this world, my balls and my word and I don't break them for no one."
daggo66 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 11:43 AM   #134
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Kearneysville, WV
Posts: 3,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavediverjc View Post
You JUST got done saying that the economy wasn't Obama's fault, that he inherited it from Bush (that old song and dance), then you go on to say what I quoted from your previous post. You're talking in circles. I don't know if it's because you think we're all too stupid to see through it or what, but it's getting irritating. We get that you hated Bush. Great. You can't keep blaming him for our current troubles. Obama just inherited a ridiculously high unemployment rate...from himself. The time has come to stop blaming Bush for Obama's shortcomings. Maybe, just maybe, he's not the Golden Messiah that so many people think he is? Maybe he's in over his head?

I've stayed out of this thread so far and don't plan on contributing any more. I won't change your mind about my opinion, and you certainly won't change mine by speaking in circles.
Do you REALLY think anyone could have done a better job than Obama? I'm FAR FROM an Obama supporter and I even recall him saying that if people were expecting change overnight, it wasn't going to happen, and probably wasn't going to happen in four years, either. He was right. Say what you will about the man, but do really think anyone could have done better?

The fact remains that Obama inherited this burden, and it came under Bush's watch. Obama's been trying to fix things, but it's the Republicans who made it VERY CLEAR after Obama won his FIRST term that they were going to do EVERYTHING THEY COULD TO ENSURE HE WAS A ONE-TERM PRESIDENT. Those are not my words, but the words of the Republicans. They flat-out said it. What that means is that even if Obama had some great idea they agreed with, they were going to shoot him down just for the sake of him not being re-elected, yet you're accusing people of talking in circles. These are facts. It is a FACT that Obama inherited a poor economy and the problems that went along with it.

And I will be the first one to say it. I am thrilled Obama was re-elected, not because I like him, but because that meant Romney was NOT elected. Do you really think Romney has your best interests in mind? Unless you're rich, Romney would not be helping you AT ALL. YOU are NOT his concern. I don't know why so many middle class people are such supporters of Republicans because Republicans couldn't give a damn about middle and lower income families.
Con Artist is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 11:45 AM   #135
The Bad Guy

WF Supporting Member
 
daggo66's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NJ exile living in Baltimore
Posts: 22,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by InvertChaos View Post
That is not true at all. These are not my words but here is why:

"The current two party system encourages people to vote for lesser of two evils. Look at the dialogue...it's not I'm voting for (), it's I'm voting against () because I'm scared if he is elected. Hell look at the campaigns politicians run, it's more negative than positive. They know that the psychology of people is not to vote for who they like but to vote against fears/dislike. That's why over 80% of political campaigning is negative and fear-driven.

The media and the system (debates, balloting, laws) even promote the 2-party system. Third parties have to poll at least 15% of a national ballot to be included in the main debates. Not only is that number too high, but the question in the poll they ask respondents is "Do you vote for Romney, Obama, or neither?" Who the hell when asked that is going to say 'neither'. They try to keep it "fair" by making the order random between Obama and Romney, but 'neither' is always last. Yeah, that's fair. When the third parties had a debate, C-Span and only one news channel showed the debate. Which news channel was it? Al-Jazeera. A foreign news channel was the ONLY news channel to show the third party debate. Was it even mentioned by the major news channels? Nope.

Wasting a vote? Are you kidding? By voting for the party or the candidate that best represents who we are and what we believe in, we are making a statement that WE WILL VOTE FOR THE BEST CANDIDATE and not the lesser of two evils, which the media and the system pushes. I would like to believe that if you ask the people "do you want less taxes and more freedom?" more than 5% of the population would say 'yes'.

Which brings me to the 5%. If the libertarian party gets 5% of the vote, we get a lot of benefits for the next election cycle. The LP is automatically on every ballot (which is a huge thing...the republican party used the legal system to take us out of a few states and costing the party millions of dollars in legal fees), and we have the option of accepting federal money to benefit the campaign. Personally, I think if the Libertarian party gets offered the money, they turn it down based on principle and as a publicity stunt, but still, it'd be a huge step to be in that position.

Also, it's funny because both parties are mad at us. I've been vocal about my support for Johnson and the LP, as well as my complaints on the system. I hear from my Romney-friends that "I'm voting for Obama" and my Obama-loving girlfriend (eww that hurts to say...) that "I can't believe you're wasting your vote...it's like voting for Romney", to which I say, "nope, I'm voting FOR Johnson". They have now come to respect my decision and they know that it's based on principle and it's not some crazy gimmick.

The problem is that both of the major parties are now so similar. They both want more power and just see different ways to make the federal government more powerful. I think the federal government should be limited to providing things that states cannot provide themselves. To explain this, I talk about the power of a vote. The president is voted to office from millions and millions of votes, so my vote is practically meaningless (moreso when you throw the electoral college into the mix...that's another topic...lol). The guy running for mayor in my small home town is usually decided by hundreds or thousands of votes. So why does president have so much more power than my local representative? If I want my vote to truly matter, the local government (or even state...) should have more power in my life (i.e. tax money allotment and say in what I do with my life).

The great thing is that with some momentum, the Libertarian party has a great opportunity to have a huge effect. I actually wish the Libertarian party would focus their efforts on running for house and senate seats. With only 5-10% of a legislative body, the libertarian party would control it, swinging the vote to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Let's look at the Senate...100 seats. Let's say it's 48 Republicans (fiscal & social conservative), 48 Democrats (fiscal & social liberal) and 4 Libertarians (fiscally conservative and socially liberal). That's 52 for social liberally votes and 52 for fiscally conservative votes. THAT is the reason why both parties are SO scared of the Libertarian party. AND they know that there's enough of the population that are fiscal conservative and socially liberal that there's a chance a third party could get enough power (5-10%) to be a controlling voting bloc!"

So while you vote AGAINST someone, I will be voting FOR someone.
Momentum? When will there be enough? 100 years? 1000? This has been going on forever. Right now it hurts the Republican vote. Years ago it was Ralph Nader that took away from the Democratic vote. At least Nader got his name out in the public. Outside of the Internet no one knows who Gary Johnson is. If Libertarians want to be taken seriously, they can't only appear a few weeks before the election. They have to be out in the public's face, starting now.

The fact is not all Americans use facts or even any kind of knowledge when they vote. Sadly, the majority vote for someone they like. McCain's downfall was that he was not a polished speaker. He got waxed in the debates. Romney was better, but he couldn't effectively handle adversity. When Obama fought back, he had a beaten look on his face. He couldn't counter punch in the debate.
__________________
Tom

"I've got two things in this world, my balls and my word and I don't break them for no one."
daggo66 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 11:48 AM   #136
I HAVE A BELLYBUTTON!

WF Supporting Member
 
cavediverjc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: On the grassy knoll...
Posts: 7,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Con Artist

Do you REALLY think anyone could have done a better job than Obama? I'm FAR FROM an Obama supporter and I even recall him saying that if people were expecting change overnight, it wasn't going to happen, and probably wasn't going to happen in four years, either. He was right. Say what you will about the man, but do really think anyone could have done better?

The fact remains that Obama inherited this burden, and it came under Bush's watch. Obama's been trying to fix things, but it's the Republicans who made it VERY CLEAR after Obama won his FIRST term that they were going to do EVERYTHING THEY COULD TO ENSURE HE WAS A ONE-TERM PRESIDENT. Those are not my words, but the words of the Republicans. They flat-out said it. What that means is that even if Obama had some great idea they agreed with, they were going to shoot him down just for the sake of him not being re-elected, yet you're accusing people of talking in circles. These are facts. It is a FACT that Obama inherited a poor economy and the problems that went along with it.

And I will be the first one to say it. I am thrilled Obama was re-elected, not because I like him, but because that meant Romney was NOT elected. Do you really think Romney has your best interests in mind? Unless you're rich, Romney would not be helping you AT ALL. YOU are NOT his concern. I don't know why so many middle class people are such supporters of Republicans because Republicans couldn't give a damn about middle and lower income families.
I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time listening to someone preaching to me about my political opinions from someone WHO DIDN'T EVEN VOTE.
How can you sit there and wax rhetoric about the evils of the Republican party if you didn't even care enough about the system to vote?
Your political opinion has just become invalid. Carry on.
__________________
Americans sleep safely in their beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do them harm...

Happiness is a Barrett M82A1 .50 caliber and a target at least a click out........

I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes, if you f**k with me, I'll kill you all.....
cavediverjc is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 11:52 AM   #137
Jeeper
 
Desperado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Skagit County, Washington
Posts: 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by daggo66

Momentum? When will there be enough? 100 years? 1000? This has been going on forever. Right now it hurts the Republican vote. Years ago it was Ralph Nader that took away from the Democratic vote. At least Nader got his name out in the public. Outside of the Internet no one knows who Gary Johnson is. If Libertarians want to be taken seriously, they can't only appear a few weeks before the election. They have to be out in the public's face, starting now.

The fact is not all Americans use facts or even any kind of knowledge when they vote. Sadly, the majority vote for someone they like. McCain's downfall was that he was not a polished speaker. He got waxed in the debates. Romney was better, but he couldn't effectively handle adversity. When Obama fought back, he had a beaten look on his face. He couldn't counter punch in the debate.
McCain's downfall was the fact that he was an old white man. 2008 was the year of the democrats, whether you like it or not. The minorities and the youth voters were NOT voting for anyone endorsed by George Bush.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cavediverjc

I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time listening to someone preaching to me about my political opinions from someone WHO DIDN'T EVEN VOTE.
keep it civil!
__________________
Bear94: "Hey just remember. No one ever really grows up."
GoldenSahara00: "That is some Peter Pan wonderland stuff right there ^"
99Wrangler4x4: "Inside joke sigs! GENIUS!"

GoldenSahara00: "I beat up a few bigger kids back in HS "
Desperado is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 12:10 PM   #138
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,024
I watched 2016 and it showed what I already knew about the socialist.... My paycheck can't afford obama now... Let alone with the crap he's gonna push on us this next term.

I still wanna know about fast and furious and our four dead Americans and who's going to pay.

Clinton got hell for lying about sexual actions with a woman... But an ambassador dies and no one gets punished!? How is that right? obama got our men killed and needs to be punished for it. His administration needs to be punished...
Siren Assassin is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 12:11 PM   #139
Jeeper
 
Desperado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Skagit County, Washington
Posts: 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siren Assassin
I watched 2016 and it showed what I already knew about the socialist.... My paycheck can't afford obama now... Let alone with the crap he's gonna push on us this next term.

I still wanna know about fast and furious and our four dead Americans and who's going to pay.

Clinton got hell for lying about sexual actions with a woman... But an ambassador dies and no one gets punished!? How is that right? obama got our men killed and needs to be punished for it. His administration needs to be punished...
I have this feeling that the Libya scandal is going to keep opening up like Watergate.
__________________
Bear94: "Hey just remember. No one ever really grows up."
GoldenSahara00: "That is some Peter Pan wonderland stuff right there ^"
99Wrangler4x4: "Inside joke sigs! GENIUS!"

GoldenSahara00: "I beat up a few bigger kids back in HS "
Desperado is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 12:14 PM   #140
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,024
Welfare should be an optional tax... If you want your money to cover workless welfare, then fine... Do it. But don't force the country to take care of people when we can barely cover our selves... My family needs my money... Not the multi babies crack heads I see in the welfare lines ALL the time (I pass it on my way to work and its sickening).
Siren Assassin is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 12:15 PM   #141
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desperado

I have this feeling that the Libya scandal is going to keep opening up like Watergate.
I hope it does... They can't hide behind the ejection anymore... I wanna know why good men died.
Siren Assassin is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 12:18 PM   #142
Jeeper
 
scipio337's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Con Artist View Post
Do you REALLY think anyone could have done a better job than Obama? I'm FAR FROM an Obama supporter and I even recall him saying that if people were expecting change overnight, it wasn't going to happen, and probably wasn't going to happen in four years, either. He was right. Say what you will about the man, but do really think anyone could have done better?

The fact remains that Obama inherited this burden, and it came under Bush's watch. Obama's been trying to fix things, but it's the Republicans who made it VERY CLEAR after Obama won his FIRST term that they were going to do EVERYTHING THEY COULD TO ENSURE HE WAS A ONE-TERM PRESIDENT. Those are not my words, but the words of the Republicans. They flat-out said it. What that means is that even if Obama had some great idea they agreed with, they were going to shoot him down just for the sake of him not being re-elected, yet you're accusing people of talking in circles. These are facts. It is a FACT that Obama inherited a poor economy and the problems that went along with it.
And I'm guessing you're forgetting President Obama's quote, "Elections have consequences" when he was jamming the ACA through with no bipartisan input?

ANYONE could have done a better job that Obama. He pushed through his $780 BILLION stimulus with a net of 3 million jobs.

Do that math.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Con Artist
And I will be the first one to say it. I am thrilled Obama was re-elected, not because I like him, but because that meant Romney was NOT elected. Do you really think Romney has your best interests in mind? Unless you're rich, Romney would not be helping you AT ALL. YOU are NOT his concern. I don't know why so many middle class people are such supporters of Republicans because Republicans couldn't give a damn about middle and lower income families.
Seriously, where do you come up with this stuff?

Keeping the current tax rates (ie NOT RAISING TAXES) on everyone (not just the rich) is a benefit to all income classes. Even the most doey-eyed Kenyesian doesn't recommend raising tax rates with net zero growth (Krugman excluded).

This "Republicans hate poor people!" has been around for decades, and is about as fresh as a Foghat concert. Why not provide something factual?
scipio337 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 12:36 PM   #143
Jeeper
 
klkb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Gainesville, Virginia
Posts: 2,976
Y'all are funny, spinning your 35"s in the mud with each other. I haven't read all of the posts carefully since they are all saying pretty much the same thing, but... Does anyone recall that Bush inherited a House and Senate both controlled by the Democrats? Could someone have done better than Obama? I can't imagine anyone could've done worse. Honestly, I'm traditionally conservative, but I voted against Obama because he his fiscally inept. He proved that. As a woman I will say that Romney's social views scared me, but the economy is more important to me these days.

What disheartens me is how many times I've heard our young adults, those who were able to vote for the first time, say that their vote didn't count because of the electoral college and how so many absentee ballots were handled. Here we've declared a winner of the election and the polls hadn't even closed in Alaska. How are they supposed to feel about casting their vote? The whole system is a mess.

And a third party on the ballot? Idealistic at best, realistically preposterous. At least right now I can feel decent about 51% of voters having elected our president, but if all a majority would need to be is 36% or 95 stupid electoral votes, then more citizens would be against said new leader. We're at each other's political throats now? Throw another party into the mix. That'll improve our relationships with each other.

I'm not sure which new country I'm going to choose, but I'm leaving this one until things are a hell of a lot better. No, it doesn't help things at all, but my family's financial security - and everything we've worked so hard for - is more important to me than sticking around to help reform the system. That's out of my hands. I've got lots of research to do, but I'm looking forward to educating myself on how other parts of the world handle their affairs.
klkb is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 12:40 PM   #144
The Bad Guy

WF Supporting Member
 
daggo66's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NJ exile living in Baltimore
Posts: 22,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by klkb View Post
Y'all are funny, spinning your 35"s in the mud with each other. I haven't read all of the posts carefully since they are all saying pretty much the same thing, but... Does anyone recall that Bush inherited a House and Senate both controlled by the Democrats? Could someone have done better than Obama? I can't imagine anyone could've done worse. Honestly, I'm traditionally conservative, but I voted against Obama because he his fiscally inept. He proved that. As a woman I will say that Romney's social views scared me, but the economy is more important to me these days.

What disheartens me is how many times I've heard our young adults, those who were able to vote for the first time, say that their vote didn't count because of the electoral college and how so many absentee ballots were handled. Here we've declared a winner of the election and the polls hadn't even closed in Alaska. How are they supposed to feel about casting their vote? The whole system is a mess.

And a third party on the ballot? Idealistic at best, realistically preposterous. At least right now I can feel decent about 51% of voters having elected our president, but if all a majority would need to be is 36% or 95 stupid electoral votes, then more citizens would be against said new leader. We're at each other's political throats now? Throw another party into the mix. That'll improve our relationships with each other.

I'm not sure which new country I'm going to choose, but I'm leaving this one until things are a hell of a lot better. No, it doesn't help things at all, but my family's financial security - and everything we've worked so hard for - is more important to me than sticking around to help reform the system. That's out of my hands. I've got lots of research to do, but I'm looking forward to educating myself on how other parts of the world handle their affairs.
__________________
Tom

"I've got two things in this world, my balls and my word and I don't break them for no one."
daggo66 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 12:42 PM   #145
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Kearneysville, WV
Posts: 3,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by daggo66 View Post
Momentum? When will there be enough? 100 years? 1000? This has been going on forever. Right now it hurts the Republican vote. Years ago it was Ralph Nader that took away from the Democratic vote. At least Nader got his name out in the public. Outside of the Internet no one knows who Gary Johnson is. If Libertarians want to be taken seriously, they can't only appear a few weeks before the election. They have to be out in the public's face, starting now.

The fact is not all Americans use facts or even any kind of knowledge when they vote. Sadly, the majority vote for someone they like. McCain's downfall was that he was not a polished speaker. He got waxed in the debates. Romney was better, but he couldn't effectively handle adversity. When Obama fought back, he had a beaten look on his face. He couldn't counter punch in the debate.
Exactly, the independents need to be out there like...YESTERDAY!

Quote:
Originally Posted by cavediverjc View Post
I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time listening to someone preaching to me about my political opinions from someone WHO DIDN'T EVEN VOTE.
How can you sit there and wax rhetoric about the evils of the Republican party if you didn't even care enough about the system to vote?
Your political opinion has just become invalid. Carry on.
I don't give a squatting dog's rearend about your political opinions (and I doubt anyone else does, either...), and I DID vote. I voted by NOT voting. I cared enough NOT to vote for EITHER of these incompetent morons, but clearly you didn't. You wanna talk about invalid, look no further than every single one of your posts in this thread.

You may wanna grab some toilet paper so you can wipe off your mouth. It's a little dirty.

You mad, Bro?
Con Artist is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 12:43 PM   #146
The Bad Guy

WF Supporting Member
 
daggo66's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NJ exile living in Baltimore
Posts: 22,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Con Artist View Post
The fact remains that Obama inherited this burden, and it came under Bush's watch. Obama's been trying to fix things, but it's the Republicans who made it VERY CLEAR after Obama won his FIRST term that they were going to do EVERYTHING THEY COULD TO ENSURE HE WAS A ONE-TERM PRESIDENT. Those are not my words, but the words of the Republicans. They flat-out said it. What that means is that even if Obama had some great idea they agreed with, they were going to shoot him down just for the sake of him not being re-elected, yet you're accusing people of talking in circles. These are facts. It is a FACT that Obama inherited a poor economy and the problems that went along with it.
Pure ignorance. I lived through the horrible recession of the Carter years and the recovery of the Reagan years. Anyone who doesn't think that Republicans support the middle class are closed minded and only listen to the rhetoric.
__________________
Tom

"I've got two things in this world, my balls and my word and I don't break them for no one."
daggo66 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 12:45 PM   #147
Jeeper
 
klkb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Gainesville, Virginia
Posts: 2,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Con Artist


I don't give a squatting dog's rearend about your political opinions, and I DID vote. I voted by NOT voting. I cared enough NOT to vote for EITHER of these incompetent morons, but clearly you didn't. You wanna talk about invalid, look no further than every single one of your posts in this thread.

...Oh yeah, you mad Bro?
In before the close...
klkb is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 12:48 PM   #148
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Kearneysville, WV
Posts: 3,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by daggo66 View Post
Pure ignorance. I lived through the horrible recession of the Carter years and the recovery of the Reagan years. Anyone who doesn't think that Republicans support the middle class are closed minded and only listen to the rhetoric.
Absolutely not, Tom. When is the last time a Republican did ANYTHING for the middle class, other than send us into a recession?
Con Artist is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 12:51 PM   #149
I HAVE A BELLYBUTTON!

WF Supporting Member
 
cavediverjc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: On the grassy knoll...
Posts: 7,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Con Artist

Exactly, the independents need to be out there like...YESTERDAY!

I don't give a squatting dog's rearend about your political opinions (and I doubt anyone else does, either...), and I DID vote. I voted by NOT voting. I cared enough NOT to vote for EITHER of these incompetent morons, but clearly you didn't. You wanna talk about invalid, look no further than every single one of your posts in this thread.

You may wanna grab some toilet paper so you can wipe off your mouth. It's a little dirty.

You mad, Bro?
Hahaha...looks like I struck a nerve.
I don't get mad at opinions from people I've never even met or consider to be a friend. I have thicker skin than that.
__________________
Americans sleep safely in their beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do them harm...

Happiness is a Barrett M82A1 .50 caliber and a target at least a click out........

I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes, if you f**k with me, I'll kill you all.....
cavediverjc is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 12:52 PM   #150
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Kearneysville, WV
Posts: 3,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by scipio337 View Post
And I'm guessing you're forgetting President Obama's quote, "Elections have consequences" when he was jamming the ACA through with no bipartisan input?

ANYONE could have done a better job that Obama. He pushed through his $780 BILLION stimulus with a net of 3 million jobs.

Do that math.



Seriously, where do you come up with this stuff?

Keeping the current tax rates (ie NOT RAISING TAXES) on everyone (not just the rich) is a benefit to all income classes. Even the most doey-eyed Kenyesian doesn't recommend raising tax rates with net zero growth (Krugman excluded).

This "Republicans hate poor people!" has been around for decades, and is about as fresh as a Foghat concert. Why not provide something factual?
Every time I read one of your posts, I want that little piece of my life back.

Con Artist is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Jeep Wrangler Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




Download our Mobile App

» Network Links
»Jeep Parts
» Featured Product

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:34 PM.



Jeep®, Wrangler, Liberty, Wagoneer, Cherokee, and Grand Cherokee are copyrighted and trademarked to Chrysler Motors LLC.
Wranglerforum.com is not in any way associated with the Chrysler Motors LLC