Sarah: Poll Shows She's for Real

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
There’s already a centrist party. They’re called the Republican Party. Other than that, you have a Democrat party that is now borderline socialist, a small Libertarian Party, and conservatives who might vote GoP just to keep Democrats out. Though, on the last, I think conservatives are going to do so less and less while looking for alternatives. Me? I’m only voting ‘far’ right, and I refuse to vote GoP.

Basically, I don’t see this pendulum. I see a government that keeps growing, programs that keep expanding, even new programs, and a culture sliding into madness (see the CDC stats for unwed motherhood recently?). Where can I find the victories of the small government, traditional values, right? When was our border secured? Seems to me this country has gone in one direction with very little deviation. [/quote]

Agreed.

On another note and as I’ve mentioned a few times in other threads. The true power lies in the legislative branch. When Congress reasserts its proper role in the constitutional hierarchy true change can and will happen.

It’s even happening now but negatively. Congress passed the bailouts, the stimulus, is passing health care and doesn’t regulate the bureaucracy within the executive branch. The Presidency whether under Bush or Obama gets only what the Congress authorizes; it holds the purse strings. And whoever gots da money gots da power.[/quote]

Which is exactly why every conservative should vote in every election, city, county, state, federal for the person closest to the libertarian party, or the libertarian party if present as a choice. Even if you don’t agree with some or even most of thier ideas, it doesn’t really matter. The main point is just enough of a presence of libertarians will grind to a hault this huge government and it’s love of making itself bigger and more costly for us the citizens. 10-15 Libertarian senators and 30 or 40 representatives should be enough to grind big government to a hault. And when things improve in 2 years with the government doing nothing “new” maybe there will be a slim chance that some more of them are voted in.

I mean we are a very very long way from actually shrinking the federal government. But at least stopping it from growing would be a huge victory and one which would allow the private sector to at least catch up to it. I mean eventually with enough private sector growth, and the governemnt staying the same size, it can again become a fair relationship.

However the only way this is going to happen is if true conservatives, like many on this board, stop trying to view the GOP as having any chance of doing what we think they should do regardless of who the figurehead of the party is. We need new people with new/old ideas who will do what we want and this country desparately needs. Stop the rampant growth of the federal government. Period, the end. No republican or democrat will EVER do this and the sooner true conservatives realize this and start acting as if this is the truth, the sooner we can shape our future. As of right now, we are just blindly supporting two parties who assfuck us because some of us like it fast and hard and the rest of us like it slow and deep. Anyone up for not gettihng assfucked? I mean if you like that then fine, but I’m not really enjoying it.

I’m 30, married and have a 2 bedroom house with a rental unit on the second floor. I drive a 2000 saturn. My wife works as a nursing tech and drives a 2002 jeep liberty. We gross over 60,000 per year and we are living paycheck to paycheck with a very modest social life. This is not how America is supposed to be.

V

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Which is exactly why every conservative should vote in every election, city, county, state, federal for the person closest to the libertarian party, or the libertarian party if present as a choice. Even if you don’t agree with some or even most of thier ideas, it doesn’t really matter. The main point is just enough of a presence of libertarians will grind to a hault this huge government and it’s love of making itself bigger and more costly for us the citizens. 10-15 Libertarian senators and 30 or 40 representatives should be enough to grind big government to a hault. And when things improve in 2 years with the government doing nothing “new” maybe there will be a slim chance that some more of them are voted in.
[/quote]

Vote for libertarians? Never!

[quote]Christine wrote:
Anyone mention yet that popularity does not equal job approval?

Carry on.[/quote]

Erm yes, page 1. Otherwise we would have our next Presidential candidates coming from dancing with the stars

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:
Anyone mention yet that popularity does not equal job approval?

Carry on.[/quote]

Otherwise we would have our next Presidential candidates coming from dancing with the stars[/quote]

Haven’t you heard. Obama was awarded the trophy for next season on his intent to dance.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:
Anyone mention yet that popularity does not equal job approval?

Carry on.[/quote]

Erm yes, page 1. Otherwise we would have our next Presidential candidates coming from dancing with the stars[/quote]

True. Presidents aren’t chosen like Nobel Peace Prize recipients. Heeeeyyoooo!

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:
Anyone mention yet that popularity does not equal job approval?

Carry on.[/quote]

Erm yes, page 1. Otherwise we would have our next Presidential candidates coming from dancing with the stars[/quote]

True. Presidents aren’t chosen like Nobel Peace Prize recipients. Heeeeyyoooo![/quote]

Big LOL!

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
HH’s comment, “Let’s hope she can save us!” sparked a thought:

Do any of you fear that the same joyous support of Palin will be no different than the same “joyous” support for Obama. The same joyous support that was void of any reasoning other than they are “cool” or can “relate to” and can “save us” from what we are disgusted with. Think how Obama “would save us” from GWB. [/quote]

I worry about the extreme swings in ideology that we as a nation seem to be progressing to. I’m reading “A Lion In The White House” right now, and I’m thinking that this country could use a charasmatic, middle of the road president like Teddy Roosevelt right now.

Thoughts?
[/quote]

Teddy was a progressive, we already have one of those in the white house right now.[/quote]

Comparing Teddy to BHO? I’ll have to disagree here IMMENSLEY. There’s no comparison there at all IMHO. Teddy was progressive in some areas and for his time, while being conservative in others. Teddy believed that the POTUS had all the powers not forbiden by the constitution, BHO believes the constitution a roadblock to his statist agenda, and must be overcome.

You simply cannot compare the “progressivism” of Teddy with obama’s brand of progressivism.
[/quote]

Remember how he told the Chinese how he envied their control of the WeB? How he tried to exclude Fox from press briefing?

If only people saw the evil in those things.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:
Anyone mention yet that popularity does not equal job approval?

Carry on.[/quote]

Erm yes, page 1. Otherwise we would have our next Presidential candidates coming from dancing with the stars[/quote]

“Our?”

Apparently you have caught Onionitis. Since when do you foreign fuckers get to run 'round saying “our” and “we” when speaking of America? You getting ready to swim the Rio Grande looking for healthcare for illegal immigrants?[/quote]

What’s wrong with British people voting for a Kenyan, to be president of the United States?

[quote]hedo wrote:
The chosen one is a horrible debater. He’s not a great speaker w/o his teleprompter either. Palin would rip him apart in a debate, especially since he would actually have to defend his actions rather then blame Bush for everything.

[/quote]

Wow you are drunk at 12 in the afternoon? Lay off the booze buddy!

[quote]tme wrote:
I know a lot of very hard-core GOP voters (fuck, I’m in WYOMING for christ’s sake) here and especially in Colorado who just plain didn’t vote last year because of her. These are people who didn’t like McCain that much, and many who liked him a lot, who would have voted for him over Obama no matter what…well almost. Palin actually mattered more. They still would never vote for a Democrat, but they didn’t vote for McCain either.

I don’t know if McCain would be president now if he’d picked Ridge or Romney or even Pawlenty, but it sure would have been a lot closer. It wouldn’t have mattered for Wyoming’s EC vote, but is damn sure did in Colorado, and probably a few other swing states too.

[/quote]

I agree, I was considering voting for McCain prior to him choosing Palin as his VP. I know a lot of other people that felt the same way. It was just hard to get behind someone that came across as borderline retarded.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

I am pretty sure Teddy was about regulating businesses - Try and not be a jackass.

This should help you understand the progressive era. Its wiki but its a nice start.[/quote]

Business has been regulated since the birth of the Republic, and the Constitution expressly provides for the power of it. The mere act of “regulating business” isn’t determinative as to being classified as the kind of “progressive” Obama is.

If you are right with your simplistic category, everyone from George Washington to even Thomas Jefferson was a damnable “progressive”, because there has always been some regulation of interstate business. Period.

Not being a jackass - your “Ron Paul” version of history is as stilted and problematic as the “Karl Marx” version. So, again, learn history.[/quote]

The only regulation they are aloud to do is… Coin Money, Regulate(keep open) interstate commerce, and allow patents.

That is what the Government is aloud to do. All this other nonsense that everyone else wanted to do is illegal, and as we are seeing destroying businesses.

[quote]Vegita wrote:
It amazes me that some of you are so stupid. Establishment candidates will continue to do the same thing regardless of party and backround an how hot they are, or how much of a woman they are. They are puppets who have thier strings pulled by the same poeple. Stop watching the damn cable news and do something productive. The TV is your enemy, you can get all your world news through online sources twice as fast and hear 7 different spins on it. Cable news is entertainment. They are selling you advertisements, they do not care about the quality of the news or the objectiveness of it, they only want to make money by you buying htier advertisers products. The more interesting they can make the news, the more money they can make.

V[/quote]
Gotta agree with Vegita

[quote]hedo wrote:
The chosen one is a horrible debater. He’s not a great speaker w/o his teleprompter either. Palin would rip him apart in a debate, especially since he would actually have to defend his actions rather then blame Bush for everything.

[/quote]

I really like the way she took on Katie Couric, she really kicked her ass:)I would rather vote for Katie Couric

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I really like the way she took on Katie Couric, she really kicked her ass:)I would rather vote for Katie Couric[/quote]

It’s kind of funny how some Plain worshipers still try to insist that she really did kick Couric’s ass.

The part that always cracked me up was the magazines. Katie asked her straight up what she read to stay informed, but then Palin tried to turn it into an issue of Couric insinuating that people in Alaska are too isolated from DC to know what’s going on. That was never implied by Couric whatsoever, but Palin still insists it was even now.

[quote]Couric: And when it comes to establishing your worldview, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and to understand the world?

Palin: I’ve read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media.

Couric: What, specifically?

Palin: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years.

Couric: Can you name a few?

Palin: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news, too. Alaska isn’t a foreign country, where it’s kind of suggested, “Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C., may be thinking when you live up there in Alaska?” Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.[/quote]

So since she couldn’t throw out a few names like WSJ, or NR, or anything else, she tried to turn it into an Alaska-bashing to deflect from her own ignorance.

What a useless twit.

[quote]John S. wrote:

That is what the Government is aloud to do. All this other nonsense that everyone else wanted to do is illegal, and as we are seeing destroying businesses.
[/quote]

From the financial crisis it seems the business is very capable of destroying itself.

[quote]espenl wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

That is what the Government is aloud to do. All this other nonsense that everyone else wanted to do is illegal, and as we are seeing destroying businesses.
[/quote]

From the financial crisis it seems the business is very capable of destroying itself.[/quote]

You mean the financial crisis that was caused by government making the interest rate 1%?

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]espenl wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

That is what the Government is aloud to do. All this other nonsense that everyone else wanted to do is illegal, and as we are seeing destroying businesses.
[/quote]

From the financial crisis it seems the business is very capable of destroying itself.[/quote]

Oh my dear Nobel bequeathing European friend, you have much to learn about the role of government in the financial crisis.[/quote]

Push, push, push-- take it easy on the boy! He doesn’t know any better about such concepts as ‘free markets’ and ‘Liberty’, predicated on the assumption of ‘personal responsibility’. Those are things ‘free citizens’ are concerned with. He’s but a subject of the King.

We did away with such antiquated rubbish as monarchies and kings a couple hundred years ago. Treat him with infant gloves for he only accesses the Internet as permitted by his King!