[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
http://www.rockymountainright.com/?q=node/1153
Some right wing blogging about why Ritter left.[/quote]
Interesting read PMPM, they touted Interior Secratary Ken Salazar for the Dems ticket but he came out right away said no and put his endorsement behind Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]hedo wrote:
Specter is gone in PA, whether in the primary or general election. Should see the Republicans pick up 30+ seats in the house and as much as 8 in the Senate…maybe more. 2010 will see the death of the Liberal agenda for at least a generation, and not a day to soon. It will lead to an outright Republican takeover in 2012 including the presidency. Obama and his agenda will be remembered in a worse light then Carter.[/quote]
Right.
It will be interesting (but probably predictable) to see what the GOP will do when they actually have to govern…and not just sit back and vote “No”…
Mufasa[/quote]
Right, because governing means passing as many bills as possible. Hopefully the Republicans will not pass any more bullshit that will add to our national debt. IMO the federal government has no authority to do anything not specifically listed in the constitution.
EX. 1 and 2: The bill of rights.
[quote]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. [/quote]
[quote]elano wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]hedo wrote:
Specter is gone in PA, whether in the primary or general election. Should see the Republicans pick up 30+ seats in the house and as much as 8 in the Senate…maybe more. 2010 will see the death of the Liberal agenda for at least a generation, and not a day to soon. It will lead to an outright Republican takeover in 2012 including the presidency. Obama and his agenda will be remembered in a worse light then Carter.[/quote]
Right.
It will be interesting (but probably predictable) to see what the GOP will do when they actually have to govern…and not just sit back and vote “No”…
Mufasa[/quote]
Right, because governing means passing as many bills as possible. Hopefully the Republicans will not pass any more bullshit that will add to our national debt. IMO the federal government has no authority to do anything not specifically listed in the constitution.
EX. 1 and 2: The bill of rights.
[quote]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. [/quote][/quote]
Obviously you are wrong.
The people writing the constitution went to great lenghts to meticulously describe what the feredal government could and could not do and then they included the gerneral welfare clause and the interstate commerce clause so that the government could do whatever the fuck it wanted.
At least thats how it was pre Bush, now they do not need laws anymore.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Specter is gone in PA, whether in the primary or general election. Should see the Republicans pick up 30+ seats in the house and as much as 8 in the Senate…maybe more. 2010 will see the death of the Liberal agenda for at least a generation, and not a day to soon. It will lead to an outright Republican takeover in 2012 including the presidency. Obama and his agenda will be remembered in a worse light then Carter.[/quote]
You are one very optimistic individual. But, as my grandfather used to say “from your lips to the good Lords ear.”
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]elano wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]hedo wrote:
Specter is gone in PA, whether in the primary or general election. Should see the Republicans pick up 30+ seats in the house and as much as 8 in the Senate…maybe more. 2010 will see the death of the Liberal agenda for at least a generation, and not a day to soon. It will lead to an outright Republican takeover in 2012 including the presidency. Obama and his agenda will be remembered in a worse light then Carter.[/quote]
Right.
It will be interesting (but probably predictable) to see what the GOP will do when they actually have to govern…and not just sit back and vote “No”…
Mufasa[/quote]
Right, because governing means passing as many bills as possible. Hopefully the Republicans will not pass any more bullshit that will add to our national debt. IMO the federal government has no authority to do anything not specifically listed in the constitution.
EX. 1 and 2: The bill of rights.
Fuuckkk. That doesn’t make any sense.
[quote]elano wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]elano wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]hedo wrote:
Specter is gone in PA, whether in the primary or general election. Should see the Republicans pick up 30+ seats in the house and as much as 8 in the Senate…maybe more. 2010 will see the death of the Liberal agenda for at least a generation, and not a day to soon. It will lead to an outright Republican takeover in 2012 including the presidency. Obama and his agenda will be remembered in a worse light then Carter.[/quote]
Right.
It will be interesting (but probably predictable) to see what the GOP will do when they actually have to govern…and not just sit back and vote “No”…
Mufasa[/quote]
Right, because governing means passing as many bills as possible. Hopefully the Republicans will not pass any more bullshit that will add to our national debt. IMO the federal government has no authority to do anything not specifically listed in the constitution.
EX. 1 and 2: The bill of rights.
Fuuckkk. That doesn’t make any sense.[/quote]
I’m glad I’m not the only one! I’ve read Orion’s post over and over and it still doesn’t make sense to me…
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
[quote]elano wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]elano wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]hedo wrote:
Specter is gone in PA, whether in the primary or general election. Should see the Republicans pick up 30+ seats in the house and as much as 8 in the Senate…maybe more. 2010 will see the death of the Liberal agenda for at least a generation, and not a day to soon. It will lead to an outright Republican takeover in 2012 including the presidency. Obama and his agenda will be remembered in a worse light then Carter.[/quote]
Right.
It will be interesting (but probably predictable) to see what the GOP will do when they actually have to govern…and not just sit back and vote “No”…
Mufasa[/quote]
Right, because governing means passing as many bills as possible. Hopefully the Republicans will not pass any more bullshit that will add to our national debt. IMO the federal government has no authority to do anything not specifically listed in the constitution.
EX. 1 and 2: The bill of rights.
Fuuckkk. That doesn’t make any sense.[/quote]
I’m glad I’m not the only one! I’ve read Orion’s post over and over and it still doesn’t make sense to me…[/quote]
You will never become a judge then.
Especially not on the supreme court.
To all more or less impartial observers the US constitution clearly limits the role of at least the federal government.
However, the general welfare clause and the insterstate commerce clause were routinely interpreted in a way that circumvented those restrictions.
So, if those clauses had actually been meant the way they were interpreted over the last 200 years or so, 95% of the constituion would be completely superfluous.
However, that is no longer relevant because obviously “war time presidents” can do whatever the fuck they want without any repercussions, so it really is no longer necessary to point out that the constitution simply cannot have been meant the way it is interpreted today because the rule of law is more or less dead anyway when it comes to the federal government.
[quote]hedo wrote:
It will lead to an outright Republican takeover in 2012 including the presidency. Obama and his agenda will be remembered in a worse light then Carter.[/quote]
Great. So we’ll be back to the days of Bush.
And that will change what, exactly?
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
[quote]hedo wrote:
It will lead to an outright Republican takeover in 2012 including the presidency. Obama and his agenda will be remembered in a worse light then Carter.[/quote]
Great. So we’ll be back to the days of Bush.
And that will change what, exactly?
[/quote]
exactly. Politics seems to be like a sporting event these day. It’s fun to pick a side and celebrate when they win. Then back to dancing with the stars and biggest looser until the next election.
the other problem is where they are getting their news. If you are getting your news from someone that only bashes the other side, and you are unwilling to put in enough effort to think for yourself, you’ll always think your side is doing the right thing.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
[quote]hedo wrote:
It will lead to an outright Republican takeover in 2012 including the presidency. Obama and his agenda will be remembered in a worse light then Carter.[/quote]
Great. So we’ll be back to the days of Bush.
And that will change what, exactly?
[/quote]
Maybe we’ll be back to the days of Ronald Reagan, who knows?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
[quote]hedo wrote:
It will lead to an outright Republican takeover in 2012 including the presidency. Obama and his agenda will be remembered in a worse light then Carter.[/quote]
Great. So we’ll be back to the days of Bush.
And that will change what, exactly?
[/quote]
Maybe we’ll be back to the days of Ronald Reagan, who knows?[/quote]
Oh yeah, I’m sure. Let’s run down the list of good presidential candidates which the American public has passed over:
Ross Perot - 92/96
Harry Browne - 96/00
Pat Buchanan - 92/96/00
Ron Paul - 88/08
Steve Forbes - 96
Any one of them would have been better than what we got, and three (Browne, Paul and Buchanan) would probably have been the best presidents in modern history.
“Real change” isn’t going to come from within the system at this point.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Oh yeah, I’m sure. Let’s run down the list of good presidential candidates which the American public has passed over:
Ross Perot - 92/96
Harry Browne - 96/00
Pat Buchanan - 92/96/00
Ron Paul - 88/08
Steve Forbes - 96
Any one of them would have been better than what we got, and three (Browne, Paul and Buchanan) would probably have been the best presidents in modern history.
“Real change” isn’t going to come from within the system at this point.[/quote]
Buchanan? Really?
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Buchanan? Really?[/quote]
Absolutely. Why not?
Just like Ron Paul, he is a pariah to the establishment and to his own (former) party, disliked by liberals and neocons for his nativist views and populist appeal.
He does for the social and domestic policy side of paleoconservatism what Ron Paul has done for the economic side. And he’s an author of several great revisionist texts.
Buchanan is one of the best men we’ve got. The American people had their chance. They deserve everything they’re about to get.
It’s been awhile since I paid any attention to Pat, but I seem to remember him being way off the mark on certain issues. I guess I should give him another look as I don’t recall what turned me off.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
[quote]hedo wrote:
It will lead to an outright Republican takeover in 2012 including the presidency. Obama and his agenda will be remembered in a worse light then Carter.[/quote]
Great. So we’ll be back to the days of Bush.
And that will change what, exactly?
[/quote]
Maybe we’ll be back to the days of Ronald Reagan, who knows?[/quote]
Oh yeah, I’m sure. Let’s run down the list of good presidential candidates which the American public has passed over:
Ross Perot - 92/96
Harry Browne - 96/00
Pat Buchanan - 92/96/00
Ron Paul - 88/08
Steve Forbes - 96
Any one of them would have been better than what we got, and three (Browne, Paul and Buchanan) would probably have been the best presidents in modern history.
“Real change” isn’t going to come from within the system at this point.[/quote]
First of all a candidate has to be “electable”, none of the people you mentioned with perhaps the exception of Perot was electable.
Secondly, there will be no change coming from outside the system so you better not count on it.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Be very afraid :)[/quote]
Pittbull,
That’s some “old school” iron you have there.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Be very afraid :)[/quote]
Pittbull,
That’s some “old school” iron you have there.
[/quote]
Some of it is older than me
[quote]ZEB wrote:
First of all a candidate has to be “electable”, none of the people you mentioned with perhaps the exception of Perot was electable.
Secondly, there will be no change coming from outside the system so you better not count on it.[/quote]
Change will come when the current system collapses. The best thing that you and I and anyone else can do right now is simply to use the current system to our benefit, accumulate as much wealth and power as possible, stay out of debt, and be ready for the inevitable.
It really depends on what you mean by electable. Buchanan had good leadership qualities, a solid initial following and was very presentable on TV. He arguably could have gone a long way if the GOP put its full force behind him. So the question is not so much whether the people would elect a candidate but whether a mainstream party will support him for election.
Even Ron Paul could have made a strong showing on a national level in 2008. There was never a better political climate for him to run in. The country was fed up with the war and the economy was going into the tank. Foreign policy and economics were his two main issues. He also would have scored big points on civil libertarian themes due to all the people who were fed up with Bush/Cheney/Torturegate/Gitmo/Patriot Act.
There’s no question that Paul would have pulled a ton of votes from the left and from moderates. The Neocon Right would have held their noses and voted for him (well, not all, but enough of them) and he would have won the election.
But that’s all forgotten now because we have a Dem in office. The Republicans will bitch and moan for the remainder of Obama’s term and pretend to support the core conservative ideals which they never implemented under Bush just to get elected again. Then the entire cycle will repeat. I haven’t even been around for that many elections and I don’t see how any intelligent person could think real change is going to come from within the system.
You get what you deserve if you vote for the mainstream parties. Hitler said that the masses would never elect a good leader and he was nearly right; ironically, he was the only exception to that rule.
