[quote]jsbrook wrote:
It will take someone who is not married to strong social conservative [/quote]
No it won’t. Or, you’d have Ron Paul beating Obama in polls at this moment. Instead it’s Huckabee, Romney, and yes, even Palin. Without the support of libertarians it’s a closer race for the GoP. Without social conservatives, the GoP candidate gets skunked.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
It will take someone who is not married to strong social conservative [/quote]
No it won’t. Or, you’d have Ron Paul beating Obama in polls at this moment. Instead it’s Huckabee, Romney, and yes, even Palin. Without the support of libertarians it’s a closer race for the GoP. Without social conservatives, the GoP candidate gets skunked.[/quote]
There are plenty of other problems with Ron Paul. Think what you will, but there are lots of independent and democrats who would support the right candidate. Of course you are right that there is the problem of alienating a social conservative base. That is why I do not foresee any viable change for a long time to come. Not abstinence-only education is more important to so many than sound financial policy (if forced to choose between the two)
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…and as we’ve discussed MANY times; the GOP is simply not putting forth a viable candidate.
But watch out! Karl Rove is really starting to rear his head on the National scene again!
(The guy is a Political “beast” who COULD get that Monkey elected, tGunslinger!)
Mufasa[/quote]
I’m watching the Governor of Virginia.
Taking deficit to surplus in the age of obama is quite impressive.
JeffR
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
There are plenty of other problems with Ron Paul. Think what you will, but there are lots of independent and democrats who would support the right candidate. Of course you are right that there is the problem of alienating a social conservative base. That is why I do not foresee any viable change for a long time to come. Not abstinence-only education is more important to so many than sound financial policy (if forced to choose between the two)[/quote]
You won’t get to ‘sound financial policy’ without a socially conservative people. Fiscal conservatism and libertarian thought are dead. I doubt even the majority of the TP wants spending on SS/Medicare curbed by much, if at all. If anything, the ‘fiscal conservatism’ of today is the position Progressive advanced from yesterday. That’s the extent of it.
The first order of business won’t be fiscal conservatism. It’s either rebuild the traditional values and family of the people, or nothing. Sure, we’re going to get some reform of SS/medicare such as indexing to life expectancy. But, there won’t be real cuts deep enough to make us solvent. The difference will be made up with higher taxes and eventually a VAT. And when that can’t keep up any longer, we’ll get UHC.
[quote]John S. wrote:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd450.htm
Alvin Toffler’s book, Creating A New Civilization: The Politics of the Third Wave, is a bizarre, revolutionary view and blueprint for the 2lst century. Gingrich WROTE the forward for this book - it’s frightening and you should read both editions. These books became best sellers in Communist China because they mirror Mao.
On page 433 of Toffler’s bilge, we read: “The founding fathers as the architects of the political system which served so well, this system of government you (founding fathers) fashioned, including the very principles on which you based it, is increasingly OBSOLETE and hence increasingly if inadvertently, OPPRESSIVE and DANGEROUS to our welfare. It must be RADICALLY changed and a NEW SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT INVENTED - a democracy for the 2lst Century.”
This one even gives the page number. 433[/quote]
I found your passage , but explained the way you have done so is way out of context. Our Government is way out of control , our Government has been thwarting our constitution since I can remember . We need to refurbish our constitution in a way that it must be followed .
The way the Birch society approached this would be like me advising you how to repair a drain. But (YOU) telling every one else all I said was you are going to have to bust up the floor .
I have to discount the birch Society for that reason, I do think there are things that would run best if they were dealt with libertarian style.
It was 30 years since I read this book , I think it is going to be the first book I will have read twice 
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
All the more reason to like Ron Paul.
smiley face[/quote]
I know you added the “smiley face”, but I have to ask - do you really think that is a good reason to support Paul? His previous “Ron Paul Report” written by these toads endorsed some very sketchy views.
You on board with that? If not, why does it not matter now (being as the comments were made in the 90s, no so long ago)?[/quote]
Yes, I was being sarcastic when I made this post.
And I’m not familiar with these “sketchy views” you are referring to so I can’t honestly answer your question.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Just curious regarding the anti-Paulers here - is it Paul’s ideas? Or his manner/looks/age? If he were a 50 year-old handsome dude, hugely media-savvy/skilled, would you want him nominated? [/quote]
There is a big difference between concepts and actual policy positions. Generally I am a very big advocate of smaller government. Getting rid of several government agencies would be a very good beginning. However, generally Paul acts as if this is the year 1800. His simplistic view of the world would no doubt get us in very deep trouble.
To answer your question more directly, the answer to our problems is not through libertarian policies, which seem only to work on paper. The answer is to elect a very good conservative republican who can speak to these issues in a more rational, pragmatic manner. I wouldn’t vote for Paul, or anyone else espousing his political positions.[/quote]
What conservative Republicans ? They think they are Conservative if they vote to take away social programs , They do not realize it means to vote to save money . War and War on Drugs would balance the budget even in a bad economy . Any one that likes the way our military dominates the world is NOT A CONSEVATIVE
[/quote]
That depends on your definition of conservatism. Somehow over the past 10 years or so conservatism has gotten tangled up with libertarianism in definition alone. This has confused the definition of conservatism and we have people like you posting such comments.
I know that you’re not old enough to remember Barry Goldwater (neither am I), but he said some things that define conservatism in our age, relative to foreign policy:
“We cannot allow the American flag to be shot at anywhere on earth if we are to retain our respect and prestige.”
“To insist on strength is not war-mongering. it is peace mongering.”
And his most classic:
“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
Goldwater ran against Lyndon Johnson and was soundly defeated. In fact, his opponent received the highest percentage victory in the history of Presidential elections with 61%! I guess the country was not ready for modern conservatism in 1964. By the way Johnson went on to become one of the worst, if not the worst, Presidents in the history of the country. He spent billions on something called “The Great Society” which was nothing more than a perpetuation of the great welfare state begun under FDR. Johnson also escalated the war in Vietnam which led to the deaths of tens of thousands of American troops.
The good news, 16 years later a man by the name of Ronald Wilson Reagan ran on the same brand of conservatism as Goldwater and won two terms as commander and chief. So, when you talk about conservatism make sure that you get it right. Conservative republican politicians do not adhere to the many nonsensical themes that Ron Paul espouses.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…and as we’ve discussed MANY times; the GOP is simply not putting forth a viable candidate.
But watch out! Karl Rove is really starting to rear his head on the National scene again!
(The guy is a Political “beast” who COULD get that Monkey elected, tGunslinger!)
Mufasa[/quote]
As a side note I think it’s quite telling that we heard about Karl Rove 4.8 seconds after GW Bush was elected President. “The man behind the man” The liberal press screamed. Do you think it’s odd that we hear nothing of the one or two pushers behind Obama? If the American people were to fully understand who is behind Obama there might just be a call for his impeachment.
That nasty Karl Rove, how dare he support a republican.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Who has the credibility to carry the banner of limited government?[/quote]
We learn as we go, it is a process of elimination of who can’t, including, but not limited to, Ron Paul and his legions of idiots and the John Birch Society.
As for who? Good question. It will take someone who can convince people who are otherwise not terribly committed to the idea to give it a second look and commit to it. For the GOP, maybe Paul Ryan. For the Dems, Walt Minnick and other serious Blue Dogs. As for independents, too early to tell.
[/quote]
It will take someone who is not married to strong social conservative ideals and micro-management of our private lives that alienates half the country. I can’t pull the trigger on the Palin’s of the world no matter how much I also disapprove of the policies and objectives of the Obama’s of the world.[/quote]
I know where you’re coming from. Who would even consider voting for someone who wants to protect the lives of the unborn. It is an abomination I tell you!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Who has the credibility to carry the banner of limited government?[/quote]
We learn as we go, it is a process of elimination of who can’t, including, but not limited to, Ron Paul and his legions of idiots and the John Birch Society.
As for who? Good question. It will take someone who can convince people who are otherwise not terribly committed to the idea to give it a second look and commit to it. For the GOP, maybe Paul Ryan. For the Dems, Walt Minnick and other serious Blue Dogs. As for independents, too early to tell.
[/quote]
It will take someone who is not married to strong social conservative ideals and micro-management of our private lives that alienates half the country. I can’t pull the trigger on the Palin’s of the world no matter how much I also disapprove of the policies and objectives of the Obama’s of the world.[/quote]
I know where you’re coming from. Who would even consider voting for someone who wants to protect the lives of the unborn. It is an abomination I tell you!
[/quote]
In a poltician it is, one of the worst kind.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Who has the credibility to carry the banner of limited government?[/quote]
We learn as we go, it is a process of elimination of who can’t, including, but not limited to, Ron Paul and his legions of idiots and the John Birch Society.
As for who? Good question. It will take someone who can convince people who are otherwise not terribly committed to the idea to give it a second look and commit to it. For the GOP, maybe Paul Ryan. For the Dems, Walt Minnick and other serious Blue Dogs. As for independents, too early to tell.
[/quote]
It will take someone who is not married to strong social conservative ideals and micro-management of our private lives that alienates half the country. I can’t pull the trigger on the Palin’s of the world no matter how much I also disapprove of the policies and objectives of the Obama’s of the world.[/quote]
I know where you’re coming from. Who would even consider voting for someone who wants to protect the lives of the unborn. It is an abomination I tell you!
[/quote]
In a poltician it is, one of the worst kind.
[/quote]
Are you going to ramble on about people’s right to choose, and how government intervention in the lives of people is too great?
Just wondering, because if you were going to do that you can skip it and then I will skip my stand-pat answer and we can avoid doing that whole thing. Then we can each spend more time on productive things in our lives that actually matter.
Just a thought.
Okay, so how about Rep. Thaddeus McCotter?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Who has the credibility to carry the banner of limited government?[/quote]
We learn as we go, it is a process of elimination of who can’t, including, but not limited to, Ron Paul and his legions of idiots and the John Birch Society.
As for who? Good question. It will take someone who can convince people who are otherwise not terribly committed to the idea to give it a second look and commit to it. For the GOP, maybe Paul Ryan. For the Dems, Walt Minnick and other serious Blue Dogs. As for independents, too early to tell.
[/quote]
It will take someone who is not married to strong social conservative ideals and micro-management of our private lives that alienates half the country. I can’t pull the trigger on the Palin’s of the world no matter how much I also disapprove of the policies and objectives of the Obama’s of the world.[/quote]
I know where you’re coming from. Who would even consider voting for someone who wants to protect the lives of the unborn. It is an abomination I tell you!
[/quote]
In a poltician it is, one of the worst kind.
[/quote]
Are you going to ramble on about people’s right to choose, and how government intervention in the lives of people is too great?
Just wondering, because if you were going to do that you can skip it and then I will skip my stand-pat answer and we can avoid doing that whole thing. Then we can each spend more time on productive things in our lives that actually matter.
Just a thought.
[/quote]
He is replacing his judgement for that of the people that he is supposed to serve and he is using their money to use organized violence to make them live up to his standards and judgements.
In a public servant that is unacceptable.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…and as we’ve discussed MANY times; the GOP is simply not putting forth a viable candidate.
But watch out! Karl Rove is really starting to rear his head on the National scene again!
(The guy is a Political “beast” who COULD get that Monkey elected, tGunslinger!)
Mufasa[/quote]
As a side note I think it’s quite telling that we heard about Karl Rove 4.8 seconds after GW Bush was elected President. “The man behind the man” The liberal press screamed. Do you think it’s odd that we hear nothing of the one or two pushers behind Obama? If the American people were to fully understand who is behind Obama there might just be a call for his impeachment.
That nasty Karl Rove, how dare he support a republican.[/quote]
Zeb:
I’m not quite sure about the point you were making…but for me, the man (Rove) amounts to a political “genius”, in an almost “mad scientist” type of way. He knows what it takes to get elected; why someone loses and another person wins…he can quote more statistics about the electorate than anyone I’ve ever seen (he always has a trusty board present!)
People will either love him or hate him…depending on who’s side he is on.
Mufasa
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Okay, so how about Rep. Thaddeus McCotter? [/quote]
There was early “buzz” and hope for both him (McCotter) and Eric Cantor. Then the GOP began to “showcase” people like Jindal and McDonnell?
It’s been sort of strange to me…but a Party certainly understands its strengths and weaknesses better than us on the outside.
Anyone with any insights?
Mufasa
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Who has the credibility to carry the banner of limited government?[/quote]
We learn as we go, it is a process of elimination of who can’t, including, but not limited to, Ron Paul and his legions of idiots and the John Birch Society.
As for who? Good question. It will take someone who can convince people who are otherwise not terribly committed to the idea to give it a second look and commit to it. For the GOP, maybe Paul Ryan. For the Dems, Walt Minnick and other serious Blue Dogs. As for independents, too early to tell.
[/quote]
It will take someone who is not married to strong social conservative ideals and micro-management of our private lives that alienates half the country. I can’t pull the trigger on the Palin’s of the world no matter how much I also disapprove of the policies and objectives of the Obama’s of the world.[/quote]
I know where you’re coming from. Who would even consider voting for someone who wants to protect the lives of the unborn. It is an abomination I tell you!
[/quote]
In a poltician it is, one of the worst kind.
[/quote]
Are you going to ramble on about people’s right to choose, and how government intervention in the lives of people is too great?
Just wondering, because if you were going to do that you can skip it and then I will skip my stand-pat answer and we can avoid doing that whole thing. Then we can each spend more time on productive things in our lives that actually matter.
Just a thought.
[/quote]
He is replacing his judgement for that of the people that he is supposed to serve and he is using their money to use organized violence to make them live up to his standards and judgements.
In a public servant that is unacceptable.
[/quote]
Not everyone would agree.
“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”
–Edmund Burke
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
It will take someone who is not married to strong social conservative [/quote]
No it won’t. Or, you’d have Ron Paul beating Obama in polls at this moment. Instead it’s Huckabee, Romney, and yes, even Palin. Without the support of libertarians it’s a closer race for the GoP. Without social conservatives, the GoP candidate gets skunked.[/quote]
Could Happen, rasmussen poll in link has Obama 42% to Paul 41% (for all, not just independents)
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…and as we’ve discussed MANY times; the GOP is simply not putting forth a viable candidate.
But watch out! Karl Rove is really starting to rear his head on the National scene again!
(The guy is a Political “beast” who COULD get that Monkey elected, tGunslinger!)
Mufasa[/quote]
As a side note I think it’s quite telling that we heard about Karl Rove 4.8 seconds after GW Bush was elected President. “The man behind the man” The liberal press screamed. Do you think it’s odd that we hear nothing of the one or two pushers behind Obama? If the American people were to fully understand who is behind Obama there might just be a call for his impeachment.
That nasty Karl Rove, how dare he support a republican.[/quote]
Zeb:
I’m not quite sure about the point you were making…but for me, the man (Rove) amounts to a political “genius”, in an almost “mad scientist” type of way. He knows what it takes to get elected; why someone loses and another person wins…he can quote more statistics about the electorate than anyone I’ve ever seen (he always has a trusty board present!)
People will either love him or hate him…depending on who’s side he is on.
Mufasa
[/quote]
My point is simple. You can love or hate Rove, and the liberal media want you to hate him very badly, because the media brought him to light early in the Bush Presidency. Now tell me who the top one or two people are how crafted the Obama campaign?
Uh uh.
I have no idea, Zeb.
This is one where you probably ought to just name names and make your point…because I’m missing it.
Sorry, Brother!
Mufasa
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Who has the credibility to carry the banner of limited government?[/quote]
We learn as we go, it is a process of elimination of who can’t, including, but not limited to, Ron Paul and his legions of idiots and the John Birch Society.
As for who? Good question. It will take someone who can convince people who are otherwise not terribly committed to the idea to give it a second look and commit to it. For the GOP, maybe Paul Ryan. For the Dems, Walt Minnick and other serious Blue Dogs. As for independents, too early to tell.
[/quote]
It will take someone who is not married to strong social conservative ideals and micro-management of our private lives that alienates half the country. I can’t pull the trigger on the Palin’s of the world no matter how much I also disapprove of the policies and objectives of the Obama’s of the world.[/quote]
I know where you’re coming from. Who would even consider voting for someone who wants to protect the lives of the unborn. It is an abomination I tell you!
[/quote]
In a poltician it is, one of the worst kind.
[/quote]
Are you going to ramble on about people’s right to choose, and how government intervention in the lives of people is too great?
Just wondering, because if you were going to do that you can skip it and then I will skip my stand-pat answer and we can avoid doing that whole thing. Then we can each spend more time on productive things in our lives that actually matter.
Just a thought.
[/quote]
He is replacing his judgement for that of the people that he is supposed to serve and he is using their money to use organized violence to make them live up to his standards and judgements.
In a public servant that is unacceptable.
[/quote]
Not everyone would agree.
“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”
–Edmund Burke
[/quote]
I disagree, but even if I agreed there is no expert answer to when an embryo becomes a human being.