[NaterGator]

Originally Posted by BHMCruiser

What is a "strict consitutionalist?" Don't most elected representatives consider themselves to be behaving in a way that is constitutional?

Uh. I'm sure they do, but this republican office just cant seem to stop passing legislature to remove constitutional rights or interpreting it in such a way to infringe on our civil liberties. Patriot Act, anyone?

[NaterGator]

Originally Posted by Mr. Toad

Your last sentence is interesting. I think he came across as kooky because the days of a traditional conservative party (i.e small government, defend the borders, maintain the highways, . . .) are gone. There are two parties now that dole out government largess to competing beneficiaries. The liberals have successfully changed the playing field.

You need to come out of the closet as a libertarian.

Bullcrap. The only reason there are two parties now that promise handouts to their respective groups is because Americans have become extremely lazy, have an attitude of entitlement, and have become too fucking ignorant to realize that this country is going down the shitter fast; certainly alot faster than ever before. If we keep up our current policy and we don't change our act within the next two elections, I don't see any way we can avoid a huge economic meltdown, a broad loss of international respect, and an overall loss of power. China is huge, they're already a huge threat to us. The economy is sliding and the dollar is crap. We have an upcoming election with a whole new group of shitheads, and of the major picks not one single candidate strikes me as the kind of person that can lead this country effectively. Not one.


I'm not a libertarian. I just don't want to see us fail. Forgive me for thinking the only honest candidate that can keep this country from getting derailed is one who is a traditional conservative. Do I think he'll be able to eliminate the FBI, DOE, IRS, etc? No... don't be stupid; the senate and congress will never let that happen. I do think he has a level head though, and his policies are exactly what we need right now.

[Creeker]

Originally Posted by Mr. Toad

Your last sentence is interesting. I think he came across as kooky because the days of a traditional conservative party (i.e small government, defend the borders, maintain the highways, . . .) are gone. There are two parties now that dole out government largess to competing beneficiaries. The liberals have successfully changed the playing field.

You need to come out of the closet as a libertarian.

Wait...what? The LIBERALS have changed the playing field? Which party created the K Street money machine? The Republicans perfected the strong arm political control of government spending.

Corrupt money distribution aside, the neo-cons are the ones that destroyed the Republican party. You can't give liberals the credit of being organized enough to do that.

[Shahram]

Originally Posted by Creeker

Wait...what? The LIBERALS have changed the playing field? Which party created the K Street money machine? The Republicans perfected the strong arm political control of government spending.

Corrupt money distribution aside, the neo-cons are the ones that destroyed the Republican party. You can't give liberals the credit of being organized enough to do that.

I hate to burst your bubble, Creeker my man, but neo-cons are liberals.

Sorry.

[BHMCruiser]

Originally Posted by NaterGator

Uh. I'm sure they do, but this republican office just cant seem to stop passing legislature to remove constitutional rights or interpreting it in such a way to infringe on our civil liberties. Patriot Act, anyone?

What rights does the Patriot Act curtail, exactly? What are our civil liberties?

Anyway, I won't belabor the point, but I think that you meant to use the expression "strict CONSTRUCTIONIST" and not "contitutionalist."

[NorCalSam]

Originally Posted by NaterGator

Bullcrap. The only reason there are two parties now that promise handouts to their respective groups is because Americans have become extremely lazy, have an attitude of entitlement, and have become too fucking ignorant to realize that this country is going down the shitter fast; certainly alot faster than ever before. If we keep up our current policy and we don't change our act within the next two elections, I don't see any way we can avoid a huge economic meltdown, a broad loss of international respect, and an overall loss of power. China is huge, they're already a huge threat to us. The economy is sliding and the dollar is crap. We have an upcoming election with a whole new group of shitheads, and of the major picks not one single candidate strikes me as the kind of person that can lead this country effectively. Not one.


I'm not a libertarian. I just don't want to see us fail. Forgive me for thinking the only honest candidate that can keep this country from getting derailed is one who is a traditional conservative. Do I think he'll be able to eliminate the FBI, DOE, IRS, etc? No... don't be stupid; the senate and congress will never let that happen. I do think he has a level head though, and his policies are exactly what we need right now.

Ditto that!
to you my friend

[wob]

Originally Posted by NaterGator

China is huge, they're already a huge threat to us. The economy is sliding and the dollar is crap.

Why is a weak dollar bad again? I thought we liked to help our manufacturers out in the international marketplace.

[NorCalSam]

Stop wasting your time trying to one up the other, name calling, and arguing about meaningless things such as lift kits, and ball games on mud. Put down the beer, and stop spending your free time in front of a porno with a beer, and bag of cheese puffs, and a big orange dick. Support Ron Paul, grab your pitch forks and let’s take this country back. Or at least make a statement!

[yooper]

but the cheetoh dust enhances my pleasure...

[Gumby]

Know why Ron Paul ain't gonna be President, and why Mitt is the only current Republican hopeful?



Despite the fact that 50% of white males (the only current population running for Republican nominee) are bald, no man has been seriously considered as an non- incumbent that has been even starting to go bald since the age of television.

It's sad that we live in a shallow society, but there it is. Fred Thompson, Rudy, and McCain are doomed.


I'd win for sure if there was no TV, but who's gonna vote for a hairless, lop headed green guy?

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by NorCalSam

Put down the beer, and stop spending your free time in front of a porno with a beer, and bag of cheese puffs, and a big orange dick.

Blasphemy!

I'm gonna declare Sharaislamic jihad on your ass for such statements.

[NaterGator]

Originally Posted by yooper

but the cheetoh dust enhances my pleasure...

It is quite an effective lube. It also works well on people that like to lick the cheeto dust off their fingers

[Mr. Toad]

Originally Posted by NaterGator

Bullcrap. The only reason there are two parties now that promise handouts to their respective groups is because Americans have become extremely lazy, have an attitude of entitlement, and have become too fucking ignorant to realize that this country is going down the shitter fast; certainly alot faster than ever before. If we keep up our current policy and we don't change our act within the next two elections, I don't see any way we can avoid a huge economic meltdown, a broad loss of international respect, and an overall loss of power.
. . .

Our nation's course is irreversible. People act in their own interests. It's Tragedy of the Commons with government as the community resource.

Easy with the language, tiger.

[Sporin]

Marriage is not a federal issue. Neither is divorce, abortion, the death penalty, adoption, education, the drinking age, speed limits, seat belt laws, driver's licenses, and so many other issues. Ron Paul thinks the Fed should butt out of this stuff and let the states legislate it on their own as our founding fathers dictated. (at least that's my understanding.of it)

But I am impressed with his tough stances on gun rights, NO amnesty for illegals, property rights, pulling out of the UN, lowering taxes, doing away with corrupt federal governmental agencies, doing away with the income tax, removing federal powers from public schools, respecting the US Constitution to a T, reforming Social Security, etc.

Sure a lot of that will never happen but I like his direction of thinking. His (seemingly) honest adherence to state's rights and the Constitution keep him "on the table" for me since I prefer the state making those decision, not the Fed.

At this point, I'll be voting for Paul in the primary, first time I'll be voting republican.

[JJS]

Hopefully, in Paul saying he wants to do away with corrupt governmental agencies, he is including the BATF.

[Creeker]

Originally Posted by Shahram

I hate to burst your bubble, Creeker my man, but neo-cons are liberals.

Sorry.

Here's a definition from a conservative (Max Boot from the Weekly Standard):

"So is "neoconservatism" worthless as a political label? Not entirely. In social policy, it stands for a broad sympathy with a traditionalist agenda and a rejection of extreme libertarianism. Neocons have led the charge to combat some of the wilder excesses of academia and the arts. But there is hardly an orthodoxy laid down by Neocon Central. I, for one, am not eager to ban either abortion or cloning, two hot-button issues on the religious right. On economic matters, neocons--like pretty much all other Republicans, except for Mr. Buchanan and his five followers--embrace a laissez-faire line, though they are not as troubled by the size of the welfare state as libertarians are.

But it is not really domestic policy that defines neoconservatism. This was a movement founded on foreign policy, and it is still here that neoconservatism carries the greatest meaning, even if its original raison d'être--opposition to communism--has disappeared."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110002840

Although the movement has been famously described as liberalism mugged by reality, look at the primary figures associated with the Neocons: Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Norman Podhoretz ("Revulsion against the counterculture accounted for more converts to neoconservatism than any other single factor."), Kristol, etc. And look at their publications: Commentary, Weekly Standard, sprinklings in National Review.

The contention that neoconservatism sprang from a liberal loins seems to be based more on personalities than ideology. Even so, your statement should read were liberals, not are liberals. The fact is that neocons are associated with the Republican party, not the Democrats.

I'm just saying... NEITHER party should have anything to do with them.

[NaterGator]

Originally Posted by HZJ60 Guy

The guys a moron! His answer to winning the war on terrorism is "Bring our boys home?" Among other things. The guy is clueless.

Interesting you say that HZJ60 Guy, considering Ron Paul's biggest donating pool is from the armed forces

Speaking of, Paul supporters have rallied around him today (on the boston tea party) and have donated over 4.5million today


GO RON PAUL

[fj40_73]

Ron Paul for president .... yes.

[Brian in Oregon]

Romney is still as anti-Second amendment as ever. Stick a fork in him, he's done. The only thing I can say for him is that he's at least honest about being anti-gun, unlike Rudi G.

Ron Paul and fred Thompson are still my lineup.

----------------------------------------------------------

Especially troubling is his remark about banning "weapons of unusual lethality”.

This from Michelle Malkin's website.
Michelle Malkin Romney on Meet the Press: Gun rights/immigration positions under fire

Romney on Meet the Press: Gun rights/immigration positions under fire
By Michelle Malkin • December 16, 2007 03:37 PM Mitt Romney was on NBC’s Meet the Press this morning. While his tears (big Drudge headline and photo) seem to be garnering the biggest headlines, there were more worrisome moments during the interview. Philip Klein at the American Spectator blog writes:

–On guns, he may have gotten himself in trouble, in an attempt to diffuse the flip-flop label, by standing by his support for the Brady Bill and the 1994 assault weapons ban. He even said he would have signed an extension of the assault weapons ban when it expired in 2004. He also employed the odd phrase “weapons of unusual lethality” to describe the type of guns he would ban.

–On immigration, Romney was utterly Clintonian. He said that when in November 2005 he described the Bush/McCain approach to immigration as “reasonable” and “quite different” from amnesty, he wasn’t endorsing the proposal, but just describing it. He hadn’t formulated his own position on immigration at the time. That’s right up there with Hillary Clinton saying in the debate that she didn’t say she supported driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, but she just said that a proposal to do so “makes sense.” Even if we were to get into the Christmas spirit and be extraordinarily generous by granting Romney that an elected official saying pending legislation is “reasonable” doesn’t constitute support for the legislation, it still doesn’t get him off the hook. His description of the proposal was that it was “quite different” from amnesty, and yet during this year he has ceaselessly leveled attacks on McCain by accusing him of supporting “amnesty.” So even being generous to Romney, this constitutes a major change in position, not just from some long ago Senate race in 1994, but from late 2005.
Here are the relevant transcript excerpts. First on guns (Update - Vid here):

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to gun control. Here’s the headline: “Romney retreats on gun control. Romney, who once described himself as a supporter of strong gun laws, is distancing himself from that rhetoric now as he attempts to court the gun owners who make up a significant force in Republican primary politics. In his ‘94″ Senate race, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rife Association and other” guns rights “groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons. `That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA,’ Romney told the Boston Herald.’” “At another campaign stop” “he told reporters, `I don’t line up with the NRA.’” Suddenly Romney decides to run for president and signs up for a lifetime membership in the NRA.

GOV. ROMNEY: You know, it’s, it’s wonderful, and you’ll appreciate this. There is a great effort on the part of, in some cases, my opposition, in some cases, just folks that are interested in writing an interesting article to, to try and find any change at all. And my position on guns is the same position I’ve had for a long, long time. And, and that position is that I don’t line up 100 percent with the NRA. I don’t see eye to eye with the NRA on every issue. I…

MR. RUSSERT: You’re still for the Brady Bill?

GOV. ROMNEY: I supported the assault weapon ban. I…

MR. RUSSERT: You’re for it?

GOV. ROMNEY: I assigned–and I–let me, let me describe it.

MR. RUSSERT: But you’re still for it.

GOV. ROMNEY: Let’s describe what it is. I signed–I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus. And so both the pro-gun and the anti-gun lobby came together with a bill, and I signed that. And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that’s something I would consider signing. There’s nothing of that nature that’s being proposed today in Washington. But, but I would, I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality…

MR. RUSSERT: So the assault ban that expired here because Congress didn’t act on it, you would support?
GOV. ROMNEY: Just as the president said, he would have, he would have signed that bill if it came to his desk, and so would have I. And, and, and yet I also was pleased to have the support of the NRA when I ran for governor. I sought it, I seek it now. I’d love to have their support. I believe in the right of Americans to bear arms…

MR. RUSSERT: How about the Brady Bill?

GOV. ROMNEY: The Brady Bill has changed over time, and, of course, technology has changed over time.
MR. RUSSERT: But the idea of a waiting period.

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, we have, we have a background check. That’s the key thing. I support background checks to, to–for people who are going into a store or whatever and buying a weapon, I want them to have a background check to make sure…

MR. RUSSERT: But you stand by your support of the Brady Bill.

GOV. ROMNEY: …to make sure, to make sure that the, that the crazies don’t buy guns.

The, the current Brady Bill is, is a different measure than the original. The original had a waiting period because it took a long time to check on people’s backgrounds. Today we can check instantly on backgrounds. I don’t want to cause a waiting period that’s not necessary based upon today’s technology. But my position is we should check on the backgrounds of people who are trying to purchase guns. We also should keep weapons of unusual lethality from being on the street. And finally, we should go after people who use guns in the commission of crimes or illegally, but we should not interfere with the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns either for their own personal protection or hunting or any other lawful purpose. I support the work of the NRA. I’m a member of the NRA. But do we line up on every issue? No, we don’t.

END

[lunyou]

Originally Posted by saint60

he sucks. another red neck that thinks he has all the answers. his perspective is rigid....similar to someone we know and hate.

obama '08!!!!

you really thinkit would be smart to vote a black man into office? Or a woman??

If either/both get voted in we will see our first assasination since Kennedy.

Then even before the mourning of obama's death can start we will have a full scale country wide race riot.[

lunyou

[cruiser88]

Originally Posted by lunyou

you really thinkit would be smart to vote a black man into office? Or a woman??

If either/both get voted in we will see our first assasination since Kennedy.

Then even before the mourning of obama's death can start we will have a full scale country wide race riot.[

lunyou

Gawddam your a dumass









Sorry folks carrrrrry on Ron Paul is who I am considering also.

[Cube Dweller]

Originally Posted by lunyou

you really thinkit would be smart to vote a black man into office? Or a woman??

If either/both get voted in we will see our first assasination since Kennedy.

Then even before the mourning of obama's death can start we will have a full scale country wide race riot.[

lunyou

NCD, remind me of this if I question your judgment again.

[Mr. Toad]

lunyou, you've outdone yourself.

[decavo]

ron paul is right but a wasted vote unless he gets the republican nomination.. if he runs independent well hello billary obama

[BHMCruiser]

Originally Posted by lunyou

you really thinkit would be smart to vote a black man into office? Or a woman??

If either/both get voted in we will see our first assasination since Kennedy.

Then even before the mourning of obama's death can start we will have a full scale country wide race riot.[

lunyou

I totally agree. We should also not elect any Jews for that same reason.


Good thinking, young man.

[JJS]

Originally Posted by BHMCruiser

I totally agree. We should also not elect any Jews for that same reason.


Good thinking, young man.

It's that semi-intelligence producing those "deep thoughts." You need a Wii?

[LukeO]

Originally Posted by lunyou

you really thinkit would be smart to vote a black man into office? Or a woman??

If either/both get voted in we will see our first assasination since Kennedy.

Then even before the mourning of obama's death can start we will have a full scale country wide race riot.[

lunyou

Should we forget the failed attempt on Reagan?

I understand African Americans are roughly 12% of our population. A loud 12%but a minority none the less. The government would simply have to deploy the Marine Corps on US streets again as they did during the LA riots.


At the end of the day we'll have to wait and see who the EC votes for, again...

[VTFJ40]

Originally Posted by decavo

ron paul is right but a wasted vote unless he gets the republican nomination.. if he runs independent well hello billary obama

Disagree. The more votes wasted while NOT being told who to vote for, the better.

Why should people tired of the same old bullshit, vote for the same old bullshit?
Does anyone see that bigga differences between Mitt-> Hillary-> Rudy-> Obama?

Sorry, but I don't.
[I mean besides one being black, one being a Mormon, one being bald and one being a capital "C"]

[Mr. Toad]

Originally Posted by Creeker

Wait...what? The LIBERALS have changed the playing field? Which party created the K Street money machine? The Republicans perfected the strong arm political control of government spending.

Corrupt money distribution aside, the neo-cons are the ones that destroyed the Republican party. You can't give liberals the credit of being organized enough to do that.

I just read this. You're right. But I meant something completely different. What I intended to convey is that liberals have changed the entire playing field over the last 40 years or so.

So the question is no longer, "Will the federal government spend huge amounts of cash on all kinds of things that it doesn't need to spend it on?"* Instead, the question has become, "Who's going to get the huge amounts of cash that the fed spends that it doesn't need to spend?"

* As an example, this quote from George Will's Dec. 16 column in the Sacramento Bee concerning the proposed subprime mortgage intervention:

Perhaps Washington's intervention reveals the tiny tip of an enormous new entitlement: People who voluntarily run a risk, betting that they will escape unscathed, are entitled to government-organized amelioration when they lose their bets. The costs of this entitlement will include new ambiguities in the concepts of contracts and private property.

This sentiment could be applied to Katrina and a host of other expenditures made to protect people from the results of their own thoughtlessness.

[Creeker]

Originally Posted by Mr. Toad

I just read this. You're right. But I meant something completely different. What I intended to convey is that liberals have changed the entire playing field over the last 40 years or so.

So the question is no longer, "Will the federal government spend huge amounts of cash on all kinds of things that it doesn't need to spend it on?"* Instead, the question has become, "Who's going to get the huge amounts of cash that the fed spends that it doesn't need to spend?"

Why is this a "liberal" attitude? Certainly FDR created the New Deal, and perhaps newly defined the term "Liberal". So should those programs not have been put in place? Or perhaps you're referring to the Great Society changes made by the Democrats/Johnson, including Medicare, Medicaid, and Welfare. I don't know much about that subject, but I'm willing to be schooled. What should this country's attitude towards poverty be? Try to help or let people fend for themselves, regardles of the suffering.

I guess the question has to come down to what does the federal gov. NEED to spend. I agree that bail-outs on all levels has become as ridiculous as safety railings in Yosemite. But I also expect some of my tax dollars to go to help those in need. I don't think government aid is wrong. It is, however, susceptible to abuse by rich and poor alike.