Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 25, 2014, 02:54:18 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83029 Posts in 2258 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The Way Forward for the American Creed
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 15 Print
Author Topic: The Way Forward for the American Creed  (Read 80229 times)
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #200 on: February 21, 2010, 11:06:25 AM »

Newt is great.  I just question his generalizable appeal.  He didn't exactly leave the Senate high up in the polls.

Barbour, I always recall was/is very well spoken, articulate.
He got rave reviews for his handling of Katrina in Mississippi from what I read.
Anyone have thoughts on him for Pres?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #201 on: February 21, 2010, 06:17:37 PM »

Barbour is very good in many ways, but IMHO will be too readily seen as "just another old white Republican male".  I also doublt his fighting spirit when a liberal-prgressive lynch mob gets in full-throated cry.

Newt on the other hand has a mental speed and verbal agility that can keep him from being pegged as such.  A lack of fighting spirit will not be a problem with the Newtster though methinks as his political killer instinct is well proven.  As for his foilbes in the mid 90s, as serious as some of them were,  I suspect America's concentration span and moral speciousness will not prevent him from being forgiven if he is seen as the man that we want.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #202 on: February 23, 2010, 10:16:23 AM »

This AM he was on CNN and sat through what was a rather condescending and at times smart alec interview by some well made up and bejeweled low-cut blouse female interviewer who rapped up at the end of the interview by saying thank you for being on and  you are always an interesting "character" all the while sitting smuggly with  shit eating grin on her face.
Personally I agreed with most of what he said.

The tax code is absolutely nuts, the illegal problem is NOT being addressed in this country but by both parties courting Latinos for votes and that we will now AGAIN, like fools give amnesty to people who take advantage of our laws our services and our country.

As for his statement we are in two wars we have no business bieng in I am less in agreement.  I just don't know enoughto have an opinion on this.

The money in politics, the money that is needed that helps keep the incumbants in power, the money that is needed that goes to the mass media for advertising.  It is a merry go round of scams, bribes, and back door back scratching.

Some say the internet will neutralize this but I am not so certain.



Logged
Freki
Power User
***
Posts: 513


« Reply #203 on: February 26, 2010, 08:46:33 AM »


by Andrew Napolitano

In the continually harsh public discourse over the President’s proposals for federally-managed healthcare, the Big Government progressives in both the Democratic and the Republican parties have been trying to trick us. These folks, who really want the government to care for us from cradle to grave, have been promoting the idea that health care is a right.

In promoting that false premise, they have succeeded in moving the debate from WHETHER the feds should micro-manage health care to HOW the feds should micro-manage health care. This is a false premise, and we should reject it. Health care is not a right; it is a good, like food, like shelter, and like clothing.

What is a right? A right is a gift from God that extends from our humanity. Thinkers from St. Thomas Aquinas, to Thomas Jefferson, to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to Pope John Paul II have all argued that our rights are a natural part of our humanity. We own our bodies, thus we own the gifts that emanate from our bodies.

So, our right to life, our right to develop our personalities, our right to think as we wish, to say what we think, to publish what we say, our right to worship or not worship, our right to travel, to defend ourselves, to use our own property as we see fit, our right to due process – fairness – from the government, and our right to be left alone, are all rights that stem from our humanity. These are natural rights that we are born with. The government doesn’t give them to us and the government doesn’t pay for them and the government can’t take them away, unless a jury finds that we have violated someone else’s rights.

What is a good? A good is something we want or need. In a sense, it is the opposite of a right. We have our rights from birth, but we need our parents when we are children and we need ourselves as adults to purchase the goods we require for existence. So, food is a good, shelter is a good, clothing is a good, education is a good, a car is a good, legal representation is a good, working out at a gym is a good, and access to health care is a good.

Does the government give us goods? Well, sometimes it takes money from some of us and gives that money to others. You can call that taxation or you can call it theft; but you cannot call it a right.

A right stems from our humanity. A good is something you buy or someone else buys for you.

Now, when you look at health care for what it is, when you look at the US Constitution, when you look at the history of human freedom, when you accept the American value of the primacy of the individual over the fleeting wishes of the government, it becomes apparent that those who claim that healthcare is a right simply want to extend a form of government welfare.

When I make this argument to my Big Government friends, they come back at me with…well, if people don’t have health insurance, they will just go to hospitals and we will end up paying for them anyway. Why should that be? We don’t let people steal food from a supermarket or an apartment from a landlord or clothing from a local shop. Why do we let them take healthcare from a hospital without paying for it? Well, my Big Government friends contend, that’s charity.

They are wrong again. It is impossible to be charitable with someone else’s money. Charity comes from your own heart, not from the government spending your money. When we pay our taxes to the government and it gives that money away, that’s not charity, that’s welfare.

When the government takes more from us than it needs to secure our freedoms, so it can have money to give away, that’s not charity, that’s theft. And when the government forces hospitals to provide free health care to those who can’t or won’t care for themselves, that’s not charity, that’s slavery. That’s why we now have constitutional chaos, because the government steals and enslaves, and we outlawed that a long time ago.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel. His latest book is Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History, (Nelson, 2010).
Logged
Rarick
Guest
« Reply #204 on: February 27, 2010, 06:04:59 AM »

I was watching that big debate put up on youtube, and your post sums it up nicely.  The fact that the healthcare bill was needed or not was sidestepped everytime that issue came up.  Instead they were arguing about how or what issues were addressed or resolved by the new bill.  I turned it off after about 30 minutes, Obama just doesen't see it, or want to get it.  Nice little used car salesman we have for a president mixed with a nice dose of.............something I can't quite put my finger on yet.  Might be lack of LEADER, or a lack of respect for others opinions.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #205 on: March 02, 2010, 01:48:09 PM »

I'll have to check this out.  My nephew was asked to help write this but he is doing something else instead.  He is I think a bit second guessing that maybe he should have helped on the book but personally, while I generally like Romney - I think he falls just a bit short of the charisma needed to get the no. one spot.  But only time will tell for sure.

****The title of Mitt Romney's new book, "No Apology: The Case for American Greatness," is a not-so-subtle jab at the visits President Obama made overseas when he first took office, derided by the Right as the "American Apology Tour."

Behar calls the former governor "hunky" during a discussion about politics.Romney's book as a whole, however, may best be remembered not for the contrasts it offers with the incumbent president but for the contrasts it presents with "Going Rogue," the best-selling memoir of Sarah Palin, a potential Romney rival for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

Where Palin's book is a mix of score settling and juicy anecdotes, Romney's book consists of a 64-point plan for strengthening the United States and countless references to what he has been reading. Palin's book titillated audiences with her take on her husband without his shirt on ("Dang, I thought. Divorce Todd? Have you seen Todd?").****
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #206 on: March 02, 2010, 01:54:12 PM »

Romney brings a lot to the table, and I liked his concession speech, but as a matter of politics (and some substance) the following concern me:

1) His Ken doll image, and his poll-driven campaign , , , until he was the only alternative to McCain.
2) His version of Obama care in MA pre-dating Obama (I could be wrong on this, but my impression is his candidacy would kill the HC issue for his party)
3) His patrician birth, like Bush's, makes him temperamentally incapable of dealing with race-baiting, class-baiting, and other typical Dem tactics.  Like Bush, I fear he will become a "compassionate conservative".
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #207 on: March 02, 2010, 04:12:00 PM »

Crafty
I agree.  I thought some years ago the "compassionate conservative" idea was sound to soften the stereotype of Republicans as cold harded for those who are of the lower socioeconomic ladder.  Now I have come to believe this was a mistake.
But I am still not personally sure we should be.  I still am not sure I believe in Levin/Reagan/Hannity/Limbaugh style conservative as being the best alternative.
I just don't know, am not smart enough, and/or just can't get my mind to get a good handle on what is the best way to make this country sound and keep it on top.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #208 on: March 03, 2010, 08:28:34 AM »

Frankly, I think Glenn Beck is showing the way.  Did you catch his show on Monday and yesterday?

PS: Not familiar with Levin and Reagan's son in order to comment. Hannity is both an ass and a mental mediocrity, and Limbaugh , , , well too little content to time ratio for me to be bothered.
Logged
Rarick
Guest
« Reply #209 on: March 04, 2010, 07:29:26 AM »

I remember somthing about tough love.  Maybe that is more of the way to play it.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #210 on: March 04, 2010, 09:31:02 AM »

Crafty,
You may want to tune into Levin.  6 to 9 EST on 77 Am radio.  I agree with Levin on most things, but I am still not sure of his prescriptions for this country's ills.

Actually I meant Sir Reagan - not the (conservative) son who I also like - unlike the son he had with Nancy who is a quack hell bent on proving he disagrees with his father on probably every political issue.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #211 on: March 05, 2010, 09:59:29 AM »

"We are not to consider ourselves, while here, as at church or school, to listen to the harangues of speculative piety; we are here to talk of the political interests committed to our charge." --Fisher Ames, speech in the United States House of Representatives, 1789
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #212 on: March 19, 2010, 12:47:46 PM »

Win or lose on health care, one person emerged as holding his own with the leftists policy wonks, with vision and with clarity on crucial policy issues.  Paul Ryan was chosen by his colleagues to open at the bipartisan Obama health conference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_V8l5HGNBB0

The points and questions he makes on the bill remain unanswered by his opponents.  

Today, with the new bill published he is ready, informed, articulate, correct and available.Holds his own with the President and makes a nice contrast with the current speaker. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1Ib57sAH_c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYxNqhCPMpY

I've previously at least thought that I didn't see him as Presidential, not the type who can shout rhythmic platitudes from in front of fake Greek columns in large stadiums with adoring fans.  I prefer the executive experience of a governor, but in fact it is Presidents like Clinton and Obama who can sit and look very comfortable all day defending the details of horrible legislation and the cost of 'doing nothing'.  We will need someone who knows the legislative issues up and down to stand next to this incumbent President and debate persuasively.

If not this guy, we better find someone just as informed and articulate, without the baggage of previous mis-steps and flip-flops, and not someone who has stepped back from fighting these fights, to offer the country a seriously different direction, message and vision from the current leftist machine.

For example, I love Sara Palin (not necessarily for President).  If she is the candidate, she will be the issue.  If Romney is the candidate, Romneycare and other past works and positions will be the issue.  Far worse yet for Huckabee.  If someone like Ryan is the candidate, I think the issues will be the issue and leftists will be forced to defend the indefensible, like calling a new national health entitlement a step toward closing the deficit. MHO.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2010, 12:59:29 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #213 on: March 19, 2010, 01:08:19 PM »

Ryan has been impressing me.
Logged
Rarick
Guest
« Reply #214 on: March 20, 2010, 05:35:58 AM »

A real Ryan for Pres? evil   I guess we will see.   I would welcome this kind of Campaigning and Platforming, getting in the spotlight over legislation if there were candidates that can make this interesting like he can maybe thing would turn around?  Obama may shoot himself in the foot with these televised discussions and debates over policy.  A lot of people will see the side stepping that is going on.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #215 on: March 20, 2010, 07:30:26 AM »

Much remains to be seen with regard to Ryan on foreign affairs, social issues, and preparation to run the Executive branch of govt.
Logged
Rarick
Guest
« Reply #216 on: March 21, 2010, 09:43:47 PM »

I see a lot of people talking about change, but what should we be changing, and where are we going with it?  It seems NO One is willing to put thes two W'S out there.........

I would suggest 2 changes.  The first would be for both houses of congress.   A 2/3 vote to pass any legislation and a 3/4 vote to overrule veto.  Right now it is something less than that and they are going too fast with tooo many laws time to "derate" the engine.........

The second would be a tax reform.  If we are paying taxes, let us decide what programs we want to fund.  If I want x% of my taxes to fund the Highway system then that is where it goes.  If I choose to leave programs I don't like unfunded, then that is what happens, not a cent of my taxes would go to programs I do not want funded.  Okay my tax form got another 5 pages, but it give a check against a congress that likes throwing money around.   It would also force the various government departments to get efficient too, after all they suddenly are competing on the tax dollar market now aren't they?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #217 on: March 21, 2010, 11:37:00 PM »

Keep the government within the boundaries defined by the Constitution.

Logged
Freki
Power User
***
Posts: 513


« Reply #218 on: March 22, 2010, 08:01:48 AM »

Here is irony for ya.  On this day 1765

Great Britain Passes the Stamp Act (1765)
Intended to help pay British debts from the French and Indian War, the Stamp Act established the first direct tax levied on the American colonies. It required all newspapers, pamphlets, legal documents, commercial bills, advertisements, and other papers issued in the colonies to bear a tax stamp. The act was vehemently protested by the colonists, and the Stamp Act Congress—the first significant joint colonial response to any British measure—petitioned for its repeal.

Well genital people history has repeated itself to the day, with the passage of this abomination of a health care bill..  The question is, how do we respond?  How did our forefathers respond?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #219 on: March 22, 2010, 08:56:54 AM »

Freki:

I just posted that on the American History thread of our SCH forum.

All:

Following up on my previous post:

"[T]he present Constitution is the standard to which we are to cling. Under its banners, bona fide must we combat our political foes -- rejecting all changes but through the channel itself provides for amendments." --Alexander Hamilton, letter to James Bayard, 1802
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #220 on: March 24, 2010, 03:03:52 PM »

This most certainly is not the way forward. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20100324/pl_politico/34907

 angry angry angry
Logged
Freki
Power User
***
Posts: 513


« Reply #221 on: March 24, 2010, 08:06:49 PM »

I agree with Crafty this is not the way forward.  The speed of news coverage and the left leaning nature of the press  the Tea party movement must be very careful.

I would like to point out the nature of politics during the revolution.  Tar , feathers, and rails were involved.  There was a tax collector in Boston whose house was burned down with his family in it!  My point is this, incidents like this are not new.

These types of incidents are isolated and in some cases I think made up by the left to discredit the Tea party movement.  This move is an old standard play in their play book.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #222 on: March 24, 2010, 08:16:54 PM »

This most certainly is true.  We have seen many fraudulent claims of hateful behavior, and have seen complete silence when hateful or violent behavior comes from the Left e.g. the SEIU thugs beating up that black man who was a Tea Partier.
Logged
Rarick
Guest
« Reply #223 on: March 25, 2010, 04:17:35 AM »

Sigh,  I hate the way things are looking.  Options are getting closed down, channels within the system are getting clogged or modified only for a certain few......... undecided cry
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #224 on: March 25, 2010, 10:34:37 AM »

Now apparently the Obama team is planning to go for amnesty for the 11-20 million illegal aliens and future Democrat voters and the 30-50 million family members now in their home countries that they will be able to anchor in the coming decades angry

Oh, and by the way, these 11-20 million illegal and soon to be amnestied new Democratic voters, a goodly % of whom will wind up on Medicaid, are not part of the budgetary calculations of the new Health Law , , ,
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #225 on: March 25, 2010, 02:23:54 PM »

"goodly % of whom will wind up on Medicaid"

I believe many already are on medicaid.  I think it is because their children are born here and are thus automatic US citizens and for that simple reason - qualify.  Not to mention food stamps, and public schools.

And when anyone uses the term "anchor" babies the reaction is one of fury and indignation and of course cries of racism.

This is the last stand.  We are on the brink of watching the Dems give our country away.

And yet, through it all, we have the MSM calling anyone who thinks this extremist and casting them as nuts.

Rove tried to reach the Latino voters as a way stemming the tide.  Obviously it all failed.

The phoney one struts and and beams more then ever.



Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #226 on: March 26, 2010, 01:54:16 PM »

I have been following CCP's argument/observation that Dems are the party of giving out goodies and they will win forever (unless we can think of something fast) by making more people dependent on the government while flooding the voter pool with new people who also see the government as a provider.  True on both counts, at least that is their strategy.

The Way Forward, if there is one, I think centers around the way these concepts fit together: spending, debt and a vision of the future that young people will live in.

If you ask an immigrant worker what their income today is, you likely get a low number, well below what today is admitted to be targeted for new taxes, so all new spending is free, right?

But take a longer view.  Past income mobility data indicates that 86% of bottom quintile workers exit that group within 9 years: http://www.house.gov/jec/middle/mobility/mobility.htm 

The children of today will either grow up and be primarily dependent on (a bankrupt) government or they will grow up to be productive members of society and pay the bills for our expanding older generation.  Then ask which group your immigrant children will likely be in, the ones getting a free ride or the ones paying the bills?  That is a different question.

People have a pride and optimism in the ability of their own children to grow up and achieve and succeed.

Immigrants, using the term loosely to include trespassers/illegals, might see themselves today as needing a hand up, minimum wage protection, OSHA laws, food stamp help and healthcare etc. but did not for the most part come here to have their children grow up to be dependent on a bankrupt government in the nation they risked everything to enter.  Immigrants also tend to be younger and the expenditures for health care go more heavily to the older generations.

I don't believe their vote can't be won.  The question needs to be, what kind of future do they want.  Is it a dependency-based society?  If so, not what is your income today, but do you like the idea of your kid footing the bill for the excesses we create today?

Hard to change the views of 5th generation welfare recipients and hard to win over the highly Democratic felon vote they are racing to register, but we need to fight hard for the votes of young people, immigrants and illegals who will live with the impact they make with their vote.



Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #227 on: March 27, 2010, 11:12:14 AM »

Doug thanks for your thoughts.

"I don't believe their vote can't be won.  The question needs to be, what kind of future do they want.  Is it a dependency-based society?"

I wish you are right.  But I don't think this is the case.  I don't think minority votes can be had with ideology.  If that were the case why do 90-98%% of Blacks vote for dependency aka Democratic.  At least not anytime soon.

They don't seem to mind the dole and big government.  They obviously see this as some sort of justice against white oppression.

As for Latinos they are obivously less of one block per see.

Except for the Cubans who came over here in the 60's they are in large majorities Democrats.

They are in higher proportions unemployed, uneducated, single parent, and thus far more likely to love the idea of someone else paying for higher education, medical care, and to need and willing to take medicaid, food stamps and the rest.

Do you really think 20 something unwed mothers give a hoot about concepts of "freedom" or founding fathers who are all white English guys who lived 200 years ago?  And to many of them stole California, and the rest of the Southwest?

Yes Bush made some inroads with the Latino vote.  But it wasn't with ideology.  It was with cold cash.  It was the trial of "compassionate conservatism".  It was I am sad to say by being more like the crats - not ideology.

I wish and hope I am wrong.  But the immigrants legal or illegal are not the same as those of our ancestors.

Why the other day CNN was interviewing some Indian guy asking about the health care bill.  He was all for it and saying Bama is "his" president.  This guy was not born here.  He said the bill would bring the US back "into civilized world".  Can you believe this statement?

This guy has some nerve.  Why they are starving if in F.. India and hundreds of millions cannot pay for care.  Indian doctors tell me patients line up for care there and a doctor could see hundreds of people a day. I say how is this possible.  They tell me the doctor will ask the patient a question, the patient will answer and the doctor will treat based on that one minute evaluation in a shotgun approach and then on to the next pt. and hope they are right.  The poor Indians are happy to even have that.

And this guy  on CNN has the damn nerve to come here and criticize this country as needing to be brought into the civilized world? angry

This guy isn't interested in some ideology about freedom.  He likes ideology about socialism.

I guess this is more of an ideological choice for this immigrant.  Whereas many other it is about the bills, cold cash, and probably for some - let the white/anglo people pay up for a change. 

I have said before I think Blacks shoot themselves in the foot by agreeing in almost total mass to government control.  Perhaps with time, and more Black Republicans, this will change.  But by then it will already be worse.

Just my rather pessismistic beliefs about what I see/read. 

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #228 on: March 31, 2010, 11:42:17 AM »

Replying to what CCP wrote here and what Crafty wrote over on Immigration: "[Latinos] tend to vote strongly Democrat.  Groups that tend to vote Republican tend to be aging and in decline, both in absolute numbers and as a % of the population.  The Republican party is already fairly irrelevant in the northeast of the US and with demographic trends in place will become a shrinking minority.  THIS was Bush-Rove-McCain's impetus in supporting amnesty-- to remain competitive for the Latino vote."

Selling conservatism to groups that are traditionally non-conservative has two choices, support policies that violate your own principles to split their vote or articulate your own view better of an America built on founding principles and invite them in.

In 2008, African Americans went 95% to 4% for Obama and Hispanics 67% to 31% Obama.  That was an exceptional Democrat year based on many things, first person of color on the ballot, economy in the tank, Republican brand name on a par with syphilis, etc.  Besides the margin, turnout was at record levels.

In 2004, it was African Americans 88-11 Democrat and Hispanics 53-44 Democrat.

So the split today is maybe 90-10 Blacks, and 60-40 Hispanic, give or take.

Yet the country is evenly divided.  So winning one or two more percent of either or both groups is a BIG deal.  We don't need to win all or even majorities of them to win, Just need to reach more of them.

I hate generalities, but... Blacks favor school choice, tend to be more religious and are getting KILLED by abortion policies and see neighborhoods destroyed by failed policies they were taught to favor.  Hispanics are very family oriented, mostly hard working and also heavily pro-life.  Both groups  have more kids so they will take on our debt if we keep spending like we do today.

CCP wrote: "(Latinos) are in higher proportions unemployed, uneducated, single parent, and thus far more likely to love the idea of someone else paying for higher education, medical care, and to need and willing to take medicaid, food stamps and the rest."

True,  but also that means they are voting their circumstances that should be improving over time, as they join and move up our economic ladder.  As they take root they will see their children as bearing the burden of our increasing debt and unfunded future liabilities.  Maybe we can get that written into the amnesty agreement.  smiley

My words of course are colored in wishful thinking.  But in the 100% liberal northeast, Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's seat. It is possible for liberals to go too far and lose portions of their base.  Liberals going too far also tends to clarify Conservatism and unite opposition.  The Nov. elections this year and the 2012 elections are our Olympics and what we do now to move forward is analogous to Apollo Ohno's workout regime.  Are we doing everything we can to reach these people, putting in something like his 2 hour hard sessions 4 times a day (or leaving it to others and hope it gets done).  Is the clarity of our arguments equal to 1000 pounds on the leg press.  Do we keep a journal and review it every night to see if we are doing everything we can do to reach ALL of these people.  Or are our leaders relaxing at topless bondage clubs? On election day we need to know we did everything we could do to make a difference.

Ignoring these demographic groups longer and losing ground further will be catastrophic to the future of traditional American (conservative) governing principles.  Opposing Amnesty means we have to work that much harder getting the message out on the other issues.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2010, 03:27:28 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #229 on: March 31, 2010, 02:19:16 PM »

Some good points there.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #230 on: March 31, 2010, 03:40:56 PM »

Doug and Crafty and all,

There is hope. If it isn't too late before the Phoney One ruins the country.

http://www.nbra.info/

Do you think any of these men and women would ask what I recall seeing a Black talk show host ask RNC man Michael Steele, "so what are Republicans going to do for Blacks?"

I can picture him but can't recall his name. However, I'm sorry to say that Mr. Steele's answer was less than inspiring.  I like the "page" he is on but he isn't inspirational as a spokesperson.

Certainly this is one question he SHOULD have an answer to if he is to be a leader attracting minorities back to the party of Lincoln.  How he could go on a Black hosted talk show and not be prepared to knock a question like that out of the park I don't know?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #231 on: April 03, 2010, 08:34:43 AM »

http://www.aspentimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100228/ASPENWEEKLY/100229854/&template=printart
 
Barack Obama has awakened a sleeping nation
Gary Hubbell
Aspen Times Weekly,
 
Barack Obama is the best thing that has happened to America in the last 100 years. Truly, he is the savior of America's future. He is the best thing ever.

Despite the fact that he has some of the lowest approval ratings among recent presidents, history will see Barack Obama as the source of America's resurrection. Barack Obama has plunged the country into levels of debt that we could not have previously imagined; his efforts to nationalize health care have been met with fierce resistance nationwide; TARP bailouts and stimulus spending have shown little positive effect on the national economy; unemployment is unacceptably high and looks to remain that way for most of a decade; legacy entitlement programs have ballooned to unsustainable levels, and there is a seething anger in the populace.

That's why Barack Obama is such a good thing for America.

Obama is the symbol of a creeping liberalism that has infected our society like a cancer for the last 100 years. Just as Hitler is the face of fascism, Obama will go down in history as the face of unchecked liberalism. The cancer metastasized to the point where it could no longer be ignored.

Average Americans who have quietly gone about their lives, earning a paycheck, contributing to their favorite charities, going to high school football games on Friday night, spending their weekends at the beach or on hunting trips — they've gotten off the fence. They've woken up. There is a level of political activism in this country that we haven't seen since the American Revolution, and Barack Obama has been the catalyst that has sparked a restructuring of the American political and social consciousness.

Think of the crap we've slowly learned to tolerate over the past 50 years as liberalism sought to re-structure the America that was the symbol of freedom and liberty to all the people of the world. Immigration laws were ignored on the basis of compassion. Welfare policies encouraged irresponsibility, the fracturing of families, and a cycle of generations of dependency. Debt was regarded as a tonic to lubricate the economy. Our children left school having been taught that they are exceptional and special, while great numbers of them cannot perform basic functions of mathematics and literacy. Legislators decided that people could not be trusted to defend their own homes, and stripped citizens of their rights to own firearms. Productive members of society have been penalized with a heavy burden of taxes in order to support legions of do-nothings who loll around, reveling in their addictions, obesity, indolence, ignorance and “disabilities.” Criminals have been arrested and re-arrested, coddled and set free to pillage the citizenry yet again. Lawyers routinely extort fortunes from doctors, contractors and business people with dubious torts.

We slowly learned to tolerate these outrages, shaking our heads in disbelief, and we went on with our lives.

But Barack Obama has ripped the lid off a seething cauldron of dissatisfaction and unrest.

In the time of Barack Obama, Black Panther members stand outside polling places in black commando uniforms, slapping truncheons into their palms. ACORN — a taxpayer-supported organization — is given a role in taking the census, even after its members were caught on tape offering advice to set up child prostitution rings. A former Communist is given a paid government position in the White House as an advisor to the president. Auto companies are taken over by the government, and the auto workers' union — whose contracts are completely insupportable in any economic sense — is rewarded with a stake in the company. Government bails out Wall Street investment bankers and insurance companies, who pay their executives outrageous bonuses as thanks for the public support. Terrorists are read their Miranda rights and given free lawyers. And, despite overwhelming public disapproval, Barack Obama has pushed forward with a health care plan that would re-structure one-sixth of the American economy.

I don't know about you, but the other day I was at the courthouse doing some business, and I stepped into the court clerk's office and changed my voter affiliation from “Independent” to “Republican.” I am under no illusion that the Republican party is perfect, but at least they're starting to awaken to the fact that we cannot sustain massive levels of debt; we cannot afford to hand out billions of dollars in corporate subsidies; we have to somehow trim our massive entitlement programs; we can no longer be the world's policeman and dole out billions in aid to countries whose citizens seek to harm us.

Literally millions of Americans have had enough. They're organizing, they're studying the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, they're reading history and case law, they're showing up at rallies and meetings, and a slew of conservative candidates are throwing their hats into the ring. Is there a revolution brewing? Yes, in the sense that there is a keen awareness that our priorities and sensibilities must be radically re-structured. Will it be a violent revolution? No. It will be done through the interpretation of the original document that has guided us for 220 years — the Constitution. Just as the pendulum swung to embrace political correctness and liberalism, there will be a backlash, a complete repudiation of a hundred years of nonsense. A hundred years from now, history will perceive the year 2010 as the time when America got back on the right track. And for that, we can thank Barack Hussein Obama.


Gary Hubbell is a hunter, rancher, and former hunting and fly-fishing guide. Gary works as a Colorado ranch real estate broker. He can be reached through his website, aspenranchrealestate.com.



http://www.aspentimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100228/ASPENWEEKLY/100229854/&template=printart
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #232 on: April 03, 2010, 10:17:48 AM »

After giving it a lot of thought over the last week or so I am coming to the conclusion that Michael should resign.

Not that I don't like him or generally agree with him. Not that it isn't great to have a minority face on the party of Lincoln.

Not that necessarily the ridiculous spending of RNC donated money on lavish stuff is all his fault.

I don't know how to fundraise.  Perhaps the RNC HAS to spend lavishisly to get big donors to contribute.  I don't know.

Yet the idea that the RNC donations are down in a political climate like this,  the idea that the RNC cannot seem to gt serious about an ideology alone that should be able to attract donors without the birbes just goes along to further the impression that this organization is as corrupt and money hungry as the rest of Washington DC.

If the Republican party cannot send a real message about principles, then they are no better than the crats.

The law should be laid down hard by Steele.  We don't want shmoozers.  We don't want people dining at fancy restaurants, flying in private jets to Hawaii.

We want an organization that will take this country back and give it to the people who work hard to make it great.

He must go as well as the obvious political culture at the RNC.  I wouldn't send them one cent as it stands now.

Nothing appears to have changed.

Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 776


« Reply #233 on: April 03, 2010, 11:39:49 AM »

Woof,
 I stopped giving to the Rep. Party when they started the big tent push to include moderate Liberals like John McCain and other so called "Physical Conservatives" that masquerade as moderate Conservatives, and pretend to be a better choice over mainstream Liberals. These Republican politicans are worse than the Blue Dog Dem's that also pretend to be moderate but are nothing more wolves in sheep's clothing, stealing votes from true moderate Conservatives in both Parties and then when elected they prop up Liberal policies. Even Bush falls into this category with his foot dragging on illegal immigration and his willingness to grow government and government handouts. Yes, Bush was a better choice than voting for Al Gore or John Kerry but he was no Conservative and bit by bit the difference between these kind of Republicans and their Liberal opponents are getting smaller and smaller. Does anyone think that we would be in much better shape if McCain won against Obama? I don't think we would and there lies the problem, if we Conservatives continue to hold our nose and vote for these people the Party will end up just like the Dem Party with Liberals running the show. I still support Conservative Republican candidates and contribute directly to those champaign's and bypass the Party; I don't want any of my money going to the general fund that is used to support someone's reelection bid like Olympia Snowe. tongue
                                                               P.C.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2010, 11:46:16 AM by prentice crawford » Logged

DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #234 on: April 03, 2010, 01:08:35 PM »

I agree with Prentice.  Your money needs to go directly to the right candidates and the right causes and you get to decide what that is.  After the nominees are set for each race, then you may have to hold your nose and vote, but there is no reason to have your hard earned money support candidates elsewhere around the country who will later be stabbing you in the back.

For example, McCain's career of being a maverick kills conservative candidates in other states. Dem incumbents excuse their extremist votes by saying it was a bipartisan vote, that they were joined in that vote by the respected R-senator from Arizona so therefore it was a reasonable position.

CCP I agree with you about Michael Steele, but think firing him now will only make things worse.  The RNC is not the republican party, the power today is from the ground up.  Let the party succeed in spite of the so-called leaderhip.  If the RNC does not earn your dollar then just go after the candidates and causes who will.  A group of MN businessmen have put up some attention grabbing billboards, here's one in Michele Bachmann's district this year:


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #235 on: April 05, 2010, 10:39:30 AM »

The Foundation
"It has been said that all Government is an evil. It would be more proper to say that the necessity of any Government is a misfortune. This necessity however exists; and the problem to be solved is, not what form of Government is perfect, but which of the forms is least imperfect." --James Madison

Liberty
"Over the past 14 months, our political debate has been transformed into an argument between the heirs of two fundamental schools of political thought, the Founders and the Progressives. The Founders stood for the expansion of liberty and the Progressives for the expansion of government. It's an argument that has been going on for a century but was largely dormant over the quarter-century of low-inflation economic growth that followed the Ronald Reagan tax cuts. It's been raised again by the expand-government policies of the Obama administration and Democratic congressional leaders. Those policies, thoroughly in line with the Progressive tradition, have been advanced by liberal elites in government, media, think tanks and academia. The opposition, roughly in line with the Founders tradition, has been led by the non-elites who spontaneously flocked to tea parties and town halls. ... The conservative rebellions of the late 1970s and middle 1990s were focused on taxes. The tea partiers are focusing on the expansion of government -- and its threat to the independence of citizens. ... By passing the stimulus package and the health care bills, the Democrats produced expansion of government. But voters seem to prefer expansion of liberty." --political analyst Michael Barone

Re: The Left
"The political issue rumbling toward both the Supreme Court and the electorate is whether Washington's size and power has finally grown beyond the comfort zone of the American people. That is what lies beneath the chatter about federalism and the 10th Amendment. Liberals will argue that government today is doing good. But government now is also unprecedentedly large and unprecedentedly expensive. Even if every challenge to ObamaCare loses in court, these anxieties will last and keep coming back to the same question: Does the Democratic left think the national government's powers are infinite? No one in the Obama White House, asked that in public on Sunday morning, would simply say yes, no matter that the evidence of this government's actions the past year indicate they do. In his 'Today Show' interview [last] week, Mr. Obama with his characteristic empathy acknowledged there are 'folks who have legitimate concerns ... that the federal government may be taking on too much.' My reading of the American public is that they have moved past 'concerns.'" --Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger

Government
"So, what is the impact on the deficit when the Senate health care bill, the reconciliation bill to fix the Senate health care bill and the bill to fix the phantom reductions in doctors' fees are all considered together? ... 'CBO estimates that enacting all three pieces of legislation would add $59 billion to budget deficits over the 2010-2019 period.' Rather than cut the deficit by $1 trillion over two decades as Obama claims, the full health care package increases the deficit by $59 billion over one decade. ... [T]he bill authorizes new discretionary spending that Congress will need to approve in future years to make sure the bureaucracies are in place to carry out the new plan. CBO estimates this will lead to 'at least $50 billion' in new spending over 10 years that was not included in the health care bill itself. ... Nor should Obama's socialized medicine plan be viewed in isolation from the rest of his budget. CBO says his fiscal 2011 budget proposal will increase the national debt by $9.8 trillion over the next 10 years. He is running a record $1.5 trillion deficit this year, and the smallest deficit he will ever run is $724 billion in 2014 -- the year his unconstitutional individual insurance mandate kicks in. After that, the deficit starts an unbroken climb, surpassing $1 trillion again in 2018 and heading ever higher. Just as Obama's claim that his socialized medicine plan will reduce the deficit by $1 trillion will be his defining lie, his legacy will be this: He bankrupted America." --CNSNews.com editor in chief Terence Jeffrey

The Gipper
"The fact is, we'll never build a lasting economic recovery by going deeper into debt at a faster rate than we ever have before. It took this nation 166 years until the middle of World War II to finally accumulate a debt of $95 billion. It took this [Carter] administration just the last 12 months to add $95 billion to the debt. And this administration has run up almost one-fourth of the total national debt in just these short 19 months. Inflation is the cause of recession and unemployment. And we're not going to have real prosperity or recovery until we stop fighting the symptoms and start fighting the disease." --Ronald Reagan

Faith & Family
"What's so disheartening about America's present political environment is that those in Washington are truly convinced that more and bigger government is America's primary solution for recovery, future growth and security. President Barack Obama even declared early in his presidency that 'only government' is our savior. Our Founders had a far better solution than only government. ... As proud as they were of their newfound republic, our Founders' trust and hope was not in government, but in God. For what? For most of the things that people today often look to government to provide: life, liberty, happiness, provision, salvation, decency, civility, morality, honesty, restraint, equity of power and future hope, to name a few. Tragically, in modern times, government has usurped God's role in our republic and Americans' lives. ... To our Founders, God was the source of our human rights, which put limits on government power. Even more, God was (and should be) the ultimate agent for national sustenance and renewal. That is why we are dreaming if we think we can correct the ills in ourselves, our government or our society without his aid." --columnist Chuck Norris
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #236 on: April 06, 2010, 05:24:00 PM »

Brooks is usually a typical liberal/progressive twit, yet there are elements in this piece worth considering:

By DAVID BROOKS
Published: April 5, 2010
According to recent polls, 60 percent of Americans think the country is heading in the wrong direction. The same percentage believe that the U.S. is in long-term decline. The political system is dysfunctional. A fiscal crisis looks unavoidable. There are plenty of reasons to be gloomy.  But if you want to read about them, stop right here. This column is a great luscious orgy of optimism. Because the fact is, despite all the problems, America’s future is exceedingly bright.

Over the next 40 years, demographers estimate that the U.S. population will surge by an additional 100 million people, to 400 million over all. The population will be enterprising and relatively young. In 2050, only a quarter will be over 60, compared with 31 percent in China and 41 percent in Japan.

In his book, “The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050,” über-geographer Joel Kotkin sketches out how this growth will change the national landscape. Extrapolating from current trends, he describes an archipelago of vibrant suburban town centers, villages and urban cores.

The initial wave of suburbanization was sprawling and featureless. Tom Wolfe once observed that you only knew you were in a new town when you began to see a new set of 7-Elevens. But humans need meaningful places, so developers have been filling in with neo-downtowns — suburban gathering spots where people can dine, work, go to the movies and enjoy public space.

Over the next 40 years, Kotkin argues, urban downtowns will continue their modest (and perpetually overhyped) revival, but the real action will be out in the compact, self-sufficient suburban villages. Many of these places will be in the sunbelt — the drive to move there remains strong — but Kotkin also points to surging low-cost hubs on the Plains, like Fargo, Dubuque, Iowa City, Sioux Falls, and Boise.

The demographic growth is driven partly by fertility. The American fertility rate is 50 percent higher than Russia, Germany or Japan, and much higher than China. Americans born between 1968 and 1979 are more family-oriented than the boomers before them, and are having larger families.

In addition, the U.S. remains a magnet for immigrants. Global attitudes about immigration are diverging, and the U.S. is among the best at assimilating them (while China is exceptionally poor). As a result, half the world’s skilled immigrants come to the U.S. As Kotkin notes, between 1990 and 2005, immigrants started a quarter of the new venture-backed public companies.

The United States already measures at the top or close to the top of nearly every global measure of economic competitiveness. A comprehensive 2008 Rand Corporation study found that the U.S. leads the world in scientific and technological development. The U.S. now accounts for a third of the world’s research-and-development spending. Partly as a result, the average American worker is nearly 10 times more productive than the average Chinese worker, a gap that will close but not go away in our lifetimes.

This produces a lot of dynamism. As Stephen J. Rose points out in his book “Rebound: Why America Will Emerge Stronger From the Financial Crisis,” the number of Americans earning between $35,000 and $70,000 declined by 12 percent between 1980 and 2008. But that’s largely because the number earning over $105,000 increased by 14 percent. Over the past 10 years, 60 percent of American adults made more than $100,000 in at least one or two of those years, and 40 percent had incomes that high for at least three.

As the world gets richer, demand will rise for the sorts of products Americans are great at providing — emotional experiences. Educated Americans grow up in a culture of moral materialism; they have their sensibilities honed by complicated shows like “The Sopranos,” “The Wire” and “Mad Men,” and they go on to create companies like Apple, with identities coated in moral and psychological meaning, which affluent consumers crave.

As the rising generation leads an economic revival, it will also participate in a communal one. We are living in a global age of social entrepreneurship.

In 1964, there were 15,000 foundations in the U.S. By 2001, there were 61,000. In 2007, total private giving passed $300 billion. Participation in organizations like City Year, Teach for America, and College Summit surges every year. Suburbanization helps. For every 10 percent reduction in population density, the odds that people will join a local club rise by 15 percent. The culture of service is now entrenched and widespread.

In sum, the U.S. is on the verge of a demographic, economic and social revival, built on its historic strengths. The U.S. has always been good at disruptive change. It’s always excelled at decentralized community-building. It’s always had that moral materialism that creates meaning-rich products. Surely a country with this much going for it is not going to wait around passively and let a rotten political culture drag it down.
Logged
Rarick
Guest
« Reply #237 on: April 07, 2010, 07:30:11 AM »

With 300 billion in private charity, why do we need this health care thing?  Obviously, when people are not stifled by government there is room for chariity, maybe more efficient charity at that?

I only wonder how much America will have changed by 2050, will it be a land of entitlements and debt riding on top of the nice looking demographics? or a a pretty much free nation still accepting certain risks because thats what you have to do to live life?  We have been accepting so many rules in the name of safety, how many can you accept and still be free?

I like the picture, but I dislike what looks like a path that will nullify it.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #238 on: April 08, 2010, 04:14:44 PM »

« 2010: TAKE BACK AMERICA — A BATTLE PLANDEM STRATEGISTS HAVE IT WRONG
By Dick Morris 04.7.2010 Stanley Greenberg and James Carville claim that the Republican Party has peaked too soon. Incredibly, Greenberg says “when we look back on this, we’re going to say Massachusetts is when 1994 happened.” Stan’s only claim to expertise in the 1994 elections, of course, is that he’s the guy who blew it for the Democrats. Right after that, President Clinton fired both of the flawed consultants and never brought them back again.

Now,their latest pitch is that the highpoint of the GOP advance was the Scott Brown election and that, from here on, things will “improve slightly” for the Democrats.

Once again, Carville and Greenberg are totally misreading the public mood. Each time the Republican activists battle, they become stronger. Their cyber and grass roots grow deeper. The negatives that attach to so-called “moderate” Democratic incumbents increase. And each time Obama, Reid and Pelosi defy public opinion and use their majorities to ram through unpopular legislation, frustration and anger rises.

Were Obama’s ambitions to slacken, perhaps a cooling off might eventuate. But soon the socialist financial takeover bill will come on the agenda, followed by amnesty for illegal immigrants, cap and trade, and card check unionization. Each bill will trigger its own mobilization of public opposition and add to the swelling coalition of opposition to Obama and his radical agenda.

And, all the while, the deficit will increase, interest rates will rise, and unemployment will remain high.

Meanwhile, the political process will generate more and more strong Republican challengers. We have yet to see if former Governor Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin or Dino Rossi of Washington State will emerge to challenge Senators Feingold and Murray. Better House candidates will decide to capitalize on the momentum and will jump into the race and Republican donors will come out of hiding, their efforts catalyzed by the growing optimism about GOP chances.

Presaging the Republican sweep that looms ahead, is the shift in the party ratings on various issues. Rasmussen has the Republicans ahead by 49-37 on the economy and 53-37 on health care. His likely voter poll shows GOP leads on every major issue area: national security (49-37), Iraq (47-39), Education (43-30), Immigration (47-34), Social Security (48-36), and Taxes (52-34).

When Republicans are winning issues like education, healthy care, and social security – normally solidly Democratic issues – a sweep of unimaginable proportions is in the offing.

Will the rise in economic growth and job creation – if they continue — offset the Republican gains? Not very likely. Remember Bill Clinton’s 1994 experience. Even though the recession had officially ended in the quarter before he took office and he proudly pointed to five million new jobs that had been created during the first two years of his presidency, Clinton got no bounce from the jobs issue or the economy. Even in the election of 1996, the economy was only marginally a source of strength for the Democratic president. It wasn’t until impeachment that the job growth that had been ongoing since he took office began to work heavily in his favor with the public. The hangover from a recession, certainly from one a violent as this, lasts a long time. A very long time.

And all this assumes that things will, indeed, improve. Worries about inflation loom large and concerns that higher taxes and interest rates will trigger a new downturn also abound. As long as the deficit is as high as it is, there is no solid foundation for a sustained period of economic growth.

Finally, Obama is now responsible for health care in America. When premiums rise, it will be his fault. When coverage is denied, it will be on his watch. When Medicare cuts kick in, it will be Obama who gets the blame.

Carville’s last book touted “forty more years of Democrats.” Now he dreams of a loss of “only” 25 seats in the House and “six or seven” Senators. But these are pipe dreams. Republicans will gain more than fifty House seats and at least ten in the Senate, enough to take control in both Houses. That’s reality.



Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #239 on: April 08, 2010, 07:51:37 PM »

Interesting.

I heard today that the Reps are drafting a new "Contract with America". 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #240 on: April 10, 2010, 12:19:13 PM »

Transcript or video-- you choose:

http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/4874/Default.aspx
Logged
Freki
Power User
***
Posts: 513


« Reply #241 on: April 11, 2010, 10:06:07 AM »

I watched the whole video.  Newt sounds really good,but I have always liked his ideas.  I hope the Republicans follow his lead; I have no faith in the Republican party.  It is so simple 2+2=4 with the courage to stiffen the spines of the politicians to stand up and say it!  He also said something in passing which I have always tried to follow, prepare the conditions of the fight so the opponent is set up to lose.  I try to always pick my ground when I can.  All I want is a fair advantage! evil  Lets not waste this position the Left has given us, lets make them pay for it and set this country back on its founding principles.
Logged
Rarick
Guest
« Reply #242 on: April 12, 2010, 02:05:19 AM »

Newt did not blink when he was Speaker in regards to budget- ever since he left the spine appears to be gone.  When a whole chunk of Congress walks out, the viability of the laws that are being passed becomes suspect.   If I or my staf as a Senator/Rep. only had 1 or 2 days to read a couple thousand pages, on top of all the other issues, I would consider a walkout. The principal of "I will not be railroaded into misrepresentation".  If that was the entire republican half of the house, the president would look pretty ineffective.  Exactly where you want someone routinely abridging the Constitution, in an ineffective position.  It would also put the "bipartisan" lie out in the open for all to see.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #243 on: April 21, 2010, 09:33:36 AM »

Before we narrow the list of names, we need to expand it.  Among people not running for President I added Paul Ryan recently and today mention the largest red state's longest serving governor.  Roger Simon CEO of Pajamas Media wrote:

    "Perry is a people person on a level I have not quite seen before in politics. You even worry about him, if he ever does make a White House run.

    When Rudy Giuliani was Mayor of New York, he had some of that people person thing, throwing out the ball at Yankee games and taking the role of America's Mayor after 9/11. But he doesn't have as much charisma as Perry."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/ http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2010/04/19/guns-religion-and-nascar/?singlepage=true
Logged
Freki
Power User
***
Posts: 513


« Reply #244 on: April 21, 2010, 01:30:27 PM »

I am from Texas and I don't like Perry.  He is a POLITICIAN = weasel.  I do not trust him.  I am a conservative and I did not vote for him in the primary.  If he gets the Republican nomination for Pres he will be better than a liberal but I would classify him as a progressive republican.  Voter beware.  IMHO

Freki
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #245 on: April 21, 2010, 05:52:00 PM »

Thanks Freki.  I remember you are from Texas and was looking for your feedback on Perry.  As with Mark Sanford, I was hoping to hear they are great guys but will settle for hearing the truth before we head any further down the wrong road.

Anybody from further away have a first impression yet about our governor - Tim Pawlenty (R-MN)?  He is trying to run but not making much of an impact that I can see.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #246 on: April 24, 2010, 07:48:50 PM »

The R party in our state has a platform so long and detailed that no ordinary delegate has read it and no candidate has ever agreed to it.  There has been an interest in coming up with something more succinct and marketable to describe what we strive for.  A year or so back I wrote my top ten list which was ignored by the party; I don't know if I posted it here.  Here is someone else's list that will be voted on by the state party next week.

I would ask every like-minded board reader here to comment on these or write their own answer to this question.  Let's say a 16 or 18 year old or new immigrant walks up to you and asks you to explain briefly what are the central, guiding principles of your political group or movement that you would ask candidates to follow in order to gain your endorsement or wear your label.

It would be especially interesting to see a serious equivalent posted also by any Dem-liberal-progressives.  Rog, Rachel, anyone willing?
-----------------------
Guiding Principles and Values

Individuals, businesses and the country succeed and prosper when government stays out of the way of those who lead the way with integrity, responsibility, charity, hard work, humility, courage, gratitude and hope.

Government has a role in our society – but that role is carefully enumerated in the United States Constitution. Our party believes that a good government does not eclipse roles that are best carried out by individuals, families, houses of faith, charitable organizations or businesses.

1) America is a great nation; we are the “Shining City,” an exemplar of virtues for all other nations and their people. The greatness of the American nation, the virtues of its people, and the success of the American experiment are a beacon of hope for the entire world.

2) Liberty is essential for our society to advance and prosper. The freedom to explore advances in culture, business, faith, science and government improves all of our lives; on the other hand, excessive government regulation and control hinders that development. The ability and freedom to disagree with each other and our government must also be protected; any hindrances to the free market of ideas will sap the ability of America to advance and to better herself.

3) We believe in the ability of the individual, by themselves or through families, businesses, groups and non-profit organizations, rather than the government to solve the problems of today and lead us into the future.

4) Faith is where we derive our moral compass and come to understand the eternal rules of order and rights which God himself has ordained. We believe each person needs to be free in order to explore his/her Faith.

5) Human Life is sacred; it must be protected at all stages.

6) The Family is among our society’s most important institutions. Government must not be allowed to infringe on the sanctity of the family.

7) The Pursuit of Happiness is essential to our existence; we support equal opportunities not equal results.

8 ) Charity comes best from the heart of individuals and cannot be forced or coerced via taxation and regulation.

9) The law must be applied to everyone equally; no one is above the law.

10) Law abiding citizens must be trusted to defend their life, family and property.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2010, 07:54:00 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Freki
Power User
***
Posts: 513


« Reply #247 on: April 27, 2010, 07:41:42 AM »

by Brian Roberts

Most Americans are unaware but a Constitutional Crisis of immense proportions looms in our near future, and the early shots have already been fired. No, I’m not referring to the Obama birth certificate controversy; I’m referring to the fundamental battle for freedom and liberty based on the uniquely American experiment of Federalism. Federalism is the sharing of power between a federal government and the various state governments, and this foundation is at the very heart of the battle.

Through recent actions, the federal government has demonstrated that absolute power is its sole desire. They have ignored the message delivered through tea parties and have now directly engaged in political battles with state governments empowered by their citizenry. If “we the people” lose these battles, ALL power will centralize in Washington D.C. and the dynamics of our free country will rapidly change from a government that serves the people to a government that dictates to the people. The crisis ultimately revolves around this question:

    “Who decides the constitutionality of a federal law?”

The most visible battle centers around the unconstitutional health care bill passed in March 2010. But as this one proceeds, there are other Constitutional battles cueing up in the pipeline. Many states where the population embraces freedom have begun to draft legislation that challenges federal authority on matters that the federal government has already overstepped their authority; and, proactive states are preparing legislation in preparation for future offenses. Some examples of these battles:

    * Federal Health Care legislation designed to redistribute wealth and make states and people massively dependent on the federal government
    * Federal Cap and Trade legislation designed to foster more state dependence of federal funds by making them insolvent through excessive taxation
    * Federal Amnesty legislation designed to increase the voter base for federal level redistribution schemes.
    * Federal Financial Reform legislation designed to acquire more economic power at the federal level to use a coercive tools against states and the people
    * State Firearm Legislation that denies federal authority over firearms produced within a states; this is designed to proactively challenge the federal governments grasp on firearm laws by eliminating the “commerce clause” argument.

Each one of these battles between states and federal governments will test the very foundation of federalism upon which our great country has prospered in relative political, economic, and individual freedom. If the pillar of Federalism is to fall, the entire house of cards of the American experiment will fall with it, and a centralized authority will be formed. Your children’s future will be sealed as servants to corrupt politicians in Washington D.C.

Will the Supreme Court uphold the Constitution?

The first question that must be resolved is “will the Supreme Court uphold the Constitution?” Almost half of the state governments are participating in a lawsuit claiming that the health care bill is unconstitutional. One of the multiple points of contention has to do with the federal governments new power to force a private citizen, under penalty of law, to purchase a product; clearly unconstitutional and something that has never been demanded by federal law before.

This is the federal court’s chance to clearly reassert the state’s constitutionally empowered jurisdiction and put the federal government back under the chains of federalism as defined by the Constitution. If they are willing and able to do this in no uncertain terms, we may still avoid a full constitutional crisis. If, on the other hand, the federal court sides with the federal legislators, then they will have missed the golden opportunity to restore stability and liberty to this country and will have placed us on a road to a government of absolute power.

Past rulings indicate that judges are, as Jefferson warned, simply people too; with political ambitions and a willingness to apply arbitrary opinions over rule-of-law. In fact, Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, the most recent Supreme Court appointee, publically argued the merits of rulings based on social justice over rule-of-law. Can an idea be any more dangerous to liberty than that?

In the 1942 case Wikard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court ruled that a farmer growing wheat, on his own property, for his own consumption, is subject to federal laws. The ruling was based on a laughable “commerce clause” interpretation that claimed that since the farmer was NOT participating in interstate commerce then the farmer affected interstate commerce.  This kind of circular thinking was used to steal the freedom and liberty from this farmer so that federal power might be increased. It was an impossible step of logic, but rulings like this are used as a precedent for incredible interpretations of the enumerated powers in the Constitution.

What precedent is set if the health care legislation is deemed constitutional and the federal government immediately acquires “constitutional” power to mandate private citizen purchases? No doubt, this precedent will be used to force you to purchase all kinds of products that “partner” corporations might offer. What warped definition of “liberty” encompasses this concept?

We can hope the federal courts make the correct ruling here, but this one is simply out of our hands.

Who has the final say on the constitutionality of federal laws?

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the federal government and deems an obviously unconstitutional law to be constitutional then tensions between the states and the federal government will increase significantly. At this point, the Constitutional crisis will expose its head for all to see, and the fundamental question at the heart of it all is:

    “Who decides the constitutionality of a federal law?”

The constitution does not answer this question. The precedent is that the Supreme Court rules on these. But, what happens when “we the people” judge the Supreme Court to be part of the problem?

First, consider that the common idea is that the Supreme Court offers the final say on constitutional. This is partially true given past history and other Supreme Court rulings. But take notice that historically the Supreme Court assumed this power for itself; it was not allocated through the Constitution. This power of final authority was first considered with Marbury v. Madison in 1803 and accrued through other cases presided over by Supreme Court Justice Marshal, a well-known champion of centralized federal power. It’s easy to see the conflict of interest when a federal judicial branch deems itself to hold absolute authority over the constitutionality of federal laws and federal executive actions. Over time a federal court will become more and more emboldened to ignore the states and “we the people” and rule in favor of more centralized federal power.

It is important to realize that the Constitution is silent on this and does not provide the answer. This was intentional, because on all matters “we the people” are the final authority. Giving the federal judicial branch the supreme power of determination institutionalizes an obvious danger to freedom and liberty. This danger was described by Jefferson:

    “….To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…and their power is more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….”

In 1798, Jefferson and Madison authored the Virginian and Kentucky Resolutions in response to the Alien and Sedition acts. The resolution argued that unconstitutional federal bills that became federal law were null and void and of no effect. According to Jefferson and Madison, states were to be the ultimate arbiter on which laws were constitutional and which were not. By nullifying unconstitutional laws state governments need not ask permission of federal courts to govern their sovereign states.

The Crisis Resolved

So, what’s it going to be?

reclaiming-american-revolutionFreedom through decentralized government in which the people and the states determine the constitutionality of federal laws. With this choice, federalism is restored and sovereign states each govern themselves locally through rule-of-law.

Or, servitude to a centralized government in which all three federal branches work together to pass laws, enforce laws, and judge their own laws constitutional. With this choice, the Constitution and federalism are destroyed, absolute power is centralized and rule-of-men will dominate law.

This question is ultimately answered by the will of the people. We will decide and it will have immeasurable impact on our country’s future.

Brian Roberts [send him email] is the State Chapter Coordinator for the Texas Tenth Amendment Center

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Logged
Rarick
Guest
« Reply #248 on: April 28, 2010, 05:32:14 AM »

Health care and firearms.  There are a bunch of states pushing back on both those issues.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #249 on: May 05, 2010, 08:35:50 AM »

The Global Crisis of Legitimacy
May 4, 2010
By George Friedman

Financial panics are an integral part of capitalism. So are economic recessions. The system generates them and it becomes stronger because of them. Like forest fires, they are painful when they occur, yet without them, the forest could not survive. They impose discipline, punishing the reckless, rewarding the cautious. They do so imperfectly, of course, as at times the reckless are rewarded and the cautious penalized. Political crises — as opposed to normal financial panics — emerge when the reckless appear to be the beneficiaries of the crisis they have caused, while the rest of society bears the burdens of their recklessness. At that point, the crisis ceases to be financial or economic. It becomes political.

The financial and economic systems are subsystems of the broader political system. More precisely, think of nations as consisting of three basic systems: political, economic and military. Each of these systems has elites that manage it. The three systems are constantly interacting — and in a healthy polity, balancing each other, compensating for failures in one as well as taking advantage of success. Every nation has a different configuration within and between these systems. The relative weight of each system differs, as does the importance of its elites. But each nation contains these systems, and no system exists without the other two.

Limited Liability Investing
Consider the capitalist economic system. The concept of the corporation provides its modern foundation. The corporation is built around the idea of limited liability for investors, the notion that if you buy part or all of a company, you yourself are not liable for its debts or the harm that it might do; your risk is limited to your investment. In other words, you may own all or part of a company, but you are not responsible for what it does beyond your investment. Whereas supply and demand exist in all times and places, the notion of limited liability investing is unique to modern capitalism and reshapes the dynamic of supply and demand.

It is also a political invention and not an economic one. The decision to create corporations that limit liability flows from political decisions implemented through the legal subsystem of politics. The corporation dominates even in China; though the rules of liability and the definition of control vary, the principle that the state and politics define the structure of corporate risk remains constant.

In a more natural organization of the marketplace, the owners are entirely responsible for the debts and liabilities of the entity they own. That, of course, would create excessive risk, suppressing economic activity. So the political system over time has reallocated risk away from the owners of companies to the companies’ creditors and customers by allowing corporations to become bankrupt without pulling in the owners.

The precise distribution of risk within an economic system is a political matter expressed through the law; it differs from nation to nation and over time. But contrary to the idea that there is a tension between the political and economic systems, the modern economic system is unthinkable except for the eccentric but indispensible political-legal contrivance of the limited liability corporation. In the precise and complex allocation of risk and immunity, we find the origins of the modern market. Among other reasons, this is why classical economists never spoke of “economics” but always of “political economy.”

The state both invents the principle of the corporation and defines the conditions in which the corporation is able to arise. The state defines the structure of risk and liabilities and assures that the laws are enforced. Emerging out of this complexity — and justifying it — is a moral regime. Protection from liability comes with a burden: Poor decisions will be penalized by losses, while wise decisions are rewarded by greater wealth. Because of this, society as a whole will benefit. The entire scheme is designed to increase, in Adam Smith’s words, “The Wealth of Nations” by limiting liability, increasing the willingness to take risk and imposing penalties for poor judgment and rewards for wise judgment. But the measure of the system is not whether individuals benefit, but whether in benefiting they enhance the wealth of the nation.

The greatest systemic risk, therefore, is not an economic concept but a political one. Systemic risk emerges when it appears that the political and legal protections given to economic actors, and particularly to members of the economic elite, have been used to subvert the intent of the system. In other words, the crisis occurs when it appears that the economic elite used the law’s allocation of risk to enrich themselves in ways that undermined the wealth of the nation. Put another way, the crisis occurs when it appears that the financial elite used the politico-legal structure to enrich themselves through systematically imprudent behavior while those engaged in prudent behavior were harmed, with the political elite apparently taking no action to protect the victims.

In the modern public corporation, shareholders — the corporation’s owners — rarely control management. A board of directors technically oversees management on behalf of the shareholders. In the crisis of 2008, we saw behavior that devastated shareholder value while appearing to enrich the management — the corporation’s employees. In this case, the protections given to shareholders of corporations were turned against them when they were forced to pay for the imprudence of their employees — the managers, whose interests did not align with those of the shareholders. The managers in many cases profited personally through their compensation system for actions inimical to shareholder interests. We now have a political, not an economic, crisis for two reasons. First, the crisis qualitatively has moved beyond the boundaries of a cyclical event. Second, the crisis is rooted in the political-legal definitions of the distribution of corporate risk and the legally defined relations between management and shareholder. In leaving the shareholder liable for actions by management, but without giving shareholders controls to limit managerial risk taking, the problem lies not with the market but with the political system that invented and presides over the limited liability corporation.

Financial panics that appear natural and harm the financial elite do not necessarily create political crises. Financial panics that appear to be the result of deliberate manipulation of the allocation of risk under the law, and from which the financial elite as a whole appears to have profited even while shareholders and the public were harmed, inevitably create political crises. In the case of 2008 and the events that followed, we have a paradox. The 2008 crisis was not unprecedented, nor was the federal bailout. We saw similar things in the municipal bond crisis of the 1970s, and the Third World Debt Crisis and Savings and Loan Crisis in the 1980s. Nor was the recession that followed anomalous. It came seven years after the previous one, and compared to the 1970s and early 1980s, when unemployment stood at more than 10 percent and inflation and mortgages were at more than 20 percent, the new one was painful but well within the bounds of expected behavior.

The crisis was rooted in the appearance that it was triggered by the behavior not of small town banks or third world countries, but of the global financial elite, who took advantage of the complexities of law to enrich themselves instead of the shareholders and clients to whom it was thought they had prior fiduciary responsibility.

This is a political crisis then, not an economic one. The political elite is responsible for the corporate elite in a unique fashion: The corporation was a political invention, so by definition, its behavior depends on the political system. But in a deeper sense, the crisis is one of both political and corporate elites, and the perception that by omission or commission they acted together — knowingly engineering the outcome. In a sense, it does not matter whether this is what happened. That it is widely believed that this is what happened alone is the origin of the crisis. This generates a political crisis that in turn is translated into an attack on the economic system.

The public, which is cynical about such things, expects elites to work to benefit themselves. But at the same time, there are limits to the behavior the public will tolerate. That limit might be defined, with Adam Smith in mind, as the point when the wealth of the nation itself is endangered, i.e., when the system is generating outcomes that harm the nation. In extreme form, these crises can delegitimize regimes. In the most extreme form — and we are nowhere near this point — the military elite typically steps in to take control of the system.

This is not something that is confined to the United States by any means, although part of this analysis is designed to explain why the Obama administration must go after Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and others. The symbol of Goldman Sachs profiting from actions that devastate national wealth, or of the management of Lehman wiping out shareholder value while they themselves did well, creates a crisis of confidence in the political and financial systems. With the crisis of legitimacy still not settling down after nearly two years, the reaction of the political system is predictable. It will both anoint symbolic miscreants, and redefine the structure of risk and liability in financial corporations. The goal is not so much to achieve something as to create the impression that it is achieving something, in other words, to demonstrate that the political system is prepared to control the entities it created.

The Crisis in Europe
We see a similar crisis in Europe. The financial institutions in Europe were fully complicit in the global financial crisis. They bought and sold derivatives whose value they knew to be other than stated, the same as Americans. Though the European financial institutions have asserted they were the hapless victims of unscrupulous American firms, the Europeans were as sophisticated as their American counterparts. Their elites knew what they were doing.

Complicating the European position was the creation of the economic union and the euro by the economic and political elite. There has always been a great deal of ambiguity concerning the powers and authority of the European Union, but its intentions were always clear: to harmonize Europe and to create European-wide solutions to economic problems. This goal always created unease in Europe. There were those who were concerned that a united Europe would exist to benefit the elites, rather than the broader public. There were also those who believed it was designed to benefit the Franco-German core of Europe rather than Europe as a whole. Overall, this reflected minority sentiment, but it was a substantial minority.

The financial crisis came at Europe in three phases. The first was part of the American subprime crisis. The second wave was a uniquely European crisis. European banks had taken massive positions in the Eastern European banking systems. For example, the Czech system was almost entirely foreign (Austrian and Italian) owned. These banks began lending to Eastern European homebuyers, with mortgages denominated in euros, Swiss francs or yen rather than in the currencies of the countries involved (none yet included in the eurozone). Doing this allowed banks to reduce interest rates, as the risk of currency fluctuation was pushed over to the borrower. But when the zlotys and forints began to plunge, these monthly mortgage payments began to soar, as did defaults. The European core, led by Germany, refused a European bailout of the borrowers or lenders even though the lenders who created this crisis were based in eurozone countries. Instead, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was called in to use funds that included American and Chinese, as well as European, money to solve the problem. This raised the political question in Eastern Europe as to what it meant to be part of the European Union.

The third wave is represented by crisis in sovereign debt in countries that are part of the eurozone but not in the core of Europe — Greece, of course, but also Portugal and possibly Spain. In the Greek case, the Germans in particular hesitated to intervene until it could draw the IMF — and non-European money and guarantees — into the mix. This obviously raised questions in the periphery about what membership in the eurozone meant, just as it created questions in Eastern Europe about what EU membership meant.

But a much deeper crisis of legitimacy arose. In Germany, elite sentiment accepted that some sort of intervention in Greece was inevitable. Public sentiment overwhelmingly opposed intervention, however. The political elite moved into tension with the financial elite under public pressure. In Greece, a similar crisis emerged between an elite that accepted that foreign discipline would have to be introduced and a public that saw this discipline as a betrayal of its interests and national sovereignty.

Europe thus has a double crisis. As in the United States, there is a crisis between the financial and political systems. This crisis is not as intense as in the United States because of a deeper tradition of integration between the two systems in Europe. But the tension between masses and elites is every bit as intense. The second part of the crisis is the crisis of the European Union and growing sense that the European Union is the problem and not the solution. As in the United States, there is a growing movement to distrust not only national arrangements but also multinational arrangements.

The United States and Europe are far from the only areas of the world facing crises of legitimacy. In China, for example, the growing suppression of all dissent derives from serious questions as to whom the financial expansion of the past 30 years benefits, and who will pay for the downturns. It is also interesting to note that Russia is suffering much less from this crisis, having lived through its own crisis before. The global crisis of legitimacy has many aspects worth considering at some point.

But for now, the important thing is to understand that both Europe and the United States are facing fundamental challenges to the legitimacy of, if not the regime, then at least the manner in which the regime has handled itself. The geopolitical significance of this crisis is obvious. If the Americans and Europeans both enter a period in which managing the internal balance becomes more pressing than managing the global balance, then other powers will have enhanced windows of opportunities to redefine their regional balances.

In the United States, we see a predictable process. With the unease over elites intensifying, the political elite is trying to stabilize the situation by attacking the financial elite. It is doing this to both demonstrate that the political elite is distinct from the financial elite and to impose the consequences on the financial elite that the impersonal system was unable to do. There is precedent for this, and it will likely achieve its desired end: greater control over the financial system by the state and an acceptable moral tale for the public.

The European process is much less clear. The lack of clarity comes from the fact that this is a test for the European Union. This is not simply a crisis within national elites, but within the multinational elite that created the European Union. If this leads to the de-legitimization of the EU, then we are really in uncharted territory.

But the most important point is that almost two years since a normal financial panic, the polity has still not managed to absorb the consequences of that event. The politically contrived corporation, and particularly the financial corporations, stands accused of undermining the wealth of nations. As Adam Smith understood, markets are not natural entities but the result of political decisions, as is the political system that creates the allocation of risk that allows markets to function. When that system appears to fail, the consequences go far beyond the particular financials of that event. They have political consequences and, in due course, geopolitical consequences.

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 15 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!