Who will be the next president?

mucker wrote:

Capitalism is a skill, not a way of life.

No. Capitalism is an economic system where privately owned capital resources - including labor - are allocated by market forces, as opposed to government ownership and central planning. It was one of the main ideologic battles of the cold war. Sometimes I think we (the West) lost.

I'm not nearly informed enough to make an intelligent judgement on american politics, however I would just like to bring up a thought.

just because something has been done a certain way for a very long time, doesn't mean that it should still be done that way / that it shouldn't be changed. something that applied in the past, may not necessarily still apply today!


this doesn't only apply to politics, but in my view also to religion amongst other things.

If for example, the constitution of a theoretical country X, that was written say 600 years ago, says that every citizen must have the right to his own well in the garden, does it really make sense to still build new houses today with wells in the garden, even though everyone has running water? just because it is written in the constitution?

or if a religious book who some smart guy wrote many many years ago says to plaster your house walls with cow shit once a year to prevent the spread of disease Y, that doesn't exist anymore today, does it really make sense that we all plaster our house with cow shit once a year?

just food for thought

and sorry for the crappy examples

gatorfan wrote:

mucker wrote:

Capitalism is a skill, not a way of life.

No. Capitalism is an economic system where privately owned capital resources - including labor - are allocated by market forces, as opposed to government ownership and central planning. It was one of the main ideologic battles of the cold war. Sometimes I think we (the West) lost.

Sorry...my attempt at witty sarcasm.

And capitalism did win...it just isnt exactly as advertised, so to speak.

mucker wrote:

Maybe the ideals of individual sovereignty have been taken to the limit already. Maybe absolute freedom to every individual is a bad idea to promote.

Why do socialists so often begin by stating a condition that does not exist as though it were established fact - and then attack something they created? Just askin'...

If I were a raving socialist, or my last name was Castro or Chavez or something like that, I might agree with the idea of too much individual freedom and not enough government power. I might not want to ask myself why the country of choice for immigrants and refugees isn't socialist Cuba or Venezuela or China where individual sovereignty is extinct, but instead the US where it still faintly lives, but I still might agree with that.

If I - somehow or other - hadn't noticed we have had governance in the US since the Great Depression where government can fine and imprison you for NOT placing your goods in commerce, can now fine and imprison you for not purchasing a product... I might believe that.

I might believe that if I hadn't noticed government can now expropriate your private property, not for a demonstrably necessary community asset, but instead to be given to other private individuals to develop into commercial property.

I might believe that if the president's wife (where is her governing authority mentioned in the Constitution, anyways?) wasn't in control of what our kids could and couldn't be fed for lunch at state public schools - while her kids eat something vastly different at their private school.

But my head isn't so far up in the clouds looking for rainbows that I do notice that - and a thousand other examples. So the first point is that we haven't had anything resembling individual sovereignty for at least eighty years now.

It is also necessary to point out to socialists like you that the US Constitution doesn't grant "absolute freedom to every individual", never did, nor did any of the philosophers who inspired it nor the men who debated it at the Constitutional conference suggest any such thing. Have you ever actually read John Locke, Madison's papers, the speeches, the Federalist Papers, etc? Frankly, I don't think you ever have. Which is fine, you being Canadian and all, but it leaves you offering opinions on the Constitution and what constitutes legal government pretty much in a state of ignorance.

But perhaps most important of all, the Constitution is the rule book by which EVERYBODY in the US is supposed to be playing. As written, and as it currently exists, it says the emphasis is on individual liberties and freedom. This is a republic. Not a Big Brother government, but instead, supposedly a federal government and a president which both have narrow powers and with well defined limits on those powers. The majority of government power was intended, laid out, and supposed to be at the state and local level. And with the foresight that perhaps some day in the future Americans might want to be a country of socialists dependent on Big Government giving them things from cradle to grave, the Constitution also provided an amending clause - just like Canada's constitution. Out of this we notice two things: first, Americans have used the amending clause many times in the past, some times to change their system of governance - state senators being elected instead of appointed by the state as just one example.

Second, none of the robbery of individual sovereignty from Americans has EVER been accomplished through an amendment. Instead, it as come through presidents who have avoided using the legitimate mechanism for Constitutional change, and instead have brought those changes though presidential fiat - using powers the Constitution never granted them. Whether Rooseveldt's Packing Scheme or Obama's decision to simply order federal agencies not to enforce laws he doesn't agree with, a violation of his oath of office, none of them has ever offered the American people those changes as a constitutional amendment to vote on.

So the raving socialists out there who think individual sovereignty in the US is absolute, or has gone too far, or should be further restricted should maybe first ask themselves why the restrictions on individual sovereignty by similarly socialist minded presidents is always done illegitimately, and not out in the open by giving the American people the right to vote on that change - as the Constitution provides for. Do socialists see themselves as some sort of genetically superior intellectual masterminds who have some sort of divine right to to make changes to further restrict individual liberty and freedom for individual Americans without allowing them to vote on those changes - because they know better than Americans as a group what is good for them?

So... who appointed socialists as God, anyways? Maybe the idea that a small number of socialists deciding for Americans what they should and shouldn't have as individual rights and freedoms is an absolutely horrible idea to promote.

The Constitution. It's not a dirty word.

Quote :

From the individuals point of view that could seem pretty grand.

Well, by now you should hopefully be sufficiently educated to acknowledge that Americans have never had absolute freedom, nor is anyone seeking a state of absolute freedom.

Is the idea of a country that places an emphasis on the freedom and liberty of individuals to live their lives as they choose, to seek happiness however they define it really that scary? Is the idea of a federal government with limited powers to interfere in how we live truly that terrifying? Do we really need government that tells us what we have to buy, what our kids eat, and how big our soft drinks can be?

Or doesn't that provide enough for the losers like those whose idea of the pursuit of happiness a lifetime on foodstamps and other social entitlement programs - paid for by those who work?

Is the idea of government following the Constitutional rulebook on their powers and limitations, and seeking change through the amendment process set out in that document instead of usurping powers not granted them really so abhorrent?

Quote :

From a human race, global point of view, sounds pretty bleek....your support will only last as long as your perceived wealth.

Of course... the socialist world view. It's always about how somebody has more money than somebody else. And how it is only just if we have a government who will steal the labour and wealth from some individuals to give it to another group of individuals.

The global point of view? Okay... why isn't North Korea suffering an influx of legal, never mind illegal, immigrants? China? Cuba?

If free enterprise and an emphasis on individual rights and freedoms is really so awful from the human race, global point of view, why aren't all you socialists packing up and moving to those socialist utopias?

It seems to me from my point of view, you can bitch about the republic and the ideals for which it stands all you want, but the reality is the only way we'd get folks like you to pack up and move to Cuba or any of those other places would be if you were chained in your seat and dragged there kicking and screaming all the way.

You don't really want socialism. What you want is capitalism, but capitalism where we tell the government to steal from the successful to support the losers who are unwilling to put in the work to be successful themselves.

Quote :

Though I`m sure you are holding back on your environmental...human habitat concerns.

Yes, I sure wish we could adopt the virtuous environmental policies of those forward thinking socialists in Cuba, in China, etc.

I sure wish we could have more federal government mandated "green" programs like Jimmy Carter's synfuels, and ethanol, which not only removes food from the supply system (is that a human consideration?), but consumes more energy to produce it than it delivers.

I sure wish we could have more Solyndra's to produce green power.

More Chevvy Volts, which need an infusion of $7500 of taxpayer dollars to the purchaser as a "rebate", cost more to operate per mile, and still rely on government purchases to make up the bulk of their sales figures.

We need more presidents promising to use agencies under their control to bankrupt coal fired power plants - without anything to replace those sources of power.

Yeah, we need more socialist federal government environmental and humanity intervention like that. Conservatives are SOOOOO dumb to not realize how good all this stuff works.

Quote :

The rest of us realistic thinkers, would love to hear how the modern conservative plans to deal...manage, this single most important point of our exsistence.
If you stated your concerns clearly and intelligently, I am sure you would find lots of support.

That would be you "realistic thinkers" who believe Americans have absolute freedom and liberties?

The "realistic thinkers" who think the socialist policies of this and past presidents in giving us abject failures like synfuels, ethonol, Solyndra, etc have somehow or other been successes positively managing environmental and human issues?

Wow!

And for you to then talk about intelligently explaining your position... now that is too funny.

And here we are back, yet again, on the subject of support.

If socialism really would have "lots of support"... can you "clearly and intelligently" explain to us that no president has ever put these socialist proposals in front of the American people in the form of a constitutional amendment to be voted on, instead of usurping power and forcing those changes on Americans through presidential fiat?

Quote :

If not, maybe you are the one tooting your own horn.

And maybe you should quit trying to blow smoke and poorly thought out ideas up our asses while telling us it's pixie dust.

Or, at the very least, spend a lousy hour or two learning something about US governance so we don't have to read any more BS about Americans having "absolute freedom to every individual".

mucker wrote:

Capitalism is a skill, not a way of life.

Capitalism is both an economic system and a philosophy on the interaction of individuals in a society.

Socialism, on the other hand, is a religion.

bigg wrote:

I'm not nearly informed enough to make an intelligent judgement on american politics, however I would just like to bring up a thought.

just because something has been done a certain way for a very long time, doesn't mean that it should still be done that way / that it shouldn't be changed. something that applied in the past, may not necessarily still apply today!

this doesn't only apply to politics, but in my view also to religion amongst other things.

You may or may not know that the establishment of the American republic did not condemn or try and prevent future change. In fact, future change was a frequent topic in the Constitutional debates.

To address this, the Framers included a process whereby changes to the constitution and what powers government did and did not have could be enacted through voting on a Constitutional amendment. The Constitution has been amended about 27 times so far - in other words, the Constitution is amended in some form or other a little better than once every ten years.

Which once again leads us to this point: if the changes that grant government increasing powers while diminishing the liberties and freedoms of the individual are so desired by Americans... how come NOT ONE of these changes increasing government power and decreasing individual rights and freedoms has been attained through the amendment process?

There's nothing wrong with constitutional change when the majority of the people desire and support it.

There is something very wrong when government usurps new powers and deprives Americans of rights and freedoms while doing so - outside of the amendment process.

I wish this forum had a like button, Jag would have a bunch.

Jäger wrote:

There is something very wrong when government usurps new powers and deprives Americans of rights and freedoms while doing so - outside of the amendment process.

And BOTH parties are equally guilty of doing just that.

Time for change.

Not time for more of the same.

motokid wrote:

Jäger wrote:

There is something very wrong when government usurps new powers and deprives Americans of rights and freedoms while doing so - outside of the amendment process.

And BOTH parties are equally guilty of doing just that.

Wrong. In fact, not even remotely close to being right.

The Republican party is certainly nowhere near guilt free in usurping power.

But no Republican president - or senate or house - has been as bad as Woodrow Wilson, Rooseveldt, Johnson, and Obama. And to a extent, saved mostly by his haplessness, Carter. Collectively (a word that suits them very well), they have been a wrecking ball on individual rights and freedoms for a century now.

No Republican has ever been as openly contemptuous of the Constitution and individual rights and freedoms as Wilson - he outright removed the First Amendment with the Sedition Act. Reading the books he wrote on governing is a real eye opener. The man was a fascist by any common definition, and in fact Mussolini patterned much of his governance on Wilson.

Then along came Roosevelt, who among other things blackmailed the Supreme Court - threats that they took seriously enough that they stopped rejecting his programs as unconstitutional. We got Social Security - sold to Americans as a personal trust fund, argued before the Supreme Court as a tax. It always has been an obligatory Ponzi scheme, and it's directors are telling us it is due to come up insolvent in the next few years unless some enormous changes are made.

Johnson gave us Medicare and the "Great Society". Medicare and medicaide are more mandated Ponzi schemes - if they were private enterprise programs, their owners would be doing life in jail. They are also just about broke right now as well (although it is true that Obama taking nearly a trillion dollars out of it to fund Obamacare ain't helping). Trillions of dollars spent redistributing wealth to the poor, and all we have to show for it (aside from debt) is even more poor per capita now than there were before.

Carter... well, the financial world got the Community Reinvestment Act, one more piece of legislation removing our freedom in how we choose to invest our money, to encourage people to be losers their entire life, firm in the belief they are victims.

And Obama... has the words "individual rights and freedoms" or "the Constitution" ever passed his lips? Name one Republican president who has said - much less actually gone through with it - that if Congress didn't do what he wanted, then he would do what he wanted without them. Name one Republican president who has outright declared - and then did it - that he will order federal employees not to enforce an act passed by Congress, and which their oath of office obliges them to discharge as their duty.

Republicans as bad as Democrats in this regard? Not even close. Of course, Democrats were also the party of slavery, of segregation, of opposition to the Civil Rights Act, etc. But that's another story.

Quote :

Time for change.

Not time for more of the same.

Not time for sitting on your ass, mostly being an expert at bitching about the state of these parties while too lazy to lift one tiny finger to work for change within them.

Not a time for whining for alternative parties which already exist, or waiting for somebody else to step up and create the party you believe in.

Not a time for deluding yourself that both parties are equally as bad in the threat they pose to your liberties and freedom.

Time to find like minded people to clean house in the Republican side and remove the RINOs like the Bush family, Karl Rove, John Boehner, et al.

Time to clean the Marxists and socialists running the Democrat party the hell out of there. Surely to Christ there has to be somebody somewhat similar to JFK in the Democrat Party somewhere.

It's Election Day. Whether people realize it or not, they're voting for their freedom and liberties in this election. Not whether or not they'll get taxpayer supplied condoms, or any of the other crap offered up as "issues" so we'd be distracted and not look at Obama's record to date.

Vote wisely. If you aren't capable of that, at least vote. Nothing worse than a bitching jerk, sitting on the sidelines, who couldn't bother to show up to vote.

BLAH BLAH BLAH.....



I sure hope the Reps are learning a very clear lesson this morning.

Time for some soul searching and some changes to the party platform.

Oh well...we guessed it would be close.

motokid wrote:

BLAH BLAH BLAH.....

Nice. Is it a self portrait, or did somebody else take it for you?

Quote :

I sure hope the Reps are learning a very clear lesson this morning.

Time for some soul searching and some changes to the party platform.

Let's all just sit here with straight faces and pretend we believe you have some sort of desire that Republicans will beat socialist/statist Democrats in a future election.

Should they be learning something? Absolutely.

They should notice that almost all their incumbent losses were the liberal and "moderate" Republicans - not conservative Tea Party types.

They should notice that when they nominate an unapologetic constitutional conservative like Reagan, they win landslide victories - across the isle wins that coined the term "Reagan Democrats". But when they nominate RINOS like Romney, McCain, Dole, Ford, etc,, they get their asses kicked. A faux-Democrat Republican simply can't out-Santa Clause a Democrat when it comes to promising people goodies to buy their votes.

They should notice that Chris Christie, another hard core RINO who supposedly has aspirations for the nomination in 2016, sure was helpful in pumping Obama up just a few days before the election. Astoundingly dumb or Machiavellian... whaddya figger?

They should figure out that you don't fight no holds barred against fellow Republicans in the primaries... and then try Mr Nice Guy against a Chicago political gangster like Obama who brings brass knuckles to the campaign. Some "reset button"....

Republicans aren't going to win, much less bottle up a tyrannical presidency and overbearing government when they present themselves as a Democrat-like alternative to the Democrats.

Jäger wrote:

motokid wrote:

BLAH BLAH BLAH.....

Nice. Is it a self portrait, or did somebody else take it for you?

Quote :

I sure hope the Reps are learning a very clear lesson this morning.

Time for some soul searching and some changes to the party platform.

Let's all just sit here with straight faces and pretend we believe you have some sort of desire that Republicans will beat socialist/statist Democrats in a future election.

Should they be learning something? Absolutely.

They should notice that almost all their incumbent losses were the liberal and "moderate" Republicans - not conservative Tea Party types.

They should notice that when they nominate an unapologetic constitutional conservative like Reagan, they win landslide victories - across the isle wins that coined the term "Reagan Democrats". But when they nominate RINOS like Romney, McCain, Dole, Ford, etc,, they get their asses kicked. A faux-Democrat Republican simply can't out-Santa Clause a Democrat when it comes to promising people goodies to buy their votes.

They should notice that Chris Christie, another hard core RINO who supposedly has aspirations for the nomination in 2016, sure was helpful in pumping Obama up just a few days before the election. Astoundingly dumb or Machiavellian... whaddya figger?

They should figure out that you don't fight no holds barred against fellow Republicans in the primaries... and then try Mr Nice Guy against a Chicago political gangster like Obama who brings brass knuckles to the campaign. Some "reset button"....

Republicans aren't going to win, much less bottle up a tyrannical presidency and overbearing government when they present themselves as a Democrat-like alternative to the Democrats.

Man, dillusional thinking.....seriously.

Weren't there many other topics like gay marriage and marijuana laws voted on that very day?
Is there any evidence at all, during this election, that americans want more tea party?

Sure, you are bitter at the results...hopefully the denial phase won't last too long.

When the Tea Party aligns themselves with people like bachmann, santorum, perry, beck, palin, and the like they are doomed and destined to be laughed at by the majority and ONLY appeal to the very extreme minority.

And why is this? because of their extreme positions on social issues, and because they not only cling to the bible, but they'll openly admit to wanting to change the constitution to include more things from the bible.

Should I go dig up some quotes about that?

The Tea Party is a shining example of exactly what this thread is about.

They think "gay" is a choice and that "gay" can be psychologically removed from a person either willfully or through force.

They are not about individual freedom and equal rights for all.

The Tea Party is the closest thing the USofA has to a Sharia component of religio-politics.

mucker wrote:

Man, dillusional thinking.....seriously.

Man... you'd have to be a retard not to notice that Reagan was far more conservative than Romney, and won landslide elections that included winning a lot of his support from Democrats. Or the huge gains Tea Party candidates and activists made two short years ago. Why didn't you make your argument about gay marriage and dope for dopes back then?

This is probably impossible for a socialist to imagine, but a lot of Democrats have conservative leanings as well.

So the retards keep thinking you have to run a Republican-Democrat against a Democrat-Democrat to win. Like it won for Ford. Dole. McCain. And now Romney.

Quote :

Weren't there many other topics like gay marriage and marijuana laws voted on that very day?

Yeah, there were - in how many states? And other states ended up banning medical marijuana, prohibiting individuals and businesses from participating in Obamacare, etc.

But those referendums you seized upon - THAT's why Obama got 96% of the black vote according to exit polls?

If the Republicans had only said they supported gay marriage and marijuana, black voters wouldn't have voted almost unanimously for Obama as they did, contrary to their previous voting trends?

Really?

Quote :

Is there any evidence at all, during this election, that americans want more tea party?

In reality, you don't know enough about the tea party philosophy to make it worth discussing with you. Perhaps it's the myopic vision you get from CBC, combined with that socialist bent of yours.

Three MILLION registered Republicans didn't bother to show up for this election, and results are suggesting the reason is they were disgusted with Romney instead of a real conservative candidate. These are the people who made the Tea Party philosophy big winners in the midterm elections just two short years ago - you know, the one where Obama said his Democrats took a shellacking. Which means they're pretty stupid as well if they're willing to essentially give their vote to Obama, because he is FAR less conservative than RINO Mitt; talk about cut your nose off to spite your face.

You think they'd have been standing there with all the blacks, ready to vote for Romney if only the GOP had offered gay marriage and dope for dopes?

Really? Because I sure as hell don't

Quote :

Sure, you are bitter at the results...hopefully the denial phase won't last too long.

I'm not bitter - I'm disgusted at the stupidity of the country. Of the greed of the Santa Clause Party, the Americans who think they can keep on living on government entitlements, remain in the 49% who pay no income tax, because Obama will just keep squeezing everybody else to pay their way. It's not like we haven't seen this before with the welfare provinces in Atlantic Canada who think they are owed a lifetime of government entitlements and handouts, paid for by the people who work in other provinces. Nothing new here.

In fact, we aren't even all stressed out like some families apparently are - just disgusted.

But, lucky me - apparently, my wife and I are among them nasty "millionaires and billionaires". And we don't have to worry about what our kids will live with - Motokids kiddies get to pay for that, although they probably won't appreciate the freedom they're losing growing up in that home. And we both hold several citizenships, so when the US goes down the socialist crapper, we can simply move our "millions and billions" outside of the US and the grasp of Obama's policies. Some nice people are going to be told their employment is terminated if and when it gets to that point in Montana, but as Obama said, elections have consequences.

The vast majority of Americans don't have those options. So ultimately, that's the final plank of socialism by government fiat - the great majority will suffer equally, whether they voted Republican or Democrat, whether they're a Republican that stayed home... whatever. And the worst losers, at the very end, will be the losers in the Santa Clause Party who think the way to live life is on a series and succession of government entitlements and handouts, who think Obama can keep doling out money to them indefinitely.

motokid wrote:

When the Tea Party aligns themselves with people like bachmann, santorum, perry, beck, palin, and the like they are doomed and destined to be laughed at by the majority and ONLY appeal to the very extreme minority.

This is what you see when you view the world through the eyes of a rabid atheist who makes atheism his religion.

Now... you kind of have to conveniently forget conservative Tea Party types cleaned up in the midterm elections just two short years ago to say something like this. You'd have to conveniently forget that a lot of Tea Party supporters are known by another name in the political world - Reaganites - and Reagan won two landslide victories being every bit as conservative as the people mentioned above.

Quote :

And why is this? because of their extreme positions on social issues, and because they not only cling to the bible, but they'll openly admit to wanting to change the constitution to include more things from the bible. Should I go dig up some quotes about that?

When you're a statist/socialist, everybody else is the extremist - not you. And when you're a rabid atheist, EVERYTHING somehow or other becomes something about the bible. The Taxed Enough Already Party philosophy is mostly about rolling back big government, big taxation to pay for big government, and getting government out of our lives. But to the rabid atheists out there, it's all about "clinging to a bible".

Actually, it's more about clinging to the Constitution. A word you rarely ever hear a socialist or an atheist mention. And when somebody is both a socialist AND an atheist, then the word isn't even in their vocabulary.

But Motokid unwittingly makes a revealing point. If indeed he can find quotes demonstrating that a significant number of Tea Party advocates want to include parts of the Bible in the Constitution (and yeah, I sure would like to see those quotes), it seems they want to do it the proper way - by constitutional amendment, which requires the assent of a majority of Americans. Assuming they are saying these things as is claimed here, at least they want to do it legally. NOT by government fiat that spits on the concept of a separation of powers.

Funny how things like a President who violates his oath of office, declares Congress to be in recess when it isn't in order to avoid complying with the Appointments Clause, and wages war without the consent of Congress doesn't bother the obsessive atheists one little bit - but anybody who acknowledges religious beliefs sends them gibbering all over the Internet.

Quote :

The Tea Party is a shining example of exactly what this thread is about.

Actually, what we have here is a shining example of how people obsessed in the religion of hating religion somehow or other see everything as being about the Bible. Not to mention how these people will happily say anything, no matter how untrue, to attack those they hate.

Quote :

They think "gay" is a choice and that "gay" can be psychologically removed from a person either willfully or through force.

Which is about as accurate as saying "Athiests are all closet homosexuals - and communists as well".

Some who hold Tea Party philosophy do indeed think that way. Guess what - so do some Democrats. And some atheists for that matter. Just because you're a troubled atheist doesn't mean you're immune from holding homosexuals in contempt.

Taxed Enough Already philosophy, contrary to what obsessive atheists might think, is not about homosexuals and bibles. It's about the core, originalist concepts of the Constitution i.e. extreme taxation to pay for entitlement programs that the government should not be involved in to begin with. It's about beating back an overbearing federal government.

Motokid knows all of this - after all, isn't he a Master Jedi of Google-fu? Here's what Wikipedia says about the Tea Party:
The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that advocates strict adherence to the United States Constitution,[1] reducing U.S. government spending and taxes,[2][3][3] and reduction of the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit.[2] The movement is generally considered to be partly conservative,[4][5] partly libertarian,[6][7] and partly populist.[8][9][10] The movement has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009.[11][12][13]

The theme of the Boston Tea Party, an iconic event in American history,[14][15][16][17] has long been used by anti-tax protesters.[18][19][20] It was part of Tax Day protests held throughout the 1990s and earlier.[21][22][23][24] By 2001, a custom had developed among some conservative activists of mailing tea bags to legislators and other officials as an act of symbolism.[25]

Please do go to Wikipedia and read the whole thing, including the references. You'll note that all Motokid's claims about bibles and homosexuals is pretty much absent. Or, to put it another way - he took a page out of Obama's playbook and pretty much made it all up.

But that's what socialists and statists do. They declare that somebody holds a position, or belief, or principle which in fact they do not - and then proceed to try and beat on them for that.

Quote :

They are not about individual freedom and equal rights for all.

Sure. And athiests want all people with religious beliefs barred from public office and thrown in jail for good measure.

Quote :

The Tea Party is the closest thing the USofA has to a Sharia component of religio-politics.

The religion of atheism is pretty much Wahabbist in how it views others who may not share their religion of atheism.

Jager, old guns and butter Reagan was one of the biggest social spenders in history. GWB is right up there too. It can be well argued they signed on to social spending in order get the dems to give in to military spending. But still, both contributed largely to the nations debt.

I don't disagree with your justified alarm over the shredding of the constitution. GWB did shred the constitution but Obama took shredding the constitution to a whole new and terrifying level.

Sorry about voting for Johnson but I went Galt on the day Obama was first elected.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/02/obama-civil-liberties-history

Moto, what you don't understand is this. It's a tug of war. If the right moves to the center the center moves to the left. Don't believe me? Look at the persecution of smokers. First they were segregated in restaurants, then kicked out of restaurants. So far it seems reasonable enough. But then they were kicked out of bars, then kicked out of all buildings, then kicked out of outdoor stadiums and now they are being banned from parks. The left won't stop until everyone lives like them. It's called tyranny of the majority and that's what the constitution is supposed to prevent. The left thrives on tyranny of the majority, has no respect for the constitution and think the word liberty is just something stupid conservatives bleat on about.

Hey now.
I am a chronic smoker.
I do not throw my butts on the ground.
I do not wish to smoke in public spaces....I have a hard time seeing why someone would.
If you are in a place that doesnt matter...then there you are.

Then there are smoking nazi's...but a good person would try not to bother others to begin with.

It's not about being like them...it's about being courteous with an obnoxious habit...that just happens to spoil the immediate atmosphere.

By definition, the right is the right.
The left is everyone else.

Only you can choose how you treat yourself and the rest of humanity.

gatorfan wrote:

Jager, old guns and butter Reagan was one of the biggest social spenders in history.

Close, but not quite.

Reagan not only had Tip "Dead On Arrival" ONeill to contend with in Congress - he had Republicans in Congress regularly rejecting his cuts as well. What amazes me about Reagan, aside from other things, is that he had to fight the GOP just as hard or harder than he had to fight Democrats. The GOP wanted another Gerald Ford, not a strict constitutionalist, free enterprise kind of guy.

So Reagan gets the blame for the spending - just as Bush did for Barney Frank and Co.'s spending from 2007 forward, after Democrats won strong majorities in both the House and Senate.

And on the other side of the plate, Republicans kept Bill Clinton's spending inclinations in line while they owned Congress - and Clinton gets credit for good fiscal policy.

Quote :

GWB is right up there too.

You would have to be pretty out of touch to claim GWB was a fiscal conservative. Motokid forgets that all those people he's howling about criticized Bush for his wasteful spending way back then - the socialists/statists thought they were just fine in their opinions back then.

Quote :

Sorry about voting for Johnson but I went Galt on the day Obama was first elected.

The libertarian votes didn't matter anywhere as far as I can tell - although I still find it incredibly amusing that the Libertarian, small government-no handouts candidate's personal goal was obtaining enough votes to get government ladled out taxpayer political funds. Not exactly walking the walk, is it?

What mattered were the three million Republicans who decided to stay home rather than show up and vote for Romney - meaning that Romney didn't even get as many votes as McCain, another faux-Republican RINO. Which makes those Republicans morons for not voting, but it isn't a surprise after Republican polling showed a continuing loss of support as Romney and the RNC knocked off one conservative candidate after another in the primary. Assurances from his spokes-idiot that this support would come back once Romney "hit the reset button" (huh?) after he won the GOP position didn't exactly pan out...

Quote :

The left won't stop until everyone lives like them. It's called tyranny of the majority and that's what the constitution is supposed to prevent. The left thrives on tyranny of the majority, has no respect for the constitution and think the word liberty is just something stupid conservatives bleat on about.

You're wasting your breath. When have you ever heard Motokid or any of our other resident socialists/statists mention the Constitution?

Individual rights and freedom?

Individual sovereignty?

Perhaps worse is the fact that the GOP establishment - the Jeb Bush's, the Karl Rove's, the McCain's, etc - show no real interest in the Constitution and constitutional governance either. They give it lip service, but mostly what they're interested in is winning elections, and therefore, power. Which fits in when you consider that, like Motokid they're not even remotely close to being constitutionalists. They're not about principles; they're about power.

Wonderfull yest Wonderfull Obama for president 4 years more

You guys notice Jessie Jackson Jr. won re-election despite being locked up in a loony bin?

gatorfan wrote:

You guys notice Jessie Jackson Jr. won re-election despite being locked up in a loony bin?

Yeah. Apparently, if you're a Democrat, you don't have to be living to vote there. Or American for that matter...

I find it amazing how somebody can rant about how "whacko" a politician like Rick Perry is - the second longest serving governor in the US today, a Republican who continually wins reelection with Hispanic support.

And yet, you won't see that writer or any of his fellow travellers saying one word about the re-election of JJJ. Anymore than they said anything about Jeremiah Wright - who is also religious, no less!

Funny how that works...