Republicans, is this all you have?

Overman said:
If the dems don't screw up the next 10 years they will OWN the government for the next 40, while they continually clean up GWs mess, and constantly remind the public what happens when you let a R in the house.
Click to expand...
Or, they'll find the second edition of James Earl Carter, and have the White House for 4 years, from 2008 to 2012. You do remember what happened after Watergate, right?

DR
 
Gurdur said:
With any luck. :)

I applaud your efforts to get Ron Paul to run. :) Nothing else could so safely secure the election for the Democrats. Nothing else at all could make George Bush look good. I applaud mightily.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul makes GW look good? Let's see...Ron Paul was against the USA PATRIOT Act when the Democrats were all agog over it...Ron Paul was against the Iraq war when the Democrats were all "Let's support our Commander-in-Chief"...Ron Paul called for Dubya's impeachment while the Democrats were silent about his atrocities...Ron Paul has tried to make it so that Congress has to include a Constitutional justification for every law it passes, which the Democrats have fought him on as much as the Republicans...Ron Paul spoke out against the "Free Speech Zones" when the Democrats were doing them, too...

I can keep going, but you get the idea. Ron Paul makes the Democrats look like a bunch of Johnny-come-latelies. He didn't wait until it was popular to do the right thing.
 
Because the three biggest candidates are all moderates and "flip floppers," I see the Republican primaries being particularly tough. I think a traditional conservative (Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee) will eventually rise because of this to challenge Giuliani.
 
shanek said:
Ron Paul makes GW look good? Let's see...Ron Paul was against the USA PATRIOT Act when the Democrats were all agog over it...Ron Paul was against the Iraq war when the Democrats were all "Let's support our Commander-in-Chief"...Ron Paul called for Dubya's impeachment while the Democrats were silent about his atrocities...Ron Paul has tried to make it so that Congress has to include a Constitutional justification for every law it passes, which the Democrats have fought him on as much as the Republicans...Ron Paul spoke out against the "Free Speech Zones" when the Democrats were doing them, too...
Click to expand...


I will bet the under, but a Ron Paul candidacy will return much of the libertarian vote to the Reps, and I think will smoke out a lot of non voters to support a populist.

Knowing that, a great many interests supporting the Republican Party will do all they can to suppress his candidacy.

Which is a shame. America could use a little out of the box leadership, and I think Ron Paul could offer us some of that.

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
I will bet the under, but a Ron Paul candidacy will return much of the libertarian vote to the Reps, and I think will smoke out a lot of non voters to support a populist.

Knowing that, a great many interests supporting the Republican Party will do all they can to suppress his candidacy.

Which is a shame. America could use a little out of the box leadership, and I think Ron Paul could offer us some of that.
Click to expand...

As I said, it's probably highly doubtful that he'll get the nomination. But one can hope. Several times he fought the Republicans hard in the Congressional primary and won. We shall see.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
You know, the joke candidates are supposed to be laughed at, not voted for.

See: Pat Paulsen, Michael Badnarik
Click to expand...
I voted for Kinky Friedman, and I'd vote for Ron Paul. Part of the reason to do so is to do as the voters did in Minnesota for Jesse Ventura: break open a new flavor, since I am tired of Miller and Bud.

Shiner Bock for me. :)

DR
 
Overman said:
If the dems don't screw up the next 10 years they will OWN the government for the next 40, while they continually clean up GWs mess, and constantly remind the public what happens when you let a R in the house.
Click to expand...
I think you're over-estimating the memory retention of voters. We're talking about a current generation of 5 second commercials, internet RSS feeds, and reality TV. Just look back how the major issue the US is facing went from terrorists to gay marriage to stem cells to social security going broke (or have you forgotten?).

Charlie (thanks for the mammaries) Monoxide
 
Charlie Monoxide said:
I think you're over-estimating the memory retention of voters. We're talking about a current generation of 5 second commercials, internet RSS feeds, and reality TV. Just look back how the major issue the US is facing went from terrorists to gay marriage to stem cells to social security going broke (or have you forgotten?).
Click to expand...

Is that a reflection of the public's attention span, or the attention span of politicians and the media?

Oh, and regarding TV, it's rather noteworthy that series with continuing, complex plotlines (Heroes, Lost, 24) are becoming quite common now. Does this mean our attention span getting longer? Well, it does if 5 second commercials meant it was getting shorter.

An alternative explanation is that technology like TiVo has enabled the format to stretch, since viewers can keep up with series even if they can't match their schedules to the broadcasts. Which would suggest that the previous norm of stand-alone episodes was more about letting viewers enjoy single episodes fully even if they missed previous episodes and will miss future ones due to scheduling, rather than about the inability of viewers to remember those plotlines because of their short attention spans.
 
shanek said:
Ron Paul makes GW look good? Let's see...Ron Paul was against the USA PATRIOT Act when the Democrats were all agog over it...Ron Paul was against the Iraq war when the Democrats were all "Let's support our Commander-in-Chief"...Ron Paul called for Dubya's impeachment while the Democrats were silent about his atrocities...Ron Paul has tried to make it so that Congress has to include a Constitutional justification for every law it passes, which the Democrats have fought him on as much as the Republicans...Ron Paul spoke out against the "Free Speech Zones" when the Democrats were doing them, too...

I can keep going, but you get the idea. Ron Paul makes the Democrats look like a bunch of Johnny-come-latelies. He didn't wait until it was popular to do the right thing.
Click to expand...

Great post, Shanek.

I personally find Ron Paul so appealing I'm actually almost tempted to register with the Republican party just so I can vote for him in the primary (obviously it wouldn't have an effect, but I'd just like to cast a vote for him).

Paul does have some flaws- he's been known to be somewhat friendly towards 9/11 conspiracy groups (appearing on the Alex Jones show, for example), even though his position is nowhere near the Loose Changers (he believes that 9/11 was the result of too much government intervention overseas). Even though he's never come close to saying that 9/11 was an "inside job," plenty of truthers have latched on to him. Ah, well.

Also, he's a little too focused on state's rights in my opinion (he supports legislation against abortion to be left to the states, for example).
 
Admiral said:
Also, he's a little too focused on state's rights in my opinion (he supports legislation against abortion to be left to the states, for example).
Click to expand...
So do I. I don't see why that is a bad thing. There are states that should be allowed to be "free from interference" abortion states, as the electorate decides, and states where abortion need not be the rule of the day, as the electorate approves. Reagan tried to delegate some things back to the states. Since he required them to fund any number of things, ecucation among them, that the Feds stopped funding, that was a reasonable quid pro quo).

If California and Louisiana want to be "24/7" abortion zones, good, and if South Dakota wants to say "not in my state" then good for them.

Creepy Federalism isn't as good as some think it is.

DR
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
So do I. I don't see why that is a bad thing. There are states that should be allowed to be "free from interference" abortion states, as the electorate decides, and states where abortion need not be the rule of the day, as the electorate approves. Reagan tried to delegate some things back to the states. Since he required them to fund any number of things, ecucation among them, that the Feds stopped funding, that was a reasonable quid pro quo).

If California and Louisiana want to be "24/7" abortion zones, good, and if South Dakota wants to say "not in my state" then good for them.

Creepy Federalism isn't as good as some think it is.

DR
Click to expand...

Well, we disagree- I personally believe that giving states power just adds an extra layer of sovereignty.

I'd support the federal government restricting the power of the state governments- that is, I think we should get rid of a lot of federal programs and regulations, but strengthen the federal government's ability to limit the legislative ability of states.
 
Admiral said:
Well, we disagree- I personally believe that giving states power just adds an extra layer of sovereignty.

I'd support the federal government restricting the power of the state governments- that is, I think we should get rid of a lot of federal programs and regulations, but strengthen the federal government's ability to limit the legislative ability of states.
Click to expand...
When is the last time you read the Latin on the flag of the State of Virginia?

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
When is the last time you read the Latin on the flag of the State of Virginia?

DR
Click to expand...

I will cheerfully admit I have never read it before. However, having googled it, I find it says "Sic Semper Tyrannis"- which are, of course, the words John Wilkes Booth said as he shot Lincoln.

I don't see how it's relevant to our conversation, though- I don't support tyrants either. In fact, isn't what I'm suggesting- a system where the federal government acts as a check to the power of each state's government- actually prevent tyranny?

Booth said that because he thought the Southern states should have the right to enforce slavery, and thought the federal government was tyrannical for opposing that. Are you siding with him?

By the way, are you from VA? I live in Massachusetts, which has a neat motto itself- "By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty."
 
Admiral said:
I will cheerfully admit I have never read it before. However, having googled it, I find it says "Sic Semper Tyrannis"- which are, of course, the words John Wilkes Booth said as he shot Lincoln.

I don't see how it's relevant to our conversation, though- I don't support tyrants either. In fact, isn't what I'm suggesting- a system where the federal government acts as a check to the power of each state's government- actually prevent tyranny?

Booth said that because he thought the Southern states should have the right to enforce slavery, and thought the federal government was tyrannical for opposing that. Are you siding with him?

By the way, are you from VA? I live in Massachusetts, which has a neat motto itself- "By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty."
Click to expand...

The constitution by design limited federal power in deference to state power. It was a well recognized risk of forming a new republic that an overbearing federalism, Hamiltonian forms if you will, would devolve rather quickly into autocracy or tyranny.

So, no, I respectfully disagree with you that growing federal power is a benevolent trend. There is no question that finding the balance point is a real bitch. I think things have swung to far in the Federalist direction.

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
I voted for Kinky Friedman, and I'd vote for Ron Paul. Part of the reason to do so is to do as the voters did in Minnesota for Jesse Ventura: break open a new flavor, since I am tired of Miller and Bud.

Shiner Bock for me. :)

DR
Click to expand...

I voted for Kinky! 60% of the state voted for someone other than Perry, and yet we are still stuck with him for another term. Sometimes I wish the Kinky and Strayhorn votes would have counted for Bell so we could have gotten rid of Good Old Rick.

I am just not ready for another presidential race yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom