I am gonna put my neck on the table here for all the axemen because I think this subject warrants its own unique thread. In several threads, I have read statements like ALL democrats and republicans are the same. They are all working together to carry out a sham on the people and working for the forces behind the scene to ruin the country etc. And I CAN'T take it any longer so here goes...

Democrats and republicans ARE NOT the same damn it!

First of all, and this is the only blanket generalization you will read from me, MOST democrats are basically part of the modern socialist party. It's so obvious by their policies and statements it isn't even funny. I have no use whatsoever for nearly all democrats except maybe Joe Liberman- that's it. Other than that, the democrat party is VERY unified in their agenda- not the republicans.

The modern republican party is itself a two party system and is internally divided, trying to find its true path. But it is NOT decided. Right now, there is an active struggle happening inside the republican party between true conservatives and moderate republicans. And there is a small segment of people with libertarian tendencies versus moderate republicans.

The conservatives and to some extent the libertarian minded republicans tend towards liberty, personal responsibility, individual power and adherence to the founding principles and the constitution. The moderates are nothing more than "democrat lite" and they are basically a virus inside the republican party dilluting the quality of the core values imo.

People who are liberal leaning and people who are conservative should have no use for moderate republicans but they get elected nonetheless. Because they are just "democrat lite", THEY make it seem like the parties are in fact the same.

For those who take on a fatalist viewpoint and feel that there is no hope or feel that the only choice is a third party, let me just say, there is another alternative. And that is to purge the virus that is the moderate republican.

Simply put, we must support true conservatives and libertarian minded republicans and COMPLETELY ABANDON all support for moderate republicans- period. By doing so, the group hug, politically correct, everyone is welcome, moderate weakness will be purged.

If we do that, there will be a REAL, decisive alternative to the democrat/socialist party that has gotten WAY to influential in the country. And it will be an alternative THAT CAN WIN. That last point is critical.

When a 3rd party candidate comes along with enough charisma, enough money and enough positive exposure TO WIN, I will be the first person in line to vote for that person. And I'm serious about that. Until that happens, however, power MUST be taken away from the socialists trying to steal the nation we love and they must be defeated AT ALL COST.

In one election cycle, the republican party can easily be transformed into that conservative, clear alternative to the democrats- instead of just being the politically correct democrat lite party.

And for you who are salivating right now and can't wait to hit the reply buttom to tell me "democrats and republicans are all the same and are all working for the new world order", please hear me out... It is completely unrealistic and insane to imagine that all those people are in on some huge conspiracy to sell out American sovereignty.

DON'T GET ME WRONG. I AM NOT saying that there is not a powerful force behind the scenes that wants to take down the nation to the point where a global government can step in and take over. In fact, I actually believe that is the case AND I will even say that it seems clear that Hussein was CHOSEN as the charismatic leader who could "pull it off".

But I DO NOT believe that the rest of congress is "in on it". Hussein is pulling the strings of his people just as much as his master is controlling him. They all believe they are supporting the democrat party and many of them so powerfully believe in the socialist kool aid, that they make it easy for Hussein. He doesn't have to make them pretend ANYTHING because they already believe it.

What they don't know is that they are being used as a means to an end in a broader plot. And most of them don't know any better. I think the exact same relationship goes for the major media outlets and their individual "reporters". The power behind MSNBC may be in on the plan but is there ANY doubt in anyone's mind that Racheal Maddow is a kool aid mainlining socialist? Not mine- no way. She is being used also.

The bottom line here on my post is that I truly believe that the republican party NEEDS TO BE FIXED. That's all. It has too many weaklings in it that are not serious enough to champion the conservative principles that I think are vital at this point in our history. And I think that can be done in one election cycle.

Until we get a thrid party candidate that has what it takes to not only represent the best principles AND CAN WIN, can we at least agree that the democrats (especially Obama) must be defeated at all cost???

Okay, dismounting my soapbox- flame on.

First OP, don't blow a gasket.

Second, where does a national politican draw a pay check? Understand that one and you'll understand why there can be no difference.

Seriously Dude, I TRULY VALUE everyone's opinion here- I really do, and that includes you my friend. But my moniker is not some cutsy thing I just pulled out of my butt. I am a true patriot of this country, through and through. And I almost cry watching what is happening to my beloved nation. That is not an exaggeration, I have cried before over it. I, like many others here, have taken an oath to give their lives for what the founding fathers started and the amazing documents that they penned many years ago. All I care about right now in politics is that this insidious trend that I have seen my whole life gets reversed. If that happens, I can die in peace.

Here is my generalization of the 2 parties. Republicans are Cowards and Democrats are Traitors. You can find individuals in each that are standup people abut as a whole they fit into these 2 categories.

To some extent, I can understand your position. I can't do anything about the democrats because they have proven that they are true believers. Unfortunately, what they believe in is typically unAmerican imo.

As far as the republicans are concerned being "cowards", I would say that SOME of them fear retribution from the voters if they represent true conservative principles. In other words, they are more worried about getting elected than representing.

The answer to this problem is for the voters to make it emphatically clear to the republicans what they want and that any watered down version of that is completely unacceptible. I for one am sick of compromises and deals that serve the politicians self interest instead of standing for what I think most Americans want.

This is a major illusion in politics right now. If the republicans would just stand for what their plank states, they would actually get more support than they think they will by being more "inclusive". Screw that inclusive schitt. But they keep getting tricked by the media and the democrats into believing that they have to compromise and that's what most people don't want.

Reagan was an unabashed conservative and he won by a friggin landslide. We haven't had a true conservative run since (and no Bush was NOT a true conservative) and hence we haven't had a landslide victory since.

The big fear is that a true conservative cannot win because they are too "extreme". But it's the media and the liberals who have coined that description of "extreme", NOT the people. If they run a true conservative candidate, they will win.

The National leadership of both parties are "elites" - these "leaders" protect their interests, not yours and mine.

Well I still believe in the system- IF we use it right. We the people have an incredible amount of power but haven't always used it right. We need a revolution. To me that seems clear. But I do believe that revolution can still happen at the voting both. We need to fire every one of them that doesn't represent our best interest- bar none. Then they can choose to defy the people and get fired. We are at a turning point right now. I have never seen the amount of civil turnout at rallies etc since the 60s. But this time, people are demanding justice and true representation. We have to recognise this as momentum that can be used for the benafit of the country.

You got my vote...

Problem is, they don't know that - yet...

you a good man OP


you'd do to ride the river



hope you're correct about a revolution in the voting booth


but honestly I don't see it happening


we waited too long


and squandered whatever opportunity was presented.


I'm not Bush basher, but whether by accident, design or just bad luck

the GOP had the presidency and both houses


and as horrific as it was due to 9-11 was presented with the greatest opportunity our nation has had in a very long time.

for a brief period we weren't white, or black or Dem or Repub, we were Americans.

we didn't say "the gloves are off, it's a fight to the finish" and follow through with it.

we didn't decrease spending in other areas to compensate for the war effort, we were told to go to the mall and keep spending.

Now a small percentage of our population (the military ) has been asked to endure the price, families with multiple deployments under their belts, reassignments so that they can be deployed again before what is supposed to be the timetable for redeployment etc.

I believe most of those folks are true patriots too, but how long is the tip of the spear to take the brunt without breaking?

but the real war is the economic war, Soros and his ilk have done this many times, who knows maybe it was practice runs for this, devauling currencies, leading to political instability.

for the golden rule holds true, he who has the gold makes the rules

do we even have any gold left?

look at what we've witnessed?

bailouts to banks so that they can reward themselves with incredible bonuses? amounts in bonuses that would let an average family retire or be financially secure for the rest of their lives.

take over of one of the largest corps in the US, bondholders shafted and unions given a cut?


I fear it's too late for a revolution in the voting booth, they've already reached the 50% mark for all intents and purposes to take from those who produce and earn to give to those that are dependent upon that take. Not just welfare moms, but every gov't employee.

and as I look around I'm encouraged to know that there are men like you that would die to defend the ideals this nation was founded upon, but I'm not sure there's enough of them, or if there is, if they can be organized enough or have enough time to do enouhg good to turn this thing around.


the next few years are likely to be interesting years, perhaps not happy years, but interesting.


I'm comforted to know there are good men in this nation that still care.

thank you OP for your patriotism

Trust me, if half the democraps and half the moderate republicans got fired at the voting both in the next few years, things would be a lot different. But the people have to make it extremely clear WHY those people got voted out. The electorate swings back and forth and schitheads like Obama say they have a mandate? What am azz, he won with 52% of the votes. No, I am talking about running a conservative who can beat Obama by a friggin landslide and having a real mandate. Either way, we need to just get back to gridlock next year so we can stop the massive bleeding. Then we can try and build a better team.

This sounds good in theory - but where are you gonna find enough "good guys" to fill all those empty slots? I just don't think they are enough to fill that many slots...

there will be an incumbent slaughter.....whether the replacements will be a great improvement remains to be seen.

we should be careful of the smug arrogance that believes the poster is the only one with America's interest at heart....I am heartily sick of reading posts bad mouthing "all of them" because I know many who really are public servants.

OutlawPatriot, thanks for a good subject and good messages.

Steve, you're not referring to me as "smug arrogance" are you. If so, that's not the message I was trying to convey.

well Steve, believe me, you're no more "sick of posts badmouthing all of them"

than I am waiting for one of these public servants to stand up and call a spade a spade.

give me some examples of your good ones if you'd be so kind and patient to do so, and their direction they espouse for this country.

if you're gonna trot out the usual suspects of the GOP and their empty promises I reckon you can save us both the time and trouble.

if you don't want a list of the patriotic people fighting the socialists in Congress, then exactly what list are you asking for?

it's so easy to chant "they're all terrible, woe is me" and it accomplishes nada

Why is it when the Dems propose something it's the usual list of Republicans who meet them halfway and in the process give away more of the store. The list in the Senate includes, McCain, Graham, Martinez, Snowe, Collins, Alexander, Corker, Voinovich, and Grassley. There are too many to mention in the House, but they all seem to be in the "go along and get along" mode. You would think that if they are already marginalized, they would do everything in their power to stymie the White House buy putting holds on nominees and refusing to cooperate at all with the Democrats at any level.

I don't see that happening. What I see are the usual suspects doing deals in direct contradiction with what their constituency desires and against what is good for the nation as a whole. That's why I will not give any money to the Party, or any of their re election committees. That money goes to help RINOs get reelected, and I refuse to participate in that. Electing someone like Michael Steele as head of the RNC speaks volumes about where the party's head is, and it definitely is not where the sun shines.

Until and unless the Republicans jettison pols like Snowe and Collins, it will not gain any traction with the more libertarian/conservative segment of the base, and we will continue to sit on our wallets and our votes.

Then the mid-term shift will happen without you.

Mike, you need to talk to the voters in those states.

"The Republicans" didn't pick those RINOs, the voters in their states did, in primaries and general elections.

I do talk to the voters in my state, and many of them are parasites who like government cheese, which is why I am very pessimistic about the future. Socialism has crept into the middle class, and they like it. Since this isn't apt to change, pols will adapt-at least until they bankrupt the country and destroy the currency. Corker is up for re election next year, and his modification of the Senate version of HR 1206 isn't winning him many points in my book, and neither is his soft pedaling the Health Care bill.

My point is that the Party needs to enforce Party discipline and make it's members conform to the Party platform, which last I checked is pretty conservative. If they are not willing to do that, and withhold funds and discipline those that go against it, then they need to change the platform into something more in line with their beliefs, and give those of us who don't feel that way fair warning to find another home. Talking small government and fiscal responsibility, but turning around and supporting statist agendas isn't honest dealing.

Those pols who do feel uncomfortable with the current platform need to join the caucus where they are most comfortable. If Snowe claims that the Party left her, then she needs to go where she feels at home. Same for the rest of those I named.

I'm tired of compromising my beliefs in order to get a majority, especially when it has been shown that having that majority does little to roll back the tide of socialism that is engulfing us all. I would rather be an honest opposition party united in it's beliefs as a bastion of libertarian/conservative/small government principles, than a "big tent" party that tries to be all things to all people and as such does none of them well.

Socialism and the politicians that peddle that crap are no different than crack sold by a drug dealer. "Look, it cool, it makes you feel good, it takes the struggle away". And the junkies get hooked on it and think it's great. Then it becomes the answer to all their problems. Got a problem, need more socialism. "there, that feels better, I'm not hurting anyone else."

Problem is that socialism costs too much money and the addicts can't afford it, but they're addicted. So, they sacrifice their lifestyles to pay for the drug and even steal from their kids piggy bank and college fund to get the funds. Pretty soon, bankruptcy looms, you've lost sight of what's important to you and you've taken for granted the gifts you have.

In the end, the addicts have one of two possible solutions. Either die a miserable, powerless, broke addict. Or, MAN UP, take control of their lives back. Shoot the friggin dealer between the eyes, go through some detox and return to a real, honerable life.

I'm all for shooting the dealer between the eyes, but how about the supplier as well. Pols couldn't deal in favors if the Fed didn't supply the lucre with which to do so.

Your absolutely right Mike. I am NOT saying support the party. Pick the good guys, give them your support and let the rest go high and dry. I AM NOT loyal to the republican party. I am loyal to the individual leaders who demonstrate that they are loyal to what's best for the nation. I just haven't found nearly any democrats that fit in that category. And none of the compromising, let's all get along republicans, get any support from me either. I want leaders in Washington that don't give a crap about making friends and winning a popularity contest. If I find someone like that, we need to keep those guys and abandon all the rest.

And if we do that, the republican party will be "fixed" imo.

D'accord.

OK, let's see a list of elected republicans that are substantially different than say Pelosi/Obama/Schumer/Feinstein so we can look at their records (voting, stumping, and so forth) to see if there really is a difference or not.

your really are a retard, Jason-boy. why don't you start by looking at the ACU scores of the members of congress....that should give you a clue, if you're capable of getting one.


when you're old enough to vote, you'll learn these things, I guess.

here's a hint....look at the most conservative states. since I'm sure you would never figure it out for yourself.


here, I'll make it easy for you:

http://www.acuratings.org/

+1,000 Mike. I could not have said it better.

I think that pretty well anywhere - die-hard political partisans - regardless of their party persuasion - really don't wield much power.

I mean the right gets its hard-core right-wing voters - every time. The left gets its own hard-core people every election too.

There are generations of people who always vote the same - and thus, in their predictability - they have very little actual influence.

The REAL POWER lies with the swing voter. They are the one that have the power to change electoral maps. They are the ones that need to be courted and captured. They will always be the most important voters - anywhere - any time - any place.

This is true of almost every democracy on the planet - I suspect its true in America too.

Jason's right I want to see the list too. I don't give a crap about the ACU or any other group. I know how the game is played, those ratings don't mean diddly squat.

dude, sometimes you sound as retarded as Jason....you don't care about ratings based on their votes....so WTF do you care about?

their hair styles?

here, click on the state and you can get the rankings for their representatives.....although you're so determined to keep your head firmly up your ass on this issue that I don't know why you even pretend you care.

http://www.acuratings.org/

First, their crap is hard to follow because they have no clear ledgend or at least now I could find.

Second, Baucus is a liberal to the max he only pretends to be conservative for six months, the six months he runs for re-election. Tester is probably a little more conservative than Max.

Rehburg I know personally and he is a lot more conservative than both Democrats.

The point being if they followed the Constitution they would vote against all legislation because it is unconstitutional but they don't.

Baucus is an 8, Tester is a 16....out of a hundred. Does that help? It ain't rocket science....just click on a state and you get the ACU rating for the delegation, for 2008 and lifetime.

Are you friggin kidding me? First of all, almost all the republicans have better voting records than those schittheads you mentioned- Pelosi/Obama/Schumer/Feinstein. But just being better is not good enough. They need to be far better imo. But comparing those clowns to 90% of republicans is just rediculous. No offense.

No one has time to follow every single official on every single vote. So I would take Steve's advice and look at some of the independent rating systems. But each of us CAN follow our own state reps very closely. If you look at that person's web site, they should have their voting record for every single vote- period. If they don't complain because there is no reason for anything less than full disclosure.

Yes it does, thanks.

But Baucus and Tester are liberals so what else is new.

so the ratings are fairly accurate, I guess?

We have two senators and one representative so it's pretty easy to keep track of them. And since none of them truly follow the constitution it isn't to hard to figure out how they vote 99% of the time although Rehburg is more apt to follow the constitution than the other two..

My big concern on this topic is that people fall into the trap of making blanket generalities and lumping all people into the same category. There are good leaders out there and there are bad ones too.

Adopting a fatalist or "it's too late" attitude is EXACTLY what the enemy wants from you- capitulation. If we give up or get too fatigued, they win because people will just roll over and let them implement their plans.

But things are changing in this country. People are finally figuring out that something is wrong. People are finally getting off their asses and going to rallies. But we need endurance because the bad guys are waiting for complacency to set back in.

The momentum needs to continue until next year's elections. And many people need to lose their jobs during that election. That victory can at least get us back to gridlock and stop the trauma. And no progress is Hussein's worst nightmare. He will have nothing to campaign on.

I like your take on it.

I believe true conservative republicans are like wolves. They hunt their own food and are self sustaining. Where democrats are like house dogs, who wait by their bowl for their master to feed them. LOL

Well if 100% means always conservative than yes it would be accurate for those two using ACU criteria. Of course, my criteria is different and much higher so take that for what it's worth.

ohhhkay I guess I am one of the retarded ones

I coulda swore all those years I was writing checks to the GOP I was told they were for smaller gov't, fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets.

Now please show me where they delivered such.

Jason, seriously, here's the bottom line from all my research. This of course is my opinion but I think it is accurate.

About 90% of the democrats are bad for this country based on their voting records. Some of the more conservative southern democrats aren't as bad as most and vote better than half the republicans.

On the republican side, about 50% of them are good people who have the best interest of the country as their top priority. The other hald are corrupt, too willing to compromise or just should be democrats.

Those 50% of the weak republicans are the ones that need to go away and fast because they are a cancer on the whole party. The other half are fighting the good fight against nearly insurmountable odds imo by they are doing they best. They just need our help.

In full disclosure, I am a conservative on most issues and a libertarian on a few. I am a republican as a distant third.

Please don't ever write another check to the GOP. Pick a real good candidate and give them your support. I would only reward those who earn your loyalty. And your loyalty should always need to be refreshed in each election cycle.

For those of you in Florida, please research Rubio and get that punk Crist out of office. That can be one of the first useless moderates to go.

Of course they didn't deliver that, everything is relative.....what you're seeing now is the probable alternative.

unless you plan a coup, and shoving Ayn Rand and freedom down the throats of the sheeple at gunpoint.....which would kind of be a contradiction....then you deal with the real world and the real options.

The "moderate" free spending GOPers are about to get creamed in most states still populated by sane people. In states with overwhelming numbers of sane people, they never got elected in the first place.

Whining and talking about utopia won't get 'er done, boys. Elections matter, and if the communist in the white house hasn't convinced you of that, nothing anybody says is going to either.

That's a pretty fair assessment, and roger on Rubio and not giving any money to the repubicans as well, but rather to individual candidates. jorge

I am Libertarian on most issues, and Conservative on a few, and Republican also as a distant third, especially since Reagan left office.

The problem with JasonB and his ilk are that they LIKE big government and socialism, and therefore approve of what the parasites such as Pelosi/Reid/Obama are trying to do.

I'm backed up as far as I'm going to be. Capitulation isn't in the cards. Rebellion will be if they keep pushing.

Just had a thought pop into my head... it does happen occasionally. Do politicians, RINOs and the like, think that they are voting the way their constituents want to because the Reps views got them elected? What I mean is the people at home may be sending the message 'don't vote for that' but the Rep thinks, "I believe in this so I'm voting yes".

Well anyone who is a student of our history knows that our country was formed on a foundation of conservative and libertarian principles. Our country didn't get where it is because of socialism. Why deviate from a paradigm that brought the greatest success that any country on earth has ever achieved. Every single flaw in our country can be traced to some example of a parasitic socialist program or mandate- bar none. So any of those people who think it is smart to continue down a path, that has already erroded some of the quality of our nation, is just plain delusional.

I think part of the problem is political arrogance frankly. When some elected officials are voted into office, they think they were elected because their opinions are the best. Or they think they got elected because the constituents agree with all their positions on issues. This is pretty stupid in most cases. How can an entire group of voters agree with 100% of a politicians opinions? It isn't possible of course.

So the voters should pick a candidate that agrees with MOST of what they believe in. And on the remaining issues, the elected official's obligation is to have a dialog with their constituents. Honestly, some people are just flat out uninformed of the issues and are susceptible to the influence of the corrupt. So the official should hold meetings, publish opinion papers etc and get feedback on the issues in question. After that, if the people choose to disagree with the politician, I think they are obligated to vote the way the people want.

What makes this subject challenging is the fact that the mechanics of politics are much different today than 200 years ago. Back then, we didn't have phones, email, the internet, near instant communications etc. So a politician would spend a lot of time with the local people, gain a strong knowledge of their opinions on issues and be the figure head of those people at a central legislative body.

The second challenge back then was the sheer size of the uninformed or uneducated electorate. So frankly, some people voted for a local representative because they knew that person would be able to make a more informed decision of their bahalf.

Today, people are more informed and more educated and politicians can communicate directly with the people through web sites and email and rallies etc. They can get on a plane and be in their local state in a few hours. I think it is the modern politician's duty to use all these communications tools to both keep their people informed on positions and their opinion and use these tools to make sure they know what the opinions are of their voters.

They are delusional. But they think that the great socialist/communist experiment hasn't been done correctly by those who have tried it-not recognizing that the reason that it won't work at all is the basic flaw called human nature. Even the most "pure" form of communism ever tried on a large scale, such as that formerly practiced in China, is morphing into a capitalistic, market oriented paradigm, because the Chinese leadership finally realized after killing 60 million people that they needed to change a few things if they were going to remain in power.

The frightening part about the current crop of socialist politicians and their fellow travelers is that they think that they can do it better. To me, that's the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results-classic delusional insanity.

Yes, the Chinese are actually more capitalistic than we are on some issues now. I would not call it only insanity. I would call it ARROGANT insanity. The true believers are so arrogant that they think the world has just not been blessed with people wise enough to implement their ideology correctly. And that is why it has failed in the past. They believe in the square wheel no matter what, because a square is a more righteous shape than a circle of course. But it's still a damned square and it won't roll.

You are actually closer to the truth than you realize.

All politicians from the local dog catcher to the national politican has an agenda they want to implement. A politician will tell a voter anything they want to hear to get elected so that the politician can implement that agenda.

On a national level all politicians are socialists. Some maybe fascist, communist, secular humanists, Christians or a combination of the four types but they are all socialists. It's true you may have a Maverick or two but not enough to really make a difference. This is why we keep heading socialistic no matter who we elect.

Two hundred years ago the agenda was freedom, liberty, and capitalism but not any more.

I just dropped off $200 to a local city councilman that carries the flag for vote NO on sales tax.

so i'll still give to what I see as a worthy cause.

pretty sure it's still available in the search function Steve my take on the last presidential election.

I'm mad as hell at the GOP, but when push came to shove I donated against the Obama campaign.

I guess in essence I'm inclined to vote for a slower death than a quicker one, if I'm supporting the GOP in their past performance.



I'm open to the coup idea, when can you get it going? (grin)

and why do you think shoving freedom down folks throats with a gun barrel is any worse than shoving socialism down our throats with same as has been happening the last 40 years or so. Regardless of the campaign promises, which side got elected etc. that's been the end result.

though I'll grant you the Dems like to oil the slippery slope, but can't see that the GOP has done much to gain any traction against the pull of gravity when they've been at the helm.

I think this is where we are gonna have to disagree and part ways on this subject. Because if that's really how absolute you feel, I don't think there is anything I can say to change your mind. And there is no way that I can believe in that broad of a level of pessimism.

Sorry but that's the way I see after 40+ years in the trenches. If somebody can show me that the Republicans haven't taken us down the socialistic path I'm all ears or in this case all eyes but I can't see it. Heck, I even remember Nixon's wage and price controls. Nothing free about that nor capitalistic and it lead to double digit inflation during Carter's years.

oh and as an aside


Steve I do want a list of the good politicians you support.

I'd like it to start with those that addressed their body of Congress by denouncing the automatic pay raise they game themselves while unemployment has soared, the deficit is piling up etc., etc. ad nauseum.


it shouldn't take you very long

dang the list is even shorter than I thought it would be!

I think they are the same in regards that they won't put what they believe right first, rather they are beholden to special interest and renewing and hanging to their own power first.

When America starts voting all the politicians out of office that serve themselves and the special interest before they serve the people, the paradigm will change. It will THEN be in the politicians best interest to serve the interest of the people. But it won't happen until the people hold them accountable! I guess what I am saying is the people get the government that they DESERVE. We are not a bunch of victims of circumstance. We collectively have to show them who has the REAL power.

The reason some people strenuously argue that Democrats and Republicans are the same, and other people argue just as strenuously that they're as different as night and day, is because the two groups of people have different agendas.

From the viewpoint of which aspects of an American's life should be controlled by the State, there is indeed a significant difference between what Democrats say and what Republicans say.

If your agenda is simply freedom, though, neither major party is going to get you any closer than the other.

And it's not just the major parties: the fundamental purpose of the State--every State--is to grow bigger and more powerful by attacking and destroying the liberty of its subjects. Yes, the Republicans jack up the right side of the State while the Democrats jack up the left side; but the objective of every political party, whether explicit or hidden, is to make the government bigger and more powerful in order to impose its agenda. In that sense, there's no substantive difference between Democrats and Republicans--or Libertarians or Greenies or the Worker's Socialist Party or the Reform Party or the Constitution Party or any of the others.

Never happen. It's too late. No matter whom you vote for, the government wins.

They're now in a position where they can take stuff away from a few people and give it to many people, so that the few people vote against them and the many people vote for them.

A welfare queen's vote is worth just as much as a CEO's vote; hence, as long as we vote, whoever promises the welfare queens the juiciest hunks of State largesse most convincingly is going to win, regardless of how viciously he is hated by the CEOs.

Voting is not the answer. It never has been. Democracy and republicanism are both fatally flawed and doomed to failure--just as totalitarianism is, and for precisely the same reasons.

And as long as you keep voting, you're playing straight into the hands of the State. You're acting as part of one of the two pins a Hi-Lift bumper jack uses to ratchet its load ever higher.



Don't believe me? Then imagine what the Old Media would say in the event of a Presidential election in which only five percent of the population voted.

Sheesh, I'm surrounded by fatalists.

hmmmm sounds like you're advocating


Rock the Boat



instead of


Rock the Vote



hey where's my list? lol

I agree.

The Dems are bald faced communists. The Repubs are howdy doody clowns glad handing the commies and pandering to robber barons.

Its a circus to say the least.

Well, how are you going to get enough conservative votes? In my view, big government exists to support the middle class. Think of how many people benefit from the government in SOME way other than "The welfare queens", and "dead beats" (social security, VA benefits,state,local, and federal employees.. ect)..Now, top that off with all the business "conservatives" that benefit to a large degree from government contracts.

Having said that, I think were in this big mess from simple Greed! We need insurance reform and tort reform to reduce the underlying cost of medical care..and a lot of other things. There is a lot of blame to go around!..Maybe we need some new form of government? All I can say is the extremes either way don't seem to work..

To a large extent all one has to do is follow the money trail, and that will show up in the ballot box. My comments are my own and not directed at any one individual. I am conservative in my thinking and voting..all my children are liberal.

cut em all outa the will Thumper, leave it all to charity, then tell em you knew that's what they'd want




as an aside I will PM you the addy to the non profit 1akhunter rifle and trip funding charity

Randy, sorry, didn't read this whole thread, just your last post. Had to respond, cause I haven't aknowleged much in the last 8 or 9 yrs. usually just read because I'm no expert on any topic, just soaking up the info you guys put forth. I like your style, your lingo, and experience on many topics. I gather you're still a small business owner/entrepeneur (can't even spell what I think I might be <G>). I'd like to have a beer with ya when I can make it up there, (I also like that you might be inclined to do some dental work on liberals and p+ssies) Tim.

D = Lets D-estroy America party.
R = Lets R-each across the isle and meet them in the middle.

It's sickening.

Why can't they be diametrically opposed? Why is there even talks of healthcare "reform"? Why won't the repubs just stand up and say no? Why do they think they have to discuss and sit down and debate with flat out communists promoting flat out communism? Why not stand on their platform and tell the commies to piss up a rope? Why not stand on the constitutioin, the supreme law of the land, and call them out as anti-American, lawless and traitorous scum that they are right in front of God and everybody?

It's sickening.

And the ONLY logical reason they don't is that destruction of this country is also their desire, just not quite as quickly...

If they had any balls whatsoever they'd call a spade a spade. Tell the people outright they're on our side. Force the media to cover the 'story' for what it is and just be honest with the American public.

But they don't. Instead, they reach across the isle and try to meet in the middle. There is no middle. The middle is a fiction, pure and simple. If they too, weren't hell bent on destruction of America, they would have proven it a long time ago.

The very few in the R column who actually are against the destruction of America are marginalized even by the remainder of the party.

It's sickening.

The very few that really do have the people's best interest at heaert or would like to see the constitution treated like something other than toilet paper are marginalized or completely ignored by the vast majority of the Republican party... and hidden from view by the media. That is NO ACCIDENT!

The R party's complacency is sickening. The old adage "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" rings very true when it comes to the R's, both as a party and when considering their loyal followers. None of these problems should ever have gotten as big as they've become. Any and all of it could have been stopped... if only they had some balls... and if only they'd have stood up for the people that voted them in.

Voting. That's the next issue. When was the last time we saw someone worth voting FOR? Ya always end up voting against, never for. Who's fault is that?

That too, is NO ACCIDENT!

And it's SICKENING!

You want people to stop sounding like defeatists? Well, you've got to have people in the house and senate who stop rolling over and meetiing in the middle. It's that simple. And it's not goiing to happen because the voters are NEVER offered anyone worthwhile to begin with. Always the lesser of 2 evils. Always. When they meet in the middle they accept defeat, it really is that simple. They don't even fight anymore, just roll over and come to some agreement then move on to the next one, each undermining what this country is/was about a little more than the last.

Team R saw a [bleep] a coming. Rather than face the storm they rolled over. There was so little effort in the 08 election it's pathetic. They should be ashamed of themselves. They not only left their conservative base hanging they left them out to dry, abandoning them for dead... to the vultures.

It's sickening.

The odds of the conservatve base, at this point, reforming the ranks to back party R are very slim. I don't blame them one damned bit, either. Abandon people long enough and hard enough and eventually they do likewise in return. What choice do they have? Team R needs CPR and they're the only ones left in the room to administer it. And frankly, I don't give a damn if they do nor if they succeed once they decide to try. I'm watching third parties very closely and I imagine a very large part of the American populace is doing the same. MANY long standing R voters recently added their names to the swing vote column. If team R doesn't recognize that truth, they're sunk. And they'll be sunk through holes they themselves shot in their own boat with their own guns and their own fingers on the trigger.

I was surprised to the max to find both my lefty senators voted against S1776 (?.. The one that would have shifted 240+ billion out of the health care bill and onto the debt).. I intend to contact them and give an 'attaboy' when deserved..

Both flamers in MN voted 'for'...

Team R has committed suicide.

They have abandoned America and set us adrift in a raging sea.

For the most part, they didn't even try. And still aren't.

It's a brave new world out there, or so the liberals think. And team R seems to be working just as feverishly to see to it America is NOT a player in that new world marketplace as team D.

If you don't support the constitution, there has to be a reason for that.

if you don't support what America was designed to be, there has to be a reason for that.

If you allow communists to take over and swing the tiller violently to the left, there has to be a reason for that.

If you allow America to become a second rate nation on the world's scale, there has to be a reason for that.

Team R has done, and is doing, all of these.

When Delay, Armey, and Gingrich were in control, we had the president and all the power.
They did nothing!
That's when the slide reaaly started.
They didn't appear to know how to be in charge,and let the dems set the agenda. They were wimps.
Now with all the socialist agenda, it's gonna be real difficult if not impossible to change.

"They didn't appear to know how to be in charge,and let the dems set the agenda."
--------------


In other words, they helped.

They weren't part of the solution....

In a mannner of speaking, they weren't any different than team D.

Is that what you're saying? If so, it seems a difficult statement to argue.

When Delay, Armey, and Gingrich were in control, we got tax cuts, nearly a balanced budget and welfare reform. When Hussein, Pelosi and Reid are in charge, we get bail outs, porkulous bribe bills, government take over of private industry, a weak commander in chief, and quadruple the deficits.

Yeah, they're all the same.

LOOK guys, if the difference is between "bad" and "much worse", I'll take bad any day and try to fix it. Hussein, Pelosi and Ried are beyond fixing- get a grip here.

When Gingrich et al were in charge we got a little tax cut.
They spent like fools, and their contractr with America, that was a real sucess, huh?

Wasn't the welfare reform really started by Clinton and
carried on by the rebubs?


I am a consertive, always have been.

No, Clinton was dragged into welfare reform by the republicans.

I understand OP, and you're right. Bad vs much worse is an obvious factor. But the thing is this country can't take the bad anymore. And I've got a feeliing the people aren't going to.

Enough is too much. When is the straw that finally broke the camel's back? Are we going to keep piling new bales of straw on... just to find out?

Team R seems more than willing to do exactly that.

It's a lot better than what we have NOW!

Here's the deal bro, I think if we have "bad", we can fix it as a nation. What we have now cannot be fixed.

I agree with that, too.

but people havve been trying for a long time without much success.

I don't see it as a defeatist's attitude, just a realist's one.

Let me ask everyone here that seems to have nothing constructive to add a serious question. And this is an honest question. If you think there is nothing that can be done and they are all the same, what exactly do you propose we do???

To me, the republicans are like a truck that got banged up in a collision but a little time in the body shop and it will drive safely again. But the democrats are like a friggin truck that parked in front of an oncoming freight train and resembles a modern art masterpiece that can never be fixed.

If you suggest anything that implies that I have to roll over and watch the country fall into the abyss, you're not going to get my ear. But if you have any realistic solutions that can at least stop the massive arterial bleeding we have now, I'll give it an honest listen.

"If you suggest anything that implies that I have to roll over and watch the country fall into the abyss"
-------------


NEVER!

Never say die.

Only suggestion I have at this time is to look to third parties. We'll have to wait and see what occurs between now and 2010. And go from there. Support those few who actually support American and let the remainder know that the dissatisfaction has reached a pinnacle.

I want to hear from others, too.

I understand, I really do. But I also think the nation is in the midst of change right now. Not the change that Hussein promised but change as the result of Hussein. The country is more divided than I have ever seen and passionately so. This is a major turning point folks and I don't say that lightly. The direction we pick at this point will define our country for the rest of its existence. We can choose to turn the corner and return to our roots or we can accelerate over the cliff with Obama, Selma and Louis.

There is a LOT of passion out there about this very subject- more than I have seen in my lifetime. And it is pretty evenly divided on both sides. The system is very volatile and we need to harness the good energy and defeat the bad energy.

And we if try like hell and lose to evil, we'll have to live with that. But I for one will never admit that it is over and there's nothing that can be done- EVER. If I strike out, by God, I'll do it swinging that bat with all my might. I sure as hell will not strike out looking.

Working for team "A" (America) rather than team "R" or "D" would be a good start.

I am really glad to hear that. I am VERY open to any 3rd party candidate that can represent our founding principles, fiscal sanity, smaller government etc AND CAN WIN. If I see that, I will rally, support, vote, everything I can to help the cause. If I don't think the persona can win, I will do what needs to be done to defeat Hussein and his thugs.

And thank you for the signature line of Barry Goldwater. If elected, that guy could have been our best president of the last century.

why thanks Tim, I'd be glad to have a beer with you if you find yourself in this locale.

still tryin to entremanure a little bit (I tell ya, you've no idea how hard that is when you realize your only God given talent is a line of BS)

if we do ever get to cross paths though you'll wonder "WTF was he thinking offering to do dental work for liberals?" I'm just an average sized guy, with an above average temper.


to OP, AH and the rest that vow to go down swinging (if in fact it is down we must go) I thank you and salute you

tis comforting to know you'll have company


but as bumpy as the road has been I think we've seen just a taste of what's to come before we ever see smooth sailing again.

those boyz in DC are workin OT diggin us a deep hole

You called me a fatalist before. I'm very far from being a fatalist, but I gotta say you're not being particularly smart here. Vote for a candidate of a third party, or a candidate of any party, or a candidate of no party, and what you're doing is putting your faith in the State--because once your guy wins he becomes part of the State--to implement "our founding principles, fiscal sanity, smaller government."

Never happen.

The objective of government is never to get smaller, only bigger. That is why people take jobs with the government. However many squeaky-clean Boy Scout ideologues you manage to elect, or to how high an office, there are always going to be more corrupt, power-grubbing bootlickers. And I think the time for squeaky-clean Boy Scout ideologues is over, anyway. Ron Paul showed us that: you don't get squeakier, Scoutier, or more ideological than he. (That's why I said at the time that Ron Paul's candidacy was more a measurement of America than a bid for the Presidency.) Nobody's going to win who hasn't already corrupted himself beforehand by promising enough handouts to enough people.

The solution has nothing to do with voting or with politicians. The State will not tame itself.

Different folks have different ideas about real solutions, but none of them that have any chance of working have anything to do with voting.

Barak....you been out patrolling the borders of the 'Stan? You've been scarce on the ground around here lately.

There was an interesting discussion on Limbaugh's show with Mark Davis (fill in host) on whether one should bite the bullet and vote Republican even though the Republican is a RINO or one should vote conservative even if it means a Democrat wins the election.

My view is of course, give me a real conservative or I don't show up to vote. To me a RINO or a Democrat makes no difference.

The discussion or debate is still going one.

As usual, you lay it out better than I have done.

Again +1,000.

OP are you listening? Barak knows what he's talking about.

Still not hearing any solutions. It's real easy to say nothing will ever work. It's another thing altogether to come up with a plan that'll work. I have laid out what I think will at least stop the trauma from getting worse. But that's only a short term measure. I admit, I do not have a longer term solution which is why I was asking for inputs. I cannot be as cynical as Barak on the subject. I will keep faith that we will figure out a way to reverse the course. The alternative, imo is totally unacceptible.

I vote by the Buckley rule....vote for the most conservative viable candidate, regardless of party.

There is no solution. The best bet is governing as close to the people as possible as far as governments are concern.

Other than that anarchy is the best bet.

NY-23....the Conservative candidate leads both the Com-Dem and the RINO, according to latest poll:

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2009/10/cfg_poll_hoffman_leading_in_ny.php


this one is going to have Rahm and the boys flipping out

Good news!!!
We need to hear more of this kind of stuff.

that's how you take it back, one seat at a time.....not with some fantasy of returning to 1800 and all being, like, sturdy yeoman farmers raising everything we need on our own little farms.


you ever try to grow a cell phone? or a gallon of unleaded?

What--me, cynical? My friend, you ain't seen cynical yet. You oughta read some of the stuff I read.


Of course we will. Not a legal alternative, though. All the legal alternatives are completely ineffective: if a legal alternative proved to be effective, it would be promptly outlawed. States are not in the business of allowing their subjects to determine or frustrate the course of their growth, although some of them claim to do so in order to pacify the populace.


What a handicap!

Yep, I'll take one seat at a time.

Yes and Bush won his first term with a 49% majority and became "The Decider."

It's not every day you get to read something this stupid. Thank you OP.

What's so stupid about it dickhead? If a trauma patient gets taken to the emergency room, the first thing they do is stop the damn bleeding. That's what we need to do politically, genius. And I'll friggin put my IQ up against yours any day.

Thank you Sarah Palin.

Wow, I would have never figured you would have resorted to name calling sans a list of (R) elected officials that had records that were really different than (D) elected officials.

I tried to make it easy on you and yet I still see no list.

tis only cause you don't post everyday.


but you pretty well have it won hands down on stupid. you're such a fing douchebag

Give me a list of (R) elected officials that you consider to be different (in a good way) from the democrats so we can look up their records.

Ok Mike, put up or shut up on where I have indicated support for socialism of any flavor.

If you have a person that murdered 2 people, and another person who murdered 1 person, what is the term for the person who murdered 1 person?

What we aren't hearing is a list of (R) elected officials that don't pull the same crap as (D) elected officials.

Jasontard....I've posted the link twice now and even instructed you on its use. If you can't handle that, it's probably a good thing if you don't vote anyway.

I also hinted for you to look at the really conservative states....but you just can't seem to get it. But the point has been made to you and your kind a thousand times that the choice isn't between your utopian vision and something else. It's between real world alternatives, and the GOP across the board is a better real world alternative. If you're not smart enough to grasp the difference after nine months under a socialist regime......well, like I said, probably best you don't worry about that voting stuff anyway.

I want your list, not some 3rd parties list. So let's have YOUR list. Otherwise, since your GOP is pulling the same crap as the (D)'s, then just be honest about it. I still won't vote for people you stump for, but at least I would have some level of respect for you for being honest that what you really want isn't too much different than what the average open lefty (D) wants.

Dude, do you want me to wipe your fanny too the next time you take a schitt? Grow up, do your own research, and make educated decisions for yourself. If all voters did that, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Glenn Beck stated today and very fanatically, that he would vote for a third party candidate again, even with people arguing he was throwing away his vote and allowing Obama to win.

I either don't vote or vote for the lesser of two evils.

Glenn wants to vote for a person who believes and acts as he does. Don't we all? It's not that simple.

I usually agree with him but not on this.

I have done my research and I haven't seen any (R)'s that do anything other than trample freedoms and empower themselves just like their (D) twins. Per your whole thread here, you claim that you know of some so let's see their names.

So how many times have you not voted and who was running in those instances when you didn't vote for Socialist Party A or Socialist Party B?

Don't sweat the BS session today. After listening to Beck claim that McCain had always been pro-gun you can rest assured Beck only votes republican.

Was this post intended as a news flash?

Nope. The vote thrown away is the one not based on your conscience. I vote my conscience regardless of party. The person that represents me best gets my vote and it's usually not D or R.

He swore he voted third party and not for McCain.

He gave a list of reasons as to why he could not vote for Mc Cain. He says he'll vote third party again if the candidates do not meet his criteria.

My job was soooo important I didn't have time for the jury pool and didn't register some years in some counties. That's bad but it's how I felt then.

I admit to voting for Bush twice and McCain, Nixon, etc..
I've never seen a Democrat I would vote for. Republican all the way. Some of them have abandoned the platform.

maybe he's on after your bed time or when you're in school, Jason, but Beck is a libertarian who has scalded the GOP for years. but you'd have to have actually listened to him rather than done some google fu to know that.


you completely lack the ability to compare and analyze political positions rationally, son, or to choose among real world alternatives rather than blather on like a two year old about what you want. good thing you don't vote.

Well, doing a search of your past posts, it's difficult to tell where you stand on much of anything, except that you take great glee at panning Republicans. I haven't seen any of the same vitriol directed towards the Dems, or their anti gun programs, or their SCOTUS appointees, or their economic policies, so I have to conclude that you either support or acquiesce to their efforts. If you don't, then say so. Lay out where you stand, instead of making people wonder. Picking on one group while giving the other a pass, or at least little to no criticism, is a good way to let people draw erroneous conclusions. If they ARE erroneous.

Mmm...not really. At least, not a consistent one. He's the same kind of libertarian Bill Maher is: an "I don't much like either the Republicans or the Democrats, so I must be a libertarian" libertarian. Hasn't done much thinking about it.

you couldn't say that if you'd read his books or listened to him much

Both senators from Oklahoma, Vitter from La., Jim DeMint from SC, Cornyn from TX, Thune, Sessions, McConnell.....those are the ones that come to mind first. If you weren't too retared to read a list that analyzes voting records, you could figure this stuff out for yourself.

But these people are, like, elected by voters in their states...and some states simply won't elect the kind of senators I would like. So unless your mommy will let you start a coup and execute the voters who disagree with you, you take it a seat at a time and put in the best available person.

Haven't read any of his books, but I've listened to him plenty.

Kind of a buttwad. Not that that should necessarily be held against him: after all, so am I.

But he's an advocate of the War On Drugs. Conservative, not libertarian.

He's in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act. Conservative, not libertarian.

He's in favor of military force against Iran. Neocon, not libertarian.

And for a libertarian he really had a puzzling animus toward Ron Paul--who is a minarchist libertarian.

He may now be more libertarian-leaning than he was before; but he's got a lot more thinking and contemplation to do before he gets anywhere near actual libertarianism.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/1009/McConnell_Bank_bailout_worked.html#

McConnell, who is prone to speaking his mind on policy matters and has a rep as a straight shooter among Dems, saying he thinks the Bush-Paulson-Obama-McCain TARP bailout worked.

For the record...
Congress has voted to reject the automatic raise six times.

Would you agree; the government that governs least governs best?

w4bear, tks for that, it's an encouraging sign.

what happened? I'm assuming that the YEAs let's keep the automatic pay raise won out, since it still goes on.

any idea who proposed the vote?

No I don't, but here's a neat link

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/PDF/crs_congress_raises.pdf

well I see that Vitter proposed the most recent one and Reid didn't want it attached to a spending bill.

IOW's same old chit, I'll give it lip service, but that's about all, they did vote to NOT take the raise next year, but no vote on doing away with the automatic pay raise.

one thing I don't understand they call it a "cost of living adjustment or COLA"

wasn't that the same criteria they used to deny a raise to folks on SS?

Oh Beck will toss in some token griping about republicans a little more often than Limbaugh/Hannity, but at the end of the day it is still the same old bullshit.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/10847/

Glenn Beck: McCain pros & cons

GLENN: Fine, whatever. Gee, I was just trying to give an example of how you could balance it out on both sides. Fine, whatever, Stu.

Here's the actual pros and cons list. On the pros he -- and I believe him -- says that he will nominate conservative judges.

He's consistently pro Second Amendment. Amen to that. That one is a huge one for me.


So is Glenn either ignorant or lying?

Let's see, if I am saying I dislike the republicans since I view their actions as being no different than the democrats, that makes me a democrat supporter how?

As for not bitching about democrats, you won't find me chiming in as the 57th person answering a question in exactly the same way way as 56 people already have that can be found on many threads. There seems to be plenty of posters telling the truth about how bad democrats are, but then those same posters turn around and tout the merits of republicans who have engaged in the exact same actions of the (D)'s they were complaining about (and getting royally pissed when someone points out that discrepancy) which tends to make me doubt the posters' pro-liberty/limited government claims.

Wow that didn't take long did it?

Cornyn is another good example of what I have been talking about.

From: [email protected] (Senator John Cornyn)

Dear Republican Friend,

Unimaginable greed.

Those two words are what we've seen over the past few days as we learn more about the $165 million in bonuses offered to AIG executives.

Help me get that money back by signing the NRSC's "Take Back The Bonuses" petition. And then support the NRSC with a secure online donation of just $5 or more.

My constituents in Texas have been calling my office all week asking "what's going on up there?"
The answer is two other words: liberal Democrats.

They're the ones who are in charge and approved the money for the AIG bailout. And a couple of weeks ago when conservatives and moderates began asking questions, we were told - in not so many words - to mind our own business.

Well, the taxpayer's money is our business.

Frankly, it's unthinkable to me that a company American taxpayers bailed out would hand out bonuses to their executives. Where I come from - and pretty much everywhere except Washington, D.C. - you pay people to succeed - not to fail.

But Harry Reid, Chris Dodd and the liberals who control the White House and Congress have received thousands in campaign contributions from AIG and other Big Money interests. In fact, since 1989, Dodd himself has received over $281,000 - making him the largest recipient of AIG contributions in the Senate. And he and others don't want to bite the hand that feeds them.

We're hoping to generate over 100,000 signatures on our petition. And once we have them, we will deliver them directly to Harry Reid's office to show that hardworking Americans like you think it's high time to Take Back The Bonuses.

Please take a minute to sign the NRSC's petition right now. Then help the NRSC fight to reestablish a conservative majority in Congress to prevent this type of embarrassing situation in the future.

Americans have seen what "change" means to them. More spending, higher taxes, and bonuses paid to greedy bankers and insurance companies for wrecking our economy.

I've had enough, and I think you probably have too.

Please take a moment to join me in working to Take Back The Bonuses by signing the NRSC's petition and making a contribution right now. Thanks.


Thanks again for your support,

Senator John Cornyn
Chairman
National Republican Senatorial Committee

P.S. Chris Dodd was the single largest recipient of money from AIG in the last 19 years, receiving over $281,000. They knew they needed to buy a few favors, and they also knew Dodd would scratch their back when the time came. It's time we demand our money back and send a message to Chris Dodd and other liberal Democrats who spend our money like it's water. Sign our petition to take back the bonuses and make a secure online contribution of $5 or more right now. Thanks again.



Funny, seems as though he was one of the enablers. Is he senile or just lying?

http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/John_Cornyn_Budget_+_Economy.htm

Inaction on $700B bailout is unacceptable leadership
Noriega assailed Cornyn over his steadfast support of President Bush and his vote for a $700 billion economic bailout, saying Cornyn demonstrated a �herd mentality� on a bailout bill that was loaded with pork projects and intended to help Wall Street mor than Texas families. Cornyn argued that Noriega wouldn�t have taken any action, which he said isn�t acceptable for an elected leader.
The Senate candidates both said those who committed wrongdoing in the financial crisis should be held accountable.

Source: 2008 Texas Senate Debate reported in Dallas Morning News Oct 17, 2008

Voting for $700B bailout demonstrates leadership
The nation�s struggling economy and the $700 billion bailout package Congress approved figured prominently in the debate. Noriega has criticized the bailout as lacking enough reform and Wall Street accountability, while Cornyn--who voted for the package--has said elected leaders must make difficult decisions on big issues.
Source: 2008 Texas Senate Debate reported in Dallas Morning News Oct 17, 2008

I don't know what all that red google fu is supposed to mean....but Cornyn is about as good as senator as there is. And I don't say that just because he goes to the Dallas Safari Club dinners.

And the opinion of an internet punk about issues he is incapable of understanding really doesn't signify, except to you, and maybe your mama.

Let's see, if Cornyn is about as good as it gets and he is sending out fund raising e-mails bitching about the very same program he stumped for and voted for what should that tell anyone who is honest?

The difference in color is to differentiate between what Cornyn said and my comments. The red was for a couple of reasons. One, was the red state thing. Second, (and I doubt this was the rationale for the red state thing) it was an acknowledgement of Carl Schurz, Franz Sigel, and other German 48'ers turned early republican boosters who made the republican party red from the start.

the email is about the bonus clawback....he doesn't say he didn't vote for the original 700B bank relief package.

I have no freaking idea what your babbling about German '48ers....except that it shows how clueless you are about the real world. Keep up the google fu son, they'll promote you to night shift manager yet.

If you're so politically ignorant you have to google up who Cornyn is....well, like I said it's a good thing you can't vote yet.

Well, you still haven't stated on what side of the fence you're on, or whether you're sitting on it. Lots of Dems prate about liberty, freedom, and balanced budgets, but their idea of those things isn't the same as mine.

As I said, searching your posts hasn't revealed anything about your political leanings other than a willingness to complain about one party-Republican. That you're willing to be so one sided in your criticism leads me to believe that you favor the other, regardless of your reason of not wanting to be the 58th person to speak ill of the Democrats and risk being banal. Doing so would at least give a clue as to where you stand. Since you haven't done so, I'll risk assuming that you favor the Democrat way. Please feel free to disabuse my assumption by a positive statement of position.

google troll....hasn't been alive long enough to have any real opinions of his own, so he's borrowing them.

Seems to be, else why not take a definitive stand.

I think it's my buddy Jeff_O. I always have.

Nah. JeffO is at least willing to take a stand and show his colors, regardless of how distasteful they may be. This guy seems to want to poke at people without making his own views public knowledge.

Let's see here:

1) He voted for a redistribution of wealth then allegedly acts offended when the money he voted to redistribute is redistributed in a manner that pissed even more people off than he originally was aware of. He doesn't mention he voted for the redistribution and in fact insinuates it was entirely democrats. Typical (D) & (R) lying.

2) German 48'ers were German Marxists who took part in the Revolution of 1848 which failed. Quite a few of them who escaped and/or got out of European prisons ended up in the US supporting the fledgling republican party and when that paid off frequently found themselves in high level politically appointed positions. Red from the start.

3) I didn't have to "Google up" who Cornyn was as was made apparent by the e-mail he sent me. All there in black, white, and red so why even try to lie about me like that?

Up until last fall I would have listed myself as being Libertarian, but when they annointed Barr I am under the assumption they have sold out since they ran a dyed in the wool republican who they had previously helped knock out of office so currently I am not really aligned with any political party I am aware of. Basically, if someone has a platform, voting record, or is giving speaches that show their disdain for individual liberties/limited government as espoused in the Consitution and Bill of Rights then I am opposed to them which describes just about everyone flying the (D) or (R) banner.

That's why I was thinking he's hiding behind this name to debate. He doesn't get too far in debating as Jeff_O.

Maybe he will respond.

Jason. Please tell the truth. Of course, since this is the internet, I'm dancing down the yellow brick road hoping he'll confess

Funny. Jeff-O pm'd me when his name came up in one of your all's "we don't have anything to stand on other than name calling" debates and I told him I thought his support for Obama made him as useless as the rest of you are for supporting Obama's (R) comrades.

Well, maybe I was wrong.

Who and what bluntly do you support?

Fiscal policy?

Health Care?

Afghanistan?

Iraq?

Homosexual Marriage?

Abortion?

AIG

GM

Any Bailout?

Public Domain

Banning FOX?

Czars openly espousing Communism ideals and admiration for Mao?

State's rights?

Increasing Fed spending?

National Civilian Defense Force

Environment

F 22

Tort Reform?

Bailouts for states?

Endowments from taxes for the arts?

Stimulus packages

Banking reform

Executive compensation

Wall Street reforms

Fannie and Freddie reforms

NAFTA

Illegal Immigration

Devaluation of the dollar

Homosexuals in the Boy Scouts

You have a presidential candidate?


Who and what are you for? Just simplify it for us please and not by answering a question with another question.

Gee, this could be fun.

Fiscal policy? Competitive free-market private currencies; total financial privacy; no central bank.

Health Care? No government involvement whatever.

Afghanistan? All US troops out by midnight tonight, unless they can be gotten out sooner.

Iraq? All US troops out by midnight tonight, unless they can be gotten out sooner.

Homosexual Marriage? No government regulation of or involvement in marriage of any kind--heterosexual, homosexual, polygamous, bestial, whatever.

Abortion? Should be treated legally the same as contract murder.

AIG Bankruptcy. No bailout.

GM Bankruptcy. No bailout.

Any Bailout? Voluntary only--that is, if private investors decide to perform bailouts with their own money, then have at it.

Public Domain No government protection of intellectual property.

Banning FOX? Should be welcome to try; should also be welcome to get his comeuppance, as he did.

Czars openly espousing Communism ideals and admiration for Mao? No czars, period, regardless of what they espouse or whom they admire.

State's rights? Nope. Individual rights.

Increasing Fed spending? Eliminating Fed spending.

National Civilian Defense Force Sure, as long as it's voluntary and privately funded.

Environment No government laws or regulations; free-market convention only.

F 22 Anyone who wants one ought to be able to buy one, but the government shouldn't buy any.

Tort Reform? Maybe: depends.

Bailouts for states? Not federal ones.

Endowments from taxes for the arts? Nope.

Stimulus packages Only if they're voluntary and privately funded.

Banking reform See above.

Executive compensation No government involvement.

Wall Street reforms Eliminate the SEC and all other regulatory agencies; let private ratings firms dig out and publicize political connections in the financial sector.

Fannie and Freddie reforms Should be eliminated, not reformed.

NAFTA Real free trade good: NAFTA bad.

Illegal Immigration Stop trying to police the border or penalize employers. Instead, eliminate the government benefits that attract them.

Devaluation of the dollar The dollar should be subjected to free-market competition from real private currencies. It would of course shortly thereafter disappear.

Homosexuals in the Boy Scouts Whatever the Boy Scouts want.

You have a presidential candidate? Of course not. Who would dare run on a platform like that? Anybody who understands government well enough to want those things also understands politicians well enough to know that anyone who would make such promises is completely full of shxt.

I agreed with you on 16 of them. That's not bad. Do you know JasonB?

Approximately half? Yup, and I'll bet a liberal would probably agree with the other half. I see why Bill Maher and Glenn Beck assume that if they're neither Democrats or Republicans, they must by default be libertarians.

No, I don't know JasonB. At least, I have no reason to suspect that I do.

What he said +1.

Whether they are or not is irrelevant. The question is, do the principles, platforms, philosophies and policies of either one agree with your personal principles? If so, then go with them. If not, then do something to change their attitude.
Volunteer to be a Precinct Committeeman and get a real voice in the party operation. Most party PC positions are vacant in most counties. The County committee has a certain number of votes with the State Party, depending on the number of PC's serving. As a PC, you influence the county committee's views, and also how the vote goes in the state committee, thus influencing how the national sees things.
It does no good to complain, try doing something about it. Get involved.

Fiscal policy? A true free market. No welfare, corporate, foreign, or what is viewed as the normal kind. Have currency based on something more substantial than hope.

Health Care? Not an area government needs to be involved in.

Afghanistan? Get out, quit screwing around in the affairs of other countries. If any given country attacks us sans US meddling in their affairs then turn them in to a glass parking lot.

Iraq? Get out, quit screwing around in the affairs of other countries. If any given country attacks us sans US meddling in their affairs then turn them in to a glass parking lot.

Homosexual Marriage? Morally opposed to it, but I see no need for government involvement in a religious ceremony.

Abortion? Opposed to it.

AIG Let'em fall.

GM Let'em fall.

Any Bailout? Let'em fall.

Public Domain In regards to what?

Banning FOX? As in shutting them down or upset over Obama not liking them? 1st Amendment prohibits shutting them down as far as keeping them out of press conferences no one that wants to be there really should be excluded. Personally, I view them as the (R) version of CNN, NBC, ABC however.

Czars openly espousing Communism ideals and admiration for Mao? The US doesn't need czars of any kind going back to the first ones appointed by Nixon.

State's rights? In favor big time.

Increasing Fed spending? Opposed

National Civilian Defense Force Opposed

Environment If I go dump my garbage on someone's property I would be guilty of trespassing. Use the same logic on people with net worths in the billions and the problem would likely be solved without grant leaching tree and bunny huggers.

F 22 Anyone should be able to buy them with their own money.

Tort Reform? Opposed to frivolous lawsuits, but opposed to someone with clout actually damaging someone else and getting away with it.

Bailouts for states? No

Endowments from taxes for the arts? No

Stimulus packages No

Banking reform Yeah, get the .gov out of it.

Executive compensation Since they shouldn't have got the bailouts then it would seem they should be dumpster diving for their rewards.

Wall Street reforms Not a good area for government to be involved in.

Fannie and Freddie reforms Meddling got us where we are now so why bother reforming. Ax it.

NAFTA Ax it.

Illegal Immigration 15 years ago I could have cared less, but after seeing 15 years of seeing the bulk of them not really assimilating and the amount of property damage they have caused I say load them and ship them back. And since those who employ them like their work ethic (and rates) make them equally happy and ship them out with them. No freebies including their fare back home.

Devaluation of the dollar What did anyone expect would happen?

Homosexuals in the Boy Scouts Not my thing, but what ever floats their boat.

You have a presidential candidate? Haven't heard of anyone decent running yet.

Some differences from Barak. Maybe not Jeff_0

Actually sounds reasonable. Thanks for clearing that up.

I'd say you have definite libertarian tendencies.

I would say so as well up until their picking Barr last year which makes me wonder what is going on there.

I said "libertarian tendencies," not "Libertarian tendencies."

The Libertarian Party has lost its way. That shouldn't really be too much of a surprise, actually; it's practically impossible--it should be practically impossible--to herd libertarians into any sort of coherent party: certainly into any political party. Small-L libertarians ought to be smart enough to understand that the solutions to political problems created by the government come from individuals courageous enough to take their own power and liberty back from the government, not from more corrupt government politicians.

Barak,

You stated your position on abortion as follows, "Abortion? Should be treated legally the same as contract murder."

Do you mean the woman should be punished with prison time or just the doctor and employees who performed the abortions?

Seems to me that an abortionist is congruent to a hit man, which makes the woman paying for the abortion congruent to somebody hiring a hit.

That makes theoretical sense, but practically I've never met a proposed abortion law I liked. One of the big problems is how to prove in a court of law that a woman has had an abortion.

You have to read this fellas. This is about Detroit, black democrat mayors, socialism,Billions spent and a complete failure. Started in the 60's and now well read and see.
http://www.thedailycrux.com/content/3247/Porter_Stansberry.

God help America if this is where they"re aheaded.

Wow. That's one way to define it I had not thought of it before. I do believe a law requiring the mother to have to view an ultra sound of the baby at at least 12 weeks would prevent an overwhelming majority, but certainly not the determined individual women who use it for repeated birth control.

Such a law would almost certainly eliminate abortion if participants thought they would do major prison time. It would, also, no doubt cut down on casual sex.

No, I can't advocate any such sort of law. Imagine the freedoms that would have to be eliminated to implement it, and the miscarriages of justice that would be involved in trying, convicting, and imprisoning someone accused of violating such a law.

Lots of laws proposed by us anti-abortion folks sound great if you think of them only in terms of pass-a-law-against-it-and-nobody-will-do-it-anymore, but that's what gun-grabbers do. In actual implementation, all the laws I've heard so far would be horrifying and involve appalling intrusions by the State into the lives of law-abiding citizens.


My favorite proposal for cutting down on casual sex and deadbeat daddery is ancient Hebrew criminal law. Until a boy is 13 years old, any crime he commits is the responsibility not of him, but of his father. (Not his parents, his father.) Just as if his father had committed the crime himself. After 13, the boy becomes a man and is responsible for himself.

I've just heard repeatedly that when women or girls do actually see an ultrasound, the majority change their minds and do not go through with the abortion.

Planned Parenthood has mislead so many with, "It's a lump of flesh."

No. I don't know how we could enforce such a law.

I believe Detroit, Nugent calls it a cesspool, is lost and does serve notice to everyone what we are headed for in certain cities.

I heard a crazy prophet state in his vision that Detroit and Dearborn became their own state. Not a problem.

Socialism has failed and destroyed in every single country that it was implemented on. It was implemented on Detroit and now we find it is destroyed basically with it's middle and upper taxpayer group moved away leaving a slum.

Barak,

Do you feel that one who votes for a candidate who is pro abortion is morally and/or legally culpable? Let's forget that we could not possibly lock all of them up, nor ostracize them sufficiently to punish them. Just strictly from your moral coompass, how do you feel about pro abortion voters?

If you favor Hebrew laws from the OT, should you not be opposed to your son being in a Boy Scout troop with a homosexual as the troop leader? I know you can pull him out, but are you saying that if others agree it's OK, then it's OK for them to make that choice and have homosexuals lead the troop? It's a free country so to speak?

Voting in a political sense is an act of coercion, and must be evaluated morally on that basis.

An argument could be made that if you vote for somebody or something that loses, your vote has no effect and therefore you can't be held morally culpable for it; but without bothering to make or rebut that argument, it should be obvious that if you vote for something or somebody and it or he wins, you're morally responsible for the result.

It's why I never vote for anyone who has a chance of winning: I don't want to be responsible for all the devastation he will wreak when he takes office.


Now wait a minute. I mentioned one particular Hebrew law. It's logically invalid to extrapolate from that to the position that I'm in favor of applying every ancient Hebrew law to modern American society.


I am opposed to it.


Sure. I don't have any more right to tell an organization like the Boy Scouts how it has to conduct its business than it has to tell me how to conduct mine. I can of course choose not to do business with them, as they can choose not to do business with me; and whoever does business in the way that turns out to be most popular will capture the largest market share.

No problems with those.

A little update

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/3974907/1