Schoolyard Taunting

[timesjoke]

Why is this "gray area" of our foreign policy so hard for you to see?

The scaling back of our troops abroad will force countries, in which we have bases, to defend themselves.

We are supposed to be engaged in a "war on terror", but our borders remain liquid. As to why there is little homeland defense, I don't know... thus creating a gray area of understanding. (Afterthought: Though "free trade" appears in the acronym for NAFTA, it had nothing to do with it and everything to do with merging to create a North American Union. I guess, in contrast with the European Union.)

I already said I was speaking on the Ron Paul policies, not my own views RO, please try to pay attention, of course I can see that, it was my point, I brought it up before you did.

I agree with you, we should scale way back, but Ron Paul does not want to scale back, Ron Paul want an immediate removal of all troops on forsign soil, Ron Paul's inability to see the gray areas is my point. I do not want someone who would be an isolationist, that will cause more harm than good.

I don't claim to be an expert on American foreign relations, but I was over there with the 2nd Marine Division out of Camp Lejeune (Want my callsign, too?). We were in there and out of there, which is the kind of action that should take place. Not these prolonged, money-sapping engagements.

Still, if we didn't have something to lose (oil trade), we would not have gotten ourselves involved. There is a lot of gray area in our reasons to support this regime, condemn that regime in the Middle East but I believe it all revolves around their oil.

Again, I agree, go to "win" then get out as fast as possible would be fine most of the time, but sometimes we need to do more as well. Europe owes it's success to the American military being there but America has also had a great deal of trade with Europe that offered a lot of prosperity to America as well. Leaving Europe now completely with a promise to never come back for any reason would cause Europe a lot of instability.

Now that may be good too, but our relationship will be very bad if we do this and trade will certainly suffer greatly even if a major war did not get started.

I am only capable of seeing what I deem a viable candidate because I vote on principles and I never, ever, ever compromise.

You are voting in the gray area where there is a margin of error. That margin of error allows you to say things like, "Well, McCain was never a 100% conservative." or "I never fully agreed with McCain on that...". Whereas, I am voting on who I deem will defend our Constitution, uphold the values of our Founding Fathers, shrink the scope of government, and end the welfare state.

You have no intention of voting for things that will result in a little discomfort or inconvenience your little world in some way. So continue voting the same old socialists, neo-cons, and the lesser evil; and I will continue to vote for liberty.

If the person you vote for you "KNOW" cannot win then in my mind your really voting for the other side. Don't you think that is what the liberals want? Splinter us apart, make us fight among ourselves then sit back and win the elections because people refuse to vote for who can win under the false claim of "purity"?

Your playing their game RO.




Did you ever read the speach by Richard Lamm about how to destroy America?

The main point was to use multiculturalism to divide people, to pit us against each other..............................Well this is the same thing RO. Divide the various conservative minded people against each other then win and take control by default.

 

[timesjoke]

This is what they're trying to point out... McCain was NOT the most conservative candidate. That's why many Conservatives did not vote for him. He's not even 75% Conservative. He's at best a centrist, even straying left of GWB. Hopefully, we can get some actual Conservatives on the ticket, instead of softies like McCain and Romney.

McCain was the only conservative minded person who could have won the election, any vote for anyone else was a vote for Obama. Wishful thinking does not eliminate the fact that we are a two party system "right now". Your either helping one side or your helping the other side. If you refuse to vote for the Conservative that can win, then you have voted for the liberal.

That's how I see the votes for Barr and Paul going. Each election cycle, more and more vote for someone other than the top two that are being shoved down our throats, and hopefully someday it will be enough to send a clearer message.

And how many things like this healthcare bill gets passed while your standing around with your hands in your pockets complaining?

How many activist Judges get appointed to the courts?





I made a point to RO in another thread that this is like the speach from Richard Lamm on how to destroy America. It is all about splitting us apart, using any method to have us fighting among ourselves while the liberals are taking control and we do not even notice.

The splinter groups are helping the liberal cause, not fighting against it by refusing to stick together on the thinge we can agree on.

 

[RegisteredAndEducated]

McCain was the only conservative minded person who could have won the election, any vote for anyone else was a vote for Obama. Wishful thinking does not eliminate the fact that we are a two party system "right now". Your either helping one side or your helping the other side. If you refuse to vote for the Conservative that can win, then you have voted for the liberal.





And how many things like this healthcare bill gets passed while your standing around with your hands in your pockets complaining?

How many activist Judges get appointed to the courts?





I made a point to RO in another thread that this is like the speach from Richard Lamm on how to destroy America. It is all about splitting us apart, using any method to have us fighting among ourselves while the liberals are taking control and we do not even notice.

The splinter groups are helping the liberal cause, not fighting against it by refusing to stick together on the thinge we can agree on.

I disagree. Just because it's mainly a 2 party system, doesn't mean that we should vote along party lines, for one candidate or another. I can see your logic, but it feels flawed. Voters should be shown that more than 2 parties can exist. It feels like we've got Dems on the far left, Repubs in the middle, and a new part (the tea party maybe?) starting on the right. This new Centrist/Repub party will start getting alot of former dem and neocon votes, the dems will get the far left votes, and the new party will get far right votes.

 

[snafu]

I think the GOP picked McCain was because he was a centrlist. Remember the Bush bashing? We needed somone more in the middle. Sarah was supposed to be the icing on the cake. She had the more conservitive ideas and she was a women who could counter act the black card. One way or another it was history in the making. We didn't have the tea party during the election and maybe this kind of movment might break the two party barier but until then you voted for Obama if you didn't vote for McCain.

 

[timesjoke]

I disagree. Just because it's mainly a 2 party system, doesn't mean that we should vote along party lines, for one candidate or another. I can see your logic, but it feels flawed. Voters should be shown that more than 2 parties can exist. It feels like we've got Dems on the far left, Repubs in the middle, and a new part (the tea party maybe?) starting on the right. This new Centrist/Repub party will start getting alot of former dem and neocon votes, the dems will get the far left votes, and the new party will get far right votes.

It is possible to win the lottery, but if you spend your dollar, do you think you will win automatically? No.....why? Because knowledge of reality tells you that the odds are against you, so you know that most likely you have wasted your dollar.


Voting for someone other than McCain was less likely to produce favorable results than your lottery dollar because of the same knowledge of reality that no other conservative minded person stood any chance of winning against Obama, so the vote was actually for Obama because it was taken away from McCain because of the divisions and inner termoil of conservatives that are encouraged by liberals.



This is exactly the same concept as what Richard Lamm warned us about where we are too busy fighting among ourselves as to who is the most "pure' and we waste our votes while the liberals stick together.

 

[RegisteredAndEducated]

Just go ahead and refuse to understand the other side of that coin. The more you "vote for the guy who is going to win" the further we get from being able to elect somebody who is a good candidate.

 

[snafu]

Just go ahead and refuse to understand the other side of that coin. The more you "vote for the guy who is going to win" the further we get from being able to elect somebody who is a good candidate.

Well RE that's real noble of you but you can't win an election by yourself. There had to be a movement that could get the percentage to win.

 

[timesjoke]

Just go ahead and refuse to understand the other side of that coin. The more you "vote for the guy who is going to win" the further we get from being able to elect somebody who is a good candidate.

Just because I do not do it, that does not mean I do not understand it.

I completely understand that the person who voted for someone he knows cannot possibly win is doing so as a kind of personal protest, he is unhappy with the two choices that are available and wishes that this other person could win.



But wishing does not change reality, the person who casts the vote still cannot escape the fact that they know their vote will not help a conservative canidate win, so that means he is really helping the liberal.



This is the system we have. Let me offer another easier example, wasting their vote is like trying to use baseball rules during a football game, sure you wanted to play baseball, but everyone else is playing football so complaining about the reality will not get you very far. You want baseball first you have to talk everyone else into playing baseball, until then your stuck playing football.




A new party, a "tea" party would only divide the conservative minded people into two groups, each without the numbers needed to stand against the liberals who stay united. Division among the conservative minded people is actually helping them. That is why I mentioned the speach by Lamm, it is the same concept.

 

[snafu]

The thing is if the "tea" party becomes an entity and trys to branch off the rebublican party will wise up and adopt the conservitive ideas they will project. I'm pretty sure thats whats happing now. The rebublican party is returning to the fundamentals of what conservitizim means today. Less goverment, less taxes, less depedancy on foreign intrusions, compreshsable health care system and a cleaner greener solution to our energy needs. Hay I sound like Sarah!

Thus we will still only have two parties.

TJ that baseball /football anolgy was perfect!.

 

[timesjoke]

The thing is if the "tea" party becomes an entity and trys to branch off the rebublican party will wise up and adopt the conservitive ideas they will project. I'm pretty sure thats whats happing now. The rebublican party is returning to the fundamentals of what conservitizim means today. Less goverment, less taxes, less depedancy on foreign intrusions, compreshsable health care system and a cleaner greener solution to our energy needs. Hay I sound like Sarah!

Thus we will still only have two parties.

But while we are waiting for things to resettle, we are dividing the vote while the liberals are sticking together. "Divided we fall"

Really my biggest problem is when people split hairs and go off the deep end saying things like Palin is the same thing as Obama, it serves no useful purpose to be so completely disingenuous if we truly want to stiffen up the Republicans and make them return to conservative values. We should be rewarding real conservatives like her and encouraging people like her to run for office. When the tide of stupid people call her a socialist, that makes all the decent people run for cover and not even consider public office.


This is why we have all these 'professional' politicians, people with quality and character don't want to face the mess.

TJ that baseball /football anolgy was perfect!.

Thanks for the compliment.

 

[hugo]

Stupid people tend to be fooled by words. Smart people look at peoples actions. Sarah has a record as a tax and spend liberal.

Palin: Uninspiring Tax Policy Record
by Chris Edwards

On tax policy, Alaska governor Sarah Palin has a rather uninspiring, albeit brief, record. The following is some information gleaned from State Tax Notes.

Palin supported and signed into law a $1.5 billion tax increase on oil companies in the form of higher severance taxes. One rule of thumb is that higher taxes cause less investment. Sure enough, State Tax Notes reported (January 7): “After ACES was passed, ConocoPhillips, Alaska’s most active oil exploration company and one of the top three producers, announced it was canceling plans to build a diesel fuel refinery at the Kuparuk oil field. ConocoPhillips blamed the cancellation on passage of ACES [the new tax]. The refinery would have allowed the company to produce low-sulfur diesel fuel onsite for its vehicles and other uses on the North Slope, rather than haul the fuel there from existing refineries.”

Stupid people do not realize what seperated Reagan from GW Bush.

 

[ImWithStupid]

you didn't know there were democrat versions of the tea parties did you?

Closest thing to at "d(D)emocrat" tea party...

http://www.pjtv.com/video/Trifecta/Strange_Brew%3A_Why_is_the_Coffee_Party_Movement_an_Overnight_MSM_Sensation%3F/3251/

 

[hugo]

Sarah Palin had kept mum on the topic of immigration right up until her first interview with a Spanish-language network. Anchor Jorge Ramos sat down with the Republican vice presidential candidate to finally shed some light on Palin's views on immigration.

The interview was aired on October 21, 2008 during the broadcast of "Aquí y Ahora" on Univision Network. The following excerpt was taken from that interview:

Governor, let me ask you about immigration. How many undocumented immigrants are there in Alaska?
I don't know, I don't know. That's a good question.

As governor, how do you deal with them? Do you think they all should be deported?
There is no way that in the US we would roundup every illegal immigrant -there are about 12 million of the illegal immigrants- not only economically is that just an impossibility but that's not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue that we face with illegal immigration.

Do you then favor an amnesty for the 12 or 13 million undocumented immigrants?
No, I do not. I do not. Not total amnesty. You know, people have got to follow the rules. They've got to follow the bar, and we have got to make sure that there is equal opportunity and those who are here legally should be first in line for services being provided and those opportunities that this great country provides.

To clarify, so you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?
I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here. It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country.

Off with her head. She likes babies and guns, she is still a commie.

 

[hugo]

If you are a typical voter for President you go to the polls already knowing who is going to carry your state. To vote for a candidate tells that candidates party that you approve of that choice. Thus making it more likely they will pick someone similar in the future.

 

[snafu]

Off with her head. She likes babies and guns, she is still a commie.

So where is the communism? she's totally right. Do you know how many illegals are in your state? lol Oh man.

 

[snafu]

If you are a typical voter for President you go to the polls already knowing who is going to carry your state. To vote for a candidate tells that candidates party that you approve of that choice. Thus making it more likely they will pick someone similar in the future.

Yeah but you voted for Obaaaamaaa! The biggest commie America has ever seen.

 

[hugo]

So where is the communism? she's totally right.

Letting criminal aliens become citizens ain't conservative. I guess you think it is right to reward illegal activity.

 

[timesjoke]

Letting criminal aliens become citizens ain't conservative. I guess you think it is right to reward illegal activity.

Lord knows America never allowed people to just come to America and live before in the past............


Do you have any knowledge of the past hugo?


Your doing the same thing on this issue as you did the other, you gloss over all kinds of stuff that are important and blurt out untrue attacks on Palin. That kind of conservative against conservative garbage is actually helping the liberals put people like Obama into office, this is why I mentioned the Lamm speach because the same tactic of keeping us splintered is now being used on conservatives, being as groups like Libertarians supported Obama in the last election, it would not surprise me if these groups were created by the liberals on purpose to help the splintering process get started.


In the very interview you quoted Palin says:

Do you then favor an amnesty for the 12 or 13 million undocumented immigrants?
No, I do not. I do not. Not total amnesty. You know, people have got to follow the rules. They've got to follow the bar, and we have got to make sure that there is equal opportunity and those who are here legally should be first in line for services being provided and those opportunities that this great country provides.

Palin is clear, no amnesty.

Conservatives do not want to stop all Immigration, they want to stop all "illegal Immigration". Providing a path to citizenship is not amnesty, I have no problem with creating a guest workers program and letting people find a path to being a citizen, who else is going to pick the vegtables? Welfare queens?



I have a question for you hugo, if tomorrow you could get what you want and have America activate the military and go on a massive rounding up and deport mission, do you think we would get them all? And do you think they will not come back? The draw is jobs hugo, they can find work here, the only way to keep them away (short of full occupation of the border by the military at all times) is to eliminate the jobs, so how do you propose we do that?

 

[wez]

Hey TJ.. flip the tape over.. yawn

 

[RoyalOrleans]

Everything TJ said above.

Bottom line... this country is broke and cannot afford to continue with the current wars that we are involved or to lend European or Middle Eastern nations aid.

We simply do not have the funds. Keep borrowing from the Chinese? Yeah... we could do that. When will the Chinese decide to collect on the debt that we already owe them? When that happens, we will be in a world of sh t.

Again, we simply do not have the funds.

-----------

So keep drinking that gray Kool-Aid. Enjoy your big government hacks that are one-quarter socialist and I will continue to vote based on principle. A vote for a 100% Constitution-defending, capitalism-loving, a product of American-exceptionalism, some one who believes in a balanced budget, the end of the central bank, someone who understands Austrian economics and condemns Keynesian economics, a person who will support backing the USD with gold and silver, someone to shrink and break the central government down to a manageable size... should never be confused or lumped into the same category as someone who votes for a 25% socialist.

----------

An answer to multiculturalism is to repeal every single entitlement program ever devised, but that won't happen until the well is run dry and the people are knocking on the Hill's door asking "Where's my sh t?". Meaning: we may look different and hallow a different deity, but we are of equal importance to this country. Everybody pulls their own weight.

The answer to split and divided political parties will equal a better representation of the people rather than grayish shadows of ideals long lost fighting with the other party. The Republicans and Democrats won't let that happen, they are slaves to the Democracy, and ready to pander to get re-elected; because neither likes competition.