Specter out, lol

[hugo]

What you don't understand, is progressives are just a couple social policy's away from being Libertarians, left center fence sitters (notice I tend to agree with Hugo more then I disagree?), but in your very very tiny pea sized mind, progressives are more left the liberals. ****, you even think Hugo (paleo-conservative Libertarian) is a liberal... I'd expect nothing less from a neo-con like you who has no clue what true Conservatism is.

.

.

I'm a Goldwater conservative. Not many of us left.

 

[ImWithStupid]

****, you even think Hugo (paleo-conservative Libertarian) is a liberal... I'd expect nothing less from a neo-con like you who has no clue what true Conservatism is.

.

.

I know it in no way has any kind of relationship to progressivism.

 

[timesjoke]

Sure, Socialist company's, their pro-choice stance, drug control policy's, bigger government, immigration, education, the list goes on and on, but like I said, you have no clue, so point in even bothering.

.

.

lol, no you only pretend to be against things when in reality your completely onboard witht hem, take the immegration example, you "SAY" you don't want the illegals here, but you fight against any attempt to directly identify and deport them. Your only wearing a different dress as a costume, in reality you want exactly the same things the liberals do.

And as far as hugo is concerned, you still refuse to understand basic english, I have said many times that hugo is a radical and the "results" of what he does is what helps the liberals, and the two of you agree on many things because that is the nature of radicals to respect each sides off the charts possitions as kindred souls.

A progressive wants the Government to impose "social justice", you can't snake out of that basic truth about progressives and that is why from a conservative possition, there is absolutely no difference between a progressive and a liberal. That is why you avoided my question about what new policies you want, and how you pay for them, and how you impliment them without big Government power, you know the answer to that very simple question is you can't.

If you want to play Robin Hood, your a liberal, you want to redistribute wealth by force of big Government Bender, so your a liberal, nuff said.

 

[hugo]

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! Barry Goldwater 1964 Republican nominee for President.

Think how much better off we would be if that radical had won and we had limited government and balanced budgets.

Moderate change can't get us out of the hole we have dug.

 

[timesjoke]

Moderate change can't get us out of the hole we have dug.

We can dissagree on what person may or may not have been large or moderate change but how about this:

Moderate change would at least have stopped the digging on the hole, while your refusal to even support that meant the digging was increased ten fold. Your requirement of 'perfect or nothing' has given us nothing, and that nothing is taking us out of the pan and into the fire.

 

[hugo]

At some point we need to have radical believers in liberty to undo the damage done by radical believers in socialism.

Talk to Democrats about past Democratic Presidents and they will brag on FDR, brag on Truman, brag on Kennedy, brag on Clinton, brag on LBJ besides the war, they will even brag on Jimmy Carter. The reason, they were all socialists.

Talk to Republicans there is only one man they brag about a man who was considered too radical by many at the time to win an election. The only Republican President in recent times whose strongest political influence was the tenets of classical liberalism. The idea of individual liberty that inspired Reagan is a radical idea,

 

[timesjoke]

But you miss the most important thing about Regan, he was not considered a radical when he ran for office, Regan grew into his most powerful possitions as his support from Congress grew, sure it happend fast, but he needed congress. Consider someone like Regan in office with the current congress for a second, almost none of the things Regan accomplished would have been possible with this congress, and that is always my point, no one man can accomplish anything, but the failure to support McCain was with the knowledge that a radical progressive Obama would be the President with a radical liberal Congress is my opinion a huge mistake.

A match made in Conservative ****.

If there had been a balanced congress or even a conservative Congress I might even have joined you guys in voting for "purity" because the harm of that choice would have been very low, but there was no way I could assist Obama get into power with a friendly radical Congress by wasting my vote to make a "purity" claim. There was too much at stake to throw away my vote on that election.