Schoolyard Taunting

[RoyalOrleans]

Oh yes you did my friend, you made a trip 75% conservative to a 100% socialist, that was you moving 175% to the left RO, no matter how you try to rationalize it.

 

 

 

As I said before, nobody is 100% exactly like you, perfect in every way so no matter what human you vote for, it is voting for the lesser evil. It is called reality.

 

You can claim that McCain would have passed something equal but you know that to be untrue. Sure, McCain has had a few issues here and there but he was nothing like Obama. Your still forgetting things like judges, McCain would naver have selected a Sotomayor for example.

 

 

A vote cast for someone you know cannot win is a vote for a liberal RO. I posted this for hugo but he refuses to read it, maybe you will:

http://www.redcounty.com/national/2008/10/a-no-vote-or-a-barr-vote-equal

 

If there are only 2 candidates, there will be votes destined for Obama, and votes destined for McCain. ANY vote NOT for McCain is a vote for Obama and this is why:

 

Say you have 20 voters- 10 are registered Democrats, and 10 are registered Republicans. The 10 Democrats decide to support Obama, because well, he's a Democrat and they are party loyalists. Obama gets those 10 votes! Now we have the Republicans, some of whom are pissing and moaning about how McCain isn't conservative enough for them, so 2 of those decide, hmmm, we're just going to punish the dang 'ol Republican Party and vote for Bob Barr (or Chuck Baldwin). 1 decides to not vote at all. 1 is an Obamacon who has been duped into believing all of Obama's lying campaign rhetoric, and decides to vote for Obama. So McCain gets only 6 votes and Obama wins. Those 4 non-McCain votes got Obama elected, how is that not a vote for Obama!!

 

You're insane.

 

Go vote for your little, lesser evil (cop-out) and I will continue to vote for the most scrupulous. Those candidates who will stand up and protect the Constitution from all attacks, who are strong believers in the strength of the private sector, and those who want to shrink the role of the federal government at home and abroad.

 

Do you ever stop to think that all of your voting for the lesser evil actually got Obama elected? Crazy, huh? Yeah... people like you who can't see past the two party system. People like you who believe there is a difference between a 25% socialist and a 100% socialist (A 1% butt hole is still an butt hole.).

[hugo]

Socialist Party Platform 1928

 

 

Socialist Party Platform of 1928

 

1. "Nationalization of our natural resources, beginning with the coal mines and water sites, particularly at Boulder Dam and Muscle Shoals."

2. "A publicly owned giant power system under which the federal government shall cooperate with the states and municipalities in the distribution of electrical energy to the people at cost."

3. "National ownership and democratic management of railroads and other means of transportation and communication."

4. "An adequate national program for flood control, flood relief, reforestation, irrigation, and reclamation."

5. "Immediate government relief of the unemployed by the extension of all public works and a program of long range planning of public works ... All persons thus employed to be engaged at hours and wages fixed by bona-fide labor unions."

6. "Loans to states and municipalities without interest for the purpose of carrying on public works and the taking of such other measures as will lessen widespread misery."

7. "A system of unemployment insurance."

8. "The nation-wide extension of public employment agencies in cooperation with city federations of labor."

9. "A system of health and accident insurance and of old age pensions as well as unemployment insurance."

10. "Shortening the workday" and "Securing to every worker a rest period of no less than two days in each week."

11. "Enacting of an adequate federal anti-child labor amendment."

12. "Abolition of the brutal exploitation of convicts under the contract system and substitution of a cooperative organization of industries in penitentiaries and workshops for the benefit of convicts and their dependents."

13. "Increase of taxation on high income levels, of corporation taxes and inheritance taxes, the proceeds to be used for old age pensions and other forms of social insurance."

14. "Appropriation by taxation of the annual rental value of all land held for speculation."

 

This is in the appendix of Milton Friedman's Free to Choose. Friedman pointed out the power of ideas and that while the Socialist Party had few electoral successes in the long run they were the most influential party of the 20th Century. I cannot vote for the lesser evil when it simply slows us down the path to serfdom. There is also a prevailing opinion that you can't work both with the Republicans and the Libertarian or other parties. I am both a Libertarian and a member of the Republican Liberty Caucus "The Ron Paul Republicans". It takes pressure both from within and without to change a parties ideological stance. My hope is to bring back the political ideology of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Barry Goldwater. The Republican Party that nominated John "Screw the 1st Amendment" McCain and his runnning mate Sarah "Tacx the oil companies and mail everyone a check" Palin has strayed far from that ideology. The electoral college system usually means there is no more than a dozen states in play. There is no reason not to vote the Presidential candidate who best represents your views in the rest of the states.

 

Barry Goldwater:

 

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests", I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

 

I'll vote for a Goldwater Republican for President, otherwise it will be the Libertarian candidate. I live in Texas, it ain't like my vote will effect the election outcome.

 

 

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals -- if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

 

RONALD REAGAN, Reason Magazine, Jul. 1, 1975

[RoyalOrleans]

I remember Sarah Palin's speech from the Republican National Convention last September. In my humble opinion, Palin sounds as if she suffers from a bipolar disorder.

 

She should get that checked out. Perhaps that'll keep her home more and she can keep an eye on her daughter's whoring about.

[RoyalOrleans]

That's why I couldn't with good faith put my vote behind anyone in the last Presidential election. I skipped that section.

 

That said...

 

It was horrible.

 

I remember thinking, "Is this the best the GOP can do?". Then it occurred to me, hit me like a bolt of lightning, McCain is supposed to lose to Obama. The oligarchs could not accomplish with a McCain what they could accomplish with an Obama.

 

So I wrote in Ron Paul who might be the only honest politician on the Hill.

 

Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.

 

Liberty once again must become more important to us than the desire for security and material comfort. Personal safety and economic prosperity can only come as the consequence of liberty. They cannot be provided by an authoritarian government... The foundation for a police state has been put in place, and it's urgent we mobilize resistance before it's too late... Central planning is intellectually bankrupt – and it has bankrupted our country and undermined our moral principles. Respect for individual liberty and dignity is the only answer to government force, force that serves the politically and economically powerful. Our planners and rulers are not geniuses, but rather demagogues and would-be dictators -- always performing their tasks with a cover of humanitarian rhetoric... The collapse of the Soviet system came swiftly and dramatically, without a bloody conflict... It came as no surprise, however, to the devotees of freedom who have understood for decades that socialism was doomed to fail... And so too will the welfare/warfare state fail... A free society is based on the key principle that the government, the president, the Congress, the courts, and the bureaucrats are incapable of knowing what is best for each and every one of us... A government as a referee is proper, but a government that uses arbitrary force to direct every aspect of society threatens freedom... The time has come for a modern approach to achieving those values that all civilized societies seek. Only in a free society do individuals have the best chance to seek virtue, strive for excellence, improve their economic well-being, and achieve personal happiness... The worthy goals of civilization can only be achieved by freedom loving individuals. When government uses force, liberty is sacrificed and the goals are lost. It is freedom that is the source of all creative energy. If I am to be your president, these are the goals I would seek. I reject the notion that we need a president to run our lives, plan the economy, or police the world... It is much more important to protect individual liberty and privacy than to make government even more secretive and powerful.

- Ron Paul

[RoyalOrleans]

After the November elections, I think the Republicans will force Obama to be more centrist. This will all but neuter Obama as he hits rampart after rampart of GOP stockades.

 

Then all the GOP will be happy that they have a "moderate Republican in practice" in the White House.

[RoyalOrleans]

Agreed, I like a lot of things they say, but when you look down to the meat of the policies they want you find huge holes.

 

Name one instance of these "huge holes" without going into your whole "libertarians voted for Obama" balcony speech.

[timesjoke]

What is getting lost here is I am bad mouthing Palin because I want the Republicans to nominate someone in the the tradition of Goldwater and Reagan. I want another Reagan. Snaf and TJ are happy with GW in a skirt. I hope to vote for a Republican who is not a stinking socialist.

And if you can't get perfection, you will have a temper tantrum and refuse to support her or anyone else you see as less than perfect and that decision by you is what got someone like Obama elected.

 

 

I believe you said in another thread that you did not want to vote for the least evil because their destination was the same but you keep ignoring things like nominating judges, that one thing alone drastically changes the game because while you do not like to vote for a guy who believes in 75% of what you believe, your also not voting for the kinds of Judges that 75% person would put into office and the kinds of damage activist Judges could do to the fabrick of America.

 

 

Sure, you and Joe can claim your "pure" but your attitudes of only voting for perfection means your doing more harm than good in reality.

 

 

A wasted vote is a vote for Obama, so everything he produces and every Judge he puts in office is your fault because you were too trapped by your "purity" to accept that something you have to meet someone where in the middle.

 

 

 

Sometimes... when you hold out for everything, you walk away with nothing. ~ unknown

[timesjoke]

Name one instance of these "huge holes" without going into your whole "libertarians voted for Obama" balcony speech.

Well they did vote for Obama, that is a valid point and if your too blinded to see why that is a problem you will not see any other point either.

 

 

Ron Paul for example promises to withdraw from every agreement in the world like NATO and says he will never support any military action away from American soil for any reason. He forgets that without France and other "FRIENDS" helping America, we would not today be free. I agree we should pull way, way back and force other Countries to help with the many problems we always end up taking point on, but I do not believe completely isolating ourselves from the world is the right thing to do either. Ron Paul is simply the far end of the spectrum just like Pelosi is the far end of the Democrat spectrum. The liberals allow their radicals run their party, I do not think we should be doing the same as the liberals.

[RoyalOrleans]

Well they did vote for Obama, that is a valid point and if your too blinded to see why that is a problem you will not see any other point either.

 

 

Ron Paul for example promises to withdraw from every agreement in the world like NATO and says he will never support any military action away from American soil for any reason. He forgets that without France and other "FRIENDS" helping America, we would not today be free. I agree we should pull way, way back and force other Countries to help with the many problems we always end up taking point on, but I do not believe completely isolating ourselves from the world is the right thing to do either. Ron Paul is simply the far end of the spectrum just like Pelosi is the far end of the Democrat spectrum. The liberals allow their radicals run their party, I do not think we should be doing the same as the liberals.

 

Do you have any links to back up your argument?

 

One of the many things that I agree with Dr. Paul is the fact that NATO, the UN, and other organizations just allow for the expotential growth of government. The one thing I fear is a governing world authority where countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, France, et al kick up taxes to that authority. We're damn near impotent now with all the debt we owe to China, but according to the Keynesian's China has a problem because we owe them money.

 

Dr. Paul's scaleback of involvement in warfare is due to fact that we are broke. Warfare has to be funded; not only by the lives of solders, but the taxes collected from the citizens. We can hardly support our allies when we can't even support ourselves.

 

Occupation of a country costs money. We cannot afford long-standing occupation without capital to fund support. Again, we cannot afford it. This country is broke.

 

If we are "attacked", I'm sure a libertarian will do the right thing and retaliate. Yet, I agree that we don't need to wage a long lasting, money-draining war. Get in there and get out.

[ImWithStupid]

Ron Paul is way too extreme on his foreign policy goals. He has often spoken about closing all overseas military bases, leaving South Korea to let the two countries unite on their own, and other isolationist policies.

[RoyalOrleans]

Ron Paul is way too extreme on his foreign policy goals. He has often spoken about closing all overseas military bases, leaving South Korea to let the two countries unite on their own, and other isolationist policies.

 

While I agree with alliances, I don't agree with spilling our own blood and draining our economy to fortify a country that should be defending themselves.

 

If the country is too week to defend itself... tough. I'd say that we can offer support if and only if all neighboring countries of like mind do not have the means to support.

 

I'd like to know where in the Constitution does it say that we have to be an international big brother.

 

The fact is, we have more enemies within the State than we do outside.

 

They use [the term Isolationist] all the time, and they do that to be very negative. There are a few people in the country who say, "Well, that's good. I sort of like that term." I don't particularly like the term because I do not think I am an isolationist at all. Because along with the advice of not getting involved in entangling alliances and into the internal affairs of other countries, the Founders said – and it's permissible under the Constitution – to be friends with people, trade with people, communicate with them, and get along with them – but stay out of the military alliances. The irony is they accuse us, who would like to be less interventionist and keep our troops at home, of being isolationist. Yet if you look at the results of the policy of the last six years, we find that we are more isolated than ever before. So I claim the policy of those who charge us with being isolationists is really diplomatic isolationism. They are not willing to talk to Syria. They are not willing to talk to Iran. They are not willing to trade with people that might have questionable people in charge. We have literally isolated ourselves. We have less friends and more enemies than ever before. So in a way, it's one of the unintended consequences of their charges. They are the true isolationists, I believe. - Ron Paul

 

One thing that we cannot get around, is the fact that we are broke and owe a shitload to the Chinese.

[ImWithStupid]

And if you can't get perfection, you will have a temper tantrum and refuse to support her or anyone else you see as less than perfect and that decision by you is what got someone like Obama elected.

 

 

I believe you said in another thread that you did not want to vote for the least evil because their destination was the same but you keep ignoring things like nominating judges, that one thing alone drastically changes the game because while you do not like to vote for a guy who believes in 75% of what you believe, your also not voting for the kinds of Judges that 75% person would put into office and the kinds of damage activist Judges could do to the fabrick of America.

 

 

Sure, you and Joe can claim your "pure" but your attitudes of only voting for perfection means your doing more harm than good in reality.

 

 

A wasted vote is a vote for Obama, so everything he produces and every Judge he puts in office is your fault because you were too trapped by your "purity" to accept that something you have to meet someone where in the middle.

 

 

 

Sometimes... when you hold out for everything, you walk away with nothing. ~ unknown

 

 

I have two words for your stupid argument. David Souter.

 

That's where you vote for the best person to be Senator. Might want to learn a bit about checks and balances of the federal government. Just because the pres makes a suggestion for a cadidate to the court, doesn't mean they make it on.

 

I'll stick to my principles, you keep on keepin' on being a sellout.

[timesjoke]

Do you have any links to back up your argument?

 

You must be kidding, I always have facts to back myself up but the disturbing thing is you don't know something as basic as this. Even IWS just backed up some of it but you know nothing about Ron Paul's possitions?

 

 

First of all Ron paul blames America for 9/11, he clearly said American policy caused the muslims to do what they did. Do you really want another "blame America" President?

 

If Bill Maher loves you, you might be a liberal:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYDt7kC3Z0

 

Ron Paul was the only person to refuse to vote for the House Resolution 180, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007. His reason for this was he believe trade should never be used as a barganing tool.

 

 

 

 

 

One of the many things that I agree with Dr. Paul is the fact that NATO, the UN, and other organizations just allow for the expotential growth of government. The one thing I fear is a governing world authority where countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, France, et al kick up taxes to that authority. We're damn near impotent now with all the debt we owe to China, but according to the Keynesian's China has a problem because we owe them money.

 

I also agree that we need to scale way, way back, but not completely isolate, that is going too far.

 

Ron Paul's montra has always been "trade and talk, but no troops."

 

 

Dr. Paul's scaleback of involvement in warfare is due to fact that we are broke. Warfare has to be funded; not only by the lives of solders, but the taxes collected from the citizens. We can hardly support our allies when we can't even support ourselves.

 

Occupation of a country costs money. We cannot afford long-standing occupation without capital to fund support. Again, we cannot afford it. This country is broke.

 

Well he is looking at the cost now but Ron Paul has been against any kind of force for a very long time. Ron Paul consistently says America should have never gotten involved in any conflict outside our borders.

 

 

 

If we are "attacked", I'm sure a libertarian will do the right thing and retaliate. Yet, I agree that we don't need to wage a long lasting, money-draining war. Get in there and get out.

I take him for his word and he says no, there is never a time American troops should leave American soil.

 

 

He adds about half way into this video that there are always consequences for acting to interveen.........."ALL BAD". So Ron Paul says the results of our actions have all ended with bad.

 

The final part he says "We should stay at home and mind our own business". If that is not clear cut isolationist, what is?

[timesjoke]

I have two words for your stupid argument. David Souter.

 

And we got Sonia Sotomayor to replace him because Obama was elected, if the splinter groups and the guys sitting out like you had bothered to get behind the Republican we would not have Sonia Sotomayor, we would have gotten a real conservative. I did not like a lot of McCain's past, but he really had to change his direction and having people like Palin surrounding him would have made him much more conservative then Bush ever was, just like the wacko radicals that surround Obama keep Obama pushing these socialist ideas.

 

 

That's where you vote for the best person to be Senator. Might want to learn a bit about checks and balances of the federal government. Just because the pres makes a suggestion for a cadidate to the court, doesn't mean they make it on.

 

But if all your getting is radical liberal nominations they can't keep the seat empty forever.

 

 

I'll stick to my principles, you keep on keepin' on being a sellout.

Being as your direct actions got Obama elected it seems your the sellout, not me. I voted for a 75% conservative, you voted 175% to the left of me by helping Obama win the election because you could not be bothered to actually cast a vote for as much conservative as was possible to get.

[RoyalOrleans]

The fact is, I do know about Ron Paul's isolationist position and couldn't agree with him more.

 

Yeah... call me liberal, call me elitist, but you can't refute the fact that we are broke, government is growing exponentially, and perhaps the only way out of this is to do the opposite of what has been done so far? Paying down our debts, securing our borders, auditing the Federal Reserve, etc should be considered before we slap another band-aid president into office. Which you did by voting for a 25% socialist. A 100% socialist, like Obama, can work with a McCain or Palin because one is a quarter of the other.

 

Keep blathering on like a crazy person... you're just finding excuse after excuse to vote for the same old party lines.

 

Most often, our messing around and meddling in the affairs of other countries have unintended consequences. Sometimes just over in those countries that we mess with. We might support one faction, and it doesn't work, and it's used against us. But there's the blowback effect, that the CIA talks about, that it comes back to haunt us later on. For instance, a good example of this is what happened in 1953 when our government overthrew the Mossadegh government and we installed the Shah, in Iran. And for 25 years we had an authoritarian friend over there, and the people hated him, they finally overthrew him, and they've resented us ever since. That had a lot to do with the taking of the hostages in 1979, and for us to ignore that is to ignore history... Also we've antagonized the Iranians by supporting Saddam Hussein, encouraging him to invade Iran. Why wouldn't they be angry at us? But the on again off again thing is what bothers me the most. First we're an ally with Osama bin Laden, then he's our archenemy. Our CIA set up the madrasah schools, and paid money, to train radical Islamists, in Saudi Arabia, to fight communism... But now they've turned on us... Muslims and Arabs have long memories, Americans, unfortunately, have very short memories, and they don't remember our foreign policy that may have antagonized... The founders were absolutely right: stay out of the internal affairs of foreign nations, mind our own business, bring our troops home, and have a strong defense. I think our defense is weaker now than ever. - Ron Paul

[ImWithStupid]

And we got Sonia Sotomayor to replace him because Obama was elected, if the splinter groups and the guys sitting out like you had bothered to get behind the Republican we would not have Sonia Sotomayor, we would have gotten a real conservative.

 

I see you missed the point. Not surprised really.

 

 

and the guys sitting out like you had bothered to get behind the Republican we would not have Sonia Sotomayor, we would have gotten a real conservative

 

I did not like a lot of McCain's past, but he really had to change his direction and having people like Palin surrounding him would have made him much more conservative then Bush ever was, just like the wacko radicals that surround Obama keep Obama pushing these socialist ideas.

 

 

Palin was f'in tool to use and she wouldn't have changed McCain. McCain's past and record is so bad that he had to adopt a running mate that was far right, and thought if she was a woman she'd help with the women's vote.

 

 

But if all your getting is radical liberal nominations they can't keep the seat empty forever.

 

Again, missed the point.

 

 

Being as your direct actions got Obama elected it seems your the sellout, not me. I voted for a 75% conservative, you voted 175% to the left of me by helping Obama win the election because you could not be bothered to actually cast a vote for as much conservative as was possible to get.

 

 

First off, if you believe that McCain is a 75% conservative, you're less informed than I thought.

 

McCain isn't even half as conservative as GW, and that's a pretty low bar to get under. Settling for the lesser of evils is what gave us McCain as a candidate and a weak Republican party.

 

It seems you and Snaf really have no grasp of what the tea party movement is about. It's about supporting the most conservative candidate, despite the letter after their name, and if the Republican party wants to get behind it and actually court the best candidate, great, until they get it through their thick skulls, I guess they will keep losing, like in NY 23 where you would have voted for Skozzafava because that's who Newt Gingrich and the RNC said to vote for, not Hoffman who was the real conservative choice. Funny thing is, Michael Steele and Newt both appologized and ate crow, because they were only backing Skozzafava because they thought she was most likely to win and admitted it was the wrong approach.

 

In the choice of Stalin or Mao, how would you vote?

[ImWithStupid]

 

He adds about half way into this video that there are always consequences for acting to interveen.........."ALL BAD". So Ron Paul says the results of our actions have all ended with bad.

 

The final part he says "We should stay at home and mind our own business". If that is not clear cut isolationist, what is?

 

 

Well he's wrong. If we had not interveened in WWII, in Europe, the US would never have become the economic force of the world, nor would we have emerged a superpower and who knows where that would have left the world if the USSR was the only super power. Great Britain was too broke and in decline because of WWI and WWII.

 

As for "We should stay at home and mind our own business" I have always argued that we need to stop being the world's police force. We need to make other countries protect themselves. Let's see how well European countries can afford their socialistic policies when they have to protect themselves, but I see nothing wrong with a proactive approach to defense. I don't think we should have to wait to be attacked to protect ourselves. That's the problem with the current engagement policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, you can't engage unless already fired upon. It didn't work in Somalia in the 1990's and it's prolonging the current wars.

[timesjoke]

I see you missed the point. Not surprised really.

 

Don't turn to insults Joe, that is a show of weakness, we can disagree without going down that road.

 

You point was that Bush put foward a guy who was liberal, or at best middle to liberal, but where have I ever said Bush was a conservative? While McCain helped come up with the illegal amnesty bill he quickly backed off from it once public opinion was against it but Bush did not. That proves that at least McCain will listen to the voice of the people and will change his possitions to what they want.

 

I understood your point but your point was irrelivent, that was then and this is now and you can't live in the past. McCain had made promises he had to keep, unlike the liberals the conservatives do remember promises and will rip him apart if he did not stick to his promises.

 

 

 

Palin was f'in tool to use and she wouldn't have changed McCain. McCain's past and record is so bad that he had to adopt a running mate that was far right, and thought if she was a woman she'd help with the women's vote.

 

No matter what he thought of her, she would have been in a possition to push for the things she believed in and no matter what some people say, she is still 99% conservative and a far cry from the pure socialist we now have because people like you will never accept that sometimes you can't always get what you want and you have to accept compromise. Getting 75% of what you wanted to include much better justices would have been a huge win over what we now have.

 

 

 

Again, missed the point.

 

No, I answered the real point, Bush gave up, he accepted he could not get a conservative justice approved and let them control him, I do not believe McCain would have let them do that, just keep putting people before them and let the Congress look the fool for not approving someone just like Bush did with the budgets he refused to sign and the support for the war he demanded and would not back down. If he had taken the same stance on appointments he would have won.

 

 

 

 

First off, if you believe that McCain is a 75% conservative, you're less informed than I thought.

 

Again with insults?

 

McCain has I believe a 82% conservative rating withthe American Conservative Union, most of the non-conservative reputation he has gotten is for a couple big pieces of legislation, not his general outlook or vote record.

 

 

McCain isn't even half as conservative as GW, and that's a pretty low bar to get under. Settling for the lesser of evils is what gave us McCain as a candidate and a weak Republican party.

 

GW was way more liberal than McCain, at the end of his time in office Bush was kissing every liberal's ass he could find in an attempt to save some face for his presidency.

 

 

Where I see a drastic difference in McCain is where he will actually listen to his conservative voters....Bush would not.

 

 

It seems you and Snaf really have no grasp of what the tea party movement is about. It's about supporting the most conservative candidate, despite the letter after their name, and if the Republican party wants to get behind it and actually court the best candidate, great, until they get it through their thick skulls, I guess they will keep losing, like in NY 23 where you would have voted for Skozzafava because that's who Newt Gingrich and the RNC said to vote for, not Hoffman who was the real conservative choice. Funny thing is, Michael Steele and Newt both appologized and ate crow, because they were only backing Skozzafava because they thought she was most likely to win and admitted it was the wrong approach.

 

In the choice of Stalin or Mao, how would you vote?

 

So now your using the same liberal tactics of hugo?

 

Stalin or Mao? You have to say based on a couple small examples suddenly McCain and Palin are that bad? You toss the baby out with the bathwater with that kind of perfection expectation and that is why you will always be more helpful for people like Obama than you will ever be for the conservative movement. The tea party movement is not about who is the perfect conservative in every way, it is more about getting our elected officials to listen to us, I have traveled to 11 different cities to attend seperate tea parties and not one time has a single speaker talked about getting a perfect conservative in office, in fact there are even democratic tea party groups, did you know that?

 

The tea party is not just about conservative or liberal, it is about getting control back over Washington.

 

In fact, old school liberals were the real conservatives in the old days Joe, did you know that?

 

 

The point is to get people into office that will support common sense approaches to governing, how many people would be up in arms if the healthcare bill was smaller and more common sense? Almost none Joe, peopel are pissed off at the way things are being done, not the people who are doing it. With few exceptions, politicians are lawyers, and what is a lawyer?

 

A person trained and who has perfected the art of telling lies.

[timesjoke]

The fact is, I do know about Ron Paul's isolationist position and couldn't agree with him more.

 

So you were just pretending not to know? Agree with him, be my guest, but you can't say that it is right to turn our backs on our friends when even our own America would not exist as it is today without the help of friends like France. France gave us the help we needed to obtain our freedom and it is simply self serving to say that we will now withold our help to other people because we want to isolate.

 

Yeah... call me liberal, call me elitist, but you can't refute the fact that we are broke, government is growing exponentially, and perhaps the only way out of this is to do the opposite of what has been done so far?

 

Our actions up to now have made us the powerhouse we are today my friend, as Joe points out, our actions made the prosperity that followed possible. If we suddenly emptied out all our bases around the world as Paul wants us to do, there would be a free for all and considering that all foreign oil would stop flowing and the world trade would end, you can get ready to move back to the winderness if someone as radical as Ron Paul takes office.

 

Paying down our debts, securing our borders, auditing the Federal Reserve, etc should be considered before we slap another band-aid president into office. Which you did by voting for a 25% socialist.

 

All those things can be accomplished without isolating ourselves from the world, one is not exclusive to the other. But we will get a lot closer to conservative idea with a 75% conservative then we are going to get by turning 175% to the left.

 

A 100% socialist, like Obama, can work with a McCain or Palin because one is a quarter of the other.

 

I don't know, McCain and Palin are getting a lot of good shots in on Obama lately and he looks to be getting more and more desperate as Palin and McCain are being proven right.

 

There is a lot more to working together than just the three people you mention, most of the stuff Obama is doing is at the insistence of his advisors, Obama was backing down from the healthcare fight and promised to shift gears to jobs until his advisors talked him into taking a hard line and trying to force it. The kinds of people who would be surrounding McCain and Palin would have helped to keep the train on the conservative tracks just like Obama's advisors are keeping Obama on the socialist track.

 

 

Keep blathering on like a crazy person... you're just finding excuse after excuse to vote for the same old party lines.

And your just finding excuse after excuse to waste votes and actually help people like Obama get elected. If you do not support who can win, then your actually helping the other side.

[RoyalOrleans]

So you were just pretending not to know? Agree with him, be my guest, but you can't say that it is right to turn our backs on our friends when even our own America would not exist as it is today without the help of friends like France. France gave us the help we needed to obtain our freedom and it is simply self serving to say that we will now withold our help to other people because we want to isolate.

 

And the US helped to free France from Nazi occupation. Our debt to them has been repaid.

 

Our actions up to now have made us the powerhouse we are today my friend, as Joe points out, our actions made the prosperity that followed possible. If we suddenly emptied out all our bases around the world as Paul wants us to do, there would be a free for all and considering that all foreign oil would stop flowing and the world trade would end, you can get ready to move back to the winderness if someone as radical as Ron Paul takes office.

 

I'm not your friend, Times. I graduated high school, I know who won and who lost WWII.

 

World trade would not end with Ron Paul, but maybe foreign oil would. To that I say, "So long!", because we NEED to become energy independent from those fucking oil sheiks. Drill here, drill now.

 

Free trade is one of the pillars of a capitalist society. We can trade freely with every nation on the map, but not until we have capitalism here first.

 

As I don't believe in complete and sudden withdrawal from any of our bases worldwide, I do believe in a steady withdrawal and let the locals defend themselves. If they can't, "Oh well... we have given you support for X-amount of years. If you can't take care of yourself by now, let some other country prop you up."

 

All those things can be accomplished without isolating ourselves from the world, one is not exclusive to the other. But we will get a lot closer to conservative idea with a 75% conservative then we are going to get by turning 175% to the left.

 

While isolating ourselves from the rest of the world sounds ugly and is meant to be detrimental, I can't see anything wrong with scaling back to heal the wrongs from within our country. Then, maybe, then we will be able to get involved in world affairs. Right now, we need to take care of ourselves and restore the Republic to what our Framers outlined.

 

Ohh... and a 75% conservative is more likely to compromise with a 100% socialist.

 

 

I don't know, McCain and Palin are getting a lot of good shots in on Obama lately and he looks to be getting more and more desperate as Palin and McCain are being proven right.

 

There is a lot more to working together than just the three people you mention, most of the stuff Obama is doing is at the insistence of his advisors, Obama was backing down from the healthcare fight and promised to shift gears to jobs until his advisors talked him into taking a hard line and trying to force it. The kinds of people who would be surrounding McCain and Palin would have helped to keep the train on the conservative tracks just like Obama's advisors are keeping Obama on the socialist track.

 

Hey... its easy to take shots at Obama. It's not too hard to do.

 

And your just finding excuse after excuse to waste votes and actually help people like Obama get elected. If you do not support who can win, then your actually helping the other side.

 

You're an idiot if you believe that there are good guys and bad guys, black and white... it's all shades of gray. The two party system is a complete and utter failure, they are out of touch with the average American, and they will pander to whatever constituency to possibly get re-elected.

 

The politician, even Ron Paul, might work to his/her own device, but it is the Constitution that should restrain their intent. More and more, the Constitution has become an obstacle to get around or over.

 

Right now, despite his shortcomings, Ron Paul and a few like minded individuals are the only people I put any trust in at all.

[ImWithStupid]

Don't turn to insults Joe, that is a show of weakness, we can disagree without going down that road.

 

You point was that Bush put foward a guy who was liberal, or at best middle to liberal, but where have I ever said Bush was a conservative? While McCain helped come up with the illegal amnesty bill he quickly backed off from it once public opinion was against it but Bush did not. That proves that at least McCain will listen to the voice of the people and will change his possitions to what they want.

 

I understood your point but your point was irrelivent, that was then and this is now and you can't live in the past. McCain had made promises he had to keep, unlike the liberals the conservatives do remember promises and will rip him apart if he did not stick to his promises.

 

 

Really? That's how you remembered the immigration debate? You are really trying to convice yourself that McCain backed off. He still had the same stance during the election, years later.

 

 

Again with insults?

 

 

Wow! There wasn't a single insult in my post. First the other thread on first dates and now here. Are you going to take your ball and go home.

 

 

Where I see a drastic difference in McCain is where he will actually listen to his conservative voters....Bush would not.

 

 

No. He will try to save his arse when an election comes around. Just like he has been lately because he has a serious challenger for this years election.

 

 

So now your using the same liberal tactics of hugo?

 

Stalin or Mao? You have to say based on a couple small examples suddenly McCain and Palin are that bad?

 

In fact, old school liberals were the real conservatives in the old days Joe, did you know that?

 

 

Again, you missed the point. I never said anyone was equal to either Stalin or Mao. In your little world where you would have voted for Skozzafava over Hoffman in NY 23, with your only options being Stalin or Mao, who would you vote for?

 

Before you begin patting yourself on the back about "old school liberals", liberal didn't mean what it means today. Ron Paul would be an old school liberal, not Obama. Did you know that, Louis?

 

Side note, since there's no way to prove one way or another, no need to reply as it's my opinion, but I'm throwing a big BS flag on your 11 cities tea party claim.

[timesjoke]

And the US helped to free France from Nazi occupation. Our debt to them has been repaid.

 

But did France owe us a debt before they helped us? Do you only support doing what is right if there is an obligation?

 

 

I'm not your friend, Times. I graduated high school, I know who won and who lost WWII.

 

We are friends in the world RO, you can hate me for daring to stand against you but that does not accomplish anything, and neither does trying to pretend like things would have been the same if we had stayed out of WW2. Most of the prosperity in America and Europe was because of our helping in WW2. That was good, but Ron Paul calles everything we have ever done with force bad.

 

I will not support another guy who blames America for things like 9/11. Him and Obama share a lot in common on that point and that is why that meyer idiot loved Paul as well.

 

 

World trade would not end with Ron Paul, but maybe foreign oil would. To that I say, "So long!", because we NEED to become energy independent from those fucking oil sheiks. Drill here, drill now.

 

Free trade is one of the pillars of a capitalist society. We can trade freely with every nation on the map, but not until we have capitalism here first.

 

Hard to have trade when the world is at war.

 

When even a small battle is happening in the world trade declines and if every soldier is removed from every american base as Paul has promised, there would be world war again. The first place to have a big war would be the Muslims eliminating the Jews. Then north korea would be fighting south korea. Russia will go take a few stragglers back under their wing and a general state of chaos will take over....and that is not good for trade.

 

Trade is only possible with peace, and like it or not, peace only exists because of what we do.

 

 

As I don't believe in complete and sudden withdrawal from any of our bases worldwide, I do believe in a steady withdrawal and let the locals defend themselves. If they can't, "Oh well... we have given you support for X-amount of years. If you can't take care of yourself by now, let some other country prop you up."

 

We are not talking about what you want, we are talking about what Ron Paul has promised and he wants a complete removal as fast as possible.

 

And consider what that would mean at home. Suddenly all those troops comming home without a job. I am sure 300,000+ new people on unemployment would make things better......

 

 

While isolating ourselves from the rest of the world sounds ugly and is meant to be detrimental, I can't see anything wrong with scaling back to heal the wrongs from within our country. Then, maybe, then we will be able to get involved in world affairs. Right now, we need to take care of ourselves and restore the Republic to what our Framers outlined.

 

The problem is our republic only operates because of trade, we need massive imports to keep us working and if you isolate you will rip our Nation apart. We get about 70% of our oil from imports, how do you propose we survive that loss? At the very least we need to be able to sustain our own energy usage before we isolate.

 

 

Ohh... and a 75% conservative is more likely to compromise with a 100% socialist.

 

Not really, your just assuming they would but in practice, there is enough animosity to keep them from working together most of the time and as I said before, there will be enough real conservatives working as a buffer between them that they won't really have much of a chance to work together.

 

 

Hey... its easy to take shots at Obama. It's not too hard to do.

 

And the problem is this, McCain would not want to be facing the shots from both sides, he knows that the harder conservatives will be watching him close and any slip will earn him severe attacks. McCain would try very hard to stay true to his conservative promises. If nothing else he has proven to listen to the people, that is more then Bush ever did.

 

 

You're an idiot if you believe that there are good guys and bad guys, black and white... it's all shades of gray. The two party system is a complete and utter failure, they are out of touch with the average American, and they will pander to whatever constituency to possibly get re-elected.

 

Hey, it is me saying a 75% conservative is better than a 100% socialist, I am accepting the shades of gray as a reality and taking what I can get, it is you and a couple other people saying you will only vote for someone who is black or white and you will never accept shades of gray.

 

Take your own advise, accept the shades of gray closer to your own ideas instead of helping the complete opposite of your wants to get elected.

 

 

The politician, even Ron Paul, might work to his/her own device, but it is the Constitution that should restrain their intent. More and more, the Constitution has become an obstacle to get around or over.

 

Right now, despite his shortcomings, Ron Paul and a few like minded individuals are the only people I put any trust in at all.

So you trust them in one way while they rip America apart in different ways?

 

I will not swap one radical element for another. The liberals are controlled by their radicals and see how crazy they have become? Why would you want to emulate their behaviors just from a different direction? Isolating our Contry will kill about half the jobs and stop all travel because there would be no oil for gas. No products on the shelves because all out products come from over seas, hell the whitehouse is buying new stemware from over seas because nobody in America makes what they want here in America anymore. Most of the banks share ownerships and investments all over the world, you think this last bank collapse was big, let the wars start and see what happens.

 

Then you know what, watch as another civil war starts here because people are starving to death and there is no money exchanges anymore and we have to go back to the barter system because the dollar will be without any value at all.

 

The only thing keeping the USD as strong as it is, is the oil sales, once we isolate ourselves what little trade that is happening will be by the euro (something their trying to do anyway) and suddenly american dollars will be without value for international trade.

[timesjoke]

Really? That's how you remembered the immigration debate? You are really trying to convice yourself that McCain backed off. He still had the same stance during the election, years later.

 

No, your wrong on that, he was not pushing amnesty after that, in fact he said many times the voters have voiced their opinions and he would do as they want. He did say we needed some kind of solution but he was talking about guest worker programs where we actually identify who is in America, I support that as do most conservatives.

 

 

 

 

Wow! There wasn't a single insult in my post. First the other thread on first dates and now here. Are you going to take your ball and go home.

 

I see you missed the point. Not surprised really.

 

Why were you not surprised Joe? I am sure there is a nice reason why, lol.

 

 

 

 

No. He will try to save his arse when an election comes around. Just like he has been lately because he has a serious challenger for this years election.

 

All men are motivated to pay the bills Joe, I am sure you go out of your way to piss off your bosses right?

 

Of course not, so why expect anything different from a politician? That is the surprising part from the liberals lately, they are completely ignoring the voters when they usually toe the line with them, I guess the prospect of a new monster entitlement is just too much to pass up even if they get fired.

 

 

 

 

Again, you missed the point. I never said anyone was equal to either Stalin or Mao. In your little world where you would have voted for Skozzafava over Hoffman in NY 23, with your only options being Stalin or Mao, who would you vote for?

 

Both stalin and mao would be running for the democratic nomination so one would be eliminated leaving one of them against a Republican canidate that I would fully support because that would be my only option, I surely would not waste my vote to help one of them get elected as so many splinter groups who are normally fairly conservative have done recently.

 

Before you begin patting yourself on the back about "old school liberals", liberal didn't mean what it means today. Ron Paul would be an old school liberal, not Obama. Did you know that, Louis?

 

Side note, since there's no way to prove one way or another, no need to reply as it's my opinion, but I'm throwing a big BS flag on your 11 cities tea party claim.

Of course I knew that, it was my point, I know a lot more about politics than you do my friend.

 

You didn't even know the tea parties were not about getting pure conservatives in office so your just running with your assumptions again, and doubt my 11 cities if you want, here in Florida we have had more independent tea parties than most States. These parties have been happening for a long time and I have been to a lot of them. Interesting that you fall back on saying I lie instead of admitting you were wrong about the tea party movement, you didn't know there were democrat versions of the tea parties did you?

 

Instead of leaning on trying to take shots at me, it would be easier to just go get informed.

[snafu]

Any way you l lthest thinkgfromSome foorm of socilisim. I can'tWe have to live in some form of socialism. Sarah Palin is the farthest thing to that when it comes to Obama. Even hugo and RO has to see that. =ee what Ig so I'll have to clean

[ImWithStupid]

No, your wrong on that, he was not pushing amnesty after that, in fact he said many times the voters have voiced their opinions and he would do as they want. He did say we needed some kind of solution but he was talking about guest worker programs where we actually identify who is in America, I support that as do most conservatives.

 

 

BS false answer.

 

 

Why were you not surprised Joe? I am sure there is a nice reason why, lol.

 

 

You are very learned in the art of misunderstanding things and then taking them into circular arguments of ignorance.

 

 

All men are motivated to pay the bills Joe, I am sure you go out of your way to piss off your bosses right?

 

Of course not, so why expect anything different from a politician? That is the surprising part from the liberals lately, they are completely ignoring the voters when they usually toe the line with them, I guess the prospect of a new monster entitlement is just too much to pass up even if they get fired.

 

 

Yea. John McCain needs to worry about keeping his Senate job to pay the bills. He's a sellout just like you.

 

 

Both stalin and mao would be running for the democratic nomination so one would be eliminated leaving one of them against a Republican canidate that I would fully support because that would be my only option, I surely would not waste my vote to help one of them get elected as so many splinter groups who are normally fairly conservative have done recently.

 

 

Cop out answer and a dodge. It was quite obvious that you only had two choices. You fail.

 

I also see you show more ignorance of politics. You are implying that Democrat = communist. You fail again. You probably think that means Republican = Fascist.

 

 

Of course I knew that, it was my point, I know a lot more about politics than you do my friend.

 

You didn't even know the tea parties were not about getting pure conservatives in office so your just running with your assumptions again, and doubt my 11 cities if you want, here in Florida we have had more independent tea parties than most States. These parties have been happening for a long time and I have been to a lot of them.

 

 

Kind of like when you had to claim that you were "classy" if you have to claim to be more knowledgeable about politics than someone else, you probably aren't.

 

You don't seem to even know the difference between political party and ideology.

 

Just look below...

 

 

Interesting that you fall back on saying I lie instead of admitting you were wrong about the tea party movement, you didn't know there were democrat versions of the tea parties did you?

 

 

I never said anything about tea parties being republican or democrat. True tea party movement isn't either.

 

"democrat versions of the tea parties"!!! :lol:

 

Epic fail.