|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 8, 2010 12:41:03 GMT -8
I can see that your idea of a Conservative and mine are vastly different. There is nothing radical about trying to cut spending in part by reining in irresponsible programs and getting back to responsible sensible regulation that will let business and especially small business to flourish. Most any poll that you see now has independents turning toward the Republicans. I want to see the Republicans in turn propose some business and family friendly policy. They seem to be unable to curb the urge to spend just like the Democrats. I don't consider that radical either. But I also don't consider it conservative. Any idiot, no matter which side of the political spectrum they are on, knows that you can't run up the debt that we have run up without someday, somebody having to reduce their standard of living in order to pay for it. Or at least to pay the debt servicing on it... How much of our federal budget now is spent on debt servicing? I don't remember the number -- although the 40% that sticks in my head seems high. But whatever it is, it is nothing more than a reduction in our standard of living to service the debt from years gone bye. And to the extent that we pass debt on to future generations, we are doing nothing more than enforcing upon them "taxation without representation". Except in times of national emergency, in my view a vote to pass an unbalanced budget is damn near an act of treason. And if I were President, (and obviously had one hell of a majority in Congress), you would not like my cuts. Start with this -- virtually all social spending -- including Social Security and Medicare -- should be means tested. The argument hasn't been over whether or not there was a need to bring spending in line with revenues. The argument has been over how best to do it. What you consider to be "sensible", someone else considers to be "horrific". And what they consider "sensible" you consider to be "horrific". So nobody does anything except to spend money on pork barrel projects that create jobs in their home districts -- so they can get re-elected to again not do anything. Yoda out... I can't find a place to start an arguement! Run and you have my vote! |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 8, 2010 12:42:40 GMT -8
I can see that your idea of a Conservative and mine are vastly different. There is nothing radical about trying to cut spending in part by reining in irresponsible programs and getting back to responsible sensible regulation that will let business and especially small business to flourish. Most any poll that you see now has independents turning toward the Republicans. I want to see the Republicans in turn propose some business and family friendly policy. They seem to be unable to curb the urge to spend just like the Democrats. That's not what he's talking about. He's talking about the "family friendy" crap you talk about, which is what yoda RIGHTLY calls policy "grounded in the bible." He may speak for himself if there is a question. Feel free to egg him on anyway!  |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Aug 8, 2010 13:03:50 GMT -8
I can't find a place to start an arguement! Run and you have my vote! I doubt it. Think it through. If (for example) Social Security were means tested, the only people who would qualify for it would be the poor. For the rich who have already paid into it therefore, it is basically confiscatory -- they paid into it and get nothing out of it. It would basically become a minimum national income for the elderly. (Actually, the poor would get more than they do now, the middle class would be phased out of it and the rich would get nothing at all. In exchange for that, future SS "contributions" would fall quite a lot and people would be on their own to invest) I can't imagine you and others on the right sitting still for someone who supported such an approach. Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 8, 2010 13:24:41 GMT -8
Herein lies a big problem. Palin or Bachman are not my favorites, but when I see the panic they cause among liberals I must laugh. Your problem isn't the panic that Palin or Bachman cause the liberals. It is the panic that they cause everybody who falls between slightly conservative and moderate. Those are the people who decide most elections. Yoda out... You mean like these? www.gallup.com/poll/141131/obama-job-approval-rating-down-among-independents.aspxLooks like the "panic" is over the one who actually has his jackboot on their neck. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 8, 2010 13:34:14 GMT -8
...where are the Buckleys and Goldwaters? I've posted before that I thought that, if Goldwater were alive today, he would more likely be a Democrat than a Republican. Republican social policy today is no longer grounded in the Constitution; it's grounded in the Bible. That's why they have switched from protecting individual freedoms (such as abortion rights, gay rights, conservation, etc -- all of which Goldwater supported) to attempting to legislate those rights away in favor of "good Christian values". Yoda out... While it is kind of silly to speculate on how a man long deceased would align himself politically today, I'd have to say if you think Goldwater would align himself with the current regime you are in serious need of attending drying-out school. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 8, 2010 13:44:54 GMT -8
I've posted before that I thought that, if Goldwater were alive today, he would more likely be a Democrat than a Republican. Republican social policy today is no longer grounded in the Constitution; it's grounded in the Bible. That's why they have switched from protecting individual freedoms (such as abortion rights, gay rights, conservation, etc -- all of which Goldwater supported) to attempting to legislate those rights away in favor of "good Christian values". Yoda out... While it is kind of silly to speculate on how a man long deceased would align himself politically today, I'd have to say if you think Goldwater would align himself with the current regime you are in serious need of attending drying-out school. I understand that Goldwater supported both abortion rights and gay rights. Are there any current GOP stars that support rights and abortion? I can't think of any. I guess the question is, would the current GOP accept Goldwater. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Aug 8, 2010 13:55:09 GMT -8
Your problem isn't the panic that Palin or Bachman cause the liberals. It is the panic that they cause everybody who falls between slightly conservative and moderate. Those are the people who decide most elections. Yoda out... You mean like these? www.gallup.com/poll/141131/obama-job-approval-rating-down-among-independents.aspxLooks like the "panic" is over the one who actually has his jackboot on their neck. Well now there you go again... I said that Palin and Bachman cause panic among independents and your response is that Obama's approval rating among independents has fallen to 38%. Where the hell is the connection between those two? I never said that Obama was popular among the independents; I said that Palin wasn't. And the former doesn't disprove the latter. Nice try tho. Incidentally, I have an unfavorable opinion of a lot of the candidates that I vote for. In fact, I often do -- it's usually a case of holding my nose and voting for someone that hopefully isn't as bad as the other guy. The more conservative the Republican nominees, the greater the liklihood that those who have an unfavorable opinion of Obama will vote for Democrats anyway. And the Republicans seem to be going pretty conservative. Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 8, 2010 14:37:07 GMT -8
While it is kind of silly to speculate on how a man long deceased would align himself politically today, I'd have to say if you think Goldwater would align himself with the current regime you are in serious need of attending drying-out school. I understand that Goldwater supported both abortion rights and gay rights. Are there any current GOP stars that support rights and abortion? I can't think of any. I guess the question is, would the current GOP accept Goldwater. I don't know what Goldwater thought about "abortion rights", but I think it's a good idea that should be encouraged. Especially among liberals. As for the " gay homosexual rights" issue, as I recall, he supported allowing them to be able to serve in the military. I don't recall him expressing an opinion on "marriage", though. I know, you didn't specifically say that, you just seem to be trying to create some kind of penumbra under which you can say, "see, see! good conservatives are like this, they can be rolled by the liberals . Did he support homosexual marriage? Maybe he did....Got a cite? If he did, he would be to the left of Obama and Clinton, both of whom are on record of opposing it. I imagine Goldwater would have been faithful to the Constitution, and would not have believed that when the 14th amendment was ratified by the states in 1868, that all those legislatures understood and intended that the equal protection clause extended to approving of homosexual marriage getting the imprimatur of the state. Of course we have at least one queer judge who disagrees with the public. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 8, 2010 14:39:35 GMT -8
Well now there you go again... I said that Palin and Bachman cause panic among independents and your response is that Obama's approval rating among independents has fallen to 38%. Where the hell is the connection between those two? I never said that Obama was popular among the independents; I said that Palin wasn't. And the former doesn't disprove the latter. Nice try tho. Incidentally, I have an unfavorable opinion of a lot of the candidates that I vote for. In fact, I often do -- it's usually a case of holding my nose and voting for someone that hopefully isn't as bad as the other guy. The more conservative the Republican nominees, the greater the liklihood that those who have an unfavorable opinion of Obama will vote for Democrats anyway. And the Republicans seem to be going pretty conservative. Yoda out... Palin and Bachman don't have their jackboots on anyone's neck. Your hero does. That's important. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Aug 8, 2010 15:00:43 GMT -8
Palin and Bachman don't have their jackboots on anyone's neck. Your hero does. That's important. My hero? Whoa there buddy. I voted for McCain -- or rather, I voted against Obama. At the end of the day, I figured that his lack of experience was worse than Palin's lack of experience. Two worst options I have ever seen on a ballot. That said, while Obama is far from being my hero, I would give him a positive approval rating. So far at least, he (Berneke, et al) have kept this recession from becoming a depression. The auto industry would have gone down, etc. We're not out of the woods yet, I think we may yet double dip, but I'll take his performance over right wing dogma anyday. Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 8, 2010 15:45:23 GMT -8
I can't find a place to start an argument! Run and you have my vote! I doubt it. Think it through. If (for example) Social Security were means tested, the only people who would qualify for it would be the poor. For the rich who have already paid into it therefore, it is basically confiscatory -- they paid into it and get nothing out of it. It would basically become a minimum national income for the elderly. (Actually, the poor would get more than they do now, the middle class would be phased out of it and the rich would get nothing at all. In exchange for that, future SS "contributions" would fall quite a lot and people would be on their own to invest) I can't imagine you and others on the right sitting still for someone who supported such an approach. Yoda out... Of course, the devil is always in the details. I could take that idea and make something that I could support. The threshold levels are probably where we would run into the need to compromise. Think also of getting the program out of the hands of Congress and on a cash basis rather on an accrual basis. Think of a plan that had you put say 70% of your contribution into the SSI plan and the remaining 30% into an account owned and managed by some private money manager for your benefit. You could do the means testing at some level on the SSI part of the plan but the remainder is yours. Could you support that kind of idea? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 8, 2010 15:50:55 GMT -8
Well now there you go again... I said that Palin and Bachman cause panic among independents and your response is that Obama's approval rating among independents has fallen to 38%. Where the hell is the connection between those two? I never said that Obama was popular among the independents; I said that Palin wasn't. And the former doesn't disprove the latter. Nice try tho. Incidentally, I have an unfavorable opinion of a lot of the candidates that I vote for. In fact, I often do -- it's usually a case of holding my nose and voting for someone that hopefully isn't as bad as the other guy. The more conservative the Republican nominees, the greater the liklihood that those who have an unfavorable opinion of Obama will vote for Democrats anyway. And the Republicans seem to be going pretty conservative. Yoda out... When you see most polls say that a generic Republican wins just about any race against Obama, don't you think that the folks we are talking about are pretty close to generic? The Republicans could run a head of cabbage on top the ticket with Palin for VP and beat Obama/Biden if the election was today.  |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 8, 2010 15:51:55 GMT -8
Palin and Bachman don't have their jackboots on anyone's neck. Your hero does. That's important. My hero? Whoa there buddy. I voted for McCain -- or rather, I voted against Obama. At the end of the day, I figured that his lack of experience was worse than Palin's lack of experience. Two worst options I have ever seen on a ballot. That said, while Obama is far from being my hero, I would give him a positive approval rating. So far at least, he (Berneke, et al) have kept this recession from becoming a depression. The auto industry would have gone down, etc. We're not out of the woods yet, I think we may yet double dip, but I'll take his performance over right wing dogma anyday. Yoda out... Oh, c'mon. You're not fooling anyone with your line of bull$#!+. We heard it all before: "McCain, yeah!! I'd vote for him in a heartbeat! He's a good moderate Republican who lets the liberals roll him!" That's really the definition of a moderate Republican. One who can get rolled by the liberals. But then, but then!!!... ...when this "moderate"... this "go along to get along"... this "let's reach across the aisle Republican" got the nomination against the left-wing-nut Mussolini wanna-be extremist we ended up with... ...well, suddenly it became "McBush", "McSame", and all that crap. And that was going on before he selected anyone for his running mate. I don't give a damn about your abortion concerns. I said it before, and I'll say it again: Liberals should be REQUIRED to have abortions. And if "right-wing-nut" Reverend So-and-So doesn't like it....TS. I'm hoping for a BIG double-dip. The toilet needs to be flushed. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Aug 8, 2010 16:51:57 GMT -8
Oh, c'mon. You're not fooling anyone with your line of bull$#!+. We heard it all before: "McCain, yeah!! I'd vote for him in a heartbeat! He's a good moderate Republican who lets the liberals roll him!" That's really the definition of a moderate Republican. One who can get rolled by the liberals. But then, but then!!!... ...when this "moderate"... this "go along to get along"... this "let's reach across the aisle Republican" got the nomination against the left-wing-nut Mussolini wanna-be extremist we ended up with... ...well, suddenly it became "McBush", "McSame", and all that crap. And that was going on before he selected anyone for his running mate. I don't give a damn about your abortion concerns. I said it before, and I'll say it again: Liberals should be REQUIRED to have abortions. And if "right-wing-nut" Reverend So-and-So doesn't like it....TS. Sorry to let reality get in the way of your rant but there was no bull$#!+ about anything I posted. It may not fit in with your dogma but reality rarely does. Dogmatics like to cubbyhole people as liberals or fascists or whatever and I don't fit neatly in your little cubbyhole. Too bad. So sad. Without the stereotypes, the dogma doesn't work -- so rather than re-examine the dogma, you claim bull$#!+ because I don't fit the stereotype. Pitiful substitute for intellectual integrity. I have admired McCain for many, many years. But I pretty much stopped admiring him when he chose Palin. It was the ultimate sell out to the extremists. Nobody in his right mind would call her even remotely ready for the VP slot but he needed to "energize" the right and so he sold out. The sellout was of such a massive scale that, in my view, he disqualified himself from the presidency. Or at least he would have if his opponent wasn't in the Illinois State Legislature when we invaded Iraq. At that point, I faced a real dilemma -- do I support McCain despite Palin or do I reject him because of Palin. Ultimately, I voted against Obama. I'm not sure what abortion concerns of mine that you don't give a damn about -- to the best of my knowledge, you don't even know my position on abortion or whether or not I have concerns one way or another. Another stereotype, I suppose. Some of you people really need to learn to think for yourselves. I'm hoping for a BIG double-dip. You and the terrorists. Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Aug 8, 2010 17:07:13 GMT -8
...where are the Buckleys and Goldwaters? I've posted before that I thought that, if Goldwater were alive today, he would more likely be a Democrat than a Republican. Republican social policy today is no longer grounded in the Constitution; it's grounded in the Bible. That's why they have switched from protecting individual freedoms (such as abortion rights, gay rights, conservation, etc -- all of which Goldwater supported) to attempting to legislate those rights away in favor of "good Christian values". Yoda out... Yoda, it could be far worse. The Republicans could be agitating for Sharia Law because it is far more conservative. By comparison, "Good Christian Values" look very very liberal. It is not as bad as you seem to paint it. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Aug 8, 2010 17:08:53 GMT -8
When you see most polls say that a generic Republican wins just about any race against Obama, don't you think that the folks we are talking about are pretty close to generic? The Republicans could run a head of cabbage on top the ticket with Palin for VP and beat Obama/Biden if the election was today. That may be today, but the election is a long way off. If you read that full Gallup article, Obama has a higher approval rating than either Reagan or Clinton had at the same point in their first terms -- and they both won re-election. (Reagan by 18.2% of the popular vote and Clinton by 8.5%). So I think it's a little premature for your heads of cabbage to declare victory. I don't think that an extreme candidate from either party can win the Presidency. And even a moderate faces some huge obstacles when running against an incumbent. Economies tend to improve, wars tend to be more successful, budgets tend to come under a little better control, during an election year. So it comes down to who is the nominee and who does a better job of defining the other guy. As it always does, I suppose. Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 8, 2010 17:10:07 GMT -8
Oh, c'mon. You're not fooling anyone with your line of bull$#!+. We heard it all before: "McCain, yeah!! I'd vote for him in a heartbeat! He's a good moderate Republican who lets the liberals roll him!" That's really the definition of a moderate Republican. One who can get rolled by the liberals. But then, but then!!!... ...when this "moderate"... this "go along to get along"... this "let's reach across the aisle Republican" got the nomination against the left-wing-nut Mussolini wanna-be extremist we ended up with... ...well, suddenly it became "McBush", "McSame", and all that crap. And that was going on before he selected anyone for his running mate. I don't give a damn about your abortion concerns. I said it before, and I'll say it again: Liberals should be REQUIRED to have abortions. And if "right-wing-nut" Reverend So-and-So doesn't like it....TS. Sorry to let reality get in the way of your rant but there was no bull$#!+ about anything I posted. It may not fit in with your dogma but reality rarely does. Dogmatics like to cubbyhole people as liberals or fascists or whatever and I don't fit neatly in your little cubbyhole. Too bad. So sad. Without the stereotypes, the dogma doesn't work -- so rather than re-examine the dogma, you claim bull$#!+ because I don't fit the stereotype. Pitiful substitute for intellectual integrity. I have admired McCain for many, many years. But I pretty much stopped admiring him when he chose Palin. It was the ultimate sell out to the extremists. Nobody in his right mind would call her even remotely ready for the VP slot but he needed to "energize" the right and so he sold out. The sellout was of such a massive scale that, in my view, he disqualified himself from the presidency. Or at least he would have if his opponent wasn't in the Illinois State Legislature when we invaded Iraq. At that point, I faced a real dilemma -- do I support McCain despite Palin or do I reject him because of Palin. Ultimately, I voted against Obama. I'm not sure what abortion concerns of mine that you don't give a damn about -- to the best of my knowledge, you don't even know my position on abortion or whether or not I have concerns one way or another. Another stereotype, I suppose. Some of you people really need to learn to think for yourselves. I'm hoping for a BIG double-dip. You and the terrorists. Yoda out... Yeah. I get it. Anyone who disagrees with you is an extremist. That's been your favorite pejorative. Until now. Now, anyone who crosses you is a terrorist. You really are so f****** pathetic. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Aug 8, 2010 17:26:24 GMT -8
Yoda, it could be far worse. The Republicans could be agitating for Sharia Law because it is far more conservative. By comparison, "Good Christian Values" look very very liberal. It is not as bad as you seem to paint it. I don't dispute that; I sure hope it didn't sound like I was saying otherwise. Still, I would offer a couple of points... First off, conservatives look to the constitution -- not to the bible -- for political guidance. These new "conservatives" look to the bible. There's a difference. My point was that they are not true conservatives -- not that "Good Christian Values" are somehow wrong. Second, I'm not sure when it happened but the "Good Christian Values" of today are not the same as the "Good Christian Values" that I was raised with. Many of the most vocal so called christians have no compassion, no tolerance, no mercy. As the bumper sticker says, "Hate is not a family value". "Judgment is mine, sayeth the Christian Right". Many are so quick to judge, condemn and legislate against others. I find it offensive -- both that they do it and that they call themselves conservatives (and for that matter, Christians) when they do. Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Aug 8, 2010 17:49:21 GMT -8
Yeah. I get it. Anyone who disagrees with you is an extremist. That's been your favorite pejorative. Until now. Now, anyone who crosses you is a terrorist. You really are so f****** pathetic. I didn't say that you were a terrorist. I was just noting that you share a common belief with the terrorists -- to wit: that it is perfectly acceptable for the people of this country to suffer economically so long as it advances your dogma. Maybe that's what you call patriotism, but I sure as hell don't call it that. And as for the term extremist, you may not like it but I'm hard pressed to think of anything that provides a more accurate description of your beliefs. ~ You think it is perfectly acceptable for the people of this country to suffer economically so long as it advances your dogma. ~ You think moderate Republicans are those that get rolled by liberals -- so I guess anyone that isn't a true believer in the dogma is weak. ~ I believe that you described a moderately left leaning Democratic President as a Mussolini wannabe. ~ You think liberals should be required to have abortions. Believe it so strongly that you had to say it twice... Sorry, but that isn't conservatism; that's extremism. There is no other word for it. And do read the Goldwater quote downthread... The real problem tho is that you are so filled with anger that you are unable to discuss issues rationally and to reach compromises that serve the common good. It's all about the dogma; you have no interest in compromising. You're an absolutist -- unable to see the gray; only the black and white. My way or the highway. With the obvious exception of the cultural difference that allows violence there but not here, how is that different from the terrorists? Seriously, how is that different? Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by OfficialAztecINSIDER on Aug 8, 2010 17:52:51 GMT -8
Yoda speaks the truth....
|
|
