Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunslinger on April 30, 2007, 07:58:08 PM
-
I like the guy having watched him on TV. He's charismatic and seems to be the right dose of conservative that the Republican party needs. What are your thoughts on him? We've discussed hillary and Obama in depth here and it seems that the republican choices are pretty blah so far.
-
I'd vote for him over any libertarian. But then again, the libertarians don't represent all of my views, while he represents more then any one else.
-
Trophy wife young enough to be his daughter and he has lymphoma.
No chance at all.
-
What Republican has more of a chance of winning?
The "same ole song" isn't going to cut it and I don't see anyone else that's not the same sheet music we've seen the last 20 years.
-
As an actor, I like him. :)
-
Originally posted by Toad
What Republican has more of a chance of winning?
The "same ole song" isn't going to cut it and I don't see anyone else that's not the same sheet music we've seen the last 20 years.
Toad, that sounds like what the Dems have been saying the last few years. Maybe we have reached the end of the "viable candidate" road.
Heck, look how wound up the Dems got about Obama. He's got no track record to speak of but they think he's the party's savior. I don't see it.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Trophy wife young enough to be his daughter and he has lymphoma.
No chance at all.
what kind of Lymphoma?
Not all are created equal
May be a non issue or even help him
Personally I think the country would be FAR better off if it just declared me Emporer for life
-
Non fatal / non terminal. Responds to treatment, in remission for over a year already.
He's pretty much a stand up guy from here in Tennessee, made his bones as a special prosecutor going after a crooked governor. Actually got into acting because when the movie about bagging the governor was being made, they couldn't find anyone to play him. Was also a top prosecutor for WaterGate from what I remember. Fairly straight conservative. I like the guy, so liberals in general are bound to despise him.
-
I don't have all the details, but it's not something you would want as your campaign slogan.
I like his movies. He's a great actor.
-
Originally posted by rpm
I don't have all the details, but it's not something you would want as your campaign slogan.
I like his movies. He's a great actor.
Yea but there is something about cancer survivors that tugs at peoples heartstrings
-
"Son, Ruskies don't take a piss without a plan."
-
Originally posted by rpm
I don't have all the details, but it's not something you would want as your campaign slogan.
I like his movies. He's a great actor.
Hmmm. Cancer survivor. Who does that remind me of? On the democratic side of things?
-
Since modern politics are simply popularity contests among those few registered voters that actually get to the polls and whom the public recognizes; Fred Thompson has much going for him.
- More recognizable than most.
- Carries himself well (actor after all) - would seem "Presidential" and come across well over the boob tube.
- Seems rather competent and intelligent in interviews I've seen him in: puts him above the pack.
On the negative side:
- Not sure if he'd take the job. I don't get the impression he liked his term in D.C. that much.
- Collecting money for a political campaign is very important, and he would not be able to turn to Democratic Hollyweird to support a Republican run.
Who would be his running mate?
What his views are, and who all would be financially supporting his run would be an issue I'd look at.
But, overall, I don't see much leadership among those that run for office these days. Guess I'm another disillusioned voter.
-
Originally posted by Toad
What Republican has more of a chance of winning?
Toad,
HONESTLY... George Bush (Either of them) May call themselves republicans but they are not...
Sadly in 2000, a LOT of really good people were trashed in the Republican primaries in order to drive this guy in. I believe you are right that because of him using the name Republican, none of them stand a real chance.
However, there is a LONG way until the 2008 General Election (18 Months) You can never say ANYTHING is a certainty.
As for Fred Thompson, I dont know where he stands on many issues... Wait and see, I suppose.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Non fatal / non terminal. Responds to treatment, in remission for over a year already.
He's pretty much a stand up guy from here in Tennessee, made his bones as a special prosecutor going after a crooked governor. Actually got into acting because when the movie about bagging the governor was being made, they couldn't find anyone to play him. Was also a top prosecutor for WaterGate from what I remember. Fairly straight conservative. I like the guy, so liberals in general are bound to despise him.
Thompson was Minority Council for the Republicans on the Irvin Committee during Watergate. It was he who asked the question of Alexander Butterfield, that blew things open
"Do you know of any listening devices in the oval office."
Seems like thats what I remember if the old memory hasn't failed me completely.
That and he gave Clint a hard time in the movie "In the line of Fire" :)
-
Been watching him... he has the potential to becoming a Republican front runner.
Impressive.
:aok
Mac
*Old Reagan Hard Right Republican Conservative*
-
I don't want to go too deep on this but a minority of conservatives are sudgesting that in order for them to win in 2008 they need a reaganesqe canidate.
He seems to share some similare qualities.
Either way I look at Mcain...blah
Guliani Blah
Gingrich blah
I don't know too many of the other potential canidates right now.
I don't buy into the whole "electability" thing because many democrats voted for Kerry in the primaries thinking he was "electable." I think Thompson is to Kerry what a pearl handled colt is to a squirt gun.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Toad, that sounds like what the Dems have been saying the last few years. Maybe we have reached the end of the "viable candidate" road.
I'll probably write in Ron Paul most likely.
Both side's frontrunners currently make me nauseous.
-
Ever see Thompson debate? It's like there's no one else in the room.
He has Baker, Meese and several other Reagan cabinet members behind him. If he runs, I think he wins the nomination. If he wins the nomination, the democrats better go with Obama. I've seen Thompson disassemble Hillary on the Senate floor several times. She has zero chance of impressing anyone in the pre-election debates if Thompson is sitting across from her.
My regards,
Widewing
-
If Gingrich was more anti-illegal immigration, I'd vote for him anytime. I think he would not be electable even if he is the better candidate in many respects.
Toad, you are also not allowed a write-in vote for President. You may do that for any other office but not President. (I know in SC that is the case)
-
Had a call the other day from the RNC and they asked me which Canidate I would like to vote for... toild them I was wait to see which one had the biggest balls...
she said "Ohhhh..."
I asked her which Canidate looks like they have the biggest balls?
Poor girl, she said she never looked at their laps.
She hung up.
:rofl
Mac
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Ever see Thompson debate? It's like there's no one else in the room.
He has Baker, Meese and several other Reagan cabinet members behind him. If he runs, I think he wins the nomination. If he wins the nomination, the democrats better go with Obama. I've seen Thompson disassemble Hillary on the Senate floor several times. She has zero chance of impressing anyone in the pre-election debates if Thompson is sitting across from her.
My regards,
Widewing
Depending on running mates, I'm not sure Obama can beat Thompson. Obama has only two advantages. He has no real past or record. He speaks mostly in abstract theory. Those are also tow disadvantages.
Thompson is almost conservative enough on most issues that he may need a more centrist running mate, although I'd prefer he had one at least as conservative as he is, or better yet more conservative. REAL conservative as opposed to what most often passes for conservative these days.
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
If Gingrich was more anti-illegal immigration, I'd vote for him anytime. I think he would not be electable even if he is the better candidate in many respects.
Toad, you are also not allowed a write-in vote for President. You may do that for any other office but not President. (I know in SC that is the case)
You do realize that Gingrich is the reason why the democrats haven't been in power until just this past term?
If he really wants it, he could split the republican party and win the nomination. On top of that, he could win the election easily.
-
I quick glance at a "Strawpoll"
Shows Thompson mopping the floor with the other canidates.
-
I don't think Gingrich can win as the top of the ticket. Not in the general election. He can as a running mate, maybe. Depends on who he might be paired with. Gingrich has a few problems.
-
I'm tellin' ya Thompson will get killed (no pun intended) by his young wife and his health when the mudslinging starts, and it will start. Still a long time till '08.
-
McCain nor Gingrich will make it...
Republicans need a Stronger Canidate.
Someone that will help the Nation,
Restore the People,
Reestablish the Theme of America.
For the People....
By the People...
One Nation Under God...
One Ring to Bring them Together...
We need Frodo....
Frodo '08
:D
Mac
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
You do realize that Gingrich is the reason why the democrats haven't been in power until just this past term?
I sure do, he was the mastermind of the 1994 election and the contract with America. I love the guy... I can only fault him on one item, unfortunately its an extremely important issue. He supports amnesty for 30,000,000 illegal alien criminals.
-
Originally posted by rpm
I'm tellin' ya Thompson will get killed (no pun intended) by his young wife and his health when the mudslinging starts, and it will start. Still a long time till '08.
They already know about his wife and his cancer. They even know he humped Lori Morgan for a while. The researchers for the Democrats are here in Tennessee looking for dirt now. They figure they don't have enough dirt on him yet.
-
What if....NO ONE voted because the choices for both parties were just plain dumb? What happens then?
-
Gingrich is thinking of running? That's hilarious.
Thompson would be an interesting candidate, which is more than I can say for the others. He hasn't announced that he's running though.
McCain blew it when he backed down and kissed Bush's bellybutton in 2004. Otherwise he might have had a chance.
Giuliani doesn't represent enough conservative core values of much of the Bible Belt voting block to win the primaries. He's too 'east coast'.
Romney is also interesting but too much of a special interests panderer and a Mormon to boot, that won't work.
Brownback is a fundie nutjob, would probably take us into the Dark Ages.
I only wish that SC Governor Mark Sanford would run, I think he's exactly what this country needs right now. The fact that he has refused to run only shows that he's the right guy.
It's a long time until the primaries, though. Guess we'll just wait and see.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
What if....NO ONE voted because the choices for both parties were just plain dumb? What happens then?
you would wake up and decide to eat pancakes.
-
Thompson has a great chance. There are no real contenders in the field as of yet. Those currently running are hoping for a bland election where no one of any consequence runs.
We need a true conservative!
-
Originally posted by AWMac
We need Frodo....
Frodo '08
:D
Mac
Frodo's out... PTSD.
-
my mind is drifting, i'm thinking about waking up with lori morgan and having a pancake breakfast with her.
-
Think Thompson is the only one who even looks presidential - and so far has his credibility intact.
I'd choose him.
-
Hi RPM,
I'll try to give some thoughts on Thompson in a little while (so far he is the only Republican candidate with any shot at the presidency whom I'd like to see running) but I did want to answer one post:
Originally posted by rpm
Trophy wife young enough to be his daughter and he has lymphoma.
No chance at all.
That's not quite fair. Thompson and his first wife divorced after 25 years of marriage in 1984. He married Jeri Kehn in 2002 when he was 59 and she was 35. At the time she was working as a political media consult for the DC law firm of Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, and McPherson law firm. As such, even though she is very attractive, she hardly meets D.C. "Trophy Wife" standards. For that, she'd need to be in her early twenties, at least a thirty year age difference with her hubby, and with no discernable thoughts or career aspirations of her own other than "whatever it takes."
To tell the truth, given the usual trend of conversation around here, I would have expected you to be highly enthusiastic about the prospects of a really attractive woman in the White House:
(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a300/tescosuicide/ALa2/ALa3/thompson_Jeri.jpg)
-
My take on Fred: typical conservative. Pro-war, pro-guns, Pro-life, pro-sanctity-of-marriage, pro-drug-war, etc...
he certainly wouldn't be as bad as most of his competition, I'd definately prefer him over Guiliani or McCain, but if he beats Ron Paul in the primary I'll "waste my vote" and vote for the libertarian candidate. I wonder how many other libertarian votes the GOP will lose out on if they run another conservative clone.
-
Originally posted by rpm
I'm tellin' ya Thompson will get killed (no pun intended) by his young wife and his health when the mudslinging starts, and it will start. Still a long time till '08.
Rudy has both those same issues to deal with, and I don't think it's anything with traction. The very fact that he served only one term as a senator and decided he'd done what he set out to do is a point in his favor, in my opinion. I've had enough of career politicians, and so I believe has the rest of the country. Thompson looks to be a solid Reagan conservative. I think he's very much the candidate that most conservatives are looking for, especially when you look at the rest of the field. I would personally love to watch the debate between him and any of the Dem hopefuls. That's what I call entertainment.
-
While it may not meet D.C. trophy wife status, I don't think it will play well in the midwest and with the ultra-conservatives the Republicans rely on. I think you guys misunderstand me. It's the republican challengers that will be slinging the mud at Thompson during the primaries.
I personally don't have anything against the guy and more power to him for landing a young wife. Now flip the tables and say he was a Democrat. The Republicans would be tearing him up.
It's very early in the campaign. Heck we haven't even had a single primary yet. Remember, Howard Dean was the darling of the election before the primaries started last time. We all know how that played out. It's a long, hard row to hoe.
-
Originally posted by Shuffler
We need a true conservative!
Absolutely NOT. We don't need a conservative. We don't need a liberal.
We need a Leader. We need a moderate, since that's where the majority of the American population are at, in the middle. We need someone who will look after the nation's interests and the interests of the people, not a political party or special interests. We need someone who will be able to work both side of the isle to actually get something done.
We need to get away from the extremist politics in D.C. We need to pull the teeth of the fanatic-religious right and hyper-liberal left. When the appointment of Federal judges and Supreme Court nominees all comes down to their "political position" (and not legal basis) on one sole issue, which has left many of those seats empty, the lunatics have truly taken over the asylum. With all the other problems facing the nation that effect people's everyday lives, security, well being, and their future are overlooked for "school prayer" and "flag burning", it is time to re-prioritize in a major big way.
-
Originally posted by rpm
While it may not meet D.C. trophy wife status, I don't think it will play well in the midwest and with the ultra-conservatives the Republicans rely on. I think you guys misunderstand me. It's the republican challengers that will be slinging the mud at Thompson during the primaries....
It can work for him or against him. How the PR flaks handle her public image will play into it. They could spin it into a Republican version of Kennedy's "Camelot".
How she comes across in interviews on the television will be the determining factor, as far as she is concerned, if Thompson runs.
Thompson has the easily recognizable face, a lot of name recognition, and comes across very well on screen. That would all work very well in his favor against most contenders.
Just wish there was a strong moderate with good leadership skills in the running.
-
Originally posted by scottydawg
McCain blew it when he backed down and kissed Bush's bellybutton in 2004. Otherwise he might have had a chance.
McCain blew it the moment he stepped into the spot light and everyone realized how he isn't a republican. He would have retained so much more credibility, and a bit of good anonymity to put him in a striking position in the senate if he had never run.
Now he'll never really have the support of any republican.
-
What about Rick Perry? He's been doing a lot of chest thumping lately. He's the conservative poster boy and squeaky clean.
-
Actors should never be trusted as politicians.
Politicians may be actors, but how does acting prepare one for a political career?
Oh yeah, popularity, cuz that's all that's important anymore right?
-
Originally posted by 68Hawk
Actors should never be trusted as politicians.
Politicians may be actors, but how does acting prepare one for a political career?
Oh yeah, popularity, cuz that's all that's important anymore right?
He was a US senator which is plenty of preparation based on the historical record.
Thompson is a federalist which is enough for him to get my vote.
He does a radio show regularly now.
Here are a few links to his own words.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTQ3OWE3ZTY2N2U4MTFhOTBhYWRiYzhlMmFlMWU1ZmM=
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDQwYmI1OGQ0NWM0NTFlMDA1MGE1NGExMDRiMTc2Y2U=
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzQ1ZWJmZGJlNGFkNDJmMTdmYmE2ZjIwZjFmYmEzZjk=
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDBjNzI5ZTQ4YzMzZTBlMDUwOGIwOGQ0NWQ1YWQ4YWE=
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWM0OGRmY2E4ZmZmYzlhYWQxZjE4MDZlNzZhYjRhODc=
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTIwYzMyZmQ1YzQ1MDNmZTMyYzQ1Y2U3YTU4YzNmNGE=
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjgyNTIzNTM2NjQ0MTZiODQ0OGE3ZDI4MzQwYjhiODU=
and the NRO archive to some more
http://author.nationalreview.com/?q=NDEyMg==
learn all you need to know about the man
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
Absolutely NOT. We don't need a conservative. We don't need a liberal.
We need a Leader. We need a moderate, since that's where the majority of the American population are at, in the middle. We need someone who will look after the nation's interests and the interests of the people, not a political party or special interests. We need someone who will be able to work both side of the isle to actually get something done.
We need to get away from the extremist politics in D.C. We need to pull the teeth of the fanatic-religious right and hyper-liberal left. When the appointment of Federal judges and Supreme Court nominees all comes down to their "political position" (and not legal basis) on one sole issue, which has left many of those seats empty, the lunatics have truly taken over the asylum. With all the other problems facing the nation that effect people's everyday lives, security, well being, and their future are overlooked for "school prayer" and "flag burning", it is time to re-prioritize in a major big way.
I can agree. Good thoughts.
-
Moderates are only people without a clue what they stand for.
Give me some examples of the 'moderate' position on some issues.
-
Thompson has a strong track record as a public servant. Acting is more of a hobby....but he's very good at that as well.
I disagree with rpm about Thompson's younger wife being a problem for his candidacy....or the fact that he's divorced. Reagan was divorced, and it never materialized as a campaign issue. And is being married to a younger woman really as objectionable as getting lip service from an intern young enough to be one's daughter? If a large part of the population couldn't get worked up about THAT then they certainly won't be taken aback by a 35 year old wilfe.
Frankly, Thompson just isn't carrying much baggage. If he wants it, the office is his for the taking.
-
Originally posted by rpm
What about Rick Perry? He's been doing a lot of chest thumping lately. He's the conservative poster boy and squeaky clean.
I don't think he's done that good of job as Texas Gov and no one knows who he is as of yet.
-
Originally posted by Gumbeau
Moderates are only people without a clue what they stand for.
Give me some examples of the 'moderate' position on some issues.
Okay, I consider myself a moderate:
IRAQ: Going into Iraq in the first place: Big mistake (SSG Dixie Chick, that's me). The handling of the war is going to make a great Military Channel special on "Screwing Up By the Numbers" someday. BUT We absolutely cannot pull out of the country in it's present state --- we created the mess, our national economic and security interests are still tied to that region's stability, we obligated to see it through at this point, though it will take years, lives, and dollars to do so.
IMMIGRATION: Amnesty heck, it's simply recognizing the reality. Those already living and working in the United States, work out a way toward citizenship. Deal with it and move on. At the same time, secure the blasted borders already!
ELECTIONS and SPECIAL INTERESTS: National fund. All recognized candidates that meet the requirements and get enough signatures on petitions or however, get a percentage of that year's campaign funds. Not along party lines. Equally. No monetary donations. Equal time to promote their agenda and position. Watch the lobbyists closely.
ABORTION and SEX ED: I believe a woman should have control over her body in a modern, free society. The way to reduce the number of abortions is to educate and make available the alternatives to those kids. Making abortion illegal and hoping all the kids abstain till they are married is just plain dumb and naive. Give them the knowledge, the alternatives, and the support to work their way through the issue. I don't care at all about the religious angle, and those on the 'all life is sacred' platform should visit Darfur. Life is very cheap.
DRUGS: Legalize. Tax. Regulate. Tax. Spend the money from the war on drugs and enforcement and prison space instead on treatment and education. Operating under the influence of drugs handled like DUI's are now. Companies can still dismiss employees who test positive if that is their company policy under legalized drugs (same as for alcohol today). Oh, And tax the drugs.
IMHO, such a move would eventually make a big dent in national crime statistics as well. Prohibition did not work. Neither is the War on Drugs. Just creating different criminal organizations.
MILITARY: A strong, well trained, versatile military. Hi-tech toys are fine and all, but develop what you need for low intensity conflicts in the mud and city streets as well. Consider use of National Service requirements to fill ranks, or American Foreign Legions as an option.
NATIONAL SERVICE: Yes. Very much. Some form of service at some point in your life between 15 and 30. Military. Medical or Emergency fields. Teaching. Volunteer Work. Conservation work. Some of the Sciences. Volunteer Firemen or Paramedic. National Guard or Reserve enlistment. It could take many forms with various lengths of time and effort to commit. Even put a dollar amount on it so the rich can buy their way out of it (without any tax breaks) -- heck, I don't care. I'd go for a less strict rather than over the top bureaucracy --- which means there would probably be loopholes and cheats, but no matter. The overall effort and results should be positive.
OIL ECONOMY: It is in the National Interest to develop alternative energy resources and conservation efforts in order to not have to depend on oil resources from dwindling supplies located in less than stable parts of the world. This is a Manhattan Project or Apollo Program level effort. Private enterprise and the markets are NOT going to tackle this one to any great effect. Raise fuel economy levels up to those of Europe, Japan, and China.
MEDICAL CARE and SOCIAL SECURITY: The Third Rail of Politics. Agree that politicians are not going to solve this on their own before it goes off the cliff. Assemble a non-partisan group of experts to study every aspect and come out with a viable solution and then bite the bullet on this one. Everyone will lose something, but there is no other way these issues will ever get solved. There are no solutions that doesn't hurt some. Some benefits will get added. Many benefits will get cut back or disappear.
EDUCATION: Current system sucks. Time for school vouchers. Competition. Privatized schools not just private schools, but company operated, like some cities, towns and prisons are now run by companies (and often much better than government run ones). Teachers Unions will scream murder..... so what, they are part of the problem anyways. Continue to try and fix things from the government side, but it is time to try other things. Current system does not work.
In short: Do what will work. What is in the best interests of the nation and it's people. The good of the many outweighs the idealogical dogma of the few.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
IMMIGRATION: Amnesty heck, it's simply recognizing the reality. Those already living and working in the United States, work out a way toward citizenship. Deal with it and move on. At the same time, secure the blasted borders already!
So you are in favor of one more in a long line of amnesties?
How will this next one be any different? How would it solve the problem? None of the others did.
The first United States amnesty was in 1986, and it allowed millions of illegal immigrants to receive a Green Card which could then lead to U.S. citizenship in later years. Before this first amnesty was granted, the United States government had only given amnesty on a case by case basis. In the cases where the government gave amnesty to illegal immigrants, it was only done on a small scale. For a period of over 200 years this was how the government granted amnesty, but in 1986 Congress introduced new immigration legislature. They passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act or IRCA which gave approximately 2.8 million illegal immigrants legal status in the United States. In addition, their immediate relatives or dependents which included about 143,000 individuals also qualified for the same status. The result of the amnesty introduced by Congress was that illegal immigration grew in significant numbers.
When the Immigration Reform and Control Act was passed, it was only meant to be a “one time” amnesty but it actually turned out to be the beginning of many amnesties that would follow. To date there have been additional amnesties that have been granted to illegal immigrants which include:
Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA), 1986: A blanket amnesty for some 2.7 million illegal aliens.
Section 245(i) Amnesty, 1994: A temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens.
Section 245(i) Extension Amnesty, 1997: An extension of the rolling amnesty created in 1994.
Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) Amnesty, 1997: An amnesty for close to one million illegal aliens from Central America.
Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act Amnesty (HRIFA), 1998: An amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti.
Late Amnesty, 2000: An amnesty for some illegal aliens who claim they should have been amnestied under the 1986 IRCA amnesty, an estimated 400,000 illegal aliens.
LIFE Act Amnesty, 2000: A reinstatement of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty, an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens
The are currently several bills in the United States congress that could possibly create the 8th Amnesty.
Enough amnesty. Secure the borders FIRST. Then round 'em up and ship 'em home for keeps.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
Okay, I consider myself a moderate:
IRAQ: Going into Iraq in the first place: Big mistake (SSG Dixie Chick, that's me). The handling of the war is going to make a great Military Channel special on "Screwing Up By the Numbers" someday. BUT We absolutely cannot pull out of the country in it's present state --- we created the mess, our national economic and security interests are still tied to that region's stability, we obligated to see it through at this point, though it will take years, lives, and dollars to do so.
IMMIGRATION: Amnesty heck, it's simply recognizing the reality. Those already living and working in the United States, work out a way toward citizenship. Deal with it and move on. At the same time, secure the blasted borders already!
ELECTIONS and SPECIAL INTERESTS: National fund. All recognized candidates that meet the requirements and get enough signatures on petitions or however, get a percentage of that year's campaign funds. Not along party lines. Equally. No monetary donations. Equal time to promote their agenda and position. Watch the lobbyists closely.
ABORTION and SEX ED: I believe a woman should have control over her body in a modern, free society. The way to reduce the number of abortions is to educate and make available the alternatives to those kids. Making abortion illegal and hoping all the kids abstain till they are married is just plain dumb and naive. Give them the knowledge, the alternatives, and the support to work their way through the issue. I don't care at all about the religious angle, and those on the 'all life is sacred' platform should visit Darfur. Life is very cheap.
DRUGS: Legalize. Tax. Regulate. Tax. Spend the money from the war on drugs and enforcement and prison space instead on treatment and education. Operating under the influence of drugs handled like DUI's are now. Companies can still dismiss employees who test positive if that is their company policy under legalized drugs (same as for alcohol today). Oh, And tax the drugs.
IMHO, such a move would eventually make a big dent in national crime statistics as well. Prohibition did not work. Neither is the War on Drugs. Just creating different criminal organizations.
MILITARY: A strong, well trained, versatile military. Hi-tech toys are fine and all, but develop what you need for low intensity conflicts in the mud and city streets as well. Consider use of National Service requirements to fill ranks, or American Foreign Legions as an option.
NATIONAL SERVICE: Yes. Very much. Some form of service at some point in your life between 15 and 30. Military. Medical or Emergency fields. Teaching. Volunteer Work. Conservation work. Some of the Sciences. Volunteer Firemen or Paramedic. National Guard or Reserve enlistment. It could take many forms with various lengths of time and effort to commit. Even put a dollar amount on it so the rich can buy their way out of it (without any tax breaks) -- heck, I don't care. I'd go for a less strict rather than over the top bureaucracy --- which means there would probably be loopholes and cheats, but no matter. The overall effort and results should be positive.
OIL ECONOMY: It is in the National Interest to develop alternative energy resources and conservation efforts in order to not have to depend on oil resources from dwindling supplies located in less than stable parts of the world. This is a Manhattan Project or Apollo Program level effort. Private enterprise and the markets are NOT going to tackle this one to any great effect. Raise fuel economy levels up to those of Europe, Japan, and China.
MEDICAL CARE and SOCIAL SECURITY: The Third Rail of Politics. Agree that politicians are not going to solve this on their own before it goes off the cliff. Assemble a non-partisan group of experts to study every aspect and come out with a viable solution and then bite the bullet on this one. Everyone will lose something, but there is no other way these issues will ever get solved. There are no solutions that doesn't hurt some. Some benefits will get added. Many benefits will get cut back or disappear.
EDUCATION: Current system sucks. Time for school vouchers. Competition. Privatized schools not just private schools, but company operated, like some cities, towns and prisons are now run by companies (and often much better than government run ones). Teachers Unions will scream murder..... so what, they are part of the problem anyways. Continue to try and fix things from the government side, but it is time to try other things. Current system does not work.
In short: Do what will work. What is in the best interests of the nation and it's people. The good of the many outweighs the idealogical dogma of the few.
:rofl You may call yourself a moderate. But every other single person that has more then 2 brain cells to rub together would call you a socialist.
-
I guess most of the Country are socialists. Except for the idiots preaching Behind computers for a revolution where the rich wipe out the poor.
-
Originally posted by Toad
So you are in favor of one more in a long line of amnesties?
How will this next one be any different? How would it solve the problem? None of the others did.
Enough amnesty. Secure the borders FIRST. Then round 'em up and ship 'em home for keeps.
Not a realistic solution from a practical, political, or geopolitical aspect those.
It's not going to happen. See my posting in the Devils' Advocate Thread (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=204696&perpage=25&pagenumber=2) . Hispanics in the United States are the largest minority now. They have a large and growing influence. Many politicians are very busy courting the Hispanic voting block. That influence will only grow in the future. Those politicians are not going to vote for rounding up large numbers of Hispanics and deporting them en mass, while trying to court that same vote.
It will also be a PR nightmare for the State Department to deal with other Latin American countries, many of which are leaning toward socialist agendas, and are being courted by China --- there are many in South and Central America that are looking to China as a friend more than they do the United States. It's been a growing trend for years. Mass deportations could only make that situation worse. We want to encourage a dozen more Cubas to our south?
And, finally, they will never be able to pull it off. They could round up some --- many even. Many will slip back in. Split up some families. Lot's of bad press and horror stories. Create all the worst possible public relations blunders you could imagine, and STILL there will be MILLIONS of illegals in the United States. They just don't have the manpower and resources to pull it off. There are what, 11 million? 11,000,000? More? Across the entire nation? We going to go with Internment Camps, toss in all those of Hispanic origin, and sort out those that can stay?
YES; secure the border. Soonest. But all this political hay about deportation done en mass is smoke and mirrors. No good can come of it, but plenty of bad. Sure, in some districts, it makes for good political hay, but as to reality and national interests among the other nations in the Americas, it's a bad road to take.
Secure the border, work the illegal immigrants into citizen status, or at least work visas. Identify and deport the violent criminals among their population when possible.
I prefer to go with what can realistically work. National politics OTOH has devolved into stratified, polarized, fundamentalists, idealogical camps under siege. Lot's of noise, but nothing ever gets accomplished.
-
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Fred_Thompson.htm
-
the war is lost , we must surrender to mexico now.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llwI9-H7OOU
After that poll from months back this guy has really grabbed my interest.
-
I think he'd be the next Ronald Reagan... Only Fred remembers things. :aok
-
Originally posted by Odee
I think he'd be the next Ronald Reagan... Only Fred remembers things. :aok
That could work against him. Not remembering things was Reagan's biggest asset during Iran-Contra.
And, boyo, was Nixon maaaaadddddd: "&*$^#@%@&! You mean all I %&$%^@#* had to do is say I didn't ^%$*#&*#@ remember ???!!! $^#*@@!!!!!! " --- quoted from transcripts of the recordings.
-
Originally posted by Odee
I think he'd be the next Ronald Reagan... Only Fred remembers things. :aok
Alzheimers finally got Reagan but He had the damn good sense to deal with the Evil empire from a position of strength. I am not sure of your age but at the time of his election, the soviets were expanding all over the world, primarily in the western hemisphere.
Even the KGB file on Reagan said that he was a man who meant what he said and would act on his beliefs.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
Not a realistic solution from a practical, political, or geopolitical aspect those.
But Amnesty #8 (since 1986) is realistic and workable?
Riiiiiiiight.
Amnesties never end. Never.
#9 is just a few years down the road behind #8.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
Absolutely NOT. We don't need a conservative. We don't need a liberal.
We need a Leader. We need a moderate, since that's where the majority of the American population are at, in the middle. We need someone who will look after the nation's interests and the interests of the people, not a political party or special interests. We need someone who will be able to work both side of the isle to actually get something done.
We need to get away from the extremist politics in D.C. We need to pull the teeth of the fanatic-religious right and hyper-liberal left. When the appointment of Federal judges and Supreme Court nominees all comes down to their "political position" (and not legal basis) on one sole issue, which has left many of those seats empty, the lunatics have truly taken over the asylum. With all the other problems facing the nation that effect people's everyday lives, security, well being, and their future are overlooked for "school prayer" and "flag burning", it is time to re-prioritize in a major big way.
(http://blogs.smh.com.au/mashup/images/applause.gif)
-
tedbr... you are a socialist on most views and a republican on others...
If life is cheap how do you feel about the death penalty? Maybe if we just let the mother decide?
vouchers are the real hidden 3rd rail.. the school system is about all the democrats have left... It is not only votes of the union but it is the indoctrination machine.
Immigration.... simple solution is to arrest the employers.. throw em in jail (heck.. if life is cheap then just execute em) once you jail or execute a few hundred... problem ends... Those that remain need no amnesty... their families can support em or they can just go home.. They won't be able to get a job tho and if they try to use yours or my SS or identity they go to prison.
Legalize drugs... sure... but then you want to turn it into another big government tax machine... Do you simply wish to protect the careers of drug dealers or do you think the government needs more police and agencies?
If you are a moderate then I don't want anything to do with a moderate candidate.
course.... If you were a strong second amendment candidate I might choose you over some other socialist or republican..
lazs
-
I'm a socialist on some views, conservative on some, liberal on others. I'm for what works best in a particular situation, and much less inclined to follow the party line as a whole based on idealogical platforms. A pox on all political parties.
You throw the term "socialists" around like a epithet. A label with negative connotations and lack of regard for the actual definition of the term. Social Security can be defined as a socialists program: should it be disbanded? Medicare? Unemployment Benefits?
There are some things governments are better at doing, or more appropriate that they be involved in, but I'd prefer to limit them wherever possible (military defense). There are things the free market are better at doing (prisons, schools, local government services). There are some areas where government may be the lessor of two evils (socialized medicine in response to spiraling out of control medical and health costs).
-
Originally posted by Toad
But Amnesty #8 (since 1986) is realistic and workable?
Riiiiiiiight.
Amnesties never end. Never.
#9 is just a few years down the road behind #8.
And which, of any of those amnesty programs, also managed to close and secure the border? Ever? Of course none of them ever worked! As long as the door remained open, amnesties simply officially recognized the existing reality..... to officially add those illegal aliens to the tax roles and lower the official numbers of illegals present in the nation.
Amnesty is not a great solution now either, and probably should not be a blanket "you are all citizens" wave of a wand. It should be more of a probation period toward full citizenship and background checks when possible. A process to bring the illegals to legal status and eventually citizenship.
But, there were estimated to be 11 million illegal immigrants? How do you realistically deport 11 million people? How does the repercussions of that not further alienate Latin American countries away from the United States --- and thus increase China's growing influence and growing socialist views in the regions of Central and Southern America. Do we want to encourage a dozen additional Cubas south of us? How do you even find 11 million illegals across the nation to deport them?
I've seen the resources and scale of the infrastructure needed to send 150,000 American troops and 40,000 to 50,000 contractors to Iraq, first hand. Deport 11,000,000 people who don't want to leave? What do you do with their children that were born in this country (and thus are citizens), if the parents chose to keep them in America, and not take them back to whatever country they are being deported to? I just don't many folks have a clue as to the scale of the problem or all the consequences to the decisions they'd like to see made.
But the border needs to be secured. That I think we can both agree on. It should probably be secured BEFORE the process in which to address the status of illegal aliens is done, to prevent mass migrations to the north. To stall on the issue of securing the border until the problem of existing illegals is dealt with is typical Disneyland on the Potomac stupidity.
lazs2 sez to just arrest the employers and they will all go home. I doubt that very much, as there are plenty of illegal activities they could enter into as well. There will be ways to circumnavigate the checks and balances put into place.
Finally, as I've stated before, the Hispanic population in the United States is now the largest minority group, a growing minority group that are beginning to successfully flex their political muscle. Far too many politicians are courting their vote to deport so many of their friends, relatives, and former countrymen or risk their wrath in the next election.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
:rofl You may call yourself a moderate. But every other single person that has more then 2 brain cells to rub together would call you a socialist.
LOL and we have established that you are only a part time socialist, I am paraphrasing here but I seem to remember you saying that you would be foolish if you turned down the government help that you receive for your education.
Don't feel bad, most people subscribe to Ayn Rand's philosophies when paying but become masters of rationalization when collecting.
shamus
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
I'm a socialist on some views, conservative on some, liberal on others. I'm for what works best in a particular situation, and much less inclined to follow the party line as a whole based on idealogical platforms. A pox on all political parties.
You throw the term "socialists" around like a epithet. A label with negative connotations and lack of regard for the actual definition of the term.
I absolutely agree, except that free market prisons scare me. Public schools work better for everyone in the long run when they're properly managed and not manipulated, as an exclusively private school system produces great schools for the rich and pathetic excuses for the poor. You're right that there's a lot of gray matter in the issue.
-
Originally posted by 68Hawk
I absolutely agree, except that free market prisons scare me. Public schools work better for everyone in the long run when they're properly managed and not manipulated, as an exclusively private school system produces great schools for the rich and pathetic excuses for the poor. You're right that there's a lot of gray matter in the issue.
I am somewhat an here on prisons-- Ive been in city, county, state, Federal, and a LOT of CCA private prisons---If you're an inmate, private prison is where you wanna be---the biggest thing on the warden's daily agenda is NOT to get into trouble with whichever entity is paying their bills, thus the inmates get their collective arses kissed day in and day out--I've also noticed that government-run facilities are invariably less a 'tight ship' than privates
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
And which, of any of those amnesty programs, also managed to close and secure the border? Ever? Of course none of them ever worked!
[/b]
And that's why the next one, the one you support, will fail as well.
You and I both know the government will NOT secure the border. How'd they do sending those 6000 guardsmen to help the Border Patrol? Not very well; in the only engagement reported so far, the Guard basically ran away. Not assigning blame, merely pointing out that didn't work either.
As long as the door remained open,
[/b]
We both know it will.
Amnesty is not a great solution now either, and probably should not be a blanket "you are all citizens" wave of a wand. It should be more of a probation period toward full citizenship and background checks when possible. A process to bring the illegals to legal status and eventually citizenship.
[/b]
That's what the last ones were....supposedly.
But, there were estimated to be 11 million illegal immigrants? How do you realistically deport 11 million people?
[/b]
Pretty easy, really. You realize the problem won't be solved in a day. You actually do increase the size of the Border Patrol/INS to about 1 million men (THERE'S a jobs program for you!). You do actually try to secure the border with those million men. You JAIL employers that knowingly hire illegals. Then when you do catch an illegal at a border crossing or hiding out in the US, you DO deport them.
You don't have to go hunting them but if 10,000 illegals march, you take advantage of the situation and round them up and ship them out.
I think the combination of no jobs available (employers in jail), a secure border and deporting the ones you do stumble across would work. It would take some time. You might expedite it by offering the illegals in country free passage back to their home state with a $1000 good-bye forever gift after the borders are secure.
With no work and no hope of work, I think the problem would eventually be solved.
As for the repercussions in Latin America, I care not. Let them ship their excess population to China, their good buddy. If they all want to become socialist states, that's their business. It's a self-inflicted wound and they'll eventually heal it themselves too.
lazs2 sez to just arrest the employers and they will all go home. I doubt that very much, as there are plenty of illegal activities they could enter into as well.
[/b]
They'd just be criminals twice over. When they were caught in their illegal activity, that would be the right time to deport them back across the secured border.
Children born here would go with their parents unless of legal age. Legal age could stay and take their chances in the workforce. When the youngsters that go with the parents reach legal age, they have the option to return as citizens to take their chances in the workforce. Or perhaps they could find legal citizen relatives to stay with in the US. Either way is fine by me.
There will be ways to circumnavigate the checks and balances put into place.
[/b]
And the 8th in a long series of amnesties for illegal immigration is just one more.
Far too many politicians are courting their vote to deport so many of their friends, relatives, and former countrymen or risk their wrath in the next election.
Well, when the Hispanic CITIZENS muster up their political power and take over the country, well... I guess it would be theirs. That's the way things are set up. Hasn't happened yet though. If deportation would do it for them, so be it. When they get the political majority, they have every right to turn this place into a 3rd world country just like "home" was.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
Okay, I consider myself a moderate:
IRAQ: Going into Iraq in the first place: Big mistake (SSG Dixie Chick, that's me). The handling of the war is going to make a great Military Channel special on "Screwing Up By the Numbers" someday. BUT We absolutely cannot pull out of the country in it's present state --- we created the mess, our national economic and security interests are still tied to that region's stability, we obligated to see it through at this point, though it will take years, lives, and dollars to do so.
Going in wasn't a mistake from a long term geo-political perspective. Your viewpoint here is not moderate, just short sighted or uninformed. Staying in is the only reasonable choice. Also not moderate but a position any american SHOULD agree with.
IMMIGRATION: Amnesty heck, it's simply recognizing the reality. Those already living and working in the United States, work out a way toward citizenship. Deal with it and move on. At the same time, secure the blasted borders already!
A position I mostly agree with with a few caveats. First, it should be easy to legally enter the US as long as there is a demand for the workers. We should PAY to get skilled labor into the country that is willing to work. If its easy to get in legally, no one will do it illegally. We need the labor, skilled and otherwise. And, yes, we need cheap labor. Americans aren't going to work for low wages and some stuff HAS to be low wage. You can't pay Union scale for unskilled labor unless you want inflation. That is economic reality. If it is really easy to get into the US legally to work then the only illegals will be the ones we really need to pursue, the BAD GUYS.
Securing the borders sounds wonderful but is largely impossible.
This isnt moderate. Amnesty without changing the current immigration process is just silliness. Jailing and deporting every illegal you can is a pro - labor, pro-union protectionist stance. That makes it left wing. Lots of pretend conservatives think it is a conservative stance but it isn't.
ELECTIONS and SPECIAL INTERESTS: National fund. All recognized candidates that meet the requirements and get enough signatures on petitions or however, get a percentage of that year's campaign funds. Not along party lines. Equally. No monetary donations. Equal time to promote their agenda and position. Watch the lobbyists closely.
This is just plain state controlled elections. It would quickly lead to a totalitarian state. This isn't moderate. Baathist or Stalinist maybe. Mussolini would be proud too.
ABORTION and SEX ED: I believe a woman should have control over her body in a modern, free society. The way to reduce the number of abortions is to educate and make available the alternatives to those kids. Making abortion illegal and hoping all the kids abstain till they are married is just plain dumb and naive. Give them the knowledge, the alternatives, and the support to work their way through the issue. I don't care at all about the religious angle, and those on the 'all life is sacred' platform should visit Darfur. Life is very cheap.
Relativism and Me first politics at its best. Left wing of the Democratic party.
DRUGS: Legalize. Tax. Regulate. Tax. Spend the money from the war on drugs and enforcement and prison space instead on treatment and education. Operating under the influence of drugs handled like DUI's are now. Companies can still dismiss employees who test positive if that is their company policy under legalized drugs (same as for alcohol today). Oh, And tax the drugs.
IMHO, such a move would eventually make a big dent in national crime statistics as well. Prohibition did not work. Neither is the War on Drugs. Just creating different criminal organizations.
Drug legalization is about as far from moderate as one could get.
MILITARY: A strong, well trained, versatile military. Hi-tech toys are fine and all, but develop what you need for low intensity conflicts in the mud and city streets as well. Consider use of National Service requirements to fill ranks, or American Foreign Legions as an option.
Conservative viewpoint.
NATIONAL SERVICE: Yes. Very much. Some form of service at some point in your life between 15 and 30. Military. Medical or Emergency fields. Teaching. Volunteer Work. Conservation work. Some of the Sciences. Volunteer Firemen or Paramedic. National Guard or Reserve enlistment. It could take many forms with various lengths of time and effort to commit. Even put a dollar amount on it so the rich can buy their way out of it (without any tax breaks) -- heck, I don't care. I'd go for a less strict rather than over the top bureaucracy --- which means there would probably be loopholes and cheats, but no matter. The overall effort and results should be positive.
National Service for those who can't afford to avoid it. Now you are a Monarchist.
OIL ECONOMY: It is in the National Interest to develop alternative energy resources and conservation efforts in order to not have to depend on oil resources from dwindling supplies located in less than stable parts of the world. This is a Manhattan Project or Apollo Program level effort. Private enterprise and the markets are NOT going to tackle this one to any great effect. Raise fuel economy levels up to those of Europe, Japan, and China.
Socialist. If the free market doesn't demand it, making a law about it isn't going to help. That's why we are in this mess now.
MEDICAL CARE and SOCIAL SECURITY: The Third Rail of Politics. Agree that politicians are not going to solve this on their own before it goes off the cliff. Assemble a non-partisan group of experts to study every aspect and come out with a viable solution and then bite the bullet on this one. Everyone will lose something, but there is no other way these issues will ever get solved. There are no solutions that doesn't hurt some. Some benefits will get added. Many benefits will get cut back or disappear.
You don't state a position here.
EDUCATION: Current system sucks. Time for school vouchers. Competition. Privatized schools not just private schools, but company operated, like some cities, towns and prisons are now run by companies (and often much better than government run ones). Teachers Unions will scream murder..... so what, they are part of the problem anyways. Continue to try and fix things from the government side, but it is time to try other things. Current system does not work.
You sound like you have children in the school system. Maybe you are government educated and realize how awful it was. You post indicates an indoctrination in the anti-capitalist, government is good garbage you find in many government schools.
In short: Do what will work. What is in the best interests of the nation and it's people. The good of the many outweighs the idealogical dogma of the few.
Much of what you posted IS idealogical dogma.
-
Tedrbr, unless you want to tax everyone under 100K a year and nobody above it, shoot vagrants & illegal aliens, and give a gun to every man, woman and child you'll never get a vote outa these guys.
-
I often wonder which US you live in RPM.
-
I thought there was only one. But according to this board there are more.
There's the "tax the poor man not the rich man" US.
The "give everybody a gun" US.
The "put religion first as long as it's the one I believe in" US.
The "if you don't vote Republican you hate America" US.
ect, ect, ect...
Kinda saddens me really. I need to go watch a Jimmy Stewart movie now...
-
Originally posted by rpm
What about Rick Perry? He's been doing a lot of chest thumping lately. He's the conservative poster boy and squeaky clean.
NO he's not.
-
I'm voting for Thompson. Regardless.
-
Originally posted by Gumbeau
Drug legalization is about as far from moderate as one could get.
In my experience, most people who call themselves moderate are really just patchwork quilts comprised of the stances the various parties take.
In the case of drug legalization, it seems that liberals have the best answer.
In the case of other things such as the 2nd, they certainly don't.
I'd vote for a candidate who picks and chooses from the platforms over a straight party line ticket any day of the week. Even if I didn't agree with him on everything, I'd figure at least he's using his head and not kissing his party's bellybutton on everything.
-
Rudy had a long diatribe somewhere today that put him even further left than Bush on illegal immigration---do these dumbarse Republicans think these dirt-poor Mexicans are gonna vote for them when they become citizens??---The only Republican thing Rudy espouses is low taxes, and thats somewhat dubious....McCain has been a pain in the GOP's arse for the last 10 years..HE also isn't gonna get my vote.....Romney is a human weather vane..so He's out....Duncan Hunter/Tom Tancredo are unknowns, and likely to stay that way.....who else is there for a conservative (NOTE I didnt say Libertarian) except Fred Thompson?
-
Originally posted by rpm
I thought there was only one. But according to this board there are more.
There's the "tax the poor man not the rich man" US.
The "give everybody a gun" US.
The "put religion first as long as it's the one I believe in" US.
The "if you don't vote Republican you hate America" US.
ect, ect, ect...
Kinda saddens me really. I need to go watch a Jimmy Stewart movie now...
See...that's the America YOU see.
Here's the one I see:
The "tax the rich man till he's poor and waste that tax money" US.
The "2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution" US.
The "you're free to practice any religion you like" US.
The "if you don't realize the Democrats and the Republicans are buffoons you're one too" US.
etc., etc., etc.
Amazing how we live in the same country and see it so differently.
-
No Toad, that's the America that's posted on this very board every single day. It saddens me deeply because I love the America I was born and raised in. It doesn't much resemble the country I live in today.
-
Originally posted by rpm
..... It saddens me deeply because I love the America I was born and raised in. It doesn't much resemble the country I live in today.
Why is that???
Maybe because political correctness has taken over for general common sense..
Maybe because there is a double standard in this country that is embraced by the left over flower children of the 60's..
Liberalism is killing this country...
You can use tax payer money to put foot washes in an airport for people of the muslim faith to use, but try and use tax payer money to put in a small area for prayer for someone of Christian Faith...
You can allow scholarships for minorites to attend colleges but try and use one for only "anglo saxons" and see what you get... Ask Boston College..
You have people of "alternative lifestyles" who try and have mother and father removed from school books because it doesnt represent their views.. even though they are in a minority.
You have State Funded Universities that are offering health care benefits to employees "Life Partner" with whom they reside, however if you are a male female couple who have lived together for years the same does not apply..
Not that I am a big fan of this guy but Michael Savage says it best..
"Liberlism is a Mental Disorder"
Not that I am very happy with the Current "conservative party" as any more I dont think they even know what that means but to allow the party of political correctness to shape the future of this country is a disaster waiting to happen..
As for the Candidates for President... Anyone but Hillary and Obama..
I know enough about Hillary and the "Clinton Legacy" to say never again.. And Obama who the heck is this guy and what has he ever done other than be well spoken..
With the current hard lefties in power in the House and Senate god help us if they get the White House too..
Yes RPM I also love the country I was born in and Yes it does not much resemble the country I currently live in today... I ask myself why that is..
I cannot blame it all on "liberals" as the "conservatives" allowed this to happen but they are the PC Party of the United States and should shoulder the lions share of the blame.
-
I hope Thompson Runs , I will vote for him .
-
Originally posted by rpm
No Toad, that's the America that's posted on this very board every single day. It saddens me deeply because I love the America I was born and raised in. It doesn't much resemble the country I live in today.
So you're trying to tell me this board accurately reflects current US political opinion?
Funny, the Dem's just took the House and Senate but I think if you held a vote of active posters in the OC they wouldn't even be represented in either one.
Maybe you just are taking the wider view.
There's a lot of things that don't resemble the country I was born and raised in.
For example, if anyone had said that school should be taught in English and Spanish when I was a kid, a firm suggestion to learn English would have been made.
When I was a kid, immigration laws were enforced.
When I was a kid, most people were ashamed to be on welfare; they didn't seek it out and mass produce children to qualify for more money..
When I was a kid, taxes were anything but fair. The top bracket folks paid 90% of their income to the government. I guess you'd like to return to the good ole' days?
(http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates-graph.php)
When I was a kid, you could bring your shotgun to school and go rabbit hunting after school. If you were bullied in school, you settled it with fists, not firearms, and no one got suspended. You shook hands after it was settled. Where did kids get the idea you shoot someone you argued with? Where did that come from anyway?
When I was a kid Democrats and Republicans argued just like they do now. But there was never the ongoing invective and hate that never stops.
So the US is very different from the one I grew up in as well. However, I'm not in dispair about it. Your glass is either half-empty or half-full; that's a choice YOU make.
-
tedbr... yep.. I would see social security and federal and state unemployment dismantled... It would be hard now tho.
Maybe car and fire insurance is too important to have private companies run either?
The government should run the military and provide the courts. The rest they are just in the way.
abortion? I don't care but at least admit that it is murder at a certain point.. probly a few short weeks and say we are fine with that... the "life is cheap" idea is a bad road to go down tho... A government that thinks that way always ends up with real high death tolls.
immigtration... arrest the employers... make it impossible to work here illegally.
The good ones will go home.. the criminals will continue to be criminals but... with fewer and fewer of em they will be easier and easier to root out and deport or jail and then deport. Amnesty says that once you get here and hide a while you are good to go... we had an amnesty and that was supposed to work... after the amnesty it made 12 million people think that they could get away with it... guess what.. they appear to be right..
Give this 12 million amnesty and the 30 million more will sneak in over the next 30 years and they will be singing the same tune.. they cycle needs to stop. there might be some suffering..
And that is the point... social security needs to stop.. the suffering is the fault of the program... illegal hiring needs to stop.. the suffering will be the fault of the lax enforcement in the past that lured them here... Why is it that with abortion so free we have more illigitemate births than ever before?
most all government programs need to stop as they are the reason for the suffering.
I DO NOT throw the term socialist around lightly.. to me it is a curse word... it is a hated form of nannyism that causes suffering and the loss of dignity and individualism.
I call you a socialist if most of your ideas involve this curse word.
socialism is a cat lover who leaves trays of milk out for years and then when the place is overrun with cats.... moves away or throws em all in the pound.
oh... what was your position on the second again?
lazs
-
Originally posted by rpm
Tedrbr, unless you want to tax everyone under 100K a year and nobody above it, shoot vagrants & illegal aliens, and give a gun to every man, woman and child you'll never get a vote outa these guys.
I will respond directly as one of those he is aiming at.
I would tax everyone this way
http://www.fairtax.org
I would jail panhandlers and put the ones that were in need of medical attention in secured institutions. Notice I didn't say homeless. I don't care if you wander the streets, just don't panhandle.
I would grant amnesty to all illegals, make it really easy to get into the US to work legally with a path to citizenship while at the same time making it much more difficult to sneak across the border. Not one or the other. All three of these must happen simultaneously.
And i would require firearms training for all children to graduate from high school.
Thats the America I live in.
-
gum... I would agree with the citizenship thing if.....
If citizenship did not mean schools and medical and welfare and being able to sit on your butt in a nice neighborhood that is all paid for by the citizens who work for a living.
Get rid of all the social programs first and then we will talk about it. I am sick of driving off to work or driving around the town and seeing all these single moms with a brood of kids all sitting home in nice houses that people who work 2 jobs can't afford to rent.
They have no worries about food since they get a credit card for food... they have no worries about medical since they have a credit card for that... they pay nothing for their rent and they send their kids to the same schools as the working peoples kids.
When the bill comes due.. the working families pay it. Stop making me pay for them and I won't care what they do.
jail the scumbag employers who hire them and the problem will go away.
These are the only two things that will work... either or both or a combination but... amnesty every 10 years or so won't.
They are told in mexico that our laws don't mean anything and they are correct. They are told that we will pay for them to live better than our citizens and they won't have to lift a finger and... they are right.
Why on earth would you not leave mexico and come here? Have a baby and you are golden.
lazs