Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: bsdaddict on May 30, 2007, 12:00:00 PM
-
Everything you need to know about Fred Thompson is in the first sentance of this article...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4243.html
Fred Dalton Thompson is planning to enter the presidential race ... , announcing that he has already raised several million dollars and is being backed by insiders from the past three Republican administrations
same old, same old... same old song and dance!
-
He makes a good soundbite, but about the only area I agree with him on is the 2nd. So, should we sell out the rest of the BOR to protect the 2nd? Should we support bad social welfare or more bad business welfare? More government intrusion in our private lives? More tough on crime war on drugs war on flag burners?
It would be a tough choice between Fred and BillaryO'Bama -- I vote no. Even if we have to eat 4 years of full, Democratic big government heaven to match the last 8 years of neocon big government heaven. Maybe there would be some real Republicans or good thrird party folk in 2012 as a result.
Charon
-
Even if we have to eat 4 years of full, Democratic big government heaven to match the last 8 years of neocon big government
=====
you know what they say....."be careful what you ask for, you just might get it."
Having said that...........I will vote pro 2nd amendment over all other issues. Life is a risky business, If I have a gun, I have a chance.
-
Thompson is closer to a true conservative than anyone in the race who actually has a good chance of getting elected.
And at this point, I'm not willing to either sit one out, or vote for the greater of two evils, in hopes of getting a better candidate down the road in 4-8 years. Too much damage can be done these days. IF we had fewer screaming left wing weenie liberals on the bench and in Congress it MIGHT be different.
-
And at this point, I'm not willing to either sit one out, or vote for the greater of two evils, in hopes of getting a better candidate down the road in 4-8 years. Too much damage can be done these days. IF we had fewer screaming left wing weenie liberals on the bench and in Congress it MIGHT be different.
They expect nothing else. Both parties. That's why we have these "all or nothing" platforms full of push button issues. Obviously, the Republican Party approves of the policies of McCain and Giuliani. If you support the party on these choices you cannot expect any change for the better. As much as I love the 2nd I am no longer going to let them leverage my fears and concerns like some powerless child afraid of the "what if." They need to be taught that at least some percentage of us are paying attention, and will act on their failures and shortcomings.
FWIW, from my perspective big government social conservatism is no more desirable than big government liberal socialism. Gay Rights - not my business. Prayer in School - leave it for church. Flag burning - deplorable but freedom isn't easy. Tough on crime or terrorism fear - not at the expense of the BOR. I'll live with the risk. Fred's invasive social conservatism is as big a drawback as Billary O'Bamas handout state.
Charon
-
When Guliaini said he'd have his wife sit in on classified meetings....my heart sank.
We elect him, not his wife's advice on what he should do.
We already went thru that with BillaryCare in the early 90s.
So for me, Thompson and Romney look the most promising.
-
Cool.
-
Fred Thompson is the conservative in the field.
Before bsd starts screaming "Ron Paul" I'll answer him with Ron Paul is a pretend conservative. He is a conspiracy theorist pretending to be conservative.
-
Ron Paul is a pretend conservative.
He is the ONLY conservative in the field, because traditional paleoconservative principals reflected a strong libertarian streak. I really prefer a more centrist libertarian, but he's the best (and as Lazs points out almost certainly unelectable) conservative of the bunch.
The jokers in the White House today and in the current Republican field wouldn't know a conservative if it bit them in the ass. Don't fall for the "Ford vs. Chevy" coolaid they dish out in their 30 second soundbits. As unelectable as Paul is (likely) they are scared that some increasing percentage of the people may actually listen to him and realize that America was not founded with a big governement (Republican or Democrat) agenda. Our founding fathers would be shocked to see what government has become today, even the staunch Federalists.
As Ike said in 1964 at the Republican National Convention
The next half century, beginning shortly before World War I and marked later by the Great Depression, World War II and the Korean Conflict, ushered in a season of troubles. In the last thirty-two years, our political opponents have controlled the executive branch of the Federal Government for twenty-four, and the Congress for twenty-eight. During this period our money was recklessly devalues, with great hardship visited upon much of our citizenry. The expansion of federal influence was made permanent policy, even though its miserable lack of success in the economic arena persisted until the violent demands of war obscured the unhappy failure. The centralizing process even went so far as to include an attempt, by summary executive power, to seize the steel industry.
Some of these acts and laws were necessary - others not - but the sinister trend toward paternalism, which now again grows apace, was interrupted only by the eight-year determination of a Republican administration in the 1950's. That administration stood for integrity in government. It stood for fiscal responsibility, including disciplined management of public spending. It supported our private competitive enterprise system. It insisted that all public responsibilities be carried out, wherever possible, by local and state governments; by the federal government only when necessary.
Our party stood also for a sound foreign policy, within which every critical development would be carefully judged and consistent action forthrightly taken. Recognizing that in this troubled and threatened world, security forces unmatched in efficiency and strength are necessary to sustain the peace, our party provided them. At the same time it insisted upon avoiding the peaks and valleys in military activity that spell, always, waste and extravagance.
Sounds a lot like Ron Paul, actually. Tough Paul has more of that anarchist streak -- a bit too much but refreshing none the less.
BTW, before ya go hatin' FDR -- give props to Alexander Hamilton :)
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
He is the ONLY conservative in the field, because traditional paleoconservative principals reflected a strong libertarian streak. I really prefer a more centrist libertarian, but he's the best (and as Lazs points out almost certainly unelectable) conservative of the bunch.
The jokers in the White House today and in the current Republican field wouldn't know a conservative if it bit them in the ass. Don't fall for the "Ford vs. Chevy" coolaid they dish out in their 30 second soundbits. As unelectable as Paul is (likely) they are scared that some increasing percentage of the people may actually listen to him and realize that America was not founded with a big governement (Republican or Democrat) agenda. Our founding fathers would be shocked to see what government has become today, even the staunch Federalists.
As Ike said in 1964 at the Republican National Convention
Sounds a lot like Ron Paul, actually. Tough Paul has more of that anarchist streak -- a bit too much but refreshing none the less.
BTW, before ya go hatin' FDR -- give props to Alexander Hamilton :)
Charon
thank you... I was going to go on about how SOMEONE doesn't have a clue what a REAL CONSERVATIVE is, but now I don't have to. Thank you.
-
There is a BIG difference between conservative and paranoid, isolationist, populist tinfoil hat claptrap.
Ron Paul only fools the fools.
-
Umm, so libertarians are now conspiracy tin foil theorists?
-
There is a BIG difference between conservative and paranoid, isolationist, populist tinfoil hat claptrap.
Ron Paul only fools the fools.
Please outline, specifically, his paranoid, isolationist and (this is the real shiner) "populist" viewpoints (one could only hope that libertarian philosophy would become capable of a populism some day). Fools like Ike or the Founding Fathers would fully appreciate Paul's positions on the issues since he conforms pretty rigidly to their stated views.
"Conservative" is nothing more than a word today, that has little meaning even compared to what was common in the 1970s. The same with "liberal." Just words in tag lines used to support the brand like "less filling, tastes great." My big government can beat up your big government. Words to let you know who to push the button for come election day. For example, anyone who thinks the Bush administration fits the traditional definition of conservative has a short memory.
On further review, I was, frankly, a bit harsh on Fred. He does talk a smaller federal government, but on the specifics he is somewhat of a mixed bag on civil rights, economic policy and foreign policy. There are worse out there, but he's about average in the current field with the exception of social issues (against my viewpoint) and on the 2nd (which I support). A mixed bag on the whole crime and rights thing too. I may have been a bit hasty, maybe not -- need to see some more specifics on current issues instead of his past voting record. He "seems" to be taking a firmer viewpoint on immigration than the rest of the pack and firmer than his past voting record would suggest.
Charon
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Umm, so libertarians are now conspiracy tin foil theorists?
This should be good... :aok
-
The possible pairing of candidates for a Republican ticket in 2008 would be a good deal more intriguing with Thompson in the race: Ron Paul and Thompson, or Mitt Romney and Thompson....
Either combination could prove lethal to Democratic hopes.
-
bsd and charon....the point is... who will you vote for when ron paul is not on the ballot?
I say.. the actor or the mormon are the only choices. I understand charons frustration and bsd's anger but... it is disturbing to me to see charon say that it doesn't matter.. that osama bamma or billary will be no worse.
I think that both the actor and the mormon will take us away from big government trends a little and protect or second amendment rights.
I think... no... I know that both osama and billary will run toward socialism and destroy the second.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
bsd and charon....the point is... who will you vote for when ron paul is not on the ballot?
If Ron Paul loses the GOP primary I guess I'll have to waste my vote on the Libertarian candidate. RP's the only Rebublican I'm voting for, with the rest it'll just be "more of the same"...
-
sorry bsd.. I can see your frustration but I am not gonna let the socialists have their way easily.. I will fight em to the end.. and that does not include throwing away my vote.
Are you a gun owner? do you smoke pot? do you often need an abortion? I guess we all have things that are important to us.. Life as a socialist would be life as an outlaw for me. I don't want to be an outlaw... it was bad enough the first time.
But... I want to build hot rods and houses and shoot guns and say what I want and keep as much of what I earn as I can.
Allowing democrats to get into power without a fight is the same as giving up.
They thank you for it too.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sorry bsd.. I can see your frustration but I am not gonna let the socialists have their way easily.. I will fight em to the end.. and that does not include throwing away my vote.
Are you a gun owner? do you smoke pot? do you often need an abortion? I guess we all have things that are important to us.. Life as a socialist would be life as an outlaw for me. I don't want to be an outlaw... it was bad enough the first time.
But... I want to build hot rods and houses and shoot guns and say what I want and keep as much of what I earn as I can.
Allowing democrats to get into power without a fight is the same as giving up.
They thank you for it too.
lazs
we've had this discussion before. I'm done being played by the GOP. Look at Thompsons backers and Romney's record, it would be more of the same B.S.
Edit: Actually, Romney's record is more liberal... He's no friend to the 2nd. Thompson though, he'd be Bush III...
-
so you would rather play the democrats socialist game... that will teach em.
lazs
-
it is disturbing to me to see charon say that it doesn't matter.
It does matter. It matters that I have basically the BS choice from both parties. It matters that my Republican state senator and several others were the key to getting the magazine cap ban out of the Ill senate and to the house. One less Republican vote and it's stalled. Now it will likely become law -- We'll know today. If the only difference between my RINO and his democratic opponent is an R or D in the title, then maybe we need to cycle the Republicans until I find one that is different. Maybe that means their losing an election to teach them a lesson and let some new blood into the race. WTF did my Republican vote get me last election from this tool? I called before the vote to express my opinion, and after the vote to tell him I will work to see his opponent win and if he carries the primary I will work for his democratic opponent to get him out of office. It's the only language they know.
What matters is that voting for the lesser of two evils is what they expect. It's the main reason the party platforms are centered on hot button issues. They KNOW you will be too afraid for your guns or abortion rights or gay marriage or whatever to not vote for that issue alone, in many cases. They scare you into voting, and you cower in fear of what will happen if the other side wins. Well, long term the other side will win because they are far more similar than different on the issues I care about. I don't want to just delay the inevitable.
I see the senior leadership of both parties at the federal level and at the state heading in pretty much the same direction. Big government, guns for hunters and a subtle change in flavor every 4-8 years or so as they switch off control. The ONLY thing that will change that is to show them that we're not buying it. We want our ****ing government back. Even if that means a hillary or O'bama in the process. In fact, maybe we need to bottom out for 4-8 years under the Democratic utopia to fully wake people up to the fact that neither party cares about us.
Look at immigration. Neither party is all that concerned about what the majority of the public believes should be done because both see potential votes and business support (and $$$ for that policy). So, we get to pay the healthcare of these foreign workers while others enjoy the profits and votes as they do jobs Americans don't want to do for $5 per hour, like roofing or factory work.
As stated, I find a lot to dislike among so called conservatives who will sell out the 4th amendment as easily as the liberals will sell out the 2nd. So for me it's not a complete loss at all. I dislike conservative waste of my tax dollars as much as liberal waste. I am tired of being manipulated because of my fear and weakness. Now, I might be able to get behind Fred if he runs and IF he is real about his libertarian small government leanings. If the choice was Rudy or Hillary though, I vote neither. Rudy will piss on the 2nd and he has shown no respect for much of the rest of the BOR either. It's a non choice.
Charon
-
lazs, you have your hot button issue (guns) and I have mine (the Constitition). I will not vote for a candidate who'll $*&7 all over the Constitution just because he says he'll let me keep my guns.
-
Given a choice you'd rather live to see the USC shat on without your guns, than with?
I'll be satisfied enough if Paul gets a ride as Vice-pres.
-
Charon's right.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Thompson is closer to a true conservative than anyone in the race
I just read this same thing on Real Clear Politics.
Also, I was thinking about the core beliefs/principles of the Dems and Repubs.
They do change over time somewhat which is enevitable because things possible now were not in the past.
I recall a Coolidge quote, "The business of America is business" which seems to hold true for the Repubs to this day.
I don't have a handy six words for the Dems.
It seems there are a few core issues either way.
In no particular order:
work and profits
war and peace
religion
Into those 3, all the political discussions I've seen here can fall.
-
The U.S. had it's day in the sun. Sadly, socialists and leftist nutjobs will cause it to rot to death from within.
Eventually we will have a scenario much like France only worse, a very large portion of the population awash with apathy and a sense of entitlement and a govt that is willing to support them, all the way to bankruptcy. The first thing to collapse? a tossup... healthcare or social security.
I think those who still possess the american spirit of self reliance should rebel against the govt, secede, carve out part of the country to call it's own then defend the borders with determination. This solution is a long way off but still possible.
The infectious disease that is California is spreading unabated. Prepare for fiscal collapse, it will most likely happen in our lifetimes.
-
An ACTOR as president? Preposterous!
-
I recall when Regan ran for gov of Calif.
Remember placards/posters on buildings asking for a real govenor and not an "acting" govenor with a picture of Regan all cowboy'd up with six-shooters from a movie promo still.
That wasn't that long ago. Right?
-
Then who's VICE-President? Jerry Lewis? I suppose Jane Wyman is the First Lady! And Jack Benny, the Secretary of the Treasury.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Then who's VICE-President? Jerry Lewis? I suppose Jane Wyman is the First Lady! And Jack Benny, the Secretary of the Treasury.
Back to The Future. Good one. :)
-
charon... I think that you are wrong in a very simple way...
voting in billary or osamabama will do nothing except make the politicians think that we want billary or osamas socialist politics. As for the whole gun control issue... it most certainly matters.. sure..not every single republican is as good about it as I would like but... bills like the magazine ban never even come up when republicans control things. You can always count on democrats to bring more and more gun control bills to the vote.
bsd.. I thought the second amendment was part of the constitution. One of the most important parts I might add since without it the rest is nonsense protected by nothing.
I see a huge difference between the republican and democratic candidates.
lazs
-
voting in billary or osamabama will do nothing except make the politicians think that we want billary or osamas socialist politics.
Voting Republican if it's Rudy or McCain tells the Republicans that we want their socialist, big government, intrusive policies. I mean really. How much difference is there between Rudy and Hillary? Do you, even remotely see Rudy vetoing any "sensible" gun control legislation placed on his desk? How about on the Alphabet Ninja front? What about Bloomberg? He is apparently considering a late run. Would that Republican get your vote?
And the Republican party supports Rudy. He represents what the party leadership finds acceptable, even desirable in a candidate. He's not some outsider -- he da man. What does that say for their support of small government and the 2nd Amendment?
I wont vote for hillary or obama, but I won't vote for Rudy and my "wasted" vote on whatever third party candidate of a libertarian bent will tell the party that you moved away from what I want out of your platform. And they watch every percent of shift, and will notice if even 10 percent say FU, try harder next time.
As for the whole gun control issue... it most certainly matters.. sure..not every single republican is as good about it as I would like but... bills like the magazine ban never even come up when republicans control things. You can always count on democrats to bring more and more gun control bills to the vote.
The Republican front runner was ramming gun control bills down the throat of New Yorkers for years. The Republicans in my state, and the Democrats vote along demographic and geographic lines out of fear. Democrats downstate are, by and large, AFRAID to be anti gun. Republicans in Cook county and a few others in the area are more concerned about the Soccer Mom vote. The party itself is willing to comprise regularly on the 2nd to keep the RINOS in power up north. I have no doubt that the RINOS that turned did so out of a party position on the issue - we can lose this one, it's not so bad. Death by 1000 cuts.
But, I don't think the Soccer Moms really care all that much about guns. Abortion rights, sure. A variety of other social issues too. They need to be AFRAID of those of us who do care about the 2nd.
People by and large don't care either way and most don't even vote. Those that do are increasingly buying into the concept that the Government must take care of them - Democrat or Republican. On the BOR, I see more similarity than differences among the parties -- in a bad way. Where the 2nd is concerned it is still mainly a demographic or geographic issue. I see that power base increasingly eroding as the rural gun tradition fades and the message that the 2nd is about hunting or sporting use becoming more entrenched among the population in general, even among "conservatives."
I guess I believe that the window of opportunity to roll things back is a small one. And now, people are pissed off just enough, and the Internet is getting around the MSM just enough, that something big could happen. perhaps not big in something like a ron Paul victory, but big in like a 10 or 20 percent shift and maybe a shift from both parties. Libertarian thought does resonate among social liberals especially those who are moderates fiscally. And Paul will be the Daily show and the Cobert report and Bill Mahr is giving him time as well. Frankly, I think a Paul will pull more moderate and liberal votes than conservative (especially since the attack machine is in full gear).
Charon
-
Charon you make some good points.
-
ok.. so voting republican tells them we like their policies and that we don't like billarys...
I would say that is a net plus. I don't like the NYC gun control guy one bit but his idea on gun control can not be any worse than billaries and.. who would encourage more gun control bills to be brought up?
At least with bush fewer were brought up than any other time. What you say sounds good but it fails the test of reality.
Simply look at what bills are brought up and signed when democrats are in power... sure.. republicans come up with and get into law some stinkers... far too many but... nothing like the democrats... they go hog wild when they think people like em... look at the stuff they are introducing as we speak..
Also.. in the reality check... look at any bill out there... look at the partisan way it is voted on. You will never have vouchers with democrats running things. no matter how bad illegal border crossings are and how much we give criminals now... a democrat will only make it worse... illegals will be voting and getting even more benifiets.
The democrats will give the EPA more power over our lives with junk science and higher fees and taxes and restrictions in our lives.. the EPA is worse than the IRS in some ways.
The democrats will pander to the UN... too many reasons to shun the democrats... To many reasons why voting for them is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Democrats have nothing to offer me and lots of ways to take my money and my freedom from me. I don't want a land where everyone is equally poor and protected from themselves.
lazs
-
Hey Lazs, one thing you mentioned that I've seen repeated a bunch here is the statement that illegals are voting. Can you provide some info on that? I'd like to learn more.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Hey Lazs, one thing you mentioned that I've seen repeated a bunch here is the statement that illegals are voting. Can you provide some info on that? I'd like to learn more.
I don't have any proof, but I don't see it as far-fetched. Dead people have been known to vote as well.
One thing I will not say is that it's exclusive to a particular party.
-
Libertarians are few and far between.
There are many who call themselves libertarians because one particular facet of libertarian thought appeals to their hot button issue.
Examples.........
Potheads call themselves libertarian because libertarians are all for legalization. Those knuckleheads are as far from libertarian as you could get.
Ron Paul is not a libertarian.
The most obvious example is his stance on free trade. He strongly opposes free trade agreements.
That IS not a true libertarian stance.
A true libertarian also would be all for amnesty for illegal immigrants. A true libertarian would proclaim the current immigration laws as bad law.
A core belief of a true libertarian is as follows:
Any law that is not willingly followed by the MAJORITY is bad law.
Example is murder. The majority do not break this law. It is an example of good law.
An example of bad law is speed limits of 55 MPH on interstates designed for 70 MPH. Those laws were not willingly followed by the majority. Bad law.
Ron Paul does not stand up to the true libertarian test on many issues yet he refers to himself as a libertarian.
One has to wonder why?
There is a large group of disaffected voters who call themselves libertarian but are not.
What they are is something at the same time silly and sinister.
They believe the US Government is controlled by a cabal of the super-rich pulling the strings.
They believe this cabal is trying to create one world governent. The very thought of ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT makes these people quake with fear and anger but I always ask "What if it was one government based upon a strict interpretation of the US constitution?"
I don't get many answers.
They believe the CIA was behind 9/11 and OBL is on the CIA payroll. What does that have to do with Ron Paul? Just look at his answers to questions about OBL. He doesn't ever give a straight one. He knows he can't say OBL is CIA in public but he sure wants too.
They believe there is a plot to create one nation of Canada, US and Mexico as the first step towards the New World Order of One World Government. I've heard Ron Paul say he believes this is happening from his own mouth. (Personally, I love the idea of one nation from the North pole to the Panama Canal but I don't think there is some huge secret effort to do so)
There is a lot more wrapped up in the New World Order conspiracy theory stuff than I can possibly cover in one post. Ron Paul has stated his belief in public to some of this stuff and his campaign is attracting a lot of these fringe conspiracy theorists who fantasize about being libertarian.
Where there is smoke there is fire.
I knew nothing about Ron Paul a few months ago but I was challenged to learn about him.
So I did. I dug deep and found out lots of stuff. No way I would ever vote for him now.
Dig deep and you will find the same stuff.
Of course, if you are inclined towards New World Order conspiracy theory Ron Paul is definitely your man.
But if Ron Paul appeals to you but conspiracy theory doesn't then you need to dig deeper.
Listen to Shortwave 9.985 in the mornings. There is a nutjob called Alex Jones who unintentionally lets the world know where RP really stands.
-
ok.. so voting republican tells them we like their policies and that we don't like billarys...
I would say that is a net plus. I don't like the NYC gun control guy one bit but his idea on gun control can not be any worse than billaries and.. who would encourage more gun control bills to be brought up?
At least with bush fewer were brought up than any other time. What you say sounds good but it fails the test of reality.
I would like to move beyond "fewer gun control bills" to no gun control bills or more pro firearm legislation. The 2nd, and the erosion of the 4th have to be addressed in a forceful manner, and now. Each year, each election moves us farther away from being able to turn back the clock. This whole compromise my rights away, it's better to lose an ounce instead of a pound thing is too tiresome to endure. The system is broke, and IMO a Rudy Republican party or a Hillary Democratic party will both, eventually, arrive at the same point. Sooner rather than later.
The current two parties only tolerate the 2nd and 4th etc. because they have to, but time is on their side. By and large many Americans just don't care about the nuts and bolts of freedom. The mainstream media is clearly on the big safe government side, especially on the 2nd. Check out Anderson Coopers latest piece. As balanced as a seesaw with an elephant on one end and nobody on the other. Big government is the only government they know. I would say that had CHO used an AK series or an AR series, we would already have an AWB, perhaps a softer one than 1022, and that Bush would have already signed it into law. And there would be more than a little Republican support.
However, we have an opportunity this year. Republicans are pissed at Bush -- they are starting to see, at least at some level, that he is not really a conservative representing their values. Many will still vote the party line, but some will not. Some have had enough. For the Democrats... perhaps there is some change there. It's been easy to be distracted by the "hate bush" message. But there are cracks. Even Cindy Sheehan can see them. Maybe the Democrats aren't all that much different from the hated Republicans.
I think Immigration will be a key issue. Hey, they BOTH want to screw us! I think any exposure Ron Paul has will be key, even if it just provides a history lesson. Hey, we weren't founded on a big government ideal. I think that if enough people step back from the lesser of two evils this election cycle both parties will have to consider change. Maybe there could even be a viable independent party.
It's up to us. We get the quality of government we deserve. And, I refuse, personally, to vote for anyone that I cannot honestly support on the quality of their positions and character. No more for me. No more playing the game. Not enough real difference between the two political brands for it to be worth my while. Especially since the Republicans have many flaws where BOR issues other than the 2nd are concerned.
Charon
-
Alot of big talking people state over and over again that the second amendment is the most important because it guarantees the rest of the amendments. I don't remember anyone taking up arms while the fourth amendment was tattered by the so called pro gun and pro liberty party, but there is plenty of hullabaloo over the liberals attacking the second and these same big talkers are threatening revolution. :confused:
Bush has already promised to sign 1022 into law, by the way. It's time to start voting FOR people instead of against other people. Pencil it in if you have to.
-
Originally posted by VOR
Alot of big talking people state over and over again that the second amendment is the most important because it guarantees the rest of the amendments. I don't remember anyone taking up arms while the fourth amendment was tattered by the so called pro gun and pro liberty party, but there is plenty of hullabaloo over the liberals attacking the second and these same big talkers are threatening revolution. :confused:
Bush has already promised to sign 1022 into law, by the way. It's time to start voting FOR people instead of against other people. Pencil it in if you have to.
I was expecting the good 'ol boys in LA to resist giving up their guns after Katrina. Didn't happen, they were too intimidated by the federal thugs with bigger guns. meh...
-
chair... I did not say that illegals were voting I said that if the democrats have their way the illegals will be voting.. the democrats are the ones who want to give illegals drivers licences and.. they want a test for who gets to vote to be.... who has a drivers licence.
chair.. I don't think we are far off except that I can't see the point in allowing the democrats to get power. The horrible bills are always brought up by democrats.
go to the national taxpayers union sight and you will see that democrats are at least 3 times more likely than republicans to vote for new taxes. That seems like a pretty compelling reason to vote republican... it seems like a pretty substantial difference in the parties to me.
vor... all the amendments are bent every day. I think the only thing that keeps em from downright throwing em out is the second. When will we have enough that we have armed insurection? I hope never... I hope that the pendulum will swing the other way before then...
But no matter how you look at it... you are better off armed.
lazs
-
I agree that it's better to be armed than not, but I have no illusions about what being armed really means in America in the 21st century. You'll be on your own, and so will I.
-
Gumbeau, I am personally a centrist with libertarian leanings. I don't believe in Anarchy as a valid political model, as some libertarians do. Neither does Dr. Paul, apparently. While he is still a "bit" too extreme in his short term goals (it will take a lot of work and education to significantly turn back big government) he offers more of a strong libertarian flavor than a pure libertarian manifesto.
However, a lot of his detractors are overstating his positions as part of the usual attack process.
The most obvious example is his stance on free trade. He strongly opposes free trade agreements.
Personally, I agree with his views on free trade. For free trade to actually be free there has to be a level playing field. Current globalization is not. We hold thing like fair labor, human rights and environmental consciousness to be important, yet we allow our manufacturing base to be outsourced to countries that blatantly disregard these moral positions. How can you compete with prison labor in China? Here are Paul's views:
No restrictions on import/export; but maintain sovereignty .
Paul adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement:
As adopted by the General Membership of the Republican Liberty Caucus at its Biannual Meeting held December 8, 2000.
WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility;
WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people;
WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and
WHEREAS we believe in upholding the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land;
BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles:
The US government should inhibit neither the exportation of US goods and services worldwide, nor the importation of goods and services.
The United States should not be answerable to any governing body outside the United States for its trade policy.
Current globalization only favors a select, bipartisan few with major stock holdings. The only exports globalization has netted for the US are manufacturing jobs while the trade deficit blooms. Again, good for some, IMO bad for the rest of us.
A true libertarian also would be all for amnesty for illegal immigrants. A true libertarian would proclaim the current immigration laws as bad law.
Which is why it's good that Paul isn't a pure libertarian in the anarchist sense. As related to the above, cheap Mexican workers benefit business interests by providing labor for jobs that Americans don't want to do for $5 per hour and no benefits like carpentry work, plumbing, roofing, factory work, hotel work, etc. Good for some subset of Americans, mind you, but bad for anyone without an MBA.
Ron Paul does not stand up to the true libertarian test on many issues yet he refers to himself as a libertarian.
If he did I wouldn't be nearly as interested in what he has to say. And, there is no "one" libertarian pigeonhole.
There is a lot more wrapped up in the New World Order conspiracy theory stuff than I can possibly cover in one post. Ron Paul has stated his belief in public to some of this stuff and his campaign is attracting a lot of these fringe conspiracy theorists who fantasize about being libertarian.
Where there is smoke there is fire.
Gun ownership attracts a lot of fringe and stereotypes too. So does immigration. Don't support it you must be part of the Klan because the Klan doesn't support it. The people who would like Paul to go away and who are surprised he got this far will make sure there is plenty of rumor, spin and innuendo to get you to pull the lever for Rudy in 08.
From what I've read that he actually stated on the subject, he seems to note that we are moving towards a globalization model where nationalism will be less important, where the power will be held in the hands of like minded elites and where we will have a fairly socialized international environment. It good for business, after all. And since we no longer have those pesky commies to worry about, we can ramp it up a notch. Here's what he has to say:
"I think even our first President Bush said that the New World Order was in tune and that's what they were working for. The U.N. is part of that government. They're working right now very significantly for a North American Union - that's why there are a lot of people in Washington right now who don't care too much about our borders. They have a philosophic belief that national sovereignty is not important. It's also the reason that I have made very strong suggestion that we need not be in the United Nations for our national security," Congressman Paul said.
Nothing there that I generally disagree with. In fact, I don't have a problem with a New World Order as long as it respected the U.S. BOR and lacked the heavy socialism :)
Charon
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Hey Lazs, one thing you mentioned that I've seen repeated a bunch here is the statement that illegals are voting. Can you provide some info on that? I'd like to learn more.
Some states, like Tennessee, where I am, have what's called the "motor voter" law. In simple terms, you can register to vote when you go get or renew your driver's license. And many of those states issue a driver's license to aliens, both legal and illegal. You should go to a driver testing station around here. The line starts 2 hours before the place opens, and stretches around the building and into the parking lot. English is NOT the language most commonly spoken in line, either.