Golly. I hope everyone is now appropriately living in fear.
pick your fear
Obama is worried about your health care and Global Warming
Cheney & Bush saw terrorism as #1
Pick your fear, could be your own shadow
pick your fear
Obama is worried about your health care and Global Warming
Cheney & Bush saw terrorism as #1
Pick your fear, could be your own shadow
You want liberty? Bring back the Founding Fathers.
Your request can only happen with another revolution -- we need a good revolution about every 200 years or so, give or take 34 years.
Personally, I am far more concerned about loss of liberty. Protecting liberty should be the government's primary concern, not catching the bad guys or making sure the wealthy are punished in the name of falsely helping the poor. So let me know when you start caring about liberty.
You want liberty? Bring back the Founding Fathers.
Your request can only happen with another revolution -- we need a good revolution about every 200 years or so, give or take 34 years.
You want liberty? Bring back the Founding Fathers.
Your request can only happen with another revolution -- we need a good revolution about every 200 years or so, give or take 34 years.
Nah. We just need more honesty, which is to say, for people to stop lying about how the government is the people, and to stop telling lies about how liberty must be sacrificed for pragmatism, which almost never ends up being all that pragmatic except to the politicians and their political goals. If anyone really thinks we are safer now than we were pre-September 11, 2001, there is a bridge in Brooklyn I would love to sell you. If anyone thinks the U.S. Congress is going to pass a bill that makes health care better for everyone, there is a bridge in San Fransisco I would love to sell you.
You can have either bridge really cheap too. There are secret plans (I know you won't tell anyone) to use stimulus dollars to build new bridges, and so the others will soon be demolished, and you will be guaranteed to double, no, triple your money as you sell the pieces to collectors and scrap metal yards. I'd do it myself, but, conflict of interest, ethics boards, you know how that goes. So speak up now, this deal won't be available for long.
you got two choices
1. wave your magic wand
2. a revolution or it won't happen
we need to get people into the streets, get people involved, people to vote for good candidates.
you got two choices
1. wave your magic wand
2. a revolution or it won't happen
Or it won't happen fast you mean. Don't assume I'm as impatient as you are.
we need to get people into the streets, get people involved, people to vote for good candidates.
That assumes there are good candidates for whom to vote. I suppose there are, but they are few in number, and most folks don't get the opportunity to vote for one.
you like to assume a lot
so let's assume that good candidates will come forward to replace the crap we currently have in Congress.
Don't forget the "Sleeping Giant" is now stirring. We have the better half of 2010 to gear up.
you like to assume a lot
Actually, I try to not assume.
so let's assume that good candidates will come forward to replace the crap we currently have in Congress.
And we are supposed to assume this because...?
Don't forget the "Sleeping Giant" is now stirring. We have the better half of 2010 to gear up.
I'll believe it when I see it. I still remember how the "Republican Revolution" turned out. They were going to reshape the government and bring fiscal responsibility to the Congress. Didn't happen.
because the sleeping giant is stirring
you need to have faith in humanity
because the sleeping giant is stirring
you need to have faith in humanity
because the sleeping giant is stirring
you need to have faith in humanity
I do have faith in humanity. Just not in politicians.
we don't want politicians we want honest intelligent caring citizens that want to do the right thing. not crooks..
have faith you will see them come forth in 2010.
we don't want politicians we want honest intelligent caring citizens that want to do the right thing. not crooks..
Many of the people who supported Obama said the same thing. But beyond that, the problem is expecting people to get involved in politics and not be politicians.
have faith you will see them come forth in 2010.
I do not. I expect to see what I have seen before. Politicians rising up the polls on rhetoric that sounds real good, and then ending up acting like 99.99% of all other politicians these days. I would like very much to be wrong, but I have yet to see any reason that I am.
conservatives are different than liberals. In a good way.
conservatives are different than liberals. In a good way.
As a libertarian, I have watched both conservative and liberal politicians all do the same sort of things. As I said before, the "Republican Revolution" was going to reshape the government and bring fiscal responsibility to the Congress, and that didn't happen. George W. Bush was going to make a stand for conservative values and smaller government. That didn't happen. The result of both was basically more spending, more power in the hands of government, and expanded government run social programs. So tell me, when I see these good conservatives of strong moral character who will do what pretty nearly all other conservative politicians before them have not done actually do these things, then I will believe it will happen, and not before.
do you not understand none of that matters now? it's a new ballgame TODAY. the sleeping giant is stirring.
do you not understand none of that matters now? it's a new ballgame TODAY. the sleeping giant is stirring.
Given the opportunities the sleeping giant had to awaken in the past, from FDR on through GWB, I will, as I said before, believe it when I see it. I hope you are right, but I doubt it.
>>As a libertarian, I have watched both conservative and liberal politicians all do the same sort of things.<<
As a libertarian you've wasted your vote on candidates who couldn't be elected dog catcher. Wouldn't it be more productive to work inside the Republican party to effect the changes you feel are nessessary rather than be nothing but a fringe candidate supporter?
Libertarians, I agree with much of their platform, are never going to be anything but a curiosity.
The sleeping giant is a drooling dolt if you are referring to the teabaggers.
As best I can tell, it's separated from the Democratic Party is few ways and those separations are paper-thin.
Given the evidence I think I can be very sure. The evidence being local and national elections over the past say ... 75 years?
[...]
I think the question for Libertarians is whether or not they are willing to compromise in order to get the majority of their views put into action by a party that can actually do it.
Isn't 75 percent better than nothing?
Isn't it worth keeping the statists out of power and keeping them from destroying the America you and I love?
"Smarter Than You Caucus."
All kidding aside, you'd be doing the country more good inside than you have been outside.
>>Republicans really could use the new blood and the new ideas, but would the Libertarians get enough "half- a- loaf" to make it worth their time?<<
Agreed. As far as timing goes, now would be the perfect time. There are hundreds of thousand (more?) people who used to be Republicans who have stepped out of the tent until someone comes along to make the changes they are calling for. Sarah Palin is a perfect example. She's seen as a real Conservative. An outsider who can right the ship. Libertarians could do the same. Fresh ideas, fresh faces, The GOP needs them now more than ever.
As for half a loaf, I say put your country first, not your party.
Wouldn't you agree that both parties have change their positions, or added or dropped different positions over the life time of the parties?
Being cynical isn't going to affect change. Neither is sitting on the margin.
But don’t Libertarians agree with much of the Republican platform?
I suggest that you would be welcomed into the party and given that Republicans are much saner and open to discussion you would do much more good there.
All kidding aside, you'd be doing the country more good inside than you have been outside.
You don't know how I feel, what I think. And if I tried to explain it the rest of your life you will never understand. You are 30 years older than I am. You and your whole lousy generation believes the way it was for you is the way it's got to be. And not until your whole generation has lain down and died will the dead weight of you be off our backs! You understand, you've got to get off my back! |
I'm going to have to disagree with you, Pooch.
I think Palin is as ready for the presidency as Obama was/is.
I think you will see that her grassroots support is far stronger than the MSM will lead you to believe.
I think there is just as compelling a story in coming from the PTA to the pinnacle, from housewife to White House as there is in Obama's journey. And her story has far more substance and detail. We will find out come Iowa, if she chooses to run, whether the people let the press and comedians pick their candidates or whether they believe their own eyes and ears.
It amazes me that the whole dumb barbie doll slur is allowed by to stand. Because it implies that a woman's worth is based on her looks and her intelligence is based on whether she is of the aristocracy or sponsored by them. State Universities are sub par.
2012 is a ways off. 2010 will be a good harbinger of things to come. Don't be surprised if Obama has a challenger from the dem side. Palin will be a player in 2012 and she will help set the tone of the election. IMHO
But generally, it goes from good to bad - not the other way around.
By Prime Time I was not referring to the Presidency. Sarah, having been a governor, is probably better prepared to lead than Obama. I was referring to the campaign trail, where you have to convince people you can lead. She lost credibility when she stared at Charlie Gibson like an idiot when he mentioned the Bush Doctrine.
Libertarianism demands a confluence of circumstances that plain never conflate in the wild.
You don't get to economic liberty by opening your borders to populations with a habit of voting themselves public services. You don't get less government by attacking the relationships that people have relied upon as an alternative to government. You don't get liberty by undermining the institutions that have secured us any liberty at all. Realistically, civilization has been a story of people giving up their individual liberties in the interests of maintaining civil society, not by asserting their individuality to the point of making civil society impossible.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child, I was a libertarian as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child, I was a libertarian as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Well first of all UP I didn't say you were childish. I said Libertarianism is childish. So I see no need for you posting that I personally am confused, or that you have pity for me personally. Not very libertarian of you, rather "upity" at first blush in fact.
Second, Libertarianism is hardly the only political platform that takes liberty, and human rights seriously.
Well first of all UP I didn't say you were childish. I said Libertarianism is childish. So I see no need for you posting that I personally am confused, or that you have pity for me personally. Not very libertarian of you, rather "upity" at first blush in fact.
Second, Libertarianism is hardly the only political platform that takes liberty, and human rights seriously.
I don't know about you, but most people I know don't consider themselves to be their political take.
What has been exposed is poor judgement, a lack of professionalism, an inability to take advice, sloppy management skills, and more. She unelectable as a presidential candidate.
What is the origin of the phrase "Bush Doctrine"?
What is the origin of the phrase "Bush Doctrine"?
Wikipedia cites this column by Neil Coates from Sep 30, 2001 as the first reference: http://texnews.com/1998/2001/opinion/bush0930.html (http://texnews.com/1998/2001/opinion/bush0930.html) It looks like a credible claim, given the date, tne logic of the article and the title:
The Bush Doctrine: New policy to ensure our safety must be examined
By Neal Coates
A defining moment in American foreign policy occurred after the morning of Sept. 11. President George W. Bush declared the terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C., had triggered a new foreign policy focused on fighting terrorism.
This statement is of such significance we will soon call it the “Bush Doctrine.”
It also makes this rather prescient statement:
What if Saddam Hussein helped bin Laden? Would we invade Iraq? As articulated to date, it appears America would.
An interesting read, given our persepctive even a short 8 years later.
Thank you, Dick, for illustrating a point I made to Rich earlier in the thread.
See, Rich? Dick thinks libertarianism is people "asserting their individuality to the point of making civil society impossible." He even goes to far as to set up this entirely false dichotomy of "people giving up their individual liberties in the interests of maintaining civil society" and people "asserting their individuality to the point of making civil society impossible." Apparently, either one wants to maintain civil society Dick's way, or one wants to make civil society impossible, with no room allowed for any other options.
Apparently, Dick thinks free trade in goods and labor creates a loss of economic liberty.
Supporting more people having relationships that people have been relied on as an alternative to government is really, by Dick's accounting, an attack on those relationships.
And if we follow Dick's logic, the most civil society of all is one where individual liberties do not exist.
I'm sure Dick will deny some of what I said,
Rich, his attitude is far more representative of the general Republican response to libertarian ideas than is yours.
So It was not Bush , the Adminisration nor even any Republican who termed the idea " Bush Doctrine"?
Why is Palin supposed to be ready to comment on a "policy" or "doctrine" that Bush himself wouldn't recognise?
At least not by that label.
I beleive that this incident illistrates the sophistication of Palins attackers.
Raising children or caring for infirm elders will never be economically profitable enterprises. However, they are necessary for a functioning society. The liberal views those activities as the appropriate domain of government. The conservative considers them more appropriately managed by traditional families, and therefore advocates policies which facilitates or strengthens the traditional structures. How does the libertarian propose to manage them?
Nominating Palin in 2012 will be a mistake.
Oh, come one! That's a terrible argument, Plane. You're grasping at straws. EVERYBODY recognized the term "Bush Doctrine" by 2008 (except, of course, Sarah Palin - and apparently you).
Neil Coates
QuoteNominating Palin in 2012 will be a mistake.
Not if she successfully runs the gauntlet of the primaries.
Then it will be the will of the people.
I suggest you brought your own take on the phrasing.
Further evidence of that would be the fact that you never even asked me why I think Libertarianism is childish. You were only concerned with your point of view.
You define "doctrine" as such an all encompassing term that Palins asking for more specificity makes better sense.
No I do not recognise even yet "Bush Doctrine" as a product of the Bush Administration or as a term that refers to any specific and actual thing.
To me "Doctrine" implys a specific policy chosen to be put forward as important and overrideing to other policys.
I really doubt that a Quote for George Bush in which he declares a doctrine can be found , nor any single definition of what it means that is widely recognised.
Was I? You seem only concerned with proving you're better. First you're too adult for libertarianism, now your poor communication is all my fault. Notably, other than to say I must be wrong, you haven't bothered to explain your position. And unless you have something new to say I've never heard before, which I doubt, I have no motivation to ask you why you think libertarianism is childish.
That's a rather funny comment coming from someone who describes themselves as a "libertarian", a group that has apparently appointed themselves the arbiters of all things that constitute liberty, and dismiss all competing visions as "statist" or "anti-freedom".
Doubly funny because they mostly seem to be in the business of petitioning the state to inflict on their citizens policies the citizens have never, ever chosen for themselves.
You think you don't have open borders or gay marriage because governments are standing in the way? Is that a joke? Governments have imposed those things on their citizens at every chance they've gotten! Any time they've been put to a referendum, they've been soundly defeated. Who's the "statist" there?
It seems to me a large portion of "libertarianism" is the same politically correct crap governments have been trying to shove down the throats of their unwilling citizens for decades, sexed up with a veneer of sex, drugs and rock and roll and a leather jacket to make it appealing to gullible college students.
No government ever had a better shill on the payroll than the Cato Institute or Reason magazine.
Hint: Liberty is an abstract concept, not a checklist of agenda items.
There is no such thing as absolute liberty in civil society, nor could there possibly be.
The domain of permissible liberties within civil society is a legitimate object of debate. Whining "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" whenever your your pet agenda item is rejected is not.
So, presumably, you would object to a government policy prohibiting a private entrepreneur from selling nuclear and biological weapons to third-world dictatorships hostile to the United States? Personally, I would consider getting nuked off the face of the earth a rather significant loss of my economic liberty, to say the least.
Another hint: You will never enjoy absolute liberty within any society.
Before you enjoy any liberty at all, you have to facilitate an environment where liberty is possible. Some economic transactions are very much detrimental to facilitating that environment. I consider restricting the 5% of transactions that are damaging to that environment in return for maintaining an environment where the other 95% of transactions can flourish a very reasonable trade-off indeed.
Humans need water to live. However, a drink of water and getting drowned in a swimming pool are two different things.
Presumably, you are referring to gay marriage, which is hardly the extent of the range of examples I was referring to.
There is a good reason our political dichotomy is divided between conservative and liberal, and libertarian not at all. There are some functions necessary to society that will never be profitable from a economic perspective. Raising children or caring for infirm elders will never be economically profitable enterprises. However, they are necessary for a functioning society. The liberal views those activities as the appropriate domain of government. The conservative considers them more appropriately managed by traditional families, and therefore advocates policies which facilitates or strengthens the traditional structures. How does the libertarian propose to manage them? Markets don't cater to unprofitable activities.
Nobody is advocating telling anyone what kind of relationship they can form, and what kind of contracts they can make between themselves.
But some relationships are valuable enough to society at large that society protects and privileges them. In the case of heterosexual relationships, they provide the means for a society to perpetuate itself. The law privileges them because, in return, they provide a value to society. What value do gay relationships offer society? None. That is why few, if any, societies grant them a privileged status. It's a demand of something for nothing.
So, a society where I can shoot anybody who annoys me, rape my neighbors daughter, and help myself to his property is a civil society?
The point here, is that *some* restrictions on personal liberty are required for civil society. Nobody besides maybe the anarchist fringe disputes that.
And the domain of what restrictions are required, and what liberties are permissible, is very much a legitimate debate.
I'm sure Dick will deny some of what I said,
No, but I'll certainly clarify your mischaracterization of it.
I voted for Ron Paul. But if the Reason crowd started voting for my party, I'd wonder what was wrong with my party!
I see no reason why the Republicans should be bothered cultivating that kind of libertarian.
A platform of Acid, Amnesty and Abortion did nothing for the Democrats - ask George McGovern - and I have no reason to believe it will improve the prospects for Republicans, either. Whatever votes they win from the more libertine branch of the libertarians will not compensate for the votes they lose from the sane.
Winning the nomination is a mistake if it results in losing the presidency.
UP, I have to say something. I have the utmost respect for you, in spite of our different viewpoints concerning your political position.
I do not mean to join a gangbang here, but I think there is a fundamental flaw with your objection to the characterization of your ideology as "childish" or any other thing, and that is that you personalize it.
You define "doctrine" as such an all encompassing term that Palins asking for more specificity makes better sense.
"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." Sep 11, 2001
"Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. . .
[/b] From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
" Sep 20, 2001
She was the Republican governor of a state but couldn't put into words the doctrine of a president from her own party, and a doctrine that's principles guided us into a war.
"That Palin failed to know the inside ball of Washington chatter"
The "inside ball of Washington chatter"? The whole premise behind invading Iraq was as a preemptive strike from the "Bush Doctrine". She was the Republican governor of a state but couldn't put into words the doctrine of a president from her own party, and a doctrine that's principles guided us into a war.
QuoteWinning the nomination is a mistake if it results in losing the presidency.
Again, not if it is the will of the people. I wonder if Reagan could have been President if Goldwater had won?
Exactly right, her own son was over there. Just another reason she should have been paying better attention.
I do feel as if I am learning something, I myself had never heard this term before the interview with Palin made it popular and I didn't ever see it described so well untill just now.
I don't think I am severely isolated , but I would have been at a loss to express an opinion on the term "Bush Doctrine" yesterday.
Perhaps it was being used a lot in circles I am not privvy to , or perhaps you overestimate the spread of the term as it was at the time.
Perhaps both , but if it is Historians that produce these phrases, how is a canadate responsible to know them?
That Palin failed to know the inside ball of Washington chatter doesn't offend me so much as attract me. There is much more to how the world works than what happens inside the city limits of Washington D.C..
The Bush Doctrine is not why her son is there.
He is there because of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
So the authorization to use force against a regime that had not attacked us, based on the justification that there was an imminent threat of WMDs and that the regime supported terrorism, made against the wishes of the United Nations, was NOT a product of the Doctrine that said we would unilaterally and preemptively attack regimes that supported terror or posed an imminent threat?
QuoteSo the authorization to use force against a regime that had not attacked us, based on the justification that there was an imminent threat of WMDs and that the regime supported terrorism, made against the wishes of the United Nations, was NOT a product of the Doctrine that said we would unilaterally and preemptively attack regimes that supported terror or posed an imminent threat?
Only if you consider the Bush Doctrine to be the beginning of the conflict with Iraq.
I fail to see how Palin winning the nomination equates to her losing the election.
To clarify, I believe that Palin cannot win a general election; therefore, I believe it would be a mistake to choose her as our candidate in the next election.
QuoteTo clarify, I believe that Palin cannot win a general election; therefore, I believe it would be a mistake to choose her as our candidate in the next election.
I don't see why not. Her favorables are within points of Obama.
Congress urged regime change in 98, signed into law by Clinton. Perhaps the Bush Doctrine is more accurately the Clinton Doctrine.
Are her favorables within points of Obamas in November 2008?
Did Bill Clinton state that we could pre-emptively, unilaterally take action against any regime that harbored terrorists?
QuoteAre her favorables within points of Obamas in November 2008?
It's not November 2008. Obama's blank slate is starting to look like the artwork of a three year old on an etch a sketch
QuoteDid Bill Clinton state that we could pre-emptively, unilaterally take action against any regime that harbored terrorists?
No but he did launch a ton of missiles aimed at Iraq.
Since when do vp candidates win or lose elections?
I define losing an election this way.
You run for office.
People vote for you.
More people vote for the other guy.
My ballot did not give me the choice to vote for Palin directly. It was either the McCain ticket or the Obama ticket or a third party ticket.
Actually, I believe mine did, though the candidates were listed together for clarity.
QuoteActually, I believe mine did, though the candidates were listed together for clarity.
So you could have voted for McCain and Biden?
I've never considered giving the blame or the credit for a win or loss to anyone other than the head of the ticket.
I'm not sure if many people have.
The choice of Palin gave McCain a much needed bump in the polls.
Why do you think the crass vitriol against her and her family was so ferocious?
It worked.
But the Iraq war itself is a book written entirely by Bush II, and his predecessors, and only under certain particular historical perspectives would it be a sequel to his fathers book.
Congress urged regime change in 98, signed into law by Clinton. Perhaps the Bush Doctrine is more accurately the Clinton Doctrine.
Choosing Palin did NOT WORK.
Had it worked, McCain would have won.
It's really that simple.
QuoteIt worked.
Worked with Romney too. Didn't make it right.
>>I'm not really talking about blame or credit - just the result. Sarah was a choice - like any other running mate - designed to help the Prez candidate's chances. It didn't work.<<
I'd say it did. We all remember the problems McCain had with the base of the Republican party. Bringing Palin to the ticket energized the base and brought a lot of the base back iunto the Republican fold. In my case it made me hold my nose for little less time in the voting booth when I voted for McCain.
So as far as the ticket goes, Palin won, and ultimately McCain lost.
Nothing was going to get a Republican elected in 2008 except a strong, well-supported, exciting leader who brought out Republican voters and appealed to the independents.
That right there shows you don't know what you're talking about. Libertarians generally don't want the government to inflict anything. They want the government simply to get out of the way.
Whining and making up nonsense because other people want more liberty than you do isn't really debate.
I can play this game too. So presumably, you think the most civil society of all is one where individual liberties do not exist. You support total authoritarian control over every aspect of life?
A bogus description of the nature of the situation. Once again, you're trying to argue against having no restrictions when no one has argued for it.
In any case, your question is flawed. You have clearly assumed libertarian thought begins and ends with markets. Here is yet another hint: Your assumption is wrong. If you had done a modicum of research into this, you would see the libertarian position on things like marriage is that it not the government's business who is and is not married. If one church wants to not allow homosexual marriage, that's okay but not a reason to prevent another church from allowing it. If two people want to enter into a private legal agreement, the extent of the government's involvement would be protection against fraud and the like, i.e. infringements on individual rights. See? Nothing to do with markets at all.[/color]
Nobody is advocating telling anyone what kind of relationship they can form, and what kind of contracts they can make between themselves.
If you're opposing homosexual marriage, yes, you are.
That is a very narrow-minded view of marriage.
So, presumably, you favor law against all childless marriage. Tell me, if a woman is not capable of becoming pregnant, should she be allowed to marry at all? Presumably, you favor going back to really traditional marriage practices, arranging marriages for for teenagers so they can have more time to produce plenty of offspring. That is the whole point of marriage, right? All that stuff about love and romance and two people choosing to spend their lives together, that is all just a liberal corruption of traditional values, right?[/color]
What you're either missing or deliberately trying to be misleading about is that no one at all is advocating that everyone be allowed to do anything and everything they want. You keep arguing against that, but no one argued in favor of it, not at Reason, not at Cato, and not here at the Three Dead Horses Saloon. So you're arguing against something no one wants. Congratulations on a job almost well done.
More like you'll make up a lot of nonsense to blow smoke at the discussion and hope no one notices.
They like Ron Paul at Reason. A lot of Reason readers probably voted for him. Reason also likes Jeff Flake. I wonder if any Reason-reading libertarians voted for Jeff Flake. Your party could be in serious trouble already!
QuoteIt worked.
Worked with Romney too. Didn't make it right.
So what does right have to do with it. Romney lost because he was a Mormon - at least partially.
>>Sarah Palin was interesting as a sideshow to Republicans. She was nothing more.<<
This is obviously misguided. Before Palin was put on the tickets Republicans were speculating daily about how McCain could satisfy the Conservative base. They knew he would have to bring a VP candidate on board who would satisfy the base. He did just that with Palin. Gov. Palin was more popular with Conservatives than McCain himself and without her he would have done mush worse. McCain didn’t lose because of Bush. He lost because the media had been slandering and libeling Bush for eight years and they were successful in fooling enough people into voting for a man with no qualifications and a Socialist to boot.
>>Anybody who still thinks that the way to get a Republican in the White House is to nominate a strong conservative is deluded.<<
The country club Republicans believed the same. The gave us McCain, never confused with a Conservative Republican. When given the choice between a Conservative (Reagan), or one who claims to be (Bush 41 & 43), the people have always chosen the Conservative.
You'd have to be deliberately obtuse to believe otherwise.
Whether or not Palin can get elected will have a lot to do with how pissed off people are with Obama by 2010.
It was said about Reagan that he was too conservative, too outside the mainstream to get elected. All of which usually would have been true. I can't see him having got elected in 1968, 1972 or 1976. But by 1980 people were so fed up with Carter the Republicans could have nominated a lamp post and still handily won.
Of course, whether it's to the Republican's advantage to win the presidency in 2012 is a whole 'nother question. By the end of that president's term, a lot of entitlement spending is going to come due for retiring boomers, and likely by then the Chinese will have cut up our credit card. There are problems that won't go away no matter who's in power. And whoever is in power is going to carry the can for it, fairly or not.
It might very well be a good idea for the Republicans to sit this one out, and leave the Democrats holding the bag for the collapse. My take is that they have nothing to lose by nominating the lady moose hunter. Politicians have overcome bigger obstacles than blowing an interview with Katie Couric. It doesn't matter how much people hate your candidate - as long as they hate the other guy's candidate more.
Did you know Romney has published a book?
Title "no Apology" I look for some book signings in New Hampshire..
What makes you think she doesn't appeal to independents? What makes you think she wouldn't appeal to Blue Dog Reagan Dems?
I have never claimed she is the future of the GOP. What she is, is a viable candidate.
Did you know Romney has published a book?
Title "no Apology" I look for some book signings in New Hampshire..
I don't think Romney is a good candidate, from a strategy standpoint, either. I'd love to see an LDS president but a lot of liberals and a lot of conservatives would hate that for different but expediently complementary reasons.
And I can't think of any Mormon that would vote for Mike Huckabee - I certainly won't.
Who's out there besides them? Could we bring in Colin Powell? How about Condi? They were both Bush babies but have a lot going for them and not so much question about intelligence. Pure speculation, though. I can't imagine who could effectively lead this party.
A black person has a lessor prejudice problem than an LDS member?
Would you cheer up?
If any Republican was going to appeal to Independents it would have been McCain, who was KNOWN (and in some right wing circles hated) for his independence.
What makes you think she doesn't appeal to independents? What makes you think she wouldn't appeal to Blue Dog Reagan Dems?
If any Republican was going to appeal to Independents it would have been McCain, who was KNOWN (and in some right wing circles hated) for his independence.
Once again, you're trying to confuse the issue. No one here is arguing for the elimination of laws or of government. And no, the government does not have to protect one set of interests over another in any conflict of interests. There are many where the government has no business sticking its dirty nose. Performance enhancing drug use policy in sports, for example.
Is there effectively a difference between legalizing burglary, and making it illegal for a home owner to defend his home? You can take a look at Britain for the answer to that.
There's no such thing as "the government getting out of the way". In any conflict of interests, the government will have to protect one set of interests over the other.
No you don't. We do, however, have an example of you making things up. No one argued, even at your link, for a "right" to break into anything. In general what Reason argues for, regarding immigration, is that immigration law should be less restrictive, which would result in more people being able to come here legally.
In the case of illegal immigration, are these "libertarians" defending the right of property owners to defend their property, or the "right" of illegal aliens to break into the country?
We have the answer to that right here (http://reason.com/blog/2008/09/24/dhs-secretary-illegals-really)
Yes you are. Like the above example, you've repeatedly made up some either/or comparison that has no basis in reality. And if, as in the above example, that is what you call supporting your claims, then, no, I do not believe you can support them at all.
I'm not making up a goddam thing. I can cross-reference and support every claim I've made.
At last a real question. I favor the protection of individual rights. Which means I favor laws and law enforcement that protects individual rights. Laws against murder, theft, fraud. Laws that protect the individual's right to own property and to protect his privately owned property. Laws that protect the individual's right free speech and freedom of religion (or of no religion as the case may be), et cetera. So a more direct answer would be I favor restrictions on the infringement of individual rights by other individuals and by other entities like corporations and even governments, local, state and federal. Which means, I'm not arguing for allowing anyone to do anything anytime anywhere, not arguing for "absolute liberty" (whatever that is). And as best I can tell, no one at Reason argues for that either. They're not even anarcho-capitalists like Murray Rothbard or the folks at LewRockwell.com who want to do away with government.
Then what restrictions do you favor, under what conditions?
And not a word in any of them about markets either. And also none of them are advocating using the government to impose anything on anyone. The articles are, in point of fact, discussing the way the conflict over homosexual marriage is playing out. None of them are actually policy advocacy pieces.
One by Gillespie, one by Mangu-Ward, and one by Sullum. And not a word in any of them about "getting government out of marriage".
Marriage, in our society, is a legal contract between two parties. In most places in this country, marriage between people of the same sex is not allowed. Therefore there is something stopping some people from making a marriage contract between themselves.
You do understand the difference between civil law and contract law, don't you? Marriage is civil law, not contract law. I repeat, there's nothing stopping anyone from forming any relationship they like, and making whatever contract they want between themselves.
You are avoiding the questions. If a woman is not capable of becoming pregnant, should she be allowed to marry at all? She would be in a marriage guaranteed to produce no children at all. Is your opinion that the point of marriage is to create children, or is that not your opinion?So, presumably, you favor law against all childless marriage. Tell me, if a woman is not capable of becoming pregnant, should she be allowed to marry at all? Presumably, you favor going back to really traditional marriage practices, arranging marriages for for teenagers so they can have more time to produce plenty of offspring. That is the whole point of marriage, right? All that stuff about love and romance and two people choosing to spend their lives together, that is all just a liberal corruption of traditional values, right?
Presumably, you favor abolishing all laws that don't produce the optimum result 100% of the time, which is pretty much every law on the books.
It is generally agreed that stop signs at intersections reduce accidents. It is also likely true some stop signs have stopped no accidents, and some of them are probably situated such that they've actually caused accidents.
That is not an argument for abolishing stop signs, and even less of an argument for placing them in the middle of corn-fields, where they will certainly stop no accidents at all.
The measure of a law isn't whether it produces a desirable result 100% of the time, but whether they produce a desirable result more often than not. And I hardly see that laws that don't produce a desirable result 100% a justification for creating laws that produce the desired result 0% of the time.
It's called "playing the averages". True, not every heterosexual marriage will produce children. That is not a justification for creating marriages that are guaranteed to produce no children at all.
Which might be a valid argument if not for the fact that it is entirely wrong. Reason wrote about Ron Paul before the scandal concerning his newsletters in late 2007/early 2008. And what Reason wrote about Ron Paul was generally positive. Nick Gillespie even notes this in the first sentence of the article of his for which you gave a link. And much of their writings about Ron Paul are clearly in admiration of the man. (http://reason.com/blog/2003/01/13/identity-crisis (http://reason.com/blog/2003/01/13/identity-crisis), http://reason.com/blog/2006/07/10/two-cheers-for-ron-paul (http://reason.com/blog/2006/07/10/two-cheers-for-ron-paul), http://reason.com/blog/2008/04/07/dr-no-coverage (http://reason.com/blog/2008/04/07/dr-no-coverage)) He was even named one of Reason's 35 Heroes of Freedom (http://reason.com/archives/2003/12/01/35-heroes-of-freedom/singlepage). So, no, they did not hate him, nor do they hate him now.They like Ron Paul at Reason. A lot of Reason readers probably voted for him. Reason also likes Jeff Flake. I wonder if any Reason-reading libertarians voted for Jeff Flake. Your party could be in serious trouble already!
Bwahahaha!
http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d (http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d)
http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/08/thoughts-on-ron-paul (http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/08/thoughts-on-ron-paul)
http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter (http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter)
What you mean is, they hated him until they realized he had a lot more support in the libertarian community than they did.
And I have a pretty good idea *why* they hate him. It had nothing to do with the newsletters, they've been quite willing to dismiss more egregiously racist rhetoric, notably from the likes of Barack Obama and his associates. No, what they hate him for is what The New Republic hated him for - Ron Paul, whatever you think of his politics, is a patriot. He sees the role of government as looking out for the interests of America and Americans. Not every illegal immigrant that marches in the door, not Israel, not anyone else.
If that link is the best you've got, you're going to have to work a lot harder to prove your point. That Gillespie likes poetry by an American poet who wrote poetry about the history of and leading up to the founding of the U.S.A. is hardly, if at all, indication that Gillespie and/or Reason in general are contemptuous of the concept of nation and/or national identity.
Thanks, but the last people I people I want running the nation are people who are openly contemptuous of the very concept of nation or national identity. (http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/06/reason-writers-around-town-nic)
I will now wait for you to document/cross-reference/support all of this, because frankly, what you've written there looks like little more than ferret excrement.
These are people with no particular love for this country, to them a country is just a warm place to take a shit, and if they fuck this one up, they'll just move on to the next one, rinse, lather, repeat. What makes them doubly obnoxious, and dangerous IMHO, is that they've managed to hoodwink a fair number of conservatives and patriotic libertarians into believing that, because they support free markets, that also by definition they're also supporters of America and Americans. Not true - they've made themselves quite clear that they like capitalism not necessarily because it's good for America, but specifically for the potential for unbridled capitalism to be disruptive.
Yes, I am sure you would. You seem to have no philosophical commitment to ideas of freedom or liberty. Your philosophical anchor seems to be excessive nationalism. Country first, before liberty, before rights, before human beings. It is a position I find untenable, callous and fearful. Needless to say, I am not persuaded by your arguments on its behalf.
I'll vote for a free-market patriot if I can, but the operative word is "patriot". I happen to like my country. Between a free-market cosmopolitan of the Reason variety, and a patriotic socialist like Dennis Kucinich, I'd vote for the socialist every time.
What makes you think she doesn't appeal to independents? What makes you think she wouldn't appeal to Blue Dog Reagan Dems?
If any Republican was going to appeal to Independents it would have been McCain, who was KNOWN (and in some right wing circles hated) for his independence.
I beg to differ, Pooch, as much as I my hate doing so with you. Hated NOT for his "indepedence", near as much as his lack of conservative credentials, while trying to lay claim to being a Reagan-like Conservative. Now, you probably could pull some examples of his conservative legislative efforts. But I could likely match that with an equal amount of moderate, when not liberal legislative efforts. Don't even get me started on his class warfare rhetoric in 2000, or CFR. Point being, he was "all over the ball park", ideologically, when his campaign was sputtering in 2008. Palin gave him some psuedo conservative cred, while still being a McCain-like maverick.
And that's PRECISELY what this country is in need of. A candidate/politican with solid conservative credibility, that can make an effort at standing up to lobbiyests & Congress.....to say no to the hard left (AND hard right), but to govern with an effort reinvigarate fiscal responsibility & national pride. To facilitate conservative ideals that are the foundation of this country and the constitution *cue the band to start playing God Bless America* 8)
>>No, McCain lost because the Republican party was not behind him fully and the rest of the country had had enough of Republicans.<<
No, McCain lost because the media was successful in fooling enough people into believing Bush was Hitler. Conservatives on the other hand never liked McCain and only reluctantly voted for him because he put a fresh conservative face on the ticket.
>>Or just familiar with history. Reagan wasn't elected because the people wanted a conservative in office. He was elected because Carter was bitch-slapped by, in succession, inflation, the Ayatollah Khomeini and Ted Kennedy.<<
Of course they wanted a conservative, They elected one. they heard the conservative message and realized it was the best thi8ng for the country. The conservative message works every time it's tried. you'd have to be blind not to see that. History should teach you that Carter was certainly a bust however, inflation, interest rates, and Khomeini were not seen as separate from Carter. We saw them as part and parcel to Carter and his ridiculous party. History shows us that Reagan brought a strong, positive message of renewal. that's what got him elected more that anything else. By the time 2012 comes around the country will certainly be in similar, or worse shape then Carter left it. The door will be wide open for a conservative to remind people how great America is and can be. that candidate could certainly be Palin, or someone not yet known to us.
To be honest Pooch, I think you may be confusing independent with a lack of principals. Now I absoltuely respect his service and sacrifices to this country. I'm not looking for a President willing to short change his principals. I'm looking for a President, who I can have confidence in, to stick with his (or her) conservative pledges. Just because one bucks with their party, doesn't automatically give them brownie points in my book. I'm a conservative. Worse, I'm a Christian Conservative. My president can buck the party line, all they want, so long as the decisions being made, in that bucking, have a principled conservative foundation.
No, I'm not looking for a Michael Savage to lead this country, and no, I don't think I'd have any problem with a Condi Rice as President either. I did, at one time support a Colin Powell for president. That would no longer be an option given his recent rhetoric and support of such a leftist, like Obama, to run this country, But as I said before, I have no problem with a President saying "no" to the hard right. McCain however, far too often supported leftist causes/legislation. As much respect I may have for the man, that doesn't bode well for this country, and why Palin gave him a plausble shot at becoming President. Alas, the economy started nose diving right at the end of the campaign, which took any chances he had down as well.
And yet Palin has a snowballs chance in hell of bouncing back?
That is not the pattern history presents.
>>Then why wasn't Reagan elected in the several runs he made before? It took the incompetence of a Jimmy Carter to get people to look at the conservatives again.<<
You mentioned history, this would be a good place to study some. Of course Carter played a role in his own demise. He was an incompetent boob. However, the Conservative message was gaining ground long before Carter screwed things up. The momentum began with Goldwater and culminated in Ronald Reagan. The Conservative message is so popular that every time it’s tried, it wins.
>>The entire decade of the seventies (I don’t even want to think about the sixties) was a liberal love-fest.<<
Didn’t you mention Carter? Hardly a love-fest, in fact it was more of a hate-fest. Was Lyndon Johnson a liberal? Hardly. Ford? Nixon? A liberal favorite? I'm not sure you're thinking about the right decade.
>>Reagan was a conservative. That's not why he was elected.<<
Yes it was. His message got him elected. If Conservativism wasn’t appealing we would have gotten four more years of Jimma Carter.
But at the risk of sounding like I'm "quayle-ing" her, Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan.
QuoteBut at the risk of sounding like I'm "quayle-ing" her, Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan.
No she is Sarah Palin, she doesn't need to be anyone other than who she is. And who she is is everyman in a skirt.
Do you really think she is stupid?
No more stupid than any other citizen who played a little sports in high school, took some time to get her degree, raised a family, got involved in the PTA, then a stint on City Council, then Mayor then a State Commission then a reform candidate for Governor.
You do realize that every step of the way she was vetted, tested and approved by those that mattered most, the voters.
And yet she doesn't have snowballs chance in hell because .... because she fluffed a media question, she was the target of a SNL spoof, she didn't graduate from an Ivy League College? Joy Behar doesn't like her?
Maybe we need more people who know what aisle the Cheerios are on . Maybe we need more people who aren't embarrassed to be seen in a WalMart, who eat the food they grow or hunt or catch.
Maybe we need less Harvard and Yale and more Boise State and UGA. Maybe we need less elitism and more realism. Because we have had the law professors and the MBA's and the career politicians and how well has that served us?
Hmm? You happy with the shape we are in?
Every time we have opted for the so-called "outsider" it has been a disaster.
QuoteEvery time we have opted for the so-called "outsider" it has been a disaster.
Some examples please.
And not Reagan?
Reagan was no more a DC Insider than you or I. He ran unsuccessfully in 76 and then successfully in 80.
Clinton was an outsider too.
So we have two reasonably successful outsider administrations against one failed outsider administration.
I don't think your outsider bias withstands scrutiny.
Btw, isn't this newbie an outsider?
QuoteBtw, isn't this newbie an outsider?
He's a newbie, as a former Senator, he isn't an outsider.
He promised a change in the way politics was done. He's doing that.
Off-topic, is there a record to the number of posts and views on a particular thread? I was noticing the views on this one are heading towards the Kilo-view mark!
To be honest Pooch, I think you may be confusing independent with a lack of principals. Now I absoltuely respect his service and sacrifices to this country. I'm not looking for a President willing to short change his principals. I'm looking for a President, who I can have confidence in, to stick with his (or her) conservative pledges. Just because one bucks with their party, doesn't automatically give them brownie points in my book. I'm a conservative. Worse, I'm a Christian Conservative. My president can buck the party line, all they want, so long as the decisions being made, in that bucking, have a principled conservative foundation.
And there's the problem. I am not confusing Independence with a lack of principles. You are confusing principles with conservatism. John McCain IS a man who is willing to stand up for what he believes is right WHETHER OR NOT it comes from a conservative position.
Joe Lieberman is another man of principles, and so is Arlen Specter.
If you ask a Democrat they will claim I'm right about Spector and wrong about Lieberman - and a Republican would say just the opposite.
And yet she doesn't have snowballs chance in hell because .... because she fluffed a media question, she was the target of a SNL spoof, she didn't graduate from an Ivy League College? Joy Behar doesn't like her?
Because she comes off like an amateur. This is not the Amateur Hour - and, paradoxically, it IS American Idol. (Nobody under 50 would get that point.)
And yet she doesn't have snowballs chance in hell because .... because she fluffed a media question, she was the target of a SNL spoof, she didn't graduate from an Ivy League College? Joy Behar doesn't like her?
Because she comes off like an amateur. This is not the Amateur Hour - and, paradoxically, it IS American Idol. (Nobody under 50 would get that point.)
John McCain IS a man who is willing to stand up for what he believes is right WHETHER OR NOT it comes from a conservative position. Joe Lieberman is another man of principles, and so is Arlen Specter.
Not really...in either case. Both are moderate leftists, they simply were at one time of differing parties, but their ideologies were nearly identical.....Remember, I'm referencing ideology, Pooch. McCain is not an "independent" as much as he's simply a moderate Republican. Moderates, are in large part an ideology that is constantly trying to bridge gaps, frequently obligating a need NOT to stay principled, in order to achieve some form of compromise. I'm willing to compromise, to a certain degree, but NOT at the discarding of conservative principles and ideology.
To be honest Pooch, I think you may be confusing independent with a lack of principals. Now I absoltuely respect his service and sacrifices to this country. I'm not looking for a President willing to short change his principals. I'm looking for a President, who I can have confidence in, to stick with his (or her) conservative pledges. Just because one bucks with their party, doesn't automatically give them brownie points in my book. I'm a conservative. Worse, I'm a Christian Conservative. My president can buck the party line, all they want, so long as the decisions being made, in that bucking, have a principled conservative foundation.
And there's the problem. I am not confusing Independence with a lack of principles. You are confusing principles with conservatism. John McCain IS a man who is willing to stand up for what he believes is right WHETHER OR NOT it comes from a conservative position.
Nooooo, not exactly correct. as I was hoping to make clear, my problem with McCain is his lack of Conservative principals, while attempting to campaign on them. And his attempt to "stand up" to the conservative base is precisely opposite of the Principled leader I would want as my PresidentJoe Lieberman is another man of principles, and so is Arlen Specter.
Not really...in either case. Both are moderate leftists, they simply were at one time of differing parties, but their ideologies were nearly identical. Lieberman, while I applaud his support of Bush and the war in Iraq, largely parroted the leftist Gore in all his campaign rhetoric, in 2000. Now it's not as politically as tasty to do so. Same with Specter. He largely supported Bush & the war, but all his domestic support was largely center left. He's since likely shot his re-election chances by NOT remaining princepled, and switched parties. Now you can argue that he changed parties because of principals...I'd argue he did because it was politically helpful for him at the time. I doubt very seriously he'd have changed if the GOP was the majority party.If you ask a Democrat they will claim I'm right about Spector and wrong about Lieberman - and a Republican would say just the opposite.
As you can see, I disagreed. Then again, I'm neither a Dem or a Repub. Remember, I'm referencing ideology, Pooch. McCain is not an "independent" as much as he's simply a moderate Republican. Moderates, are in large part an ideology that is constantly trying to bridge gaps, frequently obligating a need NOT to stay principled, in order to achieve some form of compromise. I'm willing to compromise, to a certain degree, but NOT at the discarding of conservative principles and ideology. Civil Unions being a perfect example. Support of certain level of taxation, being another. Point is, McCain is NOT as "independent" as you might think. He's a politician 1st and formost, and a moderate in his ideology.
But at least he's not a hard core liberal
John McCain IS a man who is willing to stand up for what he believes is right WHETHER OR NOT it comes from a conservative position. Joe Lieberman is another man of principles, and so is Arlen Specter.
Not really...in either case. Both are moderate leftists, they simply were at one time of differing parties, but their ideologies were nearly identical.....Remember, I'm referencing ideology, Pooch. McCain is not an "independent" as much as he's simply a moderate Republican. Moderates, are in large part an ideology that is constantly trying to bridge gaps, frequently obligating a need NOT to stay principled, in order to achieve some form of compromise. I'm willing to compromise, to a certain degree, but NOT at the discarding of conservative principles and ideology.
Ouch (http://www.gallup.com/poll/124958/Conservatives-Finish-2009-No-1-Ideological-Group.aspx)
And yet she doesn't have snowballs chance in hell because .... because she fluffed a media question, she was the target of a SNL spoof, she didn't graduate from an Ivy League College? Joy Behar doesn't like her?
Because she comes off like an amateur. This is not the Amateur Hour - and, paradoxically, it IS American Idol. (Nobody under 50 would get that point.)
Not a few people are tired of the professional pols whos main experience is talking to others of their own ilk , it seems like a grand conspiricy of old cronys , who feel as if they need not understand how anything other than politics works.
If Sara is elected in the tradition of Davy Crockett I would be pleased witht he whole idea , would I feel as if a good president were garunteed that way? , no , not at all , but a good president is not being pulled from the pros all that often either.
QuoteHe promised a change in the way politics was done. He's doing that.
How so?
Still think she's 'just an amateur'?[/url]
>>Nixon was probably the most liberal Republican president in my lifetime.<<
<chuckle>
Nixon ... enjoying a liberal love-fest ... Talk about bad form.
Did something get deleted here? It looks like you are quoting youself. If that IS what happened, I'm not sure what the "Ouch" is all about.
Did something get deleted here? It looks like you are quoting youself. If that IS what happened, I'm not sure what the "Ouch" is all about.
The "Ouch" is a link.
I wonder how many of them really are, and how many just think they are.
I wonder how many of them really are, and how many just think they are.
I know I am, because I have positions that piss off both sides.
A moderate is someone who let's someone else make up his/her mind for them.
Bullshit. A moderate has no convictions. He's luke warm. Unwilling to take a stand.
Weak.
Remember, being a Conservative or liberal doesn't mean being in lockstep (well, at least not Conservatives), there is room for differing opinion. Moderates however, don't form their own opinion. They allow others to do it for them.
Bullshit. A moderate has no convictions. He's luke warm. Unwilling to take a stand.
Weak are people who let others define their agenda (partisans).
Moderates take stands, it's just that sometimes the stand is on one side, sometimes it's on the other, depending on the issue.
Bullshit. A moderate has no convictions. He's luke warm. Unwilling to take a stand.
Weak are people who let others define their agenda (partisans).
Moderates take stands, it's just that sometimes the stand is on one side, sometimes it's on the other, depending on the issue.
Sorry ami (& Pooch), gotta shoot that one down. A moderate, will frequently "moderate" their positons in order to seek compromise (& harmony ;) ). Hardly the 'stand" you would be referring to. The "stand" comes into play when the decision they finally come to, happens to be different than the other party was hopeful or wanting to see. Partisans come to their decisions based on their core principals, and will largely stick to those principals, and screw what the party says. Hardly the notion that they're simply sheep being led
Bullshit. A moderate has no convictions. He's luke warm. Unwilling to take a stand.
Weak.
Bullshit. A moderate has no convictions. He's luke warm. Unwilling to take a stand.
Weak are people who let others define their agenda (partisans).
Moderates take stands, it's just that sometimes the stand is on one side, sometimes it's on the other, depending on the issue.
Sorry ami (& Pooch), gotta shoot that one down. A moderate, will frequently "moderate" their positons in order to seek compromise (& harmony ;) ). Hardly the 'stand" you would be referring to. The "stand" comes into play when the decision they finally come to, happens to be different than the other party was hopeful or wanting to see. Partisans come to their decisions based on their core principals, and will largely stick to those principals, and screw what the party says. Hardly the notion that they're simply sheep being led
Perhaps the debate should not be about the ends but the dogmatic emphasis on the means to that end.
Let's say the goal is national health care. A partisan might be dogmatic about funding the program with a surtax on the rich, the other end might say do all in their power to kill the program demonizing anything that might change the status quo and protect those who might profit from keeping things the way they are.
A moderate might say if we must have National Health Care then fund it universally via sales tax so that everybody pays.
Nation Health Care means the provision of health services universally and NOT the insurance coverage package that is currently being debated.
Bullshit. A moderate has no convictions. He's luke warm. Unwilling to take a stand.
Weak.
Ridiculous. A partisan is someone who cannot think beyond the strict bigotry of his mindset. The reason partisans call moderates weak is because partisans are incapable of processing more than one aspect of an issue.
Where are the statues of the great Moderates?
Sorry ami (& Pooch), gotta shoot that one down. A moderate, will frequently "moderate" their positons in order to seek compromise (& harmony ;) ). Hardly the 'stand" you would be referring to. The "stand" comes into play when the decision they finally come to, happens to be different than the other party was hopeful or wanting to see. Partisans come to their decisions based on their core principals, and will largely stick to those principals, and screw what the party says. Hardly the notion that they're simply sheep being led
There is no sin or weakness in compromise.
In fact, it is usually preferable to strict partisanship.
I don't think so. A moderate is someone who is unwilling or unable to form an opinion on his/her own. His only conviction is to not be convicted. So the moderates waits for a concensus and then follows the popular view.
No. A "partisan" has reached a concensus on his/her own. It may be the same as others, but it was not reached because the opinion is popular. It is reached because the "partisan" believes it to be correct and is in tune with his/her core beliefs.
No. A "partisan" has reached a concensus on his/her own. It may be the same as others, but it was not reached because the opinion is popular. It is reached because the "partisan" believes it to be correct and is in tune with his/her core beliefs.
A partisan, by definition (see below), follows a party line (usually decided by others, unless the person is a high level party member making party decisions). If the person does not follow a party line, he is not "partisan". This is standard English. Of course, you are free to make up your own definitions for words, but then you should expect to continue to not make sense with those that use standard definitions.
Partisan: a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance
Wow...what have I been all these years then I don't tow any party line, I don't say how hi anytime the GOP says jump, I make up my own mind on issues. Compromise on issues, while still trying to stay firm on core principals. Hmmmmmm ???
No. A "partisan" has reached a concensus on his/her own. It may be the same as others, but it was not reached because the opinion is popular. It is reached because the "partisan" believes it to be correct and is in tune with his/her core beliefs.
A partisan, by definition (see below), follows a party line (usually decided by others, unless the person is a high level party member making party decisions). If the person does not follow a party line, he is not "partisan". This is standard English. Of course, you are free to make up your own definitions for words, but then you should expect to continue to not make sense with those that use standard definitions.
Partisan: a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance
Wow...what have I been all these years then I don't tow any party line, I don't say how hi anytime the GOP says jump, I make up my own mind on issues. Compromise on issues, while still trying to stay firm on core principals. Hmmmmmm ???
(http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i99/plwise/1aaa37.jpg)
No. A "partisan" has reached a concensus on his/her own. It may be the same as others, but it was not reached because the opinion is popular. It is reached because the "partisan" believes it to be correct and is in tune with his/her core beliefs.
A partisan, by definition (see below), follows a party line (usually decided by others, unless the person is a high level party member making party decisions). If the person does not follow a party line, he is not "partisan". This is standard English. Of course, you are free to make up your own definitions for words, but then you should expect to continue to not make sense with those that use standard definitions.
Partisan: a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance
Wow...what have I been all these years then I don't tow any party line, I don't say how hi anytime the GOP says jump, I make up my own mind on issues. Compromise on issues, while still trying to stay firm on core principals. Hmmmmmm ???
The definitions that you and Rich keep giving have two fatal flaws: The first is that a partisan comes to some sort of conclusion and then sticks with it. In itself, that is a perfectly fine statement. But then you contrast that with a moderate who, apparently, DOESN'T come to a conclusion. That's ridiculous.
The second fatal flaw is that idea that "I made up my mind and a lot of people just happen to agree with me." This contrasts with "I considered the issue from both sides decided that there are solutions that can effectively serve both sides." You view the first stance - the one that follows the party line - with "making up your own mind" but the second, free from the narrow constraints of either end of the spectrum, as somehow giving your free will to someone else. WHO? I favor civil unions and oppose gay marriage. Who made up my mind for me? The liberals? Hell, no. They want full gay marriage. The conservatives? Not a chance, they want homosexuality to get no recognition at all.
As I said already, I'm a proud PARTISAN Conservative, but willing to recognize civil unions.
It's a compromise, I made, while still holding on to some assemblence of my conservative convictions, since I can still support that marriage is between a man and a woman, nor have to respect someone simply because they are gay
It's a compromise, I made, while still holding on to some assemblence of my conservative convictions, since I can still support that marriage is between a man and a woman, nor have to respect someone simply because they are gay
So, you're backing off on moderate positions only coming from someone unwilling to form their own opinions?
You have a moderate position on this issue; according to your previous arguments, it CAN ONLY COME from someone else making up your mind for you
I'm not sure why you felt that was neccessary Ami.
Whatever fatman.
A moderate as someone who wants peace more than he wants either side to win.
A moderate as someone who wants peace more than he wants either side to win.