The obvious is confirmed. The Republican party is a fraud.

a reply to: Aazadan

yeah Soros is all right with me too. I wish we had more of him. his love for america and mankind is unparalleled. Hes awesome. just a cool dude.

originally posted by: agenda51
a reply to: Aazadan

yeah Soros is all right with me too. I wish we had more of him. his love for america and mankind is unparalleled. Hes awesome. just a cool dude.

If you feel that way, good for you. You're free to point out where I defended Soros. Or, we could go back to playground logic and say that two wrongs don't make a right. Soros doing what he's doing doesn't justify the Koch's.

a reply to: Aazadan

Your going to have to back up your opinion with an eg or two.

Fascism? A little extreme, don't you think? What system are they trying to replace it with?

I get your more of an Establishment Republican and have no problem with 'big government', but publically announcing the intent to donate and the amount strikes me as far more honest than the rest of the Corporate donators and their backdoor support of Obama's amnesty program.

That doesn't sound like an attempt to overthrow Gov't and replace it with Fascism.... It sounds more like a couple of guys who have the means and are more than a little pissed off with the goings on, both in the media and in our 'party'.

That resonates far more with me than these other clowns that seem to dictate who gets the nomination for President.

a reply to: agenda51

Heck, the Koch comment could have come out of Soros' office...LOL

a reply to: nwtrucker

I'll see your "libertarian" and raise you the unregulated supplement industry (Utah) and their completely fraudulent, bogus, snake oil products, sold for decades in Wal Marts and CVC Pharmacies.

This isn't the wild west, and you can'r have a nation of 300 million people without "laws" and regulations. The notion that you can is fantasy role playing.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Boadicea

Sorry, but not agreeing with Anarchists, Secular humanists and National marijuana Party members does not a fascist or totalitarian supporter make.

I must have phrased that poorly. All of the above represent freedom from government interference and tyranny... no one has to agree with them or the way they live and no one should have the power to force them to do otherwise. It's the people in the parties, and the government power they crave and wield, which is fascist and totalitarian.

What is lacking in the above group to a degree and your disingenuous positioning of conservatives, is called balance.

I did not comment on conservatives as a whole, except indirectly those "conservatives" in power, who you yourself seemed to call out for their bad behavior. Now, if you are equating government tyranny with those in power, then we're in agreement. If you're saying that my rights end where yours begin, then yes, that is balance. If you're saying do what I say because I say so, that is not balance, that's tyranny and abuse of power.

Where's the balance in anarchy? Where's the balance in having the goal of wiping out Christian values and faith? Where the balance in promoting getting stoned?

Freedom is part of anarchy. Perhaps too much freedom? Where do you draw the line? I don't want to wipe out Christian values and faith. Neither do I want "Christian" values and faith rammed down my throat... or, worse, I don't want to be burned at the stake or hung at dawn because I don't practice your Christian values. Remember, the original colonists were fleeing Christian persecution in England... not Muslim or Hindu or even Jewish. Marijuana is about far more than "getting stoned", and yet, it's the whole "getting stoned" phobia that prevents folks from seeing the infinite value of this simple blessed plant for so many reasons... and all because folks are worried about someone else smoking a dried weed. I will protect and defend your right to be Christian and practice as you will; will you do the same for me? I will protect and defend your right to smoke or not to smoke whatever you choose; will you do the same for me? That's balance.

Personally, I don't see value in it at all, never mind balance.

I got that. Where is the balance in dictating to me (and others) what they can and cannot do based on your own ideas of good and bad, right and wrong?

Painting a broad picture,-and that's all Libertarians do, is paint 'broad pictures'...

Shall I boggle your mind with my vast knowledge of the organic law of the nation -- Natural Law -- in accordance with the laws of nature and Nature's God? Shall we discuss John Locke, Thomas Hobbs, Harry Blackstone, and all the way back to Plato? Shall we discuss the intended limited design of the Constitution, to grant very specific, enumerated powers to the government, all meant to prevent the tyranny we see today, and which is promoted by both parties? Shall we discuss the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which enumerate specific inalienable rights of the people which are absolute, including the 9th amendment which guarantees me all such natural inalienable rights, but not limited to those enumerated?

how does having a laissez-faire attitude to personal freedoms, but a militia-like defense of the Constitution and Bill of Rights even work together?

Um... because the whole point of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is to protect and defend our freedoms, not to dictate our freedoms -- that's not freedom. Our founding documents, our organic law, are all about not interfering -- the definition of laissez-faire -- in our rights.

Don't misunderstand, there are good people who buy into Libertarian views.

In other words, who respect and live by the Constitution?

I don't. Poorly thought out, no real consensus amongst them and the most popular members are all registered Republicans.

Well, a lack of consensus isn't needed, unless the party is trying to make people conform to a certain political standard, which is true of Red and Blue team, but Purple Team is all about letting people do as they will as long as they don't hurt anyone else. And to clarify -- one cannot be a big "L" Libertarian unless one is registered with the party. However, many Republicans, the small "l" libertarians, especially "Reagan Republicans" understand that the principles of Libertarianism are the foundation of the conservative movement.

And, by the way, I'm registered as unaffiliated, and I consider myself anti-partisan. The parties have done more to subvert and corrupt our country more than any other entity.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Boadicea

The Ross Perot result merely re-enforces that potentiality amongst the Republican Establishment and 'could' force a reality adjustment...

A side note. I fully expected a negative reaction from Republican Establishment supporting posters. I find it encouraging, frankly, as they see what a monkey wrench to their plans this could be.

I totally agree. I'd say they know the voters are heading in this direction as well, hence their antics at the RNC convention in 2012 to thwart any effort within the party to change the trajectory of the party -- and the nation.

Jeb Bush vs Hillary Clinton...I cannot recall any Presidential election choice that offered two candidates as unpopular as these. Never has an election been set up so perfectly for someone to tip the 'House of Cards' and change the game completely as this one is.....

Again, totally agree. Based on the numbers of voters re-registering as third parties, or independents, I think we have a better chance than ever to shake up the establishment stranglehold. I'm not sure the "you're un-American if you vote third party" will work this time. People have been voting for the lesser of two evils for too long and it only gets progressively worse.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom



This is just another reason why there will always be a struggle in politics. In a way, it makes arguing back and forth almost pointless.

So, if you want a conservative to do what you want -- scare them into it. If you want a liberal to do something, explain it logically.

Yes, fMRI's and other research have shown what most know intuitively...larger Amygdala amongst conservatives vs. Grey matter liberals.

We also know that the brain is Morpheginic ...which means it literally changes it's physical structure in response to input.
IQ is not fixed, Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome is partly a physical change in the brains structure to adapt to hostile environments..and is reversible...but it takes time to literally rewire and shape the brain. The paradigm applies to most paradigms of brain structure.

What that always leads me to ask is...Chicken or the egg??

Are conservatives conservatives because of their large Amygdala? Or do they have a large Amygdala because they are conservatives and are subject to consistent fear mongering as a motivation?

Are liberals liberal because of their "east coast pampered upbringing"...aka, less stressors?

Also, to be fair, liberals larger grey matter "thinking centers" make them more vulnerable to inaction, logical fallacy, or simply getting lost in the "gray space" of an issue....as liberals are often accused of. "thinking" is clearly advantageous in complex issues and disadvantageous in black and white issues. If a bear confronts you in the woods...a conservative will run, or more often shoot A liberal might take time to ponder their options, ponder how the bear feels etc. and end up eaten.

Part of the conservative vs. liberal conflict arises from liberals trying to see to many sides to an otherwise simple issue...forcing complexity and nuance...and conservatives seeing complex issues as black and white, fight or flee...Kill them all...forcing binary thinking on issues that require thoughtful solutions.

In wartime scenarios...with immanent danger...conservatives do well...During Economic Crisis and Terrorist Attacks our fear centers light up appropriately. Fight of flee. Black or white...stop feeling and thinking so much..

Carry that into peacetime domestic policy and it fails for obvious reasons.

Liberal thinking in wartime can be dangerous as well..talk to the pretty bear vs. shoot it.

My "thinking" is that all things being equal and absent crisis, economic or terrorist attack, Democrats will likely continue to eek out wins in the white-house. Conservatives can continue to be a force or hold the majority in Congress as long as they reverse the slide to the far right and move back to the middle.

If a second recession arrives or another terrorist attack, it improves the conservatives bid for the WH.

Absent another 9-11 attack conservatives have been trying less "logical" fear button pushing...Immigrants! And all stripes of general conspiracy to create "hidden" dangers.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Didn't say you could...Balance is all I ask...

a reply to: Indigo5

It's fascinating how many Liberals have the conservatives all figured out. Nice little labels, cubby-holes and the like.

Nicely defined to fit their 'comfort zone'. Both in-country and outside, same M.O.

In case you didn't know, I know of no one the fits these descriptions in any Conservatives I know. Not a one.
Assuming your not a total idiot, the only two explanations that remain are one, you don't really believe what you post and are merely trolling or two, you actually believe it.

Assuming the latter, none of those views reflect conservatives in the slightest. At least that I know and that's all I care about. So continue as long as you want. No fish left in this pond...

originally posted by: muse7
The Republicans also failed in overriding the KeyStone pipeline veto

They appear to be letting Obama hang slowly by his on petard. They purposely didn't over ride the veto. They are trying to keep the discontent factor rolling into the presidential election cycle. If they override the veto then they cant use the issue against the dems in the next election.

a reply to: Boadicea

Judging by some the posts, there's some real scared people out there that have a vested interest in the status quo. Anything that could upset their apple-cart provokes attack...good sign, really.....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Indigo5

Assuming the latter, none of those views reflect conservatives in the slightest. At least that I know and that's all I care about. So continue as long as you want. No fish left in this pond...

Strange in that your own Op precisely disagrees with you?

originally posted by: nwtrucker

The Republican Establishment is motivated by fear. Fear of media backlash. Fear of gov't shutdown. Fear of the millennial generation.
Fear of the loss of Big business financial support....fear.

a reply to: Logarock

Not to mention many more Bills passed that will force an Obama veto...let's not leave out the appeasement side of the strategy that 'shows' they 'tried' to pass "conservative bills" to placate the right and argue against a third party....

originally posted by: xuenchen
The problem Republicans have is the Senate needs 60 votes to pass (most) bills.

And even then, Obama will be vetoing everything sensible.

But to the immigration memos, Obama has to beat that in court now.

The whole thing is a stalemate.

Hearing about this must really suck for you.

The problem with the republicans…lol is right.

The problem with republicans, to quote my high school teacher, is that they are the same as democrats.

Good Guys win…Oh happy days are here again, not. The playmakers will dangle a Santorum with a drone kit who wants to enforce sodomy laws, and then dredge the bible belt for fresh donations to Israel while the sweat is still fresh on the redneck forehead.

I'd love to have coffee with you. It's been years since I've seen a face that believes that anything good can come of fairy tales that flicker on their tele screen monitor. I'm jealous.



# 380

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Logarock

Not to mention many more Bills passed that will force an Obama veto...let's not leave out the appeasement side of the strategy that 'shows' they 'tried' to pass "conservative bills" to placate the right and argue against a third party....

Yes a very plausible explanation. Just grand motion making, no real intent.

a reply to: TheWhiteKnight

Oh yes I'm totally shaken.

a reply to: Boadicea

Ok, here's an example of the Balance I refer to. Generally, 10th amendment or it's out. The hue and cry of Liberatrians, seems like a good idea...but wait a minute. Like take the EPA as an example. I will assume we agree that that entity is rabid and insane. Let's get rid of it...Sorry. I don't want Corporation with Market pressure to increase quarterly profit to be able to pollute our environment.

It's throwing the baby out with the bath-water. We NEED an EPA!! There's a shock...LOL. One with a very specific and limited mandate and effective over-site.

Quote passage all day from the giants of the past, this is the reality we face today. It needs today's solutions. Applying the 10th to it creates potentially worse problems than the EPA does now. I.E. We can reverse EPA regulations, some pollutions are a bit harder to reverse than with legislative change. ( You know perfectly well, A Convention of the States would end up a bar room brawl..)

There some very good laws on the books, so when I say not well thought out or lacking consensus, this is what I refer to.

Let's envision a Libertarian Majority in both houses. Even a Libertarian President. 2 out of 3 branches of Gov't-don't hold your breath- now every move made by the legislative and Executive branches would be challenged in the Judicial. Long, drawn out affairs ultimately decided by those appointed by the very system that you/we would repair. care to bet how that one would work out?

That's the flaw I see. Not the idea, the application of it.

Your infinite value of 'mother nature' I see as just another addition to the cocktails of mind-altering compounds. Not one I wish to have to share on our highways and industries of the nation...just another nail in the coffin.

I'm old enough to remember the last go-around of pot. The 'pot-heads' remember those guys? Far out, man.. Contact highs? The set-up of acceptance by younger and younger kids and the 'entry-level' drug used to induce whatever is in vogue of the day?

I would be 'free' of that, thank you very much. That's why it's a democracy, The majority holds sway.

a reply to: Indigo5

This may be hard for you to grasp. The OP states Republican Establishment. ESTABLISHMENT. The assumption is that 'Establishment' are not 'conservatives'.

Get the idea?

a reply to: nwtrucker

Sounds like you right-wingers could use some of that frog protection.

While you're at it, you might also want to look into getting some turtle protection too.

That way you'll have both houses of Congress covered.