The diminishing Republican brand.

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


time brother - time :-)

If you're the sort that likes to read and listen to everything and anything - everywhere - you can already feel the winds changing over at FOX

The conservatives will still be conservative - but they'll be moving back towards the center

Same as they were moving steadily right for the past few decades

Political evolution - the left does and will do the same thing

Back and forth up and down the scale - it's just harder to see until we get further away




posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother


Well, Libertarians want to completely and utterly deregulate lobbying and lobbyists.. and allow corporate monopolies... I'll let you guess if that will bring more of less corruption...

The far left on the other hand wants to destroy corporate personhood and, as voters, would love to completely remove corporate money from DC... well... that's what everyone on the left I know and read wants...

the choice is yours... but let me just say, it;s not just the money, its the entire system... the US needs to switch to proportional representations, which will immediately allow a lot more small parties into the system... but that'd take a constitutional amendment of two...


I understand that you have a view of Libertarians and I am not going to be able to change that. I disagree, that is not how this Libertarian thinks, feels or votes. It is akin to some views that the Republicans all believe in creationism, the world is just a little over 6,000 years old and cave men rode dinosaurs...which is not true...you cannot paint every member of a party with such a wide brush. Some of us have intellect, empathy and social understanding...that does not mean I agree with the mob rules mentality.

There are some Libertarians, I am sure, that want total de-regulation and wide open doors for corruption and cronyism. I personally feel they are more anarcho-capitalist then Libertarian. My views are all about personal freedom and the responsibility that goes with that freedom.

I will not try to convince you that the party as a whole can walk on water because we don't...no one is perfect. I will say that after much study and reflection into the principles, philosophies and party platforms...the Libertarians are much more in line with my personal views...a view I like to call the "Philosophy of Freedom". Taking the Libertarian Party platform of the last election as evidence, there is very-very little that I personally disagree with. Is it perfect and flawless? No...Is there wiggle room in there for it to be twisted and corrupted? Yes...but the ideals and principals..to me...are sound.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


Let me clarify, when I say moochers, I'm not talking about people in comas, Disabled Vets (of which I am one) or those who have contributed to Social Security. People do need to be taken care of.

I'm talking about welfare queens and those who work the system in order to freeload off it. All without doing a hour of honest days work.


There's almost no one in America that fits that description, in real terms, and those that DO exist are crooks. The US system is not built to keep people that are able to work endlessly on welfare... state and local laws in fact prohibit it.

No one I KNOW on the left supports crooks, but we also don't label people that need help as moochers.

the VAST majority of people who can work, do work and pay taxes... the majority of people that don't pay income tax are the WORKING poor and the elderly... People you have no problem with...

So... you seem to be swinging at windmills.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
RELATED....JIM DEMINT JUST CASHED IN HIS CHIPS!

He resigned from the Senate today to take a job at the Heritage Foundation...

From 175k a year to 1 Million plus.

Seeing as the Tea Party Leader was "living beyond his means" and 350K in debt, the move makes sense
Anyone wondering what the price tag is for TP ideals...Jim Demint just let you know.

$$$$$...Ka-ching....



Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a leading Senate conservative and founding member of the Senate Tea Party Caucus, will resign from office in January to become president of The Heritage Foundation.

......

DeMint's decision to leave the Senate after only eight years shocked Washington. DeMint had been seen as a future Senate leader for his party and was already a leader to a growing number of conservatives in the House and Senate.

.......

He also will be in line for a significant raise.

At the Heritage Foundation, the senator will take over from Ed Feulner, who will become the group's chancellor. Feulner earned more than $1 million in compensation in 2010, according to Heritage's tax form for that year. DeMint's annual salary as a senator is $174,000

.....

On his 2011 financial disclosure report, DeMint only listed two assets, both IRAs, that are worth at least $1,000 each. He also received a book advance for his tome Now or Never last year of more than $43,000.

But DeMint also reported liabilities for 2011 that totaled at least $350,000 for two residential mortgages.


thehill.com...
edit on 6-12-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


I see and know people who are moochers. They even brag about it. They teach others how to scam the system.

Do not even try to tell me that there are not moochers. That is just a insult.

And they all supported Obama.
edit on 6-12-2012 by TDawgRex because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


They are not making themselves any thing like that, actually what you are failing to see is that our politic-rats elites are turning into a big DemoRep-crap party because both of them are good at one thing to deliver nothing but crap.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Good for him!




posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


I see and know people who are moochers. They even brag about it. They teach others how to scam the system.



Interesting crowd you run with? Or family? In my circles the only ones that brag about scamming the system are tax attorneys and finance jockies...Thier scams aren't for food stamps, thier scams are millions of dollars ...lifted from folks 401ks, college savings etc. What gets me is that half the country wants to crack down on folks getting food stamps ...while at the same time, those same folks are screaming...LESS REGUALTION for the effen guys that steal millions on a daily basis. Just weird.

Scamming a meal? Socialist corruption.
Scamming a 100 Million from a college savings fund you help manage? ...Effen Free Market Capitalism!!!!
edit on 6-12-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Jeremiah65
 


there's not "some" - it's in the parties political platform... when Paul ran for Pres as a Libertarian the platform ended funding for public education...

this isn't me painting them, this is me relating what the party believes...

You may not agree with you party, but they don't agree with you either...


Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society


www.lp.org...



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


They are not making themselves any thing like that, actually what you are failing to see is that our politic-rats elites are turning into a big DemoRep-crap party because both of them are good at one thing to deliver nothing but crap.







Please please keep spreading this message, far and wide.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


I see and know people who are moochers. They even brag about it. They teach others how to scam the system.

Do not even try to tell me that there are not moochers. That is just a insult.

And they all supported Obama.
edit on 6-12-2012 by TDawgRex because: (no reason given)


I didn't, and you should be able to comprehend this, ever state that that there are NOT moochers... I believe in rapists and murderers as well...

My point is that moochers are not a meaningfully large part of the electorate.

And here, you go and find me statistics showing what percentage of people are on permanent welfare, in the US.

then we'll talk.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by interupt42
 


Sorry, but go look at the money spent on super pacs and other soft money used to promote the campaigns... direct donations to politicians is so 2004



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Merinda
 


Nice way to try to blame the poor and put a new spin on cutting entitlements, but that is the corporations fault, not the poor.

If the corps would pay living wages, then there would be less need for foodstamps.

It is the corporations taking advantage of the welfare system, not the other way around.

The answer? Legislation. My state tried to pass a law that any corporation that made a lot of money whose employees are so poor that they have to collect welfare, now have to reimburse the state for those employees.

The repubs shot it down of course.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by interupt42
 


Sorry, but go look at the money spent on super pacs and other soft money used to promote the campaigns... direct donations to politicians is so 2004



Or inconvenient? Actually its so 2007 because In 2008, Barack Obama became the first candidate in a general election to spurn the public financing of campaigns to avoid having to comply with spending limits

Read more: Super PACs Explained — Infoplease.com www.infoplease.com...



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
In fairness the GOP does good for a party that has only won popular vote once since 1988.(or 92 - depending on how you count it). 20 years and one popular win... not great...



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by Jeremiah65
 


there's not "some" - it's in the parties political platform... when Paul ran for Pres as a Libertarian the platform ended funding for public education...

this isn't me painting them, this is me relating what the party believes...

You may not agree with you party, but they don't agree with you either...


Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society


www.lp.org...



I can honestly see your point. I can see how freedom can be perverted for wickedness, greed and gluttony. I can also see how an over abundance of laws and regulations lead to a police/nanny state where no one is free...financially or otherwise.

There has to be an application of a disappearing skill...common sense.

I digress. I will not argue with you because it is and always will be within the capacity of human beings to do bad things. Liberty for some is the freedom to pursue happiness and for others it is freedom to do unto others and then run.

I disagree with telling people how to live, who they can marry, what they can eat or drink or put in their bodies. I disagree with taking a woman's choice away. I believe in freedom and as long as my freedom does not impede another persons freedom, how I choose to move through this world and conduct my life is no one's business.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by interupt42

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by interupt42
 


Sorry, but go look at the money spent on super pacs and other soft money used to promote the campaigns... direct donations to politicians is so 2004



Or inconvenient? Actually its so 2007 because In 2008, Barack Obama became the first candidate in a general election to spurn the public financing of campaigns to avoid having to comply with spending limits

Read more: Super PACs Explained — Infoplease.com www.infoplease.com...


That 2007 thing is a bit of a red herring, considering that the laws changed starting in 2002.

en.wikipedia.org...

If you REALLY want to know though, why he opted out, ask John Kerry about 501(c)s and 527s.

Obama realised that the system is so broken he could only compete if he was allowed to spend on the same level as his opponent.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremiah65

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by Jeremiah65
 


there's not "some" - it's in the parties political platform... when Paul ran for Pres as a Libertarian the platform ended funding for public education...

this isn't me painting them, this is me relating what the party believes...

You may not agree with you party, but they don't agree with you either...


Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society


www.lp.org...



I can honestly see your point. I can see how freedom can be perverted for wickedness, greed and gluttony. I can also see how an over abundance of laws and regulations lead to a police/nanny state where no one is free...financially or otherwise.

There has to be an application of a disappearing skill...common sense.

I digress. I will not argue with you because it is and always will be within the capacity of human beings to do bad things. Liberty for some is the freedom to pursue happiness and for others it is freedom to do unto others and then run.

I disagree with telling people how to live, who they can marry, what they can eat or drink or put in their bodies. I disagree with taking a woman's choice away. I believe in freedom and as long as my freedom does not impede another persons freedom, how I choose to move through this world and conduct my life is no one's business.


Well listen, the left are def a lot closer to the Libertarians on the social issues than you think, and they think that freedom for the rich is gonna mean tyranny for the poor... which is kinda common sense, if you ask me.

The funny thing about most political discussions is, if you had them in person, you'd find you agree with a lot more people than you disagree with... even those that vote for candidates you hate... and that's because most people aren't extremists.

You've seen that Chomsky thing on Libertarians - that's what I think. Businesses aren't responsible to society, but to share holders, there is not REAL invisible hand, and if it suited a corporation to lobby for cavity searches at airports, then guess what new law we'll be getting...

What we REALLY need is to separate business from politics, the way we separate church and state... add that to proportional representation and you've got REAL and LASTING change that empowers AND defends... that's what I want.

I think that Libertarians are basically well meaning, but also naive. In many ways... like some kinda of weird capitalist hippies


I also think that many of them don't REALLY know as much as they claim to know about the constitution and "liberty" and the founding fathers (as evidenced in this thread - how convenient).

You seem reasonable and interested in what's best and I appreciate that. Genuinely.

Again though I say, look at what is proven to work, and copy that.

What nations have good and cheap healthcare?

What nations have good and cheap education systems?

How do we take those ideas and make them work here?

Why must we start with an ideology and base our plans on that?

It's silly.
edit on 6-12-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother
Obama realised that the system is so broken he could only compete if he was allowed to spend on the same level as his opponent.


Kind of interesting that you say that , I recall Obama saying that he was going to take public campaign funds and opt out of private funds when he ran against McCain who also agreed to do the same.

In the end Obama broke his promise and ended up raising something like $750 millions dollars with no strings attached of course.


Seriously , do you think the system can be brought down by one guy or one party or that Obama can strong handle the system?

Either Obama walks on water or he is part of the game and there is lots of evidence to suggest he is part of the game and nothing yet to suggest that he walks on water.

Sorry , but Obama continued the Bush policies and implemented Romneys gov't mandated health care program.

There is a reason why Democrats and Republicans talk different but act the same. They have the same agenda and with each party they cover 100% of the market.





edit on 6-12-2012 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by interupt42

Originally posted by longlostbrother
Obama realised that the system is so broken he could only compete if he was allowed to spend on the same level as his opponent.


Kind of interesting that you say that , I recall Obama saying that he was going to take public campaign funds and opt out of private funds when he ran against McCain who also agreed to do the same.

In the end Obama broke his promise and ended up raising something like $750 millions dollars with no strings attached of course.


Seriously , do you think the system can be brought down by one guy or one party or that Obama can strong handle the system?

Either Obama walks on water or he is part of the game and there is lots of evidence to suggest he is part of the game and nothing yet to suggest that he walks on water.

Sorry , but Obama continued the Bush policies and implemented Romneys gov't mandated health care program.

There is a reason why Democrats and Republicans talk different but act the same. They have the same agenda and with each party they cover 100% of the market.





edit on 6-12-2012 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)


I think that Obama was a bit idealistic when it came to public financing, then had a chat with John Kerry.

The GOP may have "embraced" public financing, but they wildly outspent the Dems in 2004, via 527s and 501s... Obama is an optimistic pragmatist, for the most part... IMO.

I do think you're "black or white" reading of people is all sorts of wrong... no one is perfect, ever... he can be better than Romney (duh) and still hugely flawed as a leader (double duh).

People project stuff onto leaders all the time, and that happens with popular politicians almost as a rule of thumb. I didn't support Obama in the primaries in 08, because I though he was WAY too mainstream and status quo... I was right... compare him to politicians around the world and he's so far from being a liberal as to be a joke. But then again, America is, in most senses, centre-right, and it has voted for Dems for President (popular vote) every time but once in the last 20 odd years. That wouldn't happen if Dems were hardcore liberals.

Anyway, I digress.





new topics
top topics
 
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join