OT – GOP is being carried to the extreme

[Aecetia]

Sdgrrl,

You continue to make attributional errors when posting about people you disagree with. All I ask is that you state facts about their posts when you reply. I do not object to any of your personal opinions. I only object to your wa statements that you project on other people based on who you think they are because of your political leanings. Again, you made it the good old days, not Zeit. How do you know what Zeit thinks are the good old days? Maybe he/ she is a time traveler who thinks the middle ages were the good old days.

I also am going to add that I know Asians and half Asians and most of them do not whine about their treatment or bemoan how their relatives were treated (except the camps the Japanese were put in during WWII). The ones I know celebrate this country and consider themselves Americans first. The ones I know were in orphanages in Japan and were adopted by Americans. I also know others who were in foster care. None of them ever complain about how they were treated in this country. However, these half-Japansese, half Anglo were tormented while in the Japanese orphanage because they were half white. There is plenty of racism to go around and it is not all on the part of white America.

[Aecetia]

Brian,

I do not like the money being wasted on prisons or the war in Afghanistan. I do not think either of these is a good use of tax dollars. I would prefer that the drug crime be controlled with pharmacology. There are some drugs available that can greatly mitigate the drug cravings. The Mexican national criminals should be sent back to Mexico. Border security should be improved. No foreign aid to Palestine and any other country harboring terrorists including Saudia Arabia. No welfare. People who are financially impaired need to be helped for a finite time. Welfare is not a job. I think the Fed. should cut taxes, both corporate and personal (I am actually in favor of a flat tax), go after businesses who hire illegals or banks who perpetuate them, tax the remittances being sent out of this country, vouchers for private schools to improve public schools, and I also am not thrilled about the International Space Station. I would rather spend the money on this planet.

“You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s iniatiative and independence. You cannot establish security on borrowed money.”
(Boetcker) Don’t presume because someone does not support this hideous health care bill and its obscene attack on Constitutional rights means they want or support the stupid war we are engaged in. Maybe Ron Paul was the best man for the job! You need to leave the Bush attacks behind and look at what is really being sold to the American people by a corrupt Congress mad with power because they won. 2010 is just around the corner and many of these idiots will be unseated because they are doing what they want to do, not what the voters want.

[Aecetia]

Brian,

I do not like the money being wasted on prisons or the war in Afghanistan. I do not think either of these is a good use of tax dollars. I would prefer that the drug crime be controlled with pharmacology. There are some drugs available that can greatly mitigate the drug cravings. The Mexican national criminals should be sent back to Mexico. Border security should be improved. No foreign aid to Palestine and any other country harboring terrorists including Saudia Arabia. No welfare. People who are financially impaired need to be helped for a finite time. Welfare is not a job. I think the Fed. should cut taxes, both corporate and personal (I am actually in favor of a flat tax), go after businesses who hire illegals or banks who perpetuate them, tax the remittances being sent out of this country, vouchers for private schools to improve public schools, and I also am not thrilled about the International Space Station. I would rather spend the money on this planet.

“You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s iniatiative and independence. You cannot establish security on borrowed money.”
(Boetcker) Don’t presume because someone does not support this hideous health care bill and its obscene attack on Constitutional rights means they want or support the stupid war we are engaged in. Maybe Ron Paul was the best man for the job! You need to leave the Bush attacks behind and look at what is really being sold to the American people by a corrupt Congress mad with power because they won. 2010 is just around the corner and many of these idiots will be unseated because they are doing what they want to do, not what the voters want.

[Aecetia]

Brian,

I do not like the money being wasted on prisons or the war in Afghanistan. I do not think either of these is a good use of tax dollars. I would prefer that the drug crime be controlled with pharmacology. There are some drugs available that can greatly mitigate the drug cravings. The Mexican national criminals should be sent back to Mexico. Border security should be improved. No foreign aid to Palestine and any other country harboring terrorists including Saudia Arabia. No welfare. People who are financially impaired need to be helped for a finite time. Welfare is not a job. I think the Fed. should cut taxes, both corporate and personal (I am actually in favor of a flat tax), go after businesses who hire illegals or banks who perpetuate them, tax the remittances being sent out of this country, vouchers for private schools to improve public schools, and I also am not thrilled about the International Space Station. I would rather spend the money on this planet.

“You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s iniatiative and independence. You cannot establish security on borrowed money.”
(Boetcker) Don’t presume because someone does not support this hideous health care bill and its obscene attack on Constitutional rights means they want or support the stupid war we are engaged in. Maybe Ron Paul was the best man for the job! You need to leave the Bush attacks behind and look at what is really being sold to the American people by a corrupt Congress mad with power because they won. 2010 is just around the corner and many of these idiots will be unseated because they are doing what they want to do, not what the voters want.

[Aecetia]

Brian,

I do not like the money being wasted on prisons or the war in Afghanistan. I do not think either of these is a good use of tax dollars. I would prefer that the drug crime be controlled with pharmacology. There are some drugs available that can greatly mitigate the drug cravings. The Mexican national criminals should be sent back to Mexico. Border security should be improved. No foreign aid to Palestine and any other country harboring terrorists including Saudia Arabia. No welfare. People who are financially impaired need to be helped for a finite time. Welfare is not a job. I think the Fed. should cut taxes, both corporate and personal (I am actually in favor of a flat tax), go after businesses who hire illegals or banks who perpetuate them, tax the remittances being sent out of this country, vouchers for private schools to improve public schools, and I also am not thrilled about the International Space Station. I would rather spend the money on this planet.

“You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s iniatiative and independence. You cannot establish security on borrowed money.”
(Boetcker) Don’t presume because someone does not support this hideous health care bill and its obscene attack on Constitutional rights means they want or support the stupid war we are engaged in. Maybe Ron Paul was the best man for the job! You need to leave the Bush attacks behind and look at what is really being sold to the American people by a corrupt Congress mad with power because they won. 2010 is just around the corner and many of these idiots will be unseated because they are doing what they want to do, not what the voters want.

[Aecetia]

Brian,

I do not like the money being wasted on prisons or the war in Afghanistan. I do not think either of these is a good use of tax dollars. I would prefer that the drug crime be controlled with pharmacology. There are some drugs available that can greatly mitigate the drug cravings. The Mexican national criminals should be sent back to Mexico. Border security should be improved. No foreign aid to Palestine and any other country harboring terrorists including Saudia Arabia. No welfare. People who are financially impaired need to be helped for a finite time. Welfare is not a job. I think the Fed. should cut taxes, both corporate and personal (I am actually in favor of a flat tax), go after businesses who hire illegals or banks who perpetuate them, tax the remittances being sent out of this country, vouchers for private schools to improve public schools, and I also am not thrilled about the International Space Station. I would rather spend the money on this planet.

“You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s iniatiative and independence. You cannot establish security on borrowed money.”
(Boetcker) Don’t presume because someone does not support this hideous health care bill and its obscene attack on Constitutional rights means they want or support the stupid war we are engaged in. Maybe Ron Paul was the best man for the job! You need to leave the Bush attacks behind and look at what is really being sold to the American people by a corrupt Congress mad with power because they won. 2010 is just around the corner and many of these idiots will be unseated because they are doing what they want to do, not what the voters want.

[briansd1]

Aecetia, I agree with you.

At least you are consistent in your views. If we are going to have real individual self-determination then tough love is the only way to do it.

I would go for that.

About deporting criminals back to their home countries, wouldn’t that be a free pass for them? There’s no guarantee that they’ll be prosecuted for crimes committed in America, if they are send back home. But that would save us the cost of imprisoning them. A practical approach, I believe.

If we are going to have “socialism” it needs to be spread out evenly so that everyone (not just certain groups like the military or government employees) is guaranteed a minimum standard of living. That will require the rationing of resources. If people want guarantees over and above the minimum, they can buy their own insurance and pensions.

I’m not in favor of the flat tax because people who get more out of society should contribute more to it.

[briansd1]

Aecetia, I agree with you.

At least you are consistent in your views. If we are going to have real individual self-determination then tough love is the only way to do it.

I would go for that.

About deporting criminals back to their home countries, wouldn’t that be a free pass for them? There’s no guarantee that they’ll be prosecuted for crimes committed in America, if they are send back home. But that would save us the cost of imprisoning them. A practical approach, I believe.

If we are going to have “socialism” it needs to be spread out evenly so that everyone (not just certain groups like the military or government employees) is guaranteed a minimum standard of living. That will require the rationing of resources. If people want guarantees over and above the minimum, they can buy their own insurance and pensions.

I’m not in favor of the flat tax because people who get more out of society should contribute more to it.

[briansd1]

Aecetia, I agree with you.

At least you are consistent in your views. If we are going to have real individual self-determination then tough love is the only way to do it.

I would go for that.

About deporting criminals back to their home countries, wouldn’t that be a free pass for them? There’s no guarantee that they’ll be prosecuted for crimes committed in America, if they are send back home. But that would save us the cost of imprisoning them. A practical approach, I believe.

If we are going to have “socialism” it needs to be spread out evenly so that everyone (not just certain groups like the military or government employees) is guaranteed a minimum standard of living. That will require the rationing of resources. If people want guarantees over and above the minimum, they can buy their own insurance and pensions.

I’m not in favor of the flat tax because people who get more out of society should contribute more to it.

[briansd1]

Aecetia, I agree with you.

At least you are consistent in your views. If we are going to have real individual self-determination then tough love is the only way to do it.

I would go for that.

About deporting criminals back to their home countries, wouldn’t that be a free pass for them? There’s no guarantee that they’ll be prosecuted for crimes committed in America, if they are send back home. But that would save us the cost of imprisoning them. A practical approach, I believe.

If we are going to have “socialism” it needs to be spread out evenly so that everyone (not just certain groups like the military or government employees) is guaranteed a minimum standard of living. That will require the rationing of resources. If people want guarantees over and above the minimum, they can buy their own insurance and pensions.

I’m not in favor of the flat tax because people who get more out of society should contribute more to it.

[briansd1]

Aecetia, I agree with you.

At least you are consistent in your views. If we are going to have real individual self-determination then tough love is the only way to do it.

I would go for that.

About deporting criminals back to their home countries, wouldn’t that be a free pass for them? There’s no guarantee that they’ll be prosecuted for crimes committed in America, if they are send back home. But that would save us the cost of imprisoning them. A practical approach, I believe.

If we are going to have “socialism” it needs to be spread out evenly so that everyone (not just certain groups like the military or government employees) is guaranteed a minimum standard of living. That will require the rationing of resources. If people want guarantees over and above the minimum, they can buy their own insurance and pensions.

I’m not in favor of the flat tax because people who get more out of society should contribute more to it.

[felix]

[quote=sdgrrl][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]Both parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.

However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. [/quote]

Who were Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove?

Ever heard of Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME? Google those 2 terms together.[/quote]

You may not be happy with the previous administration. I understand that. I wasn’t happy with much that occurred also. Still, very few folks would consider any of the above radicals, in the same way those close to and even working in the Obama administration are considered radical. And this isn’t just a left/right judgment. It is a judgment based upon the traditional values of this country.

If you consider those you named above as radicals then you also must consider most of founding fathers radicals as well as many of those who have lead and built this country radicals. Clearly, the views of those who founded this country and of those who wrote our constitution are more in line with the Bushies than the changes being done by administrative or judicial fiat of the current left.

In fact, imo, JFK views were more in line with the Bushies and today’s Republications than today’s current Dems.[/quote]

What is a radical to you Felix?

JFK was probably seen as a radical for his view and support of Civil Rights.

Martin L. King was seen as a radical.

Roosevelt was a radical for his social programs.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott were radicals for fighting the “tradition” of women having no voice in government.

Lincoln was a radical for supporting the end of slavery.

Each of these people were radical in reshaping America from a different light than what existed in 1776. Is that a bad thing?

I guess I am a liberal because of what I see as radical righties.

People that want prayer in school.

Those who viciously hate homosexuals.

People that want no birth control at all or sex education.

Those that want creationsim to replace evolution.

Left has “radicals” but please don’t tell me the right has none when they have Michelle Bachmann, had Rick Santorum and many others.

No disrespect to you Felix, but a radical can be seen in many different ways depending on who is asked.[/quote]

I see your point. Radicalism may very well depend on who is asked. However, with reference to the changes liberals seem to want for this country, imo, there is no question whose ideas are more in step with the founding ideals of this country.

The civil rights movement was supported by many Republicans in the conservative bible belt. In fact, I believe it was many southern Dems that didn’t support JFK on this including Al Gore’s Dad.

Imo the current Republican ideas of today are closer to the ideas of JFK than are the ideas of current Dems.

MLK wanted folks judged not by the color of their skin but the content of their character. I fully support this view and thus want the end to affirmative action. His views were moral and religious and found much support again from conservative church goers.

FDR was indeed radical. He changed this country with his vast social programs. While some programs like the TVA appear to have been helpful, others, like, the Ponzi scheme, social security, have done damage, or worse, become an albatross that no politician can touch.

The point I’m making is that some folks are trying to change the country to what they believe is better. Other folks are just trying to live within a country that they believed to have a constitution and bill of rights allowing them, historically, to pray in schools, outlaw homosexuality and even teach what they believed in schools.

I may have differing opinions on all three of the above but the folks who want to continue living in a country that has existed for over two hundreds with these as basic beliefs are not advocating radical change. They are advocating the status quo.

These folks have and will continue to live with changes that occur. They will continue to do so without violence or rioting. They just ask, I ask fairly imo, that changes happen do so within the appropriate process. They don’t want a government of either judicial or administrative fiat. They are not advocates of the “Rules for Radicals” as are many in the current administration.

[felix]

[quote=sdgrrl][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]Both parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.

However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. [/quote]

Who were Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove?

Ever heard of Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME? Google those 2 terms together.[/quote]

You may not be happy with the previous administration. I understand that. I wasn’t happy with much that occurred also. Still, very few folks would consider any of the above radicals, in the same way those close to and even working in the Obama administration are considered radical. And this isn’t just a left/right judgment. It is a judgment based upon the traditional values of this country.

If you consider those you named above as radicals then you also must consider most of founding fathers radicals as well as many of those who have lead and built this country radicals. Clearly, the views of those who founded this country and of those who wrote our constitution are more in line with the Bushies than the changes being done by administrative or judicial fiat of the current left.

In fact, imo, JFK views were more in line with the Bushies and today’s Republications than today’s current Dems.[/quote]

What is a radical to you Felix?

JFK was probably seen as a radical for his view and support of Civil Rights.

Martin L. King was seen as a radical.

Roosevelt was a radical for his social programs.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott were radicals for fighting the “tradition” of women having no voice in government.

Lincoln was a radical for supporting the end of slavery.

Each of these people were radical in reshaping America from a different light than what existed in 1776. Is that a bad thing?

I guess I am a liberal because of what I see as radical righties.

People that want prayer in school.

Those who viciously hate homosexuals.

People that want no birth control at all or sex education.

Those that want creationsim to replace evolution.

Left has “radicals” but please don’t tell me the right has none when they have Michelle Bachmann, had Rick Santorum and many others.

No disrespect to you Felix, but a radical can be seen in many different ways depending on who is asked.[/quote]

I see your point. Radicalism may very well depend on who is asked. However, with reference to the changes liberals seem to want for this country, imo, there is no question whose ideas are more in step with the founding ideals of this country.

The civil rights movement was supported by many Republicans in the conservative bible belt. In fact, I believe it was many southern Dems that didn’t support JFK on this including Al Gore’s Dad.

Imo the current Republican ideas of today are closer to the ideas of JFK than are the ideas of current Dems.

MLK wanted folks judged not by the color of their skin but the content of their character. I fully support this view and thus want the end to affirmative action. His views were moral and religious and found much support again from conservative church goers.

FDR was indeed radical. He changed this country with his vast social programs. While some programs like the TVA appear to have been helpful, others, like, the Ponzi scheme, social security, have done damage, or worse, become an albatross that no politician can touch.

The point I’m making is that some folks are trying to change the country to what they believe is better. Other folks are just trying to live within a country that they believed to have a constitution and bill of rights allowing them, historically, to pray in schools, outlaw homosexuality and even teach what they believed in schools.

I may have differing opinions on all three of the above but the folks who want to continue living in a country that has existed for over two hundreds with these as basic beliefs are not advocating radical change. They are advocating the status quo.

These folks have and will continue to live with changes that occur. They will continue to do so without violence or rioting. They just ask, I ask fairly imo, that changes happen do so within the appropriate process. They don’t want a government of either judicial or administrative fiat. They are not advocates of the “Rules for Radicals” as are many in the current administration.

[felix]

[quote=sdgrrl][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]Both parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.

However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. [/quote]

Who were Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove?

Ever heard of Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME? Google those 2 terms together.[/quote]

You may not be happy with the previous administration. I understand that. I wasn’t happy with much that occurred also. Still, very few folks would consider any of the above radicals, in the same way those close to and even working in the Obama administration are considered radical. And this isn’t just a left/right judgment. It is a judgment based upon the traditional values of this country.

If you consider those you named above as radicals then you also must consider most of founding fathers radicals as well as many of those who have lead and built this country radicals. Clearly, the views of those who founded this country and of those who wrote our constitution are more in line with the Bushies than the changes being done by administrative or judicial fiat of the current left.

In fact, imo, JFK views were more in line with the Bushies and today’s Republications than today’s current Dems.[/quote]

What is a radical to you Felix?

JFK was probably seen as a radical for his view and support of Civil Rights.

Martin L. King was seen as a radical.

Roosevelt was a radical for his social programs.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott were radicals for fighting the “tradition” of women having no voice in government.

Lincoln was a radical for supporting the end of slavery.

Each of these people were radical in reshaping America from a different light than what existed in 1776. Is that a bad thing?

I guess I am a liberal because of what I see as radical righties.

People that want prayer in school.

Those who viciously hate homosexuals.

People that want no birth control at all or sex education.

Those that want creationsim to replace evolution.

Left has “radicals” but please don’t tell me the right has none when they have Michelle Bachmann, had Rick Santorum and many others.

No disrespect to you Felix, but a radical can be seen in many different ways depending on who is asked.[/quote]

I see your point. Radicalism may very well depend on who is asked. However, with reference to the changes liberals seem to want for this country, imo, there is no question whose ideas are more in step with the founding ideals of this country.

The civil rights movement was supported by many Republicans in the conservative bible belt. In fact, I believe it was many southern Dems that didn’t support JFK on this including Al Gore’s Dad.

Imo the current Republican ideas of today are closer to the ideas of JFK than are the ideas of current Dems.

MLK wanted folks judged not by the color of their skin but the content of their character. I fully support this view and thus want the end to affirmative action. His views were moral and religious and found much support again from conservative church goers.

FDR was indeed radical. He changed this country with his vast social programs. While some programs like the TVA appear to have been helpful, others, like, the Ponzi scheme, social security, have done damage, or worse, become an albatross that no politician can touch.

The point I’m making is that some folks are trying to change the country to what they believe is better. Other folks are just trying to live within a country that they believed to have a constitution and bill of rights allowing them, historically, to pray in schools, outlaw homosexuality and even teach what they believed in schools.

I may have differing opinions on all three of the above but the folks who want to continue living in a country that has existed for over two hundreds with these as basic beliefs are not advocating radical change. They are advocating the status quo.

These folks have and will continue to live with changes that occur. They will continue to do so without violence or rioting. They just ask, I ask fairly imo, that changes happen do so within the appropriate process. They don’t want a government of either judicial or administrative fiat. They are not advocates of the “Rules for Radicals” as are many in the current administration.

[felix]

[quote=sdgrrl][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]Both parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.

However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. [/quote]

Who were Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove?

Ever heard of Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME? Google those 2 terms together.[/quote]

You may not be happy with the previous administration. I understand that. I wasn’t happy with much that occurred also. Still, very few folks would consider any of the above radicals, in the same way those close to and even working in the Obama administration are considered radical. And this isn’t just a left/right judgment. It is a judgment based upon the traditional values of this country.

If you consider those you named above as radicals then you also must consider most of founding fathers radicals as well as many of those who have lead and built this country radicals. Clearly, the views of those who founded this country and of those who wrote our constitution are more in line with the Bushies than the changes being done by administrative or judicial fiat of the current left.

In fact, imo, JFK views were more in line with the Bushies and today’s Republications than today’s current Dems.[/quote]

What is a radical to you Felix?

JFK was probably seen as a radical for his view and support of Civil Rights.

Martin L. King was seen as a radical.

Roosevelt was a radical for his social programs.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott were radicals for fighting the “tradition” of women having no voice in government.

Lincoln was a radical for supporting the end of slavery.

Each of these people were radical in reshaping America from a different light than what existed in 1776. Is that a bad thing?

I guess I am a liberal because of what I see as radical righties.

People that want prayer in school.

Those who viciously hate homosexuals.

People that want no birth control at all or sex education.

Those that want creationsim to replace evolution.

Left has “radicals” but please don’t tell me the right has none when they have Michelle Bachmann, had Rick Santorum and many others.

No disrespect to you Felix, but a radical can be seen in many different ways depending on who is asked.[/quote]

I see your point. Radicalism may very well depend on who is asked. However, with reference to the changes liberals seem to want for this country, imo, there is no question whose ideas are more in step with the founding ideals of this country.

The civil rights movement was supported by many Republicans in the conservative bible belt. In fact, I believe it was many southern Dems that didn’t support JFK on this including Al Gore’s Dad.

Imo the current Republican ideas of today are closer to the ideas of JFK than are the ideas of current Dems.

MLK wanted folks judged not by the color of their skin but the content of their character. I fully support this view and thus want the end to affirmative action. His views were moral and religious and found much support again from conservative church goers.

FDR was indeed radical. He changed this country with his vast social programs. While some programs like the TVA appear to have been helpful, others, like, the Ponzi scheme, social security, have done damage, or worse, become an albatross that no politician can touch.

The point I’m making is that some folks are trying to change the country to what they believe is better. Other folks are just trying to live within a country that they believed to have a constitution and bill of rights allowing them, historically, to pray in schools, outlaw homosexuality and even teach what they believed in schools.

I may have differing opinions on all three of the above but the folks who want to continue living in a country that has existed for over two hundreds with these as basic beliefs are not advocating radical change. They are advocating the status quo.

These folks have and will continue to live with changes that occur. They will continue to do so without violence or rioting. They just ask, I ask fairly imo, that changes happen do so within the appropriate process. They don’t want a government of either judicial or administrative fiat. They are not advocates of the “Rules for Radicals” as are many in the current administration.

[Author]

Posts