OT – GOP is being carried to the extreme

[felix]

[quote=dbapig][quote=felix]
Many in the media ignored Obama’s past and his views because of their blind hate of our previous president.[/quote]

I mean, can you really blame the media for running away from our previous president…?

I firmly believe Obama was elected ONLY because of Bush. If Bush didn’t exist, USA wouldn’t have selected a man sharing Arican/Black/African-American heritage as the POTUS. Not for another 2 or 3 decades.[/quote]

If you believe as I do that the role of the 4th estate is to inform folks, yes, I do blame the media for not informing folks as best they could about someone running for president. The obligation to inform and present unbiased info should have nothing to do with how one feels about either party or administration.

[felix]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Felix: I think what gets lost in all this smoke is the intent of the Founding Fathers and the dynamic, “living document” nature of the Constitution.

One of Clinton’s little acolytes, Lani Guinier, riffed on the “Tyranny of the Majority” criticism in a book carrying the same title and you now catch that same stench emanating from the Left under Obama.

The Founding Fathers were as anti-authority, anti-monarchy, and anti-tax/anti-confiscation as it got. That thread runs through nearly all of the contemporaneous writings, as well as documents such as the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Am I opposed to radicals and reactionaries? Nope, far from it. What I am opposed to are those individuals that favor confiscatory and redistributive government, under the rubric of a “social” society.

The Left is now reduced to pathetically calling those Americans with the temerity to protest, “racists” and “extremists” and “un-Americans”. You have useful idiots like former President Carter and Keith Olbermann and Joe Klein prevaricating about racism and bigotry, simply because these buffoons (Olbermann), anti-Semites (Carter) and elitists (Klein) are stunned that average Americans are now rousing themselves from their debt-addled stupor and acting.

All of this, however, does not constitute legitimacy of the GOP. They are as complicit as the Left in this fucking mess and their current answers are really no better.

What is needed is a return to core American values, these being self-reliance, self-autonomy, frugality, humility and the civil use of free expression.[/quote]

Another great post.

[felix]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Felix: I think what gets lost in all this smoke is the intent of the Founding Fathers and the dynamic, “living document” nature of the Constitution.

One of Clinton’s little acolytes, Lani Guinier, riffed on the “Tyranny of the Majority” criticism in a book carrying the same title and you now catch that same stench emanating from the Left under Obama.

The Founding Fathers were as anti-authority, anti-monarchy, and anti-tax/anti-confiscation as it got. That thread runs through nearly all of the contemporaneous writings, as well as documents such as the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Am I opposed to radicals and reactionaries? Nope, far from it. What I am opposed to are those individuals that favor confiscatory and redistributive government, under the rubric of a “social” society.

The Left is now reduced to pathetically calling those Americans with the temerity to protest, “racists” and “extremists” and “un-Americans”. You have useful idiots like former President Carter and Keith Olbermann and Joe Klein prevaricating about racism and bigotry, simply because these buffoons (Olbermann), anti-Semites (Carter) and elitists (Klein) are stunned that average Americans are now rousing themselves from their debt-addled stupor and acting.

All of this, however, does not constitute legitimacy of the GOP. They are as complicit as the Left in this fucking mess and their current answers are really no better.

What is needed is a return to core American values, these being self-reliance, self-autonomy, frugality, humility and the civil use of free expression.[/quote]

Another great post.

[felix]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Felix: I think what gets lost in all this smoke is the intent of the Founding Fathers and the dynamic, “living document” nature of the Constitution.

One of Clinton’s little acolytes, Lani Guinier, riffed on the “Tyranny of the Majority” criticism in a book carrying the same title and you now catch that same stench emanating from the Left under Obama.

The Founding Fathers were as anti-authority, anti-monarchy, and anti-tax/anti-confiscation as it got. That thread runs through nearly all of the contemporaneous writings, as well as documents such as the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Am I opposed to radicals and reactionaries? Nope, far from it. What I am opposed to are those individuals that favor confiscatory and redistributive government, under the rubric of a “social” society.

The Left is now reduced to pathetically calling those Americans with the temerity to protest, “racists” and “extremists” and “un-Americans”. You have useful idiots like former President Carter and Keith Olbermann and Joe Klein prevaricating about racism and bigotry, simply because these buffoons (Olbermann), anti-Semites (Carter) and elitists (Klein) are stunned that average Americans are now rousing themselves from their debt-addled stupor and acting.

All of this, however, does not constitute legitimacy of the GOP. They are as complicit as the Left in this fucking mess and their current answers are really no better.

What is needed is a return to core American values, these being self-reliance, self-autonomy, frugality, humility and the civil use of free expression.[/quote]

Another great post.

[felix]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Felix: I think what gets lost in all this smoke is the intent of the Founding Fathers and the dynamic, “living document” nature of the Constitution.

One of Clinton’s little acolytes, Lani Guinier, riffed on the “Tyranny of the Majority” criticism in a book carrying the same title and you now catch that same stench emanating from the Left under Obama.

The Founding Fathers were as anti-authority, anti-monarchy, and anti-tax/anti-confiscation as it got. That thread runs through nearly all of the contemporaneous writings, as well as documents such as the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Am I opposed to radicals and reactionaries? Nope, far from it. What I am opposed to are those individuals that favor confiscatory and redistributive government, under the rubric of a “social” society.

The Left is now reduced to pathetically calling those Americans with the temerity to protest, “racists” and “extremists” and “un-Americans”. You have useful idiots like former President Carter and Keith Olbermann and Joe Klein prevaricating about racism and bigotry, simply because these buffoons (Olbermann), anti-Semites (Carter) and elitists (Klein) are stunned that average Americans are now rousing themselves from their debt-addled stupor and acting.

All of this, however, does not constitute legitimacy of the GOP. They are as complicit as the Left in this fucking mess and their current answers are really no better.

What is needed is a return to core American values, these being self-reliance, self-autonomy, frugality, humility and the civil use of free expression.[/quote]

Another great post.

[felix]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Felix: I think what gets lost in all this smoke is the intent of the Founding Fathers and the dynamic, “living document” nature of the Constitution.

One of Clinton’s little acolytes, Lani Guinier, riffed on the “Tyranny of the Majority” criticism in a book carrying the same title and you now catch that same stench emanating from the Left under Obama.

The Founding Fathers were as anti-authority, anti-monarchy, and anti-tax/anti-confiscation as it got. That thread runs through nearly all of the contemporaneous writings, as well as documents such as the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Am I opposed to radicals and reactionaries? Nope, far from it. What I am opposed to are those individuals that favor confiscatory and redistributive government, under the rubric of a “social” society.

The Left is now reduced to pathetically calling those Americans with the temerity to protest, “racists” and “extremists” and “un-Americans”. You have useful idiots like former President Carter and Keith Olbermann and Joe Klein prevaricating about racism and bigotry, simply because these buffoons (Olbermann), anti-Semites (Carter) and elitists (Klein) are stunned that average Americans are now rousing themselves from their debt-addled stupor and acting.

All of this, however, does not constitute legitimacy of the GOP. They are as complicit as the Left in this fucking mess and their current answers are really no better.

What is needed is a return to core American values, these being self-reliance, self-autonomy, frugality, humility and the civil use of free expression.[/quote]

Another great post.

[briansd1]

[quote=Aecetia]He has a very cold look in his eyes and I am sure he has killed people up close and personal. Obama is not in his league. I am sure he has not even been in a fist fight. I won’t bring up the way he threw the first pitch out either. The trouble with Bush he did not recognize evil when he saw it either. He was so focused on the terrorists he forgot about our old enemy. There is an entire generation that does not remember the cold war and until recently, they thought the stock market only went up. We have grown soft.[/quote]

I’m not disputing the Russia threat. It may or may not be present.

I’m trying to peer into the mind of the conservative to see how he reconciles providing “defense welfare” to Western Europe at great cost when the Europeans themselves did not even ask us for assistance. Bush initiated this whole missile defense thing.

We shouldn’t provide welfare to our own people but we MUST provide welfare to the French despite themselves; else we risk a Russian invasion of Europe?

Also wasn’t the Bush missile initiative supposed to protect against IRAN? Or are you guys saying that the whole Iran talk was just subterfuge to deceive not only Russia, but the American public?

Our foreign policy “traditions” up until WWII is to stay out of world affairs. Which “traditions” are you conservative guys trying to preserve? Or are you just cherry picking?
Just curious.

[briansd1]

[quote=Aecetia]He has a very cold look in his eyes and I am sure he has killed people up close and personal. Obama is not in his league. I am sure he has not even been in a fist fight. I won’t bring up the way he threw the first pitch out either. The trouble with Bush he did not recognize evil when he saw it either. He was so focused on the terrorists he forgot about our old enemy. There is an entire generation that does not remember the cold war and until recently, they thought the stock market only went up. We have grown soft.[/quote]

I’m not disputing the Russia threat. It may or may not be present.

I’m trying to peer into the mind of the conservative to see how he reconciles providing “defense welfare” to Western Europe at great cost when the Europeans themselves did not even ask us for assistance. Bush initiated this whole missile defense thing.

We shouldn’t provide welfare to our own people but we MUST provide welfare to the French despite themselves; else we risk a Russian invasion of Europe?

Also wasn’t the Bush missile initiative supposed to protect against IRAN? Or are you guys saying that the whole Iran talk was just subterfuge to deceive not only Russia, but the American public?

Our foreign policy “traditions” up until WWII is to stay out of world affairs. Which “traditions” are you conservative guys trying to preserve? Or are you just cherry picking?
Just curious.

[briansd1]

[quote=Aecetia]He has a very cold look in his eyes and I am sure he has killed people up close and personal. Obama is not in his league. I am sure he has not even been in a fist fight. I won’t bring up the way he threw the first pitch out either. The trouble with Bush he did not recognize evil when he saw it either. He was so focused on the terrorists he forgot about our old enemy. There is an entire generation that does not remember the cold war and until recently, they thought the stock market only went up. We have grown soft.[/quote]

I’m not disputing the Russia threat. It may or may not be present.

I’m trying to peer into the mind of the conservative to see how he reconciles providing “defense welfare” to Western Europe at great cost when the Europeans themselves did not even ask us for assistance. Bush initiated this whole missile defense thing.

We shouldn’t provide welfare to our own people but we MUST provide welfare to the French despite themselves; else we risk a Russian invasion of Europe?

Also wasn’t the Bush missile initiative supposed to protect against IRAN? Or are you guys saying that the whole Iran talk was just subterfuge to deceive not only Russia, but the American public?

Our foreign policy “traditions” up until WWII is to stay out of world affairs. Which “traditions” are you conservative guys trying to preserve? Or are you just cherry picking?
Just curious.

[briansd1]

[quote=Aecetia]He has a very cold look in his eyes and I am sure he has killed people up close and personal. Obama is not in his league. I am sure he has not even been in a fist fight. I won’t bring up the way he threw the first pitch out either. The trouble with Bush he did not recognize evil when he saw it either. He was so focused on the terrorists he forgot about our old enemy. There is an entire generation that does not remember the cold war and until recently, they thought the stock market only went up. We have grown soft.[/quote]

I’m not disputing the Russia threat. It may or may not be present.

I’m trying to peer into the mind of the conservative to see how he reconciles providing “defense welfare” to Western Europe at great cost when the Europeans themselves did not even ask us for assistance. Bush initiated this whole missile defense thing.

We shouldn’t provide welfare to our own people but we MUST provide welfare to the French despite themselves; else we risk a Russian invasion of Europe?

Also wasn’t the Bush missile initiative supposed to protect against IRAN? Or are you guys saying that the whole Iran talk was just subterfuge to deceive not only Russia, but the American public?

Our foreign policy “traditions” up until WWII is to stay out of world affairs. Which “traditions” are you conservative guys trying to preserve? Or are you just cherry picking?
Just curious.

[briansd1]

[quote=Aecetia]He has a very cold look in his eyes and I am sure he has killed people up close and personal. Obama is not in his league. I am sure he has not even been in a fist fight. I won’t bring up the way he threw the first pitch out either. The trouble with Bush he did not recognize evil when he saw it either. He was so focused on the terrorists he forgot about our old enemy. There is an entire generation that does not remember the cold war and until recently, they thought the stock market only went up. We have grown soft.[/quote]

I’m not disputing the Russia threat. It may or may not be present.

I’m trying to peer into the mind of the conservative to see how he reconciles providing “defense welfare” to Western Europe at great cost when the Europeans themselves did not even ask us for assistance. Bush initiated this whole missile defense thing.

We shouldn’t provide welfare to our own people but we MUST provide welfare to the French despite themselves; else we risk a Russian invasion of Europe?

Also wasn’t the Bush missile initiative supposed to protect against IRAN? Or are you guys saying that the whole Iran talk was just subterfuge to deceive not only Russia, but the American public?

Our foreign policy “traditions” up until WWII is to stay out of world affairs. Which “traditions” are you conservative guys trying to preserve? Or are you just cherry picking?
Just curious.

[CricketOnTheHearth]

Getting back to the comment on “conservative values” including “individual rights and self-determination”, that idea often seems to end where a woman’s body begins. Contraception is portrayed as somehow sinful and similar to abortion, and once a woman gets pregnant she is expected to bear the child no matter what. These same people who want to force a woman to donate her womb to a fetus would be appalled at the idea of forcing a man to donate his kidney to a stranger.

Then they also want to prosecute a “war on drugs”, even on marijuana, whose effects are no worse than tobacco and alcohol. So much for “individual freedoms” there. Finally, they advocate hands-off policy on corporations who want to pollute and despoil our landscape, making our countryside and planet unfit for human habitation. In other words, no interest whatsoever in “conserving” our natural resources.

I think a lot of these self-styled “conservatives,” especially the noisy Washington politicians and media mouthpieces, talk out of both sides of their mouths and I don’t think they are true conservatives at all. Unfortunately, they squall so much and loudly about how “conservative” they are that everyone thinks that oppressing women and minorities, interfering in consenting adults’ private lives, and laying waste to the land we must live on are part of the “conservative” agenda.

The closest thing to a true “conservative” I’ve seen is your average Libertarian. Not the leaders of the Republican Party and the “right wing”.

[CricketOnTheHearth]

Getting back to the comment on “conservative values” including “individual rights and self-determination”, that idea often seems to end where a woman’s body begins. Contraception is portrayed as somehow sinful and similar to abortion, and once a woman gets pregnant she is expected to bear the child no matter what. These same people who want to force a woman to donate her womb to a fetus would be appalled at the idea of forcing a man to donate his kidney to a stranger.

Then they also want to prosecute a “war on drugs”, even on marijuana, whose effects are no worse than tobacco and alcohol. So much for “individual freedoms” there. Finally, they advocate hands-off policy on corporations who want to pollute and despoil our landscape, making our countryside and planet unfit for human habitation. In other words, no interest whatsoever in “conserving” our natural resources.

I think a lot of these self-styled “conservatives,” especially the noisy Washington politicians and media mouthpieces, talk out of both sides of their mouths and I don’t think they are true conservatives at all. Unfortunately, they squall so much and loudly about how “conservative” they are that everyone thinks that oppressing women and minorities, interfering in consenting adults’ private lives, and laying waste to the land we must live on are part of the “conservative” agenda.

The closest thing to a true “conservative” I’ve seen is your average Libertarian. Not the leaders of the Republican Party and the “right wing”.

[CricketOnTheHearth]

Getting back to the comment on “conservative values” including “individual rights and self-determination”, that idea often seems to end where a woman’s body begins. Contraception is portrayed as somehow sinful and similar to abortion, and once a woman gets pregnant she is expected to bear the child no matter what. These same people who want to force a woman to donate her womb to a fetus would be appalled at the idea of forcing a man to donate his kidney to a stranger.

Then they also want to prosecute a “war on drugs”, even on marijuana, whose effects are no worse than tobacco and alcohol. So much for “individual freedoms” there. Finally, they advocate hands-off policy on corporations who want to pollute and despoil our landscape, making our countryside and planet unfit for human habitation. In other words, no interest whatsoever in “conserving” our natural resources.

I think a lot of these self-styled “conservatives,” especially the noisy Washington politicians and media mouthpieces, talk out of both sides of their mouths and I don’t think they are true conservatives at all. Unfortunately, they squall so much and loudly about how “conservative” they are that everyone thinks that oppressing women and minorities, interfering in consenting adults’ private lives, and laying waste to the land we must live on are part of the “conservative” agenda.

The closest thing to a true “conservative” I’ve seen is your average Libertarian. Not the leaders of the Republican Party and the “right wing”.

[CricketOnTheHearth]

Getting back to the comment on “conservative values” including “individual rights and self-determination”, that idea often seems to end where a woman’s body begins. Contraception is portrayed as somehow sinful and similar to abortion, and once a woman gets pregnant she is expected to bear the child no matter what. These same people who want to force a woman to donate her womb to a fetus would be appalled at the idea of forcing a man to donate his kidney to a stranger.

Then they also want to prosecute a “war on drugs”, even on marijuana, whose effects are no worse than tobacco and alcohol. So much for “individual freedoms” there. Finally, they advocate hands-off policy on corporations who want to pollute and despoil our landscape, making our countryside and planet unfit for human habitation. In other words, no interest whatsoever in “conserving” our natural resources.

I think a lot of these self-styled “conservatives,” especially the noisy Washington politicians and media mouthpieces, talk out of both sides of their mouths and I don’t think they are true conservatives at all. Unfortunately, they squall so much and loudly about how “conservative” they are that everyone thinks that oppressing women and minorities, interfering in consenting adults’ private lives, and laying waste to the land we must live on are part of the “conservative” agenda.

The closest thing to a true “conservative” I’ve seen is your average Libertarian. Not the leaders of the Republican Party and the “right wing”.

[Author]

Posts