rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Nov 24, 2009 15:33:42 GMT -5
After all my efforts to root out the latent lunaphobia in the GOP in order to attract more independents, this is how you repay me...
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Nov 24, 2009 16:01:03 GMT -5
My take on the roots the Republicans should go back to: 1. Fiscal responsibility through balanced budgets, smaller government and lower taxes. And, a corrolary, federal government support of a free-market society. 2. Very strong national defense, adjusted to the threats foreseen for the future. 3. Constitutional government, i.e. following the Constitution as intended by the founding fathers; and, amending the Consititution where modern circumstances warrant it. 4. Reduction of the laws on the books that infringe on our Constitutional rights to property and to bear arms. 5. Promotion of the traditional family as the bedrock of our American society. 6. Promotion, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, of the right to life as the foundation of all rights provided by God. I agree wholeheartedly with 1-4. My only tweaks to 5 and 6 are as follows: 5. Promotion of a loving and supportive family as the bedrock of our American society. 6. Promotion, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, of the the notion that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...."
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Nov 24, 2009 16:14:01 GMT -5
My take on the roots the Republicans should go back to: 1. Fiscal responsibility through balanced budgets, smaller government and lower taxes. And, a corrolary, federal government support of a free-market society. 2. Very strong national defense, adjusted to the threats foreseen for the future. 3. Constitutional government, i.e. following the Constitution as intended by the founding fathers; and, amending the Consititution where modern circumstances warrant it. 4. Reduction of the laws on the books that infringe on our Constitutional rights to property and to bear arms. 5. Promotion of the traditional family as the bedrock of our American society. 6. Promotion, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, of the right to life as the foundation of all rights provided by God. I agree wholeheartedly with 1-4. My only tweaks to 5 and 6 are as follows: 5. Promotion of a loving and supportive family as the bedrock of our American society. 6. Promotion, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, of the the notion that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...." Sign me up for these (w/ Cambridge's edits). I don't love the bearing arms, but if it means securing the rest of these as bedrock principles of a party, I'd take it in a heartbeat.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Nov 24, 2009 16:22:46 GMT -5
My take on the roots the Republicans should go back to: 1. Fiscal responsibility through balanced budgets, smaller government and lower taxes. And, a corrolary, federal government support of a free-market society. 2. Very strong national defense, adjusted to the threats foreseen for the future. 3. Constitutional government, i.e. following the Constitution as intended by the founding fathers; and, amending the Consititution where modern circumstances warrant it. 4. Reduction of the laws on the books that infringe on our Constitutional rights to property and to bear arms. 5. Promotion of the traditional family as the bedrock of our American society. 6. Promotion, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, of the right to life as the foundation of all rights provided by God. I agree wholeheartedly with 1-4. My only tweaks to 5 and 6 are as follows: 5. Promotion of a loving and supportive family as the bedrock of our American society. 6. Promotion, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, of the the notion that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...." Re your 5 and 6. I believe it's 31 states that have voted to negate same-sex marriage. Also, there has been no vote on the subject of abortion. It's been decided by a court of nine persons. The "consent of the governed" in 31 states has spoken while the "consent of the governed" has not been attempted in the case of abortion. So, I don't disagree entirely with your 5 and 6.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Nov 24, 2009 16:26:25 GMT -5
I don't think Cambridge's #6 edit is at all at odds with what ed was trying to convey with his #6. #5 is a touchy one, as we all know (not necessarily for me). I'll be honest with you, I'm not sure that one belongs elevated to that level. Just for fun, if you've go a few hours to spare, here is a listing of both parties platforms going back to the 1800s. www.presidency.ucsb.edu/platforms.phpIt's kind of neat to pick out key moments in history and read through the parties' positions on issues of the day. (I think the Republicans should re-adopt their 1864 policy of unconditional surrender being the only acceptable outcome in dealing with Rebels -- not sure if that would or would not impact Sarah Palin. )
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Nov 24, 2009 22:30:29 GMT -5
I don't think Cambridge's #6 edit is at all at odds with what ed was trying to convey with his #6. #5 is a touchy one, as we all know (not necessarily for me). I'll be honest with you, I'm not sure that one belongs elevated to that level. Just for fun, if you've go a few hours to spare, here is a listing of both parties platforms going back to the 1800s. www.presidency.ucsb.edu/platforms.phpIt's kind of neat to pick out key moments in history and read through the parties' positions on issues of the day. (I think the Republicans should re-adopt their 1864 policy of unconditional surrender being the only acceptable outcome in dealing with Rebels -- not sure if that would or would not impact Sarah Palin. ) Ed - I wasn't saying that my ideas were popular, I was saying if you're founding that party, sign me up. That sounds like my kind of platform (with my slight edits). I believe that you are right that your values are more popular than mine, that wasn't my intention. I was merely thinking about the ideal platform for a party I would actually consider joining and I was shocked at how close you came to describing it. Boz - I agree that our 6's are not mutually exclusive, I just wanted to expand the focus to the entire phrase b/c I agree with Ed that it is fundamental to my idea of what America is all about. As for 5, I figure we just have to agree to disagree on that precise scope. I obviously am more permissive in what constitutes a family; that being said I completely believe that a strong nation is built on a foundation of strong families. There we are definitely in accord.
|
|
FewFAC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,032
|
Post by FewFAC on Nov 26, 2009 18:08:34 GMT -5
Almost as awesome as Glenn Beck, Community Organizer. Almost.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,797
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Nov 26, 2009 21:51:14 GMT -5
Is this...
a) The Democratic platform of 1900; b) The Republican platform of 1964; or c) Lou Dobbs' platform of 2012?
"We hold that the Constitution follows the flag, and denounce the doctrine that an Executive or Congress deriving their existence and their powers from the Constitution can exercise lawful authority beyond it or in violation of it. We assert that no nation can long endure half republic and half empire, and we warn the American people that imperialism abroad will lead quickly and inevitably to despotism at home."
This republic has no place for a vast military establishment, a sure forerunner of compulsory military service and conscription. When the nation is in danger the volunteer soldier is his country's best defender. The National Guard of the United States should ever be cherished in the patriotic hearts of a free people. Such organizations are ever an element of strength and safety. For the first time in our history...has there been a wholesale departure from our time honored and approved system...We denounce it as un-American."
"We favor the continuance and strict enforcement of the Chinese exclusion law, and its application to the same classes of all Asiatic races."
"Believing that our most cherished institutions are in great peril, that the very existence of our constitutional republic is at stake, and that the decision now to be rendered will determine whether or not our children are to enjoy these blessed privileges of free government."
Answer: (a).
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,462
|
Post by TC on Nov 26, 2009 22:16:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Nov 27, 2009 0:28:34 GMT -5
Biggest flip-flop in history. This is just epic. And it will make him far less appealing to whatever "base" he may have had. If he had anything going for him, it was his hard-line immigration stance. Personally, I would have liked a real "lock down the borders" position from someone who might be socially moderate.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,462
|
Post by TC on Nov 27, 2009 1:51:53 GMT -5
It's so absurd it's ridiculous - he won't fool anyone by playing more moderate and there is so much ammunition from his radio and TV shows for opposition campaign ads, I don't know why he's bothering.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Dec 5, 2009 14:04:44 GMT -5
And now she's a birther. Truly this woman is future of the Republican party.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Dec 5, 2009 14:13:07 GMT -5
There would be not "birthers" if Barack Obama had produced his birth certificate.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Dec 5, 2009 14:21:27 GMT -5
There would be not "birthers" if Barack Obama had produced his birth certificate. He did. But conspiracy theorists constantly move the goalposts, because that's what conspiracy theorists are all about.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Dec 5, 2009 14:30:13 GMT -5
The birther movement is less concerned with a conspiracy theory than the distribution of opportunities in society and a concern that certain opportunities have purportedly been distributed away from certain racial and socioeconomic groups. That point is not some liberal mumbo-jumbo, unless Pat Buchanan fails the latest purity examination. He took an extra step and connected the birther movement to Nativism.
Palin's apparent endorsement of it only reinforces the degree to which the theory is acceptable in Republican circles, which is not surprising because it is only the successor to a long list of opportunity-restriction measures, including restriction of tax benefits to same-sex partners, so as to preserve a large chunk of the pie for the socioeconomic groups that the United States should protect. Palin also gives it the intellectual gravitas in Republican circles given her status as a bestselling author and the focus that is paid to her dissemination of policy positions, even if only by Facebook, MySpace, and the like.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Dec 5, 2009 14:47:12 GMT -5
"Voters have every right to ask candidates for information if they so choose. I’ve pointed out that it was seemingly fair game during the 2008 election for many on the left to badger my doctor and lawyer for proof that Trig is in fact my child. Conspiracy-minded reporters and voters had a right to ask... which they have repeatedly. But at no point – not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews – have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States."
- Sarah Palin
I believe her point in the interview was in the context of what is fair game. There sure never seems to be anything that is off limits in criticisms of Sarah Palin.
But it gave Keith Olbermann night after night of programming, so that's nice.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Dec 5, 2009 14:51:46 GMT -5
She also said that the public is rightfully making it an issue. Perhaps it was inartfully stated, but it raises the distinct possibility that she finds enough there to pursue it or, to the extent she does not buy in, she at least wants to have the issue out there for her own political gain. It is a cheap form of politics but inkeeping with the lack of good faith that most Americans believe Republicans have exhibited during the Obama presidency. It is the same issue with people who do not support the President. They want to be able to oppose him on everything, but, when someone accuses them of not supporting the President (as I have done here at times because I was victim of the same accusations in the past), they get all up in arms because they do not want to be held responsible for their positions. One certainly has to wonder, considering past arguments during 2001-2008, just how much comfort our enemies have taken because of this criticism. I have to think, but perhaps someone has a better argument, that there could be nothing more injurious to our troops and more emboldening than a suggestion that the President is serving unlawfully and is not an American.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Dec 5, 2009 15:52:15 GMT -5
I'm asking a question not to join in the fight but to have someone tell me when or where Obama released a certified copy of his birth certificate. And, if there's a link to the evidence. If he has done so, I will say I was misled and offer mea culpas.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Dec 5, 2009 15:53:48 GMT -5
The birther movement is less concerned with a conspiracy theory than the distribution of opportunities in society and a concern that certain opportunities have purportedly been distributed away from certain racial and socioeconomic groups. That point is not some liberal mumbo-jumbo, unless Pat Buchanan fails the latest purity examination. He took an extra step and connected the birther movement to Nativism. Palin's apparent endorsement of it only reinforces the degree to which the theory is acceptable in Republican circles, which is not surprising because it is only the successor to a long list of opportunity-restriction measures, including restriction of tax benefits to same-sex partners, so as to preserve a large chunk of the pie for the socioeconomic groups that the United States should protect. Palin also gives it the intellectual gravitas in Republican circles given her status as a bestselling author and the focus that is paid to her dissemination of policy positions, even if only by Facebook, MySpace, and the like. Speaking of a conspiracy theory.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Dec 5, 2009 16:03:07 GMT -5
Conspiracy theory or not, I am comfortable not undermining the legitimacy of the President during a time of war by perpetuating a fishing expedition. President Obama has released a Certification of Live Birth - msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg. This government-issued document is consistent in form and substance with others issued at the same time. There is a raised seal on the back of the document, according to Snopes, which naturally does not appear in a scanned image of the front of the document. This authentic certification appears to be given the same weight as a "birth certificate" under HI law. One has to wonder why charges have not been filed against the hospital personnel for creating such a clear fraud of a document. I have not seen a discussion of this, but it may be the case that the hospital was not issuing "birth certificates" as commonly understood at the time, or, to the extent that they were, I have no idea (and suspect the birthers don't either) as to the nature of the information on the birth certificate that would be dispositive of the inquiry at hand vs. what can be gleaned from the Certification of Live Birth. There are also newspaper articles available from the HI press that have been dug up. It is unclear why they would run a birth announcement that took place in some village in Kenya. If authentic documents are a concern, what is to be made of the "Kenyan document" proferred by Orly Taitz et al.? No clearer form of ignorance in this debate can be identified than that disgusting attempt to prey on stupidity.
|
|