All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I define it close to the heart of the matter. Constitution in the Center and then think about the reasons for it's existence. Citizens over government one side - the right. Government over citizens on the other - the left. It would be nice if the Republicans were Center and a bit to the left along with some of the Blue Dogs and so forth as long as they were rooted in the center. They are not. The Libertarians are rooted that way in the center, the sacred ground and a bit to the right. It's a start.

    On GDP. It's an ill defined or non defined catch phrase. Like anything the meanings used change hourly in support of the party, The important information if it could be believed is NDP. What percentage is used for debt service. What are the devaluation percentages? $2.85 a gallon sounds way kewl but this is 2015. 16 years ago I was paying $.95 - ninety five cents.

    Figures can Lie, Liars can figure and if their mouths are moving... etc.

    Federal Government Involvement. Are the states small 's' just departments of the federal government? Not when the Senators and Representatives cannot be the subject of recall or can be chosen by out of the area money.

    Think it through. All of it.

    A Republic In Name Only seems a fair description.

    N

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No, you are thinking of Herman Cain, the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza, the former member of the Kansas City branch of the Federal Reserve, and the current talk show host on the WSB radio network out of Atlanta. He replaced Neal Boortz, the high priest of the church of the painful truth.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Cronyism is rampant today in our government. They all seem to be the same, except they bestow freebies and charge different people
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by sumitch 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Rand Paul is better than anything (emphasis on thing) the DNC will field. But I do have a problem with Rand Paul's taxes increase. I'll go with Scott Walker.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by peterchunt 10 years, 2 months ago
    Too many people won’t vote for the Republican because they just don’t fit exactly into their ideal mold. That only guarantees we get another socialist in the Whitehouse. Voting for a third party candidate (i.e Libertarian) is a vote for the left. If you ever want to get rid of this progressive government, suck it up and vote Republican. No third party candidate in my life time has ever won the Whitehouse. I voted for Romney despite my concerns. I’ll vote for anyone who is representing the Republicans because there is just no Democrat candidate, for an Objectivist, to vote any other way.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jabuttrick 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No, he's the former two term Governor of New Mexico who was the Libertarian candidate for President in 2012. I think you are thinking of Walter Williams.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Mamaemma 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's amazing to me when someone says something in a comment, and then later expects us to forget that they said it. That's not very reasonable, is it?

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    cmon cg. you not only voted for him, you told us your fund raised for his campaigns. You even intimated that your wife wanted to be even more involved in the future. people will discern from the knowledge they have. Your contradictory statements add to that discernment.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 10 years, 2 months ago
    The problem with two party presidential elections is that they are paid for by supporters who generally want some return on the investment they make in campaign contributions. That generally means they want to dip into cronyism, at least in the elections I have seen. Thats what behind their contributions. Then they pick a candidate who can bamboozle enough voters to actually win the election. So you get the black southern preacher types like Obama, who entices enough people interested in "historic" elections to actually put him in office. THEN, he panders to his supporters (note that nearly nothing he promised in the campaign is what he actually did !). So how is a freedom loving conservative, actually going to get enough campaign contributions by preaching conservatism to the populace which has been steeped in socialism and freebie giveaways. He would have to basically lie until he got elected, and then DO the conservative freedom-loving stuff after he got elected.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "No real difference in outcome."
    Yes. That's my point exactly. I would call them both center-right, but whatever you want to call them, they do not debate whether the fed gov't should take a quarter of GDP and whether the fed gov't should be involved in all areas of life.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "I assume you approve of his policies and agenda over all"
    This is a clear case where the cliche about assuming is true.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No sorry needed. I was not clear. I did think he was re-elected last year or 2 years ago but maybe he is in the first term.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jabuttrick 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Then your complaint is that he has played political games not the length of his tenure. Your comment made it sound as if the latter was the case. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Susanne 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You'll never get rid of the National Addiction of Infotainment Media - too many people are hooked harder on it that a doper on meth or heroin. Or both.

    I still like the idea of one, and one only, 6 year term, the winner (if not impeached out of office, whence they get to spend their days in a lovely garden spot like Leavenworth - after all, they ARE [or were] the CiC...) is then banished to an island like Vanuatu to spend out their days incommunicado in peace, luxury and isolation. Pay them well, but they then go bye bye. And the single 6 keeps people from being an electioneer for most of their first term. Heck, as long as we're rewriting the terms of office, they are prohibited (under threat of immediate impeachment from office, see above) from electioneering for their "favorite Party-ites"...

    The Presidency and Cabinet - it's not a graft grabfest - it's service to your country.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If we had a Republican President he or she would still be left wing, socialist probably corporatist, a believer in government control of citizens and would suit the establishment folks just fine as would any from the other half.

    No real difference in outcome.

    It's not a two party system it's a one party system with two faces. Republicans are the right wing OF the left. the only righteous thing to do is not support either of the halves of the Government Party.

    Of course you can fool enough of the people all of the time using one trick or another....then you to could be a GINO in a Republic In Name Only.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I won't disagree with anything you said but will stand on my position of not playing games. I would rather have someone tell me the truth so I know that I am voting for my beliefs. If Rand make the ticket he will get my vote which is not something I can say about everyone that will be running. :)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It would not matter to me if someone is in office for a day. If they are playing political games they are in too long. And I am hearing games out of him.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Susanne 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This is true, except in that position, you have to know how the game is played or get walked over. Sad statement of the times. At least we know Rand's position, and that he's not a RINO or a sellout to the moochers...

    BEWARE of those who try to split us up over hairlines of crap. The Libs LOVE it when we tear ourselves apart, and nitpick our own over petty stuff - because it makes Queen Hillary a shoe-in, just like it did with King Obama the last.

    What we really need, however, is a congress who is not afraid to impeach an officeholder if they show an utter contempt for this country, its common (meaning all of us) values, and it's constitution. And deny anyone who has such contempt from gaining the support to even think of running for more than Local Dog-Catcher.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by radical 10 years, 2 months ago
    My voting privilege has been rescinded. Big deal?
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo