Author |
Topic  |
balataf
Forum Member

|
Posted - 08/21/2011 : 10:19:21 AM
|
The previous post totally misreads the real action of contributions to candidates. Candidates pick the issues thqt they run on, and contributers FOLLOW by picking people they then want to supportl Much of the "loyalty" to various industries comes from ORDINARY VOTERS' pressure. One example is that Joe Liebrerman (Independen of -Connecticut, who beat both major parties last tim, is widely seen as a supporter of the insurance industry. In fact, withg several huge firms around Hartford and other Conn. cities, his voter bse contains an estimated 100,000 voters in families, whose livelihood comes from insurance. I've been on the ballot 8 times, and managed 11 campaigns over the years from 1975. to 1992. Thks type of experience gives some perspective on reality. WARMSKIN SHOWS HIS EGREGIOUS LACK OF EXPERIENCE IN HOW POLITICSD WORKS THRU COALITIONS AND "CONCURRENT MAJORITIES."
///////////////////// News reports say that parts of the Republican Establishment and the Neocons are moving into closer support of Romney. They want to block the Tea Party / Christian Right support trending for Gov. Perry. On the Democratic side, several groups are in a quadary over whether to suoport Obama who has drifted too far to the right for their yasts. Obama has a problem coming with Jewish voters with his tilt towars the Palestinians, since Hamas has again declared war on Israel. They suddenly sent in a team that killed a number of civilians before the Isa\raeli fores wiped them out. This again raises the question of the moral dwarfs, mostly left-wing, who support this Terrorism.
///////////////////// Excerpt from columnist Mark Steyn
Gov Perry: "I'll work every day to try to make Washington, D.C., as inconsequential your life as I can."
This will be grand news to Schylar Capo of Virginia. The 11-year-old made the mistake of rescuing a woodpecker from the jaws of a cat and nursing him back to health for a couple of days and, for her pains, was visited by a federal Fish and Wildlife gauleiter (with accompanying state troopers) who charged her with illegal transportation of a protected species and issued her a $535 fine.
|
Edited by - balataf on 08/21/2011 11:02:57 AM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
 |
|
Warmskin
Forum Member

|
Posted - 08/21/2011 : 5:11:11 PM
|
Balataf's statement reflects the acceptance of bought and paid for politicians who will do the will of the major contributors, and the advisers who have clearer understanding of what they will tell a president to do.
Isn't it interesting that two presidents of each party do a lot of the same things, as in destroying our economy, maintaining useless wars overseas, and increasing the size of government, bailing out companies that should have been allowed to fail, keeping Secretaries of Treasury who have incestuous relationships with large corporations that they once worked for.
Compromise, corruption, lack of problem solving, wasting taxpayers money, having no principles in office, and on and on. This is Balataf's stated preference. It is not mine.
I like someone who will fight for true American principles, and not cave in to lobbyists, special interests, corporate powers, foreign influence, chicken hawks and their crazy ambitions, and general corrupt political processes.
We have had two decades of mediocre politicians who could not solve problems once and for all. Instead we end up with "leaders" who make our problems worse. Does anyone think our economy is better off for having been compromised. We are on the brink of disaster, and all Balataf can say is -- Give us more of the same because that is the way it is. That is not good enough. Even my dog knows that, but the people who cave in can do better than that.
So, go on and give us another milk-toast politician who will give us what we have had since 2001. That is the result of Balataf's stated ideas on the perfect candidate - a piece of putty who can be molded by his or her handlers, and who will let the lobbyists run the show, even as they have since the first part of this century. They solve nothing, yet tell us that they've got it under control.
Once in a while a real man or woman needs to step up and quit fooling around, worrying about how their lobbyist-supporters might not like any spark of idealism.
Ron Paul is not bogged down in his thinking because he owes nothing to anybody. He is free to speak the provable truth. He is not compromised, and he knows what to do about all that plagues us a nation.
I wonder if Balataf in his statements is aware that America has very serious problems, and that both major parties have contributed to this mess, and the politicians who got us to where we are, are compromised, bought and paid for, and are corrupted in their thinking.
Economics is about numbers and people. The mathematical part of economics is no respector of back-room deals. It only respects fixed laws. Ron Paul knows what those laws are, while Bush Jr. and Obama were/are clueless. Bachmann, Santorum, Romney have no clue either, and one can bet that they will increase the national budget to help pay for their wars. They will cave in, mark my words.
Ron Paul will not cave in, and thus is the only candidate who not only knows what to do, he will not be distracted from doing it.
Back in the mid-1970s, Gerald Ford's brief tenure gave us 66 vetoes of Democrat spending bills. That was true principle at work. Bush Jr. vetoed almost nothing, if anything. He was no Ford.
Obamacare did not happen through compromise, but rather by intense partisanship. That was bad news for most Americans, but being uncompromising worked. But, imagine that if that were a reverse case where Congress cut off funding for the Mideast wars without compromising. That would free up billions if not trillions of dollars, and could be given back to the people.
Perry is still an unknown to the nation, as a whole. If he can replicate for all of America, what he did for Texas, that would be welcome. He may be a guy who does not compromise in getting the things done that we need to have done for the whole nation. If he continues the fruitless and expensive wars, his chances of helping will be greatly diminished. Wars are not free, and they cause our nation great indebtedness. If Perry can extinguish the wars, bring home the troops, guard our porous borders, let small business do what it does best, we stand a chance.
The other candidates, except for Paul, would keep the wars going and ignore the damage the wars are doing to this country of ours. They will greatly contribute to our demise.
So, Balataf, you keep your squishy candidates and I'll keep my principled ones. Your guy may win, but he'll/she'll continue on with not dealing with our horrendous problems that face us today. Doesn't it bug you that Romney, Bachmann, Cain, and Santorum have idential war postures as Obama? I would think that one over. That is too much compromise and lobbying at work when two opposite candidates say the same things.
"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his (and her) conduct." Thomas Jefferson
|
Edited by - Warmskin on 08/22/2011 05:49:22 AM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
 |
|
HomeNudist
Forum Member

|
Posted - 08/21/2011 : 5:47:17 PM
|
quote: Originally posted by Warmskin
Doesn't it bug you that Obama and Romney, Bachmann, Cain, and Santorum have idential war postures as Obama?
I have mixed feelings about the others, but I kinda expect Obama to have the same war posture as Obama. . . *
* Sorry, couldn't resist the temptation. No offense intended.
[slinks away]
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 182 |
 |
|
balataf
Forum Member

|
Posted - 08/22/2011 : 08:12:07 AM
|
Ron Paul and Bachmann both refuse to compromise with reality. If you cannot unite your party, you cn neither WIN AN ELECTION, NOR FORM A GOVERNING COALITION. Yes, Obamacare was passed, but without wider input and such compromises, it produced an indigestable mess, widely regarded as illegitimate, besides being unconstitutional,. I believe in the Jeffersonian "concurrent majority", which, by definition, requires fair, honest compromises issue by issue, to work..
One can be very well principled by forming fair, hoinest compromises. Look at the one that gave us the House by population as well as the equity of States seen in the Senate. Wyoming has one Representative, California has 53. That means that electoral votes of the States run from 3 to 55. Which was another grand compromise in th Constitution. One of the most skillful compromisers was Lincoln, who had to balance a cabintet of 7 people, each of whom had rather more experience than he did, each with backing from control of a powerful State, Cameron, of Penna. Seward of NY, Blair of Mo, Chase of Oh. etc. Many of them had very different social and economic ideas and programs. Any President should study his management thru continuing compromises. The classic Political Science text, "American Party Systems," by Chambers and Burnham, has a major chapter showing that one key to Northern victory in the Civil War was the ability of Lincoln to enforce deals with, not only various Republican factions, but to bargain for Democratic support at critical points. The Confederacy, in contrast, had no parties in its elections, and was riddled with absolutist figures like the Georgia Governor, who hoarded weapons, ammo, food and clothing for State use, while the Confederate Army was getting slaughtered for lack of all of those.
Could Paul or Bachmann have the temperment to do equally well? I doubt it for Palin, too, altho she's a great camaigner, and would be an asset in the Cabinet.
I suggest that most of the non-Paul candidates would end the wars cheaper and sooner, BY WINNING! None of the Republican candidates have war policies that are close to dovish split-the-difference, Obama. Mot are decidedly much more Hawkish than him, not the same at all. Actually, the wars are quite tiny. Ten years of oth together are only about half the size, in casualties, of several WW2 individuak battles, such as Okinawa, the Bulge, and Normany. The quetion is up to the voters to decide, as always.
Perry is hardly unknown to anyone who has been paying attention to politics, with 10 1/2 years as the Governor of the second largest state. For one thing, I like the way he muscled thru the tort reform that eliminates frivolous or nuisance lawsuits thru "loser pays." This means, on the flip side, that the little guy with a good case can challenge mega-corporations with less fear of legal costs, too. (Maybe Warmskin hasn't paid attention, but I have, for all the candidates, And I helped support Santorum for the Senate three times, 1994, 2000, 2006, altho I do not favor him for President.)
Warmskin speaks of "my guy" winning. I don't have a favored Candidate, yet, but am trending toward Perry. Paul is polling at 10% of Republkicans, which is about 5% of voters. Unless he can expand that base, hes doomed by his own approach and issue-choices. Don't blame me, I'm just pointing out his lak of basic necessary political skills. It is laughable to describe Bachmann or several others, as "squishy".
|
Edited by - balataf on 08/22/2011 08:46:59 AM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
 |
|
Warmskin
Forum Member

|
Posted - 08/24/2011 : 8:25:00 PM
|
Jefferson did not come up with "concurrent majorities." That was Madison's idea.
My idea of being squishy is a candidate who has little regard for the constitution and will toss it in the garbage can, along with a host of other politicians, in compromising America and themselves. Often, a good dose of idealism is necessary, and we need that today.
Bachmann, is Bush Jr. warmed up again. She offers little more than he did in too many ways. Romney, Cain, Santorum are also Bush Jr. in their stated beliefs -- as with war.
Ron Paul is the only one who says he'll stick with the Constitution no matter what. That is my idea of being firm. I get tired of politicians who swear to uphold the Constitution, only to circumvent it, or ignore it. When that happens, America is compromised over and over. That is why our Founders would not recognize what we are today.
I can see only that politics is little more than a Superbowl, where only winning counts. I like to think the great issues we face are far more serious than win-lose. That seems like kids' stuff. Sure, to the winner go the spoils. However, the people will find out whether it was all worth the "win." Witness the 2006, 2008, and 2010 elections. The wins that preceded these election years were turned on their heads, and the winners became losers in November. How short winning lasts.
I think it far more desirable to have someone who is right, rather than compromised. Any business can make money, if they are correct in what they do. You cannot compromise the quality of your product or service.
Sure, people can hash things out and come up with agreements - done in business all the time. However, the outcome must be of a good quality. Case in point -- Schweppes Bitter Lemon, the soft drink was one of my favorites. It was bought out by a cheap company who quickly scuttled the great tasting recipe and turned it into a cheap sugar water drink with some essence of lemon. It was the usual compromised situation that we see in politics. I stopped drinking the stuff because of its poor quality. The ideal Schweppes was much, much better, but the new owners thought the cheap stuff would make them more money.
When it comes to upholding the Consitution, all except Ron Paul are squishy. You cannot compromise the Constitution without destroying it. Both major parties do that without a second thought. They must think we are too stupid to know what they are up to. In many cases they are correct in their assumptions.
Ron Paul succeeds only as the people become aware of the corruption of the government. With his ideas put into place, America would move into a new era of minimal gov't control over us. We would abolish the FED, just as Jackson did in his time (national bank). Departments that contribute nothing would be gone. Prosperity would be on the increase. The nation would start to turn away from its bankrupt state. Jobs would be commonplace, and employers would go begging for jobseekers. (this happened after WWII was finished, and could happen as soon as we get the heck out of all the wars we have now). The wars on poverty, drugs, and the like would be over. Poverty is a state of mind, and the actions that proceed from the mind, and not a lack of gov't programs.
The GOP seems to be in favor of increased spending, and the records shows that in abundance. Why did the GOP compromise on that? Have they no principles? Why cannot the GOP be more prophetic, rather than do business as usual - the kind we have been doing since the days of FDR? The GOP has lost its way by not offering a clear choice. Some call it the Demopublican Party, or the Republicrat Party. Maybe some truth to that.
I'd rather have no parties, and instead, judge the "leaders" by how close they stuck to the engines of human freedom found in the Declaration of Independence, and enforced through our Constitution. It's laughable to think that most politicians are concerned about the American heritage.
There must be something better than perpetual war and perpetual welfare. In fact, both cannot go on indefinitely. China will stop loaning us money, and there goes all those compromises up in smoke. We may be, however clumsily, forced to go back to being ideally American, just as the Pilgrims found out that individualism was the only way to survive on the North American continent.
All those compromises have not done us much good because of the horrible conditions that financially plague the nation today.
You may see things differently because you are more political than I. I tend to reside in principle and can't help but notice how men fail to be principled. Surely, our Constitution was a compromise, but its framework was left to one man, without whom no compromise could have ever produced that framework. Things such as manners of representation were a hot debate. Thanks to Franklin, who uttered a great prinicple during the convention, did the men become sensible to their united purpose.
Idealism is where things start. The GOP needs a lot more of it, rather than continuing the Bush regime. A break has to be made from him, and his advisers who greatly compromised what the GOP has traditionally stood for.
Ron Paul, like him or not, is the only person who knows what to do in our time of great national problems. Idealism - a chance to solve our bankrupt nation. Compromise -- more of the same that we've had for decades.
The other GOP candidates want more spending for wars, and continued fruitless welfare. There is your compromise. Just like Schweppes - do you want the real thing, or the fake thing?
As to Lincoln, no doubt he did a lot of things that took compromises. However, and I say this with alarm, he did tear away at our rights as citizens in the same way that Wilson did -- in suspending the Constitution and the liberties of our people. That was an offense to the nation. He also concentrated a lot of power in our federal gov't, just as did FDR. Interesting that the two major parties switched roles with respect to nationalizing power. The paleo-liberals switched from the Democrats of the late 1800s, to the GOP in the 1920s. Both Lincoln and FDR were more of the statist mindset, although we never saw Lincoln in long-standing peace, which may have been very unfortunate in terms of seeing the whole view of Lincoln. At least he was not a Radical Republican, who probably would have nationalized our nation even more. Politically, this was smart, but in obeisance to our Consitution, he committed many wrongs. Still he was in a delicate position throughout his tenure. I'm certain he'll always be subject to continuing discussion. I like Ron Paul's idea of the government buying the slaves and setting them free (added paranthetically).
Seems that only presidents who are in wars, or concentrate power in Wash, D.C. get their faces on money. I'd rather have monuments of people who increased our freedoms like Cleveland, and Harding. If America is not about freedom and liberty, what is the use of existing?
As to the more neocon-clones, they'll never win the wars, ever. As soon as you bomb an innocent family's home, which is commonplace in these silly wars, you create a passion in the survivors to hate America and from there you have created new terrorists. The GOP has yet to learn this basic truth. I much prefer to just leave, and let these people get on with their life. I get sick and tired of reading things about the Air Force dropping bombs on weddings in Pakistan. That is sick. How would you like it if a friend's wedding had bombs dropped on it? How would you feel? Would that event endear you to the nation responsible? Of course not!! Yet this is what the non-Paul candidates want to do. It shows in all of their speeches regarding this war without end. You'll never win it. The Soviets found out, but we cannot learn from history, because Michelle says so. Not good enough for me. McCain said we needed a 100 year war over there. Really? Yes, but oddly enough, he did not say how to pay for it. A major DUH!! moment.
Further, the terrorists are over here to some degree thanks to people like Sen. Lindsay (sp?) Graham, who is a thoroughly compromised guy, who loves open borders. He never saw a principle he ever liked, just compromises. I got this info from the former congressman Moorehead of California.
The GOP is nothing like it was during the Reagan years. I happily left the GOP and became a Libertarian in 2006, and never thought that would happen. Times change, and so does my loyalty to people who cannot see past a single election year. Freedom and liberty are my main concerns, and the neocon-clones show little interest in that.
"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his (and her) conduct." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
 |
|
Warmskin
Forum Member

|
Posted - 08/25/2011 : 12:34:52 AM
|
The GOP, according to Pat Buchanan, may be shifting from their neocon dicatators. Sarah Palin has lost two of her arch-neocons, and they have been replaced by Peter Shchweitzer, a war skeptic. It will be interesting to see if rock-hard-principled Palin will suddenly change her mind. She may be in for a lose-lose situation.
If she changes her mind because of her new advisor, then it showed she had no set principles. If she does not change her mind, and were elected, we'd have at least four more years of multi-trillion dollar wars. If the latter, it may very well be that 2014 will be a repudiation of neocon thinking, but this time would be the second rejection of neoconism by the public. Is the GOP going to learn anything from most of its candidates who keep stumbling in the dark, hoping for the Democrats to stumble worse than the GOP does?
I still remember Santorum during the debate looking like a silly, stupid boy, saying that the Iraq war was a great idea, even though the reasons for it were entirely fictitious, and cost the American people a ton of money and lives, not to mention all the debt that their posterity after them must bear, if the USA is still around by then. Santorum is the personification of what is wrong with the GOP as of late. I'd just love to see him nominated and then try to sell the Iqaqi war to a weary and wary public. Only problem with that is he'd be beat by Obama. A pox on both their houses.
Here is the article by the last conservative left standing, Pat Buchanan:
http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2011/06/06/return-of-the-anti-interventionist-right/
"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his (and her) conduct." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
 |
|
Warmskin
Forum Member

|
Posted - 08/25/2011 : 05:48:25 AM
|
I got this from linkedin. It seems to based on the Rasmussen polling company. Interesting stuff: Obama 39%, Paul 38% Tuesday, August 23, 2011 The president and the maverick are running almost dead even in a hypothetical 2012 election matchup.
Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul earns 38% of the vote to President Obama’s 39% in the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters. Fourteen percent (14%) like some other candidate, and eight percent (8%) remain undecided. Just a month ago, Obama posted a 41% to 37% lead over Paul, who ran second to Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann in the recent high-profile Ames Straw Poll in Iowa.
Paul, whose long run afoul of the GOP establishment with his libertarian policy prescriptions, picks up 61% of the Republican vote, while 78% of Democrats fall in behind the president. Voters not affiliated with either of the major political parties prefer the longtime congressman by 10 points – 43% to 33%.
But Paul still has a long haul among voters in his own party. He ran fourth last week in Rasmussen Reports’ most recent survey of Likely Republican Primary Voters with nine percent (9%) support. Texas Governor Rick Perry, the new face in the race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, has jumped to a double-digit lead over Mitt Romney and Bachmann with the other announced candidates trailing even further behind.
In that same survey, 43% of likely primary voters expressed a favorable opinion of Paul, while slightly more (45%) registered an unfavorable view of him. This included 15% with a Very Favorable regard for Paul, who ran unsuccessfully for the party’s presidential nomination in 2008, and 14% with a Very Unfavorable one.
Still, Paul, popular with many in the Tea Party movement, runs better against the incumbent than another Tea Party favorite, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.Obama leads Palin 50% to 33% among all likely voters, making her the only potential GOP candidate to date against whom the president’s support has risen out of the 40s.
The match-up surveys of 1,000 Likely Voters were conducted August 15-16, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error for the surveys is +/- 3% with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Obama continues to trail a generic Republican candidate in a hypothetical 2012 matchup.
Seventy-six percent (76%) of Tea Party members support Paul. Fifty-one percent (51%) of those who are not members of the grass roots smaller government movement opt for the president.
Paul leads Obama by 11 points among male voters but loses female voters to the incumbent by a similar margin. Voters under 30 prefer the president, while Paul edges the incumbent in all other age groups.
The president leads among voters who earn $60,000 or less a year, while the GOP candidate is ahead among those who make more.
Eighty-eight percent (88%) of the Political Class favor Obama. A plurality (46%) of Mainstream voters support Paul.
Paul has long been a critic of the Federal Reserve Board, and Americans overwhelmingly agree with his call for auditing the Fed.
He also breaks sharply with other GOP candidates by calling for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of all voters nationwide now want the troops to come home from Afghanistan either immediately or within a year.
Back to me again, you can be very sure that the mainstream media would like to take Paul out of the race. When the GOP and the mainstream media want Paul out of the race, what is going on? The GOP and the media suddenly in love with each other? Now there is a compromised GOP. It begs the question, "What is the GOP these days?"
It would be interesting to contemplate television and radio not being able to host events or talk about politics. That would no doubt alter who gets elected. Americans would be forced to read what the candidates said, and to think about their words, instead of being spoon fed the "news" to the masses by the broadcast media.
"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his (and her) conduct." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
 |
|
balataf
Forum Member

|
Posted - 08/25/2011 : 1:35:30 PM
|
VP Biden's new endorsement of China's "one-child" policy is a moral and political disaster. With all the stories of women kidnapped by police from the street or homes, then dragged fighting and screaming to be tied down for the ugly abortion of a child who was wanted by the parents. The flip side is that with one kid allowed, millions of Chinese families chose to abort girls and favor boys, of which China now has a 40 to 50 million surplus. The instincts of these men are making a huge wave of sex slavery and prostitution. Today's "Daily Beast", a left-wing viewpoint outlet, ripped the VP and called on all feminists to join the complaint loudly. The combination of forced abortion and female infanticide and abortion are massive human rights violations.
|
Edited by - balataf on 08/25/2011 1:38:06 PM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
 |
|
Warmskin
Forum Member

|
Posted - 08/26/2011 : 11:40:37 PM
|
A prophet is never honored in his own time. The media, the GOP, and the Democrats, as a united front, will make sure that saying is made true. I suppose that a man who can see into the future, by being sensible and correct, is going to be attacked by the less gifted people. History is littered with examples of this.
Think Galileo and Ron Paul. They were both harshly rejected, yet both were proven to be correct about what they said. See the video linked below for proof of this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXYd5eHfRIE&feature=related
"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his (and her) conduct." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
 |
|
balataf
Forum Member

|
Posted - 08/27/2011 : 03:31:31 AM
|
If Paul is so great, how come he isn;t convincing so many people to go for him? The same could be said about others in the pack.
The fight over the Individual Mandate in Obamacare is a great ilustration of the clashes over provisions within the Constitution. The Founding Fathers were a wide-ranging group, with quite varied opinions to match, and the debates have never ceased.
As the prime author of the Federlist Papers, with Madison and Jay, Hamilton was able to mold much of the new government. As Washington's Treasury Secretary, he was an effective prime minister. His main opponent, Jefferson, withdrew from the Cabinet, going into opposition.
As issues have multiplied and gotten more complicated, there are much wider ranges of opinion jostling for power.
The Constitution evolves with back-and-forth election waves of party control, such as 2008 and 2010. It flows among sometimes radically opposite perceptions of what the unchanging words of the document can be read to mean, with contradictions that believe they are all following the letter and spirit of the Founders. Partly it depends on which of the Founders you choose. Among lawyers, it is often John Marshall, for good reasons.
Over time, we get a sort of "lowest common denominator" Constitution, in which the points of agreement rule among those who vehemently disagree on other points. So, candidates make their popular appeals on it.
All the organs of government share this process, but it is centered on the Supreme Court, quite unavoidably so.
But the entire process is ultimately in the hands of the mass of voters, who elect the Court's appointing presidents and confirming senatos. Every Federal election contains a debate on the direction of future Supreme Court actions.
We are currently in a time of rising Jeffersonian fervor, as shown by ALL of the Republican candidates. They are Reactionaries (in the technical political science sense of the word.) They, and myself, are rejecting the incredible power overreach of the current Administrion.
But that does not mean that these Tea Party Republicans, such as Bachmann, Paul or Perry agree closely in their avowed Constitutionalism.
Then again, such choices ARE WHY WE HAVE ELECTIONS. The voters collectively own the parties, and the entire process, and always have, at all levels, back to the feuding Founding Fathers.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
 |
|
Warmskin
Forum Member

|
Posted - 08/27/2011 : 6:48:59 PM
|
See my post again. I said that prophets are never accepted in their own time. Americans are hooked on what is. They don't want to address the nation's problems head on. Paul does, and he is the only one who does. The rest of the candidates of either major party will just give us more of the same thing over and over, expecting different results.
Perry is a wild card. As soon as the dust settles from his entry, we'll know more about him. He leans a bit Ron Paul's way with his sensible dislike of the Federal Reserve. That bucks what both parties believe. They want to the Fed to keep creating money to pay for wars and welfare. Without the Fed, we'd have to stop the wars, and revamp welfare, or privatize it in the manner of, say, the Salvation Army.
Hamilton got us into central banking which is one of the most vile thing he did against the American people. Thank goodness for Andrew Jackson for getting rid of central banking and all of its intrigues and machinations. These banks are a parasite on the backs of the people.
The Constitution is simple and clear. It takes a malevolent individual to abuse it and to attempt to deprive the people of their rights. Nancy Pelosi keeps saying it's a living document. She's wrong, although it can be amended by lawful means. Few people in Congress or the White House have any respect for that classic document. The Supreme Court, or at least a minority, if not a majority abuse our Constitution by legislating from the bench. Only by obfuscation can its intent be violated. Powerseekers violate that frequently, because the Constitution does not grant them the power they want. The idea was to creat a government, and then limit it. Bush Jr. and Obama loved/love to violate that document. I have no respect for either one of them.
Only Ron Paul is Jeffersonian. I can't see in any way the rest of them are in the least Jeffersonian. Neocon clones are not of the Jeffersonian mindset, and have never even pretended to be.
The media can decide who gets elected. The public does not think things through thoroughly. Lots of folks simply don't have the time to get into deep analysis, and thus vote for the "safe" candidate that the media likes to present in a positive light.
I have to laugh at the "experts" who say that Ron Paul is a fringe candidate. He is straight out of our classical American heritage. To say he is fringe is to say the true American spirit is fringe. Just because the GOP is the defender of the New Deal, and the Great Society, and that the GOP rank and file now feel fine about those eras, they have notably shifted. Along comes Ron Paul, advocating the pure Constitution, and the freedoms that Jefferson wanted for us, and he is called a weirdo for that. If being purely America is weird, that signifies the end of America.
The mainstream GOP is not the answer for our nation's ills, and neither is the Democratic party. They both have contributed heavily for our financial downfall. They don't have the raw guts to reverse course and set this nation on a healthy course in matters of economics.
One has to admire the amazing ability Ron Paul had back in the 1990s. Everything he said came true. Where were Obama, Bachmann, Santorum, Romney, Cain, or earlier, Clinton, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc. during the 1990s? They could foresee nothing, and directed America in a way that endangered us. Ron Paul was the only one who had the vision to predict our financial bubbles, 911, and other important events.
The people will often vote for whoever makes them feel good or comfortable. The media is about the only channel of information that the people hear or see. The media, thus has enormous power in the selection of candidates. Ron Paul may not make a lot of people comfortable in their present condition. He is the alarm clock going off, waking people up to what is going on around them. Folks don't like to hear an alarm go off; it's disturbing.
When America is no longer able to fund its overwhelming appetite for spending, and can no longer pay its debts, or borrow money, they'll know that Paul was correct. Too bad we have to wait until that happens before we see things differently. When people feel the heat, they'll see the light.
If you watched that video, you'll see what I mean. It seems uncanny as to what Ron Paul predicted, but it wasn't uncanny in actuality. It was just being intelligent and honest.
"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his (and her) conduct." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
 |
|
Warmskin
Forum Member

|
Posted - 08/27/2011 : 7:50:36 PM
|
Here is a fun proclamation from the only emporer the USA ever had. Emporer Norton. He was one of those people who you did not know if he were a genius or had mental health problems. Maybe he was on the elusive border between the two states of mind.
He did foresee the building of bridges in the San Francisco Bay. Almost 70 years later, the bridges were built. The requisite engineering did not exist during Emporer Norton's life.
http://www.zpub.com/sf/history/nort.html In San Francisco he said this:
In 1869 he abolished both the Democratic and Republican parties, declaring "Being desirous of allaying the dissension's of party strife now existing within our realm, [I] do hereby dissolve and abolish the Democratic and Republican parties, and also do hereby decree the disfranchisement and imprisonment, for not more than ten, nor less than five years, to all persons leading to any violation of this our imperial decree." --San Francisco Herald, August 4, 1869
"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his (and her) conduct." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
 |
|
balataf
Forum Member

|
Posted - 08/28/2011 : 12:28:03 PM
|
All of the Republican cndidates are on the more Jeffersonian side of the political spectrum, with Romney being the least among them. Check out their positions on the issues in the debtes. O am tlking about items like reversing the recent Federalization of Education policy. Even Romney would be a good bit moremore Jeffersonian President than Obama. Looking at the wide variety of items shows a broad sdpectrum of opinions.
This is not a two-point binsry spectrum where one is totally Hamiltonian or totally Jeffersonian with nothing in between. The voters choose the direction of changes with each election. WQe get quesations like whether Amtrtak should be subsidized, whether Sttes can regulate the internet, Whether to have undeclsared wars like Jefferson and Obama voth did with Tripoli, Whether the Federal governent should requiure certin gas milage in new cars. There is room for reasonable people to disagree acoss the spectrum of political positions. Should Abortion and "Gay Marriage" be decided on a Federal or state-by-state basis? No one can say exactly what Jefferson or Hamilton or any of the Funding Fathers would ssy, but my guess is that all would trust the voters of the States. What is the best path to supporting freedom in the Arab Spring? What about Statehood for Puerto Rico? Each and EVERY QUESTION has a variety of answers possible tht impact the total direction of the nation. As always, the voters will decide, and the situation will never ne perfect as long as people have a variety of answers on a large spectrum of questions.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
 |
|
Warmskin
Forum Member

|
Posted - 08/30/2011 : 03:40:41 AM
|
All but two of the GOP candidates want close allies, and partisanship towards a goodly number of countries. Jefferson and Washington disdained having allies or showing any kind of favoritism in the world. They were right, of course, based on our major problems of the past few decades. Nothing Jeffersonian about that.
If Jefferson could have watched the GOP debates, he would have been horrified at what was being addressed. Only Ron Paul would have been liked by Jefferson. You cannot want allies and be Jeffersonian at the same time.
Comparing the GOP to Obama, and using that comparison is like saying that the temperatures at the South Pole show that Iceland is a warm country. What is one's standard? Marxism, libertarianism, moderate politics, neoconservatism?
Bachmann worked for Jimmy Carter, and I believe either Perry or Romney worked with a Democrat. That is hardly a crime, but where is their consistency? Ron Paul has always had the same ideals, all his life. For some GOP candidates, the prime importance of freedom and liberty are new experiences.
Sure, Jefferson and Reagan had to take emergency measures in taming some people who wished us ill, but they were not wars, but more tactics used for a limited period of time (Tripoli and Grenada, respectively). However, the Iraq and Afghan wars have been very, very long, and never were declared wars. The Pacific Theater in WWII was prosectuded in far less time than our current expensive wars, with the difference being, among other things, that it was a lawfully declared war.
Madison vehemently objected to presidents making wars, just as kings could declare wars. Madison wanted the representatives of the people to declare wars, because that took deliberation and approval of the people, indirectly. It undoes our republic for a president to coopt Congress in declaring wars. It's obsolete thinking and is centuries old, and was carried out by unfree countries' leaders.
As both major parties slip and slide, making us revert to an anti-republican government (not the GOP, but small r republican), we lose our freedoms. We need to restore Congress as the "decider" as to when a war should take place. Going to war is not a light decision, and is too serious of a proposition to leave to a president. A diverse body, as the Congress is, is the best body of people to decide that.
Ron Paul, by his advocacy of having no allies, and not playing favorites with any country, and respecting Constitutionally based wars, all separate him from the more Hamiltonian big government type of GOP politicians. Cain, Romney, Bachmann, and most of the others are international Hamiltonians, with their hyper-lust for policing the world to our liking.
Ambitious governments are never Jeffersonian. Who is unambitious with our government among either party? Yes, Ron Paul. He wants to shrink government by curtailing its activities, including multi-trillion dollar wars, and useless departments.
Still don't know about Perry; he needs more time and exposure, and is the public ready for another Texas governor not long after the Bush Jr. years? Perry might be a great guy, but I'm not sure the non-Texans know about what he stands for. He has a good record in keeping Texas a great state to do business in. That is big plus. It's where he comes down on foreign policy that is going to count, also. If he is happy with the way things are in the Mideast, he will lodge in Hamiltonian territory.
Hamilton -big, busy gov't, with empire, allies, and foreign machinations.
Jefferson, quiet, small gov't, with neutrality and no allies.
Who likes the latter? Who is speaking out in terms of the latter? That is all you need to know to categorize any politician from either party.
"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his (and her) conduct." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
 |
|
Warmskin
Forum Member

|
Posted - 08/30/2011 : 03:56:28 AM
|
quote: Originally posted by HomeNudist
quote: Originally posted by Warmskin
Doesn't it bug you that Obama and Romney, Bachmann, Cain, and Santorum have idential war postures as Obama?
I have mixed feelings about the others, but I kinda expect Obama to have the same war posture as Obama. . . *
* Sorry, couldn't resist the temptation. No offense intended. [slinks away]
None taken. Actually, even though I made a mistake in forming that sentence, I was still correct. To some degree, Obama is running against his campaign promises. Now you can see what even when I'm not correct, I am still right. I'm amazing!!! Obama versus Obama. I just keep stumbling into the truth, sometimes gracefully, and at other times, I swerve into it uncontrollably.
"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his (and her) conduct." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
 |
|
Topic  |
|
|
|
|
|
Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
 |
|
|