On the pundit civil wars, Rush Limbaugh declared on the radio this week, "I'm here to tell you, if either of these two guys [Mr. McCain or Mike Huckabee] get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party. It's going to change it forever, be the end of it!"
This is absurd. George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues.
One, I don't think the party is distroyed, as it is splintered and changing.
Two, a number of Presidential candidates could have and should have repaired such splintering by campaigning on conservative ideas and issues. Instead, we have a festival of pandering. Neither McCain nor Romney nor Huckabee will destroy the Republican Party. But they each have declined the opportunity to undo the damage done by the last seven years of profligate waste in favor of promising that the federal government can and should solve everyone's problems for them. And so, even if one of them wins the White House, the Republican Party will continue to drift without an ideology, without any philosophical underpinning for a daily diet of "problem-solving" reactions by their administration, without a direction.
As disappointed as I am in the wasted opportunities of the present administration, I'm more disappointed in the campaigns and candidacies of McCain, Romney, Huckabee and Giuliani. Each clearly knows the failures of the past seven years, and each of them is hoping to exacerbate rather than remedy those failures.
If the GOP wants to be viable, then they need to go back to their more moderate roots.
Whatever happened to Rockefeller republicans?
Gerald Ford would be considered a lefty lunatic in today's GOP. Nixon proposed universal healthcare.
Even Barry Goldwater got tired of the GOP's religious right crap.
Republicans didn’t change, The party changed underneath them with the influx of the Religious Right and neoconservatives.
Now the party is can go two directions: pander to the groups who are wrecking the party, or go back to more sensible, sane, and moderate positons. The GOP has chosen "pander". Pander to the bible thumpers, pander to the neocons. Borrow and spend, pre-emptive wars, outright lies (935 lies, to be exact) about WMDs, etc etc etc.
The GOP is a mess.
If the GOP wants to be viable, then they need to go back to their more moderate roots.
Recipe for disaster. Remember Judy Barr Topinka. Ugh.
"Recipe for disaster. Remember Judy Barr Topinka. Ugh."
Yes it worked out much better by conservatives sitting that one out... we got much better government this way. Lesser evil voting saved the day! Wait...
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Boo hoo. Lemme see now... I got: the truth challenged DLC Clintons on the national scene, Blago and Madigan running the state, and open civil warfare "warm body" primary challenges locally.
Race 'ya to see whose party self-destructs first...
:-)
"At least your party has a unifying philosophy:"
That's true. Plus, we've got Emil Jones! What was I thinking? No cause for alarm here...
Aflac.
If Ron Paul's supporters got together for a family portrait, it would be one of those pictures in which no one seems to resemble anyone else.
"You have old-school Republicans, the conservatives who backed Barry Goldwater (in 1964). You have the antiwar crowd who are principled non-interventionists," said Jim Forsythe, a former Air Force major who's organized meet-and-greet sessions in New Hampshire for the Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate.
You also have businessmen tired of government regulation, college students who like his views on holistic medicine and middle-aged folks who don't see Social Security helping them in a few years. There are people who supported Democrat Howard Dean four years ago and others who backed conservative Republican Pat Buchanan in the 1990s.
What brings them together is a common belief that government is too big, obtrusive and unresponsive.
"It's a desire to get government out of my life. That's it," said Rick Grote, a pharmacist in Hampton, Iowa.
That bond has made Paul one of the more striking phenomena of the 2008 campaign.
- David Lightman
Aflac.
Join Us.
The grassroots Paul campaign has raised the largest amount of money
ever on a single day.
The campaign has more grassroots meetup groups than all the other candidates combined,
over 100,000 people in about 1,500 meetup groups
all over the country. It continues to grow.
http://www.meetup.com/topics/polact/cand/pres/
Join us. Be part of it.
Republican candidate Ron Paul. Hope for America.
"Join us. Be part of it."
No thanks. The basis is there for a great message, but it's been warped beyond appeal by a flawed messenger and antagonistic supporters.
Hopefully, in my lifetime, someone credible and serious will campaign on libertarian ideas.
"Join us. Be part of it."
Here I was, all set to make a (bad) joke about the Borg, from Star Trek, and reveal my true inner nerd...
and Kevin beats me to the punch, with a Star Wars joke, at that. well played sir, well played
HG
To the anonymous guy, Rockefeller was not a "moderate." Eisenhower and Nixon were moderates!
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
To the anonymous guy, Rockefeller was not a "moderate." Eisenhower and Nixon were moderates!
Indeed – and, in fact there is a term Rockefeller Republican that can be described as follows:
Interestingly, the views of President George H. W. Bush's – Dubya's father – are said to have more in common with the moderate/liberal faction of the Republican Party than that of the conservative wing (typified by Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan).
How about Jim Edgar for President, and Obama for Governor. :-)
The dingbats have done it to themselves.
They're still trying to learn that if they hit themselves in the head with a hammer repeatedly, it will start to hurt.
I'm not going to comment on the antagonistic supporters part, because it is a fair characterization of some of his supporters. But perhaps they are antagonistic because of their perceived destruction of the Republican Party.
In fact, I don't disagree with the flawed messenger part either. Paul said essentially the exact same thing in his appearance on Leno:
You of course are welcome to look for different character traits in a president, but I for one want a president who is humble, who is honest with himself and with the American people, and one that actually is a small-government conservative, not just someone who plays one on TV.
Do you see any libertarian in politics now that you could see supporting in a presidential run (ignoring the liklihood of it happening)?
Most of the libertarians I know have been holding their nose and voting Republican for years now because the LP has generally gone batty on foreign policy, treating the US as if it was some little runt nation that still has to fear the Old World powers taking us over. It hasn't helped that angry crackpots have soiled the ideals of the party by always coming out of the woodwork to support LP candidates. Find me a libertarian that doesn't treat our foreign policy like the founders envisioned us forever stuck in runt status, that the Marshall Court wasn't just a bunch of activist judges, some implementations of federal power are actually necessary and proper, don't still abide by the compact theory, no standing military or any other throwbacks to the Articles of Confederation... and one who can actually sell the message without demeaning everyone they disagree with, and you'll have found a libertarian I'd vote for.
I'd also like to see a Libertarian "Constitutionalist" that accepts that local and State governments do have a great deal of leeway with implementing policy. A limited central government doesn't demand near-anarchy on every level of government. Keeping the government as minimal as absolutely necessary is a worthy goal in my opinion but it's not a Constitutional requirement, never was.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I think this liberal conservative debate is in the eyes of the beholder. We define a person in our mind based usually on a single issue and then try to label them depending upon whether we view that issue as conservative or liberal. I have seen in these pages that we have labeled Judy Baar Topinka as liberal and Mitt Romney as conservative. I think I am fairly knowledgable about the two of them. I have known Judy Baar Topinka since she was in the Illinos Senate. I am her friend. I was her County Coordinator. I was also on her childrenl's issues advisory board. I am Mitt Romney's County Coordinator too. Although I do not know him on a personal level, I have met him and have attempted to study every aspect of his policy. So let's take my favorite issue of Universal Health Care for Children.
Judy was afraid to support Universal Health Care for Children because, as she argued, the State could not afford it. Sound's conservative to me. Mitt Romney on the other hand, as part of his campaign, supports and wants to adopt universal health care for children. (sounds liberal to me) You some time need to examine the facts, not just the label.
One side of me wants every child to get appropriate healthcare. (that's liberal) Another side of me can't stand to see the additoinal cost that is built into any program run by the government. (that's conservative) Judy knew that she didn't have enough legislative support to insist that it would be a "non government program." Romney had enought support to pass a non-government form of universal health care. Sometimes liberal and conservative means the same thing.
Me and the Romney guy finally completely agree. Hopefully we can agree to support the GOP nominee whoever he may be (with an exception for Paul implicit) as the faults of all our preferred candidates are as bad or worse in the current Democratic front runners. If we can agree on this we'll have crossed a major bridge. So how about it. If Romney wins, I'll support him becaus Hillary, Obama, and Edwards are far worse on the issues I've been complaining about, and if McCain wins you'll support him because his flaws are equally represented as much or worse by them.
Sound like a deal?
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Perhaps the issue is that conservative ideas are not very popular? I hate to break it to you, but trickle-down economics aint working so well these days. And the problems this country is facing require a stronger government, not a weaker, less powerful government. We've seen what the private sector does to our most vulnerable citizens and to our environment when they are left to their own devices. Are we supposed to want more of that?
I would humbly suggest that maybe the impulsive "government never works!" "tax cuts are good economic policy" and "smaller government is better government" are ideas that need to be re-examined. Instead of clinging to notions that have (imo) failed fairly miserably to produce the promised results over the last 27 years, why not reconsider some of your basic principles?
It appears to me that this is what is happening to the GOP these days: they are reconsidering their principles. I have little doubt that most of you think that is a mistake, but remember this: MOST politicians adjust to the winds of public opinion. They are attempting to stake out positions that work with their polling and their focus groups. The fact that those positions end up being very close to Democratic positions says more about the popularity of Democratic ideas than it does about the failure of the GOP. Republicans can hold fast to more tax cuts for the wealthy, smaller less efficient government, and more wars. And eventually they will diminish to a small cadre of ideologues. As irrelevant as snow in the month of May.
The GOP leaders know this, and they are trying to stay alive.
OR maybe it's that everybody, persons as well as Corporations have become addicted to government handouts.... and Candidates to elected office as well as office holders are convinced they they are entitled to buy themselves votes at the taxpayers expense.
And the GOP as well as the DEMs think that all problems will go away if only we throw enough money at them..
And what get called "tax breaks for the rich" are really just tax breaks for TAX PAYERS...sorry they are not meant to be handouts to everyone...
No matter what any side thinks, you can't put in a nickel and take out a dollar. Tax dollars are not stock shares, they don't grow like that.
Charity is something that should freely given, and graciously received, not ripped from one's pocket and recceived in a light of "Is that all?!"
The Communist theory didn't just fail cuz it wasn't executed "correctly" It failed because it wass doomed to do so from the start.
Sorry to break it to you all, but there will always be poor, and there will always be rich, and government ( large or small) ain't gonna "fix" that.
The bright side is that there are virtues to ba had by all, Rich or Poor. And "class warfare" doesn't help anything... It just leaves all sides PISSED OFF ALL THE TIME! While the elected officials stand back and justify their paychecks by trying to fix this problem that they created, buy fueling it.
Death is the only true equalizer, and as Tevye said "we can go eye for and eye and tooth for a tooth" but that just leaves us all blind and toothless.
Government redistribtion of "wealth" just garbles up things.
"The GOP leaders know this, and they are trying to stay alive."
Hell everybody knows that there is a (what is the national debt now?) 500 Trillion pound /"dollar" gorilla in the room, and EVERYBODY is ignoring it.
I don't mind paying to bring it down, but I'll be damned if I'm not pissed to pay more just to see it go up!!
ADDITION: I will also say that corporations who pay their execs HUGE salaries and bonuses, instead of just spreading 1 or 2% of those salaries and bonuses around to ALL who work for them is BS too. SHAME ON THEM WHO DO THAT ( ENRON, TYCO) !!! When a company does well, everybody in that company should prosper... not get screwed for trusting in the company they have worked so hard for.
but Government CAN'T fix that.
AND on the flip side of that.. the UAW ( as an example) ( by continually demanding more, when profits are way down) is going to be the death of the American auto industry. An example of what happens when those at the bottom demand too much. The companies go bankrupt, all jobs are lost, and everybody loses.
And Government can't fix that either.
One of the huge problems with the Republican Party as it is today
is that it has been slowly abandoning its first love (conservatism) and
slowly becoming more and more like the Democrat Party.
Rather that vote for a half-ass Democrat like Romney, why not just go
for the real thing in an Obomba or Hill/Bill?
I am sure that Judy Bar-Topinka must be a fine fine lady and
it is a crying shame she didnt spend more time at home with her grandkids.
The fact that Illinois Republicans can not figure out why Judy was not
a viable candidate indicates that they are a few neurons short of the normal complement.
Republicans have abandoned their traditional conservative principles,
including unbalanced budgets,
massive increases in the size of government,
infringing individual freedoms,
and failing to strictly follow the Constitution.
- Ron Paul
regnad kcin... Haven't heard that name in a long time. Out of the fog, and into the smog. What about my pickle?!
It used to be a liberal idea that people when left to their own devices, working towards their own self-interest would generally prosper in both economic pursuits and self-government as long as the central government was kept limited and particularly weak in controlling them. With regionalism in democratic influence people could get the kind of government they wanted over themselves without it necessarily applying to other regions who'd prefer different governance.
Now such concepts are considered "conservative pinciples" as if the idea of more government control was some how the more open minded approach as opposed to the typical throwback to the authoritarian governments of the past who must treat its subjects as children because the individual is considered inferior to some elite.
If what's typically associated with liberalism today is truly liberal governance then I've been reading the wrong history books... where can I find some that point to the evils of our "conservative" founding fathers and that glorified the big government anti-individualism of authoritarianism of monarchism in the 18th century? Apparently I need to catch up to understand this "progressive" and "liberal" political thinking.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Well it has always been a mystery what history books you actually do read, Glock. Regardless, I hardly think USA 2007 is the same country as USA 1789 or USA 1854. We have a huge population, teeming urban centers, and consolidated agricultural markets. Hardly the agrarian utopia most of the founding fathers envisioned.
But either way, your way has been tried. The first go-round resulted in the Great Depression. After 50 years of laissez-faire government and supply-side tax policy we had a country with massive concentrations of wealth at the very top. It started trickling-down in the 20s (the original "ownership society") and eventually the suckers got left holding the bag. And the country turned its tired eyes to FDR, whose first and second New Deals stopped the bleeding. The mobilization for The War did the rest.
Sixty years later we have economic disparities not seen since the 1920s (hmmm), and an economy that is teetering on the brink of disaster. The inevitable results of the "Reagan Revolution" - which is just the same old story.
Recessions (negative growth) and depressions (extended negative growth) happen when demand for a country's durable and capital goods falls. It boggles the mind how anyone can think that funneling more money to the top earners through tax cuts on those brackets will increase consumer demand. Granted, globalization has altered the calculus, but on a fundamental level a country needs to have a strong and GROWING middle class in order to stay solvent. Without that homegrown demand your economy will falter.
While most conservatives have stood to the side and applauded the "invisible hand" that has taken our core manufacturing sector and transplanted it to third-world countries, many of us have argued that this is a recipe for disaster. Good jobs, with fair pay and decent benefits are ESSENTIAL to the health of our economy. The numbers are clear: since the Reagan Revolution we have lost more and more good jobs and shifted the workers into employment sectors that don't pay well and don't give good benefits. Think about it. All those people working checkout lanes at Wal-Mart could be working union jobs at a plant. But what plant? They are mostly gone.
This is the fruit of your ideas. This is what conservative principles have rendered. Forgive us if we don't want to sign up for four more years.
Not supporting as much central government control is hardly the same as being a laissez-faire capitalist. Wanting social services to be far more accountable to local/State governments as opposed to nearly unaccountable federal level agencies is not the same as opposing all social services. Economic disparity is never the critical issue with an economy, the problem is if the lowest brackets are suffering from low standards of living, unable to participate in the economy, etc. And artificially inflating the value of unskilled labor just pushes more manufacturing overseas and hurts the US domestic economy... resulting in the loss of jobs, ie all income, not just some income, for unskilled laborers.
My way has never been tried. The fruit of my ideas have never been implemented and thus have rendered nothing. But you continue to be unable to debate such concepts without labeling others into a stereotypical framework that they often do not fit into so you can blame them for the inadequacies of those that better fit the label. Pardon me for continuing to be the independent fellow I am who doesn't fit into the mold you wish to attack. I value some principles of our founding, not all of them. I value some principles of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party and the Libertarian Party, etc. It doesn't mean I adhere to any one of them completely just because I admit that they have some good princples from time to time.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Your Pickle?
You're lucky you've still got your Brown Paper Bag.
Let's not forget the white supremacists, the "soverign citizen" anti-income tax loons, and the people who somehow think that returning to the gold standard is a good idea. They're all for Ron Paul too.
To place the above comment in context, I thought it was going to be nested under some of the glowing praise for Ron Paul upthread.
But you continue to be unable to debate such concepts without labeling others into a stereotypical framework that they often do not fit into so you can blame them for the inadequacies of those that better fit the label. Pardon me for continuing to be the independent fellow I am who...
One thing we can always count on with you Glock? A personal attack. It never fails.
I find it interesting that you believe economic disparities are "never" critical in an economy. Is there any way to back up that somewhat revolutionary claim with some evidence? What I have seen through the economics I studied at University and on my own is that economic disparities are indeed one of the first signs that an economy will begin to falter. When the wealth is pushed to extremes there is then "less for the rest" and demand will begin to fall. The "genius" of this go-round of conservative economics (Bush, Inc.) was the paper tiger of the housing market: extending credit where credit was not warranted kept demand high when it should have been falling. Now that tab is due and we (again!) have real problems.
But even more intriguing is this notion that "artificial inflation" of labor costs is what is driving businesses overseas. Interesting concept here. Are you arguing that the only way for America to compete with Singapore is to put the children back in the factories for pennies a day? Should we expect our workers to be satisfied with $20 a month? How exactly are we supposed to determine what "artificial inflation" of wages really is? Or should we just start by accepting that most US workers don't deserve to make any extra money or have decent benefits, and go from there?
Human beings are creatures of hope. Therefore in the short term, near-slavery is the best option for an economy is one is only concerned about short-term profitability.
However, any long-term models even those based on profitability, that realistically look at human psychology, will encourage the maximization of educational and economic opportunity on all levels of society.
Poorly designed economies, like our own, will depend on illusionary "You could win the lotto!" forms of opportunity. But in the long-run, they will result in poorly funding educational systems, higher crime rates, and more.
Remember, we could fund the successful education of dozens of kids for every one we lock up, and we incarcerate at far higher than other countries.
The current policy is the equivilant of saving money on your gas bill by heating your house by burning hundred dollar bills in the fireplace. If that's real conservativism, let me be the first to call real conservatives morons. (I don't believe that is real conservativism)
Xian-While I agree with you I would rather educate kids rather then see them go to prison. There are a lot of personal choices involved that lead to going to prison. Also it costs around $30000 dollars to keep someone in prison and $10000 on average to send a child to school if you include state and local taxes.
It depends on the source. I was assuming the upgrade from educating "unsuccessfully" to "successfully", but you are right, that was a bit of a misnomer.
However, when you are talking about a vast chunk of the population, we are not talking about personal choices. We are talking about people only having choices available to them that the vast majority of the population would have trouble making.
After all, if other societies can provide better choices to their citizens, what are we doing as a country?
I don't know if we are talking about the same choices?
If you're going to accuse me of a personal attack, you might actually want to point out where I made one, not where I criticized how you were arguing the subject. Unless you honestly can't see the difference.
"I find it interesting that you believe economic disparities are "never" critical in an economy. Is there any way to back up that somewhat revolutionary claim with some evidence? What I have seen through the economics I studied at University and on my own is that economic disparities are indeed one of the first signs that an economy will begin to falter. When the wealth is pushed to extremes there is then "less for the rest" and demand will begin to fall."
I find it interesting you ignored my explanation of my opinion on this issue. I also find it interesting that in your economic studies you somehow got the impression that by some people having more money it necessitates others having less even though economies, money supply, etc are constantly growing which doesn't make it the type of zero-sum game you make it out to be. It appears your revulsion to my opinion is based on a faulty assumption.
"The "genius" of this go-round of conservative economics (Bush, Inc.) was the paper tiger of the housing market: extending credit where credit was not warranted kept demand high when it should have been falling. Now that tab is due and we (again!) have real problems."
Not sure what any of this has to do with anything I said, other than to prove my point about how you want to paint me with an inaccurate label so you can blame me for the actions of those I don't necessarily agree with.
"But even more intriguing is this notion that "artificial inflation" of labor costs is what is driving businesses overseas. Interesting concept here. Are you arguing that the only way for America to compete with Singapore is to put the children back in the factories for pennies a day? Should we expect our workers to be satisfied with $20 a month? How exactly are we supposed to determine what "artificial inflation" of wages really is? Or should we just start by accepting that most US workers don't deserve to make any extra money or have decent benefits, and go from there?"
I find it interesting that you took my comment that artificial inflation of wages pushes more jobs overseas as implying it is somehow the only or primary factor. It adds to other problems. And I assure you if I'm arguing for exploitive child labor practices or exploitive labor practices in general or that American workers deserve to suffer, you'll know it... because I'll actually argue that.
As far as how we determine what an appropriate wage for workers is, as if "we" are "supposed to"... well it makes it obvious why you have to put the term "artificial inflation" for wages in quotes as if it were some astonishing concept. While I'm treating this as primarily an issue where the individual decides what a fair wage is, you're treating the situation as if we or the government should decide for him.
I have little interest in getting into yet another prolonged debate with you where you argue more with strawmen from your favorite list of Republican/conservative adversaries or concepts than what I'm actually saying. So if you actually respond to something I was arguing, I'll try to address it. Just assume that there's an implied strawman accusation in my silence otherwise.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Golly Glock, I guess it is hard to figure out when you are insulting people than I thought.
So ... you don't actually have any evidence that shows extreme economic disparities are not "critical" to understanding an economy, do you? Not sure where you got the idea that I am playing some "zero-sum" game, as though everyone should make the same amount of money. It is just really clear that at times when the economic disparities become extreme (like, say, right now) the economy will almost always falter. The legitimate question to ask is why are the rich SO MUCH RICHER than the rest of us, and is that good for the economy?
Glock, I know you have no interest in answering that question, so I'll go ahead and address the strawman now. The rich are SO MUCH RICHER because of Republican tax cuts. The "Reagan Revolution", which you support continually on this site Mr. Stawman, ushered in almost 30 years of tax cuts for the rich, massive concentrations of wealth at the top, and shrinking or stagnant wages for the average workers. This is really bad for an economy, and actually really bad for businesses, because you need your middle class to drive the consumption. Taking away that middle class through regressive taxation (think federal cuts for the rich that drive up local and state taxes on the rest of us) is a recipe for disaster.
While I'm treating this (wages) as primarily an issue where the individual decides what a fair wage is, you're treating the situation as if we or the government should decide for him.
Not really. I would argue the workers need to organize and demand fair wages and benefits. I would also argue that the government should be in the business of regulating the ability of workers to organize. In other words, according to laws that have been on the books for generations, workers do indeed have the right to organize in most industries. But the business friendly conservatives that have been placed in the Labor Department have been doing their best (for the last 27 years) to disenfranchise the labor unions, to great effect. We are now looking at serious, serious economic problems that will indeed require government intervention to fix mainly (I would argue) because of the weakened American worker and stagnat wages.
So if you actually respond to something I was arguing, I'll try to address it. Just assume that there's an implied strawman accusation in my silence otherwise.
Honestly, I have no idea what you are saying anymore. I thought you were originally arguing that the founding fathers would not approve of more government control of the economy (Whiskey Rebellion, anyone?). But you kind of dropped that point. You mentioned something about the "central government" controlling things and that is bad. But you haven't made any substantial points besides (of course) complaining that someone is not agreeing with you and/or acknowledging how independent and bi-partisan you are. I agree, perhaps declaring that I am talking to strawmen, and your continued silence, is the best bet.
Xian,
I just don't get it. How much money exactly do "we" have to spend on each person before you will be happy with the "opportunity" that they have? This is not a rhetorical question. Please give a dollar amount. Either a lump sum or per year. How much until you are satisfied that everybody has "opportunity"?
"Near slavery". Is that like when I only get to keep a fraction of what I earn? Or are you considering those without "oppotunity" near slaves? Because I'm trying to figure out what exactly they are producing for us, but I just can't seem to come up with anything.
Anon... that's probably and unrealistic request. Situations vary drastically as well as needs and resources. Some people may be in far more need of help than others and their situations may differ drastically in the options available for them to achieve with or without outside assistance.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
If ad hominem attacks are a logical falicy what makes you think adding further degrees of separation makes them any more effective?
Axiomata - how exactly was my statement an ad hominem? These groups do support him, and at various points in his career he has openly supported all their positions.
I don't think he's openly endorsed all of their positions... but he has certainly pandered to these groups from time to time. Which is pretty scummy whether he buys into their nonsense or not.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I didn't say your attack was ad hominem, I said it was worse than an ad hominem.
Reagan was endorsed by the KKK when he ran for president. Does that make him a racist? Does that make him support white supremist positions? No, and to suggest such is absolutely silly.
What happened when that white supremist was outed as a contributer to Paul's campaign? Paul laughed at him and took his money to promote the opposite of the small-minded collectivism of racism - individual freedom. From Ayn Rand's essay on racism, which is pretty much the same position that Ron Paul takes I do believe.
And from MLK, one of Paul's personal heroes:
Any similarity there?
Yes, Paul does have a higher percentage of supporters that are racists, and it is a problem for his campaign (they kicked out some volunteer in Michigan due to his white supremist ties), but I have seen no indication that Paul supports any of their positions. It is their own fault for thinking his non-interventionism and anti-illegal immigration is their racist nativism.
Additionally, it is a sad day for conservatism when being againt the income tax makes you a "loon". Yes, he is against it but he has never encouraged tax evasion.
I'm not sure whether returning to the gold standard is a good idea, I do think, however, that leaving it was a bad one.
And Glock, I think to pander to these groups requires an intentional catering to them. You are going to have to prove that.
Ron Paul, MLK, I can't even tell them apart!
Nobody asked you to try. If you'd like to add something substantiative I'll be waiting.
Reagan was endorsed by the KKK when he ran for president. Does that make him a racist? Does that make him support white supremist positions?
I didn't know this was supposed to be a rhetorical question. To be fair though, your central position is right.
Xian,
I just don't get it. How much money exactly do "we" have to spend on each person before you will be happy with the "opportunity" that they have? This is not a rhetorical question. Please give a dollar amount. Either a lump sum or per year. How much until you are satisfied that everybody has "opportunity"?
"Near slavery". Is that like when I only get to keep a fraction of what I earn? Or are you considering those without "oppotunity" near slaves? Because I'm trying to figure out what exactly they are producing for us, but I just can't seem to come up with anything.
I'll ignore your last paragraph, but to answer your good question: It's hard to come up with an exact figure since the price of items would change. But this is what I would suggest and this is a more detailed answer than a random dollar amount:
Every working adult should receive enough compensation for the following:
1. Preventive health care
2. Access to education
3. Shelter
4. Food
5. Heat and Electricity
6. Timely transportation to and from work
7. A miniscule amount of surplus in case of emergency
Of course, minors and folks with disabilities should receive these services as well. In addition, I would argue that seniors should receive them as well--perhaps in exchange for a small measure of community service each week.
The "incentive to work" arguments do not apply in these cases--few are satisfied with rudimentary levels of any of the above. I'd love to hear from anyone on this site who would be willing to live with minimum levels of the above for even a month, let alone a lifetime.
Glock, I will admit I can support McCain over Hillary. Both are basically dishonest in small ways. Hillary is for big government and this always adds about 20% to the cost of doing business. Hillary had her Vince Foster thing and the billing records problem. Her government run health care proposal was all done in secret without even input from people it would effect. I may not be the brightest bulb myself, but McCain's academic credentials are, to say the least, marginal. He got into the Naval Academy because his father was an admiral. Fifth from the bottom in a 1000 person class as an undergraduate. I am not overwhelmed by law degrees from Ivy League Schools like those that Romney, Hillary, and Obama attended. I hope my daughter is not too mad at me for saying this (she was the research and writting editor of the Columbia Law Review), but the higher the rank of the law school , the lower the pass rate on the bar exam. Romney's MBA from Harvard (with honors) and his success at business tells me there is an exception there. But if McCain wins and it is against Hillary, McCain is "my guy".
Obama part is tougher. Rezco was known when Judy Baar was running against Blago. He had his chance to kills the Rezco deal and reverse that transaction which would have hurt him with Blago and his protectors. This would have caused Blago to be embarassed and would have caused Obama some loss of campaign cash . I will give you a luke warm probably on Obama, although I am not sure what my answer would have been if had paid for that damn fence himself.
Rezco put up this rfence between Obama's house and his vacant 5/6 sized lot. (Rezco paid full price for the lot in a joint purchase-while Obama got a discount on the house. Then Rezco turned around and sold 1/6 of the lot to Obama, giving him a bigger lot. Obama first paid a token amount for the 1/6 extra acres. When Rezco contracted for and put a security fence on their boundary (which he never paid for) Obama increased his contribution to make it proportional to the purchase price. The fence was for Obama's benefit. unless Rezco was trying to keep rabbits away from his lot.
This bullet is still in Hillary's gun. It was guite interesting the exchange at their debate. Obama: "corporate board of Wal-Mart" Hillary: Slum land lord for Rezco. Obama: (Only 5 hours- Hillary holsters her pistol.
Obama's remark was code for "Didn't you have about 20 hours on the Whitewater Land Deal? To which Hillary would have had to reply: No only about 10. And then Obama escalates again: : And just how did you make $100,000 through 14 trades in cattle futures. . (this is highly unlikely- as it amounts essentially to calling a coin "heads or tails" correctly 14 straight times. Don Wade (WLS) used to play a tune about "White Water" Can't wait until he replays that a few times. Vince Foster, Hillary's old pal from the Rose law firm that died mysteriously has never been solved. Are you ready for some football?????
But John, if Hillary only did about 10 hours of work on Whitewater, why was it so important that the Rose billing records disappear? And why did Susan McDougal do 18 months for contempt of court, rather than talk about Whitewater?
And frankly, if Hillary wanted to be rich and famous, why isn't she getting a securities license and sharing her trading secrets while charging the clients hedge fund rates? Turning $1000 of commodities into $100,000 in 14 trades is some pretty freakin' awesome trading...or maybe it's just frontrunning and other illegal acts.
The Chicago Tribune endorsed Obama today and said that probably his biggest mistake is not coming clean about Rezko months and months ago. It would be a footnote now, not an issue.
John... glad to hear it. Good luck to your candidate. In spite of our disagreements, I think we both have the best interests of the nation at heart. So, it's all good. I'll support Romney if he wins the primary in spite of my reservations.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Reagan was endorsed by the KKK when he ran for president. Does that make him a racist? Does that make him support white supremist positions? No, and to suggest such is absolutely silly.
Reagan also announced his candidacy for the Presidency in Philadelphia, Mississippi - the place where civil rights workers had been murdered less than 15 years prior. He talked a lot about "states rights" during that speech. Reagan refused to support the creation of the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday. Reagan worked against the renewal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He refused to sanction the government of South Africa, which was engaged in apartheid at the time. He attempted to dismantle affirmative action programs. I could go on.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, when exactly can we call it a duck?
In the Chicago Tribune's endorsement of McCain yesterday, they said Romney would make a great Treasury secretary.
Ronald Reagan was a racist and also we never landed on the moon, that was desert in Nevada.
Switzerland has spies everywhere.
Xian,
Regarding the incentive to work. It's true that not many people would be happy with only the basics, but I think that quite a few would be satisfied with what you consider to be the basics. But here's the thing. Even if they want more, they will still work less because you are already giving them so much. Or at the very least, they will be more irresponsible with what they earn because they only need extra earnings for vacations and designer clothes. So it may be true that most people would still work, but it is also true that most people would work MUCH less if each individual was given as a birthright all those things you listed. And since those things you want to give everybody can only be purchased with the tax dollars of working people, I think you can see that after a little while, things will start to head south.
So just to get back to my original question, do you have a rough dollar amount? $30,000 per year? And would this be given to every individual? Or would there be some government office that decides who qualifies? Will people have to sue the government to get their money like they do Social Security? Do you think that people who have little job skills will realize that they would be better off not working and taking the free money?
Ronald Reagan was a racist and also we never landed on the moon, that was desert in Nevada.
Just pointing out the facts, Dan. Got anything besides, "you're a nut! Obviously Reagan wasn't a racist!"?
Hey.
Blacks are voting for O'bama,
and is sure enough ain't because Baraq's mother was white.
Why is it that Orpah didn't endorse some white candidate?
Sounds racist to me.
Birds of a feather tend to flock together, and there is a large
subset of Americans who are racist, sexist, prejudiced, bigoted, xenophobic.
To ignore this is to ignore reality (and demographics).
The founders of this country were racist by today's standards,
but that does not in any way diminish the fact that they were great men.
Evangelicals like Huckabee because they think he is one of them.
Romney would be doing better if he wasnt a Mormon.
To say that a candidate is racist is to say nothing, because
most of the candidates have fundamental characteristics that appeal
to different groups based upon who they are and what they are Biologically.
That should not be ignored.
The message is what is important, but voters focus on the messenger.
The Republicans do not yet agree on the message.
"The message is what is important, but voters focus on the messenger."
Both are important.
The message is worthless if you don't believe the person delivering it (see Romney, Mitt).
The message is worthless if it's dwarfed by other completely repulsive messages (see Paul, Ron).
Xian,
Regarding the incentive to work. It's true that not many people would be happy with only the basics, but I think that quite a few would be satisfied with what you consider to be the basics. But here's the thing. Even if they want more, they will still work less because you are already giving them so much. Or at the very least, they will be more irresponsible with what they earn because they only need extra earnings for vacations and designer clothes. So it may be true that most people would still work, but it is also true that most people would work MUCH less if each individual was given as a birthright all those things you listed. And since those things you want to give everybody can only be purchased with the tax dollars of working people, I think you can see that after a little while, things will start to head south.
So just to get back to my original question, do you have a rough dollar amount? $30,000 per year? And would this be given to every individual? Or would there be some government office that decides who qualifies? Will people have to sue the government to get their money like they do Social Security? Do you think that people who have little job skills will realize that they would be better off not working and taking the free money?
Nevermind. If you are going to ignore my words and just make up cash handouts, I'm sure you can win the argument. Enjoy yourself. The logical leaps in your post are awesome--if we provided these basic minimums for full work, then people would not work because they would still get these things even though they would NOT get these things. Also, everyone would have a lot more of everything, so we would have too much and not want to work? What are you talking about?
They would need to work full-time in order to work full-time. That means working full-time. As in full-time. Full-time. Full-time.
Last question: Would YOU be happy with the minimum of what I described in the post.
If so, please reveal your identity and live that way for a year, naw how about a month?
If you can do it, I'll gladly register as the only member of the republican party in my area.
Xian, you almost sound like a Fair-Taxer.
Xian, I'm sorry. I didn't realize all you wanted was a really high minimum wage. In that case, that's the best way to make sure your students never find work. Since you were talking about giving people opportunity, I thought you wanted to help people who didn't already have jobs, not make it more difficult for low-skilled people to find work.
Honest question - would you require employers to pay the very high mandatory salary or would the government pay it?