Why do the Republicans keep doing this? They are dividing their party. They have pretty much lost me. Hey, I voted for Reagan, then Bush 1, then Perot(yes, I'm one of those that helped get Clinton elected) then Bush 2. Now I'm pretty much fed up with the lack of direction the Republicans have. Do they want 2 Republican parties? Brilliant move, alienate the old school base and aim for an extremist point of view. That will really fly over well lol.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/02/16/is-virginia-governor-mcdonnell-backing-off-his-intent-to-sign-state-sanctioned-ra?quicktabs_popular=2 Republican vice president? I hope not.
Even Romney admits you can't stop spending during a recovery. At least he is being honest:
I don't see how that even addresses what we've been arguing about. It seems more about trying to discern specific elements of theology in his public statements. I have no idea what it means calling him "socially tolerant" and it doesn't explain it. Is it the fact he got divorced?
Of course he didn't go into theological details - although he most certainly did talk about evil. Santorum who you seem to think inserts religion into his statements in some unprecedented way doesn't go into theological details either. Any point you make about Santorum being excessively religious would apply to Reagan, as would Santorum's views on specific social issues, every one - unless Reagan's divorce is supposed to be the big difference.
Just tell me one thing: What do you think of the "squeal rule" that Reagan discussed in his Evil Empire speech? Does it scare you?
Here is his description:
An organization of citizens, sincerely motivated and deeply concerned about the increase in illegitimate births and abortions involving girls well below the age of consent, sometime ago established a nationwide network of clinics to offer help to these girls and, hopefully, alleviate this situation. Now, again, let me say, I do not fault their intent. However, in their well-intentioned effort, these clinics have decided to provide advice and birth control drugs and devices to underage girls without the knowledge of their parents.
For some years now, the federal government has helped with funds to subsidize these clinics. In providing for this, the Congress decreed that every effort would be made to maximize parental participation. Nevertheless, the drugs and devices are prescribed without getting parental consent or giving notification after they've done so. Girls termed "sexually active" -- and that has replaced the word "promiscuous" -- are given this help in order to prevent illegitimate birth or abortion.
Well, we have ordered clinics receiving federal funds to notify the parents such help has been given. One of the nation's leading newspapers has created the term "squeal rule" in editorializing against us for doing this, and we're being criticized for violating the privacy of young people. A judge has recently granted an injunction against an enforcement of our rule. I've watched TV panel shows discuss this issue, seen columnists pontificating on our error, but no one seems to mention morality as playing a part in the subject of sex.
I know you're committed to your Reagan wasn't really religious narrative but I just want to know if a politician who supports that specific policy scares you out of your wits to the point where you'd vote for Obama over him.
Yep, I can picture him on the ranch lol. Ok, I have said all along that Reagan and Clinton have been the best presidents in my lifetime.
Don't laugh Musk....you've gotta luv this shot! How can anyone not like a man on a horse? Especially while he points lol. Those riding boots are cool too!
Great stuff... Reagan sounds so... California:
Reagan, who “opened the American mind to optimism and innocence, leaving it closed to sin and experience.” Reagan, a believer but not much of a churchgoer, “seemed to offer a Christianity without Christ and the crucifixion, a religion without reference to sin, evil, suffering, or sacrifice.”
Ilap, We are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. I'm leaving it at that.
One of the best pieces out, from Reason:
<There’s a good deal of irony in the contrast between the free-spending “conservative” Reagan and the frugal “liberal” Jimmy Carter, who as Diggins rightly notes “was as antistatist as Reagan” and accomplished much of the federal deregulation—removing entry barriers in air travel, trucking, and other fields—for which Reagan would sometimes receive credit. While both the left and the right have made Reagan out to be a great scourge of government power, Diggins demonstrates that the president’s rhetoric was more anti-statist than his actions. Reagan’s conservatism, too, was not what his admirers and detractors often claimed that it was; the religious right flourished in the 1980s, but Reagan—a divorced, socially tolerant movie star—hardly embodied it. Both Carter and Reagan’s successor as governor of California, the former seminarian Jerry Brown, were much more traditionally Christian (and more fiscally parsimonious) than Reagan, who “opened the American mind to optimism and innocence, leaving it closed to sin and experience.” Reagan, a believer but not much of a churchgoer, “seemed to offer a Christianity without Christ and the crucifixion, a religion without reference to sin, evil, suffering, or sacrifice.”>
Ok, Ilap, I'll give you credit on the Meghan McCain issue lol. She isn't the best example lol.
The previous link was of more importance.
http://hnn.us/articles/38958.html Too many religious right types romanticize about Reagan as this super Christian, moral example, etc,etc,etc. He really was not super religious in any way whatsoever. He may have spoken that way in public but he did not practice it. Any historian will attest to this.
http://www.nndb.com/people/359/000022293/ He was basically just a regular guy, not obsessively religious. He new how to "sell" the part well to the American public at that time. I'm not saying he wasn't a believer in any way. He just kept it personal without flaunting it like some sort of evangelical. George Bush 2 is a far better example of an openly religious president.
hi Jaque, out of curiosity , did you vote for Obama?
I don't understand how you made up your choice after having voted republican so many times. It is probably because you think Romney is a sure thing and he does not convince you. Since i last spoke on the subject (betting) , he has lost the lead. The two (republican) parties will vote together when the time comes, more on the right ,,,,more they go out and vote .. a la Bush.. In France it's the same,, the right and extreme right, otherwise the socialist would be in power forever. I think we get a surprise on MANY elections this year. I have bet on 4 underdogs, if i get one right i make money.
I have a way better bookie than banksters that's for sure.
The way i have invested the last 12 month , my betting is my best bet..ja.
I hardly get elections wrong...so humble for a guy 0 up for the year on a smoking market. :)
Nope, believe it or not I voted for McCain. I viewed McCain as a moderate. Apparently America had had enough of the Republicans for awhile.
This is the first time in many years that I feel like I could easily vote for a Democrat. The far right wing Republicans have just destroyed the party imho.
I should have voted for Clinton. I blew it with Perot(what was I thinking?) I was thinking 3rd party which I now realize is never going to be a reality. This is a 2 party country.
But, gridlock is often good for the stock market lol....
Be careful what you wish for: coalition governments are not0riously unst@ble and ineffective... look no farther than Greece.
I would argue, and have in previous posts, that the two party system has worked exceptionally well for the USA. And it can continue to do so...
The central dysfunction, and the key to getting our society back on track, is the weakness of the center as one extryme has grown in power. I do not find the Dem0cratic part particularly extryme, but I think important factions comprising a significant portion of the Ropublican party have.
Now those factions (fund@mentalists vs corporatists) are in c0nflict over who should represent them -- and the party as a whole is weakened as a result.
Good. Let them take notice of what most main-stream Americans want, regardless of party affiliation: A good job, good schools, a future for thier kids, rich people that pay their fair share for living the dream, separation of Chrch and State, the government out of their personal lifestyle choices, NOT laissez faire, pseudo-libert@rian, pay your own way and dam the rest, home-educ@ted, trickle-down, narrow minded, F0x-watching s@nctimony.
Correction: the two party system has been good... for Israel. Just consider the three republicans statements about Iran. Iran is no threat to the USA, but IS on Israel's target lists for the governments in the region they wish to subjugate. Look up Oded Yinon.
And that "Fox-watching sanctimony" you talked about is an essential ingredient in the historical snooker. Without it, the host might wake up and realize it has a giant parasite attached where it's eyes and brain used to be.
Well, ours may be stable, but it's hardly effective. And I think laying Greece's problems at the feet of having multiple parties is a stretch. For counter examples, look no further than Germany or Norway.
And yes, there is an extreme element of the Democratic party, too. Perhaps you have to live in the middle of a very liberal city (as I do) to see it, but it's there. While I agree that there is much to dislike on the extreme right, I am not remotely comfortable with the formula that says if I don't like Newt I must love Pelosi.
While we are politely disagreeing, please lay off the home schooler generalizations. I am certainly not religious, and my home schooled daughters, (both National Merit Scholars, the elder heading into med school) do not fit your stereotypes. Some of us just want to do things our own way, which seems fairly consonant with the whole Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness idea.
The sheer number of us who now identify as independents (something like 40% and rising) tells you how disgusted we are with both parties. I wish we had more choices, as this binary system where both parties seem to have been captured by their fringes leaves us with lesser-of-the-evils choices.
Most of the European democracies have a bunch of smaller parties and then they have to form coalition governments. I can imagine a centrist party in the US that wins 40% and then makes the fringes behave if they want to be part of running things. Not gonna happen, of course, but I can imagine it.