The Grand New Party

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

Global warming is real -- it's just debated whether man has anything to do with it or not. I'd be inclined to say yes, it's just to what level we are.

There's a large , uncrackpot contingent of the scientific community who thinks you're wrong. The data on global warming from everything I have read really is pretty debatable.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Cityfile: Meltdown With Keith Olbermann!

what a cheap shot. the guys mom suddenly dies, but that had nothing to do with him missing work. come on 70, your better then that

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by dmek25

what a cheap shot. the guys mom suddenly dies, but that had nothing to do with him missing work. come on 70, your better then that

Are you kidding? His mom died two weeks prior the incidents in question. As the article points out, he threw a three episode long temper tantrum, and has a history of temper tantrums and grudge holding. It's not like this stuff is isolated. Why couldn't David Shuster have filled for him as soon as his mother passed? Why did Shuster tweet some BS about flu season and say he hopes Olberman will be back with the network? Exactly.

I appreciate you coming to the defense of this uber-liberal mouthpiece, but a cheap shot it was not. What's cheap is Olberman using his mother's death as an excuse for his unprofessional crybaby behavior.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

There's a large , uncrackpot contingent of the scientific community who thinks you're wrong. The data on global warming from everything I have read really is pretty debatable.

Those scientists can usually be put into a list, the ones supporting man's impact is too long of a list to generate. It seems that quite a number of those who don't agree either say that it's too inconclusive or that man isn't the MAIN cause of it, which I didn't say that we were. In addition, a number of these professionals are geologists (many petroleum geologists) and many others are meteorologists, which may seem surprising, but they're more familiar with short term changes.

It is still of advantage of us to look into more efficient and responsible practices.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

No American politician has ever spoken more eloquently against abortion than Ronald Reagan. He couldn't, for instance, ban partial birth abortion because the Democrats always controlled the house. But he said things that Bush 43 would never have dreamed of. As for gay marriage, it did not emerge as an issue until the late 1990s, so it's not really valid to use it as sign of the right's increasing influence. Also, to suggest that the religious right "came into it's own" in the 1990s is a misreading of history. It came into it's own as a movement in the 1970s. People who try to seperate Reagan from the evangelicals are revisionists.

You're right. I was talking somewhat off the cuff and trying to remember events. I agree that the evangelical movement started in the 70's and was a powerful force then. I would suggest, however, that after Bush I, they reinvented themselves as a more grassroots organization and that it was then that they started to become more aggressive in formulating and pushing a legislative agenda. I haven't done a study, and I don't have a link but I remember reading some articles about how the religious right lost influence in Bush I and in the Clinton era and so began looking for ways to organize.

[JoeRedskin]

The Moral Majority, generally considered the beginning of the religious right as a political movement was founded in 1979.

"[Jerry] Falwell was an important figure in the early days of the Religious Right, but his influence had waned considerably[.] ... The Lynchburg, Va., televangelist shut down his Moral Majority in 1989, after a decade of political activity, to spend more time on building his Liberty University. Although Falwell still frequently appeared in the media and worked through various religious and educational organizations, he never recovered his former prominence.

Lessons Learned From Falwell's Failings

The new breed of Religious Right leaders has learned from Falwell's mistakes. Falwell's rhetoric was often intemperate. While they made for lively television, his over-the-top remarks probably alarmed more people than they attracted. Even in his home state of Virginia, polls showed Falwell with high negative ratings.

Falwell also failed to truly cultivate the grassroots. By the time the Moral Majority collapsed, it had become apparent that the group was essentially a large mailing list with little local presence. By contrast, groups like the Christian Coalition Christian Coalition saw the value in local organizing. The Coalition, founded by TV preacher Pat Robertson at one time had viable chapters in most states and even some at the county level. "

The religious right after Falwell: fundamentalist political movement is less visible but more powerful than ever. - Free Online Library

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

There already is a party devoted to fiscal conservatism and is liberal on social issues -- it's called the Libertarian Party. They're able to get about 1% in a typical election.

The sad reality for limited government conservatives is that voters today actually do want bigger government. They want government to take care of them if they become unemployed, they want prescription drug coverage, health care, they want gov't to handle their retirement, they want their kids educated by government . . . it just goes on and on.

What makes matters worse is that capitalism is under attack and everybody is just fine with it. People are okay with CEOs having their salaries and bonuses dictated by Congress, government taking over businesses, oil company execs have to go before House and Senate committees to answer for their "windfall profits". Ugh.

Call me a pessimist, but this is a chain of events that may never get turned around.

I wouldn't say that all Libertarians are liberal on social issues. They're just so far to the right that they seem strange. Ron Paul and Bobb Barr are so far to the right that things like, let the States decide for themselves when it comes to drugs, abortion, and homosexual special interest seem almost foreign to the average person. Auditing the Federal Reserve is a libertarian / conservative Ron Paul idea that is gaining strength in the House right now. If you have to take the good and the bad, well . . . . there's a lot more good to that idea than bad.

I wouldn't say that no one notices either. You and I have. I'll go out on a limb and say that a lot of people on this thread have too. Capitalism isn't under attack because we're not really practicing it. Our government already had it's hand in the socialist cookie jar to begin with. Capitalism is the answer. The liberal media doesn't like capitalism so they smear it every chance they get.

Perhaps the majority of Americans don't do their homework. Many of the ones I know don't. A lot of them are just ignorant. Even they read the news papers and get fed up. No one that I know truly likes these bailouts.

The problem for many of the voters that I know is that they're to lazy to get involved in the process. I vote in the primary, or I used to. One thing that should be done IMO is to stop having the Northern wing of the Republican Party decide who the nominee is. Everyone knows that the Republican's bread and butter is in the South and Midwest. Yeah, there are conservatives up North and on the Left Coast, but they're out numbered five to one.

I liked Romney and Giuliani but I wouldn't have voted for them. Giuliani would've made a great addition to the State Department and Romney would've been nice to have in a public office with this economy. I might have voted for Romney. I dunno . . . .

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

There already is a party devoted to fiscal conservatism and is liberal on social issues -- it's called the Libertarian Party. They're able to get about 1% in a typical election.

The sad reality for limited government conservatives is that voters today actually do want bigger government. They want government to take care of them if they become unemployed, they want prescription drug coverage, health care, they want gov't to handle their retirement, they want their kids educated by government . . . it just goes on and on.

What makes matters worse is that capitalism is under attack and everybody is just fine with it. People are okay with CEOs having their salaries and bonuses dictated by Congress, government taking over businesses, oil company execs have to go before House and Senate committees to answer for their "windfall profits". Ugh.

Call me a pessimist, but this is a chain of events that may never get turned around.

Bravo sir, mighty fine observation on your part. The people get what the people want and what they want is what the people is getting.

All this talk of a new party is worthless if one can not convince the people of their ideas. People are selfish to the teeth and self-preservation is always at the forefront consciously and subconsciously.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

Bravo sir, mighty fine observation on your part. The people get what the people want and what they want is what the people is getting.

All this talk of a new party is worthless if one can not convince the people of their ideas. People are selfish to the teeth and self-preservation is always at the forefront consciously and subconsciously.

Sadly this statement will be written on the tombstone of American History.

"the people" are an easily driven mass, guided by media, the internet, and talking heads. "They" have no sense of historical presence and can be guided by a skilled orator into drinking poison, or voting for unsustainable obligations. A wise leader, which Obama may, or may not be, will guide the people through deserts, hills and valleys. A crafty or unwise leader, which Obama may, or may not be, will guide the people into the desert.

I give as my proof:
The Lion King. Mufasa, a good and wise king, knows what the whole herd needed, and put herd above the self desires and the whole herd and valley prospered. Scar, a crafty and evil animal, used the resources which Mufasa had so carefully nurtured and grew, and the herd eventually starved and rebelled.

What more need be said

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Sadly this statement will be written on the tombstone of American History.

"the people" are an easily driven mass, guided by media, the internet, and talking heads. "They" have no sense of historical presence and can be guided by a skilled orator into drinking poison, or voting for unsustainable obligations. A wise leader, which Obama may, or may not be, will guide the people through deserts, hills and valleys. A crafty or unwise leader, which Obama may, or may not be, will guide the people into the desert.

I give as my proof:
The Lion King. Mufasa, a good and wise king, knows what the whole herd needed, and put herd above the self desires and the whole herd and valley prospered. Scar, a crafty and evil animal, used the resources which Mufasa had so carefully nurtured and grew, and the herd eventually starved and rebelled.

What more need be said

We should not underestimate the people, they could have after all stayed at home like the many that currently do. They may not know everything they need to know but they do know enough to want to go vote. Whether they take a left or a right they control their destiny.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

We should not underestimate the people, they could have after all stayed at home like the many that currently do. They may not know everything they need to know but they do know enough to want to go vote. Whether they take a left or a right they control their destiny.

So we should applaud having an unqualified electorate? Were you so high on this thought when the Republicans swept in with the Contract For America? (I am willing to bet you had at least once called it the Contract ON America).

There is a reason the Senate was originally a body politic, and why they were given the authorities and responsibilities they were. It is not a good thing to have the full legislative and executive branch driven directly by the vote of the people. Sadly, some think our government is the same that brought us success in the first 150 years, but it is not, and gradually we have sold our Nation's birthright for the sake of "the people". (note I am not speaking in any way shape or form about the racial/sexist attitudes that were prevalent during those 150 years, I applaud our country's growth past those blind prejudices).

Some other examples of leaving the path that brought us growth as a country:

Washington advised us to "avoid foreign entanglements" .
The Constitution, when written, didn't allow for an income tax.
The 10th amendment says

Text of Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Yet we have a Department of Education which tries to tell Alaskans, Nebraskans, and Floridians, that they all should meet Federal guidelines.

Look, it is what it is, but it is not a pendulum it is more like the big thing you drop a quarter in and it rolls in an ever tighter circle until it falls into the dead center. Yes we may cycle to more or less government but it gradually decays into a place where more and more rights are restricted until the government engulfs us.

[BringBackJoeT]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

So we should applaud having an unqualified electorate? Were you so high on this thought when the Republicans swept in with the Contract For America? (I am willing to bet you had at least once called it the Contract ON America).

There is a reason the Senate was originally a body politic, and why they were given the authorities and responsibilities they were. It is not a good thing to have the full legislative and executive branch driven directly by the vote of the people. Sadly, some think our government is the same that brought us success in the first 150 years, but it is not, and gradually we have sold our Nation's birthright for the sake of "the people". (note I am not speaking in any way shape or form about the racial/sexist attitudes that were prevalent during those 150 years, I applaud our country's growth past those blind prejudices).

Some other examples of leaving the path that brought us growth as a country:

Washington advised us to "avoid foreign entanglements" .
The Constitution, when written, didn't allow for an income tax.
The 10th amendment says
Yet we have a Department of Education which tries to tell Alaskans, Nebraskans, and Floridians, that they all should meet Federal guidelines.

Look, it is what it is, but it is not a pendulum it is more like the big thing you drop a quarter in and it rolls in an ever tighter circle until it falls into the dead center. Yes we may cycle to more or less government but it gradually decays into a place where more and more rights are restricted until the government engulfs us.

Yes . . . if they want federal funding. Are you saying that the 10th Amendment is violated where Congress imposes conditions on states that voluntarily accept federal funding? Not even Scalia or Thomas would argue as much.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BringBackJoeT

Yes . . . if they want federal funding. Are you saying that the 10th Amendment is violated where Congress imposes conditions on states that voluntarily accept federal funding? Not even Scalia or Thomas would argue as much.

Which brings us full circle to the fact that it should not be a Federal issue at all, and that Congress should not be collecting tax from Nebraska or Alaska to give funding to Florida. But again, we have moved so far away from original intent, that to claim that thought sounds "radical". I am saying the 10th Amendment strictly adhered to would reduce the size of the Federal Bureaucracy dramatically. But instead, we states give up more of our soveriegnty in order to partake of the tax revenue of others.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by BringBackJoeT

Yes . . . if they want federal funding. Are you saying that the 10th Amendment is violated where Congress imposes conditions on states that voluntarily accept federal funding? Not even Scalia or Thomas would argue as much.

It's called bribery.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BringBackJoeT

Yes . . . if they want federal funding. Are you saying that the 10th Amendment is violated where Congress imposes conditions on states that voluntarily accept federal funding? Not even Scalia or Thomas would argue as much.

More to the point, I am saying that
a) the Founders would not have considered a Department of Education as a function appropriate to the Federal institutions.
b) That they would have held it was the State's individual duty and responsibility to decide on the Educational needs of their citizens.
c)That the Virginia founders, for example, would have rejected the Constitution out of hand if they thought it was going to allow a Federal government to operate like it does now.