Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=saden1;557877]We should not underestimate the people, they could have after all stayed at home like the many that currently do.[B] They may not know everything they need to know but they do know enough to want to go vote. [/B]Whether they take a left or a right they control their destiny.[/quote]

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
[quote]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.[/quote] 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.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;557890]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
[B]Yet we have a Department of Education which tries to tell Alaskans, Nebraskans, and Floridians, that they all should meet Federal guidelines. [/B]

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.[/quote]

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.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=BringBackJoeT;557901]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=BringBackJoeT;557901]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.[/quote]

It's called bribery.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=BringBackJoeT;557901]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;557890][B]So we should applaud having an unqualified electorate?[/B] Were you so high on this thought when the Republicans swept in with the Contract For America? ([B]I am willing to bet you had at least once called it the Contract ON America[/B]).

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 [B]that brought us success in the first 150 years[/B], 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.[/quote]


No, no one said stupid voters should be applauded their right to vote without having them qualify should be respect. If you bet me you will lose that bet. My beef is always centered around reason and policy.

We have to deal with lots of issues but lets not pretend America is getting worse. It isn't. Politics used to be much dirtier than it currently is. There's more money than use to be but money was always at play in Washington.

I leave you with [URL="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-happiest-places-on-earth-are-heavily-taxed?siteid=rss"]this article[/URL] I found interesting. You may not like what it has to say...[I]click it at your own risk[/I].

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=saden1;558020][U]No, no one said stupid voters should be applauded their right to vote without having them qualify should be respect.[/U] If you bet me you will lose that bet. [U]My beef is always centered around reason and policy.[/U]
We have to deal with lots of issues but lets not pretend America is getting worse. It isn't. Politics used to be much dirtier than it currently is. There's more money than use to be but money was always at play in Washington.

I leave you with [URL="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-happiest-places-on-earth-are-heavily-taxed?siteid=rss"]this article[/URL] I found interesting. You may not like what it has to say...[I]click it at your own risk[/I].[/quote]

I would like to know what the wager is?

Your beef is yours alone.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;557744][B]I wouldn't say that all Libertarians are liberal on social issues. [/B]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. [B]Our government already had it's hand in the socialist cookie jar to begin with.[/B] 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 . . . .[/quote]

On the first bolded point, you're correct. In fact, the word 'liberal' has been twisted and morphed into something that it never meant originally. If you go by the current use of the word, being 'liberal' on social issues would actually mean one would favor more gun control, being against the death penalty, that sort of thing. I should have said that libertarians are for freedom and individual rights when it comes to social issues.

On the second bolded point, you're correct there too. A system of public education, a progressive income tax, the creation of the federal reserve and moving more towards central planning on economics are all indicators of socialistic tendencies and they've been around for a long, long time.

So it is absolutely true that we are a mixed economy of some socialism and capitalism, and we haven't had a pure free market system for quite awhile.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=saden1;558020]No, no one said stupid voters should be applauded their right to vote without having them qualify should be respect. If you bet me you will lose that bet. My beef is always centered around reason and policy.

We have to deal with lots of issues but lets not pretend America is getting worse. It isn't. Politics used to be much dirtier than it currently is. There's more money than use to be but money was always at play in Washington.

I leave you with [URL="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-happiest-places-on-earth-are-heavily-taxed?siteid=rss"]this article[/URL] I found interesting. You may not like what it has to say...[I]click it at your own risk[/I].[/quote]

Ok, I clicked it. And surprisingly, it didn't bother me at all. My response may be jumbled, so read and respond at your own risk.
First, if you look at my list of reductions which you asked about, you would see I reduce our military to a self defense posture. The fact that we pay 22BILLION dollars for 1 fighter is insane, and guess what, those people who are so happy in Denmark Holland Norway and Sweden, they don't do that. It is no myth that northern Europe lives under the shield of America, and has had the peace derived from that. I am glad they are happy, now let them pay their taxes to build defenses from the natural predators in other countries that have lain fallow for the past 30 years.
While we spend hundreds of billions to support a tremendous military and the rest of the world, even those nations that hate us, benefit from the general peace that we have created. It is not surprising that you would find some who are happy to pay outrageous taxes. I can tell you also, that Germans, who basically get gouged are not so happy that others are living off of the German national wealth. My German aunt visited last month and while I didn't go to deep into politics with her, it is clear that the EU has taken deep cuts into the German nation.

There is a point for taxes. But not every solution requires a Federal answer, you say we should not pretend America is getting worse. I am not pretending, I am saying it that that is my belief. And I am not speaking about just under President Obama, he has only been in office 100+ days, the systemic problems that I believe are making it worse speak to the growing dependence on a large federal government.

Let me ask a question:
If you have a large problem, any large complex problem, what is the first step to solving it?

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=saden1]I leave you with this article I found interesting. You may not like what it has to say...click it at your own risk.[/quote]

Here's another way you can look at that poll which indicates people in northern Europe are so "happy" even when their taxes are so high: If they have a progressive tax structure like we do, meaning that a very small portion of their society pays the bulk of the taxes, then it's no wonder the majority say they're happy since they weren't taxed too much in the first place.

Ask ten people independently if they are happy with their financial situation -- if one of them had a gun pointed at their head by a government official forcing them to hand over 80% of their paycheck, while the other nine could keep most of theirs, the poll's results would say that 90% of respondents say their financial situation is just fine.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=saden1;558020]No, no one said stupid voters should be applauded their right to vote without having them qualify should be respect. If you bet me you will lose that bet. My beef is always centered around reason and policy.

We have to deal with lots of issues but lets not pretend America is getting worse. It isn't. Politics used to be much dirtier than it currently is. There's more money than use to be but money was always at play in Washington.

I leave you with [URL="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-happiest-places-on-earth-are-heavily-taxed?siteid=rss"]this article[/URL] I found interesting. You may not like what it has to say...[I]click it at your own risk[/I].[/quote]

In addition to the arguments by CRedskin, another point to be considered is the basic homogenous populations of these countries. The populations have similar cultural and economic goals with small populations and land mass that simply don't require the same complex solutions presented by our larger much more diverse population.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=tryfuhl;557646]Well without global cooling we really don't have that leg to stand on. The Kyoto treaty was not brought up in a time like now, the economy was much better, but I do agree that it could have a major economic impact. It's not so much that we need to ratify a treaty, just we need to take better steps towards preserving the environment.

People call talk about skewered facts or whatever they'd like, but the huge emission of pollutants teamed with deforestation can certainly not be helping or neutral.

[/quote]

It could be well be neutral. We have evolved in an environment that contained a certain amount of CO2. More CO2 might be bad, or it might be good for humans. Who knows. We're on our own, hurtling through spacetime on a big unfriendly rock. The pretense of control displayed by the political Left reminds me of my fundamentalist Christian grandmother. The Liberals will fix everything. Bullshit. Don't sell me a cup of bullshit and call it progress.

If you eliminate God from the equation, I can argue freely for the Chomskyite anarchist position which is really easy intelectually. "We're all alone so **** you". My opinion is just as valuable as yours and don't talk to me about your bloody science because that's just religion by another name. Fairy stories made up by crotchety old men trying to get a leg up. You see where this leads.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[YT]3q3upFx4FcA[/YT]

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=tryfuhl;557670][SIZE=4]Those scientists can usually be put into a list, the ones supporting man's impact is too long of a list to generate.[/SIZE] 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.[/quote]

Are you so sure about that?
[url=http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7].: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.[/url]

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=tryfuhl;557670]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.[/quote]

I didn't state my self well there. There exists a large contingent of uncrackpot scientists who would argue that Global Warming doesn't even exist. Forget who or what caused it. The main arguments that I have studied, and as far as I can tell don't have any real dog in the fight, go like this.

Warming data collected over the last 100 years is rather spotty. Think about it. A 100+ years ago there was widespread, accurate and scientifically relevant amounts of temperature data available that could be used in a definitive manner? Sounds dubious to me. Forget about using data from before that...it doesn't even really exist. Most of the global climate change data is built using human-derived models. Models are really a fancy way of saying...we drew a picture and this is what it looks like. They're human-made. Maybe they're accurate and maybe they're not. But from a scientific standpoint they aren't evidence of anything other than the model-builder's ability to use a computer and code. The large "consensus" who "believe" in global climate change are driven by contingents just as politically motivated as the ones driven by the oil companies. In fact there is probably more money in total at stake on the climate change side than the other. All of this isn't to say that global climate change is a crock. I have no idea...but I am not willing to go blindly down a path that will cost the human existence enormous time, effort and money just to fix a problem that may or may not exist.

Now your point about finding energy alternatives anyways, I can get on board with. From a political standpoint we need a strategy for extricating ourselves from the tyranny of oil. It puts us in harms way when we have to rely on others for our basic needs. We ought to really be pursuing energy independence in a serious way.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=FRPLG;558382]I didn't state my self well there. There exists a large contingent of uncrackpot scientists who would argue that Global Warming doesn't even exist. Forget who or what caused it. The main arguments that I have studied, and as far as I can tell don't have any real dog in the fight, go like this.

Warming data collected over the last 100 years is rather spotty. Think about it. A 100+ years ago there was widespread, accurate and scientifically relevant amounts of temperature data available that could be used in a definitive manner? Sounds dubious to me. Forget about using data from before that...it doesn't even really exist. Most of the global climate change data is built using human-derived models. Models are really a fancy way of saying...we drew a picture and this is what it looks like. They're human-made. Maybe they're accurate and maybe they're not. But from a scientific standpoint they aren't evidence of anything other than the model-builder's ability to use a computer and code. The large "consensus" who "believe" in global climate change are driven by contingents just as politically motivated as the ones driven by the oil companies. In fact there is probably more money in total at stake on the climate change side than the other. All of this isn't to say that global climate change is a crock. I have no idea...but I am not willing to go blindly down a path that will cost the human existence enormous time, effort and money just to fix a problem that may or may not exist.

Now your point about finding energy alternatives anyways, I can get on board with. From a political standpoint we need a strategy for extricating ourselves from the tyranny of oil. It puts us in harms way when we have to rely on others for our basic needs. We ought to really be pursuing energy independence in a serious way.[/quote]
Me and you are pretty much on the same page. I find it funny that my weather man cannot get tomorrows weather right but can tell me wahts going to happen 10 to 25 years frm now.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

FRPLG, nicely stated. I give your statement the "JoeRedskin Stamp Of Approval" (Recognized world-wide as the seal of quality posting).

My father, a retired airforce pilot who relied on accurate weather predictions for his safety, once said to me that weather prediction beyond the next three days is pretty much voodoo and tea leaves.

As I have studied the issues and opinions surrounding "global warming", I have become more and more convinced of the truth of my dad's statement.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=firstdown;558372]Are you so sure about that?
[url=http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7].: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.[/url][/quote]

700? Is that the number of "international scientists" this report identifies as disputing a human connection to global warming? I'll bet you could find a greater number of "international scientists" who dispute a connection between smoking and cancer.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=FRPLG;558382]Now your point about finding energy alternatives anyways, I can get on board with. From a political standpoint we need a strategy for extricating ourselves from the tyranny of oil. It puts us in harms way when we have to rely on others for our basic needs. We ought to really be pursuing energy independence in a serious way.[/quote]Agree with your whole post. Very well stated.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

Well now this new party will have to take into account that the Pro-Life now has more supporters then Pro-Choice for the first time sensen they have been tracking this galup poll.[url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx]More Americans “Pro-Life� Than “Pro-Choice� for First Time[/url]
I did not want to start an abortion thread but I found this pool really interesting.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;558404]FRPLG, nicely stated. I give your statement the "JoeRedskin Stamp Of Approval" (Recognized world-wide as the seal of quality posting).

My father, a retired airforce pilot who relied on accurate weather predictions for his safety, once said to me that weather prediction beyond the next three days is pretty much voodoo and tea leaves.

As I have studied the issues and opinions surrounding "global warming", I have become more and more convinced of the truth of my dad's statement.[/quote]

What? I don't see the connection here. What you have you gleaned from your studies of global warming that leads you to agree with your father that weather forecasts beyond three days are inherently suspect? If you have in fact studied the issue of global warming, then you should have found that those who believe in it (for lack of a better phrase) consider there to be a very "present" element to it; i.e., that global warming is happening [B]now[/B]. Assuming, arguendo, that global warming is in fact happening, it would be ridiculous to believe that NO future weather trends could be predicted based on such a fact. That the exactitude of future daily forecasts could not be guaranteed would not undermine the value of the predicted trends.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=firstdown;558408]Well now this new party will have to take into account that the Pro-Life now has more supporters then Pro-Choice for the first time sensen they have been tracking this galup poll.[url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx]More Americans “Pro-Life� Than “Pro-Choice� for First Time[/url]
I did not want to start an abortion thread [B]but I found this pool really interesting[/B].[/quote]


I found this poll interesting.
[url=http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1292]National (US) Poll * April 30, 2009 * Gays In The Military Should Be - Quinnipiac University – Hamden, Connecticut[/url]

Re: The Grand New Party
 

Sadly the new party simply bickers like the old parties. Global Climate Change/No Global Climate Change, I have my opinion, But why should a new party whose goal is limited government be in the pot arguing this?

If any scientists of note are arguing that in the course of my generation/my children's generation the world is going to suddenly and catastrophically cool, they are most likely speaking hogwash. Maybe our actions cause it, maybe not. Let private citizens groups collect private funds, study it, and say yea or nay, but a limited resource Federal Government need not stamp it's approval/disapproval on it. I am sure the car companies will fund research against it, and I am sure men/women of great wealth and concern for the longterm future of our species, like Saden, can fund the pro group. But don't create a federal dept of global catastrophic and possibly unchangeable events, or a bureau of great handwringing.

The goal of a limited government party should not be to side with one or another political agenda, but to say ENOUGH, we are here to provide a framework for citizens, and localities to grow and prosper, and not fear external armed or economic attack. How each locality chooses to set it's standards, within our constitutional framework, is THEIR choice and freedom.

Again see the 10th amendment.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

I thought that plants liked Co2?

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=BringBackJoeT;558413]I found this poll interesting.
[URL="http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1292"]National (US) Poll * April 30, 2009 * Gays In The Military Should Be - Quinnipiac University – Hamden, Connecticut[/URL][/quote]I found it interesting as well:[SIZE=2]"American voters reject 50 - 44 percent the argument that ending discrimination against homosexuals is as necessary today as ending discrimination against blacks was in the 1960s. Black voters say 45 - 44 percent it is as important, while whites say 51 - 43 percent it is not. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=2][B]Voters support 50 - 44 percent the federal law allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, but say 54 - 39 percent that the federal law denying federal spousal benefits to same-sex partners should be repealed. [/B][/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]Society is paying too much attention to the needs of gays and lesbians, 49 percent of voters say, while 21 percent say there's too little attention and 22 percent say it's "about right." [/SIZE]

I'd say this falls right in-line with CRedskins' point.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=BringBackJoeT;558406]700? Is that the number of "international scientists" this report identifies as disputing a human connection to global warming? I'll bet you could find a greater number of "international scientists" who dispute a connection between smoking and cancer.[/quote]

I bet you couldn't.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

I think it is time we start limiting the Congress's term limits. What is happening now is that we have elected officials who are more concerned with getting re-elected than doing what is best for the people in their states. Many years ago in Virginia senators were appointed by the governor, maybe it is time to look at that again. Doubt it will ever happen, government is getting bigger and more powerful and they aren't going to give that up anytime soon.

What conservatives need to get to is a more pragmatic approach and I would say the GOP does too. I am conservative before I am a Republican. Obama will more than likely be a two term president unless he really screws up, but even then he has enough allies in the media that they will not let him fail, at least not yet.

There are always going to be cycles in politics. The Democratic party has start stepping up to the plate and they too are dealing with the divide between the far left faction of their party and their more moderate members.

" A people who fear its government is a tyranny. A government who fears its people is liberty." Thomas Jefferson

Re: The Grand New Party
 

While we're looking at polls:

[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/15/fox-news-poll-americans-want-government-spending/"]FOX News Poll: Americans Want Less Government, Less Spending - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com[/URL]

I'd say this bodes well for our Grand New Party (or if we can get the GOP focused on a reduce gov't/reduce spending platform).

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=TheSmurfs22;558442]I think it is time we start limiting the Congress's term limits. What is happening now is that we have elected officials who are more concerned with getting re-elected than doing what is best for the people in their states. Many years ago in Virginia senators were appointed by the governor, maybe it is time to look at that again. Doubt it will ever happen, government is getting bigger and more powerful and they aren't going to give that up anytime soon.

What conservatives need to get to is a more pragmatic approach and I would say the GOP does too. I am conservative before I am a Republican. Obama will more than likely be a two term president unless he really screws up, but even then he has enough allies in the media that they will not let him fail, at least not yet.

There are always going to be cycles in politics. The Democratic party has start stepping up to the plate and they too are dealing with the divide between the far left faction of their party and their more moderate members.

" [B]A people who fear its government is a tyranny. A government who fears its people is liberty[/B]." Thomas Jefferson[/quote]Good post, unfortunately we're closer to the former than the later.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=FRPLG;558441]I bet you couldn't.[/quote]

If there are 700 "international scientists" who think there is no human connection to global warming, then, yes, you could.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=BringBackJoeT;558447]If there are 700 "international scientists" who think there is no human connection to global warming, then, yes, you could.[/quote]

Good to see another open minded person on the board.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=TheSmurfs22;558442]I think it is time we start limiting the Congress's term limits. What is happening now is that we have elected officials who are more concerned with getting re-elected than doing what is best for the people in their states[B]. Many years ago in Virginia senators were appointed by the governor, maybe it is time to look at that again.[/B] Doubt it will ever happen, government is getting bigger and more powerful and they aren't going to give that up anytime soon.

What conservatives need to get to is a more pragmatic approach and I would say the GOP does too. I am conservative before I am a Republican. Obama will more than likely be a two term president unless he really screws up, but even then he has enough allies in the media that they will not let him fail, at least not yet.

[B]There are always going to be cycles in politics. [/B]The Democratic party has start stepping up to the plate and they too are dealing with the divide between the far left faction of their party and their more moderate members.

" A people who fear its government is a tyranny. A government who fears its people is liberty." Thomas Jefferson[/quote]
For the first bolded point, that is how the Constitution originally established the Senate, but a Constitutional Amendment in the early 1900's changed the Election of the Senate to pure voting. At the time it probably made sense, however in hindsight, I think it has simply diluted the Senate, and created a second House of Representatives. There was a clear and purposeful split in the roles of the two bodies, that now is more or less simply window dressing.

As to the 2nd. Politics is NOT cyclical, this is either a myth, or a misconception. If it was cyclical, we would be looking at slavery coming back into fashion, or other outdated, and illogical ideas. Politics is moreso a creeping ivy. It may curve to the left, or to the right, but it never stops expanding its reach, unless the gardener prunes it.

I would use seatbelts as an example. In the 80's in Md, when seatbelt laws were first introduced, there was a lot of outrage, but it was accepted, just not as a primary cause for a ticket. The ivy was planted. Later the [U]State[/U] law was changed, now it could be a primary cause, but still the nobility of the purpose was to prevent harm to yourself, and reduce insurance rates (I am so glad that happened). Now this year's [U]National[/U] Click It or Ticket commercial actually de-emphasizes the risk of injury and says, basically, do it or else get a ticket. The specific commercial I am referring to talks of a guy's friend who got a seatbelt ticket, and was an idiot because now he has to pay the fine instead of going to a concert. The point is that it was not a cycle, but an ever increasing, and overreaching intrusion into states' rights and individual liberties.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

^^ Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

Has anyone here read "Grand New Party"?

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;558498]For the first bolded point, that is how the Constitution originally established the Senate, but a Constitutional Amendment in the early 1900's changed the Election of the Senate to pure voting. At the time it probably made sense, however in hindsight, I think it has simply diluted the Senate, and created a second House of Representatives. There was a clear and purposeful split in the roles of the two bodies, that now is more or less simply window dressing.

As to the 2nd. Politics is NOT cyclical, this is either a myth, or a misconception. If it was cyclical, we would be looking at slavery coming back into fashion, or other outdated, and illogical ideas. Politics is moreso a creeping ivy. It may curve to the left, or to the right, but it never stops expanding its reach, unless the gardener prunes it.

I would use seatbelts as an example. In the 80's in Md, when seatbelt laws were first introduced, there was a lot of outrage, but it was accepted, just not as a primary cause for a ticket. The ivy was planted. Later the [U]State[/U] law was changed, now it could be a primary cause, but still the nobility of the purpose was to prevent harm to yourself, and reduce insurance rates (I am so glad that happened). Now this year's [U]National[/U] Click It or Ticket commercial actually de-emphasizes the risk of injury and says, basically, do it or else get a ticket. The specific commercial I am referring to talks of a guy's friend who got a seatbelt ticket, and was an idiot because now he has to pay the fine instead of going to a concert. The point is that it was not a cycle, but an ever increasing, and overreaching intrusion into states' rights and individual liberties.[/quote]
Seatbelt laws are by state and VA just passed that law just a few years back.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=firstdown;558530]Seatbelt laws are by state and VA just passed that law just a few years back.[/quote]

Yes they are, but why do you think VA passed it, if you check i believe you will find Federal Funding attached.

My point on the seatbelt law was more that government does not cycle, it grows and weaves, altering course but rarely repealing intrusive laws (an exception being if they make an overt and overreaching prohibition such as Prohibition).

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;558531]Yes they are, but why do you think VA passed it, if you check i believe you will find Federal Funding attached.

My point on the seatbelt law was more that government does not cycle, it grows and weaves, altering course but rarely repealing intrusive laws (an exception being if they make an overt and overreaching prohibition such as Prohibition).[/quote]
Not sure if its attached to federal funding but we do have HOV lanes in our area that I do know that we have to keep open due to federal funding. Its crazy we have these lanes as they get little use and they would be better used as just another lane to help with trafic.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=firstdown;558408]Well now this new party will have to take into account that the Pro-Life now has more supporters then Pro-Choice for the first time sensen they have been tracking this galup poll.[url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx]More Americans “Pro-Life� Than “Pro-Choice� for First Time[/url]
I did not want to start an abortion thread but I found this pool really interesting.[/quote]

But what does it mean to be "pro-life" ??

That same poll says that even though 51% of people define themselves that way, 22% say that abortion should be legal in all cases, and 53% say that it should be legal in some cases -- meaning that 75% still say that abortion should not be completely outlawed.

If any Republican attempts to run on a national platform of making abortion illegal, then that candidate will lose and the party is going absolutely nowhere.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Beemnseven;558547]But what does it mean to be "pro-life" ??

That same poll says that even though 51% of people define themselves that way, 22% say that abortion should be legal in all cases, and 53% say that it should be legal in some cases -- meaning that 75% still say that abortion should not be completely outlawed.

If any Republican attempts to run on a national platform of making abortion illegal, then that candidate will lose and the party is going absolutely nowhere.[/quote]
Well some cases could be rape or the health of the mother so that number is hard to grasp. I just really posted this because I have seen several people here say that on abortion the Rep. party does not have a clue but this poll may suggest something different. I don't think anyone would have any traction with either oarty if they took the far left or far right stance on the abortion issue. It seem now that both parties are some where in the middle.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=firstdown;558541]Not sure if its attached to federal funding but we do have HOV lanes in our area that I do know that we have to keep open due to federal funding. Its crazy we have these lanes as they get little use and they would be better used as just another lane to help with trafic.[/quote]

Or people could get off their ass and actually carpool. That'd help traffic too.