The Grand New Party

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I guess our treaties and committments to NATO/Japan/Taiwan etc. don't matter.

Also, ever heard the best defense is a good offense. Bottom line, there are people who would like to impose their will on others through use of force. They don't becasue we have a bigger stick. We pull back our front line bases and we're potentially giving ground to bad guys. Bad guys don't stop, they keep going when they sense weakness. We keep our front line bases out there and make the enemies keep playing defense.

No those treatise mean nothing because the Japanese and Koreans don't have armies in Afghanistan. Look how many troops the Germans and French gave to help us out. That's a big slap in the face if you ask me. We save them from invasion but when it comes time for them to pony up, it's eff you.

Bigger stick? The cold war is over. There is no use for NATO anymore other than to sell weapons. Bad guys, what-ever? You must be a true believer. Who cares of Iran, or N.Korea gets the bomb? We've got thousands of them and can make them quickly. We're the only people who've ever used them too!

Do you actually believe that the Chinese or Russians could get an armada across the pacific without being nuked? All it takes is one Sub to survive and Russia and China would get leveled. So eff em. I'm not affraid of those Commie bastards. They out numbered us in Korea too but they couldn't beat us.

Why leave 150k troops on the N.Korean border when the S.Koreans have a million? I'm not going to die for Isreal. Feel free to take my place.

This is the problem with Americans in general, Democrat and Republican. Somehow, somewhere, some of us got bamboozled into thinking we were the light of the world and the world's policemen. That's nothing more than Wilson Progressive Socialist BS. There's nothing new about it and it gets young men killed for nothing.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

No those treatise mean nothing because the Japanese and Koreans don't have armies in Afghanistan. Look how many troops the Germans and French gave to help us out. That's a big slap in the face if you ask me. We save them from invasion but when it comes time for them to pony up, it's eff you.

The treaties we have in place have nothing to do with Afghanistan. We are not at war with Afghanistan

Bigger stick? The cold war is over. There is no use for NATO anymore other than to sell weapons.

That's why former Soviet bloc countries want to be part of NATO. Does NATO have the same significance it once did, of course not. But pulling our forward deployed troops home makes it a whole lot harder to project firepower where we need it and sends a real bad message to the hard-liners in Russia.

Bad guys, what-ever? You must be a true believer. Who cares of Iran, or N.Korea gets the bomb? We've got thousands of them and can make them quickly. We're the only people who've ever used them too!

I couldn't care less if Israel is wiped out or S. Korea, you're right, screw them. Let's say Iran drops a nuke on Israel and we respond and hit Iran, how many millions of people will die in this exchange? How about N. & S. Korea? I guess it would be OK to just stand by and say, "It's not our problem". How many U.S. servicemen exactly have died confronting Iran or N. Korea in the last 20 years?

This is the problem with Americans in general, Democrat and Republican. Somehow, somewhere, some of us got bamboozled into thinking we were the light of the world and the world's policemen. That's nothing more than Wilson Progressive Socialist BS. There's nothing new about it and it gets young men killed for nothing.

This is the problem with the strict Libertarian isolationist BS. Stopping the communists from taking the Korea peninsula was not "nothing". Bringing down the Berlin Wall was not "nothing". The millions of lives that were saved by the actions of the U.S. over the last 80 years is not "nothing". No nation has saved more lives and helped more people live in freedom in the history of the world. Had we sat back and not gotten involved in WWI or WWII the world would be a much worse place. Had we not stopped the Soviet Union's expansion the world would be a much worse place.

No one is advocating being the "world's policeman", but this is 2009, not 1789 and the world is a much more interconnected place than the founding father's envisioned.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

No those treatise mean nothing because the Japanese and Koreans don't have armies in Afghanistan. Look how many troops the Germans and French gave to help us out. That's a big slap in the face if you ask me. We save them from invasion but when it comes time for them to pony up, it's eff you.

Bigger stick? The cold war is over. There is no use for NATO anymore other than to sell weapons. Bad guys, what-ever? You must be a true believer. Who cares of Iran, or N.Korea gets the bomb? We've got thousands of them and can make them quickly. We're the only people who've ever used them too!

Do you actually believe that the Chinese or Russians could get an armada across the pacific without being nuked? All it takes is one Sub to survive and Russia and China would get leveled. So eff em. I'm not affraid of those Commie bastards. They out numbered us in Korea too but they couldn't beat us.

Why leave 150k troops on the N.Korean border when the S.Koreans have a million? I'm not going to die for Isreal. Feel free to take my place.

This is the problem with Americans in general, Democrat and Republican. Somehow, somewhere, some of us got bamboozled into thinking we were the light of the world and the world's policemen. That's nothing more than Wilson Progressive Socialist BS. There's nothing new about it and it gets young men killed for nothing.

America saved its ass first...everything we do is in our national interest first, someone else's interest second. Period! No one owes us anything beyond a generic thanks and if they do they paid it a long time ago. No one is your indentured servant.

[firstdown]

I just don't get why we as Americans have spent so much time trying to figure out what to do with people who want to kill us. I'm sure the terrorist have been laughing at us everytime they see us arguing over torture and what we can and cannot do when they just chop the peoples heads off.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Fabulous post. Well said.

I was just thinking today about what specific policy initiatives the Republicans could champion since we didn't exactly hear anything like that in Michael Steele's speech yesterday.

The first two that immediately come to mind are tax reform and energy. Those issues seem to be something the American people could relate to, and something Republicans could take the lead on. With taxes, they should really commit to the idea of reforming the tax code, either with a flat tax for every single American or a national retail sales tax. I heard a comment the other day that really stuck with me -- the government should have no right to know how much money you make. The federal income tax is an outdated, inefficient, and unfair way to collect revenue. Highlight these points to distinguish from the Democrats who continue to rely on antiquated taxing methods which date back to the 1860's.

With gas prices sure to rise yet again this summer, we'll have the opportunity to drive the point home that it is insane not to tap our own natural resources to free ourselves from foreign oil.

Obviously the Republicans have no power to carry out these ideas with actual legislation. The point though, is to make the American people associate the GOP with bold, fresh ideas. With congressional elections coming around the corner, they can't afford to wait.

The energy debate was lost last summer to Obama in bipartisan fashion if I am not mistaken. Both Hillary and McCain tried and got booed off the stage. And it seems that the tax debate was lost to Obama too. Recent polls indicate that more Americans think their current tax burden is about right and Obama has no intention of changing the current scheme for those earning under 250k (minus dividend rate hike that's schedule to go into effect in 2014). Plus most Americans don't give a rats ass about people making over 250K so how do you convince them that they're better off under a new tax plan? Everyone has ideas, the key is selling it to as many people as possible so you can reach that 50% + 1 threshold.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I would suggest actually doing some very basic research on the program. Your numbers are grossly overexaggerated and the $$$ from this program has funded much research and development. In addition to the technology advances, the SDI initiative was key into bringing down the Berlin wall.

Strategic Defense Initiative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Social Security and Medicare are vastly more costly entitlement programs, not research and development programs. What tangible items do we have from Social Security and Medicare?

Whooops somebody caught me!!! Seriously the published numbers on SDI are no more reliable than those we get from Halliburton. Look at total DOD outlays since the '80s and we're talking tens of trillions of dollars. The vast majority of that sum is unaccounted for, meaning because it's classified we don't know where it goes, unless chance happens to uncover it. Do u guys remember when those research students uncovered the billions we gave to Pol Pot, supposedly to fight Vietnam? I mean nobody would have thought it possible. There's room for argument where DOD money goes, whether into various SDI related programs or $1000 toilet seats or whatever. My intuition is look for the most complicated, futuristic weapons system and that's where you'll find the black hole. Personally I think that's why Gates has initiated a shift away from that game.

I don't know if your comments on SS and Medicare are serious? I mean what we get is an older population, my very old grandparents included, who can eat and keep a roof over their head. If to you that is worth nothing there's not a lot of room for conversation here...we're coming from vastly different value systems.

...btw I agree w/ CRedskinsRule take on the legitimacy of threats we face. SDI is a wonderful idea...i guess the bottom line is after all this time there's little to show for the investment.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

The treaties we have in place have nothing to do with Afghanistan. We are not at war with Afghanistan

That's why former Soviet bloc countries want to be part of NATO. Does NATO have the same significance it once did, of course not. But pulling our forward deployed troops home makes it a whole lot harder to project firepower where we need it and sends a real bad message to the hard-liners in Russia.

I couldn't care less if Israel is wiped out or S. Korea, you're right, screw them. Let's say Iran drops a nuke on Israel and we respond and hit Iran, how many millions of people will die in this exchange? How about N. & S. Korea? I guess it would be OK to just stand by and say, "It's not our problem". How many U.S. servicemen exactly have died confronting Iran or N. Korea in the last 20 years?

This is the problem with the strict Libertarian isolationist BS. Stopping the communists from taking the Korea peninsula was not "nothing". Bringing down the Berlin Wall was not "nothing". The millions of lives that were saved by the actions of the U.S. over the last 80 years is not "nothing". No nation has saved more lives and helped more people live in freedom in the history of the world. Had we sat back and not gotten involved in WWI or WWII the world would be a much worse place. Had we not stopped the Soviet Union's expansion the world would be a much worse place.

No one is advocating being the "world's policeman", but this is 2009, not 1789 and the world is a much more interconnected place than the founding father's envisioned.

That's fine. You and your children can go die for someone else's freedom. Those same people that you saved will spit in your face after you've given them everything. If sticking your nose in everyone else's business is what you call conservative then I can understand why we had jerks like the Bushes and McCain run the GOP.

NATO is BS. As members of NATO you have to come to the aid of a nation that is attacked. That token army they threw up isn't squat and everyone knows it. Bush tried to get more troops, eff you. Obama thought he'd get more troops because he wasn't "a go it alone guy like Bush". They just told Obama to eff himself too. If we're not at war in Afghanistan then why is our army there, tea, opium? Lie to me, tell me something.

Going into the eastern bloc is a big mistake. If you think Russia will allow Georgia and the Ukraine to become members of NATO without a fight you've got another thing coming. The best thing to do is let the Commies be and not rub their noses in s**t. We might need the Russians in the future.

We didn't bring down the Soviets. Their own ignorant marxist economist brought them down. Just like the ignorant marxist in our government are bringing us down.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

The energy debate was lost last summer to Obama in bipartisan fashion if I am not mistaken. Both Hillary and McCain tried and got booed off the stage. And it seems that the tax debate was lost to Obama too. Recent polls indicate that more Americans think their current tax burden is about right and Obama has no intention of changing the current scheme for those earning under 250k (minus dividend rate hike that's schedule to go into effect in 2014). Plus most Americans don't give a rats ass about people making over 250K so how do you convince them that they're better off under a new tax plan? Everyone has ideas, the key is selling it to as many people as possible so you can reach that 50% + 1 threshold.

Problem is he cannot pay for his agenda by only raising taxes on people making over 250k per year. Its only time until he blames Bush for causing him to increase taxes on people making under 250k. He has already broken a bunch of his campaign promises.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Problem is he cannot pay for his agenda by only raising taxes on people making over 250k per year. Its only time until he blames Bush for causing him to increase taxes on people making under 250k. He has already broken a bunch of his campaign promises.

when did he say this?

[CRedskinsRule]

So, I think I have laid out what I would consider a basic platform for an opposition party:
Increase State's Rights and Responsibilities
- Eliminate "Federal Bribery" laws - or laws where the Federal government forces a State action by withholding funding if the State does not act in accordance with Federal mandates
- Place Responsibility for Education at the State Level by disbanding the Dept of Ed
- Same with others as said earlier
Reduce Federal Obligations and Authority
- bring cabinet positions and Federal policy in line with the ideals of the Constiution
- reduce/eliminate campaign on morality based issues (ie abortion/death penalty) and push for more aggressive campaigns based on limited govt.

Return the Military to a Defense First posture
- in a responsible manner draw down the standing army and increase the role of the Reserve Army.
- increase intelligence assets
- maintain air and naval capabilities

Obviously this is a shell platform, But here are my questions:
a) what level of support would this platform find in the undecided mobs

b)what would your ideal platform include/not include


(70Chip-my thesis for the my GVPT 600 class is tomorrow so I have slacked on work today )

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

when did he say this?

I said it only a matter of time before he blames Bush. So that means its something he is going to do not allready done and its just something I feel he is going to do.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

So, I think I have laid out what I would consider a basic platform for an opposition party:
Increase State's Rights and Responsibilities
- Eliminate "Federal Bribery" laws
- Place Responsibility for Education at the State Level by disbanding the Dept of Ed
- Same with others as said earlier
Reduce Federal Obligations and Authority
- bring cabinet positions and Federal policy in line with the ideals of the Constiution
- reduce/eliminate campaign on morality based issues (ie abortion/death penalty) and push for more aggressive campaigns based on limited govt.

Return the Military to a Defense First posture
- in a responsible manner draw down the standing army and increase the role of the Reserve Army.
- increase intelligence assets
- maintain air and naval capabilities

Obviously this is a shell platform, But here are my questions:
a) what level of support would this platform find in the undecided mobs

b)what would your ideal platform include/not include


(70Chip-my thesis for the my GVPT 600 class is tomorrow so I have slacked on work today )

The rep. brought up the idea about eliminating the Dept of Ed and got bashed for wanting to ruin all the little kids education back in the 80's.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by firstdown

The rep. brought up the idea about eliminating the Dept of Ed and got bashed for wanting to ruin all the little kids education back in the 80's.

I think the Republicans have given very good examples of how NOT to do things at this point. An exception is the Contract for America and the first 100 days into it. Other than that they have been horrible in presenting ideas and follow through. I think the ideas have merits, and could be presented in the media and internet with enough rational thought to win public support. The keys have to be focusing on the States and Local governments taking better care of their kids then an anonymous Federal Bureaucrat.

[CRedskinsRule]

This party would have to be very focused in its message of State's Rights, and State's responsibilities.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by saden1

The energy debate was lost last summer to Obama in bipartisan fashion if I am not mistaken. Both Hillary and McCain tried and got booed off the stage. And it seems that the tax debate was lost to Obama too. Recent polls indicate that more Americans think their current tax burden is about right and Obama has no intention of changing the current scheme for those earning under 250k (minus dividend rate hike that's schedule to go into effect in 2014). Plus most Americans don't give a rats ass about people making over 250K so how do you convince them that they're better off under a new tax plan? Everyone has ideas, the key is selling it to as many people as possible so you can reach that 50% + 1 threshold.

Since most Americans aren't paying the bulk of the taxes I have no doubt they would answer this way.

Americans will start caring about the over $250k per year crowd when the jobs start going away. After all, the high earners in this country are usually their employers.

You cannot help the wage earner by bringing down the wage payer.

I think you can sell the idea of reforming the tax code can work if you sell it right. For instance, everybody pays the same rate. Nothing wrong with that. Then you eliminate withholding. Once everybody has to write a check directly to the government every quarter, people will start paying much more attention to how much is taken out of their paychecks, spending will get under control real quick. Then there's the privacy issue. As I said earlier, I'll bet most Americans would agree that the federal government has no right to know how much money you make, what you contribute to savings, or what you put into retirement. Just like the privacy issue, which most Americans like, the same should go for their bank accounts.

Our financial situation is none of the government's business. Sell it that way, and I think you've got yourself an issue that can win.