The Grand New Party

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

WOW, where to start.

Dept of Ed gone

Department of Defense, restored to a self - defense posture
Army -Reserves only, 2yr compulsory service, with a Officer Corp maintained.
Air Force and Navy Funded, but for defense of borders and trade only
NASA gone (privatized)

Dept. of Health and Human Services gone

Dept of State, fully funded

Department of Justice, funded for Judicial Branch requirements.

Department of the Treasury funded for printing money, and protecting American currency from fraud

Department of Housing and Urban Development gone

Department of Transportation, funded as necessary for maintain interstate commerce.

Department of Interior, probably subsumed mostly gone

Department of Agriculture, Fully funded, perhaps put food assistance to the poor here.

Department of Commerce funded for appropriate regulatory agencies

Department of Labor fully funded

Department of Energy fully funded

Department of Homeland Security gone (goodby big brother)

Department of Veterans Affairs placed under DOD.

I suppose thats a start, most anything that creates a dependency on the federal government, rather than a reliance on self, family and local community, ought to be out and out eliminated. And before anyone cries how awful, and cruel. Remember the federal government does not create money out of thin air(if they do we are in serious trouble.) If our government's payroll was reduced, more could go to individuals/local communities/charities and state governments in order to handle the needs of the local community and people.

Also, this is a pipe dream, I know it will NEVER happen, and if it did, it would be so painful as to be apocalyptic in nature. But our Federal government was established to maintain a framework in which the States, unique and distinct could take care of their own needs. We are now much closer to the England of King George, than we are of the United (but individual) States of America.

Now that's Conservativism. Why is it that when someone says conservative people think of Bibles, abortion, or homosexual special interest?

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Now that's Conservativism. Why is it that when someone says conservative people think of Bibles, abortion, or homosexual special interest?

I was conservatively drunk the day my mom got out of the abortion clinic, and I went to pick her bible up in the RAIN. But before I could get to the bible emporium, she got runned over by a homosexual train.....
--New age Conservative David Allen Coe

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Now that's Conservativism. Why is it that when someone says conservative people think of Bibles, abortion, or homosexual special interest?

Holy smokes this has been my point. And I agree a lot with the principles stated there.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Now that's Conservativism. Why is it that when someone says conservative people think of Bibles, abortion, or homosexual special interest?

Because those are the people that jump on TV at any point that they can. The two groups aren't completely exclusive either, there's a lil Venn Diagram action going on there.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Essentially, the question is where do fiscal conservatives go now that the social conservatives have co-opted the Republican party?

Can a group based on fiscal conservatism and limited government be viable? OR will any such group attract and be subsumed by anti-government groups and/or social conservatives.

Can fiscal conservatives remain allied with social conservatives and still be relevant or is it a catch-22? We need them for a majority but in gaining their support we lose the core values of fiscal restraint by the government, personal responsibility and limited, but appropriate, govt. regulation (i.e. oversight of banking, insurance, interstate trade, etc.)?

IMO it will be real difficult to have a third party because a split in the GOP and a fiscal conservative/socially moderate party won't pull many Dems. It would just solidify the Dems control on the government and guarantee expanded gov't, higher taxes and liberal social engineering.

The social conservatives need to wake up and let the GOP frame the gay marriage/abortion/other social issues as a "state's rights" issue vs. a gay/straight or abortion/anti-abortion issue. The "what works in Kansas doesn't work in CA" is an argument I think most people get. This would allow the GOP to seem more interested in the reduction of the size & scope of the federal government rather than in pushing their moral beliefs on others. That stance should attract independents and moderates. The social conservatives need to understand if we don't get fiscal control of the government within the next election cycle, a 6-8 year span of a Dem President and Dem Congress will do irreperable harm to the country fiscally. It also won't matter what social issue they social conservatives have, the districts and census will be so gerry-mandered the GOP will be a minority party for 50+ years and they won't have a snowballs chance of getting any ground on their agenda.

Put fiscal responsibility first and find candidates that don't have skeletons in closets or are sold out to special interests. Fight the social issues at the state and local level and make the Dems/liberals appear to be the ones trying to force their agenda down everyone's throat at the federal level.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

IMO it will be real difficult to have a third party because a split in the GOP and a fiscal conservative/socially moderate party won't pull many Dems. It would just solidify the Dems control on the government and guarantee expanded gov't, higher taxes and liberal social engineering.

The social conservatives need to wake up and let the GOP frame the gay marriage/abortion/other social issues as a "state's rights" issue vs. a gay/straight or abortion/anti-abortion issue. The "what works in Kansas doesn't work in CA" is an argument I think most people get. This would allow the GOP to seem more interested in the reduction of the size & scope of the federal government rather than in pushing their moral beliefs on others. That stance should attract independents and moderates. The social conservatives need to understand if we don't get fiscal control of the government within the next election cycle, a 6-8 year span of a Dem President and Dem Congress will do irreperable harm to the country fiscally. It also won't matter what social issue they social conservatives have, the districts and census will be so gerry-mandered the GOP will be a minority party for 50+ years and they won't have a snowballs chance of getting any ground on their agenda.

Put fiscal responsibility first and find candidates that don't have skeletons in closets or are sold out to special interests. Fight the social issues at the state and local level and make the Dems/liberals appear to be the ones trying to force their agenda down everyone's throat at the federal level.

I thought by law they were State's Rights issues because the Constitution doesn't cover reproduction or sodomy. Why is abortion or homosexuals issues anyway?

[70Chip]

Cityfile: Meltdown With Keith Olbermann!

[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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

I thought by law they were State's Rights issues because the Constitution doesn't cover reproduction or sodomy. Why is abortion or homosexuals issues anyway?

That's what I thought too. What the issues are should be decided by the courts if conflicts between states or constitutionality arise.

[70Chip]

When the other side has the ball, you wait for them to fumble. The Democrats didn't get back on top through arduous debate and self reflection. They did it by waiting, and waiting, and waiting until Conservative Republicanism shot itself in the foot. Hell, the reason Conservatism was so strong since 1978 was because the Liberal Democrats themselves ran out of gas. It's a pendulum. So there is nothing to do now but wait. The Dems have the ball, let's see what they do with it.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

When the other side has the ball, you wait for them to fumble. The Democrats didn't get back on top through arduous debate and self reflection. They did it by waiting, and waiting, and waiting until Conservative Republicanism shot itself in the foot. Hell, the reason Conservatism was so strong since 1978 was because the Liberal Democrats themselves ran out of gas. It's a pendulum. So there is nothing to do now but wait. The Dems have the ball, let's see what they do with it.

That's a pretty simple, yet pretty accurate way to state it, I think. And I agree with FRPLG and TTE on the direction the "definition" of conservatism has swung.

[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

[JoeRedskin]

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.

[BringBackJoeT]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

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 now. 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.