Results 1 to 10 of 29
#1 For all the closet Repubs who use the term "far left" on this board--
06-26-2008, 11:12 PM
- Join Date
- May 2008
- North of Atlanta
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is what is considered a poorly formed trap.
eridani (1000+ posts) Thu Jun-26-08 09:31 PM
For all the closet Repubs who use the term "far left" on this board--
--could you please name one single actual POLICY proposal that you think is "far left"?
leftofthedial (1000+ posts) Thu Jun-26-08 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
2. I'm no repuke, closeted or otherwise,
but it's pretty clear that restoration of habeas corpus is now "far left." it's clear that the notion of three co-equal branches of government is now "far left." it's clear that the notion of the Constitution, except for an excerpted phrase from the Second Amendment is "far left."slackmaster (1000+ posts) Thu Jun-26-08 09:34 PM
Response to Original message
5. I've never been a Republican but I'd say proposals to nationalize the oil industry are pretty far
To the left.Thanks to SarasotaRepub for your help! :D
SonnabendGuest06-27-2008, 05:56 AM--could you please name one single actual POLICY proposal that you think is "far left"?
JohnGuest06-27-2008, 06:08 AM
First one that comes to mind: Treating enemy combatants as if they were common criminals instead of POWs. That's far left.
Socializing Healthcare: Considering healthcare is in shambles while only half socialized, imagine it's state when it's fully socialized. The socialization/nationalization of an entire industry exists only in the wet dreams of the far left. Your next and more erotic we dream is the energy industry isn't it?
Another far left idea: The idea that the federal government has any access to or authority over the education system of a community. Any leftist who wishes to brainwash a population by defining curriculum at a federal level is thus living in a 'far left' wet dream.
If you come up, or agree with, an idea such as the socialism of healthcare or the federal takeover of education, you are far left, right next to Stalin, and you are fucked up human being. Don't vote. Get help.
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
06-27-2008, 12:21 PMAt Coretta Scott King's funeral in early 2006, Ethel Kennedy, the widow of Robert Kennedy, leaned over to him and whispered, "The torch is being passed to you." "A chill went up my spine," Obama told an aide. (Newsweek)
JohnGuest06-28-2008, 07:00 AM
(Moderator, take notice and please extract the drama into a thread of it's own following. As I'm sure some members would rather discuss the topic as posted vice a disagreement between members).
I've read the opinion of the SCOTUS as well as the dissent of Scalia and his joinees. I believe that the rule of the constitution *should* cage the federal government, not matter how long it's arms become. The constitution is a set of rules and regulations that define the federal government as well as the extent of its power. Geographical location does not void these rules anymore than the nationality of the subject in question does. However, that isn't really the question here is it? The liberals would like America to believe that geographical location is the question...but it's not.
The real question is simple: Are the detainees at GetMo an enemy combatant (I.E. a POW) or are they a civilian suspected of a crime? If they are a POW, then they are processed the exact same as a VC insurgent was processed in 1965. That means each GetMo detainee can take one of three paths. If they are suspected of a war crime, then they get a tribunal. If they are 'foot soldiers', who do not, 'think for themselves', then they can be expected to be paroled or to be held until an end to hostilities. This isn't anything new. Holding POWs until the end of hostilities is at least as old as the revolutionary war. No one gave the hundred of thousands of German and Japanese prisoners any right to trial, it would have been impossible. Likewise, no one hesitated to hold tribunals for Axis WWII OICs.
It should be simple, but it's not. It' s because of the internal politics of the Republican party. We can blame no one else. Everyone expects voices of dissent to be silenced within the socialist party...er democrats...whatever. Everyone expects democrats to present a unified front while it burns every voice who disagrees with a particular point. The Republican party used to be different in that respect. What made the republican party so successful was that, in the Goldwater era, we would have had debate internally about this issue, and both sides would have been aired. The Republicans should be addressing the status of GetMo prisoners through public, very public, discourse and debate. Instead they flay and burn anyone who says they should be given a trial. I find it absurd that the republican party is so afraid of dissent, that it doesn't even want to hear suggestions from within it's own party.
I seriously, and honestly believe that if the G.Q. Public were to witness a debate over weather Al-Haminijad -Ali Mohommed Al-Akram was a civilian suspected of a crime or an enemy of the U.S. in combatant status, we would have different story.
Basically the republican party has gone the way of the democrats by silencing or ridiculing public discourse against party standing. That means the only party left who accepts the practice of 'talk it out' is the Libertarian party. Thats hurtful to the republicans in two areas: First, the libs have a head start on silencing voices of dissent. They are way better at silencing those who go against the status quo than we are. They've been doing it since formation. Finally, republican positions, with the exception of the religious angle, simply cannot survive public scrutiny unless they are the right thing to do.
The idea of the Republican party providing a choice of leaders to the market of voters is not new. The Democrats only ever....ever.....provide a single leader to lead us to Marxist beauty. Usually the republicans provide a marketplace of different opinions and trust their "core" to choose the most likely. That didn't happen in this election, otherwise Huck Vs. Paul would have been a reality. Instead McCain was given the nod, *without addressing dissents in opinions among the repub party!!*. The Republican party figured that dissent didn't need to be addressed.....after all, if you dissent from the republican party, you are a non-hacker,a non-American
Well, now the republican party is faced with double digit Hussein Obama leads. Those of you who refused to accept discourse and public debate were essentially sacrificing a public quorum for your individual ideas of right and wrong.
I don't know how better to summarize my argument other than: Democrats have historically won elections through deceit or misdirection. How else would anyone vote for a Marxist within these borders? However, over the last few years Republicans have been elected using the same ploys. Any tool the republican party has at keeping their chosen tool in check has been rendered ineffective. Therefore, we Republican voters have to be more die hard, we have to be more astutue. WE don't want another Bush Jr. in the oval office. We want Goldwater Sr. to have his chance.
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
06-27-2008, 08:40 AMOriginally Posted by eridani
Reinstituting the 'Fairness' Doctrine
Redistribution of Wealth
Just a few off the top of my head.Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|