Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38
  1. #21  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,275
    Quote Originally Posted by lacarnut View Post
    Keep up the good work of absitinence. After you get that monkey off your back, give up the cancer sticks.
    It really is not that hard if you put your mind to it, and you will feel 100% better.
    I quit everything in one day weed, tobacco, alcohol it was painful but I started them all at once. Jumped in then jumped out. It has been 16 years now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The West
    Posts
    1,618
    Quote Originally Posted by Water Closet View Post
    Go for it. Run an anti-abortion, anti-immigration, anti-gay marriage conservative. And we'll see. :D
    How did that "anti-immigration" get in there? Did you mean "anti- illegal immigration?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The West
    Posts
    1,618
    The Repubs should do what CW implies, so that we can win. After all, that's what's more important, isn't it? The policies or governing philosophy aren't as important as having more candidates with R's by their names. Does it really matter if there are simply two parties with minor differences between them? Sort of like regular beer and light beer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Water Closet View Post
    Go for it. Run an anti-abortion, anti-immigration, anti-gay marriage conservative. And we'll see. :D
    Hmmm... Let's see... Obama ran as an anti-gay marriage moderate (there are no liberals, only moderates and rightwingers, according to our national media), and it seemed to help him. McCain was pro-illegal immigration (I know very few people in any party who oppose legal immigration, but that's part of the disingenuousness of the amnesty debate, since it's widely known that a majority of Americans including immigrants favor reductions in illegal immigration), and he lost. So those two positions don't really seem to resonate, now do they? As for Abortion, Reagan ran as a pro-lifer, as did both Bushes, and Clinton promised to make it "safe, legal and rare," which certainly implies at least some restrictions. But, okay, let's find a candidate whose positions are as follows:
    • Abortion: A state that has no regard for the lives of the most defenseless will have no regard for the lives and property of anyone. In addition, the federalization of the abortion issue creates precedents for expansion of federal authority into areas that it has no business in. Therefore, I will appoint judges who will follow the original intent of the Constitution and who will overturn Roe v. Wade, which will return the issue to the state legislatures and medical boards, where it belongs.
    • Immigration: As a descendent of immigrants, I would be truly ungrateful if I were to deny the benefits of our nation to those who seek to come here to enjoy the freedoms that we have been given at such great cost, and which we must continue to guard. However, if we are to remain free, we must make some hard decisions on immigration, identifying what we expect of immigrants, and what they can expect from America.

      First, it is not too much to expect that immigrants will obey our laws and respect our institutions. Those immigrants who come here and seek to undermine either, through crime, indolence or as agents of hostile foreign entities, have no place in America. We can argue about the case of an otherwise law-abiding immigrant whose visa has expired but continues to work and build a life for himself and his family, but we should all agree that an immigrant who enters the country illegally and commits felonies here has no place in America and should be deported. This is already our law, and yet hundreds of cities and towns declare themselves "sanctuary" cities, making it illegal for their police to inform ICE when they have taken an illegal into custody on a felony warrant. That is madness.

      Similarly, those immigrants who enter illegally and then become a burden, taking benefits paid for by American citizens, driving up the cost of health care, education and all of the other services which citizens expect in return for their taxes have no business here, literally. Again, one can argue the value added by laborers who support themselves and their families and are not a burden, but those who demand all and return nothing have no place here. Finally, I speak of those who take up the causes of our enemies, who belong to front organizations from which they raise funds for, or make apologies for, terrorists, have no place here. As we have seen in the case of the Holy Land Fund, violent extremist groups have used such organizations to infiltrate the United States and act as agents for these groups. They disseminate hate, finance murder, recruit terrorists and use their positions to crush dissent within the communities that they claim to represent, ultimately doing their worst to destroy our Constitutional order. There is no place here for them. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

      In return, legal immigrants can expect what our ancestors received. They will be free, they will have the opportunity to build new lives and to provide for their children in the safety of a free society. They will not have to live in fear of their government, nor will they have to kowtow to it. We will assist in those things that help them to become Americans, including a solid foundation in English language in the public schools, which will ensure that their children will be able to function and prosper in America. We will protect their rights as Americans, and we will ensure that they exercise the obligations that come with those rights.
    • Gay Marriage: When our current president said, and I quote, “I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman,” I believe that he articulated a position which is compatible with the laws and traditions of the United States. When he told Rick Warren, “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman." and “For me as a Christian, it is a sacred union. You know, God is in the mix.” and that "[he is] not someone who supports same-sex marriage but [does] believe in civil unions,” he expressed the position of the vast majority of Americans, a position that does not radically redefine one of the most basic institutions in our nation.

    Quote Originally Posted by BadCat View Post
    Running a candidate like that would be a nice change for the Republican party.
    There's the speech. Find me a candidate to say it and let's see what happens.
    Quote Originally Posted by Water Closet View Post
    Good. Do it! Let's see if they get 40%.
    Reagan got over 60%, Nixon got 72%, Bush 41 swamped Dukakis and Bush 43 beat Kerry handily. True, Bush 41 lost reelection, but in the words of James Carville, it was "the economy, stupid." As for Bush 43 and Gore, for an incumbent vice president running during a time of economic growth and budget surpluses as well as an absence of major global conflicts and to still barely eke out 50.0001% of the vote, well, that tells me that the American people weren't that impressed with his being pro-choice, pro-immigration (and let's face it, was there ever a candidate who was better at raising campaign funds from illegal immigrations sources than Gore?) and pro-gay.
    Quote Originally Posted by marinejcksn View Post
    The question isn't if, but when. I support Obama as my president, just as I would've supported McCain (even though both their policies suck). But what he's pushing wont work. It never has in the past. Since I started AA, I constantly hear people say that I can't keep drinking like I did and expect a different result, because that's a definition of insanity. If someone like me; just a high school educated Marine with a drinking problem can see that doing things that failed in the past generally leads to more failure, why can't our President?
    He's not a Marine. :D
    Last edited by Odysseus; 05-15-2009 at 12:15 PM.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Pleasant Valley
    Posts
    639
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    ...
    There's the speech. Find me a candidate to say it and let's see what happens.
    ...
    Aren't those Dead Fred's and The Gnewt's positions? Run one, or better, both on the same ticket. Or maybe Dead Fred and the new abstinence-only Grandmother from Alaska. Go for it,. please! And it will be the end of this crap for decades.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Senior Member marinejcksn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Penn State
    Posts
    1,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Water Closet View Post
    Aren't those Dead Fred's and The Gnewt's positions? Run one, or better, both on the same ticket. Or maybe Dead Fred and the new abstinence-only Grandmother from Alaska. Go for it,. please! And it will be the end of this crap for decades.
    If the Elephants want to win in 2012, here's the platform they should follow:

    1. Cutting Federal Spending on all fronts not essential to the Nation. Pledge to veto any legislation regarding Future bailouts of ANY industry; Chapter 11 is there for a reason and American taxpayers should never be on the hook for the poor actions of private companies.

    2. Leaving Abortion to the States rather then the Feds, run a candidate who supports a woman's right to choose but opposes Partial Birth and vows to cut all Federal spending for Abortions. The Federal Government should not be subsidizing something like Abortion.

    3. Lowering taxes by at least 10% on EVERYTHING (personal income tax, estate tax, Capital Gains, Corporate tax, etc.)

    4. Allowing states on the Southern border to begin construction on the wall from day 1.

    5. Establish Medical Savings Accounts, deregulate the Health Care Industry and Remove barriers to safe, affordable medicine.

    6. End Welfare, both private and Corporate. Begin a tax credit on a dollar-for-dollar basis for contributions to private charities and reform Education through school vouchers and increased Parental choice.

    7. Begin to privatize Social Security. Allow younger Generations to begin opting out of the program and planning for our own retirement rather then continue to prop up a failed ponzi scheme.

    8. Make a SERIOUS effort to break our dependence on foreign oil, by cutting Corporate taxes on private energy companies on a dollar-for-dollar basis for every cent they spend researching alternative fuels. At the same time, allow for clean Nuclear plants to be constructed, reduce restrictions on Coal and Coal to Oil creation, open ANWR and Continental Shelf areas to drilling and elliminate CAFE standards on vehicles built in the US.
    "Don't vote. It only encourages the bastards." -PJ O'Roarke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Water Closet View Post
    Aren't those Dead Fred's and The Gnewt's positions? Run one, or better, both on the same ticket. Or maybe Dead Fred and the new abstinence-only Grandmother from Alaska. Go for it,. please! And it will be the end of this crap for decades.
    Or the beginning of eight years of competent leadership. Not that it matters. Newt won't run for anything, having had his fill of Washington, and Fred has shown a singular lack of interest in running for it. Palin has better chops than you give her credit for, and I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. But, here's the funny thing: Back during the primaries, I was a Giuliani supporter. I know that he's pro-choice and gay rights, but he's pro-choice the way that most sane people are, which is that while he doesn't want it banned in all cases, he believes that it is none of the government's business, and he would kick it back to the states. On gay rights, he is of the opinion that all citizens have the same rights and he opposes singling any group out for special privileges (and, BTW, gays do have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals, they can marry any person of the opposite sex above the age of consent who will have them). I also recall that mine was a singularly lonely position here, and given your libertarian leanings, I'd have thought that Rudy would have been a lock for you. But, since he wasn't, I'm curious: Who was your first choice for the nomination in 2008?
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Pleasant Valley
    Posts
    639
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Or the beginning of eight years of competent leadership. Not that it matters. Newt won't run for anything, having had his fill of Washington, and Fred has shown a singular lack of interest in running for it. Palin has better chops than you give her credit for, and I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. But, here's the funny thing: Back during the primaries, I was a Giuliani supporter. I know that he's pro-choice and gay rights, but he's pro-choice the way that most sane people are, which is that while he doesn't want it banned in all cases, he believes that it is none of the government's business, and he would kick it back to the states. On gay rights, he is of the opinion that all citizens have the same rights and he opposes singling any group out for special privileges (and, BTW, gays do have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals, they can marry any person of the opposite sex above the age of consent who will have them). I also recall that mine was a singularly lonely position here, and given your libertarian leanings, I'd have thought that Rudy would have been a lock for you. But, since he wasn't, I'm curious: Who was your first choice for the nomination in 2008?
    The same as you, Rudy, of course, for all the reasons you've noted. However, he wasn't a particular favorite on this board.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Super Moderator BadCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    In your dreams
    Posts
    15,616
    Quote Originally Posted by Water Closet View Post
    The same as you, Rudy, of course, for all the reasons you've noted. However, he wasn't a particular favorite on this board.
    Well, this is supposedly a Conservative board, would you expect something different?

    rm -rf obama*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Senior Member marinejcksn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Penn State
    Posts
    1,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Water Closet View Post
    The same as you, Rudy, of course, for all the reasons you've noted. However, he wasn't a particular favorite on this board.
    I always loved Rudy. He was my choice after Fred dropped and Duncan Hunter stalled.
    "Don't vote. It only encourages the bastards." -PJ O'Roarke
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •