Disgusted With Obama Administration.
-
BGFalcons82
I'll have to ask majorspark which clause or amendment in the Constitution states that the government shall provide free birth control for all at the expense of everyone.QuakerOats;1060412 wrote:Just another day in dictator-land ............
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/205413-obama-administration-orders-health-plans-to-cover-birth-control-without-co-pays
Change we can believe in .... -
I Wear Pants
Tough decision. Do you want to pay for a bunch more kids and their education and health care, etc,etc or for birth control?BGFalcons82;1060460 wrote:I'll have to ask majorspark which clause or amendment in the Constitution states that the government shall provide free birth control for all at the expense of everyone. -
majorspark
Only if you want to ignore the constitution.I Wear Pants;1060489 wrote:Tough decision. -
believer
The left doesn't ignore the Constitition. You forget that the lefties view the Constitution as a living, breathing document subject to loose interpretation.majorspark;1060491 wrote:Only if you want to ignore the constitution. -
I Wear Pants
OWS doesn't like Obama.IggyPride00;1055572 wrote:Obama has announced today that he will accept the Democrat party nomination at Bank of America stadium in Charlotte at the party's convention later this year.
I wonder if there will be an outcry from his liberal base about the President accepting the nomination at a Wall Street sponsored venue when he will most certainly have the OWS crowd out agitating chaos.
I wonder if they will trot the Greek columns back out, or if they will build a new monstrosity for the Dear Leader?
I like though how he needs to the 75,000 seat stadiums for his coronation because the boring old 18,000 seat arenas that are traditionally used are beneath him. -
majorspark
Nearly all of them will vote for Obama over Willard the capitalist pig. Willard is the embodiment of everything there whole movement stands against.I Wear Pants;1060851 wrote:OWS doesn't like Obama. -
I Wear Pants
True.majorspark;1060956 wrote:Nearly all of them will vote for Obama over Willard the capitalist pig. Willard is the embodiment of everything there whole movement stands against.
But you can make the same argument with some things that the Tea Party favors that the Republican candidate likely won't. But they'll still vote for him. -
Cleveland Buck
There is no such thing as the Tea Party anymore. They have been absorbed back into the party establishment. -
believer
Good thing we still have the Righteous Paulists who will help insure we enjoy 4 more seasons of the Barry & Michelle Show.Cleveland Buck;1061521 wrote:There is no such thing as the Tea Party anymore. They have been absorbed back into the party establishment. -
I Wear Pants
I can't believe you actually have this big of a problem with the only conservative in the field. You do nothing but mock the guy and his supporters (Righteous Ron, St. Paul, you Paulists, etc) for simply thinking he has a good platform. Usually you don't actually refute or try to disagree with what he said or he stands for but merely harp on that you find him unelectable. That's what we have wrong here.believer;1061591 wrote:Good thing we still have the Righteous Paulists who will help insure we enjoy 4 more seasons of the Barry & Michelle Show. -
BGFalcons82
Ron Paul is not a conservative. He is a libertarian. Once you understand the difference, you will understand why conservatives have issues with him. Conservatives believe in limited government, the rule of law, equal opportunities for all, and a strong national defense. Contrary to what the media spews, conservatives believe there are certain things the government should provide.I Wear Pants;1061961 wrote:I can't believe you actually have this big of a problem with the only conservative in the field. You do nothing but mock the guy and his supporters (Righteous Ron, St. Paul, you Paulists, etc) for simply thinking he has a good platform. Usually you don't actually refute or try to disagree with what he said or he stands for but merely harp on that you find him unelectable. That's what we have wrong here.
It's been stated ad nauseum, but here goes again: His beliefs in pseudo-isolationist policies (non-interventionalist is the word he uses to make him sound so much better than all the others) and his libertarian view that drug use is A-OK as long as it doesn't hurt anyone do not make him a conservative. I will agree his free-market policies, his stances on taxes, and getting government out of the way are conservative views but it ends there. For an example of the best conservative of the past 40 years, Ronald Reagan believed in these things AND a strong national defense.
Speaking of Reagan, did you know that Nancy was his 2nd wife? I suppose that means he had bad morals, too, eh? -
Cleveland Buck
I don't know. Was he fucking her while asking for a divorce from his 1st wife while she was in the hospital?BGFalcons82;1062015 wrote: Speaking of Reagan, did you know that Nancy was his 2nd wife? I suppose that means he had bad morals, too, eh? -
Cleveland Buck
The foreign policy of a strong national defense based at home (which is Ron Paul's foreign policy) is the only conservative foreign policy, as it has been throughout our history. If you believe in the Wilsonian progressive policy of making the world "safe for democracy", then that is fine, just don't call it conservative. Just because Fox says something is conservative doesn't make it so.
The policy of letting the states deal with drugs as they see fit is not conservative or progressive, it is constitutional. It is the law. There is absolutely zero authority for the federal government to have any say in drug laws. Ron Paul is the most conservative political figure in this country in at least 100 years. Mark Levin's opinion or Sean Hannity's opinion doesn't change that. What you are standing up for is big R Republican, not conservative or even republican in the real meaning of the word. -
isadore
no he was to busy then spreading racism and trying to resurrect Jim Crow.Cleveland Buck;1062051 wrote:I don't know. Was he ****ing her while asking for a divorce from his 1st wife while she was in the hospital? -
Cleveland Buck
I believe it. He had time since he dodged the draft.isadore;1062082 wrote:no he was to busy then spreading racism and trying to resurrect Jim Crow. -
BGFalcons82
I believe in Reagan's vision of a strong national defense, which he used to defeat the Soviets without firing a shot. I'm sure you are aware of how he did this and it is the antithesis of Paul's views. While I am NOT arguing for the same build-up at this point in time, I am NOT for cutting the Defense budget as Mr. Paul is insisting. Once again, Paul's not holding a conservative viewpoint on this issue. Although, I'm not sure how I could have determined this viewpoint decades ago as Fox wasn't in business then. Shocking, eh?Cleveland Buck;1062064 wrote:The foreign policy of a strong national defense based at home (which is Ron Paul's foreign policy) is the only conservative foreign policy, as it has been throughout our history. If you believe in the Wilsonian progressive policy of making the world "safe for democracy", then that is fine, just don't call it conservative. Just because Fox says something is conservative doesn't make it so. -
ptown_trojans_1
You can't take the U.S. foreign policy back to the 19th century, that is not the way the world works anymore. Yes, there areas where the U.S. is stretched too thing, but you cannot dramatically change U.S. foreign policy-it is too much intertwined with the global economy, like it or not. That is too much of a shock to the system and would destroy alliances and economies around the world.Cleveland Buck;1062064 wrote:The foreign policy of a strong national defense based at home (which is Ron Paul's foreign policy) is the only conservative foreign policy, as it has been throughout our history. If you believe in the Wilsonian progressive policy of making the world "safe for democracy", then that is fine, just don't call it conservative. Just because Fox says something is conservative doesn't make it so.
You can't put the genie back in the bottle. You can't reverse history.
Republican's today should look to Ike as a model. Fund R&D, use covert action, limit the growth of the military industrial complex, cut involvements with large scale forces overseas, and establish containment and asymmetrical deterrence in East Asia. -
ptown_trojans_1
It nearly led to nuclear war in 1981 and 1983. He also completely changed his tune in 1985 once Gorbachev came to power. Reagan himself didn't end the Cold War, it was a combination of him, Thatcher, Gorbachev, the Soviet economy finally giving out, and the idea of containment that Kennan wrote about in 1947 that Truman took and made official policy.BGFalcons82;1062097 wrote:I believe in Reagan's vision of a strong national defense, which he used to defeat the Soviets without firing a shot.
Go back and read the article in Foreign Affairs by X (Kennan) in 1947, which pretty much laid the ground work for the end of the Cold War.
Oh, and it actually ended under HW Bush in 1991, not Reagan. -
Cleveland Buck
The Soviets defeated themselves by doing what we are doing. Centrally planning the economy and spreading ourselves all over the world. Reagan understood the Middle East pretty well though late in his term. After we lost those Marines in Beirut he pulled out of there, not being arrogant enough to think we should involve ourselves in their affairs. If that happened now you would be calling for every towel head in a 1,000 mile radius be vaporized. And once again, Paul is holding the conservative viewpoint. You are holding the Republican viewpoint.BGFalcons82;1062097 wrote:I believe in Reagan's vision of a strong national defense, which he used to defeat the Soviets without firing a shot. I'm sure you are aware of how he did this and it is the antithesis of Paul's views. While I am NOT arguing for the same build-up at this point in time, I am NOT for cutting the Defense budget as Mr. Paul is insisting. Once again, Paul's not holding a conservative viewpoint on this issue. Although, I'm not sure how I could have determined this viewpoint decades ago as Fox wasn't in business then. Shocking, eh? -
BGFalcons82
Huh...didn't know drug trafficking is in the Constitution as a protected class. I know that's not what you meant, but when drugs are trafficked across borders and transported across state lines, then by definition it is a federal concern. Personally, I think the prisons are too full of marijuana and recreational-users. I think there needs to be some changes in this area. This does not mean that I believe in the wanton use of heroin, crack, LSD, opiates, and other such dangerous drugs. Just like alcoholism, drug use has victims other than the users and I don't believe in the libertarian viewpoint that they don't.Cleveland Buck;1062064 wrote:The policy of letting the states deal with drugs as they see fit is not conservative or progressive, it is constitutional. It is the law. There is absolutely zero authority for the federal government to have any say in drug laws. Ron Paul is the most conservative political figure in this country in at least 100 years. Mark Levin's opinion or Sean Hannity's opinion doesn't change that. What you are standing up for is big R Republican, not conservative or even republican in the real meaning of the word.
Mark Levin is the consummate conservative. I'm not sure why you feel the need to lambaste him, but he represents the conservative viewpoint better than anyone else alive. -
isadore
With Newt it is implicit, with Ron it is explicit.Cleveland Buck;1062088 wrote:I believe it. He had time since he dodged the draft. -
Cleveland Buck
Again, because Charles Krauthammer believes Paul wants a 19th century foreign policy doesn't make it true. In the 19th century we had protective tariffs and we didn't share intelligence with allies around the world. Paul supports free trade with all nations and working with allies without sending them money stolen from the people here. He also supports using the navy to protect the freedom of the seas without keeping bases in countries that despise our presence there. I don't understand what is so radical about that.ptown_trojans_1;1062098 wrote:You can't take the U.S. foreign policy back to the 19th century, that is not the way the world works anymore. Yes, there areas where the U.S. is stretched too thing, but you cannot dramatically change U.S. foreign policy-it is too much intertwined with the global economy, like it or not. That is too much of a shock to the system and would destroy alliances and economies around the world.
You can't put the genie back in the bottle. You can't reverse history.
Republican's today should look to Ike as a model. Fund R&D, use covert action, limit the growth of the military industrial complex, cut involvements with large scale forces overseas, and establish containment and asymmetrical deterrence in East Asia.
Yes countries in Europe that already can't pay for their welfare states would go bankrupt if they had to defend themselves, but they are going bankrupt anyway, and it isn't our responsibility to pay for their defense.
If Eisenhower were alive he would almost definitely endorse Paul out of this bunch of bloodthirsty clowns. Ron Paul is the only one who wants to stop the wars fought for government contractors. Surely this means Eisenhower was some liberal kook.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hope of its children." - Dwight D. Eisenhower -
BGFalcons82
No, Reagan bankrupted them. Reading what you wrote, it sounds like Ronnie was the lucky office holder when the Soviet empire came tumbling down. Bullbutter. I suppose now you'll espouse Carter as having as big an influence as Reagan in defeating the Evil Empire. Reagan said he was going to defeat them and his policies led directly to their downfall. Oh...Ptown..are you trying to insinuate that Read-My-Lips Bush defeated the Soviets? If Reagan could have remained POTUS as long as Roosevelt, then it would be moot.Cleveland Buck;1062112 wrote:The Soviets defeated themselves by doing what we are doing. Centrally planning the economy and spreading ourselves all over the world. Reagan understood the Middle East pretty well though late in his term. After we lost those Marines in Beirut he pulled out of there, not being arrogant enough to think we should involve ourselves in their affairs. If that happened now you would be calling for every towel head in a 1,000 mile radius be vaporized. And once again, Paul is holding the conservative viewpoint. You are holding the Republican viewpoint.
Reagan understood the Middle East because he pulled out of Beirut, eh? Then how do you explain going after Quaddafi? How do you explain his intimidation of the Iranian "students" holding American hostages? Reagan carried a big stick and was unafraid to use it. Matter of fact, he loved to wave it at penny-enny tin pot dictators because it was effective. Cutting the military budget, reducing our strength, and isolating ourselves are not conservative actions, I don't care how many times you write that it is. -
Cleveland Buck
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.BGFalcons82;1062114 wrote:Huh...didn't know drug trafficking is in the Constitution as a protected class. I know that's not what you meant, but when drugs are trafficked across borders and transported across state lines, then by definition it is a federal concern. Personally, I think the prisons are too full of marijuana and recreational-users. I think there needs to be some changes in this area. This does not mean that I believe in the wanton use of heroin, crack, LSD, opiates, and other such dangerous drugs. Just like alcoholism, drug use has victims other than the users and I don't believe in the libertarian viewpoint that they don't.
Mark Levin is the consummate conservative. I'm not sure why you feel the need to lambaste him, but he represents the conservative viewpoint better than anyone else alive.