Noted Conservative Admits Government Offers Better Health Care

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
Right wingers are great for emotion, not so smart with logic. Jon Stewart kills Bill Kristol

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sa69puS7J0Q&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sa69puS7J0Q&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>​
 
bump_signs.jpg
 
Really Bill?

This post is like me finding Libermann, and saying "hey even a democrat supports the war in Iraq". I could do the same as thoughtque, and condemn Kristol like he is some kind of subhuman creature. However, I'm just going to agree to disagree with him. He slipped up, and he is wrong on this issue.

That is all...
 
Really Bill?

This post is like me finding Libermann, and saying "hey even a democrat supports the war in Iraq". I could do the same as thoughtque, and condemn Kristol like he is some kind of subhuman creature. However, I'm just going to agree to disagree with him. He slipped up, and he is wrong on this issue.

That is all...

Libermann, Democrat? I would say he has more in common with Schwarzenegger, who I would concider to be more liberal. Libermann and Zig Zag Zell Miller are DINOs, Democrats in name only. Search Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).

condemn Kristol like he is some kind of subhuman creature.

Now you’re waking up. Bill Kristol is among the most vile, repulsive and partisan republican right wingers. He is not even a so called ‘true conservative’. He is the ultimate definition of neo con, a true hater of the constitution.
 
Last edited:
Now you’re waking up. Bill Kristol is among the most vile, repulsive and partisan republican right wingers. He is not even a so called ‘true conservative’. He is the ultimate definition of neo con, a true hater of the constitution.

kick that sh*t Thought, Kristol = Neocon :yes:

Thought, you're quick to ask where was the 'right' when 'W' was in charge? here's your answer!

important clip of Ron Paul on the House floor 2003, calling out the "neocons" by name and yes, he mentions Bill Kristol & his daddy, Cheney, Rumsfeld & the rest of these phony 'conservatives'(RINO's)! He tells how the ideas of limited govt were hi-jacked by these radical 'left wingers' (yep, this group is so radical, the left kicked them out!)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mNb_610L0GE&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mNb_610L0GE&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 
One thing I never understood...

if Ron Paul is a Libertarian, why does he run as a Republican?
 
One thing I never understood...

if Ron Paul is a Libertarian, why does he run as a Republican?

I can't defend the man but I'll share what I've heard in the libertarian arena. When he ran for Pres. in 1988, he ran as a libertarian. He got frustrated because of ballot access by a libertarian candidate, he felt the debates were not open to all candidates and his message was surpressed by his affiliation with a 3rd party. However, as he positioned himself as a Repub in 2008, IMO, he made the whole party look like crap because he was kickin the truth about the economy, the Wars, the domestic policy and most importantly, he brought the Federal Reserve into the spotlight. Cruise, you saw the clips of him speaking out against the Fed in 1988,The actions of the Federal Reserve weren't mentioned not one time in the Dem debates. Even with his loss as a Repub candidate, he now has the nation's support in challenging the Fed Res.

I'm saying all that to say his audience is a lot larger positioning himself as a Repub. as a result, more Americans are aware of the real power structure in the country. Now, we don't have to agree on every issue with Repubs or Dems but I think we all agree that when the Fed creates this money "out of thin air" it robs the purchasing power of the lower-income, middle-class, and the elderly. That was Ron's contribution. Whats wrong with having a conservative fiscal policy and protecting our civil liberties?
 
I can't defend the man but I'll share what I've heard in the libertarian arena. When he ran for Pres. in 1988, he ran as a libertarian. He got frustrated because of ballot access by a libertarian candidate, he felt the debates were not open to all candidates and his message was surpressed by his affiliation with a 3rd party. However, as he positioned himself as a Repub in 2008, IMO, he made the whole party look like crap because he was kickin the truth about the economy, the Wars, the domestic policy and most importantly, he brought the Federal Reserve into the spotlight. Cruise, you saw the clips of him speaking out against the Fed in 1988,The actions of the Federal Reserve weren't mentioned not one time in the Dem debates. Even with his loss as a Repub candidate, he now has the nation's support in challenging the Fed Res.

I'm saying all that to say his audience is a lot larger positioning himself as a Repub. as a result, more Americans are aware of the real power structure in the country. Now, we don't have to agree on every issue with Repubs or Dems but I think we all agree that when the Fed creates this money "out of thin air" it robs the purchasing power of the lower-income, middle-class, and the elderly. That was Ron's contribution.

I remember his argument from 1988 and how the interviewer asked him if he would abolish the Fed if he became President.He said it wouldn't be practical, but he would limit its power.

In my opinion, that sounds like a politician's response, not a libertarian's.

But, your points are well made.

Whats wrong with having a conservative fiscal policy and protecting our civil liberties?

If you look at Conservatives and Democrats historically, believe it or not...

The Conservative platform has been anti-immigration, pro-business, and EASY money.

Hence, Republican President Abraham Lincoln created the first FIAT currency, the first NATIONAL currency, and started the NATIONAL banking system.

Republicans have always been pro-inflation. I think Nixon, Reagan and Bush exemplify the irresponsible inflation-is-good platform of the Republican party very well.

Democrats, traditionally, have been more libertarian. They were SMALL government, SOUND money, and promoted personal/property rights. Of course, it all changed with Woodrow Wilson.

I say all this to say Ron Paul could just have easily claimed to be Democrat as Republican.

What is the REAL reason he chose to go the Republican route in 2008?
 
Whats wrong with having a conservative fiscal policy and protecting our civil liberties?

ah! maybe I should've save "constitutional fiscal policy" instead of 'conservative'? point taken, and you're right, I can't defend Reagan, Bush I, or 'W' for their expansion of govt. with the war on Drugs, War on Terror. At the same time, Clinton & Gore don't get a pass for NAFTA & Glass / Steagall, either.


In my opinion, that sounds like a politician's response, not a libertarian's.

well, he is a politician!

The Conservative platform has been anti-immigration, pro-business, and EASY money.

Hence, Republican President Abraham Lincoln created the first FIAT currency, the first NATIONAL currency, and started the NATIONAL banking system.

Republicans have always been pro-inflation. I think Nixon, Reagan and Bush exemplify the irresponsible inflation-is-good platform of the Republican party very well.

I hope my insertion of a 'constitutional' fiscal policy changed that argument.

I say all this to say Ron Paul could just have easily claimed to be Democrat as Republican.

What is the REAL reason he chose to go the Republican route in 2008?

my short answer probably lies within his vision of the 'role' / 'scope' of govt in individuals lives. But I'll clear the stage for your anticipated response. :D I know you have some thoughts.
 
and hurry up with that response or reply or whatever. LOL

Posts 4 though 10 have made interesting reading. More. Please.

Its about time I get what I bumped a thread for: interesting discourse.

QueEx
 
This thread has gone way off-topic.

ah! maybe I should've save "constitutional fiscal policy" instead of 'conservative'? point taken, and you're right, I can't defend Reagan, Bush I, or 'W' for their expansion of govt. with the war on Drugs, War on Terror. At the same time, Clinton & Gore don't get a pass for NAFTA & Glass / Steagall, either.

Clinton & Gore did some very non-Democratic things, I agree.

But, generally, Republicans have always believed in national deficits while Democrats believed government should only pay what taxes and duties provide (sometimes running a surplus).

The Jefferson/Jackson Democrats didn't believe in National Debt/National Banks/National Currency, unlike the Lincoln Republicans.

So, with "constitutional fiscal policy" in mind, Ron Paul choosing the Republican party is very puzzling.

my short answer probably lies within his vision of the 'role' / 'scope' of govt in individuals lives. But I'll clear the stage for your anticipated response. :D I know you have some thoughts.

If Ron Paul uses the basis of personal liberty, the Republican party still is not the choice over the Democrats, traditionally.

Abraham Lincoln established all kinds of martial law, anti-liberty, executive order precedences as the first Republican President.

So, the Republican Party is "not" the party of constitutional limitations, sound money, nor personal liberty, in a traditional sense.

I think he chose the Republican Party to appeal to his redneck base in Texas. Libertarian ideals be damned.
 
Libermann, Democrat? I would say he has more in common with Schwarzenegger, who I would concider to be more liberal. Libermann and Zig Zag Zell Miller are DINOs, Democrats in name only. Search Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).



Now you’re waking up. Bill Kristol is among the most vile, repulsive and partisan republican right wingers. He is not even a so called ‘true conservative’. He is the ultimate definition of neo con, a true hater of the constitution.

I like how you took that sentence out context.

So typical...
 
my bad QueEx, the thread strayed away

So, with "constitutional fiscal policy" in mind, Ron Paul choosing the Republican party is very puzzling.

I wouldn't say it's puzzling. Reflect back on the video you posted titled "The American Form of Government". In that clip, Ben Franklin described the nation as a Republic, meaning rule by law, as opposed to a democracy (rule by the majority). In any vote on Congress, Ron always refers to the Constitution to render his decisions. I'm not agreeing, nor disagreeing, with his interpretations, I'm merely stating his positions are based on the rule of law, not the majority.

I think he chose the Republican Party to appeal to his redneck base in Texas. Libertarian ideals be damned.

possibly! Let me pose this: Does his base share his anti-war position, legalizing marijuana, or a non-intrusive domestic policy? Remember, Texas was Bush country.
 
my bad QueEx, the thread strayed away



I wouldn't say it's puzzling. Reflect back on the video you posted titled "The American Form of Government". In that clip, Ben Franklin described the nation as a Republic, meaning rule by law, as opposed to a democracy (rule by the majority). In any vote on Congress, Ron always refers to the Constitution to render his decisions. I'm not agreeing, nor disagreeing, with his interpretations, I'm merely stating his positions are based on the rule of law, not the majority.



possibly! Let me pose this: Does his base share his anti-war position, legalizing marijuana, or a non-intrusive domestic policy? Remember, Texas was Bush country.


Ben Franklin described the nation as a Republic, meaning rule by law, as opposed to a democracy (rule by the majority)

source: Time

Learning To Be An Abolitionist

Slavery's Foe, at Last
By Gary B. Nash

When Benjamin Franklin was 24 years old, he was already owner of the Pennsylvania Gazette, and he advertised in its pages the sale of "a likely Negroe Woman" who lived at "Widow Read's in Market Street."

That same address is where Franklin found a wife, the daughter of Widow Read, and where he had his first close contact with an enslaved African. Over a long life, Franklin remained engaged with slavery—as a buyer, seller and master of slaves and finally as an abolitionist.

Franklin and his wife Deborah purchased slaves— Peter and Jemima—for the first time in the late 1740s, but he was uneasy about keeping them in the succession of small rented houses where the Franklins lived. Franklin believed that owning slaves diminished the master's work ethic and ruined the white children in the families that owned them because they are "educated in idleness." Yet, while rearing son William, the Franklins bought more slaves, named Othello, King and George. The last two were in tow when Franklin left for England with his 26-year-old son in 1757.

To Franklin's dismay, King fled when his master was visiting outside London. King was later found in Suffolk in the service of a lady who had taught him to read and write and to play the violin and French horn. Franklin, who agreed to sell King to the woman, may have appreciated the slave's newfound skills because, at the time, Franklin was revising his opinion about Africans' capabilities. A few years later, after visiting an Anglican school for blacks in Philadelphia, he concluded, "Their Apprehension seems as quick, their Memory as strong, and their Docility in every Respect equal to that of white Children."

By 1772, Franklin was openly questioning the morality of slavery. In an unsigned letter to the London Chronicle, he asked readers whether it was absolutely necessary to sweeten their tea with slave-produced sugar. Could such a "petty pleasure ... compensate for so much misery produced among our fellow creatures, and such a constant butchery of the human species by this pestilential detestable traffic in the bodies and souls of men?"

Despite such pronouncements, Franklin and his wife held on to their slaves. Like many other white colonists during the years leading up to the American Revolution, they grew to dislike slavery but not so much as to sacrifice their investments. When he returned to Philadelphia in May 1775, five months after Deborah died, Franklin passed along ownership of one slave, George, to his daughter Sally and her husband but kept Peter and Jemima at his side.

By his 81st birthday, Franklin was speaking openly against slavery. Accepting the ceremonial presidency of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, he signed a public exhortation that declared "the Creator of the world" made "of one flesh, all the children of men." Still, the surviving records from the Constitutional Convention give no indication that Franklin raised the issue.

Just before he died, Franklin had his last words on the subject in a biting parody. Signing the essay "Historicus," Franklin composed a speech of one Sidi Mehemet Ibrahim, an Algerian prince, defending the practice of enslaving Christians. "If we forbear to make Slaves of [the Christians]," asked the prince, "who in this hot climate are to cultivate our lands? Who are to perform the common Labours of our City, and in our Families?" Yet Franklin's rhetoric outpaced his actions. Decades earlier, he had revised his will to free Peter and Jemima at his death. Neither slave outlived him.
 
my bad QueEx, the thread strayed away



I wouldn't say it's puzzling. Reflect back on the video you posted titled "The American Form of Government". In that clip, Ben Franklin described the nation as a Republic, meaning rule by law, as opposed to a democracy (rule by the majority). In any vote on Congress, Ron always refers to the Constitution to render his decisions. I'm not agreeing, nor disagreeing, with his interpretations, I'm merely stating his positions are based on the rule of law, not the majority.



possibly! Let me pose this: Does his base share his anti-war position, legalizing marijuana, or a non-intrusive domestic policy? Remember, Texas was Bush country.

So, Ron Paul picked the Republicans for political expediency, not for political ideals.

I can go for that.

source: Time

Learning To Be An Abolitionist

Slavery's Foe, at Last
By Gary B. Nash

I always suspected this. It seems my suspicions are confirmed.
 
Back
Top