Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7444 posts, RR: 5 Posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2275 times:
The Speakers list for the GOP Convention is out.
Looks like the GOP has switched from boobs to blubber for the Keynote Speaker, but I guess that Poor Sarah doesn't excite Romney's Team.
Ron Paul is also out. But then all of Romney's opponents (except Rick Santorum) will not be given important speaking jobs. Heck, I was looking for Rick Perry and Herman Cain having one last moment in the spotlight.
And, of course, Presidents Bush and VP Cheney are really not desired either.
AirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 26 Reply 1, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2258 times:
As a Republican, I'm glad that blabber mouth Palin is out. I think she is wearing out her welcome now.....I hope!
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
sccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5091 posts, RR: 28 Reply 2, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2214 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Thread starter):
Looks like the GOP has switched from boobs to blubber for the Keynote Speaker, but I guess that Poor Sarah doesn't excite Romney's Team.
Way to keep it classy, dude.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16815 posts, RR: 57 Reply 6, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2154 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Thread starter): Looks like the GOP has switched from boobs to blubber for the Keynote Speaker,
Quoting Ken777 (Thread starter): I guess that Poor Sarah doesn't excite Romney's Team.
Love him or hate him, I don't think that "excite" and "Romney" belong in the same sentence. The man is stiffer than a concrete wall.
In all, I think that this is an encouraging sign for the GOP. I may not like Christie's politics, but in general he is a conservative, rather than a "Constitutional and Religious Fundamentalist" (people who loudly beat the drum of both Bible and Constitution and actually follow neither, like the Tea Party). That bodes well for the GOP. I think they are starting to get the idea that the Tea Party is loud and gets a lot of attention, but that it's going to cost them a lot of votes.
AirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 26 Reply 7, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2152 times:
I'm speaking on a NATIONAL level, not State or local. AFAIK, the Republicans (including myself) are tired of her and wished she never existed. The whole point I was making was that it seems like the GOP wants nothing more to do with her.
She is an embarrassment to me and my fellow GOP'ers.
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16815 posts, RR: 57 Reply 8, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2148 times:
Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 7): I'm speaking on a NATIONAL level, not State or local. AFAIK, the Republicans (including myself) are tired of her and wished she never existed. The whole point I was making was that it seems like the GOP wants nothing more to do with her.
She is an embarrassment to me and my fellow GOP'ers.
Yup, but she's yours. And, as bjorn points out, her favorites are still winning local elections. In the process, they are absolutely stopping up the federal government.
The GOP has a problem. They can't change their bylaws to oust the Tea Partiers and the Tea Party seems intent on taking over the GOP. The Tea Party seems to be able to win House elections in certain districts, but they can't take many Senate seats and they've proven that a Tea Party candidate on a national ticket (Palin for VP) is an outright disaster.
One solution is to split the GOP in to the Tea Party and a new party ("Whig" has been thrown around). The trouble there is that you split the conservative vote between two parties leading to a liberal plurality. Perhaps if the new "Whig" party were more libertarian on social issues and more conservative on fiscal issues, they might be able to snag some Democrats.
The other solution is to press on ahead and hope that the Tea Party fizzles out. But I don't see that happening as long as Obama is in office.
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2555 posts, RR: 5 Reply 9, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2138 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Thread starter): Looks like the GOP has switched from boobs to blubber for the Keynote Speaker, but I guess that Poor Sarah doesn't excite Romney's Team.
AirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 26 Reply 10, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2134 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8): And, as bjorn points out, her favorites are still winning local elections.
Keyword here: Local. And I hope it stays with that way in any relation or connection with Palin. IMO, she has no business on the national level. Look how much she screwed it up with McCain. But McCain is also to blame for allowing Palin as his running mate.
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16815 posts, RR: 57 Reply 11, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2113 times:
AirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 26 Reply 12, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2102 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 11): Yes, but the trouble is that those local elections are for the national House of Representatives.
Still a local position being represented in DC, which does not represent the whole State nor the whole country.
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3254 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2101 times:
Truthfully, the Tea party has their speaker in the form of Paul Ryan. There is no need for Sarah to flub it up and put ideas and words out that can come from Paul and Romney himself. This is a big reason why the GOP picked Ryan.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7444 posts, RR: 5 Reply 14, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2096 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 3): You have the seed of a very good topic but you blew it with your opening.
Have you looked at Christi lately?
The guy is morbidly obese.
It is clearly a sign that the guy has no self control, regardless of his status as a Governor.
I believe that the blubber (that means a LOT of FAT) was the reason why he wasn't Romney's running mate. Disclosure of his health records (including weight, BP and a1C) would be more damaging than his tax returns.
I also believe that unless the public puts some pressure on him the guy will be dead before he can serve in DC at an important level.
So I'll stand by my opening statement. Bit of sarcasm, but spot on for Christi.
AirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 26 Reply 15, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2095 times:
Quoting casinterest (Reply 13): This is a big reason why the GOP picked Ryan.
Romney picked Ryan. The GOP did not.
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3254 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2081 times:
AirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 26 Reply 17, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2080 times:
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3254 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2073 times:
Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 17): Not official until AFTER the convention.....
ok............ and the viable LIVING alternative is?????????
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
AirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 26 Reply 20, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2060 times:
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16815 posts, RR: 57 Reply 21, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2042 times:
AirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 26 Reply 22, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2004 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 21): ...who can do things like absolutely refuse to negotiate...
And for I wonder, how far does that get you? Not very far at all from what I have seen......
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 21): and lead to a debt crisis that results in a credit rating downgrade.
We need to be working together, not against each other. This party line crap has got to stop. It gets nothing done and leads us nowhere but downhill. It is costing us money!
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7444 posts, RR: 5 Reply 23, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1934 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 21): If you're going to attack Christie, attack him on his politics, not his waistline.
I've ben pretty clear that it is the waistline that keeps Christie from being a reasonable national candidate. He is a medical disaster waiting to happen. That is one thing for a Governor, but a totally different thing for the VP slot. His weight makes it unnecessary to worry about his politics at the national level.
But watch him in 4 years. Look for a 34 to 36" waist - demonstrating self control that he simply doesn't have right now.
einsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2043 posts, RR: 6 Reply 24, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1927 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 25): I've ben pretty clear that it is the waistline that keeps Christie from being a reasonable national candidate. He is a medical disaster waiting to happen. That is one thing for a Governor, but a totally different thing for the VP slot. His weight makes it unnecessary to worry about his politics at the national level.
Are you kidding? He's the perfect example of how far you can make it in America: eat whatever you want, weight whatever you want, make it to politics and don't worry about health...I'd say that's the American Dream with a bit of help from McDonald's among other restaurants.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12331 posts, RR: 12 Reply 25, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1941 times:
The choice of Chris Christie for the Keynote speaker for the Republican Convention is an understandable choice. He fits in well with several sub-groups of the Republicans :
The fiscal conservatives and Tea Party groups: no new taxes, made major budget cuts, cut the number of state employees and remaining ones to pay more in their costly benefits, tight caps on annual tax rates and spending increases on all municipalities.
Law and order/those against government corruption: as a former Fed prosecutor and as Governor he has gone after several regional authorities (especially those controlled by Democrats) to end corruption, excessive compensation, too many employees (although he has used the PANYNJ and other agency appointments and 'references' to place his political friends)
He is not a reactionary social/religious conservative extremist, including appointing non-whites to important jobs and for a Judgeship, a person of Islamic faith (and who represented arrested Islamic world men in the post 9/11 roundups) although he did make major cuts in funding to Planned Parenthood and supported anti-abortion groups so in line with the religious party groups.
He has strong money connections - his wife works for a major financial company in a executive capacity - so has empathy for the Millionaires (he is one himself - has a multi-million $$ mansion in one of the most expensive areas of NJ)
He has a strong speaking style and presence - although to me and many others he comes off like a bully.
As much as I dislike him, he did have to make critical and pragmatic decisions in our state in the economic crises of our recent years, he has gone after corruption and he does have a verbal and physical presence you can't ignore. I do wish for his own good he would lose about a 1/3 of his weight - perhaps he needs to talk to Mike Huckabee, someone who was seriously overweight and lost a lot of it after a health scare.
cws818 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1167 posts, RR: 2 Reply 26, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 1903 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 14): Quoting D L X (Reply 3):
You have the seed of a very good topic but you blew it with your opening.
Have you looked at Christi lately?
The guy is morbidly obese.
It is clearly a sign that the guy has no self control, regardless of his status as a Governor.
While that might be true, he could also have a medical condition that accounts for his waistline. There could also be a genetic predisposition to being heavyset; if so, that would not suggest that he has notably lax self-control. He is certainly outspoken and he can be obnoxious (but who among us isn't, from time to time?), but that doesn't necessarily mean that he is incredibly impulsive and lacks self-control.
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12559 posts, RR: 64 Reply 27, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1886 times:
Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 10): Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):And, as bjorn points out, her favorites are still winning local elections.
Keyword here: Local.
As the saying goes, all politics is local.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
bjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 2776 posts, RR: 2 Reply 28, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1857 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8): they've proven that a Tea Party candidate on a national ticket (Palin for VP) is an outright disaster.
Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 10): Look how much she screwed it up with McCain. But McCain is also to blame for allowing Palin as his running mate.
I think you both of you got it backwards it was McCain who screwed up the ticket. Do you think McCain would have drawn crowds of 60,000+ if he had picked some other old white guy? NOT. It was Palin who energized the base. If it wasn't for her McCain would have lost bigger than he did.
Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 10): Keyword here: Local. And I hope it stays with that way in any relation or connection with Palin. IMO, she has no business on the national level.
The two I mentioned were state wide races. Texas which is a pretty big state and Nebraska not so much. Ask Nikki Haley if she'd be a Governor today if it wasn't for Palin. Ask Kelly Ayotte if she'd have a seat in the Senate chambers without Palin's support. Just to name a couple. We'll see what kind of coattails Palin has this time around. With all due respect you watch too much Saturday Night Live.
"An idea has to be incredibly absurd to have any reasonable chance of succeeding" --A. Einstein
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3254 posts, RR: 1 Reply 29, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1853 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 28): Palin who energized the base. If it wasn't for her McCain would have lost bigger than he did.
Palin energized the base, but she turned away the Independents. You don't win a race for the center by swerving to the right or left. Honestly looking back, could you see Palin as President? It would be about as bad as Pelosi.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
ER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2223 posts, RR: 8 Reply 30, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1769 times:
Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 25): perhaps he needs to talk to Mike Huckabee,
Have you seen Huckabee lately? Seems that the weight's going back on in no small measure.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6): Constitutional and Religious Fundamentalist" (people who loudly beat the drum of both Bible and Constitution and actually follow neither
Reminds me of a line I heard a comedienne use once long ago. "Isn't it interesting that the Christian Right is neither?"
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7444 posts, RR: 5 Reply 31, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1763 times:
Quoting cws818 (Reply 26): he could also have a medical condition that accounts for his waistline.
There was a time a while back where he talked about having a beer & a pizza that night - and watching a game on TV.
Quoting casinterest (Reply 29): Honestly looking back, could you see Palin as President? It would be about as bad as Pelosi.
Actually Pelosi has significant experience at the national political level and she pretty well understands the government there. Palin was a mayor of a small town in Alaska and, when elected, hired an administrator to handle the real work. And she had a bit of time as Governor, before she quit.
AirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 26 Reply 32, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1762 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 28): I think you both of you got it backwards it was McCain who screwed up the ticket.
That is what I just said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Reply 10, as you quoted but ignored:
Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 10): But McCain is also to blame for allowing Palin as his running mate.
You skipped that part, bjorn. Tsk tsk tsk......
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 28): With all due respect you watch too much Saturday Night Live.
LMMFAO!!!!! I have not watched SNL since 2003! LOL! LOL! LOL! Nice try, wrong target, bjorn. Try again. Plus what you just said was quite rude.
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
I'm a Democrat and I feel your pain. It would be like having Jimmy "Jihad" Carter speaking at our convention. And at least Palin is worth nalin. Couldn't resist that one. There's even a young porn star that calls herself Nailin Palin and she's got a hot little body. Wearing those black pin striped business suits but the skirt being nice and mini. However though this "actress" looks a lot like SP. she stands only 5'2" whereas the real deal from Wasilla is 5' 7".
Though Christy is a hippo, he just may be the spark you guys need if not this go around for 2016. Obama was the key note speaker at the 2004 Democratic Convention and the rest as they say is history for better or for worse. Today, a speaker at the GOP convention; tomorrow our first hippo President at least in the modern era.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16815 posts, RR: 57 Reply 34, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1634 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 28): I think you both of you got it backwards it was McCain who screwed up the ticket. Do you think McCain would have drawn crowds of 60,000+ if he had picked some other old white guy? NOT. It was Palin who energized the base. If it wasn't for her McCain would have lost bigger than he did.
She energized the base, yes. And she cost him swing votes with her bumbling "'Murrica" platitudes. Especially the "Real America" gaffe. Some of the stuff she said was so extreme that it just galvanized the base, which accomplishes nothing, and turned off the middle, which sealed the Obama win.
In fact, Mrs. Palin was such a poor choice that Colin Powell, the former Secretary of State under the Bush Administration and a lifelong Republican went ahead and endorsed Mr. Obama, specifically citing Mrs. Palin as one of the reasons he chose not to endorse Mr. McCain.
One thing that the GOP strategists can't seem to grasp is that swing voters are more important than Republicans. A Republican not voting is a null vote. A swing voter voting Obama is -2 votes (-1 Romney +1 Obama).
But you're right. It was Mr. McCain's call to select her. He caved into other forces within the GOP and the result was that he's an also-ran.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 23): I've ben pretty clear that it is the waistline that keeps Christie from being a reasonable national candidate.
I can agree with that. In an era with a TV and computer in every house, someone like Mr. Christie will not get elected. Nor would FDR have been elected had there been a TV in every home in the 1930's.
However, his waistline does not make him inherently unqualified as a politician.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 23): But watch him in 4 years. Look for a 34 to 36" waist - demonstrating self control that he simply doesn't have right now.
If that happens, I would suspect a bariatric procedure. His wisest course would be to come clean and say that he had to do it for health reasons. If he tries to hide him, it's going to bite him when it goes public.
zippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 4722 posts, RR: 13 Reply 35, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 1625 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 34): However, his waistline does not make him inherently unqualified as a politician.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 23):
But watch him in 4 years. Look for a 34 to 36" waist - demonstrating self control that he simply doesn't have right now.
If that happens, I would suspect a bariatric procedure. His wisest course would be to come clean and say that he had to do it for health reasons. If he tries to hide him, it's going to bite him when it goes public.
Playing devil's advocate: Most of us are built more like Mr. Christy. So, it is very likely that he could become POTUS if he runs in 2016 hippo build and all. He'd be to many the anti-hero. Your teddy bear in the oval office. He could be the anti Nanny Bloomberg.
bjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 2776 posts, RR: 2 Reply 36, posted (9 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 1527 times:
If Palin is so unimportant why do other politicians including Obama and the media feel the need to repond to her the same day? BTW, She seems to have trapped Obama in keeping 'Bite Me' Biden on the ticket.
"An idea has to be incredibly absurd to have any reasonable chance of succeeding" --A. Einstein
bjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 2776 posts, RR: 2 Reply 38, posted (9 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 1517 times:
Quoting casinterest (Reply 37): she is a key reason the GOP tanked so bad in 2008.
Again, I would argue McCain would have lost even worse if she had not been on the ticket. Many GOPers would have just stayed at home if it was a RINO & RINO ticket.
"An idea has to be incredibly absurd to have any reasonable chance of succeeding" --A. Einstein
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7766 posts, RR: 22 Reply 40, posted (9 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 1515 times:
Quoting casinterest (Reply 39): If those types of folks that belive in such things as RINO's stayed home it would be much better for the civilized world
Yeah - the concept of constitutionally limited government is SO dangerous...
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3254 posts, RR: 1 Reply 41, posted (9 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 1503 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40): Yeah - the concept of constitutionally limited government is SO dangerous...
No the concept of list of things to be a Republican and calling people RINO's is .
I don't care if the Tea hacks, go off and form their own party. But they need to stop claiming ownership of something much larger than they are.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
Alias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2643 posts, RR: 2 Reply 42, posted (9 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 1470 times:
A smart move for the GOP. Gov. Christie has shown to have national appeal with his plain spoken style, and ability to avoid foot-in-mouth moments that doomed their last plain spoken populist. This is where he lays the groundwork for a run four years from now.
He certainly has some appeal with independents that lean Democrat such as myself, both in his blunt style and his ability to work across the aisle to get something done. I think the biggest concern many would have is that his bluntness will bite him in the ass when international diplomacy often requires more tact than he shows. Abortion rights would be another area where I would have great concern.
If he makes a speech that is both energizing while remaining levelheaded and avoids any gaffes he will have set himself up well for a run in 2016 should Obama win reelection.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 34): If that happens, I would suspect a bariatric procedure. His wisest course would be to come clean and say that he had to do it for health reasons. If he tries to hide him, it's going to bite him when it goes public.
Agreed. I think Americans would have no problem with it as long as he came clean about having the procedure.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7444 posts, RR: 5 Reply 44, posted (9 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 1427 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 34): If that happens, I would suspect a bariatric procedure.
Might be, but the guy likes beer & pizza. Even with the procedure there would need to be a dramatic change in what he eats. He can't go from a large pizza to a medium and claim he is on a diet.
Quoting zippyjet (Reply 35): Your teddy bear in the oval office.
Teddy bear? The guy can bite your head off and spit it out. Not a teddy bear.
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 36): She seems to have trapped Obama in keeping 'Bite Me' Biden on the ticket.
I doubt if Biden was going anywhere in the first place. Palin is simply running off at the mouth, trying to sound intelligent. She is getting old and starting to look it a bit.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16815 posts, RR: 57 Reply 45, posted (9 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 1402 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40): Yeah - the concept of constitutionally limited government is SO dangerous...
It is when you pick and choose what the Consitution says and doesn't say. For example: people claiming that Obama is unfit to be President because he is a Muslim when the Constitution explicitly says in its original text (pre-amendment) that no test of religion shall be required to hold any public office. For example: People who beat on the 10th amendment for Obamacare but have no problem with a national ban on gay marriage (in spite of the 14th amendment) or abortion. For example: People who beat on the 2nd amendment and yet are OK with complete disregard for the 4th amendment if a police officer suspects someone might not be legally present in the US.
My favorite was Boehner rejecting the idea that federal prisons and their associated private contractors need to be reviewed because to do so would be "To completely disregard the Constitution," and yet he has no problem with federal anti-drug laws, a federal ban on gay marriage, or a federal ban on abortion.
I also love when these people start saying things that the Constitution doesn't say, like that this is a Christian nation, or "One Nation Under God." Or that the President must have been born in the USA.
Yes, that sort of "Constitutional Fundamentalist" government in which people scream "Constitution" and then don't follow it is very dangerous, indeed.
Quoting zippyjet (Reply 35): Playing devil's advocate: Most of us are built more like Mr. Christy. So, it is very likely that he could become POTUS if he runs in 2016 hippo build and all. He'd be to many the anti-hero. Your teddy bear in the oval office. He could be the anti Nanny Bloomberg.
You'd think so but most people have a double-standard about such things. It's OK if I'm fat, but not if you're fat. Not defending it; just telling it like it is.
Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 42):
Agreed. I think Americans would have no problem with it as long as he came clean about having the procedure.
There would be some uproar, I'm sure. A politician can't even take a leak without causing an uproar. But it would be far worse if he tried to hide it.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7766 posts, RR: 22 Reply 46, posted (9 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1364 times:
Quoting casinterest (Reply 41): No the concept of list of things to be a Republican and calling people RINO's is .
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 45): It is when you pick and choose what the Consitution says and doesn't say. For example: people claiming that Obama is unfit to be President because he is a Muslim when the Constitution explicitly says in its original text (pre-amendment) that no test of religion shall be required to hold any public office. For example: People who beat on the 10th amendment for Obamacare but have no problem with a national ban on gay marriage (in spite of the 14th amendment) or abortion. For example: People who beat on the 2nd amendment and yet are OK with complete disregard for the 4th amendment if a police officer suspects someone might not be legally present in the US.
My favorite was Boehner rejecting the idea that federal prisons and their associated private contractors need to be reviewed because to do so would be "To completely disregard the Constitution," and yet he has no problem with federal anti-drug laws, a federal ban on gay marriage, or a federal ban on abortion.
I also love when these people start saying things that the Constitution doesn't say, like that this is a Christian nation, or "One Nation Under God." Or that the President must have been born in the USA.
Yes, that sort of "Constitutional Fundamentalist" government in which people scream "Constitution" and then don't follow it is very dangerous, indeed.
While I have some issues with some of the examples you cite, I don't want to sidetrack the argument. You might argue what the Constitution says or not, but at least with Constitutionalism everyone agrees on the rule of law - What the Constitution says is the final word, and if you think it needs changing, do it via amendment. Leftists and Progressives simply find any excuse to just ignore it, and consider it largely irrelevant (except the 1st amendment and a couple of others that they like) - particularly when it comes to the concept of limited government. They do not believe in the rule of law.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7444 posts, RR: 5 Reply 47, posted (9 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1346 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46): particularly when it comes to the concept of limited government.
One wonders what the Founding Fathers would have done if they were given knowledge of how the country would develop.
Say, how medicine would develop, allowing for far greater care of Americans than their limited medical knowledge allowed.
How would they have reacted to the instant communications we now have, leaving no need to deliver news of an election on horseback.
We know that they were inadequate in protecting the rights or women, and allowed slavery. We have a right to give thought to how they would have written the Constitution if they believed in the Equality and Freedom that we hold dear today.
Reality is that the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to exclude women from the voting booths, to allow Slavery (how many Founding Fathers owned slaves?) and to not trust voters so they included an Electoral College.
The Constitution has many amazing parts, but was also defective. Part of that defect was the limiting of government to the world they knew - what they could see and understand during their lives.
The Founding Fathers would not have considered a CDC or NIH. But those two alone "expand" government significantly.
Shall we start with Oliver North, the untried felon? He was certainly no Lefty, but he and those he worked with shafted the "Rule of Law" with the Contra issue. Actually, Reagan was also involved and he obviously did not believe in the rule of law when it got in his way.
Check ou the Boland Amendment of October 12, 1984. Necessary because Reagan's administration "do not believe in the rule of law".
Oddly enough I was just reading a bit on that entire illegal mess 30 minutes before reading your comments.
There was also the Arms For Hostages that Reagan got involved with - Iran really played him the fool and he, Oooops!, forgot to advise Congress as he was required to under the Law. Flat Out Illegal.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19700 posts, RR: 56 Reply 48, posted (9 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1317 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46): You might argue what the Constitution says or not, but at least with Constitutionalism everyone agrees on the rule of law - What the Constitution says is the final word, and if you think it needs changing, do it via amendment. Leftists and Progressives simply find any excuse to just ignore it, and consider it largely irrelevant (except the 1st amendment and a couple of others that they like) - particularly when it comes to the concept of limited government. They do not believe in the rule of law.
So when Republicans do things that don't appear to line up with the Constitution, they're just using a different interpretation of what it says, whereas when Democrats do things that don't appear to line up with the Constitution, they're blatantly disregarding it. Got it.
The Tea Party crowd needs to realize that it is possible for someone to hold a different view of how the Constitution applies to a certain situation and still believe that it is the final word. The fact that they don't just goes to show how little they actually understand how the Constitution works.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7766 posts, RR: 22 Reply 49, posted (9 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1284 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 48): So when Republicans do things that don't appear to line up with the Constitution, they're just using a different interpretation of what it says,
There have been plenty of Republican Progressives, From Teddy Roosevelt to Richard Nixon, GW Bush and John McCain. I chose my words carefully - I did not say anything about Republicans being better on this issue - although you do tend to find more Constitutionalists within the rank and file of the GOP than in the Democratic Party. That's what the Tea Party is all about, trying to get the GOP out of the hands of progressives and bring government back to the limits given to it by the constitution and subsequent amendments.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 47): The Founding Fathers would not have considered a CDC or NIH. But those two alone "expand" government significantly.
Why do lefties always assume that we (Constitutionalists/Tea Party members) want to live on the version of the Constitution as written in the 1780's? I have no problem with the CDC or NIH, or Social Security, and a number of other programs. I am also in favor of individual mandates for health insurance. But do it properly. Pass a Constitutional Amendment, giving the Federal government the mandate to do these things. Yes, that means getting 2/3rds support (3/4 of the states), which means that the mandate will have to be carefully worded and defined, and you might not have everything you want, but that's the nature of our democracy. You can do anything you want, with enough support.
Doing things the way we have for the past few decades (just ignore the Constitution) just gets people angry and gets you to our current polarized climate.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7444 posts, RR: 5 Reply 50, posted (9 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1271 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 49): Doing things the way we have for the past few decades (just ignore the Constitution) just gets people angry and gets you to our current polarized climate.
What has been done for the past few generations is that Congress has passed Laws and Presidents have signed them.
That was set out in the Constitution.
Besides the initial Amendments there have ben Amendments over the years, but Amendments should be held for critical changes, like ending slavery and allowing women to vote.
We do not need a few dozen amendments in various stages of obtaining approval. We have a Congress (although it has been especially pathetic recently) and we have a President. That is how the Constitution addressed the issues like establishing a CDC or NIH.
We are more politically polarized before in my lifetime because the voters have over the past 20 years, twice decided to put a Democrat in the White House, removing the Republicans. (Actually the voted 3 times, but the Electoral COllege ensured that the vote of the people was not honored.)
We have also seen, in this century, political acts that do significantly increase political conflict. The unnecessary invasion of Iraq, the unaffordable tax breaks long after the surplus disappeared. The GOP at the Presidential level hs become untrustworthy for many. And here is Willard Mitt Romney hiding his tax returns, bringing down a standard his own father established.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10453 posts, RR: 20 Reply 51, posted (9 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1253 times:
Keep it classy? Nah...
Quoting Ken777 (Thread starter): Looks like the GOP has switched from boobs to blubber for the Keynote Speaker, but I guess that Poor Sarah doesn't excite Romney's Team.
Too bad. She was the Viagra of the GOP - she gave so many of the "old guard" stiffies they hadn't had in years.
Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 42): This is where he lays the groundwork for a run four years from now.
I'd go with steel and concrete over wood, you can never be too safe...
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 45): Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):
Yeah - the concept of constitutionally limited government is SO dangerous...
It is when you pick and choose what the Consitution says and doesn't say.
And when you presume the USSC will always see it your way and "save us from Obamacare" - oops!
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46): Leftists and Progressives simply find any excuse to just ignore it, and consider it largely irrelevant (except the 1st amendment and a couple of others that they like) - particularly when it comes to the concept of limited government. They do not believe in the rule of law.
LOL! Conservatives do NOT believe in limited government, never have, never will. You did see what happened to our budget during the Reagan years, right?
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 47): One wonders what the Founding Fathers would have done if they were given knowledge of how the country would develop.
The cynic in me says we'd end up with something like the EU proposed constitution, thousands of pages of legalese and clauses to protect special interests, indeed like Obamacare, and like pretty much every other work of law that comes out of Congress these days.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19700 posts, RR: 56 Reply 52, posted (9 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1232 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 49): I chose my words carefully - I did not say anything about Republicans being better on this issue
You sure as hell implied it by only stating that leftists and progressives ignore the Constitution and the rule of law. Never mind the fact that there are plenty of Republicans who have no problem ignoring the rule of law, and plenty of Tea Party members who claim to worship the Constitution but have no idea what it actually says.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 49): Why do lefties always assume that we (Constitutionalists/Tea Party members) want to live on the version of the Constitution as written in the 1780's?
Because of the way you respond whenever someone mentions the phrase "living document".
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10453 posts, RR: 20 Reply 54, posted (9 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1222 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 53): Yeah when Reagan's tax cuts went into effect, revenues rose and the Democrat controlled Congress started spending like drunken sailors,
Yeah, those Democrats, big fans of the B2 bomber, Iowa-class battleships, 600 ship Navy, etc...
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7766 posts, RR: 22 Reply 55, posted (9 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1204 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 52): Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 49):
Why do lefties always assume that we (Constitutionalists/Tea Party members) want to live on the version of the Constitution as written in the 1780's?
Because of the way you respond whenever someone mentions the phrase "living document".
That's because when the left refer to it as a "living document", they always seem to mean it in the sense of being able to interpret it any old way they want. Commerce Clause covers medical treatment and mandates, for example. I see it as a living document inasmuch as we, through the amendment process, can change it from time to time.
Pity we can't have a national election where the candidate who won the popular vote would win the election.
All we got in 2000 was a looser for President.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 54): Yeah, those Democrats, big fans of the B2 bomber, Iowa-class battleships, 600 ship Navy, etc...
I'm more of a Democrat these days than a Republican and I served in that 600 Ship Navy. I even had an XO who later served as CINCPACFLT and CNO. I've posted more than once that I support 11 or more carrier groups, funding for new or upgrading tankers, and a DDG program that could deliver close in shore support (like the DDG I also served on). I'm also a lover of replacements for the BBs with 16" guns (even if the guns go down to 12") as the shore support they provide are significantly higher levels of support.
I also don't have a problem with the B2 bomber. Or continual development of choppers for the Army and Marines,
What you missed, however, was simple issues of training and maintenance. Ships, planes and weapons systems are pretty, but loose value without continual training and maintenance. Good training costs money, but that is what delivers performance. Same as maintenance, including major overhauls.
GEEZER From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1414 posts, RR: 1 Reply 57, posted (9 months 6 days ago) and read 1139 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 14): Have you looked at Christi lately?
The guy is morbidly obese.
There is no doubt that Gov. Christie is considerably overweight; but I see overweight (morbidly obese) people every day when I go to a local restaurant to eat; and I never "stare" at them or call them "fatty", or make snide remarks that they may die at any minute because of their weight. Do you really think it's any less rude to do the exact same thing on a public forum ?
I have absolutely no doubt that Gov. Christie's obvious weight problem has been discussed many times by the GOP people vetting potential nominees for VP ................but at least they didn't stoop to making rude references to his overweight problem in public.
Charley
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7444 posts, RR: 5 Reply 59, posted (9 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1079 times:
Quoting GEEZER (Reply 57): Do you really think it's any less rude to do the exact same thing on a public forum ?
Considering the shorts he has taken at people making far less than he does and considering that he chose to be a public figure then, Yes, I do believe it is appropriate to address his issues with weight.
Conservatives love him because of his willingness to attack people who happen to work for the state (like teachers) so they need to accept that e can have the barbs flying his way as well.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7444 posts, 
From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 2776 posts, 
No harm intended!
We need to be working together, not against each other. This party line crap has got to stop. It gets nothing done and leads us nowhere but downhill. It is costing us money!
From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2043 posts, 
From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2223 posts, 
Tsk tsk tsk......
Printer friendly format 
