Say what you will, but we now have a Libertarian as Speaker of the House.
Maybe I just have lower standards for politicians - but I'm kinda pleased about this.
Will it make any difference - I don't know - probably not. Seems its all bad news lately.
But I'll take what I can get.
We now have a person with strong free-market views 3rd in line for the Presidency!
Ha!
Will it make any difference - I don't know - probably not. Seems its all bad news lately.
But I'll take what I can get.
We now have a person with strong free-market views 3rd in line for the Presidency!
Ha!
He had support of the masters of the GOP.
He is suborned, or he would not have been approved.
A poor fit - no doubt - but it got several candidates elected that we're better off for having.
And it got the conversation started.
I expect little from politicians, but like I said - I'll take what I can get.
Voting for an alleged "lesser of two evils" is still voting for evil.
If you want to help, how about endorsing Instant Runoff Voting? Thank you.
But just to be clear - I don't equate voting-your-conscious with supporting the Socialist Left.
I just think you are failing to oppose them.
No candidate will ever be all your looking for. Does that mean you should never vote?
Many OBJ's would have trouble voting for a Libertarian. Hell, some OBJ's would have serious trouble voting for some other OBJ's.
But if a Libertarian had a real chance of winning I would enthusiastically support him/her.
Even if I profoundly disagree with them on Foreign Policy.
Does that mean I'm voting for evil?
The more you think the two are the same - the more your argument makes sense.
But I don't think Republicans and Democrats are "practically the same." I see a vast difference between the two.
They're both politicians - hence liars and thieves - but only one seeks to actively enslave me.
The key give away was "I don't think. Had you said I don't believe or I don't judge them or I am sure that....different store. I don't think is not a conclusion and most of the time is an escape hatch cop out. Judge yourself its conscience not mine.
Condemnation of a failed system and a Vote of No Confidence is a better description. But it's all we have left. Voting at the local level and refusing to vote for any of the major party candidates is a possibility and another choice. Voting for no candidates and only on measures is another one.
If you mean that their vote doesn't count then I would definitely reconsider whether your vote for a Republocrat or Demublican counts either.
If you're not voting for someone who has a chance of winning - you may as well have stayed home.
Yeah, I know you can "have your voice heard" but who the hell is listening. And besides, REAL damage can be done.
After the second time I voted for Perot I vowed never to "vote my conscious" again.
1992: Clinton 43.0%, Bush 37.5%, Perot 18.9%
1996: Clinton 49.2%, Dole 40.7%, Perot 8.4%
Am I the only one who remembers this stuff?
We continue to vote for Frack because Frack is not quite as Progressive (or stupid) as Frick. Never the less, the damage will be the same!
I for one have had it with that line of thinking! I will not give aid and comfort to the other guy (who for the most part is a fraud him/her self. I will only vote for those who show that they are the real deals by their actions.
This is what I owe myself, my family and my friends, neighbors and fellow citizens. Don't just settle! It's not worth the cost to your conscience...
Nice that you can be so deluded by the progressive political machine though and keep voting them into office.
I am no more deluded than liberals are stupid or conservatives are mean.
And yes, since there are absolutely no pro-business Democrats, I will always vote for the Republican - no matter how much I dislike it.
(Except Hillary vs Trump - I'll sit that one out. Cry and get drunk, probably.)
But none of them are allowed to run as candidates for the GOP (or the Dems.)
A vote for the GOP or the Dems is a vote for evil, acquiensence to socialism, consent to slavery, a part of the problem, not the solution.
Break away from the brainwashing or your name defines the value of your vote.
Peace out, brah!
So you sacrifice what is good in order to gain what is evil. I think AR had choice words for that type of decision.
But I knew I wouldn't get Perot.
Of the other two - I'd rather not have the Democrat.
And there we have it.
You say the big two are the same -
I say "Say wuht?!
I prefer creeping up on Socialism to making a mad dash for it.
I agree. It is true that, in the long run, the Republicans are taking deeper into socialism as well, but because they are trying to fool their conservative base they do not charge full speed into it like the Democrats are itching to do anytime they get a opening.
But you must recognize it isn't slower. That is just the false assumption that the GOP wants you to believe.
When a Dem is in the oval office, the GOP has (in the past at least) had to oppose the worst unconstitutional proposals. When a republican is in the oval office, there is no opposition to such programs regardless of how unconstitutional they are. In recent years, the GOP makes no attempt to reduce government; they only change who get the spoils of government piracy.
Contrast the failure of Clinton to pass laws ignoring the bill of rights to the successful destruction of its protection of rights under GWBush. The Democrats are openly and brazen looters. The GOP pretends to be defenders of liberty until the day after the election. Then they do nothing to stop the growth of government. In fact, they expand it beyond the programs previously passed by Democrats.
Wake up! Evil = Evil.
That thinking is what keeps the statists in power. They just change tactics when the GOP reigns. Instead of Obamacare you got Fatherland Security.
Neither is acceptable. Stop making excuses for the evil bastards who steal your liberty, your privacy, and your property. Evil is evil.
You have not refuted the argument.
Personal attacks do not change the reality that I have stated.
The GOP is responsible for the Patriot Act.
Republicans voted for the National Firearms Act (1934) and Federal Firearms Act of 1938.
Republicans voted 178 to 43 in favor of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
There are thousands of bills the GOP has passed that trample on our liberty and enlarge the state.
Evil is evil.
A vote for the GOP is a vote for evil.
We also remember what the Bush family has done, and it's worse than Bill Clinton.
Dole? What a looting slime.
Wake up, Zero.
The two parties are one. They are complicit in the destruction of liberty. They are evil.
Don't vote for evil.
As an OBJ - a staunch advocate of reason - I am an idealist of the first order.
One of my most basic beliefs is that
"Whenever you figure something out you must act on it. Nothing will be OK until you do."
Pretty Idealistic, no?
Well, I figured out that:
- my guy can't win right now, and
- one of these other two guys WILL win, and
- one of them is much worse than the other (at least in MY judgment), so...
...how can I fail to work against the greater evil?
My responsibility as an Idealist is to resist oppression - not throw up my hands, take my ball and go home.
But that's just my take on it.
You get no peace of conscience from any other than your own conscience sounds like you are trying to justify your choice and failing badly. So get behind me. minus Zero you get no converts here;
Moral Philosophy 101 is a great tool for those that have the balls to use it.
My conscious haunts me for many past sins but not about this.
It's OK to disagree, y'know, that not everyone who differs is evil.
In fact - few people really are.
Even Obama - who seems in a mad rush to destroy us - is in fact acting on his best judgment, sincerely trying to do what he feels is best for his people.
The world is a COMPLICATED place.
Don't take it rough it was a lot less what i had to go through finding out 24 years in the infantry had been for nothing. I'm not sure how long I've got on this planet so I use head on shock but probably not awe and I principally stick up for those of us who were termed enemies of the country by a government of traitors.
Consider. DOHS when I mention them is Directorate of Internal State Security because the DISS the citizens and do little to protect us. It's just a way to get a new protective echelon in place. Translate that to German. Schutz Staffel. SS. Lightning strikes on black uniform collars. Consider the english meaning of Barak. lightning and lightning is a destroyer.
My uniform had three on the shoulder patch and the motto in latin is De Opresso Liber. Liberate the Oppressed we were used for that nobly stated purpose - very little and used for the opposite purpose too much. And then spit on by the people who used us.
You get a momentary twinge of self pity. I get to die not being able to change that stain on our unit's honor.
Maybe......doing something like this will be of some use especially since the oppressed now can be found in any passenger line in any airline terminal..not to mention income tax and ;shyster dictators moochers and looters running the government.
Definitely look for ways of improving it. The lack of ability to figure out what those bastards are doing in Wash. DC is largely a result of the redefinition. At the very least you now know why Republicans have become Democrat lapdogs and Madonna the liberal airhead made a movie in praise of Evita Peron a supposedly right wing fascist. She was but it wasn't really right wing. just right wing of the left.
Don't take it too hard most people don't realize what fascist truly means nor that the entire left from Rino to Hillary are all of that bent. Byi association so are their supporters. Most don't understand conservative or liberal and probably think Democrat means democratic. Pays to read a pre PC dictionary from time to time.
Leftist supporter? Of course you just chose and stated so in your reasoning to support the left. What other conclusion could there be?
I didn't make that decision you did.
Does the left have to be an evil institution. No it does not.
Some still have one foot in the center which is the Constitution for the rest of us. Those are people who believe in a bit more federalism than does the center. Which I think is what you are struggling to define as your position. But current definitions don't allow that do I changed them to suit reality. On the other side opposite government over people is citizens over government. They too must keep one foot in the sacred ground of the Constitution.
Both must use the Amendment system for substantive change including changing the amendment system.
Neither side can ignore or institute as dictatorship either by a President or a Judge nor by the whim of one State. Same Sex got in by those routes, Does that mean because Oregon voted for accepting ballots from the graveyard or recreational drug use the rest MUST follow. No it does not.
But if it means voting for a left wing progressive extremist of the now admittedly socialist camp I submit you have moved beyond the pale. Beyond the common bond and accepted evil. By my definition. I get to make that observation.
Which means more drift to the left. Drift? How about stampede.
Extreme Left complete government control
Left = government control over people
Its center puts the source of power somewhere between fascism and mind control.
Center and right by true definition is recognizing the source of power is not divine but defined as
Citizens over government.
One side recognizes Citizens the other recognizes persons in the same manner as serfs, slaves, peons and peasants.Not humans, some things to pee on.
Lest I forget the extreme right becomes Anarchy the complete absence of government and perhaps rejection of society.
Referring to my other submission.
By those standards almost every Republican and all Democrats are left wing and their center is not the sacred ground of the nation. It's too fascist too socialist and too progressive to have anything to do with center Its too extreme. It is too evil as it seeks to subjugate human independence, reason, thought and freedoms and is in no way democratic.
So we get to your choices? Of all the candidates of the left only one ended up being acceptable. A choice. None so far have come from the Republican/RINO wing of the left. So
I'm speaking of Jim Webb. Others may join him and those of us in or near the center by repudiating their connection as a group or as individuals. It remains to be seen. I support a complete split between RINO republicans and Centirst Republicans.
Enough......Read the other post on Define not Divine which alludes to Divine Right of Kings but means 'the source of power.'
think about it see if it answers any questions or can be improved but it's still your choice.
Perhaps you will find a way to smack me into some reality. I hope so.
I'm conducting a counter revolution against evil. Therefore I reject it completely. There is no need and compelling reasons to stand against it. But not with leftist PC definitions.
.
The outcome though is when you make public confession it's an admission of self-conviction as in convicted not as in having convictions.
Believe me, I'm really ready to leave this whole post behind, but...
I saw this part again - repeated over and over again - the defining point of your argument - and it is complete bunk.
I have to call it out before walking away.
"The degree of evil is immaterial."
What hogwash.
I have lied to my spouse, many others have cheated on their's, a few have killed them.
Are we morally equivalent? Is the degree of evil is immaterial?
If you're about to say any variation of "YES" just speak to the hand.
I stopped having these kinds of arguments in 10th grade.
Enough of voting for the "lesser of two evils" being that evil is still evil.
We have been following that silly path and look where it has gotten us!
Besides, Truth be told, both major parties are run by the same oligarchy and are the power of the folks that Ayn Rand wrote about.
It is about time that the country wakes up and understands that both parties (run by their respective "Establishments" are leading us hand in hand down the path shown in Atlas Shrugged.
For what its worth!
But its not about me. Its about the millions of conservatives who are lemmings for the GOP.
People who haven't a clue would make such a silly statement. Who do you think put the 80 members of the Freedom Caucus in? Santa Clause or John Boehner.
I suggest before making statements like that you dig a little deeper and use critical thinking to test your statements.
In adding up the tote Republican = Rino= Democrat = Dion = Socialist Party. Still the lapdogs of the left no matter the thespian skills.
Talking or acting is not the same as doing. That' a pure left wing trait.
That is a rather broad brush. Have you any evidence of this? I am not a TEA Party member, but I have friends that are in a local chapter. Their interest was not orchestrated... it was organic... born out of frustration. The only common denominator among them is in the name... Taxed Enough Already. Are you making a distinction with this term "Tea-0-Con" which I am unfamiliar with? What exactly is a "Tea-o-Con" by your definition?
I'm sure there are some in every crowd, but to collectively judge them in such a fashion seems rather subjective. Perhaps you have interactions with people in upper echelons while I have only interacted with grass roots locals.
Respectfully,
O.A.
You obviously never attended or participated in a Tea Party have you? I can assure you that the Republicans tried early on to co-opt the TP however they failed (having 80 members of the Freedom Caucus proves that beyond a doubt).
So, for the sake of intellectual integrity I suggest that you reconsider such an obviously ill-informed statement. That is unless you are just a Progressive troll hanging out on this blog.....
Then the Neocons/RNC bastards stole the idea and turned it into a FOX News carnival. Yes, I went to the first "Tea Party" in my area. It was a puke-fest of fake conservatives and GOP morons. There were Rush Limbaugh T-shirts for Christ's sake. And Glenn Beck supporters. Hell, Karl Rove/Marx was one of the speakers. Just a bunch of red, white & blue clad sheeple who didn't know why they were gathering in the first place.
I assure you, I am not a progressive. I am a Constitutionalist, a true conservative not a Neocon, and an objectivist libertarian overall, and a 3%'er and an Oathkeeper. You are a sheep, and easily fooled.
Now that we have established that we are probably in "violent" agreement on most if not all points, perhaps we can agree to agree on these issues!
The Tea Party movement has been around for many years, but coalesced somewhat starting about 2008 or 09.
In its early form, it was very libertarian, but has since splintered and now has many groups using the name "Tea Party," and some of them are what is called "social conservative," meaning supporting restrictions on personal liberty even while inconsistently calling for "obeying the Constitution" and cutting taxes.
It was a planned astroturf media event. It splintered into many different groups, all with differing "goals", because there was no basic premise to begin with, other than people were angry. I went to the first one in my area, it was nothing but Neocons and ill-informed simpletons wearing Rush Limbaugh t-shirts. That is why it fairly quickly disappeared, it was arranged to be useful for that one mid-term election so people would feel good about sending more GOP leeches to Congress.
It is OK you were fooled. So long as it happens only once.
The movement that is "astroturf" is Obama's. His side even hired paid demonstrators. We've never done that.
I call you out as a Democrat in sheep's clothing.
Just because I am awake and I see the "Tea Party" for what it is does not make me a "Democrat". I am wise enough to know that there isn't a difference between the two parties of any real substance. And, by acknowledging that the Tea Party crap is connected to the GOP you have actually agreed with me.
If you would like to take the red pill (ala The Matrix) and see reality I can help you. But, you must first shed the media brain washing that Republicans are conservative and Democrats are liberal - they are both corporatist (fascist) and support the military industrial complex and the Federal Reserve first, then they have some slight differences around the edges.
How can I not be? I can add to 18.4 Trillion!
The propaganda is ascribing to the Tea Party any agenda beyond fiscal conservancy.
It's all about the money.
I do agree that he will be better than Boehner
Compared to whom?
Compared to us? Well, no, not compared to us,
But compared to his colleagues he is very far to the economic right.
At lease he doesn't have to be persuaded that Capitalism is a GOOD thing.
Unlike his fellows who gaze upon the markets with a baleful eye.
Like I said, he's a politician - I'll take what I can get.
That's always the issue with politicians and business.
Being endorsed by the left means they expect the deal making to continue which means they see no sacred ground beneath that individual. i would say the same in the other direction IF they had anything to defend. They used to but they all left us.
Alarm bells should have been ringing for everyone right of socialist when Obama and Reid and Polosi endorsed him! When they want someone, then you know you're in trouble and the constitution will be decimated
Yeah, that's not a good sign.
'Course it could be about the "Socially Liberal" side of the OBJ/Lib mantra "Socially Liberal - Fiscally Conservative."
Maybe they just prefer a Republican who isn't trying to take society back to the 50's.
Just wingin' it here. I have no idea of the context.
But since his Speaker-ship is considered the Tea Party's greatest achievement I doubt they endorse his economic views.
But I could be wrong - I often am.
I'd say "My bad." But, nah, I'm pretty happy with my level of exposure.
that's a real plus....and original thought, original research....a lot of that in this one location. So? I go look at others when they pop up ....but normally find them lacking. The western journalism site was one. Headlines led nowhere ...no beef. The mmf or m2f media is at best skim over country with no serous journalists only spin reporters...why bother land. 'kinda liek a decaf lo fat espresso. I couldn't even bother to paragraph this one....
It seems Foster interpreted my comment the opposite way.
Anyway, there is a BIG difference in VOTING for a "cute butt" and applying "Boner" to Boehner in a deprecating manner. Is this your question?
I found Esceptico's reference funny, no harm in that.
His record does not indicate that he is an independent thinker but rather an astute "Poiltician" as opposed to a strongly principled "Statesman".
I'll take a statesman any day!
Everything in his posting is gospel. The only exception that I take (he is better then Boehner, that much I will concede) is that he will still be an Establishment/Moderate who will continue the damage that Boehner and his cronies have done to date.
The end-game will be giving Obama and his minions everything that he wants. To hell with the rest of us!!
Go find Esceptico's comment and read before you accuse!!!!
I'm not going to give you the answer- go find it and when you do then we will see who the "bonehead" is.
Say hi to George Soros and the rest of the oligarchs on both sides for me...
I am biased against him because he is a Republican, and that makes him more likely to join with his colleagues in expanding the intrusiveness of gov't. (Both parties expand the cost of gov't, but Republicans are particularly bad about making more intrusive.) I would rather have a Republican, who at least claims to support Ayn Rand's ideas though, than a Democrat.
I could see him having fierce battles with President Clinton over cutting spending, and it will feel just like the 90s.
So, who knows where he truly stands
The rest is just would be could be should be with a large dose of dubious hope.
The challenge of shutting down the government before was the horrible media storm that erupted and incorrectly blamed Republicans. I can see where it is basically a stalemate until Obama is gone.
I also can no longer take a slight improvement. If the candidate does not stand to the far right meeting my principals I will not vote. As I see it, the only thing that can save our country is a hard right. Anything else leads to the same path, complete & total failure. It's just a matter of when it will happen. My generation and the generation before mine allowed this mess to be created. It is our responsibility to clean up the mess and not pass it on to people's children and grandchildren, that had nothing to do or say about it. My choice is to fix it by electing enough people that will move us quickly to the right to save us. If that cannot happen then I vote for quick failure so we can finally start to rebuild. I'm sick of the slow (currently not so slow) degradation that has been going on for so long. Fix or start over, now.
I guess we all have our own way of dealing with grief.
But, y'know that "rebuild" of which you dream will be bloody - and most likely fatal to US.
Whichever thug takes over to bring "law-and-order" to the anarchy will hunt us down, I assure you.
Let it drag on long enough to give us time to leave. Either off-shore cities or space habs. It's not that much longer.
And besides, if we could just pass a Balanced Budget Amendment we'd still have a chance to save this place.
I agree failure will not be pretty. Not the outcome I want but again if it is going to happen the generation that caused it should pay the price. :)
You may be correct on the balanced budget. Personally, I don't believe a slower slide to the left will produce a balanced budget any more than the path we are currently on. It will take a sharp right turn to get it done.
Let's double our efforts looking for Statesmen and Women who can get the job done. They exist even though they are usually attacked and destroyed by the sheep of this nation and the MSM that guide them.
For what its worth!
All or nothing. It's time to kick ass and take names.
Please note that Rand was not a conservative and wrote against the takeover of the Republican party by the conservatives.
As for Ryan, he tried to believe Rand's objective philosophy but let his belief in god get in the way. He then would no longer have anything to do with the that atheist philosophy.
That is why libertarians do no consider themselves as being on the left right political spectrum.
Define Not Devine ....and do not accept the definitions of the opposition. Words have meanings and their meaning is totalitarian control and subjection of reason and freedom.
They just said so openly. Socialist Not democratic.
THINK!
Never use the definitions of the other side. Redefining is their major weapon against you.
Political spectrum
Post-left Ultra-left Far-left Left-wing
Centre-left
Centre/Radical centre
Centre-right
Right-wing Far-right/Radical right: United States - Europe
Party platform
Extremist Radical
Reformist Moderate
Syncretic
Conservative Reactionary
Fundamentalist
Party system
Non-partisan Single-party
Dominant-party Two-party Multi-party
Coalition
Hung parliament Confidence and supply Minority government Rainbow coalition Grand coalition Full coalition
National Unity government
Majority government
Words have meanings. That is they did until PC.
Wasn't it Milton Friedman who called himself "a small r republican"?
answer::: yes.
.
The paradigm must shift if we are ever again to truly live free. What we are getting now is just one nail after another in the coffin holding our dear departed Freedoms.
We don't need another Captain on what is becoming a "Prison Ship of State"....We need someone who still believes in the US Constitution, small government, and is going to be a better steward of how our hard-earned tax monies are being spent.
Let's see if this guy has any principles that follow those simple tenets. I for one don't think he has...
America - even today - is the Greatest Nation in the History of the World.
I will never give up on it.
Just the frustration of dealing with "lesser" intellects, I guess.
Not me.
From what I've seen the Average Man is not average and extraordinary people are all around us.
As for the freedoms of other countries, all I can say is Sweeeet.
One is not diminished by another's success.
But I also have to ask - who were the "banksters" and what was done to them?
(Somehow I doubt there were many politicians among those brought to "justice.")
A little voice says I should leave this alone, but I am so often wrong that I have to know - what personal liberties do they have in Peru and Iceland that we don't have here?
question re: the personal liberties that Peru
& Iceland have - that WE don't?? Interesting!
He has more power now; let's see what he does with it.
Jan
But that is just fine. Human beings are fallible, and as long as he does his job well, I can quote, "Dinna bind th' mouth o'th' kine that tred th' corn." If he negotiates a balance budget and gets our finances under better control, then I will live with human failures.
If it turns out that he actually has integrity, so much the better. Have you noticed that in SF/Fantasy novels where the world is 'just a little bit better' than our current one, there is often a 'truth machine' (or 'spell')? If we could vet for integrity, or at least minimize lack thereof, we would be better off. We cannot, so we have to work with the tools available.
Jan
You weren't worth the effort. You weren't worth fighting for....Your last chance IS people like me and those on active duty....buy...you aren't worth the effort.Truth? You jest? When was the last time that happened. Wayne Morse voting against the Tonkin Gulf Resolution.Fifty years ago. A plague on both two faces of your one party system.
When and if the military decides to up hold it's oath of office I'm starting to support they do it permanently.
The world is not going to match your vision of it. The only possibility of positive change lies in incremental improvements within the bounds of reality.
And - hey - Did I ask you to fight for me? I did my 4 in the USAF...A lot of people who were alive in the US at that time represented philosophies I did not personally care for. This did not determine what I did or what I believed.
Jan
Your post sounds treacherously close to a personal attack.
But I'm sure I'm reading it wrong. What reason would you have to be so rude?
I mean JLC is one of the good "guys" around here. Totally undeserving of such disrespect.
---
Toss back a couple of stiff ones, smoke a doob or cross your legs in that painful way and say "Uuhhhmmmmm" for 20 minutes.
What ever it takes.
Jan
Jan, 5+ hours after "plonk"...whatever it was
In those rare moments when "the body opens and the soul looks out"
there is a raw beauty to the truth of that moment and a dignity that cannot be overlooked.
Each of us expresses our position at any given moment, along with our need and our desire.
There are different approaches to finding that congruent center within ourselves and, more often than not, can be misunderstood and misinterpreted... The importance is to stay the path.
Here is a +1 for jlc/Jan and MichaelA.
Thanks for the great post Zero!
Took a minute for the words to sink in.
A sage observation and balm for the rash.
Well met sir! (Ma'am?)
Lots of interesting stuff coming up in the congress. It won't take long for us to know what kind of Speaker we have.
Besides, if everyone knew what scumbags they all are the game would be over. They don't know because they are brainwashed, distracted, and somewhat naive. Oh, and insane, too.
P.S. I was gifted a bottle of small batch 16 yr. Black Maple Hill ... This conversation calls for a drink.
Good health!
Let's see how long it takes him to show that he is either just John Boehner-lite...or maybe a surprise that we can live with.
My money is on Boehner-lite!
Maybe she tried but gave up, figuring that such a character would be completely unbelievable.
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.
When Representative Old Bat (D-San Francisco) starts holding someone to a standard she never could meet, I expect that. But I don't like getting any such hypocrisy from one who pretends to love liberty. I expect honor and integrity. And I just don't see it.
Yes, I remember Ryan's saying, some years ago, that he had been influenced by Ayn Rand's writing, but Alan Greenspan also said that.
I was asking at a library several weeks ago for some of her books and was told they were all checked out!
The librarian told me every time there was a Republican debate, her name would come up and there would be a rush on her work.
But even when Republicans win elections, we citizens and taxpayers keep losing.
Taxes rise, governments grow, wars increase, and voters keep getting suckered.
If you have any evidence Paul Ryan is pro-freedom or pro-free-market, I'd love to see it. Thank you.
That is from late 1940's Greece to the last few months. Truman gets credit for Korea LBJ for Vietnam, Bush and Bush for Kuwait and Iraq and Obama for Afghanistan. The only rule for professional soldiers is who started or responded to some situation. 18 to is a very strong reason for the professional military - to vote Republican and not Democrat.
It is not accidental the majority of votes received by the left came a. from the Pentagon and other rear areas and the majority for Republicans came from from front line personnel. The RE in REMF means Rear Echelon.... I wondered with the new abilities, weapons, and equipment if 18:1 would change. That was the only real difference I found between the Left and Right wing of the Left. So far the difference is statistically insignificant.
Add in WWII the left of the left stands no chance.
"Here's what he said to National Review in April: “I reject her philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “
He is a denizen of the DC Beltway where everything is run by lobbyists and oligarchs. That is the reason that perhaps these folks might stay closer to their principles if they spent more time at home in their districts and only about 2 weeks in DC to actually vote on bills.
This is how to get our leadership back to sanity and reality. God knows those are two commodities that do not exist in Washington.
Now that being said, even if all Ryan does is move back to giving the House adequate time to study bills, allowing amendments, and not threatening other Republicans who disagree with him, that will be a good step in the right direction.
This is what you call walking in to a hornet's nest!
I have learned some things from your post, it has been most insightful.
Thank you.
Interesting...
Paul Ryan is absolutely not a libertarian! Any libertarian views that he holds are mere coincidence, random intersections with whatever philosophy he might have. You can't even pin a name on his belief system, a mish mash of conflicting values.
He will be Boehner lite if for no other reason he is a part of the Beltway. Granted every once in a while he sounds Conservative or Libertarian however his voting record indicates something much more "moderate".
I for one am dubious that he is the leader that the Republican party really needs at this juncture!
torial demands as a condition of taking the job; but
who knows how it will go now?