Nov 2012: Obama's Impeachment?

Reagan a conservative ? That like saying Charles Manson is the pope! I guess people forget the trillion dollars in debt he left the country in, the massive expansion of government as well. Newt really thats laughable, Santorum yeah right just a couple of rightwing nut bags what do they bring to the table exactly? There are plenty of Republican that should have run but it turned out to be nothing more than a freak show. My take on conservatives is nothing more than a massive re write of history.

 

give me an example of a recent conservative president


recent - last fifty years

 

ALL of them have you that worried for your incompetent fool in the WH?
Liberals now want to define a conservative . Your worries are showing.
But you cannot define a conservative because the concept is beyond liberal propaganda and that's all liberals have.

I'll help, but you won't understand a word. Conservatives would like to see some semblance of sanity in our government. Liberals think insanity is a viable program.

 

i would think that requirement knocks ron paul and santorum out of the running

 

There has not been one and certainly not a fiscal conservative.

Goldwater spoke out against the takeover of the party by the Religious right.

His predictions were right. The Conservative party is divided, and the country is divided over religious bickering.

Divided we fall.

No longer is there a force standing up for the Constitution - individual rights and freedoms.

 

maybe the gop, not the country

sure there is, just not some loony interpretation of it

my 50 plus years of experience in this country makes it clear to me that we have more freedom now, than ever before

 

They ARE out of the running. Romney has won but there is still time left on the clock. That allows the loonies to delude themselves into the myth that they still have a chance.

Romney wasn't my choice, but he will be in Nov.

 

The country. We can not get much accomplished given the current level of partisanship.

I agree that we do have more freedoms but this can change on a dime.

The Right tramples over individual freedom in favor of a theocratic approach. (God says so)

The Left trampels over individual freedoms in favor of a utilitarian approach. (what is supposedly best for all with no regard for individual freedom)

Both arguments work against the Constitution.

 

we can get things accomplished, but the proliferation of gloom and doom politics, wishing for failure and a policy of 'no', doesn't foster cooperation

some would argue that that's what the founders had in mind with the bicameral legislature and other checks/balances

 

Of the 4 GOP candidates left, I would vote for Paul to be the nominee and also for President. If he is not on the ticket, and we knew from the start it was not gonna happen, Obama is the next choice, a sad one at that, but unfortunately even Obama is far better than Romney et al.

I am sorry but Santorum would only gather votes from the most conservative voters. the key to the elction is usually who can sway the independents and with Santorum on the ticket, it would be a cakewalk for the Democrats.

As I said already, I did like to vote for Paul if he was on the ticket on November, but since he won't be, I will just hold my nose and vote for BO.

I would have thought your defiition of liberal would be aany one who does not agree with you.

 

And your record of being 100% wrong remains intact.


Real liberalism is Utopian and compassionate. It no longer exists, but that's what it was. And I have no problem with those that want to do everything they can to help their fellow man. If that is what one wants to do, do it, its a beautiful thing.

I don't have a problem until they DEMAND that I pay for it and pay them to do it.

And I simply cannot assimilate that helping a small number by hurting a large number is a good thing.

 

Well .. what they did not have in mind was a theocracy, nor would they have accepted the majority of the "utilitarian" based arguments we hear on a daily basis.

The latest that comes to mind is the push to raise the minimum cost of a drink in a bar in the UK to curb binge drinking.

"Why should we suffer for the acts of a few idiots" is the argument from the other side.

This wave of Nanny Statism justified by some generally spurious claim that (its good for the masses - while completely ignoring individual freedom) debases individual freedom.

 

You may deny it all you want but your actions here say otherwise.

 

Your deductive brilliance is unimpressive to me. But you probably dress nice.

 

Not as umimpressive as I find you.

 

citing a proposal in the uk isn't a very impressive source for making your case

 

I certainly hope that Santorum does end up with the nomination.

Nothing will motivate the Obama base more than a Santorum on the ballot. Romney is just as moderate as Santorum tries to portray him as, and quite a few swing voters could switch from Obama to Romney- but none will switch from Obama to Santorum.

If Romney is on the ballot, and the economy is still bad, Romney probably will win. If Santorum is on the ballot, Obama will probably win regardless of the economy.

 

Awwwwwwwww

Shame you couldn't spell it.

 

Pointing out typos. The last refuge of internet trolls.

 

Ahhh my jugular!!! My office is a river of blood.

 

It was an example of utilitarianism in action... and a good one.

Same justification .. just different country.

If you want a local example look at the rational given for keeping Pot illegal, Drinking age at 21 and numerous other Federal, State and Municipal "nanny state" regulations.

 

alcohol is a powerful and dangerous drug

there are lots of average citizens that have felt the harm it has done, first hand

the current attitude toward minors drinking comes, at least in part, from these citizens applying pressure to government to reign in abuse and leniency on abusive drinking

i used to be able to buy alcoholic beverages myself when i was 15 in louisiana and was very lucky not to have ever been hurt or arrested

i think i know what i'm talking about here, government is composed of people

 

If alcohol is so powerful and dangerous then ban it.

If injuries results from skiing then ban it.

Automobile accidents are one of the number one causes of death .. ban cars.

If you want to continue down the utilitarian path then we might as well go all out.

If one can make a decision to risk ones life in war, then one is no longer a minor and should be able to decide whether or not to drink alcohol.

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Obama's gonna have four more years.

 

it has been tried and made things worse

also, my primary business is selling fine wine

at the slopes i've been to over the last 47 years, skiing out of control is banned

motorized vehicles provide more benefit than harm, they also save untold numbers of lives

what benefit does allowing inexperienced youth to drink legally, provide?

so there's no limit to what minors should or shouldn't be able to do?