1,697 comments posted · 16 followers · following 7
As of now, I am thinking the chances of a brokered convention are probably more likely than not.
To the OP, whats disgusting is that we are having someone who might as well be a Liberal being foisted upon us at a time when the entire party has swung to the right. Defeating Romney is worth quite a few "dirty tricks"....besides, this is politics...you think Romney wouldn't do the same if he had a reason to? The man is the consummate opportunist. At least Rick's blue collar stuff actually gives a bit of credence to reaching out to blue dog democrats.
I am well aware of that. I would rather see the GOP still fighting amongst themselves all the way to the election than see Romney be the nominee.
"Really? For whom will it be a major victory? WE THE PEOPLE, or Newt the DC operator?"
If Newt is honest about what his agenda is, then it would probably be a pretty big net positive for the country. If he's lying or if what he wants to do is politically infeasible, than of course, things won't turn out so well. That's what happens in politics. We vote for the guy who sounds good and hope he's honest.
"The size of his agenda (and Romney's as well) is troubling."
What are you talking about? If you have allot of problems, you need to have allot of fixes...just because those fixes take the form of reducing governmental or Union power does not mean they are not part of the agenda. Just because an agenda is aiming to shrink the government does not mean its small...yes, we all object to politicians doing anything, but to reverse the mistakes of past politicians more political action is required. Are you going to have a hissy fit if our nominee has more than a sentence of policy prescriptions?
"I have one primary hope for the next POTUS... that he will SHRINK the DC bureaucracy and repeal regs and laws that are impeding the practice of capitalism."
As if that is the only thing which is going wrong right now...yeah, right.
"Most everything else will fall into place after that is accomplished."
Is reviving our economy going to do much of anything visa vi the horrible situation that is emerging as a result of the Arab Spring?
"I don't think a one of them seriously considers that."
What the h*ll have we been listening to for the last month? How many times do these guys need to talk about cutting regulations and bureaucracy before your satisfied? Sure, these guy's are lying politicians, and as a cynic, I get that, but its not like these guys have not been hitting exactly that topic time, and time, and time, and time...and time again.
"And, NO Ron Paul is not an option that I would consider, but some of them need to pay attention to his schtick..."
I don't support Ron Paul. In fact, he has been getting steadily more on my nerves. And stop using the caps. Makes me feel like your yelling at me for a suggestion I never made.
Besides, I'll be more likely to take him seriously when he stops flying interference for Romney. Not that I think there's a conspiracy BUT I think RP perversely views the more conservative candidates in the race as more dangerous to the country and is more inclined to go after Newt and Rick because he has experience with them but none with Romney.
One thing I find particularly unsettling about you is this argument:
"God is the same. No concrete evidence."
God is not a theory. God is not Human logic, though that said, Human logic can prove god exists. Not empirically in the scientific sense maybe...but if you honestly believe that there is no rational ground to argue for Gods existence than you don't know a d@mn thing...I'm assuming your a Christian, so if that's the case I'll tell you something which you better learn: Faith is not a matter of believing without evidence, or believing without reason, without proof. Faith is believing in something rational when you live in a world of evil irrationality. Faith is pushing back the gnawing irrational doubt, not believing in something irrationally.
Your "out of context" defense may be completely sound, but nontheless, what Darwin say's in his second quote contradicts the defense you made for him in the first quote...besides, it is not as if Darwin was developing in a time or field when "Racialism" was stigmatized or looked down on.
And this is a response to your other post, what you say may be right, and I have not spent too much time looking at Social Darwinism in the great totalitarian ideologies...but I'm just curious, where are you coming from ideologically that you feel the need to fly interference for Darwin?