Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We already elected Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul when we got George Bush. Bush II, in 2000, promised us strong defense and conservative/libertarian principles. We got imperial overstretch and budgets beyond belief.
Hunter and Paul might not be bad people, but Bush didn't look that bad in 2000 either.
According to Bob Novak, Republicans dislike McCain (the two-timer), disagree with Giuliani (the cross-dressing social liberal), and distrust Romney (the slick talking flip-flopper). Brownback and Tommy Thompson are about as exciting and presidential as Bob Dole.
Fred Thompson would give us leadership, while Gilmore, Gingrich, Huckabee, and Tancredo (as well as Tommy Thompson, at least on health care) provide ideas.
Agreed stuntman, you gotta give tancredo credit he had the guts to get up and say he would stop all immigration! YIKES!! I love most libertarian principles, in this case it is not the message but the messenger!
Stop all immigration?!! Seriously? That's not a smart position. Stop illegal immigration certainly. But one problem that many outspoken Republicans seem to have is this eagerness to deploy a scorched earth policy of response to any problem they are addressing. Lots of crime? ARM EVERYONE! Illegals thumbing their nose at America? Brick wall around the entire nation! No one in AT ALL! Some of these knee-jerk reactions reek of liberal reactions we've criticized in the 90s.
These are not solutions. I know most of these folks are much too smart to really believe in the extent of their rhetoric, but the worst effect of these positions is that it taints the rational positions of other conservatives by association. There are solutions to resolve crime without forcing guns into the hands of folks who don't want them (which some folks have advocated, I realize it's not a majority of gun right supporters, but I'm using this example to simply illustrate the knee-jerk reactionary point, not to lump this view along with more rational views which I have no problem with) and without resorting to the wild west.
There is a solution to the immigration issue which HONORS immigration (one of if not THE defining essential bedrock of American society and culture) while securing our borders and PUNISHING illegals. No one can justify stopping all immigration; and I don't believe that it is a libertarian principle. It isn't one I support; I just support firm regulations that are actually enforced. The vitality of our nation depends on the free exchange of ideas, opportunity to pursue dreams, and exchange of people.
I used this post to mainly address some of the more extreme aspects of "conservatism" that I have seen in this thread. I have plenty more to say about liberalism. But my interests lie more in repairing and preserving my understanding of true conservatism which is firm, restrained, but hospitable.
That's actually a great voting record if you're against Big Brother federal government and pro personal liberties and responsibilities.
Keep in mind, the ACLU is out to protect YOUR liberties, liberties you have by right, from infringement by the federal and other governments. You and I may not agree on all the stances they take, but in the majority, they're acting to keep government out of your life.
The fascist talking heads we have in the rightist media outlets would like you to believe that the Republican way is the only way and we should just trust the Republicans to do what is right in every way and everything and look what that has brought us.
Beware what those talking heads say because they most assuredly represent a power base who would rather you surrender your reason and intellect to them rather than think for yourself.
"Just three hours a day," is all you need to be brainwashed, not necessarily informed.
I don't know how those votes I cited by Paul can in most cases be considered examples of keeping government out of my life: that is unless of course, we simply want a borderline anarchist state where stiffer penalties and ethical treatment of thy neighbor are considered "big brother government". The ACLU? 25 years ago, I might side with you. No longer. The ACLU has no interest in our real lost liberties in this country. I haven't seen- nor smelled the ACLU for that matter, when ever the "nanny state" tells me what I can't build or design on my own personal property (do we still have a 4th amendment in this country?), when I am told that I have to wear a seatbelt or register my pet dog, or that I have to prohibit smoking in my own private business establishment. The ACLU simply seeks the limelight and pursues any target it can bully and out-spend on attorney feelings and could care less about my constitutional rights. The ACLU simply put, is an entourage of bullying pimps.
Stop all immigration?!! Seriously? That's not a smart position. Stop illegal immigration certainly. But one problem that many outspoken Republicans seem to have is this eagerness to deploy a scorched earth policy of response to any problem they are addressing. Lots of crime? ARM EVERYONE! Illegals thumbing their nose at America? Brick wall around the entire nation! No one in AT ALL! Some of these knee-jerk reactions reek of liberal reactions we've criticized in the 90s.
These are not solutions. I know most of these folks are much too smart to really believe in the extent of their rhetoric, but the worst effect of these positions is that it taints the rational positions of other conservatives by association. There are solutions to resolve crime without forcing guns into the hands of folks who don't want them (which some folks have advocated, I realize it's not a majority of gun right supporters, but I'm using this example to simply illustrate the knee-jerk reactionary point, not to lump this view along with more rational views which I have no problem with) and without resorting to the wild west.
There is a solution to the immigration issue which HONORS immigration (one of if not THE defining essential bedrock of American society and culture) while securing our borders and PUNISHING illegals. No one can justify stopping all immigration; and I don't believe that it is a libertarian principle. It isn't one I support; I just support firm regulations that are actually enforced. The vitality of our nation depends on the free exchange of ideas, opportunity to pursue dreams, and exchange of people.
I used this post to mainly address some of the more extreme aspects of "conservatism" that I have seen in this thread. I have plenty more to say about liberalism. But my interests lie more in repairing and preserving my understanding of true conservatism which is firm, restrained, but hospitable.
You are exactly right. I don't want immigration stopped and we would cease to be the country we were intently formed to be. But I think it not to be outrageous from a temp stance until realistically the U.S gets control of its border situation: and not just issue of illegals coming in, but the security checkpoints which have often failed miserably in identifying appropriately terror threats, or even the likes of Mr. Speaker, the TB-possessor.
I certainly never bought into the Pat Buchanan philosophy years back of shutting down our borders for nothing more than because immigrants who gained legal status supposedly were costing American citizens jobs. That was all bunk.
I watched the debate and distinctly heard some of these people say the nuclear weapons would be considered if we attacked Iran. I was tempted to just shut off the TV at that point but I listened for a little while longer but not for the full two hours.
My overall impression is that these are a collection of political lightweights and socio-economic dreamers. I wondered what has happened to the Republican Party that gave us Eisenhower and Goldwater.
I am a conservative that believes the US Constitution is, along with the Magna Carta, the most important political document of all time and should be followed in such minor matters as war and peace. I am a Democrat because I am not rich enough, religious enough or foolish enough to be a Republican.
I watched the debate and distinctly heard some of these people say the nuclear weapons would be considered if we attacked Iran. I was tempted to just shut off the TV at that point but I listened for a little while longer but not for the full two hours.
My overall impression is that these are a collection of political lightweights and socio-economic dreamers. I wondered what has happened to the Republican Party that gave us Eisenhower and Goldwater.
I am a conservative that believes the US Constitution is, along with the Magna Carta, the most important political document of all time and should be followed in such minor matters as war and peace. I am a Democrat because I am not rich enough, religious enough or foolish enough to be a Republican.
You seem to be in political neverland. I haven't heard one Dem candidate who supports a conservative interpretation of the Constitution. I guess that you are hoping for a Ron Paul Libertarian candidacy?
Some of Ron Paul's votes...
NO: capping damages & setting time limits in medical lawsuits
NO: prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food manufacturers
NO: nationwide AMBER alert system
NO: creating a law where it is a crime to harm a fetus during another crime
NO: restricting interstate transport of minors to receive abortions
NO: more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime but...
YES: funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons
YES: provide $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers
Jan., 2007: announces he is opposed to the death penalty
Dec., 2002-2007: 60-67% rating by the ACLU-that is high, higher than the likes of Hillary Clinton which is not something I'd be promoting as a "Republican"
-Paul's votes regarding foreign policy are frightening at times, I don't care what everyone's views of our world-wide role should be and how "neo-con" any individual views the entire Republican party beyond Bush and his gang. My favorite for example: NO! on deterring foreign arms transfers to China just less than two years ago.
Paul may be a Goldwater in terms of separating himself from the religious zealots in the party, but he is still no Goldwater, and certainly no Reagan for that matter.
Thanks for this challenge. I didn't know very much about Tancredo, but after a bit of research I found that he indeed is the more Republican than Paul, probably the MOST "Republican" of the candidates. My biggest concern is his allowing his religioius beliefs to guide his political voting. Therefore, I feel that those who are fiscally and socially conservative should support Tancredo, at this point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was laughing on that one also....the ACLU protects us all....
