Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 157

Thread: Ron Paul excluded in Iowa

  1. #41
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish]I see it in every issue. Every one. Social Issues, Economic Issues, Defense Issues.

    There isn't a single issue I can think of where the Far Left doesn't have more of a voice, and get vastly more support and airtime, than they used to.

    If you cannot see it, in all honesty, anything I post will ring hollow to your ears anyway. You will not see it, as you do not see it now. And we'll go round an' round like usual, accomplishing nothing.[/QUOTE]

    Of course the left has more of a voice. Democrats control congress now whereas they controlled nothing before.

    That doesn't signal a shift within the party though.

    I'm not asking for a total list or anything. I just want to see one vote or bill or anything at all that confirms what you're saying.

    I'm not trying to be dense. But I look at the Democratic candidates right now and I see a centrist hawk (Hillary) winning, followed by a free trader who spends an awful lot of time reaching out to evangelical voters (Obama). The one leading candidate who is really playing to the left (Edwards) is losing.

    In terms of votes, they tried to use a nonbinding referendum to signal dissatisfaction with the Iraq war --a position most of the country holds-- rather than the more extreme step of defunding it outright. The leadership tried to work with Bush on a bipartisan immigration bill that has since collapsed.

    The crop of Senate candidates that ran last year was the most conservative the Democrats have had since before the Civil Rights movement.

    I'm not asking for a list. Just one or two pieces of evidence to support what you're saying?

  2. #42
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]I'm not trying to be dense.[/QUOTE]

    No, you're trying to be confrontational and argumentative, and as I said I am just not in the mood today.

    As I explained, whatever issue I may post (doesn't matter what, say the change from tolerance of Homosexuality to the forced-by-law acceptance of Gay Marriage/Rights/Equallity) you will instantly turn around and tell me how wrong I am, how the Left has always yada yad yada, and how right the Left is, etc, etc, etc.

    No thanks.

    If you don't see that the Left (Not any specific individual or candidate) has moved away from Center/Moderate Positions towards more extreme Leftist/Socialist positions, so be it.

  3. #43
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish]No, you're trying to be confrontational and argumentative, and as I said I am just not in the mood today.

    As I explained, whatever issue I may post (doesn't matter what, say the change from tolerance of Homosexuality to the forced-by-law acceptance of Gay Marriage/Rights/Equallity) you will instantly turn around and tell me how wrong I am, how the Left has always yada yad yada, and how right the Left is, etc, etc, etc.

    No thanks.

    If you don't see that the Left (Not any specific individual or candidate) has moved away from Center/Moderate Positions towards more extreme Leftist/Socialist positions, so be it.[/QUOTE]

    I'm really not trying to pick a fight with you, just to have a discussion, as I think party line shifts is an interesting topic, and I'm interested in your views on it. (My views are likely different, but it can be interesting and enlightening to compare differing viewpoints.)

    But if you're not in the mood, you're not in the mood.

  4. #44
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    Here's one for you to chew on then Nu.

    Today's Liberal Democrats are far more willing to talk openly about their Socialism-based ideals, although they still do not decribe their beliefs (Socialist/Communist though they may be) as "Socialist". They couch in in terms even now, but these terms are clearly more open as to what they mean, i.e. Socialism, High Tax Rates, Universal Welfare/Healthcare/Employment, etc.

    Whereas once the Democrats had Socialist leanings, mostly good intetioned (if poorly designed) ideals to help those in need (i.e. Welfare and Social Security, etc.), nowadays they have a much more focussed belief system of economic equallity via Govt. based (and mandated) redistribution of Wealth.

    As reference, see Ms. Clintons recent comments on the topic, and John Edwards multiple quotes on the subject.

    If one chose to look, similar shifts Left could be found in the issue of Abortion Rights, Homosexual Rights, Foreign Policy (i.e. the "We Lost Iraq Before We Ever Started and It's All Our Fault Anyway, We Need to Just Talk to Them" Ideal), Political Correctness-vis-a-vis the Death of Free Speech if it offens anyone for anything or shows any kind of dislike for anyone at all whatsoever.

  5. #45
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish]Here's one for you to chew on then Nu.

    Today's Liberal Democrats are far more willing to talk openly about their Socialism-based ideals, although they still do not decribe their beliefs (Socialist/Communist though they may be) as "Socialist". They couch in in terms even now, but these terms are clearly more open as to what they mean, i.e. Socialism, High Tax Rates, Universal Welfare/Healthcare/Employment, etc.

    Whereas once the Democrats had Socialist leanings, mostly good intetioned (if poorly designed) ideals to help those in need (i.e. Welfare and Social Security, etc.), nowadays they have a much more focussed belief system of economic equallity via Govt. based (and mandated) redistribution of Wealth.

    As reference, see Ms. Clintons recent comments on the topic, and John Edwards multiple quotes on the subject.

    If one chose to look, similar shifts Left could be found in the issue of Abortion Rights, Homosexual Rights, Foreign Policy (i.e. the "We Lost Iraq Before We Ever Started and It's All Our Fault Anyway, We Need to Just Talk to Them" Ideal), Political Correctness-vis-a-vis the Death of Free Speech if it offens anyone for anything or shows any kind of dislike for anyone at all whatsoever.[/QUOTE]

    I'll stick to health care because it's a big enough topic without getting to gay marriage, abortion, etc (although you won't be surprised to learn that I disagree with how you've characterized those) until another time.

    The Democrats tried to pass a massive, universal health care plan in 1993. As you know, it failed. The country wasn't ready for it then, clearly.

    Now, however, things look different. Two Republican governors have passed plans for forms of universal health plans in their states (Massachusetts and California), largely at the behest of business interests tired of watching soaring health care costs crush their books (those same interests fought against the Clinton plan back in 1993.)

    It's not a shift in the Democratic Party that's brought this issue to the table, but rather a shift in the country. Now the Democrats will always be left of the Republicans, and some of the new proposals (Edwards', for example) do incorporate creating large government beauracracies, which would leave to tax increases (but reduce health care costs per family, if the plan worked.) Other democratic plans, such as Obamas, are more like the Romney/Schwarzenegger plans in that they incorporate the existing insurance companies.

    So I'd disagree that the current health care debate is an indicator of a shift to the left by the Democratic Party.

  6. #46
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    3,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]Ron Paul is not a liberal. He's a low-tax, low-spend, reduce-entitlements, small-government Republican.

    People like him used to make up a decent % of that party. Not sure what happened.[/QUOTE]

    Yes, but the Neo-conservative/pro-business movement has moved the party more towards war-mongering for the sake of spreading "democracy" in the ME, out of control spending and absolutely open borders.

    Neo-cons believe what ever is good for a companies bottom is great for the country :huh:

    [url]http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWYwOTRlMzVkOGRjNjkyYTIwZjQyZGI5MDY1MTJmYTE=[/url]



    *
    Last edited by Riggins44; 06-20-2007 at 05:38 PM.

  7. #47
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]I missed the point in the last 60 years when the U.S. military was a laughing stock. When was that?

    And, as for spending us into bankruptcy, the names of the two biggest spenders in U.S. history are Bush and Reagan. You may remember Bill Clinton as the guy that balanced the budget and oversaw one of the most robust periods of job, wage and stock market growth in U.S. history.[/QUOTE]


    oold news,

    you missed it when carter was president and
    his liberal congress
    almost destroyed our nation in the process
    including our military and intelligence
    during his first month in office Carter cut the defense
    budget by $6 billion, took nukes out of S. Korea
    (but hey to be fair later put em in N. Korea)
    fell way behind in the arms race...

    biggest spenders? try carter raising the deficit by 42%

    you must have slept during clintons 1st term where the only
    accomplishments were to bail out of somalia, get NAFTA
    in place, bomb serbia and waco, and raise income taxes

    oh, and clinton never ran on balancing budgets,
    that was the republican congress that came in
    in 1994...but try a 1/2 trillion dollar peace
    dividend from reagan

    clinton had 2 solid dot-com years then the recession
    began before he left-that all folks

    hopefully i wont have to repeat this again to some
    lib stooge tomorrow but history repeats itself
    around here often

  8. #48
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Riggins44]Yes, but the Neo-conservative/pro-business movement has moved the party more towards a war-mongering for the sake of spreading "democracy" in the ME, out of control spending and absolutely open borders.

    Neo-cons believe what ever is good for a companies bottom is great for the country :huh:

    [url]http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWYwOTRlMzVkOGRjNjkyYTIwZjQyZGI5MDY1MTJmYTE=[/url][/QUOTE]

    I see the neocons and pro-business movements as two separate entities. The GOP has always been the party of business (hence the low-tax, minimal regulation agenda the party has had pretty much forever). That's not new.

    The influence of the neocons, on the other hand, are a new phenomenon. And they'vechampioned an activist foreign policy of preemptive warfare, which is new. And they seem to have been a driving force in tactics of questionable constitutionality, such as warrantless wiretapping, torture and even the relaxation of habeas corpus in some cases. Those are big changes.

    The other key change --and probably more important to the has been the increasing influence of the social conservatives, who favor government intervention in family affairs, as in the Terri Schiavo debacle.

    Those two emerging forces have reshaped the GOP at the expense of the small-government, libertarian contingent once championed by Barry Goldwater.

  9. #49
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan]That one kinda befuddles me too. Maybe it's because of my choice of smokable tobacco, but it really made no sense.[/QUOTE]

    no fair....its plumb easy to befuddle you

    uh, when Jimmy Carter was president?

    were you even a gleam in your fathers third eye then?

  10. #50
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    3,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]I see the neocons and pro-business movements as two separate entities. The GOP has always been the party of business (hence the low-tax, minimal regulation agenda the party has had pretty much forever). That's not new.

    The influence of the neocons, on the other hand, are a new phenomenon. And they'vechampioned an activist foreign policy of preemptive warfare, which is new. And they seem to have been a driving force in tactics of questionable constitutionality, such as warrantless wiretapping, torture and even the relaxation of habeas corpus in some cases. Those are big changes.

    The other key change --and probably more important to the has been the increasing influence of the social conservatives, who favor government intervention in family affairs, as in the Terri Schiavo debacle.

    Those two emerging forces have reshaped the GOP at the expense of the small-government, libertarian contingent once championed by Barry Goldwater.[/QUOTE]

    I don't disagree with any of what you wrote Nuu, but when Fox News trots out one Neo-con after another from the Weekly Standard (and elsewhere) and when they all take the open stance I wonder if there isn't some sort of link between the war crowed and open borders? Are the Neo-cons merely war-loving liberals, who lost their place at the table in the Democratic party after the Veitnam War?

    It's true the Republican's have always been on the side of corporate America. But this sudden change towards obliterating are borders for the sake of cheap labor and globalisim (NAU) just has taking me completely by surprise.

    I never thought I'd see the day when a "Southern Conservative" like Lindsey Graham would call anyone that wants border control a "bigot"...

    Just weird, weird stuff.....

  11. #51
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Riggins44]I don't disagree with any of what you wrote Nuu, but when Fox News trots out one Neo-con after another from the Weekly Standard (and elsewhere) and when they all take the open stance I wonder if there isn't some sort of link between the war crowed and open borders? Are the Neo-cons merely war-loving liberals, who lost their place at the table in the Democratic party after the Veitnam War?

    It's true the Republican's have always been on the side of corporate America. But this sudden change towards obliterating are borders for the sake of cheap labor and globalisim (NAU) just has taking me completely by surprise.

    I never thought I'd see the day when a "Southern Conservative" like Lindsey Graham would call anyone that wants border control a "bigot"...

    Just weird, weird stuff.....[/QUOTE]

    The borders thing isn't sudden. It has always been a priority of the big-business segment of the Republican base (to be fair, shared with the increasingly influential Latino base of the Democrats) to have open borders and the cheap labor they provide.

    It was Ronald Reagan, remember, who signed the first big amnesty bill back in 1986.

    The issue is complicated further today by the post-9/11 landscape and the (appropriate, in my view) sense that we need a better sense of who is coming in. My own view is that we should enforce the borders better but make it much easier for people to immigrate legally.

    Our economy needs the labor but we also need to know who is here.

  12. #52
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,554
    Post Thanks / Like
    Who the poster spewing misinformation about Ron Paul's supporters only being liberals?

    Ron Paul is the most conservative Republican candidate. This demonstrates 2 things:

    1)just how much of a sham the left-right spectrum is. The most important aspects of government are not exclusive to either the left or the right. The left-right division only helps the corporate-minded aristocracy in power by dividing the working classes into red state/blue state factions, forcing them to spend their energy fighting each other instead of getting what's theirs.

    2)just how misunderstood Ron Paul is by those who still worship the same old crap that has led our government to the dysfunctional state it is already in. Those who do not learn from history tend to have it repeated.
    Last edited by JetsCrazey; 06-20-2007 at 06:08 PM.

  13. #53
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetsCrazey]Who the poster spewing misinformation about Ron Paul's supporters only being liberals?

    Ron Paul is the most conservative Republican candidate. This demonstrates 2 things:

    1)just how much of a sham the left-right spectrum is. The most important aspects of government are not exclusive to either the left or the right. The left-right division only helps the corporate-minded aristocracy in power by dividing the working classes into red state/blue state factions, forcing them to spend their energy fighting each other instead of getting what's theirs.

    2)just how misunderstood Ron Paul is by those who still worship the same old crap that has led our government to the dysfunctional state it is already in. Those who do not learn from history tend to have it repeated.[/QUOTE]

    But according to Jets5ever, corporations do not run our government. He dismisses Chomsky and Zinn's work as ideas that only 21 year olds follow? Then, according to the wizardry of Jets5Ever, you realize that these men have nothing of value and you were just ignorant to consider their point of view.

    Jets5ever should not fret for he is in good company. The following people also thought in like-minded ways;

    1. the Catholic Church during the time of Galileo
    2. The people in Columbus' ships who thought they were in India
    3. The men in Salem, Massachusetts around the time of the 1600's.
    4. The people who still believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11.
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 06-20-2007 at 08:34 PM.

  14. #54
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,554
    Post Thanks / Like
    I challenge Jets5ever to demonstrate to me that this isn't a government by the Rockefellers and for the DuPonts. It is they who truly run this government, behind the screen of the Federl Reserve System. It's been like this ever since the Civil War, because ever since the Civil War Congress has allowed bankers to write the laws regulating themselves.
    Last edited by JetsCrazey; 06-20-2007 at 08:47 PM.

  15. #55
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,376
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=flushingjet]uh, when Jimmy Carter was president?

    were you even a gleam in your fathers third eye then?[/QUOTE]


    Perhaps.

    OK maybe I was too young to remember the 1970s...the period of time when the US military had no nuclear weapons, battleships, tanks, jets, missiles, grenades, artillery, rockets, bio weapons, chemical weapons, submarines and satellites. Back when we were the laughingstock of the world...

  16. #56
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan]Perhaps.

    OK maybe I was too young to remember the 1970s...the period of time when the US military had no nuclear weapons, battleships, tanks, jets, missiles, grenades, artillery, rockets, bio weapons, chemical weapons, submarines and satellites. Back when we were the laughingstock of the world...[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, luckily for Carter the Cold War was on hold then. If the Russians hadn't misplaced their nukes during his presidency we surely would have been annihilated.

  17. #57
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=Riggins44]I don't disagree with any of what you wrote Nuu, but when Fox News trots out one Neo-con after another from the Weekly Standard (and elsewhere) and when they all take the open stance I wonder if there isn't some sort of link between the war crowed and open borders? Are the Neo-cons merely war-loving liberals, who lost their place at the table in the Democratic party after the Veitnam War?

    It's true the Republican's have always been on the side of corporate America. But this sudden change towards obliterating are borders for the sake of cheap labor and globalisim (NAU) just has taking me completely by surprise.

    I never thought I'd see the day when a "Southern Conservative" like Lindsey Graham would call anyone that wants border control a "bigot"...

    Just weird, weird stuff.....[/QUOTE]

    nothings weirder than your studied "analysis"

    about as intelligent and sensible as the real life riggo
    chatting with sandra day oconnor

    goober graham is no bona fide conservative...pay attention
    to the voting record
    [url="http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Lindsey_Graham.htm"]http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Lindsey_Graham.htm[/url]

    in the pocket of la raza

    [url="http://hotair.com/archives/2007/06/07/mccain-crony-lindsey-graham-throws-tantrum-over-obamas-amendment/"]http://hotair.com/archives/2007/06/07/mccain-crony-lindsey-graham-throws-tantrum-over-obamas-amendment/[/url]

    if 5% of immigrants are skilled, how does that help "corporate america"
    you know, Microsoft, Apple, GM?

  18. #58
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan]But according to Jets5ever, corporations do not run our government. He dismisses Chomsky and Zinn's work as ideas that only 21 year olds follow? Then, according to the wizardry of Jets5Ever, you realize that these men have nothing of value and you were just ignorant to consider their point of view.

    Jets5ever should not fret for he is in good company. The following people also thought in like-minded ways;

    1. the Catholic Church during the time of Galileo
    2. The people in Columbus' ships who thought they were in India
    3. The men in Salem, Massachusetts around the time of the 1600's.
    4. The people who still believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11.[/QUOTE]

    unintelligentjetsfan,
    unpatriotic commies of all ages follow chompsky and zinn,
    not just ignorant kiddies.

    dont worry, the rosenbergs will be exonerated any day now
    *chuckle*

  19. #59
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetsCrazey]I challenge Jets5ever to demonstrate to me that this isn't a government by the Rockefellers and for the DuPonts. It is they who truly run this government, behind the screen of the Federl Reserve System. It's been like this ever since the Civil War, because ever since the Civil War Congress has allowed bankers to write the laws regulating themselves.[/QUOTE]
    You challenge me to prove a negative? Interesting, that. I challenge you to prove to me that the world isn't run by a cabal of super-intelligent chimpanzees.

    Intelligentjets fan, surely you have more depth than freshmen-year "fight the power" nonsense. You're going to actually have to make a serious point for me to care about your posts...I forget what we've talked about before, but you consistently fail to impress.

    Funny thing about Chomsky - Chomsky hates corporations, capitalism and America so much that he sells a product through one of the biggest publishing empires in the world, makes tons of money doing it and chooses to live in America. But lap up everything he says...that's a good little doggie.

    I believe I ridiculued you for your 'corporations are evil' nonsense, which is a bit different than what you have characterized it. Do corporations have enormous influence? Sure. Do they run the government? No. You guys are mouth-foaming, ignorant children who likely only recently began thinking about big issues and you've been brainwashed into towing the academic anticapitalist nonsense that only people who lack developed critical thinking capacities or who don't actually pay their own bills fall for. You guys are both likely under 25 years old, have a soft major in college and either don't pay your own bills or only recently started to. I don't blame you, I blame our education system. Wait 5 or 10 years, your views will mature.
    Last edited by jets5ever; 06-21-2007 at 10:08 AM.

  20. #60
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,554
    Post Thanks / Like
    Noam Chomsky is a dumbass shill. I hate that guy. But it doesn't take away from the fact that we have a false money system which has made this a government for banks and the corporations which grow around the banks, and not individuals.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us