History Prof
Member
Bwaaaa Haaaaaa Haaaaaa haaaaaaa....Cosmoline's .sig line said:
I love it.. Did you make that up, or did she really say that in the past few days?
GOP 'Lost Its Reaganite Soul,' Conservatives Say
- Thread starter Desertdog
- Start date
- Status
I love it.. Did you make that up, or did she really say that in the past few days?
longeyes
member
This presumes Reagan could be elected today, which I doubt. Cultural & demographic changes have occurred which make the viability of the GOP as a majority party, ever again, increasingly doubtful. It will not be enough to for this Party to find its Inner Reagan again. Time to move forward with a clear eye for what's real.
Cosmoline
Member
She said it right after voting! You can't make stuff like that up.
http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061107/UPDATE/611070401
You still don't get the point at all.
The libertarian approach is this:
1. Lots of everyday people in America think X is wrong. Lots don't.
2. A bill proposing tax dollars be spent on X is sent to hypothetical libertarian President.
3. President Lib says, "Well, the tax dollars are collected by force from everyone, including those who think X is wrong and those who think X is right. Therefore, we won't spend the tax dollars on X."
4. President Lib also says, "Since a lot of people think X is right, we won't stop them from doing X. We just won't force the other group to pay for X against their will and moral beliefs."
It doesn't MATTER what the President himself believes, in this scenario.
Recommended reading: Harry Browne's Liberty A to Z.
Harry Browne was personally pro-life, but politically adamantly pro-choice. He really sets forth this argument well, and in many ways.
cmb3366
Member
Not to be rude, but I couldent care less what the libertarian approach is.
I know where I stand on an issue, and thats that. I dont tow any party line. I do not care if a politician does not want to spend money on SC research. What I do not like is that fact that they reject a bill on religious principles, rather than secular principles. I prefer my representatives base their decisions on FACTs, not feelings and religious ideology.
It's perfectly fine if you dont agree with me. I was stating my opinion, not trying to convince you.
I know where I stand on an issue, and thats that. I dont tow any party line. I do not care if a politician does not want to spend money on SC research. What I do not like is that fact that they reject a bill on religious principles, rather than secular principles. I prefer my representatives base their decisions on FACTs, not feelings and religious ideology.
It's perfectly fine if you dont agree with me. I was stating my opinion, not trying to convince you.
History Prof
Member
As an Arizonan, I want to personally apologize to everybody for that. BUT, last time he was up, since he ran unopposed in the primaries, I wrote in the name of my former congressman. Oh well, I tried....
The spread between the two sides is often very tight. I figure that the political strategists know that a set percent will go with one side and a set percent will go with the other side. I really don't think they give much thought to the safe votes. I think the whole idea it to get that so-called swing group to flop just enough over to your side.
I think that strategists have found that the most dollar for dollar efficient way to achieve victory is to run negative personal adds on the other guy. I guess for a given dollar spent it is better to attack the other guy for something he did in his personal life than to spend that dollar expressing your actual ideology.
If you spend your dollar in expressing your actual political ideology you will absolutely run the risk that some of those swing voters will disagree with you. And that might be all it takes to lose. So why take the risk with ideology? The rational course to take is to focus on negative personal ads against your opponent.
Therefore ideology as expressed to the public is really secondary and is kept deliberately vague (family values, gay rights). Few voters know the way their specific politicians vote let alone how they write (or maybe more importantly not write) those little details that make so much difference with our laws, regulations and tax codes.
So those little details written into the laws, regulations and tax codes really have very little liability for the politician as far as the public is concerned. However those little details written into the laws, regulations and tax codes very much matter to those who pay into the political campaigns that pay for those negative ads that do make a difference for the politician as far as the public is concerned.
Eventually the public figures out that something is amiss because things like their pensions simply vanish or their job is outsourced to India with the full support and encouragement of their government. Because after all it really is all about those little details that no one ever bothers to worry about. The public then has a big swing over to the other side mostly as a protest. Of course the problem is that the other side realizes how the game is played and the money all comes from the same bankers, insurers, lawyers, multinationals and so forth. So now what comes of those little details that make all the difference…
I think that strategists have found that the most dollar for dollar efficient way to achieve victory is to run negative personal adds on the other guy. I guess for a given dollar spent it is better to attack the other guy for something he did in his personal life than to spend that dollar expressing your actual ideology.
If you spend your dollar in expressing your actual political ideology you will absolutely run the risk that some of those swing voters will disagree with you. And that might be all it takes to lose. So why take the risk with ideology? The rational course to take is to focus on negative personal ads against your opponent.
Therefore ideology as expressed to the public is really secondary and is kept deliberately vague (family values, gay rights). Few voters know the way their specific politicians vote let alone how they write (or maybe more importantly not write) those little details that make so much difference with our laws, regulations and tax codes.
So those little details written into the laws, regulations and tax codes really have very little liability for the politician as far as the public is concerned. However those little details written into the laws, regulations and tax codes very much matter to those who pay into the political campaigns that pay for those negative ads that do make a difference for the politician as far as the public is concerned.
Eventually the public figures out that something is amiss because things like their pensions simply vanish or their job is outsourced to India with the full support and encouragement of their government. Because after all it really is all about those little details that no one ever bothers to worry about. The public then has a big swing over to the other side mostly as a protest. Of course the problem is that the other side realizes how the game is played and the money all comes from the same bankers, insurers, lawyers, multinationals and so forth. So now what comes of those little details that make all the difference…
arthurcw
Member
History Prof,
Your efforts are commendable and noted. But remember, he is now the savior of the party. *coughbullsh#%cough*
Need to add a new sig line
"we're doomed!": C3PO
Your efforts are commendable and noted. But remember, he is now the savior of the party. *coughbullsh#%cough*
Need to add a new sig line
"we're doomed!": C3PO
- Status