I think both Lincoln and Douglas would have said "the hell with this, we quit."

I quit, perhaps. It pisses me off that all you seeming assholes who really care about this country select ways to not do the best for your country, at least that you can do from where you are between now and November.

Cold splash in the face, man.

It's real, it's serious, and we need to win.

You might as well all donate to the re-elect Barack Obama fund.

Rusty, we've always know you have been a closet Democrat.

Really ? That is about as accurate as saying you are not a drunk.

I must say, I always felt as if Rusty has been very fair in our discussions here. If I would have had to guess I would have thought if anything he leaned slightly right. I may be wrong but definitely not a close minded lefty or anything of the sort.

I always thought VT'er was very fair in our discussions here as well.

They just don't agree, doesn't make them commies, or even assholes.

I'm actually happy that those among us that may be a lefty seem to be taking the deficit and debt seriously. There are some on the left that don't seem to take it seriously at all, which is very disturbing. Bob Beckel was on The Factor a while back and just blew my mind acting as if the debt is no big deal. I really do think there are those on the left that what our current system to crash, then start all over.

I may be an asshole but I'm certainly no commie.

And I didn't vote for Obama last time, either.

Yes, I am a registered Republican.

Guys like TFISC make me question that choice. At the same time I do not take politics too seriously. Just another form of organized crime.

rusty2 wrote:Yes, I am a registered Republican.

Guys like TFISC make me question that choice. At the same time I do not take politics too seriously. Just another form of organized crime.

Agree 100%

Tribe Fan in SC/Cali wrote:

MtFan wrote:To a man, every single candidate running for POTUS is either a past, current, or future lackey (except for Ron Paul).

They are all politicians, who will say and do anything to get votes. Then once in office they're all for sale to the highest bidder. Once again, Ron Paul would be the only exception to this.

I don't agree with all of Paul's ideas, but I have great respect for his consistency and integrity. It's a shame he's the only candidate with these qualities.

I'm worried about you, Mt Fan.


You first started to lose me with your massive defense of the obviously addled Peyton Hillis.

I didn't make any "massive defense" of Hillis, but I never believed all of the contrived reports on him by the Cleveland media who are desperate to sell their stories.

And I absolutely scoff at your assertion that you could somehow kick his ass. That's either funny or pathetic, depending on what mood one is in.

But the most important thing here is, I really don't give a rat's ass what you are or are not worried about.

And if you think it will make any huge difference whether it's Romney or Obama for the next 4 years then IMO you're the one who's deluded. They're both going to govern like centrists...Obama moves there from the left, and Romney will move there from whatever his current position is (a moving target). The end result will not be much different with either guy.

And either one will maintain the status quo, neither one will rock the boat, and neither one will take any serious measures to reduce the debt.

I apologize to Rusty, Mt Fan and VT'er.

And I thank Hillbilly for his mediation.

When it comes to politics I wear my feelings on my shoulder. Which is the reason I did not pursue politics when my career and experience was setting up for it nicely in my late teens and early 20's.

I knew at the time my political temper was hot, and I had a quick trigger to resort to the SNL equivalent of "Jane, you ignorant slut." Not a good temperament for winning personal campaigns or winning converts to my beliefs.

I was out of line for calling you all out with my poor choice of wording.

Now I still strongly disagree with the sentiment that we will be no better off with any of the Republican candidates as we would be with Baracka Obama (see the Breitbart story published today).

And I'm not really as obsessed with kicking the arse of Peyton Hillis as some are with continually bringing my reference back into the conversation. Yes, he outweighs me, might hit the gym more (I have my doubts), and he has me in height and likely vertical reach.

I think I have him in brains and maybe even speed.

I really do believe that Hillis would be vulnerable to fall for a Three Stooges move of choice, or a "hey Peyton, look at the flying saucer." And then a punch could take him down.

Not that I really want to experiment with that idea.

Again, apologies to VT'er, Mt Fan and Rusty.

Sometimes one hurts the ones they shouldn't, and I did. I really do play much nicer with new acquaintances. I've known all you guys for about 35% of my adult life.

No sweat TFISC.

I'm about as jaded as they come when it comes to politicians and their ilk. I'm right there with Rusty on that one. Quite frankly most of them make me ill, and on a lot of counts Obama is right there with them even though I don't agree with some of the criticisms leveled at him. In my mind Obama is in the pockets of big medicine, health insurance, big pharmaceutical companies, as well as a number of other big money institutions (in defense related areas, banking and finance, etc.). He doesn't seem to have a clue when it comes to making government leaner and more efficient, energy policy, simplifying tax codes, and several other areas.

And having listened to Romney on a number of occasions, I hear nothing but pandering from him as well. He will turn on a dime saying anything to get elected, then turn on a dime again as it suits his own best interests and the best interests of the constituents he cares about (namely the wealthy elite, he knows of nothing else). He'll come off as very right wing and conservative to get the republican nomination, then he'll move to the center to try to beat Obama, and if he gets elected to the POTUS he'll dance to pretty much the same tunes as Obama while disguising it in more conservative rhetoric.

That's why I say there will be little difference in the end if he's elected. Obama will move to the right to get anything done at all, and Romney will move to the left, they both end up in pretty much the same place.

Neither one is talking about anything meaningful in terms of cutting the debt, which as I have said before will involve both increased revenues (at least for awhile) and deeply cutting spending until it's at a manageable level. Neither one will truly simplify the tax code, which should be so simple everyone should be able to figure out their taxes in 2 minutes with a calculator (or basic math skills).

Oh, and I assume I'm one of the "lefties" HB was referring to about just recently realizing something had to be done with the debt? Well first of all, I'm an independent voter...but I realize I'm far to the left of HB, like the vast majority of the country. But - HB, if you really think back to some of our face to face discussions - I would hope that you would remember that I have ALWAYS been concerned with the debt and the deficit. I have always been 100% in favor of a balanced budget amendment, and I would support one if it came around now. I have always been socially libertarian, fiscally conservative. What sets me apart from many so-called fiscal conservatives is, I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes (and I am paying out the ass right now). Yes I do want a smaller more efficient government, by a long shot. But I also believe a lot of areas can be handled best collectively, as a decision we make as a society. I am always willing to debate these things individually, case by case and I believe we should have these debates as a society. And I can agree that for way too many years the government has spent our tax dollars like drunken sailors. Like Rusty says, most of them are flat out crooks. The amount of money in politics right now is obscene and it distorts our democracy...both during elections, and during the governing process.

But in my view the national debt should always be guaranteed to be paid, it's something we all incurred together. It should never be held hostage to partisan politics. Paying it down should be the #1 priority, but it must be done without killing the goose laying the golden eggs. It must be done with a combination of deep cuts and fair, simplified tax codes with an eye towards keeping revenues at a level that will pay down the debt as fast as our economy can bear. The time element is important because of interest on the debt and the drag it has on the economy. Thinking we can do it either by only raising tax revenues, or by only making deeper and deeper cuts is a pipe dream. Thinking we can just grow our way out of it is a pipe dream, although at some point reducing the debt will help this become more viable as long as we keep our eye on the ball. It has to be a national priority and it must be attacked using every means at our disposal, as it will involve some pain on all sides. In my opinion if we had the resolve it could happen relatively quickly, and once it is reduced to a certain level our economy would take off like a rocket.

Once it is paid down taxes can be cut to whatever level we decide is necessary to maintain whatever levels of government services our electorate deems to be essential. With a thriving economy and low national debt, we could afford to do a lot of things that we used to do as a nation, if the electorate so chooses.

Now from what I can see there isn't a single politician out there with the exception of those who either served on the Simpson-Bowles committee, or those who actively support all components of that plan. Those people are few and far between. But those are the kinds of politicians who would get my support.

Okay, I'm off my soap box. I'll probably withdraw from these discussions as the political season heats up, because the current process, the pandering, and the lack of courage and vision by politicians on all sides disgusts me.

Okay, I'm off my soap box. I'll probably withdraw from these discussions as the political season heats up, because the current process, the pandering, and the lack of courage and vision by politicians on all sides disgusts me.



Thanks, Mt Fan, and please do not withdraw.

Remember, politicians have to actually get elected before they have any chance to effect change. I sincerely believe that Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and especially Paul want to effect change if elected. Way more so than President Barack Obama.

We need to win the Presidency, and as many House and Senate seats as we can, and then apply the heat to our guys (and gals) to fricking do what needs to be done with disregard to re-election.

Personally, I have no problem with very rich guys in public office.



I also have no problem with spitfires like Paul and Santorum.

Mt.Fan:

I said "those that may be a lefty". But even so, no offense would be intended if I did call you a lefty. I'm a right wing wack job and know it. So it wouldn't offend me a bit for someone to point that out so guess I never think twice about referring to someone my opposite as a lefty. Not meaning it as a dirty word.

(It's no coincidence that you & I end up on opposite sides of debate on almost every subject brought up here. And I'm a right winger, so you do the math. )

Actually, I guess I'm not a full fledged right wing wacko. On social issues I'm still very much liberal.

I don't believe government has any business sticking their nose in marriages. If there is an actual religion out there that honestly sees no problem with marrying two people of the same sex then I do not believe government has the right to infringe upon that religion and tell them they cannot.

Personally I believe in God and take every word in the bible as gospel, even the most unbelievable of stories. And personally I believe God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. But I am a strict constitutionalist and do not think that should be infringed upon.

But I also do not believe that government should be marrying opposite sex couples either. Judges and justices and such. Leave it to religions that believe in such. As a Christian, and one that firmly knows that our country was founded on Christian morals, I do not like to see our government officials doing the service. Disrespectful to The Almighty in my eyes.

I also do not have much of a problem with abortions. Now I am no holy roller, you know that. I drink and have a potty mouth, but there are times in my life when I have tried to walk as straight as possible. But even back when I was attending 3 Church services a week and trying to be as good a person as possible I did not have the problem with abortion that others in my congregation had. My ex-wife & I used to argue about it all the time. I even prayed about it and asked God to open my eyes on the subject but still to this day I don't go crazy about the subject like other people on the right do. Especially when it comes to certain circumstances like rape and incest.

Now I do not like to see women use it as a form of birth control. You can walk into a Planned Parenthood and get contraception more easily then walking in and getting an abortion so be responsible about it, dang.

And speaking of contraception, I must admit the current debate really peeves me off. That Fluke woman walking into congress and wanting hard working tax payers like you and me to pay for her sex life. Go to a Planned Parenthood, they will hook you up on our dime already. Do we really have to pay mopre for health insurance because of you as well?! .... Quit asking hard working Americans to keep footing the bill on every dang thing you want in life!

This country has already started getting an entitlement culture. Gimme gimme gimme. I just saw a story on the news this morning of a woman in Michigan who won the lottery but stayed on foodstamps!!!!!!!! I am sick of this crap!!!! People on unemployment for 99 weeks and wanting more. Are you friggin kiddin me? I have never been out of work for more than 2 weeks in my life! Get a job you friggin free loaders!

There is going to come a time and very soon that we are going to have to stop the handouts, and what you are seeing in Greece is gonna happen here. We've started down the nanny state path and it is really tough to change course.

Oh heck, starting to ramble. Sorry. But let me finish by saying I hope you don't stay out of the conversations here. You help keep things honest. Fair and balanced.

HB

Good read. You and I (as you probably know) are largely in lockstep on matters not involving which NFL team to root for. I too am a strict Constitutionalists, and see the major issue not being specific policy matters (EG: social, economics, etc) but more of a separation of powers issue.

And by separation of powers, I understand that not to be limited to the Executive/Judicial/Legislative branches of the Federal government, although there are issues there as well.

Nosir...the biggest problem is our eroding Federalism. You know, 50 (or 57, depending on which side of the aisle you're on) states, all under the same umbrella, but each largely allowed to do their own thing. Our states are now little more than administrative divisions within the Leviathan. Part of this is the direct election of Senators (they used to be appointed by the states, but at least this change was brought about by the proscribed methodology for changing the Constitution (EG: amendment process). Then there's that whole pesky 10th amendment thing:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That's some powerful stuff. Firstly, the order of it is important. The states are bequeathed with unlimited power. Excepting those powers given to the Federal Government, or those powers that are prohibited (by the Constitution!). Everything else belongs to the states, or to the people.

So guess what: Congress cannot make a law abridging Freedom of the Press. But Montana can. Congress cannot make abortion illegal. But Ohio can. Romneycare falls under the authority of the state of Massachusetts. Obamacare is unconstitutional. And so on.

I think if we got back to the core of what Federalism actually means, lots (and lots) of problems would disappear.

DS,

In view of your last post, and considering yourself to be a strict constitutionalist...what is your take on Santorum's recent statements regarding separation of church and state?

I'm not Darkstar but I'm going to chime in cause this is a subject that really ticks me off too.

The whole term "seperation of church & state" has been so bastardized and distorted in recent decades that it is not funny. Now I like JFK but he was dead wrong on this issue. And Santorum is right. It makes me want to puke too.

You know where the term, "seperation of church and state" comes from?

Back after we won our revolution but before the 1st ammendment had taken effect Connecticut was imposing taxes on certain religions. The people there were congregationalists and was imposing a tax on religions who weren't.

The leader of the babtists was concerned so he wrote to Thomas Jefferson for help. He was like, hey, we came to America for religious freedom. We weren't supposed to have a religion forced upon us like England did with their state church. What gives?

Jefferson wrote them back to assure them that when the federal government was going to set up so there would be a wall. There would be a seperation of church & state. In other words, don't worry, the government will not be forcing one certain religion upon you. You will be free to worship how you please.

Now secular progressives has taken his comments and distorted them totally out of context.

You want to know how the founders felt about religion read their writings. Read the federalist papers. Read why they did what they did and how the government was set up. They used their beliefs and the bible as a guideline for everything they did! Our founding documents have terms stolen right out of the old testament!

Heck, look at the writing inside the nations capital building. Does that look like a government who is not intending to promote religion?

My goodness, for decades they held church services in the nations capital building! Jefferson attended every Sunday and sat in the front row!!

Secular progressives are winning their war. A war of lies. And it makes me want to puke too.

Nobody is saying you have to believe in God or you have to pray. But if you think Jefferson would be offended by a prayer at school or Washington would not want the 10 commandments in a court building then you are out of your mind. Goodness, they used to teach the bible in school. Ben Franklin believed it was more important than any other scholarly activity. Even Theodore Roosevelt, who was one of the original progressives, said a knowledge of the bible was more important than any college degree.

And, this is just my worthless opinion, but I do not think it is any coincidence that our kids get dumber and more rude the more we stray from biblical teaching. We used to have some of the highest scores in the world back when we taught morals in school. And didn't have kids shooting each other at lunch time.

The more secular progressives have their way the worse this country gets.

By the way, I obviously am no big fan of Rick Santorum. I think earlier comments this week shows that, and it was before this topic was even brought up. Now having said that ... I have heard many interviews of him on the Glenn Beck radio program in recent months, and came away extremely impressed by his knowledge of history. He has often went off on historic subjects during his converations with Beck. No notes, just off the top of his head. And let me tell you, this guy has alot of knowledge of our history, the constitution, how our country was founded. No BS. In my opinion, you would serve yourself well not to argue with him on the subject. He knows what he's talking about.

Having said that I still wouldn't vote for him in the republican primary.