Reader comments
Readers' forum: Let's take back GOP
92 comments | Read story
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
RedShirt | 1:17 p.m. July 13, 2009
To "GWB | 1:03 p.m." why is it that the Federal Government owns so
much of the land in the red states where they receive more federal funds than
they pay? Why does the goverment prevent the state governments from either
selling the federal land or using those lands for resource development to
increase land revenues?
wrong Red Shirt | 1:37 p.m. July 13, 2009
According the U.S. Census, the states with the highest poverty rates (2007)
were, #1 Michigan, #2 Mississippi, #3 Alaska, #4 So. Carolina #5 Ohio,
Comments continue below
Gus Talwynd | 1:39 p.m. July 13, 2009
Lower taxes for lower taxes sake and less government for less government sake
are not rational arguments. Although Republicans often make the claim that they
are for "less", they often end of creating "more". It all
depends upon circumstance.
Social conservatives want to expand government through legislation and supporting structure in both the courts and regulating agencies for there purposes. With this should come a need for additional funding either through additional taxation or the diversion of funds from existing programs.
How much government is too little? It is controversial within Republican circles just as it is among Democrats. However, one might assujme that the discussion only where government should be expanded and where it should be decreased. Both may want the same general size in government, but disagree as to specifics.
Similarly, the taxes necessary to support the governmental structure and the programs has a similar dependency. Neither side wants to reduce taxes beyond what they want for the level of government each wants.
It really comes down to a reallocation of resource to support what either group wants. Therein lies the rub. Both expand to fit the particular agenda. True reduction in government is never a real option.
Social conservatives want to expand government through legislation and supporting structure in both the courts and regulating agencies for there purposes. With this should come a need for additional funding either through additional taxation or the diversion of funds from existing programs.
How much government is too little? It is controversial within Republican circles just as it is among Democrats. However, one might assujme that the discussion only where government should be expanded and where it should be decreased. Both may want the same general size in government, but disagree as to specifics.
Similarly, the taxes necessary to support the governmental structure and the programs has a similar dependency. Neither side wants to reduce taxes beyond what they want for the level of government each wants.
It really comes down to a reallocation of resource to support what either group wants. Therein lies the rub. Both expand to fit the particular agenda. True reduction in government is never a real option.
Sally | 1:52 p.m. July 13, 2009
With Sarah Palin talking about splitting off and taking the social conservatives
with her, perhaps Republicans can get back to their ideological roots and stop
interfering in people's private lives.
If their concerns become more focused on economic issues (reducing taxes realistically and therefore reducing government to only certain, specific areas of governance and services), they will find their way back. However, it will also make them a perpetual minority party of no influence, but it will get its soul back.
To win elections, Republicans sold their soul for the mass appeal of the religious Right. Creating an alliance won votes, but at a huge cost. Let Palin save the Party by separating out this dysfunctional segment. Republicans can stand tall and firm, bringing a level of intellectual idea back into the discussion.
If their concerns become more focused on economic issues (reducing taxes realistically and therefore reducing government to only certain, specific areas of governance and services), they will find their way back. However, it will also make them a perpetual minority party of no influence, but it will get its soul back.
To win elections, Republicans sold their soul for the mass appeal of the religious Right. Creating an alliance won votes, but at a huge cost. Let Palin save the Party by separating out this dysfunctional segment. Republicans can stand tall and firm, bringing a level of intellectual idea back into the discussion.
RedShirt | 2:28 p.m. July 13, 2009
To "wrong Red Shirt | 1:37 p.m." please read, my posts. I said
"If being a red state is bad, why is it that the states with the highest
unemployment are blue states, and the states with the least financial problems
are red states?"
The top 5 states with the highest unemployment rates are:
Michigan 14.1
Oregon 12.4
Rhode Island 12.1
South Carolina 12.1
California 11.5
Of those 5 states, only South Carolina is considered a Red state.
For the states with the largest budget deficits you have:
California $26 billion
New York $6.4 billion
Florida $5.1 billion
Washington State $5.1 billion
New Jersey $3.7 billion
Florida may be red or blue states, depending on your definition of Red and Blue states. Either way, you can see that the states with the largest budget deficits, again are not voting conservative.
The top 5 states with the highest unemployment rates are:
Michigan 14.1
Oregon 12.4
Rhode Island 12.1
South Carolina 12.1
California 11.5
Of those 5 states, only South Carolina is considered a Red state.
For the states with the largest budget deficits you have:
California $26 billion
New York $6.4 billion
Florida $5.1 billion
Washington State $5.1 billion
New Jersey $3.7 billion
Florida may be red or blue states, depending on your definition of Red and Blue states. Either way, you can see that the states with the largest budget deficits, again are not voting conservative.
Mike Richards | 2:45 p.m. July 13, 2009
Do we want Republicans in office? Do we want Democrats in office? Or, do we
want Representatives who represent us? Do we want members of the House who
represent the people and members of the Senate who represent our State?
Party affiliation is simply a branding iron. Are we voters so dumb that we can't tell one person from another unless that person is "branded"?
Let's get rid of those who consider themselves to be the elite, chosen of god to live in luxury at our expense and dole out favors to whomever has a big enough wallet to pay for those favors.
Whatever happened to the idea of Government of the People, Government by the People and Government for the People?
How many of us need a Senator or a member of the House to tell us what to eat or what to wear or where to live? Yet, that is exactly what they're doing. With the countless regulations, those that should represent us now rule us.
Party affiliation serves to divide us. Is that what we want to be - the Divided States of America?
Party affiliation is simply a branding iron. Are we voters so dumb that we can't tell one person from another unless that person is "branded"?
Let's get rid of those who consider themselves to be the elite, chosen of god to live in luxury at our expense and dole out favors to whomever has a big enough wallet to pay for those favors.
Whatever happened to the idea of Government of the People, Government by the People and Government for the People?
How many of us need a Senator or a member of the House to tell us what to eat or what to wear or where to live? Yet, that is exactly what they're doing. With the countless regulations, those that should represent us now rule us.
Party affiliation serves to divide us. Is that what we want to be - the Divided States of America?
GWB | 3:01 p.m. July 13, 2009
RedShirt: you ask, " why is it that the Federal Government owns so much of
the land in the red states where they receive more federal funds than they pay?
Why does the goverment prevent the state governments from either selling the
federal land or using those lands for resource development to increase land
revenues?"
Thanks for a simple question. The land in those states, you know, places like the midwest, Alaska, and onward became part of the the United States of America when the government purchase the land.
Isn't it Republican's who always complain about land owners rights? The US Govt owns the land because the bought it. It is their right to stop resource extraction if they choose. Would the State of Utah like to buy the land? I'm sure an appropriate price could be negotiated, with the appropriate codes, covenants, and restrictions.
Still no answer though to my question as to why Red states have no problem taking welfare from blue states.
Thanks for a simple question. The land in those states, you know, places like the midwest, Alaska, and onward became part of the the United States of America when the government purchase the land.
Isn't it Republican's who always complain about land owners rights? The US Govt owns the land because the bought it. It is their right to stop resource extraction if they choose. Would the State of Utah like to buy the land? I'm sure an appropriate price could be negotiated, with the appropriate codes, covenants, and restrictions.
Still no answer though to my question as to why Red states have no problem taking welfare from blue states.
Roland Kayser | 3:04 p.m. July 13, 2009
I ask only one thing of Republican candidates who favor less government. Tell me
specifically what programs and/or agencies you are going to cut. I haven't
seen one yet who is willing to do that.
Anonymous | 3:12 p.m. July 13, 2009
Take back GOP?
Take back to what?
1946?
Take back to what?
1946?
RedShirt | 4:09 p.m. July 13, 2009
To "GWB | 3:01 p.m." is it welfare if the Federal Government is
claiming ownership of large tracks of land? Who will pay for the upkeep of
roads on those lands? Should the state have to pay for upkeep of roads on
federal land, or should the federal government? If the federal government
controls mineral leases on land within a state boundary, and does not lease them
out, how is the state supposed to recover the lost income?
For example, if the federal government came in and declared that 1/2 of your lawn belonged to them. Would you want compensation for upkeep, or would you take care of it out of kindness?
For example, if the federal government came in and declared that 1/2 of your lawn belonged to them. Would you want compensation for upkeep, or would you take care of it out of kindness?
It's Clinton's fault! | 4:29 p.m. July 13, 2009
WEST PALM BEACH, FL–Frankly discussing his addiction to painkillers,
conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh told his radio audience Monday that
his abuse of OxyContin was a "remnant of the anything-goes ideology of the
Clinton Administration." "Friends, all I can say is 'I told you
so,'" said Limbaugh, from an undisclosed drug-treatment facility.
"Were it not for Bill Clinton's loose policies on drug offenders and
his rampant immorality, I would not have found myself in this predicament."
Limbaugh added that he's staying at a rehab center created by the
tax-and-spend liberals.
You can have it! | 4:31 p.m. July 13, 2009
Take the GOP back, and in the process you alienate even more voters. Fantastic
plan. Do you intend to change the Consitution so it says the GOP can win the
Presidency if it gets 20% of the vote?
Mike Richards | 4:37 p.m. July 13, 2009
GWB,
I think you're being simplistic. Where are the deeds where all that land passed to private land owners in all states. We've been told that Manhattan was purchased for $24. What about the rest of New York State.
For that matter, show us the bill of sale for Utah. You wrote that the Government purchased that land. From whom and for how much?
Since the Government IS the people, why don't you have a deed showing what portion of Utah you own, or Alaska or any other State where the Government "owns" the land? As far as that goes, when is the Government going to issue stock certificates to each citizen for our newly acquired GM?
When we stop thinking Federal and start think State we just might remember that we are the United States of America. Each State is a separate entity. We are Federation of States with a common Constitution and similar purposes.
When we stop thinking of ourselves as Republicans or Democrats and start seeing ourselves as citizens, we just might find a way to come together to solve our problems.
Who is trying to divide us and why?
I think you're being simplistic. Where are the deeds where all that land passed to private land owners in all states. We've been told that Manhattan was purchased for $24. What about the rest of New York State.
For that matter, show us the bill of sale for Utah. You wrote that the Government purchased that land. From whom and for how much?
Since the Government IS the people, why don't you have a deed showing what portion of Utah you own, or Alaska or any other State where the Government "owns" the land? As far as that goes, when is the Government going to issue stock certificates to each citizen for our newly acquired GM?
When we stop thinking Federal and start think State we just might remember that we are the United States of America. Each State is a separate entity. We are Federation of States with a common Constitution and similar purposes.
When we stop thinking of ourselves as Republicans or Democrats and start seeing ourselves as citizens, we just might find a way to come together to solve our problems.
Who is trying to divide us and why?
The Facts | 4:39 p.m. July 13, 2009
The states facing the largest budget deficits as a percent of their overall
budget are: California, Arizona, Illinois, New York, Alaska and New Jersey.
(source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)
Correction to: Wrong Redshirt. Those states are the states with the highest levels of unemployment.
States with the highest rate of poverty are:
Mississippi, Louisiana, New Mexico, District of Columbia, Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky and Texas. (U.S. Census)
Correction to: Wrong Redshirt. Those states are the states with the highest levels of unemployment.
States with the highest rate of poverty are:
Mississippi, Louisiana, New Mexico, District of Columbia, Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky and Texas. (U.S. Census)
An Observer | 5:38 p.m. July 13, 2009
This is NOT about tents,
It's not small tent,
it's not about big tents,
it's not about tents of any size,
it is not about tents.
IT is about Standing up for something,
Identifying your values and priniciplies, what you believe in, and even morals.
But Stand up for something, and proclaim it.
When you talk about big tents,
you MUST give all that up, and ULTIMATELY stand for nothing,
or you MUST FORCE everyone, by political correctness, indoctrinaton, by power of central government, or worse, to ALL think the same way.
It's not small tent,
it's not about big tents,
it's not about tents of any size,
it is not about tents.
IT is about Standing up for something,
Identifying your values and priniciplies, what you believe in, and even morals.
But Stand up for something, and proclaim it.
When you talk about big tents,
you MUST give all that up, and ULTIMATELY stand for nothing,
or you MUST FORCE everyone, by political correctness, indoctrinaton, by power of central government, or worse, to ALL think the same way.
Anonymous | 6:05 p.m. July 13, 2009
When it comes to today's politics the formula is quite simple.
Divide and conquer
Divide and conquer
Divide and conquer
Divide and conquer
Divide and conquer
Divide and conquer
Anonymous | 6:08 p.m. July 13, 2009
LOL!
"IT is about Standing up for something"
And then FORCING people to stand up for it too.
LOL!
"IT is about Standing up for something"
And then FORCING people to stand up for it too.
LOL!
GWB | 7:01 p.m. July 13, 2009
OK, Mike, apparently you didn't quite comprehend my statement...
I said "The land in those states, you know, places like the midwest, Alaska, and onward became part of the the United States of America when the government purchase the land."
That means places like ND, SD, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Lousiana became part of the US with the Louisana Purchase. Alaska was purchased from the Russians.
In case you forgot your Utah History class from 7th grade, Utah was part of Mexico up until the US Government won the Mexican-American war (1846-1848). Note, the US won the war, not the Utah National Guard.
So, the land in Utah became US Government owned because no Americans had ownership.
Oh, and Redshirt, If I incorporate a city within a State, does the city automatically get all the State owned land inside their new limits?
If not, they why would a State get all the Federal owned lands upon becoming a State?
So, the territory later known as Utah became part of the US before almost all of the area was unsettled. So, the deed to the land became US government owned at that time.
I said "The land in those states, you know, places like the midwest, Alaska, and onward became part of the the United States of America when the government purchase the land."
That means places like ND, SD, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Lousiana became part of the US with the Louisana Purchase. Alaska was purchased from the Russians.
In case you forgot your Utah History class from 7th grade, Utah was part of Mexico up until the US Government won the Mexican-American war (1846-1848). Note, the US won the war, not the Utah National Guard.
So, the land in Utah became US Government owned because no Americans had ownership.
Oh, and Redshirt, If I incorporate a city within a State, does the city automatically get all the State owned land inside their new limits?
If not, they why would a State get all the Federal owned lands upon becoming a State?
So, the territory later known as Utah became part of the US before almost all of the area was unsettled. So, the deed to the land became US government owned at that time.
Mark B | 7:23 p.m. July 13, 2009
Mike R is posting like a principled guy today, trying to reject party politics
in favor of just doing what's right and electing like-minded folks. What he
leaves out or never has known is that it takes money and lots of it to get
elected, even to moderate office. That AND you need support from lots of
different kinds of people. Just getting the votes of folks who look like you
doesn't get it done. Mike's high sounding plans are useless without
solving those two problems.
Mike Richards | 8:54 p.m. July 13, 2009
Mark B,
Lot's of money could be a problem - depending on how you run your campaign. It seems reasonable that the less convincing your argument is, the more it will cost to get it across. On the other hand, if you're proposing ideas and ideals that ring true, then your problem will be the problem of finding work for all the volunteers.
The multi-term incumbents would like to make us all think that only they can raise the funds, that only they can appeal to a broad base of supporters, when just the opposite is true. Because they're only messengers for their rich handlers, their message does not ring true. It has to be repeated over and over and over again until people stop thinking about WHAT is said and listen instead to HOW it sounds. There you have it, pop-star politics.
Shame on anyone who is so easily persuaded that he would throw away his privilege to vote on a pop-star politician.
Just how much did it cost anyone to post on the DN today? Ideas can be exchanged and expressed just that easily. The Internet is a great leveler.
Lot's of money could be a problem - depending on how you run your campaign. It seems reasonable that the less convincing your argument is, the more it will cost to get it across. On the other hand, if you're proposing ideas and ideals that ring true, then your problem will be the problem of finding work for all the volunteers.
The multi-term incumbents would like to make us all think that only they can raise the funds, that only they can appeal to a broad base of supporters, when just the opposite is true. Because they're only messengers for their rich handlers, their message does not ring true. It has to be repeated over and over and over again until people stop thinking about WHAT is said and listen instead to HOW it sounds. There you have it, pop-star politics.
Shame on anyone who is so easily persuaded that he would throw away his privilege to vote on a pop-star politician.
Just how much did it cost anyone to post on the DN today? Ideas can be exchanged and expressed just that easily. The Internet is a great leveler.
Captain Kirk | 12:05 a.m. July 14, 2009
A lot of people say that if we take back the Republican then the party
can't win. They need moderates!!!
Maybe they are correct but I think they miss the point. Why would we want them to win if they don't represent what we want? Why would a conservative small government person want to vote for a republican or a democrat today?
I don't care about the party name ...I just want to see government shrunk to its proper role. I want to see our nation run by principles of good government.
And we haven't really seen that from any prominent party for a century or more.
Personally I think that if the GOP came out with a small government platform and really meant it ... They would win.
Maybe I'm too optimistic about the intelligence of the American people.
Maybe they are correct but I think they miss the point. Why would we want them to win if they don't represent what we want? Why would a conservative small government person want to vote for a republican or a democrat today?
I don't care about the party name ...I just want to see government shrunk to its proper role. I want to see our nation run by principles of good government.
And we haven't really seen that from any prominent party for a century or more.
Personally I think that if the GOP came out with a small government platform and really meant it ... They would win.
Maybe I'm too optimistic about the intelligence of the American people.
jbra80 | 1:22 a.m. July 14, 2009
Goodness! Bush wrecked our country, give the new administration a little bit of
time before we get into a panic about everything. There is no book on how to get
ourselves out of this mess, so lets wait and see some results before freaking
out.
Better yet lets panic...run to the nearest gun store and buy up all the ammo quick, so we can defend ourselves against the big bad Democrats or 'nazi germany' as I keep hearing people compare them to. The world is coming to an end! Get your automatic rifles and your 72 hour kits and lets form some militia's. It's the only way we can really be safe. I don't know about the rest of you, but i'm heading out to Crawford, TX so I can follow our true leader.
Sorry, just kidding about that last paragraph, I just wanted to see if it felt as dumb saying it as it does when I hear it. haha
Better yet lets panic...run to the nearest gun store and buy up all the ammo quick, so we can defend ourselves against the big bad Democrats or 'nazi germany' as I keep hearing people compare them to. The world is coming to an end! Get your automatic rifles and your 72 hour kits and lets form some militia's. It's the only way we can really be safe. I don't know about the rest of you, but i'm heading out to Crawford, TX so I can follow our true leader.
Sorry, just kidding about that last paragraph, I just wanted to see if it felt as dumb saying it as it does when I hear it. haha
Anonymous | 7:48 a.m. July 14, 2009
Whenever I read the far-right postings above on this and every other subject
I'm reminded of the following:
"When the going gets tough - the paranoid turn professional."
"When the going gets tough - the paranoid turn professional."
RedShirt | 8:36 a.m. July 14, 2009
To "GWB | 7:01 p.m." the problem is that it happened the opposite way
that you propose. The pioneers came here, set up cities, then the Federal
Government came in and took over the land.
So, its like a city that is incorporated and has its boundaries being told by a state that they don't own large portions of their city.
So, its like a city that is incorporated and has its boundaries being told by a state that they don't own large portions of their city.
GWB | 10:26 a.m. July 14, 2009
Redshirt, did the Federal government take land from the pioneers? Which cities
had their land usurped by the Federal Government?
I'd be interested in seeing that paper work whereby, ownership of the land was taken from a pioneer settler or a city, and then stolen by the Federal government.
Please show me where I can find those documents.
As far as I know, the federal government land in Utah is in the mountains and desert where the pioneer settlers did not settle.
Oh, and how many troops from the Pioneer corp fought against the Mexican government troops to free the territory that became Utah from them starting in 1846 when the war started?
Oh, that's right, the Pioneers didn't even get to Utah until July 24th, 1847 over a year after the war started.
After settling, did they send any before the war ended in 1848?
Oh, that's right, in 1848 they were fighting crickets not Mexican troops for control of their land.
Please document what you say when you suggest that the federal government took the land away from a city or from individuals.
Until then, all you spout is anti-American anti-government rhetoric.
I'd be interested in seeing that paper work whereby, ownership of the land was taken from a pioneer settler or a city, and then stolen by the Federal government.
Please show me where I can find those documents.
As far as I know, the federal government land in Utah is in the mountains and desert where the pioneer settlers did not settle.
Oh, and how many troops from the Pioneer corp fought against the Mexican government troops to free the territory that became Utah from them starting in 1846 when the war started?
Oh, that's right, the Pioneers didn't even get to Utah until July 24th, 1847 over a year after the war started.
After settling, did they send any before the war ended in 1848?
Oh, that's right, in 1848 they were fighting crickets not Mexican troops for control of their land.
Please document what you say when you suggest that the federal government took the land away from a city or from individuals.
Until then, all you spout is anti-American anti-government rhetoric.
RedShirt | 11:48 a.m. July 14, 2009
To "GWB | 10:26 a.m." you forget that the Pioneers sent troops in 1846
to fight in the Mexican war. They had this group called the Mormon Battalion.
It included 500 men. The Mormon Battalion formed 1 July 1846 by Captain James
Allen. The Captain was never ordered to go and fight the Mexican armies, but
was headed that way.
As for the land being taken away by the federal government. See the Indian Land Cessions in the United States, 1784 to 1894. There are multiple land cessions where the US government, by act of congress, took land without paying for it to create indian reservations.
As for the land being taken away by the federal government. See the Indian Land Cessions in the United States, 1784 to 1894. There are multiple land cessions where the US government, by act of congress, took land without paying for it to create indian reservations.
Anonymous | 11:54 a.m. July 14, 2009
"Let's take back GOP" ...
... from Rush Limbaugh.
... from Rush Limbaugh.
RE: Anonymous | 4:51 p.m. July 14, 2009
EVERYONE KNOWS you are not even a member of the GOP,
neither is rush limbaugh,
who has NO membership in any party,
so why do you care?
neither is rush limbaugh,
who has NO membership in any party,
so why do you care?
Anonymous | 6:32 p.m. July 14, 2009
Nonsense.
Everybody knows Rush (the addict) Limbaugh is the leader of the GOP at this moment.
And that is why conservatives and their far-right ideology has poisoned their party for years to come.
Such stupid, stupid neocons!
Everybody knows Rush (the addict) Limbaugh is the leader of the GOP at this moment.
And that is why conservatives and their far-right ideology has poisoned their party for years to come.
Such stupid, stupid neocons!
Agreed with Anonymous | 1:38 a.m. July 16, 2009
Anonymous@11:54 (and again at 6:32?), spot on. Rush Limbaugh symbolizes nearly
everything of what's wrong with today's Republican Party, with
HYPOCRISY at the top of the list. ARROGANCE follows, with CLOSED-MINDED not far
behind.
If the 4:51 poster really thinks Rush Limbaugh's not GOP, he/she might also be interested in some North Dakota beachfront property! Not only is Rush hard-core GOP, he's the key public mover on these idiotic litmus tests for who is and isn't sufficiently "conservative" to be Republican. These thoughts are coming from the neocons, but Rush is amplifying them in the media every chance he gets.
Also right--these "more-conservative-than-thou" tests are alienating more people than they're attracting. That's splitting the GOP. Limbaugh and the neocons are doing more harm than good, but they're too blind to realize it. Unfortunately, it's exactly why Obama will thank them and Rush in his 2012 re-election speech.
If the 4:51 poster really thinks Rush Limbaugh's not GOP, he/she might also be interested in some North Dakota beachfront property! Not only is Rush hard-core GOP, he's the key public mover on these idiotic litmus tests for who is and isn't sufficiently "conservative" to be Republican. These thoughts are coming from the neocons, but Rush is amplifying them in the media every chance he gets.
Also right--these "more-conservative-than-thou" tests are alienating more people than they're attracting. That's splitting the GOP. Limbaugh and the neocons are doing more harm than good, but they're too blind to realize it. Unfortunately, it's exactly why Obama will thank them and Rush in his 2012 re-election speech.
GOP | 2:57 a.m. July 16, 2009
Good old politics is what my GOP has come to stand for. It no longer represents
me. I have not,nor will I donate to them. They have abandoned every principal
on which I stand. Even the voters have gone astray selecting weak candidates,
as McCain and allowing Huckabee to endure as long as he did.
I still say we vote out every congressman and Senator we now have and start anew. We could complete this process in 6 years. We could vote ou the new ones who never got the message they were sent to do.
I still say we vote out every congressman and Senator we now have and start anew. We could complete this process in 6 years. We could vote ou the new ones who never got the message they were sent to do.
No Parties | 7:44 a.m. July 16, 2009
Mike Richards is correct. Plenty of disenfrancized conservatives have confessed
that the Reps. have made plenty of mistakes - why don't democrats???? Look
at the examples they have had Carter and Clinton - 2 of the biggest losers of
all-time as far as pesidents and human beings go. And please what would the
alternative for Bush have been Al Gore and John Kerry - 2 of the biggest
hypocrites around. Where are leaders that really know the true meaning of words
such as honesty, integrity when they lie and call it honest. Everything is
abstract for them - that why lying can become truthfulness. I'm quite
tired of all the lying SOB's in Washington - just look how untruthful
Sotomayer is being in the committee hearings - say anything to get nominated and
then go do what you want - just like Obama has shown in the last year and Bush
and Clinton did during their time as the most powerful men in the world -
it's sad that we don't learn from experience.
Anonymous | 11:48 a.m. July 16, 2009
re: Anonymous | 11:54 a.m. July 13, 2009
//A conservative cannot be a socialist.//
Agreed. //They can be national socialist: ie. the Nazi Party.// Nope. Just take a gander at the chapter on the Nazi and the German National socialist platform in Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism.
//Fascism is conservative extremism and Socialism is extreme liberalism.//
Again, the aforementioned book. F is a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and comesd in the guise of populism for the middle class.
S is forceful overthrow of the elites in the name of the lower class equality.
//A conservative cannot be a socialist.//
Agreed. //They can be national socialist: ie. the Nazi Party.// Nope. Just take a gander at the chapter on the Nazi and the German National socialist platform in Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism.
//Fascism is conservative extremism and Socialism is extreme liberalism.//
Again, the aforementioned book. F is a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and comesd in the guise of populism for the middle class.
S is forceful overthrow of the elites in the name of the lower class equality.
Anonymous | 12:09 p.m. July 16, 2009
America benefits from two Parties, but neither needs to be the Republican Party.
You can all go the way of the Whigs. It really doesn't matter if the RNC
stays one party, joins the Libertarians, or makes a Theocatic Party. America is
deathly tired of you, and Cheney/Bush made sure no one considers you for public
office Nationally for 40 years. Lucky Utah has it's own desert to wander,
you are going to have plenty of time to kill, on your hands.
Obama Republican | 12:38 p.m. July 16, 2009
@redshirt, the pioneers left the USA, they new they were going to a territory of
Mexico. When the US won the Mexican American war, the Treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo, gave most of the west to the US for $15million.
Now back to topic, the radical right and christian wackos that control the GOP and have sold the country down the drain, should start there own party!
Now back to topic, the radical right and christian wackos that control the GOP and have sold the country down the drain, should start there own party!
To Anonymous | 7:37 | 2:02 p.m. July 16, 2009
Umm... capitalism was not being practiced under Bush so how can you blame it for
the mess we are in? We would not be in this mess if the government would stay
out of the market place and let capitalism work.
@Dave | 12:53 a.m. July 17, 2009
Ronald Reagan invented the concept of the "big tent," that's why
he won. In Reagan's time New York and New England were Republican, as were
California and Pacific Northwest. Who could imagine that today? Republicans
now hold exactly Zero House seats from all of New England, for example.
The Republican party will continue to lose so long as it is dominated by Rush Limbaugh-spouters and religious conservatives.
The Republican party will continue to lose so long as it is dominated by Rush Limbaugh-spouters and religious conservatives.
Re RedShirt | 11:47 a.m. July 17, 2009
You write: "To "liberal larry | 7:41 a.m." we need conservatives
that are better than Colin Powell. We need a George Washington type, or
conservatives that are more like our founding Fathers, who stood up to the
Brittish Government and fought for freedom from an oppressive government.
"
What exactly is the government doing, currently, that is oppressive? Taxes are lower than they've been in years, and Obama has not raised taxes one dime since he took office.
It's funny that, when the GOP wants freedom from government, they just want their pocketbook left alone. And then, when the Democrats want freedom from government, they don't want the government telling them what to do in their private lives. But both sides only mean freedom from certain, not all things. The GOP loves to oppress people by trying to regulate behavior, after all.
But I digress. Pray tell, what is the government doing today that is keeping you down, personally? And if you want to talk tax, beware. I'm a tax attorney/historian.
What exactly is the government doing, currently, that is oppressive? Taxes are lower than they've been in years, and Obama has not raised taxes one dime since he took office.
It's funny that, when the GOP wants freedom from government, they just want their pocketbook left alone. And then, when the Democrats want freedom from government, they don't want the government telling them what to do in their private lives. But both sides only mean freedom from certain, not all things. The GOP loves to oppress people by trying to regulate behavior, after all.
But I digress. Pray tell, what is the government doing today that is keeping you down, personally? And if you want to talk tax, beware. I'm a tax attorney/historian.
Yes, take it back | 2:04 p.m. July 17, 2009
Take it back from those people who don't look like us. Them foreign
looking types and the non Pro American parts of the country.
Regular because of Bran | 4:01 p.m. July 17, 2009
Does anyone find it ironic that Republicans have Rush Limbaugh as the face of
the party espousing family values when he has been divorced 3 times and addicted
to drugs?
I am not following that guy.
I am not following that guy.
Red State & Mike Richards | 4:11 p.m. July 17, 2009
"For that matter, show us the bill of sale for Utah."
The Mormon settlers nor the US Government owns this land they stole it from Native Americans.
The Mormon settlers nor the US Government owns this land they stole it from Native Americans.
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Today on TV 12:49 a.m.
- Wanted: Bank robber with bad breath 12:40 a.m.
- Philippine police clash with clan 12:28 a.m.
- Officer responding to call killed 12:28 a.m.
- Editorial: Fine-tune state workweek 12:18 a.m.
- Let's keep energy money in the U.S. 12:18 a.m.
- How to pay for the war 12:17 a.m.
- Feast of Guadalupe nourishes soul 12:17 a.m.
- Obama's strategy is a road map 12:17 a.m.
- Letters: 'Political priestcraft' 12:17 a.m.
- Y., U. to learn bowl destinations
- BYU and Utah's bowl games
- BYU professor remembered
- The forgotten ship: USS Utah
- Branch president without a congregation
- Utahns want health care reform bills
- BYU basketball: Cougars crush Dons
- Kurt Bestor: Joy for the world
- Jazz upset by Wolves
- Urn of baby rests with sailors
- Letters: Liberal because LDS
257 - Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing214
- Hate not limited to 1 in-state rivalry189
- Aggies shoot past Cougars179
- N.Y. Senate rejects gay marriage130
- George lost in rivalry hatefest113
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl110
- Unbeaten BYU takes trip to Logan105
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony97
- Harpring's NBA career is over95
First, a big thank you to all who posted questions here for me to ask...
Latest comments
Sorry earlier I meant to say that tracks seems to travel at 35 miles an hour...
'Peter Frumhoff, the director of science and policy at the Union of...
The Non-BCS crowd ought to create their own title game...their own brand, and...
That's the whole of your defense of GOP resistance to badly-needed ethics...
Your criticism should hardly be focused on Bennett alone. What about all the...
'Wired's Threat Level blog reported on November 20 that Gavin Schmidt, a...
The reality of climate change is supported by multiple lines of evidence and...
I had the priviledge of staying in the LeBaron home on severl occasions as I...
So the unemployment rate has dropped to "just" 10%, huh? I wonder what that...
Ahh for the love of money...what money can buy!!!
Advertisements
Nor is it economically a good idea to bankrupt the country that spends billions per day to finance that war that seems to go on and on and ...