newsweek.com— Democrats have broken up with the Olympia Snowes and Christie Whitmans of old. But even in this polarized political moment, there are five Republicans they have learned to love.
Mar 16, 2010View in Crawl 4
Ron Paul does make his personal views known from time to time, but he tries to follow what the constitution prescribes in terms of who, if anyone, should be dictating social matters, which is why he tends to defer to the states when he sees no reason for the federal government to be involved, or if the issue is highly debatable (Which is why the states exist: To try different things).Advocates of libertarianism may be opposed to Ron Paul for the same reason they are opposed to all politicians, if this is the line of reasoning we're taking.His personal views, however, do include that of a pro-life stance, which, by my long study of libertarian issues would argue is in SOME conflict with freedom of choice and the non-aggression principle. That's not to say all libertarians are opposed to Ron Paul on his position, but that they disagree about the recognition of the individual.
watch out behind that tree,,, Christians going to get you. oh no hes going to... forgive you or try to read the bible... run aaaaaaaaaaaafear Christians much? what is it with this insane christian phobia? geez I'm agnostic at best and i dont get it. before you go to bed do you check the bush's for baptist? lock the doors we had reports of a strong Methodist front coming in
i never said progressive = Hitler, thats you projecting but if you're going to pick and choose what Roosevelt stood for as a progressive and leave out the other stuff it is fair, is it not?there really no question the progressive party of today has its roots in that disgusting progressive party of the 1900'ssorry if the truth offends you, i usually does offend progressives.the same reasons you cant see this are the same reasons that make you such a good and proud progressive.good luck with your "change and reform"
Jesus, you guys are dense. I could give you plenty of examples of how Jefferson's actions did not match up with his ideals or how any symbols of democracy in the past had beliefs that would be considered undemocratic today. You still keep confusing progressivism as a party and a static one at that. Its like saying increasing the national debt is a hallmark of conservatism because Reagan did it and hes a conservative.
"What has the conservative movement accomplished in the past 30 years"Relativist equivocations. I'm not a conservative."...other than gut regulations that worked, removed taxes that allowed a budget surplus and hand the keys of the kingdom to corporatists?"The people pulling the strings behind the progressives of that era WERE corporatists. The regulations worked in favor of those close to the movement. The power structure behind the Democrats is very much the same as it was for the progressive party back then."This is not the 1920s, when everything you are referring to happened."Many of the consequences of those times still exist. It's not ancient history by any means. You still have nationalistic immigration quotas, a mandated and involuntarily funded educational institution still relying on 1800s model to churn out 'obedient workers', and the dominance of corporatism and subversion of the USD by a quasi private organization."We believe that government is always evolving, and is there to exert the will of the people."The evidence doesn't suggest that it does."Therefore, there is nothing wrong with big government as long as it is under the control of the people."How big should big government be? How is it even theoretically possible to determine this?"We believe in Pragmatism, the scientific method, and logic and reason over mythology in our decision making."Logic and reason would indicate that you cannot speak on behalf of others like that, and should instead clarify your ideals, and how it proves for your advocacy of 'big government so long as _we_ are in control of it'. It seems like a lot of mysticism to me.
"Jesus, you guys are dense. I could give you plenty of examples of how Jefferson's actions did not match up with his ideals or how any symbols of democracy in the past had beliefs that would be considered undemocratic today."By all means, let's discuss history with a little scrutiny and integrity then! Who is the one implying that US history is so clean cut with shining heroic leadership, though?? Undemocratic does not necessarily mean bad, btw.
peppermintpigMar 17, 2010
Ron Paul does make his personal views known from time to time, but he tries to follow what the constitution prescribes in terms of who, if anyone, should be dictating social matters, which is why he tends to defer to the states when he sees no reason for the federal government to be involved, or if the issue is highly debatable (Which is why the states exist: To try different things).Advocates of libertarianism may be opposed to Ron Paul for the same reason they are opposed to all politicians, if this is the line of reasoning we're taking.His personal views, however, do include that of a pro-life stance, which, by my long study of libertarian issues would argue is in SOME conflict with freedom of choice and the non-aggression principle. That's not to say all libertarians are opposed to Ron Paul on his position, but that they disagree about the recognition of the individual.
bluto36Mar 17, 2010
watch out behind that tree,,, Christians going to get you. oh no hes going to... forgive you or try to read the bible... run aaaaaaaaaaaafear Christians much? what is it with this insane christian phobia? geez I'm agnostic at best and i dont get it. before you go to bed do you check the bush's for baptist? lock the doors we had reports of a strong Methodist front coming in
Closed AccountMar 17, 2010
understandable since there are no good looking liberals.
bluto36Mar 17, 2010
i never said progressive = Hitler, thats you projecting but if you're going to pick and choose what Roosevelt stood for as a progressive and leave out the other stuff it is fair, is it not?there really no question the progressive party of today has its roots in that disgusting progressive party of the 1900'ssorry if the truth offends you, i usually does offend progressives.the same reasons you cant see this are the same reasons that make you such a good and proud progressive.good luck with your "change and reform"
spinningheadMar 17, 2010
You are the worst troll ever. I agree that our forefathers (period....people who lived decades earlier) were more racist than most people today. That has nothing to do with progressivism.<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29</a>
spinningheadMar 17, 2010
Jesus, you guys are dense. I could give you plenty of examples of how Jefferson's actions did not match up with his ideals or how any symbols of democracy in the past had beliefs that would be considered undemocratic today. You still keep confusing progressivism as a party and a static one at that. Its like saying increasing the national debt is a hallmark of conservatism because Reagan did it and hes a conservative.
peppermintpigMar 17, 2010
"What has the conservative movement accomplished in the past 30 years"Relativist equivocations. I'm not a conservative."...other than gut regulations that worked, removed taxes that allowed a budget surplus and hand the keys of the kingdom to corporatists?"The people pulling the strings behind the progressives of that era WERE corporatists. The regulations worked in favor of those close to the movement. The power structure behind the Democrats is very much the same as it was for the progressive party back then."This is not the 1920s, when everything you are referring to happened."Many of the consequences of those times still exist. It's not ancient history by any means. You still have nationalistic immigration quotas, a mandated and involuntarily funded educational institution still relying on 1800s model to churn out 'obedient workers', and the dominance of corporatism and subversion of the USD by a quasi private organization."We believe that government is always evolving, and is there to exert the will of the people."The evidence doesn't suggest that it does."Therefore, there is nothing wrong with big government as long as it is under the control of the people."How big should big government be? How is it even theoretically possible to determine this?"We believe in Pragmatism, the scientific method, and logic and reason over mythology in our decision making."Logic and reason would indicate that you cannot speak on behalf of others like that, and should instead clarify your ideals, and how it proves for your advocacy of 'big government so long as _we_ are in control of it'. It seems like a lot of mysticism to me.
peppermintpigMar 17, 2010
"Jesus, you guys are dense. I could give you plenty of examples of how Jefferson's actions did not match up with his ideals or how any symbols of democracy in the past had beliefs that would be considered undemocratic today."By all means, let's discuss history with a little scrutiny and integrity then! Who is the one implying that US history is so clean cut with shining heroic leadership, though?? Undemocratic does not necessarily mean bad, btw.
crunchdiggMar 17, 2010
well, she was SUPPOSED to still be in office.