What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
114 Comments
- badqat, on 01/29/2009, -2/+52She's right...
- JackpotCity, on 01/29/2009, -3/+46I agree with everything she said, especially the part about "less government interference in individual lives"
- sunburner, on 01/30/2009, -2/+40I'd probably vote Republican if they were Republicans. Sorry, Neocons...
- kooredaan, on 01/29/2009, -2/+30Too bad a lot of the funding for Republican candidates will come from groups who are against "less government interference in individual lives."
- wishninja, on 01/29/2009, -2/+26This isn't going to work.
You can't be a foreign power all up in every other countries business and expect to keep your budgets balanced and your government small because a government that does that is by definition big government. America wants a humble foreign policy not this globalism one world government crap. - lynchjos, on 01/30/2009, -4/+27The problem with Whitman's proposition is that it ignores the stark fact that any remaining Republicans have very little concern for preserving individual rights. They are evangelicals and social conservatives who would LOVE to see the government ban abortion, gays rights, mandate prayer in schools, ban contraception, and so on.
- michaelpinto, on 01/29/2009, -5/+26I'd like to like Whitman, but she was silent about the toxic aftermath of 9/11 which was bad given her role in the Bush administration at the time. But she's got the right idea that the Republicans should embrace the mainstream a bit more — although sadly that will never generate the interest that Sarah Palin will attract.
- vsujohn2, on 01/29/2009, -1/+17How is that a bad thing?
- Anth0n, on 01/30/2009, -5/+19Prepare to digg me down for mentioning this, but what Whitman is saying is what Ron Paul has been saying for years. Makes me wonder if she's been listening to him recently, since not long ago he was one of the only Republican voices promoting the idea of old Republicanism.
- pintomp3, on 01/30/2009, -0/+13The Republicans have been Neocons for decades. Reagan was a huge neo-con, people forget about Iran-Contra and how much he raised the national debt. They've been the party of hate ever since the "southern strategy" and their ploy to embrace the racist dixiecrats who fled the Democratic party because of civil rights legislation.
- Daamien, on 01/30/2009, -1/+14"* Low taxes with balanced budgets;
* Strong national defense;
* Engaged foreign policy;
* Protection of the environment; and
* Less government interference in individual lives."
Sounds great except for an engaged foreign policy. If the last 8 years have taught us anything, it's that heavy meddling in the affairs of other nations has brought us scorn abroad and excuses for a broad expansion of government powers which undermine personal liberties. There is a difference between non-intervention and isolationism. I suspect that many citizens are fed up with the status quo neoconservative brand of foreign policy and would support a Ron Paul foreign policy of peace, freer trade, and shared cultural dialog. If the Republicans wish to regain lost ground, then they need to adopt a dramatically different platform from the Democrats and the former Bush administration. Concentrating mainly on lower taxes and limited spending is a rather superficial (given the heavy Democratic majority) and hypocritical approach. We need a brand-overhaul. - ryan83189, on 01/29/2009, -3/+15It's not a new party. It is the old one that was torn away from its principles and supporters, kept together for the purpose of not dividing votes. I want to know what exactly "Engaged foreign policy" means, because it is almost as vague as "Change", but I am thinking that this is a winning game plan for this country and for the party. They have to get the younger generation involved, and it is very hard to sell the idea of fiscal conservatism to them because they live in a world of easy credit and easier debt and want instant gratification without thinking of the consequences. Worse yet they know this party only as the one of social conservatism and fiscal liberalism, and their TV told them to be angry at the party because of this (and it is right).
- Badandy127, on 01/30/2009, -2/+14I'm a young, old-style Republican. We do exist. I do recognize, however, that the party we call Republican now is not even close to how it was.
- dalittle, on 01/30/2009, -1/+12Right now the Republican Party stands for the fat and lazy. Stop Corporate Welfare. Stop messing with people's lives with short sighted and infective social conservatism (especially if most of your base have ***** erotic "episodes"). Stop spending like a rich girl with their parents credit card. Stop being hypocritical idiots.
- regeya, on 01/30/2009, -1/+10well, they could always ***** off.
- jonnyeuchre, on 01/30/2009, -2/+10Whitmann said it was okay to go back to Ground Zero when it wasn't. She should be in jail for manslaughter
- DirtyBinLV, on 01/30/2009, -0/+8
That "ridiculous social conservative crap" is what's brining in the donations for the GOP these days. - regeya, on 01/30/2009, -0/+7Yeah; Reagan talked a mean game about how conservatism was really libertarianism, and apparently really was one when he was the California governor. What the hell happened between the election and the Presidency, anyway?
- CTK14A, on 01/30/2009, -8/+15This bitch scams the taxpayers. She got her 280-odd acres of New Jersey real estate labeled 'farmland preservation' to avoid paying her property taxes. Just what we need from our elected representatives.
- inhaler, on 01/30/2009, -0/+6Which wouldn't be the case if the GOP didn't crutch on the evangelical vote and instead focused on becoming a more all inclusive party. It would require them to adapt and include some type of policy that benefits those who work for business and not necessarily own one and focus less on negative campaigning and divisive mudslinging (anti choice / anti gay / anti science through creationism / anti muslim). My examples by far don't represent the entire GOP, but it would be hard to say they don't openly push some of these topics to attract votes. I saw the campaigning for John McCain in Strongsville, Ohio as I work there.
The GOP needs to stop being the party against everything, and start welcoming new ideas into the fold (openness to new experience isn't exactly a conservative trait though). - CTK14A, on 01/30/2009, -2/+8We need elected representatives who will close loopholes for the elite, not exploit them.
- Kent4jmj, on 01/30/2009, -0/+6Blivet bag. Nice package but still ***** inside.
Non intervention
Abolish Federal Reserve
Abolish IRS
Shut down Military Industrial Complex
Balance the Budget
Cut Spending
True Free Market Economy
Etc. - cheezintern, on 01/30/2009, -1/+7she could possibly be, I think if she really looked at what she really believes in, she'd change to libertarian, which is what Ron Paul really is.
- mfc5200, on 01/30/2009, -5/+11This is one of the reasons I am happy Obama one. I am a libertarian leaning Republican, and its an unfortunate truth that Republicans ditch good principles when they control both the Congress and White House. When they don't control the White House, they tend to act more rationally (just look at the 90's, with the exception of ridiculous social conservative crap)
I hope Republicans are somehow able to retake congress in 10' and Obama can keep the Presidency in 12'. I like his views on foreign policy more than the Republican views, so I don't mind him there (seeing as the Presidency has much more say over foreign policy than on domestic policy). But I would prefer true Republican principles of small government with regard to domestic policy.
So for 10'
Congress: Republican, fiscal conservatism, small government, etc..get rid of crooks like Pelosi and Read, and the social conservatives as well
White House: Obama, humble foreign policy, diplomacy, etc.
That would be my ideal. - inactive, on 01/30/2009, -2/+8Not really. Aside from protecting the environment all of those are core Republican principles. And most Republicans support non-invasive efforts to protect the environment.
- pintomp3, on 01/30/2009, -6/+12"strong national defense, engaged foreign policy, " The only reason we need a strong national defense is because of our engaged foreign policy. We are surrounded by two oceans and two non-hostile neighbors. We wouldn't need to maintain the biggest military in the world if it we weren't always destabilizing and overthrowing governments or invading countries to bring them freedom.
- Swivelstick, on 01/30/2009, -0/+5I didn't state that it wasn't, was a reply to the current topic.
- JigoroKano, on 01/30/2009, -0/+5How can you balance your (low tax) budget with a "strong national defense"?
This is part of the problem, the Republicans have become the bigger government party (to the Democrats big government party) and they still don't realize it.
When they QQ about the Democrat's new wasteful spending bill I want to slap them. They don't have anything against spending the taxpayers money, they just want to be the ones to do it. - MelvinSchlubman, on 01/30/2009, -1/+6...that would give the social conservatives nothing to do.
- inactive, on 01/30/2009, -2/+6She's more or less right.
- regeya, on 01/30/2009, -1/+5Naw, that's the social conservatives.
- inactive, on 01/30/2009, -3/+7RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL!
- Lomaximus, on 01/30/2009, -2/+5Less government interference in individual lives should be the cornerstone of any person who considers him or herself a conservative. Individual rights should be preserved and protected by the government. All too often religious practice and personal beliefs are hoisted onto the masses by those in power. Would I ever want to be in the situation where I'd have to consider abortion as an option in my life? Absolutely not. would I want my wife or girlfriend to be able to have the procedure done safely and without fear or persecution if she so decided? Absolutely! The point is the less the government tells people how to live their lives, the better we all are. You don't want to wear a seat belt? Then don't wear one. You want to marry someone of the same gender? Then get married. You want to pray at your desk before class starts? Knock yourself out. None of those choices affect me or harm me, and therefore, shouldn't be a government issue.
- netant, on 01/30/2009, -0/+3We're in a global crisis. This country can't have politicians dicking around. If Republican politicians had any sense of responsibility and foresight, we wouldn't need to override their voting. And they wouldn't need to put out a ***** line about having a "plan" to get out of the fiscal crisis; it never would have happened in the first place. Its times like this I wish there were alternate universes we could track, so people could see what would be the result of another 12 years of Republican rule. Admit it or not, 8 years of Republican rule has devastated this country.
- inhaler, on 01/30/2009, -2/+5Those who slant more toward Classical Liberalism (I know, I said the dreaded L word) and focus less on what you do with your body or who you do it with.
- netant, on 01/30/2009, -0/+3They control the White House, and both houses of gov't. Maybe you Republicans need to stop being retards and realize you have to ***** your party pronto.
- Swivelstick, on 01/30/2009, -0/+3But that's what some corporations want and they own the GOP however big or small government should not be the focus, effective government should be. Much of the bureaucracy could easily be removed but people outside of government make money from and exploit this not just those in government. Also America did not want humble foreign policy after 9/11 it wanted blood.
- regeya, on 01/30/2009, -0/+3Badandy127, nice tu quoque fallacy ya got there...
- Groovydoo, on 01/30/2009, -0/+3I have to agree with you, why can't they do what America needs not what it wants?
- dougs55, on 01/30/2009, -0/+3Wouldn't "less government interference in individual lives" mean more coporate interference in individual lives ?
- analogkid01, on 01/30/2009, -2/+5an an an anything else to be dismissive of?
- Badandy127, on 01/30/2009, -6/+9Keep thinking the GOP is run by corporations and the DNC isn't...
- msgnet, on 01/30/2009, -1/+4Yes, but to be a serious candidate for a major political office, one has to be either Republican, Democrat, or possibly an Independent. I'm afraid a Libertarian party candidate has no chance in a major election.
- Daamien, on 01/30/2009, -0/+2regeya,
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Sadly that holds true for most people (especially when they misuse their power in an attempt to "help" an issue). - AbsurdParadox, on 01/30/2009, -4/+6What was that one guy that ran for the republican nomination? Ron something?
- big3fan, on 01/30/2009, -2/+4she needs to die a slow painful death like the brave first responder she sent to ground zero saying the air was safe to breath.......just go away bitch
www.epa.gov/wtc/stories/headline_091801.htm - analogkid01, on 01/30/2009, -2/+4Then fine, debate all you want about whether it's a human or not. But at the end of that debate, realize that a woman gets to do what she wants with her body, regardless of your debates. It's not that it shouldn't be a personal rights issues, it's that it shouldn't be a *politicized* issue. If you're against abortion, don't have one, and work to increase adoption rates. But don't try to get laws passed. It simply won't happen.
- netant, on 01/30/2009, -0/+2Got some bad news. Republicans will gladly accept your registration, but they don't give a rat's ass about your opinion. Hence their problem.
- Groovydoo, on 01/30/2009, -2/+4Bait and switch! Both George W. Bush and his Daddy talked like a Republican but over-spent like crazy so they could stay in office. Same with Reagan, He cut taxes and gave us deficits by over-spending. You have been bamboozled! Republicans promise the small government and balanced budgets and you never get them.
- Reddog_x2000, on 01/30/2009, -1/+3So, in other words, pragmatic, responsible, moderate conservationism rather than imperialism & forcing everyone who doesn't share your religious beliefs to follow them anyway? Sounds like a good start, assuming that by "engaged foreign policy" she means diplomacy, trade & building friendships and alliances & not war. And, how about adding "Keep big business honest"
And, I know I'm being extreme here, but how about a return to constituional government and honest money? -
Show 51 - 100 of 117 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is