Nope, not true. Although Clinton probably had a bigger hand in causing the problem than Bush by not vetoing the bills that rolled back regulation.
It Looks Like An Electoral Bloodbath Tonight
- Thread starter hellblazer
- Start date
Nope, not true. Although Clinton probably had a bigger hand in causing the problem than Bush by not vetoing the bills that rolled back regulation.
I never said Bush or McCain were fiscally conservative. I don't think they are. As for an abstinence program, I wouldn't be against it as sex ed programs aren't exactly showing great results. But not now, we don't have the money.
I'm assuming you made up that definition yourself. What conservatives would call those people are fiscal liberals. Or RINO's. Real conservatives practice what they preach. I'm not defending Bush or McCain's fiscal policies, nor would I want to. I think Peter Schiff is a guy who really understands how the markets work, and I would vote for him in an instant if I lived in CT.
Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, and which supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries. In economics, unlike traditionalist conservatives, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a welfare state; and, while rhetorically supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes"
So no. I didn't just make that up.
Lindsey Graham is another example of a RINO. Olympia Snowe is another. Bush. McCain. Palin. Palin would definitely interfere for 'overriding social purposes'.
Peter Schiff is a libertarian Republican and was Ron Paul's economic advisor. I support him.
Also, abstinence programs are a joke and states that require them by law have higher teen pregnancy rates. These bullshit moral wedge issues are a joke.
no, no it really didn't. don't you remember when the democrats took control of both the house and the senate, when republicans previously had both? plus, the results of this minor election remain to be seen how they will impact the midterms.
This is a little off-topic, but...
Depending upon government to deliver less government is folly. Believing these elections - and the shifting tide toward conservatives - will reduce government intervention in our lives is optimistic. Naive, even.
These elections are for show. They give the impression that the populace has a say in the matter. In doing so, they all but guarantee the populace will not revolt. The people will not resist to the point of taking up arms and storming the capitol.
That is what these elections accomplish. They keep the serfs happy by giving them a channel through which they can communicate how pissed off they are. But, that is all they do. And these elections completely obfuscate the fact that those in power have no right to pass mandates that violate our individual liberties.
If you're a Libertarian, think of it like this...
You follow a code of non-aggression toward others (I'm not talking about defending oneself). You also believe in consensual contracts and private property rights, including the right to self-ownership. In that light, how in the world can a group of people elect others and bestow upon them the right to regulate or criminalize that which does not violate contracts and private property rights?
A right can only be conferred to others if the giver has the right in the first place. In other words, you can give me the right to dig a hole in your garden, but you cannot give me the right to splatter someone's brains on the sidewalk. It is not your right to give.
Now, consider that in the context of electing officials to bring about less government intervention. To do so, those officials must vote for or against pieces of legislation that infringe upon our individual liberties. That is entirely inconsistent with a platform of freedom.
I'm tired. My eyes are blurry. And I'm probably making very little sense. But, I'm hoping that a glimmer of what's in my head is coming out coherently.
Like some of you, I'm watching these elections. But, I'm doing so from the perspective of studying a social oddity. These elections are only perpetuating a system built on oppression and tyranny.
And good night.
Depending upon government to deliver less government is folly. Believing these elections - and the shifting tide toward conservatives - will reduce government intervention in our lives is optimistic. Naive, even.
These elections are for show. They give the impression that the populace has a say in the matter. In doing so, they all but guarantee the populace will not revolt. The people will not resist to the point of taking up arms and storming the capitol.
That is what these elections accomplish. They keep the serfs happy by giving them a channel through which they can communicate how pissed off they are. But, that is all they do. And these elections completely obfuscate the fact that those in power have no right to pass mandates that violate our individual liberties.
If you're a Libertarian, think of it like this...
You follow a code of non-aggression toward others (I'm not talking about defending oneself). You also believe in consensual contracts and private property rights, including the right to self-ownership. In that light, how in the world can a group of people elect others and bestow upon them the right to regulate or criminalize that which does not violate contracts and private property rights?
A right can only be conferred to others if the giver has the right in the first place. In other words, you can give me the right to dig a hole in your garden, but you cannot give me the right to splatter someone's brains on the sidewalk. It is not your right to give.
Now, consider that in the context of electing officials to bring about less government intervention. To do so, those officials must vote for or against pieces of legislation that infringe upon our individual liberties. That is entirely inconsistent with a platform of freedom.
I'm tired. My eyes are blurry. And I'm probably making very little sense. But, I'm hoping that a glimmer of what's in my head is coming out coherently.
Like some of you, I'm watching these elections. But, I'm doing so from the perspective of studying a social oddity. These elections are only perpetuating a system built on oppression and tyranny.
And good night.
For those in doubt of how much "power" the president or congress has over the federal reserve, feel free to read this:
The Money Masters
and watch this long (yet very informative) documentary:
The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America
The Money Masters
and watch this long (yet very informative) documentary:
The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America
It's a retarded conspiracy theory. The federal reserve act has been amended some 200 times since it has been established and it can be repealed at any time by a majority vote in congress.
If people really seriously want the federal reserve act repealed, it will be repealed, and voila, no more fed. The international jew bankers haven't seized control of our financial system.
It's like anything else. The banking industry lobbies congress heavily. Plus they rely on the ignorance of the population. Do you have any idea how many people don't know how banks make money? Or that banks aren't non-profits or state run? With names like "Federal" bank etc etc.
True, although I was thinking more along presidential lines, since Bush did get a second term - something that looks highly unlikely for B. Hussein. I'd have to go back and look at the margin swings, though - something tells me they weren't as volatile as they were in these elections.
the midterms will mean more than the presidential I'm going to go as far as to say. if the democrats lose control of either the house or the senate, it's huge. Also the Republican candidates mean more, and there's actually two good ones for senate:
Peter Schiff for Senate 2010|Home
Rand Paul 2010 | U.S. Senate
Clinton in 1993 had a lower approval than Obama has had. In 94 the republicans gained majority of the house for the first time in 40 years. In 96 Clinton beat Dole by nearly 10 percent.
Don't know who that other guy is, but it would be absolutely sick if Schiff wins. And I think he's got a real chance with the way the trends are going. It's like a breath of fresh air listening to him talk about the markets and economy.
If you understand politics you would know the opposition party always makes a come back during the next two elections. Clinton lost the majority, Bush lost the Majority, and Obama will probably lose or be close to loosing the majority. It really makes no difference and just shows people are never happy with who they vote in. If people would switch it up and put a few more libertarians in then I could see some real work getting done. I don't agree with a lot of things Obama has been doing but I give the guy a fair shot for 4 years and if I don't agree then I vote against him. One thing I don't get is those who watch and believe certain TV/Radio shows and follow those people blindly without really doing research and learning history.
I have already sent in donations to Schiff and will be sending some Rand Paul's way. I think a strong third party is going to be necessary the way the other two parties are today from Reid and Pelosi to Boehner and others.
Yeah, that's the talking points they came up with. They created them pretty fast, too - their stats team must have been working overtime. It's funny because before they sent out their t.points, the Dems were all dejected and saying "Yeah, we're really getting our asses kicked" (This was around 9:30-10:00pm last night).
Then sometime around 10:30 is when they must have sent out a mass mailing, because Debbie Schultz came on TV around that time and was suddenly rattling off stats like she'd had her nose in the books that past 2 days or something lol. Then the Dems perked up and got all confident again and started repeating those t.points verbatim. Funny shit.