Originally posted by MelanerpesYou're starting your own party?? :'(
Hugh Glass has a really good idea here - which I will now steal and make the basis for my party.
>Stay away from BS promises that we have doubts about on both sides. No more promises, that we all get sucked up in
Maybe I'll call it the "Just the Facts" Party.
I was counting on you and Telerion to be charter members of the GOGOP.
Originally posted by sh76Overall that seems like a platform I could live with.
I say not say it myself any better than the great Richard Posner. So, at the risk of seeming zeeblebot-esque (not that there's anything wrong with that, Z, ol' buddy):
[i]The end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the surge of prosperity worldwide that marked the global triumph of capitalism, the essentially conservative policies, especially ...[text shortened]...
http://crookedtimber.org/2009/05/12/richard-posner-on-the-conservative-intellectual-collapse/
Especially with J. Gregg at the helm.😀
Originally posted by sh76Ha ha, this could get ugly. Telerion was going to be your Chancellor of the Exchequer. Melanerpes, your Chief Whip.
You're starting your own party?? I was counting on you and Telerion to be charter members of the GOGOP.
"Gugup", incidentally, round these parts here, means confused, jittery, skittish, flustered and fidgety. And yet I've hardly slung a cross word in your direction for a week.
2 edits
Originally posted by sh76I'm open to an eventual merger. I want to see what Telerion is offering.
You're starting your own party?? :'(
I was counting on you and Telerion to be charter members of the GOGOP.
Additional planks in my party are
1. If an adversary comes up with a policy that helps to achieve one of our goals, we should not be afraid to give that adversary "credit" or worry about preventing our adversary from "succeeding".
2. Extensive scientific analysis is to be used whenever and wherever possible in drawing up and evaluating policy.
3. Being a member of the party is not the same thing as being a fan of a sports team. Anyone engaging in fan-like behavior will be required to route for the Cubs and only the Cubs until they win a World Series.
4. No one is to ever be called a czar or any other title that smacks of royalty.
5. No one is allowed to speak of reducing the size of government unless they are willing to accept a proportionate cut to programs that significantly benefits them personally and-or their district. Similar policy goes for tax increases.
6. No one shall speak ill of anyone brave enough to grab the "third rail" (that is, propose cuts to Medicare or Social Security). You may politely disagree with their proposal, but anyone who speaks of "death panels" shall be unplugged from the party.
7. All districts are to be drawn up by a non-partisan body based on logical boundaries. Anyone who comes from a district that resembles the Geico Lizard or the Aflac Duck will be immediately thrown out of the party.
8. All of a candidate's campaign ads must be done in their OWN natural voice. That guy speaking ominously in a deep bass voice better be YOU.
9. Every candidate must submit to at least one Lincoln-Douglas style debate.
10. During the election campaign, each candidate must ask their main opponents to each recommend five books to read -- and then read them thoroughly.
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesOkay; you can be the czar, er... boss, of the "sucking all the fun out of politics" department. 😉
I'm open to an eventual merger. I want to see what Telerion is offering.
Additional planks in my party are
1. If an adversary comes up with a policy that helps to achieve one of our goals, we should not be afraid to give that adversary "credit" or worry about preventing our adversary from "succeeding".
2. Extensive scientific analysis is to be us main opponents to each recommend five books to read -- and then read them thoroughly.
Originally posted by sh76I agree that during the Clinton years I noticed a gradual decline economically until present, however, was this due to "conservative" policies? If so, which ones? In addition, I find it somewhat amusing citing Clinton as a conservative. Then again, compared to what we have now he looks like Reagan on steriods, does he not? As far as conservative intellectuals dying off, yep. But this arguement is twofold. One is that we have no intellectual conservatives today, for which individuals such as Mark Lavine would disagree. Secondly, the arguement is that since there is no modern day voice the movement is dead or should be dead, both of which I would take issue with.
[b]I say not say it myself any better than the great Richard Posner. So, at the risk of seeming zeeblebot-esque (not that there's anything wrong with that, Z, ol' buddy):
[i]The end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the surge of prosperity worldwide that marked the global triumph of capitalism, the essentially conservative policies, especially ...[text shortened]... their successors lacked equivalent public prominence, as conservatism grew strident and populist.
Originally posted by sh76So he got upset when Bush decreased taxes? I would argue he has a point when his spending habits increased at the same time. You know, kinda like how Obama is increasing Bush's spending habits while not raising taxes as of yet. As far as government shrinking under Bush, in what way? For example, he passed one of the largest entitlement programs in US history. Also, how were the rights of the gun owners expanded under "W"? I would agree that defense spending needs to be reduced and that "W"'s whole approach to Iraq was misguided, that Obama is continuing to pursue, but what does this have to do with conservatism? And lastly, the homosexual issue is a societal issue. If you have noticed, vote after vote across the country is not yet happy with the notion of homosexual marriages.
By the end of the Clinton administration, I was content to celebrate the triumph of conservatism as I understood it, and had no desire for other than incremental changes in the economic and social structure of the United States. I saw no need for the estate tax to be abolished, marginal personal-income tax rates further reduced, the government shrunk, pragmatism i ...[text shortened]... ese became causes embraced by the new conservatism that crested with the reelection of Bush in 2004.
This issue is a court issue anyway, so I don't even know why it is being discussed. If this is his idea of religion being expanded in the political arena, then he is daft. Religion had nothing to do with it. In fact, abortion is still the law of the land. Nothing has changed other than homosexual rights being extended by a few states.
Originally posted by sh76Again, unitl you can break down policy by policy examples, all this posturing is meaningless. What exactly is he referring to?
My theme is the intellectual decline of conservatism, and it is notable that the policies of the new conservatism are powered largely by emotion and religion and have for the most part weak intellectual groundings. That the policies are weak in conception, have largely failed in execution, and are political flops is therefore unsurprising … By the fall of 2008, th ...[text shortened]...
http://crookedtimber.org/2009/05/12/richard-posner-on-the-conservative-intellectual-collapse/[/b]
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI have lived a good life, as I look back. Did things I am ashamed of, but also did some good, I think.
Of course, what counts as "poor" in the US is influenced by the fact that you have to pay so much for health care and education for your kids. I know that over here you wouldn't have to worry about health care costs or being able to send your children to school/college/university if you lose your job. This is possible and affordable in the U.S. as well, ...[text shortened]... "socialism" and "marxism" are keeping the populace from demanding what they really want.
What my concern is: Leaving this earth with my two girls and wife here, in the hands of two exactly opposite sides, that can not find a common ground. And what scares me, is I played a great role in that happening.
Everyone wants their own to be happy. How does that happen, in the current situation, where there is no bending or blending of ideas?
who is a wiseman? What makes a wiseman?
Originally posted by Hugh Glassanother plank for my party
I have lived a good life, as I look back. Did things I am ashamed of, but also did some good, I think.
What my concern is: Leaving this earth with my two girls and wife here, in the hands of two exactly opposite sides, that can not find a common ground. And what scares me, is I played a great role in that happening.
Everyone wants their own to be happy. ...[text shortened]... uation, where there is no bending or blending of ideas?
who is a wiseman? What makes a wiseman?
11. The bending and blending of ideas will be encouraged wherever possible.
