R & r

[Flanders]

Audrey Hudson has Democrat campaign strategy down pat:

Media, Obama camp, sharpening claws for Ryan
By: Audrey Hudson
8/11/2012 10:56 AM

Media, Obama camp, sharpening claws for Ryan | Conservative News, Views & Books

Republicans won’t get a fair shake in the MSM. They never do, but Tea Party conservatives can neuter media bias by plastering this video all over the Internet until election day:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs&feature=player_embedded]Paul Ryan: Hiding Spending Doesn't Reduce Spending - YouTube[/ame]

Parenthetically, a fifty-fifty split in the Senate is the very best Democrats can hope for, and even that is one helluva stretch. I won’t be surprised if the Republicans get a veto-proof majority, but let’s say Democrats somehow manage to get an even split. Vice President Ryan would cast the tie-breaking vote when the healthcare law comes up for repeal. Democrats know that; so an even split isn’t good enough.

Democrats also know that an overwhelming majority of Americans want Hillarycare II repealed; so they have to portray Ryan as a “. . . a toxic choice and politically extreme,. . .”. The good news is that it won’t play in Peoria; especially if R & R becomes an acronym for Reject & Repeal. In short: R & R the mess Hussein & Company made of everything.

Finally, repealing the Affordable Care Act has been the number one priority for Americans since the day Hussein signed it into law. Every private sector American —— Republican, Democrat, and all the folks in-between —— should keep repeal uppermost in their thoughts when Democrats revert to their road game: The politics of personal destruction.

 

[Flanders]

Here’s another R & R to think about. Reconciliation & Repeal.

Democrats lost a filibuster-proof majority when Republican Scott Brown took Ted Kennedy’s seat after he died; so Democrats used the reconciliation process to force their changes into the healthcare law. If you listen carefully you’ll see that the media is already laying the rules for the sure-to-come Senate debate.

Rule #1: Americans must accept whatever the Democrats did as legal and above board.

Rule #2: Republicans are dastardly schemers because they are breaking the rules when they use budget reconciliation to do what the American people want.

A few months ago Senator McConnell said:

“If [Mitt] Romney is in the White House and I am the majority leader of the Senate, I assure you repeal of Obamacare is the first item on the agenda,” McConnell on Laura Ingraham’s radio show Friday.

McConnell’s position is a sure sign Democrats are going to pull the same old “Do as I say, not as I do.”

The article goes on to say:

Reconciliation is what Democrats used to pass the ACA. It’d be poetic justice to see Republicans use reconciliation to repeal the ACA.

These paragraphs say it all:

The Democrats better prepare for a tidal wave of epic proportions this year. They shoved the ACA down Americans’ throats in 2010. Now they’re paying the price for telling the American people that their opinions didn’t matter.

When the last votes are counted this November, President Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et al, will have wished that they’d listened instead of following their political ideology into political ruin.

It couldn’t happen to a more deserving pack of tyrants.

Sen. McConnell: I’ll repeal ACA with GOP Majority
June 29th, 2012

Sen. McConnell: I

Finally, those Democrats who are up for reelection in 2014 will be defeated if the ACA is not repealed next year. Bottom line: Repeal is not going away until it is accomplished.

 

[Freemason9]

I confess that I cannot accept your central thesis, Flanders, that the MAINSTREAM MEDIA is somehow a leftist institution. It may be somewhat "liberal," but the American version of liberal merely supports the status quo of corporate capitalism. It isn't at all leftist, in the philosophical political sense of the word.

In other words, Flanders, the MSM is a corporate institution and supplies a steady stream of right-of-center corporatist propaganda. It's been that way since Reagan sold the independent media to Wall Street in the early 80's. You're right when you complain about how useless the MSM is nowadays; you are incorrect when you try and attribute this to the "liberals." There is no mouthpiece for any political discourse allowed in the U.S. that strays far from right wing ideology or outright fascism.

Under the guidance of the right wing, this has become a military/police state.

 

[Flanders]

I confess that I cannot accept your central thesis, Flanders, that the MAINSTREAM MEDIA is somehow a leftist institution. It may be somewhat "liberal," but the American version of liberal merely supports the status quo of corporate capitalism. It isn't at all leftist, in the philosophical political sense of the word.

In other words, Flanders, the MSM is a corporate institution and supplies a steady stream of right-of-center corporatist propaganda. It's been that way since Reagan sold the independent media to Wall Street in the early 80's. You're right when you complain about how useless the MSM is nowadays; you are incorrect when you try and attribute this to the "liberals." There is no mouthpiece for any political discourse allowed in the U.S. that strays far from right wing ideology or outright fascism.

Under the guidance of the right wing, this has become a military/police state.

To Freemason9: Every institution that strengthens big government diminishes individual liberties. That is the criterion for identifying Leftist. In fact, the MSM is an instrument of government; ergo Leftist to its foundation. And I won’t even get into the MSM’s support for global government which will abolish individual liberties worldwide.

 

[Freemason9]

To Freemason9: Every institution that strengthens big government diminishes individual liberties. That is the criterion for identifying Leftist. In fact, the MSM is an instrument of government; ergo Leftist to its foundation. And I won’t even get into the MSM’s support for global government which will abolish individual liberties worldwide.

You see, this is where you lose me. "Big Government" is a product of both wings, right and left. Nazi Germany was certainly big government, and it was extremely right wing. The Soviet Union was certainly big government, and it was extremely left wing. So what's your point? If you're trying to tell me that the GOP is the solution, you are just playing games. That isn't true. Hell, G.W. Bush grew this government more than anyone.

The GOP only exists to empower corporatists. The Democrats are SUPPOSED to be their opposition--but they are fairly in bed with corporatists as well. There is no effective "2-party" system in the U.S. Both parties have been purchased.

(on edit) Need I remind you that the GOP, under Bush, used the 9-11 event to vastly increase domestic surveillance and police powers in the U.S.? So, was G.W. Bush a "one world government" fellow?

 

[Flanders]

To Freemason9: Every institution that strengthens big government diminishes individual liberties. That is the criterion for identifying Leftist. In fact, the MSM is an instrument of government; ergo Leftist to its foundation. And I won’t even get into the MSM’s support for global government which will abolish individual liberties worldwide.

You see, this is where you lose me. "Big Government" is a product of both wings, right and left. Nazi Germany was certainly big government, and it was extremely right wing. The Soviet Union was certainly big government, and it was extremely left wing. So what's your point? If you're trying to tell me that the GOP is the solution, you are just playing games. That isn't true. Hell, G.W. Bush grew this government more than anyone.

The GOP only exists to empower corporatists. The Democrats are SUPPOSED to be their opposition--but they are fairly in bed with corporatists as well. There is no effective "2-party" system in the U.S. Both parties have been purchased.

(on edit) Need I remind you that the GOP, under Bush, used the 9-11 event to vastly increase domestic surveillance and police powers in the U.S.? So, was G.W. Bush a "one world government" fellow?

To Freemason9: It’s not that complicated. The entire Democrat party hierarchy will sellout this country in a heartbeat. They no longer bother to hide their hatred of the US Constitution and individual liberties. Establishment Republicans (corporatists as you call them) will join with anyone that protects their power & privileges in a totalitarian government —— including Islam. Simply stated: It’s been the American people against the federal government for a long time, but only a small handful of Americans knew it before the Internet.

Average Americans concerned about losing America’s sovereignty had no place to go until Tea Parties became one splinter party within the Republican party.

A Third Party

This excerpt is from a message I posted in January of 2009 on another board:

Conservatism has been taking a beating at the hands of Republicans for decades. It’s time for conservatives to reject the false hope the Republican party held out all of those long years. Let’s look at starting a third party.

The minute a serious third party threatens “business as usual” Democrats and Republicans will combine forces and become one political party. That’s inevitable. It is also the major problem facing a third party.

Ross Perot started a third party and got 19 percent of the votes cast in 1992. Yet the two major parties did not join forces. Why? Answer: Because Perot did not draw equally from Democrats and Republicans. In short: Perot was never a threat to the two party myth.

A Conservative party with a clearly stated commitment to basic principles will attract rank and file voters in large numbers from both parties. It is important to note that electing a president and a few members of Congress won’t accomplish a thing. A third party must win enough seats in Congress to back up a truly conservative president. (I believe Tea Parties are doing just that. Flanders —— Aug. 14, 2012.)

Of course, a party platform will be written every four years as conditions dictate, but there should be a permanent bill of principles that never changes. Some suggestions:

1. Defending America’s absolute sovereignty (including secure borders) must head the list of conservative principles.

2. Eliminate the personal income tax for all time.

3. Fund NECESSARY government (the military, the judiciary, etc.) with a federal sales tax at the retail level, and a flat tax on all corporate income with no deductions allowed for any reason. A flat tax must include a firm ceiling. Raising that ceiling should require a constitutional amendment.

4. Taxes levied for a specific purpose must be used for that purpose only. Example: Federal gasoline taxes can only be spent on the federal highway system.

5. This suggestion crosses the line between state and federal governments. Neither tax collector nor law suits nor the courts should have the legal authority to confiscate a primary residence. (In the past, I’ve posted the details on absolute homeowner Rights.)

6. Eliminate all entitlements without exception.

I believe that a third party incorporating those few suggestions would attract tens of millions of voters from both major political parties.

And this from the same thread:

I don’t doubt the Constitutional party’s claim to conservatism. I just think that a new third party incorporating all of the conservative principles out there is the way to go. Right now conservatism is piecemeal, catch-as-catch-can so to speak; every party has some. Example: Liberals and Republicans both claim they are fiscal conservatives and social liberals. That’s crap. No individual can be both at the same time yet conservatives vote for individuals who make that claim.

I don’t believe that the Constitutional party, or the Libertarian party, is going to attract many converts. No party stands a chance of success in the current system of one party rule unless it can draw tens of millions of voters away from the Democrat/Republican party.

 

[Freemason9]

Flanders, your hypothetical "third party" already exists. The problem is, it's so fringe that it will never garner many votes from voters. The standards you cite are extremely right wing and come from the pages of history books (the Constitution was written by men that denied women the right to vote and embraced slavery; robber barons did quite well under the economic system you tout, and poverty was endemic under those same conditions). The one thing good about the passage of time is that, hopefully, some good progress is made. I'm not sure why you believe it is a good thing to roll back progress.

I may as well advocate for the Socialist Party as a viable third party in the U.S. That has as good of a chance as the one you propose.

 

[Flanders]

Freemason9;5814340

Flanders, your hypothetical "third party" already exists. The problem is, it's so fringe that it will never garner many votes from voters.

To Freemason9: All of those Tea party candidates winning congressional seats proves otherwise.

Freemason9;5814340

The standards you cite are extremely right wing and come from the pages of history books (the Constitution was written by men that denied women the right to vote and embraced slavery;

To Freemason9: The Constitution you dismiss with shallow talking points made it possible for American women to achieve the most freedoms and the highest standard of living for the most women in any country in history as well as abolish slavery.

Incidentally, why is that Constitution-haters never mention the fact that black Africans were sold into slavery by their own people? Answer: They cannot bring themselves to make blacks guilty of anything —— ever; so they make buyers the villains. Apply that logic to drug pushers and their customers!

Freemason9;5814340

robber barons did quite well under the economic system you tout, and poverty was endemic under those same conditions).

To Freemason9: Nobody was forced to work for robber barons who, incidentally, were instrumental in building this country. Your tax dollar robber barons force everyone to work for them, while they tear down the country.

Freemason9;5814340

The one thing good about the passage of time is that, hopefully, some good progress is made. I'm not sure why you believe it is a good thing to roll back progress.

To Freemason9: I understand that liberals are all afflicted with tunnel vision, but the historical fact is this: The form of government created by the Founding Fathers represented the most political progress common man ever achieved in one bite. It is you and your kind who would roll back progress.

You might not be sure why I believe the things I believe, but your beliefs are no mystery to me. You obviously believe that a benign totalitarian government is possible.

Freemason9;5814340

I may as well advocate for the Socialist Party as a viable third party in the U.S. That has as good of a chance as the one you propose.

To Freemason9: Are you lobbing me a soft one? The Democrat party is the Socialist/Communist party!