Discussion in 'Politics' started by Annie, Jun 16, 2007.
Seems like. Links at site:
Sure, but it's not hard to imagine a winning GOP candidate. He'd take a hard line on immigration, want spending under control, and fight terrorism but have a plan to wrap up Iraq. He'd say multiculturalism and PC are out of control and need to be reined in. He'd say abortion is awful but probably wouldn't look for a federal law banning it -- just conservative judges. He might try an appeal to liberals by talking more about the environment and might even try global warming "alternatives" (to theories and policy response). He'd score points by noting that Fox has some of the most vulgar programming on TV. He'd say, if you think being a conservative means not reading books, you might just qualify to be the 43rd president. He'd say, remember in America when Cokes were 50 cents and kids didn't wear bike helmets, and when neighbors knew each others' names? Let's try getting back to that. Let's try some more politeness and civility. He'd say, if the rest of the world hates us, that probably won't change, but we can at least stop giving them gratuitous reasons to hate us. He'd say I understand why Israel wants to stand tall in the Middle East, but we can't spend the rest of our national existence as their fetchit-boy. He'd say schools are a local matter, not a federal matter. He'd say, if you think little white girls in pinafore dresses are a sign of incipient Nazism, you need to get the fuck out our of our country.
Oh, wait. I was just dreaming.
Are you trying to give Hillary ideas ?
A middle of the road party would be nice. One with the right conservative views and the right non conservative views.
I do NOT think any major politician is going to form a party though. Maybe "WE" the people should try. I do not know how we would succeed but perhaps we could start by trying to make a platform.
The following being Ideas I would support.
The Government returns to the rule of Constitution on Federal Functions and powers. ( eliminate Education, Veteran Affairs as Cabinet posts) Eliminate federal Funds for Education and review every "power" that is claimed to be under the heading of " Interstate Commerce"
Create an amendment to the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to run Social Security. Failing that transfer the program completely to the States and cease collecting taxes on it.
Along the same lines. Change the accounting for Social Security and medicare taxes to being only used for those purposes.
Allow Abortion in first trimester and ensure that laws exist to allow abortion to save the mothers life.
The PRIMARY function of the Federal Government is Defense, support the defense appropriations at a minimum of 10 percent of budget, with 15 percent as the final goal.
Eliminate pork and pet projects from appropriation bills, Require that all addendum be openly discussed and easily seen by the electorate.
Create a Constitutional Line Item veto for the President ( requires that Congress still have the power to over ride such a veto)
Support a change from Government involvement in "marriage" to one of Government involved in "Civil Unions".
Secure the borders and ports of the Country with any means possible.
Enforce ALL illegal alien laws.
NO amnesty for illegal aliens, support a move to credit anyone applying for immigration ( from their home country) with some kind of credit if they were in the country illegally but paid taxes. This would ONLY apply to before 2007.
The goal of the party is smaller Federal Government and one that abides by the Constitution. Within this gaol, the party will attempt to create amendments to the Constitution rather then pervert the powers granted by said document.
The goal of the party is to balance the budget and pay down the deficit.
The goal of the party is to avoid raising taxes, if taxes are raised a specific purpose must be stated to support the raise.
I find myself agreeing with much of that.
I'd be there.
I agree with all of the above, with the exceptions of the bolded. Those issues should be eliminated from the federal and either taken up by the states or eliminated altogether.
With that said, I think it important to note that the federal government has not been doing a good job on the census, something it was better at 200 years before.
It is simply to late to just cut off Social Security. To many people paid in and have a reasonable expectation of something for their money. The States actually run the programs but use Federal Funds for it.
Social Security is Unconstitutional and should either have an amendment allowing it or be dropped from Federal control all together. So we agree in principle on that one, just not on what to do.
The use of Social Security funds to pay ANY Government program or bill is the ONLY reason Social Security is in danger in the future. If that money was JUST for Social Security there would not be a problem about how we pay for it in the future, at least not for a VERY long time.
The Constitution is clear, if Marriage exists as a State power then EVERY State MUST honor other States laws ( unless they are Unconstitutional) by continuing the practice of State run marriage we are ensuring Gays will be granted that right by Court decree. Move Marriage to religion and have the State sanction and license Civil Unions. Contractually Gays deserve the same rights and privaleges as all other citizens.
Religiously I am against abortion. But pragmaticly I see this issue as a stumbling block for many people that might otherwise agree on the other points. Allow the States to set the laws for thier State within reason and promise not to totally repel abortion and you will gain people that simply can not agree otherwise. I would further stipulate that NO Federal Funds should ever be used for abortion.
More evidence of insanity, not to mention the problem with 'Americans won't do these jobs...'
Those who do support the insane amnesty bill play the usual race card
Remind me again how Fox News does not give both sides of the issue............
Geraldo: Immigration Enforcement Like 'Pulling Down Pants of Jews,' Energizing 'Extreme Right'
Posted by Brad Wilmouth on June 17, 2007 - 14:21.
On Thursday's The O'Reilly Factor, FNC's Geraldo Rivera and conservative columnist Michelle Malkin sparred over controversial comments Rivera had made on the June 8 show attacking Malkin's support for enforcing immigration laws, which Rivera had called "un-American" and had compared to "pulling down the pants of Jews to see if they were circumcised." Rivera, from June 8: "If, in her America, in Michelle's America, when you look, is that Hispanic guy an illegal or is he legal? It reminds me so much of when they used to pull down the pants of Jews to see if they were circumcised or not. It is, it is so, so pathetic. It's so un-American." On the Thursday June 14 show, Rivera contended that the issue is being pushed because "wedge issues like gay marriage and abortion lost steam with the extreme right, they've now seized on this as a way to appeal to energize the base." Video of the June 8 segments can be viewed here and the June 14 segment here.
Separate names with a comma.