(05-14-2011 07:58 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(05-14-2011 05:35 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  With gas at about $4.00 a gal. Unemployment at 9%, Republicans could put up the GEICO Gecko and win. And win Big.

Your positive vision for America is heart warming

I can't truly speak for SOAF, but I don't think it has anything to do with a positive or negative vision. If you see policies being pursued that you sincerely believe will result in bad consequences, then you foresee those consequences regardless of whether you are an optimist or pessimist.

Well Huck isn't running so we dodged that bullet.

(05-14-2011 06:09 PM)Know Nothing Wrote:  

(05-14-2011 05:48 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The GOP can't win with anybody. Pulling another Dubya out of the closet like McCain will end in landslide defeat.

It is going to be a extremely tough battle for the GOP no matter who is the nominee. That being said a candidate with strong social conservative values represents the best hope.

All of us here can point out a lot of things we disliked about the Bush administration, but you can't argue with his election results. George W. Bush is exactly the type of candidate that appeals to voters. We see this in Huckabee too as he has consistently done the best against Obama in the polling.

I would vote for Huckabee if he won the Republican nomination, but he is not my first choice. I do fear that much like George W. Bush, he is not a strong fiscal conservative nor that he is serious about cutting spending. But at this point in time, he does appear to be most electable of the candidates in the GOP.

Wait. What? You can't argue with Bush's election results? You ddn't just utter those words did you? Please tell me you didn't.

Are you so stupid that you are?

(05-14-2011 08:29 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Are you so stupid that you are?

Nope. Not stupid. Why do you ask?

(05-14-2011 08:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-14-2011 07:58 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(05-14-2011 05:35 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  With gas at about $4.00 a gal. Unemployment at 9%, Republicans could put up the GEICO Gecko and win. And win Big.

Your positive vision for America is heart warming

I can't truly speak for SOAF, but I don't think it has anything to do with a positive or negative vision. If you see policies being pursued that you sincerely believe will result in bad consequences, then you foresee those consequences regardless of whether you are an optimist or pessimist.

I see 14 consecutive months of private sector job growth with manufacturing leading the way. I see creating 244,000 jobs making april the best for job growth in 5 years. I see a breakthrough in the "war on terror" after killing Bin Laden and seizing laptops and flash drives. I see General Motors investing 2 Billion in U.S. manufacturing. I see an opportunity to withdraw from Afganistan saving tens of billions a year. I see Wall Street Reform, Credit Card Reform, Health Insurance Reform. I also see a lot of challenges but we've come a long way since Dubya's final months when we were sometimes losing 700,000 per month. I am excited about America and our prospects for future growth.

So your not arguing with Bush's election results?

What is it about rising unemployment that you don't understand Mr. Nut?

(05-14-2011 06:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To win, either side has to appeal to the middle. I'm not sure a social conservative can do that.

If "social conservative" = Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum, then yeah I agree. If it = "Tim Pawlenty" or "Mitch Daniels", then no I don't.

Candidates matter. Campaigns matter. Some social conservatives could not only win a national election, they could carry states like Wisconsin/Iowa/Colorado along with them. Other social conservatives would not only lose the election, they could lose states like Georgia/Missouri/Montana.

(05-14-2011 08:38 PM)Paul M Wrote:  So your not arguing with Bush's election results?

Who cares about that now, although Gore did have half a million more votes. I don't argue the results. What good could come from it. That sad 8 year national embarrassment is over now. Let's clean up George's fiscal, millitary and diplomatic mess and move on.
HILLARY 2016

Well apparently you and Robert care.

(05-14-2011 07:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm no social conservative, but I am a fiscal conservative.

I am happy to take Owl at his word, but I confess that I get extremely suspicious whenever a politician campaigns on a "social liberal/fiscal conservative" platform. Long, bitter experience has shown that when such people get elected to office, they turn out to be, in reality, social liberal/fiscal liberal.

Quote:I will gladly support a social conservative to get a fiscal conservative, but I have no interest in supporting a social conservative who is not also a fiscal conservative.

Or you can vote for Barack Obama, and get a social liberal who is also a fiscal liberal.

I would not describe either of the two main political parties are "fiscally conservative", but fiscal conservatism, so far as it does exist in America's two-party system today, is concentrated overwhelmingly in the Republican Party. (Ask yourself: who among House Democrats would have proposed the Paul Ryan budget?)

So, for people who consider "fiscal conservatism" to be their top voting-priority, your choices are either vote Republican or abstain from two-party politics. I do not condemn 3rd-party voting; I have done it myself in 3 of the 6 presidential elections I have voted in. But to do so is to effectively withdraw from the main event.

(05-14-2011 08:57 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Well apparently you and Robert care.

I really don't. Just read that comment and knew it would get you riled up. Besides, I realize that is not what he meant by that comment. As I have stated, I am not stupid. :)

(05-14-2011 08:37 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  I see 14 consecutive months of private sector job growth with manufacturing leading the way. I see creating 244,000 jobs making april the best for job growth in 5 years. I see a breakthrough in the "war on terror" after killing Bin Laden and seizing laptops and flash drives. I see General Motors investing 2 Billion in U.S. manufacturing. I see an opportunity to withdraw from Afganistan saving tens of billions a year. I see Wall Street Reform, Credit Card Reform, Health Insurance Reform. I also see a lot of challenges but we've come a long way since Dubya's final months when we were sometimes losing 700,000 per month. I am excited about America and our prospects for future growth.

The Titanic was ahead of schedule until it hit the iceberg. We are pumping over a trillion dollars a year of borrowed money into the economy to get those mediocre results. We can't keep doing that. As Maggie Thatcher said, sooner or later you run out of somebody else's money. When that happens it's going to be fugly. See 1937 for what is probably the best-case scenario. See Argentina or Zimbabwe for worse outcomes.

The economy has been basically unsound, and getting ever more so, since at least the late 1960s. A lot of the fundamental problems were pointed out by Ross Perot in the early 1990s. But we've never dealt with those fundamentals. We've been able to paper them over and pretend things were okay, and keep people fooled. But the price of fooling people is getting harder. Those 244,000 jobs cost about $600,000 apiece to create.

We can't sustain that much longer. Then what?

I do agree with stepping it up in Afghanistan and killing bin Laden. But we're not out of the woods. We aren't even as far along as we should have been before even considering going into Iraq.

(05-14-2011 09:12 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-14-2011 07:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm no social conservative, but I am a fiscal conservative.

I am happy to take Owl at his word, but I confess that I get extremely suspicious whenever a politician campaigns on a "social liberal/fiscal conservative" platform. Long, bitter experience has shown that when such people get elected to office, they turn out to be, in reality, social liberal/fiscal liberal.

You mean, like Ron Paul?

OK, he is anti-abortion. But I've discussed it with him and it's pretty clear that's more because of his own experience delivering babies than some hard core ideology. Heck, there are doctors all over the family--Randy, Robert, Joy (also OB/GYN), in addition to Ron.

True social liberal/fiscal conservatives can be the most conservative of all fiscally, because they don't have to pay for the law enforcement to maintain the anti-drug, anti-abortion, anti-gay-rights laws.

(05-14-2011 09:12 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I would not describe either of the two main political parties are "fiscally conservative", but fiscal conservatism, so far as it does exist in America's two-party system today, is concentrated overwhelmingly in the Republican Party. (Ask yourself: who among House Democrats would have proposed the Paul Ryan budget?)
So, for people who consider "fiscal conservatism" to be their top voting-priority, your choices are either vote Republican or abstain from two-party politics. I do not condemn 3rd-party voting; I have done it myself in 3 of the 6 presidential elections I have voted in. But to do so is to effectively withdraw from the main event.

I guess this means you consider the Paul Ryan budget fiscally conservative. I don't, at least not enough so. It doesn't balance the budget. It doesn't cut defense spending.

I've voted for a 3rd-party presidential candidate 10 times, and am pretty sure I'll be doing that in 2012. Texas isn't going to come down to one vote, so my vote will mean more cast for a third party candidate than it will for either major party.

(05-14-2011 10:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-14-2011 09:12 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I would not describe either of the two main political parties are "fiscally conservative", but fiscal conservatism, so far as it does exist in America's two-party system today, is concentrated overwhelmingly in the Republican Party. (Ask yourself: who among House Democrats would have proposed the Paul Ryan budget?)
So, for people who consider "fiscal conservatism" to be their top voting-priority, your choices are either vote Republican or abstain from two-party politics. I do not condemn 3rd-party voting; I have done it myself in 3 of the 6 presidential elections I have voted in. But to do so is to effectively withdraw from the main event.

I guess this means you consider the Paul Ryan budget fiscally conservative. I don't, at least not enough so. It doesn't balance the budget. It doesn't cut defense spending.

I've voted for a 3rd-party presidential candidate 10 times, and am pretty sure I'll be doing that in 2012. Texas isn't going to come down to one vote, so my vote will mean more cast for a third party candidate than it will for either major party.

Wow. I didn't think one could go to the right of his budget plan.

(05-14-2011 10:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  True social liberal/fiscal conservatives can be the most conservative of all fiscally, because they don't have to pay for the law enforcement to maintain the anti-drug, anti-abortion, anti-gay-rights laws.

1. I actually had in mind people like Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart, Mario Cuomo, John Anderson (the 3rd-party candidate in 1980), and others of that generation ('70s/'80s). For me, that is when the phrase "social liberal but fiscal conservative" was exposed as Newspeak for "social liberal and fiscal liberal, trying desperate;y to get non-liberals to vote for me"
2. I have not kept up with Ron Paul's career in great detail, but I would be stunned if he has ever described himself as a "fiscal conservative and social liberal" all at once.
3. Even if he Is "socially liberal" on everything else, being anti-abortion is a huge exception as far as I'm concerned. I don't much care what his personal motivation for being anti-abortion is, although I knew he is an OB/GYN and, like most people in that profession, his personal experience of observing babies in-utero has confirmed his belief that they are not mere clumps of tissue to be disposed of at will, but living, breathing human beings at a delicate stage of life. It is tragic that more people cannot also have the chance to study those ultrasound images and realize that abortion is about (at minimum) two people, not just one.

(05-14-2011 10:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I guess this means you consider the Paul Ryan budget fiscally conservative.

Yes, I do.

(05-14-2011 10:13 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Wow. I didn't think one could go to the right of [Paul Ryan's] budget plan.

Do you actually know any libertarians? I mean personally, in your day-to-day life.