Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: lone_gunman on February 27, 2009, 05:33:30 PM
-
Wealthy is being redistributed and the US government is taking over the private sector.
Why are we passively watching this happen?
Why has no opposition leader risen?
-
Wealthy is being redistributed and the US government is taking over the private sector.
Why are we passively watching this happen?
Why has no opposition leader risen?
Probably because has been a crazy 40 or so days since the inagauration.
-
Because I have cheesey poofs and beer.
-
Wealthy is being redistributed and the US government is taking over the private sector.
Why are we passively watching this happen?
Why has no opposition leader risen?
Because the end result of the policies isn't visible to most yet. Things aren't nearly that bad yet.
-
PS:
In the last 8 years, a largely Republican led government has vastly increased government spending, vastly increased governments powers, and gone to great lengths to degrade your rights under the constitution (Patriot act, anyone?).
If you think we're suddenly socialist under Obama, you're sadly mistaken. We've been on our way down that path for years.
As far as an opposition leader, the "opposition" party crumbled under their own mis-steps.
Me, I'm putting on my wookie suit.
-
Wealthy is being redistributed and the US government is taking over the private sector.
Why are we passively watching this happen?
Why has no opposition leader risen?
Because the Terminators got Sarah Connor quicker than we expected.... :cool:
-
Wealthy is being redistributed and the US government is taking over the private sector.
Why are we passively watching this happen?
Why has no opposition leader risen?
Well, American Idol just started up.
PS Why havn't YOU risen up if you're so concerned about it? Why are you waiting for someone else?
-
Wealthy is being redistributed and the US government is taking over the private sector.
Why are we passively watching this happen?
Because it is the usual cycle of things in a democracy. You'll get things you like for awhile, then someone else wil come in, and use ideas that you hate but someone else likes. Eventually, someone will come back in and do things you like also.
For example;
There are people who liked Bush because they were worried about security over government growth. There are people who like Obama because they think all the money Bush spent on Iraq could be spent here on infrastructure (not talking about give aways, they think why build a road in Iraq when you could build one here.). Even though we have a two-party system, we have a multi-party population. If you divide the country into 4 major parties, then things'll go your way 1/4 of the time.
People are sitting by because a democracy (even a representative one) wouldn't work if everytime someone had a bad idea (no matter how terrible) there was civil unrest. The wants of the people are always in constant conflict with one another.
Why has no opposition leader risen?
I've thought about this quite a bit. Most of the people here want a man of principles to run the country. The fundamental problem is that men of principle don't want to reduce themselves to the filth that is a political campaign.
-
Why havn't YOU risen up if you're so concerned about it? Why are you waiting for someone else?
I guess because I have no political power and don't have the money needed to get political power? I guess my point is not why has Mr. Joe Sixpack not grabbed a pitchfork and a torch, and declared revolution. My question is why is there no coherent voice speaking out against Obama's crap.
-
I guess because I have no political power and don't have the money needed to get political power? I guess my point is not why has Mr. Joe Sixpack not grabbed a pitchfork and a torch, and declared revolution. My question is why is there no coherent voice speaking out against Obama's crap.
Because the stupid party dropped the ball.
-
Because the stupid party dropped the ball.
I agree with you on that... but it seems like some one would come in and fill the void left behind by the Republican party.
-
Because it is the usual cycle of things in a democracy. You'll get things you like for awhile, then someone else wil come in, and use ideas that you hate but someone else likes.
Nobody has done anything I liked since before I was born. All I've seen is increased government, worse laws, increased regulation, higher taxes, and expanded federal authority. Your theory works provided everyone wants one of two flavors of authoritarianism.
-
Because it is the usual cycle of things in a democracy.
Which is why this country was not found as, or intended to ever be, a democracy. Democracy is mob rule, regardless if it is true democracy or a representative one.
That is why our nation was set up as a constitutional republic.
-
Patience, brother, it's coming.
-
It isn't even March yet and you ask why there is no organized opposition? Give it time. Not everything happens at the speed of the Internet.
-
When a leader finally comes along that will oppose Obama in a meaningful way, where do you suppose he will come from? Most in the Republican party have been relegated to irrelevance. Jindal does not seem like the man to do it. Palin has been so screwed over by the media and the Republican party leadership that I don't see her rising.
So far the closest thing I have seen is the CNBC reporter who went off on the tirade about the housing bailout.
-
Because the stupid party dropped the ball.
Dropped it?
They're clumsily kicking it towards their own goal with a big blank 'tard grin as everyone in the stands screams at them to stop and go the other way.
-
Opposition leaders have arisen, but the anti-Obama forces won't unite behind any of them. We're pretty sharply split over social/religious issues, and defense/Patriot Act type issues.
Go look at that thread about Jindal, that got locked a few days ago. Or any of the discussions we had about Palin. Those are the two major, potential leaders that have arisen recently, and about half of the anti-Obama crowd hates their guts. Rush Limbaugh is trying to be the opposition leader, and the Democrats seem to think he is. Similar division there.
Go back to the Republican primaries, where we were all split over the big-govt. social conservative (McCain), the "reformed" RINO social conservative (Romney), the not-so-big-govt. social conservative who waited until his moment had passed before even getting into the race (Thompson), the small-govt. anti-war, gold-standard, anti-PATRIOT Act social conservative (Paul), the sorta-big govt. social conservative (Huckabee), the big govt. social liberal (Guliani) and a few miscellaneous conservatives like Hunter.
We must resolve to agree to disagree on the divisive issues.
-
Me, I'm putting on my wookie suit.
I pulled mine out of the closet and brushed it off today.
I voted for Ron Paul in 88, it is a little musty.
It was a wide eyed ideological vote back then. I liked Reagan but he didn't do enough in his eight years. I felt Bush with his New World Order and million points of light was going to undo the gains we had made.
I ended up voting for Bush the following election though. That was the beginning of my lesser of two evils pragmatic voting stage. Anything to get rid of Clinton.
Pretty much I think I'm done with the lessor of two evils pragmatism, it is liberating.
-
So, if Palin, Jindal, Paul, or some other foe of the New World Order runs for the Republican nomination, would you support them, at least by voting in the primary?
-
Please read the stickies at the top of the page and try again.
-
So, if Palin, Jindal, Paul, or some other foe of the New World Order runs for the Republican nomination, would you support them, at least by voting in the primary?
I'd think it isn't enough. At least Ron Paul is going around and encouraging the people who voted for him to join the GOP now and to be active to oust the statists on all levels.
That's the bet, I think. Be consistently active, don't just wake up on Election Day.
-
So, if Palin, Jindal, Paul, or some other foe of the New World Order runs for the Republican nomination, would you support them, at least by voting in the primary?
I'm tacking hard back to my roots and first principles. Whether I sell out my principles to the Republicans again depends on whether they become Republicans again or remain Democrat Lite.
I've voted straight "R" my whole life with the exception of '88. For 16 years "my guys" had the White House and for a good chunk of that marginal control of congress.
There is very little to show for it domestically and nearly everything will be undone with this one stimulus package.
The institutional momentum of statism is like an irresistible force.
-
I'm tacking hard back to my roots and first principles. Whether I sell out my principles to the Republicans again depends on whether they become Republicans again or remain Democrat Lite.
It would be hard to believe they would be stupid enough to miss all the cues pointing to BECOME REPUBLICANS AGAIN.
Oh, wait, I just considered recent history. Never mind. :rolleyes:
-
That is always the problem. There will be alternatives to Obama. BUT, I can guarantee you none of them will be perfect in your eyes. Will you support them anyway or will you say they aren't perfectly in line with my views so I am sitting this one out?
-
That is always the problem. There will be alternatives to Obama. BUT, I can guarantee you none of them will be perfect in your eyes. Will you support them anyway or will you say they aren't perfectly in line with my views so I am sitting this one out?
People on all sides do this.
-
Well, "our side" did it this past year, and the other side didn't. I don't want us to develop our own cult of personality (unless it's my personality), but whoever we get behind, we'll need to overlook a few flaws.
-
Well, "our side" did it this past year, and the other side didn't. I don't want us to develop our own cult of personality (unless it's my personality), but whoever we get behind, we'll need to overlook a few flaws.
Of course, when someone who could actually make a difference comes along, like Palin, the Stupid Party worries more about whether she's on the neocon message, and destroys her if she isn't.
So we get the same bunch of coconuts rolling around for the liberals to kick with glee.
-
Or people hyperventilate over his thoughts on origins.
-
Well, "our side" did it this past year, and the other side didn't. I don't want us to develop our own cult of personality (unless it's my personality), but whoever we get behind, we'll need to overlook a few flaws.
Oh, I was saying this for ages. The problem is, that cuts both ways.
-
I think much of the American populace is in some form of shock, sometimes self-induced. The hard realities, though, both political and economic, will be setting in this year and next. Then we will see who cares enough to get militant in their opposition.
The real danger is that the answer to the leftist Democrat's "Mao" is the ultra-right equivalent.
-
Extreme right wing does not necessarily mean a dictatorship.
-
Or people hyperventilate over his thoughts on origins.
Legislating religion and denial of science into classrooms with my taxpayer money, indoctrinating the entire next generation to be anti-science as he is...is not a minor issue.
-
And we're back to square one.
It is an utter non-issue, if the man is going to be President. No president is going to be able to impose a creationist or ID curriculum on schools.
The point is, you are objecting to Jindal just because his stance on origins bothers you. And a bunch of other people will dislike your candidate because he doesn't like homosexual marriage. We're not getting anywhere.
-
There is no reason why mysticism, creationism, intelligent design, or the pseudo-science of Darwinism need to be discussed in this thread.
-
Who the hell are you two talking about; Huckabee? My dad voted for him in the primaries. He actually thinks a theocracy would not be a bad thing.
-
There is no reason why mysticism, creationism, intelligent design, or the pseudo-science of Darwinism need to be discussed in this thread.
Pseudo-science? Could you start a new thread or give me a link?
-
We're talking about this, because it matters to people. They're the kinds of things on which we must agree to disagree, unless we want to live in a Democrat-controlled nation for the foreseeable future. This is the answer to your question. This is why no one has risen up to lead. Because we won't agree on who that should be.
Of course, it's also true that a strong enough leader will overcome some of this squabbling, simply because people will respond to his leadership.
-
We're talking about this, because it matters to people. They're the kinds of things on which we must agree to disagree, unless we want to live in a Democrat-controlled nation for the foreseeable future. This is the answer to your question. This is why no one has risen up to lead. Because we won't agree on who that should be.
Of course, it's also true that a strong enough leader will overcome some of this squabbling, simply because people will respond to his leadership.
Here's an idea.
Go back to what Goldwater wrote about. A POLITICAL candidate. Not one who wishes to mandate beliefs of any sort. Laws. Just laws. Small government. Procedural government stuff.
Nothing else.
-
You're still not getting it. You sound just like those third-party Wookies you're always downing. You're not going to find the perfect candidate.
Secondly, laws ARE beliefs mandated. A president that's only interested in "procedure" is not going to defend your gun rights. Or anything else.
Besides, did we ever find any evidence that Jindal did any of this stuff you're talking about? I haven't seen it yet. I abandoned that other thread about Jindal, after people starting spazzing, so maybe I missed it.
-
Don't worry, you didn't miss anything in the other thread. Nobody presented any evidence that Jindal did any of the stuff Maned spazzed about.
-
Pseudo-science? Could you start a new thread or give me a link?
I tell you what. If you can name a few documented cases, where one species of multi-cellular organism that have evolved into another organism, we can have this discussion.
-
Sweet baby Buddah, enough already. A bunch of you need to go out and do something calming. Go to the range and burn some ammo or something. Jimminy H Cricket.