You say that as someone who leans left. There is no difference between Clinton and Christie.
"right wing extremists, tea partiers, and religious radicals" just want someone who represents them. Obviously you don't mind Christie because I think he represents you.
I personally just want someone that will observe the Constitution protect my rights, and at least put up a good show against he majority of politicians who steamroll the Bill of Rights, in their progressive march towards their Utopia.
You say that as someone who leans left. There is no difference between Clinton and Christie.
"right wing extremists, tea partiers, and religious radicals" just want someone who represents them. Obviously you don't mind Christie because I think he represents you.
I personally just want someone that will observe the Constitution protect my rights, and at least put up a good show against he majority of politicians who steamroll the Bill of Rights, in their progressive march towards their Utopia.
Honestly, Christie is a great compromiser, and a good politician. I Don't take that away from him. I agree with him on some things.
Here is where I don't agree with him.
Republcians, and conservatives have given up so much ground over the past 20 years, that they are indistinguishable from the DNC. Yes to win elections you have to move to the center. Great job fat boy, you figured it out.
The only problem is that the right consistently puts up spineless turd sandwiches that flip flop their way to the loser's circle.
Democrats have a core belief system that they adhere to and fall back on.
1. Fight for the little guy (a clear platitude, but it is repeated by every low info voter I have ever met that is a DNC supporter)
2.Abortion (a woman's right to choose).
3. support any minority, even if it makes no sense (IE allowing 10 year old boys go to the girls bathroom if they identify as a girl)
4. Welfare
5. Unions/ Worker's rights.
I think if the Republicans were my ideal party their core belief system would be:
1. Adhere to the Constitution, and protect the rights of the individual.
2. Promote Individual liberties
3. limit unnecessary regulation and government overreach
The GOP as it currently stands:
1. War
2. Don't let gays marry
3.Talk crazy about Abortion at every given turn.
4. Kick those that are down while talking about entitlements and welfare programs while simultaneously promoting corporate welfare and cronyism.
5.Alienate Minorities.
The point is, that we (as conservatives, have two options).
Completely give in to the Left like Christie has done, cozy up to the Clinton family and prepare for a long career in service to the DNC,
OR:
Prepare for a long process of losing elections in order to get a better candidate.
In the first scenario Democrats get an oligarchy forever, In the second, they only get an oligarchy for a decade or so (and I kind of think we are on the end side of that). I think there will be some great races in 2016 (including the Presidential race)
I hope someone comes along that is better than Rand Paul, but he is my clear favorite in 2013.
Honestly, Christie is a great compromiser, and a good politician. I Don't take that away from him. I agree with him on some things.
Here is where I don't agree with him.
Republcians, and conservatives have given up so much ground over the past 20 years, that they are indistinguishable from the DNC. Yes to win elections you have to move to the center. Great job fat boy, you figured it out.
The only problem is that the right consistently puts up spineless turd sandwiches that flip flop their way to the loser's circle.
Democrats have a core belief system that they adhere to and fall back on.
1. Fight for the little guy (a clear platitude, but it is repeated by every low info voter I have ever met that is a DNC supporter)
2.Abortion (a woman's right to choose).
3. support any minority, even if it makes no sense (IE allowing 10 year old boys go to the girls bathroom if they identify as a girl)
4. Welfare
5. Unions/ Worker's rights.
I think if the Republicans were my ideal party their core belief system would be:
1. Adhere to the Constitution, and protect the rights of the individual.
2. Promote Individual liberties
3. limit unnecessary regulation and government overreach
The GOP as it currently stands:
1. War
2. Don't let gays marry
3.Talk crazy about Abortion at every given turn.
4. Kick those that are down while talking about entitlements and welfare programs while simultaneously promoting corporate welfare and cronyism.
5.Alienate Minorities.
The point is, that we (as conservatives, have two options).
Completely give in to the Left like Christie has done, cozy up to the Clinton family and prepare for a long career in service to the DNC,
OR:
Prepare for a long process of losing elections in order to get a better candidate.
In the first scenario Democrats get an oligarchy forever, In the second, they only get an oligarchy for a decade or so (and I kind of think we are on the end side of that). I think there will be some great races in 2016 (including the Presidential race)
I hope someone comes along that is better than Rand Paul, but he is my clear favorite in 2013.
1. Adhere to the Constitution, and protect the rights of the individual.
2. Promote Individual liberties
3. limit unnecessary regulation and government overreach
Rick, these examples are considered right-wing extremism by the left.
1. Adhere to the Constitution, and protect the rights of the individual.
2. Promote Individual liberties
3. limit unnecessary regulation and government overreach
Rick, these examples are considered right-wing extremism by the left.
1. Adhere to the Constitution, and protect the rights of the individual.
2. Promote Individual liberties
3. limit unnecessary regulation and government overreach
Rick, these examples are considered right-wing extremism by the left.
Not really. It is exactly these principles that those who are pro-choice point to as why the right wingers are filled with hypocrisy on issues like abortion.
1. Adhere to the Constitution, and protect the rights of the individual.
2. Promote Individual liberties
3. limit unnecessary regulation and government overreach
Rick, these examples are considered right-wing extremism by the left.
Not really. It is exactly these principles that those who are pro-choice point to as why the right wingers are filled with hypocrisy on issues like abortion.
Also, the "big government authoritarian" Rand Paul has only advocated pulling federal funding for abortion, not ending it. It is possible to find something morally reprehensible, but understanding that it is not in the government's purview.
I think that regulations that say that you cant murder a baby when it is 2 months old are good. Does that mean that I am somehow not for individual rights? What about a child in the third trimester?
I do not think any of the abortion legislation that Rand Paul has proposed, or spoken to is "radical". that is just what you get from MSDNC, and the talking heads that promote the idea of a "war on women".
Also, the "big government authoritarian" Rand Paul has only advocated pulling federal funding for abortion, not ending it. It is possible to find something morally reprehensible, but understanding that it is not in the government's purview.
I think that regulations that say that you cant murder a baby when it is 2 months old are good. Does that mean that I am somehow not for individual rights? What about a child in the third trimester?
I do not think any of the abortion legislation that Rand Paul has proposed, or spoken to is "radical". that is just what you get from MSDNC, and the talking heads that promote the idea of a "war on women".
Explain
Abortion has been determined to be protected as a right to privacy and pro-choice proponents consider unnecessary government regulations to be an infringement upon one's individual liberties.
Explain
Abortion has been determined to be protected as a right to privacy and pro-choice proponents consider unnecessary government regulations to be an infringement upon one's individual liberties.
Also, the "big government authoritarian" Rand Paul has only advocated pulling federal funding for abortion, not ending it. It is possible to find something morally reprehensible, but understanding that it is not in the government's purview.
I think that regulations that say that you cant murder a baby when it is 2 months old are good. Does that mean that I am somehow not for individual rights? What about a child in the third trimester?
I do not think any of the abortion legislation that Rand Paul has proposed, or spoken to is "radical". that is just what you get from MSDNC, and the talking heads that promote the idea of a "war on women".
Wow. Just wow. Its fun watching you use the words "Obama Apologists" with the internet fellatio you give to this "big government authoritarian."
By the way, are you suggesting that there is more than one way to look at "Adhere to the Constitution, and protect the rights of the individual" and it isn't black and white?
When he introduced the bill in March, Paul said in a statement, "The Life at Conception Act legislatively declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known – that human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore is entitled to legal protection from that point forward. The right to life is guaranteed to all Americans in the Declaration of Independence and ensuring this is upheld is the Constitutional duty of all Members of Congress."
Also, the "big government authoritarian" Rand Paul has only advocated pulling federal funding for abortion, not ending it. It is possible to find something morally reprehensible, but understanding that it is not in the government's purview.
I think that regulations that say that you cant murder a baby when it is 2 months old are good. Does that mean that I am somehow not for individual rights? What about a child in the third trimester?
I do not think any of the abortion legislation that Rand Paul has proposed, or spoken to is "radical". that is just what you get from MSDNC, and the talking heads that promote the idea of a "war on women".
Wow. Just wow. Its fun watching you use the words "Obama Apologists" with the internet fellatio you give to this "big government authoritarian."
By the way, are you suggesting that there is more than one way to look at "Adhere to the Constitution, and protect the rights of the individual" and it isn't black and white?
When he introduced the bill in March, Paul said in a statement, "The Life at Conception Act legislatively declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known – that human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore is entitled to legal protection from that point forward. The right to life is guaranteed to all Americans in the Declaration of Independence and ensuring this is upheld is the Constitutional duty of all Members of Congress."
I think if the Republicans were my ideal party their core belief system would be:
1. Adhere to the Constitution, and protect the rights of the individual.
2. Promote Individual liberties
3. limit unnecessary regulation and government overreach
these sound good but for the big money politicians who define these concepts, they usually mean promote the liberties and rights that i like (i.e. the ones that get me reelected) and sh*t on the ones they don't like. the first amendment, and the constitution and equal protection and small government are all fun and games until you have to take an uncomfortable position that you really don't like.
I think if the Republicans were my ideal party their core belief system would be:
1. Adhere to the Constitution, and protect the rights of the individual.
2. Promote Individual liberties
3. limit unnecessary regulation and government overreach
these sound good but for the big money politicians who define these concepts, they usually mean promote the liberties and rights that i like (i.e. the ones that get me reelected) and sh*t on the ones they don't like. the first amendment, and the constitution and equal protection and small government are all fun and games until you have to take an uncomfortable position that you really don't like.
C'mon man. Don't give up that easy. I bet you have the same expression that my very right homophobic friend had when I told him that John Wayne was g-a-y.
The reality is that nearly all of these libertarian types have hypocritical positions that exist by their very own political makeup. As Club said, they are fine with the promotion of rights and liberties and defending the constitution. Left wing libs are hardly any better.
This is all why I like someone like Christie. Love him or hate him, his positions don't have an inherent hypocritical makeup.
C'mon man. Don't give up that easy. I bet you have the same expression that my very right homophobic friend had when I told him that John Wayne was g-a-y.
The reality is that nearly all of these libertarian types have hypocritical positions that exist by their very own political makeup. As Club said, they are fine with the promotion of rights and liberties and defending the constitution. Left wing libs are hardly any better.
This is all why I like someone like Christie. Love him or hate him, his positions don't have an inherent hypocritical makeup.
Honestly, Christie is a great compromiser, and a good politician. I Don't take that away from him. I agree with him on some things.
Here is where I don't agree with him.
Republcians, and conservatives have given up so much ground over the past 20 years, that they are indistinguishable from the DNC. Yes to win elections you have to move to the center. Great job fat boy, you figured it out.
The only problem is that the right consistently puts up spineless turd sandwiches that flip flop their way to the loser's circle.
Democrats have a core belief system that they adhere to and fall back on.
1. Fight for the little guy (a clear platitude, but it is repeated by every low info voter I have ever met that is a DNC supporter)
2.Abortion (a woman's right to choose).
3. support any minority, even if it makes no sense (IE allowing 10 year old boys go to the girls bathroom if they identify as a girl)
4. Welfare
5. Unions/ Worker's rights.
I think if the Republicans were my ideal party their core belief system would be:
1. Adhere to the Constitution, and protect the rights of the individual.
2. Promote Individual liberties
3. limit unnecessary regulation and government overreach
The GOP as it currently stands:
1. War
2. Don't let gays marry
3.Talk crazy about Abortion at every given turn.
4. Kick those that are down while talking about entitlements and welfare programs while simultaneously promoting corporate welfare and cronyism.
5.Alienate Minorities.
The point is, that we (as conservatives, have two options).
Completely give in to the Left like Christie has done, cozy up to the Clinton family and prepare for a long career in service to the DNC,
OR:
Prepare for a long process of losing elections in order to get a better candidate.
In the first scenario Democrats get an oligarchy forever, In the second, they only get an oligarchy for a decade or so (and I kind of think we are on the end side of that). I think there will be some great races in 2016 (including the Presidential race)
I hope someone comes along that is better than Rand Paul, but he is my clear favorite in 2013.
I agree with most what you said except the last part about giving in to the Democrats. Politics in our system has always been about compromise as it should be. If one Party has absolute say on everything all the time, it will just be a dictatorship. There is no shame to work with others if the person can hold on his core values/principles.
Our ancestors built this great nation by working with each others but now, a lot of people are more interested in being "right" without even listening.
Honestly, Christie is a great compromiser, and a good politician. I Don't take that away from him. I agree with him on some things.
Here is where I don't agree with him.
Republcians, and conservatives have given up so much ground over the past 20 years, that they are indistinguishable from the DNC. Yes to win elections you have to move to the center. Great job fat boy, you figured it out.
The only problem is that the right consistently puts up spineless turd sandwiches that flip flop their way to the loser's circle.
Democrats have a core belief system that they adhere to and fall back on.
1. Fight for the little guy (a clear platitude, but it is repeated by every low info voter I have ever met that is a DNC supporter)
2.Abortion (a woman's right to choose).
3. support any minority, even if it makes no sense (IE allowing 10 year old boys go to the girls bathroom if they identify as a girl)
4. Welfare
5. Unions/ Worker's rights.
I think if the Republicans were my ideal party their core belief system would be:
1. Adhere to the Constitution, and protect the rights of the individual.
2. Promote Individual liberties
3. limit unnecessary regulation and government overreach
The GOP as it currently stands:
1. War
2. Don't let gays marry
3.Talk crazy about Abortion at every given turn.
4. Kick those that are down while talking about entitlements and welfare programs while simultaneously promoting corporate welfare and cronyism.
5.Alienate Minorities.
The point is, that we (as conservatives, have two options).
Completely give in to the Left like Christie has done, cozy up to the Clinton family and prepare for a long career in service to the DNC,
OR:
Prepare for a long process of losing elections in order to get a better candidate.
In the first scenario Democrats get an oligarchy forever, In the second, they only get an oligarchy for a decade or so (and I kind of think we are on the end side of that). I think there will be some great races in 2016 (including the Presidential race)
I hope someone comes along that is better than Rand Paul, but he is my clear favorite in 2013.
I agree with most what you said except the last part about giving in to the Democrats. Politics in our system has always been about compromise as it should be. If one Party has absolute say on everything all the time, it will just be a dictatorship. There is no shame to work with others if the person can hold on his core values/principles.
Our ancestors built this great nation by working with each others but now, a lot of people are more interested in being "right" without even listening.
No, it's not but that was not my point. On the other hand, "just say no" without providing any alternative isn't exactly allowing room to compromise/discuss either.
Not directing at you, but a segment within the Republican Party believes UNLESS you are in full agreement with them on every issue, you are just an enemy. That's really going to work on getting more people on board.
No, it's not but that was not my point. On the other hand, "just say no" without providing any alternative isn't exactly allowing room to compromise/discuss either.
Not directing at you, but a segment within the Republican Party believes UNLESS you are in full agreement with them on every issue, you are just an enemy. That's really going to work on getting more people on board.
You don't remember when they trotted the leadership out of both camps onto a "discussion panel" where Paul Ryan went line by line until the president stopped him, and then all of the suggestions were shot down?
I do not consider what they did a compromise, I consider a few Republicans getting some sweet deals, and kickbacks for their votes. I remember a few consolations, but not real compromise.
I also remember the shady way in which the ACA passed congress (if you can even consider that a passing).
If you want to believe that there was compromise, I cant stop you. I can agree that some concessions were made, but if that is your idea of "compromise" it more closely resembles the type of "compromise" I would like from the right.
If the ACA is an example of "compromise", then I am all for compromise.
You don't remember when they trotted the leadership out of both camps onto a "discussion panel" where Paul Ryan went line by line until the president stopped him, and then all of the suggestions were shot down?
I do not consider what they did a compromise, I consider a few Republicans getting some sweet deals, and kickbacks for their votes. I remember a few consolations, but not real compromise.
I also remember the shady way in which the ACA passed congress (if you can even consider that a passing).
If you want to believe that there was compromise, I cant stop you. I can agree that some concessions were made, but if that is your idea of "compromise" it more closely resembles the type of "compromise" I would like from the right.
If the ACA is an example of "compromise", then I am all for compromise.
washington voted down 522 think they were outspent 20-1
washington voted down 522 think they were outspent 20-1
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.