Your Next President -- God Willing

[SicEmBaylor]

Take a watch boys at the only Republican worth a damn enough to vote for.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfw46xdBCd0

[Turd_Ferguson]

I think his dad ruined any chances he might have had.

[SicEmBaylor]

I think his dad ruined any chances he might have had.

I'd rather have his dad, but Rand is a serviceable substitute. Also, he's far far more popular with the rank-and-file of the party than his dad was. The filibuster went a long way toward that.

[champions77]

Anyone but Jeb. His brother screwed things up enough to allow the despot we have today to ascend into the highest office. So tired of the Bush bunch I could scream. Even today each one of them masquerades as conservatives. Conservatives don't increase the national debt by 5 Trillion or expand the already morbid obese Federal Government.

[SicEmBaylor]

Anyone but Jeb. His brother screwed things up enough to allow the despot we have today to ascend into the highest office. So tired of the Bush bunch I could scream. Even today each one of them masquerades as conservatives. Conservatives don't increase the national debt by 5 Trillion or expand the already morbid obese Federal Government.

No. Not anyone but Jeb. Jeb and the rest of the GOP field, aside from Paul and Cruz, are not demonstrably different from one another. I will vote for Paul and only Paul in the primary. I would likely vote for Cruz in the general if he ended up as the nominee. However, there isn't a single other Republican I would even consider voting for at this point -- the rest can go to hell. I haven't voted for a Republican for President since 2004, and there's no way I'd do any different in 2016.

[champions77]

No. Not anyone but Jeb. Jeb and the rest of the GOP field, aside from Paul and Cruz, are not demonstrably different from one another. I will vote for Paul and only Paul in the primary. I would likely vote for Cruz in the general if he ended up as the nominee. However, there isn't a single other Republican I would even consider voting for at this point -- the rest can go to hell. I haven't voted for a Republican for President since 2004, and there's no way I'd do any different in 2016.

So Scott Walker against Hillary and you won't vote? We can't change the face of DC overnight. No perfect candidate out there, never has been, but Republicans are really bad about staying at home if the "perfect" candidate is not running, and leftists like BHO get elected and re-elected. A Scott Walker would be world's better than what we've had the last 6 years. So would Cruz, so would several others. Hell they would all be better than BHO or Hillary.

[FaninAma]

I will not vote for Jeb or Christie. I will vote for Rand, Cruz, and Scott. I am open to Rubio if he can atone for his stupid immigration faux paux. I actually think he let idiots like Lindsey Graham,McCain and McConnel talk him into being the face of the GOP immigration reform movement. It is a decision he will regret for the rest of his political career.

[hawaii 5-0]

Scott Walker made a lot of campaign promised this past election, mainly pandering to the swing voters.

Once re-elected he has gone back on those promises (Personhood, cutting State school budgets).

People are pizzed at his broken promises.

If an election were held tomorrow in Wisconsin, Walker would lose.

He's just a shill for the Koch Brothers.


5-0

[hawaii 5-0]

How does Rand Paul stand on Foreign policy and strong National Defense ?

Does he believe we're the World's Policeman ?


5-0

[SicEmBaylor]

So Scott Walker against Hillary and you won't vote? We can't change the face of DC overnight. No perfect candidate out there, never has been, but Republicans are really bad about staying at home if the "perfect" candidate is not running, and leftists like BHO get elected and re-elected. A Scott Walker would be world's better than what we've had the last 6 years. So would Cruz, so would several others. Hell they would all be better than BHO or Hillary.
Oh, here we go, the 'perfect candidate' argument that I've argued against for years around here. No. I am not waiting around for the 'perfect candidate.' Rand is by no means a 'perfect candidate.' What I expect is that, on balance, they expand individual/civil liberties and reduce the size and scope of government. Rand definitely fits that definition. Cruz does to a lesser extent. Walker is iffy -- if you look at his career he's been a little on the wishy-washy side, and he fails the foreign policy test.

And, while we are on the subject of tests, I will not oppose a candidate simply because I don't agree with them 100% of the time; however, there are a handful of 'litmus' test issues. Let me give you an example: Voting against the Amash amendment is an automatic disqualifier as is supporting SOPA. Supporting the 2011 NDAA is another one.

No, not just 'anyone' is better than Obama and Hillary. Everyone not named Paul or Cruz is as bad or, in a couple of notable cases, worse than at least Hillary. Whether a candidate is marginally better or worse than a Democrat shouldn't be anyone's standard. As for 'changing DC overnight' -- you are never going to change DC so long as you keep voting for the same ****ty *** Republicans. Rewarding bad behavior never works. The sort of Republicans that you think are all 'better than Obama and Hillary' are not only the reason we ended up with an Obama but a major contributing factor to the reason Washington is the way that it is. If you want change you need to vote for a radical departure from the standard **** sandwich.

[SoonerorLater]

Oh, here we go, the 'perfect candidate' argument that I've argued against for years around here. No. I am not waiting around for the 'perfect candidate.' Rand is by no means a 'perfect candidate.' What I expect is that, on balance, they expand individual/civil liberties and reduce the size and scope of government. Rand definitely fits that definition. Cruz does to a lesser extent. Walker is iffy -- if you look at his career he's been a little on the wishy-washy side, and he fails the foreign policy test.

And, while we are on the subject of tests, I will not oppose a candidate simply because I don't agree with them 100% of the time; however, there are a handful of 'litmus' test issues. Let me give you an example: Voting against the Amash amendment is an automatic disqualifier as is supporting SOPA. Supporting the 2011 NDAA is another one.

No, not just 'anyone' is better than Obama and Hillary. Everyone not named Paul or Cruz is as bad or, in a couple of notable cases, worse than at least Hillary. Whether a candidate is marginally better or worse than a Democrat shouldn't be anyone's standard. As for 'changing DC overnight' -- you are never going to change DC so long as you keep voting for the same ****ty *** Republicans. Rewarding bad behavior never works. The sort of Republicans that you think are all 'better than Obama and Hillary' are not only the reason we ended up with an Obama but a major contributing factor to the reason Washington is the way that it is. If you want change you need to vote for a radical departure from the standard **** sandwich.

Hypothetical. Clinton v. Bush. You are saying Hillary would be a better choice (not as bad) than Bush?

[SicEmBaylor]

Hypothetical. Clinton v. Bush. You are saying Hillary would be a better choice (not as bad) than Bush?

Essentially, that would be a wash. It's really hard to say one would be worse than the other one; however, I might give a slight edge to Hillary because I think her foreign policy would be more pragmatic than the neocon fantasy of Bush Inc.

[SoonerorLater]

Essentially, that would be a wash. It's really hard to say one would be worse than the other one; however, I might give a slight edge to Hillary because I think her foreign policy would be more pragmatic than the neocon fantasy of Bush Inc.


Wouldn't it almost always be better to vote the Republican candidate, even a bad one, if for no other reason than Supreme Court nominees. Though it's no sure thing with a Republican appointment, Democratic appointments will be universally bad.

[SicEmBaylor]

Wouldn't it almost always be better to vote the Republican candidate, even a bad one, if for no other reason than Supreme Court nominees. Though it's no sure thing with a Republican appointment, Democratic appointments will be universally bad.

No. I stopped expecting anything out of 'conservative' justices a long time ago. The Supreme Court needs, and Constitutional equilibrium demands, that the states nullify and/or refuse to comply with unconstitutional Federal law. Who sits on the court is irrelevant -- they are still Federal appointees from one branch, confirmed by another branch, making up a third branch....they have a vested interest in growing and protecting Federal power.

[SoonerorLater]

While I agree with you philosophically, what you are suggesting is just wishful thinking. It won't happen.

[SicEmBaylor]

While I agree with you philosophically, what you are suggesting is just wishful thinking. It won't happen.

The Revolution was wishful thinking before it wasn't. So long as people don't demand it, nothing is going to change.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

So Scott Walker against Hillary and you won't vote? We can't change the face of DC overnight. No perfect candidate out there, never has been, but Republicans are really bad about staying at home if the "perfect" candidate is not running, and leftists like BHO get elected and re-elected. A Scott Walker would be world's better than what we've had the last 6 years. So would Cruz, so would several others. Hell they would all be better than BHO or Hillary.Duh!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Hypothetical. Clinton v. Bush. You are saying Hillary would be a better choice (not as bad) than Bush?Sicem has said in the past that he didn't condemn slick Willy Clinton, so I would guess he would prefer Sir Hillry over Bush. Of course, voting 3rd party is certainly not making a logical effort to keep the democrats from continuing to transform the country.

[SoonerorLater]

The Revolution was wishful thinking before it wasn't. So long as people don't demand it, nothing is going to change.

Then you better be willing to take up arms and prepare to die. Personally I prefer the tact of trying to stack the Court for a starter.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Wouldn't it almost always be better to vote the Republican candidate, even a bad one, if for no other reason than Supreme Court nominees. Though it's no sure thing with a Republican appointment, Democratic appointments will be universally bad.As they say, it ain't rocket science.

[hawaii 5-0]

So soon we forget the mess The Shrub left this country in.


5-0

[rock on sooner]

So soon we forget the mess The Shrub left this country in.


5-0Aw, Ann Richards, bless her heart! The real issue is that the mess
he created CAN'T be fixed any time soon. Who knows how long we'll be stuck in
Southwest Asia and the Middle East? IDM how hard the current admin tries, no
way out any time soon, never mind the next admin...Pub or Dem! And that's only
a small part...!

[okie52]

Take a watch boys at the only Republican worth a damn enough to vote for.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfw46xdBCd0

So if he's an amnesty advocate are you going to dump him?

[SicEmBaylor]

So if he's an amnesty advocate are you going to dump him?

Nope.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Nope.

Expound please.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

heh

[okie52]

Nope.

For a guy that's against any immigration, that's quite a bit to overlook.

[champions77]

For a guy that's against any immigration, that's quite a bit to overlook.

I think to arrive at some kind of conclusion as to exactly where SicEm is coming from politically, from what I can tell whoever is the biggest isolationist (I know one when I see one, my son is one) then that is the candidate of choice for him. No need to get into the other issues confronting us, just stay out of the rest of the worlds problems, keep all of our focus here, and all will be good.

I can agree with him on some of that to a degree. Obviously we should have exercised a lot more discretion in many of our world activities and interventions, but ignoring the world's problems will not go away by just ignoring them. Sounds good, but hardly realistic. The first thing it does is abandons your allies. And after BHO's reign of error and appeasement, we need every one of them. Then it assumes that we can adequately guard our shores from any attacks. With open borders and Iran developing ICBM's along with North Korea and now Russia, can you guarantee we will be safe? It is a silly assumption with predictably deadly consequences.

[Sooner8th]

I think to arrive at some kind of conclusion as to exactly where SicEm is coming from politically, from what I can tell whoever is the biggest isolationist (I know one when I see one, my son is one) then that is the candidate of choice for him. No need to get into the other issues confronting us, just stay out of the rest of the worlds problems, keep all of our focus here, and all will be good. I can agree with him on some of that to a degree. Obviously we should have exercised a lot more discretion in many of our world activities and interventions, but ignoring the world's problems will not go away by just ignoring them. Sounds good, but hardly realistic. The first thing it does is abandons your allies. And after BHO's reign of error and appeasement, we need every one of them. Then it assumes that we can adequately guard our shores from any attacks. With open borders and Iran developing ICBM's along with North Korea and now Russia, can you guarantee we will be safe? It is a silly assumption with predictably deadly consequences.Tell us exactly what you want the president to do. The last president you voted for twice that won, refused to negotiate with iran and nk, leaving them alone to work on the very weapons you are now worried about. Obama hasn't blundered us into a war and couldn't win one against a bunch of rock throwers. Never-mind he blew off getting the guy who actually killed 3,000+ Americans on OUR soil. did you forget the part about your boy ignoring warnings from our intelligence about bin lauden determined to attack the US? Tell us all again who had the "reign of error and appeasement". Anyone who voted for dubya does not have the standing to complain about obama.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I think to arrive at some kind of conclusion as to exactly where SicEm is coming from politically, from what I can tell whoever is the biggest isolationist (I know one when I see one, my son is one) then that is the candidate of choice for him. No need to get into the other issues confronting us, just stay out of the rest of the worlds problems, keep all of our focus here, and all will be good.

I can agree with him on some of that to a degree. Obviously we should have exercised a lot more discretion in many of our world activities and interventions, but ignoring the world's problems will not go away by just ignoring them. Sounds good, but hardly realistic. The first thing it does is abandons your allies. And after BHO's reign of error and appeasement, we need every one of them. Then it assumes that we can adequately guard our shores from any attacks. With open borders and Iran developing ICBM's along with North Korea and now Russia, can you guarantee we will be safe? It is a silly assumption with predictably deadly consequences.Not only Sicem, but most of those who say they are Libertarians. The isolationism appears to be their most important consideration in politics. It is the reason why so many Libertanians are quicker to attack conservatives(neo-cons)than they are socialists or fascists(D's and RINOS)

[SicEmBaylor]

Not only Sicem, but most of those who say they are Libertarians. The isolationism appears to be their most important consideration in politics. It is the reason why so many Libertanians are quicker to attack conservatives(neo-cons)than they are socialists or fascists(D's and RINOS)

Jesus Christ. I'm not a Libertarian and there is no such thing as an isolationist in the United States. The fact that you can't tell the difference between an isolationist and a non-interventionist is a fact that I am no longer going to try to remedy.

And not all conservatives are neoconservatives. I have literally explained this to you hundreds of times. Hundreds. I am a conservative, and I am NOT a neoconservative. I am NOT a libertarian. I've never been a libertarian. I've never said I was a libertarian. There are different types of conservatives just as there are different types of communists -- just as there are different types of liberals. I mention neoconservatives because their view of conservatism has been dominant since the Bush administration. They offer a vision of conservatism absolutely incompatible with my own.

The fact that you're so quick to defend a philosophy of conservatism rooted in Trotskyism is astonishing to me.

[SicEmBaylor]

I think to arrive at some kind of conclusion as to exactly where SicEm is coming from politically, from what I can tell whoever is the biggest isolationist (I know one when I see one, my son is one) then that is the candidate of choice for him. No need to get into the other issues confronting us, just stay out of the rest of the worlds problems, keep all of our focus here, and all will be good.

There is no such thing as an isolationist in the United States. I'm less isolationist than you are -- I promise you that. There is a huge difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. I am a non-interventionist, and I have never heard of a single serious individual in this country who advocates isolationism. North Korea is an isolationist state. Japan was an isolationist state.

Where do I come from politically? I'm a paleoconservative in old Jeffersonian/southern agrarian mold. I ally myself with libertarians often out of political necessity due to the fact they offer one of the only viable alternatives to neoconservatism.


Please learn your political terms before you accuse me of being this or that.

[SicEmBaylor]

Now, as for Rand Paul, the man is absolutely opposed to amnesty. I don't know where this nonsense started that he isn't because all of his actions and statements in the Senate are to the contrary. My guess is that it's simply popularized ignorance and misinformed assumptions. In any case, the very reason that I oppose all immigration (legal or otherwise) is the very reason I wouldn't discount a candidate simply because he's a little more liberal than I am on immigration -- *everyone* is more progressive than I am on immigration. The only thing that would cause me to write a candidate off due to his or her stance on immigration is a position in line with Jeb Bush or Obama -- full amnesty + liberal border security.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The fact that you're so quick to defend a philosophy of conservatism rooted in Trotskyism is astonishing to me.Let us hear all about this, senor. Also, pls explain the salient points of neoconservatism, especially as practiced or espoused by Bush.

[SicEmBaylor]

Let us hear all about this, senor.

I'm really hesitant to sit here and explain this to you since I've written out damned near a thesis on the subject in the past when you've asked that same damned question. At this point, it's easier for me to beg you to just walk yourself over to Google -- do a basic Google search -- and learn to, you know, educate yourself just a little bit. Since I have no faith in your ability to accomplish the latter....

Neoconservatism is a conservative movement founded by former radical communists (Trotskyites, specifically) who moved, ideologically speaking, from communism to "conservatism" as the 60s gave way to the 70s and 80s. Neoconservatism is a cross-blend of traditional conservatism using the traditional means and even, at times, language of international Marxism. For example, non-interventionism in foreign affairs was a hallmark of traditional conservatism. Mind you non-interventionism is NOT the same as isolationism. Neoconservatives abandoned traditional conservatism non-interventionism in favor of liberal/Wilsonian foreign policy principles of spreading American-style Democracy abroad in a very robust and "forward leaning" way. International actions like promoting regime change and nation-building were, prior to neoconservatism, more liberal/progressive principles. This is why I emphasize how little difference there is between the two parties in foreign affairs -- they are philosophically the same. The only difference between the two is how each sides implements that policy.

On domestic affairs, neoconservatives are more post-Constitutionalists. They accept the power of the Federal government to achieve so-called "conservative" ends using the means of the power of government -- especially the Federal government -- even when exercising that power goes above and beyond Constitutional limits on that power. "No Child Left Behind" is a perfect example. Conservatives may agree that robust standards in school are necessary; however, whereas most legitimate conservatives would abolish the Department of Education, neoconservatives used the Department of Education and Federal government to implement Federal education standards which go well above and beyond what traditional conservatives would approve of.

-------------

The examples go on and on, but it isn't just a silly academic exercise to differentiate between types of conservatives. The differences between traditional/paleoconservatives and neoconservatives is rather extreme and those difference have a profound impact on the shape of conservatism going forward, the shape of our government, and whether we are going to continue accepting an unconstitutional role for the Federal government.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

"On domestic affairs, neoconservatives are more post-Constitutionalists. They accept the power of the Federal government to achieve so-called "conservative" ends using the means of the power of government -- especially the Federal government -- even when exercising that power goes above and beyond Constitutional limits on that power. "No Child Left Behind" is a perfect example. Conservatives may agree that robust standards in school are necessary; however, whereas most legitimate conservatives would abolish the Department of Education, neoconservatives used the Department of Education and Federal government to implement Federal education standards which go well above and beyond what traditional conservatives would approve of." -Sicem

Most who refer to themselves as modern day American conservatives, myself included, do not approve of having federal control and mandadtory guidelines on education, nor approve of having a federal Department of Education.

It doesn't seem like you realize that a lot of people didn't like nor go along with a lot of the things W did, but of course most of the same people don't approve of practically anything that Bear does. Obama is out to fundamentally change the nation, and the most important thing one's vote should do is knock the democrats out of power.

[SicEmBaylor]

Most who refer to themselves as modern day American conservatives, myself included, do not approve of having federal control and mandadtory guidelines on education, nor approve of having a federal Department of Education.

It doesn't seem like you realize that a lot of people didn't like nor go along with a lot of the things W did, but of course most of the same people don't approve of practically anything that Bear does. Obama is out to fundamentally change the nation, and the most important thing one's vote should do is knock the democrats out of power.

1)This isn't about what the grassroots believe. Nobody in the grassroots is sitting around figuring out the nuances of political philosophy to determine where or what they consider themselves to be. They just consider themselves to be 'conservatives.' This is about Federal policy makers and the movers of the 'conservaitve' movement from the top-bottom not the bottom-top.

2)This isn't about comparing or contrasting what the Democrats are doing. You are so caught up in black/white us/them conservative/liberal Republican/Democrat that you think your side is right so long as it isn't "left." That's asinine, insane, and a recipe for absolute disaster going forward. You need to ensure you're in the right before you give a **** what the other side is doing and

[okie52]

Now, as for Rand Paul, the man is absolutely opposed to amnesty. I don't know where this nonsense started that he isn't because all of his actions and statements in the Senate are to the contrary. My guess is that it's simply popularized ignorance and misinformed assumptions. In any case, the very reason that I oppose all immigration (legal or otherwise) is the very reason I wouldn't discount a candidate simply because he's a little more liberal than I am on immigration -- *everyone* is more progressive than I am on immigration. The only thing that would cause me to write a candidate off due to his or her stance on immigration is a position in line with Jeb Bush or Obama -- full amnesty + liberal border security.


Rand Paul throws weight behind immigration reform effort

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/11/exclusive-rand-paul-throws-weight-behind-immigrati/?page=all

I'm sure articles like this probably confuse people on Rand's anti amnesty position. Of course Rand isn't helping matters by teaming with the likes of Grover Norquist and pro immigration reform groups to contact congressmen about the need for immigration for immigration reform.

I hope Rand does pursue an anti amnesty goal...we'll see.

[SicEmBaylor]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/11/exclusive-rand-paul-throws-weight-behind-immigrati/?page=all

I'm sure articles like this probably confuse people on Rand's anti amnesty position. Of course Rand isn't helping matters by teaming with the likes of Grover Norquist and pro immigration reform groups to contact congressmen about the need for immigration for immigration reform.

I hope Rand does pursue an anti amnesty goal...we'll see.

That article is precisely consistent with what I said. Paul is and remains opposed to amnesty. Favoring immigration reform in very broad terms is absolutely not the same as favoring amnesty+decreased border security. Technically speaking, I myself favor immigration reform. Reform means very different things to different people, and it's rather obvious that Paul was attempting to bridge the gap.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Neoconservatism is a conservative movement founded by former radical communists (Trotskyites, specifically) who moved, ideologically speaking, from communism to "conservatism" as the 60s gave way to the 70s and 80s. Neoconservatism is a cross-blend of traditional conservatism using the traditional means and even, at times, language of international Marxism. For example, non-interventionism in foreign affairs was a hallmark of traditional conservatism. Mind you non-interventionism is NOT the same as isolationism. Neoconservatives abandoned traditional conservatism non-interventionism in favor of liberal/Wilsonian foreign policy principles of spreading American-style Democracy abroad in a very robust and "forward leaning" way. International actions like promoting regime change and nation-building were, prior to neoconservatism, more liberal/progressive principles. This is why I emphasize how little difference there is between the two parties in foreign affairs -- they are philosophically the same. The only difference between the two is how each sides implements that policy.

A principal role of the national government is to protect its citizens, and therefore justified in intervening when there are legitimate threats that can be thwarted, such as protecting the flow of oil, to keep from economic chaos, as was the case in Kuwait and Iraq, and in the case of direct military threats, as was done by Kennedy(the last democrat president that wasn't totally phukced) in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

I don't know if Trotsky or any Marxist did anything similar, but would be quite surprised if they did.

[SicEmBaylor]

A principal role of the national government is to protect its citizens, and therefore justified in intervening when there are legitimate threats that can be thwarted, such as protecting the flow of oil, to keep from economic chaos, as was the case in Kuwait and Iraq, and in the case of direct military threats, as was done by Kennedy(the last democrat president that wasn't totally phukced) in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The Cuban Missile Crisis is an apples vs. oranges issue. The Soviet threat was a clear and present danger to the actual physical territory of the United States. Everyone absolutely agrees with that -- it truly was a direct military threat to the territorial integrity of the nation. There's no question there. The other examples you gave is interventionist nation-building bull**** that has contributed to less security for the United States rather than more.


I don't know if Trotsky or any Marxist did anything similar, but would be quite surprised if they did.
You absolutely and quite clearly didn't understand a single word I said. Not a single word. I never said that neoconservatives had the exact same individual policies as Marxists -- I said that former Trotskyites adapted their principles to conservatism -- in other words, they adopted the same *tactics* used for a different purpose. Marxists believe in a post-nationalist ideology that is firmly rooted in the need to spread Marxism internationally (how and when is one of the differing characteristics between different types of communism) -- iow, their aim is to spark a revolt of the proletariat globally. When these former Marxists moved from the left to the right, they brought with them that tactic of spreading ideology globally; however, instead of spreading communism, they spread American democracy.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

"You absolutely and quite clearly didn't understand a single word I saidNot a single word. I never said that neoconservatives had the exact same individual policies as Marxists -- I said that former Trotskyites adapted their principles to conservatism -- in other words, they adopted the same *tactics* used for a different purpose. Marxists believe in a post-nationalist ideology that is firmly rooted in the need to spread Marxism internationally (how and when is one of the differing characteristics between different types of communism) -- iow, their aim is to spark a revolt of the proletariat globally.

When these former Marxists moved from the left to the right( you will want/need to explain how that happened, who they were and why they did it),

... they brought with them that tactic of spreading ideology globally; however, instead of spreading communism, they spread American democracy."-Sicem


I love the way you talk down to me. It makes you feel functional and noble.

[SicEmBaylor]

"You absolutely and quite clearly didn't understand a single word I saidNot a single word. I never said that neoconservatives had the exact same individual policies as Marxists -- I said that former Trotskyites adapted their principles to conservatism -- in other words, they adopted the same *tactics* used for a different purpose. Marxists believe in a post-nationalist ideology that is firmly rooted in the need to spread Marxism internationally (how and when is one of the differing characteristics between different types of communism) -- iow, their aim is to spark a revolt of the proletariat globally.

When these former Marxists moved from the left to the right( you will want/need to explain how that happened, who they were and why they did it),

... they brought with them that tactic of spreading ideology globally; however, instead of spreading communism, they spread American democracy."-Sicem


I love the way you talk down to me. It makes you feel functional and noble.

No, I do it because you frustrate the absolute bejesus out of me. If I seem condescending then it's because we've had these conversations a billion times over the years, and you continue to ask the exact same questions and make the exact same statements having learned absolutely nothing in the process or to the contrary. Labeling me a libertarian-isolationist is a really good example of that when I'm neither and have explained why I'm neither ad-nauseam.


you will want/need to explain how that happened, who they were and why they did it
This is another example of why I get so put out with you. Instead of educating yourself with this wonderful wonderful invention called 'Google', you are perfectly content to learn nothing and make no attempt to remedy that situation.

1)Not every neoconservative is a former communist from the 60's -- they influenced and created the neoconservative movement, but clearly the movement has grown well beyond them. W. Bush, despite being a neocon, was quite clearly never a communist.
2)A couple of good examples of the founders of the movement are: Irving and Bill Kristol as well as David Horowitz. I had a chance to get to know David Horowitz a little over the course of a couple of days, and I was able to talk about his progression from the far left to the right. He even used to be an attorney for the Black Panthers...
3)I don't know why each of them moved from the left-right or their specific motives -- you'd have to ask them or, better yet, read their books. General disillusionment is probably a recurring them in all of their motivations.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You just think I'm calling you Libertarian. I understand what you believe, and I do think your beliefs re use of the American military internationally is like the Libertarians. With both of you, its seems to be more important than views on abuse of government power with regard to domestic concerns.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

W clearly did far too many things that were neither conservative nor acceptable to any form of modern American conservative. Of course he did some things that were not objectionable, which makes him a far better president than Bear, or than Hillry or Warren would be.(or any other Democrat that I have ever seen since Zell Miller)

[SicEmBaylor]

You just think I'm calling you Libertarian.
Yes, I think that because you continue to call me a libertarian; although, your capitalization of libertarian makes me think you also believe I'm an actual member of the Libertarian Party instead of just a small (l) libertarian. The fact that I'm a Republican precinct chairman and a delegate to the state Republican convention notwithstanding, I suppose...

I understand what you believe
No, you really clearly don't. I think if you remain oblivious to the existence of neoconservatism then Jeffersonian/southern agrarian paleoconservatism is really going to throw you for one hell of a loop.


I do think your beliefs re use of the American military internationally is like the Libertarians.
My beliefs are rooted in classical-conservatism which happen to, largely, overlap libertarian foreign policy principles.


With both of you, its seems to be more important than views on abuse of government power with regard to domestic concerns.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. You think libertarians don't spend 90% of their time screaming about abuse of power by both Republicans and Democrats? Jesus Christ, the foreign policy element of libertarianism is relatively small compared to their focus on domestic issues. You really have no damned clue, sir. I can only try explaining things so much before it becomes clear a person is incapable of figuring anything out. I've met some bullheaded people in my lifetime, but you really take the cake. Most of my replies aren't really for you. If they were, I'd have stopped responding to you years ago. I respond so that other people better understand who I am, what I believe, and how it relates to different points of view out there.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Most of the passionate complaints from the Libertarians I've read here, as well as complaints from you, are centered on shortcomings of republicans in office, rather than the complete anti-American behavior of most all of the democrats that keep getting elected.

[SicEmBaylor]

Most of the passionate complaints from the Libertarians I've read here,
I don't know of any libertarians around here. I've never read anything from a libertarian on SF.


...as well as complaints from you, are centered on shortcomings of republicans in office, rather than the complete anti-American behavior of most all of the democrats that keep getting elected.

Well, you're damned right I'm more concerned about the shortcomings of Republicans. The Republican Party does not stand for the values that it purports to stand for. That isn't a shortcoming -- that's a complete lapse in principle. I cannot and will not support Republicans that are not committed to increasing individual/civil liberties and reducing the size and scope of government. Violating our civil liberties slightly less and expanding government slightly slower than the other side is unworthy of my support, unworthy of the Republican Party, and unworthy of our country.

There are millions of parrots out there who sit around screaming, "Obummer is a socialist!" So the **** what? What does adding my voice to that chorus solve? I can't do a damned thing about liberal wolves who walk around dressed as wolves. I can, hopefully, help contribute to stopping Republican wolves dressed in sheep's clothing. Republicans who are statists and contribute to less liberty and bigger government are the bigger problem for me than progressives.

Whether a Republican takes away more of my freedom or a Democrat does the same matters absolutely not to me. What you fail to understand, what you've never understood, is that the only way to truly defeat liberalism is by ensuring its opposition offers a true alternative and not a watered down version of the same.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

voting for someone who has a real chance of getting the effing democrats out of government, and at least having a possibility of turning the country around means, in 2016, voting for the republican nominee. I hope he/she is one of the better people that are running, but even the dogs such as McCain and Cristy)sp?), and the semi-good ones like Romney, are better than the authoritarian socialists and fascists/crony capitalists from the D.

[Sooner8th]

voting for someone who has a real chance of getting the effing democrats out of government, and at least having a possibility of turning the country around means, in 2016, voting for the republican nominee. I hope he/she is one of the better people that are running, but even the dogs such as McCain and Cristy)sp?), and the semi-good ones like Romney, are better than the authoritarian socialists and fascists/crony capitalists from the D. The "possibility of turning the country around means, in 2016"? We democrats did turn the country around, they only thing republicans did was fight us at every turn making it more difficult and complaining constantly. I see you have already made you mind up that you are "voting for the republican nominee", even though you have no idea who he is. What happened to voting for the person and not the party?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

fuque ewe, Ghengis!

[Sooner8th]

fuque ewe, Ghengis!Brilliant insightful comeback. Just show how indoctrinated you are as well as your hypocrisy and you wonder why I call conservatives/republicans lemmings..................

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Brilliant insightful comeback. Just show how indoctrinated you are as well as your hypocrisy and you wonder why I call conservatives/republicans lemmings..................Fidel, I've given you logic and you remain with your head in the sand. if you want to bury America, you are properly disposed to do so.

[Sooner8th]

Fidel, I've given you logic and you remain with your head in the sand. if you want to bury America, you are properly disposed to do so.Tell me - which party took a surplus and turned it into the largest deficits in our history. Tell me - which party caused the great recession. Tell me - which party got us into Iraq. Now tell me - what have the dems done that is more harmful to America than that.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

see #53

[Sooner8th]

see #53It's a simple question, but I understand why you don't want to answer it.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

He's just a shill for the Koch Brothers.


5-0


soros is WAY more worse than the Koch brothers.

[Sooner8th]

soros is WAY more worse than the Koch brothers.Exactly how? Does Soros have an alec? Does he have a amreicans for prosperity? A C of C? Has soros pushed through the elimination of HIS taxes then raising everyone's else when the budget goes from a surplus to a deficit? Show me where a democratic state budget official sent the proposed budget to the state americans for prosperity before anyone else saw it like they did here in kansas.

[Sooner in Tampa]

^^^^^^^^^ Troll ^^^^^^^^^^^

Lying, stinking, no paragraph writing, worthless POS troll. Proven liar. Copy and paste plagiarist thief. Lowlife, ignorant scum.

[Sooner8th]

^^^^^^^^^ Troll ^^^^^^^^^^^ Lying, stinking, no paragraph writing, worthless POS troll. Proven liar. Copy and paste plagiarist thief. Lowlife, ignorant scum.tyler durden loser piece of sh!t

[Sooner8th]

soros is WAY more worse than the Koch brothers.tha - you notifed me saying I had to get the last word in. You made a claim - now back it up with some facts. Otherwise don't make claims you cannot back up.

[champions77]

Tell us exactly what you want the president to do. The last president you voted for twice that won, refused to negotiate with iran and nk, leaving them alone to work on the very weapons you are now worried about. Obama hasn't blundered us into a war and couldn't win one against a bunch of rock throwers. Never-mind he blew off getting the guy who actually killed 3,000+ Americans on OUR soil. did you forget the part about your boy ignoring warnings from our intelligence about bin lauden determined to attack the US? Tell us all again who had the "reign of error and appeasement". Anyone who voted for dubya does not have the standing to complain about obama.

There are a lot of people very concerned of this "agreement" with Iran that is being crafted by this Administration, none more than Benjamin Netanyahu. That's why he's addressing Congress tomorrow. He believes this Agreement is not in the best interest of any country outside of Iran. He's frustrated. You think because Iran signs an agreement with us that they can be trusted? They on numerous occasions have screamed to the world what their intentions are, the destruction of Israel. Why are we to not believe them now? Obama obviously feels that you can negotiate yourself into friendships with tyrants, dictators and despots. But history will show you that it only gives them a green light to proceed with their dastardly plans, and emboldens them to step up their aggressiveness. You see that everyone you look from the Isis JV to Putin. Rarely does it end well. I think his naivety is dangerous to the free world.

They just conducted sea maneuvers attacking a war ship mocked up to look like an American Aircraft Carrier. Wow, what a way to show good faith in your negotiations. Are they going to burn a few American flags next? The weakness that your hero displays has been evident throughout his administration, from the "kiss up and apology" tour he conducted his first few months in office, to the red line in Syria, to his screw up in Libya, to his "tell Vladimir I will have more flexibility after the election" live mic blunder, to him cancelling the missile defense shield for Eastern Europe to the Kurds he will not supply, to the Crimean's request for help he ignores and the lastly the "negotiations with Cuba", absent of any substantive democratic reforms affording more freedom for the Cuban people.

So please forgive me if I seem just a little concerned with negotiations conducted by your hero and his stooge Secretary of State. I think their track record the last six plus years allows me to be just a tad cynical.

[Sooner in Tampa]

.

[okie52]

That article is precisely consistent with what I said. Paul is and remains opposed to amnesty. Favoring immigration reform in very broad terms is absolutely not the same as favoring amnesty+decreased border security. Technically speaking, I myself favor immigration reform. Reform means very different things to different people, and it's rather obvious that Paul was attempting to bridge the gap.

If reform means that the border will be actually secured and the tax payers won't bear the brunt of any temporary work visas by allowing the illegals to have access to government benefits then that is palatable, at least to me it is. But, if the illegals are granted permanent legal status and/or a pathway to citizenship then they will be given access to government benefits as well as allowing family reunification which means millions more low skilled, low income, low tax revenue generators will be allowed to immigrate to the US further exacerbating the problem.

Rand has been dancing around the issue. He has always stated "border security first" but then varied his stance on what to do about the 11,000,000 illegals that are already here.


He didn't specify how the border would be made more secure but said the Border Patrol and an inspector general would have to sign off. Congress would also have to agree annually for five years that border security was progressing in order for the other reforms Paul envisions to keep moving forward.

In year two of his plan, illegal immigrants would begin to be issued temporary work visas, and would have to wait for an unspecified period of time in a probationary legal status before getting green cards. A bipartisan panel would determine the number of visas per year. High-tech visas would be expanded and a special visa for entrepreneurs would be issued. Illegal immigrants would not be able to get on a citizenship path ahead of anyone attempting the process legally.

Different from other approaches, Paul would not attempt to crack down on employers by expanding working verification systems, something he says is tantamount to "making every business owner a policeman"

"My plan will not grant amnesty or move anyone to the front of the line," Paul said. "But what we have now is de facto amnesty."


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/rand-paul-to-endorse-path-to-citizenship-89052_Page2.html#ixzz3TFI4ly8y


Now amnesty is another word that is used loosely. If someone thinks that paying a fine (probably $1,000 or less) and paying some back taxes is a "fair" punishment to allow 11,000,000 illegals to obtain citizenship is not tantamount to amnesty then the country better prepare for another onslaught of illegals. Also, while it is a shame that employers should have a burden of verifying citizenship/legal status through everify it is also employers that for decades knowingly hired illegals creating in large part the problem we have today.

The only reason we have a "de facto" amnesty is because the government has chosen not to deport most illegals which it is certainly authorized to do (well, until Obama's 2 executive amnesty orders). And Rand and others are wrong when they say they aren't leaving. 1,000,000 left when the recession hit...that's why we are talking about 11,000,000 instead of 12,000,000. Take away their jobs and any collateral benefits and they will leave. Romney had it right about self deportation.

And what "taxes" does Rand think they will be paying as citizens/legal residents that they aren't now? Most of the 11,000,000 won't be paying federal income tax or probably state income taxes either. They're already paying sales taxes. The best thing about illegals is that many have paid into SS with no chance of receiving benefits (well, again until Obama's latest amnesty) Legal status with access to government benefits will be a drain on the US taxpayer.

[SoonerProphet]

Ah yes, the isolationist label, using bumper sticker slogans when your endorsement of adventurism has proven you to be an idiot.

[champions77]

If reform means that the border will be actually secured and the tax payers won't bear the brunt of any temporary work visas by allowing the illegals to have access to government benefits then that is palatable, at least to me it is. But, if the illegals are granted permanent legal status and/or a pathway to citizenship then they will be given access to government benefits as well as allowing family reunification which means millions more low skilled, low income, low tax revenue generators will be allowed to immigrate to the US further exacerbating the problem.

Rand has been dancing around the issue. He has always stated "border security first" but then varied his stance on what to do about the 11,000,000 illegals that are already here.



Now amnesty is another word that is used loosely. If someone thinks that paying a fine (probably $1,000 or less) and paying some back taxes is a "fair" punishment to allow 11,000,000 illegals to obtain citizenship is not tantamount to amnesty then the country better prepare for another onslaught of illegals. Also, while it is a shame that employers should have a burden of verifying citizenship/legal status through everify it is also employers that for decades knowingly hired illegals creating in large part the problem we have today.

The only reason we have a "de facto" amnesty is because the government has chosen not to deport most illegals which it is certainly authorized to do (well, until Obama's 2 executive amnesty orders). And Rand and others are wrong when they say they aren't leaving. 1,000,000 left when the recession hit...that's why we are talking about 11,000,000 instead of 12,000,000. Take away their jobs and any collateral benefits and they will leave. Romney had it right about self deportation.

And what "taxes" does Rand think they will be paying as citizens/legal residents that they aren't now? Most of the 11,000,000 won't be paying federal income tax or probably state income taxes either. They're already paying sales taxes. The best thing about illegals is that many have paid into SS with no chance of receiving benefits (well, again until Obama's latest amnesty) Legal status with access to government benefits will be a drain on the US taxpayer.

Don't forget the 30-40 Billion annually that they send "home" that leaves our economy. That's why the Mexican government promotes this lawlessness. And of course the left always politicizes it every chance they get "Latinos think that Republicans don't like them" when it is illegals who disrespect our laws are the ones that all law abiding Americans should have a problem with. Dems see future democratic voters.

[Soonerjeepman]

There are a lot of people very concerned of this "agreement" with Iran that is being crafted by this Administration, none more than Benjamin Netanyahu. That's why he's addressing Congress tomorrow. He believes this Agreement is not in the best interest of any country outside of Iran. He's frustrated. You think because Iran signs an agreement with us that they can be trusted? They on numerous occasions have screamed to the world what their intentions are, the destruction of Israel. Why are we to not believe them now? Obama obviously feels that you can negotiate yourself into friendships with tyrants, dictators and despots. But history will show you that it only gives them a green light to proceed with their dastardly plans, and emboldens them to step up their aggressiveness. You see that everyone you look from the Isis JV to Putin. Rarely does it end well. I think his naivety is dangerous to the free world.

They just conducted sea maneuvers attacking a war ship mocked up to look like an American Aircraft Carrier. Wow, what a way to show good faith in your negotiations. Are they going to burn a few American flags next? The weakness that your hero displays has been evident throughout his administration, from the "kiss up and apology" tour he conducted his first few months in office, to the red line in Syria, to his screw up in Libya, to his "tell Vladimir I will have more flexibility after the election" live mic blunder, to him cancelling the missile defense shield for Eastern Europe to the Kurds he will not supply, to the Crimean's request for help he ignores and the lastly the "negotiations with Cuba", absent of any substantive democratic reforms affording more freedom for the Cuban people.

So please forgive me if I seem just a little concerned with negotiations conducted by your hero and his stooge Secretary of State. I think their track record the last six plus years allows me to be just a tad cynical.

amen!

[Sooner8th]

There are a lot of people very concerned of this "agreement" with Iran that is being crafted by this Administration, none more than Benjamin Netanyahu. That's why he's addressing Congress tomorrow. He believes this Agreement is not in the best interest of any country outside of Iran. He's frustrated. You think because Iran signs an agreement with us that they can be trusted? They on numerous occasions have screamed to the world what their intentions are, the destruction of Israel. Why are we to not believe them now? Obama obviously feels that you can negotiate yourself into friendships with tyrants, dictators and despots. But history will show you that it only gives them a green light to proceed with their dastardly plans, and emboldens them to step up their aggressiveness. You see that everyone you look from the Isis JV to Putin. Rarely does it end well. I think his naivety is dangerous to the free world.

They just conducted sea maneuvers attacking a war ship mocked up to look like an American Aircraft Carrier. Wow, what a way to show good faith in your negotiations. Are they going to burn a few American flags next? The weakness that your hero displays has been evident throughout his administration, from the "kiss up and apology" tour he conducted his first few months in office, to the red line in Syria, to his screw up in Libya, to his "tell Vladimir I will have more flexibility after the election" live mic blunder, to him cancelling the missile defense shield for Eastern Europe to the Kurds he will not supply, to the Crimean's request for help he ignores and the lastly the "negotiations with Cuba", absent of any substantive democratic reforms affording more freedom for the Cuban people.

So please forgive me if I seem just a little concerned with negotiations conducted by your hero and his stooge Secretary of State. I think their track record the last six plus years allows me to be just a tad cynical.


You keep talking about my hero obama - that is all in your head. You mention a "kiss up and apology" tour that just didn't happen. That is a rightwing talking point. Four eight long years your lord and hero bush sat on his hands while Iran built centrifuges up the wazoo conservatives said nothing. They just conducted sea maneuvers attacking a war ship mocked up to look like an American Aircraft Carrier – so what? We have war games all the time, we can do it but they can’t? Is that a reason to cut off negotiations or just a reason to bitch about obama? So what if they burn a few American flags next? Are you willing to send your kids to die for a flag burning?

Don’t even get me started on vlad “I looked into his eyes and saw his soul” putin. What a loser dumbass you voted for twice. Tell me what it is you want obama to do with russia? Go to war? What Crimean's request are you talking about? Cuban should have happened 35 years ago – failed policy that got us nowhere.

[champions77]

Always about Bush, always about Bush.

You blame Cuba on "our" failed policy? How about the failed policy of Castro who has enslaved an entire population for 50 plus years with another failed experiment in socialism? I would say that is where the failure is. And some of your ilk want the same for us? And yes, anyone that defends this President like you do, would be thought of as worshiping their hero. You probably kiss a picture of him before you go to bed every night. Even some far left folks can't defend some of his abuses of the Constitution, but not you. It's all good.

[okie52]

Don't forget the 30-40 Billion annually that they send "home" that leaves our economy. That's why the Mexican government promotes this lawlessness. And of course the left always politicizes it every chance they get "Latinos think that Republicans don't like them" when it is illegals who disrespect our laws are the ones that all law abiding Americans should have a problem with. Dems see future democratic voters.

Dumb sellouts on the pub side...believing that they are going to get the hispanic vote when it hasn't happened in 40 years. Even after Reagan gave amnesty in 1986 the hispanics voted for Dukakis in 1988 by a 70-30 margin.

[Sooner8th]

Always about Bush, always about Bush.

You blame Cuba on "our" failed policy? How about the failed policy of Castro who has enslaved an entire population for 50 plus years with another failed experiment in socialism? I would say that is where the failure is. And some of your ilk want the same for us? And yes, anyone that defends this President like you do, would be thought of as worshiping their hero. You probably kiss a picture of him before you go to bed every night. Even some far left folks can't defend some of his abuses of the Constitution, but not you. It's all good.

YEP - how funny it is to see a group of people who ran against carter for decades to whine about us doing the same thing you did. You conservatives have completely abandon bush and deny was a conservative. We liberals are going to hang him around your neck for decades like you did carter to us. You brought up someone voted for obama twice, well you voted for bush twice – so we can compare how the they guy you voted for twice who won and the guy we voted for twice who won.

Where did I “blame Cuba on "our" failed policy”? You are just making sh!t up. I said our policy towards cuba was a failure. Everyone knows it. Again with the defending him, you just attack attack attack anything and everything he does. I don’t defend him – I simply ask for you to show me some proof.

You posts are nothing more than silly rightwingnut talking points and socialism. Give me a list of his abuses of the constitution.

[champions77]

Dumb sellouts on the pub side...believing that they are going to get the hispanic vote when it hasn't happened in 40 years. Even after Reagan gave amnesty in 1986 the hispanics voted for Dukakis in 1988 by a 70-30 margin.
I guess the key is having a good economy, at least in State elections. I believe the Greg Abbott won the Governorship in Texas last November and got 44 percent of the Hispanic vote.
I would hope that most Republicans are against amnesty because it rewards the law breakers, and it sends a signal to future lawbreakers and penalizes the ones that have done it the right way for years.

The heck with the politics, follow the damn law!!! When addressing the pros and cons of amnesty, the most important factor to consider is what does the law allow? That should guide everyone in this.
The Messiah was told repeatedly that before any serious Immigration Reform could be considered, that the border must first be secured. So what did the smartest man in the Universe do? Violated the Law...again.

[okie52]

Scott Walker: 'My View Has Changed' on Amnesty
Sunday, 01 Mar 2015 11:26 AM
By Greg Richter

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said Sunday he has changed his position on amnesty since he told a newspaper he could envision a path to citizenship for illegals.

Walker talked to "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace in an interview recorded last week at the Conservative Political Action Conference and aired on Sunday.

Walker finished second in the CPAC straw poll on Saturday, trailing only Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who has won the past three CPAC straw polls.

But Wallace wanted to know about Walker's response to a question on July 2, 2013 from the Wausau Daily Herald that asked, "Can you envision a world where, with the right penalties and waiting periods and meet-the-requirements, where those people could get citizenship?"

"Sure. Yeah. I mean, I think it makes sense," Walker said at the time.

But, Walker told Wallace, he has since talked to other governors who deal with illegal immigration.

"I don't believe in amnesty," he said, adding he was one of the first governors to join the federal lawsuit against President Barack Obama's executive actions to help millions of illegal immigrants gain legal status on hold.

Wallace pointed out that before he was governor, Walker was the Milwaukee County Executive and supported the Kennedy-McCain comprehensive immigration plan.

"My view has changed. I'm flat-out saying it," Walker responded.

He said he believes current immigration laws should be enforced, the border should be secured and that the onus should be put on employers by giving them access to the E-verify system to check an applicant's legal status.

On other issues, Walker clarified his comments that have drawn fire in which he is accused of comparing protesters of his education plan to the Islamic State group (ISIS.)

Walker told Wallace he intended only to be referencing his own leadership abilities.

The leadership he provided under those "most difficult circumstances" prove his mettle, he said. "If I were to run, and if I were to win and be commander-in-chief I believe that kind of leadership is what's necessary to take on radical Islamic terrorists."

On the controversial comments made by former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani saying Obama doesn't love America, Walker said, "[Obama] and anybody else who's willing to put their name on the ballot, certainly has to have a love for county to do that."

He also defended his own fiscal conservative credentials, saying that the $2 billion budget shortfall prediction over the next two years is based on a request sent in by state agencies. His own budget proposal would leave a $123 million surplus, he said.

Walker is the son of Baptist preacher, and has said he is waiting on guidance from God on whether to run for president.

"There are people of faith who can have a variety of political views. But for us, personally, we make important decisions like we did years ago to run for governor," Walker said.

He said his whole family prayed about whether he should run, and they are doing so again as he mulls a 2016 bid.

"In terms of who's winning, it's going to be up to the voters," he said.


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Scott-Walker-immigration-amnesty-opinions/2015/03/01/id/627566/#ixzz3TGJZGgtP


Did Walker's opinion really change or is it "convenient politics"?

[okie52]

I guess the key is having a good economy, at least in State elections. I believe the Greg Abbott won the Governorship in Texas last November and got 44 percent of the Hispanic vote.
I would hope that most Republicans are against amnesty because it rewards the law breakers, and it sends a signal to future lawbreakers and penalizes the ones that have done it the right way for years.

The heck with the politics, follow the damn law!!! When addressing the pros and cons of amnesty, the most important factor to consider is what does the law allow? That should guide everyone in this.
The Messiah was told repeatedly that before any serious Immigration Reform could be considered, that the border must first be secured. So what did the smartest man in the Universe do? Violated the Law...again.

I never had any hope of Obama doing what's best for the country on immigration but then W, jeb, mcshame, grahamnesty, rubio, the US Chamber of Commerce, Grover Norquist, et al have all sold out on amnesty. At least the dems know they'll be getting voters for this treachery...pubs? They just look stupid trying to put a good spin on it.

[champions77]

I never had any hope of Obama doing what's best for the country on immigration but then W, jeb, mcshame, grahamnesty, rubio, the US Chamber of Commerce, Grover Norquist, et al have all sold out on amnesty. At least the dems know they'll be getting voters for this treachery...pubs? They just look stupid trying to put a good spin on it.

Yep, sad but true. The spin any GOP Presidential candidate should put on it is "so you're ok with rewarding lawbreakers"
Did the Dems promise Reagan that they would secure the border of if would agree to amnesty...but didn't? I seem to recall that. If so, pretty typical. Ole Bush 41 fell for it on the tax increase. It was supposed to accompany budget cuts if I remember correctly, and you know how that one worked out.

[okie52]

Yep, sad but true. The spin any GOP Presidential candidate should put on it is "so you're ok with rewarding lawbreakers"
Did the Dems promise Reagan that they would secure the border of if would agree to amnesty...but didn't? I seem to recall that. If so, pretty typical. Ole Bush 41 fell for it on the tax increase. It was supposed to accompany budget cuts if I remember correctly, and you know how that one worked out.

Reagan forgot one of his cold war days mottos..."trust but verify".

[champions77]

YEP - how funny it is to see a group of people who ran against carter for decades to whine about us doing the same thing you did. You conservatives have completely abandon bush and deny was a conservative. We liberals are going to hang him around your neck for decades like you did carter to us. You brought up someone voted for obama twice, well you voted for bush twice – so we can compare how the they guy you voted for twice who won and the guy we voted for twice who won.

Where did I “blame Cuba on "our" failed policy”? You are just making sh!t up. I said our policy towards cuba was a failure. Everyone knows it. Again with the defending him, you just attack attack attack anything and everything he does. I don’t defend him – I simply ask for you to show me some proof.

You posts are nothing more than silly rightwingnut talking points and socialism. Give me a list of his abuses of the constitution.

He's been called out twice by the US Supreme Court for overstepping his authority. He just violated it with the steel tipped .223 ammo ban, he violates the Constitution every day when he doesn't enforce the border like he is required by law. He used the Military in Libya, bypassing Congress. His IRA department targeted conservative groups. There's more, I have to get to work.
Speaking of work, what do you do? There would be a lot of folks on here that would like a similar career path and a job description "arguing with others that I disagree with on the Internet" and get paid for it.

[Sooner8th]

He's been called out twice by the US Supreme Court for overstepping his authority. He just violated it with the steel tipped .223 ammo ban, he violates the Constitution every day when he doesn't enforce the border like he is required by law. He used the Military in Libya, bypassing Congress. His IRA department targeted conservative groups. There's more, I have to get to work.Speaking of work, what do you do? There would be a lot of folks on here that would like a similar career path and a job description "arguing with others that I disagree with on the Internet" and get paid for it.One is the recess appointments what is the other? What a joke about the .223 ammo. No ban. No executive order. It is an ATF proposal. Tell me did bush "violates the Constitution every day when he doesn't enforce the border like he is required by law"? Libya? What a joke - not a "violation the Constitution". Where do you get this crap at? OH, that's right - chain emails. John Boner claimed obama was in violation of a "Vietnam-era law that says presidents must terminate a mission 60 or 90 days after notifying Congress that troops have been deployed into hostilities, unless lawmakers authorize the operation to continue." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16powers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 For the very war your party wanted to help oust dubya's and his ring kissing crony rice - gaddafi. IRS HAHAHAHAHA don't make me laugh. First did obama do that himself? Did he order it done? NO and NO. Second they did it to liberal groups too, but I know you conservatives ignore that part. Speaking of work - you keep asking me what i do for living. I have told you. Now tell me what YOU do for a living. You are on here just as much as i am lately. Glass house my friend - glass house. If you are going to argue and complain about obama please, please get some facts from somewhere other than chain emails.

[Eielson]

Hopefully I'm not interrupting anything important, but I have a question.

Is he suggesting cuts for NIH in general, or does he just really hate the idea of origami condoms?

[rock on sooner]

Did Walker's opinion really change or is it "convenient politics"?

Wait until the Iowa caucus, if you want to see "convenient politics"..
Walker is just getting out front sooner, gotta look to the Tea Party
now, Moderates in the near future and then the Party in the debates...
flip, flop, flip, flop....just like Romney tried but couldn't...rilly funny
stuff!

[okie52]

You're right...all the pubs will be trying to find the right niche...but they aren't alone. Look how Hillary has been trying to coaxe the Warren supporters....