POLITICS - Bipartisan Leadership

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 8:38 am

This is one area where McCain is really stong. Maybe he would actually be able to get something done. Nobody ever mentions this. I think it's important.

For the last 16 years all we've had is bickering and stalemate. Nobody's interested in doing someting good for our country.

Andrew · Post by **Andrew** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:02 am

I just don't see it happening. In some ways that's a good thing. Compromise means that you have to wash a good bill down to get the other sides approval. What good is that?

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:25 am

Thats because he's a liberal but how can something good come from MORE compromise with socialists?
The truth is for the most part we are already over legislated. Domesticlly we could do with some house cleaning & repealing of redundant & unconstitutional legislation.
I think Congress should go get day jobs & every couple years we can have them assemble to see if anything needs doing.

What needs being done will never get done by a politician. We need to pull our heads out of our collective butts & recognize that. Politicians in our system arent suposed to lead at all. Theyre suposed to follow the desires of the constituency.

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:57 am

That would be a democracy or mobocracy. We are a Republic.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mobocracy

The will of the majority, would leave us without guns.

Tycer · Post by **Tycer** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 10:28 am

Swampman wrote:This is one area where McCain is really strong. Maybe he would actually be able to get something done. Nobody ever mentions this. I think it's important.

For the last 16 years all we've had is bickering and stalemate. Nobody's interested in doing something good for our country.

IMHO John is a Democrat in Republican clothing. You are correct in that he/they would get things done. At tremendous loss to our great Republic.

It's been way more than 16 years on the bickering and stalemates and it's been half a century since any of their decisions have been for the good of the Republic.

John will probably be our next president. I've not heard or read where has he said one thing about us taking personal responsibility for our lives, but plenty about improving the nanny/socialist state.

I pledge Allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation under God, indivisible,
with Liberty and Justice for all.

It's a Republic, not a nanny/socialist state.

Please, God, keep the Republic strong, that we may take responsibility for our own actions, health and well being. And God, please help those who choose to be unable to take such responsibility find a lovely socialist state elsewhere that they may happy wards of that state.

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:01 pm

Swampman wrote:That would be a democracy or mobocracy. We are a Republic.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mobocracy

The will of the majority, would leave us without guns.

We are a republic that elects officials to represent us, not to lead us by the hand & tell us whats best. They're also theoreticlly bound by the constitution. Which if it held weight like other laws would necessitate putting most elected officials in jail.

The politicians ARE the problem not the answer.

I doubt the will of the majority would leave us without guns. Most every poll that asks the question in simple terms indicated Americans see guns as an important thing for a free people. The politicians & govt want the guns more than the people.

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 12:18 am

I distain bipartisanship. If someone wants to be bipartisan, that's fine, as long as they come over to my point of view. I see no honor in selling out on one's positions to "get along". The other side certainly approaches politics from this angle - we need to as well!

I like Reagan's response on his plan to win the Cold War: "We win - they lose". That should be our plan in dealing with the leftists/statists that infect the modern Democrat party!

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:41 am

So stalemate is better?

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:00 am

When 99% of whats proposed is wrong & oppresive, yep.
I dont see any movement towards a restoration of liberties, seems any movement is in the other direction. In such a case it seems like a right vs wrong stalemate & any compromise is always another victory for the wrong side. Arent you tired of being whittled away at?

Tycer · Post by **Tycer** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:31 am

Leverdude wrote:When 99% of whats proposed is wrong & oppresive, yep.
I dont see any movement towards a restoration of liberties, seems any movement is in the other direction. In such a case it seems like a right vs wrong stalemate & any compromise is always another victory for the wrong side. Arent you tired of being whittled away at?

Hate it, but have to agree. If we could just get them to start repealing arcane laws.

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:43 am

Yep +2

Best times we have each year is when Congress is not in session. When the vermin are up at Capital Hill, neither our liberties nor our wallets are safe. Deadlocked, stalemate, and endless arguing are infinitely more desireable than them agreeing on how much they want to take from the sheep...

RIHMFIRE · Post by **RIHMFIRE** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:12 am

I dont want them to get anything done...
Everytime they do something it cost me ...us money.
All i want them to do is shut the hell up and quit stealing
our money and freedom and enforce the current laws

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:38 am

biÂ·parÂ·tiÂ·san (bī-pÃ¤r'tĭ-zən, -sən) adj

Def:

(1) Accepting the political situation as defined by Liberals, guaranteeing conservative/libertarian losses or at best getting force fed "only" 1/2 the turd sandwich.

(2) Capitulation on Principle. See "Appeasment" and "Collaboration".

PaulB · Post by **PaulB** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:43 pm

The last thing I want is a president on a mission to "do good".

"Of government, at least in democratic states, it may be said briefly that it is an agency engaged wholesale, and as a matter of solemn duty, in the performance of acts which all self-respecting individuals refrain from as a matter of common decency."
-- H.L. Mencken

Read here about the last century's best president - Warren G Harding!

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:00 pm

I don't really like what I perceive to be your view of the world and I know I don't like the people you want running it.

I sit in dread of what you and the politicians that you support might inflict upon me and those I care about, because I think that that your views are evil and insane.

Having said that, I'm sure that you wouldn't like what I have in mind for you either.

I believe that "stalemate" is the best possible position for our government to be in.

Jeeps · Post by **Jeeps** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:49 pm

As far as I'm concerned, ENOUGH laws (too many in fact) have been made.

The only laws left to make are the ones that strip freedom from us, no more.

If they want to do some good (both sides). Sit down and read every law that
has been made to date and figure out which ones are unconstitutional and
rip them up.

And while your at it, start stripping your ranks also, YOUR NOT NEEDED.

You want a page to run around for ya pay him out of YOUR pocket not mine.

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:12 pm

The way I feel right now, I consider myself neither a conservative nor a liberal. I have no use for either. Both are selfish, and have no interest in America. I was a strong conservative until recently.

This country is done for. I don't really care.

cubrock · Post by **cubrock** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:50 pm

Swampman wrote:This is one area where McCain is really stong. Maybe he would actually be able to get something done. Nobody ever mentions this. I think it's important.

For the last 16 years all we've had is bickering and stalemate. Nobody's interested in doing someting good for our country.

I'm not sure what good you want done for our country, but "good" and "bipartisan" rarely go together. If Schumer, Clinton, Pelosi, Kennedy, etc are involved, it ain't good for our country.

In my opinion, the only good thing we have had the last 16 years has been the stalemate on critical issues. "Bipartisanship" gets us more gun control, more nanny government programs, and less liberty.

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:01 pm

The fundamental purpose of government is the maintenance of basic security and public order â€” without which individuals cannot attempt to find happiness.[24] The philosopher Thomas Hobbes figured that people, as rational animals, saw submission to a government dominated by a sovereign as preferable to anarchy[25][26]. People in a community create and submit to government for the purpose of establishing for themselves, safety and public order.

cubrock · Post by **cubrock** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:13 pm

Swampman wrote:The fundamental purpose of government is the maintenance of basic security and public order â€” without which individuals cannot attempt to find happiness.[24] The philosopher Thomas Hobbes figured that people, as rational animals, saw submission to a government dominated by a sovereign as preferable to anarchy[25][26]. People in a community create and submit to government for the purpose of establishing for themselves, safety and public order.

That's all well and good, but how I define safety and public order and how most of the politicians in Washington define it are two very different thing. Safety and public order have nothing to do with:

Gun control

Killing unborn children

Spending our country into oblivion

Giving condoms to kids

Forcefully taking private property through imminent domain to give the land to a developer for a Wal-Mart

Making kids read "Heather has Two Daddies"

Making most campaigning illegal prior to an election

Corporate welfare

Ad nauseum.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:21 pm

Swampman wrote:The fundamental purpose of government is the maintenance of basic security and public order â€” without which individuals cannot attempt to find happiness.[24] The philosopher Thomas Hobbes figured that people, as rational animals, saw submission to a government dominated by a sovereign as preferable to anarchy[25][26]. People in a community create and submit to government for the purpose of establishing for themselves, safety and public order.

Nice cut-n-paste. Hobbes was an elitest swine who believed in Absoluteist Dictatorship (the Leviathan).

Thomas Hobbesâ€™ Civil Leviathan makes Even Machiavellian Utility look reasonable.

Try this - a little somthing I knocked together one afternoon:

Of all the political theories that would seem to lead to the most destructive forms of absolute government and human suffering, Thomas Hobbesâ€™ vision of a perfect government is one of the most frightening. While his view of humanity is cynically dark, it is almost unfailingly correct. The nature of civil law and the nature of man are laid out in excruciating and logically consistent detail. Where his theory falls down however, is in his contradictory and illogical assumption that men will be able to both accept and deny their ability to defend themselves from aggression, injustice and iniquity.

Hobbes spends a great deal of time explaining, at least to himself, why he believes the Sovereign of a Commonwealth cannot be aggressive, unjust or injurious towards his subjects. His explanation defies reason, and as such, creates irresolvable conflicts in the broad application of his theory.
The form of absolute government advocated by Hobbes is practical if and only if the Sovereignâ€™s rules are consistent and strictly limited; otherwise it is doomed to internal warfare

"â€¦because the major part hath by consenting voices declared a sovereign, he that dissented must now consent with the rest; that is, be contented to avow all the actions he shall do, or else justly be destroyed by the rest. For if he voluntarily entered into the congregation of them that were assembled, he sufficiently declared thereby his will, and therefore tacitly covenanted, to stand to what the major part should ordain: and therefore if he refuse to stand thereto, or make protestation against any of their decrees, he does contrary to his covenant, and therefore unjustly. And whether he be of the congregation or not, and whether his consent be asked or not, he must either submit to their decrees or be left in the condition of war he was in before; wherein he might without injustice be destroyed by any man whatsoever." (Cahn, p.139)

Thus, in the worst sense, the majority rules. A radically powerful form of government is created by the mob - generally with the goal of repressing, suppressing, or oppressing an â€œoutâ€

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:38 pm

The fundamental purpose of government is the maintenance of basic security and public order

We achieved that some 232 years ago & ever since politicians been working against it. Nobody here is saying we dont want a Govt. We dont want a master.
The real problem is we dont have a need for full time legislators. They'v done such a stand up job theres nothing left to meddle in. They should all get pink slips until such time as they are needed.

I still think of myself as conservative even if the party asociated with conservativism has gone daft. I'll just seek out true conservatives to support. If we all did that we could get a conservative elected. Instead everyone whines about not being able to find a decent Republican & having to settle for McLiberal. Well I hate to pee in anybodys corn flakes but you didn't have to settle, nobody did, you chose to & if McCain gets elected & further erodes your faith in conservativism then your simply misguided, because you did not vote for a coservative.

I'd rather stick by my values & lose than compromise & win, how can you count it as a win if the guy who won doesn't share your views?

We really need to distance ourselves from the idea that one party embodies conservativism & one liberalism. Look at the individual & if he stinks dismiss him regardless of party affiliation.

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:43 pm

Conservativism has gone daft, because conservatives have gone daft. Their support of Ron Paul is proof of that.

I have no more use for conservatives than I do liberals. Both are the enemies of free men.

cubrock · Post by **cubrock** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:38 pm

Swampman wrote:Conservativism has gone daft, because conservatives have gone daft. Their support of Ron Paul is proof of that.

I have no more use for conservatives than I do liberals. Both are the enemies of free men.

Geez....Ron Paul was the ONLY candidate who came close to espousing true liberty. I'd hate to see your definition of "free men."

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:46 pm

Swampman wrote:Conservativism has gone daft, because conservatives have gone daft. Their support of Ron Paul is proof of that.

I have no more use for conservatives than I do liberals. Both are the enemies of free men.

If the conservatives HAD supported Paul he would be the font runner. But they didn't, they played follow the leader & like as not McCain will be the next President. You should be thrilled.

I will agree that it seems freedom loving Americans must be daft to pass up this opportunity to put a man who simply supports the constitution in the big seat, but I must wonder at what you think a free man is given your stances on several issues & if freedom is really more important than just winning to you.

I think folks unable, or unwilling to sort the wheat from the chaff & just swallow what theyre told are the enemies of free men.

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:55 pm

As long as neither Hillary nor Obama are the next President, I'll be thrilled. That means I won't have to drop my guns off at city hall for 4 more years. If it seems like another Democrat is going to become President, I'll sell most of what I have before they take it. Just being a realist.

cubrock · Post by **cubrock** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:58 pm

Swampman wrote:As long as neither Hillary nor Obama are the next President, I'll be thrilled. That means I won't have to drop my guns off at city hall for 4 more years. If it seems like another Democrat is going to become President, I'll sell most of what I have before they take it. Just being a realist.

As long as we are being realists, McCain's "Bipartisan Leadership" is more likely to impact your gun rights than anything else. That is one of the principal areas where he will cave to "compromise" with the left.

PaulB · Post by **PaulB** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:59 pm

The fundamental purpose of government is the maintenance of basic security and public order...

Funny, I always got the impression the fundamental purpose of government was to extend the power and enrichment of those who are members of it.

Nobody here is saying we dont want a Govt. We dont want a master.

I'd be very happy with a government that is not my master, but that's not to say I wouldn't be happier with no government at all. I sure like to give the idea a try, anyway.

Here's what life would look like without government:
http://lneilsmith.org/utopian.html

http://lneilsmith.org/new-cov.html

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:14 pm

Swampman wrote:Conservativism has gone daft, because conservatives have gone daft. Their support of Ron Paul is proof of that.

I have no more use for conservatives than I do liberals. Both are the enemies of free men.

????

"Conservatives", by in large, don't support Ron Paul BECAUSE he is the advocate of Free Men. He is the antithesis of the Mercantilist/Hamiltonian State we have now.

If "conservatives" supported Dr. Paul, he'd be the nominee already.

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:44 am

You must believe there are at least 100 times more conservatives, than there actually are. There aren't enough conservatives to actually accomplish anything. I wish I could say the same thing about liberals.

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:33 am

There aren't enough conservatives to actually accomplish anything

Especially when they refuse to support conservative candidates.

Old Time Hunter · Post by **Old Time Hunter** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:21 am

PaulB and OI...+1

Seems to me that we already have ten laws...what do we need the rest for?

POLITICS - Bipartisan Leadership

POLITICS - Bipartisan Leadership

Re: Bipartisan Leadership

Re: POLITICS - Bipartisan Leadership