Git Sum Presidentin' (Republican primaries)

[Green Mean]

It all has to do with how you view the meaning of the Constitution and the role of government. While time might change the practical details of implementing a political philosophy, why would time necessarily change the meaning of the Constitution and the role of government?

You have a point but I don't think the constitution itself changes. The role of government always changes...that is why over time new laws come into place, or laws will change, etc etc etc. In essence all of this is the role of government in some sort of capacity. The government has maintained the same constitution wise but the role of them have always fluctuated over the years and as time passes I think it is only obvious that the way things are run can and should evolve. If things did not evolve we would still be living like people did since the beginning of time and had the same mindsets. This is why I always say that the world in general today is not the same as it was say 50, 100, 500, 1000 yrs ago etc.

[Green Mean]

Too bad survey after survey shows the majority of America is conservative.

I don't know how much stock I would put into surveys in general but FWIW when I was in high school (or maybe middle school) we learned that if every citizen of this nation were to go to the polls and vote that there is no question that the hands down majority would be more democratic. Of course I am sure that also was based on studies/surveys as well but just thought I'd add this nugget. I really don't have a dog in this fight either way.

[UNT90]

I don't know how much stock I would put into surveys in general but FWIW when I was in high school (or maybe middle school) we learned that if every citizen of this nation were to go to the polls and vote that there is no question that the hands down majority would be more democratic. Of course I am sure that also was based on studies/surveys as well but just thought I'd add this nugget. I really don't have a dog in this fight either way.

Sounds like it had a lot more to do with the political affiliation of your teacher.

[Green Mean]

Sounds like it had a lot more to do with the political affiliation of your teacher.

Maybe or maybe not...I honestly don't remember. But it wouldn't surprise me if most did vote democratic...now again I am talking if every eligible citizen put in a vote. At worst I think it would probably be split. I tend to think that more of the non voters in this country are democrat than they are republican. Just my thought tho.

[LongJim]

We need a wrench thrown into this machine before it goes even more out of control, and Paul is just crazy enough to do it. With that I think he also would be unselfish enough to push for term limits. But his foreign policy is all over the place.

Santorum needs to talk more like that.

I think if Romney doesn't win over 50 percent of NH like every political pundit has said he would the past week then it's truly game on.

We shall see.

Rick

IMO, Paul is the only one of these guys with any balls.

I don't agree with all of his views, but the guy is at least consistent, and as I've gotten older, my personal political viewpoint definitely skews libertarian.

The others are either RINO's or in the case of Santorum, more concerned with what you do in the privacy of your own home than doing what they're elected to do. Dude has a lot of baggage. Romney's probably the least "conservative" Republican candidate of the bunch.

Definitely will be interesting.

[LongJim]

Any time I hear people bring up the constitution and the role of government I generally just dismiss them as absolutists.

I wouldn't dismiss all of them that way.

As far as I'm concerned, I boil it down to: "defend our borders and interests when necessary, uphold our laws, and stay the hell out of my life otherwise".

[FirefightnRick]

To try and identify where the framers and politicians of that era fit on a modern day political scale would just be impractical.

I disagree.

The Unity and Beauty of the Declaration and the Constitution

Peter Robinson: I quote you again: “Woodrow Wilson and the founders of modern liberalism

call these doctrines of limited government

that appear in the Declaration and

the Constitution obsolete. They argue

that we now live in the age of progress

and that government must be an engine

of that progress.”

Wilson was dealing with conditions

that the Founders could scarcely have

imagined: industrialization, dense urban

populations, enormous waves of immigration.

So what did he get wrong?

Dr. Larry P. Arnn: The first thing he got wrong was

looking back on earlier America as a simple

age. There was nothing simple about it.

The Founders had to fight a war against the

largest force on earth. They had to figure

out how to found a government based on

a set of principles that had never formed

the basis of a government. The original

Congress was called the Continental

Congress, although no one would understand

the extent of the continent until

Lewis and Clark reported to President

Jefferson in 1806. They had to figure out

a way for the first free government in history

to grow across that continent. These

things took vast acts of imagination. And

this is not even to mention the crisis of

slavery and the Civil War. So the idea that

the complications of the late 19th century

were something new, or were greater by

some order of magnitude, is bunkum.

The second mistake Wilson makes is

fundamental, and goes to the core of the

American idea. Wilson is opposed to the

structure imposed on the government

by the Constitution—for instance, the

separation of powers—because it impedes

what he calls progress. But what idea was

behind that structure? James Madison

writes in Federalist 51:

[W]hat is government itself but the

greatest of all reflections on human

nature? If men were angels, no

government would be necessary. If

angels were to govern men, neither

external nor internal controls on

government would be necessary.

In other words, human nature is such

that human beings need to be governed. We

need government if we are not to descend

into anarchy. But since human beings will

make up the government, government itself

must be limited or it will become tyrannical.

Just as we outside the government

require to be governed, those inside the

government require to be governed. And

that has to be strictly arranged because

those inside the government need, and

they will have, a lot of power.

Against this way of thinking, Wilson

argued that progress and evolution had

brought human beings to a place and

time where we didn’t have to worry about

limited government.

He rejected what the

Founders identified as a fixed or unchanging

human nature, and thought we should

be governed by an elite class of people

who are not subject to political forces or

constitutional checks and balances—a

class of people such as we find in our

modern bureaucracy. This form of government

would operate above politics, acting

impartially in accordance with reason.

Now, it’s pretty easy for us today to

judge whether Wilson or the Founders

were right about this. Look at our government

today. Is the bureaucracy politically

impartial? Is it efficient and rational, as if

staffed by angels? Or is it politically motivated

and massively self-interested?

Rick

Edited January 5, 2012 by FirefightnRick

[UNT90]

We have two parties:

The Democrats which are the centrist party, and the Republicans which are the right/far-right party.

What Americans actually thought in 2009

Seems America disagrees with you. Or they did as recently as 2 years ago. Surely you aren't saying there has been a major shift since then?

[Coffee and TV]

What Americans actually thought in 2009

Seems America disagrees with you. Or they did as recently as 2 years ago. Surely you aren't saying there has been a major shift since then?

Disagrees with me how? I simply stated how I view the current political parties on the political spectrum. I said outright that America is a center-right country compared to the rest of the world.

And yes, I would point out that your graph shows that there's shifts, so 2011 compared to 2009 might be slightly more liberal or moderate. But its not always how people identify themselves, but how they feel about specific issues: namely just look at the survey done recently that showed for the first time since they've been asking, that 50% of the country wants marijuana legalization. Or just look at the major shift in views on civil unions and gay marriage in the last decade alone.

I don't get what you're trying to debate with me here...

[UNT90]

This is what I mean by brick walls.

UNT90 is describing it as "socialized", yet Obamacare didn't even include a public option for buying health care coverage. The public option was a compromise that was suggested by Republicans in the early 90's as an answer to Hillarycare. Republicans. In the early 1990's. Obamacare doesn't even go that far.

We have two parties:

The Democrats which are the centrist party, and the Republicans which are the right/far-right party.

Kind of said as a point of fact, don't you think? And the point is far more Americans consider themselves some form of conservative than liberal. And yes, there may be liberal Republicans, but the conservative wing of the Democrat party was out the door a long time ago, therefore, the majority of Americans disagree with you that the Democrat party is the centrist party in America.

Disagrees with me how? I simply stated how I view the current political parties on the political spectrum. I said outright that America is a center-right country compared to the rest of the world.

And yes, I would point out that your graph shows that there's shifts, so 2011 compared to 2009 might be slightly more liberal or moderate. But its not always how people identify themselves, but how they feel about specific issues: namely just look at the survey done recently that showed for the first time since they've been asking, that 50% of the country wants marijuana legalization. Or just look at the major shift in views on civil unions and gay marriage in the last decade alone.

I don't get what you're trying to debate with me here...

California, the most liberal state iin the union, vote down gay marriage twice, just to have their liberal courts shove it down there throat (he he), anyway. And yes, polls in California show support for gay marriage, yet that never translates to the pricacy of a voting booth. Care to hazzard a guess why?

Edited January 6, 2012 by UNT90

[Coffee and TV]

Kind of said as a point of fact, don't you think? And the point is far more Americans consider themselves some form of conservative than liberal. And yes, there may be liberal Republicans, but the conservative wing of the Democrat party was out the door a long time ago, therefore, the majority of Americans disagree with you that the Democrat party is the centrist party in America.

How do they disagree exactly? I'm still not getting your point. There is no left party in America. Maybe because more people find themselves moderate or conservative, but I still don't see how you're proving me wrong.

California, the most liberal state iin the union,

Incorrect.

vote down gay marriage twice, just to have their liberal courts shove it down there throat, anyway.

Its not as if the court just waved a magic wand and "shoved it down anyone's throat". A lawsuit challenged the law, and the federal appeals court ruled is unconstitutional (rightly so).

And yes, polls in California show support for gay marriage,

Barely.

yet that never translates to the pricacy of a voting booth. Care to hazzard a guess why?

Higher turnout among older voters, and very high black voter turnout because of Obama being on the ticket.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Coffee and TV

[UNT90]

The democrat party is as far left as they have ever been. Pres. Obama is the most liberal president that has ever been elected. The democrat party may be moderate as compared to your personal politics, but it is far left of the nation as a whole.

very debatable

Doesn't surprise me one bit that this is your point of view.

Well, if the people would have really wanted gay marriage, they would have turned out to vote for it. They didn't.

[CMJ]

I think both parties have been becoming more "pure" since the late 90's. That is the whole effing problem, neither side is willing to compromise. At all.

If anyone does they are accused of being a RINO or a DINO. It's pathetic.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Maybe or maybe not...I honestly don't remember. But it wouldn't surprise me if most did vote democratic...now again I am talking if every eligible citizen put in a vote. At worst I think it would probably be split. I tend to think that more of the non voters in this country are democrat than they are republican. Just my thought tho.

The phrase democratic that was used does not mean Democrat or Democratic Party.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

The democrat party is as far left as they have ever been. Pres. Obama is the most liberal president that has ever been elected. The democrat party may be moderate as compared to your personal politics, but it is far left of the nation as a whole.

very debatable

Doesn't surprise me one bit that this is your point of view.

Well, if the people would have really wanted gay marriage, they would have turned out to vote for it. They didn't.

---Most liberal President ???... not at all... Lincoln wanted change and freed slaves, women got to vote later under Wilson.

---Besides those labels seem stupid. Conservative to me means not going into debt and not spending more than you take in... but from 2001-2009 the debt increased more than ever before in American history. Meanwhile from 1993 to 2001 the debt increase by less than 2% per year.... How were they Liberals compared to the other figure.... in fact the only balanced budgets (several) since 1980 occured in that administraton.

---How is it conservative for the government to decide what is the best for a pregnant woman to do. I hate it but early on let the woman chose but later ..NO .. should have made the decision earlier... Am I liberal or conservative? Seems that a liberal would want government to make the decision (isn't that the Liberal definition) and Conservative to let the woman chose and not let government meddle in her personal decisions. I support man/woman marriages only.. Guess I am conservative again. Radical conservatives think Obama is Kenyan, I don't (Liberal?). Conservatives in 1920 did not want women to vote... too dumb... damn liberals thought they should be allowed to... I am Liberal again. Liberals wanted to change things and stop slavery.... Conservatives liked things just as they were... slavery allowed...

---Given all this which are you.?? Stalin was an extreme liberal and socialist... Hitler far from it, he was the extreme right or conservative ...only his kind were in the right and he was very pro-industrialist and even gave them Jewish slaves to work in their factories. He was against religions other than Christian, especially the Jewish one. A lot of Nazis escaped to the very Catholic countries of Argentina and Brazil... some in the church assisted many of them by portraying them as their "agents"..

---Extremes in both directions are bad.... and facts don't fit so-called definition many times.... The 2001-2009 liberal spending government doubled the debt [or equalled all 42 previous administrations combined ] I am confused how that was conservative as some love to claim.

--Today conservative people oppose Romney... he is the wrong religion.. until 1960 no Catholic could get elected, wrong religion. Only five Presidents have names that aren't English or Irish... 3 Dutch names originating from old New Amsterdam or NY ( T.Roosevelt, FD Roosevelt, Van-Buren} one German (Eisenhower,a war hero) plus Obama.. Not a lot of diversity there. No French, Spanish, Italian, Polish, Greek, Oriental, or Nordic names and there are a lot of them here.

..

Edited January 6, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Coffee and TV]

The democrat party is as far left as they have ever been.

Right. NDAA, SOPA, disassociation of Occupy protests, complete disregard for investigating financial collapse, Afghanistan surge, continuation of neocon dentition policies & drone strikes. Yeah, super liberal there. I'm sure there's so much legislation you can point to that proves this statement.

Pres. Obama is the most liberal president that has ever been elected.

This is such utter ignorance I don't even know how to respond. Shit, NIXON was more of a liberal than Obama.

Well, if the people would have really wanted gay marriage, they would have turned out to vote for it. They didn't.

But it hasn't stopped them from becoming more and more accepting of it, no matter how much money and hatred the other side fuels the fire.

[Coffee and TV]

Santorum will crash and burn like the rest of them.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/05/opinion/obeidallah-santorum-sharia/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[FirefightnRick]

---Most liberal President ???... not at all...

Right, since taking office he's fourth, right behind Kennedy, Carter and Clinton.

NYT: How liberal is President Obama?.

But that doesn't count his stances on partial birth bortion while in Illinois and his upbringing and personal associations with individuals who hate nearly everything about our country.

Rick

Edited January 6, 2012 by FirefightnRick

[FirefightnRick]

Santorum will crash and burn like the rest of them.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/05/opinion/obeidallah-santorum-sharia/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Editor's note: Dean Obeidallah is a comedian who has appeared on Comedy Central's "Axis of Evil" special, ABC's "The View," CNN's "What the Week" and HLN's "The Joy Behar Show." He is executive producer of the annual New York Arab-American Comedy Festival and the Amman Stand Up Comedy Festival.

Dean Obeidallah? Never heard of him. Say's he's a comedian so he must be funny I suppose?

Rick

[FirefightnRick]

Speaking of Liberal Presidents.

Washington Post: Obama appoints Richard Cordray to head consumer watchdog bureau

CLEVELAND — In a bold act of political defiance, President Obama installed Richard Cordray as head of a new consumer watchdog agency Wednesday, bypassing Republican opposition in the Senate that derailed his nomination last month....

...Constitutional question

The political debate over Obama’s appointment of Cordray hinges on the question of how long a legislative recess is necessary for a president to be able to install a nominee without Senate approval.

Republicans argue that precedent, over the past two decades, has been that no president can make such an appointment during a recess of less than 10 days.

Democrats contend that according to that standard, Republicans’ move to hold “pro forma” sessions every three days while both chambers are on a longer recess would effectively block the White House from ever making a recess appointment. Such sessions are “a sham,” Democrats and the White House argue – even though Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) used the same tactic to block President George W. Bush from making recess appointments in 2007 and 2008.

Complicating matters is the fact that the Constitution doesn’t explicitly say how much time is needed for a recess appointment to be made.

AP: Obama bypasses Senate to fill labor board posts

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama recess-appointed three members to the National Labor Relations Board on Wednesday, bypassing fierce opposition from Republicans who claim the agency has leaned too far in favor of unions....

....Obama's action prevents the board from losing much of its power for the rest of the year. The NLRB is supposed to have five members, but it has operated for months with only three. This week, it is down to just two members, after Democrat Craig Becker completed his term. The agency is not allowed to conduct regular business with only two members.

Senate Republicans, hoping to effectively shut the agency down, had vowed to block any more appointees to prevent any further key decisions affecting labor relations. Last month, all 47 Senate Republicans sent Obama a letter warning that bypassing the Senate would set a dangerous precedent.

Rick

Edited January 6, 2012 by FirefightnRick

[KRAM1]

Right. NDAA, SOPA, disassociation of Occupy protests, complete disregard for investigating financial collapse, Afghanistan surge, continuation of neocon dentition policies & drone strikes. Yeah, super liberal there. I'm sure there's so much legislation you can point to that proves this statement.

This is such utter ignorance I don't even know how to respond. Shit, NIXON was more of a liberal than Obama.

But it hasn't stopped them from becoming more and more accepting of it, no matter how much money and hatred the other side fuels the fire.

WOW...got to give you props here for even knowing about SOPA! While your comments should be on Comedy Central, I give you credit for knowing about SOPA. Hmmmmmmmmmmm......

[UNT90]

Right. NDAA, SOPA, disassociation of Occupy protests, complete disregard for investigating financial collapse, Afghanistan surge, continuation of neocon dentition policies & drone strikes. Yeah, super liberal there. I'm sure there's so much legislation you can point to that proves this statement.

This is such utter ignorance I don't even know how to respond. Shit, NIXON was more of a liberal than Obama.

But it hasn't stopped them from becoming more and more accepting of it, no matter how much money and hatred the other side fuels the fire.

Thanks for a good morning laugh.

[Coffee and TV]

Brick walls.

[Coffee and TV]

Revised New Hampshire Predictions:

Romney - 44%

Paul - 22%

Santorum- 13%

Huntsman - 9%

Gingrich - 7%

Perry - 4%

[UNTFan23]

Right. NDAA, SOPA, disassociation of Occupy protests, complete disregard for investigating financial collapse, Afghanistan surge, continuation of neocon dentition policies & drone strikes. Yeah, super liberal there. I'm sure there's so much legislation you can point to that proves this statement.

This is such utter ignorance I don't even know how to respond. Shit, NIXON was more of a liberal than Obama.

But it hasn't stopped them from becoming more and more accepting of it, no matter how much money and hatred the other side fuels the fire.

Unfortunately, it looks like SOPA has bi-partisan support. SOPA may very well be the worst thing to ever hit the internet and while certain trade groups say it will help save jobs, it will ultimately hurt others, especially legitimate internet based companies.