UConn James Posted July 6, 2006 Posted July 6, 2006 Yeah, no Democrats are rich or into big business (or big Labor). Uncle Teddy really cares about how the price of gas impacts your daily life. Well, as long as it doesn't spoil his view. 719022[/snapback] Not for nothing, but after a resolution to the environmental impact stuff he had concerns about, Teddy is backing the wind farms now. It's actually Mitt Romney ® as the most notable who doesn't want the turbines out there (even tho they can't be seen from shore probably 80% of the time, and when they can, they're specks). More on all this here.
king bucko Posted July 6, 2006 Posted July 6, 2006 I'm a conservative republican and some of the things this administration has done makes me wonder what party Bush aligns himself with. He's seems to be big gov't and big spending. The problem is between Bush and Fox News, people assume every conservative republican is a bible beating, free right impeding, country taking over Bush lover. I'm no liberal, but our party can do a lot better than George Bush.
UConn James Posted July 6, 2006 Posted July 6, 2006 I'm no liberal, but our party can do a lot better than George Bush. 719095[/snapback] It just chooses not to.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 6, 2006 Posted July 6, 2006 It just chooses not to. 719116[/snapback] Sadly, both parties choose not to...
king bucko Posted July 6, 2006 Posted July 6, 2006 It just chooses not to. 719116[/snapback] Its like baseball in the playoffs, all about the match ups Would you throw your ace against a fifth starter? When I saw that the Dems were trotting out John Kerry, I thought to myself, good move guys, why put a moderate Dem out there that could get some GOP voters who were exasperated with Bush, when they could put the Ketchup boy on the ticket? Gore pretty much talked his way out the White House, non-loyal party moderates are not going to vote for a guy that would keep us out of war by boring any aggressers into a coma. Bush was just more personable and to those voters sometimes they just have to be sold. When Bush won the nomination, I remember thinking that we were toast. This upcoming election should be interesting with Clinton, the Governor from New Mexico, and the like getting a chance. I just hope that the GOP will put someone out there that bears some resemblance to our party and not some crazy baptist minister.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 6, 2006 Posted July 6, 2006 Its like baseball in the playoffs, all about the match ups Would you throw your ace against a fifth starter? 719239[/snapback] Actually, it's almost exactly unlike that.
slothrop Posted July 6, 2006 Posted July 6, 2006 I'm no librertarian, but Jefferson had it right. The government that governs least governs best.They could get rid of the Dept. of Education for one. 716819[/snapback] Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Jefferson on of the firsts to advocate for a public education system as a necessary component of an informed ellectorate?
UConn James Posted July 7, 2006 Posted July 7, 2006 This upcoming election should be interesting with Clinton, the Governor from New Mexico, and the like getting a chance. I just hope that the GOP will put someone out there that bears some resemblance to our party and not some crazy baptist minister. 719239[/snapback] It'll be interesting for sure. First wide-open race (meaning no incumbent or sitting VP running) since the '50s, iirc. Lots will be fleshed out on which direction the parties will be headed. Quite a few good candidates have been mentioned from both sides, and quite a few people who shouldn't be President of a McDonald's men's room. I'm still a registered Repub yet haven't voted that way in awhile (been meaning to change it for a few years now but our primaries don't mean jack-schitt anyway). Several times I've written in "None of the Above." I think there's about a 12% chance of getting that real fiscally-conservative candidate rather than said crazy baptist minister. Just the way it is now.
Orton's Arm Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Jefferson on of the firsts to advocate for a public education system as a necessary component of an informed ellectorate? 719262[/snapback] This is the second time in this thread where someone has made the assumption that the Department of Education actually helps students learn more. I'm unaware of any evidence to support the view that the U.S. education system is designed to educate. We spend more per child than anyone else in the world, yet have the worst results of any industrialized nation. Students are often asked to memorize, but seldom if ever are taught memorization techniques. Back in the '70s, history books and other verbal textbooks were dumbed down. Vocabulary, sentence structure, ideas; all were made less challenging. While these changes hurt gifted students the most, they also harmed average students. Only below-average students were helped by this. Moreover, I've read that for every dollar spent on gifted education, $99 is spent on remedial education. The public school system has almost completely abandoned gifted children, and is doing a poor job with average ones too. But the present bureaucrat-choice model of education prevents students from switching away from the schools that have abandoned them. A parent-choice model would allow students to attend whichever schools were most committed to helping students reach their full potential. The fact this model isn't being pursued is a result of two factors: misguided leftist thought, and the self-interested actions of the National Educators Association (NEA). The two go together, because the NEA (not that NEA) is a deeply leftist organization, and until recently was headed by an outright socialist. This powerful union, made up of education bureaucrats and teachers, is guided by the ideology of its leaders. The most relevant part of this ideology is the search for equality. Specifically, it's felt all students should achieve equal results. Slower students are helped as much as possible, while brighter students are deliberately denied material they would find challenging. If we want the U.S. to have a competitive education system, the first step we must take is to eliminate the NEA. In general, government employees shouldn't be unionized, because the unions lobby for more spending and more waste. In this case, the NEA has been a total, complete, and unmitigated disaster. It should be the very first government employees union to go.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 This is the second time in this thread where someone has made the assumption that the Department of Education actually helps students learn more. I'm unaware of any evidence to support the view that the U.S. education system is designed to educate. We spend more per child than anyone else in the world, yet have the worst results of any industrialized nation. Students are often asked to memorize, but seldom if ever are taught memorization techniques. Back in the '70s, history books and other verbal textbooks were dumbed down. Vocabulary, sentence structure, ideas; all were made less challenging. While these changes hurt gifted students the most, they also harmed average students. Only below-average students were helped by this. Moreover, I've read that for every dollar spent on gifted education, $99 is spent on remedial education. The public school system has almost completely abandoned gifted children, and is doing a poor job with average ones too. But the present bureaucrat-choice model of education prevents students from switching away from the schools that have abandoned them. A parent-choice model would allow students to attend whichever schools were most committed to helping students reach their full potential. The fact this model isn't being pursued is a result of two factors: misguided leftist thought, and the self-interested actions of the National Educators Association (NEA). The two go together, because the NEA (not that NEA) is a deeply leftist organization, and until recently was headed by an outright socialist. This powerful union, made up of education bureaucrats and teachers, is guided by the ideology of its leaders. The most relevant part of this ideology is the search for equality. Specifically, it's felt all students should achieve equal results. Slower students are helped as much as possible, while brighter students are deliberately denied material they would find challenging. If we want the U.S. to have a competitive education system, the first step we must take is to eliminate the NEA. In general, government employees shouldn't be unionized, because the unions lobby for more spending and more waste. In this case, the union has been a total, complete, and unmitigated disaster. 724183[/snapback] HEAR HEAR! Excellent post. I'm shocked! I've always felt that we should promote the brighter students and let the less capable reamin that way. After all, is it not better to allow the brighter child to achieve transcendence, or drag the slow kid up to mere averageness?
Orton's Arm Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 Scroll down to myth #8. I am not claiming the other guys are any better. I am just curious what Republicans have to say about this. I myself am a hardcore libertarian and believe all the government ought to be involved is police and military. 716595[/snapback] Stossel makes a number of valid points. But point #7 isn't one of them. The world is getting too crowded. Stossel thinks otherwise because, "Every year we learn how to grow more food on less land." While this has been true in the past, it's impossible for this trend to continue forever. The sun only sends a certain number of solar calories to any given square foot of land each year. No matter how wonderful your technology, you'll never convert more than 100% of those solar calories into food calories. Due to the plant's own needs, and to other factors, you're always going to get considerably less. Past farming improvements may have taken things from, say, 2% efficiency to 4% efficiency, and then maybe 8%. But it's foolish and irresponsible to pretend this can go on forever. There's a hard ceiling somewhere. It may be close to 100%, or it may be a lot lower. No one knows. But if the world's population keeps increasing, with the expectation that farming will keep improving, then sooner or later there will be problems. In fact, there will be outright disaster. Once industrialized nations implemented disease control measures, they waited 30 years or so, and then sharply curtailed their birth rates. Later on, these disease control measures were implemented in Third World nations. It's been well over 70 years since those measures were implemented, but Third World birth rates are still resulting in rapid population expansion. This population expansion has led to poverty, destruction of rain forests, and other problems. Many Third World nations have found it easier to send their surplus population to the U.S. or Europe, than to deal with the underlying problem of population explosion. But this is only a short-term measure. In time, the U.S. and Europe will become part of the Third World; and there will be nowhere to send the extra people. Someday, the problem of Third World population expansion will be solved. If we humans are unwilling or unable to solve this problem ourselves, nature will solve it for us. Nature has many attributes, but kindness and mercy are not among them.
KD in CA Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 In general, government employees shouldn't be unionized, because the unions lobby for more spending and more waste. Bingo.
Wacka Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 #8- neither oarty has ever shrun the government, but republicans have lowered the rate of growth at various times. Right now we can't because of the war. #7- The US is not crowded. I heard on the radio last week that if you built homes with 4 people to a house and homes anbout the average size in sq footage (not including hte yards) and packed them close together and started at SanDiego. the entire US population could fit nto California from the upper part of LA south.
Alaska Darin Posted July 18, 2006 Posted July 18, 2006 #8- neither oarty has ever shrun the government, but republicans have lowered the rate of growth at various times. Right now we can't because of the war. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Your "Republican Apologist" act is never going to get old. Apparently your party can't multitask, huh? President Bush has pretty much broken every campaign promise he made. Including: 1. We're not going to meddle in affairs of other soveriegn nations. 2. We're not going to be the world's policemen. 3. We're not going to solve problems by creating new federal bureaucracies. 4. Hasn't vetoed a single spending bill. Keep making excuses for him, lemming.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 18, 2006 Posted July 18, 2006 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Your "Republican Apologist" act is never going to get old. Apparently your party can't multitask, huh? 724461[/snapback] I don't know if you've noticed...but the Republicans actually can't multi-task.
UConn James Posted July 18, 2006 Posted July 18, 2006 I don't know if you've noticed...but the Republicans actually can't multi-task. 724463[/snapback] No sh--. When's the last time a Republican used a conjunction in a sentence? It's like reading Hemingway. Only not.
Alaska Darin Posted July 18, 2006 Posted July 18, 2006 I don't know if you've noticed...but the Republicans actually can't multi-task. 724463[/snapback] Must stay on message...
cromagnum Posted July 18, 2006 Posted July 18, 2006 Not for nothing, but after a resolution to the environmental impact stuff he had concerns about, Teddy is backing the wind farms now. It's actually Mitt Romney ® as the most notable who doesn't want the turbines out there (even tho they can't be seen from shore probably 80% of the time, and when they can, they're specks). More on all this here. 719064[/snapback] In the other thread about presidential candidates, I read where you would slant towards romney. I would say in the primaries he get's labeled as a northeast rino and a flip-flopper and the conservative base wouldn't back him. The attack ads will show romney as a conservative utah mormon who pandered to liberals in mass to get elected governor. And now is trying to steer more conservative on his abortion stance for the upcoming run for the president. Right now my money is on gingrich, he has been getting significant exsposure on the media and is taking a hardline on the mid-east iranian issue/same with DPRK.
UConn James Posted July 18, 2006 Posted July 18, 2006 In the other thread about presidential candidates, I read where you would slant towards romney. I would say in the primaries he get's labeled as a northeast rino and a flip-flopper and the conservative base wouldn't back him.The attack ads will show romney as a conservative utah mormon who pandered to liberals in mass to get elected governor. And now is trying to steer more conservative on his abortion stance for the upcoming run for the president. Right now my money is on gingrich, he has been getting significant exsposure on the media and is taking a hardline on the mid-east iranian issue/same with DPRK. 724476[/snapback] Romney ain't a RINO. He's had to do battle with a lot of Dems at times (e.g. the gay marriage stuff; he's trying to get it in a constitutional ballot rather than legislated thru the court), worked with them to get things done at others when a program was sensible (e.g. the state-wide health coverage that wouldn't cost very much and helps streamline; over time I think it might save them money). Takes charge when things go wrong. Last week he took control of the DOT after a woman was killed by a falling concrete slab in the Big Dig; since learned that all similar construction is at risk. Closed the tunnels. I like him as a leader b/c at least he's practical when a problem comes up where 95 percent of politicans would hide under their desks. Don't like his stance on the wind power turbines, but nobody's perfect. I wouldn't say he pandered to liberals. Western MA gave him solid turnout. As I explained there, the NE is a weird place where people elect a liberal legislature and a conservative governor and hope b/w the struggle that it balances out. There's a lot they'd do but their hands are tied.
cromagnum Posted July 18, 2006 Posted July 18, 2006 Romney ain't a RINO. He's had to do battle with a lot of Dems at times (e.g. the gay marriage stuff; he's trying to get it in a constitutional ballot rather than legislated thru the court), worked with them to get things done at others when a program was sensible (e.g. the state-wide health coverage that wouldn't cost very much and helps streamline; over time I think it might save them money). Takes charge when things go wrong. Last week he took control of the DOT after a woman was killed by a falling concrete slab in the Big Dig; since learned that all similar construction is at risk. Closed the tunnels. I like him as a leader b/c at least he's practical when a problem comes up where 95 percent of politicans would hide under their desks. Don't like his stance on the wind power turbines, but nobody's perfect. I wouldn't say he pandered to liberals. Western MA gave him solid turnout. As I explained there, the NE is a weird place where people elect a liberal legislature and a conservative governor and hope b/w the struggle that it balances out. There's a lot they'd do but their hands are tied. 724631[/snapback] I am looking at how the conservatives will paint romney as a northeast rino. Romney is a republican on these issues. Small gov't....death penalty.....same sex marriage....education....drug enforcement policies.....school vouchers....faith based initiatives...... Romney is a democrat on these issues. Health care....enviroment....gun control....min/wage....pro choice....pro affirmative action.... While he is a leader, he will have to deal with these issues/ kind of like lieberman with his stance on the iraq war.
Recommended Posts