I'm thinking of becoming a "Blue Republican"

[GSUAlumniEagle]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koe ... tml?page=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've said it here a million times -- I have a man crush on Ron Paul. I just don't know if I could ever vote for someone that's fiscal policies including removing the Fed, IRS, DOE, etc.

But correct me where I'm wrong here. As head of the Executive Branch, Paul would have the most leeway in things that I agree with him on -- social liberties, use of the military, wiretapping, etc. In areas where I disagree with him (fiscally), he'd be more restricted by the legislative bodies. There's no way a removal of the Fed, IRS, and especially the DOE is getting through Congress (at least not in the next 4 [or, gasp!, 8] years).

Could he use his powers as president and his leadership of the Republican Party to do some damage to welfare programs and entitlements that I support? Sure. But I don't support *all* of the welfare programs and entitlements anyway, and again there's going to be a Democratic check from the democrats in Congress there as well. And beyond that - since I distinguish myself as a democrat mostly due to social issues, wouldn't I enjoy the social aspects of Paul as POTUS more than I would despise the fiscal aspects of him in office?

Correct me where I'm wrong.

[Pwns]

Even if he is too far right on economics for most folks, having someone like him for a term could do some good. Ralph Nader wrote a message of support for him in the last primary season and makes an analogy to getting an enema.

http://www.newsgroper.com/ralph-nader/2 ... or-america" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

People always give me a hard time for voting for indies and third party guys (and many of them can be "out there") but IMO we need a president with guts more than we need one who is brilliant and ideologically in sync with America.

By the way, what's so radical about getting rid of the fed?? That's one thing that pretty much every major third party (left wing and right wing) agrees on.

[kalm]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koe ... tml?page=1

I've said it here a million times -- I have a man crush on Ron Paul. I just don't know if I could ever vote for someone that's fiscal policies including removing the Fed, IRS, DOE, etc.

But correct me where I'm wrong here. As head of the Executive Branch, Paul would have the most leeway in things that I agree with him on -- social liberties, use of the military, wiretapping, etc. In areas where I disagree with him (fiscally), he'd be more restricted by the legislative bodies. There's no way a removal of the Fed, IRS, and especially the DOE is getting through Congress (at least not in the next 4 [or, gasp!, 8] years).

Could he use his powers as president and his leadership of the Republican Party to do some damage to welfare programs and entitlements that I support? Sure. But I don't support *all* of the welfare programs and entitlements anyway, and again there's going to be a Democratic check from the democrats in Congress there as well. And beyond that - since I distinguish myself as a democrat mostly due to social issues, wouldn't I enjoy the social aspects of Paul as POTUS more than I would despise the fiscal aspects of him in office?

Correct me where I'm wrong.

Interesting article and I agree with much of what you say.

The following excerpt shows how little things have changed and I think the only way we will ever see significant change is if the shit hits the fan or we elect a leader with the stones to buck the establishment. Although Supreme Court nominations should also weigh into this somewhere.

However, the second election President Bush was not excused, because by 2004, the modus operandi of the Bush administration was clear. He wanted to 1) conduct wars against countries that did not threaten us (e.g. Iraq), 2) oversee large financial benefits to companies with which those in his administration were close (e.g. Halliburton), 3) establish a legal framework for riding roughshod over the liberties of private individuals who are not suspected of crime (e.g. Patriot Act), and 4) establish a massive federal apparatus to carry out such intrusions on innocent Americans in what is becoming a police state (e.g. domestic wiretapping, TSA etc... )

The more-or-less global delight upon Obama's election in 2008 followed largely from the hope that Americans had realized what a mistake they had made with Bush's second term and were therefore voting against the egregious actions of the then Republican establishment.

When most Americans voted for "Hope" and "Change," the above four objectives were at the top of their list of what they "hoped" would be "changed."

After two years, however, we now see that Obama 1) conducts wars against countries that do not threaten us (e.g. Libya, Yemen etc.), 2) oversees large financial benefits to companies with which those in his administration were close (e.g. Goldman Sachs), 3) supports the legal framework for riding roughshod over the liberties of private individuals who are not suspected of crime (e.g. Patriot Act), and 4) is growing a massive federal apparatus to carry out such intrusions on innocent Americans in what is becoming a police state (e.g. domestic wiretapping, TSA etc.. )

[ASUG8]

Great post Kalm. Toss in BO's $1T gamble on the economy (in which unemployment just ticked up again today) and you've got it nailed.

[Ivytalk]

I'm always amazed how the Conks and Donks on this board can bash each others' heads in 23 hours a day, and somehow find time for an hour of agreement on that little libertarian troll. It couldn't be his sex appeal.

[kalm]

I'm always amazed how the Conks and Donks on this board can bash each others' heads in 23 hours a day, and somehow find time for an hour of agreement on that little libertarian troll. It couldn't be his sex appeal.

It's a united hatred of establishment types such as yourself. I'll bet you wore double polo's in the 80's.

[JohnStOnge]

Hopefully one day it'll dawn on you "anti-establishment" types that it doesn't GET any more "establishment" than Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. If you're in favor of maintaining those programs indefinitely, you're "establishment" all the way.

[kalm]

Hopefully one day it'll dawn on you "anti-establishment" types that it doesn't GET any more "establishment" than Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. If you're in favor of maintaining those programs indefinitely, you're "establishment" all the way.

Excellent point JSO! There's nothing worse than when the establishment poor oppresses the rich by getting home loans they can't afford, and not making enough in wages to pay income tax. I say tax the poor, and buy the hedge fund managers some pitch forks!

[Ibanez]

Even if he is too far right on economics for most folks, having someone like him for a term could do some good. Ralph Nader wrote a message of support for him in the last primary season and makes an analogy to getting an enema.

http://www.newsgroper.com/ralph-nader/2 ... or-america" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

People always give me a hard time for voting for indies and third party guys (and many of them can be "out there") but IMO we need a president with guts more than we need one who is brilliant and ideologically in sync with America.

By the way, what's so radical about getting rid of the fed?? That's one thing that pretty much every major third party (left wing and right wing) agrees on.

I concur with your assessment. I agree that we need a President, correction, we need LEADERS that will make the necessary cuts, the unpopular decisions that are good for the country inthe long run. It might be an unpopular decision, especially with your constituency, but if you they are made and our economy and deficit situation improves, that politician is golden. Our leaders are blinded by the next elections.

[Ivytalk]

I'm always amazed how the Conks and Donks on this board can bash each others' heads in 23 hours a day, and somehow find time for an hour of agreement on that little libertarian troll. It couldn't be his sex appeal.

It's a united hatred of establishment types such as yourself. I'll bet you wore double polo's in the 80's.

Triple, my boy. Triple.

[JohnStOnge]

Excellent point JSO! There's nothing worse than when the establishment poor oppresses the rich by getting home loans they can't afford, and not making enough in wages to pay income tax. I say tax the poor, and buy the hedge fund managers some pitch forks!

Whatever. Things like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are "establishment" icons. Politicians who suggest even modifying them do so at their own peril.

The "establishment" outlook includes the idea that the mere recognition of the existence of a problem is prima facie evidence that government is responsible for solving it. If you want to be anti establishment, work to get rid of that idea.

[SuperHornet]

I take it, then, that this is NOT the same thing as an "Obama Republican?"



(For those who are wondering, I'm riffing off of the old "Reagan Democrats"....)

[kalm]

It's a united hatred of establishment types such as yourself. I'll bet you wore double polo's in the 80's.

Triple, my boy. Triple.

[kalm]

Excellent point JSO! There's nothing worse than when the establishment poor oppresses the rich by getting home loans they can't afford, and not making enough in wages to pay income tax. I say tax the poor, and buy the hedge fund managers some pitch forks![/quote]

Whatever. Things like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are "establishment" icons. Politicians who suggest even modifying them do so at their own peril.

The "establishment" outlook includes the idea that the mere recognition of the existence of a problem is prima facie evidence that government is responsible for solving it. If you want to be anti establishment, work to get rid of that idea.[/quote]

The establishment is the group of people who are in power. If you're submitting that the majority of Americans who favor preservation of entitlement programs hold the power in this country, then I say yay democracy.

[JohnStOnge]

The "establishment" is the status quo. The things characterized by overwhelming momemtum so that efforts to change them seem hopeless. I think that in this country such things are typically supported by the majority at some point.

[kalm]

The "establishment" is the status quo. The things characterized by overwhelming momemtum so that efforts to change them seem hopeless. I think that in this country such things are typically supported by the majority at some point.

The establishment are those in power.

[JohnStOnge]

The establishment are those in power.

It may be a subtle distinction but I look at it as what was put into place...what has been established...by those in power at some point. And I think it has a momentum so that it is well entrenched and not readily changed. I also think it can go beyond formalized governmental power to social morays, etc. Like I think pressure towards embracing irrational egalitarian philosophy is part of the "establishment" right now. The pressure comes both from governmental policy and social force.

[kalm]

The establishment are those in power.

It may be a subtle distinction but I look at it as what was put into place...what has been established...by those in power at some point. And I think it has a momentum so that it is well entrenched and not readily changed. I also think it can go beyond formalized governmental power to social morays, etc. Like I think pressure towards embracing irrational egalitarian philosophy is part of the "establishment" right now. The pressure comes both from governmental policy and social force.

But not from the private sector? How about from the private sector via government? Good point on history and momentum, but I would submit that it's the establishment that is driving the push to end entitlements because the establishment remains those, who are in power. I think that's the more common understanding.

[houndawg]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koe ... tml?page=1

I've said it here a million times -- I have a man crush on Ron Paul. I just don't know if I could ever vote for someone that's fiscal policies including removing the Fed, IRS, DOE, etc.

But correct me where I'm wrong here. As head of the Executive Branch, Paul would have the most leeway in things that I agree with him on -- social liberties, use of the military, wiretapping, etc. In areas where I disagree with him (fiscally), he'd be more restricted by the legislative bodies. There's no way a removal of the Fed, IRS, and especially the DOE is getting through Congress (at least not in the next 4 [or, gasp!, 8] years).

Could he use his powers as president and his leadership of the Republican Party to do some damage to welfare programs and entitlements that I support? Sure. But I don't support *all* of the welfare programs and entitlements anyway, and again there's going to be a Democratic check from the democrats in Congress there as well. And beyond that - since I distinguish myself as a democrat mostly due to social issues, wouldn't I enjoy the social aspects of Paul as POTUS more than I would despise the fiscal aspects of him in office?

Correct me where I'm wrong.

If you were a real Republican you would blow him in the airport men's room.

[native]

Hopefully one day it'll dawn on you "anti-establishment" types that it doesn't GET any more "establishment" than Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. If you're in favor of maintaining those programs indefinitely, you're "establishment" all the way.

Excellent point JSO! There's nothing worse than when the establishment poor oppresses the rich by getting home loans they can't afford, and not making enough in wages to pay income tax. I say tax the poor, and buy the hedge fund managers some pitch forks!

Even in sarcasm, your doublespeak is breathtaking. You do Orwell proud.

[kalm]

Excellent point JSO! There's nothing worse than when the establishment poor oppresses the rich by getting home loans they can't afford, and not making enough in wages to pay income tax. I say tax the poor, and buy the hedge fund managers some pitch forks!

Even in sarcasm, your doublespeak is breathtaking. You do orwell proud.

Perhaps you wanna go with "newspeak" or "doublethink" as those are terms Orwell actually coined.

Btw, in 1984, Orwell (who would clearly be on Kalm's side here) was describing an Oligarchical Security State in which the masses were kept in check by the ruling elite through a faux news/propaganda machine. They also didn't pay any taxes.

[native]

Even in sarcasm, your doublespeak is breathtaking. You do Orwell proud.

Perhaps you wanna go with "newspeak" or "doublethink" as those are terms Orwell actually coined.

Btw, in 1984, Orwell (who would clearly be on Kalm's side here) was describing an Oligarchical Security State in which the masses were kept in check by the ruling elite through a faux news/propaganda machine. They also didn't pay any taxes.

In "1984," they didn't pay taxes because the state already owned everything. The result in the story, just as today's real-life result of Obama's socialism, is shared misery and lowering everyone but the political elites to the lowest common denominator.

It is impossible to say that either Orwell or Lennon would be on your side today. Despite notable exceptions, like houndawg, people grow up. Maybe someday you will grow up, too.

Hey kalm, when did you start referring to yourself in the third person?!?!???

[CID1990]

Even in sarcasm, your doublespeak is breathtaking. You do orwell proud.

Perhaps you wanna go with "newspeak" or "doublethink" as those are terms Orwell actually coined.

Btw, in 1984, Orwell (who would clearly be on Kalm's side here) was describing an Oligarchical Security State in which the masses were kept in check by the ruling elite through a faux news/propaganda machine. They also didn't pay any taxes.

A better analogy to make would be to say that George Orwell wrote fiction, which is also what you do on this message board.

[Wedgebuster]

Perhaps you wanna go with "newspeak" or "doublethink" as those are terms Orwell actually coined.

Btw, in 1984, Orwell (who would clearly be on Kalm's side here) was describing an Oligarchical Security State in which the masses were kept in check by the ruling elite through a faux news/propaganda machine. They also didn't pay any taxes.

A better analogy to make would be to say that George Orwell wrote fiction, which is also what you do on this message board.

Cid, he never brought up Orwell, the shill naive did that.

[kalm]

Perhaps you wanna go with "newspeak" or "doublethink" as those are terms Orwell actually coined.

Btw, in 1984, Orwell (who would clearly be on Kalm's side here) was describing an Oligarchical Security State in which the masses were kept in check by the ruling elite through a faux news/propaganda machine. They also didn't pay any taxes.

A better analogy to make would be to say that George Orwell wrote fiction, which is also what you do on this message board.

Whoa, zinger!

In all truthiness, you are partly correct there Cid. But unlike Native, I only believe some of my own bullshit.