Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Erand -
Opposing the seperation of church and state IS a hard right topic, IMHO.
I also think pouring money into the military when the US already spends more money on arms than the next 25 biggest spenders combined is a policy closer to Nationalism than Conservatism.
I am not suggesting that everything the GOP says and does is far right, because obviously there are plenty of moderates within the party, too.
Well, your opinion is wrong. The separation of church and state was created by the supreme court from one statement made by Thomas Jefferson, who had nothing to do with writing or adopting the Constitution. The actions by our first congress is proof positive that they had no concept of separation of church and state.
Again, you are wrong. We have learned over the last ten years, that our military was not large enough to fight two regional wars for a sustained period of time. We are also looking at China's effort to build a blue water navy that can prevent us from defending Japan and Taiwan. A strong military is the best guarantee that adversaries will not be tempted to attack us.
Forty percent of the American electorate self identify themselves as conservative. Only twenty percent self identify themselves as liberal, but our country has been governed by liberals for far too long.
Have you ever noticed that liberal Democrats sound more conservative than conservative Republicans at election time. They know where the country is.
1. if the supreme court says it's law -- it's law.
2. everything the founders did, was to make sure that government and religion weren't interconnected.
3.of the people who "self-identify as conservatives", most are radical reactionaries.
it isn't 'conservative' to want government involved in the most intimate decisions of the populace.
How many republican votes did Obolshevikcare get?Izzatafact?Of course there are extremists in both parties. But I view the Democrats as more accepting of moderates. I don't see a concerted drive to expunge them from the base as I do amongst the extremist Republicans.
Seems you missed the 2006 Democrat primary, for the Senate seat in Connecticut.
Thanks for that one example.
Democrats would claim Pol Pot is a moderate if he was running for office in this country.
And Mother Teresa would be a religious extremist according to the left. The left lost their tenuous grasp on reality long ago.
That depends - is refusing pain medication to Aids patients extreme?
Is hanging out with fascist thugs like Papa Doc Duvalier extreme?
Ronald Reagan: "Statement on Signing the Special Foreign Assistance Act of 1986 ," October 24, 1986. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. Retrieved December 4, 2011 from Ronald Reagan: Statement on Signing the Special Foreign Assistance Act of 1986.I must note, however, that section 204 of the bill states that the President shall exercise certain authoritiesdefined by reference to the authorities granted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Actto assist the Haitian Government to recover the assets it alleges were stolen by former President Jean-Claude Duvalier and his associates.
Pure, unadulterated horsepuckey.They did a whole lot to make sure government and corporations weren't connected too....
Pure, unadulterated horsepuckey.They did a whole lot to make sure government and corporations weren't connected too....
There are no corporations without gubmint to charter them....There is no separation in a symbiotic relationship.
You're funny
got proof?
r u serious? What I can't figure out is if the 1% are happy or sad that their party is being represented by hard rw social cons. Where were you during the rw HC town halls/shout fest in 2010
If you're selling something (i.e. limited liabilities for lawsuits) you have a buyer/seller symbiotic relationship, your naïve notions notwithstanding.Pure, unadulterated horsepuckey.They did a whole lot to make sure government and corporations weren't connected too....
There are no corporations without gubmint to charter them....There is no separation in a symbiotic relationship.
It wasn't supposed to BE "symbiotic," Oddball, corporations were supposed to be subordinate.
As planned by the founding fathers, a state granted corporate charters, which did not grant rights to corporations, but instead granted them limited dispensation to operate their businesses until or unless they abused the terms of their contract, in which case the state revoked the charter and the privilege it conveyed.171 These charters limited corporate ability (rather than liability) to avoid responsibility for their actions, set limits on what they could damage, and regulated how they could operate in order to make sure that what they did, at the very least, did not damage the fabric of a decent society.
Established: Effective June 1, 1871, by an act of February 21, 1871 (16 Stat. 419), abolishing the Corporations of the City of Washington, DC, and Georgetown, DC, and the Levy Court of Washington County, DC; and replacing them with a municipal corporation known as the District of Columbia.
Democrats would claim Pol Pot is a moderate if he was running for office in this country.
And Mother Teresa would be a religious extremist according to the left. The left lost their tenuous grasp on reality long ago.
That depends - is refusing pain medication to Aids patients extreme?
Is hanging out with fascist thugs like Papa Doc Duvalier extreme?
Good bye and good ridance.
Who won the House in 2010, make it stronger in 2012 and possibly take back the senate ?
Ask Dick Lugar.
Lugar would have easily won re-election. Mourdock may lose in a heavily Republican state. The long term implications of chasing the moderates out of the Republican Party are going to weigh heavily on the party for some time to come.
Somebody brought up Blue Dog democrats.
I posted an article about how two of them were run out by more extreme party members.
Notice how La-Sploda posted about that....
It's O.K. to push moderates out of one party...but not the other.
They also conveniently ignore all the arm twisting of the so-called "moderates" on the democrat side, when we got Obolshevikcare jammed up our asses.Somebody brought up Blue Dog democrats.
I posted an article about how two of them were run out by more extreme party members.
Notice how La-Sploda posted about that....
It's O.K. to push moderates out of one party...but not the other.
I hear libertarians labelled as far left (usually by social conservatives), as far right (usually by progressives), and as moderates
Agreed on that I'm always called a Republican/Conservative by the left and a liberal by the social right. The fiscal right do recognize I'm a libertarian. Though I am not called nor do I see other libertarian's called moderate, and I hope I never do. Moderate simply means without conviction. I am clearly socially liberal, I am clearly fiscally conservative, I clearly want our military used only for direct defense of the US. I'm consistently anti-government, I'm moderate on nothing.
I don't think the leadership of either major party is 'hard' anything. They agree on most of the essentials and are dominated by a corporatist/authoritarian philosophy of government.
I agree with this on the Republican side, and that's no compliment. They support nothing but winning elections. But wow, seriously, you don't see Pelosi/Reid/Obama as extreme? What would it take?
They're certainly not "hard left". They're not socialists. I might agree that they're extreme statists, but I'd say the same of the neo-cons.
Somebody brought up Blue Dog democrats.
I posted an article about how two of them were run out by more extreme party members.
Notice how La-Sploda posted about that....
It's O.K. to push moderates out of one party...but not the other.
if you would believe what you read from the lefties on this forum anyone that is registered GOP is a radical.
We are all nazis
RE: Lakunta,rdean and the rest of the gang
Somebody brought up Blue Dog democrats.
I posted an article about how two of them were run out by more extreme party members.
Notice how La-Sploda posted about that....
It's O.K. to push moderates out of one party...but not the other.
if you would believe what you read from the lefties on this forum anyone that is registered GOP is a radical.
We are all nazis
RE: Lakunta,rdean and the rest of the gang
Who cares about them...when Romney wins, they are all going to concentration camps anyway.
Somebody brought up Blue Dog democrats.
I posted an article about how two of them were run out by more extreme party members.
Notice how La-Sploda posted about that....
It's O.K. to push moderates out of one party...but not the other.
if you would believe what you read from the lefties on this forum anyone that is registered GOP is a radical.
We are all nazis
RE: Lakunta,rdean and the rest of the gang
Who cares about them...when Romney wins, they are all going to concentration camps anyway.
They also conveniently ignore all the arm twisting of the so-called "moderates" on the democrat side, when we got Obolshevikcare jammed up our asses.Somebody brought up Blue Dog democrats.
I posted an article about how two of them were run out by more extreme party members.
Notice how La-Sploda posted about that....
It's O.K. to push moderates out of one party...but not the other.
Glad to help Who r u votin for this time @ anyway
If you're selling something (i.e. limited liabilities for lawsuits) you have a buyer/seller symbiotic relationship, your naïve notions notwithstanding.Pure, unadulterated horsepuckey.
There are no corporations without gubmint to charter them....There is no separation in a symbiotic relationship.
It wasn't supposed to BE "symbiotic," Oddball, corporations were supposed to be subordinate.
As planned by the founding fathers, a state granted corporate charters, which did not grant rights to corporations, but instead granted them limited dispensation to operate their businesses until or unless they abused the terms of their contract, in which case the state revoked the charter and the privilege it conveyed.171 These charters limited corporate ability (rather than liability) to avoid responsibility for their actions, set limits on what they could damage, and regulated how they could operate in order to make sure that what they did, at the very least, did not damage the fabric of a decent society.
BTW, the biggest baddest multinational corporation in the world is called "District of Columbia, which was chartered in 1871.
From the National Archives:
Established: Effective June 1, 1871, by an act of February 21, 1871 (16 Stat. 419), abolishing the Corporations of the City of Washington, DC, and Georgetown, DC, and the Levy Court of Washington County, DC; and replacing them with a municipal corporation known as the District of Columbia.
Records of the Government of the District of Columbia
They also conveniently ignore all the arm twisting of the so-called "moderates" on the democrat side, when we got Obolshevikcare jammed up our asses.Somebody brought up Blue Dog democrats.
I posted an article about how two of them were run out by more extreme party members.
Notice how La-Sploda posted about that....
It's O.K. to push moderates out of one party...but not the other.
Its called "Obamneycare" and it was developed by the AEI (heard of them?[hint: they aint a progressive organization]) and implemented by Romney (R) (heard of him?)
When they're offering protection to corporate straw men, they're selling something.If you're selling something (i.e. limited liabilities for lawsuits) you have a buyer/seller symbiotic relationship, your naïve notions notwithstanding.It wasn't supposed to BE "symbiotic," Oddball, corporations were supposed to be subordinate.
As planned by the founding fathers, a state granted corporate charters, which did not grant rights to corporations, but instead granted them limited dispensation to operate their businesses until or unless they abused the terms of their contract, in which case the state revoked the charter and the privilege it conveyed.171 These charters limited corporate ability (rather than liability) to avoid responsibility for their actions, set limits on what they could damage, and regulated how they could operate in order to make sure that what they did, at the very least, did not damage the fabric of a decent society.
BTW, the biggest baddest multinational corporation in the world is called "District of Columbia, which was chartered in 1871.
From the National Archives:
Established: Effective June 1, 1871, by an act of February 21, 1871 (16 Stat. 419), abolishing the Corporations of the City of Washington, DC, and Georgetown, DC, and the Levy Court of Washington County, DC; and replacing them with a municipal corporation known as the District of Columbia.
Records of the Government of the District of Columbia
The government wasn't selling anything back when it was doing its due diligence to protect ACTUAL citizens from the grasping and abuse of virtual (legally constructed) "citizens."
