Posted on 01/23/2006 5:51:10 AM PST by mr_hammer
George Washington presided over the greatest compromise in our nation's history in moving from the Confederation to the Constitution. He had his principles, but was unafraid of compromise.
Robert Taft was extremely involved in labor issues and I doubt you would claim the Taft-Hartley Act did not demand compromise.
Joseph McCarthy had no need to compromise as his notoriety came from a very narrow charge-weeding out communists from within the government. As effective as he was at that particular effort, I doubt many would have considered him a credible presidential candidate.
My words:
Equally disappointing is the bungling of communication that occurred during Katrina. I am not holding the Federal Government responsible for the suffering, but I am making the point that the more you grow the federal Government the less it will actually be able to accomplish.
Where did I say the President bungled Katrina? Read Paige, read!
Genius Alert: Boortz said today that if we had a National Sales Tax we would be opening new auto factories instead of closing them.
I believe I said trade agreements are about more than just trade. What I want to know is how it and NAFTA have negatively impacted me? I consider labor unions a far greater threat to my economic stability than any of the trade agreements we have.
I spent well over a year posting on FR about CAFTA before it was passed, and I was not alone in doing so. We said many times what the real dangers were, and all we got was flamed.
And since you have just brought it up, I guess it's significant, though I doubt many would agree. BTW, could you link me to the constitutional provisions and sovereignty provisions of the Act? Thanks.
It's always been about compromise. The only governments that don't compromise are tyrannies. Representative government reflects the differing needs of all of its citizens. Within reason, limited government and fiscal responsibility can be improved. Vote in a congress that reflects those priorities. But don't expect it to take us back to 1789.
As for a major 3d party candidate, history reflects what that accomplishes. A 3d party candidate put Clinton into office in 1992, and one put George Bush in office in 2000. Of course, those are not the only 2 examples. It's called shooting oneself in the foot!
I would like to add to the end of your statement "....and at more intrusion, loss-of-local control, and much higher cost."
Your comments about the huge growth in govt under the republicans is obviously striking a raw nerve with some here--as some will defend a growing big govt--as long as it is under a Republican administration.
It's truly amazing, though, that those who defend it now, can't see where that 'bigger, all-knowing, more powerful, more controlling, more intrusive, more expensive, more benevolent government' can lead us when the 'faces change'--under a democratic leadership at some time future date.
I often quote Ronald Reagan (my hero) here.
"No government in civilization has ever voluntarily reduced its size."
Heck, even he couldn't do it.
P.S. Don't let 'em grind you down, your concerns are well-founded.
I disagree with you concerning the Patriot Act, etc., as I believe some spying activity of this sort is not avoidable ss long as we are facing down the possibility of WMD's being smuggled in and set off in our cities.
Otherwise, I'm with you for the most part. With a Republican congressional majority and Republican executive we got CFR passed and approved along with a huge extension of the use to which the commerce clause can be put. Not to mention unprecedented spending on domestic programs.
In short, Republicans, including our president, seem no different than Dems in the belief that government should play a major role in ordering society.
So I no longer feel much loyalty to them, but do continue to vote Republican since the alternative is so unthinkable. But when I get calls asking for more money, I unfortunately have plenty of handy reasons to reel off explaining why I don't want to.
It started with FDR and a stacked supreme court. But you are not going to go back. The toothpaste is out of the tube. You deal with what you can in the context of the current times. Much can be done about balancing the budget, but don't expect to suddenly get a surge of support for eliminating the commerce clause.
Thank you, I new I was going to take a beating, but some things got to be said!
I will gladdly support republicans when and if they ever start becoming conservative again. Until then I will either support a 3rd party, of not vote in that election.
Have you stopped to consider what the ultimate result of this attitude will be? No different than what 'Rats would do, only a bit slower.
Sometimes the best action is to rip the bandaid off quickly and get the pain over with - vote your principles (or don't vote at all if there are no candidates with your principles) and if the 'Rats get back in maybe America will learn a harsh lesson sooner rather than later.
The way things are going under Republicans, a slow slide to 'Ratdom is inevitable even if they retain power.
America deserves better than alternating power between two Big Stupid Government parties.
No, it's just that at a certain point in a conversation, some folks stop and challenge the other as to whether they are conservative enough for this board. I believe my posting history speaks for itself.
Other motive's? I do fear the anointing of McCain or the Gun Grabber Giuliani. Neither of them will do for me! Rudy is undoubtedly the smarter. I can't stomach his social politics. McCain, what can I say? His person seems a lot like Dean.
If either of them is nominated, then that would certainly reflect a move toward the center for the Party. But that would not encourage me to give a vote to Hillary, by withholding my vote for the Republican.
Also, I had to take the day off for other reasons and posted the rant exactly at 9:00am. I wanted to be around, so as not to be thought of as a drive by.
Nothing wrong with ranting. But be prepared to defend it. So far, you are a bit short in that category. By saying you voted for Bush in 2004 and then complain about what he did in his first term does not assign a lot of credibility to your position.
Once again, "Don't let 'em grind you down".
I returned mine with a little note that said that the "Minutemen" would be getting the donations that the GOP used to get from me.
If you are trying to drag me into an idealogical discusion, that will not work. Your going to have to face the fact that I am just a fella that works 16 hours a day and sees the party backing up from what it touted during the elections, smaller government and adhearence to the Constitution.
Read the rant! It's quite simple.
How about a nice, aged Limberger with that whine of yours?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.