After posting my last thread on spite towards people in the public spotlight, I thought I should come out. So, here is a little overview of my political beliefs that I thought you might enjoy.
I think that there is a LOT of misunderstanding of republicans vs. democrats, liberals vs. conservatives.
I consider myself a hardcore Republican...so some of this stuff might really shock you, based upon what you've heard in the past. You've been warned! muahahahha
I thought I'd come out of the political closet, yes everyone - I am a Republican. There is a dirty little R next to my name when I check-in to vote every election. Actually, I always vote absentee because I've always worked on Election Day....anyways,
I believe in personal reponsibility.
I believe in limited government.
I believe that people are best suited to manage their own lives.
Do Democrats belief in this stuff, too? Some do, sure. I vote Republican because the candidate's usually represent those core beliefs for me. Democrats in my opinion, usually do not, simple as that. Do I hate democrats, or think they're evil? No, not at all. I've even voted for some in local elections. Am I writing this to tell people to vote Republican? No! I'm not that naive to think that I can change your views, nor would I want to! Your beliefs are based upon your life experiences; we all have had different ones. That's what makes life interesting.
Shocking facts about this Republican:
I love kittens and puppies and the color pink. Sorry, I couldn't resist.
I love the fact that we have a partisan political system, therefore I'm glad that the Democratic Party exists. Each side can question the other, so can everyone in between. I just wish it was more respectful.
I believe in strong national security and tight borders, but I'm not sure if I like the War in Iraq. Should we still be there? I don't think so, but I can't say for sure because I don't work at a high level job at the pentagon. Also, it makes me wonder if there is classified info that you and I aren't privy to since President Obama is still sending troops over.
I don't think President Obama is going to destroy our country over the next 4 (or in my opinion), 8 years. I didn't build an underground shelter or stock up on dry goods. I think we'll all make it.
I actually like Michelle Obama and think she's doing a great job as the first lady. I love seeing her latest outfits and enjoy hearing about how the Obama's spend lots of family time together. My dad was never President, yet he still never had time to come to my soccer games.
I don't rejoice when democrats fail in their personal lives, i.e. John Edwards affair. I felt terrible about it and was sympathetic to his wife and children. Same with President Clinton...I understand what Chelsea went through unfortunately all to well and would never joke about that. That stuff has nothing to do with their policies.
I respect President Bush, as well as President Obama, President Clinton, et al. They are elected leaders of my country, you won't find me making disrespectful comments about them. I might disagree with certain policies (including Bush's) but I'm not going to make it personal or hateful. Never.
I am a tad bit upset that Obama won the presidency because I didn't get a cool White House job. Ultimately though, the people decided, democracy prevailed and that's the ultimate victory.
I don't hate liberals and I don't think they're stupid or un-educated. They just interpret things differently than I do. That is all there is to it. We all have our own beliefs, that's what makes the world go 'round. I would expect that you wouldn't find me stupid, or uneducated either.
One of my favorite ex's was very much a liberal. We 'fought' a lot, but only about politics...made for some healthy tension in the relationship. No, I didn't end things because he cast his vote for President Obama.
I'm pro-choice. I don't want to have a daughter some day, have her raped, impregnated and forced to carry the child at age 12. I also don't want college students to have an illegal abortion that causes harm to their bodies on the black market. Would I have one? I don't think I could, but I'm not going to judge because one of my best friends have. I don't encourage abortions, obviously (I don't think anyone does), but I believe that they should be safely available for those who choose that option.
I support the 2nd ammendment. But, I don't own a gun and I don't hunt. Never will. But, it is people's rights to do so. I know many people who hunt and they aren't sadistic, thoughtless individuals. In certain parts of the country, it's considered a normal sport. It doesn't make sense to me because I'm a huge animal lover, but I'm not going to judge people because of it. Everyone is raised differently. As long as they follow our laws, I'm not going to raise my eyebrows at them.
Another thing about the 2nd ammendment, I believe that once you start changing the United States Constitution that our country is in DEEP trouble. It's one thing to interpret it differently, that's the spirit of the law, but to start proposing ammendments that change our basic rights is of deep concern to me. What's next? My right to vote?
The last time I was in church was for a wedding last summer. Time before that, for a funeral. I'm not religious. I don't look down on people who are atheists and I don't look down on people who read their bible's faithfully. It's whatever works for you.
Surprised? Some of you may think, "wow, this poor girl is so naive!" I've seen things up close and personal throughout my experience with working in politics. So, you probably can't change my mind and I sure as heck know I can't change yours, agreed?
Hi Girly Girl. The issue I have is that there are two kinds of Republicans. They all have been imperialists, but so have the dems. They all will have to answer to God for stealing, which suddenly isn't right just because you work in government.
But there are two sorts of Republicans, Girly, and the difference is HUGE. First, the traditional Republicans were not interventionists and were slow to war. Pat Buchanan believes in being slow to war. On the other hand, the neocons have taken over the party from the Goldwaters and the traditional conservatives. These neocons are empire builders. They are liars and very murderous.
These two conflict. The neocons want war with Russia, while Buchanan rightly says that WW3 will result in destruction of the planet. Palin is an aggressive dominionistic neocon making her double dangerous. She wants to empire build for Christ!
Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world and his servants would not fight for that invisible kingdom. There is legitimate self defense for nations that are attacked. But offensive wars like Iraq are immoral when they are for stealing resources. A war to provoke Russia into WW3 would be the height of immorality. Believe me, Girly, the PNAC people are out of control. They are actually amoral except for Palin who is a dominionist.
I hate to tell you, but I believe you are a closet democrat. Your forum title shouldn't read "an evil republican!" Instead, you should have titled it, "guilty for pretending to be a republican."
I am a democrat. Always have been and don't plan on changing any time soon unless the democratic party completely loses its mind and flips in every belief. (Don't think it can't happen? what is considered the republican party today used to hold the beliefs of the democratic party until everything switched)
You tend to go against the republicans in several ways... abortion, war sentiments, political leadership.
Still, I suppose there's still some republican in you since you appear to hold respect for G.W. I respected his father, but his son is truly a village idiot. I'm glad you have respect for our current president, but I find it difficult to comprehend why or how people can defend the actions of our former president who made his buddies rich while bankrupting our country, during which time, my children's school (along with another in our district) was forced to be closed because of a poor economy and an ever-shrinking budget.
My cousin (one of the highest ranked women working at the Pentagon prior to retiring recently) once had the opportunity to sit next to Barbara Bush at a play in D.C. during which time Barbara, herself, spoke about how it shouldn't have been G.W. to run for president because Jeb was so much smarter.
I'm glad you respect a woman's right to choose, even though your party believes otherwise.
I'm glad you are smart enough to see that our current president is miles ahead of our former president in terms of intelligence, even though your party finds every opportunity to find phantom weaknesses in a man who clearly loves his family, his country and the people who reside here and around the world (as opposed to G.W. whose only success was alienating the people from most every country including his own).
I'm glad you are willing to accept that other people may have different opinions about politics and policy, unlike too many republicans I've ever spoken to. You appear to be very different from republicans in that democrats never shut up about politics and republicans never want to discuss it (that happened a lot during the election).
With respect to changing the Constitution...our founding fathers meant our Constitution to be a living document. That means, it can and should be changed if it becomes necessary. That's not to say it should be changed on a whim. They made it difficult to change it because "the people" better have a pretty damn good reason it should be altered.
And when you consider the gun issue, not only were weapons very different, but the use of these weapons was very different. They didn't carry A-K-whatevers that fire 100 rounds with a few stray bullets striking down some kid walking down the street. They had guns with one, or maybe a few, shots meant to kill their meal for the day and perhaps protect their farm or homestead out in the middle of nowhere. In other words, our situation has changed and perhaps our Constitution should reflect such a dramatic change.
So thank you for apparently being a tolerant, nearly democrat, republican. Our party, our society, could use more "republicans" like you.
I find it hard to believe that she made that comment seriously.
I've also had the opportunity to converse and meet with the Bush family on many occasions in a relaxed setting over the last few years, so I am quite certain that Barbara was joking; if she did in fact make that comment. Those two joke around quite a bit! I have a great deal of respect for the entire family. They're nice people that are very down to earth.
I can guarantee you that my very republican cousin did not in the least exaggerate her experience and Barbara spoke with sincerity and absent of any joking. Take a closer look at all of G.W.'s educational and business failures and you might consider her words true as well.
I gotta go with someone who knows the family over someone who once sat next to her at a play.
I'd have to hear her say that in person to believe that a mother would say that about her own son, especially Barbara Bush. It's VERY hard for me to believe. Again, I'm sure that if it was said, she was joking. That wouldn't surprise me at all.
There are many kinds of mothers in the world, especially the mothers/wives (who tend to be strong matriachs) of anyone inside the beltway; to believe any less is where you are being naive. Regardless of what you think Barbara "might" say, I can only accept a first-hand account as true. So, you have a choice...make up a truth to suit your needs (I thought you said you didn't care for Rush), or believe a reported incident from a reliable resource.
I find it interesting that out of all the things I said in response to your post, that is the only thing for which you have a comment/response.
I'm not in the mood for political debate. I'm working on writing some hubs right now to earn money. I've learned over the years that debating people with opposite views of mine doesn't accomplish a lot. I have other things to do. You have to understand that I used to come in contact with people on a daily basis for my job that wanted to debate me, I've come accustomed to not responding. It's of no offense to you, I'm just tired of the same old same old.
I'm not making up any truth, I'm going off of what I know of Barbara Bush and how she has acted the times I have spent around her and conversed with her. I am going off of my own personal experiences as opposed to listening to a total stranger's experiences. What would you do in my situation? I think the answer is obvious.
And unlike too many democrats as well, right?
Extreme "anything" rarely accept other's opinions, wouldn't you agree?
When they come up with a category of 'Superfan' I'll be the first to sign up for your list.
You go girl! You have nothing to be ashamed of. Here's a quote from a friend of mine. "A lliberal is a person with a flagrant disregard for the Constitution." You are a wise young lady that think for herself. Most younger people think they are individuals but they follow what is "the in thing."
Well said. While I don't discuss religion or politics, I will say that I am for personal responsibility.
I hate discussing politics and rarely discuss them, either.
However, I really feel there are so many misconceptions that each party has about the other.
I'm not saying that all Democrats think Republicans are evil and all Republicans think Democrats are evil, but I think there are definitely strong misconceptions by BOTH sides as to what the other stands for.
What people need to realize is that each party actually BENEFITS the other and America or whatever country you're in that utilizes democracy.
True there are many misconceptions, prejudices, and biases which is part of the human condition. It is interesting to listen to children discuss politics because you know they have no original thoughts but merely mimic their surroundings. Unless we are all raised by wolves, that won't change.
Hopefully, people realize that having differing points of view is useful.
Hey girly: I'm a democrat and our thoughts are a lot alike. I believe in small government, but I also believe in small "government" for businesses.
Let me explain:
The government runs the country and we all end up paying more when the government is "large" I am sure that any Republican will agree with me; however, most Republicans fail to see that Big Business runs the economy and we all end up paying more when these big businesses are too large as well. Big Business can't control themselves, unfortunately...they are just like an out of control government. It would be nice if they were able to reign themselves in but that seems impossible. So who else can we turn to? There is no one else large enough to do it except for the Federal government.
I don't think you are naive at all, I think you are very sensible and live within the bounds of reality. Alas, too many do not share our address.
Thanks for your response.
I agree that the federal government did have to do something in this instance, I HATED that they had to do it, but I believe that it was necessary for the current times.
Typically, I believe that if a business is going to fail, it's because of it's own doing. It's like Darwin's only the strong survive. A recession can actually strengthen the economy because it helps weed out businesses that didn't do well. But, there is always the issues of jobs and employment. It's a tough situation and I am very sympathetic to President Obama, he has lots of tough decisions to make, that's for sure. He did inherit a lot of mess! I don't support all of his policies, probably a lot of them, actually but I understand that something needed/still needs to be done about our current situation.
Overtime, I hope our country can get back on track with limited government involvement in our businesses. Bail outs are a sad thing for the U.S.A.
Sorry to say this; you will see 15% unemployment, higher taxes (like Obama's new cap idea), a weaker military and more. His going "Green" is going to hurt America. We have as much oil as Saudi Arabia but can't dig for it because of liberals. They represent NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard). There are very good reasons to a Republican.
Sounds like you do not have "big business" experience.
After reading all that I don't think you're a hardcore Republican at all.
Ahahaha I still consider myself to be though. I worked for the Party the last 4 years. I've 'retired' from politics to pursue my goal of law school, but will always consider myself a hardcore R! I actually know TONS of other hardcore Republicans that are just like me, most them work behind the scenes like I did.
I don't consider myself a 'Right-Winger'. That's probably what you're thinking of when you think of Hardcore Republican. Most people would think that, I totally get that. I have no problems with Right-Winger's views except sometimes I find that their method of debate get's too personal, just as some 'liberals' do, too. I believe in respect, it gets you far in life.
Emotions are a very interesting aspect of politics; I try to not let them affect me and usually they don't, but when it's personal attacks on people I've worked with and met, it can be tough to listen to. I don't always understand that aspect of political debate as I rarely participate in debates that are emotionally driven. I like fact based politics. Political research? I love that. I can make a MEAN excel spreadsheet! lol
When I first started out, it was in fundraising. I hated writing fundraising letters, even though I enjoy being persuasive...playing to people's emotions was not really my thing.
Research and strategy is incredibly fun and while it certainly deals with emotions it also deals with other aspects of human behavior. Totally fascinating.
You are not a republican, you are getting above the crowd - yet you do not realize this yourself.
Not that it was addressed to you, but if this helps your self-esteem a bit - sure, she is a republican
Oh, gross, girly-girl! I just HATE you now!
Just--one question. How do you feel about Rush Limbaugh?
I just hate you too! I think that people like Rush are out to make money; they're entertainers. They're out to raise awareness too, but sometimes they don't go about it the right way. O'Reilly, Sean Hannity (my favorite lol) and Rush raise a lot of good points. They encourage debate. They get people talking. I watch/listen all the time, sometimes I cringe, though. While I agree with lots of their concerns, there is the issue of being too extreme.
Everything in moderation!
Case in point, I know many college kids who just LOVE Ann Coulter they think she's so pretty, so outspoken, so educated. It's true, she is all those things and while I agree with certain things she says (usually not in full, but partly), I would never say I'm a fan. I think she comes across as very insensitive and brash.
In closing, I think that Rush, Sean, Bill & Ann know that they aren't going to change any minds. I don't think they're trying to. They're entertaining and educating people that already share their views.
If I was a public broadcaster, I would be more respectful with my thoughts and ideas. I wouldn't make as much money or have as many listeners/viewers, but I'd probably make a bigger difference in the world and inspire lots more people.
There is a lot of people that I know in my crowd that are Republicans, just like me. Again, I said a lot of this stuff would be shocking.
So many Republicans are portrayed as crazy right-wing nutjobs. Trust me, I know a few LOL but it's not typically the case.
Obviously, right wing nutjobs are a LOT more interesting for the mainstream media to cover. Just like it's a LOT more interesting for FOX news to cover left-wing nutjobs.
Country I hail from (NZ) changed to MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) Political Party System in the '90's ,previously using the First past the post (FPP) from Britain.
Translated in laymens terms is you get two votes , one for the party you want to represent you and two for member of Parliment you wish to run....I like how it works particularly if you like a party but not the person ( in your region)...
I confess I am naive to Politics, but thats how I tend to think about leaders/parties here in the USA too...like that guy but not the party or vice versa.
Thankyou gg for sharing your stand and values etc. I learned a few things.
As a foreigner Im happy Pres Obama was elected ,it was time for a big change I believe ( my opinion) and Pres.Obama just seems to have a greater vision and international respect.
I love learning about other countries election systems. Thanks for sharing! Like earlier, darkside posted about how you get fined in Australia if you don't vote. I never knew that!
Ann Coulter - pretty? Too each his own, I suppose. A lot of people think she looks like an unattractive man in drag. (I've been wanting publicly say that for a long time. ) 1970's called. It wants its hairstyle back. Clairol called - Don't bother. It doesn't help.
She may be attractive but she is ugly inside.
I have to agree with that! Some of the things she has said makes me cringe so badly. Really bothersome and shocking.
Some of things she says I agree with, but she has lost all credibility because most of her hateful arguments are really ridiculous.
The same can go for some of the famous liberals out there, too, though!
Coulter was a beauty contest winner years ago, lets see what you look like in the future.
Coulter is disgusting. However, historical Republicans who really want limited government have a more legitimate argument than the people who now run the republican party. The neocons are just plain evil empire builders. They allowed the ponzi scheme cooked up at Basel 2 in 1998 and they allowed the credit crisis we are in.
Unfortunately, limited government means getting rid of the federal reserve. I don't see Republicans backing that. As our friend from Australia has said, this ponzi was a worldwide con by the American financial system on the world. It has made the economic decline worse. It has taught people that it is ok to walk away from bad debt, which in this case it is. It has formed a chasm between bankers and the regular people.
Look at Pat Buchanan's writings, Girly. He speaks about the "War Party" and they ain't the Dems. He is speaking about the neocons and he is very worried about their aggressive ambitions that are contrary to the security of the United States. Google it.
If you choose to be a neocon, Girly, then you really don't care about your children or if you want them, or your grandchildren because if the neocons have their way they will destroy the world.
What's your point? The neocons want to be the single superpower in the world. PNAC neocon members included Cheney, Jeb Bush, Rove, Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams, and co founder Kristol. Do not think that William Kristol is a great guy. He and his dad, Irving Kristol, and Wolfowitz sat at the feet of University of Chicago professor Leo Strauss, intellectual father of the neocons. Wolfowitz even took classes from Strauss. Strauss taught that you keep the form of democracy and that the elite lie to the masses. Wolfowitz did so with WMD.
Strausses parents were Jewish. Strauss himself was an atheist, even though he supported Israel. Strauss and Rove and the neocons all believed that all religion was a tool by which they could control the masses. Google it.
So then, it is important if a person is a historical conservative or a neocon. While I believe in separation of church and state I do not believe that men with no moral compass whatsoever should be running the United States.
You can google all of this info, check wikipedia,etc. It is all true and verified. This PNAC group wanted a new pearl harbor prior to 9/11. You can draw your own conclusions. I have mine.
I wasn't under the impression that Girly was even remotely neocon.
I didn't say she was. I said that when she talks about liberal/coservative she is not explaining the vast gulf that exists between neoconservatives and real conservatives.
Also, she has to choose. She can't just say she is conservative because the neocons have made the term meaningless. It is their fault, not hers. But when she says Palin is a nice person she needed to know just what Palin stood for, that she doesn't want the public to know.
I understand your point and agree that the term has now been confused.
I appreciate the kind words. Girlygirl is young and has time to sort this thing out. I just hope she does. I view many of the dems as silent partners with blood on their hands.
They are continuing the pipeline war in Afghanistan, and yet they are slower to war than the neocons. Everyone is. Except maybe the Iranians and Israelis. That situation is a real problem.
I gotta go with someone who knows the family over someone who once sat next to her at a play.
I agree on some points
I disagree on others
but one thing you are not GG is Evil
to your best life -ekiwi
Wow, Girly...I am proud to be a fellow Republican along with you. Very well said.
It's unfortunate that such discussions tend to bring out the worst in people on both sides.
That's why I have always admired Jack Kemp and consider myself a Jack Kemp Republican. Brilliant man who should have been nominated when we had the chance in 1988. He had the unique ability to build consensus without sacrificing his principles or ideas.
I also have to admit that on a personal level, I like Barack Obama. I think he is a good man and father. As an economic conservative, though, I know his ideas and policies are absolutely disastrous. We are going to feel the negative effects for years.
I feel like the blue dog Democrats must have felt while Reagan was president. It's hard to reconcile genuinely liking a person on a personal level, yet disagree so fervently with that person when it comes to his/her policies and beliefs.
What is most aggravating, I suppose, is the double standard in the press/media when it comes to treatment of members of the two parties. Democrats are treated as royalty and infallible, while Republicans must be dolts or Nazis. After all, no one would actually set out to be a Republican in their eyes. If Sarah Palin was a Democrat, liberals would be boycotting David Letterman and demanding an apology and every editorial in every left-leaning paper would be calling for the same thing. If Sarah Palin was a Democrat, she' be portrayed as a tough, successful governor and if any Republican or conservative said anything negative about her, he'd be branded a sexist. Women in the Democrat party are "brilliant". Republican women must be airheads.
We hear over and over again about Dan Quayle and the flash card that had the incorrect spelling of the word "potato" on it, but does anyone know Al Gore got lost in the woods behind his house? Does anyone know that on his first tour of the White House after being elected VP, he couldn't identify busts of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson?
I don't see the debate changing any time soon, though. Politics corrupt the best of people. If Ghandi and Mother Theresa were running for office, politics wouldn't change. The system and process would change them.
The best we can do is keep it civil and that is getting harder and herder as the years go by.
Thanks for stopping by and for your encouraging, productive words. I agree completely, we just have to keep it civil. Our democracy is the best thing that our country has.
It's a truly amazing thing that we can experience a very smooth transition of leadership from such opposite ends of the spectrum every 4 or 8 years. When that goes, well, I don't even want to think about it!
I consider your "lol" to be an ad hominem attack. Surely as a Hubber you are capable of a little more detail than that!
If you make fun of my posts without debating the reasons for doing so I consider that to be a very rude personal attack. In fact, it is trollish.
Want to try again?
Unless you have more than looney far-left conspiracy nonsense that completely proves the point girly_girl was trying to make, you are a caricature that provides nothing more than mild amusement. I know waaaaaay out there in lefty land where you live you feel like you are right in the 'center' and you're probably not going to change anymore than I am, but don't be shocked if I don't take your hysteria seriously.
No get off your lounge chair and research these things. The point about PNAC wanted a 9/11 type event is a verified truth. The point about Leo Strauss being an atheist and teaching that the elite should lie to the masses is verified truth.
And you don't know if I am a liberal or a libertarian. But whatever I am I have tried to find the truth. And you are willing to not look. You can google and find just about everything on the subject of going into the Iraq war for oil etc.
With regard to Iraq oil, Wolfowitz said that Iraq was swimming on a sea of oil. As far as oil is concerned, the general, Abizad said it was about oil. Condi Rice prior to becoming the main advisor for Bush was a director for Chevron. That is fact. It is also fact that her CEO in 1998 expressed a desire for Iraq oil reserves. The quote is on the net. Google it.
It is also verified that the Taliban went to Texas in 1997 as guests of the oil company that gave them arms in a war against the warlords of Afghanistan. That oil company was Unocal. Why did the US press not report this but foreign presses (London) did?
America has always replaced governments, even elected ones, in hostile acts. But never has this government been so blatantly imperialistic and in need of resources as was the Bush admin.
Tksensei, here is one I will bet you didn't know. Greenspan said in his book that he advised the president to secure the oil ministry first. Why would the federal reserve president do so? Because the war was about petrodollars. It was about economic weakness coming out of the dot com bubble.
Did you know, Tksensei, that it is also amply verified that in Feb 2004 that same Greenspan advocated adjustable mortgages as being a more affordable and financially sound way of buying a home than a fixed mortgage? Google it.
The significance of the fed wanting the oil and the fed wanting liar loans to flourish is interesting. Tksensei, you know why it is interesting? Because the plan for liar loans came from the international banking community. Basel 2 1998 was where off balance sheet banking was allowed. It was a ponsi scam. Tksenei.
There were two of the largest conspiracies in the history of the world, the methods to get us into Iraq for oil, and the ponzi housing bubble to finance it, that were pulled off virtually at the same time. Google them. You will find that the link between Iraq oil and ponzi loans are connected by the statements of Greenspan, the fed chairman.
Oh, and you are aware that the federal reserve bank is not a public entitiy. The twelve federal reserve banks are privately owned. You are also aware that the longest period in which we were without a central bank was from Jackson era. Andrew Jackson kicked out the central bank and refused to allow interest on the printing of money. Did you know that Ben Bernanke is paid by interest from the national debt and not as an employee of the federal government? Did you know that the Bank of England was a private bank and that the US fought the revolutionary war to break free from the Bank of England?
This country may not make it financially without dumping the federal reserve. Your dollar will be worth 20 cents. The US needs to issue their own currency.
tinfoil hat time...
Troll. How can hubpages allow trolling on these boards. You have said nothing this entire thread. Tinfoil hat is another insult. You are without question a troll. You should be banned from the forum.
The right wingers like Limbaugh have so controlled your thought that you cannot even make an argument, just repeat their troll words. If Limbaugh was a real conservative he would back Pat Buchanan, but he is not a real conservative. Buchanan has proven that the neocons are not real conservatives.
Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not a regular listener of Limbaugh. Sounds like you are though. You sound like a big fan of Buchanan too.
My only support for Buchanan is that he stands up to the neocons. Any Republican that is willing to stand up to reckless dangerous people like the neocons deserves praise for it. The neocons have their history in the democratic party, being called neoliberals. They didn't get very far so they took over the Republicans. Neoliberalism was a movement to protect international corporations. It has morphed into Neoconservatism with a fascistic cult of corporate power. The corporation in effect is above the sovereign nation. Nowhere is that more true than the bailout of the banks. The too big to fail banks are above the sovereign authority of the USA to take them into receivership as was done in the Savings and Loan crisis. The big banks are stronger than the US government making international banking a worldwide one world quasi government.
And it isn't tinfoil, it was testified in Congress that the US government does not have the power to take over, sell of assets and return clean banks to the private sector as Bill Seidman did with the S and L's. This allows these big banks to raid the treasury of the United States, which they have.
I have argued against the new one world government here: http://hubpages.com/hub/We-Already-Have … Government
We are very near, as Ron Paul has said, to final consolidation of the financial sector power over the world. When that happens there will be no accountability by them to any government. We have already seen this as our government lacks the nerve to cap interest rates on credit cards.
The usurious big banks charge what they want. They were slapped down a little by Obama, but they are to be opposed by the populace because they do not have our interests at heart. They borrow for nothing and fail to pass their lower borrowing costs on to the consumer. They are controlling the world through credit and they control the US government through credit obligation. They impoverish us just as Jefferson said they would.
They must be thrown off their high perch but our officials from Gingrich to Clinton are all part of the CFR, and many say it is a shill organization for international bankers. This is not a left right issue, but rather is a consumer versus big international banker issue.
The CFR is one of the most evil institutions in existence, and you're correct to name both Dems and Repubs as belonging to its agenda.
Neocons are hugely imperialistic-yes-and therefore dangerous. I see also that the Dems (generally speaking) and the Repubs (for the most part) are dangerous simply because they have a chokehold on power in America and are arrogant enough to use it for anything except the benefit of the nation.
Most things now are pretty meaningless IMO. The constitution has been long trashed and continues to be trashed with the current administration. Americans lose more ground almost weekly in terms of being able to live their lives as they choose and few raise their voices because most Americans want the prosperity to return regardless of what it costs; our politicians are happy to oblige, but most Americans don't see the terrible price we're paying for what will be a temporary recovery before the bottom falls out on the economy anyway.
When Chinese students laughed at Geithner recently they were demonstrating that they understand the severity of our economic situation. They don't expect America to pull out of this recession by printing vast sums of worthless money. They know what to expect and won't be surprised when it happens.
Thank you for a well reasoned discussion. Looking in from the outside (Australia)we are in a lot deeper than we are being told, the bailout was theft from the American family purse, and Obama has installed the foxes (Geiner and others) in the hen house to look after the chickens, and little has changed since Paulson's dirty deal with the notorious section 8.
Wow Bgamall, you have covered a lot of territory there! If America is going to make it, they need to chuck out the current Treasury.
I didn't really have the time to read through all the other responses, but I just wanted to say ... perhaps you're more of a Libertarian as opposed to a Republican?
Thanks Lita. And Earnest, we keep the treasury and we get rid of the fed. It is up to our leaders to do so. It is interesting Earnest that Ken Lewis of Bank of America was pressured into buying Merrill Lynch. While Paulson, the treasury secretary conveyed the message, Bernanke ordered Paulson to do it. Bernanke is a private banker! Chain of command, Bernanke to Paulson to Lewis. The Fed is in charge as the federal banks are in all the western world.
And Anolinde, welcome to Hubpages. I am more of a libertarian although I am registered independent. My research has led me to the same conclusions on many issues as are held by Ron Paul and Jesse Ventura and some on the left like Dennis Kucinich.
I believe in peaceful education of the masses so that the electorate can be informed and willing to get it right if the federal reserve private bank ever does fail us. Of course they have failed us, but a real economic meltdown could bring changes by our leaders.
A big part of the conspiracy nut mindset is assuming no one else has ever looked into anything they have. More importantly, it involves taking specific conclusions and connections as gospel fact and just feeling so bad for the ignorant masses who can't see the 'truth' they have found. Whatever the topic, it's the same conspiracy nut mentality.
Bgamall - I admire your passion, but I'm concerned about your reliance on all things Google. If you Googled Bill clinton and Vince Foster, or Bill Clinton and Arkansas state troopers, or Hillary Clinton and the White House Travel office, you'll find plenty, as well. It doesn't necessarily mean it's gospel.
We all tend to find what we want to find and what supports our theories.
I'm not going to get into the 9/11 conspiracy thing because it's just plain silly. But we could talk about how Clinton ignored the first WTC bombing in 1993, the bombing of the embassy in Kenya, the bombing of the Khobar Towers (he was too busy sticking a cigar into an intern to be bothered), and the bombing of the USS Cole --- all under his watch and all without a serious response from the do-nothing Clinton.
Shall we start a string about that? We could, but what would it solve and where would it get us?
Hey Captain, I just think you need to find multiple references and research for that period. So, if you find a news article or a biography or writings of a person to confirm what I am saying you can be pretty sure that it is true. With regard to Leo
Strauss you have his writings. You have a history of PNAC in Wikipedia with a ton of sources. I saw with my own eyes the call for a "new Pearl Harbor" on the PNAC official website until they finally took it down, long after 9/11.
Earnest, the leaders would have to be so burdened by the national debt that we would have to break free of the fed. What probably would happen would be that we would default on foreign debt (Chinese owned treasuries) and still pay the fed who owns 1/2 of the US debt. But that would be a big mistake.
And Tksensie you just prove your ignorance the more you write on this forum. There is nothing nutty about verifiable evidence. There is however something third grade about your immature responses. Unless you have something better than that why embarrass yourself? Name calling weakens your cause. Goldentoad, you are right. He just can't seem to reason about these things.
Exactly, and when people get so excited about one theory or another that they start to vest their identity in believing it there is no shaking them off that bone.
tksensei is a nasty troll. You people should ignore him. He is called kusojiji on other forums.
http://yellowworld.org/forums/showthrea … amp;page=9
He sends people offensive personnal mails and likes to act tough.
Buchanan isn't an isolationist because he wants to shirk government responsibility. He is an isolationist because he knows that American sovereignty is at stake.
If America spends into losing our credit rating all credit will be more expensive and the international bankers will make even more.
I would say you are a "Meagan McCain Republican" you are an apologist for a party that does not need to apologize for anything. I don't mean to offend you but talking about being a Republican that holds thoughts that are contrary to the liberal view is just sad. When someone hears that someone is a Republican they immediately think of George W Bush, that should be the last thing anyone thinks. The Republican party spent themselves out of power, and they should have been voted out for forgetting our conservative values. You said that you "cringe" sometimes when you hear Ann Coulter speak, Why? Because she dares say what most people are thinking? If you are the future of Conservatism then we have truly become a party of cowards, we do not need to out democrat the democrats, we need to get in touch with our Ronald Reagan philosophy!
Reaganomics hurt alot of Americans too.
He said he would raise taxes and increase wages.
Well he did one of them and it wasnt wages!
Im so sick an tired of Politicians
Beautifully put! And well said! I am instantly and constantly stereotyped because I openly and PROUDLY admit to being a concervative. Except, I love it : )
You don't have to justify your political postion. You vote the way you feel and you make a stand on the issues the way you feel. We probably wouldn't agree on many issues, since I'm a liberal democrat but I would defend you right to tell me I wrong any way that you see fit. No matter what you stand thank you for caring enough to take it.
by Grace Marguerite Williams 8 years ago
in light of the current sociopolitical and socioeconomic situation regarding the United States of America? Do you believe that President Obama is doing the best job he can under the circumstances? Do you maintain that President Obama can do a much better job as President? Do you contend that...
by LucidDreams 8 years ago
I am not saying ALL Republicans are, I am just wondering why anyone would actually stay with a party that is clearly not on the same page as most of America? Most (not all) but most who are die hard right Republicans watch Fox news. Not sure if you have noticed, they can't even get along with each...
by Faye v 7 days ago
One in five Democrats and Republicans now view the other as “evil,” according to a recent Axios poll. How we bridge the political divide should be the preeminent question of the next election. Can a candidate answer it by making a bold, Linconesque pledge at the outset of their campaign to...
by skperdon 6 years ago
Let's face it "Hilary for President" gets the Republican base buzzing like no other. We all know that the Benghazi Committee's specific purpose is to go after her and rip her competency to shreds.Then there is the big, bogus email fraud sting. I can see that she is a strong person and a...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 8 years ago
presidency thus far? Do you believe that President Obama is doing a good job as president? If not, who do YOU wished you have voted for instead of President Obama? Why?
by Sharlee 2 weeks ago
Trump aims to oust 'RINOs, sell-outs' who voted for infrastructure with 3 notable exceptionsTrump called the Republicans 'RINOs, sellouts, and known losers'."Former President Donald Trump is amping up his battle against "RINOs, sellouts, and known losers" who voted in favor of the...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|