Posted on 03/16/2009 9:47:34 PM PDT by utahson
A few days ago I posted about the Obama administration’s plan to rob soldiers of some of their medical benefits. Today the head of the American Legion (the nation’s largest veterans organization) paid a visit to Obama to talk about the issue, and he didn’t leave happy.Normally I am a staunch advocate of limited government and privatization. But in this instance we have troops who served their country, often in awful war zones that left them scarred and maimed, and they did so with the assumption that medical care would be one of the benefits they’d receive as compensation. The government has no business trying to opt out of that.
(Excerpt) Read more at kxmc.com ...
Ron Paul didn't create a whole new Cabinet-level federal bureaucracy.
Ron Paul didn't promote or endorse the first bailout bill last autumn.
Try stacking a bunch of earmarks against bottomless bailouts for Wall Street banks and insurance companies and against a massive expansion of Government unseen since Carter created the Departments of Education and of Energy.
So, frankly, I think that while he's imperfect, as they all are, he did a hell of a better job than Bush and McCain...combined.
The U.S. Government has previously engaged in terrorist actions such as the one depicted in the picture above.
Fine. I agree with that but where else will you get what you want outside the Republican party? You're not going to. Work inside the Republican party. That is your only choice. It's still a numbers game. Conservatives must outnumber the RINOs. Nothing will change that fact.
Think what you want but the only place you're going to find conservatives in any numbers sufficient to affect a conservative outcome are inside the Republican party.
Just get busy and work.
“The U.S. Government has previously engaged in terrorist actions such as the one depicted in the picture above.”
And Waco!
Exactly, LOL.
Not if I have to repeatedly compromise with squeamish "moderates" and "progressives" like the McCains while getting little or nothing that I want.
A political party is a vehicle for organizing and combining the efforts of individuals into a single, coherent exercise of power. The key word here is "single." The party must have one voice, one agenda, one body. Right now, that's not happening. The RINOs are in control.
The fundamental problem within the Republican Party is that the differences between "extreme" conservatives and "moderates" or "progressives" are irreconcilable. Conservatives want to return to their core principles, while "moderates" want to compromise whenever necessary to gain or maintain their power base. The two groups are as far apart as conservatives are from liberals and liberals are from conservatives. Compromise between the two groups is impossible, especially with twits like Meghan McCain running around bashing conservatives, as one group will inevitably dominate the other.
Furthermore, if one faction with a party keeps doing all the work while another faction gets all the glory, as in the case of conservatives and the "moderates" or "progressives," the former is going to get antsy and annoyed and leave after a while.
As a final note, frankly, if you're willing to compromise with liberal Republicans, why not liberal Democrats too? Both groups are cut from the same cloth, and the only major difference is that one brands himself as a Republican while the other herself as a Democrat.
If you're willing to sacrifice principles for power, in the end, you will have neither.
And that is exactly where the Republican Party is today.
Fortunately, the electorate has the attention of a cocker spaniel, so the Republican Party might get a second chance.
Nothing will change that fact.
Oh really?
Tell that to the Whig Party.
Ah looks we’re on opposite sides again Smoothsailing. Bush was a RINO dog!
They gave out tickets to the show, uhhh event, today and the local media said it was like people lining up for tickets to a rock concert.
My fellow Citizens disappoint me more each and every day.
I can only barely imagine how exciting that must be for you. Goodbye, Impy.
I’m curious, where does the Constitution for the United States authorize a president, who is chief of government FOR THIS NATION and not the whole world, to undertake a war in order to depose someone because he’s mean to the people in THAT country? I’m serious here, I can’t find that authority ANYWHERE in my copy. And that pesky Tenth Amendment (which is gaining a resurgence now) says that if the authority isn’t specified, IT DOES NOT EXIST. So please be specific. Thanks in advance.
Cut the terror crap. Bush was a complete failure (except for Alito and Roberts one good thing.) Terror is when your party puts such a complete idiot in charge he gives the country over to Pelosi/Obama and says he's happy about it. Oh, and he says he had bad luck. I guess Saddam not having those WMDs when you warned the world of mushroom clouds is very very bad luck LOL. I saw Cheney on CNN say “we happened to find ourselves in two wars”. Another lie.
To my knowledge two realities may be in play. Hussein's violation of No-Fly Zones and shooting at American aircraft can be seen as an act of war that can trigger lawful retaliation. And Congress authorizing the use of force to back that up.
A third possibility is that the Supreme Court to my knowledge never said anything about the un-constitutionality of the action.
That's all three branches of government, two active, one passive, weighing in.
Where does that leave us?
Libertarian = RINO?? Are you high? Earmarks? He voted against the bill! He voted against his own voters earmarks. It passed with other Republicans votes but not his. Let me give you some news. Even though he voted against the bill his voters still get charged taxes for it, same if they didn't get earmarks he put in. Be real. This is the best you can do for failure GWB? attack Ron Paul? Pathetic!
With an unconstitutional usurpation of power, sad to say. Nothing new for the Feddies, but not good for the country, nonetheless.
If there had been sufficient grounds to go to war with Saddam, there should have been an actual DECLARATION that a state of war existed between the United States and Iraq. That would have put the whole world on notice, would have left NO wiggle room for the Rats in Congress and would have declared the support of the Congress and the Nation to winning the war. Instead it was a bunch of lies by both Bush AND the Congress and we have what we have today.
And our boys and girls are over there being killed and maimed in what has not been a MILITARY mission for a few years now. Thank you, GWB, for giving us the war, more government and finally BHO. FUBO.
Your views mesh nicely with his.
I hope y'all have a wonderful and lasting friendship.
Goodbye.
So in your mind algore and Kerry would have done less damage? Is that right???
And exactly what and where is your Iraq expertise?? You seem to be very lost on the subject and flailing about with Rat talking points!!But I guess you never were there right??? So your ignorance is understood.
sol???
LOL
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.