Benjamin Franklin
-
Posts
1,629 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Benjamin Franklin
-
-
-
I HATE the fact that the right Republicans want to regulate my SOCIAL life through legislation, and want to deregulate everything else. This is intolerable, for the freedom of America means that if I want to gamble with my money, or buy an adult movie, THEN I SHOULD BE ABLE TO, for all of these things are PERSONAL choices that adults SHOULD be able to make. Freedom is not merely a PARTIAL idea.... you can't advocate a nation without gun control, and refuse people the right to bet on football games, or play blackjack with REAL MONEY.
I feel your pain brother. Only don't give the Republicans too much credit. They want to control more than social issues. They want to tax at unprecedented rates and regulate commerce and business with an iron fist- please don't buy into their lines spending less- IT IS NOT TRUE! Bush has spent more- even discounting inflation- than any administration in history. And that is true even if you discount the increase in anti-terror spending.
The link for that info about the spending escapes me, but it was discussed for a few weeks here several months ago. If someone thinks I'm full of it, I'll redig it up. I think it came from the CATO institute.
-
Sorry, but you are making a rather general opinion of the "view of many Republicans" if you think there isn't a large contingent in favor of legislation limiting gay marriage, abortion and stem cell research. I am in favor of all of those as are the majority of Republicans that I know. I completely disagree with you on this assertion.
I realize your post is about the RNC, but you have to realize, as I and others have pointed out, that this happens on both sides and it is part of the campaign. These 4 speakers you mentioned help attract the votes of some Republicans that may not agree with GW on everything and may be on the fence. It would be stupid for the RNC to ignore them. Your point about the very liberal speakers is correct, but what did they speak about? Their messages were extremely toned down (except for Sharpton). The entire DNC sought to create a conservative, centralized democratic party. You would not have guessed by watching the DNC that John Kerry is the most liberal senator.
Both parties do it. I'm not sure I always like it, but if Arnold, McCain and others motivate some swing votes to GW then in the end its all right with me.
You're right. It's probably true that "most" Republicans favor governmental control of the people.
Maybe I should have said "many" or a "large number" do not. Former Republican KRC and maybe VaBills are the people to whom I refer when I say that there are many Republicans who wish the Party would actually be *for* limited, not growing, government.
-
-
-
Not really a sleeper, but Steven Jackson. As a very late pick, go for the best SF WR: Lloyd. Try Fitzgerald late as a WR from the Cards.
Hasselback can't be a sleeper- he's one of the best QBs in football, but Leftwich might be a good pickup.
-
I follow the convention the day after on The Daily Show.
-
First you say that the speakers "represent the views of many Repbulicans" then you say, in reference to Rebpulicans, that the "convention is not representative of their platform". I'm a little confused.
Second, I hope you understand that the conventions also constitute another part of the campaigning. Of course they are going to have Arnold, McCain and others, because they appeal to the independent and swing votes. They are still Republicans, right? They still support GW for president, right?
Finally, you only mention 4 speakers. What about the others? What about the DNC? They used the exact same strategy that the RNC is using.
My language confused you, but it was accurate. The speakers "represent the views of many Republicans" who believe that the federal government shouldn't legislate on issues like gay marriage, gay benefits, abortion litmus tests for judges, and stem cell research. (to name a few- Guiliani in particular is also for licensing all guns). Thus, the convention speakers are "not representititve of the platform," which has planks to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage, deny civil union benefits, litmus test judges on abortion, and ban stem cell research.
My post is about the RNC. Without digressing too far into the DNC, they had VERY liberal speakers like Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and Sharpton.
-
The speakers represent the views of many Republicans more than the candidate. It's sad that the prime time speakers, who actually believe in limited government and have a record that shows it, are so disconnected from Bush's governance.
I agree with the "bait and switch" criticisms of this convention. The Republicans are putting on a face at the convention that is not representative of their platform or candidate.
I understand that the Republicans want to say they are a "big tent" party, and that's why McCain, Guiliani, Arnold, and Pataki are the prime time speakers-- but how big is the tent when the people speaking are basically outside the tent when it comes to power and decision making. Let's just hope that those speakers are the future of the Republican party, and the 2008 candidate is one of them, not another Bush.
-
First, Hillary's and Kerry's opinions on the value of what happened 30 years ago differ.
Second, he has not based his entire campaign on 4 + months of service 30 years ago. What he has done is contrast himself with Bush in that regard.
-
YES, I do.. this is a great website to see the effects of fiscal mismanagement:
MAYBE that Mars money could be applied to other areas? Every little bit helps. Just because it pales in comparison to the inflated DOD budget doesn't mean that it is insignificant.
First, get off the Mars thing. That was just another in a long line of really dumb things Bush has said. That moronic idea has pretty much been shot down at this point, both because NASA gets peanuts for funding, and because we're a long way from getting to Mars (let alone getting back).
I'm not sure what the future of NASA is, but if it's manned space activity, than the moon is a more realistic goal than Mars. We need to work on a moon-based facility before we can even think of Mars and back. In reality, with shrinking budgets, the future of space exploration is probably robotic anyway. (e.g. the mars landers and Cassini).
Darin already pointed out the great return on investment we get from NASA. Is it the paragon of efficiency? No. But dollar for dollar, I'm not sure there's another federal program that returns on investment better than NASA. And looking at the overall federal budget, NASA is peanuts. Your very own source points out that we spend 20 times as much PAYING OFF INTEREST ON THE DEBT as we spend on NASA. That's insane. I'd rather that the feral government theives who steal my money do something useful with at least a tiny portion of it: NASA is one of the few things I am happy to contribute to. In fact, if I got to choose how to spend my taxes, I'd probably go something like 40% NASA, 40% military, 10% to pay off the fuggin' debt, and 10% Justice.
-
What I truly love is how great at ball all the international players are. I noticed it on a trip to Spain ten years ago. I played ball with some kids at a playground and they could pass and shoot like nobody's business. Those kids got inspired by the NBA, and now they dominate both in the NBA and the on the world stage. They have made the NBA fun to watch again. I think in 3-4 years that you might have a USA vs. the world NBA All-star game. The world guys could field an incredible team right now, but it wouldn't be that deep. Nowitski, Nash, Ming, Chinobli, and Stoyachovich could outscore any staring 5 the US would put out. Add in the bench of Ilgauskus and Parker and I'm not sure the US guys would win.
-
He should give it back. What a classless piece of cr!p to hide behind the technicality that S.Korea didn't protest in time. That's absurd, and completely the opposite of good sportsmanship. He's a great athelete, and a selfish poor sport.
If this happened at the child level, I would insist that my kid give back the medal in fairness. Not run off with something he didn't earn. In the events, Hamm won a silver medal, not a gold- he won the gold because of someone's adding mistake. Gee, that's something to be proud of. Meanwhile, the person who won the gold in the events goes home with bronze. Again, nice sportsmanship Hamm. The USOC should be ashamed to set such a poor example.
-
I blame more people than Edwards for the high jury awards.
There's a plaintiff, judge, and a jury. Edwards is the tool.
Lexis Hybrid Preorders Set Record
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
There are so many words emphasized in your post that I have no idea what you're saying.
I ditto AD. It is nice to see that the marketplace can dictate our environmental concerns: this is the thing that everyone on the Left said would never happen, i.e., that consumers would never be willing to spend more to get enviro-friendly products. But lo and behold, people are rushing to get all the hybrids.
I disagree with a previous suggestion that this is a fad. People want these cars, which cost (in the case of the Civic), about 20% more than their gas-fueled counterparts. That's a good chunk of change for a small boring car. I think people are motivated by high gas prices, some of the dependence on foreign oil arguments, and a concern for the environment.
I'd like to think that people were motivated by the fact that only about 10% of the US can justify having a truck/4WD, but I know that's not the case. I'd also like to think that people were motivated by the fact that most cars in the US are single-driver commuter cars that rarely carry more than one passenger, but again, I know this is not the case.