You're kidding, right. 

 

Why, that's the whole spectrum from Louis XIV to Napoleon III. 

 

Not at all, you've got a very diverse group there. You'll find disagreements on all of the following:

 

-Iraq and Afghanistan before and after the wars.

-9/11 and who's responsible for what

-Common Core

-Patriot Act

-NDAA

-Fair Tax

-Flat Tax

-IRS

-NSA

-Department of Educations role if any

-United Nations

 

and on and on, but if you just assume it's all the same talking points and never take the time to listen you wouldn't know that.

---

a great example of the left-right paradigm

 

the people in power play this game of making everybody think they are different, but behind closed doors its really the same people

 

IIRC Bush was also a proponent of open borders

 

that is correct sir, Bush was and so was Perry before his latest campaign positioning.

---

Not at all, you've got a very diverse group there. You'll find disagreements on all of the following:

 

-Iraq and Afghanistan before and after the wars.

-9/11 and who's responsible for what

-Common Core

-Patriot Act

-NDAA

-Fair Tax

-Flat Tax

-IRS

-NSA

-Department of Educations role if any

-United Nations

 

and on and on, but if you just assume it's all the same talking points and never take the time to listen you wouldn't know that.

 

 

Imagine that, Adam2012 arguing something for the side of the Left yet again.... Kinda odd to continue do if you claim to "lean Right", wouldn't you say?

 

Maybe he's just a self hater,  

 

Eric85 is a libertarian and without a doubt leans more Right on issues than Adam2012 (who claims to lean right)

---

Imagine that, Adam2012 arguing something for the side of the Left yet again.... Kinda odd to continue do if you claim to "lean Right", wouldn't you say?

 

Maybe he's just a self hater,  

 

Eric85 is a libertarian and without a doubt leans more Right on issues than Adam2012 (who claims to lean right)

Libertarians look to me, like they lean much more right than left....At least on many of the issues they have strong stances on. There is some balance but i'd still say they are more right leaning than centrist. 

 

What's wrong with discussing as a devil's advocate? I do it all the time here in the PNW, debating the right's side even though I usually don't prescribe to their views on policy. Even if that's not what he's doing why keep bringing it up, I mean aside from you hating liberals in general of course. 

---

Libertarians look to me, like they lean much more right than left....At least on many of the issues they have strong stances on. There is some balance but i'd still say they are more right leaning than centrist. 

 

 

It's not surprising since the fundamental plank of leftist is State-ism, the antithesis of Libertarianism.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It's not surprising since the fundamental plank of leftist is State-ism, the antithesis of Libertarianism.

Don't libertarians want the states in control of everything? Or is that not state-ism

---

Don't libertarians want the states in control of everything? Or is that not state-ism

 

Statism is a reference to a central controlled government not specifically the individual states of the United States. I advocate individual States having more control as a way to reduce central controlled government so I can see how that would be confusing with the term Statism. But no Libertarians and Statism are completely different things.

---

Statism is a reference to a central controlled government not specifically the individual states of the United States. I advocate individual States having more control as a way to reduce central controlled government so I can see how that would be confusing with the term Statism. But no Libertarians and Statism are completely different things.

Cool thanks. I don't like the idea of a fractured nation. 

---

Cool thanks. I don't like the idea of a fractured nation. 

 

Not fractured but empowered. Oregon isn't Florida, the people of Oregon might have different views on a whole variation of ways to tackle social problems, from welfare to education, shouldn't we both be free to pursue it the way that works for our states?

 

Government never is and never will be a one size fits all, let the Federal Government handle national security and the borders, let the States do the rest. 

---

Not fractured but empowered. Oregon isn't Florida, the people of Oregon might have different views on a whole variation of ways to tackle social problems, from welfare to education, shouldn't we both be free to pursue it the way that works for our states?

 

Government never is and never will be a one size fits all, let the Federal Government handle national security and the borders, let the States do the rest. 

Than what's the point. One nation but 50 different policies/taxes/ammounts of religious freedom/bigotry/ID's/welfare programs/road repair/polution controls etc etc etc.... that is absolutely fracturing. You correct there is no one size fits all that's why there is supposed to be compromise. Sounds like what you would prefer is 50 countries. Is that closer to the truth?

---

Than what's the point. One nation but 50 different policies/taxes/ammounts of religious freedom/bigotry/ID's/welfare programs/road repair/polution controls etc etc etc.... that is absolutely fracturing. You correct there is no one size fits all that's why there is supposed to be compromise. Sounds like what you would prefer is 50 countries. Is that closer to the truth?

Libertarians are starting to sound a lot like Europeans.

---

I was shopping today and saw a pickup truck with a bumper sticker that featured a picture of Ronald Reagan and a caption reading "Avenge Me!", surrounded by other stickers featuring standard Tea Party rhetoric, most of the "Take Our Country Back!" variety. Oh, the irony. If Ronnie Raygun was president today, they would be all over him for being too moderate and pro-government.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Than what's the point. One nation but 50 different policies/taxes/ammounts of religious freedom/bigotry/ID's/welfare programs/road repair/polution controls etc etc etc.... that is absolutely fracturing. You correct there is no one size fits all that's why there is supposed to be compromise. Sounds like what you would prefer is 50 countries. Is that closer to the truth?

Depends on how deep down the rabbit hole you wanna go. I try to stay within reason when discussing politics I don't think it's unreasonable to give states more power to govern as they see fit.


You can still have a federal government just take away their power to tax, enforce term limits, delicate the authority of education welfare and legislation back to the states.


Keep the borders and defend the nation that's all I want my federal government doing.

---

I was shopping today and saw a pickup truck with a bumper sticker that featured a picture of Ronald Reagan and a caption reading "Avenge Me!", surrounded by other stickers featuring standard Tea Party rhetoric, most of the "Take Our Country Back!" variety. Oh, the irony. If Ronnie Raygun was president today, they would be all over him for being too moderate and pro-government.

There's a lot about Regan not to like but I'd take him over the last 4 yahoos

---

I was shopping today and saw a pickup truck with a bumper sticker that featured a picture of Ronald Reagan and a caption reading "Avenge Me!", surrounded by other stickers featuring standard Tea Party rhetoric, most of the "Take Our Country Back!" variety. Oh, the irony. If Ronnie Raygun was president today, they would be all over him for being too moderate and pro-government.

 

I disagree. 

 

I think the thing about Reagan was not as much his positions on specific issues as it was his core convictions in general.  In the areas that matter to most true conservatives, he was spot on.  In areas where he was willing to compromise, I think most conservatives today would be willing to look past that.  Why?  Because he had a spine.  The current crop of politicians who have tried to claim his mantle don't have that core belief.  They're nothing more than political chameleons who are willing to say or do whatever they need in order to get elected. 

 

There were core principles Reagan would not abandon, but there was also a practicality in other areas where he knew he was dealing with a congress his party did not control, so he had to work with them.  It hurt Reagan at times to deal with democrats on things like immigration where he was given promises by congress that they would deal with securing our borders if he'd sign into law an amnesty bill back in 1986.  Congress never bothered with enforcement, and the rest is history.  It's the same thing with the Reagan tax cuts.  Congress made a deal to pass his tax cuts that included promises to cut spending, and they never did.

 

It's funny to look at the situation today where congress is divided, and the White House is under democrat control.  This president sees no need to negotiate with the other side.  He says he'll do so happily, but the truth is that in his world, negotiation is defined as agreeing with his position.  He's not backing off any positions that aren't beholding to his handlers on the left.  He's not going to sit down and craft any meaningful legislation that brings republicans in for a real negotiation.  It's his way or no way regardless of what he says.

 

Reagan showed he was far more of a statesman when it came to negotiating with the other side.  0bama should take notes, but his ego won't allow that to happen. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I disagree. 

 

I think the thing about Reagan was not as much his positions on specific issues as it was his core convictions in general.  In the areas that matter to most true conservatives, he was spot on.  In areas where he was willing to compromise, I think most conservatives today would be willing to look past that.  Why?  Because he had a spine.  The current crop of politicians who have tried to claim his mantle don't have that core belief.  They're nothing more than political chameleons who are willing to say or do whatever they need in order to get elected. 

 

There were core principles Reagan would not abandon, but there was also a practicality in other areas where he knew he was dealing with a congress his party did not control, so he had to work with them.  It hurt Reagan at times to deal with democrats on things like immigration where he was given promises by congress that they would deal with securing our borders if he'd sign into law an amnesty bill back in 1986.  Congress never bothered with enforcement, and the rest is history.  It's the same thing with the Reagan tax cuts.  Congress made a deal to pass his tax cuts that included promises to cut spending, and they never did.

 

It's funny to look at the situation today where congress is divided, and the White House is under democrat control.  This president sees no need to negotiate with the other side.  He says he'll do so happily, but the truth is that in his world, negotiation is defined as agreeing with his position.  He's not backing off any positions that aren't beholding to his handlers on the left.  He's not going to sit down and craft any meaningful legislation that brings republicans in for a real negotiation.  It's his way or no way regardless of what he says.

 

Reagan showed he was far more of a statesman when it came to negotiating with the other side.  0bama should take notes, but his ego won't allow that to happen. 

 

I take it you do not agree that Republicans developed a strategy of obstructionism as soon as Obama was elected.

 

Anyway, Reagan compromised. Look what happens to supposedly moderate Republicans if they even hint at compromise.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Depends on how deep down the rabbit hole you wanna go. I try to stay within reason when discussing politics I don't think it's unreasonable to give states more power to govern as they see fit.


You can still have a federal government just take away their power to tax, enforce term limits, delicate the authority of education welfare and legislation back to the states.


Keep the borders and defend the nation that's all I want my federal government doing.

 

How does a federal government defend a nation without the power to tax?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

How does a federal government defend a nation without the power to tax?

 

Taxes are collected at the state level, the states then fund national programs such as the defense budget. You'd see a much more efficient defense budget if the states where directly paying the bill themselves every year.

---

Taxes are collected at the state level, the states then fund national programs such as the defense budget. You'd see a much more efficient defense budget if the states where directly paying the bill themselves every year.

 

No, what you'd see is a failing nation where every state tried to do things the republican way and pass the bill to the next guy.

---

No, what you'd see is a failing nation where every state tried to do things the republican way and pass the bill to the next guy.

 

Hey, let's bring back the Articles of Confederation!

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.