Comments on: What did Reagan mean?

By: blueJ

blueJ — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:00:36 +0000

The RNC is promoting this because they are losing support of the Palin/Bachmann brand of Republican donors. Formerly reliable contributors across the country have slammed their checkbooks shut because they don't want their donation to benefit Olympia Snowe and other RINOs. It's not a purity test for purity's sake. It's a publicity stunt to get their donors back.

By: Kathy

Kathy — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 01:44:10 +0000

"…it is not about governing or leading, just winning elections with platitudes.

Damn. I wish we'd thought of "Hopenchange".

By: Holly Cairns

Holly Cairns — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:02:35 +0000

Hello! Unfettered capitalism doesn't work. Just look around you. We're in this mess because of NOT ENOUGH regulation (NINAs, for example), and the middle class got clobbered.

By: DantheMan

DantheMan — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:58:14 +0000

You need to read (or re-read) Milton Friedman.

Economic freedom is a necessary prerequisite for personal freedom.

By: Alec

Alec — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:34:09 +0000

I'm gonna risk embarrassment and ignorance and admit I don't get the Burr reference.

In a world of unlimited personal liberty only the strong would actually have freedom of choice. The most powerful corporations would undercut and freeze everyone else out of the marketplace(think WalMart but even worse). The powerful would control all the markets, because they are free to do so, and there would be no entrepreneurial opportunity at all. Right now it is impossible to start a retail store, car company, bank, etc, can you imagine how it would be if there was unlimited liberty to stifle all competition?

On the flip side, if you want to ensure absolute protection you would have to live in bubble wrap and be monitored 24/7. Not very liberating. I'm going to go try and google more on Burr.

By: Holly Cairns

Holly Cairns — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:21:52 +0000

Yeah, and Ronald who? the youngest voter back then would be 46. I do not recall..

Boy is the Republican party in trouble. That's pretty long ago and the youth on that side will prob not be feeling it.

By: Holly Cairns

Holly Cairns — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:19:31 +0000

hmm, I do not think you and the rad right agree on the meaning of Jeffersonian Liberalism. I like balance and so I'll run w you on that.

But, I'll argue that liberty and protection, even taken to their extremes, don't have to exclude each other. It all depends on how people view it… who is "us" and "them," for example?

And you didn't like my burrlibection idea? C'mon!

By: south metro dem

south metro dem — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:55:49 +0000

I believe the problem with trhe conservadems (at least 4 of them anyway) is their threatening to join the GOP in the dumb, overused filibuster to block passage of the healthcare bill. They can vote however they want on final passage, but bills should be decided by simple majority rule as the founders intended.

By: DantheMan

DantheMan — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:41:56 +0000

#2 actually works right here. Services such as LASIK that are paid for from peoples' pockets are the only types of medical care whose cost has decreased while outcomes have improved.

By: Alec

Alec — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:20:44 +0000

Funny thing, Holly, is that Liberty and protection, taken to their extremes excludes the other. With unlimited liberty we would have few freedoms unless we were the ones on top of the heap. With total protection we would be stifled and have no liberty. We need a balance between both. Jeffersonian Liberalism. A middle ground between individualism and community. The rugged individualist only exists in American myth. Daniel Boone did not kill a bear when he was only three, and the west was really conquered by communities bravely venturing out together in wagon trains.