Common Ground

[Mr. M]

For those of thoughtful disposition and measured demeanor, a thread where non-partisan ideas trump non-stop ideology. A safe haven from the slings and arrows of outrageous rhetoric and rancorous bickering.

The rules of participation are simple. Rational discourse, enlightening dialectic, and brainstorming are welcome. Acrimony, arguing, and animosity are not.







Applications for intelligent discussion are now being accepted.

[BasicGreatGuy]

I hereby submit my application for consideration.

[Creefer]

Sounds great.

[ERJohnson]

Count me in....please?

[Mr. M]

Looks like the place is finding a population as we speak.


As we are in the Op-Ed Forum it is up to us to act responsibly and set this thread apart from the bickering that often marks WP.


I have every faith in us.


I'm hoping we can start the conversation that began in WP on third parties and Republicans here. That might gives us a good start.

[czzzaar]

The only common ground in this country is a grave yard.

[Creefer]

Here's the first thing I think Republicans need to get over, and that's the spending of such a gross amount of money on national defense. I'm a life-long (R) and for the longest time I couldn't get over the cold war I guess. But some recent research into the amount of money we spend on national defense tells me something is wrong.

We're told "were stretched too thin" with 2 small wars, but yet we spend over 1/2 of what the world spends. Yep, looked it up myself.

The world spends about $1.2 T a year, and our budget next year is $585 B, and that doesn't include around $150 B for the GWOT nor DoE expenses on nuclear weapons.

Something is just out of wack there. I think we can be very strong on national defense, and spend a considerable amount less. Like $100 B easily, and still have far and away the largest military budget of any nation on earth.

Perhaps we are stretched too thin because we are still fighting the Korean War, or the Cold War, or God knows what in 150 countries we have a presence in.

I guess it should go back to "walk softly and carry a big stick". We could have an even stronger military if it was mostly, or even "more" back home, and be 100% secure as a nation. We'd be more secure if we were less threatening to the world around us.

That's not easy ground for me to move to, but I really think we've been reacting to the boogey man for too long.

[Mr. M]

The only common ground in this country is a grave yard.

lol...


But what about cremation, C?

[Mr. M]

Here's the first thing I think Republicans need to get over, and that's the spending of such a gross amount of money on national defense. I'm a life-long (R) and for the longest time I couldn't get over the cold war I guess. But some recent research into the amount of money we spend on national defense tells me something is wrong.

We're told "were stretched too thin" with 2 small wars, but yet we spend over 1/2 of what the world spends. Yep, looked it up myself.

The world spends about $1.2 T a year, and our budget next year is $585 B, and that doesn't include around $150 B for the GWOT nor DoE expenses on nuclear weapons.

Something is just out of wack there. I think we can be very strong on national defense, and spend a considerable amount less. Like $100 B easily, and still have far and away the largest military budget of any nation on earth.

Perhaps we are stretched too thin because we are still fighting the Korean War, or the Cold War, or God knows what in 150 countries we have a presence in.

I guess it should go back to "walk softly and carry a big stick". We could have an even stronger military if it was mostly, or even "more" back home, and be 100% secure as a nation. We'd be more secure if we were less threatening to the world around us.

That's not easy ground for me to move to, but I really think we've been reacting to the boogey man for too long.

We tend to not solve problems until they become "the wolf at the door". I suspect that some of our military expenditures will reduced regardless of the party in power. It will simply be a financial priority. But then, so will Social Security and Medicaid.

[nebcon]

We tend to not solve problems until they become "the wolf at the door". I suspect that some of our military expenditures will reduced regardless of the party in power. It will simply be a financial priority. But then, so will Social Security and Medicaid.

I suspect there are still some "$500 hammers" lurking in the budget.

[nebcon]

I gave some thought to the "ethical ACORN' idea this morning while on my way to work. I think at first education is the key, not so much registration. Breaking through certain boundaries such as the constant drum beat by the opposition that compassion=government, that rich=evil and that because something has always been done by the federal government in our lifetimes, does not mean there aren't other ways. You can't just dispute these things however, you have give a how and why.

[Mr. M]

I suspect there are still some "$500 hammers" lurking in the budget.

No doubt. And base realignments, especially abroad.

[Mr. M]

I gave some thought to the "ethical ACORN' idea this morning while on my way to work. I think at first education is the key, not so much registration. Breaking through certain boundaries such as the constant drum beat by the opposition that compassion=government, that rich=evil and that because something has always been done by the federal government in our lifetimes, does not mean there aren't other ways. You can't just dispute these things however, you have give a how and why.

I'm hoping we can transition the discussion we were having in WP to this thread.

Specifically, the "ethical ACORN" concept as an instrument of evolving Social Security.

[czzzaar]

lol...


But what about cremation, C?

You got me there. :eh:

[johnrocks]

I never thought I would see the day when I would think Defense needed to be cut but these last few years I have seen where we are the primary defenders of over 170 countries. At the very least I would think we can come to some sort of consensus here.

Sorry about not participating last night "M", fell asleep,lol.

[spinach]

For those of thoughtful disposition and measured demeanor, a thread where non-partisan ideas trump non-stop ideology. A safe haven from the slings and arrows of outrageous rhetoric and rancorous bickering.

The rules of participation are simple. Rational discourse, enlightening dialectic, and brainstorming are welcome. Acrimony, arguing, and animosity are not.







Applications for intelligent discussion are now being accepted.


I had a similar idea awhile back-- sort of like a "round table" where issues could be hammered out from a position of exploring alternatives to traditional solutions.

I never really put it all together, totally.
My general idea was to have a group of folks pick a 'topic of the day' and then discuss the topic from a position of finding alternate solutions other than historic solutions.

the topic could be anything.

and I figured a group of about twelve people at a time, in the 'round table' while other members would watch on, and comment in a spectator thread.

Seems like this thread may be something like that.

[czzzaar]

I never thought I would see the day when I would think Defense needed to be cut but these last few years I have seen where we are the primary defenders of over 170 countries. At the very least I would think we can come to some sort of consensus here.

Sorry about not participating last night "M", fell asleep,lol.

I think it's time to start closing bases where they don't really matter. Let's bring some of the true patriots home where we really need them now.

[Mr. M]

I had a similar idea awhile back-- sort of like a "round table" where issues could be hammered out from a position of exploring alternatives to traditional solutions.

I never really put it all together, totally.
My general idea was to have a group of folks pick a 'topic of the day' and then discuss the topic from a position of finding alternate solutions other than historic solutions.

the topic could be anything.

and I figured a group of about twelve people at a time, in the 'round table' while other members would watch on, and comment in a spectator thread.

Seems like this thread may be something like that.

I think our concepts are very similar, S. One of the thoughts behind the thread was a "panel discussion" or brainstorming session where posters could take a discussion and know the thread wouldn't need to have the barricades manned against extraneous conservations or rude intrusions that add nothing but derail everything.

Several days ago, a "libertarian" thread morphed into a serious discussion of policy. It occurred to us that instead of that phenomena being random, we might develop a thread where that type of conversation was expected, even required. While the original idea was to transplant that conversation here, the idea became broader.

At this point it could easily be a safe haven for two or three people to open or continue a discussion that might be often interrupted in another forum. Since this forum is heavily moderated, it places less stress on mods to "police" it. And, I think, it could be the repository for serious research, open questions and sincere brainstorming.

At least, I hope that's where it goes...

[nebcon]

Very interesting discussion on FOX this morning. It was the financial show just before Cavuto's show. They showed a video of an Obama supporter talking about getting help with all of her needs from the government. A discussion ensued where the question was asked, "are we becoming a nation of moochers?".

Some of the answers from the liberal members of the panel were quite startling. There has to be a way to explain to people that free stuff isn't really free stuff, and what the consequences to this "bailout fevor" really are.

An education effort, that is going to attract voters to a Conservative message and policy platform is going to have to explain this better than anybody has ever managed to explain it. I'm trying to find the words, and though it may be difficult for some of you to believe, I'm having difficulty finding them.

[cbut1]

Very interesting discussion on FOX this morning. It was the financial show just before Cavuto's show. They showed a video of an Obama supporter talking about getting help with all of her needs from the government. A discussion ensued where the question was asked, "are we becoming a nation of moochers?".

Some of the answers from the liberal members of the panel were quite startling. There has to be a way to explain to people that free stuff isn't really free stuff, and what the consequences to this "bailout fevor" really are.

An education effort, that is going to attract voters to a Conservative message and policy platform is going to have to explain this better than anybody has ever managed to explain it. I'm trying to find the words, and though it may be difficult for some of you to believe, I'm having difficulty finding them.


One of the primary roots at solving this mentality is to properly educate persons on our nations history. Remove the modern revisionist view and add emphasis on the real struggles the founders faced. To do that there needs to be a serious revamping of our educational goals as a nation.

I have a 8th grade history book from 1935 and at the end of the book it has questions concerning our constitution and bill of rights as well as prominant founding fathers. I gave the test to my self and my son and we did equally poor on it 5 yrs ago since then we have improved our understanding and knowledge on the subject of our founding as a nation. Kids today might only get 2 or 3 questions correct and one of those would be how to spell your name!

Our standards have been dropped so low that the result is seen today in the instant gratification and give it to me now mentality.

[nebcon]

One of the primary roots at solving this mentality is to properly educate persons on our nations history. Remove the modern revisionist view and add emphasis on the real struggles the founders faced. To do that there needs to be a serious revamping of our educational goals as a nation.

I have a 8th grade history book from 1935 and at the end of the book it has questions concerning our constitution and bill of rights as well as prominant founding fathers. I gave the test to my self and my son and we did equally poor on it 5 yrs ago since then we have improved our understanding and knowledge on the subject of our founding as a nation. Kids today might only get 2 or 3 questions correct and one of those would be how to spell your name!

Our standards have been dropped so low that the result is seen today in the instant gratification and give it to me now mentality.

If we want to ensure future and current Conservatives voters, that education effort may have to bypass the school system somehow. Changing the schools and curriculum is a good grass roots goal, but will take some serious effort and time. Good long term goal, but in terms of what we do short term, what can we do?

[cbut1]

If we want to ensure future and current Conservatives voters, that education effort may have to bypass the school system somehow. Changing the schools and curriculum is a good grass roots goal, but will take some serious effort and time. Good long term goal, but in terms of what we do short term, what can we do?

Well as our Constitutional right allows us we need to be as outspoken as the sqeeky wheel liberals are. Not in that same rude and obtuse fashion they are but with the same fervor and dedication. I think us Conservatives tend to trust that all things will work out in the end and as such we tend to let things go that perhaps we shouldn't.

[Mr. M]

Very interesting discussion on FOX this morning. It was the financial show just before Cavuto's show. They showed a video of an Obama supporter talking about getting help with all of her needs from the government. A discussion ensued where the question was asked, "are we becoming a nation of moochers?".

Some of the answers from the liberal members of the panel were quite startling. There has to be a way to explain to people that free stuff isn't really free stuff, and what the consequences to this "bailout fevor" really are.

An education effort, that is going to attract voters to a Conservative message and policy platform is going to have to explain this better than anybody has ever managed to explain it. I'm trying to find the words, and though it may be difficult for some of you to believe, I'm having difficulty finding them.

Humans reached a point, roughly a century ago, where the historical social adhesives had lost their binding effect; reliance on government to provide that cohesion was a natural outcome of that. Whether by conscious design or happy accident, a number of the revolutionary movements and sociological theories of the 1960 and 70's acted in concert with that evolutionary underpinning. Today those movements may not recognize their roots, whether that is our greater social evolution or the subtext of radical theories proposed during the 60's, but they are acting on those forces nonetheless.

As those movements have grown through both an organic and organized way, not only has government become a reliable agent for maintaining a cohesive society, but reliance on that has become mainstream; there is little stigma to government intervention.

Reversing that trend will be an Homeric task. First, no effort that attempts to bail against the tide of human evolution will have any broad based or long lasting legitimacy. We will have to honestly assess the background we are operating against and educate accordingly.

And, while education will be a key component of any successful effort to shape public will, alone it will be insufficient. There will also need to be a compelling and attractive element that draws people in, and keeps them engaged.

[Mr. M]

One of the primary roots at solving this mentality is to properly educate persons on our nations history. Remove the modern revisionist view and add emphasis on the real struggles the founders faced. To do that there needs to be a serious revamping of our educational goals as a nation.

I have a 8th grade history book from 1935 and at the end of the book it has questions concerning our constitution and bill of rights as well as prominant founding fathers. I gave the test to my self and my son and we did equally poor on it 5 yrs ago since then we have improved our understanding and knowledge on the subject of our founding as a nation. Kids today might only get 2 or 3 questions correct and one of those would be how to spell your name!

Our standards have been dropped so low that the result is seen today in the instant gratification and give it to me now mentality.

I think we cannot ignore that aspect of any change meme, C. With the rise of a technological age and the internet literacy of today's population, avenues of education are broader and more accessible than ever. They cannot be ignored if we wish to augment serious efforts to shape a society.

We will also need a popular vehicle for delivering that effort. Unfortunately, as you suggest, we are becoming more and more of a sound-bite society, the inevitable outcome of being overcome by a tsunami of information. A compelling and easily accessible format along with a message that has resonance will be critical.


And education will be only one prong of any successful effort.

[Mr. M]

If we want to ensure future and current Conservatives voters, that education effort may have to bypass the school system somehow. Changing the schools and curriculum is a good grass roots goal, but will take some serious effort and time. Good long term goal, but in terms of what we do short term, what can we do?

That, in my opinion is the critical question, N. What can we do?


First, an honest assessment of our situation, of the nature of modern society and predictable trends, will be necessary. This needs to be an unflinching review of our collective unconscious; a view that does not allow us to succumb to saccharine notions of what we want to see, or what was intended, or what should be. Any successful grassroots movement will need to act in concert with our collective unconscious, not in contravention to it.

Second, we will need to look at successful social movements in late twentieth century societies, mainly western democracies and in particular those in America from around 1960 forward. Many of those will be advocates for precisely the activities that we would hope to counterbalance, but if they have built a successful model, we ignore them at our peril, and unnecessarily bedevil ourselves reinventing wheels that may already be sitting stock on the shelves.


And we will need to select a successful repository for moving forward. One that acts in concert with our national will, that shapes it rather than thwarts it. That likely means a long term commitment and irritatingly incremental and barely measurable successes. But if we are going to overcome our short term mentality and, as cbut1 aptly put it, our instant gratification instinct, we will have to prepare for the long haul.

I suggested, in another thread, that the NRA represents one such model. So, too, ironically, does Habitat for Humanity. And, I think, there is something to be said for a grassroots organization that looks at making modest changes to Social Security over a long period of time. One that stimulates participants to act in free market ways, to accept and expect personal responsibility in their own actions and demand the same in politicians they elect.

Perhaps this sounds daunting, it need not. The mechanisms are in place today to do much of the yeoman's work over the internet. In another time opining and organizing was a painstaking process that required inordinate amounts of time and massive sacrifices. Much of what we could do can be done in the medium we are using now. And, at some point, midwifing a new paradigm will use the already established paths of other successful grassroots efforts in a technological age. To wax philosophically fatalistic for a moment, if the effort is going to be successful, it is inevitable. If not, we lose little talking about it.

And, at the very least, we will recognize the handbasket we are going to hell in...

[cbut1]

My wife and I currently homeschool our children (predominantly online) and there is an ever increasing awareness of the value that homeschooling adds to the positive benefits of society. As such wouldn't it be advantageous of those who are diligent in the nobility of our Constituion to work towards an ever expanding acceptance of this manner of education, using the very medium you propose Mr. M.

Then in concert with these educational methods create or even partner with such groups as Habitat for Humanity, to help increase the mindset of hard work for the benefit of self and society. I know from my time and efforts helping family that are in construction and in farming which are not instant methods of developing skill sets but long term consistancy and effort of developing character. That once one finds that gratification of a job well done the pride and respect on has for themself is nearly perminantly instilled into their soul, as such instant hand outs and dependency becomes abhorrent to such a person. All of this works in concert with our sub conscious to where instead of seeing the outward white washed walls as being valued one can then see the inward beauty and true strength .

[Vinner38]

Home schooling is fine BUT what are you teaching them? That is the question, They won't even have a legitiment High School Diploma when done however, I have a friend that was homeschooled and had to get a g.e.d. so he could join the US Army. So what good is home schooling? He has a very limited education and doesnt know too much about anything, If that is home schooling it doesnt say much for it. If you parents insisted that the teachers teach as when I was a child Then things in public school would be different. Most of you parents do not even punnish your children, little lone home school them correctly. That why we have a country stuffed with millions of spoiled liberals, With the get something for nothing attitude, My 23 yr old son in law wont work or join the military Both Lazy and Stupid. He had everything handed to him Then his mother died and he was left helpless and Now my step daughter and son in law Live off the state, My tax dollars at work. I didnt raise MY children that way If they wanted something the worked for it, I gave NO handouts, and they had to do good in school.
I see all these lazy children dressed in their Baggy ass cloths hanging at the mall. They do not have anything to do. Liberal parents that just do not care.
These are the things that have ruined young people and our country.

[Mr. M]

My wife and I currently homeschool our children (predominantly online) and there is an ever increasing awareness of the value that homeschooling adds to the positive benefits of society. As such wouldn't it be advantageous of those who are diligent in the nobility of our Constituion to work towards an ever expanding acceptance of this manner of education, using the very medium you propose Mr. M.

I certainly think that additional support for homeschooling efforts, distance education, and vouchers (where they make sense), all could contribute to opportunities for better and broader educations. Monolithic educational systems are not necessary to make sure baselines are met and diversity in presentation and product should certainly be considered as one of the ways to inject new solutions into our society at large. I do think the process needs to grow organically. The existing system, with all its warts and wants, at the very least provides a common American mythos that contributes to social lubrication. But, to borrow a proverb from Emerson, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Assurances of a nationally portable and shared education is no more valuable than a system that encourages diversity in curricula.


Then in concert with these educational methods create or even partner with such groups as Habitat for Humanity, to help increase the mindset of hard work for the benefit of self and society. I know from my time and efforts helping family that are in construction and in farming which are not instant methods of developing skill sets but long term consistancy and effort of developing character. That once one finds that gratification of a job well done the pride and respect on has for themself is nearly perminantly instilled into their soul, as such instant hand outs and dependency becomes abhorrent to such a person. All of this works in concert with our sub conscious to where instead of seeing the outward white washed walls as being valued one can then see the inward beauty and true strength .

I certainly agree that broader education needs to harnessed to a variety of efforts to evolve the current national teleology. One thing we need to keep in mind is that, though we may be looking for some sort of "silver bullet", in fact, what will be needed is a multi-faceted effort. Education, the NRA, programs like Habitat and Social Security modifications are not mutually exclusive. We are, perhaps, a bit behind in our evaluation of the existing system and our methods of delivery, particularly when it comes to grassroots organizations.

That will have to change if we expect to make any headway.

[aggies for conservatism]

For those of thoughtful disposition and measured demeanor, a thread where non-partisan ideas trump non-stop ideology. A safe haven from the slings and arrows of outrageous rhetoric and rancorous bickering.

The rules of participation are simple. Rational discourse, enlightening dialectic, and brainstorming are welcome. Acrimony, arguing, and animosity are not.


Applications for intelligent discussion are now being accepted.

is that possible on the "LEFT"?

[BasicGreatGuy]

If we want to ensure future and current Conservatives voters, that education effort may have to bypass the school system somehow. Changing the schools and curriculum is a good grass roots goal, but will take some serious effort and time. Good long term goal, but in terms of what we do short term, what can we do?

One of the things we can do, is use the venue of the internet, to our favor. One of the means by which this can be accomplished, is founding and constitutional history and application.

In my opinion, it would be prudent for people of all ages, to have a site where they could go to, that would not only give them information about our founding history and Constitution, but it would also show how said history and founding documents are rightfully applicable today, in regards to the governance of this Republic.

We are dealing with more than one chasm, in my opinion. We are dealing with the chasm of ignorance and applicability. It is one thing to help others educate themselves on the founding history, and the Constitution. It is quite another to tie that together in today's world, in relation to applicability.

Another way we can help bridge the two gaps, is by setting up local clubs, whereby people of all ages could come together in their local community, helping to educate and inspire one another on the aforementioned.

If we are going to help bridge the gaps, we have to show people through the founding history and documents, that party loyalty for the sake of party loyalty is not the answer. It is part of the problem. Most people think they know what they believe. Sadly, most don't truly know why they believe the way they do per, the Constitution. The only way we can break through that shell, is through education.

There is a lot more than I could say on this subject, but those are two ideas, that are feasible, and can come to fruition, if people are willing to work and sacrifice.

[BasicGreatGuy]

is that possible on the "LEFT"?

Are we all robots? Using the broad bat of generalization to beat your fellow American over the head with, while telling them at the same time, that they need Jesus, is not the way to go about things.

Making comments like that only festers at the boil, and inspires people to tune you out, instead of inspiring them to tune in to the core message, void of partisan slant.

[nebcon]

One of the things we can do, is use the venue of the internet, to our favor. One of the means by which this can be accomplished, is founding and constitutional history and application.

In my opinion, it would be prudent for people of all ages, to have a site where they could go to, that would not only give them information about our founding history and Constitution, but it would also show how said history and founding documents are rightfully applicable today, in regards to the governance of this Republic.

We are dealing with more than one chasm, in my opinion. We are dealing with the chasm of ignorance and applicability. It is one thing to help others educate themselves on the founding history, and the Constitution. It is quite another to tie that together in today's world, in relation to applicability.

Another way we can help bridge the two gaps, is by setting up local clubs, whereby people of all ages could come together in their local community, helping to educate and inspire one another on the aforementioned.

If we are going to help bridge the gaps, we have to show people through the founding history and documents, that party loyalty for the sake of party loyalty is not the answer. It is part of the problem. Most people think they know what they believe. Sadly, most don't truly know why they believe the way they do per, the Constitution. The only way we can break through that shell, is through education.

There is a lot more than I could say on this subject, but those are two ideas, that are feasible, and can come to fruition, if people are willing to work and sacrifice.

I don't know that I can donate hosting, by I am a web developer, and would no problem donating programming to such an effort. I'm no designer, so that would have to be someone else's job.

The trick is the concept and making it more than just another blog or other type of .org site.

[Cav Scout]

Ah, I apologize for not finding this sooner.

Some thought provoking posts already. Took me a bit of mulling over what I had read. That is good.

A couple of observations, and a couple of idea's.

The issue of educating our children in the social graces, skills and labors of life has since the 1970's been largely handed over to the public school system as working mom's and dad's have run out to make their fortune and mark's in the world. Believe it or not, I see this now coming full circle. I have in the last year or so noticed a lot of younger parent's, kids in their twenty's and thirty's taking an opposite approach to this. I have just this last month overheard two couples discussing over dinner that they were not going to raise their children this way, that in their day, the did not like coming home to an empty house and a TV set. I must say that is a joyous thing for me to hear. It just may be that this part of social pendulum is starting its return stroke.

This election cycle has apparently raised concern among an otherwise mostly silent group of the voting population and that is the "average middle class worker". I am reading lots of opinion letters in the papers around here about the ACORN issue and fraud. That is good. Now what to do with the raised concern? I am now at the stage of good, I have your attention, (and now at a loss at what to do with that attention), I have of course started writing letters, but I so do not feel that is enough.

I feel we have a larger then normal group of young conservative minds at college's across the country, so we really need to reach out to these young minds, they are the minds that are the future of our existence.

What is the best approach for this?

Conservative thinking has always been a minority in my lifetime, but I sense a comeback, we need to fertilize this. I like the idea of a web sight, and if hosting is an issue, someone tell me what we need, I have the ability to do this I think, just not the knowledge of what is needed.

[Cav Scout]

I don't know that I can donate hosting, by I am a web developer, and would no problem donating programming to such an effort. I'm no designer, so that would have to be someone else's job.

The trick is the concept and making it more than just another blog or other type of .org site.

I am in the process of installing a relatively large server for the purpose of monitoring and remote maintenance. The man tells me I currently am ordering twice the size that I need, so my question is, how much do think we would need to operate a site?

[Cav Scout]

I certainly think that additional support for homeschooling efforts, distance education, and vouchers (where they make sense), all could contribute to opportunities for better and broader educations. Monolithic educational systems are not necessary to make sure baselines are met and diversity in presentation and product should certainly be considered as one of the ways to inject new solutions into our society at large. I do think the process needs to grow organically. The existing system, with all its warts and wants, at the very least provides a common American mythos that contributes to social lubrication. But, to borrow a proverb from Emerson, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Assurances of a nationally portable and shared education is no more valuable than a system that encourages diversity in curricula.




I certainly agree that broader education needs to harnessed to a variety of efforts to evolve the current national teleology. One thing we need to keep in mind is that, though we may be looking for some sort of "silver bullet", in fact, what will be needed is a multi-faceted effort. Education, the NRA, programs like Habitat and Social Security modifications are not mutually exclusive. We are, perhaps, a bit behind in our evaluation of the existing system and our methods of delivery, particularly when it comes to grassroots organizations.

That will have to change if we expect to make any headway.

Agreed.

[God-N-Country]

Home schooling is fine BUT what are you teaching them? That is the question, They won't even have a legitiment High School Diploma when done however, I have a friend that was homeschooled and had to get a g.e.d. so he could join the US Army. So what good is home schooling? He has a very limited education and doesnt know too much about anything, If that is home schooling it doesnt say much for it. If you parents insisted that the teachers teach as when I was a child Then things in public school would be different. Most of you parents do not even punnish your children, little lone home school them correctly. That why we have a country stuffed with millions of spoiled liberals, With the get something for nothing attitude, My 23 yr old son in law wont work or join the military Both Lazy and Stupid. He had everything handed to him Then his mother died and he was left helpless and Now my step daughter and son in law Live off the state, My tax dollars at work. I didnt raise MY children that way If they wanted something the worked for it, I gave NO handouts, and they had to do good in school.
I see all these lazy children dressed in their Baggy ass cloths hanging at the mall. They do not have anything to do. Liberal parents that just do not care.
These are the things that have ruined young people and our country.

Vinner38, I have no problem at all with the content of your post. Certainly, there are imperfections with any educational system, whether it be public or home based. I have seen examples of kids that were homeschooled incorrectly. Generally speaking, however, I have seen many more examples of students that were mishandled in the realm of public education. In either case, the educator shouldn't be "winging" it. A curriculum should be implemented and some semblence of schedule adhered to. As a side note: you might want to proofread your post if you are to be criticizing any educational system. " little lone" for example should be " let alone". Just some friendly advice.

[Cav Scout]

Cultivating the base?

After giving this some long thought and reviewing the way the country voted this time around, it would appear to me that our largest challenge and it is a challenge, is to cultivate the conservatives in the coastal area's.

When one looks at the electors, there is no possible way a "win" can be carved out of any election unless one manages to take large portions of the coastal area's. These area's are not conservative strongholds by any means.

Constantine said it very well, and it was born out this election, we will not be able to put another luke warm pseudo conservative up again. Bipartisan ship is not a platform, it is something that is done in congress in hopes to achieve a common goal, it is not a selling point for a Presidential Candidate.

In my opinion anyway, we need to start digging and planting the conservative seeds in the coastal area's and I am unsure of how to best do this. With mailers? With actual live forums? The fact that we actually lost Virgina all the way around to Texas for the most part was not only shocking to me, it was very telling.
We need to work these area's very heavy and start now.

We also need to have a chat with the RNC. Or as my father would say, slap them upside the head and get their attention. I have a hunch they are all sleeping off a bad hang over right now, and now is the time they need to be awake and taking stock of our position, which for all practical purposes, sucks.

I have been doing some more digging into the realm of ACORN, and now I am 100% positive that this has been a long term operation with planned goals, and they did not expect to be exposed, but when stupid people work in sensitive area's, you are bound to be found out. We can ill afford to let this issue die.

[nebcon]

I am in the process of installing a relatively large server for the purpose of monitoring and remote maintenance. The man tells me I currently am ordering twice the size that I need, so my question is, how much do think we would need to operate a site?

It depends entirely on what we would want to have on the site. A few hundred meg is fine for mostly static content. A blog a little more. Video is a big deal these days, however if you simply embed videos uploaded to Youtube (not a bad idea for wider exposure), then you don't need additional storage for video. A blog would require a database, which most decent hosting plans provide.

[nebcon]

Ah, I apologize for not finding this sooner.

Some thought provoking posts already. Took me a bit of mulling over what I had read. That is good.

A couple of observations, and a couple of idea's.

The issue of educating our children in the social graces, skills and labors of life has since the 1970's been largely handed over to the public school system as working mom's and dad's have run out to make their fortune and mark's in the world. Believe it or not, I see this now coming full circle. I have in the last year or so noticed a lot of younger parent's, kids in their twenty's and thirty's taking an opposite approach to this. I have just this last month overheard two couples discussing over dinner that they were not going to raise their children this way, that in their day, the did not like coming home to an empty house and a TV set. I must say that is a joyous thing for me to hear. It just may be that this part of social pendulum is starting its return stroke.

This election cycle has apparently raised concern among an otherwise mostly silent group of the voting population and that is the "average middle class worker". I am reading lots of opinion letters in the papers around here about the ACORN issue and fraud. That is good. Now what to do with the raised concern? I am now at the stage of good, I have your attention, (and now at a loss at what to do with that attention), I have of course started writing letters, but I so do not feel that is enough.

I feel we have a larger then normal group of young conservative minds at college's across the country, so we really need to reach out to these young minds, they are the minds that are the future of our existence.

What is the best approach for this?

Conservative thinking has always been a minority in my lifetime, but I sense a comeback, we need to fertilize this. I like the idea of a web sight, and if hosting is an issue, someone tell me what we need, I have the ability to do this I think, just not the knowledge of what is needed.

If people feel that their influence via their vote is being eroded or taken away, knowing how they can go about getting that influence back, can be a valuable thing.

[2Parties1GlobalistGoal]

I really believe that I will not find common ground with many here and I think finding common ground is the inherent problem with democracy and politics in general. It gets to the point where the positions taken are so watered down, and so many of the issues you feel strongly about aren't being discussed or the positions of "common ground" taken by the whole aren't in line with your own.

It may be that I am too much of an "ideologue" and I'm not a pragmatist. I really try to find common ground with people but I always feel like if I agree with someone who supports such and such stated statist program I'm supporting it. I'm sure there are a few others who would agree with me.

[Cav Scout]

If people feel that their influence via their vote is being eroded or taken away, knowing how they can go about getting that influence back, can be a valuable thing.

Agreed.

[Cav Scout]

I really believe that I will not find common ground with many here and I think finding common ground is the inherent problem with democracy and politics in general. It gets to the point where the positions taken are so watered down, and so many of the issues you feel strongly about aren't being discussed or the positions of "common ground" taken by the whole aren't in line with your own.

It may be that I am too much of an "ideologue" and I'm not a pragmatist. I really try to find common ground with people but I always feel like if I agree with someone who supports such and such stated statist program I'm supporting it. I'm sure there are a few others who would agree with me.

I do not bend easy. Compromise is not something I do well. However that being said, I find that a little is needed at times.
Note our discussion earlier about rights and war. While the two of us will likely not ever agree on our stated positions, I noticed we did agree on the hypocrisy of some people and that in and of itself was a step. I am rather Idealistic and rather adamant in those ideals. If however we do not make some attempt to find a common ground for the further future of Conservatism, it will be lost to those that would move far to the left.

[Vinner38]

Just some friendly advice.[/quote]
God-N-Country (http://forums.hannity.com/member.php?u=390981)


Here is some advice to you
I served as a Ranger in the US Army
I had allot more to worry about then spell check
Because... I was protecting YOUR ASS!
If you worry about how words are spelled or used
Then You my friend are whats called a **** poor person!
I have better things to do with my time then complain about such UN Important issues... Later and do take care!!!!!!!!!!!!
:snooty:

[Mr. M]

Cultivating the base?

After giving this some long thought and reviewing the way the country voted this time around, it would appear to me that our largest challenge and it is a challenge, is to cultivate the conservatives in the coastal area's.

When one looks at the electors, there is no possible way a "win" can be carved out of any election unless one manages to take large portions of the coastal area's. These area's are not conservative strongholds by any means.

Constantine said it very well, and it was born out this election, we will not be able to put another luke warm pseudo conservative up again. Bipartisan ship is not a platform, it is something that is done in congress in hopes to achieve a common goal, it is not a selling point for a Presidential Candidate.

In my opinion anyway, we need to start digging and planting the conservative seeds in the coastal area's and I am unsure of how to best do this. With mailers? With actual live forums? The fact that we actually lost Virgina all the way around to Texas for the most part was not only shocking to me, it was very telling.
We need to work these area's very heavy and start now.

We also need to have a chat with the RNC. Or as my father would say, slap them upside the head and get their attention. I have a hunch they are all sleeping off a bad hang over right now, and now is the time they need to be awake and taking stock of our position, which for all practical purposes, sucks.

I have been doing some more digging into the realm of ACORN, and now I am 100% positive that this has been a long term operation with planned goals, and they did not expect to be exposed, but when stupid people work in sensitive area's, you are bound to be found out. We can ill afford to let this issue die.

I agree with your assessment of ACORN, Cav. They "planted a seed" nearly a generation ago and patiently watered until it bore fruit. There is little reason to expect that they will discontinue those efforts now that they have generated measurable success.

We will need a similar concept and application. And similar patience as well. Reliance on government is not something that occurred by accident, programs that took advantage of that human evolution worked in concert with the our need for social cohesion. Anything else is bailing against the tide.

Nothing says we cannot pursue a variety of avenues, but at some point we will need a grassroots organization that promotes a more free thinking ideal and, more importantly, a program. Originally the NWRO drew in the impoverished underbelly as a political bloc acting in their own interest to take advantage of government programs. Similarly, ACORN used those philosophical underpinnings to form grassroots voting and affordable housing organizations. Ideas that are not grounded in action that involve those outside our current sphere of influence will not offer opportunities for change.

[Mr. M]

I really believe that I will not find common ground with many here and I think finding common ground is the inherent problem with democracy and politics in general. It gets to the point where the positions taken are so watered down, and so many of the issues you feel strongly about aren't being discussed or the positions of "common ground" taken by the whole aren't in line with your own.

It may be that I am too much of an "ideologue" and I'm not a pragmatist. I really try to find common ground with people but I always feel like if I agree with someone who supports such and such stated statist program I'm supporting it. I'm sure there are a few others who would agree with me.

Two points. First, the "common ground" the thread is premised on is an agreement by those participating here to agree to a civil debate regardless of the issues they bring to the thread. Though the concept came from our discussion of political common ground, the thread was developed to allow other conversations to occur here using an agreed upon, and (if necessary), moderated format.

As to our ongoing conversation, I'm afraid the biggest misconception is that we are seeking some sort of compromise on platforms, parties or personalities. That is precisely what we need to avoid. As far as "pragmatism" is concerned, if your reference is to the broader school of philosophy founded by Pierce and championed by thinkers like William James, that, too, is taking in more territory than necessary.

The common ground we should be seeking, and an apt place for compromise or pragmatism, is in a specific vehicle. A vehicle that does not preclude each of us from our own personal philosophy, party affiliation (or lack thereof), and preference in politicians. A vehicle that, over a period of time, encourages free thinking and individual action, even if that is coordinated or supported by a grassroots organization.

For instance, the NRA or Habitat for Humanity offer opportunities for individuals to access organizations that further specific goals they consider important without any sacrifice of personal philosophy. Within the application of a single program, some compromise, common ground and pragmatism is possible since it serves a larger purpose accessible to those of wide political stripe. Further, they require little or no sacrifice of deeply held beliefs or political tenets since they operate within the narrow confines of a single application.

Take Social Security as an example. Most would agree that system is damaged. Further, it represents the largest drain on the federal budget as well as a philosophical marker for our reliance on government. We might also agree that a long term solution that returns responsibility to the individual and lessens the drain on the federal budget is worthwhile. While we might be willing to act pragmatically in this case, or consider common ground, it in no way requires any sacrifice of key canons of our own political philosophy, only an attempt to modify a single policy into something less onerous.

We need to get past the idea that we are attempting to find a panacea for all our philosophical ills in a single politically palatable palliative. There will be no common ground there, no falling on our own political sword for the good of some nebulous gain promised by others. In this instance common ground is meant to be an alliance of equals on an issue. And, perhaps, an organizational effort to implement it.

[Cav Scout]

It occurred to me today while hunting, an Idea that is going to rock the Union world. Being a contractor I have in the past submitted article to various trade magazines and the UBC and IBEW mags as well. I am now going to start a series of conservative outreach articles in the trade and union magazines. Some may say, well they will not print them, I think they will, they are not as apt to bite the hand that feeds as other more non specific magazines are. They know what happens when you upset contractors.

While hunting today, my son had a good day.

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=42767441&postcount=38

[cbut1]

I am starting to formulate a gameplan for creating greater awareness in my community concerning our nations foundation and founding fathers. I think I may write a play or two and try to set up in one of our local parks (upon filing proper paperworks to do so) free for the public.

[BasicGreatGuy]

I am starting to formulate a gameplan for creating greater awareness in my community concerning our nations foundation and founding fathers. I think I may write a play or two and try to set up in one of our local parks (upon filing proper paperworks to do so) free for the public.
Great idea cbut1. :clap:

[BasicGreatGuy]

It occurred to me today while hunting, an Idea that is going to rock the Union world. Being a contractor I have in the past submitted article to various trade magazines and the UBC and IBEW mags as well. I am now going to start a series of conservative outreach articles in the trade and union magazines. Some may say, well they will not print them, I think they will, they are not as apt to bite the hand that feeds as other more non specific magazines are. They know what happens when you upset contractors.

While hunting today, my son had a good day.

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=42767441&postcount=38

Another great idea! Great to see people thinking outside the box as it were.

What you and cbut1 have mentioned, are the kinds of things I was referring to in my lengthy post.

[dportjoe]

Feel free to do the plays remebering that many of our founders viewed them selves as 'diests' rather than "christian'. Make note of the Jefferson bible/ Also be advised that many unions have or are building conservative groups. AFSCME council 28 in WA has a very active conservative caucus. We have endorsed republicans for state house and senate seats based on thier willingness to listen to our issues and even on occassion adovacte for state employees. But our conservative members are union people first so do not make the mistake (as did Dino Rossi) of meeting them and talking about pay cuts or ending agency/union shops or taking away contract rights. Perhaps we can bring the back the GOP of Eisenhower-a GOP that while supporting business uses the Lincoln ideal: "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.

[cbut1]

Feel free to do the plays remebering that many of our founders viewed them selves as 'diests' rather than "christian'. Make note of the Jefferson bible/ Also be advised that many unions have or are building conservative groups. AFSCME council 28 in WA has a very active conservative caucus. We have endorsed republicans for state house and senate seats based on thier willingness to listen to our issues and even on occassion adovacte for state employees. But our conservative members are union people first so do not make the mistake (as did Dino Rossi) of meeting them and talking about pay cuts or ending agency/union shops or taking away contract rights. Perhaps we can bring the back the GOP of Eisenhower-a GOP that while supporting business uses the Lincoln ideal: "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.



Thanks for the reminder, but I didn't think I alluded to any intent of including (nor denying for that matter) their religious views. Just bringing to awareness some of the struggles through serious drama as well as joyous humor.

First comes the writing, it will be a little bit before I finish.

[Seanachie]

Thanks for the links on the Butler origin. The "Chance your Arm" phrase will be added to my list of metaphors.

[Tollyho]

Just some friendly advice.
God-N-Country (http://forums.hannity.com/member.php?u=390981)


Here is some advice to you
I served as a Ranger in the US Army
I had allot more to worry about then spell check
Because... I was protecting YOUR ASS!
If you worry about how words are spelled or used
Then You my friend are whats called a **** poor person!
I have better things to do with my time then complain about such UN Important issues... Later and do take care!!!!!!!!!!!!
:snooty:[/quote]

Well said, and God bless you for your service. A service which keeps us all blogging on this post without the worry of someone kicking in our door.

To condemn an opinion because of spelling is to condemn the idea, or thought, or observation being presented. Rediculous and very small-minded. To the very least.

Knock it off, it just shows the arguement to be weak, or unsound. Very B-HO.

Tolly

[PhantomPholly]

This is a pretty good thread.

To those concerned about the military budget, I recommend examining this chart. (http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Magazine%20Documents/2007/February%202007/0207chart.pdf) If we keep our nation's economy sound, the expenditure to retain the world's strongest military becomes a barely noticeable burden on our citizens.

I believe the core problem America faces is that it is a nation built upon a structure of rules. The core problem with rules is that everyone wants to proliferate and change them, until there are so many which conflict with each other that law itself is diluted unto nothing, and where the only occupations sufficiently profitable to attract our best and brightest are the essentially parasitical roles of lawyer, legislator, and performer. Each of these roles depends upon the funds of the truly productive to thrive, and none of these roles produces anything which endures.

A better way to structure an enduring government would be to build it upon interlocking principles designed to be self-limiting. Our Founding Fathers attempted this, but as it had never been done before thought they could capture the essence of their principles in a set of rules. It worked for a while.

Plato once suggested a utopia ruled by philosopher-kings. I believe he was on the right track. I am not bright enough to create such a system myself, but believe that somewhere between philosophy and mathematics that such a system, inherently stable and self-limiting, is possible.

[Cav Scout]

This is a pretty good thread.

To those concerned about the military budget, I recommend examining this chart. (http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Magazine%20Documents/2007/February%202007/0207chart.pdf) If we keep our nation's economy sound, the expenditure to retain the world's strongest military becomes a barely noticeable burden on our citizens.

I believe the core problem America faces is that it is a nation built upon a structure of rules. The core problem with rules is that everyone wants to proliferate and change them, until there are so many which conflict with each other that law itself is diluted unto nothing, and where the only occupations sufficiently profitable to attract our best and brightest are the essentially parasitical roles of lawyer, legislator, and performer. Each of these roles depends upon the funds of the truly productive to thrive, and none of these roles produces anything which endures.

A better way to structure an enduring government would be to build it upon interlocking principles designed to be self-limiting. Our Founding Fathers attempted this, but as it had never been done before thought they could capture the essence of their principles in a set of rules. It worked for a while.

Plato once suggested a utopia ruled by philosopher-kings. I believe he was on the right track. I am not bright enough to create such a system myself, but believe that somewhere between philosophy and mathematics that such a system, inherently stable and self-limiting, is possible.

Well, this is an excellent thought. Now if I was only smart enough to comment.:D

[Bluesgtr44]

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly View Post
This is a pretty good thread.

To those concerned about the military budget, I recommend examining this chart. If we keep our nation's economy sound, the expenditure to retain the world's strongest military becomes a barely noticeable burden on our citizens.

I believe the core problem America faces is that it is a nation built upon a structure of rules. The core problem with rules is that everyone wants to proliferate and change them, until there are so many which conflict with each other that law itself is diluted unto nothing, and where the only occupations sufficiently profitable to attract our best and brightest are the essentially parasitical roles of lawyer, legislator, and performer. Each of these roles depends upon the funds of the truly productive to thrive, and none of these roles produces anything which endures.

A better way to structure an enduring government would be to build it upon interlocking principles designed to be self-limiting. Our Founding Fathers attempted this, but as it had never been done before thought they could capture the essence of their principles in a set of rules. It worked for a while.

Plato once suggested a utopia ruled by philosopher-kings. I believe he was on the right track. I am not bright enough to create such a system myself, but believe that somewhere between philosophy and mathematics that such a system, inherently stable and self-limiting, is possible.

Getting from point A to point B is going to one heck of an uphill battle.

1.) The ability to gather and desiminate reliable information. The people we have been relying on for this are no longer reliable due to their own posterity and self interests.

2.) Defeating the lies and deceptions of how P.C. is abused for the sake of empowering certain trains of thought over others and gaining momentum on any real debate to educate the population as to how this is not in anyones best interest.

3.) Giving power back to the States.....this would enable us to try many differing approaches to solve problems instead of this Federally mandated "one size fits all" nightmare that has proven to solve very, very little...if anything!

4.) Quit trying to administer programs designed for the huge cities on a tantamount scale and expecting them to work in smalltown America.....it's not working! Again, give it back to the States and the States can take care of the Local parts. We are NOT all dying to be N.Y.C.!

5.) Infrastructure is not a bunch of socialist programs....it's infrastructure! Social Security is NOT infrastructure! Your local Fire Dept. is infrastructure!

I think these are some good things to discuss.....anyone else? Thanks!

[Cav Scout]

4.) Quit trying to administer programs designed for the huge cities on a tantamount scale and expecting them to work in smalltown America.....it's not working! Again, give it back to the States and the States can take care of the Local parts. We are NOT all dying to be N.Y.C.!



Well the problem here is "Vote Whoring". If you look at the county by county map of the US and how they voted this election, you will see that predominantly the populated areas voted for their handouts. So, one can assume that we have now moved so far left as a society that the notion of working for yourself and your pride will no longer win votes. It is a conundrum to be sure.


5.) Infrastructure is not a bunch of socialist programs....it's infrastructure! Social Security is NOT infrastructure! Your local Fire Dept. is infrastructure!



The average person only cares about infrastructure when it does not work. The average person also believes that "Social Infrastructure" works.

[Bluesgtr44]

Well the problem here is "Vote Whoring". If you look at the county by county map of the US and how they voted this election, you will see that predominantly the populated areas voted for their handouts. So, one can assume that we have now moved so far left as a society that the notion of working for yourself and your pride will no longer win votes. It is a conundrum to be sure.



The average person only cares about infrastructure when it does not work. The average person also believes that "Social Infrastructure" works.

Oh yeah! "Buy a vote" scheme is alive and well right now. And the place for it to flourish is in the major over populated areas....local officials let this get away from them. City governments do have an ability to control population growth according to the needs and demands of surrounding industry and commerce.....somehow, somewhere...they got this notion that "building it bigger!" produces more money from a larger tax base.....NOT! I have a feeling this is still a major part of many a metropolitan thinking and why they are in serious trouble.

If you take a look at the county by county maps of the last 3 presidential elections....there not very different at all! It definitely shows the disconnect in our country. Fifteen to twenty majorly over populated megalopolises can basically run the whole country....something is very wrong with that picture. We need to give the control and the money back to the States!

[Cav Scout]

Oh yeah! "Buy a vote" scheme is alive and well right now. And the place for it to flourish is in the major over populated areas....local officials let this get away from them. City governments do have an ability to control population growth according to the needs and demands of surrounding industry and commerce.....somehow, somewhere...they got this notion that "building it bigger!" produces more money from a larger tax base.....NOT! I have a feeling this is still a major part of many a metropolitan thinking and why they are in serious trouble.

If you take a look at the county by county maps of the last 3 presidential elections....there not very different at all! It definitely shows the disconnect in our country. Fifteen to twenty majorly over populated megalopolises can basically run the whole country....something is very wrong with that picture. We need to give the control and the money back to the States!

Other then through good grass roots orginizing, the only other way to wrest control back would be to change the way the electoral college works and I am not a fan of that plan.

[Mr. M]

Other then through good grass roots orginizing, the only other way to wrest control back would be to change the way the electoral college works and I am not a fan of that plan.

I think any attempt to see actual change will come through evolutionary ideas that are implemented at grassroots levels. Ideas that will work in conjunction with our sociological evolution, slowly shaping them and the attitudes of individuals.


Any change that relies on systemic modifications of political processes smacks of gimmickry; of attempting to hoodwink actual change. While it might provide some temporary electoral advantage, it is unlikely to be self-sustaining, to have deep resonance.

One of the clear messages we need to send, is that there is no solution. There is an ongoing and never ending process. Politics is not a terminus. It is a process.

[Cav Scout]

One of the clear messages we need to send, is that there is no solution. There is an ongoing and never ending process. Politics is not a terminus. It is a process.



I think this is the thing that so many of us get hung up on from time to time and it takes us being reminded of it.

I am a results oriented person so I see things in terms of "solutions" when in reality the Process is the Solution ever changing and ever fluid. It is how we choose to attempt to channel the flow so to speak that provides the "Result" which we look for. It is a character flaw of mine. I want a result now.
Not seeing that I actually have that result becuase it is fluid.

[Mr. M]

I think this is the thing that so many of us get hung up on from time to time and it takes us being reminded of it.

I am a results oriented person so I see things in terms of "solutions" when in reality the Process is the Solution ever changing and ever fluid. It is how we choose to attempt to channel the flow so to speak that provides the "Result" which we look for. It is a character flaw of mine. I want a result now.
Not seeing that I actually have that result becuase it is fluid.

I think that reflects an ingrained attitude that permeates our society, Cav. We read novels that have, for the most part conclusive, if not happy, endings. Our teachers ask us for "The" answer. Open-minded means looking at "both" sides. And we like to go home at night with a feeling of accomplishment, something that often only comes with a clear conclusion.

As counter to that, we often post here concerning "changes" that represent no measurable modification from the status quo, but even that can be tied to our desire to have a clear and convincing metric that delivers change. I expect one of the frustrations our friends on the left will soon have with an Obama administration is the frightfully and almost imperceptible pace and face of "change."

But it is what it is. As you so succinctly put it, the process is the solution, which makes settling on the proper process that much more important. Though there are no guarantees that the right vehicle will be chosen, or that even the proper vehicle will actually gain traction, we want to make sure our measured efforts are being put into harness for appropriate and achievable goals.

Nothing worse than waking up one morning and wondering what the hell you've been doing for ten years...

[Cav Scout]

I think that reflects an ingrained attitude that permeates our society, Cav. We read novels that have, for the most part conclusive, if not happy, endings. Our teachers ask us for "The" answer. Open-minded means looking at "both" sides. And we like to go home at night with a feeling of accomplishment, something that often only comes with a clear conclusion.

As counter to that, we often post here concerning "changes" that represent no measurable modification from the status quo, but even that can be tied to our desire to have a clear and convincing metric that delivers change. I expect one of the frustrations our friends on the left will soon have with an Obama administration is the frightfully and almost imperceptible pace and face of "change."

But it is what it is. As you so succinctly put it, the process is the solution, which makes settling on the proper process that much more important. Though there are no guarantees that the right vehicle will be chosen, or that even the proper vehicle will actually gain traction, we want to make sure our measured efforts are being put into harness for appropriate and achievable goals.

Nothing worse than waking up one morning and wondering what the hell you've been doing for ten years...

Agreed. This is one of the reasons that I disagree with the notion that we need to take an "Axe" as it were to the Government. Careful consideration of the outcome of such Axe work shows detriment that could be disastrous.

[Mr. M]

Agreed. This is one of the reasons that I disagree with the notion that we need to take an "Axe" as it were to the Government. Careful consideration of the outcome of such Axe work shows detriment that could be disastrous.

lol...

We're thinking along similar lines, Cav. I got sidetracked in an earlier post, but was on my way to say (and in no snide manner for our friends who are a bit more indelicate about pruning governmental Departments) that for those who want us to lop off governmental limbs we are likely making several mistakes. The primary error in simply cutting back government agencies and agendas is that it does not take into account the underlying currents that gave rise to them and, instead, merely treats the symptoms. Doing that "cures" nothing, it merely clears space for the next iteration.

Without a clear understanding of the social underpinnings that drive "big government" we stand little chance of actually implementing meaningful change. In fact, the likelihood that any political group will be able to radically and permanently prune the expansion of government without taking advantage of and shaping social evolution is virtually impossible. We may see significant cutbacks as government overreach overextends their financial means. But that represents little difference from our own personal finances, and few who file for bankruptcy radically alter their lifestyle for any length of time. We are who we are and government is an unflattering reflection of us, warts and all.

We need to seek solutions and adaptations to social undercurrents first, smaller and less intrusive government will be the result of that. We cannot change the national will by simply shrinking government.

[Cav Scout]

lol...

We're thinking along similar lines, Cav. I got sidetracked in an earlier post, but was on my way to say (and in no snide manner for our friends who are a bit more indelicate about pruning governmental Departments) that for those who want us to lop off governmental limbs we are likely making several mistakes. The primary error in simply cutting back government agencies and agendas is that it does not take into account the underlying currents that gave rise to them and, instead, merely treats the symptoms. Doing that "cures" nothing, it merely clears space for the next iteration.

Without a clear understanding of the social underpinnings that drive "big government" we stand little chance of actually implementing meaningful change. In fact, the likelihood that any political group will be able to radically and permanently prune the expansion of government without taking advantage of and shaping social evolution is virtually impossible. We may see significant cutbacks as government overreach overextends their financial means. But that represents little difference from our own personal finances, and few who file for bankruptcy radically alter their lifestyle for any length of time. We are who we are and government is an unflattering reflection of us, warts and all.

We need to seek solutions and adaptations to social undercurrents first, smaller and less intrusive government will be the result of that. We cannot change the national will by simply shrinking government.

As you stated earlier, I think our friends on the left are going to be upset that their change as ordered will not manifest. I seems to me that we need to work more in the direction of getting control of our current idea's and trying to craft a pattern for effective policy making verses trying to actually change things outright. Political Leadership seems to be somewhat "hungover" at this point, in the conservative realm anyway. I am waiting to see what will come from this staggering loss on the National level and what type of "wake up" is in store.
I am also wondering if our new PE will attempt to add a couple judges to the SCOTUS as FDR tried to do when he had this much partisan power.

[Mr. M]

As you stated earlier, I think our friends on the left are going to be upset that their change as ordered will not manifest. I seems to me that we need to work more in the direction of getting control of our current idea's and trying to craft a pattern for effective policy making verses trying to actually change things outright. Political Leadership seems to be somewhat "hungover" at this point, in the conservative realm anyway. I am waiting to see what will come from this staggering loss on the National level and what type of "wake up" is in store.

I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head, Cav. Having been a part of making that sausage over many years, I can categorically state that policy changes, though less glamorous than riding the coattails of political idols, are where we can actually accomplish things regardless of the current residents of the White House or Congress. Effective policy implemented by determined grassroots organizations are something we can focus on, and expect some success at.



I am also wondering if our new PE will attempt to add a couple judges to the SCOTUS as FDR tried to do when he had this much partisan power.

I had forgotten about that chapter of our judicial history. I'm certain there will be one or two efforts made to take advantage of the current "mandate" in D.C. I can't see a freshly minted President and a complicit Congress not pressing for some long lasting advantages while momentum is on their side.

[Cav Scout]

I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head, Cav. Having been a part of making that sausage over many years, I can categorically state that policy changes, though less glamorous than riding the coattails of political idols, are where we can actually accomplish things regardless of the current residents of the White House or Congress. Effective policy implemented by determined grassroots organizations are something we can focus on, and expect some success at.





I had forgotten about that chapter of our judicial history. I'm certain there will be one or two efforts made to take advantage of the current "mandate" in D.C. I can't see a freshly minted President and a complicit Congress not pressing for some long lasting advantages while momentum is on their side.


Agreed.

[Bluesgtr44]

Other then through good grass roots orginizing, the only other way to wrest control back would be to change the way the electoral college works and I am not a fan of that plan.

The other way is through redistricting and that is up to the states to handle. We have already seen some ugliness with this from both sides. I just recently lost Ron Paul as my congressman and picked up Lloyd Doggett....a big liberal. Although, where I am in his district we really get little attention from him.

I have been through some nasty redistricting decisions both here in Texas and also while I lived in Virginia years ago. I remember in Virginia they mapped up this really odd looking district just to make sure it had a lot of poor areas in it to get Bobby Scott a shoe in! Boy, that raised some tempers! It was an ugly looking district that went from Richmond to the Tidewater area.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by Cav Scout I think this is the thing that so many of us get hung up on from time to time and it takes us being reminded of it.

I am a results oriented person so I see things in terms of "solutions" when in reality the Process is the Solution ever changing and ever fluid. It is how we choose to attempt to channel the flow so to speak that provides the "Result" which we look for. It is a character flaw of mine. I want a result now.
Not seeing that I actually have that result becuase it is fluid.
As you so succinctly put it, the process is the solution, which makes settling on the proper process that much more important. Though there are no guarantees that the right vehicle will be chosen, or that even the proper vehicle will actually gain traction, we want to make sure our measured efforts are being put into harness for appropriate and achievable goals.

Nothing worse than waking up one morning and wondering what the hell you've been doing for ten years...


What our founding fathers understood and many today seem to overlook is, for the process to work it must be confined to defined and limited boundaries, a written constitution which establishes the rule of law!

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records during our Constitution‘s framing and ratification process, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Our nation’s process was intended to be protected by requiring those who hold an office of public trust to take an oath to support “this Constitution”, and not one which they make up as the go from day to day.


As long as our Washington Establishment is left free to ignore the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, we have no process other than one which reflect the whims and fancies of those in political power.

JWK

We have become a ship afloat in dangerous waters guided by those in political power, but who are unrestrained by our written Constitution which was designed by the People, and intended to be our nation’s guiding light.

[Cav Scout]

The other way is through redistricting and that is up to the states to handle. We have already seen some ugliness with this from both sides. I just recently lost Ron Paul as my congressman and picked up Lloyd Doggett....a big liberal. Although, where I am in his district we really get little attention from him.

I have been through some nasty redistricting decisions both here in Texas and also while I lived in Virginia years ago. I remember in Virginia they mapped up this really odd looking district just to make sure it had a lot of poor areas in it to get Bobby Scott a shoe in! Boy, that raised some tempers! It was an ugly looking district that went from Richmond to the Tidewater area.

This I understand, and redistricting at the state level is something of a thorn to a lot of people, and it is a tool that if properly used can lead to a skew in Congress. There again though it is something that can be stopped at the voting booth, it always seems though that we fail to motivate the vote when "small issues" like this come up. Maybe its not motivation, maybe its lack of footwork to inform, either way, we do tend to fail at it.

[Cav Scout]

What our founding fathers understood and many today seem to overlook is, for the process to work it must be confined to defined and limited boundaries, a written constitution which establishes the rule of law!

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records during our Constitution‘s framing and ratification process, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Our nation’s process was intended to be protected by requiring those who hold an office of public trust to take an oath to support “this Constitution”, and not one which they make up as the go from day to day.


As long as our Washington Establishment is left free to ignore the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, we have no process other than one which reflect the whims and fancies of those in political power.

JWK

We have become a ship afloat in dangerous waters guided by those in political power, but who are unrestrained by our written Constitution which was designed by the People, and intended to be our nation’s guiding light.

John, I understand this. I understand that some things have been done most especially in the realm of the legality of some policy that is very questionable, I however do not hold with the notion that the Constitution is ignored on a whim. Do I think that some have wrangled around it from time to time, yes I do. What I do not believe is that we can run out pell mell and just start hacking away at things that have been in place for years because we "believe" that the Constitution does not allow for it. It would be detrimental to all of a sudden just start hacking up the Government, behemoth that it is. It would be very irresponsible to throw that type of chaos at the Nation. There is a lot of bureaucracy that started out with a plan to actually serve a purpose that did serve "The General Welfare" now maybe it has gone off course and become something that it was not meant to, these things often do. To debreed rather then amputate seems a more appropriate thing to attempt through more efficient policy.
In my opinion anyway.

[johnwk]

John, I understand this. I understand that some things have been done most especially in the realm of the legality of some policy that is very questionable, I however do not hold with the notion that the Constitution is ignored on a whim. Do I think that some have wrangled around it from time to time, yes I do. What I do not believe is that we can run out pell mell and just start hacking away at things that have been in place for years because we "believe" that the Constitution does not allow for it. It would be detrimental to all of a sudden just start hacking up the Government, behemoth that it is. It would be very irresponsible to throw that type of chaos at the Nation. There is a lot of bureaucracy that started out with a plan to actually serve a purpose that did serve "The General Welfare" now maybe it has gone off course and become something that it was not meant to, these things often do. To debreed rather then amputate seems a more appropriate thing to attempt through more efficient policy.
In my opinion anyway.

I’m not sure how your post relates to what I wrote. Mr. M made the comment that “the process is the solution” and I agreed with that. Without a clearly defined process to guide a political system, the system, in all probability, would be left subject to the whims and fancies of those who hold political power.

I went on to point out that our “process” is found in our written Constitution and for the process to work our founding fathers thought it must be confined to defined and limited boundaries, a written constitution which establishes the rule of law!

JWK

[Cav Scout]

I’m not sure how your post relates to what I wrote. Mr. M made the comment that “the process is the solution” and I agreed with that. Without a clearly defined process to guide a political system, the system, in all probability, would be left subject to the whims and fancies of those who hold political power.

I went on to point out that our “process” is found in our written Constitution and for the process to work our founding fathers thought it must be confined to defined and limited boundaries, a written constitution which establishes the rule of law!

JWK

I was extrapolating. :D

[Crossriflesonblue]

I have often purposefully interjected my philosophy and experiences into discussions with my children and grand children...at times I press them hard ....at times they say I embarrass them in public...oh Grandpa!!....but they know what I think and how I came to that position......I do it to move them....to shape and channel their thoughts...I wonder how many parents take this approach before their voices are overwhelmed by the whitenoise of our culture...I am impressed and worried by the idea of using the interconnectivity of the internet to shape our society.....I will let the wordsmiths do their work...I will do mine within my little circle and touch yours now and then....

[Cav Scout]

I have often purposefully interjected my philosophy and experiences into discussions with my children and grand children...at times I press them hard ....at times they say I embarrass them in public...oh Grandpa!!....but they know what I think and how I came to that position......I do it to move them....to shape and channel their thoughts...I wonder how many parents take this approach before their voices are overwhelmed by the whitenoise of our culture...I am impressed and worried by the idea of using the interconnectivity of the internet to shape our society.....I will let the wordsmiths do their work...I will do mine within my little circle and touch yours now and then....

I like your method

[johnwk]

I was extrapolating. :D

And in doing so, resolution of the subject matter under consideration gets lost in the mix. I guess that is why I was so impressed with our founding fathers during the framing and ratification of our existing federal Constitution. Having taken the time to study our nation’s founding documents [Madison’s Notes on the Convention, Federalist and Anti Federalist papers, Elliot’s Debates (State ratification debates) etc.], I was quite impressed with our founding fathers desire and discipline to stay with each specific subject matter as it arose until a resolution was arrived at which was based upon sound reasoning and principles, and are as valid today as when our Constitution was framed and ratified. Unfortunately, many of those principles, especially federalism, which is a plan to create a big tent system in which the people of each state may live in harmony with the people of other states and were intended to be in control of their own destiny, are no longer observed and is the very reason for a good portion of our nation’s suffering.


JWK



"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

[Cav Scout]

And in doing so, resolution of the subject matter under consideration gets lost in the mix. I guess that is why I was so impressed with our founding fathers during the framing and ratification of our existing federal Constitution. Having taken the time to study our nation’s founding documents [Madison’s Notes on the Convention, Federalist and Anti Federalist papers, Elliot’s Debates (State ratification debates) etc.], I was quite impressed with our founding fathers desire and discipline to stay with each specific subject matter as it arose until a resolution was arrived at which was based upon sound reasoning and principles, and are as valid today as when our Constitution was framed and ratified. Unfortunately, many of those principles, especially federalism, which is a plan to create a big tent system in which the people of each state may live in harmony with the people of other states and were intended to be in control of their own destiny, are no longer observed and is the very reason for a good portion of our nation’s suffering.


JWK



"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

I agree, but now we have it, and must figure out the most apros way of dealing with it.

[BROEDERBOND]

Home schooling is fine BUT what are you teaching them? That is the question, They won't even have a legitiment High School Diploma when done however, I have a friend that was homeschooled and had to get a g.e.d. so he could join the US Army. So what good is home schooling? He has a very limited education and doesnt know too much about anything, If that is home schooling it doesnt say much for it. If you parents insisted that the teachers teach as when I was a child Then things in public school would be different. Most of you parents do not even punnish your children, little lone home school them correctly. That why we have a country stuffed with millions of spoiled liberals, With the get something for nothing attitude, My 23 yr old son in law wont work or join the military Both Lazy and Stupid. He had everything handed to him Then his mother died and he was left helpless and Now my step daughter and son in law Live off the state, My tax dollars at work. I didnt raise MY children that way If they wanted something the worked for it, I gave NO handouts, and they had to do good in school.
I see all these lazy children dressed in their Baggy ass cloths hanging at the mall. They do not have anything to do. Liberal parents that just do not care.
These are the things that have ruined young people and our country.


Have you flatly told the daughter to her face that what she is doing is Wrong and that if son-in-law refuses to act like a man she needs to dump him before he reproduces and find a real man to have a family with?

[pennysworth56]

Here's the first thing I think Republicans need to get over, and that's the spending of such a gross amount of money on national defense. I'm a life-long (R) and for the longest time I couldn't get over the cold war I guess. But some recent research into the amount of money we spend on national defense tells me something is wrong.

We're told "were stretched too thin" with 2 small wars, but yet we spend over 1/2 of what the world spends. Yep, looked it up myself.

The world spends about $1.2 T a year, and our budget next year is $585 B, and that doesn't include around $150 B for the GWOT nor DoE expenses on nuclear weapons.

Something is just out of wack there. I think we can be very strong on national defense, and spend a considerable amount less. Like $100 B easily, and still have far and away the largest military budget of any nation on earth.

Perhaps we are stretched too thin because we are still fighting the Korean War, or the Cold War, or God knows what in 150 countries we have a presence in.

I guess it should go back to "walk softly and carry a big stick". We could have an even stronger military if it was mostly, or even "more" back home, and be 100% secure as a nation. We'd be more secure if we were less threatening to the world around us.

That's not easy ground for me to move to, but I really think we've been reacting to the boogey man for too long.

I always thought that after we went over to seas in WWII and kicked ass we should have brought our troops home and let them deal with the problems left over from the war.

We need to bring our troops home from europe and other countries. We have to finish Afghan and Iraq but when we are done everyone should come home. Let them deal with each other.

They been fighting over there for centuries, if they cannot or will not grow up then let them deal with it.

penny

[Cav Scout]

Defense budgets are the least and most minuscule of our issues.
1. "They" have been fighting everywhere for Centuries, not just "Over-there", lest we forget the history of our own continent.
2. While it seems a large amount, our "Defense" budget has prevented far more American bloodshed then you can imagine and if you can not see that you are a poor student of History.
3. We need to concentrate on Policy that has forward and everlasting effect on our social economy, like proper resolution of Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid, right now those three are pyramid schemes that are doomed, as well as some resolution to the way fair housing is granted. It needs to be shored up with responsibility in the borrower and the Gov needs to get out of the lending business. This is all policy that we can actually effect. You will not effect the Defense budget and live to do any more damage.

[Celtic Pax]

I always thought that after we went over to seas in WWII and kicked ass we should have brought our troops home and let them deal with the problems left over from the war.

We need to bring our troops home from europe and other countries. We have to finish Afghan and Iraq but when we are done everyone should come home. Let them deal with each other.

They been fighting over there for centuries, if they cannot or will not grow up then let them deal with it.

pennyExcept for occupation troops in Germany and Japan, we did bring the troops home after WW2 and of course it got us a whole lot of trouble. Soviet aggression in Europe, Soviet aggression toward Greece and Turkey, China going communist, N.Korean invasion of S. Korea etc. Bringing the troops home does not lead to peace on earth and good will toward men as many dreamily think. When forces leave a power vacuum is created. Other countries or forces rush in. Lack of forces off Somalia created a vacuum where pirates rushed in. Same with piracy off S.E. Asia and Indonesia. Problems in the Sudan stem from inability of UN or other powers to influence the region as their are no longer there to exert influence. So China is there and it exploits the region as no one can or will challenge their actions. America can always go back to it's position prior to WW2 or even WW1 and leave it's economic and security future to others I guess. Is that what you advocate? From your statement, it appears so.

[upsetmom]

I have often purposefully interjected my philosophy and experiences into discussions with my children and grand children...at times I press them hard ....at times they say I embarrass them in public...oh Grandpa!!....but they know what I think and how I came to that position......I do it to move them....to shape and channel their thoughts...I wonder how many parents take this approach before their voices are overwhelmed by the whitenoise of our culture...I am impressed and worried by the idea of using the interconnectivity of the internet to shape our society.....I will let the wordsmiths do their work...I will do mine within my little circle and touch yours now and then....ABSOLUTELY agree. I tell my kids what I think and why I think it. My 14 year old son asked me the other day about some stance of obama's. He said "you know, mom, on the surface of it, this sounds good. Can you explain why you're against it?" I did, of course, and gave him an example of how it might relate to his life. He nodded, and then said "When I'm older, I'm just going to have to call you before I vote." I laughed, but the truth is, he is a critical thinker, and he and my daughter both take the time to try to look at things from all angles. They both don't take things at face value, and they will both politely "argue" a point with a teacher.

I think our society has gone so far into the "nothing is wrong, everyone just has a different view" "Don't judge anyone" philosophy that we've backed ourselves into a corner.
"Judging" someone doesn't mean finding someone guilty and sending them to prison based on your own value system, it means acknowledging our value system and deciding the worth of an ACTION (not a person) based on that. Being true to one's beliefs, in other words. Somehow we've gotten to the point where even HAVING a belief is sometimes seen as "passing judgement" and it's considered BAD. Kids will shrug when you ask them what they think of thieves or drunk drivers who kill someone. They'll call it a "lifestyle choice" instead of a crime. It's amazing, really. Talk to high school kids sometime. The only thing they seem to get upset about is smoking in public or someone who hurts a dog.

Not enough parents take the time to give their kids parameters, guidelines and values, for fear of looking like they're making "judgements".

[Lonelyoshin]

I agree with upsetmom that this country has become a society of people who all just stand in the middle and are not willing to cross the line to one side or another because they are afraid of "offending" someone. I heard a wise man say not long ago that being offended is a choice. I cannot offend you and you cannot offend me. I have to let myself be offended.

This is an interesting truth to ponder. I can never force anyone to be offended. It is a choice that one makes. Often times offense is taken because a person feels guilty and is too prideful to admit that they may be wrong. It takes a strong person to be able to admit that they are wrong. It is not a sign of weakness.

Now to bring my comments back to what I started with: this is really why people are afraid to take a stance. I am young and I have seen this first hand. I have always been one of those people who just stands on the sidelines and doesn't care too much about anything. I have learned that we need to stand up and be firm in our convictions. This also requires certain humility because part of being firm is that we need to be willing to learn and be able to accept our mistakes when we are wrong. Again, this is not a sign of weakness.

I am one of the younger generation who has decided to take a stand and I am working on being able to express my feelings in an organized fashion. This country needs people who will stand up for what is right and not compromise because it makes someone else happy. Truth is truth and it is not subjective!

[nebcon]

I agree with upsetmom that this country has become a society of people who all just stand in the middle and are not willing to cross the line to one side or another because they are afraid of "offending" someone. I heard a wise man say not long ago that being offended is a choice. I cannot offend you and you cannot offend me. I have to let myself be offended.

This is an interesting truth to ponder. I can never force anyone to be offended. It is a choice that one makes. Often times offense is taken because a person feels guilty and is too prideful to admit that they may be wrong. It takes a strong person to be able to admit that they are wrong. It is not a sign of weakness.

Now to bring my comments back to what I started with: this is really why people are afraid to take a stance. I am young and I have seen this first hand. I have always been one of those people who just stands on the sidelines and doesn't care too much about anything. I have learned that we need to stand up and be firm in our convictions. This also requires certain humility because part of being firm is that we need to be willing to learn and be able to accept our mistakes when we are wrong. Again, this is not a sign of weakness.

I am one of the younger generation who has decided to take a stand and I am working on being able to express my feelings in an organized fashion. This country needs people who will stand up for what is right and not compromise because it makes someone else happy. Truth is truth and it is not subjective!

Maybe the ones that need to stop being complacent, are the ones that truly believe in reforming and reducing the size of the federal monster. Those people in the middle need convincing that what they have been told about the benefits of government control and entitlement, is not so. Who of late has been doing that? You have to educate and sell people on your ideas, it doesn't happen automatically. People are looking for solutions, they get them where they are offered.

[Cav Scout]

Maybe the ones that need to stop being complacent, are the ones that truly believe in reforming and reducing the size of the federal monster. Those people in the middle need convincing that what they have been told about the benefits of government control and entitlement, is not so. Who of late has been doing that? You have to educate and sell people on your ideas, it doesn't happen automatically. People are looking for solutions, they get them where they are offered.

Yep.

[Cav Scout]

So did this die due to lack of interest on the part of those who wanted to actually discuss good Conservative Common Ground?

[Mr. M]

So did this die due to lack of interest on the part of those who wanted to actually discuss good Conservative Common Ground?

I imagine it's more post-election slowdown and Christmas preoccupation than an untimely death, Cav.


Let's hope that ..."rumors of its death have been greatly exaggerated."

[nebcon]

I imagine it's more post-election slowdown and Christmas preoccupation than an untimely death, Cav.


Let's hope that ..."rumors of its death have been greatly exaggerated."

i would agree, but the whole sole searching business has started to give rise to some crankiness, finger pointing and bad feelings as well. I haven't given up hope yet.

[Mr. M]

Maybe the ones that need to stop being complacent, are the ones that truly believe in reforming and reducing the size of the federal monster. Those people in the middle need convincing that what they have been told about the benefits of government control and entitlement, is not so. Who of late has been doing that? You have to educate and sell people on your ideas, it doesn't happen automatically. People are looking for solutions, they get them where they are offered.

Part of our problem, N, is that we sell the solution as personalities, or, at best, parties. We create our own apathy by the constant drumbeat of "Vote Vote Vote." Instead of solving problems we create and enable a class of empleomaniacs on one hand and disaffected voters on the other.

Any lasting movement will have to be one that encourages participation in the policy process. That will require a different language. A language of acting, of participating, of policy. And one that still encourages us to exercise our personal preference in party or personality; a forced or faux commonality in that arena is not only impossible but undesirable.

Whether such a political lingua franca is possible remains to be seen...

[Mr. M]

i would agree, but the whole sole searching business has started to give rise to some crankiness, finger pointing and bad feelings as well. I haven't given up hope yet.

lol...


It has. But I don't think the rancor is nearly as nasty as the pre-election strain. A thread here or there meant to raise a bit of blood pressure and people rising to the bait. But I also see some "common ground" emerging in those threads, even if antipathy is high in the beginning.

I know it might seem hopeless on occasion,N, but look at it through a different lens. People with similar political views are willing to explore the polarity of thought encompassed by them, and to do so vigorously. Not to aggravate the loyal opposition, but where do you see that discussion occurring in their on-line community? Emerson warned us " a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."


I don't think we have to worry about being overrun with hobgoblins...

[nebcon]

lol...


It has. But I don't think the rancor is nearly as nasty as the pre-election strain. A thread here or there meant to raise a bit of blood pressure and people rising to the bait. But I also see some "common ground" emerging in those threads, even if antipathy is high in the beginning.

I know it might seem hopeless on occasion,N, but look at it through a different lens. People with similar political views are willing to explore the polarity of thought encompassed by them, and to do so vigorously. Not to aggravate the loyal opposition, but where do you see that discussion occurring in their on-line community? Emerson warned us " a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."


I don't think we have to worry about being overrun with hobgoblins...

I certainly hope not. Recently in one thread there was some pretty fiery contention over the role of evangelicals in the party. I tried to explain my position that I really feel that the focus needs to be on fiscal and size and scope issues given the current state of government at this point. I was essentially told by a long time poster here that I hate Jesus due to my view.

I decided today to check out this PajamaTV that is advertised here. On that site there was a video of Mike Huckabee, attempting to explain his view of Libertarians. He seemed to have some of the same misconceptions. In fact, his comments were quite confusing as to what he felt the role of social issues should be within the political realm.

As i stated in another thread, between the evangelicals telling me that I'm a Jesus hater, various other brands of Conservatives telling me I betrayed my country with who I voted for, and the Rupaul chorus rehashing and rehashing again events that I wasn't even involved in, it's difficult to see who is with me and who isn't here.

[Mr. M]

I certainly hope not. Recently in one thread there was some pretty fiery contention over the role of evangelicals in the party. I tried to explain my position that I really feel that the focus needs to be on fiscal and size and scope issues given the current state of government at this point. I was essentially told by a long time poster here that I hate Jesus due to my view.

I decided today to check out this PajamaTV that is advertised here. On that site there was a video of Mike Huckabee, attempting to explain his view of Libertarians. He seemed to have some of the same misconceptions. In fact, his comments were quite confusing as to what he felt the role of social issues should be within the political realm.

As i stated in another thread, between the evangelicals telling me that I'm a Jesus hater, various other brands of Conservatives telling me I betrayed my country with who I voted for, and the Rupaul chorus rehashing and rehashing again events that I wasn't even involved in, it's difficult to see who is with me and who isn't here.

Once again our De Vulgari Eloquentia is flawed, N. The "common language" we use to communicate in politics works overtime to divide us. It overemphasizes differences on some issues, many of little consequence, and keeps us from common ground on others. We are trapped by that argot into seeking capitulation or integration. In short, we look for winners and losers.

We could, instead, agree to disagree over a number of personal choices or variations within a theme; to have a spirited debate about a candidate or positions our elected officials take up. We could agree that those disagreements will necessarily be polarizing, aggravating, irritating and, ultimately, enlightening. And that, like a world sundered into a thousand languages after the collapse of Babel, we might still find a lingua franca for common ground, even if that is not our primary language.

We might find that agreement on specific policy or policies. Places where a little give and take do not compromise core principles or deeply held convictions. If we can set aside petty partisanship to pick up a hammer for Habitat, or donate to Ducks Unlimited, we can find other common ground as well.


We have to do that in a way that respects our differences. Not one that erases them.

[Cav Scout]

Once again our De Vulgari Eloquentia is flawed, N. The "common language" we use to communicate in politics works overtime to divide us. It overemphasizes differences on some issues, many of little consequence, and keeps us from common ground on others. We are trapped by that argot into seeking capitulation or integration. In short, we look for winners and losers.

We could, instead, agree to disagree over a number of personal choices or variations within a theme; to have a spirited debate about a candidate or positions our elected officials take up. We could agree that those disagreements will necessarily be polarizing, aggravating, irritating and, ultimately, enlightening. And that, like a world sundered into a thousand languages after the collapse of Babel, we might still find a lingua franca for common ground, even if that is not our primary language.

We might find that agreement on specific policy or policies. Places where a little give and take do not compromise core principles or deeply held convictions. If we can set aside petty partisanship to pick up a hammer for Habitat, or donate to Ducks Unlimited, we can find other common ground as well.


We have to do that in a way that respects our differences. Not one that erases them.

That is the answer. We need to prioritize the importance of issues, the need based on current policy, policy that can be effective and policy that is not nor could ever be useful, and quit with this, "well thats a neo idea or a liber idea or a christian right idea..." that leads no place fast.
More important that we discuss and prioritize and that way something actually gets done.

[Mr. M]

That is the answer. We need to prioritize the importance of issues, the need based on current policy, policy that can be effective and policy that is not nor could ever be useful, and quit with this, "well thats a neo idea or a liber idea or a christian right idea..." that leads no place fast.
More important that we discuss and prioritize and that way something actually gets done.

If I might be forgiven for inserting anecdotes into policy discussions?


Months ago one of the city utilities approached me concerning some proposed changes the Assembly was pushing the utility to make. After reading through the paperwork and interviewing a number of the people involved, it became obvious that the changes contemplated would benefit only a handful of residents, but that would be at the expense of ratepayers in general.

As the months passed the issue continued to percolate, costing the utility in excess of 100k for "research." Finally they approached several of us and asked us to attend an Assembly work session. Four of us had a preliminary meeting, three from various mortgage institutions, and two with significantly different political outlooks.

But for the duration of the preliminary meeting and the work session, specific political outlook was secondary. We used our diverse backgrounds to help staff create a presentation that we felt best represented the ratepayers. At the work session we combined our input with municipal employee presentations and convinced a fairly liberal Assembly to not only do what was best for the citizens but to stop wasting resources on additional research.

Not to belabor what I hope is an obvious point, but we were able to overlook our individual political personas because our focus was on a specific policy. I'm not suggesting that any policy will lead to a similar outcome, nor that all parties will be able to set aside their differences, but there are opportunities.

Our goal should be to identify those policy opportunities, the language we can use to speak to each other, and the mechanisms we can develop for action. If our common language is policy driven no one's personal politics need be compromised or co-opted. We use our various strengths to our advantage instead of exploiting the weaknesses.

And we can still argue over other issues to our heart's content.

[Cav Scout]

If I might be forgiven for inserting anecdotes into policy discussions?


Months ago one of the city utilities approached me concerning some proposed changes the Assembly was pushing the utility to make. After reading through the paperwork and interviewing a number of the people involved, it became obvious that the changes contemplated would benefit only a handful of residents, but that would be at the expense of ratepayers in general.

As the months passed the issue continued to percolate, costing the utility in excess of 100k for "research." Finally they approached several of us and asked us to attend an Assembly work session. Four of us had a preliminary meeting, three from various mortgage institutions, and two with significantly different political outlooks.

But for the duration of the preliminary meeting and the work session, specific political outlook was secondary. We used our diverse backgrounds to help staff create a presentation that we felt best represented the ratepayers. At the work session we combined our input with municipal employee presentations and convinced a fairly liberal Assembly to not only do what was best for the citizens but to stop wasting resources on additional research.

Not to belabor what I hope is an obvious point, but we were able to overlook our individual political personas because our focus was on a specific policy. I'm not suggesting that any policy will lead to a similar outcome, nor that all parties will be able to set aside their differences, but there are opportunities.

Our goal should be to identify those policy opportunities, the language we can use to speak to each other, and the mechanisms we can develop for action. If our common language is policy driven no one's personal politics need be compromised or co-opted. We use our various strengths to our advantage instead of exploiting the weaknesses.

And we can still argue over other issues to our heart's content.

That is how its done.
Good picture for the case in point.
Now if we could just get the wind bags to understand that we would apreciate this type of thing much more then showmanship and political grandstanding....

I know, I am dreaming.

[consigliere]

In my opinion anyway, we need to start digging and planting the conservative seeds in the coastal area's and I am unsure of how to best do this. With mailers? With actual live forums? The fact that we actually lost Virgina all the way around to Texas for the most part was not only shocking to me, it was very telling.
We need to work these area's very heavy and start now.

I am one of those people living in the coastal areas. FTR, I'm not a registered Democrat. There are issues that the Republican Party, or at least true conservatism, can use to make inroads into the population here; but there are some major obstacles before that can be done. What I'm going to state here won't be popular on this board.

One, it will take a few years for the GOP to rid itself of the stink of Bush. It just will. I know he remains popular with the Hannity/Rush crowd, but the man is a pariah to three-quarters of the country. That's the breaks.

Two, social conservatism. Abortion makes most people's eyes glaze over when they hear the word. Attempts to prevent abortion outside of legislation are laudable, trying to get people to vote for a politician because he or she is "The Family Values candidate" is DOA. The paranoia and fear of homosexuality simply does not work as a campaign tool here. The American Family Association is currently boycotting my city for its tolerance of "the homosexual agenda" because in 2007 rainbow-colored street signs were installed on corners in the Gayborhood. In one of my two jobs I work as a tour guide with tourists and I mention this boycott as a punchline. White heterosexual suburban families laugh at it. Some of them think I'm yanking their chain. Responses are either "Well I guess those 12 Bible-thumpers who take part will have to vacation at the Motel 6 in Macon, Georgia instead" to "If you're offended by that you would know NOT TO GO INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE RAINBOW STREET SIGNS!". An argument could be made against gay marriage but not civil unions, and persecuting gays for the sake of them being gay isn't going to fly. Some homophobia still exists but primarily in ghettos that are replete with crime, out-of-wedlock births, AIDs, unemployment, thug culture, and broken homes; hardly the ideal model to push for not tolerating gays.

Third, Sarah Palin and "real America". God and the Flag still has play here. We're proud to be Americans. We get up in the morning and work like everyone else, and our taxes go to help subsidize the rural areas that vote Republican and can't pay their own way. Most of us know someone or have a relative serving in this war that has dragged on for a very long time. We live in or near the cities that are the targets for potential terrorist attacks. It hurts when we are referred to as not being real Americans because of what we eat, our interest in the arts, because we take public transportation to work, because we recycle, what sports we are interested in, or by sheer geography. Sarah Palin is seen as Bush in a skirt, i.e. reviled, and bluntly, there are more of us than there are of you.

That said, conservatives have issues that can put the coasts into play: The sorry state of our public education system. Gun ownership, because you don't really see any attempt to ban or restrict legally-purchased firearms, just taking illegal guns off the streets. Crime. Limited government and fiscal conservatism. Illegal immigration. These are hot-button issues that can work.

I await the condemnation I'm going to get for stating this.

[nebcon]

In my opinion anyway, we need to start digging and planting the conservative seeds in the coastal area's and I am unsure of how to best do this. With mailers? With actual live forums? The fact that we actually lost Virgina all the way around to Texas for the most part was not only shocking to me, it was very telling.
We need to work these area's very heavy and start now.

I am one of those people living in the coastal areas. FTR, I'm not a registered Democrat. There are issues that the Republican Party, or at least true conservatism, can use to make inroads into the population here; but there are some major obstacles before that can be done. What I'm going to state here won't be popular on this board.

One, it will take a few years for the GOP to rid itself of the stink of Bush. It just will. I know he remains popular with the Hannity/Rush crowd, but the man is a pariah to three-quarters of the country. That's the breaks.

Two, social conservatism. Abortion makes most people's eyes glaze over when they hear the word. Attempts to prevent abortion outside of legislation are laudable, trying to get people to vote for a politician because he or she is "The Family Values candidate" is DOA. The paranoia and fear of homosexuality simply does not work as a campaign tool here. The American Family Association is currently boycotting my city for its tolerance of "the homosexual agenda" because in 2007 rainbow-colored street signs were installed on corners in the Gayborhood. In one of my two jobs I work as a tour guide with tourists and I mention this boycott as a punchline. White heterosexual suburban families laugh at it. Some of them think I'm yanking their chain. Responses are either "Well I guess those 12 Bible-thumpers who take part will haver to vacation at the Motel 6 in Macon, Georgia instead" to "If you're offended by that you would know NOT TO GO INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE RAINBOW STREET SIGNS!". An argument could be made against gay marriage but not civil unions, and persecuting gays for the sake of them being gay isn't going to fly. Some homophobia still exists but primarily in ghettos that are replete with crime, out-of-wedlock births, AIDs, unemployment, thug culture, and broken homes; hardly the ideal model to push for not tolerating gays.

Third, Sarah Palin and "real America". God and the Flag still has play here. We're proud to be Americans. We get up in the morning and work like everyone else, and our taxes go to help subsidize the rural areas that vote Republican and vote GOP. Most of us know someone or have a relative serving this war that has dragged on for very long time. Our cities are the targets for potential terrorist attacks. It hurts when we are referred to as not being real Americans because we take what we eat, our interest in the arts, because we take public transportation to work, because we recycle, what sports we are interested in, or by sheer geography. Sarah Palin is seen as Bush in a skirt, i.e. reviled, and bluntly, there are more of us than there are of you.

That said, conservatives have issues that can put the coasts into play: The sorry state of our public education system. Gun ownership, because you don't really see any attempt to ban or restrict legally-purchased firearms, just taking illegal guns off the streets. Crime. Limited government and fiscal conservatism. Illegal immigration. These are hot-button issues that can work.

I await the condemnation I'm going to get for stating this.


This thread isn't about condemnation. As Mr. M stated, we are attempting to rally around issues that we have in common, and make those the focus of our efforts.

The problem of course, is that the more passionate among us, have a tendency to insist that their priorities be that of the group's. If a person is primarily concerned with social issues, and their position on those issues is part and parcel of their deeply held beliefs, to the point where at least one of those issues is a matter of life and death, you are going to have difficulty bringing them to the table.

As a Libertarian leaning Paleoconservative, I have my strong issues as well. Of late I have tried to concede a portion of my objections with our current foreign policy in order to hopefully contribute to burying the hatchet on that issue for the time being. In terms of social issues, I think we can put those issues on the table, but I think the approach to them needs to be different.

I would support a Constitutional amendment to deal with abortion (though I firmly believe that it is a states issue), and though I likely would vote against restrictions on homosexuals if my state asked me to vote on the issue, I would definitely support efforts to let states handle those issues as they see fit.

If it is true that no effort to get Conservatism back on track can exclude those that call themselves "social Conservatives" then I only appeal to those people to try to meet us half way on those things. As was stated earlier, that doesn't mean that we can't debate those issues and feel just as strongly about them as ever elsewhere, but as a team we need to give, even if it hurts a little. Provided the "give" isn't in a completely contrary direction, which is the current situation to an extent.

[consigliere]

This thread isn't about condemnation. As Mr. M stated, we are attempting to rally around issues that we have in common, and make those the focus of our efforts.

The problem of course, is that the more passionate among us, have a tendency to insist that their priorities be that of the group's. If a person is primarily concerned with social issues, and their position on those issues is part and parcel of their deeply held beliefs, to the point where at least one of those issues is a matter of life and death, you are going to have difficulty bringing them to the table.

As a Libertarian leaning Paleoconservative, I have my strong issues as well. Of late I have tried to concede a portion of my objections with our current foreign policy in order to hopefully contribute to burying the hatchet on that issue for the time being. In terms of social issues, I think we can put those issues on the table, but I think the approach to them needs to be different.

I would support a Constitutional amendment to deal with abortion (though I firmly believe that it is a states issue), and though I likely would vote against restrictions on homosexuals if my state asked me to vote on the issue, I would definitely support efforts to let states handle those issues as they see fit.

If it is true that no effort to get Conservatism back on track can exclude those that call themselves "social Conservatives" then I only appeal to those people to try to meet us half way on those things. As was stated earlier, that doesn't mean that we can't debate those issues and feel just as strongly about them as ever elsewhere, but as a team we need to give, even if it hurts a little. Provided the "give" isn't in a completely contrary direction, which is the current situation to an extent.

My fear on abortion (and I don't like abortion) is that it seems to be something that is paid as lip service to get social conservatives to the polls, but never actually outlawed. An acquaintance of mine described social conservatives as "...they keep pushing for things that aren't gonna happen. Outlaw abortion? Not gonna happen! Prayer in public school? Not gonna happen!"

In 2006 the Republican Party lost several Congressional seats. The response, and I remember reading it here, was to double down on the social conservatism. I thinkthis is what nebcon means by the "give" being in a "completely contrary direction." In 2008 Republicans lost more Congressional seats and the Presidency. And once again the call among the GOP voters is to "nominate a real conservative".

One by one formerly reliable red states are turning blue. We could see Virginia going that way for a while, but what about North Carolina, Florida, Indiana, and Colorado? Missouri will probably turn blue in 2012. That leaves the Republican Party with most (not all) of the South, and the states with hardly any people in them. Maybe informing the social conservatives of this will get them to do a little soul-searching.

[nebcon]

My fear on abortion (and I don't like abortion) is that it seems to be something that is paid as lip service to get social conservatives to the polls, but never actually outlawed. An acquaintance of mine described social conservatives as "...they keep pushing for things that aren't gonna happen. Outlaw abortion? Not gonna happen! Prayer in public school? Not gonna happen!"

In 2006 the Republican Party lost several Congressional seats. The response, and I remember reading it here, was to double down on the social conservatism. I thinkthis is what nebcon means by the "give" being in a "completely contrary direction." In 2008 Republicans lost more Congressional seats and the Presidency. And once again the call among the GOP voters is to "nominate a real conservative".

One by one formerly reliable red states are turning blue. We could see Virginia going that way for a while, but what about North Carolina, Florida, Indiana, and Colorado? Missouri will probably turn blue in 2012. That leaves the Republican Party with most (not all) of the South, and the states with hardly any people in them. Maybe informing the social conservatives of this will get them to do a little soul-searching.

I'm not prepared to tell people who have passionate convictions about those issues "not gonna happen". The original draft of the Constitution didn't mandate that men own slaves, or specify that women were not allowed to vote. The amendments that dealt with those issues didn't "correct" anything in the Constitution, they forced social change.

I would not be consistent about the Constitution, if evangelicals were to manage to prompt three quarters of the states to ratify a Constitutional amendment banning abortion, and I did not support and defend it once it became part of the Constitution. It would no longer matter if as an individual I believed that abortion was a states rights issue. The issue would be decided and done with.

That effort would have little to do with what we would be asking of our candidates for federal office to support. Those candidates would hopefully concentrate on the issues that i hope we discuss in this thread. Common stances that we can speak with one voice about, and support with the full force of those that have strong Conservative values.

[realdeal2010]

Before you get ahead of yourself, I offer two exhibits:

Exhibit A - Carter vs. Ford Electoral College Map
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:1976_Electoral_College_Map.png
Note all the blue states

Exhibit B - Reagan vs. Carter Electoral College Map
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege1980-Large.png

ANY QUESTIONS?

I'm not prepared to tell people who have passionate convictions about those issues "not gonna happen". The original draft of the Constitution didn't mandate that men own slaves, or specify that women were not allowed to vote. The amendments that dealt with those issues didn't "correct" anything in the Constitution, they forced social change.

I would not be consistent about the Constitution, if evangelicals were to manage to prompt three quarters of the states to ratify a Constitutional amendment banning abortion, and I did not support and defend it once it became part of the Constitution. It would no longer matter if as an individual I believed that abortion was a states rights issue. The issue would be decided and done with.

That effort would have little to do with what we would be asking of our candidates for federal office to support. Those candidates would hopefully concentrate on the issues that i hope we discuss in this thread. Common stances that we can speak with one voice about, and support with the full force of those that have strong Conservative values.

[realdeal2010]

1976 vs. 1980 Electoral College Map
Before you get ahead of yourself, I offer two exhibits:

Exhibit A - Carter vs. Ford Electoral College Map
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Im...ollege_Map.png (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:1976_Electoral_College_Map.png)
Note all the blue states

Exhibit B - Reagan vs. Carter Electoral College Map
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...1980-Large.png (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege1980-Large.png)

ANY QUESTIONS?

My fear on abortion (and I don't like abortion) is that it seems to be something that is paid as lip service to get social conservatives to the polls, but never actually outlawed. An acquaintance of mine described social conservatives as "...they keep pushing for things that aren't gonna happen. Outlaw abortion? Not gonna happen! Prayer in public school? Not gonna happen!"

In 2006 the Republican Party lost several Congressional seats. The response, and I remember reading it here, was to double down on the social conservatism. I thinkthis is what nebcon means by the "give" being in a "completely contrary direction." In 2008 Republicans lost more Congressional seats and the Presidency. And once again the call among the GOP voters is to "nominate a real conservative".

One by one formerly reliable red states are turning blue. We could see Virginia going that way for a while, but what about North Carolina, Florida, Indiana, and Colorado? Missouri will probably turn blue in 2012. That leaves the Republican Party with most (not all) of the South, and the states with hardly any people in them. Maybe informing the social conservatives of this will get them to do a little soul-searching.

[consigliere]

1976 vs. 1980 Electoral College Map
Before you get ahead of yourself, I offer two exhibits:

Exhibit A - Carter vs. Ford Electoral College Map
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Im...ollege_Map.png (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:1976_Electoral_College_Map.png)
Note all the blue states

Exhibit B - Reagan vs. Carter Electoral College Map
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...1980-Large.png (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege1980-Large.png)

ANY QUESTIONS?

Yes I do have a question. Why are you using examples from three decades ago? The electorate has changed since then, of course. It's less white, more urban, and more concerned about its pocketbook than about the nation's fraying moral fabric. It's also less partisan. Independents (which includes me) are the largest part of the electorate and Republicans are not winning them. But even back then Reagan campaigned to everybody, something that in the Karl Rove era of "energizing your base" the Republican Party
doesn't even try.

When the Republican Party ignores larger and larger segments of the population it eventually ends up that the ignored are greater in number than the base. That's what happened last month.

[consigliere]

I'm not prepared to tell people who have passionate convictions about those issues "not gonna happen". The original draft of the Constitution didn't mandate that men own slaves, or specify that women were not allowed to vote. The amendments that dealt with those issues didn't "correct" anything in the Constitution, they forced social change.

I would not be consistent about the Constitution, if evangelicals were to manage to prompt three quarters of the states to ratify a Constitutional amendment banning abortion, and I did not support and defend it once it became part of the Constitution. It would no longer matter if as an individual I believed that abortion was a states rights issue. The issue would be decided and done with.

That effort would have little to do with what we would be asking of our candidates for federal office to support. Those candidates would hopefully concentrate on the issues that i hope we discuss in this thread. Common stances that we can speak with one voice about, and support with the full force of those that have strong Conservative values.

So that's the brick wall isn't it? I myself have come out and said as much to social conservatives ("Not gonna happen") and have now found out what kings used to do to the messenger who brought the bad news. The same thing happens when you tell the P.C. Left that certain ethnic groups commit crime more than others and that lots of women enjoy being sexy and flirting with men.

I'd hold up illegal immigration as an ideal for people to rally around. It may be the one issue the Republican base holds that also holds with the majority of the population. Any other ideas?

[Cav Scout]

In my opinion anyway, we need to start digging and planting the conservative seeds in the coastal area's and I am unsure of how to best do this. With mailers? With actual live forums? The fact that we actually lost Virgina all the way around to Texas for the most part was not only shocking to me, it was very telling.
We need to work these area's very heavy and start now.

I am one of those people living in the coastal areas. FTR, I'm not a registered Democrat. There are issues that the Republican Party, or at least true conservatism, can use to make inroads into the population here; but there are some major obstacles before that can be done. What I'm going to state here won't be popular on this board.

One, it will take a few years for the GOP to rid itself of the stink of Bush. It just will. I know he remains popular with the Hannity/Rush crowd, but the man is a pariah to three-quarters of the country. That's the breaks.

Two, social conservatism. Abortion makes most people's eyes glaze over when they hear the word. Attempts to prevent abortion outside of legislation are laudable, trying to get people to vote for a politician because he or she is "The Family Values candidate" is DOA. The paranoia and fear of homosexuality simply does not work as a campaign tool here. The American Family Association is currently boycotting my city for its tolerance of "the homosexual agenda" because in 2007 rainbow-colored street signs were installed on corners in the Gayborhood. In one of my two jobs I work as a tour guide with tourists and I mention this boycott as a punchline. White heterosexual suburban families laugh at it. Some of them think I'm yanking their chain. Responses are either "Well I guess those 12 Bible-thumpers who take part will have to vacation at the Motel 6 in Macon, Georgia instead" to "If you're offended by that you would know NOT TO GO INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE RAINBOW STREET SIGNS!". An argument could be made against gay marriage but not civil unions, and persecuting gays for the sake of them being gay isn't going to fly. Some homophobia still exists but primarily in ghettos that are replete with crime, out-of-wedlock births, AIDs, unemployment, thug culture, and broken homes; hardly the ideal model to push for not tolerating gays.

Third, Sarah Palin and "real America". God and the Flag still has play here. We're proud to be Americans. We get up in the morning and work like everyone else, and our taxes go to help subsidize the rural areas that vote Republican and can't pay their own way. Most of us know someone or have a relative serving in this war that has dragged on for a very long time. We live in or near the cities that are the targets for potential terrorist attacks. It hurts when we are referred to as not being real Americans because of what we eat, our interest in the arts, because we take public transportation to work, because we recycle, what sports we are interested in, or by sheer geography. Sarah Palin is seen as Bush in a skirt, i.e. reviled, and bluntly, there are more of us than there are of you.

That said, conservatives have issues that can put the coasts into play: The sorry state of our public education system. Gun ownership, because you don't really see any attempt to ban or restrict legally-purchased firearms, just taking illegal guns off the streets. Crime. Limited government and fiscal conservatism. Illegal immigration. These are hot-button issues that can work.

I await the condemnation I'm going to get for stating this.

Since you quoted me, I shall respond.

First, welcome and you will receive no condemnation from me, this is the response I wanted! Ideas!

While having GW Bush as a CIC has been wonderful, he is by no means a conservative. So in that area, I agree, it is the spending first and foremost we must gain control of.
As with Nebcon, I am not going to say; Abortion and Gay Marriage or whatever are off limits, I do firmly believe that they are state issues and should be handled as such, but should the states all muster enough support to make amendments in that arena, more power to them, I for one would rather though we spent our energy getting our party back to the grass roots conservative issues, controlling government, its spending and protecting the constitution as it stands now from inadvertant attacks from BOTH sides.
As to God and Country, I agree wholeheartedly, after living in North Carolina I know that it carries weight. It must be used carefully though, because there is a good portion of the Nation that it has NO play with....I can not answer the why of that.
I understand the God part, but not the Country part.
The rest are all issues that I agree we must work on as well!
Thank you!

[Adlerian Thinker]

Since you quoted me, I shall respond.

First, welcome and you will receive no condemnation from me, this is the response I wanted! Ideas!

While having GW Bush as a CIC has been wonderful, he is by no means a conservative. So in that area, I agree, it is the spending first and foremost we must gain control of.
As with Nebcon, I am not going to say; Abortion and Gay Marriage or whatever are off limits, I do firmly believe that they are state issues and should be handled as such, but should the states all muster enough support to make amendments in that arena, more power to them, I for one would rather though we spent our energy getting our party back to the grass roots conservative issues, controlling government, its spending and protecting the constitution as it stands now from inadvertant attacks from BOTH sides.
As to God and Country, I agree wholeheartedly, after living in North Carolina I know that it carries weight. It must be used carefully though, because there is a good portion of the Nation that it has NO play with....I can not answer the why of that.
I understand the God part, but not the Country part.
The rest are all issues that I agree we must work on as well!
Thank you!

Cav, I've just finished a good book called, "Killer Elite", by Michael Smith. If you get a chance, give it a read and let me know how you like it.

He covers, in part, the divide between conventional and special forces, and how that played a part in op planning fro OIF.

[Cav Scout]

Cav, I've just finished a good book called, "Killer Elite", by Michael Smith. If you get a chance, give it a read and let me know how you like it.

He covers, in part, the divide between conventional and special forces, and how that played a part in op planning fro OIF.

I have read it.
I enjoyed it as it were, I look on these types of books more as educational rather then as pleasure which I get from writers like Heinlen.
There are several very relevent Ideas in that book.
We should have a thread on it in the AAW.

[Adlerian Thinker]

I have read it.
I enjoyed it as it were, I look on these types of books more as educational rather then as pleasure which I get from writers like Heinlen.
There are several very relevent Ideas in that book.
We should have a thread on it in the AAW.

My brother was going on about how intel types always like to thump their chests and act as cool as the shooters.

God, I love intra-service rivalries!

[Adlerian Thinker]

I have read it.
I enjoyed it as it were, I look on these types of books more as educational rather then as pleasure which I get from writers like Heinlen.
There are several very relevent Ideas in that book.
We should have a thread on it in the AAW.

Which ideas?

I liked the idea of making SOCOM it's own operational command, as opposed to a support command.

[Adlerian Thinker]

I have read it.
I enjoyed it as it were, I look on these types of books more as educational rather then as pleasure which I get from writers like Heinlen.
There are several very relevent Ideas in that book.
We should have a thread on it in the AAW.

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=45589431&postcount=1

[Cav Scout]

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=45589431&postcount=1

Got it, thanks.

[Retired Bubblehead]

I've been gone a long time ... the partisanship leading up to the election got too acrimonious for me, and I had to take a break. Got busy working on my science-fiction book instead, which is more than half-written now.

Love the idea of this thread, Mr. M. :)

At the risk of stepping on the occasional partisan toe, I think a lot of what I'm seeing here is headed firmly in the wrong direction. Take the time to read and ponder President Washington's farewell address. Washington warned that loyalty to parties could destroy our Republic, and should be actively avoided. The idea is not to try to engineer a Party that will appeal to this and that demographic. The idea is to educate Americans as to what the Constitution actually says, and to seek prospective leaders who truly believe in "supporting and defending" those Constitutional principles.

Just my $.02 .....

[brinfan]

Great thread. Wish I would have found it sooner....had a lot of catching up to do.
For everything that is right or wrong with our Government, it all starts with who WE elect to represent us. If, and when, voters choose to be knowledgeable about who they vote for, many other solutions will fall into place.
First and foremost, our Electoral College needs to be "returned" to the Constitutional process. Yes, the States determine their election processes but, the Presidential Election being National, the process can Constitutionally be determined by Congress. The States being under a 'tent' as John said, all the Votes go into one pot. As the Constitution says, each State has the number of Electoral Votes equal to Representatives - one per District with at least three.
For decades, that is how the Electoral Votes were awarded to Candidates and no one Candidate received ALL the Electoral Votes in a State unless he won the popular Vote in every Congressional District. This, very wisely, eliminated the probability of any Candidate winning all the Electoral Votes in one State simply by controlling the more populated areas.
I can still remember, when I was young, when we waited until far into the night for one or two Districts to report so the Electoral Votes therein could be awarded and total numbers for the State could be determined.
A few States have already voted to let the Popular Vote decide in their States. We better fight against that, tooth and nail. If that happens, a few very populated areas in the US will control every future Election!!
As for Senators, the Electoral Vote they represent should be awarded to the Candidate who belongs to respective Parties of the Senators of each State.
The Framers knew exactly what they were doing here. Every voter in every State was protected under this system.
Also, Presidential Candidates would have to give the more sparsly populated States the attention and respect they deserve.
Since so many States report Votes by County, money (Federal) would need to spent to re-set the system but, I believe, this is absolutely necessary and should be the first effort of any grass-roots movement.
As for Amendments, they've been tossed around like water-balloons lately.
Previous replies were correct.
Nana Asante (Constitutional Law Expert) therefore pointed out that "factors that affected constitutionalism such as political intolerance, ethnicity, lack of self restraint and respect for others were impossible to be fixed by any a constitutional draftsman. "
Like the first 10, Amendments can be found necessary to LIMIT Government powers.
No one ever remembers the 10th - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively,or to the people."
The Constitution enumerates what the Federal Government can do - period.
Again, I say, the Election process has to come first. Once we begin to elect Government Officials who realize that our Vote is their term limit we can start on the rest of our list.
Sorry for such a long post....you are all very thought provoking.

Have a Day ... -) "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

[Cletus Wilbury]

...A few States have already voted to let the Popular Vote decide in their States....

Agreed with all your post (I think). I'd like to discuss the part above.

Districts are a problem.

For the House, I would recommend states use proportional representation to select their many representatives.

Within the states, I'd recommend one house still based on districts, and another house via proportional representation.

This does not violate the U.S. Constitution. Like you said, it's the states' call, as long as it's representative.

I like proportional representation, so we can break up the 2- party lock a bit.

[brinfan]

Maine and Nebraska are the only two States in which Electoral votes are awarded by popular vote in each Congressional district. US Reps and Senators are like all others, in that they are chosen by popular vote. The two Senatorial Electoral votes are awarded to the winner of the overall popular vote in the State. Colorado is also considering changing their voting process to this procedure.
Where you mention two Houses within a State, the Framers felt that a 'form' of the British Upper/Lower houses could serve us well. What they tried to do was to represent the common man in the House and the "gentry" in the Senate. This is why the number of Reps is determined by population, so that more voices can be heard.
None of this had anything to do with how many political parties would be represented. Ideally, then, both opinions could be discussed and debated to determine what best met the peoples' wishes. The only thing left, after that, would be implementation. Do we do it for ourselves or does the Government do is for us. There's your two party system.
You mentioned within the States - their representation is by District, each district, ideally, being determined by population (usually around 510,000).
One last thought for today - do you feel that it would be much more difficult to "rig" an election that involved total votes in several Districts or in just one final total per State?
The "dead" voters in Illinois would only have an effect on one Electoral vote instead of the whole State.

Have a Day -)

[BROEDERBOND]

can't be much common ground when you have a majority who have figured out that they can vote themselves Food Stamps and Digital Converter Boxes at the expense of the productive

[brinfan]

How right you are. That's why the Electoral process must be returned to the way the Framers decided, so there is no pocket majority.
What did happen was the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by LBJ, created a 'false' majority when it established a list of special groups to pick from for special treatment. When the members of these groups join together, you have the 'false' majority. And, where do more of these people live? Big cities and on the coasts.
It's important to remember that Amendments to the Constitution apply to and restrict actions that can be taken by the Federal Government. They don't give us rights, we give ourselves rights. They stop the Gov. from taking them away.
If you read the whole text, you'll see that it applies to Government employers, those receiving Government funds, inter-State commerce., etc.
Example - the First Amendment does NOT give us the right to Free Speech. We already have that. What it does do is prevent the Gov. from stopping our Free Speech. There's a difference.
Within the Constitution and the Amendments, you'll see the phrase "of the United States and the several States". Two seperate entities. United States pertains to anything inter-State, Federal or foreign. Anything else is left to the individual States.
The 10th Amendment very emphatically states that any powers not "specifically" given to the Fed. Govt. belong to the States and the people.
I truly feel that if any movements like our Tea Parties are to work, people need to get together in groups with speakers who can explain the Constitution and how to take it and Our Country back.

[RedStatePaPa]

As for cons v repubs, the great divide concerns foreign policy.

[brinfan]

Red,
Yes it does. Quite specifically because too many people here do not consider themselves "true" Americans. There are far too many hyphens flying around. Certainly folks have concern for friends and family who still live in Countries of origination. However, priorities must be set and those concerns must take a secondary position where what is best for America comes into play.
Once again, in my opinion, the hyphenated Americans created by LBJ have to face this realization. The only way to do that is for them to realize that being an American is a far greater priviledge than any of those afforded them for their "special interests".