Comments Posted By Rob
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 64 Comments
ASSASSINATION TALK PROPER BUT MISPLACED - AT THE MOMENT
Why assassinate somebody who hasn't done anything?
Indeed, if his past behavior is an indication of future behavior, he won't be doing much.
If elected the big fight ought to be over his appointments/nominees for administration positions.
Of course, I'd rather not see ANY of the remaining candidates in the White House, but c'est la vie.
Comment Posted By Rob On 25.02.2008 @ 16:12
THIS is why I started calling myself a reactionary a few years ago...
Comment Posted By Rob On 4.02.2008 @ 17:30
The problem with getting in the game is that (agreeing with Renee - I think) is that the entire field is too far to the left. I cannot kick a field goal from the adjacent field.
My way or the highway? Perhaps.
Gimme some time to think on it and study up on the dreck which remains.
Me? I thought that Fred was a moderate.
Comment Posted By Rob On 25.01.2008 @ 17:57
..in most (not all) other decisions in life we are willing to settle for our second choice.
I guess that's the problem with being an ideologist - if the square peg doesn't fit in the round hole, I am not one to commence knocking the corners off of the square peg.
I suppose that "taking my ball and going home" is childish and perhaps I will think better of it. But right now, with the choices available - I'll have none of it.
Fred was the first candidate I contributed to and worked for.
None of this current crop manages true small government and strong defense. I am a moral conservative, but I think it has little or no place in a discussion of national politics - other than to get the feds out of it. Reverse Roe V Wade and have the feds stop messing with what are state issues. Some States yes, others no, let the people decide there.
Second choices work when I am in control. Chosing between a plane without enough fuel and one with engines far overdue for a rebuild? I'll walk.
Without None of the Above as a choice, the only moral choice I can make is no vote - a pox on all of their houses.
Maybe I will think differently in the future, but at present, there is not enough lipstick for the any that are in the pen.
Comment Posted By Rob On 24.01.2008 @ 18:23
Fred will get my vote in the primary (I believe the ballot is already printed, being as absentee/vote by mail ballots are already out).
I am still hoping for a brokered conventions and Fred. Fred as a VP? I don't think that putting lipstick on a pig makes the stink any less. In the fall.. I don't think I can hold my nose tightly enough.
Heh.. BAG day is coming and this year, it appears that the Feds are going to fund it, with their damned economic stimulus package.
Comment Posted By Rob On 24.01.2008 @ 15:16
FRED ON THE MOVE IN SC: IS IT ENOUGH?
I won't sell my soul for a Fred win (previous buyer with an even better deal), but my wife and I did contribute again and doubled our previous contribution. For us this approaches a food on the table deal, so we ain't kidding about wanting Fred in the White House.
It is obvious that this has become a long march, not a blitz - for all the bunching up of primaries that has occured. I encourage Fred supporters to contribute AGAIN (and again and again).
I think that it is rather cool that Fred is managing a pay-as-you-go campaign. Maybe we could model Federal Spending that way? B-) Frederal. Heh...
Comment Posted By Rob On 17.01.2008 @ 14:47
I am one of those "social conservatives", BUT I agree with Fred - let the states decide.
The national government is far far too intrusive in what should be local decisions.
Huckabee is a crock and only a step or two away from being a crank on a level with Ron Paul.
I do "fall on my sword" for social issues - I want them in the hands of the states. I want the feds to stop working to establish the religion of the left socialism with its sacrament of social engineering - including abortion, which started as a way to control blacks.
I am very bothered by attempts to ammend the Constitution for all manner of purposes (on any part of the spectrum) social. All of this is a result of extending (wrongly imho) the reach of the government beyond the original intent of the Constitution. For this I blame all three branches of government.
Comment Posted By Rob On 13.01.2008 @ 16:34
Didn't the sub-prime mess come about because the government demanded that everyone be offer a mortgage, regardless of how nutty is was?
The folks who signed up for untenable loans and those who made them, should feel the pain of the collapse.
Additional government meddling, already shown to be a problem, will not make this mess better. At best is will "spread the pain" screwing people who had nothing to do with it and probably "kick down the road" a great deal of the coast, which will spread the pain to taxpayers not yet born.
Comment Posted By Rob On 12.01.2008 @ 13:20
FACING UP TO THE UNBEARABLE TRUTH
Okay... Using both barrels at the same time is never a good idea.
Yes, I agree that Huckabee is a disaster. I sent my money (the first time in my 54 years) to Fred.
I separate the religion of the office holder from the office. If the holders' beliefs are consonant with conservative goals I don't care. It is not Huck's conservative bits that are worrisome to me. It is the very large big gummint (AND the neeccessary big taxes) stripe that bugs me.that they are not out in the street burning cars etc. but you are skating on the point when you make such an attack.
I am a believer. I also work to stay at least somewhat consistent with "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand (not all of the follow-on stuff, that just becomes a NABU). Chew on that for a while - 'cause they ain't supposed to be in any way compatible. I also support the death penalty and opppose abortion. I would suggest that taking those positions - together, requires at least some thought.
Please allow that at least some followers of Christ do not have continuous digestive systems. (Think about it, I ain't spelling it out.) Those who don't will think again about any support for the Huckabubba.
Comment Posted By Rob On 4.01.2008 @ 20:22
CONSERVATIVES CANNOT IGNORE CLIMATE CHANGE
1) Temps have not gone up since '98 - what are we trying to fix?
2) Are higher temps really bad? In the overall historical range we are closer to the bottom than the top. Mike Griffith NASA Admin. asked this question directly and was roasted for it - instead of getting an answer.
3) Temperature reporting is corrupted by comprimised measurement locations/situations.
4) Most importantly, IF we are going to address climate, first we must agree on a target (see question #2 above). Secondly, we must look at the entire system, not just the human part of it. Folks love to make fun of Reagan's flatulent cattle, but there is truth in the underlying assertion. One case in point. Young trees bind CO2. Old trees release it. Dead and rotting trees really release CO2. So, why are we defending all of the downed timber and old growth? We have made forests unhealthy with attempts to "shrink wrap" them in pure preservation.
Nope, I remain entirely unconvinced of Glowball warming (actually the sun IS the cause). Even less do I buy human driven global climate change. Can we please change the debate to that which produces life rather than that which curtails it? (Refer to Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" to understand my view of adding to life)
Comment Posted By Rob On 18.11.2007 @ 20:07
