Comments Posted By Freedoms Truth
Displaying 71 To 80 Of 112 Comments
GOP MORE POPULAR THAN AT ANY TIME SINCE YESTERDAY
@busboy 42: “That’s a sophist’s response.”
"Why, thank you — it has been awhile since somebody referred to me as a wise man. I’m assuming you meant in the classical sense"
- Yes, I was - classical in the sense of the ankle-biters who were Socrates' opponents. I was using it precisely to refer to your question, which unfairly assumed/inferred a hole in his proposal that wasnt there. It's a debating trick of a 'wise guy' more than a wise man. ;-)“Name-calling is popular among Democrats and liberals; it’s their favorite substitute for thinking” ... is just an obvious statement of observation, given your parting comment to me #41, #44, and #42 and many prior items here and elsewher. If you dont want it to be true, you have the power to change it.
Comment Posted By Freedoms Truth On 22.05.2009 @ 16:21
"“Children born to permitted workers while in the US would not be granted citizenship based on place of birth.”
So someone flying from China to London via Dallas, that gives birth at the layover, has citizenship for their children, but someone that’s been in the country working for 18 months doesn’t? Does your plan also call for striking all citizenship-via-birth rules, or does this specifically apply to just immigrant labor? Assuming the later . . . why?"That's a sophist's response. It's absolutely a good idea to rethink birthright citizenship, and one limitation would be to NOT have people here temporarily or on a tourist/visit visa, who have birth, to have those children be US citizens. There's a booming business in some immigrant communities for pregnant women to come here on a tourist visa and have their children here. Instant dual citizenship. it would be a good idea to end this.
Comment Posted By Freedoms Truth On 20.05.2009 @ 11:02
"“Children born to permitted workers while in the US would not be granted citizenship based on place of birth.”
So someone flying from China to London via Dallas, that gives birth at the layover, has citizenship for their children, but someone that’s been in the country working for 18 months doesn’t? Does your plan also call for striking all citizenship-via-birth rules, or does this specifically apply to just immigrant labor? Assuming the later . . . why?"That's a sophist's response. It's absolutely a good idea to rethink birthright citizenship, and one limitation would be to NOT have people here temporarily or on a tourist/visit visa, who have birth, to have those children be US citizens. There's a booming business in some immigrant communities for pregnant women to come her on a tourist visa and have their children here. Instant dual citizenship. it would be a good idea to end this.
Comment Posted By Freedoms Truth On 20.05.2009 @ 11:02
"you have stated many times what you want, only the purest by your book conservative platform."
I am with about 60% of Americans on most issues. I am with 60% of Cali voters and what they did yesterday. I guess we are all in one big happy purest boat together."However, I bet you supported the Iraq war. Not a very conservative position."
No it's not a conservative position, which makes it quite ironic for iberal Democrat critics to think Bush's Iraq war, no less of a 'war of choice' than Clinton's Kosovo adventure, somehow means something negative about conservative philosophy." So can I call you CINO (conservative in name only) now?"
Comment Posted By Freedoms Truth On 20.05.2009 @ 10:57
Do what you want. Name-calling is popular among Democrats and liberals; it's their favorite substitute for thinking.
"what in the world are you trying to say? Just stick to our guns no need to change anything?"
Nice strawman. No, if you want to know what needs to change IMHO, see my blog. It also has the Perry v KBH numbers (Perry leads).
Comment Posted By Freedoms Truth On 19.05.2009 @ 16:26
"Freedoms Truth,
what in the world are you trying to say? Just stick to our guns no need to change anything?"Not at all. (what are 'our guns'?) The answers are here:
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2009/05/howl-of-rinos-and-rebuilding-gop.html
"We should rebrand the GOP around the core fiscal conservative principles of limited Government and more liberty as the non-negotiable positions. If a Republican official can't shake addictions to higher taxes and more spending, then they are no better than tax-and-spend Democrats and should be shown the door. We should not throw overboard or under the bus any conservative wings, including the valid family and faith social conservative wing, and also the national security and national sovereignty wing. In short, update the Reagan formula for the 21st century, don't throw it out."
"Do you also have poll numbers there? "
Comment Posted By Freedoms Truth On 19.05.2009 @ 16:17
Perry / KBH poll - Yes, see the blog. Perry has a slight lead.
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com
"If we are going to make a comeback let’s at least recognize where bad policies were initiated during the 2001 to 2005 period. No vetos during first term. First President since JQ Adams. No fiscal discipline there."
Yes, see here:
Comment Posted By Freedoms Truth On 19.05.2009 @ 16:14
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2009/05/howl-of-rinos-and-rebuilding-gop.html
"If Clinton had R congress what explains Bush’s failure during his first six years. "
Daschle ran the Senate for most of 2001-2002.
Comment Posted By Freedoms Truth On 19.05.2009 @ 16:10
And Hastert was a weak Speaker wrt spending.
"President Clinton was more of a conservative on economic issues than President Bush."
Correction: President Clinton PLUS Newt Gingrich running Congress was more of a conservative combo on economic issues than President Bush PLUS Pelosi/Reid running Congress.
We seem to forget that Clinton wanted a big-nanny-state healthcare program too, that got derailed by the liberal hubris of the 1993-1994 liberal Democrat Congress.
Comment Posted By Freedoms Truth On 19.05.2009 @ 15:35
"The Dems are with the Republicans on guns and defense? Or did you mean to say that via their media enablers the Dems can fool the sheeple enough to convince them that their positions are the same?"
It must be the latter. See my linked poll on how conservative more popular than Republican, while liberal is much LESS popular than Democrat. If Democrats only got the votes of people who agree with the extremists who run the party they'd be a tiny minority.
Comment Posted By Freedoms Truth On 19.05.2009 @ 15:34
Media bias is what make the face of the GOP the extremists, but hides the Dem extremists like he crazy Aunt in the attic and airbrushes the blemishes.
