Best
58 Comments
Post
  • #6
    !
    You can thank the Democratic heads who put Truman on FDR's last ticket for that one. If we would have gotten Wallace, as we should have, we would have made peace w/ the Russians after WW2, we wouldn't have used the bomb, Russia wouldn't have invaded eastern Europe, there never would have been a red scare, and all that money that has been used to build more bombs than what is necessary to blow up the entire planet would have been used to build the greatest nation in the history of the world.

    That one small change at the last minute of the election of 1944 changed US and world history forever.
  • R Load more replies

  • #10
    !
    History has shown that really smart innovative thinkers are few in numbers, but mediocre minds are in abundance. The average is measured by how far into the middle they are, not how far up they are. That's the beauty of a republic. We are supposed to vote for people smarter than we are. The few insightful and wise speak for the many mediocre and average.

    A straight democracy merely reflects what the average-minded person wants, and often ignores what the smart people say...(It's like the Frankenstein story... we destroy what we do not understand) Democracies always end up destroying themselves from within because they tend to annihilate the thinkers, the true statesmen, the real defenders of liberty, and leave a trail of despair and corruption behind them. Ron Paul always understood this truth, and anyone following in his footsteps is facing as much ridicule from the mediocre as Paul did... But hopefully, they, like Paul, will be a great example of what should be...

    "When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental - men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost." HL Mencken

    "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." --Samuel Adams
  • #28
    !
    I'd rather save the smart people for something useful. The only pressing decisions people in government need to make is how much to fund our defense. The rest of the decisions should have been left to the very democratic and well represented free market. Now we need to look to smart people because we all know we've got a problem that won't be solved by normal means.

    "Good job senator, the way you hid your intentions from your constituency in your lawmaking will have your name added to the likes of Euler, Leonardo and Aristotle" - Never!
  • #37
    !
    @DerivePI - Indeed, our federal gov't is very limited in its scope of duties and authority, purposefully so... And smart people are needed in every aspect of human civilization... Gov't, to me, is a necessary evil, but certainly not "useless"... I'm not a an anarchist, just a libertarian (little "L")... I hold lawmakers to the standard of Archbishop Stephen Langton who changed the world with the bill he introduced after carefully considering the benefits of mutual respect and defense as a guarantor of liberty... Not sure if I would compare them to Euler, Aristotle or Leonardo. Apples and oranges, to me...*grin* There are many forms of smartness... we need it everywhere, including in gov't.
  • #1
    !
    Although I disagree with these two on most issues at least they vote for what they believe in and don't follow the lock step orthodoxy of the rest of the GOP.
  • #4
    !
    please please start you're own caucus, take the Tea Party twits with you to play your silly destructive games and allows our political system return to functional governing
  • #31
    !
    @martydotcom "functional governing", Is that what they call a government funded in large part on the backs of future generations? Talking about destructive, how long do you think we can continue to finance 46 cents on every dollar spent?
  • #32
    !
    @IMAQT Where were you when Bush was creating this mess? Or is the deficit only a problem with democratic presidents. Did even a single member of the GOP complain about the costs of Bush's two unfunded wars or the massive medicare give a way to big Pharma?
  • #34
    !
    @IMAQT functional governing as in understanding what they're doing, voting against flood insurance for Sandy victims (no pork) when half the no votes come from coastal or tornado prone districts. These unsophisticated s...t heads have no concept of the potential results of a default on our debt.... depression is generally accepted result
    Guess how we got out of the Great Depression ...The New Deal as in massive government spending
    That's the insanity these type bring to our undisputed dysfunctional house of reps
  • #39
    !
    @IMAQT This is just dumb Tea Party libertarian BS
    Steven Palazzo, Republican Who Voted Against Sandy Relief, Asked For Katrina
  • R Load more replies

  • #13
    !
    "Translation for Dummies" - Who else will wake up and start pulling on the yoke in an attempt to keep us from nose diving this country into fiscal oblivion?
  • #27
    !
    I don't know much about them yet but I diffently liked Ron Paul, and I will never again vote for the lesser evil again. I beleave there's going to be a rise in the popularity of the libertarytains, maybe among them might be a leader who can unite the conservatives.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #30
    !
    "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."
    Ronald Reagan. I just wish the GOP would embrace libertarianism as much as they do the pro life or the anti gay folks.
  • #17
    !
    This is the problem with both the far right and far left. They think they have to be all things to all people. In short tyrants. Dictators. They would try to legislate our minds if they could get a super majority in both houses. The Libertarians have an opportunity to become relevant if they stick to certain principals (such as govt not being all things to all people) and stop trying to be the extremist GOP. Legalizing drugs, keeping religion out of govt, not immersing themselves in every social issue are all good libertarian premises. Then they go and start visiting with the Palestinians who danced in the streets over 9-11. I swear there is no political party in America that doesn't want to play God.
  • #22
    !
    "Then they go and start visiting with the Palestinians who danced in the streets over 9-11" -- libertarians are visiting the Palestinians? Since when? And even if a couple of self-described ones did, did they only visit the Palestinians that "danced in the street"? If anything, their premise is that the Palestinians have a right to exist, and that we aren't picking sides. Neutrality is pragmatic in most cases, which is the underpinning of libertarianism.
  • #23
    !
    @Hireman Supporting the Palestinians is not neutrality. Supporting Israel , warts and all, is all that keeps the Arab world from committing genocide on Israel. If you read the article Rand Paul is going to visit the Palestinians. true Libertarians would not be taking a side in this as you say. Rand Paul is a idiot.
  • #25
    !
    @Hireman Meeting with the Palestinians in any way shape or form outside the parameters of official govt approved business is taking sides. Period.
  • #26
    !
    @jessejaymes Really, it's not. Paul's meeting with the Israelis, Palestinians, Jordanians, etc. Considering, he's meeting with far more Israelis on the trip than any other group, how is he taking the Palestinian side by your logic. Simple answer: He's not. Period.
  • R Load more replies

  • #51
    !
    @marine1 Worthless as they primarily trend towards, they still play cat's cradle with some mighty big purse strings.
Post