1 - 10 Next
Nice pivot. This is about Cosby. No Herman Cain. If you so liked Herman Cain ... or if the Republican Party liked him .. they would have nominated him. NO? You dodged the issue ... And then had to call names .... Can't you restrain yourself and answer in a civil manner. Or is name calling (shill) ... your modus operandi? I think so. You just lowered yourself and your points. But ... God bless you.
Sheesh. You speculate but provide no facts or evidence. You want Crosby to be innocent ... so do I. However, neither of us can "proclaim innocence" ... your post reveals an agenda ... Shall we let the story unfold ... you are making assertions before the evidence is in ... I'll hold off ... Hoping ... Cosby is not a "letch" ... You succumbed to modernity where you are compelled to take a position before the evidence is in .... Right? Agree? You would say that about the 1st folks to speak on Trayvon ... and certainly, you would say that about Ferguson. Yet, you commit the same "sin" as it were ... quiet reading ... and see what happens ... that is adult thing to do .... Hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving ...
There are several books about just wars. Have you read them? Have you read the critiques? The responses? You have to "earn your chops" ... show us ... what you have read .... digested .. and critiqued. Bless you and happy Thanksgiving ... get to work. (wink). You brought it up, right?
Funny article. Tries to play "inside baseball" while simultaneously "decrying inside baseball."
Fair enough, psydoc. It all depends upon the constituency that elects ... right? My point was this (I wish I could post graphics here). Ideologically, America is a bell-shaped curve which is center-right. That is, the mean and median is just to the right of center. The further away from that central point ... the fewer people and voters. A candidate can "park" further to right and hope the bell-shaped curve is wrong (Goldwater, McGovern) or hope the "ground game" can generate a turnout differential good enough to beat the opponent. Historically, candidates ... once the nomination is won ... tack toward the center point. Presidents have been moderate left, centrist, or moderate right more often than not ... Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush I (the original RINO according to some Republicans), Clinton (headed the Democratic Leadership Council dedicated to bring the party more centrist after the Mondale debacle) ... Bush II (compared to Steve Forbes). That is my point. Liberal-centrists ... Conservative-centrists typically win ... if a more liberal or conservative wins ... they are guided to the center. Why else would Reagan compromise on tax increases in 1982-3 and not address the "social issue" in 1981-2 .... do remember, he was advised by Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker ... who today would called a RINO.
To answer your question, a "true conservative" .. from what I read here ... never compromises ... is rigidly wedded to principles (as opposed to negotiating from principles) ... would rather "lose in a principled manner" than "win with a pragmatic approach ... where winning moves the system closer to a conservative ideal point than losing. By the way, I would say the same thing about ultra-liberals and their mentality. OK with you? Purism has never won in American politics.
I consider it in historical perspective. Robert Taft ... who was defeated by Eisenhower and the "true" or "real" conservatives went apoplectic .. but voted for Ike nonetheless. In 1964, the "mantra" ... or in today's parlance ... the "meme" was that if Goldwater was nominated ... it would draw out "true conservatives" and surprise the country with a "Win" against LBJ. Turns out, it was biggest popular vote in history for LBJ. Funny then. The Dems, in 1972, made the same mistake in nominating McGovern ... figuring there was a solid liberal majority "out there." Nope. Second biggest (next to LBJ) popular vote victory in U.S. history. Most would cite Reagan. Good man, good president. Like FDR, both were principled but pragmatic. And governed effectively. Both had problems and political disasters (FDR -- packing the Court; Reagan -- the debacle of Iran-Contra ... which, incidentally should be studied today as a lesson in "unilateral presidential action").
That is +1 vote against.
You folks really fight amongst yourselves, don't you?
Exactly what % of the public do you describe in your post (above ...9:10 PM)? What %?
1 - 10 Next