Previous 11 - 20 Next
What you have written, which I pretty much agree with, prompts me to ask a question. Do you understand that there are a number of Republican office-holders who are not on our side? They learn some conservative buzz-words and phrases to use on the campaign trail but in office are as anxious as Democrats to grow government. Until that problem is dealt with, having Republican control of the presidency and both houses of congress will accomplish nothing except for ensuring that Republicans will share in the blame for everything that goes wrong.
In response to:

The Underpants Gnome Caucus

sahlberg Wrote: Feb 19, 2014 12:38 PM
So Derek, I understand the problems with Ted Cruz's strategy, but what is your strategy? I am not interested in a Republican majority that governs like they did the last time they were in power. I would rather have the Democrats in power, unashamedly giving us bigger and bigger government than to have either compassionate or hypocritical "conservatives' doing the same thing. What I see when I look at our two political parties are a Ruin the Country Party and a Let Them Ruin the Country Party and I hate them both! Ted Cruz might have a losing strategy, but it beats a strategy of constant retreat. If you have something better, I'm listening.
To get a true picture of what is going on, I suggest everyone reread this column and, whenever the word investigation is used, substitute the word coverup. In fact, that is a good idea whenever reading anything about any "investigation" conducted by this administration or any other group with a majority of Democrat members.
In response to:

Is Prodigal GOP Inching Home?

sahlberg Wrote: Jan 20, 2014 8:52 AM
I am a social conservative libertarian. The reason is that I believe the best way to protect religious liberty is to take government (i.e. coercion) out of the game. Why should government define marriage at all. If government had never gotten into the business of licensing marriages, the idea of marriage being anything but a union of a man and a woman would have been laughable. The only way progressives could ever make same-sex marriage anything but a joke is by government force. And now they are trying to use government to force everyone else to not only accept, but celebrate the gay lifestyle. Libertarians have the good sense to not want to play that game. And on the issue of abortion, people forget that not long ago a staunch pro-lifer, Harry Brown, was the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate. There is no pro-abortion consensus among libertarians. Many of us are as strongly pro-life as the most ardent Republican social-sonservative.
What is really ridiculous is that people who are so irresponsible that they aren't trusted enough to be given money to take care of themselves are still trusted enough to be allowed to vote. Honestly, these people are nothing but large-sized children who will never reach the age of majority. They will remain minors no matter how long they live and should not be allowed within a mile of a voting booth.
In response to:

Obama’s 2014 War on the Poor

sahlberg Wrote: Jan 06, 2014 10:42 AM
Unemployment benefits need to be paid in one lump sum, not in monthly payments. That way there would be no incentive to delay finding a new job. So what if some people quickly find work and come out ahead. Good for them. Also, if their new job requires that they move, they will have money to pay for the move. And as for those who quickly squander their entire benefit, they might learn that stupidity has consequences. They will also have an even stronger incentive to be diligent in their job search..
The Republicans have won many elections since Reagan was president but, in when it comes to limiting the size of government, they have an unbroken record of losses, thanks to establishment Republicans. Anyone who wants to limit the size and scope of government is insane if they think establishment Republicans are any better than Democrats. I don't even refer to myself as a Republican anymore, but I am a proud tea party supporter.
The only policy consistent with the constitution would be to prohibit the use by government employees inside the borders of the US any weapon, vehicle, or device of any kind that is prohibited to non-government personnel. The only exception should be in the case of foreign invasion or for the training of our armed forces.
In response to:

The Conservatives’ New Social Fight

sahlberg Wrote: Dec 09, 2013 6:55 PM
What a fine idea- to split the Republican Party. As a Christian libertarian, I see only one solution, which is the libertarian solution. Get the government out of marriage altogether. If a government stamp of approval had never been affixed to marriage, this would have never been an issue and the very idea of gay marriage would have been laughable. This is what Rand Paul has proposed and he is absolutely correct. And as for drug legalization, Republicans need to argue in favor of legalization simply on the grounds that prohibition doesn't work and avoid addressing it in moral terms altogether.
The short-term thinking of big pharma is breath-taking. They lobby for government to mandate third-party provided birth-control so that they will have fewer customers in the future.
This idea could work if this one one qualifier was added- only employed individuals and their dependents would be eligible. Better yet, provide the stipend to employers based on the number of full-time employees they have plus the dependents of their employees and watch unemployment disappear.
Previous 11 - 20 Next