I am of the generation that expects no social security. I will never see the amount of money I have paid in.

riverrat10k on April 28, 2009 at 10:53 PM

I’m right there with you, RR. As a matter of fact, I’d like to opt out for that simple bit of reasoning.

I can make and save more on my own in anticipation of that coming day than I’ll ever get from the program myself.

However, despite his initial problems with McCain, a recent incident played a large part in instigating Santorum’s recent endorsement. “Something happened a couple of nights ago to me right after the Florida primary. I ran into someone who was with the McCain campaign and I know had spent some time down in Florida, that walked up to me at an event and before I could even say hello said, ‘We beat you.’ And I thought that to be a rather odd statement because I wasn’t on the ballot. So who is ‘you’? Who did they beat? They surely didn’t beat me, Rick Santorum.”

During the Ingraham interview, Santorum said that when the person who reveled in Romney’s defeat said “we beat you,” the word “you” meant “conservatives.” Asked if the person taunting him simply said “we beat you” as a McCain supporter speaking to a McCain critic, rather than a general indictment, Santorum said he still believes the comment was intended as an attack on the conservative base.

“This is how I took it: They [the McCain campaign] really are fighting against the base of the Republican party, the conservatives in the Republican Party, that’s what they see this as. Because certainly that’s what I represented in many respects,” Santorum said. “So I sort of said, ‘Wow, this really is a battle for who we are going to be as a party.’”

The Rhinos and Conservatives have been at each others throats for years.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTU2YTJhZDNlMWMwYjFjYjA4ZTJhZDZkNmMyZTE1Njk=

Counters Jim DeMint, whose impending endorsement of Toomey might have pushed Specter over the edge, “I would rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who really believe in principles of limited government, free markets, free people, than to have 60 that don’t have a set of beliefs.”

BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO!
My sentiments exactly.

“I want to be a member of a vibrant national Republican party that can attract people from all corners of the country — and we can govern the country from a center-right perspective.”

– Lindsay Graham

There you go folks! You heard the man, we have to move to the “center,” or we will continue to lose elections. Allahpundint agrees with that, and so do all of our libertarian friends in the party, and on this website. Get rid of abortion, homosexual rights/marriage, euthenasia, stem cell research, etc. and we will be a majority party again!

He’s agreeing with you Allah, and you other libertarians, why do you despise him so? He’s against wasteful government spending, like you guys, so what’s the problem?

That is why the Republican Party has a big, big problem. The Ross Perot/Ron Paul libertarians will never agree to core conservative principles of capitalism, republicanism, and traditional American values based upon the foundation of the Judeo-Christian moral standard. Until the party makes up it’s mind on which direction it will go, we will be spinning our wheels and arguing constantly. The Democrats have already made their choice, hard-core leftism. They have no “big tent,” unless you are a confirmed leftist, then go elsewhere. George Soros, who runs the Democratic Party, will not allow dissension in his party. I have no problem with good, spirited debate in our party on issues that do not effect the core of conservatism. But, wanting to throw out what conservatism stands for is unacceptable, period!

For me, I’m not willing to compromise conservative principles for the sake of wooing libertarians into the party. They have their own party, let them build that if they think their ideas are winning ideas. Let me say this, if being a conservative means I am doomed to be the minority, then so be it.

athensboy on April 29, 2009 at 7:23 AM

The funny part of that change you are talking about is history does not agree with you. When societies change to become hedonistic and decadent they decline and fall. Ask the ancient Greeks and Romans all about it.

We have had similar situations in America. Do you recall the “Roaring 20’s” perchance? But our society has a braking factor that is called free enterprise. When our people become too decadent and selfish they screw up the economy. They did that last time in the “Roaring 20’s” and cause the Great Depression.

Now we find ourselves doing it again. We have once again reached the level of decadence and selfishness required to make our economics crumble. Last time we were saved by a religious revival that brought morality back to our society and business dealings. This time is different.

This time around we are seeking to socialize everything in sight in order to fix the problem. But the problem is that free-enterprise requires a moral society to operate. Until we fix the hedonism and selfishness, there is no fix for our economy. We will become increasingly dependent on the government to regulate us =because we are unwilling to “do the right thing” to regulate ourselves.

The details [of the stimulus compromise] were negotiated at an afternoon meeting in the office of the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, involving Mr. Reid, other top Democrats and two Republicans, Susan Collins of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. After they came to terms, the senators brought in the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, for assurance that the deal was acceptable to the administration. Mr. Emanuel signaled it was…

Mr. Obama called Ms. Collins and Mr. Specter, as well as Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, another Republican expected to support the deal, to acknowledge they were acting against pressure from their party and, one official said, to thank them for their patriotism in helping advance the bill at a critical time.

He voted yes on the stimulus bill and he knows that would sink him in the election, so time to switch sides.

gordo on April 29, 2009 at 7:29 AM

With the new revelation that he’s been considering this switch for “months”, it may be the other way around: he may have voted to shut off Stimulus debate in order to keep on the table whatever deal he already had. (Apologies if this point was made already – haven’t read all 11 pages of comments :)

Just another Benedict Arlen.

“Eggs Benedict for breakfast, sir?“

athensboy on April 29, 2009 at 7:23 AM

You know what happened in Plato’s day to boys in Athens, right?

I feel your pain. There has always been this “I got mine, so screw everyone else” mentality I find extremely un-kind and un-Christian like in conservatives. There seems to be some sort of rampant unbelief that many hard-working people fall by the wayside or people born of circumstances that created extreme hurdles to minimal success. Or that it might be impossible for most people not to have enormous amounts of money to sit on. There is this strange hang up on money that I don’t understand coming from people that revere Christ.

Spoken like a true, closed-minded, intolerant liberal. Christians and conservatives are the first to come to the aid of people in need. Look up the comparisons in charitible giving between liberals and conservatives. You’ll be disappointed (or maybe happy; who knows?) to learn liberals fail miserably when it comes to charitible giving compared to conservatives and “christians” (not quite sure what a specific belief system has to do with this argument, other than to denegrate that belief system) What conservatitves oppose is the federal govt pointing a gun citizen’s heads and FORCING them to make charitible contributions by confiscating their money and giving it to someone else without the citizens having any say in the matter. You do realize that one of the main functions of Churches is to do charitble work, right?

So, here’s a research project for you: go out and compare the political affiliation of those that “sit on their money” vs. those that happily give a considerable portion of their income to charity. And here’s a clue for you all…paying taxes is not charity. I’ll give you a head start on your homework assignment: Conservative households give 30% more to charity than libtards. Annual contributions to charity by conservatives are almost DOUBLE that of libtards. And Red states give more to charity than blue states. And those enlightened Euroweenies give less to charity than Americans. Huh!!! Go figure! Sadly, the most stingy are secular conservatives. But that pretty much nullifies your argument that it’s hypocritical “christians” that are heartless But, as a percentage of income, secular conservatives are more generous than secular libtards. So, remind me again who sits on their money? And this despite the fact that the US is the most onerously taxed nation in the world.

And conservative volunteer their time more than libtards. And they give blood more often than libtards. So much so that if libtards gave blood as often as conservatives, the blood supply in this country would increase upwards of 40%. Shall I go on?

So, care to rethink your knee-jerk, judgmental, bigoted opinion? Or do you wish to continue to look clueless?

Fed:

A tax is a tax. If they were taxing my income at a state level to pay for education, I would still be paying taxes for other’s people children’s education.

I do think that it is in all our best interest to have an educated youth. But then again, I also think it is in our best interest not to just let helpless old people suffer and die. That does not make me a socialist.

Terrye on April 28, 2009 at 5:37 PM

Now you are just making strawman arguments. Of course it’s in “our best interest” to have an “educated youth” (although I would expand it to an “educated populace”). This is why States have set up a property tax scheme to fund education. individual states have the primary responsibility authority over public education. Funding education is not the repsonsibility of the Federal Government. Nothing prevents you from donating to the private school of your choice.

Read the Constitution once. The interstate highway system clearly falls under “interstate commerce”, which clearly falls under the responsibilty of the Fed Govt to collect taxes to fund.

Your goals and desires are well meaning. I don’t know one person who would disagree with the overall concept. What you have yet failed to do is explain where the Fed Govt has the Constitutional authority to go about taking MY MONEY to solve such problems.

Saying no is what the constitution is all about. No wonder the liberals dont get that, they have never read it…

Fed:

A tax is a tax. If they were taxing my income at a state level to pay for education, I would still be paying taxes for other’s people children’s education.

I do think that it is in all our best interest to have an educated youth. But then again, I also think it is in our best interest not to just let helpless old people suffer and die. That does not make me a socialist.

Terrye on April 28, 2009 at 5:37 PM

You are missing the point. Yes, a tax is a tax, but the key question is: who has the authority to collect what tax for what purpose. No where in the Constitution is the Federal Govt granted the power to collect a tax from me and give it to you. They are empowered to collect taxes to promote the general welfare. Which means the whole nation benefits. Now, I’m sure the compassionate side of you says: “well, doesn’t the nation benefit from socialized healthcare”. Altruistically, yes. Practically, no. The Constitution is clear: if the Fed govt does not have the authority to so something, then it is left to the States to decide. That is the reason for the 10th Amendment. To give clear guidance on who is responsible for filling any voids left by the authority granted to the Fed govt.

So, like I said, your State is perfectly free to come up with whatever tax scheme it wants to fund a socialized healthcare system for the citizens of that state. But, it’s pretty much unconstitutional for the Fed Govt to take money from a citizen of the State of Florida, for example, and give it to a citizen of the State of Ohio so that person can afford healthcare. Same principle applies to Barry’s “economic stimulus plan”. MY federal tax dollars should in no way be paying for some local pork project in another state. The only thing you could make a valid argument for is the fixing interstate highways, or other projects that benefit the nation as a whole.

Specter can be summarized thus: A blackmailer. His claim of being moderate is a cover for his weather vane lack of substance and integrity. He’s not moderate. He straddles the fence and has leant whichever direction most convenienced Scottish Law Arlen. Good riddance to him as a known liability to whomever’s doorstep he darkens.

It is time to hold a Constitutional Convention of the Red States and decide if secession is the answer.

I need to know if my boy is gonna be a self-reliant, strong, promoter of freedom and charity, or if he will make his mark kickin down doors in the middle of the night and hauling off enemies of the state for Obama’s brownshirts.

Hey, “conservatives”, is this enough to convince you to not vote for the “lesser of two evils” again?

Send_Me on April 28, 2009 at 11:07 PM

I learned my lesson by 2004. Too bad I couldn’t have voted then, if only to say I opposed Mr.Jugears McStupid.

Suppose it was 10,000 signatures. You get 10k republicans to switch over to dem and sign the nominating petition for some conservative democrap. It would be even better if you could nominate toomey but I don’t think you can do that.

Darlin Benedict Arlen would have to use up some of his war chest in the primaries.

If I recall correctly, Bush wanted to start the weaning from SS, but was shot down. By creating a dependency on government, we are controlled like serfs Auto makers and Banks.

riverrat10k on April 28, 2009 at 10:56 PM

In the world ruled by The One, Presidente Pinnochio.(A real Boy or just a puppet?)