Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread

How about John Kasich? He is governor of Ohio - not automatically considered a Republican state by any means. It's a swing state in most presidential elections.He became governor in 2010, narrowly defeating the incumbent Democrat. He's in his second term now, he won it by a landslide. Which meant a lot of Democrats voted for him. Were they wrong? (I'm just trying to find out how blindly partisan you are )

What is your definition of "doomed"? Mine would be either of two major disasters; 1) a financial crash, far worse than any from the past, and/or 2) a terrorist attack or foreign military attack far worse than any from the past. Do you have fears other than those two things?What do you think they (the current Republican candidates) want to do to the country that is different from what past Republicans did, or wanted to do to the country? The country didn't fall into any doom when Bush 43 was president, or Bush 41, or Reagan. Or Ford, or Nixon, or Eisenhower for that matter. What's different now with Republicans?

I agree, as long as you believe that 9-11 was done by a foreign enemy, not an inside job by W. 9-11-01 was an attack on our homeland.The rest of the world has become a pretty intense industrial competition for the U.S. only in the past few decades. And it's also very recently mastered the use of the www. That you don't see a brand new ballgame in threats to the U.S. mainland is amazing to me. A lot of what happened during the 80's was the result of the actions of both houses of congress - Democrats. Reagan vetoed a lot of things, but not as many as he should have. His one phrase sums up a lot of things; "Government isn't the solution, government is the problem". That's the big problem we have today, bigger and bigger government causes more and more corruption (in both parties), and so many on the left think that more big government is the solution to past failed big government. And the political divide continues to grow. And you got 8 green lights for that howler. The representatives of the scientific community here do the scientific community no favors in the view of the general public. Their ideas of liberty, limited government, and morality are NO DIFFERENT than those of the Republican candidates and presidents of 30 or 40 years ago. The reason they seem so different to you is because they have to deal with a Democrat party that IN NO WAY resembles what it was 30 or 40 years ago. Democrats of 30 or 40 years ago didn't seek to teach atheism in science classes. They didn't promote abortion to near the extent that Democrats do today.I was a teenager in the 1960's. When both Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King were shot, there was practically no mention of any type of gun control, from the Democrats OR the news madia. Back then, at least some Democrats respected the U.S. enough to not blame society in general every time an unfortunate violent act took place in a free society. Confederate flags weren't targeted when King was shot. Gay marriage wasn't even remotely considered when Carter was president. A $15 minimum wage wasn't even thought of during the Clinton administration. (even adjusted for inflation)All your doom and gloom predictions of what what will happen if our society holds the line, or increases liberty, limited government, and morality can't be verified by past historical examples, can they? Yet there are plenty of past historical examples of what happens to societies that allow the government to grow and grow, and to people who allow themselves to be disarmed.

Yes, since the word "doom" is synonymous with failure, and destruction, and the U.S. is still here. A "free pass starting a war"?? Maybe you could rephrase?

Like Reagan, Nixon had a Democrat congress to deal with. (both houses) During his administration, the general public could see with its own eyes some of the pollution that was going on, industrial waste sites, and big city air pollution. Nixon didn't realize how the EPA would become the monster it became, in less than 10 years. It's solved a few problems, and caused 10 times more problems than it's ever solved. That was a different time - other nations weren't beheading American citizens then. Yes, he co-operated with Democrats in many ways, thinking they wouldn't turn around and nail him to the wall when they got the chance. He was wrong about that. A corrupt congress "pushed through" the 55 mph speed limit, taking major bribes from insurance companies, Nixon's only mistake was signing it. It was unconstitutional. (10th amendment) Our society pays through the nose for it to this day, with disrespect for police, disrespect for today's speed limits, etc. Wouldn't it save gas and lives today? Why is it gone? Could it be the money ran out? From a few things I've heard about the feisty Theodore Roosevelt, I'm not sure he's not comparable to Donald Trump in a few ways.

Atheists will say amazing things to shout down marc9000!!!

So let me get this straight;On 9-10-01, you suspected there was a chance, however slight, that a group of suicide terrorists could fly U.S. planes in to U.S. buildings and kill 3000 U.S. citizens, and on 7-29-15, you know for sure that there is NO WAY that non-suicide terrorists could enter the U.S. from the southern border, and introduce any type of killer biological or chemical weapons into the water supply of....Houston, or......New York, or both those cities plus 10 more, or 20 more? I think you, Tanypteryx, and all of your approval green dot givers represent the mainstream scientific community very well. And that's why the scientific community will always be so insignificant in terms of U.S. politics.

What's the difference? Should terror attacks on U.S. homeland be considered less serious depending on what organization does them? Were the victims of 9-11 less dead than they would have been if the attacks had come from "another nation"? It's called free markets and limited government. It's the foundation of U.S. society. The tradition of U.S. society. No system is perfect, but you can't show any historical examples of a bigger government system where everyone has a more equal standard of living than in the U.S.I'm reminded of a quote by Thomas Sowell, concerning disparities in income. I have to paraphrase it, since I don't have the exact quote, but I remember it well. As you may know, Sowell is a fairly successful nationally syndicated columnist, author, and economics professor.

quote:

---

As I turned down my street approaching my home one evening, in my somewhat faded 7 year old car, I noticed my young female assistant backing out of my driveway in her brand new SUV - she had just dropped off some papers at my house. And I thought, ONLY IN AMERICA.

---

He went on to explain that had this been in a dictatorship, a socialist or communist country, or any bigger government country, he would have been the one driving the brand new car, and his assistant would have had the faded older car.Chances are, he liked having a $300,000 house instead of a $200,000 one, and/or was putting a young adult child through school, and to swing one or both of those things he had to sacrifice having a brand new car. His young assistant, on the other hand, probably lived with her parents, or in a very small apartment, and it took probably half or more of her income to make payments on her brand new car. But it's what she wanted, and, with other sacrifices, she was able to make that choice.In big government societies that you dream of, the successful, older guy would have the brand new car, he wouldn't have to make ANY sacrifices to have it. He would snap his finger and it would be provided for him, at the expense of the (unwilling) society. His young assistant would NOT have a new car, there is no way she could sacrifice enough to have it.Disagree? Then give me some present or historical examples where socialist societies have more evenly distributed income than the U.S. currently has. Be specific about the new threats you fear. We didn't have gay marriage a decade ago, what happened? We had better morals 50 years ago than today, what happened? How can you say that the status quo creates NEW threats? Free markets are the best rule makers. A lot of corporations have failed in the U.S. because of them. "Safety lines" (handouts) that weren't there only a few decades ago. Stealing productivity from one and giving it to another for votes isn't moral. It's amazing how the sales of body parts from the murdered unborn has been transformed into "women's health". A "huge stink"? Our memories are different.

quote:

---

Passage of the Gun Control Act was initially prompted by the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy in 1963.[1] The President was shot and killed with a rifle purchased by mail-order from an ad in National Rifle Association (NRA) magazine American Rifleman.[2] Congressional hearings followed and a ban on mail-order gun sales was discussed, but no law was passed until 1968.

---

Gun Control Act of 1968 - WikipediaKennedy was shot in 1963. It "was discussed, but no law was passed until 1968". No law was passed in 63, 64, 65, 66, or 67. Ho-hum. You have a funny definition of "big stink". Looks like my memory is better than yours. Or more honest.The 68 law was prompted by the emotion inspired by further public figure shootings. Signed into law by a president that knew he had no chance for re-election. My bunch knows that unproven experimentation can easily do more irreversible harm than good. Punishing the successful and rewarding failure isn't "doing better". Not every single one, since there are pictures of southern blacks proudly holding confederate flags all over the net. How does a symbol of actual history threaten anything about the U.S? History shows that when the government meddles in economics, people who work 40 hours or more per week get less and less. Dreams of a perfect society aren't reality. Free markets don't pay one dime to ANYONE who does no work. The only way that happens is through government corruption. More government doesn't solve problems caused by more government. We have differing views of "education". John Adams said;

quote:

---

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

---

A history education would be nice. Our constitution doesn't work with atheism, and we're watching proof of it, as it's increasingly disregarded and downplayed by the left.

Uh, I don't have to research my own life experiences. Please tell me more about all those gun laws that were passed in 1964, 1965, 1966. Or some 60's video clips of Democrats shrieking about gun control like they do today.

It only seems that way because you don't understand it. There is a world of difference between one denomination of religion that is required of all citizens, versus the general morality of the Judeo-Christianity that the founders recognized as a sound basis for a free society. Yes, and he lost his election. But if he were alive today, and was taking note of today's Democrat party as opposed to the 60's, what he said could look more like this;

quote:

---

The teaching of atheism in science classes, the ever increasing internet atheist organizations begging for money that are growing throughout our land are not using their scientific clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these atheist groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with an ACLU lawsuit.

​

I'm frankly sick and tired of the atheist preachers disguised as scientists across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a 21'st century person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their lack of moral beliefs to me?

​

And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every atheist group who thinks it has some scientific granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "progress".

---

Maybe Trump will say something like this tonight. You'll be watching won't you? After all, this is your thread. Do you think maybe the time has come when, (if you want to be taken seriously) that you'll have to address what he actually says, rather than just making fun of his hair?

Yes I have, and I don't see a mass exodus of U.S. citizens moving there. Norway gets by with its socialism largely because they're loaded with oil to export, and don't have to deal with a multi billion dollar EPA. I'd bet that they don't waste billions per year "researching" global warming either. They're not the policeman of the world like the U.S. is, and don't have the diverse population that the U.S. has.Much more here.

Since we don't see it, it's a strong indicator that socialist countries are missing some things that the U.S. has because it's not as socialist as the left would like it to be. In message 243 you called Scandinavia a "welfare state". Now that we're specifically on Norway, you seem to have changed your description. That would be an emphatic YES. Diversity in morality and worldviews requires a lot more cost for one common government to enforce laws, and promote peace within that society. More diversity in a population would naturally result in more wealth inequality.

You missed my Message 241. When you're part of a gang, you should try to read all messages. This outnumbered poster isn't going to repeat himself to everyone individually for their convenience.

The U.S. has resources, but its government has grown so big it's largely handcuffed in its ability to use them.

It's astonishing that you SNIPPED OUT the example that I gave.I used the terms "equal standard of living" as well as "evenly distributed income". There is a difference, and my example that you snipped shows it.Let's use Cuba as an example. The Castro family is worth about $900 million. Bill Gates, Donald Trump etc are worth billions. But Cuba has far more dirt poor people than the U.S. has. Even though Castro has far less money than so many billionaires in the U.S., it's safe to say that he has all he wants to eat, and sleeps in an air conditioned/heated bedroom every night. Most of the poor in the U.S have all they want to eat, and sleep in an air conditioned/heated bedroom every night. The dirt poor of Cuba, many South American countries, many African countries who have more evenly distributed incomes than the U.S. DON"T have all they want to eat, and have never experienced air conditioning.I'd bet Castro doesn't drive a faded 7 year old car, and I'd bet his servants don't drive new ones. Why don't you agree with them? What's not logical about them?What other (more socialist) countries do you see as examples that the U.S. should follow, to arrive at their more equal income distribution, while maintaining the mechanisms that the U.S. currently has that allows everyone to advance overall?I don't think one exists, I think the utopia that the U.S. left seeks is an impossible one. It's desire is a lack of appreciation for what they have. The very poor in the U.S. have it much better than than the upper middle class in the U.S. had it 100 years ago. It's as much, or more equal than other countries in terms of basic necessities. The big government meddling of its system could very well cost many of its citizens those necessities. History is loaded with examples. 1940's Germany is one.