• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Modern Whig Party

Dr. Zaus

Lifer
Oct 16, 2008
11,770
347
126
http://modernwhig.org/issues.html

Fiscally conservative and socially progressive, the modern Whig party is a centrist party of people who believe in taking care of their fellow neighbor but not selling their children?s futures to do so.

They believe in more localized government, though that the federal government does have a part to pay in making sure special projects go forward.

They believe in ?trust busting? OPEC, Providing a path to citizenship through service, cutting off trade with china and shifting it to places we actually want to develop, that what you do sexually is no one else?s business and that socioeconomic status should be the basis of affirmative action, not skin tone.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
Should have figured that it was too good to be true. Looks like big business is indeed behind it in the form of t.boone pickens. And, I'm certain his involvement is selfless...
 

nixium

Senior member
Aug 25, 2008
919
3
76
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Should have figured that it was too good to be true. Looks like big business is indeed behind it in the form of t.boone pickens. And, I'm certain his involvement is selfless...
But big business is behind the other two parties as well. This seems a better choice, a step in the right direction.
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,659
43
91
A step in the right direction is to have multiple parties that extend beyond the number two.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
Originally posted by: nixium
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Should have figured that it was too good to be true. Looks like big business is indeed behind it in the form of t.boone pickens. And, I'm certain his involvement is selfless...
But big business is behind the other two parties as well. This seems a better choice, a step in the right direction.
Yes, it does make sense to gravitate towards a person trying to corner the water market.

Seems like the same programming, different channel.
 

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,031
13
81
Originally posted by: DixyCrat
http://modernwhig.org/issues.html

Fiscally conservative and socially progressive, the modern Whig party is a centrist party of people who believe in taking care of their fellow neighbor but not selling their children?s futures to do so.

They believe in more localized government, though that the federal government does have a part to pay in making sure special projects go forward.

They believe in ?trust busting? OPEC, Providing a path to citizenship through service, cutting off trade with china and shifting it to places we actually want to develop, that what you do sexually is no one else?s business and that socioeconomic status should be the basis of affirmative action, not skin tone.
Sounds good to me!
 

Sk8rdd00

Member
Jan 19, 2003
28
0
0
Hmm... It sounds good but I'm not too sure about the whole cutting off trade with China part. This is likely to have some serious repercussions and unintended consequences.
 

Woofmeister

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2004
1,384
0
0
I'd say this part is about six months out of date:

Many of our members have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and have unique and practical qualifications to express the Modern Whig viewpoint. Iraq obviously was planned and managed very poorly and it is time for drastic but realistic change. We propose pulling our forces out of Iraq except for a relatively small base in the Kurdish area of the country. Our troops will tell you that unlike the rest of Iraq, the Kurds are prone to democracy and in fact do treat American forces as liberators. To this end, the Kurds deserve our continued protection and in turn, we maintain a base to act upon any contingencies emanating from within Iraq, Syria or Iran. Moreover, the oil industry from Kirkuk can take care of the bills. We then can put real effort and resources into fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Finally, we would continue dialogue and contact with the Pakistani government in hopes that they would finally end this defacto terrorist safe-haven in their country, but in the end, if they fail to act then we will.
And this is just stupid:

However, it is not realistic in terms of manpower and resources to attempt to hunt illegal immigrants down. We propose the following: Offer illegal immigrants the opportunity for citizenship if they join the military and serve out their initial contractual term honorably. This system already works for green card holders and has been very succesful. The illegal immigrants will not be entitled to jobs that require security clearances, but will be eligible for the GI Bill, Tricare and all other benefits afforded to US service members who serve honorably. This program also will include a background check and English-language classes if necessary. In this manner, any illegal immigrant ranging in age from 18 to 42 will receive job skills and educational benefits while they earn their citizenship in defense of our country. Of course this military path to citizenship would not apply to elderly or disabled illegal immigrants, but it does offer an opportunity to tens of thousands of illegal immigrants.
Illegals are already "self-deporting" from this country in record numbers due to a few highly-publicized raids and general economic conditions. Increased efforts in that regard should take care of the rest. And putting illegal immigrants into our armed forces? Oh please.
 

Dr. Zaus

Lifer
Oct 16, 2008
11,770
347
126
Originally posted by: Woofmeister
I'd say this part is about six months out of date:

Many of our members have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and have unique and practical qualifications to express the Modern Whig viewpoint. Iraq obviously was planned and managed very poorly and it is time for drastic but realistic change. We propose pulling our forces out of Iraq except for a relatively small base in the Kurdish area of the country. Our troops will tell you that unlike the rest of Iraq, the Kurds are prone to democracy and in fact do treat American forces as liberators. To this end, the Kurds deserve our continued protection and in turn, we maintain a base to act upon any contingencies emanating from within Iraq, Syria or Iran. Moreover, the oil industry from Kirkuk can take care of the bills. We then can put real effort and resources into fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Finally, we would continue dialogue and contact with the Pakistani government in hopes that they would finally end this defacto terrorist safe-haven in their country, but in the end, if they fail to act then we will.
And this is just stupid:

However, it is not realistic in terms of manpower and resources to attempt to hunt illegal immigrants down. We propose the following: Offer illegal immigrants the opportunity for citizenship if they join the military and serve out their initial contractual term honorably. This system already works for green card holders and has been very succesful. The illegal immigrants will not be entitled to jobs that require security clearances, but will be eligible for the GI Bill, Tricare and all other benefits afforded to US service members who serve honorably. This program also will include a background check and English-language classes if necessary. In this manner, any illegal immigrant ranging in age from 18 to 42 will receive job skills and educational benefits while they earn their citizenship in defense of our country. Of course this military path to citizenship would not apply to elderly or disabled illegal immigrants, but it does offer an opportunity to tens of thousands of illegal immigrants.
Illegals are already "self-deporting" from this country in record numbers due to a few highly-publicized raids and general economic conditions. Increased efforts in that regard should take care of the rest. And putting illegal immigrants into our armed forces? Oh please.
I believe that you don't need to agree 100% to get something good done. I know i don't agree entirely with all they say, but I DO agree with the principles that they are based on, something more than I can say for any of the other big-tent parties.


Hmm... It sounds good but I'm not too sure about the whole cutting off trade with China part. This is likely to have some serious repercussions and unintended consequences.
Short-term losses, yes.. but the reason that we would be dis-engaging with china is to help bolster simple human-rights based 'fair trade', something better for everyone, overall, in the end.
 

nixium

Senior member
Aug 25, 2008
919
3
76
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: nixium
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Should have figured that it was too good to be true. Looks like big business is indeed behind it in the form of t.boone pickens. And, I'm certain his involvement is selfless...
But big business is behind the other two parties as well. This seems a better choice, a step in the right direction.
Yes, it does make sense to gravitate towards a person trying to corner the water market.

Seems like the same programming, different channel.
At least you *like* the programming now.
 

Dr. Zaus

Lifer
Oct 16, 2008
11,770
347
126
Originally posted by: Eeezee
I thought that's what a Libertarian is. Am I mistaken?
Libertarian is a fringe party looking to eliminate government entirely. Not a moderate party looking to use government where it makes sense.

the principles of "No government" are entirely different than those of being fiscally conservative and socially progressive.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
Originally posted by: nixium
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: nixium
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Should have figured that it was too good to be true. Looks like big business is indeed behind it in the form of t.boone pickens. And, I'm certain his involvement is selfless...
But big business is behind the other two parties as well. This seems a better choice, a step in the right direction.
Yes, it does make sense to gravitate towards a person trying to corner the water market.

Seems like the same programming, different channel.
At least you *like* the programming now.
I do?
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,370
40
91
Originally posted by: DixyCrat
Originally posted by: Eeezee
I thought that's what a Libertarian is. Am I mistaken?
Libertarian is a fringe party looking to eliminate government entirely. Not a moderate party looking to use government where it makes sense.

the principles of "No government" are entirely different than those of being fiscally conservative and socially progressive.
Are you a moron?
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: Eeezee
I thought that's what a Libertarian is. Am I mistaken?
Yes, you really are. Libertarians are nowhere near socially progressive.

Originally posted by: DixyCrat

the principles of "No government" are entirely different than those of being fiscally conservative and socially progressive.
But this is dead wrong too. Libertarians are in no way, shape, or form anarchists, which you just described. They want small government and more state and local control.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: DixyCrat
Originally posted by: Eeezee
I thought that's what a Libertarian is. Am I mistaken?
Libertarian is a fringe party looking to eliminate government entirely. Not a moderate party looking to use government where it makes sense.

the principles of "No government" are entirely different than those of being fiscally conservative and socially progressive.
Are you a moron?
Probably a shill. One of two recently joined members pumping the new whig party. I'm sure it's just coincidence.
 

Dr. Zaus

Lifer
Oct 16, 2008
11,770
347
126
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: DixyCrat
Originally posted by: Eeezee
I thought that's what a Libertarian is. Am I mistaken?
Libertarian is a fringe party looking to eliminate government entirely. Not a moderate party looking to use government where it makes sense.

the principles of "No government" are entirely different than those of being fiscally conservative and socially progressive.
Are you a moron?
Yes, so please be so kind as to repair that state by informing me.
Originally posted by: Evan
Originally posted by: Eeezee
I thought that's what a Libertarian is. Am I mistaken?
Yes, you really are. Libertarians are nowhere near socially progressive.

Originally posted by: DixyCrat

the principles of "No government" are entirely different than those of being fiscally conservative and socially progressive.
But this is dead wrong too. Libertarians are in no way, shape, or form anarchists, which you just described. They want small government and more state and local control.

Bob Barr wants to eliminate things like the FDA, the EPA and the securities and exchange commission

Being against things that are obviously better the domain of the federal government based on fringe constitutional interpretation does not a centrist make.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
0
0
Well it does sound better than anthing we got now. Problem is I have A problem with people who want power . I mean I look at history . Our leaders aren't looking good. The Great ones also seem to be War heros. War means legeal murder. Than howed we get there to start with. Another leader. Leaders that want to lead can't be trusted in todays world. I know one thing I always thought the Germans were a bunch of retards for allowing Hitler to do his deeds. Well I can kinda relate to the dummies . Now that I to am a dummy. Because befor it was America to the rescue , Nowits us pushing people around. That Not pre 1940 America. We lost the war as it turns out. I guess Hitler got a lot of miliage out of his madness. I feel the american government know longer represents the people . But special interest only. Prove to me other wise. Theres your 2 party system . Both EVIL and bad for the majority.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
1
61
There is a HUGE difference between Anarchism and Libertarianism.

Originally posted by: Evan
Yes, you really are. Libertarians are nowhere near socially progressive.
Most Libertarians are socially liberal. All should be.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
...
I know one thing I always thought the Germans were a bunch of retards for allowing Hitler to do his deeds.
...
I've always wondered about this too. I assume it's all about "drinking the kool-aid" - a euphemism for some psychological/sociological phenomenon + the suspension of disbelief. I believe this similarly explains the people who supported (if not encouraged) george wallace's oppressive agenda.
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,370
40
91
Originally posted by: DixyCrat
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: DixyCrat
Originally posted by: Eeezee
I thought that's what a Libertarian is. Am I mistaken?
Libertarian is a fringe party looking to eliminate government entirely. Not a moderate party looking to use government where it makes sense.

the principles of "No government" are entirely different than those of being fiscally conservative and socially progressive.
Are you a moron?
Yes, so please be so kind as to repair that state by informing me.
Libertarians is to Anarchists as Democrats are to Communists, and Republicans to Fascists.

Sure, if you take a philosophy and, rather than temper it with practicality and common sense, instead run it to its unnatural extreme, you can draw such ill-formed conclusions.

But in a place where McCain is likened to a goose-stepping Nazi, and Obama to a dyed-in-the-wool, red-loving socialist, I can hardly single you out as a simple-minded fool, as I don't have the time nor the patience to do the same to your intellectual equals.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
sounds too protectionist to me, and i'm not a big fan of 'states' and am more of a Unitarian. Interesting group though.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
There is a HUGE difference between Anarchism and Libertarianism.

Originally posted by: Evan
Yes, you really are. Libertarians are nowhere near socially progressive.
Most Libertarians are socially liberal. All should be.
then why are most of the libertarian candidates social reactionaries like ron paul or bob barr?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY