See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On December 12th, 2011 at 1:17 pm, Hiraghm said:

   On December 11th, 2011 at 6:34 pm, Blackstone said:

   On December 11th, 2011 at 4:22 pm, Hiraghm said:

   So, businesses and individuals restructure their lifestyles through government incentives (monetary handouts, tax breaks, punitive taxation for non-compliance?). And yet he claims he’s not willing to spend trillions on an unproven theory… which is it? The two positions are contradictory.

   They’re contradictory only if you believe that his proposals will be on the same order of magnitude of costliness as the Dems’ proposals, or involve close to the same level of government control of the private sector as, say, cap and trade. I’m not convinced that they will.

   So you’re okay with being a little bit pregnant? Our government is run on precedent. Most every violation of individual liberty we are burdened with today are a result of building on earlier, seemingly minor, infringements on individual liberty. We let them get away with the 55mph speed limit; that led to letting them get away with seatbelt laws, which led to anti-texting laws and also led to the individual mandate of Obamacare. We allowed them to get away with basing taxes, not on a need for revenue but to control behavior; so we have ridiculous taxes on tobacco and alcohol… which leads to the individual mandate of Obamacare and WILL lead to the gov’t regulating calorie intake (like the kid who was taken from his parents because he was obese).

   No, I will not accept anyone in the White House who thinks he has ANY BUSINESS telling the citizenry what they should and should not buy.
   Ultimately, when including the chilling effect on business and other industries that will be hurt by this governmental picking of winners and losers in order to promote GINGRICH’s environmental agenda (not mine), will go into the trillions of dollars.

   I’m reminded of the scene from Lawrence of Arabia, where Omar Sharif turns to Alec Guiness and, referring to Peter O’Tool and Anthony Quayle asks, “Why do you ask him? They are master and man!”

   The difference between Gingrich and Obama is degree, not kind. Okay, let’s say that Gingrich only blows 50% what Obama would, in 4 years, on the environmental chimera. Then in 2016, we either get his successor, another lesser-of-two-evils, who will also blow 50% of what Obama would have blown, but keeps in place the precedent of the gov’t picking winners and losers and determining what kind of technological future we will have. OR… the Republicans lose again in 2016 (likely with Gingrich in the White House), and we get another Obama/Clinton/Carter, and we’re back to blowing 100% of what Obama would blow, and the precedent would not only be continued, but new precedents for infringing upon individual liberties for the “greater good” of the collective would be imposed, regardless of Constitutionality.

   Y’all that are so worried about cutting spending are treating the symptoms while the disease carries merrily on. The spending is a symptom of the problem; progressives in both parties, like Gingrich, still believe the gov’t has the right to mandate to the people, whether it is mandating health insurance, or whether it’s mandating “green energy”. Whether it’s by passing legislation directly requiring the purchase, or by passing legislation that coerces people to make business and personal decisions respecting the governmental mandate.

   My issue, as it turns out, is not government spending; I want to cut taxes to starve the gov’t from DOING what it does, not to save money or spend money differently. That’s why I call myself a Browncoat and not a Tea Partier. I don’t care if the gov’t taxes 1% or 100%, beyond the fact that it empowers the government to mess with peoples’ lives. THAT is what I want to see crippled, and a candidate who thinks he has the Constitutional power to “influence” business and personal lives can be either R or D; Gingrich or Obama. In that regard, there’s no significant difference. And that regard is what matters most.

2. #102
   On December 12th, 2011 at 1:30 pm, Hiraghm said:

   n December 11th, 2011 at 8:36 am, JHSII said:

   You know, Ronald Reagan was once a democrat. Ronald Reagan once favored amnesty for illegal aliens.

   That’s a lie. Reagan blinked, and did what YOU want to do, he compromised. He agreed to the amnesty as part of a deal to seal the border. The Congress got their amnesty, but Reagan didn’t get a sealed border. NOT because he favored amnesty, but be cause he “compromised to get something done”.

   Here’s the thing, liberals like you enjoy trying to treat Reagan as some kind of Christ-figure; the touchstone of incorruptibility. Reagan was a wonderful President, but he did make mistakes. I opposed his amnesty at the time, because I knew it was a mistake.
   But, here’s the thing; it would be insane of me to not learn from mistakes of the past. That’s why we need someone different from Reagan now, but someone who retains the strengths of Reagan without the weaknesses.

   Main reason Reagan couldn’t win the Republican primary today… he’s just a lot dead.

   And yes, I would vote for Bachmann, and possibly Santorum, before I would vote for Reagan today.

   We’re not re-enacting the 1980 election. Obama is different than Carter in some ways. America of 2011 is not America of 1980. The world of 2011 is not the world of 1980. So, again, we need the strengths of Reagan, but not his weaknesses.

   Biggest Reagan weakness; the very willingness to compromise to “get things done” that Gingrich and some of the other candidates have bragged about as if compromise were a virtue.

3. #103
   On December 12th, 2011 at 9:57 pm, JHSII said:

   And my point sails over Hiraghm’s head like Pioneer 10 leaving the solar system.
   Hiraghm has no credibility among Conservatives (like me) and his post just goes to prove it. Not a surprise.

4. #104
   On December 12th, 2011 at 11:41 pm, 11B said:

   Paul Curtman, a republican in the Missouri House of Representatives and former sergeant in the USMC, just posted his take on Ron Paul’s foreign policy.

   Like many conservatives, I have been watching the presidential debates between the GOP candidates. I talk with others about the debates and I have noticed a trend among the conservatives. Many of them like different candidates but when it comes to Ron Paul, I almost always hear people say something like, “I like Ron Paul- except for his foreign policy.” The more I listened to Congressman Paul explain his position on foreign policy, the closer I came to understanding his point of view and although I do not agree 100% with any candidate on the issues, I believe that Ron Paul’s foreign policy is closer aligned to keeping with the principles of liberty and the Constitution than any current GOP candidate.

   By no means is this guy in the majority, but I am seeing more and more people like him who are not nuts and share the same view. That is why I think it is wrong to denigrate these folks. I am worried they will bolt in November by either supporting a third party, or at the very least not voting the GOP. It is too bad this is coming down to newt or mitt. I can’t believe the republicans could not have put up someone more substantial.

5. #105
   On December 13th, 2011 at 1:34 am, JHSII said:

   The reason thinking people don’t like the Ronulan’s foreign policy is because it starts with (paraphrased) “We deserved 9/11 because we are over there.”

   No.
   We were attacked because we exist, not because we are over there. They want the world-wide caliphate – and we stand in the way. That’s why they attack us. That’s why the Ronulan has no credibility on foreign policy.

6. #106
   On December 13th, 2011 at 2:11 am, 11B said:

   They want the world-wide caliphate – and we stand in the way. That’s why they attack us.

   If republicans really believe that, then why do they support the importation of hundreds of thousands of muslims per year into the US? Pre 1965 Immigration Act, muslims were so few they did not even warrant being singled out in the census. Each year since their numbers have grown exponentially and the republicans have never attempted to revoke the provisions of the 1965 and 1990 immigration acts. Even when they had the power to do so, they kept the spigot flowing to this type of immigration.

   Unfortunately no one running, including Paul, would address this problem.

7. #107
   On December 13th, 2011 at 6:54 am, JHSII said:

   You’re kidding, right?
   Have you ever heard the name Joseph McCarthy?
   Modern political correctness about Islam is just as bad as political correctness was back then about the Soviet threat.
   “Nice career you have there, mister. Be a shame if you were to say the wrong thing to the wrong person, huh?”

8. #108
   On December 13th, 2011 at 8:27 pm, Blackstone said:

   On December 12th, 2011 at 1:17 pm, Hiraghm said:

   So you’re okay with being a little bit pregnant?

   I don’t accept the analogy – or else we’ve been “a little bit pregnant” for a long, long time. There’s never been a time in our history when government hasn’t attempted to steer private ecoomic decisionmaking in one direction or another for one reason or another. I don’t agree with it at all, but it will take some time to beat it back. I’ll take movement in that direction if I can get it.

   The difference between Gingrich and Obama is degree, not kind.

   No, it’s very much a difference of kind when one proposes legislation that would give arbitrary power to executive officials, and the other proposes rules equally applicable to all (even if they are dumb rules in and of themselves). One falls in the category of rule of man, the other is consistent with rule of law. I would consider that quite an important distinction.

   Y’all that are so worried about cutting spending are treating the symptoms while the disease carries merrily on. The spending is a symptom of the problem

   I disagree. Spending is what gives the unions the power they have to dominate election cycles. Spending is what enables the propaganda establishment to mold the minds of children they way they want them. Spending is at least a very big part of the reason (the other being campaign finance laws) why it’s nearly impossible to dislodge incumbents most of the time. Cut that back, and you’ll have made huge strides in combatting many other problems at once.