Because we don't need the radical kind of changes the likes of Hillary is advocating. We need progress, and by progress I don't mean the 'secular progressive' kind. There are a lot of things we need to:
Fix: The tax code, health care (more free market solutions, less government reg.).
Reverse and/or Abolish: The welfare entitlement mentality so many are getting use to, doom & gloom global warming alarmists, political correctness, secular progressive indoctrination in education, affirmative action, judicial activism.
Reenforce & uphold: What the Constitution says, federalism, our cultural traditions & heritage, and family as the foundation of our society (not worship of the state).
Along with many other issues.
2007-12-30 16:51:22 · 12 answers · asked by Adolf Schmichael 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
History is a great teacher. It's not a bad thing, nor is it regressive to look to the past to see what works and what doesn't. Sure, we do need to change and adapt some aspects of our society but not everything. Change needs to be gradual. Why change the aspects of our country that have been working since the beginning and have allowed this country to become numero uno, like oh... capitalism or responsibility and accountability for ones actions! This is a preemptive response to liberals saying conservatism is regressive because we want to dwell in the past. We're not advocating going back to black and white televisions, "Leave It To Beaver", and computers the size of a small apartment building.
2007-12-30 16:51:34 · update #1
I think we are all ready for that change!
But I would add I want to see both what they say and what they "do "are the same. We would need to know what their plans are not in some vague way . Your are correct details of what they believe and what they would like to put in action and how. And of course to state that publicly one would have to show by their deeds how well they mean it. As opposes will look for fault (as they should)
But often we see some qualify for the description "of a good candidate" for a few weeks , oozing good will toward their fellow men and exciting plans for our future until after the Election, when they can go back to their dog-eat-dog existence and their indifference to the plight of other human beings.” What is “essentially wrong” often in politics (and life), is that people do not follow their beliefs all the time.
Again- We do need too know FIRST their details about their plans for "change". Makes you wonder why such an important point as this that you mentioned has been so overlooked by so many. Good Thinking on your part.
I agree with most of what you said regarding the issues we do have. Except for the global warming or cooling (which are still connected to the weather)-which should be a concern for all. Something is happening to our weather no matter what you call it. And it has accelerated at a fast rate in our time.. Seems Space, Ocean, Weather, and Earth agencies and groups( I could list them)- all agree there is a problem. The problem lies in agreeing how big is it and what to do about it. Another reason to hear details plans--so we know where a person stands and what they take serious. That we differ in opinion doesn't mean our goals are not the same.
2007-12-30 19:48:51 · answer #1 · answered by *** The Earth has Hadenough*** 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The plans that he has let out of the bag are repeats of the Bush agenda and you remember how well that turned out! You know like tax cuts for the "job creators" .
2016-04-02 03:40:31 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I could not agree with yo
2007-12-31 04:23:43 · answer #3 · answered by Sweet Tea & Lemons 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely, I would rather hear their promises now.
I can only hope they stand behind their words though. Most do not. So one really must look at their past actions and accomplishments. We have the web which is full of info. I wish more people would study these candidates with their past actions rather than take them for their word when they are looking for votes.
I am looking hard at Fred Thompson!!
2007-12-31 02:05:04 · answer #4 · answered by My Baby! 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree that they should start elaborate on their plan for "change." The candidates are using the word change as a buzzword. I do not like buzzwords at all because I wants substance. In the voting booth, I want to see substance not fluff.
DTG
2007-12-30 23:10:17 · answer #5 · answered by David_the_Great 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I cannot elaborate any further except to say; history is the best teacher.
The only ISM that has worked in this nation, and made it so great is Capitalism. Not totalitarianism, socialism, or communism.
We do not need great change. This country has survived and has been great, and has progressed farther than the European cultures of thousands of years. How is that? We have never rushed for great changes. Our changes have been gradual, and have been far better than anything before.
Tried and true with the test of time. May we continue to make strides, but not in haste, and without regret. Those who remember the past, are not doomed to failure.
"HAPPY NEW YEAR!"
.
2007-12-30 22:37:53 · answer #6 · answered by Moody Red 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Fix the tax code. Ron Paul will eliminate the IRS.
He wants to eliminate the federal Dept of Education.
Ron Paul almost never stops mentioning the constitution.
2007-12-30 17:12:45 · answer #7 · answered by Dennis Fargo 5 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Not when their only details would be equivalent to: "suggest to congress...."
that really doesn't sound real good on a campaign trail.
2007-12-30 16:54:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, hon. We only pay attention to trash talk.
2007-12-30 17:02:13 · answer #9 · answered by cactus 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
You lost me at "secular"...
I thought you were talking about progress - not religious dogma.
2007-12-30 16:58:04 · answer #10 · answered by rabble rouser 6 · 2⤊ 6⤋