The picturesque Republican convention in West Virginia. The last few days have seen two new, one election and a policy. That
electoral support from Romney to McCain: In theory surprising, given the bitter between the two until a week ago in practice is one of the usual twists and turns of politics.
Romney, former governor "liberal" in the last month of lifting was proposing as the champion of conservatives not convinced by McCain. The day of farewell, Romney was profuse in his own way in a "God Country Family" before the assembly of the larger conservative movement. Now, yet another flip-flop of his career, all with McCain! But all of those? Much of its delegates not to vote today will want to know the enemy of yesterday. There are no constraints, as noted in the commentary to the posts under the attentive Gerontion: "delegates can vote for Romney who seems to them, the TV lie, when McCain has more or less than 800 delegates" pledged "to vote first, there are other 391 before it's over. "
Ron Paul yesterday on the Georgetown University.
has 700 students gathered to hear him. The day before Condoleezza Rice were the half.
The new policy, needless to say, the door always Ron Paul.
The launch of the "March on Washington, leaving his sostentori to decide (the debate is lively as always!) When and how, is a sign that you're building a new movement," libertarian conservative, "has been written.
The two terms refer to different worlds, now allied hours away. The new synthesis will fail if paulista, noble compromise.
I would like to reopen a debate already under way but soon overwhelmed by election news, so I got out to walk a previous post, integrating them with some new and interesting comments that they had come.
- the problem of freedom of information exists, the story of Ron Paul Internet users is positive, it would have been unthinkable ten years ago, today's result. But it is not enough. We must continue on this path, speeding up transit information on the Internet for many people, even the medium-young and educated who have not yet done.
New: volcanic Trevor Lyman, a partner launching a new initiative to break the information: breakthematrix
- what is it that Ron Paul did not convince many voters who have known him well? Some argue that there is fear of the proposed radical libertarian and private law in the health and welfare.
- A dialogue is not biased and not too theoretical, where we discuss the practical positive and negative sides of the liberal-libertarian views of government and social-may be useful for us, instead of talking about "Berlusconi" and "communists"? Add
: There are already movements libertarians, those at various levels of left and right, those inspired by Catholic social thought. A paulista movement is different from all this? The other day
Francesco Rossi spoke with some very interesting considerations, some seem to me good idea, is "metapolitical" intellectuals say:
"(...) It 's true. The paulista movement CAN NOT' be classified as libertarian. The same program of RP is not" libertarian "in the traditional sense. E 'a program together, "the inspiration" libertarian "but actually" hybrid ". What holds all this together then, that the various points of the program and the different types of voters? E' said in the above Doug Wead : the truth. And if the truth did miss where he lost, the truth also allowed him to get where it arrived. There is a great thirst for truth in politics, the elimination of hypocrisy, of political correctness, government top-down. RP replied policy and responds to a need that otherwise easily diverged into what we are, more or less strictly defined anti-politics. "
another view of Francis, said that the policy of Ron Paul is an "integrated whole", where foreign policy is related to its vision of the economy, which, I might add, these correlations seem to play the role of central hub:
(...) we can not forget that the program RP is an "integrated whole". I mean his view in economics is the cause and consequence of his vision in foreign policy. Pure RP has repeated ad nauseam in debates. So I voter must know that if he wants a certain foreign policy because it takes a certain economic policy and vice versa. This is both an honor and a limit, because if the consistently provides value to the program, the alien on the other side of those votes (the majority) who do not identify themselves completely in a political program. (...)
Well, since we can not book a flight until you know the date of the March on Washington, meanwhile debating! ;-)
electoral support from Romney to McCain: In theory surprising, given the bitter between the two until a week ago in practice is one of the usual twists and turns of politics.
Romney, former governor "liberal" in the last month of lifting was proposing as the champion of conservatives not convinced by McCain. The day of farewell, Romney was profuse in his own way in a "God Country Family" before the assembly of the larger conservative movement. Now, yet another flip-flop of his career, all with McCain! But all of those? Much of its delegates not to vote today will want to know the enemy of yesterday. There are no constraints, as noted in the commentary to the posts under the attentive Gerontion: "delegates can vote for Romney who seems to them, the TV lie, when McCain has more or less than 800 delegates" pledged "to vote first, there are other 391 before it's over. "
Ron Paul yesterday on the Georgetown University. has 700 students gathered to hear him. The day before Condoleezza Rice were the half.
The new policy, needless to say, the door always Ron Paul.
The launch of the "March on Washington, leaving his sostentori to decide (the debate is lively as always!) When and how, is a sign that you're building a new movement," libertarian conservative, "has been written.
The two terms refer to different worlds, now allied hours away. The new synthesis will fail if paulista, noble compromise.
I would like to reopen a debate already under way but soon overwhelmed by election news, so I got out to walk a previous post, integrating them with some new and interesting comments that they had come.
- the problem of freedom of information exists, the story of Ron Paul Internet users is positive, it would have been unthinkable ten years ago, today's result. But it is not enough. We must continue on this path, speeding up transit information on the Internet for many people, even the medium-young and educated who have not yet done.
New: volcanic Trevor Lyman, a partner launching a new initiative to break the information: breakthematrix
- what is it that Ron Paul did not convince many voters who have known him well? Some argue that there is fear of the proposed radical libertarian and private law in the health and welfare.
- A dialogue is not biased and not too theoretical, where we discuss the practical positive and negative sides of the liberal-libertarian views of government and social-may be useful for us, instead of talking about "Berlusconi" and "communists"? Add
: There are already movements libertarians, those at various levels of left and right, those inspired by Catholic social thought. A paulista movement is different from all this? The other day
Francesco Rossi spoke with some very interesting considerations, some seem to me good idea, is "metapolitical" intellectuals say:
"(...) It 's true. The paulista movement CAN NOT' be classified as libertarian. The same program of RP is not" libertarian "in the traditional sense. E 'a program together, "the inspiration" libertarian "but actually" hybrid ". What holds all this together then, that the various points of the program and the different types of voters? E' said in the above Doug Wead : the truth. And if the truth did miss where he lost, the truth also allowed him to get where it arrived. There is a great thirst for truth in politics, the elimination of hypocrisy, of political correctness, government top-down. RP replied policy and responds to a need that otherwise easily diverged into what we are, more or less strictly defined anti-politics. "
another view of Francis, said that the policy of Ron Paul is an "integrated whole", where foreign policy is related to its vision of the economy, which, I might add, these correlations seem to play the role of central hub:
(...) we can not forget that the program RP is an "integrated whole". I mean his view in economics is the cause and consequence of his vision in foreign policy. Pure RP has repeated ad nauseam in debates. So I voter must know that if he wants a certain foreign policy because it takes a certain economic policy and vice versa. This is both an honor and a limit, because if the consistently provides value to the program, the alien on the other side of those votes (the majority) who do not identify themselves completely in a political program. (...)
Well, since we can not book a flight until you know the date of the March on Washington, meanwhile debating! ;-)
0 comments:
Post a Comment