-
Honest and serious question.
All of this talk about 2010 and getting the GOP back... why?
They had 6 years of full control and increased gov't over 40%. Other than the Bush tax cuts, what did they do well?
And what makes people so confident that if they win in 2010, and even 2012, that we'll be on our way to a smaller gov't, lower taxes, protections for freedom and liberty?
People are talking "we have to win" like the Dems have been in power for 30 years. It's been three! Honestly - what will the GOP reverse? How will they cut spending? How will they cut taxes? How will they protect liberty and freedom? Private property? Privacy? Personal responsibility?
The GOP hasn't had that as an agenda in almost 30 years from where I sit.
Talk me into voting for them.
-
They've done at least 30 years of damage in 3 years. With the GOP, at least you can get them to resign. If Frank or Dodd had been GOP, both of them would be gone, Frank would have been gone back in '89 or '90, whenever he was caught running a brothel.
-
Like it or not it is the only viable choice today in the real world to undo or stop what is happening.
The real world,not a make believe idealistic one.
Wish that wasn`t so exactly but any suggestion otherwise is just coffee table talk.
Work as hard as one can to get as much as you can but to think in 2010 there will be a perfect conservative world is folly.
Anyone is free to vote for whom they wish or not at all but when it comes to legislation and agendas the majority in either house of Congress will set that.
The dems know this and will use every second they have in that position to institutionalize their agenda.
-
Again, it is in part because we conservatives rested for far too long on our laurels. We all assumed - and we all know what happens when one assumes - that Gingrich and the '94 rout had broken the back of American liberalism/communism for good, and we let the politicians go off on their own on autopilot in the mistaken belief that the worst we would get would be a little Republican-type hanky-panky. Well, guess what? Politics is not a spectator sport, and the '94 rout only drove the left underground, where it festered and built up like a bad mold infestation. We are now, unfortunately, paying the price for our lack of attention; one can only hope that there is still enough time left to lance the boil and clean out the pus before the patient - the US of A - dies from the liberal infection.
-
Again, it is in part because we conservatives rested for far too long on our laurels. We all assumed - and we all know what happens when one assumes - that Gingrich and the '94 rout had broken the back of American liberalism/communism for good, and we let the politicians go off on their own on autopilot in the mistaken belief that the worst we would get would be a little Republican-type hanky-panky. Well, guess what? Politics is not a spectator sport, and the '94 rout only drove the left underground, where it festered and built up like a bad mold infestation. We are now, unfortunately, paying the price for our lack of attention; one can only hope that there is still enough time left to lance the boil and clean out the pus before the patient - the US of A - dies from the liberal infection.
:clap: :clap: :clap:
The post-mortem will be pretty bloody, as well.
-
:clap: :clap: :clap:
The post-mortem will be pretty bloody, as well.
Indeed. As Thos. Jefferson admonished, the tree of liberty may need watering by now:
(http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx221/B_Oceander/GIF_Animations/Red_Rain.gif)
-
I have a dilemma also. I voted for Perot, helping split the Conservative/Republican ticket, and look what we got. Yes I believe a third party is needed and warranted, but I also think right now unity is the only way to rid this county of the socialist plaque in power now. The panacea of a third party in 2010, in my opinion, is just wishful thinking. I don't see enough viable people out there to make a difference. Whether the Washington power wants to admit it or not, there is the beginning of a 'house cleaning', but it is to early to rely on the 'tea party's' to completely overrun the establishment. Stripping the monoply of power from the extreme left in the 2010 congressional election should be our major focus. By taking power back decisively in the House and Senate, it will strip the White House of most it's bully pulpit, buying more time to effectively create a viable and powerful third party. If in fact we do that, it will get the remaining Senators attention. With a two year voting out look, we can enforce two year term limits on representatives - start listening to the people, or we will replace you.
-
I could be convinced to support a third party as long as there was a guarantee of an equally viable fourth party from the left.
If there wasn`t you will have a split of Republican/third party and a majority of dems.
Show me where that helps any cause.
Lets face it there have been two partys in this country since the end of Washingtons term and as stated on another thread the two that exist today go back to the 1850s.
I know that philosophies have shifted within those party names but a third party springing up just doesn`t happen,isn`t successful when tried and doesn`t shift the body politic.
It is the dream of the true believers that flock to Libertarianism (the party) but is not realistic so you do what you can with what you have is my feeling.
-
I couldn't agree more at this point in time.
-
I have a dilemma also. I voted for Perot, helping split the Conservative/Republican ticket, and look what we got. Yes I believe a third party is needed and warranted, but I also think right now unity is the only way to rid this county of the socialist plaque in power now. The panacea of a third party in 2010, in my opinion, is just wishful thinking. I don't see enough viable people out there to make a difference. Whether the Washington power wants to admit it or not, there is the beginning of a 'house cleaning', but it is to early to rely on the 'tea party's' to completely overrun the establishment. Stripping the monoply of power from the extreme left in the 2010 congressional election should be our major focus. By taking power back decisively in the House and Senate, it will strip the White House of most it's bully pulpit, buying more time to effectively create a viable and powerful third party. If in fact we do that, it will get the remaining Senators attention. With a two year voting out look, we can enforce two year term limits on representatives - start listening to the people, or we will replace you.
Maybe we don't need a third party but just a strong voting bloc akin to the unions or some hyphenated-American group. If it's large enough the parties will chase us dragging their centers of gravity rightward.
We also need to pay closer attention to primaries and local races.
-
Maybe we don't need a third party but just a strong voting bloc akin to the unions or some hyphenated-American group. If it's large enough the parties will chase us dragging their centers of gravity rightward.
We also need to pay closer attention to primaries and local races.
Basically, yes. We need to be noisy, and we need to give our politicians the "love" and attention that they, as personality disorder types - crave.
-
I've watched third party movements try and fail to do anything except divide their own allies and then fall on their asses my whole life, and US history has plenty of examples that pre-date me, like the ill-fated Bull Moose Party.
Do whatever makes you happy, bkg, just try not to sound so much like a Ronulan when people don't agree with you or try to explain where you're going off into the weeds on this. Hint, if you find yourself tempted to use the word 'Sheeple' in a post, just step away from the keyboard and take a walk.
Am I happy with the GOP? Hell, no. I don't see a serious alternative that doesn't involve keeping the Dems in charge for a few more election cycles though. MSB has the right of it in saying we have to actively try to drag the GOP to the right instead of walking away from it for some futile diversion like that crackpot Perot (Frankly I don't know what any social conservatives saw in him, he was totally anti-gun and into social control, the only conservative thing about him was his fiscal outlook, but plenty of social conservatives had a complete attack of terminal stupid and voted for him anyway).
-
At the moment its the lesser of 2 evils. We must continue to make allot of noise and let all politicians know how we feel.
-
Conservatives, Tea Party and Independents should work to take over the Repub party from the RINO's. That is the ticket rather than a 3rd party. That would insure huge gains in 010 elections to remove the Democrats lock on passing any more socialistic laws. That is step #1. Also, RINO's would not be exempt from conservative challengers.
-
I've watched third party movements try and fail to do anything except divide their own allies and then fall on their asses my whole life, and US history has plenty of examples that pre-date me, like the ill-fated Bull Moose Party.
Do whatever makes you happy, bkg, just try not to sound so much like a Ronulan when people don't agree with you or try to explain where you're going off into the weeds on this. Hint, if you find yourself tempted to use the word 'Sheeple' in a post, just step away from the keyboard and take a walk.
Am I happy with the GOP? Hell, no. I don't see a serious alternative that doesn't involve keeping the Dems in charge for a few more election cycles though. MSB has the right of it in saying we have to actively try to drag the GOP to the right instead of walking away from it for some futile diversion like that crackpot Perot (Frankly I don't know what any social conservatives saw in him, he was totally anti-gun and into social control, the only conservative thing about him was his fiscal outlook, but plenty of social conservatives had a complete attack of terminal stupid and voted for him anyway).
I'm a Ronulan because I'm a Constitutionalist and disagree with the GOP? Wow... :whatever: :whatever: I'll take that as a compliment. I don't get the hatred of the one person in Congress who has never voted for a tax increase and who actually defends the COTUS.
I"m done voting for the people who will drive us into the shitter the slowest... That's just stupid, IMHO, and I don't understand why people endorse it. So feel free to call me names. I think it's sad, but that's up to you. No one has given a single reason, other than lesser of two evils, why the GOP is better than the dems... I asked for ideas, I've gotten few... and insulted. Pathetic, if you ask me.
-
I am in contact with the repubs all the time imploring them to put up true Conservatives and and stop trying to get along with Dem's. We all must demand they do that. I would like to see the Tea Party movement get together and endorse candidates at a national level. If somthing don't change soon we will have to get French on them.
-
...and so it begins,was only a matter of time wasn`t it DAT?
First off bkg your question was answered several times but of course not how you wanted so you ignore them and then claim no one did.
That is dishonest but the motivation of the thread was too it seems as you finally have gotten to where you can lecture us on your purity.
No one insulted you,although your constant tone of arrogance does make it difficult
Why don`t you come clean now and tell us what you views of Israel,abortion,and gay marriage are to name a few little items Libertarians are decidedly not conservative about.
Chest thumping is a playground stunt,you are talking to adults here so spare us that.
-
I've watched third party movements try and fail to do anything except divide their own allies and then fall on their asses my whole life, and US history has plenty of examples that pre-date me, like the ill-fated Bull Moose Party.
Do whatever makes you happy, bkg, just try not to sound so much like a Ronulan when people don't agree with you or try to explain where you're going off into the weeds on this. Hint, if you find yourself tempted to use the word 'Sheeple' in a post, just step away from the keyboard and take a walk.
Am I happy with the GOP? Hell, no. I don't see a serious alternative that doesn't involve keeping the Dems in charge for a few more election cycles though. MSB has the right of it in saying we have to actively try to drag the GOP to the right instead of walking away from it for some futile diversion like that crackpot Perot (Frankly I don't know what any social conservatives saw in him, he was totally anti-gun and into social control, the only conservative thing about him was his fiscal outlook, but plenty of social conservatives had a complete attack of terminal stupid and voted for him anyway).
Amen.
-
...and so it begins,was only a matter of time wasn`t it DAT?
First off bkg your question was answered several times but of course not how you wanted so you ignore them and then claim no one did.
That is dishonest but the motivation of the thread was too it seems as you finally have gotten to where you can lecture us on your purity.
No one insulted you,although your constant tone of arrogance does make it difficult
Why don`t you come clean now and tell us what you views of Israel,abortion,and gay marriage are to name a few little items Libertarians are decidedly not conservative about.
Chest thumping is a playground stunt,you are talking to adults here so spare us that.
Another great post. I agree with MSB also that we have to pay close attention to local races and don't use primaries as some sort of poetic valentine to our "true ideologies."
As is true in local races, you saturate the field with candidates (good and not so good) you screw the candidate who has the most legitimate shot of winning. Once you learn you cannot have everything on your shopping list (I think those who pay the closest attention to history know this lesson well), then you know you must throw your support behind the candidate whose platform contains the most important items on that list (and for me, has the most legitimate chance of winning).
My shopping priorities for 2010-2012? Fiscal conservative and strong foreign policy/national defense. I could give a flying fig about how they voted on abortion in the past or future as that is not the danger facing our country. The freakin economy is. We don't make a quick u-turn from the path to pure socialism we are on now, we can kiss our country good-bye.
-
...and so it begins,was only a matter of time wasn`t it DAT?
First off bkg your question was answered several times but of course not how you wanted so you ignore them and then claim no one did.
That is dishonest but the motivation of the thread was too it seems as you finally have gotten to where you can lecture us on your purity.
No one insulted you,although your constant tone of arrogance does make it difficult
Why don`t you come clean now and tell us what you views of Israel,abortion,and gay marriage are to name a few little items Libertarians are decidedly not conservative about.
Chest thumping is a playground stunt,you are talking to adults here so spare us that.
Chest thumping? Wow - none of that happening here. I asked a very serious question, the most common response was in the veign of lesser of two evils. I'm looking for real answers - to what the GOP will do better in the future than they did in the past. I honestly nolonger agree with voting for someone just because they'll run the country into the ground a tad slower. The GOP has done as much dammage to this country, our economic system and COTUS as the dems have. As much as I supported Bush, growing the gov't by 40%, increasing the debt load by trillions, patriot act, etc... were not conservative driven values.
Calling me a Ronbot - or Ronulan - for asking the question and challenging the answers is an insult. I'm a Constitutionalist and a libertarian, and that's labeled as bad. I didn't vote for Paul, but I do agree with his positions on a lot of things.
My views on gay marriage, abortion, etc have been covered in the welcome post. But to refresh - I'm against gay marriage, pro-life, and believe we need to help support oure allies. As stated, I don't always agree with Paul's foreign policy. Social issues are secondary. When I rank what is important - supporting COTUS, supporting liberty and freedom, reducing the debt, shrinking government, shrinking entitlements, shutting down the fed, lowering taxes... and really believing in the founder's vision... I don't know who else is as passionate as Paul. Where in COTUS is foreign aide a mandated function of the fed govt? It may be there, but I haven't seen it spelled out explicitely. So I honestly do not understand the hatred towards his positions... Who in the GOP has his tract record or is as interested in adhering to COTUS as Paul? Serious question!
I agreed with MSB and agree with Formerlurker's latest post as well. The local elections are critical and will be the conduit for making election changes at the federal level. But like FL's last paragraph (which I think is spot-on), I'm done worrying about some of the social issues - like abortion - as they are NEVER going to change. RvW will never be reversed. I want a fiscal conservative first, a COTUS defending candidate. Yes, I hope they are in the best spot to win, but even if not, I can't throw my vote away on people like McCain who are almost as left as the base of the dem party. I don't understand where the value is in supporting the dem-lite. That's why I asked the question.
So call me arrogant or a Ronbot or whatever. I asked a serious question because as of now, I don't see the value or the change needed coming from the dem-lites. I honestly don't. I wish I did, but the best indication of future behavior is past behavior. And the past GOP behavior has helped put us where we are today.. with a looming 13 trillion dollar debt and growing dependency on gov't rule.
-
Do you think then for one second in the real world a third party candidate will win or a third party will rise up.
One can go on and on about things based on raw emotion but that doesn`t change the real world.
Tell us how it happens and if we are at such a tipping point why does Dr Nutz keep the (R) behind his name.
What happens to your vaunted principles when dems have a 70 seat majority in the Senate?
Bet you have no answer for that.
Wouldn`t it make a lot more sense to work to change what exists and push the GOP towards a more conservative stance then wander in an unrealistic dreamland because unless you can tell me how or show that it will happen that is all you have.
Now there once more is the answer to your supposed serious question and no doubt once more is not the answer you want to hear.
I don`t live in a world of make believe and realize that not everyone will agree with me politically so am happy to get as much as I can get through the best avenue possible rather then get nothing.
Oh and by the way...look up and around and see that nothing is where we are at today...liking it?
No you did not ask a serious question...you postulated a position to eventually declare your beliefs.
So be it,but be honest about it if you can.
-
Do you think then for one second in the real world a third party candidate will win or a third party will rise up.
One can go on and on about things based on raw emotion but that doesn`t change the real world.
Tell us how it happens and if we are at such a tipping point why does Dr Nutz keep the (R) behind his name.
What happens to your vaunted principles when dems have a 70 seat majority in the Senate?
Bet you have no answer for that.
Wouldn`t it make a lot more sense to work to change what exists and push the GOP towards a more conservative stance then wander in an unrealistic dreamland because unless you can tell me how or show that it will happen that is all you have.
Now there once more is the answer to your supposed serious question and no doubt once more is not the answer you want to hear.
I don`t live in a world of make believe and realize that not everyone will agree with me politically so am happy to get as much as I can get through the best avenue possible rather then get nothing.
Oh and by the way...look up and around and see that nothing is where we are at today...liking it?
No you did not ask a serious question...you postulated a position to eventually declare your beliefs.
So be it,but be honest about it if you can.
Carl, I don't know what your issue is with me. I've tried to explain my position and concerns, and you think I live in make-believe land because of it.
Hey I agree, and have stated it many times, that I'd like to see a truly conservative GOP and that it would be a lot easier to win elections if that were the case. But I haven't seen a conservative GOP member in a long time, sans Bachmann and Paul, and a small number of others. And they are all villified by the GOP and even conservatives.
My question about third parties has always been that positions like yours, where you firmly believe that they have no chance of making a difference, is that I believe you to be incorrect. If people voted on values, rather than what is behind the person's name on the ballot (D, R), then we would see change. But people are afraid of doing that because they are afraid the other team will win. If that's how we are all voting, both libs and conservatives, to keep the other team from winning regardles of how f'd up our candidate is... then how can we expect to have any real change in DC?
I don't think you'll see the GOP become the conservative party you want. That's my opinion. Their past behavior hasn't supported conservatism since the early 80's. Since then, they've been almost as liberal as the dems. So would I be pissed with a 70 person majority for the dems? Very much! But if the GOP is voting and pormoting similar values, then what's the real difference?
Your point about things not being where we want them to be is spot-on. But who's fault is that? The Dem's? The GOP? Both? If the GOP hadn't moved so far left the last 10 years and they actually promoted conservative candidates, we might be in a different position. Might - no guarantees. But McCain was not a conservative. The person they supported in D23 was not a conservative. The MN Senate GOP (Coleman) candidate was not a conservative. Pawlenty, our governer, is not a conservative. So I blame both parties. Again, i see them heading in the same direction, just at different velocity.
Do I see a real-world thrid party candidate? Yeah, in many senses I do. I think we had one in the past who would have won had he not dropped out at end and made another charge at the 11th hour. We have a growing number of independents in congress and local races. I think there is as much an appetite for someoen outside of the DC corruption as there is for a truly conservative GOP.
And again, I agree with your position that it would be easier to move the GOP right than rise up a new party. But how realistic is that? I wish it was, but their past behavior doesn't support that either, IMHO. I'll support them moving right and will help where possible, but I really need to see truly conservative candidates AND a truly conservative platform. I'm not sure we've seem much of either in the last 10 years.
I did ask a serious question. You refuse to believe that because you don't like or agree with it. Tha'ts fine. That's your right. But please don't attempt to read my mind and don't accuse me of being dishonest simply because I disagree with some of the responses. Your assumption of motive and goals are completely incorrect. It was a very seroius question, and still is. I don't know if there is any value, other than a weak defense, of voting for the GOP as it stands today. If it changes, then yeah, they'll definitely get my vote. But the position of voting for them because we might be able to change them... I don't know that we have enough invluence over them to make that happen, ya know?
-
Carl, I don't know what your issue is with me. I've tried to explain my position and concerns, and you think I live in make-believe land because of it.
Hey I agree, and have stated it many times, that I'd like to see a truly conservative GOP and that it would be a lot easier to win elections if that were the case. But I haven't seen a conservative GOP member in a long time, sans Bachmann and Paul, and a small number of others. And they are all villified by the GOP and even conservatives.
My question about third parties has always been that positions like yours, where you firmly believe that they have no chance of making a difference, is that I believe you to be incorrect. If people voted on values, rather than what is behind the person's name on the ballot (D, R), then we would see change. But people are afraid of doing that because they are afraid the other team will win. If that's how we are all voting, both libs and conservatives, to keep the other team from winning regardles of how f'd up our candidate is... then how can we expect to have any real change in DC?
I don't think you'll see the GOP become the conservative party you want. That's my opinion. Their past behavior hasn't supported conservatism since the early 80's. Since then, they've been almost as liberal as the dems. So would I be pissed with a 70 person majority for the dems? Very much! But if the GOP is voting and pormoting similar values, then what's the real difference?
Your point about things not being where we want them to be is spot-on. But who's fault is that? The Dem's? The GOP? Both? If the GOP hadn't moved so far left the last 10 years and they actually promoted conservative candidates, we might be in a different position. Might - no guarantees. But McCain was not a conservative. The person they supported in D23 was not a conservative. The MN Senate GOP (Coleman) candidate was not a conservative. Pawlenty, our governer, is not a conservative. So I blame both parties. Again, i see them heading in the same direction, just at different velocity.
Do I see a real-world thrid party candidate? Yeah, in many senses I do. I think we had one in the past who would have won had he not dropped out at end and made another charge at the 11th hour. We have a growing number of independents in congress and local races. I think there is as much an appetite for someoen outside of the DC corruption as there is for a truly conservative GOP.
And again, I agree with your position that it would be easier to move the GOP right than rise up a new party. But how realistic is that? I wish it was, but their past behavior doesn't support that either, IMHO. I'll support them moving right and will help where possible, but I really need to see truly conservative candidates AND a truly conservative platform. I'm not sure we've seem much of either in the last 10 years.
I did ask a serious question. You refuse to believe that because you don't like or agree with it. Tha'ts fine. That's your right. But please don't attempt to read my mind and don't accuse me of being dishonest simply because I disagree with some of the responses. Your assumption of motive and goals are completely incorrect. It was a very seroius question, and still is. I don't know if there is any value, other than a weak defense, of voting for the GOP as it stands today. If it changes, then yeah, they'll definitely get my vote. But the position of voting for them because we might be able to change them... I don't know that we have enough invluence over them to make that happen, ya know?
My issue is simple..I have seen Libertarian sorts for years try to pretend that theirs is a great third way with almost cult like fervor.
They are long on hyperbole and fantasies and short on realistic sense.
Maybe that does describe you,maybe it doesn`t but I will happily let everyone read the thread..your "question" and then your attack that since no one satisfied you we were all pathetic (your words).
Instead of trying to have a discussion that is avenue they take and then claim innocence of purpose or as you did that you were insulted.
The tactics are always the same.
Everyone that disagrees with me is stupid or weak (again your word pathetic) trying to use intimidation against folks that try to be polite.
I will call the bs what it is every time I see it.
You started the thread,you attacked disagreement and I called you to defend your position.
Don`t like that well sorry,too bad.
Just don`t ever complain about what happens in the real world if you go your way which is your right to do.
-
Carl - you don't like me. That's fine. The libertarian position that you hate is no different than the positions espoused by the GOP or DNC or any other party - they all believe theirs is correct. If they didn't, they'd have zero credibility as a candidate.
What I called pathetic was being labeled. Please re-read what I wrote. I've defended my position, directly to you, and you've chosen to continue to attack me personally rather than respond to my concerns and questions. That's not a debate, Carl. You're calling me out for stating that beinc labled was a sad, but now you've been attacking me for your last three posts. C'mon - you're accusng me of exactly what you are doing.
We're not going to disagree. You think that my disagreements with the GOP leaves me in a fantasy world. I think that the position that the GOP is going to change directions is equally fantasy - their past actions haven't supported that change in direction for the last almost 25 years. And that's the reason I asked the question. Show me where my thinking is wrong - I've agreed with you on many points already (which you've seemed to ignore for some reason), but I still see a gap in the strong direction change that people believe the GOP will bring. They seem to be going the same direction (and even endorse Dem candidates!) as the dems... just at a different pace.
So disagree with me. Tha'ts totally fine. Stop calling me a liar, though. Stop labeling me as a Ron Paul cult member, and start addressing the concerns I've brought forth. Ignoring many of them - even in my last post - and trying to discredit me instead. I've been honest in my positions, my concerns, my fears. If that makes me a utopian in your mind, then so be it. I don't live my life by other people's opinions.
And back at ya - if you vote in the GOP and things do NOT change... I assume you'll stick to your request of me and NOT COMPLAIN about anything that the GOP does at that point. :tongue:
-
I have no opinion of you but will say again if you are going to post a thread asking a question and then your only response to any answers you get is an attack then expect to be called on it.
The history of the thread is its own thing I don`t have to prove otherwise,anyone can read it and see,it was your only response to that point.
I'm a Ronulan because I'm a Constitutionalist and disagree with the GOP? Wow... I'll take that as a compliment. I don't get the hatred of the one person in Congress who has never voted for a tax increase and who actually defends the COTUS.
I"m done voting for the people who will drive us into the shitter the slowest... That's just stupid, IMHO, and I don't understand why people endorse it. So feel free to call me names. I think it's sad, but that's up to you. No one has given a single reason, other than lesser of two evils, why the GOP is better than the dems... I asked for ideas, I've gotten few... and insulted. Pathetic, if you ask me.
You were given many reasons why voting for the best chance to win even if not perfect was better then not and also that we need to work to get a more conservative lean to the party.
You rejected those answers out of hand and it seems have the same conclusion you started with.
I don`t know what else to say because it won`t be good enough anyways.
I can`t make you change your mind but if you think for a second that next year there will be 218 members of the House and 51 in the Senate from a third party then it simply isn`t realistic or show me how it happens.
It is your thread so up to you to explain the position you take and how it is achieved.
-
What btw do you want me to tell you about your concerns?
Are all Republicans conservatively pure in ideology?...No.
Is the general system we have for representative government perfect?...No.
Would I prefer in light of that to have folks that agree with me 50% of the time over those that disagree with me 100% of the time...Yes.
Do I wish for different or better?...Yes.
Is it realistic to think that what I want will ever be completely endorsed by the voting public?...No
Beyond that I don`t know what you are wanting or asking.
-
What btw do you want me to tell you about your concerns?
Are all Republicans conservatively pure in ideology?...No.
Is the general system we have for representative government perfect?...No.
Would I prefer in light of that to have folks that agree with me 50% of the time over those that disagree with me 100% of the time...Yes.
Do I wish for different or better?...Yes.
Is it realistic to think that what I want will ever be completely endorsed by the voting public?...No
Beyond that I don`t know what you are wanting or asking.
Pure conservative utopia..... which has occurred when exactly in our Nation's history?
-
Pure conservative utopia..... which has occurred when exactly in our Nation's history?
Never,and one of those things one learns as they grow older. {sigh}
-
bkg,
I agree with everything you've said on this thread concerning the current GOP. They are just as bad as the Dems; they are merely driving the country to ruin at a slower pace.
I have no faith in either party at this point. With any luck the GOP party might be dragged kicking and screaming back toward the right, but without a major house cleaning in DC and the party leadership in general, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Simply put, the current crop seems entirely too interested in being lib-lite instead of conservatives.
I too am weary of voting the the lesser of two evils. So if a true conservative independant runs, I will vote for them. If that causes the Repubs to lose due to splitting the vote so be it. If the GOP can't act like the conservatives that they claim to be then maybe they deserve to lose.
If they keep losing, then perhaps they will finally wake up and start paying attention the the conservative base in this country, or that tree of Liberty will get watered once enough people get fed up with the BS in DC.
Do I expect some sort of utopian conservative world? Of course not. I'd gladly settle for a party that claims to be conservative to merely act like it more often than not. Something that the GOP leadership has been failing badly at for over 20 years now IMHO.
I will now sit back and wait to be told that I too live in some fantasy world.
-
bkg,
I agree with everything you've said on this thread concerning the current GOP. They are just as bad as the Dems; they are merely driving the country to ruin at a slower pace.
I have no faith in either party at this point. With any luck the GOP party might be dragged kicking and screaming back toward the right, but without a major house cleaning in DC and the party leadership in general, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Simply put, the current crop seems entirely too interested in being lib-lite instead of conservatives.
I too am weary of voting the the lesser of two evils. So if a true conservative independant runs, I will vote for them. If that causes the Repubs to lose due to splitting the vote so be it. If the GOP can't act like the conservatives that they claim to be then maybe they deserve to lose.
If they keep losing, then perhaps they will finally wake up and start paying attention the the conservative base in this country, or that tree of Liberty will get watered once enough people get fed up with the BS in DC.
Do I expect some sort of utopian conservative world? Of course not. I'd gladly settle for a party that claims to be conservative to merely act like it more often than not. Something that the GOP leadership has been failing badly at for over 20 years now IMHO.
I will now sit back and wait to be told that I too live in some fantasy world.
You answered your own qualms in hoping that the GOP will move to the right and saying that you don`t believe in a utopian world.
What then is the minimum of agreement you would still support?
It is kind of a silly question I guess in that acceptance of less then perfect can shift when faced with the real life alternative but do you think this country has the time right now to sort all that out?
If no one can state how things can halt what we are seeing happening now in 2010 or 2012 then what point is there in talking about what may be 15 years from now?
That is my "honest" question and one that is immediate imo rather then speculating on ideals.
-
You answered your own qualms in hoping that the GOP will move to the right and saying that you don`t believe in a utopian world.
What then is the minimum of agreement you would still support?
It is kind of a silly question I guess in that acceptance of less then perfect can shift when faced with the real life alternative but do you think this country has the time right now to sort all that out?
If no one can state how things can halt what we are seeing happening now in 2010 or 2012 then what point is there in talking about what may be 15 years from now?
That is my "honest" question and one that is immediate imo rather then speculating on ideals.
Actually Carl, I didn't express any qualms. I expressed my dissatisfaction with the GOP as it currently exists. Nor do I have any hope that the GOP will move back to the right sans a major house cleaning, which quite frankly, I don't see happening.
As to the minimum amount of agreement I would support, I suppose that would depend on various issues. But on average if they would conduct themselves as true conservatives at least 75% of the time, I guess I could live with them acting like lib-lites the other 25%.
Can you sit there and honestly claim that the GOP has acted in a fashion that you would choose to defend/support for the past 20+ years? Do you think they have operated within the authority enumerated to them by the COTUS when they were in charge of both houses of Congress and the WH? Do you honestly think that the current group gives a tinkers damn about following the Constitution? If they do, they sure don't seem to act like it.
Do you honestly think that their track record is going to improve? BKG was quite correct about the 40% growth in the size of the Fed under Bush. Have you seen many so called conservative members of Congress proposing any legislation to reduce that size? I haven't.
Personally I think Heinlein was right.... The republic doomed itself when it allowed universal sufferage.
Oh, and one final note. I do believe in a utopian world. It is where I will be living upon my death as I bask in the glory of the Kingdom of God.
-
bkg,
I agree with everything you've said on this thread concerning the current GOP. They are just as bad as the Dems; they are merely driving the country to ruin at a slower pace.
I have no faith in either party at this point. With any luck the GOP party might be dragged kicking and screaming back toward the right, but without a major house cleaning in DC and the party leadership in general, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Simply put, the current crop seems entirely too interested in being lib-lite instead of conservatives.
I too am weary of voting the the lesser of two evils. So if a true conservative independant runs, I will vote for them. If that causes the Repubs to lose due to splitting the vote so be it. If the GOP can't act like the conservatives that they claim to be then maybe they deserve to lose.
If they keep losing, then perhaps they will finally wake up and start paying attention the the conservative base in this country, or that tree of Liberty will get watered once enough people get fed up with the BS in DC.
Do I expect some sort of utopian conservative world? Of course not. I'd gladly settle for a party that claims to be conservative to merely act like it more often than not. Something that the GOP leadership has been failing badly at for over 20 years now IMHO.
I will now sit back and wait to be told that I too live in some fantasy world.
Please direct us to the point in time that was acceptably conservative to you so that we can ponder if that can happen again.
-
Two words that I like:
Term Limits.
That might go a long way in fixing a few problems caused by the idiots in DC.
-
I think MSB has the beginning blueprints to moving the GOP to the right and that is local races (as those politicians aspire for higher office). Find, groom and support those candidates to reshape the GOP, or hell just run yourself.
-
Two words that I like:
Term Limits.
That might go a long way in fixing a few problems caused by the idiots in DC.
Agreed.
-
Please direct us to the point in time that was acceptably conservative to you so that we can ponder if that can happen again.
I never said that such a time ever existed.
Does that mean I should not hope for such a time to come?
Does that mean I shouldn't work to see such a time in our future?
-
I never said that such a time ever existed.
Does that mean I should not hope for such a time to come?
Does that mean I shouldn't work to see such a time in our future?
Your plan is to stay at home, and by default vote for the Democrat -- or perhaps vote for the guy who has no chance in hades of winning. That is going to effect change? Nah, it won't.
What it will do is move the base to the moderates, which is what has happened and will continue to happen.
-
I think MSB has the beginning blueprints to moving the GOP to the right and that is local races (as those politicians aspire for higher office). Find, groom and support those candidates to reshape the GOP, or hell just run yourself.
That is a good idea indeed. It is a step that must be taken IMO. But it will take a decade or two for it to trickle up.
We also need to get the libs out of running our schools ASAP. But that too will take decades before we see any results.
The fight will not be a short one, and the average American voter is an apathetic twit that can't be bothered to maintain the type of vigilance needed to accomplish it.
IMO.
-
Actually Carl, I didn't express any qualms. I expressed my dissatisfaction with the GOP as it currently exists. Nor do I have any hope that the GOP will move back to the right sans a major house cleaning, which quite frankly, I don't see happening.
As to the minimum amount of agreement I would support, I suppose that would depend on various issues. But on average if they would conduct themselves as true conservatives at least 75% of the time, I guess I could live with them acting like lib-lites the other 25%.
Can you sit there and honestly claim that the GOP has acted in a fashion that you would choose to defend/support for the past 20+ years? Do you think they have operated within the authority enumerated to them by the COTUS when they were in charge of both houses of Congress and the WH? Do you honestly think that the current group gives a tinkers damn about following the Constitution? If they do, they sure don't seem to act like it.
Do you honestly think that their track record is going to improve? BKG was quite correct about the 40% growth in the size of the Fed under Bush. Have you seen many so called conservative members of Congress proposing any legislation to reduce that size? I haven't.
Personally I think Heinlein was right.... The republic doomed itself when it allowed universal sufferage.
Oh, and one final note. I do believe in a utopian world. It is where I will be living upon my death as I bask in the glory of the Kingdom of God.
Is it what I wished it was then the answer is completely no.
Was President Reagan a perfect conservative...again no but we all would take him in a second if possible.
The alternative of today..The health care bill soon to be law.
What will pull us back from that?
Cap and trade that is coming as well?
As gut wrenching as McCain was and hopefully will not see again for a long time does anyone think that things would be what they are today or ever had he won?
I really am trying to be pragmatic and realistic about things even if it sounds like I am being a wet rag about stuff,
Tell me where or how a third party deeply conservative movement will over run Congress in 2010 and establish itself as the majority..I will sign on in a second.
If one can`t then it is just so much talk not to sound nasty about it but it just is.
-
That is a good idea indeed. It is a step that must be taken IMO. But it will take a decade or two for it to trickle up.
We also need to get the libs out of running our schools ASAP. But that too will take decades before we see any results.
The fight will not be a short one, and the average American voter is an apathetic twit that can't be bothered to maintain the type of vigilance needed to accomplish it.
IMO.
In local races candidates get a list of actual voters -- and those are the voters they spend their most time courting. You may be a registered voter, but if you haven't or just don't vote, they don't spend much time caring about your opinion.
-
Your plan is to stay at home, and by default vote for the Democrat -- or perhaps vote for the guy who has no chance in hades of winning. That is going to effect change? Nah, it won't.
What it will do is move the base to the moderates, which is what has happened and will continue to happen.
Huh?
Just where in the hell did you see me say I would just stay home? Will I vote for a candidate that I feel is the best conservative running?
Damn right I will. If they are an independant so be it. If they split the vote, so be it.
It's people that vote for the party and only the party that are the reason this country is so ****ed up right now IMO.
As I have previously stated, if the GOP loses enough elections then maybe, just maybe they will wake the hell up and start asking why.
If they don't then perhaps they deserve to lose as they are obvioulsy not interested in serving the will of the people.
Yeah... continuing to vote for the same type of lame assed lib-lite republicans sure has effected a change hasn't it? After all, they have the right letter behind their name.
-
That is a good idea indeed. It is a step that must be taken IMO. But it will take a decade or two for it to trickle up.
We also need to get the libs out of running our schools ASAP. But that too will take decades before we see any results.
The fight will not be a short one, and the average American voter is an apathetic twit that can't be bothered to maintain the type of vigilance needed to accomplish it.
IMO.
Just a question and maybe worth another thread but how do we get the libs out of the public school system?
I am with you but just saying it doesn`t make it happen so what is the mechanism to get that genie back in the bottle?
-
The fight will not be a short one, and the average American voter is an apathetic twit that can't be bothered to maintain the type of vigilance needed to accomplish it.
IMO.
That's why I'm more interested in supporting a voting bloc than a party. Any political strategy has to account for the fact that a large portion of the voting public is comprised of headline skimmers.
The tea parties created headlines and--despite the MSM's best efforts--portraying them as racist hicks did not blunt their impact.
Not that I'm not sympathetic to your notion of voting conservative only. Palin is the only thing that got me out of the house in 2008 and that was only because I was salivating at the prospect of voting for her in 2016. I took a lot of heat on this very forum for railing against McCain and none of his subsequent behavior has done nothing to alter my opinion of him. At least with Obama the enemy is more readily recognizable (no, lurking libs, it isn't his swarthy skin). With McCain the GOP would be dragged into healthcare reform and crap-n-trade.
-
Huh?
Just where in the hell did you see me say I would just stay home? Will I vote for a candidate that I feel is the best conservative running?
Damn right I will. If they are an independant so be it. If they split the vote, so be it.
It's people that vote for the party and only the party that are the reason this country is so ****ed up right now IMO.
As I have previously stated, if the GOP loses enough elections then maybe, just maybe they will wake the hell up and start asking why.
If they don't then perhaps they deserve to lose as they are abvioulsy not interested in serving the will of the people.
Yeah... continuing to vote for the same type of lame assed lib-lite republicans sure has effected a change hasn't it? After all, they have the right letter behind their name.
Doing it in 1980 to give Reagan a Senate majority and a working majority wasn`t a bad thing.
It sure helped check Clinton in 1994 after he lurched to the left once President.
Look at history as it was.
-
Quote from: rich_t on Today at 06:42:34 pm
As I have previously stated, if the GOP loses enough elections then maybe, just maybe they will wake the hell up and start asking why.
If they don't then perhaps they deserve to lose as they are abvioulsy not interested in serving the will of the people.
Yeah... continuing to vote for the same type of lame assed lib-lite republicans sure has effected a change hasn't it? After all, they have the right letter behind their name.
When has that happened? It hasn't, because it will never happen. They will instead chase the moderates, which is what they have been doing while the "real" conservatives are sitting around dreaming about their utopias so much so that Dr. Lunatic from Texas is sounding good to them.
Scary.
The "progressive" Democrats (read socialists) are in power and are scaring the hell out of the Reagan democrats (moderates). The GOP will court them for 2010 and 2012. Count on it. A move to the far right just isn't going to happen with the GOP in the state it is now. A third party will ensure another progressive Democratic win. Why the GOP can't see that I have no idea.
-
Just a question and maybe worth another thread but how do we get the libs out of the public school system?
I am with you but just saying it doesn`t make it happen so what is the mechanism to get that genie back in the bottle?
Federal money that is tied to true accountability is one way (which as you said is another forum altogether).
I think that local control has been systematically stripped away giving state and federal level government WAY too much say over public education. School Committees/Boards have become ceremonial due to various nonsense reforms at the state level. I would love to see state governors waiving the stranglehold unions have over school districts -- make teachers actual employees again who work on merit raise systems. Imagine?
I could probably rant for days on this topic.
-
Is it what I wished it was then the answer is completely no.
Was President Reagan a perfect conservative...again no but we all would take him in a second if possible.
The alternative of today..The health care bill soon to be law.
What will pull us back from that?
Cap and trade that is coming as well?
As gut wrenching as McCain was and hopefully will not see again for a long time does anyone think that things would be what they are today or ever had he won?
I really am trying to be pragmatic and realistic about things even if it sounds like I am being a wet rag about stuff,
Tell me where or how a third party deeply conservative movement will over run Congress in 2010 and establish itself as the majority..I will sign on in a second.
If one can`t then it is just so much talk not to sound nasty about it but it just is.
Carl,
You have to start thinking more long term. Yes, 2010 is critical as far as congress goes. But then what? 2012 right?
What about 10 years from now? Or 20? Ya have to start somewhere and continuing to vote for a party that claims to be conservative yet doesn't comport themselves as such is NOT a long term answer.
If the GOP expects to remain a viable entity it needs to start living up to what it claims to be... C-O-N-S-E-R-V-A-T-I-V-E.
Otherwise it needs to stop calling itself or even attempting to call itself a conservative group.
The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.
As long as folks cotninue to focus on merely the next election, the problems will only continue to remain problems.
-
In local races candidates get a list of actual voters -- and those are the voters they spend their most time courting. You may be a registered voter, but if you haven't or just don't vote, they don't spend much time caring about your opinion.
I am a registered voter and I vote.
-
I am a registered voter and I vote.
Start making some calls then to your local reps. It has to start somewhere.
-
Just a question and maybe worth another thread but how do we get the libs out of the public school system?
I am with you but just saying it doesn`t make it happen so what is the mechanism to get that genie back in the bottle?
Well, the only starting point I can think of is to start electing conservatives to the local school boards. The next step, which I don't see happening without a major fight is getting the FED out of the public education arena.
The Department of Education needs to be disbanded. PERIOD.
-
The Department of Education needs to be disbanded. PERIOD.
That will never ever ever ever ever ever happen. Ever. Period.
ETA: I don't care if you had a supermajority of ultra-conservatives, it will never happen.
-
That's why I'm more interested in supporting a voting bloc than a party. Any political strategy has to account for the fact that a large portion of the voting public is comprised of headline skimmers.
The tea parties created headlines and--despite the MSM's best efforts--portraying them as racist hicks did not blunt their impact.
Not that I'm not sympathetic to your notion of voting conservative only. Palin is the only thing that got me out of the house in 2008 and that was only because I was salivating at the prospect of voting for her in 2016. I took a lot of heat on this very forum for railing against McCain and none of his subsequent behavior has done nothing to alter my opinion of him. At least with Obama the enemy is more readily recognizable (no, lurking libs, it isn't his swarthy skin). With McCain the GOP would be dragged into healthcare reform and crap-n-trade.
Excellent point.
-
Carl,
You have to start thinking more long term. Yes, 2010 is critical as far as congress goes. But then what? 2012 right?
What about 10 years from now? Or 20? Ya have to start somewhere and continuing to vote for a party that claims to be conservative yet doesn't comport themselves as such is NOT a long term answer.
If the GOP expects to remain a viable entity it needs to start living up to what it claims to be... C-O-N-S-E-R-V-A-T-I-V-E.
Otherwise it needs to stop calling itself or even attempting to call itself a conservative group.
The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.
As long as folks cotninue to focus on merely the next election, the problems will only continue to remain problems.
I just want to push the GOP to a more conservative position and let the party voters come along.
To reinvent the wheel at this point seems to be a desperate and too long term a task given what we face with o and the libs in power.
I will take any realistic possibility of stopping that in the next year..the next year not 10 or 20 from now as if we don`t I believe that time frame wont matter.
My opinion and admit that and don`t adhere to over the top histrionics but do truly believe we are at that point so am willing to accept whatever it takes to stop it.
Think on it,did anyone think Newt could have led the way to what happened in 1994?
I didn`t...so what is to say that in 2010 with the reality of what has been pushed on the country it can`t again and is hope for that less realistic then one of a third party insurgency. (I don`t mean that word as an emotional trigger either,just can`t think of a better one right now).
-
Well, the only starting point I can think of is to start electing conservatives to the local school boards. The next step, which I don't see happening without a major fight is getting the FED out of the public education arena.
The Department of Education needs to be disbanded. PERIOD.
That would take a vast majority in Congress and again if one can show how that is ever remotely possible with an upstart third party I will listen and join up..
Hell,just as the dems have rebellious in their party so does the GOP.
Voting them out for true conservatives that would maintain a majority by party because that is how it works would be great.
It is doubtful that would happen so the third party stuff goes nowhere either for the same reasons.
It may make a person feel good but accomplishes nothing in reality.
-
Doing it in 1980 to give Reagan a Senate majority and a working majority wasn`t a bad thing.
It sure helped check Clinton in 1994 after he lurched to the left once President.
Look at history as it was.
I try to look at history as it was. What better way to learn what mistakes not to repeat?
But one can't live in the past. One must look to the future and work to make it a better place than the past or present.
Continuing to vote for the same party candidates just cuz they have the right "letter" behind their name ain't gonna fix squat.
Nor is continuing to vote for the lesser of two evils in perpetuity. At some point one must start taking a longer view to try to implement the changes they desire. It can't always be "the next election".
If you opt to vote for a person because you feel they honestly will represent your views then fine, go for it.
But if the only reason you vote for them is because you think they are or will be less harmful, but harmfull none the less....
Well, you do the math.
-
Start making some calls then to your local reps. It has to start somewhere.
Jesus Christ... You DO like to make assumptions don't you? You seem to be assuming that I don't.
I DO call them.
I DO write them.
I DO e-mail them.
I DO fax them.
Just as I do with my Congressperson and Senators at the state and federal level.
I haven't taken a baseball bat to one yet, but I'm keeping that option on the table. :naughty:
-
That will never ever ever ever ever ever happen. Ever. Period.
ETA: I don't care if you had a supermajority of ultra-conservatives, it will never happen.
I know that. But it needs to happen.
-
I try to look at history as it was. What better way to learn what mistakes not to repeat?
But one can't live in the past. One must look to the future and work to make it a better place than the past or present.
Continuing to vote for the same party candidates just cuz they have the right "letter" behind their name ain't gonna fix squat.
Nor is continuing to vote for the lesser of two evils in perpetuity. At some point one must start taking a longer view to try to implement the changes they desire. It can't always be "the next election".
If you opt to vote for a person because you feel they honestly will represent your views then fine, go for it.
But if the only reason you vote for them is because you think they are or will be less harmful, but harmfull none the less....
Well, you do the math.
I have the perspective of living for now in NY where the best (R) I can hope for would be a dem in a lot of places.
Will that ever change in this state?
Doubtful but if one thinks it can then please tell me how.
Not being sarcastic but realistic.
So it goes with national politics,if one can tell me how the GOP is replaced with a more conservative third or alternative party then I am all ears.
Otherwise it really is all just talk amongst ourselves with a certain amount of wishing.
I guess I am sorry that is the case but tell me where it isn`t and how we stop the undoing of our country in the meantime.
Anyone here think Social Security is a great system and valuable?
If not tell me how we undo it now?
I think it is a horrible thing but to suggest it be halted just because will get me the ire of conservatives who also think the same as long as they get the money paid in back.
Bottom line is that until it reaches a critical mass it won`t be touched.
That is the stuff they are building into the system today,right now.
It scares me and I am not interested in idealistic yearnings right now,hate me for that I guess but am not.
I want it confronted and stopped and will support the most viable and realistic means to do that even if I am disappointed.
The end result is the same as a guaranteed failure.
-
I know that. But it needs to happen.
Have to chuckle at that statement as it is most likely correct but why then do you argue for things that are also not going to happen...a third party pushing the GOP to the side?
-
I just want to push the GOP to a more conservative position and let the party voters come along.
To reinvent the wheel at this point seems to be a desperate and too long term a task given what we face with o and the libs in power.
I will take any realistic possibility of stopping that in the next year..the next year not 10 or 20 from now as if we don`t I believe that time frame wont matter.
My opinion and admit that and don`t adhere to over the top histrionics but do truly believe we are at that point so am willing to accept whatever it takes to stop it.
Think on it,did anyone think Newt could have led the way to what happened in 1994?
I didn`t...so what is to say that in 2010 with the reality of what has been pushed on the country it can`t again and is hope for that less realistic then one of a third party insurgency. (I don`t mean that word as an emotional trigger either,just can`t think of a better one right now).
If you think you have a way to make that happen let me know. I'll be right there with you. But you seem to have a LOT more faith in the Republican party than I do.
All I have to do is look at their history over the last 20+ years. Doing so doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling about them suddenly changing their tune.
-
I also need to say it is enjoyable to engage in a courteous and thoughtful discussion Rich.
We may not agree completely but is nice to talk it out.
-
If you think you have a way to make that happen let me know. I'll be right there with you. But you seem to have a LOT more faith in the Republican party than I do.
All I have to do is look at their history over the last 20+ years. Doing so doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling about them suddenly changing their tune.
Yeah I know (http://209.85.48.11/html/emoticons/dry.gif) but still think it is the most practical option giving what we face like it or not.
Honest though and hypothetical but even supposing a third party could rise up,with the system we have without term limits do you think they would not turn to the power of the treasury to use for reelection?
-
Have to chuckle at that statement as it is most likely correct but why then do you argue for things that are also not going to happen...a third party pushing the GOP to the side?
If you keep making comments like that then I am going to start questioning your cognitive reasoning skills. :-)
I never once stated nor implied that I thought a 3rd party would push the GOP aside.
Please point out what post of mine you misinterpreted to mean that.
I will admit that I can on occassion be less clear than I intended on these threads.
I fully expect that the GOP will be around for a long time yet to come. It will merely be the party of lib-lite instead of conservative if things continue as they have been the past decade or so.
That whole "big tent" thing is really working out well for them. They have managed to lose the WH and both houses of congress.
-
I also need to say it is enjoyable to engage in a courteous and thoughtful discussion Rich.
We may not agree completely but is nice to talk it out.
Hey... If we all agreed about everything this board would get boring real quick.
But I feel compelled to point out that bkg was no less courteous than I have been IMO.
-
Hey... If we all agreed about everything this board would get boring real quick.
But I feel compelled to point out that bkg was no less courteous than I have been IMO.
I would disagree a bit on that and the wording of posts I believe proves me out on that one..at least until called on it.
So be it and not going to take that any farther.
-
If you keep making comments like that then I am going to start questioning your cognitive reasoning skills. :-)
I never once stated nor implied that I thought a 3rd party would push the GOP aside.
Please point out what post of mine you misinterpreted to mean that.
I will admit that I can on occassion be less clear than I intended on these threads.
I fully expect that the GOP will be around for a long time yet to come. It will merely be the party of lib-lite instead of conservative if things continue as they have been the past decade or so.
That whole "big tent" thing is really working out well for them. They have managed to lose the WH and both houses of congress.
Okay,so if you don`t then what is the discussion here... you don`t like where the GOP has been for the last few years and neither do I.
What is the alternative or is there one.
We can say we will never vote again for another Republican candidate unless he/she agrees ? percentage with me but what is the reality of what one will do?
-
Okay,so if you don`t then what is the discussion here... you don`t like where the GOP has been for the last few years and neither do I.
What is the alternative or is there one.
We can say we will never vote again for another Republican candidate unless he/she agrees ? percentage with me but what is the reality of what one will do?
You thought there was a point to this discussion?
And here I thought you and I were merely conversing.
The point, if there is one, is the same point that bkg brought up in the OP.
IMO that point is, why vote for the GOP if they are merely the lessor of two evils.
Is not voting for the lessor of two evils still voting for evil?
Is it worth it to merely slow down the destruction of the republic, knowing full well that the destruction will happen anyway?
Is not a death of a thousand slow cuts still death at the end of the day?
Can you convince me that the GOP will rise to the task and save the day?
What will they do differently if elected in 2010 and 2012 than they have in the past?
-
You thought there was a point to this discussion?
And here I thought you and I were merely conversing.
The point, if there is one, is the same point that bkg brought up in the OP.
IMO that point is, why vote for the GOP if they are merely the lessor of two evils.
Is not voting for the lessor of two evils still voting for evil?
Is it worth it to merely slow down the destruction of the republic, knowing full well that the destruction will happen anyway?
Is not a death of a thousand slow cuts still death at the end of the day?
Can you convince me that the GOP will rise to the task and save the day?
What will they do differently if elected in 2010 and 2012 than they have in the past?
What is the alternative in 2010...2012?
Is there a realistic answer to that which will stop the obamanation we are under?
-
What is the alternative in 2010...2012?
Is there a realistic answer to that which will stop the obamanation we are under?
Do you honestly think the 2010 and 2012 elections will have any long term effect?
I've already shared my thoughts on the whole "next election" thing.
You need to start thinking more long term.
I've already agreed with you that 2010 is an important election as a stop gap. But what then?
I look at long term. I am just as concerned about 20 years from now as I am next year.
Why?
Cuz this whole mindset of focusing merely on the next election is what is wrong with our whole current political situation.
I worry and focus on the shit my grandkids will be facing as well as what me and my adult kids are facing today.
So what is your plan beyond 2010 and 2012?
I've asked more than once and you have yet to provide much of a response.
How is your GOP of the future going to fix the issues we as a country are facing?
-
In the long run, we are doomed.
"The America of today is a laboratory example if what can happen to democracies, what has eventually happened to all perfect democracies throughout history. A perfect democracy, a 'warm body' democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restaint of citizens... which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each soveriegn citizen will always vote in public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it... which for the majority translates as 'Bread and Circuses'.
Bread and Circuses is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once the state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in it's weakened condition the state succums to an invader - the barbarians enter Rome."
:evillaugh:
-
Do you honestly think the 2010 and 2012 elections will have any long term effect?
I've already shared my thoughts on the whole "next election" thing.
You need to start thinking more long term.
I've already agreed with you that 2010 is an important election as a stop gap. But what then?
I look at long term. I am just as concerned about 20 years from now as I am next year.
Why?
Cuz this whole mindset of focusing merely on the next election is what is worng with our whole current political situation.
I worry and focus on the shit my grandkids will be facing as well as what me and my adult kids are facing today.
So what is your plan beyond 2010 and 2012?
I've asked more than once and you have yet to provide much of a response.
How is your GOP of the future going to fix the issues we as a country are facing?
We come from different perspectives as I feel that these next two elections will set the stage for where we are well past our lifetimes..see the above post regarding social security.
I have no idea what may be a political issue in 2020 nor honestly right now do I care as if the tide isn`t turned it may be meaningless.
I am taking it you think what is coming at us can be undone at will some time later and disagree.
Cap and trade will be foisted on us,no doubt an amnesty bill too along with all the "fixes" the health care monstrosity will bring up.
You want to worry about an election 20 years off then fine but I want what is happening now stopped.
Guess that is as clear as I can be about things.
As to your last question the answer is simple it will be as good as the people demand it to be,one does not have any better notion if a "Republican" will be any better then an independent,to suggest otherwise is folly.
I am only addressing what is the most viable and realistic way to achieve anything and have yet to hear a practical assessment of any alternatives that will do the same except for idealogical dreaming.
Tell me how a non Republican challenges a dem and defeats enough to stall them in the House and Senate?
What is the plan,there is just over 11 months to make it happen.
If one is hoping for some realignment of political philosophies 20 years from now then whatever,but it is pointless imo as what we all hate will be institutionalized,hell they are writing into the bill that a future Congress can`t repeal parts of it.
I guess we will have to just go on in our outlooks at this point and believe me I would hope you are the one right in how much time we have to work this stuff out.
-
author=Carl link=topic=38216.msg413521#msg413521 date=1261965735]
We come from different perspectives as I feel that these next two elections will set the stage for where we are well past our lifetimes..
I felt the same way in 94.
Now we see where we are after that.
Made a long term difference did it?
-
I felt the same way in 94.
Now we see where we are after that.
Made a long term difference did it?
It sure the hell stopped a lot of the short term lurches to the left didn`t it?
If you don`t get those then worrying about 20 years down the road is a bit pointless it would seem.
Name me one government program started that was done away with.
When anyone can get back to me.
-
I felt the same way in 94.
Now we see where we are after that.
Made a long term difference did it?
It did, considering that the hard left and the Democratic libs didn't manage to get back into power for 15 years. More to the point, however, is why the results of 1994 finally stopped paying dividends, and that has everything to do with conservatives who assumed, post-1994, that the battle against the left/liberals had finally been won for good and for all time, and who promptly went back to treating politics as a spectator sport, leaving the field wide-open for the left/libs to start seducing every politician they could over to the dark side, with the god-awful consequences we are now facing.
The lesson learned from that is not the defeatism implicit in your remarks, but the more common-sensical notion that "God helps those who help themselves" - in other words all of us, myself included, must get off our butts, get back into the political trenches, and get back into the slow-motion slogging that is day-to-day political combat against the left/liberals.
-
The problem with BOTH major parties is the fact that they really could GAF about their so-called "constituents" unless those constituents are donating constituents. I have placed several calls to my state congressman, Larry Phillips, and have yet to receive a return call. Emails are just way to easy to dismiss and apparently are, at least here in Texas. I WAS able to speak with one of his assistants, but again, it's easy for them to just shine someone on. At least that's what I've experienced in Texas.
Minnesota was an altogether different experience. Jim Abeler and Mark Olson were my state reps. I had good communications with both of them and I wasn't a contributing constituent.However, my attempts to contact Michelle Bachmann yielded the same results as I've experienced in Texas. I dunno, it just seems to me that some only seem to be interested in the money/ fame/ positional authority and a very select few, no matter which party are actually interested in looking out for the people.
-
With all due respect, I did not mean to imply that one lone voice calling up on the phone was going to make them turn on a dime. The point is to keep the pressure up, constantly, without regard to whether or not you're getting personalized customer service each time. And, perhaps just as importantly, get your friends, your neighbors, your family, whomever will listen to you, to do the same - offer to make it easy for them, you'll write the guts of the letter, stick it in a document with their name and address on it, and all they have to do is sign it if they like it, and you'll even mail it off for them. This is not the sort of thing that is going to appeal to anyone who needs immediate gratification (which is why it's hard as heck for me), but it has to be done.
-
With all due respect, I did not mean to imply that one lone voice calling up on the phone was going to make them turn on a dime. The point is to keep the pressure up, constantly, without regard to whether or not you're getting personalized customer service each time. And, perhaps just as importantly, get your friends, your neighbors, your family, whomever will listen to you, to do the same - offer to make it easy for them, you'll write the guts of the letter, stick it in a document with their name and address on it, and all they have to do is sign it if they like it, and you'll even mail it off for them. This is not the sort of thing that is going to appeal to anyone who needs immediate gratification (which is why it's hard as heck for me), but it has to be done.
I dunno, a half a dozen phone calls and the same amount of emails should have yielded a result of some sort. Bear in mind, that one phone call or email actually represents the sentiments of a significant number of other constituents that just haven't bothered to write or call. I forget the exact number, but it was an overwhelming one at the Federal level.
-
I dunno, a half a dozen phone calls and the same amount of emails should have yielded a result of some sort. Bear in mind, that one phone call of email actually represents the sentiments of a significant number of other constituents that just haven't bothered to write or call. I forget the exact number, but it was an overwhelming one at the Federal level.
There is a multiplier effect. Now, are these Congress-bee-itches of the right political persuasion, or are they on the dark side?
-
I felt the same way in 94.
Now we see where we are after that.
Made a long term difference did it?
I think this is the crux of why I asked the question, Rich, and I thank you for carrying the torch. Under GOP rule, the spending and entitlements went through the roof. Just like they are under this congress and administration, albeit at a different pace. I'm dismayed, admittedly, at the statements that wanting a true Constitutionalist is a fantasy. My perspective is that hoping for the GOP to do anything different than they have under full congress/administration power is also fantasy - which is what prompted me to want input.
My only intention was to hear peoples opinions, and challenge them based on my world view and experience, so that I could get a better understanding of the thoughts. I'm perceiving a lot of anti-constitutionalist or anti-true conservatist if they are not in the GOP. I don't understand that position - I mean that, I don't understand it. That's not an attack, it's an acknowledgement of not being able to make sense of that position. I hoped this would open the conversation, but it's turned into a pissing match, which is incredibly disappointing to me.
I guess the bottom line is that I'm aligned with your perspective of voting for someone with like ideals rather than the letter behind their name. That letter doesn't guarantee like perspectives at all anymore. At the end of the day, if I find a canditate - local, state, national - who I feel good about voting for, then he/she will get my vote, regardless of party affiliation. It's the only way I think I can feel good (at this point) about voting. :shrug:
-
I think this is the crux of why I asked the question, Rich, and I thank you for carrying the torch. Under GOP rule, the spending and entitlements went through the roof. Just like they are under this congress and administration, albeit at a different pace. I'm dismayed, admittedly, at the statements that wanting a true Constitutionalist is a fantasy. My perspective is that hoping for the GOP to do anything different than they have under full congress/administration power is also fantasy - which is what prompted me to want input.
My only intention was to hear peoples opinions, and challenge them based on my world view and experience, so that I could get a better understanding of the thoughts. I'm perceiving a lot of anti-constitutionalist or anti-true conservatist if they are not in the GOP. I don't understand that position - I mean that, I don't understand it. That's not an attack, it's an acknowledgement of not being able to make sense of that position. I hoped this would open the conversation, but it's turned into a pissing match, which is incredibly disappointing to me.
I guess the bottom line is that I'm aligned with your perspective of voting for someone with like ideals rather than the letter behind their name. That letter doesn't guarantee like perspectives at all anymore. At the end of the day, if I find a canditate - local, state, national - who I feel good about voting for, then he/she will get my vote, regardless of party affiliation. It's the only way I think I can feel good (at this point) about voting. :shrug:
I didn't realize that voting was all about "feeling good"? Pardon my language, but that strikes me as something one is more likely to find on DU.
You seem to be imagining more so-called "anti-constitutionalist or anti-true conservatist" sentiment than actually exists. Very, very few here think the GOP as it is presently constituted is the cat's pajamas; most have preferences that are, in fact, closer to yours than to anything the GOP gets on about. That being said, a lot of folks here do not think that being an enslaved political purist is an enviable thing to be, and we are realistic enough to realize that you have to work with what you've got, not simply sit around and wish for what you haven't got.
The very simple, blunt fact of the matter is, there are only two going political parties right now, the Democrat Party and the Republican Party, and any putative third party merely subtracts votes from one of those two, thereby aiding and abetting the other, without ever having a snowball's chance in hell of actually getting elected itself.
To put it more simply, any vote for a party that is not the Republican Party, as foetid as that party may seem to you, is a vote for the Democrat Party. You want to vote for some third-party conservative/ultra-conservative? Go right ahead, just so long as you are willing to be honest enough with yourself to realize that doing so is precisely the same thing as voting for Obama and the current crop of crypto-communist Democrats.
The rest of us will see what sort of semi-coherent, less than disgusting shape we can whip the current GOP into, and we will go with that, until such time as it becomes apparent that the only solution is armed revolt - and we have not yet reached that point, and we will not until after the 2010 elections.
-
I didn't realize that voting was all about "feeling good"? Pardon my language, but that strikes me as something one is more likely to find on DU.
<snip>
The rest of us will see what sort of semi-coherent, less than disgusting shape we can whip the current GOP into, and we will go with that, until such time as it becomes apparent that the only solution is armed revolt - and we have not yet reached that point, and we will not until after the 2010 elections.
Don't misinterpret the "feel good" comment as an emotional decision. That wasn't my intent. At the end of the day, I need to be able to take pride in my vote, be able to say I supported a true conservative (or the most conservative on the ballot?), and that I voted for freedom and liberty. That's all I meant by feeling good about the vote.
I agree with your last paragraph. We will get to the point that a reset is the only solution. It will happenin my lifetime, but I agree that it will be a few years out... likely after 2013.
-
Don't misinterpret the "feel good" comment as an emotional decision. That wasn't my intent. At the end of the day, I need to be able to take pride in my vote, be able to say I supported a true conservative (or the most conservative on the ballot?), and that I voted for freedom and liberty. That's all I meant by feeling good about the vote.
I agree with your last paragraph. We will get to the point that a reset is the only solution. It will happenin my lifetime, but I agree that it will be a few years out... likely after 2013.
Why not take pride in the fact that you did what you could, on the peaceful side of the line between civil society and armed rebellion, to save your country from the totalitarians and the crypto-communists? To paraphrase a very old cliche: No-one ever promised that voting would be a bowl of cherries. Also, to paraphrase a line from Rush: if you decide not to choose, you still have made a choice. There is no such thing as the perfect candidate, and waiting for such a candidate before you cast your vote is tantamount to voting for the other guy - in other words, by deciding not to choose, you have still chosen, but now you've chosen the guy whom you know is out to steal your property and gut your life rather than the guy who, if you and all of your buddies and fellow conservatives ride him hard enough, might just do things that you can at least live with.
-
Why not take pride in the fact that you did what you could, on the peaceful side of the line between civil society and armed rebellion, to save your country from the totalitarians and the crypto-communists? To paraphrase a very old cliche: No-one ever promised that voting would be a bowl of cherries. Also, to paraphrase a line from Rush: if you decide not to choose, you still have made a choice. There is no such thing as the perfect candidate, and waiting for such a candidate before you cast your vote is tantamount to voting for the other guy - in other words, by deciding not to choose, you have still chosen, but now you've chosen the guy whom you know is out to steal your property and gut your life rather than the guy who, if you and all of your buddies and fellow conservatives ride him hard enough, might just do things that you can at least live with.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I wouldn't vote :confused:. I've never stated that or intended to imply that. I will just vote for the candidate, like your first sentence, that supports freedom, liberty, COTUS and shrinking gov't. Will that person exist? Who knows. I can say Bachmann will get my vote again in 2010.
BTW, the Rush quote is "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choce." :cheersmate:
-
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I wouldn't vote :confused:. I've never stated that or intended to imply that. I will just vote for the candidate, like your first sentence, that supports freedom, liberty, COTUS and shrinking gov't. Will that person exist? Who knows. I can say Bachmann will get my vote again in 2010.
BTW, the Rush quote is "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choce." :cheersmate:
As long as we're still playing on the same team, that suits me just fine. And thanks for the correct quote for the Rush line - I couldn't remember it exactly, which is why I tried to CYA by saying that I was paraphrasing it. :-)
-
I didn't realize that voting was all about "feeling good"? Pardon my language, but that strikes me as something one is more likely to find on DU.
You seem to be imagining more so-called "anti-constitutionalist or anti-true conservatist" sentiment than actually exists. Very, very few here think the GOP as it is presently constituted is the cat's pajamas; most have preferences that are, in fact, closer to yours than to anything the GOP gets on about. That being said, a lot of folks here do not think that being an enslaved political purist is an enviable thing to be, and we are realistic enough to realize that you have to work with what you've got, not simply sit around and wish for what you haven't got.
The very simple, blunt fact of the matter is, there are only two going political parties right now, the Democrat Party and the Republican Party, and any putative third party merely subtracts votes from one of those two, thereby aiding and abetting the other, without ever having a snowball's chance in hell of actually getting elected itself.
To put it more simply, any vote for a party that is not the Republican Party, as foetid as that party may seem to you, is a vote for the Democrat Party. You want to vote for some third-party conservative/ultra-conservative? Go right ahead, just so long as you are willing to be honest enough with yourself to realize that doing so is precisely the same thing as voting for Obama and the current crop of crypto-communist Democrats.
The rest of us will see what sort of semi-coherent, less than disgusting shape we can whip the current GOP into, and we will go with that, until such time as it becomes apparent that the only solution is armed revolt - and we have not yet reached that point, and we will not until after the 2010 elections.
I think the only way it will work is if a candidate does what Lieberman did -- career politician, with a solid base of supporters, making a political statement with the move to Independent, or something similar. They can't be new kids on the block.
-
Jesus Christ... You DO like to make assumptions don't you? You seem to be assuming that I don't.
I DO call them.
I DO write them.
I DO e-mail them.
I DO fax them.
Just as I do with my Congressperson and Senators at the state and federal level.
I haven't taken a baseball bat to one yet, but I'm keeping that option on the table. :naughty:
No, just covering the bases here. The "make me want to vote for them" debate has played out to death and caused a massive banning at FR, to the point of near hysteria. The I-am-staying-home-or-voting-for-my-guy usually goes hand in hand so just throwing it out there. One of those rinse, wash and repeats.
I have been involved with local politics much of my adult life. I know my local politicians (not federal, I only know my District's Congressman) very well and speak to most of them weekly/monthly or on a regular basis. They know what my position is on pretty much everything, as I know what their position is. Give and take is the name of the game. They get my support (we are talking a great deal of moderate Democrats here in MA, GOP is on life support here) if they are on the same page with me on many important issues. I don't vote party line (I do for federal office), cause I can't here in MA.
When I state local - I mean your city/town selectboard or councilors. Your school committees are supposed to be apolitical so there shouldn't be a political designation after their name on the ballot, although if you are involved enough you know what politics they espouse. If you are heavily involved locally then fantastic. Run for office if you can swing it. There is an old Chinese saying I like about a man moves a mountain by first removing small stones. I think we can all handle the stones and should aspire to move the mountain.
-
I don't consider a third party out of the question IF they have enough financial backing and have strong candidates. If one looks at Ross Perot, what killed his campaign was the fact that he threw in, then reneged, threw in again. His indecisiveness is what killed him.
Fred Thompson was a potential shining star for the GOP. His procrastination and his half-hearted attempt at running killed him. I really liked Fred, too.
All in all, I keep the MN Gubernatorial Election of 1998 in the back of my head. Nobody expected Jesse Ventura to win, not even himself. People DO tire of the same old shit.
-
I don't consider a third party out of the question IF they have enough financial backing and have strong candidates. If one looks at Ross Perot, what killed his campaign was the fact that he threw in, then reneged, threw in again. His indecisiveness is what killed him.
Fred Thompson was a potential shining star for the GOP. His procrastination and his half-hearted attempt at running killed him. I really liked Fred, too.
All in all, I keep the MN Gubernatorial Election of 1998 in the back of my head. Nobody expected Jesse Ventura to win, not even himself. People DO tire of the same old shit.
Exactly correct. Perot would have won had he not waffled. And Ventura won because he didn't kis asses and didn't care if people voted for him. That resonated with people like me (didn't vote for him) who now proceed with the "if they WANT the job, they're the wrong person for the job" model.
-
And Ventura's reign in MN was by and large considered a joke.
The protest vote got him into office...but made him ineffective after he got there because he really didn't have the support of either side.
It's the same situation we'd have faced had (God forbid) Ross Perot been elected.
We can effect change within the two party system. We just have to get off our collective asses and vote and support and knock on doors for the person that best represents our beliefs...not just pull the lever for the same old RINO just to keep the sear represented by an (R)
Third party types like John Young and Ross Perot and Kinky Friedman make for nice headlines during an election. But all they end up doing is hurting one party or the other.
Case in point...had Perot NOT run in 92...Bill Clinton would still be chasing skirts around the Capitol Grounds in Little Rock.
-
I doin't know that, frankly, I care if a "party" gets hurt. I'm more interested in a candidate than a party.
Ventura did a lot for MN. But he got a lot of bad press for being 1-Jesse Ventura 2-not part of the establishment and 3-tax custs.
Our vehicle tabs were the lowest in my lifetime. Now we're 1.5% of LIST PRICE of a vehicle, with a standarized depreciation method. It's fawked. Cars that were maxed at $250 (I think that was the limit) are now $1300.
I'm opening to working w/in the party, but I still don't know two things. will the GOP put forth a conservative candidate? and Will the GOP do anything different in the future than they have in the past?
I fear the answer to both of those is NO.
-
I doin't know that, frankly, I care if a "party" gets hurt. I'm more interested in a candidate than a party.
Ventura did a lot for MN. But he got a lot of bad press for being 1-Jesse Ventura 2-not part of the establishment and 3-tax custs.
Our vehicle tabs were the lowest in my lifetime. Now we're 1.5% of LIST PRICE of a vehicle, with a standarized depreciation method. It's fawked. Cars that were maxed at $250 (I think that was the limit) are now $1300.
I'm opening to working w/in the party, but I still don't know two things. will the GOP put forth a conservative candidate? and Will the GOP do anything different in the future than they have in the past?
I fear the answer to both of those is NO.
Then I fear that you're in for a lot of frustration and heartbreak in the future. Third party candidates are an island unto themselves and tend to be extremely useless once they manage to get into office..if they ever do.
-
Then I fear that you're in for a lot of frustration and heartbreak in the future. Third party candidates are an island unto themselves and tend to be extremely useless once they manage to get into office..if they ever do.
I can't agree that they are useless, especially on the local level. Throw them into the Presidency, and you'll have two parties fighting him/her, I agree. Maybe that's exactly what we need?
What makes you confident (honest question, cause I lack such confidence) that the GOP will go conservative? Will change the direction? will reduce the debt? Will, for the first time in decades, promote liberty and freedom? I fear that they will be in the future as they have been in the past - liberal leaning big spenders.
-
The only viable way that a third party could even work is IF they also took a significant amount of seats in the House and the Senate, in addition to the Presidency. Then, they would have to work amongst ALL of the parties.
I remember Jesse having some tough problems because the MN house and senate was either Dem or Republican. That sure didn't help him much.
-
The only viable way that a third party could even work is IF they also took a significant amount of seats in the House and the Senate, in addition to the Presidency. Then, they would have to work amongst ALL of the parties.
I remember Jesse having some tough problems because the MN house and senate was either Dem or Republican. That sure didn't help him much.
The only way...IMHO...that a 3rd party would be worth anything either on a state or national level is if...for example...every Conservative Republican you can think of suddenly switched their party affiliation to something like the "Conservative Party"...or the "Constitution Party".
Same thing with the Libs.
Otherwise it's political suicide to try and run on a national level as a third party candidate. Just ask Ron Paul.
What people fail to realize is that while third parties sound great...all you have to do is look at countries like Italy...or Israel...or other nations that have thousands of smaller "third parties" that slice up the vote so much that at best a Prime Minister or President of one of those countries has to cajole army twist and threaten enough of them into a shaky coalition just to get basic legislation passed...at worst it's a train wreck of one issue politicians that can't even agree on what time to adjourn every day.
Our two party system isn't perfect...no system TRULY is...but it's in reality a better option than the alternatives that face us.
-
The only way...IMHO...that a 3rd party would be worth anything either on a state or national level is if...for example...every Conservative Republican you can think of suddenly switched their party affiliation to something like the "Conservative Party"...or the "Constitution Party".
I agree with this. Once (or if) conservatives start jumping ship, then we will have a whole new ballgame. Given that we're seeing people jump back and forth between the two parties tells me that the parties are not very different.
What people fail to realize is that while third parties sound great...all you have to do is look at countries like Italy...or Israel...or other nations that have thousands of smaller "third parties" that slice up the vote so much that at best a Prime Minister or President of one of those countries has to cajole army twist and threaten enough of them into a shaky coalition just to get basic legislation passed...at worst it's a train wreck of one issue politicians that can't even agree on what time to adjourn every day.
Would you rather have a government that, in their words, gets stuff done? Or one that is effectively neutered due to infighting? Frankly, I'd prefer the latter. When the government doesn't get stuff done, we are in a better place - when they are getting things done, it's almost always at the expense of freedom and liberty.
Our two party system isn't perfect...no system TRULY is...but it's in reality a better option than the alternatives that face us.
I would agree with this if we really had two separate parties. They are very close together now. Well, the dems have pulled the GOP on a hard left... and then turned a harder left themselves. So the choice seems to be lib or socialist. We don't seem to have the lib vs. conservative anymore.
-
I agree with this. Once (or if) conservatives start jumping ship, then we will have a whole new ballgame. Given that we're seeing people jump back and forth between the two parties tells me that the parties are not very different.
But their not going to...for many different reasons...some good and some bad.
The parties are different. Fundamentally at their core they are worlds apart. The ones like Specter and Jeffords that you see jumping ship never were Republicans to begin with. They'd be better off in the "Opportunist Party".
The Reagan Republicans need to remind the Rockerfeller Repubs in the party that we "paid for this microphone"...and take it back. Like I said...we have to buck what the "thinkers" in the Party like Newt or Steele say we should do (like vote for Scozzafava in NY-23) just because it's the safe vote. THAT is what leads to us becoming the Dem-Lite Party. Instead we should be more bold and unafraid like Palin and endorse and support the candidate within the primaries that best represents us.
We wouldn't have been talking about Arlen Specter jumping ship had we Republicans gotten more behind Pat Toomey or whom ever the Conservative was that opposed Arlen last time he ran for re-election. Same thing applies in Maine...Rhode Island...etc.
Would you rather have a government that, in their words, gets stuff done? Or one that is effectively neutered due to infighting? Frankly, I'd prefer the latter. When the government doesn't get stuff done, we are in a better place - when they are getting things done, it's almost always at the expense of freedom and liberty.
When Democrats and RINO's don't do anything we are better off. When Conservative Republicans roll up their sleeves and get to work...it's good for everyone.
What we need as a party sounds like it doesn't make sense but is the root of the problem.
We (Republicans) need to get over trying to have a love affair with the media in hopes of being "liked" and at the same time need to quit living in fear of them savaging every thing we say that doesn't fit their Liberal mindset.
We're not neutered from infighting...we're neutered because of fear of falsely being called "racist" because we oppose Affirmative Action in hiring policies or support racial profiling at the airport security line.
Saying that having a government that gets nothing done is beautiful prose for the talk shows and the political stump speech...but bringing the federal government to a grinding halt means I don't get paid. It means that for the sake of political "points" supplies don't get where they need to go in war time.
Republicans shot themselves in the foot when Newt and company brought the federal government to a grinding halt in their tiff with Billy Jeff.
So you might want to rethink slightly your belief that government not doing anything is better for everyone.
I would agree with this if we really had two separate parties. They are very close together now. Well, the dems have pulled the GOP on a hard left... and then turned a harder left themselves. So the choice seems to be lib or socialist. We don't seem to have the lib vs. conservative anymore.
That's so much regurgitated FreeeRepublic crap and you know it! Just because the pundits and the MSM say there's virtually no difference...or at least portray that in their coverage...doesn't mean it's true.
-
I'm not a republican.
Aside from the Bush tax cuts, what has gov't done to encourage freedom and liberty in the last 15 years? If the answer is few, compared to socialist policies, then I once again have to wonder why having a neutered gov't would be a bad thing.
I've never even been to freerepublic - don't even know WTF it is. I stand behind my statement, and I think the GOP record supports my statement. Willing to be convinced otherwise, but given the growth of gov't and spending under the GOP, I no longer see them as a conservative party.:shrug:
-
I'm not a republican.
Aside from the Bush tax cuts, what has gov't done to encourage freedom and liberty in the last 15 years? If the answer is few, compared to socialist policies, then I once again have to wonder why having a neutered gov't would be a bad thing.
I've never even been to freerepublic - don't even know WTF it is. I stand behind my statement, and I think the GOP record supports my statement. Willing to be convinced otherwise, but given the growth of gov't and spending under the GOP, I no longer see them as a conservative party.:shrug:
You can't look back at the last 15 years. You have to look more deeply. Reagan, while not my ideal Republican (that's for another thread), did a LOT of good for this country. Perhaps look at his tenure in office. GHWB merely let what Reagan and his staff put into motion continue to work. Clinton did, too, at least economically, for the most part. Clinton basically rode the wave of Reaganomics until he started making banks and lenders loan money to people who would otherwise not have qualified to own a home. That homeowners wave lasted until 2005. It was huge and I benefitted from it immensely. The jobs started going away around Sep 2000 shortly after the tech sector crash (FYI, that's still pre-GWB). Not much to be found out there. As the jobs market slowly declined, the housing sector started to fall. I watched it all happen right in front of my eyes. (My ex-wife is a Real Estate Broker up there in MN.)
-
You can't look back at the last 15 years. You have to look more deeply. Reagan, while not my ideal Republican (that's for another thread), did a LOT of good for this country. Perhaps look at his tenure in office. GHWB merely let what Reagan and his staff put into motion continue to work. Clinton did, too, at least economically, for the most part. Clinton basically rode the wave of Reaganomics until he started making banks and lenders loan money to people who would otherwise not have qualified to own a home. That homeowners wave lasted until 2005. It was huge and I benefitted from it immensely. The jobs started going away around Sep 2000 shortly after the tech sector crash (FYI, that's still pre-GWB). Not much to be found out there. As the jobs market slowly declined, the housing sector started to fall. I watched it all happen right in front of my eyes. (My ex-wife is a Real Estate Broker up there in MN.)
I agree - Regan did well by people. But while you suggest I don't look back only 15 years, I also suggest that we don't always look at Regan. What about before him? What about after him? He was, in many ways, an enigma. The GOP has strayed FAR from his positions.
-
I don`t think you will find anyone here that is going to laud the Republicans for spending but that is not all there is to their record either.
Compare the response to terrorism with what we have now as well.
One could say that goes a long way to protecting our freedom and liberty.
How about forcing Clinton into some welfare reform?
Course parts or all of that are gone now
Unions weren`t on the receiving end of spending the like we have never seen before as payoffs.
It is easy to find fault and the things we don`t like stick in our minds but I didn`t see a rush to take over health care from them,11 months in and that train wreck is now a reality.
It isn`t a perfect world and never will be.
-
I've never even been to freerepublic - don't even know WTF it is. I stand behind my statement, and I think the GOP record supports my statement. Willing to be convinced otherwise, but given the growth of gov't and spending under the GOP, I no longer see them as a conservative party.:shrug:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2243314/posts
-
Voting 3rd party got us Clinton....when Perot took many votes away from the Republican Party...Voting for a third party in the next election will yield us 4 more years of the Great Zero.
I told myself after I voted for the McCain/Palin ticket that I will not vote for a RINO again...but after seeing the ineptitude of the current sitting POTUS...I will not throw my vote to a 3rd party president, only to hand Lord Zero victory and another 4 years....as McCain's mother said...I will hold my nose and vote for the Republican candidate, even if he is not conservative enough for me. While the (R) candidate will get my vote by default....not voting may be worse.
My hope is that the Republican party will sway more to the right.
-
The secret to changing the Repub party to our way of thinking is do it from within and run good candidates that have conservative values. A third party candidate may have a chance in local elections but it ain't going to happen in a Presidential election. Firstly, it takes tremendous amounts of money and if the candidate is not allowed in the debates, he or she will not stand a chance. Secondly, it would be almost an impossibility for a 3rd party candidate to win enough electoral votes to be elected. Even if that candidate wound up with more electoral votes than the R or D, don't you think the selection in Congress would come down to a strictly partisan vote? That would leave the 3rd party candidate in 3rd place.
The question was "why should I vote for a Republician". ANSWER: After 9/11 the Repubs under GWB kept us safe for 7 1/2 years. BTW, if your dead, all this other stuff like taxes, big government, health care, guns control, etc. etc. is rather immaterial. I think Bush did a great job in keeping us safe. The present dummie in the WH terrifies the hell out of me. That is a good enough reason to vote to oust him and his liberal friends that do not have a clue about the safety of this country. If that is not a good enough reason to remove these amateurs, I pity you.
-
The secret to changing the Repub party to our way of thinking is do it from within and run good candidates that have conservative values. A third party candidate may have a chance in local elections but it ain't going to happen in a Presidential election. Firstly, it takes tremendous amounts of money and if the candidate is not allowed in the debates, he or she will not stand a chance. Secondly, it would be almost an impossibility for a 3rd party candidate to win enough electoral votes to be elected. Even if that candidate wound up with more electoral votes than the R or D, don't you think the selection in Congress would come down to a strictly partisan vote? That would leave the 3rd party candidate in 3rd place.
The question was "why should I vote for a Republician". ANSWER: After 9/11 the Repubs under GWB kept us safe for 7 1/2 years. BTW, if your dead, all this other stuff like taxes, big government, health care, guns control, etc. etc. is rather immaterial. I think Bush did a great job in keeping us safe. The present dummie in the WH terrifies the hell out of me. That is a good enough reason to vote to oust him and his liberal friends that do not have a clue about the safety of this country. If that is not a good enough reason to remove these amateurs, I pity you.
QFT.
:clap:
-
BTW, if your dead, all this other stuff like taxes, big government, health care, guns control, etc. etc. is rather immaterial. I think Bush did a great job in keeping us safe. The present dummie in the WH terrifies the hell out of me. That is a good enough reason to vote to oust him and his liberal friends that do not have a clue about the safety of this country. If that is not a good enough reason to remove these amateurs, I pity you.
We have Teh Winnah!
-
Voting 3rd party got us Clinton....when Perot took many votes away from the Republican Party...Voting for a third party in the next election will yield us 4 more years of the Great Zero.
I told myself after I voted for the McCain/Palin ticket that I will not vote for a RINO again...but after seeing the ineptitude of the current sitting POTUS...I will not throw my vote to a 3rd party president, only to hand Lord Zero victory and another 4 years....as McCain's mother said...I will hold my nose and vote for the Republican candidate, even if he is not conservative enough for me. While the (R) candidate will get my vote by default....not voting may be worse.
My hope is that the Republican party will sway more to the right.
The above quote is the mind of the average conservative American. I do respect that opinion yet I do not agree with it.
I am reminded of something I read a while back. It was a commentary concerning the election of the 4th Presidency of the United States. John Adams was attempting to be re-elected for a second term and of course we know that Thomas Jefferson won. Yet what struck me as so amazing in this commentary was the situation that the government and the people were in at the time. Adams managed to keep the United States out of war with England and France in order to preserve the Union of the nation and this was his single great accomplishment during his administration. Yet Adams was branded as a Federalist. Years later his son John Quincy Adams would also follow this same branding and government would grow further with national banks and departments of the interior. Yet John Adams for all of his fevered pitch from 1775 to 1776 seeking a free and independent nation, once elected not only as president but also as vice president under Washington, he sought to re shackle some of the freedoms of the people. One of these attempts was a direct attack upon the 1st amendment violating the right of free speech by not allowing dissenting remarks concerning the President of the United States. Jefferson had a field day with Adams that destroyed their friendship. In the attempted re election of Adams, Adams did not even make a close second.
I do find it interesting that Adams and Jefferson rekindled their friendship before their deaths. Also these two men, Jefferson and Adams, marked the last two living founding fathers in the 1820's and they both lamented even then what had become of the government. In 1826 there was to be a commemorative celebration on July 4th. John Quincy was president at the time and his father John was invited to come to the Capitol. There John Adams viewed a new painting that is now famous today, you can find it on the back of a 2 dollar bill. The painting was of all of the founding fathers signing the Declaration of Independence. Adams scolded the painter saying that this event never took place. He stated that "we were at war with England at the time" and that each member of congress signed the declaration as he would pass through Philadelphia then immediately leave for fear of British assault upon the city. Adams claimed that the artist was re-writing history and creating this "modern American history" in its place. Adams then later claimed that the history, purpose and need for the revolution and an independent nation was lost forever. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson he asked a question. The question was "Who would write the history of the revolution?" Jefferson replied "No man will" but Jefferson stated that if men are to remember and to learn what the revolution was for and why we sacrificed that they would only be left with scattered facts, dates and events that they must piece together to find its meaning. Both men died on the same day, July 4th 1826, the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
How does this speak to us today within our present circumstances? If men that founded this very nation could look back in their own lifetime and see how far removed the government had become from what it was intended to be, how much more are we off course today? For me it is not a matter of who is left or right for when I see a Republican or Democrat I see the same party. I do not see a liberal nor do I see a conservative. When I look through the lens of our founders I see them as traitors. Until the American people are willing to once again demand that they are represented as intended by our constitution then our choice will always be the lesser of two evils rather than what is right or good for our children.
I am sorry, I am not satisfied with a Republican candidate based upon thier past offered candidates for our nation. So let me ask the people in this forum. Who will write the history of the demise of this nation? For if we do not change, if we are not willing to change perhaps only facts, dates and events will survive for the next generation to piece together the mistakes we made.
-
The above quote is the mind of the average conservative American. I do respect that opinion yet I do not agree with it.
I am reminded of something I read a while back. It was a commentary concerning the election of the 4th Presidency of the United States. John Adams was attempting to be re-elected for a second term and of course we know that Thomas Jefferson won. Yet what struck me as so amazing in this commentary was the situation that the government and the people were in at the time. Adams managed to keep the United States out of war with England and France in order to preserve the Union of the nation and this was his single great accomplishment during his administration. Yet Adams was branded as a Federalist. Years later his son John Quincy Adams would also follow this same branding and government would grow further with national banks and departments of the interior. Yet John Adams for all of his fevered pitch from 1775 to 1776 seeking a free and independent nation, once elected not only as president but also as vice president under Washington, he sought to re shackle some of the freedoms of the people. One of these attempts was a direct attack upon the 1st amendment violating the right of free speech by not allowing dissenting remarks concerning the President of the United States. Jefferson had a field day with Adams that destroyed their friendship. In the attempted re election of Adams, Adams did not even make a close second.
I do find it interesting that Adams and Jefferson rekindled their friendship before their deaths. Also these two men, Jefferson and Adams, marked the last two living founding fathers in the 1820's and they both lamented even then what had become of the government. In 1826 there was to be a commemorative celebration on July 4th. John Quincy was president at the time and his father John was invited to come to the Capitol. There John Adams viewed a new painting that is now famous today, you can find it on the back of a 2 dollar bill. The painting was of all of the founding fathers signing the Declaration of Independence. Adams scolded the painter saying that this event never took place. He stated that "we were at war with England at the time" and that each member of congress signed the declaration as he would pass through Philadelphia then immediately leave for fear of British assault upon the city. Adams claimed that the artist was re-writing history and creating this "modern American history" in its place. Adams then later claimed that the history, purpose and need for the revolution and an independent nation was lost forever. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson he asked a question. The question was "Who would write the history of the revolution?" Jefferson replied "No man will" but Jefferson stated that if men are to remember and to learn what the revolution was for and why we sacrificed that they would only be left with scattered facts, dates and events that they must piece together to find its meaning. Both men died on the same day, July 4th 1826, the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
How does this speak to us today within our present circumstances? If men that founded this very nation could look back in their own lifetime and see how far removed the government had become from what it was intended to be, how much more are we off course today? For me it is not a matter of who is left or right for when I see a Republican or Democrat I see the same party. I do not see a liberal nor do I see a conservative. When I look through the lens of our founders I see them as traitors. Until the American people are willing to once again demand that they are represented as intended by our constitution then our choice will always be the lesser of two evils rather than what is right or good for our children.
I am sorry, I am not satisfied with a Republican candidate based upon thier past offered candidates for our nation. So let me ask the people in this forum. Who will write the history of the demise of this nation? For if we do not change, if we are not willing to change perhaps only facts, dates and events will survive for the next generation to piece together the mistakes we made.
Point in time in history where the Republican party was acceptable to you is?
-
Point in time in history where the Republican party was acceptable to you is?
How about finding a new record to play. We've heard this one already...... Several times in fact.
-
Point in time in history where the Republican party was acceptable to you is?
Jeffersons time the Republican party was quite good. Pre 1900's there were issues but still far more in line than today. Yet in todays time, save the trouble and call Republicans what they really are, Democrats. To call it like it is, call the Democrats of today as they really are, Communists.
-
Jeffersons time the Republican party was quite good. Pre 1900's there were issues but still far more in line than today. Yet in todays time, save the trouble and call Republicans what they really are, Democrats. To call it like it is, call the Democrats of today as they really are, Communists.
Sure, we can get the time of Jefferson back again. Absolutely.
I am going to head back to reality now. You enjoy the site.
-
How about finding a new record to play. We've heard this one already...... Several times in fact.
Which was never answered was it?
-
The above quote is the mind of the average conservative American. I do respect that opinion yet I do not agree with it.
I am reminded of something I read a while back. It was a commentary concerning the election of the 4th Presidency of the United States. John Adams was attempting to be re-elected for a second term and of course we know that Thomas Jefferson won. Yet what struck me as so amazing in this commentary was the situation that the government and the people were in at the time. Adams managed to keep the United States out of war with England and France in order to preserve the Union of the nation and this was his single great accomplishment during his administration. Yet Adams was branded as a Federalist. Years later his son John Quincy Adams would also follow this same branding and government would grow further with national banks and departments of the interior. Yet John Adams for all of his fevered pitch from 1775 to 1776 seeking a free and independent nation, once elected not only as president but also as vice president under Washington, he sought to re shackle some of the freedoms of the people. One of these attempts was a direct attack upon the 1st amendment violating the right of free speech by not allowing dissenting remarks concerning the President of the United States. Jefferson had a field day with Adams that destroyed their friendship. In the attempted re election of Adams, Adams did not even make a close second.
I do find it interesting that Adams and Jefferson rekindled their friendship before their deaths. Also these two men, Jefferson and Adams, marked the last two living founding fathers in the 1820's and they both lamented even then what had become of the government. In 1826 there was to be a commemorative celebration on July 4th. John Quincy was president at the time and his father John was invited to come to the Capitol. There John Adams viewed a new painting that is now famous today, you can find it on the back of a 2 dollar bill. The painting was of all of the founding fathers signing the Declaration of Independence. Adams scolded the painter saying that this event never took place. He stated that "we were at war with England at the time" and that each member of congress signed the declaration as he would pass through Philadelphia then immediately leave for fear of British assault upon the city. Adams claimed that the artist was re-writing history and creating this "modern American history" in its place. Adams then later claimed that the history, purpose and need for the revolution and an independent nation was lost forever. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson he asked a question. The question was "Who would write the history of the revolution?" Jefferson replied "No man will" but Jefferson stated that if men are to remember and to learn what the revolution was for and why we sacrificed that they would only be left with scattered facts, dates and events that they must piece together to find its meaning. Both men died on the same day, July 4th 1826, the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
How does this speak to us today within our present circumstances? If men that founded this very nation could look back in their own lifetime and see how far removed the government had become from what it was intended to be, how much more are we off course today? For me it is not a matter of who is left or right for when I see a Republican or Democrat I see the same party. I do not see a liberal nor do I see a conservative. When I look through the lens of our founders I see them as traitors. Until the American people are willing to once again demand that they are represented as intended by our constitution then our choice will always be the lesser of two evils rather than what is right or good for our children.
I am sorry, I am not satisfied with a Republican candidate based upon thier past offered candidates for our nation. So let me ask the people in this forum. Who will write the history of the demise of this nation? For if we do not change, if we are not willing to change perhaps only facts, dates and events will survive for the next generation to piece together the mistakes we made.
If you are taling about the current President, you are blind. I do not agree with your assessment. Obama is hell bent on taking us on a socialistic journey. One that we will never recover from. For example, relinquishing our sovereignty, one world order, take over of the banks, auto makers, health care,etc. Next will be the energy sector. If you have not heard, the plan is to tax coal, oil and natural gas so high that greenie energy will be able to compete in price.
This administration will dumb down our military and intelligence agencies. That is what happened under Carter, Clinton and now Obama. Do you understand that? Bush kept us safe for 7 1/2 years. Obama does not know what he is doing. My number one concern of any President and should be yours is who is best to protect this country from attack. Repubs. win hands down. Your history lesson does not mean zip if terrorist attacks start happening on our home soil. I am afraid that it will happen soon because of the incompetence of this DEMOCRAT IN OFFICE.
-
Which was never answered was it?
In fact it was answered, people just simply refuse to listen. That is unless its the GOP talking, then they seem to listen just like the liberal idiots listen to Obama. Quite interesting isnt it?
Show me a man worthy and I will back him. Its not complicated really. All he must do is follow and abide by the constitution of the United States of America. I dont give a crap what political flag he is under. In fact, find just one in your party and I will vote for him. Then perhaps we will return to the time of Jefferson. Its not that hard to return there really, the framework already exists, its just no one will listen. Including you.
-
they are like to communists that way.
It's a flow chart sort of thinking, complete with detailed talking points the ronulan infiltraitors copy and paste in almost any situation.
You say two party system works, they trot out Jefferson.
etc etc etc.
I say kill them all. Let ron sort them out.
-
Which was never answered was it?
I answered it. It's not my problem if you didn't like the response.
If you want to continue to vote for the lessor of two evils, while knowing full well that you are still voting for evil, knock yourself out.
Some of us have some serious reservations and concerns about the GOP and the way they have been conducting themselves for the past 20 years.
All we are doing is expressing those concerns.
If that gets your shorts in a knot, that's not my problem either.
-
If you are taling about the current President, you are blind. I do not agree with your assessment. Obama is hell bent on taking us on a socialistic journey. One that we will never recover from. For example, relinquishing our sovereignty, one world order, take over of the banks, auto makers, health care,etc. Next will be the energy sector. If you have not heard, the plan is to tax coal, oil and natural gas so high that greenie energy will be able to compete in price.
This administration will dumb down our military and intelligence agencies. That is what happened under Carter, Clinton and now Obama. Do you understand that? Bush kept us safe for 7 1/2 years. Obama does not know what he is doing. My number one concern of any President and should be yours is who is best to protect this country from attack. Repubs. win hands down. Your history lesson does not mean zip if terrorist attacks start happening on our home soil. I am afraid that it will happen soon because of the incompetence of this DEMOCRAT IN OFFICE.
I was not talking about Obama at all. I was talking about the mentality of this repeated teeter totter we are on repeating history again and again. I know what Obama is doing and your right... he is Communist. Next time read more specifically what I am dealing with please.
-
Jeffersons time the Republican party was quite good. Pre 1900's there were issues but still far more in line than today. Yet in todays time, save the trouble and call Republicans what they really are, Democrats. To call it like it is, call the Democrats of today as they really are, Communists.
The Republican party in Jefferson's time - which "Jefferson" are you referring to? Or are you, perchance, referring to the Democratic-Republican Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party_(United_States)) founded jointly by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison around 1792 - you know, the party that ended up being the precursor to today's Democrat Party?
-
In fact it was answered, people just simply refuse to listen. That is unless its the GOP talking, then they seem to listen just like the liberal idiots listen to Obama. Quite interesting isnt it?
Show me a man worthy and I will back him. Its not complicated really. All he must do is follow and abide by the constitution of the United States of America. I dont give a crap what political flag he is under. In fact, find just one in your party and I will vote for him. Then perhaps we will return to the time of Jefferson. Its not that hard to return there really, the framework already exists, its just no one will listen. Including you.
Then you, sadly, will find no-one to back. It's a little sad to see someone with such clear conservative convictions sideline himself on the basis of a purity test, so that, when we all clank our Democrat-forged chains together someday, he can say "well, at least I didn't vote for any of this."
-
In fact it was answered, people just simply refuse to listen. That is unless its the GOP talking, then they seem to listen just like the liberal idiots listen to Obama. Quite interesting isnt it?
Show me a man worthy and I will back him. Its not complicated really. All he must do is follow and abide by the constitution of the United States of America. I dont give a crap what political flag he is under. In fact, find just one in your party and I will vote for him. Then perhaps we will return to the time of Jefferson. Its not that hard to return there really, the framework already exists, its just no one will listen. Including you.
You know what is played? The whine that gets trotted out from the la-la-libertarians when every election cycle heats up (and it matters not who is President, or who has control of Congress). This fictional candidate is the only one they will support -- except he does not exist, and will never exist. Their own look-at-me loon Dr. Ron is so significantly flawed to this uptopian paradise, yet they can't even see it. Even when it is spelled out in intricate detail to them.
Whine.. I want, I want, I want..... not going to happen. Jefferson was not perfect. He paid the press to trash his good friend Adams.... or my bad, he actually wrote the lies that were published. When Adams begged him to help him intervene with France to ward off war, Jefferson scoffed at him and refused -- all to make Adams' party look bad in the upcoming election. Politics has been ugly as hell since the founding of our country. Candidates are not perfect, and our founding fathers could never have imagined in their wildest dreams the superpower this country is today.
Dr. Ron ain't Jefferson. He ain't even close.
-
The Republican party in Jefferson's time - which "Jefferson" are you referring to? Or are you, perchance, referring to the Democratic-Republican Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party_(United_States)) founded jointly by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison around 1792 - you know, the party that ended up being the precursor to today's Democrat Party?
You are correct only in part. It is not the model of the democratic party today. The model of the democratic party today is modeled off of the progressive ideology of socialism from the early 1900's that took deep root in the 1920's. Yet the fundamental changes were already in effect shortly after 1900. You cannot in any way equate the two as the same.
The model installed in the early 1900's is the same ideology used by Hitler, I would not exactly call that Jeffersonian, now would you?
-
I answered it. It's not my problem if you didn't like the response.
If you want to continue to vote for the lessor of two evils, while knowing full well that you are still voting for evil, knock yourself out.
Some of us have some serious reservations and concerns about the GOP and the way they have been conducting themselves for the past 20 years.
All we are doing is expressing those concerns.
If that gets your shorts in a knot, that's not my problem either.
It doesn't, but the political immature whining from whatever party it is you fancy yourself as is what rolls my eyes, and puts people like Obama into office.
-
You know what is played? The whine that gets trotted out from the la-la-libertarians when every election cycle heats up (and it matters not who is President, or who has control of Congress). This fictional candidate is the only one they will support -- except he does not exist, and will never exist. Their own look-at-me loon Dr. Ron is so significantly flawed to this uptopian paradise, yet they can't even see it. Even when it is spelled out in intricate detail to them.
Whine.. I want, I want, I want..... not going to happen. Jefferson was not perfect. He paid the press to trash his good friend Adams.... or my bad, he actually wrote the lies that were published. When Adams begged him to help him intervene with France to ward off war, Jefferson scoffed at him and refused -- all to make Adams' party look bad in the upcoming election. Politics has been ugly as hell since the founding of our country. Candidates are not perfect, and our founding fathers could never have imagined in their wildest dreams the superpower this country is today.
Dr. Ron ain't Jefferson. He ain't even close.
Correct on all counts. Politics has always been ugly.
Yet where did I ever say I was a Ron Paul supporter? Where did I ever say I am a libertarian, for I am not.... You assume much. Yet your right on another count, Paul is not Jefferson by a long shot. By the way, I never voted for Ron Paul... so save your Paul rants for someone who it actually applies to. I do accept some of the mans ideas as good, yet never has his position been good enough for me to vote for. His son... maybe one day. They are like night and day.
-
Correct on all counts. Politics has always been ugly.
Yet where did I ever say I was a Ron Paul supporter? Where did I ever say I am a libertarian, for I am not.... You assume much. Yet your right on another count, Paul is not Jefferson by a long shot. By the way, I never voted for Ron Paul... so save your Paul rants for someone who it actually applies to. I do accept some of the mans ideas as good, yet never has his position been good enough for me to vote for. His son... maybe one day. They are like night and day.
You entered a Ron Paul thread to question why he is "hated" so, and you are the one who assumes I am talking about you.
-
You entered a Ron Paul thread to question why he is "hated" so, and you are the one who assumes I am talking about you.
When I was in that thread I was speaking directly as to "why do people hate him so much?" and also I found it amazing at how Republicans can trash a man so badly that does in fact have some decent ideas. I mean really if your wife cooks a meal for you and one item on the plate is bad do you cuss her out and throw away the food?
Sounds a bit childish and idiotic to me.
-
I was not talking about Obama at all. I was talking about the mentality of this repeated teeter totter we are on repeating history again and again. I know what Obama is doing and your right... he is Communist. Next time read more specifically what I am dealing with please.
Since you are a newbee here, you do not get to formulate the subject matter. My opinion is that Obama is going to screw things up, and that it is imperative that Repubs take over the House and/or the Senate to limit the damage Obama will inflict on us. All this other gibber jabberish is immaterial to me.
-
You are correct only in part. It is not the model of the democratic party today. The model of the democratic party today is modeled off of the progressive ideology of socialism from the early 1900's that took deep root in the 1920's. Yet the fundamental changes were already in effect shortly after 1900. You cannot in any way equate the two as the same.
The model installed in the early 1900's is the same ideology used by Hitler, I would not exactly call that Jeffersonian, now would you?
Nonetheless, putting aside the obvious hyperbole in my initial statement, there was no "Republican Party" or any close-enough analogue back in the time of Jefferson, so your statement to that effect is, essentially, nugatory. Also, no, I do not see the origins of the Democratic party that we have now as springing from some NSDAP-style ideology implemented back in the early 1900s - the current Democrat Party clearly draws most of its strength from the violent elements of the 1960s hard left, and became merely the convenient vehicle for them to take up warfare against the United States by other means (i.e., other than by violence - such as Bill Ayers' bomb-throwing campaigns with the Weathermen). That a group of hard-core violent leftists should develop striking similarities to the NSDAP is merely evidence of convergent evolution, and should not come as any real surprise as the original leftists - Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and their fellow-travelers - were grist for the mill of the NSDAP, which drew a lot of inspiration from those original leftists.
But that's all beside the point; it's still a crying shame to have a good, committed conservative sideline himself because he feels his hands are too dainty to work with the only material we have on hand today.
-
Since you are a newbee here, you do not get to formulate the subject matter. My opinion is that Obama is going to screw things up, and that it is imperative that Repubs take over the House and/or the Senate to limit the damage Obama will inflict on us. All this other gibber jabberish is immaterial to me.
Well I agree Obama will screw up the nation. I am so glad that you can see the obvious.
Now that you will not allow me to formulate subject matter even within an existing open thread.. The conversation between you and me, is over. And I thought the Dems were tyrants... wow.
-
When I was in that thread I was speaking directly as to "why do people hate him so much?" and also I found it amazing at how Republicans can trash a man so badly that does in fact have some decent ideas. I mean really if your wife cooks a meal for you and one item on the plate is bad do you cuss her out and throw away the food?
Sounds a bit childish and idiotic to me.
Decent ideas? He has accomplished NOTHING while in Congress. Let me repeat that -- N-O-T-H-I-N-G. He sure has quite the flock of puppies who lap up every delusional word he utters though. Lord knows he loves the attention.
I could care less if the aliens came and claimed him tomorrow.
-
Nonetheless, putting aside the obvious hyperbole in my initial statement, there was no "Republican Party" or any close-enough analogue back in the time of Jefferson, so your statement to that effect is, essentially, nugatory. Also, no, I do not see the origins of the Democratic party that we have now as springing from some NSDAP-style ideology implemented back in the early 1900s - the current Democrat Party clearly draws most of its strength from the violent elements of the 1960s hard left, and became merely the convenient vehicle for them to take up warfare against the United States by other means (i.e., other than by violence - such as Bill Ayers' bomb-throwing campaigns with the Weathermen). That a group of hard-core violent leftists should develop striking similarities to the NSDAP is merely evidence of convergent evolution, and should not come as any real surprise as the original leftists - Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and their fellow-travelers - were grist for the mill of the NSDAP, which drew a lot of inspiration from those original leftists.
But that's all beside the point; it's still a crying shame to have a good, committed conservative sideline himself because he feels his hands are too dainty to work with the only material we have on hand today.
Check into why Hilery called herself an "early 1900's progressive" and you will find the answer as to how the democratic party changed before the 1960's. The 60's was the end result of what took place in the early 1900's. It was the writings of the early progressives that inspired Hitler quite literally. Also if that is any kind of picture of the ideology that the Democrats carry today it scary as hell itself coming into our world here.
I am not on the sidelines per se. Local and state has been a major push for me and highly involved. Its difficult to influence the nation when people cannot even properly influence the state they live in.
-
Well I agree Obama will screw up the nation. I am so glad that you can see the obvious.
Now that you will not allow me to formulate subject matter even within an existing open thread.. The conversation between you and me, is over. And I thought the Dems were tyrants... wow.
The topic of the thread is "WHY VOTE GOP BACK IN" Looks like you have embarked on a different topic. If you want to start a new one, by all means be my guest. BTW, the conversation ends when I say so. So take your tyrant BS and cram it where the sun does not shine.
-
The topic of the thread is "WHY VOTE GOP BACK IN" Looks like you have embarked on a different topic. If you want to start a new one, by all means be my guest. BTW, the conversation ends when I say so. So take your tyrant BS and cram it where the sun does not shine.
I will be more than happy too.. bend over and get ready. It might not be pretty but.. you asked for it.
-
Your first post to the site in which you pretty much state that Paul is most in line with your views, yet you are not a supporter:
It is quite understandable how many have issues with Ron Paul. While he promotes himself as a pure constitutionalists some of his ideals are not in line. Yet if I must make a comparison with others we have in Congress from the Democratic and Republican lines, Ron would be far more in line with constitutional values than 99% of the members in Congress.
While some here may hate him, I tend to laugh at the whole issue especially when its presented within some of the context that a few posters present. Would it be more acceptable to remove labels and to look at the principles of the men and women of Congress? When it comes to Ron Paul and to answer the OP, you are correct we are not in occupation of places noted. Yet at the same time much of Ron's point is not the occupation but the cost of deployment to bases overseas. When I look to the ideas of Ron Paul I find many I do not like yet many that I do like just as many of our other members that "serve" or more practically rule us in Congress. Yet if I must make a choice of the representation of the people I would rather have a man that is more constitutionally minded.
Would this mean that I would vote for Ron Paul? I am not sure. Am I a Ron Paul supporter? No. Yet in truth I have never supported any political figure in full. I hate the Dem's with a passion. I also hate the Republicans with a deep passion. I hate them not simply for what they do, but also for what they have turned their back on. When we forget the purpose of this nation, the foundation of this country and the representation of freedom of all men then we too become traitors. Whether we are a traitor by a ballot vote or support for a man that in turn refuses to properly represent the people he is supposed to serve, in the end it is our hand that pulled the ticket for him to be placed.
I see all to often people say, the lesser of two evils is the way we should go. Yet with all the banter of the 9-12 project and the tea parties as well as the town halls what has really changed? If the past 100 years of our political development is not representative of what this double headed snake can accomplish then I do not know what is enough to wake up the American public from its drunken stupor. May God help us all.
-
I will be more than happy too.. bend over and get ready. It might not be pretty but.. you asked for it.
You are a liar, a phony and a faggot. Who would have thought. :loser: :loser: :loser:
-
Your first post to the site in which you pretty much state that Paul is most in line with your views, yet you are not a supporter:
First of all if you learned to read you would see that I said "Yet if I must make a comparison with others we have in Congress..." "Ron would be more in line with constitutional values than 99% of the members in Congress." Yet never did I say I supported him. So why did you bolden that portion? I do not understand or are you trying to reach so you can be right?
Simply put Ron has a LOT of agendas that I do not agree with. While I would like for the military to be more focused on what it needs such as fighting terrorism I do not like the fact we have such a vast deployment. If Ron had his way we would present ourselves as even a greater target than what Obama is managing to do. Not a good thing.
There are other issues that I do not agree with. For example. I am in an interracial marriage. My wife is Asian. If Ron had his way me and my wife could not be married lol. Well I am not 100% certain that he is racial but at times I have felt that kind of insinuation from him. He has a lot of ways that I do not agree with.
Yet at the same time its sad that he is more constitutionally in line than others. I mean really, when you compare him to Barny Frank... please. The republicans have a select few of good men out there. Yet even they based upon track records are not where I would like them to be. Yet despite that, for those men, I would support them for the principles that they do have whereas I would NOT support Paul. Some of his principles I do not agree with despite him being more constitutional. There is a line where a mans beliefs cross the line into politics and Rons would scare me. On the opposite extreme today we can see this in Obama as well with the Communist beliefs he has. There must be a right marriage of morals, principles and constitutional founding. Even though I may not get all three, if I can get close I would take it.
-
???
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_FZVD5lsAw[/youtube]
-
First of all if you learned to read you would see that I said "Yet if I must make a comparison with others we have in Congress..." "Ron would be more in line with constitutional values than 99% of the members in Congress." Yet never did I say I supported him. So why did you bolden that portion? I do not understand or are you trying to reach so you can be right?
Wow for real?
Ron would be more in line with constitutional values than 99% of the members in Congress."
Your opinion, yet you don't support him. Uh-huh. Who is the 1% then that you support if this criteria isn't sufficient to elicit your support, and while you are at it why don't you list the folks you have voted for.
Simply put Ron has a LOT of agendas that I do not agree with. While I would like for the military to be more focused on what it needs such as fighting terrorism I do not like the fact we have such a vast deployment.
Where would you pull our military from?
There are other issues that I do not agree with. For example. I am in an interracial marriage. My wife is Asian. If Ron had his way me and my wife could not be married lol. Well I am not 100% certain that he is racial but at times I have felt that kind of insinuation from him. He has a lot of ways that I do not agree with.
Not 100% certain? Alex Jones anyone? Have you read any of Paul's old newsletters?
Yet at the same time its sad that he is more constitutionally in line than others. I mean really, when you compare him to Barny Frank... please. The republicans have a select few of good men out there. Yet even they based upon track records are not where I would like them to be. Yet despite that, for those men, I would support them for the principles that they do have whereas I would NOT support Paul. Some of his principles I do not agree with despite him being more constitutional. There is a line where a mans beliefs cross the line into politics and Rons would scare me. On the opposite extreme today we can see this in Obama as well with the Communist beliefs he has. There must be a right marriage of morals, principles and constitutional founding. Even though I may not get all three, if I can get close I would take it.
Ron Paul vs Barney Frank? Wow talk about an extreme comparison. Who are the select few good men in the Republican Party - let's limit that to Congress so we know who passes your Constitutional litmus test.
-
There is no satisfying answer to this question as it does seem there is an emotional (I wanna FEEL good) component to voting combined with a desire to be always able to gripe about the results no matter what they are.
-
Wow for real?
Ron would be more in line with constitutional values than 99% of the members in Congress."
Your opinion, yet you don't support him. Uh-huh. Who is the 1% then that you support if this criteria isn't sufficient to elicit your support, and while you are at it why don't you list the folks you have voted for.
Where would you pull our military from?
Not 100% certain? Alex Jones anyone? Have you read any of Paul's old newsletters?
Ron Paul vs Barney Frank? Wow talk about an extreme comparison. Who are the select few good men in the Republican Party - let's limit that to Congress so we know who passes your Constitutional litmus test.
Whats your problem lurker? Is it that I find some good in a man that you hate or is it that you cannot stand being wrong? Your argument is quite idiotic especially when you assume to know who I am and then claim, for me of all things, who I support.
Your argument has become more of a childish banter than a logical argument. And by the way I have never read any of Pauls newsletters and I have never read nor viewed any of Alex Jones material. I know little about Jones other than he is a true conspiracy theorist on the extreme which teeters at times on both the left and the right.
The point to this thread was "Why should we elect the GOP" and until you came along in this thread the topic was generically pertaining to this. Yet you seem to want to debase the thread into your own self created conspiracy about me supposedly being a Paul supporter when I have stated several times I am not. So who is more like Alex Jones here? I would say you for you obviously decide to see what you want to see rather than what someone says.
So can we get back to the topic now?
-
Your argument has become more of a childish banter than a logical argument. And by the way I have never read any of Pauls newsletters and I have never read nor viewed any of Alex Jones material. I know little about Jones other than he is a true conspiracy theorist on the extreme which teeters at times on both the left and the right.
Jones is more than a CT'er. He's a deranged maniac who tried to get a crowd of his brownshirts to start crap--physically--with Michelle Malkin.
EDIT: Same as Paul and his moonbats when they chased Sen Hannity who I don't really care about but why should such people be entrusted with governmental power?
Jones has also ranted on air about killing "neocons". Again, why trust such people with power when the COTUS is designed to foster peaceful resolution of political disputes.
And yet Paulsy is a constant and frequent guest of this nut case.
Dr Paulsy's newsletters have some pretty damning racist comments. Did Paulsy own up to them? No. He blamed them on Lew Rockwell...like a *****...but then went right back to working with Lew Rockwell.
The point to this thread was "Why should we elect the GOP" and until you came along in this thread the topic was generically pertaining to this. Yet you seem to want to debase the thread into your own self created conspiracy about me supposedly being a Paul supporter when I have stated several times I am not. So who is more like Alex Jones here? I would say you for you obviously decide to see what you want to see rather than what someone says.
So can we get back to the topic now?
Yeah, and you come in with false dichotomies like: if not Deh Paulsy, then Bawney Fwank.
And I'll take FL's "childish banter" over your pedantic aires of erudition any time. You're not fooling anyone, jackhole.
-
The point of my posts clearly zooming over your head. You are the one who made assertions about Dr. Ron that are bizarre and simply false.
Kindly address the comments I made, your attempt at deflection falling short.
Who have you voted for. Who are the 1% members of Congress which are more in line with the Constitution than the sainted Dr. Ron? What bases worldwide would you pull U.S. military troops from?
You post. You back up your comments. Debating isn't rocket science.
-
Whats your problem lurker? Is it that I find some good in a man that you hate or is it that you cannot stand being wrong? Your argument is quite idiotic especially when you assume to know who I am and then claim, for me of all things, who I support.
Your argument has become more of a childish banter than a logical argument. And by the way I have never read any of Pauls newsletters and I have never read nor viewed any of Alex Jones material. I know little about Jones other than he is a true conspiracy theorist on the extreme which teeters at times on both the left and the right.
The point to this thread was "Why should we elect the GOP" and until you came along in this thread the topic was generically pertaining to this. Yet you seem to want to debase the thread into your own self created conspiracy about me supposedly being a Paul supporter when I have stated several times I am not. So who is more like Alex Jones here? I would say you for you obviously decide to see what you want to see rather than what someone says.
So can we get back to the topic now?
Umm...no.
There was no mention of you regarding Paul until you took up that position.
-
Jones is more than a CT'er. He's a deranged maniac who tried to get a crowd of his brownshirts to start crap--physically--with Michelle Malkin.
He has ranted on air about killing "neocons".
And yet Paulsy is a constant and frequent guest of this nut case.
Dr Paulsy's newsletters have some pretty damning racist comments. Did Paulsy own up to them? No. He blamed them on Lew Rockwell...like a *****...but then went right back to working with Lew Rockwell.
Yeah, and you come in with false dichotomies like: if not Deh Paulsy, then Bawney Fwank.
And I'll take FL's "childish banter" over your pedantic aires of erudition any time. You're not fooling anyone, jackhole.
I understand completely. The fact is that in your peon mind there are only two paths. Democrat and Republican. Anyone who is not of your religious sect is then an outcast and devil. You could really care less about whether or not something is constitutional but you would rather sign up for Newts newsletter and worship the Republicans as demigods.
Excuse me for having the ability to think for myself. If I find a good idea from a man such as OMG auditing the Fed.. well maybe we should listen. Yet when I say I do not support the man everyone seems to believe I am some kind of liar simply because I said he has a few decent ideas. Again you assume much and know nothing, jackass.
-
The point of my posts clearly zooming over your head. You are the one who made assertions about Dr. Ron that are bizarre and simply false.
Kindly address the comments I made, your attempt at deflection falling short.
Who have you voted for. Who are the 1% members of Congress which are more in line with the Constitution than the sainted Dr. Ron? What bases worldwide would you pull U.S. military troops from?
You post. You back up your comments. Debating isn't rocket science.
Actually no, your agenda here is to prove that I am some kind of Ron Paul supporter, not to debate a damn thing. You simply cannot let it go can you? Your beginning to sound more like some kind of religious zealot.
Your simply attempting to label me. If you wish to label me anything, then fine, call me a three percenter that is a core constitutionalists. Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a constitutionalists despite whatever he claims. Typically speaking, libertarians and constitutionalists do not get along. Typically many constitutionalists and three percenters do not always agree.
You still have much to learn for GOP hack and I mean that quite honestly. Your not a Republican, your a hack, there is a very real difference. You prefer to regurgitate and then insult just like the demogods. Your no different.
-
I understand completely. The fact is that in your peon mind there are only two paths. Democrat and Republican. Anyone who is not of your religious sect is then an outcast and devil. You could really care less about whether or not something is constitutional but you would rather sign up for Newts newsletter and worship the Republicans as demigods.
Excuse me for having the ability to think for myself. If I find a good idea from a man such as OMG auditing the Fed.. well maybe we should listen. Yet when I say I do not support the man everyone seems to believe I am some kind of liar simply because I said he has a few decent ideas. Again you assume much and know nothing, jackass.
I haven't seen anything that would resemble "thinking for myself" from you. You are not familiar with Paul's association with Jones or his newsletters, are not 100% certain if he is racist, yet feel quite comfortable with your statement:
"Ron would be more in line with constitutional values than 99% of the members in Congress."
Atta boy, that's thinking for yourself. Never let facts get in the way of your delusions - it's the la-la-la-libertarian way (which of course you aren't as you are a rebel in the political world. Labels smabels.... it's all about me and my feelings).
:yawn:
-
Actually no, your agenda here is to prove that I am some kind of Ron Paul supporter, not to debate a damn thing. You simply cannot let it go can you? Your beginning to sound more like some kind of religious zealot.
Your simply attempting to label me. If you wish to label me anything, then fine, call me a three percenter that is a core constitutionalists. Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a constitutionalists despite whatever he claims. Typically speaking, libertarians and constitutionalists do not get along. Typically many constitutionalists and three percenters do not always agree.
You still have much to learn for GOP hack and I mean that quite honestly. Your not a Republican, your a hack, there is a very real difference. You prefer to regurgitate and then insult just like the demogods. Your no different.
Answer.the.questions. I won't label you. Honest. Pinky swear.
-
I understand completely. The fact is that in your peon mind there are only two paths. Democrat and Republican. Anyone who is not of your religious sect is then an outcast and devil. You could really care less about whether or not something is constitutional but you would rather sign up for Newts newsletter and worship the Republicans as demigods.
Excuse me for having the ability to think for myself. If I find a good idea from a man such as OMG auditing the Fed.. well maybe we should listen. Yet when I say I do not support the man everyone seems to believe I am some kind of liar simply because I said he has a few decent ideas. Again you assume much and know nothing, jackass.
As is inevitable the final desperate "defense" is vitriol and strawman..let the chest pounding histrionics commence.
You say you will vote for someone that shares your ideals and that Paul (insert any other Libertarian name) is 99.9% accurate with the Constitution but you wouldn`t support him.
Okay even though that is a bit of a confusion you were asked then who you would support..no answer.
Answer one question I have asked through this thread and never have gotten a reply on.
If not the GOP then how do you forge or create a majority in Congress otherwise..what 3rd party or way is going to do it realistically and how?
It is about electing a government to best reflect our ideals even if it isn`t every last one of them..it isn`t a matter of what makes me feel good.
That is where liberals are at and what they vote for...who makes me feel good.
I don`t want a candidate to make me feel good..I want one that understands the world as it is and if anyone thinks that we can unilaterally withdraw ourselves to an island they are not living in reality.
Sorry to burst that Libertarian bubble but it is utopian dreaming and nothing more.
-
I understand completely. The fact is that in your peon mind there are only two paths. Democrat and Republican. Anyone who is not of your religious sect is then an outcast and devil. You could really care less about whether or not something is constitutional but you would rather sign up for Newts newsletter and worship the Republicans as demigods.
:rotf:
You weren't here last year when I took a ton of flak for saying I'd sit out the election once McCain secured the nomination.
I took even more flak as I dissected McCain sorry ass after each debate (meanwhile LR.com was posting Justin Raimondo articles about how much better Obama would be because at least he'd end the wars...just like Dr. Paulsy wants to do).
So, like a typical Paulestinian you wander in here with a shit-ton of prejudices and preconceptions constructed to reinforce your own flimsy sense of self-satisfaction.
Case in point:
Excuse me for having the ability to think for myself. If I find a good idea from a man such as OMG auditing the Fed.. well maybe we should listen. Yet when I say I do not support the man everyone seems to believe I am some kind of liar simply because I said he has a few decent ideas. Again you assume much and know nothing, jackass.
I can more than think for myself. So much so I refuse to endorse a dangerous, racist, cowardly, paranoid lunatic leading a bunch of violent cultists when there are plenty of good conservatives to choose from.
The choice is NOT Paulsy or nothing.
-
Just to say that before anyone accuses me of being a hack I do think that some elements of the Libertarian party are good,I have read the platform.
Where they leave me is with the social liberalism and silly isolationist stuff.
That isn`t conservative in my book and they know it so try to overcome that with the screaming rants that we see from time to time here.
The minute someone suggests in direct words or in their argument that they are the TRUE conservative is the minute I consider them "out there" to be polite about it.
-
Just to say that before anyone accuses me of being a hack I do think that some elements of the Libertarian party are good,I have read the platform.
Where they leave me is with the social liberalism and silly isolationist stuff.
That isn`t conservative in my book and they know it so try to overcome that with the screaming rants that we see from time to time here.
The minute someone suggests in direct words or in their argument that they are the TRUE conservative is the minute I consider them "out there" to be polite about it.
absoltively
-
Waiting for the ol' chestnut...
"I thought this was a CONSERVATIVE forum..."
:whatever:
-
As is inevitable the final desperate "defense" is vitriol and strawman..let the chest pounding histrionics commence.
You say you will vote for someone that shares your ideals and that Paul (insert any other Libertarian name) is 99.9% accurate with the Constitution but you wouldn`t support him.
Okay even though that is a bit of a confusion you were asked then who you would support..no answer.
Answer one question I have asked through this thread and never have gotten a reply on.
If not the GOP then how do you forge or create a majority in Congress otherwise..what 3rd party or way is going to do it realistically and how?
It is about electing a government to best reflect our ideals even if it isn`t every last one of them..it isn`t a matter of what makes me feel good.
That is where liberals are at and what they vote for...who makes me feel good.
I don`t want a candidate to make me feel good..I want one that understands the world as it is and if anyone thinks that we can unilaterally withdraw ourselves to an island they are not living in reality.
Sorry to burst that Libertarian bubble but it is utopian dreaming and nothing more.
I agree the libertarian bubble is exactly that, Utopian dreaming.
As to how to forge a 3rd party. You first secure it on a local then later at a state level. Without that base you cannot have anything. Ron Pauls idea of winning is about as much of a reality of you or I winning. It simply will not happen.
You asked previously who in the GOP I do like, Mitt Romney is one that I do like. Also Jim Demint of South Carolina. I look at DeMint as an over all solid man and member of Congress. I voted for him and yes I live in SC. Lindsey Graham on the other hand is a waste of time and I wish he would just roll over die in his sleep. He would do us all a favor if he did.
As to Pauls constitutional alignment, I base this upon what he has voted for or against in large part, not his personal beliefs or views. It is his personal beliefs and views, many of which have even been stated here within this thread is why I would never consider him as a viable option, ever, period. I look at things this way for how many times have we been told that they are for this or that but yet the way they vote is quite the opposite. Its quite simple really, the way they vote typically shows the true leaning of where they are, what they say comes second. Yet with Paul, as he may vote in line with constitutional values more often than not, his personal views scare the hell out of me.
-
Just to say that before anyone accuses me of being a hack I do think that some elements of the Libertarian party are good,I have read the platform.
Where they leave me is with the social liberalism and silly isolationist stuff.
That isn`t conservative in my book and they know it so try to overcome that with the screaming rants that we see from time to time here.
The minute someone suggests in direct words or in their argument that they are the TRUE conservative is the minute I consider them "out there" to be polite about it.
And once again, I am not a libertarian.
-
Check into why Hilery called herself an "early 1900's progressive" and you will find the answer as to how the democratic party changed before the 1960's. The 60's was the end result of what took place in the early 1900's. It was the writings of the early progressives that inspired Hitler quite literally. Also if that is any kind of picture of the ideology that the Democrats carry today it scary as hell itself coming into our world here.
I am not on the sidelines per se. Local and state has been a major push for me and highly involved. Its difficult to influence the nation when people cannot even properly influence the state they live in.
Since this isn't the "History" thread, I'll not play ping-pong on that topic any more, other than this: no doubt Hillary Clinton called herself an "early 1900s progressive" (if she in fact did, which I will simply assume arguendo) because she wished to appear to be the successor to the suffragists, who were active in the early 1900s. That, of course, would put her in good company with such "radicals" as the erstwhile Mrs. Banks from Mary Poppins:
(http://www.coveringthemouse.com/images/ss03.jpg)
I daresay that Mrs. Banks was not in the least philosophically or emotionally inclined toward the sort of statist totalitarianism embodied in the NSDAP, the various Communist Parties, and now the American DemocratCommunist Party. As such, attempting to arrogate to one's self the victories of the suffragists in the early 1900s does not, without more, make one totalitarian.
As for the various literary well-springs of Mr. Hitler's inspirations, there are more sources than whomever you intend to refer to when you use the term "early progressives" - I doubt very much if Mr. Hitler would have spent much time listening to an upper middle member of the bourgeoisie such as Mrs. Banks, no matter how good her singing voice. No doubt others will chime in with their favorites if such needs doing.
Was the 1960s a cusp, a turning-point, a ripening of certain strong currents of thought in the so-called progressive movement(s)? Of course, but then again, that cusp included not only the violent terrorism of Bill Ayers and the Weathermen, but also the Civil Rights Movement. Painting with a brush that broad will cause endless troubles because I have no doubt that you do not intend to include people such as Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. in the same class as terrorists such as Bill Ayers.
At any rate, that is quite tangential to the core point, which is this: it is a shame to see such a clearly committed conservative willingly commit political suicide for the sake of a degree of political/philosophical purity which is more suited to the niceties of academia than the real world of government.
-
I agree the libertarian bubble is exactly that, Utopian dreaming.
As to how to forge a 3rd party. You first secure it on a local then later at a state level. Without that base you cannot have anything. Ron Pauls idea of winning is about as much of a reality of you or I winning. It simply will not happen.
You asked previously who in the GOP I do like, Mitt Romney is one that I do like. Also Jim Demint of South Carolina. I look at DeMint as an over all solid man and member of Congress. I voted for him and yes I live in SC. Lindsey Graham on the other hand is a waste of time and I wish he would just roll over die in his sleep. He would do us all a favor if he did.
As to Pauls constitutional alignment, I base this upon what he has voted for or against in large part, not his personal beliefs or views. It is his personal beliefs and views, many of which have even been stated here within this thread is why I would never consider him as a viable option, ever, period. I look at things this way for how many times have we been told that they are for this or that but yet the way they vote is quite the opposite. Its quite simple really, the way they vote typically shows the true leaning of where they are, what they say comes second. Yet with Paul, as he may vote in line with constitutional values more often than not, his personal views scare the hell out of me.
The Mitt Romney thing is interesting to me and was all through the primaries in that folks bought into his "conservative" line.
I live in NY and know first hand that Pataki was not a conservative in my wishes but was a long ways better then Cuomo who he defeated...you take what you can get in life sometimes.
Romney was governor of a state as much or even more liberal then mine...if you are conservative they don`t let you do that.
I will be honest in saying I don`t know anything about how he governed but am pretty sure it probably wasn`t terribly conservative.
If correct then it would mean his whole campaign for President was a lie.
What record of Romneys would you cite as being conservative enough for you?
-
At any rate, that is quite tangential to the core point, which is this: it is a shame to see such a clearly committed conservative willingly commit political suicide for the sake of a degree of political/philosophical purity which is more suited to the niceties of academia than the real world of government.
Perhaps so, yet I am of the belief that no matter what road is taken, we are irreversibly on a course of self destruction. The sheer size of those who would rather vote for what is convenient or available because they believe there is no other way is far too large and not to mention divided by would be 3rd party votes that do damage to electing a would be more conservative candidate.
Yet herin is the core of the problem. Americans have lost their way for they have lost their core beliefs in God. Prayer once removed from schools and then replaced with the notions of evolution and now the fairy tale of global warming, this generation in of itself has been debased.
I served with the USMC, worked in military intel for the NIS, I served later as a civilian contractor and worked then with special forces. My time ranges from Clinton up into Bush years. I was there in the mess at the beginning. I come home and find people who are willing to accept a lesser evil after helping those who are fighting daily in their own country for what is right and just. Yet the people here in the USA are lethargic and seek to apply themselves in the direction of least resistance. To this end, while we enjoy our current standard of living and SUV's then our homes with air conditioning then the noise of our daily lives.... we aid to our own destruction by accepting less than we should accept.
Everyone screams "BUT HOW DO WE CHANGE IT?" Yet few are willing to get involved actively fighting for what is just or right. They would rather sit behind a computer screen on the net and scream. This is why I have avoided the internet forums for so long. After being in the fight day in and out locally I really care not to put up with the mindlessness or perhaps a better word would be the would be heros of the internet.
I have no illusions as to where this country is going. I have no illusions as do the libertarians under their failed leader Ron Paul. I have no illusion either about the GOP and their ability to institute things such as Homeland Security providing the tools for the devil himself such as Obama. I also have no illusions as to where this will all end. Hence why I said earlier, if I must be pegged, then call me a three percenter.
-
The Mitt Romney thing is interesting to me and was all through the primaries in that folks bought into his "conservative" line.
I live in NY and know first hand that Pataki was not a conservative in my wishes but was a long ways better then Cuomo who he defeated...you take what you can get in life sometimes.
Romney was governor of a state as much or even more liberal then mine...if you are conservative they don`t let you do that.
I will be honest in saying I don`t know anything about how he governed but am pretty sure it probably wasn`t terribly conservative.
If correct then it would mean his whole campaign for President was a lie.
What record of Romneys would you cite as being conservative enough for you?
His record was no worse than McCain. Between the two, I would have picked Romney. Yet in a election primary, what can one do? Perhaps to satisfy some here I should have become Ron Paul and run for office myself then at least it would be easier to defend myself from an onslaught of people with accusation online that hold no real merit anyway.
-
Perhaps so, yet I am of the belief that no matter what road is taken, we are irreversibly on a course of self destruction. The sheer size of those who would rather vote for what is convenient or available because they believe there is no other way is far too large and not to mention divided by would be 3rd party votes that do damage to electing a would be more conservative candidate.
Apparently, you're just as good as the next guy at throwing insults when you wish to. Setting up a strawman by disparagingly sneering at "those who would rather vote for what is convenient or available" serves no-one any good, least of all yourself.
Then again, I trust that you realize that one clear implication of that is that you choose to vote for that which is not available, which doesn't seem to be a particularly wise course of action either.
I have no illusions as to where this country is going. I have no illusions as do the libertarians under their failed leader Ron Paul. I have no illusion either about the GOP and their ability to institute things such as Homeland Security providing the tools for the devil himself such as Obama. I also have no illusions as to where this will all end. Hence why I said earlier, if I must be pegged, then call me a three percenter.
Then, with all due respect, may I ask why, exactly, are you wasting your time here and putting so much time and energy into your arguments here? If all is for nought, at least as far as civil political action is concerned, and if the end-times are truly at hand, then it strikes me that one could better occupy one's limited time and resources preparing one's self for the onslaught, not dickering over phantasmagoric niceties of the respective records of McCain, Romney, or Paul - that is, "sit[ing] behind a computer screen on the net and scream[ing]."
-
I was a Frederalist:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v630/MrSnuggleBunny/Frederalism.jpg)
But he dawdled too much before getting into the race and pissed away his chances.
....
Intel, huh?
That explains the multi-thousand word posts of no discernible value.
-
The Mitt Romney thing is interesting to me and was all through the primaries in that folks bought into his "conservative" line.
I live in NY and know first hand that Pataki was not a conservative in my wishes but was a long ways better then Cuomo who he defeated...you take what you can get in life sometimes.
Romney was governor of a state as much or even more liberal then mine...if you are conservative they don`t let you do that.
I will be honest in saying I don`t know anything about how he governed but am pretty sure it probably wasn`t terribly conservative.
If correct then it would mean his whole campaign for President was a lie.
What record of Romneys would you cite as being conservative enough for you?
Romney was the governor of my state, and save for one-term Cadillac Deville Patrick, we generally lean towards Republic governors as we have not yet fully recovered from the Duke years. The only reason why Patrick won was because he picked the very popular Tim Murray as his Lt Gov -- this ensured his win in the moderate to conservative leaning Central MA.
MA is a state of Christians (mostly Catholic), which is unfortunately driven by an elder generation of party line voters. You throw up gay marriage independently on the ballot (which Romney tried to do but was blocked by the legislature), or abortion and both will be deemed illegal with a wide margin of votes.
He was the governor of a liberal legislature -- you have to make compromise or nothing happens. I personally like Romney also, good guy, no skeletons, smart businessman, strong on national defense. He has no real chance of winning the presidency so on to the next candidate.
-
Apparently, you're just as good as the next guy at throwing insults when you wish to. Setting up a strawman by disparagingly sneering at "those who would rather vote for what is convenient or available" serves no-one any good, least of all yourself.
Then again, I trust that you realize that one clear implication of that is that you choose to vote for that which is not available, which doesn't seem to be a particularly wise course of action either.
Yet to become involved locally and have influence in the state is all that I can do at the moment. So that is what I do. That in of itself is better than doing nothing and voting for what is obviously not a choice at all, at least for me.
My response was not meant to be a setup nor an insult, but rather an observation of reality. Perhaps you would understand more if you had been where I have and fought as I have, in the field and now at home. Where one sits seems to change the perspective of what is taking place, I am sure you can understand this.
-
Just a quick question though. If MA is, in general, a conservative-leaning state, that typically has "Republic governors," then how'd it end up with a reliably liberal legislature?
-
Yet to become involved locally and have influence in the state is all that I can do at the moment. So that is what I do. That in of itself is better than doing nothing and voting for what is obviously not a choice at all, at least for me.
My response was not meant to be a setup nor an insult, but rather an observation of reality. Perhaps you would understand more if you had been where I have and fought as I have, in the field and now at home. Where one sits seems to change the perspective of what is taking place, I am sure you can understand this.
I think we have a certain measure of understanding between the two of us, which of course includes a certain willingness to agree to disagree. Also, far be it from me to discourage anyone who is getting out and doing something politically oriented, particularly at the state or local level which is really where the rubber meets the road (as Tip O'Neil used to say - supposedly - all politics is local, and there is a certain degree of truth to that statement). In fact, I would hazard to say that that is probably one of the more fruitful places to apply one's self, and certainly, if NY-23 is any indication, the area that is most in need of attention by active conservatives and the "sunshine" they bring to all the dark, dingy corners under the various state and local rocks (I fear I've stretched that analogy wa-a-a-a-y too far).
No doubt, one's experience informs one's perspective; but also, one needs to bash one's perspective against that of other people from time to time just to make sure that any misconceptions or misperceptions are knocked loose - from one's own perspective as much as from everyone else's.
-
Then, with all due respect, may I ask why, exactly, are you wasting your time here and putting so much time and energy into your arguments here? If all is for nought, at least as far as civil political action is concerned, and if the end-times are truly at hand, then it strikes me that one could better occupy one's limited time and resources preparing one's self for the onslaught, not dickering over phantasmagoric niceties of the respective records of McCain, Romney, or Paul - that is, "sit[ing] behind a computer screen on the net and scream[ing]."
To be more specific as to my position. I am involved in preparation, albeit maybe not for the end of the world. At present time I own a home in the Philippines. I also own my land and house in the USA, cash paid for. I am debt free therefor I am part of Obamas problem because I will not incur debt lmao.
I have six months food supply, assault weapons, thousands of round of ammo most are armor piercing (all legal in my state). I also have a cwp and I work directly training people, mostly couples such as husbands and wifes in self defense, weapons and such. I work locally within my neighborhood and have even made many friends with the sherriffs department to the point where I have taken part in excersises with them which is always fun. Also I am involved politically in my local level and also on the state level. This is how I choose to live.
My being here on these forums, well, a friend suggested I should check out some sites and this was one he recommended. He is not a member but after reading the forums I signed up... will I stay here and continue involvement, perhaps, perhaps not.
-
Just a quick question though. If MA is, in general, a conservative-leaning state, that typically has "Republic governors," then how'd it end up with a reliably liberal legislature?
It's not a conservative leaning state -- most of Central MA is (the middle portion of the state). The reason why is has a liberal legislature is Boston and Springfield, and some of Worcester. The MA legislature is obscenely corrupt, as is most state governments.
Older Kennedy era generation of voters who vote party line (Democrats are for the working class, Republicans are for the rich) for local reps/races. They are dying off though. The GOP has abandoned MA -- we have 16 GOP members of state lesgislatures, and poor Scott Brown has been completely ignored. Shame really as the younger generation of taxpaying moderates, who while now don't vote, will be more "aware" and active politically at some point. Silly to write them off completely.
-
To be more specific as to my position. I am involved in preparation, albeit maybe not for the end of the world. At present time I own a home in the Philippines. I also own my land and house in the USA, cash paid for. I am debt free therefor I am part of Obamas problem because I will not incur debt lmao.
I have six months food supply, assault weapons, thousands of round of ammo most are armor piercing (all legal in my state). I also have a cwp and I work directly training people, mostly couples such as husbands and wifes in self defense, weapons and such. I work locally within my neighborhood and have even made many friends with the sherriffs department to the point where I have taken part in excersises with them which is always fun. Also I am involved politically in my local level and also on the state level. This is how I choose to live.
My being here on these forums, well, a friend suggested I should check out some sites and this was one he recommended. He is not a member but after reading the forums I signed up... will I stay here and continue involvement, perhaps, perhaps not.
Then I would have to say that you are better prepared than 99% - in either event. Congratulations, my friend (if I may), and please do stick around, your conversation has at the least been interesting.
-
I think we have a certain measure of understanding between the two of us, which of course includes a certain willingness to agree to disagree. Also, far be it from me to discourage anyone who is getting out and doing something politically oriented, particularly at the state or local level which is really where the rubber meets the road (as Tip O'Neil used to say - supposedly - all politics is local, and there is a certain degree of truth to that statement). In fact, I would hazard to say that that is probably one of the more fruitful places to apply one's self, and certainly, if NY-23 is any indication, the area that is most in need of attention by active conservatives and the "sunshine" they bring to all the dark, dingy corners under the various state and local rocks (I fear I've stretched that analogy wa-a-a-a-y too far).
No doubt, one's experience informs one's perspective; but also, one needs to bash one's perspective against that of other people from time to time just to make sure that any misconceptions or misperceptions are knocked loose - from one's own perspective as much as from everyone else's.
Indeed I believe we also have found common ground. The local level is really the only level to hold any influence. Without that foothold we stand no chance whatsoever nationally. Without the local level we all become noise wherever we are, online or in our local streets as nothing more than a footnote complaint.
-
Just out of curiousity, your username wouldn't have anything to do with one of these babies:
(http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/ORD_ATGM_Javelin_Launch_Immediate_lg.jpg)
would it?
-
Then I would have to say that you are better prepared than 99% - in either event. Congratulations, my friend (if I may), and please do stick around, your conversation has at the least been interesting.
Lol thank you. You have also been quite good to talk to. I was thinking about going back and finding some books that you may be interested in about early 1900's history.
As to my preparation... I have a lot more to do. At present I am looking at revamping the house to include a wood burning stove that can be cooked on. Also I plan to implement solar panels to at least give some additional power. The solar panel addition would be nice to have even if the world doesnt fall apart due to ice problems here in the winter. We rarely get snow but geez in Jan-Feb ice can hit anytime and knock out power for a week or two. Such a pain. My wife likes the idea of the wood burning stove, the revamp would mean new cabinets so you know what shes voting for lol.
My neighbor keeps insisting that I start a militia lol. I wouldnt mind some good fun with paintball perhaps yet I am not quite to the extreme as some Marines coming back home now and joining the ranks of militias to teach them all they have learned. My background may certainly raise some eyebrows if I were to start that lol. Yet in truth, following the model I guess I may already be on a list somewhere for propaganda is the first step. I certainly would be labeled as a right wing extremist by Pelosi. Oh well, whatever blows her skirt up, I will simply do what I must.
-
Just out of curiousity, your username wouldn't have anything to do with one of these babies:
(http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/ORD_ATGM_Javelin_Launch_Immediate_lg.jpg)
would it?
LOL well sort of. When I was with the teams I picked up the nickname because I could find a target day or night, rain or shine and take it out with my team. They called me Javelin saying I was like a human javelin. The name stuck after that. Most called me Jav.
-
You ever run by the handle "Skytrooper"?
-
You ever run by the handle "Skytrooper"?
No, sounds like some army airborne kind of handle though. I came out of the USMC and no self respecting Marine would adopt an Army cliche.. no offense to any soldiers out there lol... I am sure you understand though.
-
A bit of back story for you:
This site is an off-shoot of another conservative site. Most of the high post count members here come from The Other Site (TOS). On TOS was a member by the handle of gator. Gator fancied himself the re-embodiment of the Confederacy and righter of all wrongs involving Israel vis-a-vis The Liberty incident.
In the run-up to the 2008 campaign season Herr gator lost what little of his mind he may have ever possessed and went over to Ron Paul. Alas, about this time Herr gator was also vested with admin authorities. His Ronulan activities attracted the notice of numerous like-but-semi-minded individuals of Paulestinian persuasion. To say they did not acquit themselves with dignity and aplomb would be an understatement. It was not merely one or two of them, it was a universal trait among them. The paranoia, the fear-mongering, strawmen, false dichotomies, ad hominems (particularly "neocon"), indicting the US military etc etc etc.
Whenever one of his Paulestinian cohorts was met in kind Herr gator would ban the "offending" member. I myself was banned for posting article BY Dr Paulsy. Not articles ABOUT Paul but written by his own hand that were so embarrassing gator deleted them and banned me (as opposed to taking an intellectual step back, reassessing his position and shedding his cultism).
The contemporaneous catharsis of our reforming ourselves at this site under such under such injustices can be viewed in the earliest threads of the Fight Club forum which you will be able to view once your post count exceeds 49.
This is why the name Ron Paul! brings such immediate and visceral reactions from this forum. If you are a conservative--and I have no reason to say you are not--you are more than welcome here but be advised, on neighborly terms, that any advocacy of Herr Doktor will unnecessarily complicate whatever point you seek to impart.
-
LOL well sort of. When I was with the teams I picked up the nickname because I could find a target day or night, rain or shine and take it out with my team. They called me Javelin saying I was like a human javelin. The name stuck after that. Most called me Jav.
Then maybe this would work as a better avatar image than the default caveman that every new member gets graced with:
(http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx221/B_Oceander/Miscellaneous/Javelin_Avatar.gif)
if you like it, please feel free to use it as you choose.
-
A bit of back story for you:
This site is an off-shoot of another conservative site. Most of the high post count members here come from The Other Site (TOS). On TOS was a member by the handle of gator. Gator fancied himself the re-embodiment of the Confederacy and righter of all wrongs involving Israel vis-a-vis The Liberty incident.
In the run-up to the 2008 campaign season Herr gator lost what little of his mind he may have ever possessed and went over to Ron Paul. Alas, about this time Herr gator was also vested with admin authorities. His Ronulan activities attracted the notice of numerous like-but-semi-minded individuals of Paulestinian persuasion. To say they did not acquit themselves with dignity and aplomb would be an understatement. It was not merely one or two of them, it was a universal trait among them. The paranoia, the fear-mongering, strawmen, false dichotomies, ad hominems (particularly "neocon"), indicting the US military etc etc etc.
Whenever one of his Paulestinian cohorts was met in kind Herr gator would ban the "offending" member. I myself was banned for posting article BY Dr Paulsy. Not articles ABOUT Paul but written by his own hand that were so embarrassing gator deleted them and banned me (as opposed to taking an intellectual step back, reassessing his position and shedding his cultism).
The contemporaneous catharsis of our reforming ourselves at this site under such under such injustices can be viewed in the earliest threads of the Fight Club forum which you will be able to view once your post count exceeds 49.
This is why the name Ron Paul! brings such immediate and visceral reactions from this forum. If you are a conservative--and I have no reason to say you are not--you are more than welcome here but be advised, on neighborly terms, that any advocacy of Herr Doktor will unnecessarily complicate whatever point you seek to impart.
Ahhh.. Finally an explanation that makes sense. Thank you for the back drop story. It would make perfect sense considering the drama that took place as to why so many get hyped up over RP. I have had very little affiliation with any political forums whatsoever. I have been active on weapons forum but those are largely non political but more so educational on weapons systems. Being active there can make someone that is knowledgeable on a weapons system look like an idiot when an armorer shows up that really knows his stuff lol.
What scares me about 2012 is the onslaught of support that keeps being thrown into Paul or another third party. What many of these people do not understand is that even if a third party were elected they would be essentially powerless to a great degree with little to no support from the senate. Every passage of a bill would take so much strain it would make Regan's beginning look like a walk in the park. I am not opposed by a third party entering the arena but it first will take the establishment of that base in the State levels then Congress before a Presidency can even be thought of.
The best hope we have is 2010 and to utterly annihilate those that are presently there running down the list replacing all the traitors we can. Perhaps then we can at least get a good man in office for 2012 that is actually a good man an not a label for a brand of the GOP. We need real men there at this time.
I do believe that in time either the GOP will be revived back to what it should be or replaced. It would not surprise me to see the democratic party replaced by libertarian for most libertarians seem to be reformed democrats. Yet either way, I do not see the current system surviving another two to three generations for the sheer momentum of real world events economically and socially are dictating this more than the monarch mindset of those that seek to control the system.
For those that look to Ron Paul for salvation, they are truly crazy. Yet I do stick by my statements that he is not all bad, he has many good ideas that should be looked into such as auditing the Fed and or the destruction of it. I also like his sons idea, Rand Paul, of setting term limits. Just keep in mind I do not support Paul in any way politically.
Now at least I can understand why i was attacked and I can see why those here have a bit more deep seated anger for the topic.
-
Then maybe this would work as a better avatar image than the default caveman that every new member gets graced with:
(http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx221/B_Oceander/Miscellaneous/Javelin_Avatar.gif)
if you like it, please feel free to use it as you choose.
Lol thank you for that! I will use it.
-
Lol thank you for that! I will use it.
You're most welcome!
-
How about finding a new record to play. We've heard this one already...... Several times in fact.
And yet there's never a straight answer to the question when it's asked.
-
What scares me about 2012 is the onslaught of support that keeps being thrown into Paul or another third party.
The you get scared over very tiny things. There's no "onslaught" of support for Paul...never has been never will.
If you consider an "onslaught" the spamming of talk shows and conservative boards by a handful of cultists then you need to rethink just how muc or little support Ron Paul really has.
-
LOL well sort of. When I was with the teams I picked up the nickname because I could find a target day or night, rain or shine and take it out with my team. They called me Javelin saying I was like a human javelin. The name stuck after that. Most called me Jav.
Never realized that the Force Recon guys referred to themselves as "teams".
-
Ahhh.. Finally an explanation that makes sense. Thank you for the back drop story. It would make perfect sense considering the drama that took place as to why so many get hyped up over RP. I have had very little affiliation with any political forums whatsoever. I have been active on weapons forum but those are largely non political but more so educational on weapons systems. Being active there can make someone that is knowledgeable on a weapons system look like an idiot when an armorer shows up that really knows his stuff lol.
What scares me about 2012 is the onslaught of support that keeps being thrown into Paul or another third party. What many of these people do not understand is that even if a third party were elected they would be essentially powerless to a great degree with little to no support from the senate. Every passage of a bill would take so much strain it would make Regan's beginning look like a walk in the park. I am not opposed by a third party entering the arena but it first will take the establishment of that base in the State levels then Congress before a Presidency can even be thought of.
The best hope we have is 2010 and to utterly annihilate those that are presently there running down the list replacing all the traitors we can. Perhaps then we can at least get a good man in office for 2012 that is actually a good man an not a label for a brand of the GOP. We need real men there at this time.
I do believe that in time either the GOP will be revived back to what it should be or replaced. It would not surprise me to see the democratic party replaced by libertarian for most libertarians seem to be reformed democrats. Yet either way, I do not see the current system surviving another two to three generations for the sheer momentum of real world events economically and socially are dictating this more than the monarch mindset of those that seek to control the system.
For those that look to Ron Paul for salvation, they are truly crazy. Yet I do stick by my statements that he is not all bad, he has many good ideas that should be looked into such as auditing the Fed and or the destruction of it. I also like his sons idea, Rand Paul, of setting term limits. Just keep in mind I do not support Paul in any way politically.
Now at least I can understand why i was attacked and I can see why those here have a bit more deep seated anger for the topic.
Fwiw I would also go on to say it isn`t just that someone supports him it is that entire Libertarian mindset which can`t be logically defensed so they resort to hyperbole.(I know you say you aren`t but have run acrossed many Constitution party members at Free Republic that do the same).
The Constitution party platform is far more in line with conservative thought so I am curious as to why as you alluded to earlier many will hop on a Libertarian bandwagon.
Is it thinking that name recognition in lieu of Pat Buchanan making a much publicized jump to them,now since retracted I guess,gives them a better chance of the 3rd party revolution they dream of?
-
Never realized that the Force Recon guys referred to themselves as "teams".
I was never with Force Recon. The teams I speak of were when I was with civilian contractors. There you run across many from various backgrounds including those from civilian police forces. It is a different breed altogether.
-
The you get scared over very tiny things. There's no "onslaught" of support for Paul...never has been never will.
If you consider an "onslaught" the spamming of talk shows and conservative boards by a handful of cultists then you need to rethink just how muc or little support Ron Paul really has.
Very true. Paulbots will have very little support. Sarah Palin will dwarf him by a thousand times in upcoming elections. She is the one to lead the party out of the wilderness. The party does not need entrenched political figures like Newt or Romney . Need some new blood in the party that will turn DC around on its ears. Palin is the only one that I see that has the backbone to do that.
-
I was never with Force Recon. The teams I speak of were when I was with civilian contractors. There you run across many from various backgrounds including those from civilian police forces. It is a different breed altogether.
Oh so you mean like Black Water? Your response to MSB didn't differentiate between your time in the Corps and now the time you say you spent with Civilian Contractors in these "teams".
Just trying to get a clearer picture.
-
Fwiw I would also go on to say it isn`t just that someone supports him it is that entire Libertarian mindset which can`t be logically defensed so they resort to hyperbole.(I know you say you aren`t but have run acrossed many Constitution party members at Free Republic that do the same).
The Constitution party platform is far more in line with conservative thought so I am curious as to why as you alluded to earlier many will hop on a Libertarian bandwagon.
Is it thinking that name recognition in lieu of Pat Buchanan making a much publicized jump to them,now since retracted I guess,gives them a better chance of the 3rd party revolution they dream of?
The whole libertarian mindest imo is twisted with the utopian dreams of the left. I see many crowding that arena due to dissatisfaction with Obama. You have a few former republicans that are in that crowd but the libertarians as a whole are far to broad to stroke a few lines about and peg them. While some of their ideas are well founded, some ideas downright good, most of their ideas are for pot smoking hippies especially since it seems this is where the base of this crown originated from lol. The former democrats seem to be happy to move to the libertarian crowd. I found it odd the other day when I passed by a car and I saw a "green movement Al Gore" bumper sticker right beside a "libertarian dont tread on me" sticker.... I sort of scratched my head trying to figure out how well those two work together. Who knows maybe they were just vegetarians and were not fully educated.. who knows.
As to a 3rd party revolution, it is a matter of time that some sort of revolution takes place whether political or otherwise. It may take place with reform of the parties yet I find this less likely as more time passes by. The next generation that is coming along seem to care less about party and more about agenda. It will morph based upon our society at the time and with the morphing of our society being led away from God, its a scary transition that can lead to a more violent metamorphosis.
The possibility of a constitutionalists party taking over, in my opinion, should never happen. A constitutionalists should be what what one is, not a party. Nevertheless a marriage of the constitutionalists into a reformed Republican or a reformed Democratic party would be successful. If they cannot manage this the emergence of a 3rd party, of some kind, is inevitable. If it does not happen, or if reform does not take place, civil unrest is unavoidable.
Well time for me to sign off for a while, take the wife shopping and the kids out to play.
-
I'm late to the party but my answer is with the GOP in the majority we can rein in Lord O's socialist dreams.
-
I'm late to the party but my answer is with the GOP in the majority we can rein in Lord O's socialist dreams.
That and with the adults back in charge...National Security won't be the punchline to a joke.
-
And yet there's never a straight answer to the question when it's asked.
Untrue.
I answered it IIRC. FL perhaps didn't like the answer so therefore falsely claims it was never answered.
-
Untrue.
I answered it IIRC. FL perhaps didn't like the answer so therefore falsely claims it was never answered.
If that happened it would be a first for a Ronulan. 99.9% of the ones I've encountered can't answer the question with anything that makes sense outside their own cult.
-
If that happened it would be a first for a Ronulan. 99.9% of the ones I've encountered can't answer the question with anything that makes sense outside their own cult.
No if about it. I answered it.
So anyone that disagrees with the GOP is now a Ronulan? Or am I misreading your intent?
-
* * *
Well time for me to sign off for a while, take the wife shopping and the kids out to play.
Now that sounds like the most sensible thing anyone's said today on this thread! Have fun, and enjoy your kids, they grow up way, way too fast (my daughter's 5 y.o. now, and it still seems like only yesterday that we brought her home from the hospital).
-
Now that sounds like the most sensible thing anyone's said today on this thread! Have fun, and enjoy your kids, they grow up way, way too fast (my daughter's 5 y.o. now, and it still seems like only yesterday that we brought her home from the hospital).
My baby girl turned 25 today. I know all about that "growing up" way to fast thing. It seems like just last week when she was born.
-
You answered your own qualms in hoping that the GOP will move to the right and saying that you don`t believe in a utopian world.
What then is the minimum of agreement you would still support?
It is kind of a silly question I guess in that acceptance of less then perfect can shift when faced with the real life alternative but do you think this country has the time right now to sort all that out?
If no one can state how things can halt what we are seeing happening now in 2010 or 2012 then what point is there in talking about what may be 15 years from now?
That is my "honest" question and one that is immediate imo rather then speculating on ideals.
I went back and found this post, it is in response to Rich. To see what Rich said it will be his first post on either the first or second page of this thread. I wanted to respond to this directly in concept rather than post a response to Carl. So Carl no offense but Rich and you just happened to offer up the scenario, and its for everyone to think about. While some may be inclined to hit the reply button before you get to the 4th paragraph, please read this whole post for the beginning is a set up for a very important question, point and observation.
Rich made a point and I later basically made the same point yet coming from a different angle. In the end we both end up in the same place. We refuse to vote for a GOP president that is not worthy of being our candidate. Ok everyone put their eyeballs back in and put out the flames for the moment... cause I have more that might just set you on fire and I dont want you to miss anything.
Carl made a good point. When is conservative enough... well conservative enough? What criteria would or should determine the point at which any individual decides to vote or to not vote for a given candidate? Yet Rich's and my point can offer a circular argument in the question ... when is not conservative enough.. well not conservative enough? The circular argument, reasoning all comes back to personal perspective, desires and a LOT depends on how active one is politically as well. Typically I have found with those that I deal with politically the more active you are, the more you demand. Yet lets not get stuck here just yet either.. there is another bridge I would like to cross with this very same idea.
At what point through this political nightmare we have been living in is there enough pain for conservatives to actually stand up and do something? I am not talking about a tea party. Yeah its a great rally but it accomplishes nothing in real terms. I am speaking directly to your local area, your city, county and state level. Here is why I ask this very important question. While we are the conservatives of America, the reason why our conservative status is the way it is... well.. we failed. Too many sat back and became the silent majority and now most of them are semi-silent. They went to a tea party, got a few pictures taken and went "Already taxed enough" and so on. They then work with their online 9-12 groups or other conservative groups to create this idea of changing the system. My problem with it all is a matter of perhaps, too little, to late.
For those that continue to stick to a strict party line, they may find they have a hand in the destruction of our nation rather than its restoration. We have a unique ability in this United States of America to have a revolution every four years, quite literally, yet its via a ballot box. When I look at the government now, its unlike any other time in history. Every part has managed to be compromised despite all of the work the founders did in setting the checks and balances which were supposed to stop this kind of madness. Yet if we do not use the ballot box a our form of revolution, we may indeed find ourselves within a civil war.
I decided some time ago to forget the party, and vote the man. I am a conservative, yet if the man does not merit my vote, I will not give it. My reason is, I am tired of the game. If I am to change the game then two things must happen. First I must get involved. Secondly, I must quit playing the game they want me to play which is the lesser of the two evils. I can fully understand someone claiming that is the only choice they have, yet that also tells me much more about the individual. For starters they are not as active locally as they should be, if at all.
I hear so many symptomatic woe is me syndromes on the street and online its even more disgusting. Yet most all conservatives refuse to do two things... 1. Really get involved and then 2. They refuse to quit playing their game.
I worked in a variety of fields within the military and as a civilian contractor. I have seen the work of insurgents and counter insurgency. I have seen men fight for the freedom that we do not take seriously enough despite the fact it is evaporating in front of our very eyes. Revolutions are won from the ground up, not the top down. I just wonder how long until conservatives in America actually start fighting for their freedom in a revolution of the ballot box from the ground up once again. I am certainly afraid that if they do not start NOW, they may find themselves fighting for their very lives.
-
My baby girl turned 25 today. I know all about that "growing up" way to fast thing. It seems like just last week when she was born.
That's the one silver lining in being out of work for so long now - I'm getting to see things that I would have missed most of if I were at the office 10 hours a day, 5 or 6 days a week, and once those things are gone, they are just gone, and there is no way on God's green earth to get them back.
-
A bit of back story for you:
This site is an off-shoot of another conservative site. Most of the high post count members here come from The Other Site (TOS). On TOS was a member by the handle of gator. Gator fancied himself the re-embodiment of the Confederacy and righter of all wrongs involving Israel vis-a-vis The Liberty incident.
In the run-up to the 2008 campaign season Herr gator lost what little of his mind he may have ever possessed and went over to Ron Paul. Alas, about this time Herr gator was also vested with admin authorities. His Ronulan activities attracted the notice of numerous like-but-semi-minded individuals of Paulestinian persuasion. To say they did not acquit themselves with dignity and aplomb would be an understatement. It was not merely one or two of them, it was a universal trait among them. The paranoia, the fear-mongering, strawmen, false dichotomies, ad hominems (particularly "neocon"), indicting the US military etc etc etc.
Whenever one of his Paulestinian cohorts was met in kind Herr gator would ban the "offending" member. I myself was banned for posting article BY Dr Paulsy. Not articles ABOUT Paul but written by his own hand that were so embarrassing gator deleted them and banned me (as opposed to taking an intellectual step back, reassessing his position and shedding his cultism).
The contemporaneous catharsis of our reforming ourselves at this site under such under such injustices can be viewed in the earliest threads of the Fight Club forum which you will be able to view once your post count exceeds 49.
This is why the name Ron Paul! brings such immediate and visceral reactions from this forum. If you are a conservative--and I have no reason to say you are not--you are more than welcome here but be advised, on neighborly terms, that any advocacy of Herr Doktor will unnecessarily complicate whatever point you seek to impart.
I've been here for months and this is the 1st time I've heard the whole story.
It explains a lot. Thanks for posting that synopsis.
-
No if about it. I answered it.
So anyone that disagrees with the GOP is now a Ronulan? Or am I misreading your intent?
Mis reading my intent.
-
Mis reading my intent.
Fair Nuff.
-
I went back and found this post, it is in response to Rich. To see what Rich said it will be his first post on either the first or second page of this thread. I wanted to respond to this directly in concept rather than post a response to Carl. So Carl no offense but Rich and you just happened to offer up the scenario, and its for everyone to think about. While some may be inclined to hit the reply button before you get to the 4th paragraph, please read this whole post for the beginning is a set up for a very important question, point and observation.
Rich made a point and I later basically made the same point yet coming from a different angle. In the end we both end up in the same place. We refuse to vote for a GOP president that is not worthy of being our candidate. Ok everyone put their eyeballs back in and put out the flames for the moment... cause I have more that might just set you on fire and I dont want you to miss anything.
Carl made a good point. When is conservative enough... well conservative enough? What criteria would or should determine the point at which any individual decides to vote or to not vote for a given candidate? Yet Rich's and my point can offer a circular argument in the question ... when is not conservative enough.. well not conservative enough? The circular argument, reasoning all comes back to personal perspective, desires and a LOT depends on how active one is politically as well. Typically I have found with those that I deal with politically the more active you are, the more you demand. Yet lets not get stuck here just yet either.. there is another bridge I would like to cross with this very same idea.
At what point through this political nightmare we have been living in is there enough pain for conservatives to actually stand up and do something? I am not talking about a tea party. Yeah its a great rally but it accomplishes nothing in real terms. I am speaking directly to your local area, your city, county and state level. Here is why I ask this very important question. While we are the conservatives of America, the reason why our conservative status is the way it is... well.. we failed. Too many sat back and became the silent majority and now most of them are semi-silent. They went to a tea party, got a few pictures taken and went "Already taxed enough" and so on. They then work with their online 9-12 groups or other conservative groups to create this idea of changing the system. My problem with it all is a matter of perhaps, too little, to late.
For those that continue to stick to a strict party line, they may find they have a hand in the destruction of our nation rather than its restoration. We have a unique ability in this United States of America to have a revolution every four years, quite literally, yet its via a ballot box. When I look at the government now, its unlike any other time in history. Every part has managed to be compromised despite all of the work the founders did in setting the checks and balances which were supposed to stop this kind of madness. Yet if we do not use the ballot box a our form of revolution, we may indeed find ourselves within a civil war.
I decided some time ago to forget the party, and vote the man. I am a conservative, yet if the man does not merit my vote, I will not give it. My reason is, I am tired of the game. If I am to change the game then two things must happen. First I must get involved. Secondly, I must quit playing the game they want me to play which is the lesser of the two evils. I can fully understand someone claiming that is the only choice they have, yet that also tells me much more about the individual. For starters they are not as active locally as they should be, if at all.
I hear so many symptomatic woe is me syndromes on the street and online its even more disgusting. Yet most all conservatives refuse to do two things... 1. Really get involved and then 2. They refuse to quit playing their game.
I worked in a variety of fields within the military and as a civilian contractor. I have seen the work of insurgents and counter insurgency. I have seen men fight for the freedom that we do not take seriously enough despite the fact it is evaporating in front of our very eyes. Revolutions are won from the ground up, not the top down. I just wonder how long until conservatives in America actually start fighting for their freedom in a revolution of the ballot box from the ground up once again. I am certainly afraid that if they do not start NOW, they may find themselves fighting for their very lives.
Well said Sir.
-
I am certainly afraid that if they do not start NOW, they may find themselves fighting for their very lives.
IMHO it is already too late to prevent that from happening.
It's no longer a matter of "if", it is merely a matter of "when".
I hope like hell that I am wrong.
-
A couple of hypotheticals just so everyone can really think about voting and consequences.
1) Your Senator is Ben Nelson and while considered a moderate or even conservative among dems he is definitely as Frank as said a democrat.
I have no idea about the Republican that ran against him last time but for this exercise will stipulate that there was philosophically little difference or the least was a carbon copy of McCain.
Pleasant choice right?
In light of what we just had happen what was the best option to take in that election?
2) In 2012 we have a reawakening of conservative ideals and the Republican party puts forth a national slate of solid conservatives for President and Congress,as close to perfect in ideology as could be realistically hoped for.
One of the party platforms is recognizing that Social Security is a broken system but going beyond that not a proper role or function of government.
Therefor they call for the complete dismantling of it with whatever funds are there going to meet the payouts promised to everyone currently 60 (or whatever actual age would be projected) and older.
Everyone else will keep the 14% now going into the system but what they have paid in to this point is unfortunately gone.
The overall betterment of our society from not having the tax burden or a dependence on a government system for a "retirement" being a larger issue.
Do you vote for that slate?
Just for fun and hopefully will be a little thought provoking.
-
I don't know how old you are, but for a more recent treck down memory lane we will make a pit stop at the Jimmy Carter years:
* President Jimmy Carter invited Robert Mugabe to the White House in 1980 and fully supported this dictator's rise to power in Rhodesia. Moderate black Bishop Abel Muzorewa had been elected to the post of prime minister. However, President Carter with the support of the world press succeeded in declaring the election null and void. Mugabe, an avowed Marxist, was elected in a second election. The totals of the Zimbabwe disaster under Mugabe are still being tallied: 70 percent unemployment, a total dictatorship, the displacing of productive white farmers and the resulting destruction of productive farms, an exodus of three million Zimbabweans from the country.
* Jimmy Carter has shown a special dedication to the cause of leftist dictators in Central America. He used the full power of the office to undermine and set the stage for the overthrow of the duly elected Anastasio Somosa in Nicaragua, to be replaced by the Marxist Sandanista Daniel Ortega. No matter that the Somosa election had been certified by the OAS. He continues to offer moral support for Marxist dictators Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez.
* The Iran hostage crisis occurred under Jimmy Carter's watch. From Nov. 4, 1979 until Jan. 20, 1981 some 66 Americans were taken hostage and held in the American Embassy in Teheran. They were released within hours of President Ronald Reagan's swearing in ceremony. Just prior to his inauguration, President Reagan was asked if perhaps the captors should wait until he became president so as to make a better deal for the captives release. Reagan replied, "That would be foolish."
* Ex-President Jimmy Carter has been instrumental in the rise to power of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Hugo Chavez was saved from recall by the voters in Venezuela in 2004 with Carter "monitoring" the election. The election was suspicious on many fronts. The exit polls conducted by an independent New York poling firm declared one half hour before the polls closed that Chavez had been defeated. When the official results were announced, Chavez was declared the winner by nearly the exact opposite percentages as the independent poll had determined. Jimmy Carter certified the Chavez victory anyway. Chavez has shown himself to be a continual hater of the United States.
* One of the most serious threats to global security is the nuclear threat posed by Marxist dictator Kim Jung Il of North Korea. In 1994, without governmental authority, Jimmy Carter went to North Korea and brokered a deal with Kim Jung Il that was supposed to keep that rogue state from attaining nuclear weapons. Jimmy's "negotiation" called for the United States to provide the North Koreans with $4 billion worth of light water reactors and $100 million in oil in exchange for a promise not to develop weapons plus assurances that inspectors would be allowed in. On Aug. 28, 2003 North Korea announced that it possessed nuclear weapons.
*Perhaps the most egregious and far reaching of the Jimmy Carter failures was his bringing down of the Shah of Iran in 1979, to be replaced by radical Muslim cleric Ayatollah Khomeini. The history of Iran is such that a secular government friendly to both the West and their trading partners along the ancient trade routes, such as India and China, had been an important stabilizing element in Mid-east politics for centuries. Jimmy Carter pressured the Shah, a longtime friend of the United States, to leave Iran. Then he denied him asylum and medical treatment. At the same time he supported the fundamentalist Mullahs who opposed the Shah. A religious revolution followed and the rise of Muslim fundamentalism had begun in the Middle East. The terrorism and overall unrest that plagues the world today can be properly traced to this specific failure of the Jimmy Carter presidency.
http://209.157.64.201/%5Ehttp://www.freelancenews.com/opinion/contentview.asp?c=179717
Exactly what was Jimmy Carter’s biggest failure?
Carter screwed us with the DoE, but there’s more.
*Carter’s July 15, 1979 Malaise speech when he showed us he was out of hope and ideas and but full of self pity.
*Giving away the Panama Canal or asking his 13 year old daughter for advice on nuclear warfare and being stupid enough to quote her.
*What about the Department of Education? Bureaucrats referred to it as “E.Dâ€, an abbreviation which has another meaning today, but might very well apply to the Department of Education as well.
*Maybe it was the endless gas lines.
*Carter gave us: 13.5% inflation; 21.5% prime rates and home mortgage rates of 14.7%; high unemployment and a jaw dropping 33% poverty rate! He delivered lower disposable income rates for every income quintile.
*Maybe it was the shameful self debasement Carter displayed when he accepted a Nobel Peace Prize as a way to embarrass George W. Bush America’s serving President. He joined Euro-trash socialists in mocking and attacking Bush on foreign soil during wartime in return for a “prize†he didn’t deserve.
The Department of Energy (DoE) Carter’s worst failure
The incomprehensible DoE mission statement would be funny if it weren’t so infuriating. It says nothing about lowering energy prices, its original assignment. Today nobody knows what it does only that it doesn’t lower oil prices.
Now Industry experts are talking about possible $300.00 oil. The DoE was created to lower our dependence on foreign oil, but today we use 45% more than when Carter started it. DoE’s 15,000 workers “need†$24 billion a year to complete its mystery assignment, yet it gives us nothing in return.
Carter’s worst damage is the DoE. It never produced anything but wasted the time and money needed to achieve American energy independent.
http://collinsreport.net/
There is so much out there on Jimmy and his total failures. Yet here we are, still free, still a Republic and still a super power. Before we get all chicken little, remember why we are the greatest nation in the world -- "we the people." The only difference between now and Jimmy's era is today we are the generation of instant news, resulting in more headline readers than anything else.
What is that old saying.. we need a Democrat in office every now and again to remind the intellectually lazy how important the Republican party is. Honestly if the Messiah maintains this trajectory the Republicans can throw up Carrot Top as their presidential candidate and win in a landslide. Since when does substance have ANYTHING to do with who can pull off the win?
I think that the only way to change things is to start at the local level and work up -- as MSB stated many pages ago. Until then support the GOP as there really is no other credible option.
-
A couple of hypotheticals just so everyone can really think about voting and consequences.
1) Your Senator is Ben Nelson and while considered a moderate or even conservative among dems he is definitely as Frank as said a democrat.
I have no idea about the Republican that ran against him last time but for this exercise will stipulate that there was philosophically little difference or the least was a carbon copy of McCain.
Pleasant choice right?
In light of what we just had happen what was the best option to take in that election?
2) In 2012 we have a reawakening of conservative ideals and the Republican party puts forth a national slate of solid conservatives for President and Congress,as close to perfect in ideology as could be realistically hoped for.
One of the party platforms is recognizing that Social Security is a broken system but going beyond that not a proper role or function of government.
Therefor they call for the complete dismantling of it with whatever funds are there going to meet the payouts promised to everyone currently 60 (or whatever actual age would be projected) and older.
Everyone else will keep the 14% now going into the system but what they have paid in to this point is unfortunately gone.
The overall betterment of our society from not having the tax burden or a dependence on a government system for a "retirement" being a larger issue.
Do you vote for that slate?
Just for fun and hopefully will be a little thought provoking.
You did not mention SSI and SSDI. Y'all know this is a losing platform right?
-
Note -- far better to implement the platform without running on it. Make it a part of your campaign and you may win back the base, but the Democrats will kill you in the scare tactics department.
-
You did not mention SSI and SSDI. Y'all know this is a losing platform right?
Perhaps but it is a pretty conservative one so should have some support.
-
A couple of hypotheticals just so everyone can really think about voting and consequences.
1) Your Senator is Ben Nelson and while considered a moderate or even conservative among dems he is definitely as Frank as said a democrat.
I have no idea about the Republican that ran against him last time but for this exercise will stipulate that there was philosophically little difference or the least was a carbon copy of McCain.
Pleasant choice right?
In light of what we just had happen what was the best option to take in that election?
2) In 2012 we have a reawakening of conservative ideals and the Republican party puts forth a national slate of solid conservatives for President and Congress,as close to perfect in ideology as could be realistically hoped for.
One of the party platforms is recognizing that Social Security is a broken system but going beyond that not a proper role or function of government.
Therefor they call for the complete dismantling of it with whatever funds are there going to meet the payouts promised to everyone currently 60 (or whatever actual age would be projected) and older.
Everyone else will keep the 14% now going into the system but what they have paid in to this point is unfortunately gone.
The overall betterment of our society from not having the tax burden or a dependence on a government system for a "retirement" being a larger issue.
Do you vote for that slate?
Just for fun and hopefully will be a little thought provoking.
If that were the case in 2012 for the Republicans I could vote for that.
-
A couple of hypotheticals just so everyone can really think about voting and consequences.
1) Your Senator is Ben Nelson and while considered a moderate or even conservative among dems he is definitely as Frank as said a democrat.
I have no idea about the Republican that ran against him last time but for this exercise will stipulate that there was philosophically little difference or the least was a carbon copy of McCain.
Pleasant choice right?
In light of what we just had happen what was the best option to take in that election?
2) In 2012 we have a reawakening of conservative ideals and the Republican party puts forth a national slate of solid conservatives for President and Congress,as close to perfect in ideology as could be realistically hoped for.
One of the party platforms is recognizing that Social Security is a broken system but going beyond that not a proper role or function of government.
Therefor they call for the complete dismantling of it with whatever funds are there going to meet the payouts promised to everyone currently 60 (or whatever actual age would be projected) and older.
Everyone else will keep the 14% now going into the system but what they have paid in to this point is unfortunately gone.
The overall betterment of our society from not having the tax burden or a dependence on a government system for a "retirement" being a larger issue.
Do you vote for that slate?
Just for fun and hopefully will be a little thought provoking.
What funds? There are no funds there anymore. Congress has misappropriated what should have been there years ago.
The only thing left in that account is a bunch of government IOUs.
Therefore I would vote to dismantle it.
-
This pissing match is still going? :rotf:
-
This pissing match is still going? :rotf:
Ehh,just trying to spark discussion and thought as far as myself.
-
This pissing match is still going? :rotf:
John Birch Society meeting let out early today?
-
John Birch Society meeting let out early today?
After reading through most of this gibber jabberish, I still can not figure out who they want at the top of the ticket in 2012. Reagan changed the Repub party from the top down. My opinion is that Palin can do the same thing. She needs to grab the reins, charge ahead and define the Repub party. Rockefeller Repubs will not be happy with her brand of conservatism. Yep, we need a leader to put these RINO's in their place. We tried it their way in the last election; so it's time to go in the opposite direction.
-
John Birch Society meeting let out early today?
Was that sarcasm, an attempt at humor, or an attempt at an insult?
-
Was that sarcasm, an attempt at humor, or an attempt at an insult?
Personally, I took it as an attempt to insult.
But I've been wrong from time to time in the past and I'm sure I will be again in the future from time to time.
So perhaps I am wrong this time.
-
Personally, I took it as an attempt to insult.
But I've been wrong from time to time in the past and I'm sure I will be again in the future from time to time.
So perhaps I am wrong this time.
Given he's been responding to me with a passive agressive comment at every turn, I only assumed it to be (yet another) insult... Status Quo, I'm learning.
-
Given he's been responding to me with a passive agressive comment at every turn, I only assumed it to be (yet another) insult... Status Quo, I'm learning.
Some don't like the group think to be challanged it seems.
Oh well... Such is life from time to time.
-
I hear the word sheeple coming. :whatever:
-
I hear the word sheeple coming. :whatever:
Did a goat whisper that in your ear?
:fuelfire:
-
Did a goat whisper that in your ear?
:fuelfire:
Nope. :-)
-
I will post it again just to amuse myself I guess...
Your Senator is Ben Nelson and while considered a moderate or even conservative among dems he is definitely as Frank as said a democrat.
I have no idea about the Republican that ran against him last time but for this exercise will stipulate that there was philosophically little difference or the least was a carbon copy of McCain.
Pleasant choice right?
In light of what we just had happen what was the best option to take in that election?
Any takers?
-
I will post it again just to amuse myself I guess...
Your Senator is Ben Nelson and while considered a moderate or even conservative among dems he is definitely as Frank as said a democrat.
I have no idea about the Republican that ran against him last time but for this exercise will stipulate that there was philosophically little difference or the least was a carbon copy of McCain.
Pleasant choice right?
In light of what we just had happen what was the best option to take in that election?
Any takers?
That has already been responded to Carl.
-
That has already been responded to Carl.
In all respect that one hasn`t been responded to.
The second about SS was by you and Tx but that one wasn`t.
-
I hear the word sheeple coming. :whatever:
Yeah it will be here soon enough.
-
I will post it again just to amuse myself I guess...
Your Senator is Ben Nelson and while considered a moderate or even conservative among dems he is definitely as Frank as said a democrat.
I have no idea about the Republican that ran against him last time but for this exercise will stipulate that there was philosophically little difference or the least was a carbon copy of McCain.
Pleasant choice right?
In light of what we just had happen what was the best option to take in that election?
Any takers?
If that was the case then we'd have to look at a repeat of what Palin and a few other Conservatives did in the NY-23 race.
-
That and with the adults back in charge...National Security won't be the punchline to a joke.
Yeah no more will he hear the system worked when an attack was damn near successful. For God's sake the guy may as well have been holding up a sign saying "I have a bomb" and they seated him on the plane.
-
Yeah no more will he hear the system worked when an attack was damn near successful. For God's sake the guy may as well have been holding up a sign saying "I have a bomb" and they seated him on the plane.
Naw.
The sign would have been confiscated before he was allowed to board - it might have sharp edges.
-
gopcongress?
how about "Concervativecongress"?
Might have to register that...
-
Must...obey...GOP.....for...the...win...
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiVYjRbZMe0&feature=related[/youtube]
-
We're working on it.
-
WOW, just WOW. This thread was very hard to follow but darned interesting. Here's my reply to the highlights as I remember them, the things that stand out in MY mind.
Third party tickets are pointless.
There is a LOT of bitching about what to do about dem-lites and RINO's but the simpliest answer is being overlooked. GET INVOLVED! I am a Tea Party follower and if you aren't involved in any grassroots orginizations, you are missing the boat on where to find answers to these questions. Limbo never gets us anywhere.
Carl, I wouldn't vote for either candidate in your scenario. It's time to stop the crawl toward "no real choice"... be active in the primaries, demand outstanding candidates so the choice is obvious between two distinct ideals. The last 2 Presidential elections are perfect examples. I held my nose for Bush in the 2nd term so am now cast as a Repuke, same with McCain. Push for REAL conservatives and start NOW.
-
The neo conservatives are the problem. Mitt Romney, Lindsey Graham, and John McCain are fakes. Ron Paul is one of the few who is a real Republican. The Libertarian party is more Republican than the Republican party. Non intervention has been apart of the GOP for along time. What do the neo cons do? Start building and policing nations. Ron Paul is the most honest man in politics. One of the few, if not only, politicans who has never voted to increase taxes or approve a unbalanced budget. If he is not the nominee then I am probably voting third party. I turn 18 in 2012, so this will be my first time to vote. Join the R[love]ution. Google Ron Paul!
-
The neo conservatives are the problem. Mitt Romney, Lindsey Graham, and John McCain are fakes. Ron Paul is one of the few who is a real Republican. The Libertarian party is more Republican than the Republican party. Non intervention has been apart of the GOP for along time. What do the neo cons do? Start building and policing nations. Ron Paul is the most honest man in politics. One of the few, if not only, politicans who has never voted to increase taxes or approve a unbalanced budget. If he is not the nominee then I am probably voting third party. I turn 18 in 2012, so this will be my first time to vote. Join the R[love]ution. Google Ron Paul!
Enjoy your (very short) stay...
(http://www.oddpic.com/data/510/shut-the-****-up.jpg)
Now if you please, go die in a ****ing fire.
-
R[love]ution
Oh my.