The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: thundley4 on January 26, 2010, 09:19:10 PM
-
The “blame Bush†strategy flamed out in Massachusetts so they’re moving on to an even more substantive Plan B.
“Given the pressure Republican candidates feel from the extreme right in their party, there is a critical – yet time-sensitive –opportunity for Democratic candidates,†a DSCC memo, obtained by CNN, states. “We have a finite window when Republicans candidates will feel susceptible to the extremists in their party. Given the urgent nature of this dynamic, we suggest an aggressive effort to get your opponents on the record.â€
Specifically, the DSCC wants Democratic candidates to pin down their likely opponents on several hot-button issues, including:
- Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S.citizen?
- Do you think the Tenth Amendment bars Congress from issuing regulations like minimum healthcare coverage standards?
- Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism, and should never have been created in the first place?
- Do you think President Obama is a socialist?
- Do you think America should return to a gold standard?
Honestly, it’s not a bad strategy. They’ve got nothing left to offer independents, as Brown’s win proved only too well, and they’re too fatally compromised by ObamaCare to recast themselves as small-government types now. If they want to win the center, their best bet — which doesn’t mean it’s a good bet — is to screech about “birthers, ‘baggers, and blowhards,†as Bob Beckel so memorably put it. Besides, these are all good wedge issues to help sow dissent in the Republican ranks. How will McCain answer the Social Security question knowing that Hayworth’s bearing down on him?
After this leaked, the GOP came up with its own list of wedge questions for Republican candidates to use against their opponents. Follow the link and see which side’s talking points are more relevant to the national debate. Exit quotation: “Do you agree with the Obama Administration that terrorists should be afforded the same rights as American citizens, tried in American courtrooms, and ultimately held on American soil?â€
HotAir (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/26/new-dems-midterm-strategy-make-the-election-about-birtherism/)
What the Republicans should ask the DimRat candidates:
Do you believe the $787 billion "stimulus" bill worked? Would you support a second so-called "stimulus" bill, even though the first failed to create much-needed jobs? Or do you believe the unspent money should be returned to the taxpayers?
Are you willing to hold open discussions to reach an agreement on bipartisan health care reform, or will you continue to support backroom deals - such as the Cornhusker Kickback - in order to ram an unpopular and costly government-run health care bill through Congress?
Do you support the half-trillion dollars in Medicare cuts proposed in the Democrats’ health care bill, and do you believe that those cuts will strengthen Medicare? If so, would you support a stand-alone bill to "strengthen" Medicare by cutting a half-trillion dollars?
Do you support the almost half-trillion dollars in new taxes contained in the Democrats’ health care bill? If so, do you believe raising taxes during a recession is the right thing to do?
Do you support increasing the nation’s debt limit by yet another $2 trillion?
Do you support the contentious and costly cap-and-trade legislation, or will you stand up for families, seniors, and small business owners who cannot afford to pay for a costly tax increase every time they turn on their lights or go about their day-to-day lives?
Do you believe the Obama Administration was correct when they gave the Christmas Day bomber a lawyer and the right to remain silent before our intelligence professionals had the opportunity to question him about other potential attacks on the United States?
Do you agree with the Obama Administration that terrorists should be afforded the same rights as American citizens, tried in American courtrooms, and ultimately held on American soil?
NRSC (http://www.nrsc.org/nrsc-memo-to-gop-senate-candidates)
-
You must be ****ing kidding me. :whatever:
I pretty much figured the "birthers" are the Republican equivalent of 9/11 truthers. I know they're still out there, but if this is all the Dems are going to run on.... :lmao: :lmao:
-
How the hell did the Democrat party win the majority?
:mental:
-
How the hell did the Democrat party win the majority?
:mental:
As the DUmmies are fond of pointing out, there are lots of idiots in this country, and they vote for Dimrats most of the time.
-
- Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S.citizen?
Doesn't matter. This is an election between myself and (insert candidate)
- Do you think the Tenth Amendment bars Congress from issuing regulations like minimum healthcare coverage standards?
Yes. Let the states set their own standards.
- Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism, and should never have been created in the first place?
Yes. People in need can be much better served in a more efficient manner by private organizations rather than the cumbersome Federal Government.
- Do you think President Obama is a socialist?
No. He's a Statist who follows "Rules For Radicals" to the letter.
- Do you think America should return to a gold standard?
Only if you want to wreck our economy and that of several other nations around the world.
And besides that's a question better asked of Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party. I'm a Republican...not a cultist.
-
Hi,
My big question for the democrats is this.
Do you believe it is your job in congress to represent those who hired you as opposed to special interest groups?
If so, why then would you vote for a stimulus package, a cap and trade bill and a health care bill all opposed by almost 2/3 of the American people.
regards,
5412
-
How the hell did the Democrat party win the majority?
:mental:
Lying through their teeth.
-
Lying through their teeth.
Pretty much:
During the campaign - 'Make me President and I can fix everything!'
One year later - 'The American people just have their expectations set too high, they don't realize that the President can't just fix everything!'
-
How the hell did the Democrat party win the majority?
:mental:
Republicans gave it to them.
-
Pretty much:
During the campaign - 'Make me President and I can fix everything!'
One year later - "It's Bush's fault"
Fixt.
-
You know, I really do hope that the commucrats make a big deal out of the birth certificate. If they do, it'll make that issue front and center for a very short campaign season.
-
Republicans gave it to them.
Yeah, they never get tired of the Blame Bush thing, but I wasn't kidding on my post, the second meme about the poor ol' Office of the President's limitations are exactly what they are trying to float in the media now, I have heard the idea somewhat-subtly being ventured on entertainment media this week.
-
I heard today that he said he would be happy with being a one term POTUS well if he keeps up with what he is doing that is all he will be
-
How the hell did the Democrat party win the majority?
:mental:
Because the Republicans got a triple-whammy of a political loss - the Bush admin's plummeting approval ratings circa 2007-8 kicked it off, and then the exceptionally poor choice of Sarah Palin as a VP candidate helped erode the Republican voting base's confidence in their own party enough for the Democrats to deliver haymakers in the congressional elections.
Funny thing is, though, that as soon as the Democrats realized they had this majority, all the talk of bipartisanship went completely out of the window. Instead, they decided it would just be easier to trample the opposition.
This is why we have the Tea Party movement. When I talk to people on liberal forums, it's amazing that they fail to recognize this simple fact. Who in hell wouldn't be concerned by a political party that simply wants to ramrod legislation through at all levels?
Of course, 107 filibusters in a year isn't such a good track record, either.
-
Because the Republicans got a triple-whammy of a political loss - the Bush admin's plummeting approval ratings circa 2007-8 kicked it off, and then the exceptionally poor choice of John McCain as a presidential candidate helped erode the Republican voting base's confidence in their own party enough for the Democrats to deliver haymakers in the congressional elections.
FIFY
-
and then the exceptionally poor choice of Sarah Palin as a VP candidate helped erode the Republican voting base's confidence in their own party enough
What???? Maybe the RINO portion of the party was disappointed, not THIS conservative. IMO Palin isn't Presidential material but VP was fine by me.
-
Well, I might have been a little off-base with that one, and I'll agree with you on McCain also being a terrible presidential choice.
I guess I was thinking along the lines of Palin being next in the line of succession... or maybe just that running somebody as 'brainy' as Palin after eight years of Cheney's shrewd attitude as VP was a no-no.
But yeah, generally - agreed.
-
and then the exceptionally poor choice of Sarah Palin as a VP candidate helped erode the Republican voting base's confidence in their own party enough
What???? Maybe the RINO portion of the party was disappointed, not THIS conservative. IMO Palin isn't Presidential material but VP was fine by me.
Compared to Biden on their ticket? Hell yeah. At least she isn't brain-damaged/senile (Whichever Joe is, if not both). McCain would've been astoundingly lucky to break 40% if she hadn't been on the ticket.
-
At least she isn't brain-damaged/senile (Whichever Joe is, if not both)
More of a grade A dumbass, IMHO.
Anyway, back to the OP, right now I'd say the Republicans have some very legitimate ammo to throw at the Democrats, who have made some of the most financially stupid decisions in our country's fiscal history lately. The Democrats trying to paint all conservatives/parts of conservative movements as racist loonies, etc., is not really that surprising.
I'm not that confident that seeing Republicans back in office would be that much better, though. At least not most Republican candidates. Republican, Democrat, most of them are corporate sellouts either way.
-
More of a grade A dumbass, IMHO.
Why do you say that?
-
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/joebiden/a/bidenisms.htm
-
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/joebiden/a/bidenisms.htm
Sorry, thought you were talking about Sarah.
Oooopppsss!
:-)
-
Well, a lot here will disagree with you on that one, Doppelganger, but in the event she's lucky McCain lost, because if he'd won she would have been permanently associated with John-boy's stupidest ideas, like some variation of cap-and-trade, as well as a Democrat-dominated Congress slipping the shiv to both of them at every opportunity with the press all too eager to pile on any misstep and paint the roadblocks in Congress as his fault.
You can buy into the 'She's sure no genius' propaganda if you wish, but some of the most dangerous and/or nutty Presidents we've ever had were supposed to be big super-smart guys, like Woodrow Wilson and of course Jimmuh and OhBummer. The best have been men who, while intelligent, more importantly had the character to stand for their principles, a vision of what policies would be needed to address them, and had the fundamental common sense and humility to see eyeball to eyeball with opponents and allies instead of looking down on them form a perch of superiority. A great academic record really seems to be a completely crappy predictor of Presidential performance.
-
DT: Well, that's very true. Academic performance definitely isn't an indicator of presidential performance. And Obama has proved to be about as effective as Carter, and albeit less trustworthy.
There's still something about Palin I fundamentally distrust or don't like though - she just doesn't seem to be good leader material to me. She just seems a little too self-absorbed, as demonstrated by moves like dropping out as gov. of Alaska.
-
There's still something about Palin I fundamentally distrust or don't like though - she just doesn't seem to be good leader material to me. She just seems a little too self-absorbed, as demonstrated by moves like dropping out as gov. of Alaska.
A little too self absorbed? As compared to who?
Sarah actually ran a state and a business (without "feminist" help), busted up a very entrenched good ol' boys political network in Alaska, and did not drive the state into bankruptcy.
Not good leader material? The only one of the four candidates last fall to have any executive experience? Really?
-
Gut feeling. Like I said, something about her just strikes me as superficial, and I really dislike the fact that she dropped out of Alaska. Sometimes you have to go with your gut, right?
That said, it's not as if I consider her the devil. If it came down to voting between her and Obama, I might just vote for her, at this point.
-
Gut feeling. Like I said, something about her just strikes me as superficial, and I really dislike the fact that she dropped out of Alaska. Sometimes you have to go with your gut, right?
When it comes to elections, I'll take documented behavior and voting patterns every time. Going with the gut got us this hopey-changey crap that we are mired in.
That said, it's not as if I consider her the devil. If it came down to voting between her and Obama, I might just vote for her, at this point.
Just might? Sorry, but actual research doesn't seem to be a strong point of yours.
-
DG, gut feeling does count for a lot in politics, and in dealing with people generally, my own opinion of her is different, but I get where you're coming from.
I think she was caught in a rope-a-dope situation with the continuous ethics complaints in Alaska, but it's difficult to explain one state's peculiarities to a national electorate. I believe that losing situation and the ability to act on the national stage for the 2010 elections (Without opening herself to complaints of abandoning her post while still on salary at home) were the real reasons for the resignation, but not easily-grasped ones within the Lower 48.
-
Well, a lot here will disagree with you on that one, Doppelganger, but in the event she's lucky McCain lost, because if he'd won she would have been permanently associated with John-boy's stupidest ideas, like some variation of cap-and-trade, as well as a Democrat-dominated Congress slipping the shiv to both of them at every opportunity with the press all too eager to pile on any misstep and paint the roadblocks in Congress as his fault.
You can buy into the 'She's sure no genius' propaganda if you wish, but some of the most dangerous and/or nutty Presidents we've ever had were supposed to be big super-smart guys, like Woodrow Wilson and of course Jimmuh and OhBummer. The best have been men who, while intelligent, more importantly had the character to stand for their principles, a vision of what policies would be needed to address them, and had the fundamental common sense and humility to see eyeball to eyeball with opponents and allies instead of looking down on them form a perch of superiority. A great academic record really seems to be a completely crappy predictor of Presidential performance.
:bow: My thougts exactly only better expressed. She had me at "lipstick"
And because of what I believe to be her true ideals, and having the courage of her convictions, she would get my vote. But not as President, not yet. And I'm afraid her choice of ventures ie FOX commentator, she will be damaged goods for any future office.
Sorry about the thread hijack.
-
DT: Well, that's very true. Academic performance definitely isn't an indicator of presidential performance. And Obama has proved to be about as effective as Carter, and albeit less trustworthy.
There's still something about Palin I fundamentally distrust or don't like though - she just doesn't seem to be good leader material to me. She just seems a little too self-absorbed, as demonstrated by moves like dropping out as gov. of Alaska.
Sorry, sonny. It took a very determined leader to understand she was a liability to her state and best served it by resigning. The Satan's Soldiers tried to make her useless in her office. She bested them. You should be in awe of her.
-
Yes, Undies, the resignation was in a strategic sense a bit of a knight's move, sidestepping the machinations of her foes. It took unconventional thinking to see it and do it, of course that aspect of it gets no play in our highly-superficial media, but while the negative press has made her less marketable as a candidate (For now at least, and only important if she intended to run for office in the short run) every other aspect of it is advantageous for her.
-
The Satan's Soldiers tried to make her useless in her office.
Satan's Soldiers? Oh, come on, man... ::) There may well have been a lot of douchebag politicians working against Palin in Alaska. There's no need to credit them with supernatural powers.
DG, gut feeling does count for a lot in politics,
Thank you, and yes, it does. Especially in a nation where the facts have become so convoluted with diatribe.
Just might? Sorry, but actual research doesn't seem to be a strong point of yours.
And common sense doesn't seem to be a strong point of yours. My endorsing a candidate who may not even run, who may do any number of stupid or fundamentally erratic things in the next two years that could persuade me to say otherwise, is a perfectly good reason for 'just might'.
-
And common sense doesn't seem to be a strong point of yours. My endorsing a candidate who may not even run, who may do any number of stupid or fundamentally erratic things in the next two years that could persuade me to say otherwise, is a perfectly good reason for 'just might'.
You "go with your gut" on choosing a candidate to vote for and I'm the one who lacks common sense?
:rofl:
For whom did you vote in the 2008 presidential election?
-
No, not just my gut.
Who did you vote for? No matter what you say, I can tell you that you voted for a bad candidate (unless you didn't vote at all). So what's your point?
And it's rude to ask, last I checked.
-
No, not just my gut.
What then? Did you consult the liberal web sites to make your decision?
Who did you vote for?
Sarah.
No matter what you say, I can tell you that you voted for a bad candidate (unless you didn't vote at all).
In my opinion, there was only one good one out of four.
So what's your point?
Curious as to what your "gut" told you to do.
And it's rude to ask, last I checked.
And coming in here to lecture us horrible little extremists isn't?
-
Gut feeling. Like I said, something about her just strikes me as superficial, and I really dislike the fact that she dropped out of Alaska. Sometimes you have to go with your gut, right?
That said, it's not as if I consider her the devil. If it came down to voting between her and Obama, I might just vote for her, at this point.
And sometimes said gut is sour and needs to regurgitate it's contents. Instead of using your gut, how about do some research? Read her book. Alaska (because of it's oil and natural gas resources) has to deal with local, state, federal, international, and corporate interests. She explained her reasons for leaving (see the tons of petty law suits the dems were throwing at her...a logo jacket worn at one of her husband's races, for heaven's sake) and how much it was costing a state she worked hard to bring into fiscal balance. Not to mention her family's personal cost. It was purposeful.
She's hardly superficial. She's attractive. Some people are threatened by that. It's okay if you have doubts. I just wish they weren't all the same dem talking points that have been state over and over and answered over and over. Do your homework and think for yourself.
Cindie
-
* * *
(unless you didn't vote at all)
* * *
In which case you voted for the worst candidate possible.
-
Satan's Soldiers? Oh, come on, man... ::) There may well have been a lot of douchebag politicians working against Palin in Alaska. There's no need to credit them with supernatural powers.
Hmmm, a soldier of Satan doesn't necessarily have "supernatural" powers. A soldier of Satan is merely a follower that promotes the evil that Satan desires. I suppose that you've never heard the song, "Onward Christian Soldiers"?? Does that mean that Christians have supernatural powers?? I don't believe so.
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mvxe04wGmTw[/youtube]
-
She's hardly superficial. She's attractive. Some people are threatened by that. It's okay if you have doubts. I just wish they weren't all the same dem talking points that have been state over and over and answered over and over. Do your homework and think for yourself.
Cindie
What I'm saying around definitely not Dem talking points. Go to any liberal debate board and you will see that the opinions there are very different from mine. The reason I'm catching so much flak here is because my opinion doesn't perfectly match up to the acceptable norm - i.e., purely conservative. I get the same thing on liberal boards; if I go to one of those, I'm a conservative because I don't have purely liberal views. :lmao:
And coming in here to lecture us horrible little extremists isn't?
This is a political debate board. Do you want to exchange debate with people outside of your own point of view, or do you only want to debate with other conservatives? You won't win anybody over if you refuse to acknowledge other viewpoints... but if my presence here bothers you that badly, I'll leave.
So, would you like me to leave? Does my debate, my willingness to converse with you and share a different point of view offend you so much?
-
Do you want to exchange debate with people outside of your own point of view, or do you only want to debate with other conservatives? You won't win anybody over if you refuse to acknowledge other viewpoints...
So many things wrong with this, so little internet; but just for starters:
What makes you think we haven't considered other viewpoints and from that consideration became conservative?
-
This is a political debate board. Do you want to exchange debate with people outside of your own point of view, or do you only want to debate with other conservatives?
Debate is good, the exchange of ideas is also good. What I don't like is being called "rude" by someone who looks to lecture me. That is hypocrisy, and that I will not tolerate.
I have considered other viewpoints. The viewpoints of the left make me want to vomit. The viewpoints of the squishy middle are not viewpoints at all; they're fingers in the air viewpoints. That is gutless. The viewpoints of the really hard right are myopic and unrealistic. The viewpoints I have today are from considering all others.
That cover it enough for you?
but if my presence here bothers you that badly, I'll leave.
I could care less if you are here or not. If being challenged on your own views are this distasteful, maybe you should leave. If you are so set in your ways that your first contact with people who don't fall at your feet in awe of your brilliance is so hard to swallow, the get out.
Otherwise, be open to other viewpoints.
So, would you like me to leave?
Your presence here neither hurts me nor helps me. I could care less what you do.
Does my debate, my willingness to converse with you and share a different point of view offend you so much?
No, but apparently mine does you.
;-)
-
So many things wrong with this, so little internet; but just for starters:
What makes you think we haven't considered other viewpoints and from that consideration became conservative?
I'm sure you have. I've done the same, but I didn't arrive at pure conservatism because I believe there are elements of pure conservatism that are too intolerant for my tastes.
Debate is good, the exchange of ideas is also good. What I don't like is being called "rude" by someone who looks to lecture me. That is hypocrisy, and that I will not tolerate.
But you are also lecturing me. This is the nature of debate - what I called you on was asking me who I voted for, not your 'lecture'. I appreciate being lectured - if you listen to lectures, sometimes you learn things. From you (and others here), I have learned that Palin might not be as bad of a candidate as I thought she was.
I have considered other viewpoints. The viewpoints of the left make me want to vomit. The viewpoints of the squishy middle are not viewpoints at all; they're fingers in the air viewpoints. That is gutless. The viewpoints of the really hard right are myopic and unrealistic. The viewpoints I have today are from considering all others.
That cover it enough for you?
Well, it covers it, but I think you're wrong. The views of the center are not necessarily 'gutless' - I consider them realistic. Better to reach a compromise between two sides that are rapidly becoming more and more hostile to one another than to watch our entire system break down while they war with one another and refuse to cooperate.
I could care less if you are here or not. If being challenged on your own views are this distasteful, maybe you should leave. If you are so set in your ways that your first contact with people who don't fall at your feet in awe of your brilliance is so hard to swallow, the get out.
Well, I don't expect that at all. I'm not leaving though. :naughty: I'm a little more thick-skinned than all of that.
I like being challenged on my views, and if you guys can prove me wrong and show me something that makes more sense, I'd love that. Learning that you have been wrong and being able to admit it and move in the correct direction is growth.
Meanwhile, I'd like to try and argue what I consider to be right and true. It's not quite identifiable with either American liberal or conservative values, but that doesn't mean we can't find things to agree on.
-
I'm sure you have. I've done the same, but I didn't arrive at pure conservatism because I believe there are elements of pure conservatism that are too intolerant for my tastes.
Same here.
But you are also lecturing me. This is the nature of debate
Debate is the exchange of ideas. Lecture is by it's very nature a one way conversation. I've done much less lecturing and much more responding.
- what I called you on was asking me who I voted for,
I asked who you voted for because I believe it would be a good indication of the foundation of your thinking.
Who did you vote for?
I appreciate being lectured - if you listen to lectures, sometimes you learn things.
I love learning, I never stop. However, if I have someone that I perceive to be talking down to me and not really listening to what I am saying, I bristle. As an American and as a Southerner, I am pretty much hardwired to react negatively to perceptions of being "lectured" and told what to do.
If you have something to teach me that my own research has not borne out, I'll be more than happy to listen. So far, sir, that has not been the case.
From you (and others here), I have learned that Palin might not be as bad of a candidate as I thought she was.
You only figured that out when you discovered she was not taking money to talk at a convention. I think that maybe you should have listened to what we were saying before you committed an act of self ownage. Just sayin'....
Well, it covers it, but I think you're wrong.
I'm shocked, really. :-)
The views of the center are not necessarily 'gutless' - I consider them realistic. Better to reach a compromise between two sides that are rapidly becoming more and more hostile to one another
How much, exactly, of your freedom are you willing to "compromise"? Because, like it or not, that's where we are today.
than to watch our entire system break down while they war with one another and refuse to cooperate.
Considering how much freedom has been already lost, I would consider a deadlocked legislature a blessing.
Well, I don't expect that at all. I'm not leaving though. :naughty: I'm a little more thick-skinned than all of that.
Excellent, I am glad to hear that.
Honestly, no kidding.... :-)
I like being challenged on my views, and if you guys can prove me wrong and show me something that makes more sense, I'd love that. Learning that you have been wrong and being able to admit it and move in the correct direction is growth.
No argument there.
Meanwhile, I'd like to try and argue what I consider to be right and true. It's not quite identifiable with either American liberal or conservative values, but that doesn't mean we can't find things to agree on.
It would appear, sir, that we already have.
-
I asked who you voted for because I believe it would be a good indication of the foundation of your thinking.
Who did you vote for?
Well, last election, I voted for the Libertarian candidate (Bob Barr) because I didn't like any of the alternatives. Chuck Baldwin was a little too far right for me, and I wasn't going to vote for either McCain or Obama, although my opinion of Obama at the time of his election was considerably less pessimistic than it is now.
I love learning, I never stop. However, if I have someone that I perceive to be talking down to me and not really listening to what I am saying, I bristle. As an American and as a Southerner, I am pretty much hardwired to react negatively to perceptions of being "lectured" and told what to do.
I'll try to stop giving the impression that I want to 'lecture' you, then, if this has been the case. I would rather share ideas with you.
How much, exactly, of your freedom are you willing to "compromise"? Because, like it or not, that's where we are today.
I'd rather not compromise any. But I'm not confident enough in the ability of the American people to fight a revolution against a government that is armed with advanced technology to want to gamble on it.
Considering how much freedom has been already lost, I would consider a deadlocked legislature a blessing.
Not I, because it will just be time for people like Obama to force things like 'executive orders' through.
It would appear, sir, that we already have.
:)
-
What I'm saying around definitely not Dem talking points. Go to any liberal debate board and you will see that the opinions there are very different from mine. The reason I'm catching so much flak here is because my opinion doesn't perfectly match up to the acceptable norm - i.e., purely conservative. I get the same thing on liberal boards; if I go to one of those, I'm a conservative because I don't have purely liberal views. :lmao:
This is a political debate board. Do you want to exchange debate with people outside of your own point of view, or do you only want to debate with other conservatives? You won't win anybody over if you refuse to acknowledge other viewpoints... but if my presence here bothers you that badly, I'll leave.
So, would you like me to leave? Does my debate, my willingness to converse with you and share a different point of view offend you so much?
Excuse me, but "superficial" IS a democrat talking point. My problem is you spout something without providing a REASON why you think she's superficial. What has she said? Is it something she believes? If it's just her looks or clothing then you'll have to come to grips with the fact that you're the superficial one. Having a "feeling" (in your gut or elsewhere) isn't a good reason for a opinion about anyone. That kind of non-thinking is how we got the limp wristed TOTUS mimic we have today. Saying people on liberal boards do the same thing is a straw man. Stick with the topic. Saying "they do the same thing", implying you're the "reasonable" one. You've come to a board where people have deep political convictions. Every one of us has given reason for their political philosophy so far the only thing I know about the squishy middle is that you guys consider yourself "reasonable and tolerant" because you refuse to take a stand and insist on telling those who do that they're too far right or left.
I have no problem with debate as long as you actually talk about the issues. Tell us why you believe what you do. I already know what I think, I know what the left thinks of my opinions. You don't win people to your point of view by saying "oh the other side does the same thing". Big ****ing deal. At least we're willing to take a stand, how bout you?
Cindie
-
@ delilah: You're right (about Palin). And, as was already commented, I came here with preconceived ideas. I'm just going to admit that I was wrong now rather than argue further and dig myself a hole, try to find out more about Palin's views and history, and reevaluate where I stand on them. That doesn't mean I'll totally agree, but I'm going to run on the assumption that I've let the media and the bias of acquaintances tell me more than facts so far and see where it gets me.
You've come to a board where people have deep political convictions. Every one of us has given reason for their political philosophy so far the only thing I know about the squishy middle is that you guys consider yourself "reasonable and tolerant" because you refuse to take a stand and insist on telling those who do that they're too far right or left.
Well, no. I don't want anyone to change their views or become more moderate if they truly believe those views. I guess 'centrism' is kind of a misleading term for what I want to promote - because I don't really care how moderate somebody is. To my knowledge, there is no particularly fitting term for my stance, so I use 'Centrist' because it makes the most sense, and because we are all in the habit of redefining political terminology anyway. For that matter, some of my own views are not particularly moderate. What I do believe in is compromise where compromise is possible with the eventual goal of trying to lead those whose beliefs have been corrupted by authoritarianism back towards common sense and an embrace of individual rights over state power.
My objection to common conservative methodology is that I highly doubt the ability of the right to simply convince the American liberal left that they are flat out 'wrong'. It has to be done in stages and done without threat of corruption, and it has to be done in a way that promotes brotherhood between all American citizens, not hatred and animosity just because of differences in ideals. Eventually, I think that could make people come 'round to common sense.
-
Satan's Soldiers? Oh, come on, man... ::) There may well have been a lot of douchebag politicians working against Palin in Alaska. There's no need to credit them with supernatural powers.
Oh, there is absolutely NOTHING supernatural about them. Satan's Soldiers do evil things. They don't even know the master they serve. Their vile hatred of humanity is in sync with the dark forces whether by accident or design. And it really doesn't matter which it is.
Keep your eyes and ears open to leftists. Listen to their lie that they are the lighted path of all mankind. Then watch what they do. Everything the leftist propose or claims to want to happen is in direct opposition to what is best for individuals. It is always about shared misery for all.
Sounds just like Satan's plans.