The Conservative Cave
The Bar => Introductions & Subsequent Welcomes => Topic started by: remington762700 on May 19, 2012, 10:26:20 PM
-
Conservatism is politically dead. There are those who claim to be conservatives that have no real understanding what that means. Conservatism is a political ideology that has historically elected republicans who in turn support and advance the conservative ideology but not any more.
McCain wasn't a conservative and neither was George W or Herbert Walker Bush yet they were all republican. Why would they be the representatives for conservatism? What part of the conservative ideology saw advancements during their terms? Are conservatives in need of pulling their support completely for the republican nomination and supporting a third party? I'm still reeling from the attacks on the Constitution. McCain/Feingold, the ongoing 2nd Amendment issues, search and seizure, Eminent Domain, Double Jeopardy and the ever expanding influences of the 14th Amendment to name a few. Our Congressional leaders act in their own self interests, society has inadvertently created a political system where the majority of the power rests with one person, the President and in a time when so many have to make such an effort to work for a company they'll never own, working with people they may not like for an income that covers the bare necessities and little else I have to ask who the hell has the power here?!
I'd like to see if I'm in the company genuine conservatives who can work together and realistically discuss these issues, point out why we should or shouldn't elect yet another candidate with an R beside his name only to whisper 4 years from now that conservatism is buried a little deeper in a hole of obscurity and add to the discussion the pitfalls and promise where ever they lie.
-
Conservatism is politically dead. There are those who claim to be conservatives that have no real understanding what that means. Conservatism is a political ideology that has historically elected republicans who in turn support and advance the conservative ideology but not any more.
McCain wasn't a conservative and neither was George W or Herbert Walker Bush yet they were all republican. Why would they be the representatives for conservatism? What part of the conservative ideology saw advancements during their terms? Are conservatives in need of pulling their support completely for the republican nomination and supporting a third party? I'm still reeling from the attacks on the Constitution. McCain/Feingold, the ongoing 2nd Amendment issues, search and seizure, Eminent Domain, Double Jeopardy and the ever expanding influences of the 14th Amendment to name a few. Our Congressional leaders act in their own self interests, society has inadvertently created a political system where the majority of the power rests with one person, the President and in a time when so many have to make such an effort to work for a company they'll never own, working with people they may not like for an income that covers the bare necessities and little else I have to ask who the hell has the power here?!
I'd like to see if I'm in the company genuine conservatives who can work together and realistically discuss these issues, point out why we should or shouldn't elect yet another candidate with an R beside his name only to whisper 4 years from now that conservatism is buried a little deeper in a hole of obscurity and add to the discussion the pitfalls and promise where ever they lie.
Was an introduction buried somewhere in there?
Hi. Tell us about yourself.
-
Was an introduction buried somewhere in there?
Hi. Tell us about yourself.
Yes, in an introduction thread, please.
-
Hi
I'm homeless and I'm jobless. I currently reside in 2 separate States (Which may soon include a third) and I'm not sure where my next meals coming from. I eat lots of bread and it's become a real treat to buy a 2 liter Mt Dew.
How's that?
(Boring)
-
Yes, in an introduction thread, please.
Just out of curiosity, what government program are you on that you have sooooo much time on your hands?
-
Remington, I'm new here too. I found it was helpful to lurk for a few weeks & get a feel for this place rather than demanding the members present their bonafides. There are probably a few places more "conservative" out there but, these folks have the best weapon in the world - humor. Welcome & Cheers, Mike
-
Bad dog I always hate the damn intros. Maybe it's simply curiosity but my anonymity affords the security of being honest. Whether I'm a plumber, a cabbie, a General or Corporate Executive the reason all of us are here is to add our thoughts to the discussion and get opposing viewpoints and no one regardless of income or social status has the monopoly on good ideas. So maybe I'm getting off on the wrong foot here but I don't want people to know "who I am". Honestly I think it's irreverent which is why I introduced myself by "why I'm here.
I appreciate you taking time to post on my intro though and look forward to making some friends too.
-
Just out of curiosity, what government program are you on that you have sooooo much time on your hands?
Sorry, I had to report you this time.
-
Sorry, I had to report you this time.
Awee...I'm sorry....Don't you know, we just "poke fun at each other"? (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,73081.0/msg,871375.html)
Eupher, Tx, Kyle Ricky, SGT Snuggle, and Big Dog have been going back and forth. They've given it and taken it (frankly I think I've been on the short end of most of it, but hey, whatever)... And for that I give them their due respect.
Perhaps you have nothing intelligent to say which is why you're the first to kiss everyone's ass when they have something to say, and while I may not agree with them, I respect them for standing up for what they believe...You are the very definition of troll, now we can add "rat" to that list...
Congrats....
-
Sorry, I had to report you this time.
Just getting a lay of the land here (being a boot noob and all) ....I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you and this other guy have a history of not seeing things eye to eye?
Your reporting him for asking "that" question? (no cuss words, descriptions about your mothers footwear or your IQ?)
If this is a site where people are so lightly armored I think its best I know now.
-
Remington, I'm new here too. I found it was helpful to lurk for a few weeks & get a feel for this place rather than demanding the members present their bonafides. There are probably a few places more "conservative" out there but, these folks have the best weapon in the world - humor. Welcome & Cheers, Mike
Quote from: UncommonSense
Just out of curiosity, what government program are you on that you have sooooo much time on your hands?
Quote from: ObamaZombie
Sorry, I had to report you this time.
LOL...Apparently not....
-
UncommonSense; how long have you been here? Is this site so strict that comments like the one you asked can get you booted?
Honestly I've seen more violent spats on Leave it to Beaver" episodes. I've been on another political site for about 4 years now and they'd kick off 70% of the people there but there are a number of us that police much of the behavior on our own.
-
UncommonSense; how long have you been here? Is this site so strict that comments like the one you asked can get you booted?
Honestly I've seen more violent spats on Leave it to Beaver" episodes. I've been on another political site for about 4 years now and they'd kick off 70% of the people there but there are a number of us that police much of the behavior on our own.
This is all from a thread about gay "rights". Check it out here. (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,73081.0.html)
Oz has posted crap like this linky, (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,73081.0/msg,867676.html)linky, (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,73081.0/msg,867760.html) and linky (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,73081.0/msg,869265.html), just to point out a few. Beyond that he's been a post whore who jumps at every attempt to throw fire on discussions between myself and others and now that he can't (as I tell my kids) "use his words" he's going to run off and tell (again, like my kids).
I've taken a ton of shit, and from time to time handed it back, frankly I thought my post above was really funny!!
Word to the wise...You fail to fall in line here you my find yourself ostracized like me. You didn't really think this was a "Conservative" forum did you?...
-
This is all from a thread about gay "rights". Check it out here. (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,73081.0.html)
Oz has posted crap like this linky, (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,73081.0/msg,867676.html)linky, (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,73081.0/msg,867760.html) and linky (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,73081.0/msg,869265.html), just to point out a few. Beyond that he's been a post whore who jumps at every attempt to throw fire on discussions between myself and others and now that he can't (as I tell my kids) "use his words" he's going to run off and tell (again, like my kids).
I've taken a ton of shit, and from time to time handed it back, frankly I thought my post above was really funny!!
Word to the wise...You fail to fall in line here you my find yourself ostracized like me. You didn't really think this was a "Conservative" forum did you?...
If there is one lesson I have learned about being conservative it's about being ostracized. (Now to include members of ones own namesake party!!) Typically reckless liberals scream "tolerance" but seem less inclined to practice what they preach. A lesson we could all learn from. Any chance Obamazombie's really a liberal? A Rhino perhaps? (I've seen it before...A Rhino that is a "Reagan conservative" but dismisses nearly everything the man stood for.)
It seems a bit vain not to expect a similar response to the names he's called you on your posts and I have no intention of "falling in line". (That's what ruined colleges) The very reason I'm here is not to follow the crowd but to discuss the nature of conservative ideology with an open mind and free thought. We have been hijacked and just as Greenpeace, and Row v Wade whose fundamental ideas have been contorted to extremes and are hardly recognizable by their own founders I'd like to see (true) conservatism purge the party of those destined to undermine what it stands for. If a Rhino has a need to adjust his or her own ideology, let them do it by starting their own party.
You certainly picked a hot button topic with; "Another tedious discussion on gay marriage started by a noob". I'll have to look that over before commenting yet if you believe "Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives." than unfortunately someones going to have to come up with a better reason than "they just don't like it". Just as "Freedom of religion" protects it from government there is a "freedom from religion" the government must abide by in honoring someones choice not to engage in religious practices. Liberty
Oh....and I had no idea what your relationship was with Obamazombie but I thought it was funny too.
-
Awee...I'm sorry....Don't you know, we just "poke fun at each other"? (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,73081.0/msg,871375.html)
Eupher, Tx, Kyle Ricky, SGT Snuggle, and Big Dog have been going back and forth. They've given it and taken it (frankly I think I've been on the short end of most of it, but hey, whatever)... And for that I give them their due respect.
Perhaps you have nothing intelligent to say which is why you're the first to kiss everyone's ass when they have something to say, and while I may not agree with them, I respect them for standing up for what they believe...You are the very definition of troll, now we can add "rat" to that list...
Congrats....
This post is your definition of something intelligent to say ? You may rest on your laurels with this one. You have demonstrated you level of intellect. You have the nerve to accuse someone of being a troll ? You project in a massively ironic way. More or less a black hole of projection. I am just a zombie for owebuma, just like you.
-
Can't you damn kids behave a little better. Obumazombie and UncommonSense - Take your fight to the appropriate venue.
-
UncommonSense; how long have you been here? Is this site so strict that comments like the one you asked can get you booted?
Honestly I've seen more violent spats on Leave it to Beaver" episodes. I've been on another political site for about 4 years now and they'd kick off 70% of the people there but there are a number of us that police much of the behavior on our own.
UncommonSense has only been here for a few days under that name...that's not saying he hasn't been here under other names. He's the kind of "conservative or whatever" that tries to preach to the rest of the board on specific subjects, but seems to base his opinions on whatever the media pushes instead of actual knowledge. Supposing you are actually a conservative, you probably have noticed the tendency of certain activists that force their opinions on everyone through court cases, or shove through legislation while denying citizens the right to vote on the same? As not all conservatives are Christian, I won't ask about your actual knowledge unless you also decide to show off your ignorance. Have fun here, we have some great comedy and an occasional good fight.
-
Hi
I'm homeless and I'm jobless. I currently reside in 2 separate States (Which may soon include a third) and I'm not sure where my next meals coming from. I eat lots of bread and it's become a real treat to buy a 2 liter Mt Dew.
How's that?
(Boring)
:rotf:
Nice! I like that. I guess this means you travel between Mommy's basement and Daddy's basement? :lmao: And they live in adjoining states? Like Pawtucket, RI and Fall River, MA?
I'm sure if you check Mommy's refrigerator you'll find some leftover cheese. And strawberry preserves. (They go together - it's a matched set.)
Welcome, btw.
Oh, and pay no attention to Uncommon Sense. For all the shit that's been heaped on him, he had it coming. When you come into a new site and you start pontificating and making demands on those who've been around longer than 20 minutes, you tend to get black and blue.
But you survive. Right, Uncommon Sense? :stoner:
-
Bad dog I always hate the damn intros. Maybe it's simply curiosity but my anonymity affords the security of being honest. Whether I'm a plumber, a cabbie, a General or Corporate Executive the reason all of us are here is to add our thoughts to the discussion and get opposing viewpoints and no one regardless of income or social status has the monopoly on good ideas. So maybe I'm getting off on the wrong foot here but I don't want people to know "who I am". Honestly I think it's irreverent which is why I introduced myself by "why I'm here.
I appreciate you taking time to post on my intro though and look forward to making some friends too.
I'd say you're a 1 percenter and you own at least 13 suits of various colors. Don't beat up on the rest of us 99 percenters, okay? Please? :rotf:
(Pardon me - I gotta go take a dump on a cop car. Don't go away, okay?)
-
Just getting a lay of the land here (being a boot noob and all) ....I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you and this other guy have a history of not seeing things eye to eye?
Your reporting him for asking "that" question? (no cuss words, descriptions about your mothers footwear or your IQ?)
If this is a site where people are so lightly armored I think its best I know now.
As long as you hide out under a bridge in a cardboard box, that's all the armor you need. You're virtually in an impregnable fortress in that arrangement.
(I know because I tried it awhile. The bastards couldn't even find me!) :rotf:
-
Word to the wise...You fail to fall in line here you my find yourself ostracized like me. You didn't really think this was a "Conservative" forum did you?...
You're not ostracized simply because you're a turd and you smell. Cats come up and try to bury you, but hey, they're cats. It's what they do.
-
If there is one lesson I have learned about being conservative it's about being ostracized. (Now to include members of ones own namesake party!!) Typically reckless liberals scream "tolerance" but seem less inclined to practice what they preach. A lesson we could all learn from. Any chance Obamazombie's really a liberal? A Rhino perhaps? (I've seen it before...A Rhino that is a "Reagan conservative" but dismisses nearly everything the man stood for.)
It seems a bit vain not to expect a similar response to the names he's called you on your posts and I have no intention of "falling in line". (That's what ruined colleges) The very reason I'm here is not to follow the crowd but to discuss the nature of conservative ideology with an open mind and free thought. We have been hijacked and just as Greenpeace, and Row v Wade whose fundamental ideas have been contorted to extremes and are hardly recognizable by their own founders I'd like to see (true) conservatism purge the party of those destined to undermine what it stands for. If a Rhino has a need to adjust his or her own ideology, let them do it by starting their own party.
You certainly picked a hot button topic with; "Another tedious discussion on gay marriage started by a noob". I'll have to look that over before commenting yet if you believe "Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives." than unfortunately someones going to have to come up with a better reason than "they just don't like it". Just as "Freedom of religion" protects it from government there is a "freedom from religion" the government must abide by in honoring someones choice not to engage in religious practices. Liberty
Oh....and I had no idea what your relationship was with Obamazombie but I thought it was funny too.
Now THAT'S the stuff that great intro threads are made of. Welcome! You'll fit in fine here.
-
Conservatives are ostracized? Really?
Maybe you're just confusing "conservative" with "asshole." Some liberals might think those are one and the same, but they're really not.
And might I inquire as to who you voted for in your primary when it rolled around?
-
Ahhhh, just what the intro thread is designed for.
-
If there is one lesson I have learned about being conservative it's about being ostracized. (Now to include members of ones own namesake party!!) Typically reckless liberals scream "tolerance" but seem less inclined to practice what they preach. A lesson we could all learn from. Any chance Obamazombie's really a liberal? A Rhino perhaps? (I've seen it before...A Rhino that is a "Reagan conservative" but dismisses nearly everything the man stood for.)
It seems a bit vain not to expect a similar response to the names he's called you on your posts and I have no intention of "falling in line". (That's what ruined colleges) The very reason I'm here is not to follow the crowd but to discuss the nature of conservative ideology with an open mind and free thought. We have been hijacked and just as Greenpeace, and Row v Wade whose fundamental ideas have been contorted to extremes and are hardly recognizable by their own founders I'd like to see (true) conservatism purge the party of those destined to undermine what it stands for. If a Rhino has a need to adjust his or her own ideology, let them do it by starting their own party.
You certainly picked a hot button topic with; "Another tedious discussion on gay marriage started by a noob". I'll have to look that over before commenting yet if you believe "Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives." than unfortunately someones going to have to come up with a better reason than "they just don't like it". Just as "Freedom of religion" protects it from government there is a "freedom from religion" the government must abide by in honoring someones choice not to engage in religious practices. Liberty
Oh....and I had no idea what your relationship was with Obamazombie but I thought it was funny too.
I don't know who you are referring to by "Obamazombie". It certainly isn't me. I'm obumazombie, not capitalized, he has yet to earn my respect, and containing the word bum, a tribute to my Dad who would refer to this class of vote buying hard left marxist as a bum. I'm just a zombie for obuma, just like you.
-
But you survive. Right, Uncommon Sense? :stoner:
Haha... :thumbs:
-
Haha... :thumbs:
Yeah, a not so super hero who derives their not so super powers from smoking left handed cigarettes.
-
Yeah, a not so super hero who derives their not so super powers from smoking left handed cigarettes.
:fuelfire:
-
Welcome Remington, I hope you enjoy it here. We are all really a good group of guys, unlike the anus lickers over at the dump. :fuelfire:
Oh and as far as being Conservative goes (Good job quoting wikipedia in your definition there). Sure Bush and McCain may not have been a conservative per say, but they are social conservatives. Which is what I am looking for in a candidate. I don't look at people as republican or democrat. I am more interested in if you are a social conservative, or a social liberal.
Me, I am a independent/social conservative. I voted for Clinton both times, and I voted for Bush both times. So I get it from both sides of the spectrum.
In any case, welcome, dude. I do hope you enjoy it here. :cheersmate:
-
UncommonSense; how long have you been here? Is this site so strict that comments like the one you asked can get you booted?
Honestly I've seen more violent spats on Leave it to Beaver" episodes. I've been on another political site for about 4 years now and they'd kick off 70% of the people there but there are a number of us that police much of the behavior on our own.
Just for the record, we're not quick to "boot" anybody, except the obvious trolls. IF you bothered to actually read the Terms of Use when you originally signed up and the Rules (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,8777.0.html) for the board, you'd see what will get one booted quickly.
-
Just for the record, we're not quick to "boot" anybody, except the obvious trolls. IF you bothered to actually read the Terms of Use when you originally signed up and the Rules (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,8777.0.html) for the board, you'd see what will get one booted quickly.
If I had taken the time to read the Terms of Use I would have missed the opportunity for the new guy to begin engaging people here and begin the discovery of who the normal people are and who is stepping over who to be the Alpha Prima Donna.
Not to worry though. I have a healthy vocabulary, I am NOT a troll and under advice of council I have decided to stop posting naked pictures of myself on debating sites so I figure that right there must cover at least the top 50-70% of ways to get booted, right?!
-
Conservatism is politically dead.
No it's not.
I know a lot of people that WISHES it were dead and buried...but politicians that run on Conservative principles and issues that are important to Conservatives still win at the ballot box.
-
Conservatives are ostracized? Really?
Maybe you're just confusing "conservative" with "asshole." Some liberals might think those are one and the same, but they're really not.
And might I inquire as to who you voted for in your primary when it rolled around?
*raises hand* Just had an idea, LC. Can I change my name? Pretty please? :-)
Welcome aboard, Remington. Pay no attention to the squabbling between those two. Christ, I felt like I was entering an episode of Jerry Springer when I scrolled down page one. :thatsright:
-
Nyuck Nyuck Nyuck
-
Nyuck Nyuck Nyuck
Sointly!
-
Conservatism is politically dead. There are those who claim to be conservatives that have no real understanding what that means.
I'd like to see if I'm in the company genuine conservatives
Hi
I'm homeless and I'm jobless. I currently reside in 2 separate States (Which may soon include a third) and I'm not sure where my next meals coming from. I eat lots of bread and it's become a real treat to buy a 2 liter Mt Dew.
How's that?
(Boring)
If I had taken the time to read the Terms of Use I would have missed the opportunity for the new guy to begin engaging people here and begin the discovery of who the normal people are and who is stepping over who to be the Alpha Prima Donna.
**** you.
Oh yeah, welcome to CC.
-
Wasp, why do you always beat around the bush? Say what you mean, man.
-
**** you.
Oh yeah, welcome to CC.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
**** you.
Oh yeah, welcome to CC.
Tell us how you really feel. :rofl:
-
Are you always going to be my little echo? I've noticed it 3 or 4 different times directly after I post. I mean, maybe I'm just overly tired, because I can't sleep nowdays, but it's starting to irritate the shit outta me.
I know immitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but I'm not big on flattery.
Thanks.
-
^Better than my little pony.
-
Not really.
-
No it's not.
I know a lot of people that WISHES it were dead and buried...but politicians that run on Conservative principles and issues that are important to Conservatives still win at the ballot box.
So where is the conservative candidate for this cycle? Hmm?
-
So where is the conservative candidate for this cycle? Hmm?
This cycle is anyone but Jimmy Carter Jr. Err, I mean Obama.
-
:popcorn:
*raises hand* Just had an idea, LC. Can I change my name? Pretty please? :-)
Welcome aboard, Remington. Pay no attention to the squabbling between those two. Christ, I felt like I was entering an episode of Jerry Springer when I scrolled down page one.
:popcorn: I think the dust had just settled just before you entered the room........
-
:popcorn:
:popcorn: I think the dust had just settled just before you entered the room........
Annnd we're off.
-
So where is the conservative candidate for this cycle? Hmm?
Why don't you tell us?
-
Welcome Remington!! Enjoy your stay. Play nice with the others and share your cookies, chocolate and coffee.... O-).
-
Why don't you tell us?
The RNC is not going to endorse a conservative for 2012. Hence conservatives are not in control of the party. You certainly didn't think Romney, a republican from Massachusetts is a conservative did you? As an absolute, I guess we'll have to see but I would put Romney on the same level as an 80's democrat.
-
Welcome Remington!! Enjoy your stay. Play nice with the others and share your cookies, chocolate and coffee.... O-).
Sounds like your talking about an MRE Seahorse. Your welcome to the chicken al la king, dehydrated pork paddy and the Tabasco sauce after that we barter!
-
The RNC is not going to endorse a conservative for 2012. Hence conservatives are not in control of the party. You certainly didn't think Romney, a republican from Massachusetts is a conservative did you? As an absolute, I guess we'll have to see but I would put Romney on the same level as an 80's democrat.
He's better than the alternative.
-
He's better than the alternative.
We've basically got a choice between a day old pork pie and a shit sandwich.
Pass the hot sauce, and give me the pork pie, please.
-
He's better than the alternative.
So basically your choice is gun barrel to the left temple or gun barrel to the right temple. (The results are the same)
If there are 2 people running of which neither plans of "reducing" the size of government which would you vote for? Of the 2 people running neither will strengthen the second amendment so where does your vote go? If you feel abortion should be limited and neither party does anything to curb abortion to which candidate goes your support?
The point here is that true conservatives, meaning the ones that support the letter of the Constitution, conservatives that fight for a balance of power between the federal government and the States and those that believe government should never grow any bigger than it absolutely has to are aiding in the take over of the party they only "think" is their own.
Who was the last conservative President that advanced the conservative ideology? Regan. And that was almost a quarter century ago! Yet conservatives continue to support a party based upon 2 or 3 items to bait you into voting for an ideology that is NOT conservative but either through empty promises or similarities republicans support those who have no intention of advancing the conservative ideology .
I think most people hoped that Bush (41) would continue the policies of Regan and to some extent he did yet he was not conservative and by in large the party continued to skate on the policies Regan had implemented.
Along comes Newt Gingrich (94?) who proposes a conservative agenda for the first 100 days of Congress and incumbents are replaced everywhere by republicans suggesting a real possibility that THIS COUNTRY IS FUNDAMENTALLY CONSERVATIVE but by the time of the next Congressional election there is no such contract with America and the people go elsewhere and support waivers.
Bush (43) wins in 2000 and aside from getting his shoes wet by the tears of Al Gore offers very little in the way of a conservative ideology other than a tax break after we had been attacked and when the county could least afford it and rebuild the Armed Forces previously gutted by Clinton.
In 2008 John McCain chose Palin for 2 reasons. A) She's considered a minority (to counter Obama's minority status of being black.........OK "half" black) and B) to sucker in conservatives to inadvertently support McCain only because Palin was more conservative than he was!!
So I ask you; when a republican seeks to win an election and doesn't based upon the idea that his own base believes he/she's moved too far to the left isn't there a very real possibility that in a race in the next election a candidate will be fielded who has to move back to the right to win the election?
As a follow up I might also add; If Romney should win the Presidency in the fall, why should he go out of his way to advance a conservative agenda when Rhino's and moderates aligned closer to center were the overwhelming force that put him in office?
-
So where is the conservative candidate for this cycle? Hmm?
Unfortuneately Santorum didn't get the nod.
But just because the Conservative candidate didn't garner the most votes doesn't mean Conservatism is dead. That's shortsighted thinking on your part.
That's like saying because Goldwater lost in '64 or Reagan didn't get the nomination in '76 that Conservatism died then.
It didn't and it hasn't.
-
So basically your choice is gun barrel to the left temple or gun barrel to the right temple. (The results are the same)
If there are 2 people running of which neither plans of "reducing" the size of government which would you vote for? Of the 2 people running neither will strengthen the second amendment so where does your vote go? If you feel abortion should be limited and neither party does anything to curb abortion to which candidate goes your support?
The point here is that true conservatives, meaning the ones that support the letter of the Constitution, conservatives that fight for a balance of power between the federal government and the States and those that believe government should never grow any bigger than it absolutely has to are aiding in the take over of the party they only "think" is their own.
Who was the last conservative President that advanced the conservative ideology? Regan. And that was almost a quarter century ago! Yet conservatives continue to support a party based upon 2 or 3 items to bait you into voting for an ideology that is NOT conservative but either through empty promises or similarities republicans support those who have no intention of advancing the conservative ideology .
I think most people hoped that Bush (41) would continue the policies of Regan and to some extent he did yet he was not conservative and by in large the party continued to skate on the policies Regan had implemented.
Along comes Newt Gingrich (94?) who proposes a conservative agenda for the first 100 days of Congress and incumbents are replaced everywhere by republicans suggesting a real possibility that THIS COUNTRY IS FUNDAMENTALLY CONSERVATIVE but by the time of the next Congressional election there is no such contract with America and the people go elsewhere and support waivers.
Bush (43) wins in 2000 and aside from getting his shoes wet by the tears of Al Gore offers very little in the way of a conservative ideology other than a tax break after we had been attacked and when the county could least afford it and rebuild the Armed Forces previously gutted by Clinton.
In 2008 John McCain chose Palin for 2 reasons. A) She's considered a minority (to counter Obama's minority status of being black.........OK "half" black) and B) to sucker in conservatives to inadvertently support McCain only because Palin was more conservative than he was!!
So I ask you; when a republican seeks to win an election and doesn't based upon the idea that his own base believes he/she's moved too far to the left isn't there a very real possibility that in a race in the next election a candidate will be fielded who has to move back to the right to win the election?
As a follow up I might also add; If Romney should win the Presidency in the fall, why should he go out of his way to advance a conservative agenda when Rhino's and moderates aligned closer to center were the overwhelming force that put him in office?
Let me guess...you're not going to vote this year as a protest right?
:whatever:
-
Obviously, the "true" conservative in the race is the nutjob with the blimp.
Ron Paul, right?
Lol.
-
Who was the last conservative President that advanced the conservative ideology? Regan. Regan Regan
I've only seen a few posters misspell his name. All were trolls or Paultards. (Not that there is much difference between those critters) You are not impressing us.
So I ask you; when a republican seeks to win an election and doesn't based upon the idea that his own base believes he/she's moved too far to the left isn't there a very real possibility that in a race in the next election a candidate will be fielded who has to move back to the right to win the election?
As a follow up I might also add; If Romney should win the Presidency in the fall, why should he go out of his way to advance a conservative agenda when Rhino's and moderates aligned closer to center were the overwhelming force that put him in office?
Reality sucks. We can choose Obama or a RINO. Obama will continue to raise energy prices, destroy coal power, refuse oil leases, bow to foreign leaders & kiss everyone's butt except those who pay the bills in this country (remember his bestest buddy is the CEO of GE, which pays no US tax.)
Romney is the only choice. Paul has no chance, he's just too stupid to admit it. (Not a shining quality for a president, either.)
-
Unfortuneately Santorum didn't get the nod.
But just because the Conservative candidate didn't garner the most votes doesn't mean Conservatism is dead. That's shortsighted thinking on your part.
That's like saying because Goldwater lost in '64 or Reagan didn't get the nomination in '76 that Conservatism died then.
It didn't and it hasn't.
Oh? When was the last time a democrat was elected who "wasn't" a liberal? I'm not going to argue "who" was/is the most liberal member of Congress but Obama AND Kerry have been accused of having the most liberal of voting records and both got their parties nomination. Wasn't Clinton a liberal?
And for the record, I DON'T WANT conservatism to be a non-viable political entity but that doesn't change the reality that conservatives have not been able to put a true conservative on the ballot for 25 years. The democrat party has been ejecting non radical democrats for 20 years such as Zed Miller who wrote a book on the changing nature of his own party (Titled; "Where's my Party' or something like that) My argument isn't that conservatism doesn't exist, my argument is that the party has moved dramatically left, is in the throws of a power struggle between those who want to cast off conservative issues such as abortion, taxes, small government and the Constitution because some feel it is standing in the way of wining elections.
A win for Romney is a win for moderates who do not hold the same values on conservatism that real conservatives do drawing people in from the farthest reaches of the conservative left who will later not support an attempt to nominate a conservative candidate.
-
:popcorn:
:popcorn: I think the dust had just settled just before you entered the room........
I can tell we'll just be the best of friends....
-
Reality sucks. We can choose Obama or a RINO. Obama will continue to raise energy prices, destroy coal power, refuse oil leases, bow to foreign leaders & kiss everyone's butt except those who pay the bills in this country (remember his bestest buddy is the CEO of GE, which pays no US tax.)
Romney is the only choice. Paul has no chance, he's just too stupid to admit it. (Not a shining quality for a president, either.)
And all I am saying is that supporting either (of course Romney is the better choice) will not advance the conservative agenda.
-
There's a clear choice come November. Romney, or Death. (aka Barrack Hussein Obama. Mmmmmm, Mmmm, Mmmmm)
-
I stopped reading when he misspelled Reagan. :censored:
-
I stopped reading when he misspelled Reagan. :censored:
Give the guy a break. I can't spell for shit, dose that make me dumb?
Errr....Never mind, don't answer that! :-)
-
Give the guy a break. I can't spell for shit, dose that make me dumb?
Errr....Never mind, don't answer that! :-)
You don't **** up Reagan's name. :mad:
-
Why don't you tell us?
So enough whinging, Remington. Answer wasp's question:
Who's YOUR candy-date, now that the following has happened?
1. Herman Cain went belly up due to his marital infidelities and a Dem/MSM witchhunt.
2. Bachmann went belly up because she knew, as a representative in Congress, there was no way she'd be nominated.
3. Perry went belly up for whatever reason.
4. Huntsman went belly up (yet another RINO).
5. Santorum went belly up because he didn't have the money, the organization, or the head start that Romney got.
6. Gingrich went belly up since he couldn't focus on the issues and had to attack Romney and whine and bitch about the results.
7. Did I miss anybody? Oh yeah. Dr. Nutz. The original Paultard. He's still in the running, but at his advanced age, he's slowed down to a geezer crawl.
So spare us the rhetoric, remington.
Who's your "true conservative?"
-
The RNC is not going to endorse a conservative for 2012. Hence conservatives are not in control of the party. You certainly didn't think Romney, a republican from Massachusetts is a conservative did you? As an absolute, I guess we'll have to see but I would put Romney on the same level as an 80's democrat.
That's nice. You didn't answer my question, so I will clarify: Who do you think is the true Conservative candidate?
-
I am looking more at Romney as a social conservative. There is no way we will ever have a President as great as Reagan was again. He was a once in a life time American dream President. I am glad that I was able to live through his Presidency and witness it.
Anyway, back on topic: Romney is against gay marriage, and he is against abortion (unlike Obama). He also WILL repeal obamacare (unlike Obama), he loves the military and this country (unlike Obama), he will not bow down to the arabs (unlike Obama), he will sign the keystone pipe line deal (unlike Obama), he will lift he moratorium in the gulf, atlantic, and pacific ocean (unlike Obama). He will also not bow down to the unions (unlike Obama). -- And last but certainly not least: ROMNEY PUTS HIS HAND ON HIS HEART WHEN HE IS SAYING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, OR WHEN THE NATIONAL ANTHEM IS BEING PLAYED (unlike Obama, who refuses to say the pledge, and put his hand on his heart during it)
I was never a supporter of Obama, but since he came out in favor of gay marriage, there is no way I could ever support him now. You will find that a lot of people feel the same. All you have to do is look at the recent polls to see that.
Edit: I edited this for spelling
-
I am looking more at Romney as a social conservative. There is no way we will ever have a President as great as Reagan was again. He was a once in a life time American dream President. I am glad that I was able to live through his Presidency and witness it.
Anyway, back on topic: Romney is against gay marriage, and he is against abortion (unlike Obama). He also WILL appeal obamacare (unlike Obama), he loves the military and this country (unlike Obama), he will not bow down to the arabs (unlike Obama), he will sign the keystone pipe line deal (unlike Obama), he will lift he moratorium in the gulf, atlantic, and pacific ocean (unlike Obama). He will also not bow down to the unions (unlike Obama). -- And last but certainly not least: ROMNEY PUTS HIS HAND ON HIS HEART WHEN HE IS SAYING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, OR WHEN THE NATIONAL ANTHEM IS BEING PLAYED (unlike Obama, who refuses to say the pledge, and put his hand on his heart during it)
I was never a supporter of Obama, but since he came out in favor of gay marriage, there is no way I could ever support him now. You will find that a lot of people feel the same. All you have to do is look at the recent polls to see that.
I absolutely do not agree with your contention that Romney will repeal Obamacare. Let's not forget about his little brainchild turd that he deposited and left, stinking and smelling, in the Bay State.
The BEST we could hope for is a restructuring of Obamacare (if it isn't struck down in its entirety by SCOTUS) to something that addresses the mandate yet retains the free health insurance for lots of other stinking and smelling turds out there.
-
I absolutely do not agree with your contention that Romney will repeal Obamacare. Let's not forget about his little brainchild turd that he deposited and left, stinking and smelling, in the Bay State.
The BEST we could hope for is a restructuring of Obamacare (if it isn't struck down in its entirety by SCOTUS) to something that addresses the mandate yet retains the free health insurance for lots of other stinking and smelling turds out there.
He has been saying over and over again that on his first day in office, he will repeal obamacare. I guess we will have to wait and see. And yes, with SCOTUS telling their decision on it the first or second week of June, Romney might not even have to worry about it.
-
He has been saying over and over again that on his first day in office, he will repeal obamacare. I guess we will have to wait and see. With SCOTUS telling their decision on it the first or second week of June, Romney might not even have to worry about it.
Romney is lying. Pure and simple. On this score, you cannot trust this flipflopper to honor his CAMPAIGN PROMISES. Campaign promises, by definition, aren't worth the pixels it takes to display them on screen. That runs true for ANY politician.
-
Romney is lying. Pure and simple. On this score, you cannot trust this flipflopper to honor his CAMPAIGN PROMISES. Campaign promises, by definition, aren't worth the pixels it takes to display them on screen. That runs true for ANY politician.
I guess we will have to wait and see. If it turns out that he lied and will not repeal it. His chances of a second term will be slim to none. That makes me think of Bush Sr. and "Read my lips".
-
And all I am saying is that supporting either (of course Romney is the better choice) will not advance the conservative agenda.
The first step in advancing the conservative agenda is halting the advance of the liberal agenda.
Also,
Quote from MrsSmith...
"I've only seen a few posters misspell his name. All were trolls or Paultards. (Not that there is much difference between those critters) You are not impressing us."
Nice catch. I would have missed it.
edited to add quote
-
Oh? When was the last time a democrat was elected who "wasn't" a liberal?
No one that I can think of in the last 200 years. Not as President anyway.
A win for Romney is a win for moderates who do not hold the same values on conservatism that real conservatives do drawing people in from the farthest reaches of the conservative left who will later not support an attempt to nominate a conservative candidate.
Romney is certainly not the conservative choice...but he is the anti-Obama choice. ANd right now what concerns me most is getting the Communist comment organizer out of office before he makes Carter look anymore competent than he already has.
That should be everyone's focus right now.
-
I absolutely do not agree with your contention that Romney will repeal Obamacare. Let's not forget about his little brainchild turd that he deposited and left, stinking and smelling, in the Bay State.
The BEST we could hope for is a restructuring of Obamacare (if it isn't struck down in its entirety by SCOTUS) to something that addresses the mandate yet retains the free health insurance for lots of other stinking and smelling turds out there.
Odds are if the house and senate repeals it, he will sign the repeal bill.
-
Why can't someone just admit that Rem is right?
The Conservative party has had to slide father and father away from it's ideology in order to find support. The Liberal nominee is, well, Liberal and hasn't had to shift to pander to Conservatives the way that Romney, a man with a mouth on both sides of his face, has had to.
The Conservative nominee, as Eupher has pointed out, is a guy who's health care plan for his state is almost indistinguishable form the one Obama is pitching. That should be blasphemy from the conservative viewpoint. In all fairness though, the list of potential candidates was a sorry ass lot this time around. I bet Bob Dole wishes he was still around!
Now, I'm not bashing Conservatism per se, but just to point out that Rem makes an interesting point and exploit that point just a little tinnie, tiny bit :-).
-
Why can't someone just admit that Rem is right?
The Conservative party has had to slide father and father away from it's ideology in order to find support. The Liberal nominee is, well, Liberal and hasn't had to shift to pander to Conservatives the way that Romney, a man with a mouth on both sides of his face, has had to.
The Conservative nominee, as Eupher has pointed out, is a guy who's health care plan for his state is almost indistinguishable form the one Obama is pitching. That should be blasphemy from the conservative viewpoint. In all fairness though, the list of potential candidates was a sorry ass lot this time around. I bet Bob Dole wishes he was still around!
Now, I'm not bashing Conservatism per se, but just to point out that Rem makes an interesting point and exploit that point just a little tinnie, tiny bit :-).
Yep, I'll go along with Rem's idea on this -- and I'll attribute the "slide" to an absolutely ****ing SPINELESS RNC. Michael Steele et. al. did nobody any favors, and the turd that's currently chairman of the RNC is equally worthless, AFAIC.
Repubs have been "expected" to shift to the center in order to show a "willingness" to "work in a bi-partisan way." What absolute ****ing horseshit.
Boehner is a slightly shinier turd than was Steele, but he still stinks (when he's not crying like the little bitch he is).
-
He has been saying over and over again that on his first day in office, he will repeal obamacare. I guess we will have to wait and see. And yes, with SCOTUS telling their decision on it the first or second week of June, Romney might not even have to worry about it.
He won't have the Constitutional authority as POTUS to repeal it. He can't just pull out his pen and strike down existing laws that he doesn't like by executive fiat.
-
He won't have the Constitutional authority as POTUS to repeal it. He can't just pull out his pen and strike down existing laws that he doesn't like by executive fiat.
I interpreted what he said in that Congress would first pass the necessarily legislation, then Romney would sign it. But you're absolutely right.
Be that as it may, Romney ain't gonna sign any kind of repeal legislation. No way, no how.
-
BS'd both little bitches.
-
I interpreted what he said in that Congress would first pass the necessarily legislation, then Romney would sign it. But you're absolutely right.
Be that as it may, Romney ain't gonna sign any kind of repeal legislation. No way, no how.
I'd be surprised if he did sign true repeal legislation.
-
I'd be surprised if he did sign true repeal legislation.
If Republicans take the senate, keep the house and pass legislation repealing Obamacare then I don't think he would have much choice. However, I'm not even sure the republicans would pass a repeal even they have both houses of congress.
-
If Republicans take the senate, keep the house and pass legislation repealing Obamacare then I don't think he would have much choice. However, I'm not even sure the republicans would pass a repeal even they have both houses of congress.
I think that the younger tea party types would, but we have too much of the good ole boy network still in office.
Unfortunately.
-
When I listened to owebuma, on message, during his last campaign, he expounded very conservative ideals. He fooled a lot of voters with it. Every once in awhile, when off script, and no teleprompter in sight, he would say,"We gotta' spread the wealth around", and Keystone stater's "cling to their guns, and bibles with antipathy towards those who are different" (essentially calling them racist), and "They need to have skin in the game". Hannity and others chronicled how radical he was, is, and would be, but he fooled enough voters who were sitting on the fence with white guilt leaning them towards owebuma, that the conservative rhetoric felled them on his side of the electoral fence. This time it won't work nearly as well.
-
When I listened to owebuma, on message, during his last campaign, he expounded very conservative ideals. He fooled a lot of voters with it. Every once in awhile, when off script, and no teleprompter in sight, he would say,"We gotta' spread the wealth around", and Keystone stater's "cling to their guns, and bibles with antipathy towards those who are different" (essentially calling them racist), and "They need to have skin in the game". Hannity and others chronicled how radical he was, is, and would be, but he fooled enough voters who were sitting on the fence with white guilt leaning them towards owebuma, that the conservative rhetoric felled them on his side of the electoral fence. This time it won't work nearly as well.
The only reason he got elected was because he is black, and he wasn't Bush. They willfully over looked who he was, or what he would do. In fact, 99% of the people who voted for him didn't even know his name.
-
Why can't someone just admit that Rem is right?
The Conservative party has had to slide father and father away from it's ideology in order to find support. The Liberal nominee is, well, Liberal and hasn't had to shift to pander to Conservatives the way that Romney, a man with a mouth on both sides of his face, has had to.
The Conservative nominee, as Eupher has pointed out, is a guy who's health care plan for his state is almost indistinguishable form the one Obama is pitching. That should be blasphemy from the conservative viewpoint. In all fairness though, the list of potential candidates was a sorry ass lot this time around. I bet Bob Dole wishes he was still around!
Now, I'm not bashing Conservatism per se, but just to point out that Rem makes an interesting point and exploit that point just a little tinnie, tiny bit :-).
We did admit it, noob. Obviously your reading skills are not yet improving. The problem conservatives have is that the conservative candidates are all Christians, our media hates Christians, and too many conservatives are foolish and uneducated enough to believe the media. Seems that hat fits you. Or are you trying to tell us you supported Santorum? ::)
-
And all I am saying is that supporting either (of course Romney is the better choice) will not advance the conservative agenda.
Agendas do NOT help the economy recover or remind the world that the US is not full of butt-kissing useful idiots. Our only course of action after the conservative candidate failed is to vote for the least damage to the country, and that puts us squarely behind Romney.
-
We did admit it, noob. Obviously your reading skills are not yet improving.
Comprehension of written English does not seem to be its strong suit, does it?
Incidentally, I don't think our newest "true Conservative" is ever going to bother to tell us who it thinks the real Conservative candidate is.
-
I've only seen a few posters misspell his name. All were trolls or Paultards. (Not that there is much difference between those critters) You are not impressing us.
A typo....Commence with my flogging.....
-
A typo....Commence with my flogging.....
How do you spell his name now ?
-
So enough whinging, Remington. Answer wasp's question:
Who's YOUR candy-date, now that the following has happened?
1. Herman Cain went belly up due to his marital infidelities and a Dem/MSM witchhunt.
2. Bachmann went belly up because she knew, as a representative in Congress, there was no way she'd be nominated.
3. Perry went belly up for whatever reason.
4. Huntsman went belly up (yet another RINO).
5. Santorum went belly up because he didn't have the money, the organization, or the head start that Romney got.
6. Gingrich went belly up since he couldn't focus on the issues and had to attack Romney and whine and bitch about the results.
7. Did I miss anybody? Oh yeah. Dr. Nutz. The original Paultard. He's still in the running, but at his advanced age, he's slowed down to a geezer crawl.
Oh, so you think this is all about promoting a "specific" candidate. I'm not here to push any "candidate" but only the ideology. Conservatism to me, has always been the more difficult of the two competing ideologies because of it's natural boarders and boundaries that prohibit certain actions. For instance stationing Federal troops to prevent Aliens from crossing the boarder sounds like a reasonable idea until one is reminded that it violates the Constitution. A typical Liberal might respond "to hell with it, do it anyway" but anyone with a reasonable amount of understanding might ask "If we can circumvent the Constitution for this, what grounds will prevent Federal troops from being deployed on American soil on an issue I'm less inclined to support? In the end the obvious choice is to play it safe and oppose such an action and seek other answers that a typical liberal doesn't see.
People are free to make their own choices, this is not a political round table designed to consolidate support for anyone. (and this is a little late in the game to make a difference if that was my goal), I think the lefts political machine has the monopoly on pushing voters in who and what to support anyway.
I might support "Joe the plumber" as compared to what I've seen in the sorry assed performances of the current candidates and I can't help but fantasize that all these people board the same plane that meets with some unfortunate end so we can start over. If Romney is the nomination I will of course give him just consideration but I for one am not inclined to turn the party that represents my ideology into some vague similarity of government that runs that which I oppose just to win an election.
So spare us the rhetoric, remington.
Who's your "true conservative?"
-
How do you spell his name now ?
The Gipper, Dutch, Ron.....or due to my recent blaspheme... The Honorable President Reagan.
-
The Honorable President Reagan.
One of the greatest Presidents in history. Hi5.
-
The first step in advancing the conservative agenda is halting the advance of the liberal agenda.
Of course but your taking a defensive strategy. Stop the others before you yourself can advance.
Clinton suffered in the first year of his Presidency where his approval rating fell to just under 40% but was on the rise up to the same popularity he had when he took office when Newt Gingrich laid out his Contract with America. His conservative idea's put the DNC on the defensive for the following 3 years. Defensive positions are easier to hold and to ward off attack but they do nothing for taking ground. Newt took the offensive and American's supported his plan. I think one of the dark spots on Newts record is he never followed it up and I think his failure to do so hurt him in his bid for the Presidency.
-
I guess we will have to wait and see. If it turns out that he lied and will not repeal it. His chances of a second term will be slim to none. That makes me think of Bush Sr. and "Read my lips".
And maybe one of the reasons I have issues with the current system. Win the election based upon fabrication, half truths and empty promises and four years later "suck less" than the other guy to win another 4 years in office.
-
And maybe one of the reasons I have issues with the current system. Win the election based upon fabrication, half truths and empty promises and four years later "suck less" than the other guy to win another 4 years in office.
Sounds like Obama. He lied to get elected and now the MSM is trying to make it sound like it will be worse with Romney.
-
And maybe one of the reasons I have issues with the current system. Win the election based upon fabrication, half truths and empty promises and four years later "suck less" than the other guy to win another 4 years in office.
So...as someone asked earlier...who do you think should have been our nominee?
-
No one that I can think of in the last 200 years. Not as President anyway.
Romney is certainly not the conservative choice...but he is the anti-Obama choice. ANd right now what concerns me most is getting the Communist comment organizer out of office before he makes Carter look anymore competent than he already has.
That should be everyone's focus right now.
Kennedy was far more conservative than the left would ever admit. Strong on National defense and foreign policy many of JFK's ideas such as "Ask not what your country can do for you....." are alien to progressive and liberals alike.
I absolutely don't want to see Obama in the White House another 4 years and even if it meant a return of Jimmy Carter.....WHATEVER.... As I stated, my position is to see conservatism for what it really is and not to see it hijacked by liberal republicans trying to out liberalize liberals.
-
Kennedy was far more conservative than the left would ever admit. Strong on National defense and foreign policy many of JFK's ideas such as "Ask not what your country can do for you....." are alien to progressive and liberals alike.
I absolutely don't want to see Obama in the White House another 4 years and even if it meant a return of Jimmy Carter.....WHATEVER.... As I stated, my position is to see conservatism for what it really is and not to see it hijacked by liberal republicans trying to out liberalize liberals.
Who do you think should have been our nominee?
-
So...as someone asked earlier...who do you think should have been our nominee?
Gingrich probably was the closest conservative candidate in the race but Newt doesn't appeal to people. I think he might want to consider the VP spot where he would be quite experienced as a whipping boy. When should somebody's looks, the way they talk, the color tie they have on determine if they would make a good President? Never but if you recall, (some nit wit) said their choice for Kerry was because he had "better looking hair".
:thatsright:
Unfortunately with the absence of people's education and interest in politics a political candidate has an obligation to be likable if they are serious about winning the White House. Schwarzenegger and Ventura were elected almost entirely on likability........... Newt never had that.
-
Gingrich probably was the closest conservative candidate in the race but Newt doesn't appeal to people.
Newt has other issues that turn him off to Conservatives at large besides "appeal".
He's certainly not anywhere near being a Goldwater/Reagan conservative mold.
Unfortunately with the absence of people's education and interest in politics a political candidate has an obligation to be likable if they are serious about winning the White House. Schwarzenegger and Ventura were elected almost entirely on likability........... Newt never had that.
People are more than educated these days. Your mistake is assuming they aren't and you're the only one in the room with the answers.
-
Newt has other issues that turn him off to Conservatives at large besides "appeal".
He's certainly not anywhere near being a Goldwater/Reagan conservative mold.
We agree....
-
We agree....
Okay, so now that we're done philosophizing about what could have, should have, would have been, and we're stuck with the candy-date we've got -- and I think we're all pretty much in agreement that Romney is no conservative -- what do you think Romney is going to do on these issues, assuming he wins in November?
1. Obamacare
2. Out of control spending
3. Iran
-
People are more than educated these days. Your mistake is assuming they aren't and you're the only one in the room with the answers.
People (of voting age) graduate thinking Utah is a country.....if it's not something that can be played on a gaming machine, seen on prime time TV or isn't illegal their not interested. Are you suggesting the "dumbing down" of the citizens of this country hasn't worked? ....seriously?? That's how people successfully win elections..."the Republicans want to poison the water/poison the air. Misinformation and hyperbole, scare tactics and emotional arguments.
If you think the American population is so smart perhaps you wouldn't mind participating in the Dihydrogen monoxide ban that's been floating around.
This topic was based on the premise that "non-conservative" republican candidates hurts conservatism so now I'm a know it all? That's lame.
-
Remington, you probably got a bit of a negative reaction because of the nature of your question. Please know that whenever somebody starts asking about "real" conservatives, there's a good bet that the asker is some sort of 100 percenter or Ronbot. Not your fault; it's just the nature of this board. I think you'll find that although
many most of us here are conservatives, we come in all flavors. I'm more socially conservative, for example, than perhaps others on this board, but maybe not as hard-line fiscally conservative.
Whenever I see a new guy talking about "real" conservatives, it raises flags.
That said, I'd like to see more grassroots, local elections go to conservatives. Omaha Steve could have done more damage to the day-to-day lives of Bellevue residents, probably, than Obama.
Just my two cents.
-
People (of voting age) graduate thinking Utah is a country.....if it's not something that can be played on a gaming machine, seen on prime time TV or isn't illegal their not interested. Are you suggesting the "dumbing down" of the citizens of this country hasn't worked? ....seriously?? That's how people successfully win elections..."the Republicans want to poison the water/poison the air. Misinformation and hyperbole, scare tactics and emotional arguments.
If you think the American population is so smart perhaps you wouldn't mind participating in the Dihydrogen monoxide ban that's been floating around.
This topic was based on the premise that "non-conservative" republican candidates hurts conservatism so now I'm a know it all? That's lame.
Your arrogant and quite frankly completely stupid idea that voters are a bunch if ignorant uncurious sheep isn't going to win you many friends around here.
You've fallen into the Liberal media trap you are scoffing at others for supposedly falling for.
You'd have probable been correct in your assumption prior to the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine and the explosion of the internet.
The Dems roll out that tired old crap and the population realizes someone is crying wolf.
I know what you started your topic off discussing...and your question was asked and answered. Very completely by several of us.
What is lame is the arrogant and snobbish way you are classifying people.
You sound like a Lib when you do it.
-
Of course but your taking a defensive strategy. Stop the others before you yourself can advance.
This statement fails itself to understand conservatism. Ours is not, for the most part, an active political philosophy. it's one of limited government. There aren't tasks for conservatism through government to "do"; there's a civil society for conservatism to make sure government gets out of the way of and stops seeking to dominate--which is the natural tendency of any government. So, in fact, defense IS offense to conservatives. We seek to roll back the damage liberalism/statism has done, which you name defense, but what would you have conservatism, as a philosophy, seek to accomplish through government instead of the growing tyranny of statism-through-liberalism? Because if you name even one thing that you want to accomplish through government at any level, you will have left the path of conservatism.
-
When it comes to the electorate, the 20% that are liberal already have their votes bought and paid for. A very large majority of these are not well educated on matters of civics and political science. What they want is the handout they were promised when their vote was bought. The 40% who are conservative are very well educated. The remaining 40% are easily swayed at the last minute by scandal, intrigue, libel, and slander.
-
When it comes to the electorate, the 20% that are liberal already have their votes bought and paid for. A very large majority of these are not well educated on matters of civics and political science. What they want is the handout they were promised when their vote was bought. The 40% who are conservative are very well educated. The remaining 40% are easily swayed at the last minute by scandal, intrigue, libel, and slander.
If I did not explain it in this way, you just did. Thank you Sir.
-
When it comes to the electorate, the 20% that are liberal already have their votes bought and paid for. A very large majority of these are not well educated on matters of civics and political science. What they want is the handout they were promised when their vote was bought. The 40% who are conservative are very well educated. The remaining 40% are easily swayed at the last minute by scandal, intrigue, libel, and slander.
Hi5. Good post.
-
^Thank you both.
-
Your arrogant and quite frankly completely stupid idea that voters are a bunch if ignorant uncurious sheep isn't going to win you many friends around here.
You've fallen into the Liberal media trap you are scoffing at others for supposedly falling for.
You'd have probable been correct in your assumption prior to the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine and the explosion of the internet.
The Dems roll out that tired old crap and the population realizes someone is crying wolf.
I know what you started your topic off discussing...and your question was asked and answered. Very completely by several of us.
What is lame is the arrogant and snobbish way you are classifying people.
You sound like a Lib when you do it.
Is this part of the Borg Collective or what? "I'm not going to win any friends?" So if I disagree with you I'm not welcome here? Most voters are not interested in politics therefore they cast their vote based on other factors. (That stands to reason doesn't it?) I'm almost certain I'll never meet any of you and while I'll come to respect certain peoples opinions, there are others I won't and I expect that others will feel the same way about what I post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl0WwC9OcOI
What liberal trap am I falling into?
The Fairness Doctrine and the explosion of the internet doesn't educate people if they don't want listen or read about politics. I would guess that most people watch 30 minutes of world news nightly and would calculate "their well informed". Could it be that the attempt by the left to reenact the Fairness Doctrine could be somewhat based on an idea that the commentary people do listen to is destructive to their agenda? Wouldn't that be reason enough to want to reenact it?
What "tired old crap" is it that you're referring to?
I'm answering peoples questions and comments to the best of my ability. If you believe this topic is over, you're free to go to another thread.
How would you classify people, for example in the video? With the absents of inflection in the written word I find it curious how you come to the conclusion that I am either arrogant or snobbish.
(Sounds to me like someone needs a hug)
-
^The video you posted is the perfect example of zombies for owebuma. They chant with their heads lolling about, glassy eyes out of focus, vacant stare, arms outreached, hands grabbing for handouts, stumbling around aimlessly, moaning, groaning. It's the inspiration for my forum name, with some other tributes thrown in. Good video by the way.
-
This statement fails itself to understand conservatism. Ours is not, for the most part, an active political philosophy. it's one of limited government. There aren't tasks for conservatism through government to "do"; there's a civil society for conservatism to make sure government gets out of the way of and stops seeking to dominate--which is the natural tendency of any government. So, in fact, defense IS offense to conservatives. We seek to roll back the damage liberalism/statism has done, which you name defense, but what would you have conservatism, as a philosophy, seek to accomplish through government instead of the growing tyranny of statism-through-liberalism? Because if you name even one thing that you want to accomplish through government at any level, you will have left the path of conservatism.
I would agree with you. Unless I'm mistaken we're talking about the same thing. In another forum someone posted all the grand things democrats, liberals and progressives have done over the ages to the betterment of society and I presume to entice someone into an attempt to counter with a list of their own. Yet how would one combat the removal of the 10 Commandments from public property if not by political means? How is a parent entitled to be informed of a 14 year olds abortion if not by eventually being heard by a politician? My reference to the word "offense" simply meant things like Newts Contract with America that rescinded destructive activity within the current way government was conducting business. In the case of the Constitution (Kelo vs City of New London) which involved an Eminent Domain issue, concerned citizens within these States began to clarify Eminent Domain so that Cities starved of revenue couldn't just seize property to increase funding. When using the term "going on the offense" rather than having a citizens property taken and trying then to get it back.
-
^The video you posted is the perfect example of zombies for owebuma. They chant with their heads lolling about, glassy eyes out of focus, vacant stare, arms outreached, hands grabbing for handouts, stumbling around aimlessly, moaning, groaning. It's the inspiration for my forum name, with some other tributes thrown in. Good video by the way.
Is there something I'm not explaining clearly enough for txradioguy you understand that he doesn't or are you or are you at risk of being referred to as arrogant and snobbish also?
-
Is there something I'm not explaining clearly enough for txradioguy you understand that he doesn't or are you or are you at risk of being referred to as arrogant and snobbish also?
When I started out in the forum I was nearly outright called a mole. So what do I know ? I don't know how the forum, or individual members react towards me. If I were to base it just on my reputation, it would be a wash. Maybe they'll warm up to me, maybe I'll wear on them, but I am me, like Shakespeare says, to thine own self be true. I love having a laugh. I'm quite irreverent, and I like to think I jostle people out of their comfort zones without them realizing it. I don't know if that answers your question, either way, ask me again in 1,000 posts, and we'll compare notes.
-
Okay, so now that we're done philosophizing about what could have, should have, would have been, and we're stuck with the candy-date we've got -- and I think we're all pretty much in agreement that Romney is no conservative -- what do you think Romney is going to do on these issues, assuming he wins in November?
1. Obamacare
2. Out of control spending
3. Iran
As a few here have already pointed out, Mitt has a healthcare program of his own that depending on the SCOTUS decision could go either way. If SCOTUS strikes down socialized medicine Romney may have no choice but to let it go. On the other hand he might repeal Obama care and tailor some form of his own plan which SCOTUS won't find unconstitutional. (The Government option?)
If we take what's said at face value it seems he will repeal Obamacare but what I worry about is replacing it with a "Happier, friendlier" form of socialized medicine. While I'm willing to concede there are many in this country that need affordable healthcare I don't have any suggestions how to fix it.
Out of control spending. Dr Walter Williams (former economics professor at George Mason University) laid out a couple of scenarios by which the Fed could correct certain financial problems facing the government and the best case (with maximum cuts to the Federal budget) took something like 12 years to correct. It would be nice to see some reforms to government spending but I can't forget Mitt is a North East politician and politicians in New England don't win elections with phrases like "we're not going to spend any money to pay down our debt".
Iran. I would venture a guess that like most modern republicans Romney will do alright with foreign policy but Iran is a problem to nearly everyone. Ahmadinejad is a radical held in check by the Ayatollah's but who can say for how long. If Israel conducted a preemptive attack to destroy Iran's ability to collect nuclear fuel.....I think they would take his chain off. Deplomacy hasn't worked so the question is "who has the balls to make the first move" or should we?
(Again I'll guess) Romney will keep safely surrounded by other like mind people who may threaten to rattle sabers but in the end I would tend to believe it will take the UN to get us involved in another operation in the Mid East.
-
When I started out in the forum I was nearly outright called a mole. So what do I know ? I don't know how the forum, or individual members react towards me. If I were to base it just on my reputation, it would be a wash. Maybe they'll warm up to me, maybe I'll wear on them, but I am me, like Shakespeare says, to thine own self be true. I love having a laugh. I'm quite irreverent, and I like to think I jostle people out of their comfort zones without them realizing it. I don't know if that answers your question, either way, ask me again in 1,000 posts, and we'll compare notes.
Roger that......998 left to go.
-
Remington, you probably got a bit of a negative reaction because of the nature of your question. Please know that whenever somebody starts asking about "real" conservatives, there's a good bet that the asker is some sort of 100 percenter or Ronbot. Not your fault; it's just the nature of this board. I think you'll find that although many most of us here are conservatives, we come in all flavors. I'm more socially conservative, for example, than perhaps others on this board, but maybe not as hard-line fiscally conservative.
Whenever I see a new guy talking about "real" conservatives, it raises flags.
That said, I'd like to see more grassroots, local elections go to conservatives. Omaha Steve could have done more damage to the day-to-day lives of Bellevue residents, probably, than Obama.
Just my two cents.
OK. Point taken. I'll keep that in mind and I appreciate the input. Thanks
-
Is there something I'm not explaining clearly enough for txradioguy you understand that he doesn't or are you or are you at risk of being referred to as arrogant and snobbish also?
You're explaining it clearly enough. Hence my previous comments.
You come in here insulting people at large and asking a place with the name Conservative in it's title "where are the Conservatives?
Gee...can't imagine why anyone would react with anything but candy and flowers to that. :whatever:
You're tossing out a lot of broad brush insults and assumptions about people when research these days proves otherwise.
You want to debate the merits of whether or not Conservatism is still viable and electable when you've got a compliant media providing pure propaganda for one side over the other...lets do that.
Just do it with out trying to purposely insult people's intelligence.
-
You're explaining it clearly enough. Hence my previous comments.
You come in here insulting people at large and asking a place with the name Conservative in it's title "where are the Conservatives?
Gee...can't imagine why anyone would react with anything but candy and flowers to that. :whatever:
You're tossing out a lot of broad brush insults and assumptions about people when research these days proves otherwise.
You want to debate the merits of whether or not Conservatism is still viable and electable when you've got a compliant media providing pure propaganda for one side over the other...lets do that.
Just do it with out trying to purposely insult people's intelligence.
[I originally started my post garnished with a bit of sarcasm but I am not here to get into a pissing contest but to pick the brains of people who have knowledge that I don't. Despite your earlier claim, not only do I not know everything, I also don't know most everything. So here is my olive branch.]
When I asked "where are the conservatives" I was excluding the Rhino's...."Rhino's". People who call themselves republican, enter office, do little to nothing to advance the conservative ideology there-by causing the individual's vote who put them in office to suffer the agenda of a moderate whose only concern was getting elected. If I caused confusion with my title, I would have cleared up any misunderstanding if I had been asked.
On the topic of "broad brush insults" can you please be more specific? If I have used language that people have interpreted as an insult without cause I will apologize. I entered this forum believing that we were on the same team so if my slang is foreign to the rest of the group I can assure those reading this were not the intended target.
I'm not debating whether or not conservatism is viable, I'm making the claim that it isn't and I gave examples of why I believe it isn't. My opinion isn't so weak it can't withstand debate however, if it can't I'd like to know about it so I can reevaluate my position. (Oh, and my claim did not originate from typical liberal sources)
It is my belief that everyone is ignorant about something. That is to say the smartest person in this room can be stumped when being asked the right question and I am no exception to the rule. I came here to learn from other conservatives whose opinions I can respect to help me make better political decisions in the future. I have never "got my rocks off" with sarcasm and condensation when being asked my position or interpretation but I expect the same courtesy.
So how about it Sgt? Are we going to shake hands and work together to evaluate theories on ways to strengthen conservatism or are you looking for one more swing?
On a side note; what is/was your MOS?
-
That's "sarcasm and condescension"
-
[I originally started my post garnished with a bit of sarcasm but I am not here to get into a pissing contest but to pick the brains of people who have knowledge that I don't. Despite your earlier claim, not only do I not know everything, I also don't know most everything. So here is my olive branch.]
When I asked "where are the conservatives" I was excluding the Rhino's...."Rhino's". People who call themselves republican, enter office, do little to nothing to advance the conservative ideology there-by causing the individual's vote who put them in office to suffer the agenda of a moderate whose only concern was getting elected. If I caused confusion with my title, I would have cleared up any misunderstanding if I had been asked.
On the topic of "broad brush insults" can you please be more specific? If I have used language that people have interpreted as an insult without cause I will apologize. I entered this forum believing that we were on the same team so if my slang is foreign to the rest of the group I can assure those reading this were not the intended target.
I'm not debating whether or not conservatism is viable, I'm making the claim that it isn't and I gave examples of why I believe it isn't. My opinion isn't so weak it can't withstand debate however, if it can't I'd like to know about it so I can reevaluate my position. (Oh, and my claim did not originate from typical liberal sources)
It is my belief that everyone is ignorant about something. That is to say the smartest person in this room can be stumped when being asked the right question and I am no exception to the rule. I came here to learn from other conservatives whose opinions I can respect to help me make better political decisions in the future. I have never "got my rocks off" with sarcasm and condensation when being asked my position or interpretation but I expect the same courtesy.
So how about it Sgt? Are we going to shake hands and work together to evaluate theories on ways to strengthen conservatism or are you looking for one more swing?
On a side note; what is/was your MOS?
It's RINOs (a phrase which by the way is a height of political immaturity to use), and if you want an echo chamber then you are looking for freerepublic.com.
Godspeed on your cyber travels.
-
As a few here have already pointed out, Mitt has a healthcare program of his own that depending on the SCOTUS decision could go either way. If SCOTUS strikes down socialized medicine Romney may have no choice but to let it go. On the other hand he might repeal Obama care and tailor some form of his own plan which SCOTUS won't find unconstitutional. (The Government option?)
If we take what's said at face value it seems he will repeal Obamacare but what I worry about is replacing it with a "Happier, friendlier" form of socialized medicine. While I'm willing to concede there are many in this country that need affordable healthcare I don't have any suggestions how to fix it.
What is in place in MA is a shell of what was proposed by Mitt Romney - which he has held pretty much from day one, is a STATE decision. What part of that are you having the most problem with understanding?
Out of control spending. Dr Walter Williams (former economics professor at George Mason University) laid out a couple of scenarios by which the Fed could correct certain financial problems facing the government and the best case (with maximum cuts to the Federal budget) took something like 12 years to correct. It would be nice to see some reforms to government spending but I can't forget Mitt is a North East politician and politicians in New England don't win elections with phrases like "we're not going to spend any money to pay down our debt".
Mitt Romney being governor of a state with a super-super-super majority of Democrats, most being super urban leftists. The budget he proposed in January was in shreds when it made its way back to him in June.
:yawn:
Iran. I would venture a guess that like most modern republicans Romney will do alright with foreign policy but Iran is a problem to nearly everyone. Ahmadinejad is a radical held in check by the Ayatollah's but who can say for how long. If Israel conducted a preemptive attack to destroy Iran's ability to collect nuclear fuel.....I think they would take his chain off. Deplomacy hasn't worked so the question is "who has the balls to make the first move" or should we?
(Again I'll guess) Romney will keep safely surrounded by other like mind people who may threaten to rattle sabers but in the end I would tend to believe it will take the UN to get us involved in another operation in the Mid East.
Iran is Europe's problem, and they - like everything else they touch - have messed that up rather good. Should Israel make a run at Iran, they won't be doing it alone if Romney is president. You can bet the farm on that one.
-
Iran is Europe's problem, and they - like everything else they touch - have messed that up rather good. Should Israel make a run at Iran, they won't be doing it alone if Romney is president. You can bet the farm on that one.
There is no question that if Israel goes after Iran, we will be right there with them. As long as Mitt is President. If Obama is still Pres, we will be taking sides with Iran.
-
When I started out in the forum I was nearly outright called a mole. So what do I know ? I don't know how the forum, or individual members react towards me. If I were to base it just on my reputation, it would be a wash. Maybe they'll warm up to me, maybe I'll wear on them, but I am me, like Shakespeare says, to thine own self be true. I love having a laugh. I'm quite irreverent, and I like to think I jostle people out of their comfort zones without them realizing it. I don't know if that answers your question, either way, ask me again in 1,000 posts, and we'll compare notes.
I'm not yet convinced that you aren't still a mole.
:tongue:
-
I'm not yet convinced that you aren't still a mole.
:tongue:
I'm overdue for a promotion :-)
-
I'm overdue for a promotion :-)
OK. Do you prefer to be called Master Mole or Mole Master?
:-)
-
It's RINOs (a phrase which by the way is a height of political immaturity to use), and if you want an echo chamber then you are looking for freerepublic.com.
Godspeed on your cyber travels.
I appreciate the correction in a subject you obviously have some expertise in. The deflection of resorting to school yard sandbox tactics to avoid the topic is woefully ineffective.
-
I'm not yet convinced that you aren't still a mole.
:tongue:
Mole or no, he is funny. :-)
-
Is this part of the Borg Collective or what? "I'm not going to win any friends?" So if I disagree with you I'm not welcome here? Most voters are not interested in politics therefore they cast their vote based on other factors. (That stands to reason doesn't it?) I'm almost certain I'll never meet any of you and while I'll come to respect certain peoples opinions, there are others I won't and I expect that others will feel the same way about what I post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl0WwC9OcOI
What liberal trap am I falling into?
The Fairness Doctrine and the explosion of the internet doesn't educate people if they don't want listen or read about politics. I would guess that most people watch 30 minutes of world news nightly and would calculate "their well informed". Could it be that the attempt by the left to reenact the Fairness Doctrine could be somewhat based on an idea that the commentary people do listen to is destructive to their agenda? Wouldn't that be reason enough to want to reenact it?
What "tired old crap" is it that you're referring to?
I'm answering peoples questions and comments to the best of my ability. If you believe this topic is over, you're free to go to another thread.
How would you classify people, for example in the video? With the absents of inflection in the written word I find it curious how you come to the conclusion that I am either arrogant or snobbish.
(Sounds to me like someone needs a hug)
You're letting your fascist slip show, why not just leave things to the peoples representatives.
I guess you could try to do it by executive order, quite frankly, I dare you folkes to try.
You should kneel to the east and pray thanks for the 9th circus every day because that's your last line of defence.
-
OK. Do you prefer to be called Master Mole or Mole Master?
:-)
I was thinking more along the lines of promotion to Forum Seminole (>or=1/32). Since I'm already black, in protest of the current administration, I could be the forum's 1st black seminole (>or=1/32nd) male lesbian. This deal just keeps getting sweeter and sweeter (say it like Larry the Cable Guy).
-
I was thinking more along the lines of promotion to Forum Seminole (>or=1/32). Since I'm already black, in protest of the current administration, I could be the forum's 1st black seminole (>or=1/32nd) male lesbian. This deal just keeps getting sweeter and sweeter (say it like Larry the Cable Guy).
I laughed at that enough that my cat startled and scratched my shoulder.
Damage control mode.
-
You're letting your fascist slip show, why not just leave things to the peoples representatives.
I guess you could try to do it by executive order, quite frankly, I dare you folkes to try.
You should kneel to the east and pray thanks for the 9th circus every day because that's your last line of defence.
**** the 9th circus and would you kindly demonstrate how my post had anything to do with fascism?
-
**** the 9th circus and would you kindly demonstrate how my post had anything to do with fascism?
I allready did...what is wrong with you people?
-
**** the 9th circus and would you kindly demonstrate how my post had anything to do with fascism?
I hope this doesn't derail, but Savage calls it the 9th jerkit court of schlemiels.
-
I am quite new here.If anyone seen what i have done in other places,IM soooo far right...IM diagonal. :-*
-
The Fairness Doctrine and the explosion of the internet doesn't educate people if they don't want listen or read about politics.
And yet...despite your arrogant assumptions...more people are politically aware on the left than they have ever been.
People sitting around their computers in their pajamas were able to catch a tenured "respected" news anchor attempting to bring down a sitting president with forged documents.
If people were still as politically stupid as you claim that would have never happened.
If people were still as politically stupid as you claim we wouldn't have the TEA Party as a serious force among the Conservative ranks.
All you have to do is look around this place and others like CU redstate hot air newsbsuters etc to see that people these days aren't "politically stupid".
Shall I continue to show where you're wrong about whether people today are "politically stupid"?
Or maybe we could just look at the results of the recent Celebrity Jeopardy episodes to see which side of the political spectrum is truly stupid.
You seem to be applying late 70's early 80's dynamics to present day...and it just doesn't add up.
I would guess that most people watch 30 minutes of world news nightly and would calculate "their well informed".
Again you'd be wrong.
Big Three Evening Newscasts At or Near All-Time 25-54 Demographic Lows
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/05/22/big-three-evening-newscasts-or-near-all-time-25-54-demographic-lows
And then there's this little gem:
Pew Research: Republicans More Knowledgeable Than Democrats
In a scientific survey of 1,168 adults conducted during September and October of last year, respondents were asked not only multiple-choice questions, but also queries using maps, photographs and symbols. Among other subjects, participants identified international leaders, cabinet members, Supreme Court justices, nations on a world map, the current unemployment and poverty rates and war casualty totals.
In a 2010 Pew survey, Republicans outperformed Democrats on 10 of 12 questions, with one tie and Democrats outperforming Republicans on just 1 of the 12. In the latest survey, however, Republicans outperformed Democrats on every single one of 19 questions.
http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/54-state-of-affairs/1357-pew-research-republicans-more-knowledgeable-than-democrats
Could it be that the attempt by the left to reenact the Fairness Doctrine could be somewhat based on an idea that the commentary people do listen to is destructive to their agenda? Wouldn't that be reason enough to want to reenact it?
Huh? That makes no sense at all.
-
I allready did...what is wrong with you people?
My mistake......clearly they should have called you the "great communicator" .......as long as we cleared that up............ :???:......thanks for stopping by.......priciate it.............(whatever).............
-
Big Three Evening Newscasts At or Near All-Time 25-54 Demographic Lows
CNN reported its lowest rating in 20 years last week. The reason for it because people are getting sick of the slobbering love affair the Big three have with Obama. Fox New has ratings higher than all three put together, that includes MSNBC in that mix as well.
-
CNN reported its lowest rating in 20 years last week. The reason for it because people are getting sick of the slobbering love affair the Big three have with Obama. Fox New has ratings higher than all three put together, that includes MSNBC in that mix as well.
Which would seem to directly contradict why our n00b is saying.
-
**** the MSM.boycott.
-
**** the MSM.boycott.
Eh?
-
Mainstream media is the altered propaganda arm of the Marxist machine. Go to www.Marxist.org you will see that what is going on in this nation falls in line with the Communist manifesto
-
Mainstream media is the altered propaganda arm of the Marxist machine. Go to www.Marxist.org you will see that what is going on in this nation falls in line with the Communist manifesto
Gotcha. Hi5
-
**** the MSM.boycott.
That's pretty much what Iv'e done...and quite frankly I believe most people in America have done as well.
I get more info off the web from the news sites that I read.
Can't tell you the last time i sat down and watched a traditional evening news show.
-
And yet...despite your arrogant assumptions...more people are politically aware on the left than they have ever been.
People sitting around their computers in their pajamas were able to catch a tenured "respected" news anchor attempting to bring down a sitting president with forged documents.
If people were still as politically stupid as you claim that would have never happened.
If people were still as politically stupid as you claim we wouldn't have the TEA Party as a serious force among the Conservative ranks.
All you have to do is look around this place and others like CU redstate hot air newsbsuters etc to see that people these days aren't "politically stupid".
Shall I continue to show where you're wrong about whether people today are "politically stupid"?
Or maybe we could just look at the results of the recent Celebrity Jeopardy episodes to see which side of the political spectrum is truly stupid.
You seem to be applying late 70's early 80's dynamics to present day...and it just doesn't add up.
Again you'd be wrong.
Big Three Evening Newscasts At or Near All-Time 25-54 Demographic Lows
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/05/22/big-three-evening-newscasts-or-near-all-time-25-54-demographic-lows
And then there's this little gem:
http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/54-state-of-affairs/1357-pew-research-republicans-more-knowledgeable-than-democrats
Huh? That makes no sense at all.
People Bill O'Riley called "stoned slackers".
Ok, lets take a look at the summery of the Pew research.....While admitting the test administered may have been a poor way to judge people's political intelligence; "Fully half would have failed, while only about one-in-six would have earned an A or B."
Intelligence level of all voters during the 2004 election claims;
a. There is no discernible intelligence difference between Bush voters and Kerry voters.
b. Kerry supporters who insist that Bush voters are "dumb," and who point out as evidence state-by-state IQ scores, are engaging in behavior that could be construed as racially inflammatory.
http://zombietime.com/iq_of_2004_voters_by_state/
From an obviously gifted politically interested caller
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMK9zxb5HyE&NR=1
Does the Constitution mandate a separation of Church and State? Lets hear what America's smart voters say.
http://www.au.org/church-state/september-2011-church-state/au-bulletin/constitution-mandates-church-state-separation
Footage of Marion Barry in a room of crack smoke saying, "Bitch set me up." And yet that image, that video did not disqualify him from being seen as a viable political option in the mind of voters. In fact, not only was he re-elected mayor after serving time in a federal prison, today he sits on the City Council obviously put there by "intelligent" voters.
http://pop-trends.com/key-44317/marion+barry.html
Politicians have become adept at manipulating numbers, either to pass important legislation or to avoid imposing politically unpopular policies such as tax increases (now often labeled as “revenue enhancers,†falsely implying there is a difference). "Family Planning" replaces the name "abortion clinic" for the slaughter of the unborn (as opposed to the term "fetus") yet your claim is that most people are intelligent enough to see through these disingenuous practices so why are they so commonly employed.
Clinton employed the term "for the children" to entice voters into agreeing with new social programs and economic policies. Recycling items like paper and glass do nothing to save money or the environment yet people are convinced they do. Beets are a better source per acre than corn as a source for sugar so why do farmers plant corn?
Some people are better informed than others. Personally I'm not here because I'm disinterested in government but according to this study (2004-2008) shows an overall trend that people are less interested in politics. Again from the study, those not interested or with very little interest has steadily stayed around 50%.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=percentage%20of%20the%20population%20interested%20in%20politics&source=web&cd=41&ved=0CE8QFjAAOCg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hansardsociety.org.uk%2Ffiles%2Ffolders%2F1142%2Fdownload.aspx&ei=QI3CT5IDpMzpAc6d2MwK&usg=AFQjCNHr9esNT28ROGNqtL1W4wL1lb6TBA&cad=rja
Shall we discuss the failure of the pubic schools adequately teach civics, critical reasoning and the Constitution where less than 10% of teens could name the Vice President of the United States?
-
That's pretty much what Iv'e done...and quite frankly I believe most people in America have done as well.
I get more info off the web from the news sites that I read.
Can't tell you the last time i sat down and watched a traditional evening news show.
I read it wrong at first. I didn't see the period and thought is was all one sentence.
-
People Bill O'Riley called "stoned slackers".
Ok, lets take a look at the summery of the Pew research.....While admitting the test administered may have been a poor way to judge people's political intelligence; "Fully half would have failed, while only about one-in-six would have earned an A or B."
Intelligence level of all voters during the 2004 election claims;
a. There is no discernible intelligence difference between Bush voters and Kerry voters.
b. Kerry supporters who insist that Bush voters are "dumb," and who point out as evidence state-by-state IQ scores, are engaging in behavior that could be construed as racially inflammatory.
http://zombietime.com/iq_of_2004_voters_by_state/
From an obviously gifted politically interested caller
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMK9zxb5HyE&NR=1
Does the Constitution mandate a separation of Church and State? Lets hear what America's smart voters say.
http://www.au.org/church-state/september-2011-church-state/au-bulletin/constitution-mandates-church-state-separation
Footage of Marion Barry in a room of crack smoke saying, "Bitch set me up." And yet that image, that video did not disqualify him from being seen as a viable political option in the mind of voters. In fact, not only was he re-elected mayor after serving time in a federal prison, today he sits on the City Council obviously put there by "intelligent" voters.
http://pop-trends.com/key-44317/marion+barry.html
Politicians have become adept at manipulating numbers, either to pass important legislation or to avoid imposing politically unpopular policies such as tax increases (now often labeled as “revenue enhancers,†falsely implying there is a difference). "Family Planning" replaces the name "abortion clinic" for the slaughter of the unborn (as opposed to the term "fetus") yet your claim is that most people are intelligent enough to see through these disingenuous practices so why are they so commonly employed.
Clinton employed the term "for the children" to entice voters into agreeing with new social programs and economic policies. Recycling items like paper and glass do nothing to save money or the environment yet people are convinced they do. Beets are a better source per acre than corn as a source for sugar so why do farmers plant corn?
Some people are better informed than others. Personally I'm not here because I'm disinterested in government but according to this study (2004-2008) shows an overall trend that people are less interested in politics. Again from the study, those not interested or with very little interest has steadily stayed around 50%.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=percentage%20of%20the%20population%20interested%20in%20politics&source=web&cd=41&ved=0CE8QFjAAOCg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hansardsociety.org.uk%2Ffiles%2Ffolders%2F1142%2Fdownload.aspx&ei=QI3CT5IDpMzpAc6d2MwK&usg=AFQjCNHr9esNT28ROGNqtL1W4wL1lb6TBA&cad=rja
Shall we discuss the failure of the pubic schools adequately teach civics, critical reasoning and the Constitution where less than 10% of teens could name the Vice President of the United States?
So far troll...all I'm hearing from you is negative "Americans are stupid drivel.
That's a Liberal trait not a Conservative one.
Conservatives are more positive about the country as a whole and the people that inhabit it.
If we Conservatives are so dumb and uneducated...what would a genius like you do to fix it?
-
So far troll...all I'm hearing from you is negative "Americans are stupid drivel.
That's a Liberal trait not a Conservative one.
Conservatives are more positive about the country as a whole and the people that inhabit it.
If we Conservatives are so dumb and uneducated...what would a genius like you do to fix it?
Still waiting for you to provide "facts" that supports your claim......No? No facts? (And you call me a troll?) Hmmm.....Your emotional argument doesn't change anything. (Isn't emotional argument a liberal trait?) Wanting American's to be smarter, wanting people to amass into internet cafes to catch up on political events doesn't make it so. (Hope and Change? is that your inspiration?) And you call me a troll? (Isn't attacking the messenger rather than addressing the issue a liberal trait?)
Pssst......It's a liberal tactic to accuse the opposition of what they are guilty of.
And I didn't say "conservative".
-
Still waiting for you to provide "facts" that supports your claim......No? No facts? (And you call me a troll?) Hmmm.....Your emotional argument doesn't change anything. (Isn't emotional argument a liberal trait?) Wanting American's to be smarter, wanting people to amass into internet cafes to catch up on political events doesn't make it so. (Hope and Change? is that your inspiration?) And you call me a troll? (Isn't attacking the messenger rather than addressing the issue a liberal trait?)
Pssst......It's a liberal tactic to accuse the opposition of what they are guilty of.
And I didn't say "conservative".
Lighten up Francis
-
Lighten up Francis
Yeah -- he does have that beady-eyed look, doesn't he? :lmao:
-
Lighten up Francis
Hey, I'm having a discussion here......
-
Still waiting for you to provide "facts" that supports your claim......No? No facts? (And you call me a troll?) Hmmm.....Your emotional argument doesn't change anything. (Isn't emotional argument a liberal trait?) Wanting American's to be smarter, wanting people to amass into internet cafes to catch up on political events doesn't make it so. (Hope and Change? is that your inspiration?) And you call me a troll? (Isn't attacking the messenger rather than addressing the issue a liberal trait?)
Always gotta love a n00b troll that calls a long time member a Liberal.
I've heard that line somewhere before. That troll didn't last long either.
I linked to everything that refuted your crap.
And while you linked to some pop culture MSM crap...you avoided the tough questions that were asked of you and dodged the points that refuted your arrogant assertions.
I can assure you that what I'm telling you is anything but emotional...it's based in fact.
You...not so much.
Pssst......It's a liberal tactic to accuse the opposition of what they are guilty of.
And right cue. :whatever:
And I didn't say "conservative".
That's your assertion...your implication...hell you say as much in the title of your welcome thread.
-
Always gotta love a n00b troll that calls a long time member a Liberal.
I've heard that line somewhere before. That troll didn't last long either.
I linked to everything that refuted your crap.
And while you linked to some pop culture MSM crap...you avoided the tough questions that were asked of you and dodged the points that refuted your arrogant assertions.
I can assure you that what I'm telling you is anything but emotional...it's based in fact.
You...not so much.
And right cue. :whatever:
That's your assertion...your implication...hell you say as much in the title of your welcome thread.
No balls. I get it. Thanks for that stand up answer. You got Maggie's drawers. You sound like a friggin boot in political circles, perhaps some paper pusher 20 star General admin pogue who devises political opinion based on Doonesbury cartoons.
-
No balls. I get it. Thanks for that stand up answer. You got Maggie's drawers. You sound like a friggin boot in political circles, perhaps some paper pusher 20 star General admin pogue who devises political opinion based on Doonesbury cartoons.
Enjoy your stay troll...I'm guessing it won't be much longer.
You started out strong...until someone challenged your inept bluster.
And now you're down to the above quoted tripe.
Oh and for the record...I'm a Sergeant First Class...you couldn't pay me enough to be an General.
-
No balls. I get it. Thanks for that stand up answer. You got Maggie's drawers. You sound like a friggin boot in political circles, perhaps some paper pusher 20 star General admin pogue who devises political opinion based on Doonesbury cartoons.
What a ****ing little *****. You wouldn't know a political thought if it brought you a towel after ****ing your ass.
-
Like Boogerton he/she/it speaks like a man with a paper asshole. EOM
-
Enjoy your stay troll...I'm guessing it won't be much longer.
You started out strong...until someone challenged your inept bluster.
And now you're down to the above quoted tripe.
Oh and for the record...I'm a Sergeant First Class...you couldn't pay me enough to be an General.
Books
Nina Eliasoph (Cambridge Cultural Social Studies) writes; Avoiding Politics: How Americans Produce Apathy in Everyday Life in which she catologs American's and their disinterest of politics.
Blogs
http://niconoclast.blogspot.com/2012/04/anti-politics-open-door.html
"There is so much disgust by the general public of all things political" and
http://druhepkins.hubpages.com/hub/Guiding-American-Stupidity
"Americans seem to be grappling with the image of buffoonery more than ever."
Anti-politics plays entirely into the hands of the left leaving people to be governed who are not only powerless to change their own lives but can do nothing to stop it and don't.
Ann Coulter interview.
"The stupidest voters"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joePWVW2c58&feature=related
You can ignore it all you want to. Your not winning the argument with those clever intellectual words like "arrogant"and "snobbish". I offered lots of evidence to support my position and you offered....information supporting the position that the Mainstream media is losing its viewer/readership as evidence that people are smarter about politics. It doesn't wash. As a matter of fact, it would have been easier if you had just surrendered the debate from the beginning. (Does anyone debate on this "debate" or do you all just circle the wagons and pat each other on the back?)
(Oh, and I spent thirty days rooming with a Sgt 1st Class at the Naval Hospital in Bethesda....and for the record, there's no such thing as a 20 Star General.)
-
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: you thought that was a gotcha moment with the 20 Star General ?
-
(Oh, and I spent thirty days rooming with a Sgt 1st Class at the Naval Hospital in Bethesda....and for the record, there's no such thing as a 20 Star General.)
NADS - IS THAT YOU?
Note to Remington: Mental masturbation is best conducted in a private setting.
-
I offered lots of evidence to support my position and you offered....
Yes, you did, lots of evidence to support your position. For that matter, anyone can offer evidence to support a position, the internet is full of information to support any position.
What you have (repeatedly) failed to do is take into account the state and local elections of 2010. The demoshits may have held on to the Senate, but they lost their asses across the country in a big way. In every single Conservative "revolution" that has happened, I can remember no country wide shellacking like there was in 2010. That's big, that's local, and that translates into national as those results work their way to the surface.
So, yes, you offered "evidence" - bully for you. Considering your evidence does not take those mid term election results into account, your point is crap. The voters are much more informed (ie smarter) than you believe and it will be reflected in the coming November bloodbath.
information supporting the position that the Mainstream media is losing its viewer/readership as evidence that people are smarter about politics. It doesn't wash.
Look harder.
(Does anyone debate on this "debate" or do you all just circle the wagons and pat each other on the back?)
You have the personality of a bent shitcan, what did you expect? A parade?
-
Any guesses as to what this trolls DU name is?
-
Lol. This thread has moved rather far afield of a "welcome/intro" thread.
-
Lol. This thread has moved rather far afield of a "welcome/intro" thread.
It needs a "Friendly Angel"
Star Trek episode 59 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-LPzo2mPNY)
Hail Hail, fire and snow...
-
Off topic.midnight and 80 degrees.summer is here.
-
Off topic.midnight and 80 degrees.summer is here.
It is 65 here in Pittsburgh.
-
Kyle...go to www.drudgereport.com
article bout MOVEON.ORG losing funding backup.
statement made by pac leaders say without $15 mil,obama reelect,elizabeth warren campaign,and walker recall efforts will be abandoned.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
-
Kyle...go to www.drudgereport.com
article bout MOVEON.ORG losing funding backup.
statement made by pac leaders say without $15 mil,obama reelect,elizabeth warren campaign,and walker recall efforts will be abandoned.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
I saw that on the news today and I say it is about time. I hope they go under. It would be beautiful if they took Planned Parenthood with them.
Speaking of Planned Parenthood. Mitt Romney was saying a while back that he wants to abolish it. :-)
-
I saw that on the news today and I say it is about time. I hope they go under. It would be beautiful if they took Planned Parenthood with them.
Speaking of Planned Parenthood. Mitt Romney was saying a while back that he wants to abolish it. :-)
"It" referred to the funding of PP. He wants to abolish federal funding of a half a billion a year to PP. "It" is a very good idea.
-
"It" referred to the funding of PP. He wants to abolish federal funding of a half a billion a year to PP. "It" is a very good idea.
Yeah, I just looked and he walked back on what he said. First he said he wants to get rid of it, now he is just saying the funding. If they lose the funding, they will hopefully go under.
-
Yeah, I just looked and he walked back on what he said. First he said he wants to get rid of it, now he is just saying the funding. If they lose the funding, they will hopefully go under.
I'm not sure he walked back anything, I think he was talking about the funding the whole time.
-
I'm not sure he walked back anything, I think he was talking about the funding the whole time.
Well the way it sounded when he said it, sounded like he was saying that he wanted to get rid of it.
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLM_nDczR2g[/youtube]
-
You have the personality of a bent shitcan, what did you expect? A parade?
A bent shitcan huh? Well I thought I was trying harder than that....Your unhappy with my attitude huh? Well consider my welcome. Half of those here have been quite civil here and I appreciate it. The other half seem to expect some sort of ritual where I'm supposed to take a load on the chin in order to be accepted and your surprised at my personality?
Personal attacks don't change the nature of evidence. For all of Hitlers faults he proved one thing, "anyone can lose weight if you stop feeding them". Point is, whether you approve of the messenger or not the a blue sky doesn't change.
If the bulk of the conversation here is based in emotion rather than those of fact I'm going to enjoy my occasional visits here.
-
Well the way it sounded when he said it, sounded like he was saying that he wanted to get rid of it.
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLM_nDczR2g[/youtube]
Death of Planned Parenthood? That would be a shame right? At very least they should be forced to change their name to something which resembles "truth in advertising". Anyone else in favor of a name such as; "Clinic for irresponsible horny people to slaughter the unborn to avoid responsibility and parenthood."
-
Anyone else in favor of a name such as; "Clinic for irresponsible horny people to slaughter the unborn to avoid responsibility and parenthood."
I love it! Hi5
-
A bent shitcan huh? Well I thought I was trying harder than that....Your unhappy with my attitude huh? Well consider my welcome. Half of those here have been quite civil here and I appreciate it. The other half seem to expect some sort of ritual where I'm supposed to take a load on the chin in order to be accepted and your surprised at my personality?
Personal attacks don't change the nature of evidence. For all of Hitlers faults he proved one thing, "anyone can lose weight if you stop feeding them". Point is, whether you approve of the messenger or not the a blue sky doesn't change.
If the bulk of the conversation here is based in emotion rather than those of fact I'm going to enjoy my occasional visits here.
And yet you completely glossed over the rest of the post. Nice...
Tell you what, "Regan", when you figure out that walking into a new place and flopping your dick around isn't a good way to introduce yourself, then maybe you'll get more civility.
Until then, take your insipid, worn out, outdated bullshit and go **** yourself with it. Don't find that to measure up to your standards of how you think you should be treated, find the door and carry your ass through it.
-
I love it! Hi5
Hi5 x2!!!!
-
And yet you completely glossed over the rest of the post. Nice...
Tell you what, "Regan", when you figure out that walking into a new place and flopping your dick around isn't a good way to introduce yourself, then maybe you'll get more civility.
Until then, take your insipid, worn out, outdated bullshit and go **** yourself with it. Don't find that to measure up to your standards of how you think you should be treated, find the door and carry your ass through it.
I'd call that an "emotional" response.......
You may be impressing yourself with your bullying.....I'm not intimidated.
Keep trying. You don't convince me.
-
I'd call that an "emotional" response.......
You may be impressing yourself with your bullying.....I'm not intimidated.
Keep trying. You don't convince me.
Not exactly a clinical response by you either.
-
Not exactly a clinical response by you either.
You know I'm really not that hard to get along with. I don't want to be treated any different than the way people want to be treated.
Without going back in the thread I thought you had some grief for me when I first arrived and since then, if nothing else our interactions have been very civil. I've received several messages from people here some warning me about this person and that person but I'd like to make up my own mind and let peoples actions speak for themselves.
-
I'd call that an "emotional" response.......
Call it whatever you like, does not change what was stated. Nor does it address the fact that was stated about the 2010 elections. Care to give that a shot?
You may be impressing yourself with your bullying.....I'm not intimidated.
Bullying? Intimidation?!?
:lmao:
Don't fret, precious, none of us are here to "bully" you.
:rotf:
You strutted in waving your e-wang around, I reminded you of it, you all but told me to **** off, and I stated you'll get "civility" when you act civil - until then you could "take your insipid, worn out, outdated bullshit and go **** yourself with it" or find the door. I don't give a damn whether you post here or not but if you act like an ass, you can expect those of us who don't gloss things over to tell you you're acting like an ass.
No "bullying" or "intimidation" involved. I have better things to do with my time than to needle a retard on the internet.
Keep trying. You don't convince me.
Convince you of what? You're an ass? You have bombastic manners that not everyone finds endearing? You have a personality and a posting style that mimics a strutting teenager?
You're not convinced? I'm not surprised.