Why vote GOP back in?

[Oceander]

You are correct only in part.  It is not the model of the democratic party today.  The model of the democratic party today is modeled off of the progressive ideology of socialism from the early 1900's that took deep root in the 1920's.  Yet the fundamental changes were already in effect shortly after 1900.  You cannot in any way equate the two as the same.  

The model installed in the early 1900's is the same ideology used by Hitler, I would not exactly call that Jeffersonian, now would you?

Nonetheless, putting aside the obvious hyperbole in my initial statement, there was no "Republican Party" or any close-enough analogue back in the time of Jefferson, so your statement to that effect is, essentially, nugatory.  Also, no, I do not see the origins of the Democratic party that we have now as springing from some NSDAP-style ideology implemented back in the early 1900s - the current Democrat Party clearly draws most of its strength from the violent elements of the 1960s hard left, and became merely the convenient vehicle for them to take up warfare against the United States by other means (i.e., other than by violence - such as Bill Ayers' bomb-throwing campaigns with the Weathermen).  That a group of hard-core violent leftists should develop striking similarities to the NSDAP is merely evidence of convergent evolution, and should not come as any real surprise as the original leftists - Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and their fellow-travelers - were grist for the mill of the NSDAP, which drew a lot of inspiration from those original leftists.

But that's all beside the point; it's still a crying shame to have a good, committed conservative sideline himself because he feels his hands are too dainty to work with the only material we have on hand today.

[Javelin]

Since you are a newbee here, you do not get to formulate the subject matter. My opinion is that Obama is going to screw things up, and that it is imperative that Repubs take over the House and/or the Senate to limit the damage Obama will inflict on us. All this other gibber jabberish is immaterial to me.  

Well I agree Obama will screw up the nation.  I am so glad that you can see the obvious.

Now that you will not allow me to formulate subject matter even within an existing open thread.. The conversation between you and me, is over.  And I thought the Dems were tyrants... wow.  

[formerlurker]

When I was in that thread I was speaking directly as to "why do people hate him so much?" and also I found it amazing at how Republicans can trash a man so badly that does in fact have some decent ideas.  I mean really if your wife cooks a meal for you and one item on the plate is bad do you cuss her out and throw away the food?

Sounds a bit childish and idiotic to me.

Decent ideas?   He has accomplished NOTHING while in Congress.   Let me repeat that -- N-O-T-H-I-N-G.   He sure has quite the flock of puppies who lap up every delusional word he utters though.  Lord knows he loves the attention. 

I could care less if the aliens came and claimed him tomorrow.   

[Javelin]

Nonetheless, putting aside the obvious hyperbole in my initial statement, there was no "Republican Party" or any close-enough analogue back in the time of Jefferson, so your statement to that effect is, essentially, nugatory.  Also, no, I do not see the origins of the Democratic party that we have now as springing from some NSDAP-style ideology implemented back in the early 1900s - the current Democrat Party clearly draws most of its strength from the violent elements of the 1960s hard left, and became merely the convenient vehicle for them to take up warfare against the United States by other means (i.e., other than by violence - such as Bill Ayers' bomb-throwing campaigns with the Weathermen).  That a group of hard-core violent leftists should develop striking similarities to the NSDAP is merely evidence of convergent evolution, and should not come as any real surprise as the original leftists - Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and their fellow-travelers - were grist for the mill of the NSDAP, which drew a lot of inspiration from those original leftists.

But that's all beside the point; it's still a crying shame to have a good, committed conservative sideline himself because he feels his hands are too dainty to work with the only material we have on hand today.

Check into why Hilery called herself an "early 1900's progressive" and you will find the answer as to how the democratic party changed before the 1960's.  The 60's was the end result of what took place in the early 1900's.  It was the writings of the early progressives that inspired Hitler quite literally.  Also if that is any kind of picture of the ideology that the Democrats carry today it scary as hell itself coming into our world here.

I am not on the sidelines per se.  Local and state has been a major push for me and highly involved.  Its difficult to influence the nation when people cannot even properly influence the state they live in.

[Lacarnut]

Well I agree Obama will screw up the nation.  I am so glad that you can see the obvious.

Now that you will not allow me to formulate subject matter even within an existing open thread.. The conversation between you and me, is over.  And I thought the Dems were tyrants... wow.  

The topic of the thread is "WHY VOTE GOP BACK IN" Looks like you have embarked on a different topic. If you want to start a new one, by all means be my guest. BTW, the conversation ends when I say so. So take your tyrant BS and cram it where the sun does not shine.  

[Javelin]

The topic of the thread is "WHY VOTE GOP BACK IN" Looks like you have embarked on a different topic. If you want to start a new one, by all means be my guest. BTW, the conversation ends when I say so. So take your tyrant BS and cram it where the sun does not shine.  

I will be more than happy too.. bend over and get ready.  It might not be pretty but.. you asked for it.

[formerlurker]

Your first post to the site in which you pretty much state that Paul is most in line with your views, yet you are not a supporter:

It is quite understandable how many have issues with Ron Paul.  While he promotes himself as a pure constitutionalists some of his ideals are not in line.  Yet if I must make a comparison with others we have in Congress from the Democratic and Republican lines, Ron would be far more in line with constitutional values than 99% of the members in Congress.

While some here may hate him, I tend to laugh at the whole issue especially when its presented within some of the context that a few posters present.  Would it be more acceptable to remove labels and to look at the principles of the men and women of Congress?  When it comes to Ron Paul and to answer the OP, you are correct we are not in occupation of places noted.  Yet at the same time much of Ron's point is not the occupation but the cost of deployment to bases overseas.  When I look to the ideas of Ron Paul I find many I do not like yet many that I do like just as many of our other members that "serve" or more practically rule us in Congress.  Yet if I must make a choice of the representation of the people I would rather have a man that is more constitutionally minded.

Would this mean that I would vote for Ron Paul?  I am not sure.  Am I a Ron Paul supporter? No.  Yet in truth I have never supported any political figure in full.  I hate the Dem's with a passion.  I also hate the Republicans with a deep passion.  I hate them not simply for what they do, but also for what they have turned their back on.  When we forget the purpose of this nation, the foundation of this country and the representation of freedom of all men then we too become traitors.  Whether we are a traitor by a ballot vote or support for a man that in turn refuses to properly represent the people he is supposed to serve, in the end it is our hand that pulled the ticket for him to be placed. 

I see all to often people say, the lesser of two evils is the way we should go.  Yet with all the banter of the 9-12 project and the tea parties as well as the town halls what has really changed?  If the past 100 years of our political development is not representative of what this double headed snake can accomplish then I do not know what is enough to wake up the American public from its drunken stupor.  May God help us all.

[Lacarnut]

I will be more than happy too.. bend over and get ready.  It might not be pretty but.. you asked for it.

You are a liar, a phony and a faggot. Who would have thought. 

[Javelin]

Your first post to the site in which you pretty much state that Paul is most in line with your views, yet you are not a supporter:

First of all if you learned to read you would see that I said "Yet if I must make a comparison with others we have in Congress..."  "Ron would be more in line with constitutional values than 99% of the members in Congress."  Yet never did I say I supported him.  So why did you bolden that portion?  I do not understand or are you trying to reach so you can be right?

Simply put Ron has a LOT of agendas that I do not agree with.  While I would like for the military to be more focused on what it needs such as fighting terrorism I do not like the fact we have such a vast deployment.  If Ron had his way we would present ourselves as even a greater target than what Obama is managing to do.  Not a good thing.

There are other issues that I do not agree with.  For example.  I am in an interracial marriage.  My wife is Asian.  If Ron had his way me and my wife could not be married lol.  Well I am not 100% certain that he is racial but at times I have felt that kind of insinuation from him.  He has a lot of ways that I do not agree with.  

Yet at the same time its sad that he is more constitutionally in line than others.  I mean really, when you compare him to Barny Frank... please.  The republicans have a select few of good men out there.  Yet even they based upon track records are not where I would like them to be.  Yet despite that, for those men, I would support them for the principles that they do have whereas I would NOT support Paul.  Some of his principles I do not agree with despite him being more constitutional.  There is a line where a mans beliefs cross the line into politics and Rons would scare me.  On the opposite extreme today we can see this in Obama as well with the Communist beliefs he has.  There must be a right marriage of morals, principles and constitutional founding.  Even though I may not get all three, if I can get close I would take it.

[Thor]

???

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_FZVD5lsAw[/youtube]

[formerlurker]

First of all if you learned to read you would see that I said "Yet if I must make a comparison with others we have in Congress..."  "Ron would be more in line with constitutional values than 99% of the members in Congress."  Yet never did I say I supported him.  So why did you bolden that portion?  I do not understand or are you trying to reach so you can be right?

Wow for real?


Ron would be more in line with constitutional values than 99% of the members in Congress."  

Your opinion, yet you don't support him.  Uh-huh.  Who is the 1% then that you support if this criteria isn't sufficient to elicit your support, and while you are at it why don't you list the folks you have voted for.

Simply put Ron has a LOT of agendas that I do not agree with.  While I would like for the military to be more focused on what it needs such as fighting terrorism I do not like the fact we have such a vast deployment.

 

Where would you pull our military from?

There are other issues that I do not agree with.  For example.  I am in an interracial marriage.  My wife is Asian.  If Ron had his way me and my wife could not be married lol.  Well I am not 100% certain that he is racial but at times I have felt that kind of insinuation from him.  He has a lot of ways that I do not agree with.

 

Not 100% certain?   Alex Jones anyone?    Have you read any of Paul's old newsletters?

Yet at the same time its sad that he is more constitutionally in line than others.  I mean really, when you compare him to Barny Frank... please.  The republicans have a select few of good men out there.  Yet even they based upon track records are not where I would like them to be.  Yet despite that, for those men, I would support them for the principles that they do have whereas I would NOT support Paul.  Some of his principles I do not agree with despite him being more constitutional.  There is a line where a mans beliefs cross the line into politics and Rons would scare me.  On the opposite extreme today we can see this in Obama as well with the Communist beliefs he has.  There must be a right marriage of morals, principles and constitutional founding.  Even though I may not get all three, if I can get close I would take it.

Ron Paul vs Barney Frank?  Wow talk about an extreme comparison.   Who are the select few good men in the Republican Party - let's limit that to Congress so we know who passes your Constitutional litmus test.

[Carl]

There is no satisfying answer to this question as it does seem there is an emotional (I wanna FEEL good) component to voting combined with a desire to be always able to gripe about the results no matter what they are.

[Javelin]

Wow for real?


Ron would be more in line with constitutional values than 99% of the members in Congress."  

Your opinion, yet you don't support him.  Uh-huh.  Who is the 1% then that you support if this criteria isn't sufficient to elicit your support, and while you are at it why don't you list the folks you have voted for.
  

Where would you pull our military from?
  

Not 100% certain?   Alex Jones anyone?    Have you read any of Paul's old newsletters?

Ron Paul vs Barney Frank?  Wow talk about an extreme comparison.   Who are the select few good men in the Republican Party - let's limit that to Congress so we know who passes your Constitutional litmus test.

Whats your problem lurker?  Is it that I find some good in a man that you hate or is it that you cannot stand being wrong?  Your argument is quite idiotic especially when you assume to know who I am and then claim, for me of all things, who I support.

Your argument has become more of a childish banter than a logical argument.  And by the way I have never read any of Pauls newsletters and I have never read nor viewed any of Alex Jones material.  I know little about Jones other than he is a true conspiracy theorist on the extreme which teeters at times on both the left and the right.

The point to this thread was "Why should we elect the GOP" and until you came along in this thread the topic was generically pertaining to this.  Yet you seem to want to debase the thread into your own self created conspiracy about me supposedly being a Paul supporter when I have stated several times I am not.  So who is more like Alex Jones here?  I would say you for you obviously decide to see what you want to see rather than what someone says.

So can we get back to the topic now?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Your argument has become more of a childish banter than a logical argument.  And by the way I have never read any of Pauls newsletters and I have never read nor viewed any of Alex Jones material.  I know little about Jones other than he is a true conspiracy theorist on the extreme which teeters at times on both the left and the right.

Jones is more than a CT'er. He's a deranged maniac who tried to get a crowd of his brownshirts to start crap--physically--with Michelle Malkin.

EDIT: Same as Paul and his moonbats when they chased Sen Hannity who I don't really care about but why should such people be entrusted with governmental power?

Jones has also ranted on air about killing "neocons". Again, why trust such people with power when the COTUS is designed to foster peaceful resolution of political disputes.

And yet Paulsy is a constant and frequent guest of this nut case.

Dr Paulsy's newsletters have some pretty damning racist comments. Did Paulsy own up to them? No. He blamed them on Lew Rockwell...like a *****...but then went right back to working with Lew Rockwell.

The point to this thread was "Why should we elect the GOP" and until you came along in this thread the topic was generically pertaining to this.  Yet you seem to want to debase the thread into your own self created conspiracy about me supposedly being a Paul supporter when I have stated several times I am not.  So who is more like Alex Jones here?  I would say you for you obviously decide to see what you want to see rather than what someone says.

So can we get back to the topic now?

Yeah, and you come in with false dichotomies like: if not Deh Paulsy, then Bawney Fwank.

And I'll take FL's "childish banter" over your pedantic aires of erudition any time. You're not fooling anyone, jackhole.

[formerlurker]

The point of my posts clearly zooming over your head.  You are the one who made assertions about Dr. Ron that are bizarre and simply false.  

Kindly address the comments I made, your attempt at deflection falling short.

Who have you voted for.  Who are the 1% members of Congress which are more in line with the Constitution than the sainted Dr. Ron?   What bases worldwide would you pull U.S. military troops from?

You post.  You back up your comments.   Debating isn't rocket science.  

[Carl]

Whats your problem lurker?  Is it that I find some good in a man that you hate or is it that you cannot stand being wrong?  Your argument is quite idiotic especially when you assume to know who I am and then claim, for me of all things, who I support.

Your argument has become more of a childish banter than a logical argument.  And by the way I have never read any of Pauls newsletters and I have never read nor viewed any of Alex Jones material.  I know little about Jones other than he is a true conspiracy theorist on the extreme which teeters at times on both the left and the right.

The point to this thread was "Why should we elect the GOP" and until you came along in this thread the topic was generically pertaining to this.  Yet you seem to want to debase the thread into your own self created conspiracy about me supposedly being a Paul supporter when I have stated several times I am not.  So who is more like Alex Jones here?  I would say you for you obviously decide to see what you want to see rather than what someone says.

So can we get back to the topic now?

Umm...no.
There was no mention of you regarding Paul until you took up that position.

[Javelin]

Jones is more than a CT'er. He's a deranged maniac who tried to get a crowd of his brownshirts to start crap--physically--with Michelle Malkin.

He has ranted on air about killing "neocons".

And yet Paulsy is a constant and frequent guest of this nut case.

Dr Paulsy's newsletters have some pretty damning racist comments. Did Paulsy own up to them? No. He blamed them on Lew Rockwell...like a *****...but then went right back to working with Lew Rockwell.
Yeah, and you come in with false dichotomies like: if not Deh Paulsy, then Bawney Fwank.

And I'll take FL's "childish banter" over your pedantic aires of erudition any time. You're not fooling anyone, jackhole.

I understand completely.  The fact is that in your peon mind there are only two paths.  Democrat and Republican.  Anyone who is not of your religious sect is then an outcast and devil.  You could really care less about whether or not something is constitutional but you would rather sign up for Newts newsletter and worship the Republicans as demigods.  

Excuse me for having the ability to think for myself.  If I find a good idea from a man such as OMG auditing the Fed.. well maybe we should listen.  Yet when I say I do not support the man everyone seems to believe I am some kind of liar simply because I said he has a few decent ideas.  Again you assume much and know nothing, jackass.

[Javelin]

The point of my posts clearly zooming over your head.  You are the one who made assertions about Dr. Ron that are bizarre and simply false.  

Kindly address the comments I made, your attempt at deflection falling short.

Who have you voted for.  Who are the 1% members of Congress which are more in line with the Constitution than the sainted Dr. Ron?   What bases worldwide would you pull U.S. military troops from?

You post.  You back up your comments.   Debating isn't rocket science.  

Actually no, your agenda here is to prove that I am some kind of Ron Paul supporter, not to debate a damn thing.  You simply cannot let it go can you?  Your beginning to sound more like some kind of religious zealot.

Your simply attempting to label me.  If you wish to label me anything, then fine, call me a three percenter that is a core constitutionalists.  Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a constitutionalists despite whatever he claims.  Typically speaking, libertarians and constitutionalists do not get along.  Typically many constitutionalists and three percenters do not always agree. 

You still have much to learn for GOP hack and I mean that quite honestly.  Your not a Republican, your a hack, there is a very real difference.  You prefer to regurgitate and then insult just like the demogods.  Your no different.

[formerlurker]

I understand completely.  The fact is that in your peon mind there are only two paths.  Democrat and Republican.  Anyone who is not of your religious sect is then an outcast and devil.  You could really care less about whether or not something is constitutional but you would rather sign up for Newts newsletter and worship the Republicans as demigods.  

Excuse me for having the ability to think for myself.  If I find a good idea from a man such as OMG auditing the Fed.. well maybe we should listen.  Yet when I say I do not support the man everyone seems to believe I am some kind of liar simply because I said he has a few decent ideas.  Again you assume much and know nothing, jackass.

I  haven't seen anything that would resemble "thinking for myself" from you.    You are not familiar with Paul's association with Jones or his newsletters, are not 100% certain if he is racist, yet feel quite comfortable with your statement:

"Ron would be more in line with constitutional values than 99% of the members in Congress."  

Atta boy, that's thinking for yourself.  Never let facts get in the way of your delusions - it's the la-la-la-libertarian way (which of course you aren't as you are a rebel in the political world. Labels smabels.... it's all about me and my feelings).


 

[formerlurker]

Actually no, your agenda here is to prove that I am some kind of Ron Paul supporter, not to debate a damn thing.  You simply cannot let it go can you?  Your beginning to sound more like some kind of religious zealot.

Your simply attempting to label me.  If you wish to label me anything, then fine, call me a three percenter that is a core constitutionalists.  Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a constitutionalists despite whatever he claims.  Typically speaking, libertarians and constitutionalists do not get along.  Typically many constitutionalists and three percenters do not always agree. 

You still have much to learn for GOP hack and I mean that quite honestly.  Your not a Republican, your a hack, there is a very real difference.  You prefer to regurgitate and then insult just like the demogods.  Your no different.

Answer.the.questions.    I won't label you.  Honest.  Pinky swear.   

[Carl]

I understand completely.  The fact is that in your peon mind there are only two paths.  Democrat and Republican.  Anyone who is not of your religious sect is then an outcast and devil.  You could really care less about whether or not something is constitutional but you would rather sign up for Newts newsletter and worship the Republicans as demigods.  

Excuse me for having the ability to think for myself.  If I find a good idea from a man such as OMG auditing the Fed.. well maybe we should listen.  Yet when I say I do not support the man everyone seems to believe I am some kind of liar simply because I said he has a few decent ideas.  Again you assume much and know nothing, jackass.

As is inevitable the final desperate "defense" is vitriol and strawman..let the chest pounding histrionics commence.

You say you will vote for someone that shares your ideals and that Paul (insert any other Libertarian name) is 99.9% accurate with the Constitution but you wouldn`t support him.
Okay even though that is a bit of a confusion you were asked then who you would support..no answer.

Answer one question I have asked through this thread and never have gotten a reply on.
If not the GOP then how do you forge or create a majority in Congress otherwise..what 3rd party or way is going to do it realistically and how?

It is about electing a government to best reflect our ideals even if it isn`t every last one of them..it isn`t a matter of what makes me feel good.
That is where liberals are at and what they vote for...who makes me feel good.
I don`t want a candidate to make me feel good..I want one that understands the world as it is and if anyone thinks that we can unilaterally withdraw ourselves to an island they are not living in reality.
Sorry to burst that Libertarian bubble but it is utopian dreaming and nothing more.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I understand completely.  The fact is that in your peon mind there are only two paths.  Democrat and Republican.  Anyone who is not of your religious sect is then an outcast and devil.  You could really care less about whether or not something is constitutional but you would rather sign up for Newts newsletter and worship the Republicans as demigods.  

 

You weren't here last year when I took a ton of flak for saying I'd sit out the election once McCain secured the nomination.

I took even more flak as I dissected McCain sorry ass after each debate (meanwhile LR.com was posting Justin Raimondo articles about how much better Obama would be because at least he'd end the wars...just like Dr. Paulsy wants to do).

So, like a typical Paulestinian you wander in here with a shit-ton of prejudices and preconceptions constructed to reinforce your own flimsy sense of self-satisfaction.

Case in point:

Excuse me for having the ability to think for myself.  If I find a good idea from a man such as OMG auditing the Fed.. well maybe we should listen.  Yet when I say I do not support the man everyone seems to believe I am some kind of liar simply because I said he has a few decent ideas.  Again you assume much and know nothing, jackass.

I can more than think for myself. So much so I refuse to endorse a dangerous, racist, cowardly, paranoid lunatic leading a bunch of violent cultists when there are plenty of good conservatives to choose from.

The choice is NOT Paulsy or nothing.

[Carl]

Just to say that before anyone accuses me of being a hack I do think that some elements of the Libertarian  party are good,I have read the platform.
Where they leave me is with the social liberalism and silly isolationist stuff.
That isn`t conservative in my book and they know it so try to overcome that with the screaming rants that we see from time to time here.
The minute someone suggests in direct words or in their argument that they are the TRUE conservative is the minute I consider them "out there" to be polite about it.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Just to say that before anyone accuses me of being a hack I do think that some elements of the Libertarian  party are good,I have read the platform.
Where they leave me is with the social liberalism and silly isolationist stuff.
That isn`t conservative in my book and they know it so try to overcome that with the screaming rants that we see from time to time here.
The minute someone suggests in direct words or in their argument that they are the TRUE conservative is the minute I consider them "out there" to be polite about it.

absoltively

[Splashdown]

Waiting for the ol' chestnut...

"I thought this was a CONSERVATIVE forum..."