PDA

View Full Version : GOP not conservative enough?



Adelaide
08-07-2013, 08:12 AM
It’s become an article of faith among some Republican elites that the GOP doesn’t have an outreach problem, it has a turnout problem. During a recent interview (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/07/30/rush_s_interview_with_greta_van_susteren) with Greta Van Susteren of Fox News, for instance, Rush Limbaugh boiled down the argument to its core. It’s not that the GOP has an issue with racial minorities or that most voters—whites included—have no interest in its policies or approach. Its problem is that it isn’t conservative enough. “The people that sat home,” he explained, were “mostly white Republican voters,” who were “dissatisfied with the Republican Party’s rejection of conservatism.”

Now, to most observers, the GOP has done everything but reject conservatism. Mitt Romney may have made his name as a moderate governor of Massachusetts, but his platform as Republican presidential nominee was a grab bag of proposals from the wish lists of conservative activists: large tax cuts for the wealthy, larger cuts to the social-safety net, prohibitions on abortion, opposition to same-sex marriage, and a hardline stance on immigration.

...

The problem for potential reformers in the GOP, however, is that the rank and file is on the side of the zealots. According to the latest survey from the Pew Research Center (http://www.people-press.org/2013/07/31/whither-the-gop-republicans-want-change-but-split-over-partys-direction/), 67 percent of self-identified Republicans say the party needs to “address major problems” if it’s going to be competitive in national elections. For them, however, this isn’t a case of being too conservative. Indeed, it’s the opposite: 54 percent of Republicans say the party’s leadership isn’t conservative enough. And 35 percent say that GOP leaders have compromised too much in their dealings with President Obama. Presumably, this minority wanted Republicans to hold out on the debt ceiling and refuse to deal on the fiscal cliff and is pushing for a standoff over funding the government this fall.

The Republican Party Isn't Conservative Enough (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/05/the-republican-party-isn-t-conservative-enough.html)

Another common argument I've seen on this forum about RINOs and whatnot. Look like the polls show Republicans want a more conservative GOP.

Cigar
08-07-2013, 08:28 AM
God I hope the GOP goes ... Hard Right ... if that's even possible :laugh:

Mainecoons
08-07-2013, 08:30 AM
All that Republicratism has done is advance statism, bloated government, foreign military misadventurism along side of the Democrats.

What's the point, really? Why bother? Better to just get out of the way and let the liberals collapse the country and then be around to pick up the pieces.

Cigar
08-07-2013, 08:35 AM
All that Republicratism has done is advance statism, bloated government, foreign military misadventurism along side of the Democrats.

What's the point, really? Why bother? Better to just get out of the way and let the liberals collapse the country and then be around to pick up the pieces.

Good Idea ... actually that's a great Idea. :grin:

Chris
08-07-2013, 08:40 AM
In a way Limbaugh is right, the GOP is not conservative enough, not when Bush and Romney are such big government cons they're libs who, as mainecoons just commented, "advance statism, bloated government, foreign military misadventurism along side of the Democrats."

Where Limbaugh is wrong is he thinks his brand of conservatism is THE conservatism. I think that's why you see such contention among various factions in the GOP fighting for their definition of conservatism. The brand the party settles on will define not conservatism but the GOP.

And then we have lefties like cigar trying to define conservatism. If lefties would actually reach back and refer to the roots of conservatism, far back as Burke, or the old right like Chodorov, or Buckley, Kirk, Friedman, Goldwater, then they might actually have something to say that would be meaningful instead of silly inflammatory scapegoated straw men.

Cigar
08-07-2013, 08:43 AM
Well ... when you agrees with Limbaugh .. you know what direction you're going. :tongue:

Common
08-07-2013, 08:51 AM
I read alot and I read both right and left wing sites, its the only way to get somewhat of an indication whats really going. Right now there is a tug of war going on inside the GOP, between the far right and the more moderates.
Ive read many polls where the far right is a loser in national elections. I read a limbaugh peice where he said the white house doesnt matter we need local state and congress wins.
Limbaugh forgot one key piece, Scotus. The president chooses Supreme Court Justices and we know what they are capable of changing.

Chris
08-07-2013, 08:52 AM
Well ... when you agrees with Limbaugh .. you know what direction you're going. :tongue:

Apparently your attention span is 3 or 4 words.

Chris
08-07-2013, 08:54 AM
I read alot and I read both right and left wing sites, its the only way to get somewhat of an indication whats really going. Right now there is a tug of war going on inside the GOP, between the far right and the more moderates.
Ive read many polls where the far right is a loser in national elections. I read a limbaugh peice where he said the white house doesnt matter we need local state and congress wins.
Limbaugh forgot one key piece, Scotus. The president chooses Supreme Court Justices and we know what they are capable of changing.

Justices never turn out as predicted.

junie
08-07-2013, 10:43 AM
the reason mitt lost is that he clung to the religious zealots thus abandoning true American conservatives who believe the government has no business in our bedrooms or our wombs.





...there are still pro-choice Republicans (http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/whats-left-of-the-big-tent/), environmentalist Republicans and gay Republicans (http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/l-g-b-t-g-o-p/). And representatives from these groups have remarkably similar talking points. They insist that their beliefs are authentically conservative, and argue that demographics are on their side, meaning it’s in the party’s self-interest to come around.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/the-moderate-fringe/?_r=0

Common
08-07-2013, 11:22 AM
the reason mitt lost is that he clung to the religious zealots thus abandoning true American conservatives who believe the government has no business in our bedrooms or our wombs.

Mitt lost because he wasnt mitt, he was pulled to the right

patrickt
08-07-2013, 11:49 AM
Apparently your attention span is 3 or 4 words.

Flattery will get you no where with Cigar.

For me, the Republican Party is not at all fiscally conservative. Being more fiscally conservatives than the progressives is like saying swimming with a 100 pound rock is easier than swimming with a 200 pound rock. On other issues, I'm more liberal than most Republicans and a lot of liberals. For example, I'm not a racist and sadly the liberals/progressives/socialists are.

Cigar
08-07-2013, 11:52 AM
Flattery will get you no where with Cigar.

For me, the Republican Party is not at all fiscally conservative. Being more fiscally conservatives than the progressives is like saying swimming with a 100 pound rock is easier than swimming with a 200 pound rock. On other issues, I'm more liberal than most Republicans and a lot of liberals. For example, I'm not a racist and sadly the liberals/progressives/socialists are.

Funny how a week never gets past you to tell someone they are racist. :rollseyes:

Chris
08-07-2013, 11:56 AM
the reason mitt lost is that he clung to the religious zealots thus abandoning true American conservatives who believe the government has no business in our bedrooms or our wombs.

That's partly true, he pandered to the social cons, ie, big government conservatives like Bush.

Question, though, why do you believe government should have a say in social issues like your womb?

Chris
08-07-2013, 11:58 AM
Flattery will get you no where with Cigar.

For me, the Republican Party is not at all fiscally conservative. Being more fiscally conservatives than the progressives is like saying swimming with a 100 pound rock is easier than swimming with a 200 pound rock. On other issues, I'm more liberal than most Republicans and a lot of liberals. For example, I'm not a racist and sadly the liberals/progressives/socialists are.

Correct, the GOP is big tent, just not big enough for partisan left wingers.

Cigar
08-07-2013, 12:03 PM
Correct, the GOP is big tent, just not big enough for partisan left wingers.

There's something really freaky about a bunch of old white guys in a little old tent.

http://images.wikia.com/tractors/images/f/f3/Earlyvwbus_smalltent1.jpg

KC
08-07-2013, 12:04 PM
It's not that they're not conservative, it's that they're all the wrong kinds of conservative.

Singularity
08-07-2013, 12:31 PM
Mitt lost because he wasnt mitt, he was pulled to the rightI'd say it was a combination of that, a general sense on the part of the electorate
that he was constantly trying to make any bad news seem worse for political reasons
(as opposed to being constructive and offering an honest alternative view) and his
overall aura of being somebody prepared to adopt any position or shift his viewpoint
on anything if it was to his advantage, even if he said the opposite thing yesterday.

Sure, all politicians do that, and all Americans with any sense know it, but
Mitt kinda set a new standard for doing it on more than one occasion.

ptif219
08-07-2013, 12:48 PM
the reason mitt lost is that he clung to the religious zealots thus abandoning true American conservatives who believe the government has no business in our bedrooms or our wombs.

Mitt is Mormon which turned off many Christians. We don't need a cult member as president You know nothing about the GOP or conservatives or the religious right.

ptif219
08-07-2013, 12:50 PM
Correct, the GOP is big tent, just not big enough for partisan left wingers.

GOP is no longer big tent they are now Washington establishment party

Chris
08-07-2013, 12:59 PM
GOP is no longer big tent they are now Washington establishment party

True that, most are establishment, and establishment used to working with if not for Dems.

What was interesting recently was Rand Paul reaching out demographically and some liberals criticizing him for it.

zelmo1234
08-07-2013, 02:18 PM
I read alot and I read both right and left wing sites, its the only way to get somewhat of an indication whats really going. Right now there is a tug of war going on inside the GOP, between the far right and the more moderates.
Ive read many polls where the far right is a loser in national elections. I read a limbaugh peice where he said the white house doesnt matter we need local state and congress wins.
Limbaugh forgot one key piece, Scotus. The president chooses Supreme Court Justices and we know what they are capable of changing.

And yet we ran 2 moderates in the last elections and they lost because the base stayed home?

How much more moderate can you get the McCain and Romney?

Yet look at the conservatives Reagan, and Bush 1 and 2. while I believe that GWB was only a social conservative So your assumption that only a moderate can win a national election has in fact been proven wrong!

zelmo1234
08-07-2013, 02:24 PM
Mitt lost because he wasnt mitt, he was pulled to the right

Mit lost because the conservative base stayed home!

http://www.theignorantfishermen.com/2012/11/romney-loss-evangelicals-again-stayed.html

You give me those 2 million votes and I will give you President Obama!

Conservatives had it with GWB and are not likely to vote for a big spending moderate republican, and I can't blame them!

Cigar
08-07-2013, 02:25 PM
And yet we ran 2 moderates in the last elections and they lost because the base stayed home?

How much more moderate can you get the McCain and Romney?

Yet look at the conservatives Reagan, and Bush 1 and 2. while I believe that GWB was only a social conservative So your assumption that only a moderate can win a national election has in fact been proven wrong!

So you're saying the Republicans could have won if they tried ... :smiley_ROFLMAO:

You may want to tell that joke to your Billionaire Buddies and see if they laugh as much as I did. :wink:

zelmo1234
08-07-2013, 02:28 PM
So you're saying the Republicans could have won if they tried ... :smiley_ROFLMAO:

You may want to tell that joke to your Billionaire Buddies and see if they laugh as much as I did. :wink:

I am saying that they are not likely to win with a moderate candidate? It had nothing to do with trying they spend billions on advertising!

But Republicans without the conservative base? just can't swing enough moderates to win, they never have been able to!

Chris
08-07-2013, 02:41 PM
I am saying that they are not likely to win with a moderate candidate? It had nothing to do with trying they spend billions on advertising!

But Republicans without the conservative base? just can't swing enough moderates to win, they never have been able to!

Before cigar gets in another twist, I think you're right, they run moderates and lose their conservative base. The problem is the primary system, a popularity contest bound to nominate mediocrity. Much the point of How to Fix the Republican Party (http://spectator.org/archives/2013/08/07/how-to-fix-the-republican-part).

Dems have the same problem, just that their mediocrity beat GOP mediocrity by a margin of error.

nic34
08-07-2013, 02:51 PM
GOP is no longer big tent they are now Washington establishment party

How can you expect a "big" tent when you kick everyone but the ultra-conservative out of it?

jillian
08-07-2013, 03:56 PM
The Republican Party Isn't Conservative Enough (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/05/the-republican-party-isn-t-conservative-enough.html)

Another common argument I've seen on this forum about RINOs and whatnot. Look like the polls show Republicans want a more conservative GOP.

yes...and...no...

from your link:


This wish for a more conservative Republican Party holds for a variety of issues. Thirty-six percent say that the party should be more conservative on immigration—compared with 17 percent who say it’s “too conservative”—and 46 percent say it should be more conservative on government spending, compared with just 10 percent who say it’s too conservative. Guns are the only area where a majority say the party is in a right place, and recall, the GOP’s position on guns is that regulations—of any sort—are verboten, even when they have support from the vast majority of Americans.

they are talking about self-identified republicans. i would assume that doesn't apply to independents and people who vote republican but have no real party affiliation.

the thing is, it is clearly the 35% driving the idea that compromise is a dirty word. that will alienate independents.

i say by all means... if they want their party run by the wackadoodles, they should go for it.

but it seems the more normal people in the GOP are fighting back.

Chris
08-07-2013, 04:01 PM
the thing is, it is clearly the 35% driving the idea that compromise is a dirty word. that will alienate independents.

Or it could gain independents who are tire of the old GOP establishment constantly compro-, no, caving to Democrats.

Peter1469
08-07-2013, 04:38 PM
It comes down to our economic future. There is zero difference between Dems and moderate GOPers regarding government spending.


Many people, myself included, feel that the current spending will crash the economy.

Chris
08-07-2013, 04:45 PM
Agree, all the speeches in the world won't change the economy, but the economy will change the election.

zelmo1234
08-07-2013, 04:54 PM
How can you expect a "big" tent when you kick everyone but the ultra-conservative out of it?

You know the things that "ultra conservatives" want are the same things that everyone else wants, it is just the way that we or they get there.

Here are a few examples.

#1 Improved Educations system
By setting national standards and testing for moving on to the next grade.
By allowing parents to choose the very best school for there child weather that be public, private of a public school in another district
By no allowing poor teachers to teach our children and testing teacher to make sure they are qualified to teach the subject they are teaching
By ending the everyone gets a trophy program and rewarding hard work and encouraging those that don't win to try harder
By holding parents accountable to get their children to school and make sure they participate and not become a distraction
by ending waste and beauracy that put the money toward the system and not the student

And healthcare and insurance

By reasonable tort reforms reducing the cost of insurance
By allowing for cross state competition among companies reducing the cost of insurance
By allow groups and club to combine buying power to again lower the cost of insurance
By providing tax credits for individuals and larger tax deductions for businesses that provide insurance
By Providing small business tax credits instead of tax breaks for insurance
Setting up national health savings accounts and standards.
By allowing those with kids that are 26 to remain on their family insurance

All these things are market based and would actually cover more people than the ACA is going to cover? and the cost to the government?

Next to Nothing

Then you can monitor those that have still slipped through the cracks and see if a program is needed!

zelmo1234
08-07-2013, 04:55 PM
Above is an Ultra Conservative way to tackle 2 problems, that people really want tackled, but from a different angle, and one that would actually work instead of what we are doing now!

That is how you build a big tent!

Chris
08-07-2013, 05:04 PM
We all want the same basic things, we're all human after all--ok, most of us--we just go about it differently, libs (some) ignore consequences and jump to conclusions, cons (some) prudently test the waters first.

Dr. Who
08-07-2013, 05:24 PM
The problem with GOP unification is that it has an issue that the Dems don't have - the religious right and the Libertarian/Tea Party supporters. Taking moderates out of the equation, as they are the swing vote, liberals are relatively predictable in their voting patterns. Conservatives on the other hand have: 1) fiscal conservatives who are moderate to liberal on the social side. 2) fiscal/social conservative (non-religious) and 3) religious right who may be either fiscally conservative or liberal. 4) Libertarians and/or Tea Party supporters who may or may not support any religious ideology. The GOP will have a very difficult time finding a one size fits all candidate.

Mainecoons
08-07-2013, 05:41 PM
We all want a perfect society. It would be great if there were no poor, if achievement, and hence income, were more evenly distributed, that "schools" didn't turn out unemployable illiterates, that government was an efficient and effective deliverer of services, etc. The big difference between liberals and libertarians these days is that liberals simply will not admit failure or consider that there are other ways to accomplish these goals besides government and more government and more government.

How much failure will it take to wake liberals up? Pre "Great Society" black America consisted mostly of intact families beginning to make real progress as racial barriers came down. Now most are the product of unwed mothers living in squalor, up to their necks in crime and drugs, speaking some sort of pigdin language, with no respect for education or work ethic, dying young at each others hands and having no future at all. Is this what liberals really want? If not, why don't you face reality and admit that the current handouts don't work.

There was a good reason for Social Security. Liberals took the program, padded it with benefits given to non contributors, threw it in with the general budget and squandered the retirements of people under 50 years old. None of you will see near what you are being forced to pay it, it is just another onerous tax. Why did liberals allow this to happen?

Medicare is approaching insolvency, but there's a much more immediate issue:


An increasing proportion of doctors are already not accepting Medicare patients, and the primary reason is low payment for services. A 2008 report by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent federal panel, said that 29 percent of Medicare beneficiaries who were looking for a primary care doctor had a problem finding one. In the 2008 HSC national survey, more than 20 percent of primary care doctors accepted no new Medicare patients (only 4.5 percent accepted no new privately insured patients) and about 40 percent of primary care doctors and 20 percent of specialists refused most new Medicare patients. Today, in some states, more than half of doctors already do not accept new Medicare patients.It is irresponsible to ignore this reality and frankly disingenuous to deny what is coming – the problem is about to increase dramatically. This coming year, the ObamaCare law is scheduled to markedly reduce payments to doctors and hospitals. According to the Medicare Board of Trustees, “an almost 31-percent reduction in Medicare payment rates for physician services will be implemented in 2013.” By 2019, payments become even lower than Medicaid, a system by which doctors already lose money and therefore refuse to accept new patients.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottatlas/2012/12/18/lets-be-honest-medicare-is-insolvent-and-doctors-soon-wont-accept-it/

Is this what liberals want? Kill off the old folks while pretending they have health care?

Did government really have to grow so much such that it has outstripped productive, tax paying private work?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--UCcqF6uFaE/Uf_Z6HTPLHI/AAAAAAAAWts/88omVA_xZ-U/s1600/Wallace+Job+Growth.png

We all want the same things. It is time for liberals to face reality and recognize that their ideas aren't getting us there, they are taking us further away. The U.S. cannot survive and prosper on McJobs, which has become the predominate form of job growth since Mr. Obama took office.

After five years, folks, it is time to admit this isn't working.

Chris
08-07-2013, 05:43 PM
The problem with GOP unification is that it has an issue that the Dems don't have - the religious right and the Libertarian/Tea Party supporters. Taking moderates out of the equation, as they are the swing vote, liberals are relatively predictable in their voting patterns. Conservatives on the other hand have: 1) fiscal conservatives who are moderate to liberal on the social side. 2) fiscal/social conservative (non-religious) and 3) religious right who may be either fiscally conservative or liberal. 4) Libertarians and/or Tea Party supporters who may or may not support any religious ideology. The GOP will have a very difficult time finding a one size fits all candidate.

Some of that's been true since the inception of what were calked the New Conservatives with Buckley and Frank Meyer advocating fusion with libertarians rejected by the likes of Russell Kirk.

Typically each election cycle the GOP woes both but as election nears libertarians are shunned. We saw this last cycle with the exclusion of Ron Paul.

Was reading other day what the libertarian faction needs to do is capture the Ross Perot vote that still lingers in the wings.

Dr. Who
08-07-2013, 06:05 PM
Some of that's been true since the inception of what were calked the New Conservatives with Buckley and Frank Meyer advocating fusion with libertarians rejected by the likes of Russell Kirk.

Typically each election cycle the GOP woes both but as election nears libertarians are shunned. We saw this last cycle with the exclusion of Ron Paul.

Was reading other day what the libertarian faction needs to do is capture the Ross Perot vote that still lingers in the wings.

I think that in the past there was more compromise among conservative voters. Over the last several years there has been more fragmentation among the voters and more - and I hate to use this word but can't find a better one - radicalization among certain factions, with resultant alienation and non-voting.

Chris
08-07-2013, 06:54 PM
I think that in the past there was more compromise among conservative voters. Over the last several years there has been more fragmentation among the voters and more - and I hate to use this word but can't find a better one - radicalization among certain factions, with resultant alienation and non-voting.

Sorry but it's been factious if not acrimonious from the beginnings in the 50s. See for example Russell Kirk's Libertarians: Chirping Sectaries (http://emp.byui.edu/DavisR/202/Libertarians.htm), which is hilarious when you realize he confused libertarians with libertines.

And speaking of radicals, another good source of this history is Brian Doherty's Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement.

You do of course realize the meaning of radical is "of or going to the root or origin; fundamental" (dictionary.com).

Mainecoons
08-07-2013, 07:24 PM
I think that in the past there was more compromise among conservative voters. Over the last several years there has been more fragmentation among the voters and more - and I hate to use this word but can't find a better one - radicalization among certain factions, with resultant alienation and non-voting.

Compromise with liberals has resulted only in advancing the liberal cause, leading up to the failing nation that America is today. The time for compromise is over. Either the country is rejuvenated by rediscovering what made it great (hint, not big government) or it continues down the path of decline.

Your ideas have been tried for over 40 years. They are a failure. Time to move on.

Ravi
08-07-2013, 08:25 PM
GOP hasn't been conservative in forever. Unless you mean social conservative, which is an oxymoron.

Chris
08-07-2013, 08:37 PM
GOP hasn't been conservative in forever. Unless you mean social conservative, which is an oxymoron.

The very conflation of parties and principles is mistaken.

Dr. Who
08-07-2013, 09:40 PM
Sorry but it's been factious if not acrimonious from the beginnings in the 50s. See for example Russell Kirk's Libertarians: Chirping Sectaries (http://emp.byui.edu/DavisR/202/Libertarians.htm), which is hilarious when you realize he confused libertarians with libertines.

And speaking of radicals, another good source of this history is Brian Doherty's Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement.

You do of course realize the meaning of radical is "of or going to the root or origin; fundamental" (dictionary.com).That's why I couldn't find a better word.

Mainecoons
08-07-2013, 10:28 PM
GOP hasn't been conservative in forever. Unless you mean social conservative, which is an oxymoron.

Zat so?

I don't suppose you'd care to test that statement with a little looking things up? You know, do your homework before you run your mouth?

Try looking up "social conservative" and see what you get. Everything from simple definitions to some very detailed essays.

I found two that were quite interesting. One, very traditional in outlook:

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/exclusive-social-conservatism-in-america-a-definition

And one with a Libertarian perspective that I quite liked since that is basically how I see things:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/libertarianism-for-social-conservatives-231/

I'll confess, though, I didn't find one definition of it as an oxymoron. Perhaps you would care to provide that?

I won't hold my breath.

Ravi
08-08-2013, 05:28 AM
Here you go.

"I don't support gay marriage in spite of being a conservative, I support gay marriage because I am a conservative" David Cameron

Chris
08-08-2013, 08:27 AM
Here you go.

"I don't support gay marriage in spite of being a conservative, I support gay marriage because I am a conservative" David Cameron

Apples and oranges. He's British. Conservative/liberal definitions differ from here in the US. Definitions are even different in CA.

junie
08-08-2013, 11:30 AM
American political 'conservatism' should hinge upon 'conserving' the individual liberty our constitution intended to 'conserve' at it's inception...


evangelical zealots who call themselves "social conservatives" have ruined the republican party.

of course many are in denial and try to spread the emotional notion that they have not been "conservative enough" as an explanation for their political failure.

fact is, the majority of Americans have been rejecting their divisive rhetoric for decades now. thank God! :laugh:



http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankschaeffer/2012/11/how-the-evangelicals-doomed-the-republican-party-god-and-maybe-america/

Chris
08-08-2013, 11:35 AM
American political 'conservatism' should hinge upon 'conserving' the individual liberty our constitution intended to 'conserve' at it's inception...


evangelical zealots who call themselves "social conservatives" have ruined the republican party.

of course many are in denial and try to spread the emotional notion that they have not been "conservative enough" as an explanation for their political failure.

fact is, the majority of Americans have been rejecting their divisive rhetoric for decades now. thank God! :laugh:



http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankschaeffer/2012/11/how-the-evangelicals-doomed-the-republican-party-god-and-maybe-america/



You would think those who call themselves liberals would do the same as libertarians and conservatives who do fight to conserve, preserve liberty. The etymological and historical roots of liberalism are just that. But you don't. Like social cons you seek the favor of government to coerce your beliefs on others.

KC
08-08-2013, 11:37 AM
"As I understand the English language, conservative means conserving, keeping things as they are. I don’t want to keep things as they are. The true conservatives today are the people who are in favor of ever bigger government. The people who call themselves liberals today — the New Dealers — they are the true conservatives, because they want to keep going on the same path we’re going on. I would like to dismantle that. I call myself a liberal in the true sense of liberal, in the sense in which it means (inaudible) and pertaining to freedom."

Milton Friedman

junie
08-08-2013, 11:40 AM
You would think those who call themselves liberals would do the same as libertarians and conservatives who do fight to conserve, preserve liberty. The etymological and historical roots of liberalism are just that. But you don't. Like social cons you seek the favor of government to coerce your beliefs on others.



making things up again, chrissy?

Peter1469
08-08-2013, 11:44 AM
making things up again, chrissy?

I think that is an accurate picture of what is happening in government. The issue is that the democrats in power are hell bent on using government power to achieve their aims, while normal citizens who claim to be liberals don't get that.

Chris
08-08-2013, 11:48 AM
"As I understand the English language, conservative means conserving, keeping things as they are. I don’t want to keep things as they are. The true conservatives today are the people who are in favor of ever bigger government. The people who call themselves liberals today — the New Dealers — they are the true conservatives, because they want to keep going on the same path we’re going on. I would like to dismantle that. I call myself a liberal in the true sense of liberal, in the sense in which it means (inaudible) and pertaining to freedom."

Milton Friedman

Similar to Hayek's Why I Am Not a Conservative (http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf). He begins...


At a time when most movements that are thought to be progressive advocate further
encroachments on individual liberty,[1] those who cherish freedom are likely to expend
their energies in opposition. In this they find themselves much of the time on the same
side as those who habitually resist change. In matters of current politics today they
generally have little choice but to support the conservative parties. But, though the
position I have tried to define is also often described as "conservative," it is very different
from that to which this name has been traditionally attached. There is danger in the
confused condition which brings the defenders of liberty and the true conservatives
together in common opposition to developments which threaten their ideals equally. It is
therefore important to distinguish clearly the position taken here from that which has long
been known - perhaps more appropriately - as conservatism.

Conservatism proper is a legitimate, probably necessary, and certainly widespread
attitude of opposition to drastic change. It has, since the French Revolution, for a century
and a half played an important role in European politics. Until the rise of socialism its
opposite was liberalism. There is nothing corresponding to this conflict in the history of
the United States, because what in Europe was called "liberalism" was here the common
tradition on which the American polity had been built: thus the defender of the American
tradition was a liberal in the European sense.[2] This already existing confusion was
made worse by the recent attempt to transplant to America the European type of
conservatism, which, being alien to the American tradition, has acquired a somewhat odd
character. And some time before this, American radicals and socialists began calling
themselves "liberals." I will nevertheless continue for the moment to describe as liberal
the position which I hold and which I believe differs as much from true conservatism as
from socialism. Let me say at once, however, that I do so with increasing misgivings, and
I shall later have to consider what would be the appropriate name for the party of liberty.
The reason for this is not only that the term "liberal" in the United States is the cause of
constant misunderstandings today, but also that in Europe the predominant type of
rationalistic liberalism has long been one of the pacemakers of socialism....

The term settled on was libertarianism since the term liberalism was hijacked by progressives.

Chris
08-08-2013, 11:51 AM
You would think those who call themselves liberals would do the same as libertarians and conservatives who do fight to conserve, preserve liberty. The etymological and historical roots of liberalism are just that. But you don't. Like social cons you seek the favor of government to coerce your beliefs on others.


making things up again, chrissy?

In an earlier post in this thread, junie, you said:


the reason mitt lost is that he clung to the religious zealots thus abandoning true American conservatives who believe the government has no business in our bedrooms or our wombs.

Do you now deny your dependence on government in Roe v Wade and other cases to coerce your views on others?

No, junie, I don't make things up. I substantiate my opinions. Sometimes all you got to do is ak.

junie
08-08-2013, 11:54 AM
I think that is an accurate picture of what is happening in government. The issue is that the democrats in power are hell bent on using government power to achieve their aims, while normal citizens who claim to be liberals don't get that.



your opinion of our government is duly noted, but Chris' claim is about ME and based on nothing i have ever posted.



"But you don't. Like social cons you seek the favor of government to coerce your beliefs on others."

Chris
08-08-2013, 11:56 AM
your opinion of our government is duly noted, but Chris' claim is about ME and based on nothing i have ever posted.



"But you don't. Like social cons you seek the favor of government to coerce your beliefs on others."

:smiley_ROFLMAO:

See my previous post, junie.

junie
08-08-2013, 12:03 PM
In an earlier post in this thread, junie, you said:



Do you now deny your dependence on government in Roe v Wade and other cases to coerce your views on others?

No, junie, I don't make things up. I substantiate my opinions. Sometimes all you got to do is ak.



our constitution was created with the intention of "conserving" rule of law.


you were all for rule of law with zimmerman and selectively against rule of law with your hero snowden... what are you seeking to coerce?



"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. "

Chris
08-08-2013, 12:09 PM
our constitution was created with the intention of "conserving" rule of law.


you were all for rule of law with zimmerman and selectively against rule of law with your hero snowden... what are you seeking to coerce?



"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. "

I'm all for rule of law, junie, just not for legal positivism which is rule of men, in the case of your womb vs the unborn, men in black robes usurping the right of society to decide.

Tell us, where is equal justice before the law when government favors your liberty but ignores the unborn's equal liberty?

junie
08-08-2013, 12:33 PM
I'm all for rule of law, junie, just not for legal positivism which is rule of men, in the case of your womb vs the unborn, men in black robes usurping the right of society to decide.

Tell us, where is equal justice before the law when government favors your liberty but ignores the unborn's equal liberty?



that's an emotional appeal and an outright lie.

the 7-2 SCOTUS decision, led by a conservative, carefully weighed the rights of the mother with the viability of the unborn, ultimately determined as a non-citizen.

read the decision for comprehension as i do not intend to repeatedly jump thru hoops for disingenuous partisans like you.

Chris
08-08-2013, 12:40 PM
that's an emotional appeal and an outright lie.

the 7-2 SCOTUS decision, led by a conservative, carefully weighed the rights of the mother with the viability of the unborn, ultimately determined as a non-citizen.

read the decision for comprehension as i do not intend to repeatedly jump thru hoops for disingenuous partisans like you.

It's your response that's emotional, junie. Nice personal attack instead of even trying for a second to discuss the topic.


Part of your response, the factual part, supports what I said:


the 7-2 SCOTUS decision, led by a conservative, carefully weighed the rights of the mother with the viability of the unborn, ultimately determined as a non-citizen.

That's exacly what I said: "Tell us, where is equal justice before the law when government favors your liberty but ignores the unborn's equal liberty?"

Favors your liberty: "weighed the rights of the mother"

VS ignores the unborn's equal liberty: "viability of the unborn, ultimately determined as a non-citizen"

You've turned hostile witness to your own argument.

junie
08-08-2013, 12:50 PM
In an earlier post in this thread, junie, you said:



Do you now deny your dependence on government in Roe v Wade and other cases to coerce your views on others?

No, junie, I don't make things up. I substantiate my opinions. Sometimes all you got to do is ak.



you THINK (or feel?) as if you have substantiated 'something' that in fact, you haven't...

Chris
08-08-2013, 12:51 PM
you THINK (or feel?) as if you have substantiated 'something' that in fact, you haven't...

I have, with your own words. How does it feel?

jillian
08-08-2013, 01:00 PM
American political 'conservatism' should hinge upon 'conserving' the individual liberty our constitution intended to 'conserve' at it's inception...

evangelical zealots who call themselves "social conservatives" have ruined the republican party.

of course many are in denial and try to spread the emotional notion that they have not been "conservative enough" as an explanation for their political failure.

fact is, the majority of Americans have been rejecting their divisive rhetoric for decades now. thank God! :laugh:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankschaeffer/2012/11/how-the-evangelicals-doomed-the-republican-party-god-and-maybe-america/

evangelical influence on the republican party is inconsistent with the constitution and the first amendment in particular.

as for so-called conservatives ... they really aren't. they're reactionaries.

conservativism is really about being 'moderate'... it's about maintaining status quo and making sure that society doesn't change at too quick a pace.

which is why the extremist right is destroying the GOP... which actually used to be largely liberal... and at the forefront of protecting individual liberties... via things like the civil rights laws... and that well known bastion of liberalism the emancipation proclamation.

zelmo1234
08-08-2013, 01:03 PM
American political 'conservatism' should hinge upon 'conserving' the individual liberty our constitution intended to 'conserve' at it's inception...


evangelical zealots who call themselves "social conservatives" have ruined the republican party.

of course many are in denial and try to spread the emotional notion that they have not been "conservative enough" as an explanation for their political failure.

fact is, the majority of Americans have been rejecting their divisive rhetoric for decades now. thank God! :laugh:



http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankschaeffer/2012/11/how-the-evangelicals-doomed-the-republican-party-god-and-maybe-america/

Yeah you can tell by the number of congressional seats, and state houses and well as Governor's Mansions that the democrats occupy?

OH! wait, they don't even have 20 of those? and are way out numbered in the house?

Now lets talk about the margin of victory that Obama had? And then lets talk about the IRS voter suppression? and then lets talk about the fact that Obama picked up about 15 points on the minority vote? And I don't blame people for that I think I would have done it too!

So who is the next black man that you are going to run to get that vote out????

zelmo1234
08-08-2013, 01:05 PM
your opinion of our government is duly noted, but Chris' claim is about ME and based on nothing i have ever posted.



"But you don't. Like social cons you seek the favor of government to coerce your beliefs on others."

Like you have forced people to accept that killing of unborn children instead of letting the states decide? That would be a good example!

Mister D
08-08-2013, 01:08 PM
evangelical influence on the republican party is inconsistent with the constitution and the first amendment in particular.

.

So Christians should have no political influence? That sentiment is incompatible with the Constitution and First Amendment.

zelmo1234
08-08-2013, 01:09 PM
that's an emotional appeal and an outright lie.

the 7-2 SCOTUS decision, led by a conservative, carefully weighed the rights of the mother with the viability of the unborn, ultimately determined as a non-citizen.

read the decision for comprehension as i do not intend to repeatedly jump thru hoops for disingenuous partisans like you.

So if we can kill the unborn child because they are 'NON CITIZENS" why a e we having this debate about illegal immigration. seem that 11 million bullets would clean that up and, they are ready have several billion on order!

Problem Solved, the boarder will not need to be secured, as they will not be coming over to be killed, we just cut the budget by 100 billion, and created 11 million jobs!

Thanks for the idea!

junie
08-08-2013, 01:09 PM
I have, with your own words. How does it feel?



your opinion is that the 7-2 SCOTUS opinion relied on a coercive usurpation of 'the right of society to decide' what is constitutional? lol

junie
08-08-2013, 01:11 PM
So Christians should have no political influence? That sentiment is incompatible with the Constitution and First Amendment.



where did i express that sentiment?

Chris
08-08-2013, 01:11 PM
evangelical influence on the republican party is inconsistent with the constitution and the first amendment in particular.

as for so-called conservatives ... they really aren't. they're reactionaries.

conservativism is really about being 'moderate'... it's about maintaining status quo and making sure that society doesn't change at too quick a pace.

which is why the extremist right is destroying the GOP... which actually used to be largely liberal... and at the forefront of protecting individual liberties... via things like the civil rights laws... and that well known bastion of liberalism the emancipation proclamation.

Ignoring your misuse of words, as I did with junie, I agree, social cons are doing exactly what progressives like you and junie do, seek favors from government to impose your will on others. Peter above addressed economic issues. I have addresses social issues.

jillian
08-08-2013, 01:12 PM
your opinion is that the 7-2 SCOTUS opinion relied on a coercive usurpation of 'the right of society to decide' what is constitutional? lol

"society" DOESN'T decide what is constitutional.

the Court does.

must be that whole self taught thing.

Mister D
08-08-2013, 01:13 PM
where did i express that sentiment?

Are you the whiny Jew? If not, I wasn't responding to you.

Chris
08-08-2013, 01:14 PM
your opinion is that the 7-2 SCOTUS opinion relied on a coercive usurpation of 'the right of society to decide' what is constitutional? lol

No wonder we disagree, you can't seem to read my words without twisting them. But we do agree inasmuch as I used your words to show where we agree, here:



Part of your response, the factual part, supports what I said:


the 7-2 SCOTUS decision, led by a conservative, carefully weighed the rights of the mother with the viability of the unborn, ultimately determined as a non-citizen.

That's exacly what I said: "Tell us, where is equal justice before the law when government favors your liberty but ignores the unborn's equal liberty?"

Favors your liberty: "weighed the rights of the mother"

VS ignores the unborn's equal liberty: "viability of the unborn, ultimately determined as a non-citizen"

You've turned hostile witness to your own argument.

jillian
08-08-2013, 01:14 PM
Yeah you can tell by the number of congressional seats, and state houses and well as Governor's Mansions that the democrats occupy?

OH! wait, they don't even have 20 of those? and are way out numbered in the house?

Now lets talk about the margin of victory that Obama had? And then lets talk about the IRS voter suppression? and then lets talk about the fact that Obama picked up about 15 points on the minority vote? And I don't blame people for that I think I would have done it too!

So who is the next black man that you are going to run to get that vote out????

do we need to teach you about gerrymandering, hon?

republicans got 1 million fewer votes than democrats in the House. the only reason you kept the house is the way the districts are drawn.

but good luck ever winning a national election again until you stop with the wingnuttilicious people.

Chris
08-08-2013, 01:15 PM
"society" DOESN'T decide what is constitutional.

the Court does.

must be that whole self taught thing.

More legal positivistic baloney that ignore the Constitution itself:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

We the people are society, jill.

jillian
08-08-2013, 01:17 PM
Like you have forced people to accept that killing of unborn children instead of letting the states decide? That would be a good example!

actually no one is forcing you to do anything.

and thank G-d, my constitutional rights aren't up for grabs because you have a rightwing state government.

if you have a problem with that, feel free to take it up with the supreme court.

zelmo1234
08-08-2013, 01:23 PM
do we need to teach you about gerrymandering, hon?

republicans got 1 millioin fewer votes than democrats in the House. the only reason you kept the house is the way the districts are drawn.

but good luck ever winning a national election again until you stop with the wingnuttilicious people.

Yes I am very much looking forward to the 2014 elections that have the new districts, because the census was in 2010 published in 2011 and our districts here in Mi will be new for the first time in 2014. we should pick up 2 or 3 house seats. It is the first time in nearly 100 years that the republicans were able to draw the districts

We are excited. and that does not explain the Gov's Mansions?

zelmo1234
08-08-2013, 01:24 PM
actually no one is forcing you to do anything.

and thank G-d, my constitutional rights aren't up for grabs because you have a rightwing state government.

if you have a problem with that, feel free to take it up with the supreme court.

You know men do not have a constitutional right to murder someone? I think that is discrimination!

junie
08-08-2013, 01:30 PM
Are you the whiny Jew? If not, I wasn't responding to you.


i'm not a jew, nor am i whiny.


i know jill personally and she is not at all 'whiny' but the fact that you read her posts as 'whiny' is very telling. :wink:

how is her being jewish relevant to anything here?



btw, the question remains... "where did SHE express that sentiment?"

Mister D
08-08-2013, 01:34 PM
i'm not a jew, nor am i whiny.


i know jill personally and she is not at all 'whiny' but the fact that you read her posts as 'whiny' is very telling. :wink:

how is her being jewish relevant to anything here?



btw, the question remains... "where did SHE express that sentiment?"

So I wasn't addressing you. Now that you figured that out put on your eyeglasses. And, no, the question you asked was about yourself not the Jew in question. oi vey...:rollseyes:


evangelical influence on the republican party is inconsistent with the constitution and the first amendment in particular.

jillian
08-08-2013, 01:46 PM
You know men do not have a constitutional right to murder someone? I think that is discrimination!

no one is "murdering" anyone. that's a determination based on your own religious beliefs.

thanks mucho.

p.s. even the proponents of the pretend IRS "scandal" never said it repressed votes.

junie
08-08-2013, 01:47 PM
More legal positivistic baloney that ignore the Constitution itself:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

We the people are society, jill.




lol go back to school, s0n. 'we the people' established our constitution and our supreme court, in part to protect our rights from the tyranny of the majority.

junie
08-08-2013, 01:48 PM
So I wasn't addressing you. Now that you figured that out put on your eyeglasses. And, no, the question you asked was about yourself not the Jew in question. oi vey...:rollseyes:



the evangelical agenda IS inconsistent with the constitution, which is not to say that 'Christians should have no influence'.

Mister D
08-08-2013, 01:49 PM
the evangelical agenda IS inconsistent with the constitution, which is not to say that 'Christians should have no influence'.

So evangelicals should have no political voice. Gotcha.

jillian
08-08-2013, 01:50 PM
More legal positivistic baloney that ignore the Constitution itself:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

We the people are society, jill.

which is why there's a supreme court to protect us from a tyranny of the majority.

you may not like it... but law doesn't exist in the air.

rights aren't 'natural' but exist because they're protected by the government

and two cells does not have equal rights with a sentient woman.

think you can absorb all that?

you also might find it helpful to actually take a constitutional law class since your understanding is really a conglomeration of political philosophy (not law), rightwingnut pundits (not law) and your own hypocrisy and wishful thinking (again, not law).

Chris
08-08-2013, 01:51 PM
lol go back to school, s0n. 'we the people' established our constitution and our supreme court, in part to protect our rights from the tyranny of the majority.

Uh, if we ignore your insults, then what you've said is once again in agreement with what I said, we the people created the Constitution and by it framed a government of limited powers. And, yes, indeed, to protect the rights of all, equal justice for all, oh, but, according to progressives like you, just not the unborn, so you seek the favor of government to impose your will on others in violation of their rights.

Mister D
08-08-2013, 01:52 PM
So if it were suddenly made legal to persecute Jews you would have what basis for appeal? That is, you have no inherent rights or dignity. The written law is what matters. How about it?

Cigar
08-08-2013, 01:52 PM
So evangelicals should have no political voice. Gotcha.

No they should do what they do best ... not what they know nothing about.

jillian
08-08-2013, 01:53 PM
the evangelical agenda IS inconsistent with the constitution, which is not to say that 'Christians should have no influence'.

that whole 'we aren't a theocracy' thing seems to escape them.

Mister D
08-08-2013, 01:53 PM
It amazes me how Jillian insists on missing the point of natural rights.

Mister D
08-08-2013, 01:54 PM
that whole 'we aren't a theocracy' thing seems to escape them.

No one wants a theocracy like Israel. :smiley:

Chris
08-08-2013, 01:56 PM
which is why there's a supreme court to protect us from a tyranny of the majority.

you may not like it... but law doesn't exist in the air.

rights aren't 'natural' but exist because they're protected by the government

and two cells does not have equal rights with a sentient woman.

think you can absorb all that?

you also might find it helpful to actually take a constitutional law class since your understanding is really a conglomeration of political philosophy (not law), rightwingnut pundits (not law) and your own hypocrisy and wishful thinking (again, not law).

You do not protect rights by violating rights, jill. You do not protect rights against the majority by a minority of men in robes imposing your beliefs on others and violating others' rights.



rights aren't 'natural' but exist because they're protected by the government

Backasswards, jill. But do tell us where the Constitution states this. Please. Defend your opinion for once.



and two cells does not have equal rights with a sentient woman

And that your view, the view of those who view the state as a religion, is what you applaud being forced on others.


Thanks for your arrogant insults, too. Now, since you seem to think you're some kind of constitutional authority, I'll wait for you to show us where in the Constitution it says rights exist only if protected....

nic34
08-08-2013, 01:58 PM
which is why there's a supreme court to protect us from a tyranny of the majority.

you may not like it... but law doesn't exist in the air.

rights aren't 'natural' but exist because they're protected by the government

and two cells does not have equal rights with a sentient woman.

think you can absorb all that?

you also might find it helpful to actually take a constitutional law class since your understanding is really a conglomeration of political philosophy (not law), rightwingnut pundits (not law) and your own hypocrisy and wishful thinking (again, not law).

Funny how some can be constitutionalists and anarchists at the same time.... :wink:

Chris
08-08-2013, 01:59 PM
that whole 'we aren't a theocracy' thing seems to escape them.

We seem to becoming a theocracy by those who like good little Hegelians religiously believe in the State as God.

Chris
08-08-2013, 02:01 PM
It amazes me how Jillian insists on missing the point of natural rights.

Right, no matter how exactly you define natural rights, to deny they exists prior to and are the basis on which our government was founded is utterly preposterous.

But let's see jill the constitutional scholar support from the Constitution her view rights exist only if protected. This will be good.

Chris
08-08-2013, 02:03 PM
Funny how some can be constitutionalists and anarchists at the same time.... :wink:

Something you don't understand?

Funnier how some can claim to be constitutional scholars but cannot cite the Constitution to support their claims.

jillian
08-08-2013, 02:04 PM
No one wants a theocracy like Israel. :smiley:

as opposed to the dozen islamic states... huh, bubbalah?

you know, even trolls saying stupid things like you do take a break occasionally.

now, back to the topic... THIS isn't a theocracy. WE have a first amendment... no matter what the radical religious right wants.

Mister D
08-08-2013, 02:06 PM
as opposed to the dozen islamic states... huh, bubbalah?

you know, even trolls saying stupid things like you do take a break occasionally.

WTF is a bubbalah? Is that Yiddish?

Again, no one wants a theocracy like Israel. Why do you keep repeating that lie?

junie
08-08-2013, 02:09 PM
Uh, if we ignore your insults, then what you've said is once again in agreement with what I said, we the people created the Constitution and by it framed a government of limited powers. And, yes, indeed, to protect the rights of all, equal justice for all, oh, but, according to progressives like you, just not the unborn, so you seek the favor of government to impose your will on others in violation of their rights.



why do you feel the need to constantly lie like that?


i am not a 'progressive' nor was i a member of the 1972 supreme court, whose legal opinion was led by a conservative and hinged specifically on the protection of a woman's zone of privacy.

Chris
08-08-2013, 02:10 PM
why do you feel the need to constantly lie like that?


i am not a 'progressive' nor was i a member of the 1972 supreme court, whose legal opinion was led by a conservative and hinged specifically on the protection of a woman's zone of privacy.



You're not a Progressive? All your talking points are Progressive. Do you prefer liberal?

Mister D
08-08-2013, 02:11 PM
You're not a Progressive? All your talking points are Progressive. Do you prefer liberal?

Extremists like Jillian et al prefer the term "moderate". :smiley:

Peter1469
08-08-2013, 02:14 PM
your opinion of our government is duly noted, but Chris' claim is about ME and based on nothing i have ever posted.



"But you don't. Like social cons you seek the favor of government to coerce your beliefs on others."

I am just providing my opinion on government. I am not getting into any personal differences. I try to ignore those.

Chris
08-08-2013, 02:16 PM
Extremists like Jillian et al prefer the term "moderate". :smiley:

The "true" position.

Kinda egocentric.

Chris
08-08-2013, 02:17 PM
your opinion of our government is duly noted, but Chris' claim is about ME and based on nothing i have ever posted.



"But you don't. Like social cons you seek the favor of government to coerce your beliefs on others."


I am just providing my opinion on government. I am not getting into any personal differences. I try to ignore those.


She forgets that i cited her very own words above to base my opinion on.

junie
08-08-2013, 02:19 PM
You're not a Progressive? All your talking points are Progressive. Do you prefer liberal?



what talking points? :loco:

junie
08-08-2013, 02:26 PM
She forgets that i cited her very own words above to base my opinion on.



peter can't save you from yourself and your dishonesty...

Chris
08-08-2013, 02:27 PM
what talking points? :loco:

I quoted you, junie.

Chris
08-08-2013, 02:29 PM
peter can't save you from yourself and your dishonesty...

You whine to peter that I'm attacking you when I address your words, then turn around and attack me? What's that spell, junie? It starts with an h______.

Mister D
08-08-2013, 02:29 PM
The "true" position.

Kinda egocentric.

Definitely. To disagree with Jillian is to be a nutter or a winger or a rightwingwhackjob.

junie
08-08-2013, 02:31 PM
I quoted you, junie.



show me my 'progressive talking points', liar.

junie
08-08-2013, 02:37 PM
You whine to peter that I'm attacking you when I address your words, then turn around and attack me? What's that spell, junie? It starts with an h______.



i made a post to the topic and you grabbed some convenient labels and tried to you slap them onto ME just to suit your agenda.

your characterization of my subsequent post to peter's response is just another example of your shameless dishonesty.


http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/15369-GOP-not-conservative-enough?p=343631&viewfull=1#post343631

Chris
08-08-2013, 02:38 PM
show me my 'progressive talking points', liar.

Nice name calling, junie. Personal attack much?

Refer back in the thread to where I cited your words.

Adelaide
08-08-2013, 02:40 PM
I think that is an accurate picture of what is happening in government. The issue is that the democrats in power are hell bent on using government power to achieve their aims, while normal citizens who claim to be liberals don't get that.

Sorry, but isn't that what both parties would do/have done? If you get power in government you forward your political party's goals. I don't know what is unique about that - it certainly isn't unique to Democrats.

Edit: I do agree with you, I just don't think it's one-sided or specific to one group. Even the parties up here do the obvious - exploit their power to forward their goals.

Chris
08-08-2013, 02:41 PM
i made a post to the topic and you grabbed some convenient labels and tried to you slap them onto ME just to suit your agenda.

your characterization of my subsequent post to peter's response is just another example of your shameless dishonesty.


http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/15369-GOP-not-conservative-enough?p=343631&viewfull=1#post343631



Did you miss half the non-discussion we had?


Why are you so ashamed to be a progressive? Or do you prefer liberal? Leftwinger? Or should we use one of your BFF's favorites words, nutter?

THose are political labels, same as me being called a liberal or conservative or rightwinger.

Oddly, the difference is I embrace the labels, you cry out in horror and shame!

Chris
08-08-2013, 02:44 PM
Sorry, but isn't that what both parties would do/have done? If you get power in government you forward your political party's goals. I don't know what is unique about that - it certainly isn't unique to Democrats.

That I believe is true of Dems and Reps, traditionally. As P. J. O'Rourke put it, "The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."

The libertarian and Tea Parties movements are beginning to undermine that in their demand for smaller, Constitutionally limited government.

It could be said some libertarian socialists (lower left of KC's chart) seek that too but we don't hear much from them.

Peter1469
08-08-2013, 02:47 PM
Sorry, but isn't that what both parties would do/have done? If you get power in government you forward your political party's goals. I don't know what is unique about that - it certainly isn't unique to Democrats.

Edit: I do agree with you, I just don't think it's one-sided or specific to one group. Even the parties up here do the obvious - exploit their power to forward their goals.

I agree. I do think that the mainstream GOP does the same thing. I think the Tea Party(ies) are trying to change that. Of course there are lots of different groups, and some are good and some are bad.

Adelaide
08-08-2013, 02:48 PM
I agree. I do think that the mainstream GOP does the same thing. I think the Tea Party(ies) are trying to change that. Of course there are lots of different groups, and some are good and some are bad.

I don't think it has anything to do with good or bad. It's the nature of politics.

KC
08-08-2013, 02:50 PM
I don't think it has anything to do with good or bad. It's the nature of politics.

I'd go further to say it's the nature of humanity.

junie
08-08-2013, 02:52 PM
Refer back in the thread to where I cited your words.



of course you have nothing but dishonest deflection...

Chris
08-08-2013, 02:53 PM
I'd go further to say it's the nature of humanity.

We don't all seek power which tends to result in abuse of it.

One reason I'm libertarian but not Libertarian is because seeking power runs counter to principle. I can support those who run to reduce government, Goldwater, Paul (Ron, Rand), but am leary of them.

Chris
08-08-2013, 02:54 PM
of course you have nothing but dishonest deflection...

Go back to our earlier exchanges where I quoted your words. Those words you used are typical progressive talking points. And, hey, I'm not using progressive pejoratively, that's all you.




Let me ask you something: Why instead of discussing opinions and ideas do you turn everything into a personal pissing context. --And no don't pee on my leg and call it rain.

junie
08-08-2013, 02:57 PM
Log Cabin Republicans are proud members of the GOP who believe inclusion wins.

Log Cabin Republicans is the nation’s largest Republican organization dedicated to representing gay and lesbian conservatives and allies. For more than 30 years, we have promoted the fight for equality through our state and local chapters, our full-time office in Washington, DC, and our federal and state political action committees.


http://www.logcabin.org/






Political scientist Charles Murray has never backed away from controversy, but usually his opponents have been liberals. Friday, however, he managed to upset conservatives at the annual conference known as CPAC, where thousands of bewildered Republicans gathered to figure out the way forward after their party’s 2012 electoral defeat. Murray ditched his prepared remarks on “America Coming Apart” in favor of an impromptu admonition to fellow conservatives to accept the legalization of both gay marriage and abortion.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/03/charles-murrays-gay-marriage-surprise.html

junie
08-08-2013, 03:05 PM
Now There Are 3 Republican Senators Who Support Gay Marriage Lisa Murkowski of Alaska argues that her new position is in accord with conservative values of liberty and family.



Her reasoning illustrates the progress made by Republican gay-marriage advocates (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323353204578128912554107172.html)i n arguing that their position is an essentially conservative one. The senator depicts her position as one that advances the conservative priorities of individual liberty and family values: "We don't want the government in our pockets or our bedrooms," Murkowski writes.


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/now-there-are-3-republican-senators-who-support-gay-marriage/277021/

nic34
08-08-2013, 03:07 PM
And they say we are a center right nation......

I don't think so.

KC
08-08-2013, 03:07 PM
We don't all seek power which tends to result in abuse of it.

One reason I'm libertarian but not Libertarian is because seeking power runs counter to principle. I can support those who run to reduce government, Goldwater, Paul (Ron, Rand), but am leary of them.

No, we don't all seek power in order to abuse it, but I think that most people in a situation of power do end up using it to further their own interests in one way or another.

Peter1469
08-08-2013, 03:11 PM
I'd go further to say it's the nature of humanity.


I guess that is why we have cycles of civilizations rising and then falling....

Cigar
08-08-2013, 03:12 PM
No, we don't all seek power in order to abuse it, but I think that most people in a situation of power do end up using it to further their own interests in one way or another.

When in charge, take charge, when in power, look, listen, learn ... then Guide and Lead ... then take charge in the face of inaction. :wink:

Cigar
08-08-2013, 03:14 PM
I guess that is why we have cycles of civilizations rising and then falling....

That's lack of vision and planning ... because no one ever got anywhere by standing. :wink:

Chris
08-08-2013, 03:19 PM
No, we don't all seek power in order to abuse it, but I think that most people in a situation of power do end up using it to further their own interests in one way or another.

Not exactly what i said. Some seek power, power corrupts, results in corruption, as per Lord Acton. Which is what you say in the end. I doubt many intend to abuse it, most are like Mr Smith Goes to Washington.

Chris
08-08-2013, 03:24 PM
I guess that is why we have cycles of civilizations rising and then falling....

And why there is no such thing as progress.

http://i.snag.gy/6GFsc.jpg

Ravi
08-08-2013, 05:41 PM
Apples and oranges. He's British. Conservative/liberal definitions differ from here in the US. Definitions are even different in CA.

It doesn't matter. IMO, an actual conservative would not support preventing consenting adults from marrying when no harm can come from such.

Chris
08-08-2013, 05:44 PM
It doesn't matter. IMO, an actual conservative would not support preventing consenting adults from marrying when no harm can come from such.

It does matter.

Btw, I support marriage for gays. Like other social issues, government has no business meddling in marriage.

jillian
08-08-2013, 05:44 PM
It doesn't matter. IMO, an actual conservative would not support preventing consenting adults from marrying when no harm can come from such.

Not to mention that European conservatives tend to be much more moderate than so-called conservatives here

Ravi
08-08-2013, 05:45 PM
Like you have forced people to accept that killing of unborn children instead of letting the states decide? That would be a good example!
Both issues are personal issues. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. If you don't support gay marriage, don't enter into one. Pretty simple.

jillian
08-08-2013, 05:49 PM
It amazes me how Jillian insists on missing the point of natural rights.

What amazes me is you think they exist

Ravi
08-08-2013, 05:50 PM
You're not a Progressive? All your talking points are Progressive. Do you prefer liberal?
Link?

Ravi
08-08-2013, 05:53 PM
Not to mention that European conservatives tend to be much more moderate than so-called conservatives here
I know, and it is funny. European conservatives are actually more conservative than American conservatives. Sure, they have some rightwingnutters, but nothing on our scale. Except for the ridiculous austerity thing in the middle of a recession. But that is a fiscal conservative bugaboo, not a social conservative one.

jillian
08-08-2013, 05:57 PM
I know, and it is funny. European conservatives are actually more conservative than American conservatives. Sure, they have some rightwingnutters, but nothing on our scale. Except for the ridiculous austerity thing in the middle of a recession. But that is a fiscal conservative bugaboo, not a social conservative one.

Randian idiocy crosses borders. Dumb, isn't it?

Chris
08-08-2013, 06:01 PM
I know, and it is funny. European conservatives are actually more conservative than American conservatives. Sure, they have some rightwingnutters, but nothing on our scale. Except for the ridiculous austerity thing in the middle of a recession. But that is a fiscal conservative bugaboo, not a social conservative one.

Very interesting. You tell me the difference between US and European doesn't matter then turn around and tell jill it does matter.

Even more interesting jill says European conservatives are more moderate and you agree but say the opposite that they're more conservative.

And pray tell what austerity could you possibly be talking about?

Chris
08-08-2013, 06:03 PM
Randian idiocy crosses borders. Dumb, isn't it?

So does Marxist idiocy with leftists like you across borders. Dumb, isn't it?

Chris
08-08-2013, 06:04 PM
Link?

Go back in thread and see citations of junie's posts.

Mister D
08-08-2013, 06:06 PM
What amazes me is you think they exist

I'll ask again: if the persecution of Jews was made legal what would be the basis of your appeal? Ah, better still! Why was the Holocaust wrong? Did the Nazis violate something? What pray tell?

Chris
08-08-2013, 06:06 PM
Both issues are personal issues. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. If you don't support gay marriage, don't enter into one. Pretty simple.

Except it's complicated by the equal rights of and justice for the unborn.

Mister D
08-08-2013, 06:08 PM
European "conservatives" are post-1945 American lackeys.

Mainecoons
08-08-2013, 06:20 PM
I have no problem with gay unions. Just don't call it marriage. Stop teaching it in the schools, forcing it on the scouts and generally shoving it down our throats. Just do it and STFU about it.

Abortion is child abuse resulting in death. A society that discards millions of children in this way is doomed to failure and death on its own. This is like illegal drug use, once it attains a certain crticial mass, there is no controlling it as it degrades and debases the populace.

Abortion, drug use, glorification of homosexuality and liberalism are leading indicators of the demise of a civilization just as bread and circuses and Nero were for Rome.

I can't stop it but I can have a clear conscience about not contributing to it.

Ravi
08-08-2013, 06:26 PM
I'll ask again: if the persecution of Jews was made legal what would be the basis of your appeal? Ah, better still! Why was the Holocaust wrong? Did the Nazis violate something? What pray tell?

Nazis weren't American so your premise is stupid.

Mister D
08-08-2013, 06:31 PM
Nazis weren't American so your premise is stupid.

Seriously?

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q40/KIsenberger/Food and Misc/Point_over_your_head.jpg

The Sage of Main Street
08-09-2013, 04:55 PM
In a way Limbaugh is right, the GOP is not conservative enough, not when Bush and Romney are such big government cons they're libs who, as mainecoons just commented, "advance statism, bloated government, foreign military misadventurism along side of the Democrats."

Where Limbaugh is wrong is he thinks his brand of conservatism is THE conservatism. I think that's why you see such contention among various factions in the GOP fighting for their definition of conservatism. The brand the party settles on will define not conservatism but the GOP.

And then we have lefties like cigar trying to define conservatism. If lefties would actually reach back and refer to the roots of conservatism, far back as Burke, or the old right like Chodorov, or Buckley, Kirk, Friedman, Goldwater, then they might actually have something to say that would be meaningful instead of silly inflammatory scapegoated straw men.

THE PAULISTAS' PLAY ACTING

Being pathological liars, the Libretardians will be the first in line to perform in the Barnum & Bailout circus. Their spin will be:

"We are devoted to the Free Market and are experts in every detail of it. Therefore, no true Free Market could have caused our bankruptcies. It was GUBMINT!!! interference, so we are only here in the bailout line because of SOACHLESS!!! interference being the sole cause of our failures. We are owed reparations for that! We are victims of democracy, which is MOB RULE!!!

Mainecoons
08-09-2013, 05:01 PM
Oh goody, another ranter.:spam1:

Chris
08-09-2013, 07:40 PM
THE PAULISTAS' PLAY ACTING

Being pathological liars, the Libretardians will be the first in line to perform in the Barnum & Bailout circus. Their spin will be:

"We are devoted to the Free Market and are experts in every detail of it. Therefore, no true Free Market could have caused our bankruptcies. It was GUBMINT!!! interference, so we are only here in the bailout line because of SOACHLESS!!! interference being the sole cause of our failures. We are owed reparations for that! We are victims of democracy, which is MOB RULE!!!



Sorry, but we speak English here.

The Sage of Main Street
08-10-2013, 10:17 AM
Oh goody, another ranter.:spam1:


Brilliant rebuttal. I am so ashamed! Your insightful and detailed logic silences me forever.

The Sage of Main Street
08-10-2013, 10:23 AM
Sorry, but we speak English here.



I don't recognize their right to call themselves what they want and expect me to copy that. Second, the way they talk about "Government," etc., the words should be mutated to show their mental disability.

Chris
08-10-2013, 10:54 AM
I don't recognize their right to call themselves what they want and expect me to copy that. Second, the way they talk about "Government," etc., the words should be mutated to show their mental disability.

Spoken like a true modern liberal, authoritarian statist against liberty! Thanks for speaking English and clarifying.

ptif219
08-12-2013, 07:46 AM
How can you expect a "big" tent when you kick everyone but the ultra-conservative out of it?

Moving away from the conservative base and conservative principles does not win anything it just makes the GOP look like democrats

Mainecoons
08-12-2013, 07:54 AM
Nic's Dictionary:

"ultraconservative"--Anyone who does not believe in liberal Republicans growing government faster than Democrats, doing legislative deals with a Ted Kennedy to pass liberal education programs, new entitlement programs like "prescription drug" and in general spending like drunken Democrats.

OK Nic!

:grin:

junie
08-17-2013, 11:44 AM
RNC Isn't Focusing On The Elephant In Its BallroomAugust 17, 2013
RNC summer meeting on Thursday in Boston

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus won tepid applause after backing into a defense of the party's "Growth and Opportunity" project to bring in more Latinos, African-Americans, young people, unmarried women — pretty much all the groups that overwhelmingly voted Democratic last November. He refuted the idea that reaching out to these groups is tantamount to compromising the party's core values in order to win.

"To those who make those accusations, we don't have time for your divisiveness, either — any more than we have time for the media's games," Priebus said. "If you only want to be a voice of dissent, or if you just want to be angry — if you don't want to be problem solver, then you're putting yourself ahead of the movement."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/08/17/212729349/rnc-doesnt-focus-on-an-elephant-in-its-ballroom


--



‘ROOM FOR EVERYBODY’: Former U.S. Sen. Scott Brown speaks alongside his daughter Ayla yesterday while hosting a Republican National Convention reception at Fenway Park.


Bay State GOP superstar Scott Brown challenged his splintered party to ditch the “ideological clone of a Republican” and embrace moderates like himself and Chris Christie who’ve won in the deep blue Northeast if it has any hope of winning here again.


Brown, speaking yesterday before a Republican National Convention reception he hosted at Fenway Park, said the “in-fighting” that’s plagued the national party continues to haunt it even as it tries to rebound from a bruising 2012 election cycle.


“There’s room for everybody, not just one ideological clone of a Republican,” the former U.S. senator told the Herald. Noting the RNC’s presence in Boston, he said, “I think they’re embracing us. We’ll see.”


“We need to be a larger tent party to be more inclusive and respectful,” Brown said.


http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2013/08/scott_brown_in_fighting_aids_dems

Chris
08-17-2013, 12:13 PM
Something to say, junie?

Ravi
08-17-2013, 02:19 PM
RNC Isn't Focusing On The Elephant In Its Ballroom

August 17, 2013
RNC summer meeting on Thursday in Boston

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus won tepid applause after backing into a defense of the party's "Growth and Opportunity" project to bring in more Latinos, African-Americans, young people, unmarried women — pretty much all the groups that overwhelmingly voted Democratic last November. He refuted the idea that reaching out to these groups is tantamount to compromising the party's core values in order to win.

"To those who make those accusations, we don't have time for your divisiveness, either — any more than we have time for the media's games," Priebus said. "If you only want to be a voice of dissent, or if you just want to be angry — if you don't want to be problem solver, then you're putting yourself ahead of the movement."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/08/17/212729349/rnc-doesnt-focus-on-an-elephant-in-its-ballroom


--



‘ROOM FOR EVERYBODY’: Former U.S. Sen. Scott Brown speaks alongside his daughter Ayla yesterday while hosting a Republican National Convention reception at Fenway Park.


Bay State GOP superstar Scott Brown challenged his splintered party to ditch the “ideological clone of a Republican” and embrace moderates like himself and Chris Christie who’ve won in the deep blue Northeast if it has any hope of winning here again.


Brown, speaking yesterday before a Republican National Convention reception he hosted at Fenway Park, said the “in-fighting” that’s plagued the national party continues to haunt it even as it tries to rebound from a bruising 2012 election cycle.


“There’s room for everybody, not just one ideological clone of a Republican,” the former U.S. senator told the Herald. Noting the RNC’s presence in Boston, he said, “I think they’re embracing us. We’ll see.”


“We need to be a larger tent party to be more inclusive and respectful,” Brown said.


http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2013/08/scott_brown_in_fighting_aids_dems
lulz, I'm being told on another thread that Latinos just love them some Republicans.

Mainecoons
08-17-2013, 02:51 PM
I'm sure that a failed Republicrat from MA is the greatest expert on the GOP alive.

Just like you.

:rofl:

Ravi
08-18-2013, 05:21 AM
Were we talking about Mitten?

Mainecoons
08-18-2013, 06:31 AM
Since you get so confused in your own posting, I wouldn't be surprised if you can't figure out who you are posting about.

:grin:

Chris
08-18-2013, 08:21 AM
lulz, I'm being told on another thread that Latinos just love them some Republicans.


No, you are not. You are being told that despite voting Democrat, Hispanics tend to be conservative in views and values.

Don't you know the difference between parties and principles?

Professor Peabody
08-18-2013, 02:08 PM
Moving away from the conservative base and conservative principles does not win anything it just makes the GOP look like democrats

McCain.......Romney......Nuff said. Millions of Conservative voters stayed home because all they had was Liberals to vote for.

ptif219
08-18-2013, 10:14 PM
McCain.......Romney......Nuff said. Millions of Conservative voters stayed home because all they had was Liberals to vote for.

Or like me voted third party. I voted Constitution Party

Boris The Animal
08-18-2013, 10:18 PM
In one of my threads, I made the observation that the Democrat party are masters at identity politics and have been for decades. The GOP, IMO, had been trying to emulate that with disastrous results. It's time for the GOP to stop dancing with the enemy and start doing what it does best. Convey the message of Conservatism to ALL Americans. Not just to this group or that group.

jillian
08-18-2013, 10:19 PM
No, you are not. You are being told that despite voting Democrat, Hispanics tend to be conservative in views and values.

Don't you know the difference between parties and principles?

many in both the black community and hispanic community are in sync with some views of the right.

the problem is that the right makes sure that it is inhospitable to anyone but old white people.

Boris The Animal
08-18-2013, 10:25 PM
More Leftist pandering points from jillian.

Mr Happy
08-18-2013, 11:32 PM
More Leftist pandering points from jillian.

More nothing from Boris...

jillian
08-18-2013, 11:48 PM
More nothing from Boris...

boris has nothing but rushbot quotes... maybe the odd glenn beck line tossed in for good measure.

but whatchagonnado?

i tried discussing the issue with him. that doesn't seem to be what he wants. he just wants to high five the like-minded.

ptif219
08-19-2013, 12:10 AM
many in both the black community and hispanic community are in sync with some views of the right.

the problem is that the right makes sure that it is inhospitable to anyone but old white people.

You mean they are moving left and being more like democrats

jillian
08-19-2013, 06:01 AM
You mean they are moving left and being more like democrats

no. they don't want to associate with people who think it's ok for their young men to be stalked and killed.

i can imagine how shocking that must be for you.

and the fact that, instead of showing the slightest modicum of sympathy for the young man and his family, the right decided instead to defame the young man's memory, wasn't really lost on anyone.

and you wonder why you lose every demographic except for old white men....

hint: it isn't about "free stuff"

Ravi
08-19-2013, 06:12 AM
no. they don't want to associate with people who think it's ok for their young men to be stalked and killed.

i can imagine how shocking that must be for you.

and the fact that, instead of showing the slightest modicum of sympathy for the young man and his family, the right decided instead to defame the young man's memory, wasn't really lost on anyone.

and you wonder why you lose every demographic except for old white men....

hint: it isn't about "free stuff"

That's not fair, Jillian. They also have old white women that believe the old white men are allowed to regulate their bodies.

jillian
08-19-2013, 06:38 AM
That's not fair, Jillian. They also have old white women that believe the old white men are allowed to regulate their bodies.

yes... they do. but they don't win the majority of the women's vote.

ptif219
08-19-2013, 07:43 AM
no. they don't want to associate with people who think it's ok for their young men to be stalked and killed.

i can imagine how shocking that must be for you.

and the fact that, instead of showing the slightest modicum of sympathy for the young man and his family, the right decided instead to defame the young man's memory, wasn't really lost on anyone.

and you wonder why you lose every demographic except for old white men....

hint: it isn't about "free stuff"

That is crap. Treyvon double backed and attacked Z. It is the left that have the fake outrage when the jury gave the correct verdict.

You mean the right looked at reality while the left showed what arrogant racists they are

ptif219
08-19-2013, 07:44 AM
yes... they do. but they don't win the majority of the women's vote.

It is the left that attack free thinking women. If you do not agree with obama you are condemned

Chris
08-19-2013, 08:47 AM
many in both the black community and hispanic community are in sync with some views of the right.

the problem is that the right makes sure that it is inhospitable to anyone but old white people.



The right: "many in both the black community and hispanic community are in sync with some views of the right." Yes, that's what agravan has been saying. Hispanics align with the views and values of conservative.

The wrong: "the problem is that the right makes sure that it is inhospitable to anyone but old white people." The truth is the left is more than willing to hand out social welfare favors to keep them in poverty and the left in power. The right is not inhospitable except in your leftist cants and rants.

Chris
08-19-2013, 08:48 AM
More nothing from Boris...

And that was a contribution, happy?

Chris
08-19-2013, 08:49 AM
boris has nothing but rushbot quotes... maybe the odd glenn beck line tossed in for good measure.

but whatchagonnado?

i tried discussing the issue with him. that doesn't seem to be what he wants. he just wants to high five the like-minded.



i tried discussing the issue with him

Link, please, I would love to see where you for once engaged in discussion.

Chris
08-19-2013, 08:50 AM
That's not fair, Jillian. They also have old white women that believe the old white men are allowed to regulate their bodies.

Racist post.

Ravi
08-19-2013, 08:57 AM
Racist post.

How so?

nic34
08-19-2013, 09:13 AM
The wrong: "the problem is that the right makes sure that it is inhospitable to anyone but old white people." The truth is the left is more than willing to hand out social welfare favors to keep them in poverty and the left in power. The right is not inhospitable except in your leftist cants and rants.

What a crock of overused cliches and stereotyping.

1. By law, no one can "live" on "handouts" indefinately.

2. It's a fallacy that "most" minorities WANT to live on "handouts".

3. The only thing keeping folks in poverty, is the corporate ceos etc. where income disparity has NEVER been wider. Enablers like the Koch Bros. and the political influence they buy keeps the corporate monoply money train running, while their Heritage Fdn. propaganda arm discourages congress from public sector investment.

Get real.

Chris
08-19-2013, 10:11 AM
How so?


They also have old white women that believe the old white men are allowed to regulate their bodies.


You're judging by race, by skin color.

Chris
08-19-2013, 10:15 AM
What a crock of overused cliches and stereotyping.

1. By law, no one can "live" on "handouts" indefinately.

2. It's a fallacy that "most" minorities WANT to live on "handouts".

3. The only thing keeping folks in poverty, is the corporate ceos etc. where income disparity has NEVER been wider. Enablers like the Koch Bros. and the political influence they buy keeps the corporate monoply money train running, while their Heritage Fdn. propaganda arm discourages congress from public sector investment.

Get real.

I was talking about the superior attitude of the left. I didn't say the poor want to be poor but that the left locks them on perpetual poverty. As one famous lefty put it...

“I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” ― Lyndon B. Johnson



If you'd really like to have a discussion on point 3, say so.

Ravi
08-19-2013, 10:16 AM
Stating a truth is not judging. Nor is saying that a group is white racist.

ptif219
08-19-2013, 10:18 AM
What a crock of overused cliches and stereotyping.

1. By law, no one can "live" on "handouts" indefinately.

2. It's a fallacy that "most" minorities WANT to live on "handouts".

3. The only thing keeping folks in poverty, is the corporate ceos etc. where income disparity has NEVER been wider. Enablers like the Koch Bros. and the political influence they buy keeps the corporate monoply money train running, while their Heritage Fdn. propaganda arm discourages congress from public sector investment.

Get real.

They can now since Obama did away with the welfare reform laws

Ransom
08-19-2013, 10:37 AM
Stating a truth is not judging. Nor is saying that a group is white racist.

Whatever they tell you to say, huh Marie?

Baaaa.

Chris
08-19-2013, 10:51 AM
Stating a truth is not judging. Nor is saying that a group is white racist.


Truth doesn't depend on race, skin color, and other superficial appearances.

Singling out people by skin color to denigrate them is racist.

Ravi
08-19-2013, 10:59 AM
Ah, so it is the Republicans that are racist. You seem somewhat confused.

nic34
08-19-2013, 12:44 PM
I was talking about the superior attitude of the left. I didn't say the poor want to be poor but that the left locks them on perpetual poverty. As one famous lefty put it...

“I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” ― Lyndon B. Johnson



If you'd really like to have a discussion on point 3, say so.

Pulling a quote out of context is your best comeback?

As for a discussion on #3, I've done that. I can't seem to get past the libtarian right's delusion that believes big corporate money controls government and not the other way around.....

Chris
08-19-2013, 12:53 PM
Ah, so it is the Republicans that are racist. You seem somewhat confused.

What, you a Rep?

Chris
08-19-2013, 12:55 PM
Pulling a quote out of context is your best comeback?

As for a discussion on #3, I've done that. I can't seem to get past the libtarian right's delusion that believes big corporate money controls government and not the other way around.....

The LBJ quote speaks for itself, the continued racist attitude of progressives.


You say you've discussed 3, where, link?


I can't seem to get past the libtarian right's delusion that believes big corporate money controls government and not the other way around.....

Left: believes big corporate money controls government

Right: the other way around.

Oops.

Libertarian: both are true.

Ransom
08-20-2013, 05:21 AM
Or like me voted third party. I voted Constitution Party

You and the good professor are just as much to blame as Obama voters for today's reality then. Many thanks.:huh:

ptif219
08-20-2013, 08:41 AM
You and the good professor are just as much to blame as Obama voters for today's reality then. Many thanks.:huh:

Not at all. IO voted for a conservative not a liberal claiming to be a conservative. When the GOP stops condemning conservatives maybe they can get the voters back. As long as the Washington establishment types run the party it will continue to lose elections.

At this point the GOP looks more like liberals than conservatives

Chris
08-20-2013, 08:50 AM
Well, let's face it, we're all to blame. We have met the enemy and he is us.

The Sage of Main Street
08-21-2013, 01:18 PM
Stating a truth is not judging. Nor is saying that a group is white racist.

You're judging that there is something morally and intellectually wrong with racism. It is merely a conclusion based on behavior. Sure, prejudice could cause poverty and then crime. But it is equally possible that crime caused prejudice in the first place, and that Blacks are to blame for the way they are looked at by "racists." So it is a chicken and egg problem. The fact that you won't allow any credibility to the other side proves you have nothing logical on your side.

nic34
08-21-2013, 02:23 PM
They can now since Obama did away with the welfare reform laws

Cite please?

Or do you always get your talking points from the loser of the last presidential election?

nic34
08-21-2013, 02:27 PM
Ah, so it is the Republicans that are racist. You seem somewhat confused.

No odds in debating admitted racists. Like wrestling with a pig.....

Ransom
08-21-2013, 02:31 PM
Not at all. IO voted for a conservative not a liberal claiming to be a conservative. When the GOP stops condemning conservatives maybe they can get the voters back. As long as the Washington establishment types run the party it will continue to lose elections.

At this point the GOP looks more like liberals than conservatives

Then work to change from within. It's why we have primaries. We fight and scrap.....we fist fight and draw blood. We purge and set a platform.....we choose a candidate......and even if it's not who you would have chosen, or even your second choice.....that is who we vote for...that's why we're a political party. The fights go on behind the scenes....on the battlefield you want to show a united front. again....thanks.

nic34
08-21-2013, 02:35 PM
Ransom, for once you're right. Get involved, make your party represent YOU and what you want it to be.

Well said.

Ravi
08-21-2013, 02:48 PM
You're judging that there is something morally and intellectually wrong with racism. It is merely a conclusion based on behavior. Sure, prejudice could cause poverty and then crime. But it is equally possible that crime caused prejudice in the first place, and that Blacks are to blame for the way they are looked at by "racists." So it is a chicken and egg problem. The fact that you won't allow any credibility to the other side proves you have nothing logical on your side.

Your rant had nothing to do with what I posted.

Chris
08-21-2013, 02:58 PM
No odds in debating admitted racists. Like wrestling with a pig.....

Cite please?

Or do you always get your talking points from the sore winner of the last presidential election?

Chris
08-21-2013, 03:01 PM
Then work to change from within. It's why we have primaries. We fight and scrap.....we fist fight and draw blood. We purge and set a platform.....we choose a candidate......and even if it's not who you would have chosen, or even your second choice.....that is who we vote for...that's why we're a political party. The fights go on behind the scenes....on the battlefield you want to show a united front. again....thanks.


Problem is the Old Rep Guard that sees Christie as their man won't let go their death grip the party.

Other problem is primaries are popularity contest that result in mediocrity in both parties.

Time for a new party.


But like nic said, you have the right attitude, get involved.

The Sage of Main Street
08-24-2013, 04:22 PM
Your rant had nothing to do with what I posted.

Your robotic answer means, "You didn't give me the only reply I am programmed to respond to."