View Full Version : "New Republican" Ad
The only problem is that the Republican party, like the Democratic party, has not ceased to be a party for "...big government, big business or big anything."
If this is their attempt at outreach to millennials I ain't buying it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ShchXHhOY
Captain Obvious
04-05-2014, 09:10 PM
I hear GM is new and improved also...
Matty
04-05-2014, 10:09 PM
2party system. I sure as heck am not voting for Hillary! :dontknow:
Peter1469
04-05-2014, 10:16 PM
I hear GM is new and improved also...
Especially since their bankruptcy protects them against all the law suits they had for their defective cars that killed lots of kids.
2party system. I sure as heck am not voting for Hillary! :dontknow:
That's the attitude that keeps the two party system functioning.
The Xl
04-05-2014, 10:44 PM
Words are meaningless. Until they show me something, which they won't, they can fuck off.
Matty
04-05-2014, 10:57 PM
That's the attitude that keeps the two party system functioning.
Well who do you suggest?
Well who do you suggest?
No one in particular, but throughout the developed world the only thing that has led mainstream parties to embrace democratic reform in favor of a multiple-party system has been competition from other parties who share their ideological beliefs. If you're a conservative, vote for a third party conservative. If you're a liberal/progressive, vote for a liberal/progressive third party candidate.
Akula
04-05-2014, 11:26 PM
Well who do you suggest?
Proportionate representaion would be a better method...but it's all irrelevant. This country is finished. This system can't be fixed by using "the system." It's too far gone.
The answer to 2014 is 1776.
pjohns
04-06-2014, 01:05 AM
If you're a conservative, vote for a third party conservative. If you're a liberal/progressive, vote for a liberal/progressive third party candidate.
Well, I suppose this could make perfectly good sense. That is, if one begins with the assumption that there is no discernable difference between the two major parties. After all, if enough potential Republican votes go to a third-party candidate, thereby throwing the election to the Democratic contender--and if there is just not much difference between the Democrat and the Republican--it does not seem like a matter of major consequence that Evil Party Number Two defeated Evil Party Number One.
But I reject the fundamental premise...
zelmo1234
04-06-2014, 02:26 AM
the truth of the matter is that there is not a nickels worth of difference between the parties.
For example is there really a huge difference between the policies of GWB and Obama, if you take away the ACA?
It is likely that only through insolvency will the politicians be forced to turn away from trying to accumulate more and more power over the people of the USA
Refugee
04-06-2014, 04:09 AM
the truth of the matter is that there is not a nickels worth of difference between the parties.
For example is there really a huge difference between the policies of GWB and Obama, if you take away the ACA?
It is likely that only through insolvency will the politicians be forced to turn away from trying to accumulate more and more power over the people of the USA
Yes. More and more in politics the population are presented with electable politicians who are photogenic and can read from prepared scripts. Unlike previous times when they had to face a crowd and answer awkward questions, nowadays it’s become a career choice and a very lucrative one. If this time around its Clinton v Bush, then that’s who you get – you can vote for who you like, but one of these will win. Each will come nicely packaged in a suit with fixed grin and prepared speeches and whoever wins, the recession will remain, national debt will increase and your taxes will go up. The promises are for election time only, after that it’s back to business as usual.
In the UK people have pretty well given up voting and as one famous quote put it, “Why encourage the b******s”! The link below, a two minute read, explains why much of the UK no longer bother voting.
“After being trounced in the recent local elections, representatives on both sides of government expressed regret that they had not explained their policies well enough. This is self-delusion on a grand scale. The electorate knew precisely what was on offer – and stayed at home . . . . . In recent local elections, two thirds of those eligible to vote did not bother.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9294148/No-wonder-so-few-bother-to-vote-any-more.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9294148/No-wonder-so-few-bother-to-vote-any-more.html)
GrassrootsConservative
04-06-2014, 05:43 AM
The only problem is that the Republican party, like the Democratic party, has not ceased to be a party for "...big government, big business or big anything."
Why do I have to keep repeating myself? The problem isn't parties, the problem is lack of genuine Conservatism. Both parties have been taken over by modern Liberal anti-constitutionalists like George Bush and suspected 2016 nominee Jeb Bush.
We need to kill Liberalism before it kills our country. Look at the debt created by these scumbags. Our founders would never have let this happen. We need to get Conservatism back to the forefront of the political right again.
Liberalism IS killing our country, economically, morally, militarily, and (in the case of many groups of people, like fetuses) literally.
Don't look at what a politician says (Republican, Democrat, whatever), look at what they do (are they a Conservative or are they a big-spending, big-taxing, big-government Liberal) and therein we will find the only people who can save our glorious country.
Libhater
04-06-2014, 06:06 AM
Why do I have to keep repeating myself? The problem isn't parties, the problem is lack of genuine Conservatism. Both parties have been taken over by modern Liberal anti-constitutionalists like George Bush and suspected 2016 nominee Jeb Bush.
We need to kill Liberalism before it kills our country. Look at the debt created by these scumbags. Our founders would never have let this happen. We need to get Conservatism back to the forefront of the political right again.
Liberalism IS killing our country, economically, morally, militarily, and (in the case of many groups of people, like fetuses) literally.
Don't look at what a politician says (Republican, Democrat, whatever), look at what they do (are they a Conservative or are they a big-spending, big-taxing, big-government Liberal) and therein we will find the only people who can save our glorious country.
You nailed it, for it was Conservatism that made America strong, and it will only be Conservatism that will dig us back out of this liberal nightmare ditch.
Liberalsim and its policies/agenda are related to every failed Eastern leftist ideology from socialism, to marxism, to fascism, to progressivism, to communism,
to totalitarianism, to centrism etc.,---did I miss any? Oh yeah, and to love for any and all leftist leaders--giving them the red carpet treatment or to bow down
to them, from Che, to Chavez, to Mao, to Putin, to Stalin, to Castro, to Noriega, to did I miss any?
Matty
04-06-2014, 06:12 AM
Have you guys gotten a bellyful of democrat. rule? I sure have. I don't know which Republican is going to win the primary. I think Jeb Bush is a good man for the job. Clinton vs Bush. I gotta go with Bush!
Refugee
04-06-2014, 06:29 AM
Why do I have to keep repeating myself? The problem isn't parties, the problem is lack of genuine Conservatism. Both parties have been taken over by modern Liberal anti-constitutionalists like George Bush and suspected 2016 nominee Jeb Bush.
We need to kill Liberalism before it kills our country. Look at the debt created by these scumbags. Our founders would never have let this happen. We need to get Conservatism back to the forefront of the political right again.
Liberalism IS killing our country, economically, morally, militarily, and (in the case of many groups of people, like fetuses) literally.
Don't look at what a politician says (Republican, Democrat, whatever), look at what they do (are they a Conservative or are they a big-spending, big-taxing, big-government Liberal) and therein we will find the only people who can save our glorious country.
As much as I'd like to stand up and wave a little British flag, yes, if you don't go back to the founding Fathers, you will go forward into socialism. :sad:
Peter1469
04-06-2014, 06:34 AM
Have you guys gotten a bellyful of democrat. rule? I sure have. I don't know which Republican is going to win the primary. I think Jeb Bush is a good man for the job. Clinton vs Bush. I gotta go with Bush!
Not a lot of difference....
We need a real conservative.
Libhater
04-06-2014, 06:42 AM
Not a lot of difference....
We need a real conservative.
Well, Ted Cruz is that real Conservative, but the problem remains in getting him elected over that progressive nightmare the Hilabeast.
Peter1469
04-06-2014, 06:46 AM
That is what we are looking at. Get a milk toast into the white house or the dems win.
Fine.
Focus on the House and Senate. If conservatives control those, the president is just a puppet.
Captain Obvious
04-06-2014, 07:00 AM
A vote for Jeb, Cruz, Hillary is a vote for the same old shit system.
woo hoo...
Codename Section
04-06-2014, 07:11 AM
It's Rand Paul or bust for me. When I hear "Bush" I think about ten years of bullshit military service that could have been over in 1-2 if the goal was really to dig out Al Qaeda and get some retribution for 911. Jeb Bush is from the same line of globalists who tweet about the New World Order.
I am not fooled. Bush was one of the biggest progressives on the planet, policy-wise, he just wore a cowboy hat.
Matty
04-06-2014, 07:18 AM
Well, Ted Cruz is that real Conservative, but the problem remains in getting him elected over that progressive nightmare the Hilabeast.
I could go with Cruz.
Codename Section
04-06-2014, 07:21 AM
FYI to those who think inside their own worldview.
The country won't vote for Jeb Bush. You were sure they'd vote Romney, too. You like them. Most independents and young people don't.
If the Republicans were smart they would look to the young voters and independents instead of being stubborn. Kids don't like Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush and they don't like Santorum. Younger voters and twenty-somethings like Rand Paul. Independents like Rand Paul.
The only people that don't like him are progressives and establishment Republicans. That should tell you the type of team you're playing on.
nathanbforrest45
04-06-2014, 07:29 AM
Willowtree. Is that a Jack Russell Terrorist in your avatar. I have had two of these dogs. What I like about them is how mellow and standoffish they are!!!
When we got our first one the vet told us to watch the litter and pick the most mellow of them, an exact opposite of most suggestions. If Molly was "mellow" I would hate to see what a hyperdog was like! We called her Turbo Dog because she would run around the yard spinning in circles. We had her 15 years and I still miss her. Jethro was her replacement and we haven't figured out if the Jethro refers to Jethro Gibbs, Jethro Tull or Jethro Bodine! They are very smart animals.
nathanbforrest45
04-06-2014, 07:31 AM
Unless you elect true conservatives to Congress it won't matter much who you put in the White House.
Mainecoons
04-06-2014, 07:33 AM
FYI to those who think inside their own worldview.
The country won't vote for Jeb Bush. You were sure they'd vote Romney, too. You like them. Most independents and young people don't.
If the Republicans were smart they would look to the young voters and independents instead of being stubborn. Kids don't like Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush and they don't like Santorum. Younger voters and twenty-somethings like Rand Paul. Independents like Rand Paul.
The only people that don't like him are progressives and establishment Republicans. That should tell you the type of team you're playing on.
Some of us old farts go for Rand Paul as well. In fact, everyone in our old fart Sunday morning breakfast group.
Rand didn't invent libertarianism, he's putting an electable face on it.
Libhater
04-06-2014, 07:55 AM
Some of us old farts go for Rand Paul as well. In fact, everyone in our old fart Sunday morning breakfast group.
Rand didn't invent libertarianism, he's putting an electable face on it.
Yeah, I could go with Rand Paul as well despite his feckless views on and with foreign affairs.
Matty
04-06-2014, 07:59 AM
Willowtree. Is that a Jack Russell Terrorist in your avatar. I have had two of these dogs. What I like about them is how mellow and standoffish they are!!!
When we got our first one the vet told us to watch the litter and pick the most mellow of them, an exact opposite of most suggestions. If Molly was "mellow" I would hate to see what a hyperdog was like! We called her Turbo Dog because she would run around the yard spinning in circles. We had her 15 years and I still miss her. Jethro was her replacement and we haven't figured out if the Jethro refers to Jethro Gibbs, Jethro Tull or Jethro Bodine! They are very smart animals.
Yes, Stumpy is a JRT, the short legged type. we call him the JRTerrorist. Just this morning my husband had to dig him out from under the storage shed. He had a cat holed up in there. Stumpy is my second one. Buster the first was a long legged JRT. Stumpy is the smartest of the two and I can teach him a lot. My problem is I don't know a lot about training dogs. it's a trial by error type of thing. But so far he knows the sit, the up, the give paw, the stay, commands. I have put a rope pull on a little cupboard, his cookies live there. I say open it and he runs pulls his cupboard open, points with his nose at his cookies then tosses his head and snorts. I give him a good dog praise and while towering over him at 5 and 1/2 feet I tell him I need a paw. little thing trys to stretch that paw way up but his legs are too short. He's a comedian.Now I'm trying to teach to find things by following where I point. He knows what the word FOX is too. He has lots of toys but I tell him to get that Fox and he comes back with his little Fox. They are quite something to live with.
Matty
04-06-2014, 08:01 AM
FYI to those who think inside their own worldview.
The country won't vote for Jeb Bush. You were sure they'd vote Romney, too. You like them. Most independents and young people don't.
If the Republicans were smart they would look to the young voters and independents instead of being stubborn. Kids don't like Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush and they don't like Santorum. Younger voters and twenty-somethings like Rand Paul. Independents like Rand Paul.
The only people that don't like him are progressives and establishment Republicans. That should tell you the type of team you're playing on.
jeb Bush was my Gov. for two terms, he did an outstanding job. But here's the bottom line. I don't care who the Republicans put forth, I will vote for a Republican. I will never vote for a democrat ever again. The last six years have been sickening. Sickening. Hillary? I don't think so.
Matty
04-06-2014, 08:06 AM
Some of us old farts go for Rand Paul as well. In fact, everyone in our old fart Sunday morning breakfast group.
Rand didn't invent libertarianism, he's putting an electable face on it.
I like Rand Paul with one slight misgiving. He's such a dove! And that doesn't mean I love war either!
Peter1469
04-06-2014, 08:14 AM
Yeah, I could go with Rand Paul as well despite his feckless views on and with foreign affairs.
What is wrong with not being a warmonger.
Captain Obvious
04-06-2014, 12:28 PM
What is wrong with not being a warmonger.
"We oil the jaws of the war machine and feed it with our babies"
Iron Maiden
Spectre
04-06-2014, 12:34 PM
One shouldn't be a 'warmonger'.
One shouldn't shrink from war when confronted with it.
And on should ALWAYS be ready for it in this pirahna tank of a world.
Spectre
04-06-2014, 12:35 PM
By the way...
'Warmonger' is a leftist, commie, hippie word.
No one on the right should employ it.
Libhater
04-06-2014, 12:40 PM
What is wrong with not being a warmonger.
You sound like a liberal when you automatically assume that anyone who is strong in dealing with
dictators and or with helping nations out from living under a totalitarian/genocidal system/nation is
a warmonger.
Ronald Reagan had a natural tendency to call nations like the the former Sovier Union an evil empire.
Reagan used the threat of power/military might with Star Wars as a deterrent to any further spread
of communism, while at the same time got Gorby to tear down the Iron Curtain that in fact officially
ended our Cold War with those commies.
I think Rand and his dad for that matter are perhaps the two most intelligent politicians when it comes
to handling our financial matters back at home--especially with their desire to end the fed and perhaps
ending the IRS as well, but having a desire to isolate militarily from an ever threating terrorist-filled world
would in my mind be a sign of weakness and a sign of America's dwindling power on the international scale.
Captain Obvious
04-06-2014, 12:51 PM
Smells like neocon
Terminal Lance
04-06-2014, 12:55 PM
By the way...
'Warmonger' is a leftist, commie, hippie word.
No one on the right should employ it.
Eight years in the marine corps with as many combat deploys as they could shove my way. I don't have a problem with the word. There are warmongers out there: necons and progressives want to shape the world instead of let the world "be".
As a born again libertarian I reject this. People should sort their own problems. It's their right and duty. You bring war to my door, I'll fuck your shit up. You leave me alone, I leave you alone.
Chris
04-06-2014, 01:17 PM
You sound like a liberal when you automatically assume that anyone who is strong in dealing with
dictators and or with helping nations out from living under a totalitarian/genocidal system/nation is
a warmonger.
Ronald Reagan had a natural tendency to call nations like the the former Sovier Union an evil empire.
Reagan used the threat of power/military might with Star Wars as a deterrent to any further spread
of communism, while at the same time got Gorby to tear down the Iron Curtain that in fact officially
ended our Cold War with those commies.
I think Rand and his dad for that matter are perhaps the two most intelligent politicians when it comes
to handling our financial matters back at home--especially with their desire to end the fed and perhaps
ending the IRS as well, but having a desire to isolate militarily from an ever threating terrorist-filled world
would in my mind be a sign of weakness and a sign of America's dwindling power on the international scale.
I guess that the way interventionists see noninterventionists, as isolationists. We don't have the right to force freedom in the name of democracy (Bush) or humanity (Obama), those we force it on may not want of version. That's not to say we shouldn't defend ourselves.
Matty
04-06-2014, 01:32 PM
We needed a hawk sitting on the throne when Benghazi went down!
Chris
04-06-2014, 01:41 PM
We needed a hawk sitting on the throne when Benghazi went down!
At least someone who didn't put winning elections as top priority.
Libhater
04-06-2014, 02:45 PM
I guess that the way interventionists see noninterventionists, as isolationists. We don't have the right to force freedom in the name of democracy (Bush) or humanity (Obama), those we force it on may not want of version. That's not to say we shouldn't defend ourselves.
A couple of points here: No one was forcing freedom in the name of democracy. What Bush and others have done was to prevent the force of dictators to oppress and kill their own people. If we (America) interject some measure of freedom or democracy into the mix during our intervention--then what's the problem? Other presidents in our American history have 'intervened' in foreign affairs so as to stop the spread of communism and of Hitler's fascism. Isolationists simply refuse to see
the threat of these dictators and in their blindness they feel that putting their collective heads deep into the sand that all the world's woes and threats will go away. We don't live on an island, and being the world's most powerful nation comes with some responsibility in keeping it that way. Freedom isn't free, and that isn't just a bumper sticker slogan.
Chris
04-06-2014, 02:49 PM
A couple of points here: No one was forcing freedom in the name of democracy. What Bush and others have done was to prevent the force of dictators to oppress and kill their own people. If we (America) interject some measure of freedom or democracy into the mix during our intervention--then what's the problem? Other presidents in our American history have 'intervened' in foreign affairs so as to stop the spread of communism and of Hitler's fascism. Isolationists simply refuse to see
the threat of these dictators and in their blindness they feel that putting their collective heads deep into the sand that all the world's woes and threats will go away. We don't live on an island, and being the world's most powerful nation comes with some responsibility in keeping it that way. Freedom isn't free, and that isn't just a bumper sticker slogan.
Well, you say "No one was forcing freedom in the name of democracy" and then you say "If we (America) interject some measure of freedom or democracy into the mix during our intervention" so you are forcing it.
then what's the problem?
If they wanted it then we would not need to force it.
My main point though was that doesn't make me an isolationist. I'm noninteventionist. Like the Pauls.
Libhater
04-06-2014, 03:00 PM
Well, you say "No one was forcing freedom in the name of democracy" and then you say "If we (America) interject some measure of freedom or democracy into the mix during our intervention" so you are forcing it.
Our benign interventions were anything but 'forceful'. Again, if our benign interventions just happen to give people a sense if not a real feeling of freedom--then what's the problem?
If they wanted it then we would not need to force it.
Ever think that in the case of a Saddam that the oppressed Iraqi people wanted their freedom,
and that their dictator/tyrant Saddam was preventing them from getting it? So America's use
of force against a tyrant (Saddam) to give the Iraqi people freedom was seen by you as our
unwanted force against the people of Iraq? That makes sense, no.
My main point though was that doesn't make me an isolationist. I'm noninteventionist. Like the Pauls.
Yeah, an American non-interventionist leaves the threat of dictators to the chance that they all will be super friendly to us
and non threatening to us and to all other nations worldwide. That would be like a 65-yr-old-man facing retirement with his
only hope of securing a comfortable financial retirement is with hitting the multi-million dollar lottery. This is why the libertarian
foreign affairs agenda is feckless at best.
Peter1469
04-06-2014, 03:50 PM
"We oil the jaws of the war machine and feed it with our babies"
Iron Maiden
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbxfe7DMxVo
Peter1469
04-06-2014, 03:53 PM
One shouldn't be a 'warmonger'.
One shouldn't shrink from war when confronted with it.
And on should ALWAYS be ready for it in this pirahna tank of a world.
I agree with that. But we should only wage war to protect vital US national security interests. And when we do it should be complete. Not half ass. And then we should leave. We aren't good and fixing places. If they cross us, X them out. Leave. And tell them that they better shape up or we will come back.
Chris
04-06-2014, 03:58 PM
Our benign interventions were anything but 'forceful'. Again, if our benign interventions just happen to give people a sense if not a real feeling of freedom--then what's the problem?
Ever think that in the case of a Saddam that the oppressed Iraqi people wanted their freedom,
and that their dictator/tyrant Saddam was preventing them from getting it? So America's use
of force against a tyrant (Saddam) to give the Iraqi people freedom was seen by you as our
unwanted force against the people of Iraq? That makes sense, no.
Yeah, an American non-interventionist leaves the threat of dictators to the chance that they all will be super friendly to us
and non threatening to us and to all other nations worldwide. That would be like a 65-yr-old-man facing retirement with his
only hope of securing a comfortable financial retirement is with hitting the multi-million dollar lottery. This is why the libertarian
foreign affairs agenda is feckless at best.
Intervention is force, you can't say it any other way.
If Iraqis wanted "freedom" they would have taken it. How do you know they wanted democracy?
A noninterventionist would react to threats. You're redefining noninterventionist as isolationist.
Libhater
04-06-2014, 06:09 PM
Intervention is force, you can't say it any other way.
If Iraqis wanted "freedom" they would have taken it. How do you know they wanted democracy?
A noninterventionist would react to threats. You're redefining noninterventionist as isolationist.
INTERVENTION: to come in or between in order to stop, settle, or modify in a quarrel.
Nothing about using force in the aforementioned definition. Ergo, there is such a thing as peaceful intervention.
If the Iraqis' wanted freedom (as is my understanding) from a genocidal dictator who had a strong standing
army on his side, wouldn't it make sense that the Iraqi people wanted to be set free from the govt's shackles
to where they could get to freely vote in the type of leaders they wanted, not to mention to vote in someone
who would stop the mass salughter of their own peoples? Didn't the Iraqi people finally get to vote free from
the threat of Saddam and his Army with the help of Bush's intervention? Don't you remember seeing the elated
people show off their purple fingers during voting time that signaled they voted free from intimidation because
of the absence of Saddam?
So the Iraqi people would have preferred a peaceful intervention in getting their leader to allow them to vote
without intimidation. Since the Iraqi people didn't have the might to fight Saddam they relied on Bush to intervene
on their behalf to oust the tryrant from the premises.
Matty
04-06-2014, 06:54 PM
A couple of points here: No one was forcing freedom in the name of democracy. What Bush and others have done was to prevent the force of dictators to oppress and kill their own people. If we (America) interject some measure of freedom or democracy into the mix during our intervention--then what's the problem? Other presidents in our American history have 'intervened' in foreign affairs so as to stop the spread of communism and of Hitler's fascism. Isolationists simply refuse to see
the threat of these dictators and in their blindness they feel that putting their collective heads deep into the sand that all the world's woes and threats will go away. We don't live on an island, and being the world's most powerful nation comes with some responsibility in keeping it that way. Freedom isn't free, and that isn't just a bumper sticker slogan.
No, freedom isn't free and I have a big problem sending American soldiers to die for those who won't stand and fight with us for ThEIR freedom!
Matty
04-06-2014, 06:56 PM
INTERVENTION: to come in or between in order to stop, settle, or modify in a quarrel.
Nothing about using force in the aforementioned definition. Ergo, there is such a thing as peaceful intervention.
If the Iraqis' wanted freedom (as is my understanding) from a genocidal dictator who had a strong standing
army on his side, wouldn't it make sense that the Iraqi people wanted to be set free from the govt's shackles
to where they could get to freely vote in the type of leaders they wanted, not to mention to vote in someone
who would stop the mass salughter of their own peoples? Didn't the Iraqi people finally get to vote free from
the threat of Saddam and his Army with the help of Bush's intervention? Don't you remember seeing the elated
people show off their purple fingers during voting time that signaled they voted free from intimidation because
of the absence of Saddam?
So the Iraqi people would have preferred a peaceful intervention in getting their leader to allow them to vote
without intimidation. Since the Iraqi people didn't have the might to fight Saddam they relied on Bush to intervene
on their behalf to oust the tryrant from the premises.
IIRC the Iraqi people called us occupiers!
pjohns
04-07-2014, 12:28 AM
[I]s there really a huge difference between the policies of GWB and Obama, if you take away the ACA?
In a word: Yes.
It is likely that only through insolvency will the politicians be forced to turn away from trying to accumulate more and more power over the people of the USA
This is the apocalyptic interpretation of American politics: Things must become immeasurably worse before they may become better.
It is really a bit like the view of the ancient Judeans, during the Maccabean Era: Things must become really, really bad, so that a Saviour may eventually arise, and turn matters around...
pjohns
04-07-2014, 12:40 AM
Yes. More and more in politics the population are presented with electable politicians who are photogenic and can read from prepared scripts. Unlike previous times when they had to face a crowd and answer awkward questions, nowadays it’s become a career choice and a very lucrative one. If this time around its Clinton v Bush, then that’s who you get – you can vote for who you like, but one of these will win. Each will come nicely packaged in a suit with fixed grin and prepared speeches and whoever wins, the recession will remain, national debt will increase and your taxes will go up. The promises are for election time only, after that it’s back to business as usual.
In the UK people have pretty well given up voting and as one famous quote put it, “Why encourage the b******s”! The link below, a two minute read, explains why much of the UK no longer bother voting.
“After being trounced in the recent local elections, representatives on both sides of government expressed regret that they had not explained their policies well enough. This is self-delusion on a grand scale. The electorate knew precisely what was on offer – and stayed at home . . . . . In recent local elections, two thirds of those eligible to vote did not bother.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9294148/No-wonder-so-few-bother-to-vote-any-more.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9294148/No-wonder-so-few-bother-to-vote-any-more.html)
That is simply a wonderful article, contained in the link! And most of it could apply with equal force to the US.
Thanks for presenting it.
pjohns
04-07-2014, 12:52 AM
By the way...
'Warmonger' is a leftist, commie, hippie word.
No one on the right should employ it.
I have long contended that words ending with the suffix, "-monger," should be eschewed. (E.g. "warmonger," "hatemonger," etc.)
The same is true, by the way, of the suffix, "-phobia." (E.g. "homophobia," "Islamaphobia," etc.)
pjohns
04-07-2014, 12:55 AM
Smells like neocon
Well, just speaking for myself, I would proudly describe myself as a neoconservative. (No, not as a "neocon"--a pejorative term invented and regularly used by our opponents--but a neoconservative.)
Peter1469
04-07-2014, 04:45 AM
cool avatar ^^^
GrassrootsConservative
04-07-2014, 04:59 AM
cool avatar ^^^
pjohns
Chris
04-07-2014, 06:21 AM
Depends on how you look at politics. If your concern is which politician better represents your values I can understand Bush and Obama doo represent different sets of values. But if you look at it as I do, that government should be limited, fiscally responsible, and shouldn't be in the business of promoting values, shouldn't intrude on social issues, and so on, then there's little difference in the two.
nathanbforrest45
04-07-2014, 06:41 AM
No, freedom isn't free and I have a big problem sending American soldiers to die for those who won't stand and fight with us for ThEIR freedom!
Sometimes its not a case of not standing to fight but not having the ability to do so. Do you think the ethnic minorities in Africa don't want freedom? If you take away any method of defending yourself while arming your enemies to the teeth what can you actually do? However, in the case of Vietnam I sincerely believe most of the people of South Vietnam did not care if they were ruled by the United States or North Vietnam and were not willing to fight for their freedom.
texan
04-07-2014, 01:33 PM
Waste of money
The Sage of Main Street
04-07-2014, 02:13 PM
I agree with that. But we should only wage war to protect vital US national security interests. And when we do it should be complete. Not half ass. And then we should leave. We aren't good and fixing places. If they cross us, X them out. Leave. And tell them that they better shape up or we will come back. Tell it to jihadist OPEC. They've been bleeding our economy for forty years, leaving us weak, demoralized, and broke.
And we don't leave. We annex their oilfields, which we built, and we stay there. They leave, for the desert and jungles they crawled out of.
1751_Texan
04-07-2014, 03:26 PM
the only New Republicans Bobby Jindal cares about are the ones he can get to vote for him.
pjohns
04-08-2014, 12:07 AM
Depends on how you look at politics. If your concern is which politician better represents your values I can understand Bush and Obama doo represent different sets of values. But if you look at it as I do, that government should be limited, fiscally responsible, and shouldn't be in the business of promoting values, shouldn't intrude on social issues, and so on, then there's little difference in the two.
That is a very good analysis.
We evidently have a different set of priorities; but I cannot begrudge anyone for simply not agreeing with my own preferred set. The important thing, it seems to me, is that you understand the intellectual underpinnings for each set; and have made your choice, accordingly.
The only ones whom I begrudge are those who would pretend that there is only one perspective from which to view it.
(Oh, for the record: I strongly agree that government should be limited and fiscally responsible. As to your other two concerns--about government's "promoting values" and "intrud[ing] on social values"--my own perspective is not quite so libertarian as yours is.)
Chris
04-08-2014, 08:13 AM
That is a very good analysis.
We evidently have a different set of priorities; but I cannot begrudge anyone for simply not agreeing with my own preferred set. The important thing, it seems to me, is that you understand the intellectual underpinnings for each set; and have made your choice, accordingly.
The only ones whom I begrudge are those who would pretend that there is only one perspective from which to view it.
(Oh, for the record: I strongly agree that government should be limited and fiscally responsible. As to your other two concerns--about government's "promoting values" and "intrud[ing] on social values"--my own perspective is not quite so libertarian as yours is.)
Thanks. As Goldwater put it, to disagree you don't have to be disagreeable. And I respect where you come from, but as you say just don't agree on priorities.
I think What a conservative actually is (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/24360-What-a-conservative-actually-is) gives a good representation of the conservatism you embrace. In my post (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/24360-What-a-conservative-actually-is?p=569774&viewfull=1#post569774) there I try to give some of the 1950s new conservative historical underpinnings of the two factions in American conservatism. I think the two factions only came together once and that was under Reagan.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.