Does the GOP stand for anything??

Thanks.
It's the case. The GOP screwed up badly in the Bush Years and still needs to take concrete steps to get its creds back. But once they get on message--lower taxes, less regulation, vigorous foreign policy--they will attract more votes. It's a proven formula, they just need to remember that.
I hope by "vigorous" you mean attacking our enemies strongly.

The last thing we need is the neocon foreign policy again.
I thought the "neo-cons" (and we all know who they are) were the ones in favor of attacking enemies.
The neo-cons are in favor of writing checks that our asses can't cash...IOW, medding in too many foreign affairs and keeping permanent bases where we're not needed.

Neo-conservatism is hopefully going the way of the dinosaur...and I'd like the Religious Right philosophy to become fossilized right beside neo-conism.
 
Sure!

We still have bases in Western European countries, Japan, South Korea, just to name a few places. We got into the Iraq misadventure (which I HIGHLY question should have even been waged in the first place). Our ME interventionism is probably a major catalyst into why we've been attacked, on American soil here and abroad (embassies, bases, etc.)
 
Someone in a response above said let the adults talk. Well, I am an adult with above average knowledge of philosophy of government, so let's talk. In this discussion there are neither Democrats nor Republicans. There are only liberals and conservatives as defined by their modern day definitions.

Forget about government programs, taxes, New Deals, Great Societies, health plans and other such things. Let's get down to the real nitty gritty of the thing which comes in the form of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. If you can rightly define Liberalism and Conservatism then the rest becomes somewhat easy to understand where a candidate for any office stands in regard to our founding documents. By knowing that you can discern how each candidate will approach issues that the country may be facing at any one time. Then it becomes your option to choose the one who will pay heed to the founding documents and work within their confines. Or, you can select the candidate who believes the founding documents contain "floating principles" and thus twist them in a manner for political expediency.

It all boils down to how much freedom you are willing to cede to the government in exchange for some benefit that can be reduced or taken away because of costs, or other reasons. The sad thing is the freedom you gave up will not be returned by government. But now it is too late and the people of our nation will have gone backward to the days preceding the founding of this nation when people existed for the benefit of the State, rather than having government of, by and for the people.

Finally, I can only say that each of us should weigh how much freedom we are giving up in order to attain some government "freebie". As for me, FREEDOM trumps everything!
 
Last edited:
Someone in a response above said let the adults talk. Well, I am an adult with above average knowledge of philosophy of government, so let's talk. In this discussion there neither Democrats nor Republicans. There are only liberals and conservatives as defined by their modern day definitions.

Forget about government programs, taxes, New Deals, Great Societies, health plans and other such things. Let's get down to the real nitty gritty of thing which comes in the form of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. If you can rightly define Liberalism and Conservatism then the rest becomes somewhat easy to understand where a candidate for any office stands in regard to our founding documents. By knowing that you can discern how each candidate will approach issues that the country may be facing at any one time. Then it becomes your option to choose the one who will pay heed to the founding documents and work within their confines. Or, you can select the candidate who believes the founding documents contain "floating principles" and thus twist them in a manner for political expediency.

It all boils down to how much freedom you are willing to cede to the government in exchange for some benefit that can be reduced or taken away because of costs, or other reasons. The sad thing is the freedom you gave up will not be returned by government. But now it is too late and the people of our nation will have gone backward to the days preceding the founding of this nation when people existed for the benefit of the State, rather than having government of, by and for the people.

Finally, I can only say that each of us should weigh how much freedom we are giving up in order to attain some governmemnt. As for me, FREEDOM trumps everything!

I'm guessing you don't live in Georgia?
 
The neo-con adventurism, I believe, Oscar Wao, from 2001 to 2006, has been the most deplorable and expensive (in every way) fiasco in American history. When GWB started withdrawing unilaterally from war crimes treaties in early 2002, I knew we were going to in the ME.
 
Does the GOP stand for something?

Government
Out
Please

You neo-libs like that one? You can make a few nasty ones that I thought of too, I wanna see the creative side of you neo-libs ASAP. :)
 
The neo-con adventurism, I believe, Oscar Wao, from 2001 to 2006, has been the most deplorable and expensive (in every way) fiasco in American history. When GWB started withdrawing unilaterally from war crimes treaties in early 2002, I knew we were going to in the ME.
Dubya and ***** Cheney ain't the only ones (NC goes further back)...

But they're just as culpable as the others.
 
I hope by "vigorous" you mean attacking our enemies strongly.

The last thing we need is the neocon foreign policy again.
I thought the "neo-cons" (and we all know who they are) were the ones in favor of attacking enemies.
The neo-cons are in favor of writing checks that our asses can't cash...IOW, medding in too many foreign affairs and keeping permanent bases where we're not needed.

Neo-conservatism is hopefully going the way of the dinosaur...and I'd like the Religious Right philosophy to become fossilized right beside neo-conism.

That is true.

But lets not forget that the democrats are no better - they like to invade our wallets , the economy and our businesses.


.
 
Sure!

We still have bases in Western European countries, Japan, South Korea, just to name a few places. We got into the Iraq misadventure (which I HIGHLY question should have even been waged in the first place). Our ME interventionism is probably a major catalyst into why we've been attacked, on American soil here and abroad (embassies, bases, etc.)

Um. You do realize that our bases in Germany, Italy, and Japan have been there since the end of WW2, right? It has nothing to do with "Neo-cons." South Korea, since the Korean War, under that notorious neo-con Harry S Truman.
We have been involved in the Middle East since probably before WW2. Check the pics of FDR with Ibn Saud. Last I checked FDR was not a "neo-con."
So you still have yet to cite examples of neo-con "meddling." All those bases have been long established.
 
What is the GOP plan for the future?

Other than trying to stonewall the Democrats every move, what have they presented as our path forward on the economy, healthcare, foreign policy...??

Oh I know.......More tax cuts for the wealthy!

How's obama's war going?
 
What is the GOP plan for the future?

Other than trying to stonewall the Democrats every move, what have they presented as our path forward on the economy, healthcare, foreign policy...??

Oh I know.......More tax cuts for the wealthy!















































How's obama's war going?
 
How's obama's war going?

Not too well.....It sucks being dumped into the middle of two unresolvable wars doesn't it?
 
What is the GOP plan for the future?

Other than trying to stonewall the Democrats every move, what have they presented as our path forward on the economy, healthcare, foreign policy...??

Oh I know.......More tax cuts for the wealthy!

How's obama's war going?

Obama is still going after the terrorists. When Bush gave Bin Laden a seven year head start, it made it more difficult for Obama. But thanks for pointing that out.
 
Well, considering that the Taliban has been hiding in the Swat Valley for the past 7 years unhindered, I kinda think Obama is doing a hell of a lot better than Bush Jr.

At least now we know where they were hiding out at, Bush Jr. didn't care because he was pursuing a war for oil in Iraq.
 
I wish the GOP would return to being the party of no, like it was in the mid-90s. Gov't shutdown then, and what terrible thing came about as a result? - unemployment was dropping, inflation was at record lows, budget was heading to a surplus, and there was world peace. Then W and McCain came in, were terrified of not looking "nice", and the GOP became the party of a trillion dollar medicare expansion, no child gets behind, and faster spending growth than Clinton.

I wish the GOP would return to being the party of no - the less the govt does, the better it is for everyone else. But until they can prove they've re-grown a pair, they don't have my vote or my campaign contributions.
 
When Bush gave Bin Laden a seven year head start

Bush was a complete pussy with Pakistan. Our special ops had to get approval from Musharraf to hunt for Bin Laden. 3,000 Americans dead, a $400 billion a year military, and Bush was worried about what some two-bit dictator thought of him.
 
What is the GOP plan for the future?

Other than trying to stonewall the Democrats every move, what have they presented as our path forward on the economy, healthcare, foreign policy...??

Oh I know.......More tax cuts for the wealthy!

How's obama's war going?

Obama is still going after the terrorists. When Bush gave Bin Laden a seven year head start, it made it more difficult for Obama. But thanks for pointing that out.

And Clinton gave Bin Laden a 7 year head start, also. If you bring up Bush on this issue, you also need to bring up Clinton. just sayin....
 

Forum List

Back
Top