If Republicans lose the 2012 Presidential election, which direction will the GOP go?

[Immanuel]

I just recalled another liberal intrusion on our personal liberties.

It is liberals that have deemed themselves to be the purveyors of virtue and defenders against all evil smokers. I don't smoke and except for one week when I was 13 I never have. Liberals have undertaken in cities like San Francisco to prevent people from smoking within their own homes. In Rocklin, Ca they are now trying to prevent people from smoking out side their homes. They have also attempted to prevent bar owners from allowing people to smoke in bars and they have succeeded in forcing restaurant owners all over the country to disallow smoking in their establishments.

Now, I prefer a smoke free restaurant myself, but I would never think of walking into a restaurant and demanding that the owner, from this day forth, not allow people to smoke in their own places of business. Frigging liberal intolerance!

But, around here in, I think it was Tarpon Springs, they have demanded that restaurant owners allow their damned dogs to join them in outside venues (they are working on inside locations). I'm sorry, but that is frigging disgusting! I will never eat at such a restaurant. Good lord, do they even allow the dogs to lick off the plate? Disgusting!

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

No, 'Conservatives' aren't saying 'enough is enough.' 'Conservatives' were against all of that in their current forms. There's a pretty big distinction there between those two.

And Republicans were the predominant thrust behind NDAA. The Republican Yea votes were more than double the number of Democratic Yea votes. Waters, Kucinich, and Ellison; Perhaps the most liberal of the whole chamber; All Nays.

So, what now? You'll just say that those Republicans were liberals, because the term 'liberal' seems to fit your description of any generic pejorative.

So you've got energy standards on light bulbs, pharmacists required to dispense drugs, and nearly half as many Dems as Republicans voting for an NDAA that you don't like. Anything else? What else are the troops marching up and down your street demanding?

In the Senate looks to me like it was mostly the Dems and only two Dems voted Nay.

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

Not sure where you are coming up with your "blame it on the Republicans" idea.

The house was different though:

GovTrack: House Vote on Conference Report: H.R. 1540: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

Mostly Reps.

Immie

That's the cloture vote to which you're referring. The nay votes on the actual act were 3 Reps, 2 Dems, and Bernie Sanders (again, probably the most liberal of the chamber).

My point is that you certainly can't blame this on liberalism. The criticism of NDAA is that it's authoritarian, not that it's liberal.

Thanks for that information. I'm not sure where to find the info you mention as, I never understand all the ins and outs. I trust that you know what you are talking about and that is not why I ask this, but do you happen to have a link so that I can see and understand where you are coming from?

And regarding the authoritarian statement, I was adamently opposed to The Patriot Act and I blame that on conservatives not liberals.

Thanks in advance,

Immie

 

[Syphon]

And then there is one of his early acts as President when he removed my right not to buy health insurance if I either do not want it or can not afford it.

The way things are today, I frigging can't afford it, but that doesn't mean that in two years I will have a choice. Oh that is right, there is only one choice that liberals are concerned with, I forgot.

Immie

But here's the problem with that kind of thinking.

If you get seriously sick or injured, you are still going to go to an emergency room and demand treatment. Even if you dont have insurance. And someone else will end up paying your way.

The ironic thing is, as much as so-called "conservatives" whine about "socialized" medicine, medicine is already collectivized. People who need serious treatment have their treatment paid for by others, either by companies, insurance, or government programs.

Obama/RomneyCare just props up the current system with out really reforming it by controlling costs and getting rid of overhead.

Wonderful, if I go 5, 10, 15 years without getting sick or injured I still have to pay $1500/month in the meantime. Now, if I were employed, I would have insurance. I am not and with my wife's job we are on the verge of not qualifying for the minimal exemptions, but let's just say that I do qualify for the full 80% exemption, just for shits and grins, that is still $300/month that I have to spend. People on UI can't afford $300/month.

As I said in another thread. I would be better off going into the crime business just to get arrested and go to jail.

You're right, it does nothing to reform costs. Lower middle class people have been given the shaft by Democrats once again.

Immie

this is a great argument for a single payer type programs.

 

[Syphon]

I just recalled another liberal intrusion on our personal liberties.

It is liberals that have deemed themselves to be the purveyors of virtue and defenders against all evil smokers. I don't smoke and except for one week when I was 13 I never have. Liberals have undertaken in cities like San Francisco to prevent people from smoking within their own homes. In Rocklin, Ca they are now trying to prevent people from smoking out side their homes. They have also attempted to prevent bar owners from allowing people to smoke in bars and they have succeeded in forcing restaurant owners all over the country to disallow smoking in their establishments.

Now, I prefer a smoke free restaurant myself, but I would never think of walking into a restaurant and demanding that the owner, from this day forth, not allow people to smoke in their own places of business. Frigging liberal intolerance!

But, around here in, I think it was Tarpon Springs, they have demanded that restaurant owners allow their damned dogs to join them in outside venues (they are working on inside locations). I'm sorry, but that is frigging disgusting! I will never eat at such a restaurant. Good lord, do they even allow the dogs to lick off the plate? Disgusting!

Immie

can you prove it was actually liberals who are working to pass these laws and regulations? it just seems to me that anything you disagree with is automatically the fault of liberals.

maybe conservatives dont like smokers either. they have banned smoking in many places due to health risks.

 

[Immanuel]

I just recalled another liberal intrusion on our personal liberties.

It is liberals that have deemed themselves to be the purveyors of virtue and defenders against all evil smokers. I don't smoke and except for one week when I was 13 I never have. Liberals have undertaken in cities like San Francisco to prevent people from smoking within their own homes. In Rocklin, Ca they are now trying to prevent people from smoking out side their homes. They have also attempted to prevent bar owners from allowing people to smoke in bars and they have succeeded in forcing restaurant owners all over the country to disallow smoking in their establishments.

Now, I prefer a smoke free restaurant myself, but I would never think of walking into a restaurant and demanding that the owner, from this day forth, not allow people to smoke in their own places of business. Frigging liberal intolerance!

But, around here in, I think it was Tarpon Springs, they have demanded that restaurant owners allow their damned dogs to join them in outside venues (they are working on inside locations). I'm sorry, but that is frigging disgusting! I will never eat at such a restaurant. Good lord, do they even allow the dogs to lick off the plate? Disgusting!

Immie

can you prove it was actually liberals who are working to pass these laws and regulations? it just seems to me that anything you disagree with is automatically the fault of liberals.

maybe conservatives dont like smokers either. they have banned smoking in many places due to health risks.

In San Francisco? Are you serious?

Rocklin you may have a case.

Smokers? Don't be a fool.

Dogs at restaurants? Debatable as to whether or not I could prove that.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

But here's the problem with that kind of thinking.

If you get seriously sick or injured, you are still going to go to an emergency room and demand treatment. Even if you dont have insurance. And someone else will end up paying your way.

The ironic thing is, as much as so-called "conservatives" whine about "socialized" medicine, medicine is already collectivized. People who need serious treatment have their treatment paid for by others, either by companies, insurance, or government programs.

Obama/RomneyCare just props up the current system with out really reforming it by controlling costs and getting rid of overhead.

Wonderful, if I go 5, 10, 15 years without getting sick or injured I still have to pay $1500/month in the meantime. Now, if I were employed, I would have insurance. I am not and with my wife's job we are on the verge of not qualifying for the minimal exemptions, but let's just say that I do qualify for the full 80% exemption, just for shits and grins, that is still $300/month that I have to spend. People on UI can't afford $300/month.

As I said in another thread. I would be better off going into the crime business just to get arrested and go to jail.

You're right, it does nothing to reform costs. Lower middle class people have been given the shaft by Democrats once again.

Immie

this is a great argument for a single payer type programs.

If the "single payer plan" were run like the Kaiser Permanente Hospitals of the 1970's and 1980's I would not have a problem with Single Pay Plans. I have a problem with allowing the Washington elite to determine my rights regarding purchasing health insurance.

Forgive me, but I just don't trust those son's of bitches.

Immie

 

[Syphon]

Wonderful, if I go 5, 10, 15 years without getting sick or injured I still have to pay $1500/month in the meantime. Now, if I were employed, I would have insurance. I am not and with my wife's job we are on the verge of not qualifying for the minimal exemptions, but let's just say that I do qualify for the full 80% exemption, just for shits and grins, that is still $300/month that I have to spend. People on UI can't afford $300/month.

As I said in another thread. I would be better off going into the crime business just to get arrested and go to jail.

You're right, it does nothing to reform costs. Lower middle class people have been given the shaft by Democrats once again.

Immie

this is a great argument for a single payer type programs.

If the "single payer plan" were run like the Kaiser Permanente Hospitals of the 1970's and 1980's I would not have a problem with Single Pay Plans. I have a problem with allowing the Washington elite to determine my rights regarding purchasing health insurance.

Forgive me, but I just don't trust those son's of bitches.

Immie

i can agree with that. if we made all health care providers based on the kaiser model of non profit, they own and operate their own hospitals and they provide their own plans. this would drive down overall costs.

i wish the health care law would have given up as single payer option. i would sign up yesterday for that.

 

[candycorn]

More rights for citizens from the liberals?

Do you really expect us to take you seriously when you post BS like that? When it comes to removing people's rights, the liberals and Democrats are worse than the Republicans and the Republicans are a crappy benchmark to set in the first place.

Immie

Do Americans have more rights today than in 1789? What might those rights be? Did conservatives or liberals push for those rights?

It sure as hell was not liberals or at least not today's liberals.

Immie

Maybe I missed it...

Name the names of the great conservatives who fought for civil rights, women's sufferage, women being able to own land, worker's rights etc... Just some names of the great conservatives who did all of that.

 

[Immanuel]

Do Americans have more rights today than in 1789? What might those rights be? Did conservatives or liberals push for those rights?

It sure as hell was not liberals or at least not today's liberals.

Immie

Maybe I missed it...

Name the names of the great conservatives who fought for civil rights, women's sufferage, women being able to own land, worker's rights etc... Just some names of the great conservatives who did all of that.

I don't label people of history in those terms. I look more at what philosophies say and generally because I'm realitively new to the game, what today's philosophies say about a particular issue.

So, in that respect, I give up, you win.

I'm not going to try to name names and have you or someone else say he was or was not such and such.

You are also apparently under the very mistaken impression that I am opposed to things like civil rights, women's sufferage, land ownership for women or worker's rights.

My understanding is that civil rights were actually championed by conservatives not liberals, but no matter what anyone says, one side or the other is going to call the other a liar and declare that Martin Luther King was a Republican... no, he was a liberal. Susan B Anthony was a liberal, no she was a conservative!

Did you know that Jesus Christ was a liberal? I didn't but liberals on this site make that claim regularly.

We can play those games for weeks and solve absolutely nothing.

The point is that when I look at history and at the issues, I see the liberal philosophy as being the philosophy that walks all over my rights.

Maybe in the case of say... women's sufferage you can claim Susan B. Anthony was a liberal. But, then again, you are not talking about the elimination of rights. You are talking about the expansion of rights. In case you don't understand this, there is a difference between the two. What you are saying here is that "well, yes, we liberals do some pretty evil things, but you have to forgive us because we also did these good things".

I don't buy that argument. Granting the rights of women to vote does not excuse you from taking away the rights of property owners under the Kelo v. New London decision. If it could seriously be claimed that liberals brought about the Civil Rights Act, that does not excuse you to attempt to remove my right to say "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance or the right of my children to use those words in a classroom.

Just because some liberals may have participated in some good things does not excuse other liberals for doing bad things, and the same goes for conservatives such as the ones who gave us The Patriot Act... may their names be forever cursed.

Immie

 

[Cuyo]

I just recalled another liberal intrusion on our personal liberties.

It is liberals that have deemed themselves to be the purveyors of virtue and defenders against all evil smokers. I don't smoke and except for one week when I was 13 I never have. Liberals have undertaken in cities like San Francisco to prevent people from smoking within their own homes. In Rocklin, Ca they are now trying to prevent people from smoking out side their homes. They have also attempted to prevent bar owners from allowing people to smoke in bars and they have succeeded in forcing restaurant owners all over the country to disallow smoking in their establishments.

Now, I prefer a smoke free restaurant myself, but I would never think of walking into a restaurant and demanding that the owner, from this day forth, not allow people to smoke in their own places of business. Frigging liberal intolerance!

But, around here in, I think it was Tarpon Springs, they have demanded that restaurant owners allow their damned dogs to join them in outside venues (they are working on inside locations). I'm sorry, but that is frigging disgusting! I will never eat at such a restaurant. Good lord, do they even allow the dogs to lick off the plate? Disgusting!

Immie

can you prove it was actually liberals who are working to pass these laws and regulations? it just seems to me that anything you disagree with is automatically the fault of liberals.

maybe conservatives dont like smokers either. they have banned smoking in many places due to health risks.

The smoking thing seems to be liberals IMO. Incidentally I am a smoker and have mixed feelings about the anti-smoking zealots campaigns. While they use the persistent weapons of PR (exaggeration and selective information in particular), there is no question that it's led to less people smoking which I think almost anyone would agree is a good thing.

It's one of those issues where I flip a coin and it lands on its edge.

 

[candycorn]

It sure as hell was not liberals or at least not today's liberals.

Immie

Maybe I missed it...

Name the names of the great conservatives who fought for civil rights, women's sufferage, women being able to own land, worker's rights etc... Just some names of the great conservatives who did all of that.

I don't label people of history in those terms. I look more at what philosophies say and generally because I'm realitively new to the game, what today's philosophies say about a particular issue.

So, in that respect, I give up, you win.

I'm not going to try to name names and have you or someone else say he was or was not such and such.

You are also apparently under the very mistaken impression that I am opposed to things like civil rights, women's sufferage, land ownership for women or worker's rights.

My understanding is that civil rights were actually championed by conservatives not liberals, but no matter what anyone says, one side or the other is going to call the other a liar and declare that Martin Luther King was a Republican... no, he was a liberal. Susan B Anthony was a liberal, no she was a conservative!

Did you know that Jesus Christ was a liberal? I didn't but liberals on this site make that claim regularly.

We can play those games for weeks and solve absolutely nothing.

The point is that when I look at history and at the issues, I see the liberal philosophy as being the philosophy that walks all over my rights.

Maybe in the case of say... women's sufferage you can claim Susan B. Anthony was a liberal. But, then again, you are not talking about the elimination of rights. You are talking about the expansion of rights. In case you don't understand this, there is a difference between the two. What you are saying here is that "well, yes, we liberals do some pretty evil things, but you have to forgive us because we also did these good things".

I don't buy that argument. Granting the rights of women to vote does not excuse you from taking away the rights of property owners under the Kelo v. New London decision. If it could seriously be claimed that liberals brought about the Civil Rights Act, that does not excuse you to attempt to remove my right to say "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance or the right of my children to use those words in a classroom.

Just because some liberals may have participated in some good things does not excuse other liberals for doing bad things, and the same goes for conservatives such as the ones who gave us The Patriot Act... may their names be forever cursed.

Immie

Not saying that at all; simply asked you for the names. You won't point to the great conservative champions of civil rights, suffrage, workers rights. My guess is that you're as stumped as I am to come up with any.



I am Simply pointing out that a great many of what we today call conservatives would rather not have things like the 40 hour work week, 2 weeks paid vacation, minimum wages, contraception for women, or a woman's right to choose whether or not to give birth. They would want the state to bless all marriages, provide no (or damn little) social safety nets, spend little or nothing on shaping the American culture.

And this is just what the current conservatives cop to: who knows how bizarre the statements would be in unguarded moments. We get a hint of this from Newt Gingrich who never let an opportunity to pander go. We hear about orphanages, having school children clean the schools instead of studying in them. In Iowa, he proclaimed that he would not make exceptions to a woman having an abortion in cases of rape or incest. One could make the case that liberals would do the same thing.

Jesus, according to the Bible, had several liberal leanings. Then again, it's the Bible so read into it what you wish.