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

[code1211]

Common sense would indicate that Republicans would moderate their platform

But since we are talking Republicans, I imagine they would become more radical

What defines a radical?

 

[code1211]

I love this thread. It shows the revisionist history that is causing the republicans to fade away. It's not if they lose, but when they lose. This is fun to watch.

What are you referring to as revisionist?

 

[Cuyo]

You're such a tard. You guys really need some new material.

So what exactly do you have against the Constitution? And what's your alternative to providing liberty to the Republic?

Where do you get that they want to provide liberty to the Republic? All evidence proves otherwise.

Immie

Fantastic. 'Constitution?' Check. 'Tyranny?' Check. Zero elaboration? Check. 'Liberty?'

Check and mate.

Guess ya guys got me.

 

[Cuyo]

Rights are rights. You guys are the ones that constantly seek to inhibit them.

Immie

Good god

Save me your petty rightwing "my rights are violated too!"

Oh? Your rights are being violated? How so?

And for the record, my rights are not being violated. I am not a pharmacist and I don't practice in Washington state. Doesn't mean I don't like the idea of big government creeping in and taking more of our rights.

I'm surprised you have not mentioned the Patriot Act.

Immie

Someone licensed as a pharmacist is required to carry a certain healthcare product?

Energy consumption regulation on light bulbs? Double

Oh, the humanity.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So what exactly do you have against the Constitution? And what's your alternative to providing liberty to the Republic?

Where do you get that they want to provide liberty to the Republic? All evidence proves otherwise.

Immie

No one – or nothing, for that matter – ‘provides’ liberty to the Republic.

The issue is the relationship between government and the individual: where are the lines drawn, where are the walls erected, where does one have a presumption of privacy?

The state will forever probe the boundaries of liberty searching for a weak spot to exploit; it’s incumbent upon each citizen to know his rights, to know the case law, and push back against government excess and intrusion.

The Federal courts are where the people go to seek relief from government excess, to compel the state in a neutral, non-partisan venue to explain its rationale with regard to the potential violation and provide evidence accordingly – and failing to do so, desist.

Liberals have traditionally been the greater advocates of individual liberty and maximum government restriction: with regard to one’s 4th Amendment right to privacy, with regard to one’s 5th Amendment right to due process, with regard to each citizens’ 6th Amendment right to have benefit of counsel, and each citizens’ 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the law.

Liberals ended segregation in public schools, public accommodation, transportation, and in the workplace; liberals put an end to arrest and detention absent probable cause or warrant, and liberals put an end to laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

Conservatives, on the other hand, often fought such efforts, claiming ‘states’ rights,’ decrying the mythical ‘tyranny’ of the Federal government while ignoring the real tyranny of state and local governments.

 

[Immanuel]

The history of America is the history of slow liberalism.
we only have to look at our history where we began and where we are today to see that. So many vast changes and always toward more rights for people. The only question we seem to have is do Democrats, at times, move too fast for the people? When people feel uncomforable with pace they vote in America's anchor, the Republican party. After a time again it's time to move forward and so back comes the Democratic party. But make no mistake our goal is always more liberalism and a better life for the people. The Repubicans would like to believe the Constitution is part of the anchor but so far it has not impeded progress.

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

Actually regent is quite correct.

It’s not a matter of ‘more rights for citizens from the liberals,’ as rights are inalienable and immutable – no one can give or take away rights. But it is also true liberals have played a pivotal role in restricting government preemption, protecting citizens’ rights from abuse by state and local authorities.

One need only consider the cases reviewed by the Warren Court for proof.

Between 1953 and 1969, Chief Justice Warren presided over the most remarkable period of American jurisprudence, a time during which the original intent of the Constitution was finally realized. From segregation to discrimination, to due process rights with regard to criminal prosecution, to ensuring all American had equal access to the law, the Warren Court reaffirmed the most fundamental tenets of the Founding Document, bitterly opposed by conservatives every step of the way.

The common law genius of the Warren Court. - William and Mary Law Review | HighBeam Research

I was referring to an ongoing (although dieing) thread going on at the moment about a law passed in the state of Washington requiring the pharmacists to distribute Plan B "emergency" contraceptives. Now, before you too go putting words in my mouth, I have not said that if I were a pharmacists I would not dispense the product. I do, however, object to the state forcing someone to carry a product.

And also, for the record, I am not saying that there have not been compelling arguments by the left as to why the state should do this. They simply have not convinced me.

As we know no right is absolute, the state may preempt a right given it has a compelling reason and evidence in support.

With regard to the law requiring pharmacists to dispense Plan B, this may be the result of a concern that if too many pharmacists refuse to provide the product, it will result in a de facto ban of an otherwise legal drug, a drug women are entitled to in the context of their right to privacy. This may also bring in public accommodation issues.

You're a poster whom I have not have much dealings with. I have read quite a few of your posts and have come to the conclusion that you post very well thought out posts, you state your case very well and I have found myself reading your posts with great interest.

I skimmed the first page of your link but will not register with them to get the entire article even though they offer 7 free days.

Here is my general opinion on your remarks. I am basically correct that it is liberals who are the ones that gallantly stomp out personal liberties and rights and to give a quick example I point to your own example, Brown v Board of Education. Now, before I go any further let me say this, I must have some liberalness in my bones, because I would not have that decision go any other way. I can't imagine going through school in a segregated school or God forbid going through life in a segregated world. Wouldn't want it at all. I'm glad I was born in the early 60's (2.5 months before our President) and was too young to know what the real world was like at that time.

But, the fact remains, that this decision does indeed tread on the rights of bigots to send their kids to segregated schools. Sad to say, but even bigots have rights. I believe very much in the principle that if we expect our rights to be protected, now or in the future, we must be willing to defend the rights of those with whom we disagree. Just don't ask me how that could have been accomplished in this case... I really don't have a frigging clue.

Another example that I have thought about is Kelo v. New London where again liberals ransacked the rights of property owners. For the record, my bones were not that liberal this decision I opposed vehemently.

The fact remains in my point of view that despite the hymning and hawing of the left and all the crying about the right trying to force religion down everyone's throats, it is in fact, the left that is trampling all over what I believe to be sacred freedoms: the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

With that, I am sure it is obvious that I do not agree with you. I am also certain that some moron will hack up what I said about Brown v. Board of Education and accuse me of supporting segregation, but I truly believe that when you get down to the nuts and bolts of things in this country it is the liberal that is guilty of denying rights to individuals rather than conservatives. However, conservatives are not excluded. Good old GWB brought us the Patriot Act... may his name be forever cursed.

I hate like hell to discuss things like Brown, because unless you cave in to the liberals, they are bound to twist your words and make you out to be some kind of monster. But that is just more liberal deceitfulness. I'm not saying you will do this, but there are some who will.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

So what exactly do you have against the Constitution? And what's your alternative to providing liberty to the Republic?

Where do you get that they want to provide liberty to the Republic? All evidence proves otherwise.

Immie

No one – or nothing, for that matter – ‘provides’ liberty to the Republic.

The issue is the relationship between government and the individual: where are the lines drawn, where are the walls erected, where does one have a presumption of privacy?

The state will forever probe the boundaries of liberty searching for a weak spot to exploit; it’s incumbent upon each citizen to know his rights, to know the case law, and push back against government excess and intrusion.

The Federal courts are where the people go to seek relief from government excess, to compel the state in a neutral, non-partisan venue to explain its rationale with regard to the potential violation and provide evidence accordingly – and failing to do so, desist.

Liberals have traditionally been the greater advocates of individual liberty and maximum government restriction: with regard to one’s 4th Amendment right to privacy, with regard to one’s 5th Amendment right to due process, with regard to each citizens’ 6th Amendment right to have benefit of counsel, and each citizens’ 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the law.

Liberals ended segregation in public schools, public accommodation, transportation, and in the workplace; liberals put an end to arrest and detention absent probable cause or warrant, and liberals put an end to laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

Conservatives, on the other hand, often fought such efforts, claiming ‘states’ rights,’ decrying the mythical ‘tyranny’ of the Federal government while ignoring the real tyranny of state and local governments.

The state will forever probe the boundaries of liberty searching for a weak spot to exploit; it’s incumbent upon each citizen to know his rights, to know the case law, and push back against government excess and intrusion.

And yet, when conservatives put down their foot and say, "enough is enough", well... they are the bad guys.

Liberals trample all over individual rights and then when they are called onto the carpet for it, they claim, "it is for the greater good that we snuff out the lives of unborn children and old farts". They claim the state has a vested interest in removing the right of a business owner whether or not to choose to carry a product that is legal to sell. I cannot understand how interfering with a business owner's right not to carry a product that they have strong feelings about is "for the greater good". If this was an illegal product, then I could understand the case, but not when it is the other way around.

Yes, I have heard those kinds of arguments. It is sickening, if you ask me.

Liberals ended segregation in public schools, public accommodation, transportation, and in the workplace; liberals put an end to arrest and detention absent probable cause or warrant, and liberals put an end to laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

Until what last month? Isn't that when the latest liberal intruder on civil liberties gave us NDAA?

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

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

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

It is today's liberal who are pushing for more rights for gays to serve their country and to marry
It s liberals defending the rights of workers to collectively bargain

Where do conservatives stand on that?

Less than 8% of all American workers are members of labor organizations. That number continues to decline. How's that working out for you libs?
Unions lost out 25 years ago. In the not to distant future we will see a virtual end of unionism and it's foulness.

 

[auditor0007]

As many people have noted, the GOP has been consistently moving further and further to the right over the last 30 years. The election of President Obama continued that trend as the 2010 midterms made clear.

During the current 2012 GOP primary season, candidates like Bachmann and Santorum routinely engaged in some pretty strident rhetoric while also bringing up the social issues continuously despite the fact that virtually everyone thought that economic issues would far and away be the focus of the election.

And finally, the primary has come down to Romney and changing conservative 'not Romney' candidates.

So, regardless of who ends up winning the GOP nomination, if the Republicans lose the general election to President Obama, which direction will the GOP ultimately go? Will they move closer to the center because they lost to President Obama? Or will they move further to the right?

I think you will see a push to the middle and further to the right. Hard to say what wins out. In 2016, the Republicans will have a much better chance of winning as the White House tends to turn hands back and forth. What is interesting is that the Republican field is likely to be much stronger in 2016. This will in part be due to the fact that the Republicans will think they have a better chance at winning. With that in mind, you will likely see some very strong candidates who are conservative and moderate. Rubio and Thune strike me as being very strong possibilities from the far right. More in the middle would be a Chris Christie or Jeb Bush. If Jeb can sell Americans that he is not his brother, but more like his father, he might pull it off. He could select Thune as his running mate, which would solidify the conservatives around the ticket.

 

[Unkotare]

As many people have noted, the GOP has been consistently moving further and further to the right over the last 30 years. The election of President Obama continued that trend as the 2010 midterms made clear.

During the current 2012 GOP primary season, candidates like Bachmann and Santorum routinely engaged in some pretty strident rhetoric while also bringing up the social issues continuously despite the fact that virtually everyone thought that economic issues would far and away be the focus of the election.

And finally, the primary has come down to Romney and changing conservative 'not Romney' candidates.

So, regardless of who ends up winning the GOP nomination, if the Republicans lose the general election to President Obama, which direction will the GOP ultimately go? Will they move closer to the center because they lost to President Obama? Or will they move further to the right?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8RCQDDsMpU&feature=related]Movie Quotes: "If You strike me down"(Star Wars IV) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[The Gadfly]

What you had better remember, is that no party keeps power forever.Events and circumstances beyond the control of either party mitigate against that. You may get a decade, sometimes more, of one-party rule, but this nations is evenly enough divided that sooner or later your side will lose. You had better be careful what you wish for, because the more obnoxious you are to the opposition, the bigger and meaner the backlash when it inevitably comes. As for the more extreme among you, you had better be sure you do not hate and gloat your way into unforeseen consequences you can neither fully imagine, nor handle. You had likewise be careful about unnecessarily radicalizing your opposition; the ultimate result of that may not be to your advantage. The nation already has enough competing interests which cannot be reconciled. Emotions are running high, and economically, things are none too stable. You CAN break this nation apart; you CAN strain the social fabric until you tear it, and if you are not careful you CAN ignite a conflict which will be very messy, extremely ugly, and in the end will do no one any good. That goes for BOTH sides. Someone is going to make that mistake eventually; we are well on the path.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

They're not going to hear you, Joe. Or, more accurately, they're not going to listen. They can't, they're ideologically obligated not to. Nor would they read this, Value-Based Insurance Design: Spend a Little More On Selected Patients For Payoff Down the Line | Managed Care Magazine Online, which shows that lowering co-pays on certain medications to zero actually lowers health care costs.

If they're sick and can't afford health insurance, let 'em rot, it's their own fault. Something like that.

.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Immie

It is today's liberal who are pushing for more rights for gays to serve their country and to marry
It s liberals defending the rights of workers to collectively bargain

Where do conservatives stand on that?

Less than 8% of all American workers are members of labor organizations. That number continues to decline. How's that working out for you libs?
Unions lost out 25 years ago. In the not to distant future we will see a virtual end of unionism and it's foulness.

I have to admit you are right. republican union busting tactics over the last 30 years are starting to pay off

The standard of living of working americans has declined
Benefits have been slashed
Workers are at the mercy of their employers

 

[Cuyo]

So what exactly do you have against the Constitution? And what's your alternative to providing liberty to the Republic?

No one – or nothing, for that matter – ‘provides’ liberty to the Republic.

The issue is the relationship between government and the individual: where are the lines drawn, where are the walls erected, where does one have a presumption of privacy?

The state will forever probe the boundaries of liberty searching for a weak spot to exploit; it’s incumbent upon each citizen to know his rights, to know the case law, and push back against government excess and intrusion.

The Federal courts are where the people go to seek relief from government excess, to compel the state in a neutral, non-partisan venue to explain its rationale with regard to the potential violation and provide evidence accordingly – and failing to do so, desist.

Liberals have traditionally been the greater advocates of individual liberty and maximum government restriction: with regard to one’s 4th Amendment right to privacy, with regard to one’s 5th Amendment right to due process, with regard to each citizens’ 6th Amendment right to have benefit of counsel, and each citizens’ 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the law.

Liberals ended segregation in public schools, public accommodation, transportation, and in the workplace; liberals put an end to arrest and detention absent probable cause or warrant, and liberals put an end to laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

Conservatives, on the other hand, often fought such efforts, claiming ‘states’ rights,’ decrying the mythical ‘tyranny’ of the Federal government while ignoring the real tyranny of state and local governments.

The state will forever probe the boundaries of liberty searching for a weak spot to exploit; it’s incumbent upon each citizen to know his rights, to know the case law, and push back against government excess and intrusion.

And yet, when conservatives put down their foot and say, "enough is enough", well... they are the bad guys.

Liberals trample all over individual rights and then when they are called onto the carpet for it, they claim, "it is for the greater good that we snuff out the lives of unborn children and old farts". They claim the state has a vested interest in removing the right of a business owner whether or not to choose to carry a product that is legal to sell. I cannot understand how interfering with a business owner's right not to carry a product that they have strong feelings about is "for the greater good". If this was an illegal product, then I could understand the case, but not when it is the other way around.

Yes, I have heard those kinds of arguments. It is sickening, if you ask me.

Liberals ended segregation in public schools, public accommodation, transportation, and in the workplace; liberals put an end to arrest and detention absent probable cause or warrant, and liberals put an end to laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

Until what last month? Isn't that when the latest liberal intruder on civil liberties gave us NDAA?

Immie

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?

 

[Immanuel]

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

 

[Immanuel]

No one – or nothing, for that matter – ‘provides’ liberty to the Republic.

The issue is the relationship between government and the individual: where are the lines drawn, where are the walls erected, where does one have a presumption of privacy?

The state will forever probe the boundaries of liberty searching for a weak spot to exploit; it’s incumbent upon each citizen to know his rights, to know the case law, and push back against government excess and intrusion.

The Federal courts are where the people go to seek relief from government excess, to compel the state in a neutral, non-partisan venue to explain its rationale with regard to the potential violation and provide evidence accordingly – and failing to do so, desist.

Liberals have traditionally been the greater advocates of individual liberty and maximum government restriction: with regard to one’s 4th Amendment right to privacy, with regard to one’s 5th Amendment right to due process, with regard to each citizens’ 6th Amendment right to have benefit of counsel, and each citizens’ 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the law.

Liberals ended segregation in public schools, public accommodation, transportation, and in the workplace; liberals put an end to arrest and detention absent probable cause or warrant, and liberals put an end to laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

Conservatives, on the other hand, often fought such efforts, claiming ‘states’ rights,’ decrying the mythical ‘tyranny’ of the Federal government while ignoring the real tyranny of state and local governments.

And yet, when conservatives put down their foot and say, "enough is enough", well... they are the bad guys.

Liberals trample all over individual rights and then when they are called onto the carpet for it, they claim, "it is for the greater good that we snuff out the lives of unborn children and old farts". They claim the state has a vested interest in removing the right of a business owner whether or not to choose to carry a product that is legal to sell. I cannot understand how interfering with a business owner's right not to carry a product that they have strong feelings about is "for the greater good". If this was an illegal product, then I could understand the case, but not when it is the other way around.

Yes, I have heard those kinds of arguments. It is sickening, if you ask me.

Liberals ended segregation in public schools, public accommodation, transportation, and in the workplace; liberals put an end to arrest and detention absent probable cause or warrant, and liberals put an end to laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

Until what last month? Isn't that when the latest liberal intruder on civil liberties gave us NDAA?

Immie

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?

I shall look into your contention regarding Republicans being the controlling force behind NDAA. I don't believe it, but I shall look into it.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

No one – or nothing, for that matter – ‘provides’ liberty to the Republic.

The issue is the relationship between government and the individual: where are the lines drawn, where are the walls erected, where does one have a presumption of privacy?

The state will forever probe the boundaries of liberty searching for a weak spot to exploit; it’s incumbent upon each citizen to know his rights, to know the case law, and push back against government excess and intrusion.

The Federal courts are where the people go to seek relief from government excess, to compel the state in a neutral, non-partisan venue to explain its rationale with regard to the potential violation and provide evidence accordingly – and failing to do so, desist.

Liberals have traditionally been the greater advocates of individual liberty and maximum government restriction: with regard to one’s 4th Amendment right to privacy, with regard to one’s 5th Amendment right to due process, with regard to each citizens’ 6th Amendment right to have benefit of counsel, and each citizens’ 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the law.

Liberals ended segregation in public schools, public accommodation, transportation, and in the workplace; liberals put an end to arrest and detention absent probable cause or warrant, and liberals put an end to laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

Conservatives, on the other hand, often fought such efforts, claiming ‘states’ rights,’ decrying the mythical ‘tyranny’ of the Federal government while ignoring the real tyranny of state and local governments.

And yet, when conservatives put down their foot and say, "enough is enough", well... they are the bad guys.

Liberals trample all over individual rights and then when they are called onto the carpet for it, they claim, "it is for the greater good that we snuff out the lives of unborn children and old farts". They claim the state has a vested interest in removing the right of a business owner whether or not to choose to carry a product that is legal to sell. I cannot understand how interfering with a business owner's right not to carry a product that they have strong feelings about is "for the greater good". If this was an illegal product, then I could understand the case, but not when it is the other way around.

Yes, I have heard those kinds of arguments. It is sickening, if you ask me.

Liberals ended segregation in public schools, public accommodation, transportation, and in the workplace; liberals put an end to arrest and detention absent probable cause or warrant, and liberals put an end to laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

Until what last month? Isn't that when the latest liberal intruder on civil liberties gave us NDAA?

Immie

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:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-932

Mostly Reps.

Immie

 

[Cuyo]

And yet, when conservatives put down their foot and say, "enough is enough", well... they are the bad guys.

Liberals trample all over individual rights and then when they are called onto the carpet for it, they claim, "it is for the greater good that we snuff out the lives of unborn children and old farts". They claim the state has a vested interest in removing the right of a business owner whether or not to choose to carry a product that is legal to sell. I cannot understand how interfering with a business owner's right not to carry a product that they have strong feelings about is "for the greater good". If this was an illegal product, then I could understand the case, but not when it is the other way around.

Yes, I have heard those kinds of arguments. It is sickening, if you ask me.



Until what last month? Isn't that when the latest liberal intruder on civil liberties gave us NDAA?

Immie

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.