What the Republicans need to do

[Annie]

some say he should have campaigned like a conservative. almost like the "Real Democrat" always wins.

A conservative is hardly defined by the Evangelicals, they just want everyone to feel that way, as does the left. Real conservatism is about small government, doing what the people cannot get done on their own. It's about not only allowing the states to do their part, but encouraging them to do so. It's about defining what government should do and not. It's about a strong defense, but restraint in using it.

The politicians can encourage by words and examples values they believe good for the country, but shouldn't attempt to implement such into law. Flag burning? No, while vile, that falls under free speech. Prayer in school? Nope. Pray at home or silently in school. Marriage laws? No. State purview. On and on.

 

[elvis]

A conservative is hardly defined by the Evangelicals, they just want everyone to feel that way, as does the left. Real conservatism is about small government, doing what the people cannot get done on their own. It's about not only allowing the states to do their part, but encouraging them to do so. It's about defining what government should do and not. It's about a strong defense, but restraint in using it.

The politicians can encourage by words and examples values they believe good for the country, but shouldn't attempt to implement such into law. Flag burning? No, while vile, that falls under free speech. Prayer in school? Nope. Pray at home or silently in school. Marriage laws? No. State purview. On and on.

The evangelical vote is a substantial part of the republican party. Do you want them to stay home? They will if the candidate supports gay marriage and is anti-prayer.

 

[Annie]

The evangelical vote is a substantial part of the republican party. Do you want them to stay home? They will if the candidate supports gay marriage and is anti-prayer.

And if they determine the platform, the GOP will lose forever. They should be welcomed, but for now they cannot control all the issues. If the government is to be small, they can't control everyone's bedrooms.

 

[elvis]

And if they determine the platform, the GOP will lose forever. They should be welcomed, but for now they cannot control all the issues. If the government is to be small, they can't control everyone's bedrooms.

I don't know that they want to control the bedroom, they just don't want to recognize gay marriage and they are not alone. The African Americans in California supported the ban by a ratio of 2:1. I am sure the Hispanic vote is close to that.

 

[Annie]

I don't know that they want to control the bedroom, they just don't want to recognize gay marriage and they are not alone. The African Americans in California supported the ban by a ratio of 2:1. I am sure the Hispanic vote is close to that.

Again, state issue in any case. Seriously, if they cut government they cut spending. If they cut spending, they'll reduce the deficit, if they cut the deficit, we'll all be more prosperous. Though that will take time, no matter what happens if they ever get a chance to govern again. $700 billion! Damn. And that was with a 'conservative'? He is no conservative.

 

[elvis]

Again, state issue in any case. Seriously, if they cut government they cut spending. If they cut spending, they'll reduce the deficit, if they cut the deficit, we'll all be more prosperous. Though that will take time, no matter what happens if they ever get a chance to govern again. $700 billion! Damn. And that was with a 'conservative'? He is no conservative.

I agree he is no conservative. And if they bail out the big 3, it will be even larger.

 

[William Joyce]

I think the religious right is far too powerful in the the party. But, they are extracting payment for their service as foot soldiers in the ground game. If you weaken their power, you will probably lose their level of commitment and willingness to act.

So, as a practical matter, if not the religious right foot soldier, who will be activated to stuff envelopes, ring doorbells and man phone banks? These are absolute necessities in winning. I'm not advocating for the RR, I'd just like an alternative.

Yes, the religious right does the footwork, but they hardly have too much power in the party. Is abortion illegal? Is gay marriage? Quite the opposite... these movements are either entrenched or on their way. In fact, the power players of the GOP look down on the Christians! Instead, they do whatever the Jewish neocons tell them. No wonder the Republican party has turned into a huge failure.

Christian conservatives are just not even remotely close to being the ones who screwed up. Most people are pretty uncomfortable with "Heather Has Two Mommies," condoms for kindergartners and other forms of "intolerance" decried by the liberal media. But they always come in for a good long whipping. I can't tell you how many idiots I hear say, "yeah, the Christian right, what a problem." No, fucktard, it's the Jewish right that has the real power. But, fucktards being fucktards, they won't budge from what Fox News told them.

Whatever. The Republican party either has to be re-made as a white freedom party, or it dies. That's the order I'm giving.

 

[9 Volt]

Yes, the religious right does the footwork, but they hardly have too much power in the party. Is abortion illegal? Is gay marriage? Quite the opposite... these movements are either entrenched or on their way. In fact, the power players of the GOP look down on the Christians! Instead, they do whatever the Jewish neocons tell them. No wonder the Republican party has turned into a huge failure.

Christian conservatives are just not even remotely close to being the ones who screwed up. Most people are pretty uncomfortable with "Heather Has Two Mommies," condoms for kindergartners and other forms of "intolerance" decried by the liberal media. But they always come in for a good long whipping. I can't tell you how many idiots I hear say, "yeah, the Christian right, what a problem." No, fucktard, it's the Jewish right that has the real power. But, fucktards being fucktards, they won't budge from what Fox News told them.

Whatever. The Republican party either has to be re-made as a white freedom party, or it dies. That's the order I'm giving.

Where the hell did the evangelical movement in this country come from anyway? Christianity is big business.

 

[Dr Grump]

Christian conservatives are just not even remotely close to being the ones who screwed up. Most people are pretty uncomfortable with "Heather Has Two Mommies," condoms for kindergartners and other forms of "intolerance" decried by the liberal media. But they always come in for a good long whipping. I can't tell you how many idiots I hear say, "yeah, the Christian right, what a problem." No, fucktard, it's the Jewish right that has the real power. But, fucktards being fucktards, they won't budge from what Fox News told them.

You really have no idea what the fuck is going on do you. You're almost getting this thread shunted to the conspiracy theory folder....talk about fucktards WJ, was Rove Jewish? Bush? Cheney? Rice? I could go on.....

 

[elvis]

You really have no idea what the fuck is going on do you. You're almost getting this thread shunted to the conspiracy theory folder....talk about fucktards WJ, was Rove Jewish? Bush? Cheney? Rice? I could go on.....

Wolfowitz and Perle happened to be Jewish. They set the framework for conquering the Middle East. that is where he is coming from. And Norman Podhoretz had a lot of pull. But please don't send the entire thread to the conspiracy bin over one poster.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

My "not arguing over words" comment was in retaliation to your statement that government has power not rights. Nothing more. Yes, I do feel that American troops in Germany is interventionism. Americans would not stand for German troops stationed on American soil, so what makes us so damn special?

We are damn special sis... Ask Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden or any of the Taliban who spend there days looking skyward and their nights asking the most popular of all Islamic Terrorists queries: "WHAT WAS THAT?"

We're fighting a "war on terror" that has no defined enemy, and can thusly go on for as long as the ruling administration sees fit.

Oh... I see what you're saying... so where the enemy is not a a well defined, traditional soveriegn force, the US shouldn't seek out, close with and destroy that enemy by fire and manuever... artful diplomacy and rejecting those whose opinions would result in appeasement of those murdering fucks...

I suppose my thinking on that position would be best illustrated as follows: ROFLMNAO... SAY WHAT? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?> Grow a pair, be an American or shut the fuck up!

Questions?

How much will it cost to free Europe and Asia? I'm sorry, this is not a bill I think American taxpayers should have to pay for at all.

Yeah I feel the same way... My position should Europe fall into militant fascism, such as Sharia Islam... would be to simply nuke the entire continent and rinse the world of their idiocracy once and for all...

I did not support and did not vote for Barack Obama, and I am not a liberal.

Wow... I have to say, you hide it well? Let me guess... you're the proud red faced, short sighted Libertarian? LOL.. you people crack me up. Hey, would you do my a favor and do 500 words on the benefit of Hemp; its superior qualities over cotton and the government conspiracy to hold the pot head down?

The right of self defense? Is that what Iraq was? Preventative war is an absurdity

Is it really? Well tell that to Hussein... (The former head of Iraq, not the future head of the US)

and we have no right to invade sovereign nations that have done nothing to us.

Oh I completely agree with that... but that has nothingto do with Iraq, who fought a proxy war against the US for several decades prior to 9-11.

I never said that the United States is supporting terrorists. I said that by invading these nations and attacking them we've created more resentment and helped Osama's cause.

I know what ya said Scooter, this is a text forum and I read it the first time... and I would like to point out that Osama (The former head of Al Qaeda, not the Future head of the US, Obama.) is a terrorist and 'helped... Osama' would be a position wherein the gist is that the US: HELPED TERRORISM.

What could it mean that I'm listening to what Osama says as to why he attacked us, and why he wanted to us to attack and invade them?

It means you listened to him... but so did everyone else. Particularly those of us that were listening to him and his Islamic comrades which were referring to the US as "the great satan" for YEARS Prior to 9-11, which was the foundation of our position to Impeach Clinton for his subversive measures which crippled the US's ability to disperse intelligence information between local and state law enforcement and vice versa; to impeach Clinton for his PC policies, such as preventing the profiling of Middle eastern males between the ages of 16 and 50... under specific instances, not the least of which was air travel. But let's not go over that... I did it everyday for 8 years and I've another 8 yrs to do it all over again as of January 20th of next year...

Well allow me to counter with, what could it mean that a detective looks for the motive behind a murder? Is he sympathizing with the murderer? I don't think so.

A detective looks for a motive... for the purposes of gathering evidence to PROSECUTE A CRIMINAL... NOT TO EXCUSE THE CRIME AND RATIONALIZE SHUTTING DOWN THE PROSECUTION.

The Prime Minister was a communist because he wanted to nationalize oil fields in his own country? Interesting.

NO SIR... The Prime Minister was a COMMUNIST, THUS HE BELIEVED IN NATIONALIZING THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION and THAT IS WHY HE WANTED TO NATIONALIZE THE OIL FIELDS.

Honest friendship with all would not lead to entangling alliances

;

Friendship, in and of itself commits one to alliance... If you do not believe this, then it is something your would-be "friends" need to know... and where one is allied to another, one is entangled in their affairs purely by default.

showing favoritism towards certain nations and hostility towards others on the other hand...

Well we are a special nation, so we tend to show favoritism towards nations which align with us and hostility towards those who are hostile towards us.

Thomas Jefferson did not want to go to war with France, he condemned Adams' signing into law the Alien and Sedition Acts and his creation of a standing army. Jefferson was sympathetic to the French cause.

ROFLMNAO... Adam's did not want to go to war with France... The assertion is absurd. To the contrary, Adams made several attempts through multiple official envoys of the US, which the French government refused to recieve. When Congress was informed by Adams of the French response, congress made Adams letter to congress public... the public was outraged at the news of the French government'ss rejection of the US, demanding that the US pay extravagent bribes, just to receive the envoys... Jefferson used the information to Adam's authority, his intellect and his means to lead the nation... Jefferson went so far as to hire a slandering or 'scandle-mongerer' by the name of James Callender; who assailed Adam's without mercy through a litany of published lies; all of which became the cornerstone of the Alien and Sedition Act... which landed Callender behind bars; and THAT is what pissed Jefferson off about the A&S Act... Jefferson's propagandist was taken out by it. Of course the 'what goes around' principal naturally came was triggered and when Jefferson pardoned Callender and rejected Callender's demand to be made Postmaster of his region and tried to buy Callender off with $50... Callender then went to work publishing the story of Jefferson and his slave wench Sally... a story which haunted Jefferson for the rest of his life and despite his denials, turned out to be true.

Adam's was a Federalist, Jefferson a non-Federalist, who wanted a powerful Federal government to act as the common government to the whole of the people and to overwhelm that of the individual States and this was a point of contention which spurred passionate debates between the two until their respective deaths on July 4th, 1825.

The Revolutionary War was an act of self defense, not an act of interventionism.

It was an act of intervention spurred by the valid moral justification of self defense.

When war broke out between France and Great Britain, both President Washington and Adams maintained American neutrality in the conflict. This would be an example of "entangling alliances with none."

Yes... it would, because our 'neutrality pissed both of our friends OFF... and lead in no small measure to the war of 1812. hich was quite a substantial example of the entanglements which come with pissing off one's powerful friends.

 

[Red Dawn]

You really have no idea what the fuck is going on do you. You're almost getting this thread shunted to the conspiracy theory folder....talk about fucktards WJ, was Rove Jewish? Bush? Cheney? Rice? I could go on.....

Didn't you know that the Iraq war was the fault of the Jews, and the mortgage meltdown was the fault of poor brown people getting loans?

That's what I've been told anyway, by members of the White Person's Party of America, i.e., the GOP.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

You might as well be a Democrat, if that's your platform. That's broadly where most mainstream, centrist Democrats are today. I'd throw in a pro-science plank along with the pro-environment plank, for good measure.

This isn't 1972 anymore, and its not the Party of McGovern versus the Party of Nelson Rockefeller. Times have changed, and the parties have changed. Particularly for the GOP, which has become a party of religious rightwingers, and neocons. Most moderate republicans have been voted out of national office. What you have left is the party Tom Delay, Newt Gingrish, and George Bush built.

The GOP congressional leadership is saying today, that the backbone of their party's platform going forth, is going to be built on being against gay marriage.

Anti-gay marriage, overturning Roe v. Wade, and corporate deregulation appear to be the planks the GOP wants to hold onto moving forward, if you read what he says.

I have to say I agree with this. The GOP should make their platform being against gays, and for overturning Roe v. Wade.

I would disagree with you. I would say that that platform is supported by the majority of the GOP. Also if its centrist Democrats that support this platform then we are screwed because their party is controlled by the left.

I would say further that those who want to rebuild the party on sanctity of marriage and Roe vs. Wade can march their happy asses on down the road and join the Constitution Pary. They have already destroyed the GOP with those two wedge issues. Lets not do it again.

 

[elvis]

Didn't you know that the Iraq war was the fault of the Jews, and the mortgage meltdown was the fault of poor brown people getting loans?

That's what I've been told anyway, by members of the White Person's Party of America, i.e., the GOP.

Would you be happy if we called the democratic party "the black person's party?" don't insult everyone who doesn't agree with you on here because of one poster.

 

[Annie]

I would disagree with you. I would say that that platform is supported by the majority of the GOP. Also if its centrist Democrats that support this platform then we are screwed because their party is controlled by the left.

I would say further that those who want to rebuild the party on sanctity of marriage and Roe vs. Wade can march their happy asses on down the road and join the Constitution Pary. They have already destroyed the GOP with those two wedge issues. Lets not do it again.

Are we neighbors? LOL! One other issue should not be part of GOP-intelligent design, lord help us!

I'm not anti-evangelical, but they have been too dominating for too long.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I am neither American

clearly

nor really conservative,

... that's hardly news..

but I would regard the following as important:

1: Emphasis on personal freedoms

"Personal Freedoms? Which is to avoid saying Individual Rights?

2: Small state, more rights to individual states (what was that shit about Bush prohibiting California from enacting Enviromental protection laws? Do that stuff in Bavaria and they might secede from Germany)

So the answer is 'Yes' then, as the US government intervening in CA enviro-whacko laws, was two fold: first the CA laws infringed upon the means of the indvidual to exercise their God gven rights and secondly, they prohibited CA from producing sufficient energy to provide for California's energy NEEDS... You see California didn't want to pay for the cost of importing their energy needs and was demanding that the US government, in effect, nationalize the power grid, so California enviro-nuts could feel good about the ethereal enviromental impact caused by the demise of the obscure rodents, insects and other irrelevancies.

3: Emphasis on Policies that work,

ROFLMNAO... SWEET MOTHER THAT IS HYSTERICAL... a GERMAN socialist talkign about 'policies that work.' Aren't you the people that were central to TWO WORLD WARS in just the last 100 years? I think you and your herd would do well to avoid such assertions for say... a hundred years.

I yet have to see a good argument for the current American Health system

Oh... that's easy, the American healthcare system, prior to the influence of massive governmental regulations worked because it was market driven; meaning it met the needs of a market place, developed technologies and pharmcuticals which were highly specialized which returned extremely high rates of efficacy... of course, the left manipulated the market through the forced acceptance of HMO's, which they now demand are evil exemplified and want to 'fix the problem's associated with HMOs' by nationalizing the healthcare system; which will make he HMO look like solid gold Blue Cross insurance with one's own private staff of medical specialists... by comparison.

4: In my eyes, the most important thing for your own pursuit of happiness is your available education.

Now how sad is that? And no doubt by 'education' you mean to impart the concept better illustrated through the use of 'indoctrination.'

5: Pragmatism, just political pragmatism. As opposed to "theatralic micromilitarism" on the international and "intransparent pseudosocialism" on the economical politics.

And by pragmatism you mean to impart the concept better illustrated through the word 'appeasement' of those who cause discomfort.

Now you're a European, didn't Europe try that approach and wasn't there some kind of seriosu problem which all but destroyed your continent and killed tens of millions of your citizens in a period of just less than 6 years?

I mean considering that, do you think that pragmatism is really the way to go? Especially considering that Germany is all but defensless and should a world power which is not really willing to go along with your pragmatic approach, ever desire to take Germany... you people would be taken in short order, should the United States fail to come to your aid, because it became a bunch of panty waists socialists... not unlike yourself.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I would disagree with you. I would say that that platform is supported by the majority of the GOP. Also if its centrist Democrats that support this platform then we are screwed because their party is controlled by the left.

I would say further that those who want to rebuild the party on sanctity of marriage and Roe vs. Wade can march their happy asses on down the road and join the Constitution Pary. They have already destroyed the GOP with those two wedge issues. Lets not do it again.

The GOP will be reconstructed on the sanctity of Marriage, which is the rejection of the normalization of faggery... along with the respect for human life in the inevitable over-turning of the abomination that is "ROE."

And it should be noted that once the left rises up and takes to the street demanding that to which they've been convinced they are entitled, triggering the looming civil war... We, the Americans that will put that rebellion down will not find a distinction between the Democrat left and the GOP left that handed them power...

 

[CrimsonWhite]

The GOP will be reconstructed on the sanctity of Marriage, which is the rejection of the normalization of faggery... along with the respect for human life in the inevitable over-turning of the abomination that is "ROE."

And it should be noted that once the left rises up and takes to the street demanding that to which they've been convinced they are entitled, triggering the looming civil war... We, the Americans that will put that rebellion down will not find a distinction between the Democrat left and the GOP left that handed them power...

Your simple mindedness is the problem with the party. Roe will never be overturned. We have a conservative court right now, yet Roe is still the law of the land. Why do you think that is? As for sanctity of marriage. This already the law. Clinton it into law. Yes it is being challenged, but those challeges are being defeated. Why rebuild a the party on an issue that already has a law that supports your position? To do so would be stupid. One because there is no reason to fight a battl ethat has already been won. Two, because it is a wedge issue that will do nothing but divide the electorate even more than it already is.

We ahve built the party on wedge issues such as these for 28 years and it destroyed us. Why repeat our mistakes?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

You might as well be a Democrat, if that's your platform. That's broadly where most mainstream, centrist Democrats are today.

ROFLMNAO... ABSOLUTELY FALSE. Total unadulterated BULLSHIT. The Democrat party today is WHOLLY, THROUGHLY, COMPLETELY CONTROLLED BY and COMPRISED OF: RADICAL LEFTISTS.

The scope of 'the government staying out of your lives falls into and NOT BEYOND three facets:

First: The "right" to fuck your buddy in the ass and marry him so he can share your insurance...

Two: The "RIGHT" to strip the life you're responsible for conceiving, where that life is deemed BY YOU to be INCONVENIENT.

THREE: The "RIGHT" to GET FREE, FIRST CLASS< HIGHLY SPECIALIZED< READILY AVAILABLE MEDICAL CARE: [color='red"]PAID FOR BY SOMEONE ELSE[/color]

I'd throw in a pro-science plank along with the pro-environment plank, for good measure.

Which is to avoid saying 'pro-politicised science, through which ethereal myths such as Anthroplogic Global Warming and other anti-individual Liberty farces can be advanced; not the least of which is the absurdity of secular humanism...

This isn't 1972 anymore, and its not the Party of McGovern [/quote]

That ain't no shit... McGovern would blush at the Marxism on the US Horizon. McGovern was an AMATUER compared to hese subversive fucks.

But the good news is you're going to push the US directly into a civil war and we, what's left of America will destroy you for your trouble. All we're waiting on is you to start it. And that can be anytime... if tonights not too soon, that would work for me... just take to the streets on mass, in a frenzy of rage demanding that to which you're entitled and we'll take it from there.

 

[elvis]

Your simple mindedness is the problem with the party. Roe will never be overturned. We have a conservative court right now, yet Roe is still the law of the land. Why do you think that is? As for sanctity of marriage. This already the law. Clinton it into law. Yes it is being challenged, but those challeges are being defeated. Why rebuild a the party on an issue that already has a law that supports your position? To do so would be stupid. One because there is no reason to fight a battl ethat has already been won. Two, because it is a wedge issue that will do nothing but divide the electorate even more than it already is.

We ahve built the party on wedge issues such as these for 28 years and it destroyed us. Why repeat our mistakes?

It's one vote from being conservative. Kennedy is the "middle of the road" justice that keeps Roe legal.