Ah, the anti-Palinism that permeated the media and Hollywood culture would be ramped up multiple times against Romney.
Bigotry still exists in America - it's called liberalism...
Gingrich insults GOP members
- Thread starter JimH52
- Start date
Ah, the anti-Palinism that permeated the media and Hollywood culture would be ramped up multiple times against Romney.
Bigotry still exists in America - it's called liberalism...
American Horse
AKA "Mustang"
Are we admitting that we can't select our own nominee; that the media and the left does that for us? Like what happened to Gingrich, Palin and that which resulted in McCain?
ItsFairmont
Member
- Apr 2, 2009
- 303
- 50
- 16
What the Republicans need is actually just consistency and honesty.
You can't say, "I'm a conservative" when you're on your third marriage, don't attend church, and engage in heavy drinking, and other immoral acts.
You guys keep bringing up Ronald Reagan (whom I admired), and I have a challenge for you:
Out of Palin, McCain, Romney, Rush, Bush, Gingrich, and the like, name one....just one current Republican who is worth a dime compared to Ronald Reagan.
Ronald Reagan was a great Republican, and Bush Sr. was so-so.
But nobody since comes close.
Not even close.
Oh wait. There is one, but you guys hated him for being a real conservative.
Ron Paul.
Don't forget Mike Huckabee.
You guys missed the golden rings, and they were right in front of your face the entire time.
Ron Paul could have beaten Obama easily. But you guys wanted someone corporate.
You can't say, "I'm a conservative" when you're on your third marriage, don't attend church, and engage in heavy drinking, and other immoral acts.
You guys keep bringing up Ronald Reagan (whom I admired), and I have a challenge for you:
Out of Palin, McCain, Romney, Rush, Bush, Gingrich, and the like, name one....just one current Republican who is worth a dime compared to Ronald Reagan.
Ronald Reagan was a great Republican, and Bush Sr. was so-so.
But nobody since comes close.
Not even close.
Oh wait. There is one, but you guys hated him for being a real conservative.
Ron Paul.
Don't forget Mike Huckabee.
You guys missed the golden rings, and they were right in front of your face the entire time.
Ron Paul could have beaten Obama easily. But you guys wanted someone corporate.
Last edited:
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Lordy, lordy. I agree with you completely, ol' Pubes. Just get all the other GOP wingnuts to agree, and the Dems will have 70 Senators before 2010
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Perhaps instead of trying to find the 'Golden Candidate', you people should be looking for policies that are meaningful for the American Citizen.
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
"We will be welcomed with flowers."
"The insurgency is in its last throes."
CrimsonWhite
*****istrator Emeritus
Yep. You just spun that right up to what you wanted it to be. All the while, completely missing the ******* point.
Kicking the moderates out of the party would destroy it. Any one who says otherwise is an embecile.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Consider whom you are addressing.
CrimsonWhite
*****istrator Emeritus
Point well taken.
CrimsonWhite
*****istrator Emeritus
I assume you want moderate Republican to be defined. This is what it is as I know it to be. These are principles that have defined the animal that is the moderate Republican since the 1850's, with the exception of renewable energy.
Cute reads like a laundry list for people whose operative idea when faced by leftist vituperation is run for cover.
A passion for the civil liberties of all is what makes me a conservative.
A belief that the Constitution is a living, breathing document with timeless values that must be made relevant in a modern age;
Double speak for it should mean what we want it to regardless of what the people who actually wrote the document clearly meant.
A commitment to protect the environment and not engage in mindless exploitation of the nation's natural beauty. A spirited case must be made for reusable energy sources like solar power. Modern technology provides many options before the earth is harshly, brutally, and needlessly pillaged
In other words if a leftist says environment we are going to kowtow so fast we'll get a nose bleed from whacking it on the ground. It doesn't matter how freaking retarded the ideas that come after it is or how little sense it makes or what science actually says about the issue we'll just keep on kowtowing because that's what we do.
A strong belief that diversity -- gender, racial, social, sexual, ethnic, and religious -- should be celebrated because it gives the United States moral strength. Diversity -- in the long-term, encourages respect, understanding, and a greater sense of community;
Obviously you are unfamiliar with the notion of familiarity breeding contempt. I'm in favor, however, of diversity however I am not in favor of government forced diversity being jammed up some one's ass with a cattle prod since that generally results in even more ethnic and other friction that we don't need.
A commitment to fiscal prudence and limited government.
Yeah me too but you can't do the rest of this bilge in your list and have limited fiscally prudent government.
A recognition that government does have a basic social responsibility to help those in need;
And that there is the primary culprit in breaking the bank. The more people the government helps out the more over time it will find itslef compelled to help out until eventually you have only to classes of people bureaucrats on this sobbing to bureaucrats for help.
A belief that the nation does have international responsibilities; Of course we do the argument is largely about exactly what those entail.
A belief that God and religion have a very important place in America -- at the dinner table and in churches, temples, and mosques. But it should never be used by politicians to advance a narrow moral agenda;
So a politicians religious views or lack there of shouldn't affect how he does his job, what laws he thinks are best for the country etc? Lot's of luck with that one dude.
A belief that the national government should be used in a limited manner to advance the common good;
Well yes of course the fed is likely the best agent to get a road from point A to point B when points A&B are in different states. It also should be our first line of defense against attack from without. Almost no one argues that. But precisely how is the common good served when the government at what ever level takes from A and gives to B?
A commitment never to put party above country.
If your party is doing as it you think it ought to do how are you putting party over country by trying to get its agenda in place? Do you compromise with the idiot that wants to drill more holes in the bottom of the boat to let the water out or in the name of the common good do you chuck his stupid ass overboard and let the sharks have him the minute he even tries to drill a hole?
A responsibility to publicly criticize those who call themselves Republican when the situation merits. Moderate/Progressives have a duty to vote against the party line when it doesn't serve the greater good. Doing so doesn't make them less Republican; it demonstrates that they have the honor, political courage, and intellectual honesty to put nation above party.
Yes when Republicans act like Democrats we have a duty to speak out against such idiocy.
A passion for the civil liberties of all is what makes me a conservative.
A belief that the Constitution is a living, breathing document with timeless values that must be made relevant in a modern age;
Double speak for it should mean what we want it to regardless of what the people who actually wrote the document clearly meant.
A commitment to protect the environment and not engage in mindless exploitation of the nation's natural beauty. A spirited case must be made for reusable energy sources like solar power. Modern technology provides many options before the earth is harshly, brutally, and needlessly pillaged
In other words if a leftist says environment we are going to kowtow so fast we'll get a nose bleed from whacking it on the ground. It doesn't matter how freaking retarded the ideas that come after it is or how little sense it makes or what science actually says about the issue we'll just keep on kowtowing because that's what we do.
A strong belief that diversity -- gender, racial, social, sexual, ethnic, and religious -- should be celebrated because it gives the United States moral strength. Diversity -- in the long-term, encourages respect, understanding, and a greater sense of community;
Obviously you are unfamiliar with the notion of familiarity breeding contempt. I'm in favor, however, of diversity however I am not in favor of government forced diversity being jammed up some one's ass with a cattle prod since that generally results in even more ethnic and other friction that we don't need.
A commitment to fiscal prudence and limited government.
Yeah me too but you can't do the rest of this bilge in your list and have limited fiscally prudent government.
A recognition that government does have a basic social responsibility to help those in need;
And that there is the primary culprit in breaking the bank. The more people the government helps out the more over time it will find itslef compelled to help out until eventually you have only to classes of people bureaucrats on this sobbing to bureaucrats for help.
A belief that the nation does have international responsibilities; Of course we do the argument is largely about exactly what those entail.
A belief that God and religion have a very important place in America -- at the dinner table and in churches, temples, and mosques. But it should never be used by politicians to advance a narrow moral agenda;
So a politicians religious views or lack there of shouldn't affect how he does his job, what laws he thinks are best for the country etc? Lot's of luck with that one dude.
A belief that the national government should be used in a limited manner to advance the common good;
Well yes of course the fed is likely the best agent to get a road from point A to point B when points A&B are in different states. It also should be our first line of defense against attack from without. Almost no one argues that. But precisely how is the common good served when the government at what ever level takes from A and gives to B?
A commitment never to put party above country.
If your party is doing as it you think it ought to do how are you putting party over country by trying to get its agenda in place? Do you compromise with the idiot that wants to drill more holes in the bottom of the boat to let the water out or in the name of the common good do you chuck his stupid ass overboard and let the sharks have him the minute he even tries to drill a hole?
A responsibility to publicly criticize those who call themselves Republican when the situation merits. Moderate/Progressives have a duty to vote against the party line when it doesn't serve the greater good. Doing so doesn't make them less Republican; it demonstrates that they have the honor, political courage, and intellectual honesty to put nation above party.
Yes when Republicans act like Democrats we have a duty to speak out against such idiocy.
CrimsonWhite
*****istrator Emeritus
You could just take those principles at face value, since the party that you hold so dear as a conservatrve juggernaut was founded on the majority of these principles. In all honesty, I am probably more conservative than you politically. What makes me a moderate in this day and age is the same thing that got Barry Goldwater labeled as a liberal. I have zero interest in social issues as they pertain to government. ie. gay marriage, abortion, and so on. I am pro-life, but that is a personnal decision and in no way translate to government. Roe is a piss poor attempt at at a legal decision, but the merits behind it are relevant. As for homos getting hitched, I could give a damn and that posituion isn't real popular with the party these days. That is what gets me the label of moderate and if thats the badge that gets thrown my way because I adhere to partyy line that is older than the memeories of those who skew the platform to fit any and all issues that really have no place in government, then so be it. I'll just smile and keep voting Republican.
The current firebrand republicans remind me of the uberlefties in the Democratic party.
Their radical views are rejected by the majority of people and they INSIST that their party lost power because it wasn't radical enough.
The Republicans have lost the NorthEast because most of their policies end up hurting the people in the Northeast.
That is precisely why those "modernate Republicans " still left in the NE find themselves so often voting with the Dems.
Failure to do so would mean that they abandoned their constituents in favor of political theories that don't serve their voters.
What amazes me is how the Dems in the Nother East continue to hold THEIR seats, as many of the votes they have cast ALSO screwed the NorthEastern working classes.
Free trade was clearly destructive to the industrial centers in the Mid West and Nother east and benefitting the Southern states as they are the least industrialized area in the nation.
Allowing the defanging of the unions ALSO benefitted the Southern states and again at the expense of the industrialized states.
NOt getting serious about alternative energy policies also more dramtically effected the NE and Midwest as they are more dependent on oil imports than the Southern and Western states.
All those are thanks to BOTH parties working hand in hand, yet the DEMS weren't seriously punished for screwing their own constitutents.
Perhaps the Republicans of the NE are smarter, on average than the Dems.
Sure seems like it to me based on my personal experience dealing with partisans in both parties.
Their radical views are rejected by the majority of people and they INSIST that their party lost power because it wasn't radical enough.
The Republicans have lost the NorthEast because most of their policies end up hurting the people in the Northeast.
That is precisely why those "modernate Republicans " still left in the NE find themselves so often voting with the Dems.
Failure to do so would mean that they abandoned their constituents in favor of political theories that don't serve their voters.
What amazes me is how the Dems in the Nother East continue to hold THEIR seats, as many of the votes they have cast ALSO screwed the NorthEastern working classes.
Free trade was clearly destructive to the industrial centers in the Mid West and Nother east and benefitting the Southern states as they are the least industrialized area in the nation.
Allowing the defanging of the unions ALSO benefitted the Southern states and again at the expense of the industrialized states.
NOt getting serious about alternative energy policies also more dramtically effected the NE and Midwest as they are more dependent on oil imports than the Southern and Western states.
All those are thanks to BOTH parties working hand in hand, yet the DEMS weren't seriously punished for screwing their own constitutents.
Perhaps the Republicans of the NE are smarter, on average than the Dems.
Sure seems like it to me based on my personal experience dealing with partisans in both parties.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
What you mean, is when a Republican today acts as if he is sane and in touch reality, you speak out against him or her, and push them out of the party.Old Rocks
Diamond Member
The current positions of the Rushpublican Party has, at best, a tenuous connection to reality. That is why there are 60 Dem Senators, 265 Dem Reps, and a Dem President. You lost the 2008 election in a major way because of the narrow ideological base, and you are losing even more because of the hardening of that idealogy.
But, then, why should I care? I am a Dem, and there will be another party to take the place of the Rushpublicans, the same as the Whigs were replaced.
Newt does this all the time, he is all over the place. As soon as you start thinking he is leaning left, he makes a sharp right turn again.
I don't believe he knows what he is talking about anymore.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
This is why President Obama won the primaries. He did address these issues. Now he is addressing them as President.
For the citizens of this nation, we need a paradigm shift in the Health Care System. There are many systems out there with a good track record, it is time to go out and see what fits us.
On energy, we need to get off of oil, and cease to pump GHGs into the atmosphere burning coal and naturel gas. We have the technical capability to do this. In fact, the present progress being made in the field of alternative energy promising an economical way for energy independence, not only at the National level, but at the local, community and household, level.
Education. Why do so many of our bright students that are poor fail to attend or complete college? Because, unlike most Western democracies, we make it financially difficult for them to attend college. And we fail to encourage scholarship at all levels in public schools. Who gets paid the most, the high school football coach, or their best science teacher?
Military. We need a strong military, but do we need to spend more on our military than the rest of the world, combined, spends on theirs? We need to look hard at what we are doing, and re-think our policies.
President Obama has stated that he intends to address all of these issues, and we all need to put in our two cents worth. Yes, and I do mean many here who have fundemental disagreements with my own political philosophy.
Failure of the opposition to actively oppose the incompetant policies of the last administration is part of how we have arrived at where we are today. Failure of those supporting the administration to look at the proposed policies, and state that they looked like recipes for failure played a huge part in the debacle we have seen in the last eight years. No man, and no administration, is proof against bad ideas. And an intelligent critique, from whatever source, that puts the finger on the faulty assumptions behind the bad policy, is a favor to the whole nation. Should the present administration fail to heed the warnings, repeatedly, as the last administration did, well, that is what elections are for.
Last edited:
People who actually think in realistic terms often seem inconsistent and weak-willed to those who are beholden to dogma.
Newt understands that the Republican Party stands for no issues other than putting Republican team members into office.
Naturally those Republicans who believe that the GOP stands for some principles and political theories are going to be disappointed with how the party is run.
The Dems have exactly the same problem.
This disconnect between rehetoric and policies usually don't trouble the Rep partisans, but since they're now a party out of favor with the majority of American somebody needs to get the blame.
Ironically, it's those Republicans who can actually think on their feet who seem to be getting most of the blame.
the partisans actually BLEIVE the blather they'd been fed and are shocked to discover that the leaders into whom they put their trust, have been lying to them all along.
Hence we read on this board, for example, that Bush II is a liberal or socialist or whatever.
Their confusion would be amusing if it didn't actaully matter so much that they wake up from their childish dreamworld.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
Do Komodo Dragons kill by bacteria or Venom? Or???- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 0
-
