TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Colin Powell Endorses Obama
Pages (7): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 »

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov wamp wamp: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/...p-behind-obama/

I love when it takes people 8-10 years to catch up, but nonetheless, I'm glad people are. Hopefully this cancer gets killed off soon. Contrary to the opinions of those like The17sss and Q5, I don't think that Obama is the Messiah, and do disagree with him on quite a few issues, but I'd rather be a "leftist intellectual" than not be an intellectual at all, and right now, there's no room on the right side for anyone learned.

quote:

Civil War on the Right By E. J. Dionne Jr. Friday, October 24, 2008; A19 Conservatives are at each other's throats, and here's what's revealing about how divided they are: The critics of John McCain and the critics of Sarah Palin represent entirely different camps. One set of critics, skeptical social conservatives, are precisely the people McCain was trying to mollify by picking Palin as his running mate. This includes the faithful of the religious right who remember McCain as their enemy in 2000 and parts of the gun crowd who always saw McCain as soft on their issues. That McCain felt a need to make such an outlandishly risky choice speaks to how insecure his hold was on the core Republican vote. A candidate is supposed to rally the base during the primaries and reach out to the middle at election time. McCain got it backward, and it's hurting him. A Pew Research Center survey this week found that among political independents, Palin's unfavorable rating has almost doubled since mid-September, from 27 to 50 percent. Whatever enthusiasm Palin inspired among conservative ideologues is more than offset by middle-of-the-road defections. Even on the right, she hasn't done the job. In The Post tracking poll released yesterday, Barack Obama drew 22 percent of the vote from self-described conservatives. That's a seven-point gain on John Kerry's 2004 conservative share. Yet the pro-Palin right is still impatient with McCain for not being tough enough -- as if he has not run one of the most negative campaigns in recent history. This camp believes that if McCain only shouted the names "Bill Ayers" and "Jeremiah Wright" at the top of his lungs, the whole election would turn around. Then there are those conservatives who see Palin as a "fatal cancer to the Republican Party" (David Brooks), as someone who "doesn't know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin" (Kathleen Parker), as "a symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics" (Peggy Noonan). These conservatives deserve credit for acknowledging how ill-suited Palin is for high office. But what we see here is a deep split between parts of the conservative elite and much of the rank and file. For years, many of the elite conservatives were happy to harvest the votes of devout Christians and gun owners by waging a phony class war against "liberal elitists" and "leftist intellectuals." Suddenly, the conservative writers are discovering that the very anti-intellectualism their side courted and encouraged has begun to consume their movement. The cause of Edmund Burke, Leo Strauss, Robert Nisbet and William F. Buckley Jr. is now in the hands of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity -- and Sarah Palin. Reason has been overwhelmed by propaganda, ideas by slogans, learned manifestoes by direct-mail hit pieces. And then there is George W. Bush. Conservatives once hailed him as creating an enduring majority on behalf of their cause. Now, they cast him as the goat in their story of decline. The conservative critique of Bush is a familiar rant against his advocacy of big government and huge deficits -- now supplemented by horror over his embrace of actual socialism with the partial nationalization of big banks. And, yes, a fair number of conservatives were never wild about the adventure in Iraq. Things are so bad that the internecine warriors on the right have begun copying the rhetoric of the old left. In a Washington Times column this week upbraiding dissidents such as Brooks and Noonan, Tony Blankley, the conservative writer and activist, fell back on an old left slogan, asking them: "Whose side are you on, comrade?" This is a revelatory question. It arises when a movement has lost its sense of solidarity and purpose, when the "sides" are no longer clear. There is no unified "right" or "center-right," which is why we are no longer a conservative country, if we ever were. Conservatism has finally crashed on problems for which its doctrines offered no solutions (the economic crisis foremost among them, thus Bush's apostasy) and on its refusal to acknowledge that the "real America" is more diverse, pragmatic and culturally moderate than the place described in Palin's speeches or imagined by the right-wing talk show hosts. Conservatives came to believe that if they repeated phrases such as "Joe the Plumber" often enough, they could persuade working-class voters that policies tilted heavily in favor of the very privileged were actually designed with Joe in mind. It isn't working anymore. No wonder conservatives are turning on each other so ferociously. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...8102302869.html

I love this. Sensible Republicans are defecting en masse to the opposition, while the Latinlover's of the country hold steadfast to their "stay the course" bullshit...

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy Contrary to the opinions of those like The17sss and Q5, I don't think that Obama is the Messiah, and do disagree with him on quite a few issues, but I'd rather be a "leftist intellectual" than not be an intellectual at all, and right now, there's no room on the right side for anyone learned.

What issues do you disagree with Obama on? And like there isn't a civil war within the democrat party? Obama is supposed to be the great unifier. Did you already forget about the primarys? Clintonites were saying about Obama, and Obama saying about the Clintons, what they have been saying for decades about the Republicans. There were charges of racism on both sides of the Democrat presidential campaign, bringing up the drug use rumors, the drug selling rumors of Barack Obama, the criticism of Sidney Poitier being compared to Obama and vice-versa as a sellout going to the white folks' home for dinner... Hillary's moment of saying "So what? Were it not for a Democrat president, what Dr. King did would never have happened," in response to Obama praising MLK... Bill being accused by the Obama campaign of being racist while campaigning in SC... Hillary playing the gender card and crying to get sympathy... the Dems are the originators of identity politics and got caught up in it like crazy as the primary heated up. Good that you consider yourself as an "intellectual" though... I needed one last good laugh before going to bed.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I love this. Sensible Republicans are defecting en masse to the opposition, while the Latinlover's of the country hold steadfast to their "stay the course" bullshit...

They aren't sensible... they are just preserving their own self interests and doing what they think will keep them in the circle of power in Washington. I say good riddence... now we know who they are and they will not be welcome back in the Republican party. My feelings about those Benedict Arnolds are summed up nicely by Charles Krauthammer (who even with the appearance of a snapping turtle can sum it up eloquently):

quote:

McCain Gets My Vote: I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb:

"Contrarian that I am, I�m voting for John McCain. I�m not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it�s over before it�s over. I�m talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they�re left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years.

I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe � neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) � yelling �Stop!� I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I�d rather lose an election than lose my bearings.

First, I�ll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The �erratic� temperament issue, for example. As if McCain�s risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.

McCain the �erratic� is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.

Nor will I countenance the �dirty campaign� pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed McCain supports �cutting Social Security benefits in half.� And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.

McCain�s critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What�s astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.

Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Obama�s most egregious association � with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed.

The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic, soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who�s been cramming on these issues for the last year, who�s never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign-policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of �a world that stands as one�), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as �the tragedy of 9/11,� a term more appropriate for a bus accident?

Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign-policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts, but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?

There�s just no comparison. Obama�s own running mate warned this week that Obama�s youth and inexperience will invite a crisis � indeed a crisis �generated� precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on November 4 to invite that test?

And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he�s been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it, and � finally � deny its success.

The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.

Today�s economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I�m for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss They aren't sensible... they are just preserving their own self interests and doing what they think will keep them in the circle of power in Washington. I say good riddence... now we know who they are and they will not be welcome back in the Republican party. My feelings about those Benedict Arnolds are summed up nicely by Charles Krauthammer (who even with the appearance of a snapping turtle can sum it up eloquently):

Congratulations. What's left of your party are the ideological nut jobs which brought the party down in flaming glory. Have fun losing the election.

All of a sudden Powell feels inspired by Obama... he endorses him because he feels inspired by Obama(one of the most liberal senators) and Obama is a reflection of his beliefs I believe the man! Although, he shows sympathy for the "negative" treatment that Obama has been getting for his years of association with all these radical characters. So, why dosent General Powell show the same sympathy towards vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin? I guess that in Powells world Palin has been getting the most fair treatment.

The hypocricy of this man shows! Shame on you General. You should have kept your mouth shut to atleast preserve some credibility.... if it is that you still have some.

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover The hypocricy of this man shows! Shame on you General. You should have kept your mouth shut to atleast preserve some credibility.... if it is that you still have some.

GOP mantra. SHUT UP AND OBEY.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss What issues do you disagree with Obama on?

I dunno, coming from western PA and harboring 5 guns that are mine and stored at my parents' place, gun control isn't a hotspot on my agenda of Obama agreement. I know, this must be stunning...

At the same time, I realize that they aren't suitable for my NYC apartment because there's not the same use for them here. It quite frustrates me that people can't see both sides of these issues (and I'm not just a supporter of gun rights for hunting).

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss What issues do you disagree with Obama on? And like there isn't a civil war within the democrat party?

quote:

If Obama's [44 percent] share holds, it would top the 43 percent of white voters who backed Bill Clinton in 1996, when the Democrat won a plurality among white females and 38 percent of white men, the best performance by a Democrat in all those categories since 1976.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14921.html

Sounds like a divided Democratic party to me.

I have a question for you - are your comments and rants based on actual observations of this campaign, or do you just make up facts and opinions that would help your candidate's agenda if true?

quote:

Obama is supposed to be the great unifier.

Looks to me like he is. Have you seen PUMA lately? I can point to a whole lot of prominent conservatives that have endorsed Obama - can you point to any prominent liberals that have voiced discontent within the ranks since the convention? This is a unified party whether you like that fact or not.

quote:

Did you already forget about the primarys? Clintonites were saying about Obama, and Obama saying about the Clintons, what they have been saying for decades about the Republicans. There were charges of racism on both sides of the Democrat presidential campaign, bringing up the drug use rumors, the drug selling rumors of Barack Obama,

Never advanced by a campaign, just Fox News. In fact, even Rudy Giuliani called those rumors out of line.

quote:

the criticism of Sidney Poitier being compared to Obama and vice-versa as a sellout going to the white folks' home for dinner...

Again, was this alleged by a campaign?

quote:

Hillary's moment of saying "So what? Were it not for a Democrat president, what Dr. King did would never have happened," in response to Obama praising MLK...

A non story if I've ever heard one. And I must have missed this one, because I don't recall her saying that.

quote:

Bill being accused by the Obama campaign of being racist while campaigning in SC...

Never happened.

quote:

Hillary playing the gender card and crying to get sympathy...

Yes, because any real emotion is "playing the gender card" if you're female. That sounds more misogynistic than anything I've heard all week.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss They aren't sensible... they are just preserving their own self interests and doing what they think will keep them in the circle of power in Washington. I say good riddence... now we know who they are and they will not be welcome back in the Republican party. My feelings about those Benedict Arnolds are summed up nicely by Charles Krauthammer (who even with the appearance of a snapping turtle can sum it up eloquently):

Wow, you've really outdone yourself with partisan drivel today. "Benedict Arnolds"? Lol, remind me never to disagree with anything you write. So it's only patriotic to toe the line and mime everything related to you from the GOP base? It's not patriotic to realize your party is making a mockery of itself by selecting a candidate unparalleled in incomptetence?

Well, you should know that you aren't going to have much of a party to exclude the conservative intellectual crowd from re-joining.

quote:

To the extent that geography correlates with ideology among congressional Republicans, a major sweep by the Democrats could really be in a position to completely break the gluons that bind the broader party together. The GOP will lose a disportionate number of seats in the Northeast, Midwest and West and keep a disrportionate number of seats in the South. So the remnant of the party, as it were, will be right-wing Southern conservatives.... even more so that it is now.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/hey_follow_up_on_last.php

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I have a question for you - are your comments and rants based on actual observations of this campaign, or do you just make up facts and opinions that would help your candidate's agenda if true?

Yes, based on actual things I've read. I'm not making stuff up to help my candidate's agenda... why would I? I'm not going to change any minds in this forum, that's for sure... and I wouldn't waste my time trying

quote:

Looks to me like he is. Have you seen PUMA lately? I can point to a whole lot of prominent conservatives that have endorsed Obama - can you point to any prominent liberals that have voiced discontent within the ranks since the convention? This is a unified party whether you like that fact or not.

That's the thing... they aren't, and never were "prominent conservatives".... they have been the so-called moderate ones who were the very ones clamoring for McCain to be the nominee of the GOP because as they said in their infinite wisdom, it was the moderates and independants the GOP needed to attract if they wanted to win. Conservatism is very strictly defined, and they don't fit the definition.

quote:

Never advanced by a campaign, just Fox News. In fact, even Rudy Giuliani called those rumors out of line.

You'll take Rudy at his word when it fits your narrative I see. It wasn't something manufactured by Fox News... for 1, sometimes they actually report on the things the Obama-mania-media won't report on, as they have been protecting him througout. And secondly, Here are some sources:
1) Clinton/Obama Clash Over Race Issue: http://www.breitbart.com/article.ph...&show_article=1
2) Clinton to Attend Dr. King Event as Campaign for NY Heats Up: http://www.nysun.com/new-york/clint...campaign/69466/
3) Clinton Denies Being a Racist: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_r...ment/index.html
4)Hillary Clinton gaffe over Martin Luther King may cost votes in South Carolina: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...icle3173652.ece

quote:

A non story if I've ever heard one. And I must have missed this one, because I don't recall her saying that.

It was a paraphrase... her actual words: �Dr King�s dream began to be realised when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done.�

quote:

Yes, because any real emotion is "playing the gender card" if you're female. That sounds more misogynistic than anything I've heard all week.

Real emotion? First of all, robots don't have emotions. But really, you think it was a coincidence that happend right on the heels of a growing consensus that Hillary was an ice cold person? Nothing that happens with the Clintons is coincidence. That was one of the most fake crying scenes I've seen outside of Hollywood. If that statement is the most misogynistic thing you've heard all week, you don't get out much. If that "offended" your sensibilities than you'll love this...(lol I'm hoping you have a sense of humor about the photos).

Haha, this is hilarious. Go ahead and call the anti-woman, anti-minority, anti-moderate, anti-intellectual wing of the Republican Party home. I'm sure they're glad to have you.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Did she punch herself in the face too? I think there's more to this story than meets the eye (no pun intended), and I don't necessarily mean from a political standpoint.

Umm, you do realize the lid's been blown off this completely, right?

And what's even worse, the McCain campaign deliberately spread this false story:



and:

quote:

John Verrilli, the news director for KDKA in Pittsburgh, told TPM Election Central that McCain's Pennsylvania campaign communications director gave one of his reporters a detailed version of the attack that included a claim that the alleged attacker said, "You're with the McCain campaign? I'm going to teach you a lesson." Verrilli also told TPM that the McCain spokesperson had claimed that the "B" stood for Barack. http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpo...porters_inc.php

The story was earlier identified as this:



And this was even more interesting - an Executive VP from Faux News said this:

quote:

If Ms. Todd�s allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator Obama, not because they are racists (with due respect to Rep. John Murtha), but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee. If the incident turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain�s quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting. http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2...23/jmoody_1023/

You're God-damned fucking right it is - the McCain camp fully involved in race-baiting here. And that's not only sad, it's downright scandalous. All it puts to light all the talk about Powell supposedly voting for Obama because, well, he's a fellow "brother" in da mutha-fuckin' hood, and we's gots to stick togetha against whitey. And well, if Rush says it's true, by golly it's just gospel. Nevermind that darn silly evidence, what the pill-popping extremist on AM radio says simply must be true (sorry, not directed towards you specifically, Shakka).

Race-baiting all around. Lovely.

I never thought I'd see the day where the Republican party would be in this much disarray. For them to stoop this low, jesus, can you blame the fair-minded folks running full-sprint out of the party to vote for Obama?

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Haha, this is hilarious. Go ahead and call the anti-woman, anti-minority, anti-moderate, anti-intellectual wing of the Republican Party home. I'm sure they're glad to have you.

those are all such weak, stereotypical generalities that have been hovering over the GOP for decades. Democrats are the ones who lump everyone into indetity groups based on all of the above.

Conservatism has absolutely NOTHING to do with race or gender. It's based on personal liberty: individual freedom, a small state that functions for the express purpose of defending and protecting the population. If the conservative Republican base allows itself to get watered down by a bunch of people who are embarrassed over that position, they're not conservatives and I'm happy to see them out of the party. It doesn't take any balls to be a "moderate" who hangs on till the end to see where victory will be and then goes in that direction. The reason that we're in this mess today is because we had to start making this "Republican" tent big, watering down what conservatism is. The blueprint for success was put out there by Regan, who got Democrats and moderats to move to the right... he didn't get them by pretending to be one of them like McCain does.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Conservatism has absolutely NOTHING to do with race or gender. It's based on personal liberty: individual freedom,

Excellent. I look forward to hearing your voice joining mine and many others in voicing dissent with this Administration (and admittedly, with the capitulation of the Congressional Democrats) for illegally wiretapping Americans.

I also look forward to hearing your voice for a woman's right to choose what she can and cannot do with her body.

Oh wait, just not some individual freedoms, I guess, like those, right?

quote:

a small state that functions for the express purpose of defending and protecting the population.

How funny of you to even hint at how Reagan ran his government below when you state this. Small-state my ass.

quote:

If the conservative Republican base allows itself to get watered down by a bunch of people who are embarrassed over that position, they're not conservatives and I'm happy to see them out of the party.

Me too - more than happy. Get those libertarians and non-extremists out of your party. Plenty of room underneath our Democratic big-tent, thanks. We're more than happy to have those who actually believe in a smaller government, run a fiscal policy that doesn't nose-dive us into recessions and deep six us into neverending deficits,

you know, anything but like the last 3 Republican presidents.....

quote:

It doesn't take any balls to be a "moderate" who hangs on till the end to see where victory will be and then goes in that direction.

Perhaps not. It also doesn't take an idiot to see and call out your candidate's supreme stupidity for picking someone of the likes of Palin, who's unfavorability numbers and downright moronic statements speak loudly for the direction she and McCain want to take your party and this country towards.

quote:

The reason that we're in this mess today is because we had to start making this "Republican" tent big, watering down what conservatism is.

Actually, you've had many moderate Republicans around for quite some time - longer than you've had your extremists. There were principles in your party that I admired, including things like pro-environmentalism, anti-poverty, and small government propelled by the likes of Nixon, Goldwater, etc. But you garnered up your extremists, including folks on the Christian fundamentalist and dipshit creationists wing, who helped stear your party right off the cliff, and you only have folks like Rove to blame who thought it more useful to put politics above policy.

quote:

The blueprint for success was put out there by Regan, who got Democrats and moderats to move to the right... he didn't get them by pretending to be one of them like McCain does.

Indeed Reagan was persuasive, and I tip my hat to his abilities as a good spokesman. But championing him as a means of a successful "blueprint" is interesting, because in doing so we'll also have to champion:

-over 10% of unemployment
-explosion of over $124 trade deficit in 1985 (surprisingly, it was a $2 billion surplus under Carter)
-environmentalism being completely pissed on
-quadrupled the national debt
-record setting on farm foreclosures and S&L bank failures
-billions of taxpayer dollars funded to ruthless dictatorships and terrorists, including Osama bin Laden (though to be fair it was a means of fighting the spread of Communism)
-Iran-Contra
-amnesty to illegal aliens
-cutting taxes ONCE, then raising them SIX times
-gigantic government

So sure, that's really what the country wants.....


Added in Edit:Further issues I found cute as a "blueprint" from Reagan:

-calling condiments like Ketchup a vegetable to be included in the 4 food groups for federal school lunches
-the tens of thousands of those dead by AIDS as Reagan sat on his hands and failed to respond sooner to the crisis
-tens of thousands of mentally ill that Reagan blighted by effectively ended the mental health care system and sent their asses out onto the streets
-hundreds of thousands of kids Reagan threw into further poverty when he destroyed their housing subsidies and food programs
-12,000 air traffic controllers who Reagan fired on the spot
-his wonderful "voodoo economics"
-lovely redistribution of income to the wealthy, where in the 1980's the vast majority of economic gains went primarily to the top 1-2%, while median wages for everyone else remained stagnant
-"structural adjustment" bullshit in the IMF and World Bank to which those economic policies were so discredited that neither of those two entities even use the term
-vetoing the sanctions in S. Africa passed by Congress as a result of the apartheid occurring there (that was really lovely of him too).
-Attempts at gutting the Civil Rights Commission (strange that).

And that line about "facts are stupid things" really does drive home in your party too, I'm sure......

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss those are all such weak, stereotypical generalities that have been hovering over the GOP for decades. Democrats are the ones who lump everyone into indetity groups based on all of the above. Conservatism has absolutely NOTHING to do with race or gender. It's based on personal liberty: individual freedom, a small state that functions for the express purpose of defending and protecting the population. If the conservative Republican base allows itself to get watered down by a bunch of people who are embarrassed over that position, they're not conservatives and I'm happy to see them out of the party. It doesn't take any balls to be a "moderate" who hangs on till the end to see where victory will be and then goes in that direction. The reason that we're in this mess today is because we had to start making this "Republican" tent big, watering down what conservatism is. The blueprint for success was put out there by Regan, who got Democrats and moderats to move to the right... he didn't get them by pretending to be one of them like McCain does.

You fail to realize that conservatism isn't really the driving force behind the GOP anymore.

Maybe being more blunt will help you comprehend (but I doubt it): That's the reason why conservative intellectuals are defecting, it's not because they're moderates.

The reason you're in this situation is because the Republican party is a big tent party. But it didn't water down conservatism - it made it irrelevant because most of the people under the tent, like yourself, are too stupid to understand the concepts.

You might see Democrats supporting welfare government programs and trying to help those who aren't very well-off in society. That said, Democrats don't instantaneously try to promote these people to the head of the government and tout them as the models that we base the American dream on. They try to give them opportunities to advance themselves so that one day, maybe that will be an option, if not for them, their children.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Excellent. I look forward to hearing your voice joining mine and many others in voicing dissent with this Administration (and admittedly, with the capitulation of the Congressional Democrats) for illegally wiretapping Americans. I also look forward to hearing your voice for a woman's right to choose what she can and cannot do with her body. Oh wait, just not some individual freedoms, I guess, like those, right? How funny of you to even hint at how Reagan ran his government below when you state this. Small-state my ass. Me too - more than happy. Get those libertarians and non-extremists out of your party. Plenty of room underneath our Democratic big-tent, thanks. We're more than happy to have those who actually believe in a smaller government, run a fiscal policy that doesn't nose-dive us into recessions and deep six us into neverending deficits, you know, anything but like the last 3 Republican presidents..... Perhaps not. It also doesn't take an idiot to see and call out your candidate's supreme stupidity for picking someone of the likes of Palin, who's unfavorability numbers and downright moronic statements speak loudly for the direction she and McCain want to take your party and this country towards. Actually, you've had many moderate Republicans around for quite some time - longer than you've had your extremists. There were principles in your party that I admired, including things like pro-environmentalism, anti-poverty, and small government propelled by the likes of Nixon, Goldwater, etc. But you garnered up your extremists, including folks on the Christian fundamentalist and dipshit creationists wing, who helped stear your party right off the cliff, and you only have folks like Rove to blame who thought it more useful to put politics above policy. Indeed Reagan was persuasive, and I tip my hat to his abilities as a good spokesman. But championing him as a means of a successful "blueprint" is interesting, because in doing so we'll also have to champion: -over 10% of unemployment -explosion of over $124 trade deficit in 1985 (surprisingly, it was a $2 billion surplus under Carter) -environmentalism being completely pissed on -quadrupled the national debt -record setting on farm foreclosures and S&L bank failures -billions of taxpayer dollars funded to ruthless dictatorships and terrorists, including Osama bin Laden (though to be fair it was a means of fighting the spread of Communism) -Iran-Contra -amnesty to illegal aliens -cutting taxes ONCE, then raising them SIX times -gigantic government So sure, that's really what the country wants.....

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss It's based on personal liberty: individual freedom, a small state that functions for the express purpose of defending and protecting the population. If the conservative Republican base allows itself to get watered down by a bunch of people who are embarrassed over that position, they're not conservatives and I'm happy to see them out of the party.

And the leader of your party has presided over the largest expansion of federal government since... well, Ronald Reagan.

As Opus points out, the modern Republican party is no friend of personal liberty - why do you think the real conservatives are all bailing after Sarah Palin declared the Vice President capable of influencing legislation?

Excellent posts by both Opus and Groundhog.

Democrats have really owned the issue of personal liberty for a very long time, and it's only now that the libertarian crowd is finally starting to realize it. I mean, c'mon... doesn't anybody remember Terri Schaivo?

fyi, a little Adam Smith for you:

quote:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . . The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comme...7taco_talk_coll

But yeah, only faux conservatives support the philosophy of the founder of capitalism.

I'm still holding out belief that McCain is fully aware of where he is headed, doesn't plan to win and is working to tank his campaign for the good of the country. Sacrificing his own name to see his current base doesn't retain power and doom the country. Now that would be the work of a true patriot. Either that or he has actually done a 180 on all his principles and become bedfellows with the very people he used to despise.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy You fail to realize that conservatism isn't really the driving force behind the GOP anymore. Maybe being more blunt will help you comprehend (but I doubt it): That's the reason why conservative intellectuals are defecting, it's not because they're moderates. The reason you're in this situation is because the Republican party is a big tent party. But it didn't water down conservatism - it made it irrelevant because most of the people under the tent, like yourself, are too stupid to understand the concepts. You might see Democrats supporting welfare government programs and trying to help those who aren't very well-off in society. That said, Democrats don't instantaneously try to promote these people to the head of the government and tout them as the models that we base the American dream on. They try to give them opportunities to advance themselves so that one day, maybe that will be an option, if not for them, their children.

Too stupid huh? lol... again with the personal attacks. I never said conservativism was the driving force behind the republican party anymore... my point is that's the problem; those that are defecting are not true conservatives.

You're not reading between the lines... the GOP is watered down BECAUSE it was trying to be all inclusive and that's not how conservatism works. Conservatism is what it is. It doesn't need to be moderated. It doesn't need to be redefined. It doesn't need to be upgraded.

Liberal Democrats have gotten away so long as being the caring party; they're the party that cares about the downtrodden. Liberalism has created the downtrodden and the unhappy and the miserable, and then the liberals set themselves up as their champions, say, "Only we can fix them because only we care." They don't care. Real compassion is conservatism, which promotes the individual and allows them to be the maters of their own destiny. Real conservatism wants every individual to be the best he or she can be, with nobody standing in the way.

Let a person use what their god-given talents are, combined with their ambition and their desire and their dreams, and get out of their way. We want people to amount to the most they want to be and can be. That's a much better recipe for success than massive government sponsored entitlement programs. Now,for those who have a legitimate problem that prevents them from succeeding, we (conservatives) are all for taking care of those people. But we do not want to take normal, healthy Americans and turn them into wards of the state or dependents. We don't want to look at them with arrogant condescension and say, "You're not part of the smart group... you need us to tell you where your money is going to go, where your kids can go to school, how your mortgage will be set, what you can and can't do... etc." We just don't look at people that way. You talk about hope? We hope for this country to be the best country it can be and you need the best individuals for that to happen. Time and time again, it's proven in the private sector with innovation and much more success than the govt. can do. Conservatism is about the individual. Liberalism doesn't care about the individual, just the groups... get it strait.

Like I'm going to let some brainwashed liberal loser convince me, a conservative, that I don't understand what conservatism means. I actually feel sorry for you that you believe so religiously in liberalism. When you're all growns up and have real responsibility to face in life, like running a business and signing the front of the check, maybe you're childish perspective will change. Or maybe it won't... I wouldn't bet on it.

Palin 2012?

quote:

A second McCain source tells CNN she appears to now be looking out for herself more than the McCain campaign. �She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone,� said this McCain adviser, �she does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else. Also she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: divas trust only unto themselves as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom.�

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/25/mccain-aide-palin-going-rogue/

A little gem from Andrew Sullivan (conservative Obama supporter):

quote:

"In the final days of the campaign we are not going to indulge bloggers," - Tracey Schmitt, Palin spokesperson. Or reporters like Ben Smith. One question: why is Palin in Iowa today, currently with a deep blue color on all the electoral maps, if not to start her campaign for 2012?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.c...-for-th-28.html

If you think you can take your party back, you better start quick.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov And the leader of your party has presided over the largest expansion of federal government since... well, Ronald Reagan. As Opus points out, the modern Republican party is no friend of personal liberty - why do you think the real conservatives are all bailing after Sarah Palin declared the Vice President capable of influencing legislation?

I agree with you to a point about something here... I am NOT a fan of Bush, and I hate how he has gone against everything conservative. I'm not in the least bit supportive of his massive expanision and spending tactics... he's part of the problem.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Too stupid huh? lol... again with the personal attacks. I never said conservativism was the driving force behind the republican party anymore... my point is that's the problem; those that are defecting are not true conservatives. You're not reading between the lines... the GOP is watered down BECAUSE it was trying to be all inclusive and that's not how conservatism works. Conservatism is what it is. It doesn't need to be moderated. It doesn't need to be redefined. It doesn't need to be upgraded. Liberal Democrats have gotten away so long as being the caring party; they're the party that cares about the downtrodden. Liberalism has created the downtrodden and the unhappy and the miserable, and then the liberals set themselves up as their champions, say, "Only we can fix them because only we care." They don't care. Real compassion is conservatism, which promotes the individual and allows them to be the maters of their own destiny. Real conservatism wants every individual to be the best he or she can be, with nobody standing in the way. Let a person use what their god-given talents are, combined with their ambition and their desire and their dreams, and get out of their way. We want people to amount to the most they want to be and can be. That's a much better recipe for success than massive government sponsored entitlement programs. Now,for those who have a legitimate problem that prevents them from succeeding, we (conservatives) are all for taking care of those people. But we do not want to take normal, healthy Americans and turn them into wards of the state or dependents. We don't want to look at them with arrogant condescension and say, "You're not part of the smart group... you need us to tell you where your money is going to go, where your kids can go to school, how your mortgage will be set, what you can and can't do... etc." We just don't look at people that way. You talk about hope? We hope for this country to be the best country it can be and you need the best individuals for that to happen. Time and time again, it's proven in the private sector with innovation and much more success than the govt. can do. Conservatism is about the individual. Liberalism doesn't care about the individual, just the groups... get it strait. Like I'm going to let some brainwashed liberal loser convince me, a conservative, that I don't understand what conservatism means. I actually feel sorry for you that you believe so religiously in liberalism. When you're all growns up and have real responsibility to face in life, like running a business and signing the front of the check, maybe you're childish perspective will change. Or maybe it won't... I wouldn't bet on it.

THIS!!

I was beginning to believe that I was the only one this board that actually had these values...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.