Posted on 05/21/2009 1:21:36 PM PDT by Michael Eden
Reagan was a Republican, like it or not. He NEVER stood for abandoning the Republican Party. In point of fact, the example of Reagan disproves everything you claim to represent: Reagan didn’t LEAVE the party; he made it better. You refuse to follow in Reagan’s footsteps, and so divide where he united.
I guess it comes down to the fact that you view the massive spending of the Democrats as merely being “incrementally” different. Whereas I - as a person who lives in the rational world of reality and fact - view “increments” as being very real in themselves.
The difference between a scratch and a fatal stab wound is merely “an incremental difference,” also. As is the difference between a firecracker that goes “pop” and one that blows your kid’s hand off.
“Increments” make a difference. The difference between being alive and dead is a matter of one organ or another functioning “incrementally” better than the dead guy’s.
You refuse to get it. Our entire economy is about to be destroyed. It could have handled LESS spending, even if that spending is unwarranted or negative. But it CAN’T sustain the spending that you merely characterize as “incremental.”
Politics isn’t JUST about principle. It is about striving to build toward the best POSSIBLE outcome in a world of many competing ideologies and differences. You CAN’T always get everything you want. Please wake up and smell reality.
You have an obligation to try to achieve the best possible outcome with your vote. You mentioned being pro-life. I’m a Republican; and like my Party’s platform, I am pro-life, and have given my money and my time to pro-life causes. Every single Supreme Court judge who has been “pro-life” for the last 50 years was nominated by a Republican President. And zero justices have been nominated by the “America’s Independent Party.” If you seriously think that there is no difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party on the issue of abortion, you’re just disconnected from reality.
I left my freerepublic window open, and had a following thoughts as I started to close it.
Two more things:
1) Again, as someone who says he’s pro-life. To say, for example, that George Bush’s position on abortion is no different than Obama’s is not just wrong; it is evil.
Barack Obama is without question the most pro-abortion president this country has ever had. He has a 100% NARAL rating. He actually is even MORE radical than NARAL on abortion: he championed actual infanticide, believing that women had the right to have babies terminated WHO HAD ACTUALLY SURVIVED AN ABORTION PROCEDURE AND BEEN BORN ALIVE.
It is immoral for anyone to argue that George Bush - who banned killing more babies for “stem cell research,” who banned the federal funding for abortion, who appointed two justices who have ruled against abortion positions, is just like Obama who has overturned all the pro-life positions and will make certain to nominate a pro-abortionist justice.
2) You can point out the flaws of the Republican Party for the simple reason that your own party has never amounted to anything. If your America’s Independent Party were to actually gain power, it would become just as corrupt as the Republican Party became. And then what would you do? I suppose you’d ditch them and find yet another 3rd party to waste your vote on, and then another after that.
I would submit to you that your “principled” stand, which is held by hundreds of thousands, and probably millions of voters, has resulted in several Democrat victories and guaranteed that abortion and other hateful agendas would be perpetuated. “All or nothing” usually means “nothing.” And “nothing” in this case means the nihilistic Democratic agenda.
He sure as hell left the Democrats, kicked the dirt off his shoes as he did it, and then stole the Christian Right away from them for good measure. And he never looked back.
There comes a time when you have to say, "I didn't leave the party, the party left me," and walk away.
You refuse to follow in Reagan’s footsteps, and so divide where he united.
I am almost exactly where I was positioned in 1980. Folks who live by principle don't change much. It isn't me who is doing the dividing. I supported Reaganites all the way through the last election. Can you say the same?
You refuse to get it. Our entire economy is about to be destroyed. It could have handled LESS spending, even if that spending is unwarranted or negative. But it CAN’T sustain the spending that you merely characterize as “incremental.”
No, you don't get it. Our economy was destroyed the minute Jorge's bailout went through. We were already way broke, and between the bailout and the fed's manipulations, almost $4T hit the books in less than 30 days. That ain't a scratch.
Politics isn’t JUST about principle. It is about striving to build toward the best POSSIBLE outcome in a world of many competing ideologies and differences. You CAN’T always get everything you want. Please wake up and smell reality.
Kay. Remember that. Next time y'all run a dumba$$ who wants to go "UP the middle", ignores the Value Voters, and stops his campaign to hurry back to DC to vote for the biggest single spending bill in history, you'll know what that smell is...
Reality dictates that Republicans win when they raise up a Conservative. That has never changed, ever. Stick to principles and WIN BIG. It is YOU that can't get what you want. You want Conservatives to compromise. Go herd cats. You'll have more luck.
You have an obligation to try to achieve the best possible outcome with your vote.
According to the founding fathers, my duty is to vote my conscience... To vote for the best man for the job. I will believe them. They sound like Conservatives to me.
You mentioned being pro-life. [...] Every single Supreme Court judge who has been “pro-life” for the last 50 years was nominated by a Republican President. And zero justices have been nominated by the “America’s Independent Party.”
So what? What value does that have? None.
If you seriously think that there is no difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party on the issue of abortion, you’re just disconnected from reality.
Republicans have done very little in the last 30 years to oppose abortion. Little more than lip service. It is that lack of opposition that I view with great disgust.
Strawman. It was Obama v. McCain't, not Obama v. Bush.
Don't EVEN get me started on McCain't's lack of Pro-Life credz.
And I am not a single issue voter either. I am a Reaganite. I vote *for* the principles of all three pillars of Conservatism. If those principles are not there, I probably will not vote for the guy, which is why I didn't support McCain't.
As far as Jorge was concerned, I barely voted for him in '04... By the skin of my teeth. If we had not been at war I know I would not have. As it turns out, I regret that vote more than any other in my entire life.
You can point out the flaws of the Republican Party for the simple reason that your own party has never amounted to anything.
Well gee, it's been around for maybe 10 months now... What do you expect? Isn't it enough that it is already the 3rd largest party in America?
If your America’s Independent Party were to actually gain power, it would become just as corrupt as the Republican Party became.
Doubtful. Unlike the Republican party, the AIP can and will disassociate members who are not in compliance with their pledge.
Also, party identity is not what you suppose. The AIP will support and endorse any (true) Conservative candidate, regardless of party affiliation, and will only raise up their own candidate if there is no Conservative in a particular race.
In the condition where there is a liberal [R], a liberal [D], and a Conservative [A], it is believed the Conservative will win the plurality every time.
And then what would you do? I suppose you’d ditch them and find yet another 3rd party to waste your vote on, and then another after that.
I was a Republican for 27 years. I will probably die in the AIP. But yes, if 25+ years failed to produce fruit, after levering the party into all three houses of power and a fair lean in the SCOTUS for many years, you bet. I'll dump them right on their fanny.
I would submit to you that your “principled” stand, which is held by hundreds of thousands, and probably millions of voters, has resulted in several Democrat victories and guaranteed that abortion and other hateful agendas would be perpetuated. “All or nothing” usually means “nothing.” And “nothing” in this case means the nihilistic Democratic agenda
I would counter that those millions of principled Conservative voters are certainly as predictable as the day is long, and every one of those losses could have easily been prevented by those like you who continue to try to move that which is immovable.
The bargain was made with Reagan. He said that Republicans would support the basic principles of all the Conservative factions. We agreed to that with great affirmation, and will vote for anyone supporting those principles. That is the starting line.
If the candidate does not meet that basic criteria, he will not win, because he will not attract and harness all three of the Conservative factions. The Reagan Coalition will not form. It really is that simple. There is no controlling it, there is no manipulating it. You may kick and scream all you like, but it will not change. It is the nature of the Conservative base. If it is not harnessed together, it will sink back into it's natural factions and go swimming off into the electoral sea.
So don't blame me, or any other Conservative. We just understand how it works. Who gets the blame are the pragmatists who seek to change that which is immutable. Blame those 'electability' whores, who don't understand that it is a natural truth that the most electable is always the Reaganite, regardless of the polls.
I’m kind of entertaining myself knowing how long it takes you to put together your html italics with all the <> crap on every single para. Please keep that up.
Your garbage line about the America’s Independent Party only being around for ten months needs a direct response: READ THE HISTORY OF THIRD PARTIES IN AMERICA AND TRY TO START GETTING A DAMN CLUE.
I don’t mind you joining an independent party. What I mind is your undermining of conservatism by undermining the ONLY party that has any meaningful chance of making any kind of difference in terms of winning major elections against liberal Democrats. I mind greatly that you insult and offend the ONLY conservatives today who are accomplishing ANYTHING in the political arena. There IS a party trying to stop the liberal agenda: it AINT YOURS. Rather, it is the one you smarmily mock and undermine. You might as well be a liberal: your saying the same crap, and taking the same side.
Since you refuse to recognize “increments,” I would again invite you to send me $20,000. I will give you back $5,000, and on your understanding of reality you will have as much back as you gave me. Put your money where your rationalization is.
By NOT sending me your $20k, in spite of all your crappy rhetoric, you are acknowledging that I am right and you are wrong. The fact that Obama is spending four times more (and, by the way, the figure actually goes to 5-6 times as a percentage of GDP) really does matter. If it doesn’t, send me the $20,000. Tell you what: put a second mortgage on your house and send me $100,000, because it will be an even more telling example with your realizing that your $25 grand aint going to be enough to finance your borrowing. Maybe you’ll learn something when you lose your house that increments really DO matter after all.
Go ahead and put that in italics. You are wrong, all html aside.
McCain was a turd. But he isn’t nearly as big of a turd as Obama is. And after all Obama has done, it frankly shocks and appalls me that you are too arrogant and too foolish to recognize that.
If we work toward making the Republican Party better, we can develop better candidates. If you honor Reagan, then you have the historic example of when we did it before. I notice he didn’t utterly waste his time joining the “America’s Independent Party.” Amazingly, he instead to join a party where he had a chance of actually making a difference.
If Reagan had been like you and followed your example, he would have joined the “America’s Independent Party” and spent 95% of his time bitching about the Republican Party rather than fighting socialism, and he would have been a minor historical footnote rather than one of the greatest presidents this country ever had.
I notice that you also didn’t seem to be quite bright enough to understand that John Roberts and Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito - all appointed by Republicans - have made more difference to the conservative cause than all the “America’s Independent Party members” ever have in their entire lives combined. Thomas Jefferson warned us of a court of black-robed masters who would undermine the Constitution by usurping the power to make law. And what he warned us against has happened. All we can do is keep Supreme Court Justices on the Court who will rightly interpret the Constitution until we can somehow ban judicial activism. Until that day comes, we NEED the conservative justices you trivialized.
But I can understand why you trivialize them: because if we did things your way, we never would have HAD any Scalias, or Roberts, or Thomases, or Alitos. And we never would. Instead, we’d have nine Ruth Bader Ginsburgs imposing their views in place of the late great Constitution.
You can put that quote in italics, too.
Newt Gingrich just today said:
“I think the fact is the Republican Party has to be a broad party that appeals across the country and that does so—I mean, we have the governor of Vermont, we have the governor of Rhode Island. These, these are not states that are traditional Southern, right wing states. The—to be a national party you have to have a big enough tent that you inevitably have fights inside the tent. Ronald Reagan understood that. And Reagan always used to say—and as you know, my wife Callista and I did—recently did a movie on Reagan. And, and, and Reagan always used to say, “My fellow Republicans and those independents and Democrats who are looking for a better future.” He consciously wanted the broadest possible coalition. That’s how he carried 49 states in 1984. I think Republicans are going to be very foolish if they run around deciding that they’re going to see how much they can purge us down to the smallest possible base.”
But, no. You would rather ensure that your party NEVER wins anything. You would rather abandon the country to a hard-core liberal agenda than support imperfect and flawed candidates who would nevertheless work against that agenda. You would rather see the country implode under massive spending than elect candidates who would spend too much, but still spend FAR less. You would rather walk around with your nose in the air than have any chance whatsoever of making any kind of actual difference.
Nancy Pelosi is SO GLAD people like you think like they do. Because she knows that all the people who think like you make sure she keeps on winning and keeps on being able to impose her agenda.
Keep throwing your vote away so liberal Democrats win. Keep lacking the ability to see that the Republican Party - as flawed as it is - still remains night and day compared to the Democrats. Your strategy is genius.
And keep quoting me in italics. Because the thought of you wasting an hour formatting just makes me happy. It’s kind of a metaphor to your entire approach to politics: a complete waste of time.
If you weren't such a n00b, you would understand that it is a common etiquette here on FR, to use html tags (most commonly italics) to separate the quoted portion of the previous post (yours), from the reply to that portion (mine), as a convenience to the recipient, and to others who may be reading along.
As to the time it takes, it is negligible - Most folks who have been here any length of time are quite adept at writing html code, and I have the added convenience of maintaining several websites as well, so writing in html markup takes no more time than writing a standard letter for me.
IOW, your entire diatribe regarding my use of html markup, which sounds like it is meant to make me sound foolish, is only showing your own ignorance of the workings of this forum, and ineptitude wrt the html language. Party on, d00d.
Your garbage line about the America’s Independent Party only being around for ten months needs a direct response: READ THE HISTORY OF THIRD PARTIES IN AMERICA AND TRY TO START GETTING A DAMN CLUE.
Perhaps a little reading on the demise of the Whig party would sharpen your own pencil a bit, there, Bub... Especially the political conditions then comparative to the conditions today.
By NOT sending me your $20k, in spite of all your crappy rhetoric, you are acknowledging that I am right and you are wrong.
What a sophomoric statement that one is...
I wouldn't send you a thin dime any more than I would send it to the RNC. My support, and my money go to Conservative causes only, as I have declared. You are not arguing a Conservative position in the least.
The only way my support, and my money, currently being invested into the AIP isn't making it's way to Republicans is if the Republicans are not Conservatives...
So if the Republicans are as Conservative as your wheezing, calliope-like rant claims, you have no b*tch at all against me, or against the AIP. Their endorsements, finances, GOTV-structures, and their votes will back those Republicans to the hilt. So quit your babbling and go away.
Unless, of course, you are arguing for Conservatives to align themselves with the liberal/moderate leadership of the GOP, and allow them to use Conservative money and votes to elect more RINOs and subvert Conservative principles... If that is your cause, which I would suppose is the case, Then you are wasting both your time and mine.
I notice he [Reagan] didn’t utterly waste his time joining the “America’s Independent Party.” Amazingly, he instead to join a party where he had a chance of actually making a difference.
That was when there was a decided difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. That difference is all but removed at this point. That the Republican party now holds only 41% of Conservatives should be a telling point for you to ponder.
But I can understand why you trivialize them: because if we did things your way, we never would have HAD any Scalias, or Roberts, or Thomases, or Alitos. And we never would. Instead, we’d have nine Ruth Bader Ginsburgs imposing their views in place of the late great Constitution.
To the contrary... At any point when the Republicans controlled both houses, had they been true to their oath, rather than to their party, those judges at any level, who were involved with writing law by judicial fiat, could have and should have been impeached - At any point, by a simple Act of Congress, judicial shenanigans could have been removed from their jurisdiction - They tried *nothing* to curtail the spread of judicial tyranny, and they certainly had the jurisdiction to do so.
Your diatribe forgets who actually holds the power to write the laws - And since Reagan, there has not been one whiff of libertarianism out of the Republican party. Not a Federalist peep.
20+ years of Republican power, and the Federal behemoth has not even stumbled in it's tracks. No departments eliminated, no drug enforcement, no border enforcement, no restoration of rights to the states... No, ALL the liberal socialist departments have grown, and more departments added. Not once has the budget been meaningfully CUT, not once has spending been meaningfully curtailed.
A CONSERVATIVE federal government would be 10-30% of the size of the current one. Where is it? A CONSERVATIVE Government would be chopping back the federal authority in education, removing the liberal indoctrination from our schoolbooks, removing taxpayer dollars from colleges, where liberalism lives and breathes. Where is it? I could go on and on.
As I said, It is the lack of opposition that I find to be appalling in the Republicans. Where they are not in direct collusion, they are weak sisters at best.
Newt Gingrich just today said:
Newt Gingrich has lost all credibility.
But, no. You would rather ensure that your party NEVER wins anything. You would rather abandon the country to a hard-core liberal agenda than support imperfect and flawed candidates who would nevertheless work against that agenda.
Nonsense. My party backs my philosophy exactly. As I said before, if your party is indeed working in a Conservative manner (which it isn't), you will have no problem with the AIP, because the AIP will be supporting your guys. If they are indeed opposing the liberal agenda in truth, then you will have no problems with me. But that really isn't the case, is it?
You would rather see the country implode under massive spending than elect candidates who would spend too much, but still spend FAR less. You would rather walk around with your nose in the air than have any chance whatsoever of making any kind of actual difference.
No, I would rather short-circuit the RNC and assure that there will always be a Conservative candidate available for the people to choose from among the participating candidates.
If, as you presume, that 3rd parties are "wasted votes", then you have nothing to fear. If, as I presume, in a three way race between two liberals (an [R] and a [D]) and a Conservative ([A]), that the Conservative will take the plurality anywhere in the country, Then you still have nothing to fear, because a Conservative, whose beliefs are what you say you believe in, will have won the day.
Nancy Pelosi is SO GLAD people like you think like they do. Because she knows that all the people who think like you make sure she keeps on winning and keeps on being able to impose her agenda.
Keep throwing your vote away so liberal Democrats win. Keep lacking the ability to see that the Republican Party - as flawed as it is - still remains night and day compared to the Democrats. Your strategy is genius.
LOL! Yeah right. Whatever. Republicans are down to 21% nationally, with only 41% Conservatives. That means MORE THAN HALF of Conservatives are already outside the party. And knowing Conservatives as I do, and knowing the Conservatives I know personally, I'd reckon the lion's share of those losses are the rock-ribbed, hard core Conservatives who have already left, and the rest are not far behind.
And yet you accuse me of being blind, and you accuse me of having my nose in the air. It is YOU who are supporting a party that the majority have already left behind. It is YOU that is trying to beat people into buying something that they do not want to have.
It is pathetic. Your tepid bleatings will change no one's mind. You stand there, pimping the very same leadership, and the very same agenda, that LOST the last election by a very decided amount. Republicans were swamped. Yet they come back spouting the very same bullcrap with the very same people, as I said, "like a dog returning to it's vomit" - And you like it. You want sommore. THAT'S genius!
Well I've got some news for you, Scooter: That dog don't hunt. You heard it here first. Watch and see.
All that would save the Republicans at this point is to throw the leadership away - Lock, stock, and barrel - And raise up the Reaganites to run the party completely, and without exception. Conservatives would see, and would know (they know their own), and would return to Reagan's call.
But you know, and I know, that is not going to happen. The Baker wing will have to be pried away from power finger-by-finger... A long, and protracted battle that we do not have the time for. So the RNC will continue to starve, while the Conservative Republicans are supported individually, and another party machinery will rise to compete, albeit passively, with the corrupt RNC.
That is the path I have chosen to actively support, and I will not be shaken from it by your asinine ravings.
Go back to your tepid politicians and calculating your gamesmanship. Spin your silly webs and overlook your party's deceit. Wrap yourself in your threadbare robes of pragmatism and electability, plan your "Giuliani Gambit", and see how far you go.
I will stand for statesmen, for the principles of Conservatism, and for the Sovereign, and United States of America. I will remember God, Family, Law, and Country. I will remember my fathers, who died to give me the rights I have, and I will remember my children, who I will pass those rights to. That is all I have ever done, and that is all I am doing now.
I’ll start with your calling me “noob.”
What an insult to YOU. Because I googled you. And in all your “seniority” you haven’t produced squat other than some bitchy little comments. Google “startthinkingright” and see what this “noob” has done. You really should be ashamed that a “noob” like me is out actually producing something while you’ve got mold growing out of your butt.
As for “common etiquette,” I guess we differ on that, too. I don’t find it “common etiquette” to strip someone’s words out of context and then offer some smarmy-toned one-liner by way of response. It might be just me, but I don’t think you’re “Miss Manners” here. Miss Something, maybe, but definitely NOT Miss Manners.
I actually DO know how to do html, dude. So I know how long it takes you to play your little game.
And I don’t have to make you sound foolish; you do a far better job at doing that yourself.
You’re going to the Whig Party to counter my query regarding independent parties? How about finding something from this millennium? You know, all the times since the Bull Moose Party, when independent parties have merely split the vote before going the way of the Dodo bird?
If I ask you to talk about what’s going on in music today, what are you going to do, tell me all about Maria Malibran?
And I’ve got to return to how totally irrational you are for your idiotic claim that the current Democrat spending is just “incrementally” worse than Republicans.
Let me post the words of someone who - unlike you - has a friggin’ CLUE:
“The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents — from George Washington to George W. Bush — combined.” - Michael Boskin, Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html
The current national debt is $11.7 trillion. Barry Hussein is going to rack up a cumulative deficit of $9.3 trillion. To wit: he will very nearly double the national debt, which has been racking up since the 1920s.
http://www.openmarket.org/2009/03/20/obama-budget-explodes-debt-taxes-cbo-admits/
I try to point out what should be obvious to anyone but a complete fool, and you call it a “sophomoric statement”?
How did you become too retarded to understand this? Who dropped you on your head, and how many times did he or she do it? Is there some kind of big dent in your skull to go along with all your brain damage? Do you have to wear a special hat?
Your crap about the judges proves you don’t have a single practical thought in your whole head. You live in a world of theory. I pointed out that the good conservative judges have been appointed by Republicans - and most certainly NOT by “America’s Independent Party.” And you start waxing incoherent.
Just like you did when I pointed out that Reagan - as confirmed by Newt Gingrich who knew the guy a HELLUVA lot better than you - disagreed with every damn thing you think about the GOP. No, you just whiff in lieu of any kind of a meaningful response by saying, “Newt Gingrich” (the mind behind the ‘Contract with America’ cheered by conservatives, btw) has lost all credibility.” The problem with that is that YOU never had ANY credibility to begin with.
You stand for “statesmen”? Excuse me? You’re Nancy Pelosi’s wet dream, and what you stand for is keeping her and her agenda in power by splitting the conservative vote. That’s what you stand for, genius.
What YOU stand for is “adding more to the debt than all previous presidents — from George Washington to George W. Bush — combined,” genius. Because trillions of dollars in spending is all just “incremental” to you. And because THAT is what people like you guarantee we’ll get a lot more of by splitting the conservative vote.
And you tell me, “So quit your babbling and go away.” Excuse me? Did I go to one of your idiotic articles and start bitching about your party? Oh, no, wait: YOU got in MY face on one of MY posts. YOU go away, and I don’t care if you let the door hit your pimply butt on the way out.
Let me take another tact, here. Since you trudged your sorry personality into my life over my “RNC RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE DEMOCRATS’ MARCH TOWARD SOCIALISM” post, why don’t you go point by point and explain to me how these Republicans are really just liberals assuming liberal positions, as you claim?
Show me where you find that in the resolution you attacked.
Don’t point fingers at the Republicans and demagogue them (which is EXACTLY what your radical liberal colleagues in the Democratic Party routinely do, btw), but show me what is wrong with the actual statement such that it deserved your attack.
Go “whereas” by “whereas” and explain to me what is wrong with each clause, and how it advocates the “liberal agenda” as you seem to think it does.
If, on the other hand, they have a good message, then why can’t you at least support them when they’re saying the right thing, and taking the right positions?
LOL! There are 5500 replies here made by me. I have never done anything here but defend Reagan Conservatism, and posts to the Religion board. I also tend to defend libertarianism against Neocons who seem to hate it.
While "b*tchy" is a subjective term, "little" can be quantified. My posts, in general, have never been called little. In fact, had you commented on the agonizing, tome-like length of my never-ending, brain sucking, eye-blearing posts; had you commented on my talent for turning a simple phrase into a small novel, you would be more in line with what folks say about me.
So it seems your googling skilz are right up there with your html skilz. Party on d00d.
As for “common etiquette,” I guess we differ on that, too. I don’t find it “common etiquette” to strip someone’s words out of context and then offer some smarmy-toned one-liner by way of response. It might be just me, but I don’t think you’re “Miss Manners” here. Miss Something, maybe, but definitely NOT Miss Manners.
What crap. Look around, man. Pick *any* thread.
Quoted in italics.Reply in standard.
Is the standard form all over FR.
If you are accusing me of taking your words out of context, show me where that was done.
And as far as the "Miss Manners" bullcrap goes You are confusing etiquette with being polite. Since our conversation is not polite, largely initiated by your first post (and every one thereafter) to me, I don't feel the need to be polite to you.
But according to the principles this forum has always operated under, you can bet I will always offer quoted replies, and I will always ping you to any post where I might mention your name. That's how it is done here, even for pompous idiots who don't know any better.
I actually DO know how to do html, dude. So I know how long it takes you to play your little game.
LOL! No, you know how long it takes you.
You’re going to the Whig Party to counter my query regarding independent parties? How about finding something from this millennium? You know, all the times since the Bull Moose Party, when independent parties have merely split the vote before going the way of the Dodo bird?
Except the AIP will not split the vote if the Republicans offer up Conservatives, will it?
And the century doesn't matter near as much as the conditions. The Republicans were the spoilers at the time of the Whigs. How did the Republicans come to become the Conservative party and displace the Whigs within the span of two elections?
The current national debt is $11.7 trillion. Barry Hussein is going to rack up a cumulative deficit of $9.3 trillion. To wit: he will very nearly double the national debt, which has been racking up since the 1920s.
And just last September Jorge did the same exact thing. Of that 11.7T, 4T happened at the bailout forward, under Jorge's watch. So without 0bummer, Jorge set the very same precedent, nearly doubling the public debt in less than 4 months, which had been racking up since the 1920's
It is rather disingenuous to be so appalled at the Democrats and forget the acts of your own. One has no high ground to stand upon. It is hypocrisy.
I try to point out what should be obvious to anyone but a complete fool, and you call it a “sophomoric statement”?
How should it be obvious that it is good to replace one statist, socialist party with another? What should be obvious to all is that statists and socialists of whatever stripe are our bitter enemies.
Just because they have a big, rhinestone [R] after their name does not change that fact.
Because they spend a little less does not preclude the fact that they still spend far to much to be sustainable.
They still nationalized a huge swath of the private sector, whether or not it was as big as the Democrats' is immaterial. Any nationalization of the private sector is too much.
They still laid massive assaults against the sovereignty of this nation. Whether it was as foul as the Democrats' is of no consequence - Under either one, sovereignty disappears.
Your crap about the judges proves you don’t have a single practical thought in your whole head. You live in a world of theory.
It is not theory. It is truth. That you suppose it to be theory only goes to show your mindset. It is the judicial edict which is theory. It is Congress who writes law. It is Congress who holds the powers of impeachment. They can build hedges around judges, and have done so (remember 3 strikes laws?)
I pointed out that the good conservative judges have been appointed by Republicans - and most certainly NOT by “America’s Independent Party.” And you start waxing incoherent.
You seem to forget that not all Republican appointments were good conservative judges. Their efficacy in this regard has been less than spectacular. Scalia and Thomas, no doubt, but some remain to be seen (Roberts, Alito), and others were certainly *not* good picks.
Just like you did when I pointed out that Reagan - as confirmed by Newt Gingrich who knew the guy a HELLUVA lot better than you - disagreed with every damn thing you think about the GOP. No, you just whiff in lieu of any kind of a meaningful response by saying, “Newt Gingrich” (the mind behind the ‘Contract with America’ cheered by conservatives, btw) has lost all credibility.”
Newt Gingrich has lost all credibility. He hasn't been "cheered by Conservatives" lately. From Gorebull Warming to standing up for Colin Powell, He is completely and irredeemably done. If you are looking to Gingrich for party unity, you will lose.
The problem with that is that YOU never had ANY credibility to begin with.
My credibility comes from accurately predicting this precise predicament as far back as the summer of '07. The only thing I have failed to call is the reemergence of the moderates as the leadership in the Republican party. I was quite hopeful for the rise of the Goldwater/Reagan wing.
I also underestimated the rate of decline in the Republican party. I knew that abandonment was imminent, but I really was not expecting the depth of Republican disenfranchisement. While a surprise, it brings me great hope.
If you give me and mine no credibility, How do you explain the 21% national membership and 41% Conservative attendance within the Republican party?
Furthermore, as the Republicans continue to press to the left, and continue to lose membership, especially among it's Conservative base, only an idiot would fail to see the emerging trend, which began in 04 (really, much earlier than that) and continues still.
Yet instead of reform and apologies, We get to put up with drooling louts like yourself - Probably the same sort of self-important slobs who claimed in the primaries that Conservatism was dead, and that Conservatives were a tiny minority, and not needed any more.
Good plan. We hear it every year. Then comes the panic when failure is imminent. Then comes the verbal beatings and scare tactics, which never work. Then comes epic failure, every time. Then comes blame. Blah, Blah, Blah.
You stand for “statesmen”? Excuse me? You’re Nancy Pelosi’s wet dream, and what you stand for is keeping her and her agenda in power by splitting the conservative vote. That’s what you stand for, genius.
It isn't Conservatives who are doing her bidding. It isn't Conservatives who are reaching across the aisle. The 100 or so House Conservatives that have driven every Conservative notion are her worst enemy. But the leadership stifles them. Instead, they lift up Graham and McCain and Romney.
And because THAT is what people like you guarantee we’ll get a lot more of by splitting the conservative vote.
It is not me who is splitting the Conservative vote. Give Conservatives something to vote *for*, and they will ALL be with you. That has always been the case, and alway will be the case.
And you tell me, “So quit your babbling and go away.” Excuse me? Did I go to one of your idiotic articles and start bitching about your party?
Granted, it was your idiotic article. That must be what you meant, as I have only posted a thread once, ever, and it was not an article.
Oh, no, wait: YOU got in MY face on one of MY posts. YOU go away, and I don’t care if you let the door hit your pimply butt on the way out.
This is all I said: "The pot calls the kettle black." #15 That's hardly in your face.
Thereafter, you got in MY face, and invited my opinion, and my ire, as your questions were laced with plenty of condescension #16.
Besides, it is an open forum. That's what folks do here... Post on threads. I am free to post my opinion if I care to. If you don't like dissent, move on over to WAnkerville or GOP.com. They will love this pap.
Let me take another tact, here. [...] why don’t you go point by point and explain to me how these Republicans are really just liberals assuming liberal positions, as you claim?
Show me where you find that in the resolution you attacked.
Show me, on any given point, where the Republicans, by their actions, have not done the exact same things they accuse the Democrats of. Their position according to their platform means as little as the words in the OP. Words mean nothing.
What I am interested in is their position according to their agenda and movements now, in the election, and in the previous administration. Where they have actually taken, or are taking the party.
If, on the other hand, they have a good message, then why can’t you at least support them when they’re saying the right thing, and taking the right positions?
Because they say one thing with their mouths, and do another with their hands. Talk is cheap. It is not enough to say the right things. It is actions that tell the tale.
Conservatives are impressed by record. A record which is Conservative does not waver, does not shift or change. Just because the party says some crap doesn't mean squat.
Put new faces in the RNC, people we can trust. Put Conservatives up there (and in the leadership of the House and Senate). Let us check them out and vet their records. Then we will know what to think of them. Let them prove themselves by their actions. Then let them publish this article. The reaction will be profoundly different.
What you don’t do is write articles. You said it yourself: “I have only posted a thread once, ever, and it was not an article.” No, you don’t offer your own stuff, probably because you know it would be idiotic garbage; instead, you’re a parasitic tick who burrows into someone else’s work and tries to live off of them.
You are wrong about where the Republicans are in the polls, just like you are wrong about everything. Like everything else, you have taken the liberal spin as gospel truth and made it your very own.
Gallup just had a poll last week that showed the Republicans had pulled EVEN with the Democrats in overall support.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2254288/posts
Later that same week there was another poll that had Republicans and Democrats even across the board at 32%
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTQyZDExYjg1ZDU2ZDVmYjk3YjhjMTg4MzhkZmE5NDQ=
So when you say the Republicans have lost everything, I know you got your talking points from Keith Olbermann.
Like everything else, you’re wrong. Being wrong is what you do.
I’m going to start calling you Homer. It rhymes with roamer, too. Because you’re very much like Homer; a bumbling incompetent idiot who thinks he’s got everything figured out. You know better than Newt Gingrich, mastermind behind the Contract with America. You think you have more credibility than he does because, well, you’ve written parasitic comments to a whole bunch of other peoples’ articles. And because you think you were right about something once a few years ago.
You’re wrong about Bush’s spending relative to Obama. But why should I be suprised from a guy who’s wrong about EVERYTHING?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/White-House-Budget-deficit-to-apf-15199183.html?.v=8
“WASHINGTON (AP) — The government will have to borrow nearly 50 cents for every dollar it spends this year, exploding the record federal deficit past $1.8 trillion under new White House estimates.
Budget office figures released Monday would add $89 billion to the 2009 red ink — increasing it to more than four times last year’s all-time high as the government hands out billions more than expected for people who have lost jobs and takes in less tax revenue from people and companies making less money.”
More than FOUR TIMES Bush’s all-time high budget deficit. But again, what’s enough red ink to swamp our way of life for generations to come? It’s just an “increment.” You dumbass.
The Republicans have been fighting tooth and nail to stop the massive spending. And for that you criticize them. You attack the ONLY people who are trying to reign in the budget (unless you can show me all the independent Senators and Representatives voting against it) because you say that they don’t really MEAN it. Even when they do the RIGHT thing, they don’t really mean it, so they’re evil. So your solution is to viciously attack and undermine the Republican Party by supporting an independent party that won’t go anywhere.
With an exploding financial disaster that DEMOCRATS LARGELY CAUSED due to their shenanigans with the Community Reinvestment Act and their fraud at Fannie and Freddie, nobody really knew quite what to do.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
Do you remember the Bush TARP plan, Homer? It failed in the House because nearly 70% of the Republican House voted against it.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/29/breaking-bailout-bill-fails-dow-roller-coasters/
Republicans - NOT the America’s Independent Party - called upon members to reject it.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/article.aspx?RsrcID=36463
Then we come to the massive massive $787 billion stimulus (which the CBO acknowledged would actually cost $3.27 TRILLION) passed without a single Republican vote in the House. And only three Republicans - one of whom has now acknowledged that he was really a Democrat all along) voted for it.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/28/MNRK15IPL9.DTL&tsp=1
One can ONLY conclude that you were really on the side of the Democrats wanting that and other massive bills to pass. Because you have been demonizing the people who voted against it, Homer. What is one supposed to say about a guy who opposes the ONLY people who opposed the stimulus?
Then we get to the Omnibus Spending Bill. Only 8 Republicans voted for it; only 3 Democrats voted against it. Otherwise the Republicans were totally opposed, and the Democrats were totally in favor.
http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=44851
But of course you side with the Democrats against the Republicans. Because you’re a Homer. And that’s the way Homers think.
Now we’re about to have a “global warming” energy bill that imposes cap and trade crap. Republicans are going to rise up against it. But you’re not with them in that effort, are you? No. You oppose the people who are against destroying our economy, and you are de fact for the people who are trying to destroy it.
The climate change bill:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/22/climate-change-bill-representatives
“New laws to impose the first limits on US greenhouse gas emissions took a significant step forwards late on Thursday, clearing a key House of Representatives committee in the face of strong Republican opposition.”
But your opposition is against the Republicans trying to oppose it, Homer. You don’t want to support the Republicans, so you must want it passed.
The energy bill:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-seize-on-energy-bill-as-national-tax-2009-04-26.html
“House and Senate Republicans intend to ramp up their attack of the Democratic-sponsored clean-energy legislation this week in an effort to brand the measure a “national energy tax.”
But you oppose the people who are trying to block it.
The health care bill:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/25/obama-democrats-shield-health-care-plan-gop-opposition/
“Republicans, who have been complaining furiously about the prospect of health care reform passing under fast-track rules, are not planning to go down without a fight.”
So you just keep on fighting the Republicans, Homer. You just keep fighting against the ONLY people who have any meaningful chance to stop this tsunami of government spending and fascist takeover of the economy. Because you’d rather oppose the Republicans than have stop what’s going on.
Republicans aren’t perfect. But they are trying. And you are working to undermine their effort.
I am rendering apology for going into such a full attack mode on Roamer, and - although I think he is profoundly wrong, and do intend to continue responding to his comments for as long as he continues to make them on this or any of my articles - I will be toning down my rhetoric.
It’s not that I feel Roamer “deserves” an apology; it is rather because I do not feel I should be communicating in such a manner. And my apology is therefore as much directed to everyone who reads these comments as it is to Roamer himself.
Both Roamer and I profess to be conservatives. With one very major difference, we apparently share many of the same values and beliefs.
It is my view that all conservatives need to unite. I see liberals continuing to win elections if conservatives fracture into independent parties. Benjamin Franklin said, “We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” And since I feel that we are at such a time now (Roamer appears to feel quite differently on this), I have to acknowledge that I myself have been wrong for being so divisive.
Mea culpa.
What inebriated pomp. The reason I do not post threads is because I cannot mind a thread as I should; ergo, I do not post them. As to posting my own work, that is called "vanity" hereon, and is not generally encouraged anyway.
You are wrong about where the Republicans are in the polls, just like you are wrong about everything. Like everything else, you have taken the liberal spin as gospel truth and made it your very own.
Gallup just had a poll last week that showed the Republicans had pulled EVEN with the Democrats in overall support.
Later that same week there was another poll that had Republicans and Democrats even across the board at 32%
Yet you shore up your position with more spin from the same sources... Go figger. Sure the Republican vs. Democrat positions are equal generically. That is not what I said, anyway.
I spoke to Republican membership, which, depending upon the source, is between 23%-21% nationally, and the membership of declared Conservatives within the Republican roles, which is at 41%.
That is wholly different from generic polling. Just wait and see what happens when Romney is anointed come 2012, and the Republicans lose again, big-time. You are friggin' dreamin'.
I’m going to start calling you Homer. It rhymes with roamer, too. Because you’re very much like Homer; a bumbling incompetent idiot who thinks he’s got everything figured out.
Gee, more sophomoric insults. Who'da thunk it?
You know better than Newt Gingrich, mastermind behind the Contract with America. You think you have more credibility than he does
Yeah, I do know better than Global warming, "Big Tent" Gingrich. He is all done.
More than FOUR TIMES Bush’s all-time high budget deficit. But again, what’s enough red ink to swamp our way of life for generations to come? It’s just an “increment.” You dumbass.
So WHAT? Until someone figures out how to solve the $53T that is the REAL problem, YES, it IS just increment YOU dumbass. Someone has to honestly CUT spending by half to three fourths or we are doomed anyway, you hapless french fry. That is the truth of it, and any crowing you may make, or chest pounding you may do is of *no* regard whatsoever.
Even balancing the budget at current levels is of no real effect. Any moron with a piece of chalk could work out the numbers. Why can't you? What is needed is drastic, draconian cuts at every level with taxes remaining near the current level for the foreseeable future for any possible hope of paying ourselves out of this mess. A mess Republicans have had years and years to do the right thing on, and failed miserably. Democrats too, no doubt, but I didn't expect the right thing to come from the Democrats. Epic FAIL.
With an exploding financial disaster that DEMOCRATS LARGELY CAUSED due to their shenanigans with the Community Reinvestment Act and their fraud at Fannie and Freddie, nobody really knew quite what to do.
Sorry, pal. The Republican administration had regulatory control, and let it happen. It may well be the Democrats' baby, but the Republicans let it happen. Had they been more interested in Capitalism rather than Keynesian Third-way economics, they would have stopped it from happening. Bush himself promised easier credit so folks could buy homes.
Do you remember the Bush TARP plan, Homer? It failed in the House because nearly 70% of the Republican House voted against it.
LOL! Now that is just plain disingenuous on it's face. No mention of TARP II at all, nor John "the Traitorous Bastard" McCain, nor Jorge Bush's support (and signature) whatsoever. And TARP II cost $3.7T in "real" money, just like the 1/28/09 stimulus cost $3.1T. Hypocrisy, thy name is Republican.
Now we’re about to have a “global warming” energy bill that imposes cap and trade crap. Republicans are going to rise up against it.
LOL! Why would they? Because it's not their cap and trade? McCain't is all for it, so are the RINOs. They run the party, so the party won't mind too much.
“Republicans, who have been complaining furiously about the prospect of health care reform passing under fast-track rules, are not planning to go down without a fight.”
HAHAHAHA! It is Romney-care warmed over. You can't be serious.
All of these positions you claim the Republicans are rising to defend are positions they held just six months ago. Without a change in leadership, how can you simply declare a sea-change in their support of these positions? It is ludicrous on it's face.
The only explanation must be that you are incredibly naive, or that you are starstruck by the big, shiny rhinestone [R], which was my first inclination.
So you just keep on fighting the Republicans, Homer. You just keep fighting against the ONLY people who have any meaningful chance to stop this tsunami of government spending and fascist takeover of the economy. Because you’d rather oppose the Republicans than have stop what’s going on.
Count on it. Any moron who doesn't stand for true Conservatism stands in the way, and dooms us to failure. I will vote for nothing less, and the millions you need to gain back your power feel the same way I do. So get crackin' or get out of the way.
Your reason for being a parasite is that you’re too busy to produce your own work (interesting reasoning coming from a guy who just got through boasting about his thousands of comments). That doesn’t change the fact that you’re still a parasite who leeches off of other people’s work rather than producing any of his own. I suppose the fact that you don’t take the time to produce your own work is what gives you all the extra time to format all that html code - which by the way is time that I don’t have due to the fact that I write my own articles.
I have repeatedly pointed out how irrational your basic contention is: that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. I pointed out - and documented - that the Democrats are currently spending MORE THAN FOUR TIMES MORE than the worst year EVER for Republicans. I pointed out - and documented - that Barack Obama is pursuing more deficit spending than every single president from George Washington to George W. Bush COMBINED. You say that that deficit spending is just an “increment,” as though Obama’s spending more than every president combined is no big deal. It IS a big deal. It’s a HUGE deal. Maybe you refuse to realize it, but anyone else realizes that if you’re already in debt, and you start spending four, five, even six times more than previously (as expressed to the GDP), you are racing off a cliff toward disaster.
The Democrats are calling for socialized medicine, which will ultimately implode our economy even further. You apparently want that, because you are opposing the Republicans who are fighting it (and how many America’s Independent Party members are voting against it again?). I haven’t heard you going after Democrats, only Republicans again and again. I can’t help but think of what you are doing as analogous to a rabid dog that is running around having lost its ability to discern who to bite and who not to bite. Democrats are pushing hard for socialized medicine; Republicans are opposing it. They cannot be “just as bad” as one another. It is an irrational thing to claim.
I pointed out that the stimulus bill passed with nearly total Republican opposition: EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN HOUSE MEMBER and all but THREE in the Senate. Either the stimulus was a GOOD thing or it is a BAD thing. It is irrational to claim that the Democrats were bad to support it, and to then claim that the Republicans were bad to oppose it. Do you want more massive government spending or not? The Republicans are fighting against that massive government spending on bill after bill as we speak. They’re fighting against socialized medicine; they are fighting against the energy bill; they are fighting against the climate change bill; they are opposing the socialist takeover of the auto industry. If you are a conservative, why won’t you give them support as they fight against these things?
You have steadfastly maintained that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. I would just like to offer yet another evidence as to how profoundly irrational your argument truly is:
HR1207 is a bill to audit the federal government: 179 representatives have signed on as co-sponsors with Ron Paul. 168 of them are Republicans. I know this because only 31 Republicans have NOT signed on according to Ron Paul, and there are 199 Republicans in the House. Of the 235 Democrats in the House, only 11 have signed on. In other words, only 11 Democrats out of 235 (4%) have signed on to a bill to open the federal government’s books, versus fully 84% of Republicans.
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/90775
I submit that it is not merely irrational to lump a party that overwhelmingly supports holding the government accountable with a party that almost unanimously opposes it, but it is immoral.
It is immoral because you are lumping people who are trying to do a good thing and hold the federal government accountable and stop the supermassive spending in with the very people who are pushing more and more and more supermassive spending.
The bond yield curve is the highest on record - and it is expected up yet another 100 plus points from that record. We are in real danger of losing our AAA rating. Due to the current debt racked up by Obama the US isn’t even qualified to join the EU anymore because it has lost fiscal control of itself. The international finance community is seriously talking about replacing the dollar as the international currency as a result of the incredible deficit spending. China has REPEATEDLY warned Obama to stop running up deficits, but he is pushing further and further ahead. This is all a result of Obama’s spending - which I have repeatedly documented is coming from Democrats.
We are in serious trouble, and all you can think of doing is splitting the conservative vote.
BTW,
Your claim that Republicans are responsible for the financial meltdown is just wrong.
Bill Clinton HIMSELF admitted:
Bill Clinton on Thursday told ABC’s Chris Cuomo that Democrats for years have been “resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/09/25/fox-news-blames-democrats-financial-crisis-bill-clinton-agrees
Watch these videos and tell me that it wasn’t Democrats who created this disaster:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&feature=related
Barney Frank said the following when Republicans tried to get a hold on the housing finance market in 2003:
”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
Democrats twice blocked Republicans using procedural gimmicks from trying to fix the system.
On July 11, 2008 - just before the housing finance system went to hell - Barney Frank said this even as Republicans tried yet again to overcome Democratic opposition:
REP. BARNEY FRANK, D-MASS.: I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.
They’re in a housing market. I do think their prospects going forward are very solid. And in fact, we’re going to do some things that are going to improve them.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://digg.com/business_finance/Barney_Frank_Freddie_Mac_Fannie_Mae_fundamentally_sound&ei=a1WQSaSpD4nKtQOf_YCcCQ&usg=AFQjCNERZuRs85weeyX_IxFQegGlI7zrkA
And you blame the Republicans for that?
We are now on the hook for TRILLIONS of dollars in bad debt because of DEMOCRAT policies.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2008-09-07-fannie-freddie-plan_N.htm
I did not say I was too busy. I said I was unable. I am ill. Because of my infirmity, I may or may not be back here for days at a time. Sometimes weeks. Certainly hours... For that reason, I cannot properly shepherd a thread as I ought, so I don't post threads.
That does not make me a "leech", as you would have it. Many, many folks here post to threads without posting threads themselves - The vast majority do exactly that, with far less reason than I. That you post threads makes you no more and no less a contributor than anyone else here. So get off your high horse.
And I am published btw, I just choose not to publish here. I direct a very few links from here to my main website (where the link might help a fellow FReeper), which is primarily dealing with home-owner computer stuff, or to my tech site, which is much harder to find.
Most of my personal site which dealt largely with politics, Pro-Life, and the Bible in the light of prophecy, has been down for some three years now, but was popular in it's day, and while I keep promising to restore it, it is a monstrous task, and I have yet to re-compose and format it for my new demesnes.
I find blog-pimping to be rather shallow and self-serving. That I do not participate in such nonsense (nor need to), does not mean I do not "write my own stuff", nor does it necessarily mean that you are better, or more "published" than I.
I have repeatedly pointed out how irrational your basic contention is: that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. I pointed out - and documented - that the Democrats are currently spending MORE THAN FOUR TIMES MORE than the worst year EVER for Republicans.
And I repeatedly replied: "So What?" - To which you have painstakingly refused to formulate any sort of reasonable reply, resorting to insults and whatnot, rather than actually answering the question, which was, as I will remind you:
How does it matter whether they spend moderately more, or alot more, when what is undoubtedly needed is draconian CUTTING, to the tune of half to three quarters? Anything less than that is the same path to utter doom, period. FIFTY-THREE TRILLION dollars, dude. Who cares if they add $4T or $11T? It doesn't matter. It's the first $53T that's gonna kill us.
ANYONE who would opt for a lesser of two evils at this late date is delusional. REAL fiscal responsibility must be demanded of both sides of th aisle, and I will demand it first of the so-called "conservatives" side as one cannot criticize one's opponent without the high ground to stand upon.
Maybe you refuse to realize it, but anyone else realizes that if you’re already in debt, and you start spending four, five, even six times more than previously (as expressed to the GDP), you are racing off a cliff toward disaster.
No. What I realize is that we were racing toward that disaster ANYWAY, before the Democrats assumed any power. You are happy as a clam to go right back to Bush AGAIN. I am not, nor will I be.
What you propose is every bit as irrational as what the liberals on the Democrats do - Spending money we do not have. It is, as I have said, an argument of increments, and is wholly without merit.
The Democrats are calling for socialized medicine [...]
So are the Republicans. Romneycare... McCain't's health care too - Both are nothing but socialized medicine, and Romneycare looks just like the Democrat offering - as much as we have seen of it.
I pointed out that the stimulus bill passed with nearly total Republican opposition [...]
Yes, while mysteriously forgetting to point to bipartisan support for TARP II... How convenient that it sliped your memory...
Do you want more massive government spending or not?
No, I do not. I want MASSIVE GOVERNMENT CUTTING. Something neither party can bear to do, which is my point.
They’re fighting against socialized medicine [...]
While being *for* it in the press and in the campaign.
[...] they are fighting against the energy bill [...]
While being *for* it in the press and in the campaign.
[...] they are fighting against the climate change bill [...]
While being *for* it in the press and in the campaign.
[...] they are opposing the socialist takeover of the auto industry [...]
While being *for* socializing Wall Street and the banking system.
If you are a conservative, why won’t you give them support as they fight against these things?
Remove the moderates from power, put Reaganites into the leadership, and you will gain my support. That you are not screaming for the moderates to step down belies your intentions. Those who would genuinely oppose all the things you object to are not in power in the party.
HR1207 is a bill to audit the federal government: 179 representatives have signed on as co-sponsors with Ron Paul.
ROTFLMAO!!! If ONLY the Republicans came anywhere close to supporting RP on national issues! You are a laugh-riot!! HAHAHAHAHA! Answer me this: Why is it that the Republicans did not call for all this transparency in the fed when they had the power to do it? The very same wing of the party controls it even yet - Why didn't they call for this then?
I submit that it is not merely irrational to lump a party that overwhelmingly supports holding the government accountable with a party that almost unanimously opposes it, but it is immoral.
I would submit that it is ridiculous to judge a party by the 100 or so true Conservatives in the House who are consistently kept away from the levers of power, and cannot lead the party anywhere. Not only is it ridiculous, it is stupid.
As I have said before, those Republicans who are Conservative have not lost my support, nor the support of the AIP. It is the scurrilous leadership, and their RINO companions, who will not see a dime from me. And as the leadership IS the party, the party will not see my praises either. I will praise and support the individuals who deserve it, regardless of affiliation.
The bond yield curve is the highest on record - and it is expected up yet another 100 plus points from that record. We are in real danger of losing our AAA rating.
The same has been occurring since before Obama. and Chinas warnings and demands came long, long before Obama as well. Again, it is the FIFTY-THREE TRILLION that is the problem. That has been building for a very long time.
We are in serious trouble, and all you can think of doing is splitting the conservative vote.
You are absolutely right - and that is why you really should not be cheer leading for the Dixie Chicks. You should *know* how that's gnna turn out.
Conservatives are *not* going to be panicked back into the fold. You should be screaming for real change in the leadership of the Republican Party, or there WILL be *no* Conservative support. Without a real return to Reagan, there will be no more Republicans.
No matter how you cut it, Congress has regulatory control of Wall Street, and the administration controls the fed, and the regulatory officers of the market. What went on was the intentional rollup of c rated loans into AA rate securities - something the regulators let slide. Republican regulators.
Telling me it is “because I cannot shepherd a thread” is itself a tacit acknowledgment that there is a significant difference between writing an article and leeching off of someone else’s and attempting to hijack their thought with your own agenda. To the extent it is a burden to “shepherd a thread,” it is only because of people like you.
I, for instance, will NEVER leave any thread of mine that is under attack. I get the last word on every article that bears my name. So because of the fact that you want to undermine my point with your own, I have to keep coming back again and again. In other words, to the extent that it is too much of a burden for Roamer_1 to write his own articles is merely because there are people like Roamer_1 walking around.
You tell me to get off my high horse. Why don’t YOU take your own advice? You have to tell me that you are a published author because that makes you a big whuppity deal. I’m published too: I just never feel the need to say that unless someone else arrogantly tries to puff himself up first. And you then call me a “blog pimp” and say you are holier than thou for not being one.
People like you remind me of Jerry Falwell just before the sex scandal broke out.
First of all, for about the ten thousandth time, you are wrong. Freerepublic has a section titled “Blogs and Personal.” You actually had to click on it to get to this very article. To say I am a “blog pimp” for offering a “blog” on a “blog and personal” section is as irrational as everything else you are saying. Furthermore, I don’t and never have posted only a short blurb to try to make people come to my own site. So I am not “pimping” anything. The ONLY pimp, in point of fact, is someone like you who goes to other people’s work and tries to “pimp” your views on it.
So why don’t YOU get off YOUR high horse?
Now, the real essence of this argument. I say that spending many times more is FAR WORSE than spending many times less. And you say:
How does it matter whether they spend moderately more, or alot more, when what is undoubtedly needed is draconian CUTTING, to the tune of half to three quarters? Anything less than that is the same path to utter doom, period. FIFTY-THREE TRILLION dollars, dude. Who cares if they add $4T or $11T? It doesn’t matter. It’s the first $53T that’s gonna kill us.”
If it doesn’t matter, why don’t you put you own money where your mouth is? Because at some level you understand that it matters - and matters greatly.
Being bankrupt is an “increment,” as it means not having the resources to pay one’s debt obligations. We have doomed our children in one hundred days of this president, and all you can think of is how to undermine the far better of the two parties so that the far worse one will win election after election.
Stop being naive. Live in the real world.
You say,
“ANYONE who would opt for a lesser of two evils at this late date is delusional. REAL fiscal responsibility must be demanded of both sides of th aisle, and I will demand it first of the so-called “conservatives” side as one cannot criticize one’s opponent without the high ground to stand upon.”
There’s an view that a lie is a lie, and one must be true to one’s conscience and refuse to choose the lesser of two evils. That means always telling the truth no matter what. It means always standing on the high ground.
During WWII, there were many professing Christians in Germany who thought that way. They sheltered Jews in their homes, but when the Nazis came and asked, “Do you have any Jews in your house?” They put their “conscience” first - refused to choose the lesser of two evils - and told the truth. “Yes, they said. We are sheltering Jews in our home.” After all, if they told a lie to Germans, they would give up the moral high ground. How could they claim to be better than the Germans when they themselves had lied?
And so the Nazis took away the Jews those people were sheltering. And the Jews died terribly in the death camps as a result of the fact that the people who claimed the moral high ground had betrayed them. But those people would stick their noses in the air and say, “We told the truth. We refrained from choosing the lesser of two evils by lying to save Jews.” Maybe some of them said, “It is those Christians who DID choose the lesser of two evils by lying who are the real problem.” When of course the REAL problem was the Nazis.
That’s really what you’re doing: working to undermine the Republican Party because it advances the lesser of two evils, while ignoring - and by your work against the Republicans advancing - the Democrats who always push for the GREATER of two evils.
We are going to need all of our numbers to overcome and overwhelm the hard-core liberal agenda. But you’re working against that. We are going to need the Franklin attitude, “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” But you refuse to follow his wise advice. What would have happened if there had been people like Roamer_1 when we were trying to fight the British? We would have been easily defeated.
Now, me. I would have lied my head off to those Germans at my door. I would look them right in the eye and say, “Jews? There are no Jews here!” I might even have spat and said, “I HATE Jews” for dramatic effect to make myself more believable. And then I would go in and tell the Jews I was sheltering, “Well, I violated my principles some. I chose the lesser of two evils. I gave up some of my moral high ground. Do you mind?” And let me assure you, they WOULDN’T have.
And neither will our children, whose money we are spending, whose future way of life we are destroying, if we chose the party that tried to slow it down by upwards of 500%.
And, most certainly, neither do I.
Because, unlike you, I realize that there are consequences for what we do, and for what we don’t do; for what we support and for what we don’t support; for what we vote for, and for what we don’t vote for. I realize that the greater good has FAR more moral force than merely saying, “I voted my conscience. It’s not MY fault what happens afterward.” Because it IS your fault when the party of abortion, socialism, fascism, and totalitarianism comes into power and stays there because you fracture the vote of the people who would have opposed that agenda. You are responsible for the consequences of your decisions and actions.
When you throw your vote away on candidates and parties who won’t win, you are responsible for the greater harm that is caused by your failing to support imperfect but still superior candidates who COULD have won.
You have a duty to consider the consequences and ramifications of your vote, and vote for the best candidate who has a chance of winning. You need to sincerely ask yourself which of the candidates who have a chance to win best represent your principles, and vote for that candidate.
To see no difference between the party that has life in its platform versus the party that has death in its platform is immoral. To see no difference between the party that nominates John Roberts versus the party that nominates Ruth Bader Ginsburg is immoral. To see no difference between the party that will fight Barack Obama’s abortionist justice vesrus the party that will force that justice through is immoral. To see no difference between a party that has been trying - however imperfectly - to slow down the massive government spending and the march toward socialism versus the party that has been racing us toward ruinous spending and socialism is immoral.
So I can only entreat you to reconsider your incredibly vindictive and wrong attitude toward the Republican Party.
I see the Democrats actually winning again in 2010 because conservatives split into five voting blocs rather than get behind the conservative candidates who would have won had we simply united behind them. And that too would be immoral.
There is nothing tacit about my acknowledgment. It is expected that the person who posted the thread will stick around and field comments to the thread, at least for a while. But that has *nothing* to do with being the author of the OP. The same requirement holds true of *all* threads posted, or at least those with a serious bend.
and attempting to hijack their thought with your own agenda. To the extent it is a burden to “shepherd a thread,” it is only because of people like you.
I will remind you once again that mine was a tiny comment. It was you that engaged this battle, not I. It was you that hurled the first invective, not I. That I would return the volley to you, tit for tat, is to be expected. So don't act so butt-sore about it.
And if, btw, you prefer to sing to the choir, and require no dissent, might I suggest that FR is not the place for you. As I said before, perhaps GOP.com or WAnkerville would be more your style. There you would find the praise and accolades you desire.
FreeRepublic is a Conservative forum, *not* a Republican one.
I, for instance, will NEVER leave any thread of mine that is under attack. I get the last word on every article that bears my name.
Again, it is you who attacked me. so be prepared to spend a lot of time getting that last word. Especially since I find your particular brand of pragmatism to be the exact problem within the Republican party... I am quite content to return your missives, as they are without merit and easily rebuffed.
In other words, to the extent that it is too much of a burden for Roamer_1 to write his own articles is merely because there are people like Roamer_1 walking around.
My point was that "Roamer_1" does write his own articles. Reams of them. My personal site, the one I have yet to reformat because it is such a monstrous task, consists of 75 major articles and 1588 pages of html, all authored by me, and published on the web since BBS days.
I have no need to publish them here, as I said. I don't have to publish my materials from my other websites here, as my sites serve their purpose, and stand on their own.
You tell me to get off my high horse. Why don’t YOU take your own advice? You have to tell me that you are a published author because that makes you a big whuppity deal.
Let's not forget that my authorship only came up in the course of your insults and accusations against me:
"What you don’t do is write articles. You said it yourself: “I have only posted a thread once, ever, and it was not an article.” No, you don’t offer your own stuff, probably because you know it would be idiotic garbage; instead, you’re a parasitic tick who burrows into someone else’s work and tries to live off of them." -Michael Eden #29 "What an insult to YOU. Because I googled you. And in all your “seniority” you haven’t produced squat other than some bitchy little comments." -Michael Eden #27
Had you not made these inflammatory remarks in your attempts to diminish me (or elevate yourself), my authorship would not have come up at all, I assure you. I have made reference to my own sites and my own authorship but a handful of times in all of my posts here.
I’m published too [...]
Yes, you've made that quite clear all the way along.
First of all, for about the ten thousandth time, you are wrong.
LOL!!! "For the ten thousandth time"... So my fellows have already confirmed what I have accused you of...
Freerepublic has a section titled “Blogs and Personal.” You actually had to click on it to get to this very article.
I know it does, and no, I didn't have to enter "Blogs and Personal" to get to the article. It shows up under "Everything", which is how my FR search browser is set.
Furthermore, I don’t and never have posted only a short blurb to try to make people come to my own site. So I am not “pimping” anything.
I don't know your history, but I will take your word for it. It stands in your favor. Still, many, like myself, go straight to the source - So your site hits undoubtedly go up from FR traffic, and I would speculate that the lion's share of your site traffic does come from FR, regardless of wherever else you might link your articles.
Blogs and forums have an uneasy relationship. Regardless of your opinion, it is the blog that is the parasite, reliant upon the forum for it's audience, for the "hits" it needs to gain popularity and eventual limelight. But it is also the blog that gets the national credit for being the "grassroots voice" - a credit which is wholly and utterly misplaced. The forums are the voice of the people.
So the blog-pimping title sticks, and rightly so. That the "Blogging and Personal" section was formed was not to give blogs legitimacy, but to keep this virulent form of vanity out of the main purpose of the site, which is "News and Activism".
The ONLY pimp, in point of fact, is someone like you who goes to other people’s work and tries to “pimp” your views on it.
As I said before... It was you who engaged me. My tiny comment is hardly the sort of thing one can call "pimping" my views". And also as stated previously, Even if I had, dissenting views are a part of forum life, and to be expected. That is what forums are *for*.
Being bankrupt is an “increment,” as it means not having the resources to pay one’s debt obligations. We have doomed our children in one hundred days of this president, and all you can think of is how to undermine the far better of the two parties so that the far worse one will win election after election.
We were bankrupt before Obama was elected. That is the part you don't seem to be able to grasp. Just as GM was bankrupt long before this day. And just as GM could have been turned around at any time previous to this day, so this country could have been turned around, too. It still can be turned around. But not by the Democrats, or by appeasing Republicans. More of the same will doom us.
That is why your argument of increment means nothing. The dire need was in Reagan's day. Had GHW Bush carried on, we could ave recovered. Had GW Bush picked up where Reagan left off, we could have recovered. Had the Republican House and Congress stayed true to the '94 vision (Reagan), we would have recovered splendidly.
Now we are far beyond dire. Both parties gnaw at the very sovereignty of this nation. Both parties seek to remove our rights wholesale. Neither party will bow to the fiscal realities we have faced for years, which have now come due, and neither party will admit that the social fabric of our nation is being destroyed by moths and rent in pieces.
There are ONLY three courses left. The servitude of Socialism, leading quickly to a world dominated by Communism; A violent and bloody civil war; Or a demand to return to first principles: Pure Conservatism. That is all there is left. That is all there has been for some time now. What I fight against is the former. What I hope for is the latter. Where appeasement leads is to one of the first two.
Stop being naive. Live in the real world.
I *am* in the real world. The piper will be paid.
That’s really what you’re doing: working to undermine the Republican Party because it advances the lesser of two evils, while ignoring - and by your work against the Republicans advancing - the Democrats who always push for the GREATER of two evils.
That is the most insane screed I have ever heard. Endorsing evil means evil remains. Greater or lesser, it is evil all the same.
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. -Isaiah 5:20
Both parties should be acting for the GREATER GOOD or the LESSER GOOD. There is no "good" in them. Now we are reduced to accepting the one with the lesser socialism? The one that would buy us a year or two more? It is idiocy.
We are going to need all of our numbers to overcome and overwhelm the hard-core liberal agenda. But you’re working against that.
No, I am not. You think that one can fight liberalism with liberalism. I think that is a specious argument. Liberals are Conservatives' natural prey. Turn the Conservatives loose. Then you will see support in numbers that will astound you.
What would have happened if there had been people like Roamer_1 when we were trying to fight the British? We would have been easily defeated.
It was people like me who WERE fighting the British. Those who stood on principles firmly enough to pledge it ALL - Their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor - to the cause. Surely, you don't think it was the "middle" 30% who fought that war...
And neither will our children, whose money we are spending, whose future way of life we are destroying, if we chose the party that tried to slow it down by upwards of 500%.
Oh, if it was truly slowing it down, I'd be singing a different tune. Do you have any idea what the interest is on $53T? If they were attacking THAT number, they'd be honest, and so would you.
Because it IS your fault when the party of abortion, socialism, fascism, and totalitarianism comes into power and stays there because you fracture the vote of the people who would have opposed that agenda. You are responsible for the consequences of your decisions and actions.
That is the point. Had there been opposition, which IS Conservatism, I would have voted for it. There is no opposition, only a lesser increment.
When you throw your vote away on candidates and parties who won’t win, you are responsible for the greater harm that is caused by your failing to support imperfect but still superior candidates who COULD have won.
The Republicans were doomed the moment there was not a Conservative to represent them - So your comment is nonsensical.
You have a duty to consider the consequences and ramifications of your vote, and vote for the best candidate who has a chance of winning.
No. I have a duty and a responsibility to vote for the best man for the job, according to my conscience. That is the purpose designed by our forefathers, and one to which I adhere. It is your brand of pragmatism which has brought us the blackguards the Republicans now consist of.
To see no difference between the party that has life in its platform versus the party that has death in its platform is immoral.
Life in it's platform means nothing. There is death in it's actions. Touting a platform it neither stands for nor defends, does *nothing* for your cause.
To see no difference between the party that nominates John Roberts versus the party that nominates Ruth Bader Ginsburg is immoral. To see no difference between the party that will fight Barack Obama’s abortionist justice vesrus the party that will force that justice through is immoral.
Life does not belong before those damnable robed tyrants in the first place. What is immoral is a Republican Congress that let their tyranny stand without a whimper.
To see no difference between the party that will fight Barack Obama’s abortionist justice vesrus the party that will force that justice through is immoral.
For nearly thirty years the Republicans have carried the banner for Life. What is immoral is that all of the gains made in those years were able to be wiped out by the stroke of one president's pen. The truth of it is that the Republicans have done that little in thirty years. It is lip service, nothing more. 50m lives snuffed out because Republicans were too timid to really fight for the truth.
To see no difference between a party that has been trying - however imperfectly - to slow down the massive government spending and the march toward socialism versus the party that has been racing us toward ruinous spending and socialism is immoral.
How absurd! Not a CUT, one! "However imperfectly"? Are you serious? And "slow down [...] the march toward socialism"? They conspire in it. They appease it, and compromise with it. They want Globalism. The only difference is if we are to be ruled by governmental tyranny or a corporate oligarchy, but that the two are swiftly becoming one thing.
So I can only entreat you to reconsider your incredibly vindictive and wrong attitude toward the Republican Party.
Bah! I remain wholly unconvinced. As I said, the ONLY thing that can redeem the Republicans, is to oust the moderates from leadership and place the party firmly, and entirely in the hands of the Conservatives. Until that happens, I will continue as I am. I am not wrong in the least. I am stone-dead right.
I see the Democrats actually winning again in 2010 because conservatives split into five voting blocs rather than get behind the conservative candidates who would have won had we simply united behind them. And that too would be immoral.
You mistake "Republican" for "Conservative". For if the candidate were truly Conservative, the Conservatives would get behind them. What you describe is what happens when pragmatism has it's way. The Conservatives factionalize because the candidates are *not* true Conservatives.
Your statement leads me to believe that you don't even understand the concept of Conservatism, and why principle is so important, do you?
“Your statement leads me to believe that you don’t even understand the concept of Conservatism, and why principle is so important, do you?”
- - - -
Oh, I understand it fine. You’ve mentioned Reagan several times. Let’s realize that I’M in the party of Reagan and YOU’RE spending 100% of your time demonizing the party of Reagan. How about if we play a little game? count up all the times you’ve attacked Democrats, and then count up all all the times you’ve attacked Republicans. And we’ll add up the totals and see which side you’re on. That’s all you’ve done over and over again: demonize Republicans. Let the Democrats have their agenda. And YOU call THAT “conservativism”? what on earth is wrong with you?
I also notice that you love presenting yourself as a victim, just like every single liberal I’ve ever met. How you love the rhetorical judo - “Look everybody! This mean Republican is attacking me! I’m the victim! I’m the victim!” It’s just another canned version of “The Republican attack machine.”
You ARE a “victim.” You are a victim of an asinine understanding of reality.
You want me to quit attacking you? Then don’t ever post to any article under my name. I hereby officially promise you that I won’t ever waste any of my time with what passes for your “thought” anywhere else.
You have lumped in every single Republican as a terrible and immoral party when there are ALL KINDS of good Republicans who are carrying on the good fight. You say the 84% of Republicans who have joined Ron Paul in trying to hold the federal government responsible by auditing the federal books are just as bad as the 96% of Democrats who refuse to support holding the federal government responsible. And you have tacitly presented every “America’s Independent Party” politician as being good and virtuous do-gooders who will make everything wonderful again. And of course you know that they - unlike the Repubicans - will NEVER do anything that EVER runs counter to the conservative agenda. And they don’t even exist as anything other than a pipe dream. You DON’T live in the real world.
Your ideas are an outrage. Do you know why I got into blogging in the first place? Because I saw the Jeremiah Wright sermons and knew immediately that Barack Obama was a truly evil man. I knew ONE thing: that there was no way in hell I would have stayed in that church for 23 damn years while the “reverend” screamed “God damn America!” and all the other filth that came out of his mouth while Barack Obama’s fellow congregants stood up and cheered. I knew I had to work to make sure that this evil man did not become president.
It is IMMORAL of you to lump Republicans who would NEVER have joined that wicked church to begin with a man who immersed himself in it for 23 years.
Just as it is absolutely warped of you to make the claim that Obama’s spending - which I have repeatedly documented to dwarf anything Republicans have EVER done - is just an “increment” and therefore of no account. That is insane.
Just as it is absolutely warped of you to make the claim that the Republican party that is fighting against a socialist redistributionist agenda in the “climate change bill” is just as bad as the Democratic party that is working to push that through. That is insane.
Just as it is absolutely warped of you to make the claim that the Republican party that is fighting against an energy bill that will undermine our nation’s economy and way of life for decades to come by sending energy costs (in Obama’s own words) “necessarily skyrocketing” is just as bad as the Democratic party that is working to push that through. That is insane.
Just as it is absolutely warped of you to make the claim that the Republican party that is fighting against socialist medicine that will be like a depth charge to more than 1/6th of our economy is just as bad as the Democratic party that is working to push that through. That is insane.
And, of course, I can go on with such paragraphs.
You tell ME that I don’t understand conservatism when everything YOU are doing helps the Democrats push through those agendas and many more?
The thing that makes me truly angry at you is that we will NEVER defeat the above agenda as long as there are any number of people who think like you, who demand we split off from the party of Reagan and scatter like paper in the wind joining various parties rather than trying to make the only thing even close to a national conservative party in 100 years a better party.
Reagan joined the Republican Party and made it better. You are undermining that party and foolishly working to help the party of the hard-core socialist agenda.
If you don’t want to get “attacked,” you poor pathetic little victim of my meanness, DON’T DO IT AROUND ANYTHING THAT BEARS MY NAME.
Because I will not have anything filed under MY name associated with your perverted and demented outrages and not respond to it.
P.S. I DON’T confuse “conservatism” and the Republican Party, unless you define “having any chance of actually winning” as a Republican idea rather than a conservative one. If one of your “America’s Independent Party” candidates runs a strong campaign with a better and more conservative platform than a Republican rival, I’d vote for the independent over the Republican. But would I split the vote for a Republican who is trying to defeat a liberal Democrat so I can throw it away while getting the Democrat elected? No. No way in hell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.