Posted on 11/04/2010 10:52:00 AM PDT by Conservative_Pragmatist
Hey gang-
I am new here. I was looking for Conservative boards to post on during the election and they just weren’t very good. Someone told me about this site so I figured I’d check it out.
I felt compelled to log-up after the Republicans took massive control of the US House this election.
Like most of you I was over-joyed when the Democrats got swept out of Congress. But we have seen how the tea leaves (pun intended) change. The last two cycles the Republicans got waxed, we were losing seats in strong Conservative areas. That cycle is now turned. We’ve picked up key seats in more Liberal areas like Mass, Illinois, Wisconsin, and here in Virginia a very popular Democrat (Boucher) was defeated. Never thought I’d see that, so the message is loud and clear, this nation DOES NOT want big government.
However, it’s easy to think the electorate in the center could swing right back to the other side if the Republicans fail to deliver. Or get this? Even if the Republicans DO deliver!
Personally, I think this election for the Republicans was great. We dominate the house so no far-left initiatives have any chance of ever making it to law. And I was sorta glad we didn’t get the Senate, because now the Democrats still have some culpability and Obama can’t play against the Republican congress in 2012. We are also close enough that if we win the White House in 2012, we could possibly send a complete majority Republican Senate with that person.
So that is GREAT news.
However, WHAT IF Obama decides to compromise with the Republicans? Remember Clinton compromised with the Republicans after 1994 and got some good things done on trade, welfare and the economy took off as well. Clinton was then re-elected as a more popular candidate than when he won in 1992.
Point is, if Clinton had not worked with the Republicans then maybe the country struggles longer and we beat him in 1996, but that wasn’t what was best for our country.
So the struggle I am having is this. Can we afford NOT to work with a Democrat President if it means we can help the USA? If he works WITH our guys, moves to the center, limits government spending and frees up the market and that helps our nation, then it stands a chance he could get re-elected, something I don’t want to see.
But…helping our country now, and the US Republicans now have a chance to help our nation may actually turn out to help the Democrat President.
While I was popping champagne the other night, I am now left with these thoughts and don’t know what to think. Again…for me it’s country first.
You forgot the most important part of the hazing ritual. The applicant must chant “Aqua Buddha...Aqua Buddha...Aqua Buddha...” while simultaneously rubbing his tummy and patting the top of his head.
Well, good for you. I mention us to people I know for a fact are conservative. I’m hopeful he’ll at least visit...
“Point is, if Clinton had not worked with the Republicans then maybe the country struggles longer and we beat him in 1996, but that wasn’t what was best for our country.”
Many people think in those terms, but that “maybe” look back is incomplete. It ignores that in both of Clintoons elections he got less than 50% of the vote, because Ross Perot was running. No, Perot did not win any electoral votes, but no one actually knows how all the votes for Perot would have gone without him in the race, and how that change would have affected the Electoral College vote count.
Could we get a point of clarification from an Admin on this matter. To the Admin: several posters on this thread have received FReepmail from the guy who started this thread. He’s saying that he’s being blocked from replying on this thread. Since part of the reason he’s being suspected of possibly being a troll is that he hasn’t returned to reply to any comments on this thread, it would be important to know if he’s unable to reply. Thanks!!!
I just had another email correspondence where I laid it on the line. One to two posts on other threads. Able on his first day to post a vanity. Yet blocked from responding? This doesn’t add up. So, I suggested he begin responding. We’ll see...
He'll try something after consulting with Saul Alinski and the other “Fellow Travelers.”
Obama does all the moving or no deal. The voters elected the republicans to deny Obama all the power of having total dem control of the Congress.
If they make compromises, they will find themselves looking for a new job in 2012.
You don’t make deals with communists. You oust them.
“...but why won’t he come back and play with us?”
Well, I won’t bend over backwards to defend him, or her, but it is possible he/she doesn’t know how the board works yet.
I am honored. I would love to hear how it goes.
My post is an abbreviated version of an article I have been intending to write about the tea party.
Ok, folks. She has been trying to post but it was not working. I told her some hints and she is going to try again. Until then, she said to tell y’all that she is an American! So, give her a chance to prove herself. I told her I was sorry for not giving her that chance to post on the greatest site on the internet.
Or him.
“So the struggle I am having is this. Can we afford NOT to work with a Democrat President if it means we can help the USA? If he works WITH our guys, moves to the center, limits government spending and frees up the market and that helps our nation, then it stands a chance he could get re-elected, something I don’t want to see.”
First:
It’s not “can we afford NOT to work with” Obama, because that question does not begin with or depend on what it is that Obama wants to do.
Outside of some specific policy or action, there is no answer to that open-ended question.
Second:
Obama has an agenda, and a purpose to which he believes he was elected. That agenda and purpose is not dependent on any policy area that anyone thinks must be addressed because of any condition in the economy or the nation at this time.
Obama’s agenda, his purpose to which he and the intellectual core of his backers sought to get him elected is not a purpose focused on actually solving specific problems or issues.
Obama’s agenda, and his purpose is PRIMARILY to use the occasion of anywhere and anything that is considered as an issue for which something “needs to be done”, by the Federal government, as an opportunity to have legislation crafted as “the solution” filled with language that has the primary purpose of extending the breadth, the depth, the reach and the detailed invasion of centralized Federal power and authority into the economy and our daily lives.
Obama’s agenda, and his purpose is NOT about actually solving problmes; it’s about total transformation, total building up of, the power and role of the Federal government - period.
What individual issues the media, the Congress critters and the public are focused on, they are not the central concern of Obama. For his agenda, we could have any and all kinds of issues we do not have now. His agenda, the legacy he wants to leave would be the same - transform the Federal government into a massive central government socialist state, in any manner the language for it can be inserted into any legislation thought to be needed for any “solution”.
Unless the GOP understands that, their “cooperation” with Obama will assume he, like them, actually wants certain real problems solved, and he will be able to get the language he wants slipped into enough bills they cooperate on, to “solve” the only problem that to him needs solving - to turn over more power to the Federal government.
And on a blank page you can read anything into it!
Did a good job for your first post EXCEPT...this is considered a vanity and you posted it in the news section wrongo...you post it in the general/chat section.
That was a great response (that I wish I could respond to)..............We said the same thing about Clinton...he wanted to transform the government into a socialist state and it sure looked that way when Hillary came out with her megaboondoggle health care gang rape.....
There are some big differences.
First, the Congress, particularly was much more Leftist, as of 2006 and continuing as of 2008, providing Obama a bigger base of subversion waiting to work with him than Billary ever had at any time.
Second; big pieces of Obama's "transformation" agenda have already been enacted, in the language of the "health care reform" legislation, in the language of the "financial reform" legislation, in the total Federal takeover of student loans, and many other items. Not only did Billary never get that far, getting that far now requires reversing something, not just stopping something. Keep in mind the Leftist have had this agenda since FDR. They have never stopped working for it and the Liberals are always their most useful "useful idiots" who have been trained since their college days to think of their ideas as "Liberal" and not as the Marxist ideas they truly are. Most of the real people who have kept the agenda for those ideas in play have not been the public faces, but behind the scenes "working for" those public faces. Not Obama. He is one of them.
Third: Hillary is the real Marxist half of the slimey political opportunist duo known as Billary. Bill's slimey half is all about public accolade, political "accomplishments" that "make him look good", and producing a perpetual self-interested political influence peddling machine that can continue after his own Presidency, keeping him in the Nexus of power circles, keeping his hand in as a player, keeping that machine as his lucrative personal business. If he made friends and cooperated with Hillary's Leftist intellectual peers, he did so for any benefit it gave him, much more than an abiding and deep intellectual sympatico. He is not principled enough to be a die-hard Leftist. Obama is none of those things; his only principles are Leftist.
It would be fine with Obama to be hated by the GOP and the Dims alike, and have low popularity ratings (so unlike Clintoon), as long as legislation enacted during his term actually accomplishes big elements of the transformation he sought to do.
You posted this Vanity.
Then 21 seconds later you posted a 63 word comment on another thread.
Then you posted a 111 word comment to yet another thread in 26 more seconds.
Either you’re quite a typist. Or you pre-prepared these posts.
??????
We need to go deeper than fleeting legislative efforts. The fundamental political challenge is to restore respect for the Constitution. Unfortunately it has been so misconstrued and abused by over 70 years of progressive control of the Supreme Court and other branches of the federal government that simple legislative action is not enough. We need to promote amendments to the Constitution to restore its original meaning and structure. This can lock in this moment of constitutionalist resurgence regardless of the future vagaries of political parties.
The first step is to put through an amendment to the amendment process itself which will eliminate the unnecessary convention now required by Article V and permit States to directly initiate amendment proposals. We can then break the current de facto federal congressional and judicial monopoly on interpreting the Constitution, and empower grassroots patriots on the state level to restore the Constitution by amendment. With the government constrained on a constitutional level, the legislative mischief which worries you can be contained. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com
I’ll try to remember to report back. I would be interested seeing your article when you finish it.
“This account has been banned or suspended.
Okay”
Wow! He didn’t last long.
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.