Other Disaffected Republicans?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
204

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

I’m not talking about presidential elections. Those are always close, and probably always will be in our 2 party system.
I’m talking about congressional, state an local elections.

What are you thinking? Growing majority? Was there an election this year that I missed? Bush and his cronies got in there on the wave of 2004’s election, which was 51%-49%. I dont call that overwhelmingly Conservative. [/quote]

Just so that I am clear about what I said - I boldfaced the part of my post that you evidently failed to read. I am throwing out the presidential election, as those are always cloes. FYI - Clinton NEVER recieved 50% of the vote in 1992, or 1996… This supports my contention that Presidential races are always close, and can hardly be used as a barometer.

Even with that said, you are conveniently leaving out the fact that the right GAINED seats in 2002 - which was a political rarity in off year elections for a sitting President’s party. Historically, they lose seats, or maintain the status quo, but not gain.

You can stick your finger iun the air to see which way the fickle winds of political opinion are blowing, but don;t bring it to me as proof that the country is not growing more conservative. I have election results, and Balance of Power numbers on my side, and all you have is a CNN-USA Today poll.

Someone needs to wake up, but it is certainly not me.

205

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
vroom wrote:
Like I said, everyone should keep their damn noses out of other people’s business and let God sort 'em out. I’m quite sure that he will.

Funny, sometimes those that claim to have so much faith aren’t willing to let God be our judge…

Wasn’t there something about “judge not”?

That is how I feel about it. I don’t understand those that want to force laws based on religion. The religion isn’t supposed to based in offensive force at all.

One of the legitimate functions of gov’t is to protect those who cannot protect themselves. How in the world does religion enter into it?
[/quote]

Religion is part of the equation. It is used as a justification for law and public policy. Whehter something is against God’s plan plan is a voiced rationale as to whether it should be legal on more than one issue.

206

Zap, you idiot, of course I saw that!

The whole disagreement was about what was and was not an insult… so unless you are kidding, you’ve missed the blatant humor in that statement (and potentially this one too).

207

vroom, I did miss the humor. I admit I was tuning out the subject of your and RJ’s pissing match.

208

[quote]rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

I’m not talking about presidential elections. Those are always close, and probably always will be in our 2 party system.
I’m talking about congressional, state an local elections.

What are you thinking? Growing majority? Was there an election this year that I missed? Bush and his cronies got in there on the wave of 2004’s election, which was 51%-49%. I dont call that overwhelmingly Conservative.

Just so that I am clear about what I said - I boldfaced the part of my post that you evidently failed to read. I am throwing out the presidential election, as those are always cloes. FYI - Clinton NEVER recieved 50% of the vote in 1992, or 1996… This supports my contention that Presidential races are always close, and can hardly be used as a barometer.

Even with that said, you are conveniently leaving out the fact that the right GAINED seats in 2002 - which was a political rarity in off year elections for a sitting President’s party. Historically, they lose seats, or maintain the status quo, but not gain.

You can stick your finger iun the air to see which way the fickle winds of political opinion are blowing, but don;t bring it to me as proof that the country is not growing more conservative. I have election results, and Balance of Power numbers on my side, and all you have is a CNN-USA Today poll.

Someone needs to wake up, but it is certainly not me. [/quote]

You are WAY too confident about the Republican Party’s electoral success. Demographics, shrewd campaigning, and a (slightly) more ideologically coherent platform than the Democrats has given the GOP majorities in the House and Senate, but it’s a lot more tenuous than you suspect.

The President’s approval rating has dropped through the floor, the war in Iraq is unpopular, the hurricanes hurt, and now, Miers’ confirmation hearing could potentially piss off religious conservatives (the vital element in the party’s base) enough that they avoid going to the polls. Additionally, libertarians, a small but important wing of the party, are disgusted at the free spending of the president and congress.

Were widespread American military use of torture a bigger story, as it should be, there might be complete public revulsion with the President and those (Frist, DeLay, etc.). If the Democrats were offering any semblance of a real alternative, they could win back both the House and Senate next year. As it is, that’s still at least possible, and maybe even likely.

209

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
You are WAY too confident about the Republican Party’s electoral success. Demographics, shrewd campaigning, and a (slightly) more ideologically coherent platform than the Democrats has given the GOP majorities in the House and Senate, but it’s a lot more tenuous than you suspect.

The President’s approval rating has dropped through the floor, the war in Iraq is unpopular, the hurricanes hurt, and now, Miers’ confirmation hearing could potentially piss off religious conservatives (the vital element in the party’s base) enough that they avoid going to the polls. Additionally, libertarians, a small but important wing of the party, are disgusted at the free spending of the president and congress.

Were widespread American military use of torture a bigger story, as it should be, there might be complete public revulsion with the President and those (Frist, DeLay, etc.). If the Democrats were offering any semblance of a real alternative, they could win back both the House and Senate next year. As it is, that’s still at least possible, and maybe even likely.[/quote]

In a non-election year - approval ratings mean dick. So you are playing the left’s game of telling me how bad of shape the republicans are in. Save that drivel for someone that is swayed by popularity contests.

My confidence is based on election results. You can make all the excuses you want about why the left is losing, but the fact is - they are losing, and losing by an increasing margin. That is the proof I am looking at. When the day comes that you have real proof (read that election results), then you can tell me I was too confident. Until that day comes - I still have the real proof on my side. Go ask Tom Daschle how wrong I am.

Popularity contests are for the losers that want to feel like they have a chance. I could only pray that the left starts making an issue of the U.S.'s supposed war crimes. That would be the death nail for them. They ran on the anti-war platform in 2004 - and lost even more seats. That trick might play in Presidential politics - but not on a local level. Oh - it’d might make you feel good to run down the war, but it won’t resonate with the voter.

210

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Were widespread American military use of torture a bigger story, as it should be, there might be complete public revulsion with the President and those (Frist, DeLay, etc.). If the Democrats were offering any semblance of a real alternative, they could win back both the House and Senate next year. As it is, that’s still at least possible, and maybe even likely.[/quote]

What widespread torture are you refering to?

211

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Were widespread American military use of torture a bigger story, as it should be, there might be complete public revulsion with the President and those (Frist, DeLay, etc.). If the Democrats were offering any semblance of a real alternative, they could win back both the House and Senate next year. As it is, that’s still at least possible, and maybe even likely.

What widespread torture are you refering to?
[/quote]

You know. Loud music. Strippers. The real hardcore stuff they use at Gitmo.

213

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
You are wrong. You are wrong. One more time, you are wrong. What part of the protests didn’t you understand? The tide is absolutely shifing against the war. STop jerking off over your 2002 election results, they mean NOTHING right now. The situation is so drastically changed right now it is unbelievable. When Bush was portrayed as a strong leader after 9/11, it carried over to his party, and they won seats. Even I expected this.

However, now men from his party are being indicted. The war is going terribly, his approval rating is dogshit. Compare his approval rating in Nov. 2002 to his rating now. If the President’s success is any indication of the party’s, the GOP is going downhill. This war will be the undoing of Bush, and the GOP. Say what you will about any other policy; he cannot get us out of Iraq. This will be his downfall.[/quote]

If this is what you have to belive to get you through to the next election, knock yourself out.

Like I said earlier - the proof is in the election results - not a bunch of peaceniks protesting in D.C., nor is the proof found in popularity contests (which, btw - the dems aren’t exactly shining in). I’m not entertaining your bullshit assumptions - I don’t have to.

Like I’ve said umpteen times, the proof - the real, hard indisputable proof called balance of power and election results are on my side. All you have are peaceniks, and popularity contests.

I’ll be happy to discuss this further when you have real proof on your side. Until such time, you are acting like nothing more than a George Soros lackie.

214

From what i read on here and in my local and national news it seems,Republicans =closed minded,elitest,no fun. Democrats=open minded ,want to see everyone enjoy life!

215

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Were widespread American military use of torture a bigger story, as it should be, there might be complete public revulsion with the President and those (Frist, DeLay, etc.). If the Democrats were offering any semblance of a real alternative, they could win back both the House and Senate next year. As it is, that’s still at least possible, and maybe even likely.

What widespread torture are you refering to?

You know. Loud music. Strippers. The real hardcore stuff they use at Gitmo.[/quote]

No. You can believe the apologist stuff circulated in the conservative media, or you can look at Abu Ghraib, the deaths of two Afghan civilians at Bagram air base, the tortures at Camp Mercury, the “water boarding” at Guantanamo, which the Army has admitted to. Andrew Sullivan wrote an article in the Sunday Times that recognizes a hero in this fight, 82nd Airborne Captain Ian Fishback:

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20051002

The 100,000 figure by the Lancet is pure fiction, and the war in Iraq was fought with incredible restraint and humanity by the U.S. We were right to go in there, and we are right to be there now. But this administration’s legitimization of torture stains the entire country and the worthy aims we’re fighting for. You can keep your head in the sand if it makes you happy.

216

[quote]rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
You are WAY too confident about the Republican Party’s electoral success. Demographics, shrewd campaigning, and a (slightly) more ideologically coherent platform than the Democrats has given the GOP majorities in the House and Senate, but it’s a lot more tenuous than you suspect.

The President’s approval rating has dropped through the floor, the war in Iraq is unpopular, the hurricanes hurt, and now, Miers’ confirmation hearing could potentially piss off religious conservatives (the vital element in the party’s base) enough that they avoid going to the polls. Additionally, libertarians, a small but important wing of the party, are disgusted at the free spending of the president and congress.

Were widespread American military use of torture a bigger story, as it should be, there might be complete public revulsion with the President and those (Frist, DeLay, etc.). If the Democrats were offering any semblance of a real alternative, they could win back both the House and Senate next year. As it is, that’s still at least possible, and maybe even likely.

In a non-election year - approval ratings mean dick. So you are playing the left’s game of telling me how bad of shape the republicans are in. Save that drivel for someone that is swayed by popularity contests.

My confidence is based on election results. You can make all the excuses you want about why the left is losing, but the fact is - they are losing, and losing by an increasing margin. That is the proof I am looking at. When the day comes that you have real proof (read that election results), then you can tell me I was too confident. Until that day comes - I still have the real proof on my side. Go ask Tom Daschle how wrong I am.

Popularity contests are for the losers that want to feel like they have a chance. I could only pray that the left starts making an issue of the U.S.'s supposed war crimes. That would be the death nail for them. They ran on the anti-war platform in 2004 - and lost even more seats. That trick might play in Presidential politics - but not on a local level. Oh - it’d might make you feel good to run down the war, but it won’t resonate with the voter.[/quote]

2006 is an election year, so unless you think Bush is going to magically defeat the insurgency, slash the deficit, rebuild New Orleans, and have religious conservatives fall in love with Miers, then his approval ratings do matter. They drag other conservatives.

217

[quote]ron33 wrote:
From what i read on here and in my local and national news it seems,Republicans =closed minded,elitest,no fun. Democrats=open minded ,want to see everyone enjoy life! [/quote]

You need to learn how to read better, then.

218

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
2006 is an election year, so unless you think Bush is going to magically defeat the insurgency, slash the deficit, rebuild New Orleans, and have religious conservatives fall in love with Miers, then his approval ratings do matter. They drag other conservatives.[/quote]

That’s what they all said back in 2002, as well. This is getting very repetitive. I understand that you don’t like Bush. I understand that there are others that can’t stand the entire right wing. But none of that matters. You are talking about fixing something that you see as a problem right now - and the election is 13 months away. That’s being a tad myopic, as well as more than a little impatient.

Folks outside La. won’t give a shit about N.O. when it comes time to elect their representatives. Politics is local - a very important fact that the left has forgotten.

I don’t think the Miers nomination will be an issue after she is confirmed. The left-wing press will try and make a story out of it - but I doubt it will even be remembered in 13 months.

But I could be wrong. The only way you will be able to prove how wrong I am is to wait until election night and watch how the balance of power shifts. Until then, the Republicans still own congress, the whitehouse, and the supreme court.

219

[quote]ron33 wrote:
From what i read on here and in my local and national news it seems,Republicans =closed minded,elitest,no fun. Democrats=open minded ,want to see everyone enjoy life! [/quote]

LOL!

220

[quote]rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
2006 is an election year, so unless you think Bush is going to magically defeat the insurgency, slash the deficit, rebuild New Orleans, and have religious conservatives fall in love with Miers, then his approval ratings do matter. They drag other conservatives.

That’s what they all said back in 2002, as well. This is getting very repetitive. I understand that you don’t like Bush. I understand that there are others that can’t stand the entire right wing. But none of that matters. You are talking about fixing something that you see as a problem right now - and the election is 13 months away. That’s being a tad myopic, as well as more than a little impatient.

Folks outside La. won’t give a shit about N.O. when it comes time to elect their representatives. Politics is local - a very important fact that the left has forgotten.

I don’t think the Miers nomination will be an issue after she is confirmed. The left-wing press will try and make a story out of it - but I doubt it will even be remembered in 13 months.

But I could be wrong. The only way you will be able to prove how wrong I am is to wait until election night and watch how the balance of power shifts. Until then, the Republicans still own congress, the whitehouse, and the supreme court. [/quote]

RJ,

I think what they are not quite understanding is something called “timing.”

Timing is key in fighting, sex and winning elections!

221

I know I sound like some kind of employee of McCain in '08, but he is the leading person standing up to the Administration on torture. Of course, Cheney and the Pentagon are fighting him tooth and nail on the simple issue of applying uniform standards to interrogation, and a Bush veto (when was the last time we saw one of those?) is even threatened:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/169cyftd.asp

222

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
I know I sound like some kind of employee of McCain in '08, but he is the leading person standing up to the Administration on torture. Of course, Cheney and the Pentagon are fighting him tooth and nail on the simple issue of applying uniform standards to interrogation, and a Bush veto (when was the last time we saw one of those?) is even threatened:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/169cyftd.asp[/quote]

A couple of importants point to note:

1.Reviewing even the most cursory history of these incidents, it’s apparent that confusion and lack of training–more than premeditated malice or moral failing–have been the determining factors in the misconduct of American soldiers.

2.NOT SO, says the Pentagon, which in its prosecution of the soldiers, argues that they should have been aware of the methods codified in the Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation (FM 34-52) and used these standards to guide their treatment of detainees.

So, how exactly can you blame bush for any torture?

223

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Well, we should legislate what the vast majority of the country agrees is moral or rather immoral. Murder, theft, rape, etc… should be illegal. I think things with a huge amount of controversy are best left to the states and private citizens, particularly when it’s a huge stretch to try to apply the constitution to the issues.[/quote]

EXACTLY, PRECISELY!!! THANK YOU!!!

(Why do so many people not understand this)??

99.9% of the population agrees that murder, rape, theft, assault, etc. should be illegal. Case closed. 51% or so of the population believes that the woman should have the right to choose when it comes to the issue of abortion. What don’t these pro-life nuts understand regarding the idea of not being able to CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION and outlaw something when at LEAST half the population of the country would disagree, many of them VEHMENTLY, with that? You can’t and shouldn’t do it!! AGAIN: let God sort 'em out!

226

[quote]Damici wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Well, we should legislate what the vast majority of the country agrees is moral or rather immoral. Murder, theft, rape, etc… should be illegal. I think things with a huge amount of controversy are best left to the states and private citizens, particularly when it’s a huge stretch to try to apply the constitution to the issues.

EXACTLY, PRECISELY!!! THANK YOU!!!

(Why do so many people not understand this)??

99.9% of the population agrees that murder, rape, theft, assault, etc. should be illegal. Case closed. 51% or so of the population believes that the woman should have the right to choose when it comes to the issue of abortion. What don’t these pro-life nuts understand regarding the idea of not being able to CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION and outlaw something when at LEAST half the population of the country would disagree, many of them VEHMENTLY, with that? You can’t and shouldn’t do it!! AGAIN: let God sort 'em out![/quote]

If 51% of the country voted to enslave 49% of the country would that be acceptable? Let God sort out who is right and who is wrong!

When you say the “right to choose” what you really mean is the right to kill the fetus/baby developing inside the woman.

I hate the term “right to choose”. Abortion is such a morally repugant thing even its most vehement supporters try to hide what it is.

I do not think we should make abortion illegal but I do believe it should be a last resort.