Other Disaffected Republicans?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
What do the liberal democrats want to do?

I am wondering what the answer is to this myself. Anyone in fear of what the democrats will do should at least have a concept of what that is.

Based on the last 60 years, it has been:

to tax and spend,

to take the responsibilities of parenthood away fron the parents,

to ensure that every child from the 5th grade on has all the condoms they need.

to make sure that if you think 2+2=5, there is teachers their to make you feel good about your answer.

to create an entire generation of welfare dependents.

to villify anyone that is wealthy - UNLESS they are liberal.

to villify and punish “evil corporations”

Want examples? Look at California (specifically the Bay Area), and look at NYC when shit head Dinkins was Mayor. It’s really not that much of a mystery what the far left stands for. Well - that is if you don;t have your head stuck in the sand. [/quote]

The current adminstration is far reomoved from the policies and practices of Republicans over the last 60 years. So why would you assume that a democrat in 2005 is going to be pushing the same policies as more liberal Democrats of the 60s.

As far as taxing and spending goes, we can’t do much worse than presently-especially the spending part. I could speak against each of your assertions. But there’s no need to bother as they are mere repbulican rhetoric and not attached to any kind of formulated future policy or attached to any living, running politicians.

82

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Based on the last 60 years, it has been:
[/quote]

The last 60 years? I think you misunderstood the question. What, right NOW, do the democrats want? Don’t talk to me about anything that happened half a century ago because none of those people are running for office.

83

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
What do the liberal democrats want to do?

I am wondering what the answer is to this myself. Anyone in fear of what the democrats will do should at least have a concept of what that is.

Mandatory gay marriages.

Mandatory abortions.

Raise taxes.

Well, I’m guessing that this is sarcasm or a joke. If not, please tell me one politician whose advocated mandatory abortions or madatory gay marriages. what does that even mean-madatory abortion? The majority of Democrats, I believe, don’t even support gay marriage beyond a civil union. Raising taxes, well-I don’t actually agree with it though I’m fine with where they are now.

[/quote]

He wasn’t joking, he was reaching…far and wide. How the hell do you have a “mandatory abortion”? Does this mean all women are now forced to have abortions? “Mandatory gay marriages”? All gays are now forced to marry? That was the dumbest list of “wants” by the democratic party that I have ever read. Everyone does know what “mandatory” means, right?

84

“to make sure that if you think 2+2=5, there is teachers their to make you feel good about your answer.”

Gotta love the spelling and grammer when talking about bad teachers…ya cuz some teachers are their cuz there stupid.

85

[quote]Professor X wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
What do the liberal democrats want to do?

I am wondering what the answer is to this myself. Anyone in fear of what the democrats will do should at least have a concept of what that is.

Mandatory gay marriages.

Mandatory abortions.

Raise taxes.

Well, I’m guessing that this is sarcasm or a joke. If not, please tell me one politician whose advocated mandatory abortions or madatory gay marriages. what does that even mean-madatory abortion? The majority of Democrats, I believe, don’t even support gay marriage beyond a civil union. Raising taxes, well-I don’t actually agree with it though I’m fine with where they are now.

He wasn’t joking, he was reaching…far and wide. How the hell do you have a “mandatory abortion”? Does this mean all women are now forced to have abortions? “Mandatory gay marriages”? All gays are now forced to marry? That was the dumbest list of “wants” by the democratic party that I have ever read. Everyone does know what “mandatory” means, right?
[/quote]

Right.

86

[quote]IL Cazzo wrote:
“to make sure that if you think 2+2=5, there is teachers their to make you feel good about your answer.”

Gotta love the spelling and grammer when talking about bad teachers…ya cuz some teachers are their cuz there stupid. [/quote]

Haha, yeah seriously, looks like someone was made to feel good about their grammar. Rainjack - Democrat VICTIM

87

[quote]Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:

Based on the last 60 years, it has been:

The last 60 years? I think you misunderstood the question. What, right NOW, do the democrats want? Don’t talk to me about anything that happened half a century ago because none of those people are running for office.[/quote]

I think Sheets Byrd is still there, but I digress.

I won’t talk about the past, then. I suggest you get a liberal democrat to tell you what they stand for. And if you can get some one to voice exactly what they are for, then please let me know.

The sad part of it is…Well, it’s not sad for republicans, but I think it is sad for those on the left wanting a voice…The left has nothing. They can’t tell you what they stand for.

Their party is in shambles because it has crawled in bed with the George Soros/MoveOn.org crowd, and has alienated everyone to the right of Michael Moore.

They won’t tell you what they stand for because if the DNC takes a stand where the radical left wants them to - they lose even more support from the center. Don’t bellieve that is the case? Look at the election results since 1994. The party has lost time and again, and by ever widening margins. They have lost practically their entire constiuancy south of the Mason-Dixon line. Not because the right has moved further right, but because of the radical left-wingers that are buying the power away from the center.

88

[quote]CaptainLogic wrote:
IL Cazzo wrote:
“to make sure that if you think 2+2=5, there is teachers their to make you feel good about your answer.”

Gotta love the spelling and grammer when talking about bad teachers…ya cuz some teachers are their cuz there stupid.

Haha, yeah seriously, looks like someone was made to feel good about their grammar. Rainjack - Democrat VICTIM[/quote]

See what I mean? I am truly a product of public education. Forced bussing and all.

89

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:

Based on the last 60 years, it has been:

The last 60 years? I think you misunderstood the question. What, right NOW, do the democrats want? Don’t talk to me about anything that happened half a century ago because none of those people are running for office.

I think Sheets Byrd is still there, but I digress.

I won’t talk about the past, then. I suggest you get a liberal democrat to tell you what they stand for. And if you can get some one to voice exactly what they are for, then please let me know.

The sad part of it is…Well, it’s not sad for republicans, but I think it is sad for those on the left wanting a voice…The left has nothing. They can’t tell you what they stand for.

Their party is in shambles because it has crawled in bed with the George Soros/MoveOn.org crowd, and has alienated everyone to the right of Michael Moore.

They won’t tell you what they stand for because if the DNC takes a stand where the radical left wants them to - they lose even more support from the center. Don’t bellieve that is the case? Look at the election results since 1994. The party has lost time and again, and by ever widening margins. They have lost practically their entire constiuancy south of the Mason-Dixon line. Not because the right has moved further right, but because of the radical left-wingers that are buying the power away from the center.

[/quote]

I agree that the democratic party seems to have no voice…which is what made your, Zeb’s and other’s generalizations of what the entire party wants absolutely ridiculous. However, you can’t honestly blame democrats alone for the state of affairs in Washington. Our entire two party system is screwed the fuck up which has instigated an air of people afraid to stand for anything that might oppose those currently in power. It is the game of mudslinging. How many Swiftboat vets does it take to change out a light bulb? Please don’t pretend that the republican party is shining with truth, justice and the American way. I think our way was lost about 4.5 years ago after a downward spiral for that began decades ago. I just hope we don’t hit rock bottom before the pendulum swings.

90

There may not have been any attacks on the US if LIBERAL Bill Clinton had done something about the attack on the USS Cole and the UN!

91

[quote]ZEB wrote:

There may not have been any attacks on the US if LIBERAL Bill Clinton had done something about the attack on the USS Cole and the UN!

[/quote]

Of course-that really would have disuaded lunatic suicide bombers from sacrificing their lives to try to hit the White House and otherwise throw America into chaos. Absolutely. Trying to destroy the central organisation of terrorist networks is the right thing to do-it’s the best thing we can do to ensure there won’t be more big hits. But destroying the terrorist mentality is not something that we can do through force. I’m not sure how we can do it or if it can be done. It’s certainly not something any politician’s on either side of the political spectrum has addressed. There are no easy answers.

92

Rainjack, I think this radical left you speak of is a figment of collective, conservative imagination. The majority of Democratic voters are not leftist liberals. And as of yet, you’ve been completely unable to come up with a list of radical, liberal politicians and illustrate it by articulating their policies.

93

Rainjack is just elucidating the conservative fantasy whereby all liberals are the scum of the earth fringe radicals.

94

[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack is just elucidating the conservative fantasy whereby all liberals are the scum of the earth fringe radicals.[/quote]

Yeah-I’m personally not a big fan of liberal policies. But I would far from equate them with scum of the earth fringe radicals. But I think it’s almost a moot point. Because I’m at a total loss to find these ultra liberal politicians and crackpot policies they would advance among Democrat politicians (with a few possible exceptions who will not be running for president or advancing a liberal agenda anyhow). Their existence is just a collective pipe-dream among arch conservatives who are unable to point to actual, modern politians and actual (current) proposed policies. Or otherwise the label is simply extended to any politician or person who does not agree with Bush’s agenda (even if such politician is part of the Republican party).

95

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Great words by conservative publisher Al Regnery:

There is an old saying among conservatives that when we send our people to Washington, they?re not our people anymore. Ronald Reagan was the exception that proved the rule, and it is a rule that conservatives have been living with since conservatives first emerged from the shadows in the 1950s. Conservatives often become disillusioned in election campaigns that a politician who is ?pretty conservative? will be, well, ?pretty conservative? after he gets elected. It didn?t work with Eisenhower, it didn?t work with Nixon, it didn?t work with George H.W. Bush, and it isn?t working with George W.

The conservative?s job is not to be a good Republican, but to keep Republicans honest, to hold their feet to the fire. So what is going on now is exactly what should be going on – conservatives telling the congressional leaders and the President that being ?pretty conservative? (and you have to wonder what ?pretty? means sometimes) isn?t good enough. If it means losing an election or two, that is the price we need to pay.

Do you miss Ronald Reagan as much as I do?

[/quote]

The GOP hasn’t been the same since Clinton did the end-run on Gingrich on the government shutdown back in the late 90s – remember “The Gingrich Who Stole Christmas” Time cover? THe political lesson the party took from that led directly to “compassionate conservatism”, which essentially meant abandoning fiscal restraint on the spending side of the ledger, especially any attempts to cut back on government entitlement spending.

Essentially true fiscal conservatives don’t have a choice anymore – well, that’s overstating it. You have the choice between Republicans supporting massive spending programs (Medicaid Drug benefit, No Child Left Behind, etc.) and Democrats critical of the programs for not spending enough.

This isn’t true of the whole party of course – but it seems to be the way the President and the leadership see things. I just hope the fiscal conservatives can regain some power.

96

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Great words by conservative publisher Al Regnery:

There is an old saying among conservatives that when we send our people to Washington, they?re not our people anymore. Ronald Reagan was the exception that proved the rule, and it is a rule that conservatives have been living with since conservatives first emerged from the shadows in the 1950s. Conservatives often become disillusioned in election campaigns that a politician who is ?pretty conservative? will be, well, ?pretty conservative? after he gets elected. It didn?t work with Eisenhower, it didn?t work with Nixon, it didn?t work with George H.W. Bush, and it isn?t working with George W.

The conservative?s job is not to be a good Republican, but to keep Republicans honest, to hold their feet to the fire. So what is going on now is exactly what should be going on – conservatives telling the congressional leaders and the President that being ?pretty conservative? (and you have to wonder what ?pretty? means sometimes) isn?t good enough. If it means losing an election or two, that is the price we need to pay.

Do you miss Ronald Reagan as much as I do?

The GOP hasn’t been the same since Clinton did the end-run on Gingrich on the government shutdown back in the late 90s – remember “The Gingrich Who Stole Christmas” Time cover? THe political lesson the party took from that led directly to “compassionate conservatism”, which essentially meant abandoning fiscal restraint on the spending side of the ledger, especially any attempts to cut back on government entitlement spending.

Essentially true fiscal conservatives don’t have a choice anymore – well, that’s overstating it. You have the choice between Republicans supporting massive spending programs (Medicaid Drug benefit, No Child Left Behind, etc.) and Democrats critical of the programs for not spending enough.

This isn’t true of the whole party of course – but it seems to be the way the President and the leadership see things. I just hope the fiscal conservatives can regain some power.[/quote]

Well, that’d be nice. The current Repbulican party is so divorced from Republicans of yesteryear as to be almost unrecognizable. If tax-and-spend liberals are bad, then spend-without-taxing ‘conservatives’ are that much worse. Of course overspending simplifies the issues. What is being spent on and how initiaves are organized is just as important to achieving effective spending as how much is spent.

97

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Rainjack, I think this radical left you speak of is a figment of collective, conservative imagination. The majority of Democratic voters are not leftist liberals. And as of yet, you’ve been completely unable to come up with a list of radical, liberal politicians and illustrate it by articulating their policies.[/quote]

Read anything that George Soros has said in the last 4 years. Go to the Moveon.org website, and tell me what you see.

I think that if you read what I wrote you would see that I never said tha most dems were liberal leftists.

What I did say was that most of the center/moderate dems are being alientated by a party that is in bed with the extreme left. I don;t think I need to articulate a party’s policies when the proof is in the election results. The center is finding more to vote FOR in the republican party than they are in the democratic party.

I’m not sure what your point is. Are saying that the left is NOT in disarray? That the 529’s are working hard for the moderate-conservative democrat? Or are you just calling me out for not citing the whacked out far left’s agenda chapter and verse. I’ve already said that I don’t think that they even know what they believe in. I was just pointing out failures instituted by a dem majority in the not so distant past.

I extend to you the same challenge I made to the prof - you tell ME what the left belives in, and then let me know.

About as close as I can get to actually stating their position is, “Anyyone But Bush”.

Elcetion results are on my side - whether you like my logic, or not. And election results will continue to be on my side for the forseeable future.

98

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
vroom wrote:
Rainjack is just elucidating the conservative fantasy whereby all liberals are the scum of the earth fringe radicals.

Yeah-I’m personally not a big fan of liberal policies. But I would far from equate them with scum of the earth fringe radicals. But I think it’s almost a moot point. Because I’m at a total loss to find these ultra liberal politicians and crackpot policies they would advance among Democrat politicians (with a few possible exceptions who will not be running for president or advancing a liberal agenda anyhow). Their existence is just a collective pipe-dream among arch conservatives who are unable to point to actual, modern politians and actual (current) proposed policies. Or otherwise the label is simply extended to any politician or person who does not agree with Bush’s agenda (even if such politician is part of the Republican party).[/quote]

Wow - you guys should get a special prize for creating such a lovely straw man.

It just looks gay to see you to trying to pile on said straw man at the same time. Seriously.

Please find where I have said all liberals are “scum of the earth fringe radicals.”

Short of that you are a liar, and jsbrook is just as bad for swallowing the lie hook line and sinker.

99

Rainjack,

You are pretty quick with the “liar” word. I might be wrong or mistaken, but I’m not a liar.

You come across as thinking that there is some massive radical left issue going on out there.

While the democrats are supposedly in disarray, they are garnering about 49% of the vote in recent elections – so what you are really saying then is that you don’t think the republicans can ever win except when the democrats are being very incompetent?

I can hardly believe you’d actually think that…

100

[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Rainjack, I think this radical left you speak of is a figment of collective, conservative imagination. The majority of Democratic voters are not leftist liberals. And as of yet, you’ve been completely unable to come up with a list of radical, liberal politicians and illustrate it by articulating their policies.

Read anything that George Soros has said in the last 4 years. Go to the Moveon.org website, and tell me what you see.

I think that if you read what I wrote you would see that I never said tha most dems were liberal leftists.

What I did say was that most of the center/moderate dems are being alientated by a party that is in bed with the extreme left. I don;t think I need to articulate a party’s policies when the proof is in the election results. The center is finding more to vote FOR in the republican party than they are in the democratic party.
[/quote]

I’m not saying that you said most dems were leftists. Indeed, I agree with you the most are center and moderate dems. And there’s undoubtedly more to to vote for in the Republican party for such people than democrat party, but I don’t think it’s for the reason you’re saying. I don’t think it’s because the visible party elite of the democrats is too liberal. It’s because they haven’t voiced any coherent policies whatsoever. They’ve criticized the Republicans, but haven’t offered alternatives. It’s not that they’ve offered liberal alternatives.

[quote]rainjack wrote: I’m not sure what your point is. Are saying that the left is NOT in disarray? That the 529’s are working hard for the moderate-conservative democrat? Or are you just calling me out for not citing the whacked out far left’s agenda chapter and verse. I’ve already said that I don’t think that they even know what they believe in. I was just pointing out failures instituted by a dem majority in the not so distant past.

I extend to you the same challenge I made to the prof - you tell ME what the left belives in, and then let me know.

About as close as I can get to actually stating their position is, “Anyyone But Bush”.

Elcetion results are on my side - whether you like my logic, or not. And election results will continue to be on my side for the forseeable future. [/quote]

The election results say nothing about the ideology of the foreruning democrat politicians. All they say is that people are disatisfied with the Democratic party. I don’t think the entire Democrat agenda would need to be cited to prove that the forerunning politicans are excessively liberal. Or that’s it’s your personal responsibility to do so.

But for the statement to have any validity, it should be possible to point to specific policies and ideas that are liberal in relation to one or more of the various issues our country is facing. And I really don’t think it is. None of the Democrats I’ve spoken with who are disatisfied with the party, some so much so that they have been and are voting Republican, cite the source of their disatisfaction as the party being too liberal. Rather the complaint is that the party has no apparent policy, plans, and ideas at all.

And this is my own beef. I don’t know what the hell they want to do for this country. Are the Democrats too liberal? Maybe-but who the hell would ever know since they haven’t voiced one coherent alternative or policy to any of Bush’s current initiatives or future plans? It’s all denunciations or vague fuzzy, amorphous rhetoric. In order to have an identifiable ideology, you have to actually have plans and initiatives that you’d want to enact.