[quote]lixy wrote:
Here’s another good reason:
That’s the least he could do - and probably the most we’ll want him to do…
As I’ve said, I’m pretty sure I’ll be voting for McCain, but I don’t at all buy this argument that sticking faithfully by the GOP gets conservatives much, if anything. We’ve had a Republican president for 20 of the last 28 years, and a Republican Congress for most of a 12 year period, and what has it gotten us? Massive overspending, loads of new government programs, 10 million illegal immigrants, decaying infrastructure, rapid economic growth built on an unsustainable current-accounts deficit (i.e. China), and a foolish war of choice.
Oh yeah, and Roe vs. Wade has somehow survived 8 years of Reagan and 12 years of Bushes. Forgive me for thinking that conservatives should spend a lot more time thinking about fixing American culture and society and a lot less time worrying about how the GOP does in DC.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
As I’ve said, I’m pretty sure I’ll be voting for McCain, but I don’t at all buy this argument that sticking faithfully by the GOP gets conservatives much, if anything. We’ve had a Republican president for 20 of the last 28 years, and a Republican Congress for most of a 12 year period, and what has it gotten us? Massive overspending, loads of new government programs, 10 million illegal immigrants, decaying infrastructure, rapid economic growth built on an unsustainable current-accounts deficit (i.e. China), and a foolish war of choice.
Oh yeah, and Roe vs. Wade has somehow survived 8 years of Reagan and 12 years of Bushes. Forgive me for thinking that conservatives should spend a lot more time thinking about fixing American culture and society and a lot less time worrying about how the GOP does in DC.[/quote]
A couple points to consider as you dole out blame for the above:
-
Reagan and H.W. Bush never had a Republican congress. Bush I never even had one house of Congress Republican for a 2-year period. So half the Republican Congress was under Clinton, and half under W. That said, the Republican Congress went far downhill after losing Newt’s leadership.
-
Congress does the spending. Admittedly, W. wasn’t even trying to restrict it, and neither was the Republican Congress at that point. Compassionate conservatism = progressivism. I still think it would have been worse with a Dem president and Dem Congress, but that’s conjecture on my part.
-
For Roe v. Wade, a couple points. First, it was substantially weakened by Casey ( Planned Parenthood v. Casey - Wikipedia ). Second, there were three mistakes, one big (Souter - H.W.) and two small (Kennedy and O’Connor), that Reagan and H.W. Bush made in their appointments - but you need to keep in mind that they were dealing with a Dem Senate, which underscores the point of how important it is to control that chamber (really with 60 votes). Here’s the current composition: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/biographiescurrent.pdf
Also, note that if the next president is re-elected it is highly likely he or she will make 6 appointments to the USSC. Reagan got 3, H.W. Bush got 2, Clinton got 2, and W. got 2.
To me, most of your problems are with W - understandable, but really not an indictment of the other Republican presidents. And some aren’t really even Presidential (What do you want the government to do regarding current accounts with China anyway? - And I would think infrastructure = Congress and states). The others resulted at least in part from the GOP Congress abandoning conservative principles for schemes to maintain control of Congress by passing out goodies - just like the Dems did (but more hypocritical).
Question: Do senators, congressmen and governors take an oath to uphold the constitution?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Question: Do senators, congressmen and governors take an oath to uphold the constitution? [/quote]
Congress: U.S. Senate: Oath of Office
As for governors, I think each state defines its own oath of office, but I haven’t verified that.
Fred Thompson backs McCain:
I haven’t heard of this poll before:
A survey last year by the Republican pollster Frank Luntz showed that 81 percent of voters would consider voting for an independent this year.
Confirms what I have been saying all along.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Confirms what I have been saying all along.[/quote]
No, the point of the article was that there is an opening for Independents to capture the votes of “restless, anxious moderates” - the only “independent” you have been peddling is Ron Paul, who is not in this category, and is not what the article is referring to.
The article refers to the RAMs as “tough-minded pragmatists”, basically practical centrists - exactly the kind of people who wouldn’t vote for the candidate you keep suggesting has a chance to win.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
lixy wrote:
Confirms what I have been saying all along.
No, the point of the article was that there is an opening for Independents to capture the votes of “restless, anxious moderates” - the only “independent” you have been peddling is Ron Paul, who is not in this category, and is not what the article is referring to.
The article refers to the RAMs as “tough-minded pragmatists”, basically practical centrists - exactly the kind of people who wouldn’t vote for the candidate you keep suggesting has a chance to win. [/quote]
I wasn’t referring to the article, but the poll I quoted.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I wasn’t referring to the article, but the poll I quoted.[/quote]
Of course, you meant that purely from a statistical standpoint with no reference to particular independent candidates. Naturally.
So based on your intuition of voters seeking out independents, which potential independent do you think most likely appeals and has a shot with that 81%?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
lixy wrote:
I wasn’t referring to the article, but the poll I quoted.
Of course, you meant that purely from a statistical standpoint with no reference to particular independent candidates. Naturally.
So based on your intuition of voters seeking out independents, which potential independent do you think most likely appeals and has a shot with that 81%? [/quote]
I can tell who doesn’t have much of a shot and it is McCain.
Not only because of those 81%, but also because 1) I don’t see him inspiring the conservative crowd to make the trip to the voting booths 2) the war on Iraq.
You seem to be confused about what it is “I have been saying all along”. Let me refresh your memory: Without Paul as the nominee, the GOP doesn’t stand a chance in November against the Dems. Also, Expect record figures for third party candidates.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I can tell who doesn’t have much of a shot and it is McCain.[/quote]
That wasn’t the question, of course - and national polls indicate otherwise.
No one cares about your opinion on McCain, nor was it solicited.
Why are you being evasive?
No, I wasn’t confused about that at all - it is without a doubt the most stupid thing I have seen written w/r/t to the 2008 election since people started posting on the election.
Seriously, Lixy. Awful. Completely wrong. Do you ever desire a day when someone will take you seriously? Because you keep postponing that day with your predictable level of silliness.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Also, thus far the Dems are flailing to find good attacks against McCain:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/CampaignStandard/2008/02/the_democrats_in_trouble_1.asp
I particularly hope Clinton is the nominee - aside from her motivating the GOP base, she’d have to pivot on her current campaign stance: she’s tough (McCain is tougher); she’s experienced (McCain is more experienced), etc.[/quote]
The Dems can’t attack McCain because he is one of them. To attack McCain would be to attack someone who is imbued with their philosophy.
Remember the ‘Gang of 14’ designed to thwart the Republican control of Congress?
And how anyone can ‘reach across the aisle’ and partner up with Kennedy? You’d need a hell of a lot of disinfectant afterwards. You’d also need to carry scuba gear with you.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I can tell who doesn’t have much of a shot and it is McCain.[/quote]
How so? I think you are full of shit. But many people have thought that about you for sol ong, that it hardly warrants saying anymore.
[quote]
You seem to be confused about what it is “I have been saying all along”. Let me refresh your memory: Without Paul as the nominee, the GOP doesn’t stand a chance in November against the Dems. Also, Expect record figures for third party candidates.[/quote]
What the fuck have you been smoking?
There will be no more votes for 3rd party-ers than there were in 1996, when Ross Perot ran and cost GHWB the election.
Paul has way less support than Perot did - he just has the idiot college kid vote which is more vocal.
Please bring more to the discussion than spoiled rich kid college rhetoric.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
I can tell who doesn’t have much of a shot and it is McCain.
How so? I think you are full of shit. But many people have thought that about you for sol ong, that it hardly warrants saying anymore.
You seem to be confused about what it is “I have been saying all along”. Let me refresh your memory: Without Paul as the nominee, the GOP doesn’t stand a chance in November against the Dems. Also, Expect record figures for third party candidates.
What the fuck have you been smoking?
There will be no more votes for 3rd party-ers than there were in 1996, when Ross Perot ran and cost GHWB the election.
Paul has way less support than Perot did - he just has the idiot college kid vote which is more vocal.
Please bring more to the discussion than spoiled rich kid college rhetoric. [/quote]
I’ve quit smoking right after I turned broke.
Look, I gave my opinion. And as far as I know, the best anyone can do about this topic is speculate. I went a step further and stated that I’ll stop posting on this forum for a full year if the “shit” I’ve been saying don’t turn out to be true.
9 months to go.
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
I can tell who doesn’t have much of a shot and it is McCain.
How so? I think you are full of shit. But many people have thought that about you for sol ong, that it hardly warrants saying anymore.
You seem to be confused about what it is “I have been saying all along”. Let me refresh your memory: Without Paul as the nominee, the GOP doesn’t stand a chance in November against the Dems. Also, Expect record figures for third party candidates.
What the fuck have you been smoking?
There will be no more votes for 3rd party-ers than there were in 1996, when Ross Perot ran and cost GHWB the election.
Paul has way less support than Perot did - he just has the idiot college kid vote which is more vocal.
Please bring more to the discussion than spoiled rich kid college rhetoric.
I’ve quit smoking right after I turned broke.
Look, I gave my opinion. And as far as I know, the best anyone can do about this topic is speculate. I went a step further and stated that I’ll stop posting on this forum for a full year if the “shit” I’ve been saying don’t turn out to be true.
9 months to go.[/quote]
SO you will leave if McCain wins?
Change my vote. Hell - I’ll vote as many time as I need to to get this steaming piece of shit off my website.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
SO you will leave if McCain wins?
Change my vote. Hell - I’ll vote as many time as I need to to get this steaming piece of shit off my website. [/quote]
Actually, Lixy didn’t predict McCain would lose - he predicted that if anyone other than Ron Paul was the GOP candidate, the GOP would lose huge - therefore, Lixy is predicting McCain will lose big.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
SO you will leave if McCain wins?
Change my vote. Hell - I’ll vote as many time as I need to to get this steaming piece of shit off my website.
Actually, Lixy didn’t predict McCain would lose - he predicted that if anyone other than Ron Paul was the GOP candidate, the GOP would lose huge - therefore, Lixy is predicting McCain will lose big.
[/quote]
Okay - by what margin are we defining huge? Is it popular, or electoral vote margin?
I need to know if I need to go get a damn McCain 2008 hat, or not.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I’ve quit smoking right after I turned broke.
Look, I gave my opinion. And as far as I know, the best anyone can do about this topic is speculate. I went a step further and stated that I’ll stop posting on this forum for a full year if the “shit” I’ve been saying don’t turn out to be true.
9 months to go.[/quote]
Oh, I’m all atwitter!
Spell out exactly what you’re predicting, and exactly what would have to happen for you to believe that you were wrong.
Give us some specific boundary conditions, lixster.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Okay - by what margin are we defining huge? Is it popular, or electoral vote margin?
I need to know if I need to go get a damn McCain 2008 hat, or not.
[/quote]
Not sure exactly - I was just making sure everyone knew Lixy’s “prediction” is even more ludicrous than he is trying to let on.