He has no principles, he has said many times that he is a lifelong republican no matter what, with extremely low expectations. What principles lie there?
If nothing else, this "radical" thing and the teabagging might be a catalyst to get the Republican Party to actually define itself and shed itself of the corrupt fringes that have so damaged it and made its core incapable of compromise and governing in a two party system.
I just can't imagine the immaturity that a collective would have to be so spoiled that, when faced with loss they are incapable of manning up and being adult enough to do what is right for the country, as guided by the fully elected majority.
To answer ed's challenge of earlier, the first step in developing a 20-30 year plan is to have a forced divorce and expand the party system to segment the Conservatives away from the Social Conservatives and depending on which way the wind is blowing, the NeoConservatives. Once that is better established the moderates that have issues with Democrats might be more considerate of moving further right. That won't happen until the NeoCons are gone and the Social Conservatives are glued to their pews.
What principles? That seems to be the real problem. Defining those principles you have decided you won't give up.
And yes, we do have to come together, otherwise we are going to tear apart. Are you very fluid principles worth that? They sure seemed "flexible" for the past eight years. Now that they are only available for whining, suddenly they have a spine?
Notice I said, "however well executed". Better some not well executed than to have none. Dems are down to pandering to interest groups, abandoning election campaign promises and plans, continuing some of the policies of the Bush Admin.
We should tear apart. You keep the distributive taxes, liberal judges and the ACLU. We'll take our firearms, cops, NRA and the military. You keep Rosie, Michael and Oprah. We keep capitalism, greedy corporations, WalMart and Wall Street. You can have your homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood. We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot.
I'll bet you ANWAR which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.
There's more to this. If anyone wants the whole thing, PM me.
__________________
Charter member of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy and proud of it.
If nothing else, this "radical" thing and the teabagging might be a catalyst to get the Republican Party to actually define itself and shed itself of the corrupt fringes that have so damaged it and made its core incapable of compromise and governing in a two party system.
I just can't imagine the immaturity that a collective would have to be so spoiled that, when faced with loss they are incapable of manning up and being adult enough to do what is right for the country, as guided by the fully elected majority.
To answer ed's challenge of earlier, the first step in developing a 20-30 year plan is to have a forced divorce and expand the party system to segment the Conservatives away from the Social Conservatives and depending on which way the wind is blowing, the NeoConservatives. Once that is better established the moderates that have issues with Democrats might be more considerate of moving further right. That won't happen until the NeoCons are gone and the Social Conservatives are glued to their pews.
You're getting as arrogant as FTL in your expertise about the Republican/Conservative party. Somehow taking advice from liberal Democrats about how to rejuvenate their opposition just makes no sense. But you keep trying. Your magnanimity will be exposed for what it is soon enough.
If nothing else, this "radical" thing and the teabagging might be a catalyst to get the Republican Party to actually define itself and shed itself of the corrupt fringes that have so damaged it and made its core incapable of compromise and governing in a two party system.
I just can't imagine the immaturity that a collective would have to be so spoiled that, when faced with loss they are incapable of manning up and being adult enough to do what is right for the country, as guided by the fully elected majority.
To answer ed's challenge of earlier, the first step in developing a 20-30 year plan is to have a forced divorce and expand the party system to segment the Conservatives away from the Social Conservatives and depending on which way the wind is blowing, the NeoConservatives. Once that is better established the moderates that have issues with Democrats might be more considerate of moving further right. That won't happen until the NeoCons are gone and the Social Conservatives are glued to their pews.
Who will develop such a plan? Certainly not politicians whose main concern is holding office every 2, 4, or 6 years.
Notice I said, "however well executed". Better some not well executed than to have none. Dems are down to pandering to interest groups, abandoning election campaign promises and plans, continuing some of the policies of the Bush Admin.
We should tear apart. You keep the distributive taxes, liberal judges and the ACLU. We'll take our firearms, cops, NRA and the military. You keep Rosie, Michael and Oprah. We keep capitalism, greedy corporations, WalMart and Wall Street. You can have your homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood. We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot.
I'll bet you ANWAR which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.
There's more to this. If anyone wants the whole thing, PM me.
But you seem to forget that the YOU is a distinct MINORITY. You make many assumptions that don't hold water.
Many on the left are fiscal conservatives
Many on the left own firearms
Many on the left are in the Military or vets
Many on the left are business owners
Many on the left don't make assumptions about others that aren't backed by research.
There are just not as many YOUs as you might think there are.
You can have NRA, the Cops are about half union and pretty split, depending on area of the country, Business is not the rightwing capital you might think it is and the MAJORITY of folks already know that trickle down is a fool's game. Apparently only 28% haven't figured it out.
As for principles, we don't tend to invade countries and kill hundreds of civilians. We don't ignore regulations to help those who donate to our campaigns, we don't allow companies to define the laws and we don't ignore the environment. I will take liberal principles any day. Much less blood on my hands that way.
You're getting as arrogant as FTL in your expertise about the Republican/Conservative party. Somehow taking advice from liberal Democrats about how to rejuvenate their opposition just makes no sense. But you keep trying. Your magnanimity will be exposed for what it is soon enough.
I don't really care what the Republican Party does to itself. My only concerns are what the results are for the country. And right now the spoiled little temper tantrums that I see from a segment of the right make me think that a good group needs to be taken to the woodshed by the adults in your party.
So my magnanimity is focused on the potential benefit of the country, not any faction of the Republican Party. That is where my vested interest resides.
Who will develop such a plan? Certainly not politicians whose main concern is holding office every 2, 4, or 6 years.
As I said in the other thread "If somebody could be very bold and make a 20-30 year plan to move this country back toward a more limited government, with a very true conservative philosophy that didn't clutter itself up with social conservatism and deficit spending I think folks would start to listen." But it is going to take someone who is very confident in their position and has the support of their constituents. They will piss off many folks in process.
Vehicle: 2002 SLK 32 AMG, bone stock. 1987 190E 2.3-16 valve (destroyed). 1991 300CE, a work in progress.
Location: Near Washington, DC
Posts: 11,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
Why are law enforcement "up in arms"? Their job is to enforce the laws. If DHS is telling them of threats, what is the problem? Are you suggesting they are sympathizing with a political "side"?
Unlike many of the leftists among us, most law enforcement people don't like the idea of having to watch people because they have a unique bumper sticker or supported Ron Paul. If you read or heard about some of the portions of this 'report' that kind of individual was specifically singled out.
I don't have to suggest anything, it seems these 9 pages spell it out fairly clearly.
__________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." Winston Churchill
"In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress." John Adams
"If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. That's Ridiculous..If I have a gun, what in the hell do I have to be paranoid For." Clint Smith, Director of Thunder Ranch
Trying to demonize the conservative right will not help you libs look like reasonable, god-fearing, lovable sweethearts to distract us while you pass laws that fundamentally harm our capitalist system.
There is the sum total of your "principles" - preserving your version of capitalism at the expense of the bulk of Americans' successful pursuit of happiness.
The United States Constitution does not say the purpose of the lives of all United States Citizens is to advance "your" capitalist system. In fact, the Constitution doesn't have anything about the capitalist system in the Bill of Rights or anywhere else, does it? Your idea that the only "principle" that United States stands for is your capitalism is fairly well unsupported in the documents that founded this nation, and by the citizens who live in this nation.
You're getting as arrogant as FTL in your expertise about the Republican/Conservative party. Somehow taking advice from liberal Democrats about how to rejuvenate their opposition just makes no sense. But you keep trying. Your magnanimity will be exposed for what it is soon enough.
While I am presently delighted the Democratic Party has taken control of the government in the free elections prescribed in the United States Constitution, I, like others, would prefer a healthy, strong "opposition" party dedicated to advancing the nation's best interests. A single, overwhelmingly powerful party has been shown not to be in the best interests of the Union. So, it would be better to have the minority party in the Senate and House of Representatives capable of debating and offering alternate solutions based on advancing the best interests of the country and not merely sour grapes nay saying.
At the moment the GOP incarnation under the Bush-Cheney administration has been resoundingly rejected by the American voters. Relatively few GOP legislators have accepted this critique and examined their motives and actions with the intent to modify them where they conflict with advancing the best interests of the nation. Several have engaged in shrill screeching about how everything Obama does is somehow a grand deception to make America's government some kind of socialist nightmare. Most seem to be ok with talk show entertainers from the fringes of American society declare themselves the voice of the party while the actually elected members of the party sit in confusion and try to figure out their role in our government. Not what I would call a healthy opposition party dedicated to advancing the best interests of America.
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
Linear Mode
