PDA

View Full Version : Does it help Republicans to move further right or aim for centrists?



Wei Wu Wei
04-02-2010, 05:41 PM
The Tea Party has become a large political force, and they strongly identify as conservative.

The Republicans are going to need the Tea Party support, but they also need the votes of the very large independent group who vote but are not as politically active.

Will the Republicans do better siding with 'moderates' and trying to gain a bigger tent, or will they do better siding with conservatives mobilizing the large Tea Party?


I think they'd do better appealing to moderates, because while moderates are likely to vote Democrat if they are displeased with Republicans, the majority of Tea Party members see the Democrats as the greater of 2 evils and will NOT vote Democrat.

This means they are at more risk of losing centrists by moving right, because Tea Party voters are (probably) going to vote for them anyway if they aim for the moderates.

Wei Wu Wei
04-02-2010, 05:43 PM
I predict that they will have the support of Tea Party people because they are seen as the lesser of 2 evils, but as a party, they aren't going to become more conservative unless they feel they are at real risk of losing conservative votes.

lacarnut
04-02-2010, 06:09 PM
The Republicans are going to need the Tea Party support, but they also need the votes of the very large independent group who vote but are not as politically active.

.

Your whole theory falls off the truck with that statement. Independents make up a great part of the Tea Party movement. Independents who Obama won in 2008 are abandoning him in droves. They will vote to oust the Democrats in huge numbers this year. Trying to cause a rift between Repubs/Tea Party and Independents is not going to work. The ass whipping will be huge; you can count on it.

Wei Wu Wei
04-02-2010, 06:18 PM
Your whole theory falls off the truck with that statement. Independents make up a great part of the Tea Party movement. Independents who Obama won in 2008 are abandoning him in droves. They will vote to oust the Democrats in huge numbers this year. Trying to cause a rift between Repubs/Tea Party and Independents is not going to work. The ass whipping will be huge; you can count on it.

I don't mean Independent as 'someone who isn't aligned with a political party" (but yeah this is how it's normally used), I mean Independent as "someone who doesn't identify has Conservative or Liberal" I don't know what to call Republicans who don't identify as Tea Party members, but there are a lot of them.

I'm talking about people, middle class average people who vote but don't watch the news often and don't go out and protest things and do not identify with this movement. Political Neutrals so to speak.

Those are a good portion of the total voters and many of them may vote for Republicans, but may also vote Democrat.

Megaguns91
04-02-2010, 06:35 PM
I don't know what to call Republicans who don't identify as Tea Party members

...Uh....Republicans. :confused:

Tea Partiers are tea partiers. That's that. They're not a political party. They're tea partiers. They can be whoever they wanna be. Democrats. Republicans. Independents. In theory they're "conservative". I don't like to identify myself as a republican. That seems pansy. I'm a conservative. Nuff said.

lacarnut
04-02-2010, 07:32 PM
I'm talking about people, middle class average people who vote but don't watch the news often and don't go out and protest things and do not identify with this movement. Political Neutrals so to speak.

Those are a good portion of the total voters and many of them may vote for Republicans, but may also vote Democrat.

You do not know what you mean so I will try and help you out here. Many of Tea Party folks are Independents who have NEVER, EVER been actively engaged in politics who in the past did not make phone calls, donate, go to meeting or rallies. This is a first time for them because they feel the socialists-in-office is taking away their freedoms and cramming crap down their throats that they do not like. When millions are hanging on by a thread, new taxes and high unemployment is not a winning strategy.


You will see in Nov. how bad Independent/Repubs/Democrats and the Tea party crowd will put an ass whipping on these socialistic bastards in office.

Rockntractor
04-02-2010, 07:34 PM
How about we all just move back to the constitution and yes I guess that would be right on most issues.

Articulate_Ape
04-02-2010, 08:27 PM
Your whole theory falls off the truck with that statement. Independents make up a great part of the Tea Party movement. Independents who Obama won in 2008 are abandoning him in droves. They will vote to oust the Democrats in huge numbers this year. Trying to cause a rift between Repubs/Tea Party and Independents is not going to work. The ass whipping will be huge; you can count on it.

What he said.

lacarnut
04-02-2010, 09:17 PM
What he said.

We Wee should be wondering what steps the Democraps should take from the downright awful ass whipping they are going to get in Nov. It is going to be a massacre.

Gingersnap
04-02-2010, 09:21 PM
Those are a good portion of the total voters and many of them may vote for Republicans, but may also vote Democrat.

You mean people who used to sometimes vote Democrat.

I'm the only Tea Party person I personally know with any previous experience at attending a protest, rally, or political speech. Seriously - none of the rest of the people in my local chapter have ever done anything like this before. They are the people who don't go to protests.

For every active Tea Party member, I'll bet we have thousands of sympathizers willing to vote their conscience this November.

lacarnut
04-02-2010, 09:40 PM
You mean people who used to sometimes vote Democrat.

I'm the only Tea Party person I personally know with any previous experience at attending a protest, rally, or political speech. Seriously - none of the rest of the people in my local chapter have ever done anything like this before. They are the people who don't go to protests.

For every active Tea Party member, I'll bet we have thousands of sympathizers willing to vote their conscience this November.

Hush your mouth gal...keep him in the dark....it will be a painful experience for the moonbats come November.

Odysseus
04-03-2010, 12:15 AM
The Tea Party has become a large political force, and they strongly identify as conservative.

The Republicans are going to need the Tea Party support, but they also need the votes of the very large independent group who vote but are not as politically active.

Will the Republicans do better siding with 'moderates' and trying to gain a bigger tent, or will they do better siding with conservatives mobilizing the large Tea Party?


I think they'd do better appealing to moderates, because while moderates are likely to vote Democrat if they are displeased with Republicans, the majority of Tea Party members see the Democrats as the greater of 2 evils and will NOT vote Democrat.

This means they are at more risk of losing centrists by moving right, because Tea Party voters are (probably) going to vote for them anyway if they aim for the moderates.

And, naturally, you're offering this advice because you really want to see Republicans take the house and senate in 2010, right? That's very kind of you, but given that the moderates are voting Republican because they've suddenly realized that Obama isn't a moderate, and that he is intent on turning America into a European style welfare state, I think that Republicans are better off doing what Reagan did in 1980, which is make the case for conservative principles and solutions.

PoliCon
04-03-2010, 07:23 AM
How about we all just move back to the constitution and yes I guess that would be right on most issues.

What fucktards like WEE WEE don't see is that while the dems have to move from their stated values to win broader appeal and elections - Republicans win elections when they stand firm in conservative values. We don't need to MOVE those values to win elections - we need to EXPRESS them because the reality is that most Americans want conservatism. They want smaller government, lower taxes, less government spending, family values, etc.

Sonnabend
04-03-2010, 11:06 AM
What they want is for the government to leave them the fuck alone. That's a good start.

Apache
04-03-2010, 11:56 AM
The Tea Party has become a large political force, and they strongly identify as conservative.

The Republicans are going to need the Tea Party support, but they also need the votes of the very large independent group who vote but are not as politically active.

Will the Republicans do better siding with 'moderates' and trying to gain a bigger tent, or will they do better siding with conservatives mobilizing the large Tea Party?


I think they'd do better appealing to moderates, because while moderates are likely to vote Democrat if they are displeased with Republicans, the majority of Tea Party members see the Democrats as the greater of 2 evils and will NOT vote Democrat.

This means they are at more risk of losing centrists by moving right, because Tea Party voters are (probably) going to vote for them anyway if they aim for the moderates.

The Tea Party strongly identifies as AMERICAN. People who have not really paid attention to politics and decided that Zero's hope and change was worth a shot, got a rude wake up call. I know a couple of Tea Party people that voted Zero and sorely regret not really knowing how this country works...


The lesser of two evils won't fly this time either. The RNC had betterput up some conservative names or the Tea Party will find another candidate to back. A majority of Americans Are fed up with Washington ignoring them and they will show it, come November...

djones520
04-03-2010, 12:00 PM
The Tea Party strongly identifies as AMERICAN. People who have not really paid attention to politics and decided that Zero's hope and change was worth a shot, got a rude wake up call. I know a couple of Tea Party people that voted Zero and sorely regret not really knowing how this country works...


The lesser of two evils won't fly this time either. The RNC had betterput up some conservative names or the Tea Party will find another candidate to back. A majority of Americans Are fed up with Washington ignoring them and they will show it, come November...

Which may horribly kill us in 2012. A 30/30 split between a Republican and Tea Party candidate could allow a Dem candidate to win. It's probably good that this movement began so early, relatively speaking. A lot needs to happen in the next 3 years to make sure we don't have a split vote.

Apache
04-03-2010, 12:24 PM
Which may horribly kill us in 2012. A 30/30 split between a Republican and Tea Party candidate could allow a Dem candidate to win. It's probably good that this movement began so early, relatively speaking. A lot needs to happen in the next 3 years to make sure we don't have a split vote.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. What I meant was ( I forget what race ) the Tea Party chose A Repub, just not the one backed by the RNC. Supporters sent donations and helped him out when it looked like he didn't have a chance.

djones520
04-03-2010, 12:32 PM
I think you misunderstood what I meant. What I meant was ( I forget what race ) the Tea Party chose A Repub, just not the one backed by the RNC. Supporters sent donations and helped him out when it looked like he didn't have a chance.

And look what happened in the New York rep race with Scozafazza. The RNC backed one, with another major conservative candidate in the mix, and the Democrat won the race. Now it's not quite as clear cut as that, but a lot of independants may be better swayed by a more moderate Republican candidate then a harder conservative tea party line candidate in a Presidential election.

I'm not begrudging the movement, I think it needs to have been done. But it may cause us serious trouble in 2012.

PoliCon
04-03-2010, 01:42 PM
Which may horribly kill us in 2012. A 30/30 split between a Republican and Tea Party candidate could allow a Dem candidate to win. It's probably good that this movement began so early, relatively speaking. A lot needs to happen in the next 3 years to make sure we don't have a split vote.

Most of the work is being done in the primaries - and when the GOP floats a turd in the bowl like they did in upstate New York - conservatives will desert is droves and if not for the time factor - that race would have been won by the conservative.

Apache
04-03-2010, 02:18 PM
And look what happened in the New York rep race with Scozafazza. The RNC backed one, with another major conservative candidate in the mix, and the Democrat won the race. Now it's not quite as clear cut as that, but a lot of independants may be better swayed by a more moderate Republican candidate then a harder conservative tea party line candidate in a Presidential election.

I'm not begrudging the movement, I think it needs to have been done. But it may cause us serious trouble in 2012.

Scozafazza, thank you, that was the one I was trying to remember. Yeah the RNC backed the wrong one, they backed a freakin' Dem with (R) camo! Now honestly, what kind of difference is that? Given a bit more time the conservative people-backed candidate would've won, and I think the RNC knows this...

Chuck58
04-03-2010, 02:45 PM
You mean people who used to sometimes vote Democrat.

I'm the only Tea Party person I personally know with any previous experience at attending a protest, rally, or political speech. Seriously - none of the rest of the people in my local chapter have ever done anything like this before. They are the people who don't go to protests.

For every active Tea Party member, I'll bet we have thousands of sympathizers willing to vote their conscience this November.

I can vouch for this. My wife and I have attended several rallies in Albuquerque. During the first, we heard quite a few people who were excited about being there. All basically said it was their first time at anything like it.

I don't know about their party affiliation and it didn't matter. They'd given up on party. One guy we talked to was utterly turned off by a comment made after obama was elected. He mentioned a Republican official of some kind who spoke about the need to bring people back to Republican values and thinking.

The man's comment, "No. Bring the Republicans back to what the people think." Or words to that effect. Bottom line, the TEA party is doing just that. The Republican Party will begin listening to the people, and it will begin putting priorities in order. It isn't Party platform and then everything else second, third etc.

The first three words of the Preamble, in very large letters, says We the People. I think they were written that way to emphasize that the People come first. All else is second and third. WE the People are the nation.

lacarnut
04-03-2010, 02:50 PM
Scozafazza, thank you, that was the one I was trying to remember. Yeah the RNC backed the wrong one, they backed a freakin' Dem with (R) camo! Now honestly, what kind of difference is that? Given a bit more time the conservative people-backed candidate would've won, and I think the RNC knows this...

Scozafazza is a RINO in a liberal state who split the Repub vote by endorsing the Democrat candidate in the general election. The stars were aligned perfectly for this bow wow to cause the defeat of Hoffman. In most blue state races, it is surprising that a Repub has a spitting chance. Plus, those Rockefeller Repubs don't care for conservatives.

Apache
04-03-2010, 02:53 PM
The first three words of the Preamble, in very large letters, says We the People. I think they were written that way to emphasize that the People come first. All else is second and third. WE the People are the nation.The way it looks right now, our nation is finally waking up to the fact that WE control the government...not the other way around.

Chuck58
04-03-2010, 03:47 PM
The way it looks right now, our nation is finally waking up to the fact that WE control the government...not the other way around.

God I sincerely hope so. I really believe that, if something isn't done soon, this Republic's days are numbered.

If we don't act now (November) and if the progressive socialists from Both parties aren't removed, by 2012 our Rights, our Freedom and the country we grew up in will be a memory.

Wei Wu Wei
04-03-2010, 04:45 PM
The way it looks right now, our nation is finally waking up to the fact that WE control the government...not the other way around.

You know that's the common idea in most advanced western nations. America is unique amongst the advanced nations in that our population tends to have a more cautious and adversarial attitude towards the government (I think it's natural because of our individualistic ideology and our revolution-borne history).

Political commentators have noted about Canadians "Canadians don't lobby and fight for their rights against Government, because, in the collective perception, their government is theirs. They assume it is working for them and it is enough of the time to continue being trusted."

Chuck58
04-03-2010, 04:59 PM
You know that's the common idea in most advanced western nations. America is unique amongst the advanced nations in that our population tends to have a more cautious and adversarial attitude towards the government (I think it's natural because of our individualistic ideology and our revolution-borne history).

Political commentators have noted about Canadians "Canadians don't lobby and fight for their rights against Government, because, in the collective perception, their government is theirs. They assume it is working for them and it is enough of the time to continue being trusted."

Yes, govt always works for its citizens. Everyone knows that.:rolleyes:

The Canadian gun registration law of a few years ago was very popular and obeyed implicitly by the people. Last I heard, they were considering abandoning it because 4 provinces and a huge percentage of the populace refused to comply with it. And, it was costing them a fortune and wasn't working.

So much for working for the people. The only time government works for the people is when govt fears the people.

Apache
04-03-2010, 05:29 PM
You know that's the common idea in most advanced western nations. America is unique amongst the advanced nations in that our population tends to have a more cautious and adversarial attitude towards the government (I think it's natural because of our individualistic ideology and our revolution-borne history).

Political commentators have noted about Canadians "Canadians don't lobby and fight for their rights against Government, because, in the collective perception, their government is theirs. They assume it is working for them and it is enough of the time to continue being trusted."

Why do you keep comparing America to other countries? America is America, we are who we are and for the most part we like it that way. Those who don't like America can leave or stay away, makes me no nevermind...

Apache
04-03-2010, 05:30 PM
The only time government works for the people is when govt fears the people.

Give the man a SEEGAR, we have a winner!

Wei Wu Wei
04-03-2010, 06:07 PM
Why do you keep comparing America to other countries? America is America, we are who we are and for the most part we like it that way. Those who don't like America can leave or stay away, makes me no nevermind...

X=X is an empty gesture, the reality of our symbolic structure is that symbols are only defined in relation to other symbols. We never "are who we are", that's an infantile narcissistic fantasy (in a psychoanalytic sense).

Wei Wu Wei
04-03-2010, 06:10 PM
Yes, govt always works for its citizens. Everyone knows that.:rolleyes:

See, we both have representative governments but Americans are more likely to have this atittude.


The Canadian gun registration law of a few years ago was very popular and obeyed implicitly by the people. Last I heard, they were considering abandoning it because 4 provinces and a huge percentage of the populace refused to comply with it. And, it was costing them a fortune and wasn't working.

So much for working for the people. The only time government works for the people is when govt fears the people.

this exact course of events can easily be seen the other way.


The gun registration law was popular and people just obeyed it. Then people changed their mind and did not like the law because it wasn't working for them anymore, so they have their government adjust accordingly.

Wei Wu Wei
04-03-2010, 06:13 PM
We elect our representatives too, we feel that's our input into the system and it's because of it that our system works (to some degree at least). However, as soon as they are elected people feel they've become "someone else". They are still our representatives, if people worry that they're getting too much influence from powerful forces (beyond their constituent voters), then we should support legislation that limits that kind of influence.

If we unequivically view the government as "the other" then we'll never have a government that represents us.

Apache
04-03-2010, 06:52 PM
X=X is an empty gesture, the reality of our symbolic structure is that symbols are only defined in relation to other symbols. We never "are who we are", that's an infantile narcissistic fantasy (in a psychoanalytic sense).

Hate to break it to you, but X does =X. X will never be W, no matter how much you want it to be.

the reality of our symbolic structure is that symbols are only defined in relation to other symbols.

WTF kind of psyco-babble is that:confused:


We never "are who we are", that's an infantile narcissistic fantasyHey, if you're "keeping up with the Jones' " that's your problem. Me, I'm more than happy being an American, I have ZERO interest in how they do things in Norway, France or Canada...WE ARE NOT THEM!

Wei Wu Wei
04-03-2010, 07:32 PM
Hate to break it to you, but X does =X. X will never be W, no matter how much you want it to be.

more like X='X


the reality of our symbolic structure is that symbols are only defined in relation to other symbols.

WTF kind of psyco-babble is that:confused:

It's exactly what you are demonstrating here:


"Me, I'm more than happy being an American, I have ZERO interest in how they do things in Norway, France or Canada...WE ARE NOT THEM!"

Kay
04-03-2010, 07:39 PM
X=X is an empty gesture, the reality of our symbolic structure is that symbols are only defined in relation to other symbols. We never "are who we are", that's an infantile narcissistic fantasy (in a psychoanalytic sense).

WTF? We should have that above psychoanalyticized.

Wei Wu Wei
04-03-2010, 07:45 PM
you're the the "I" you refer to when you say "I".

this is the fantasy

Rockntractor
04-03-2010, 07:50 PM
WFT? We should have that above psychoanalyticized.

A sharp blow to he side of the head with a shoe or stick might do more good!

Apache
04-03-2010, 08:32 PM
more like X='X



It's exactly what you are demonstrating here:


"Me, I'm more than happy being an American, I have ZERO interest in how they do things in Norway, France or Canada...WE ARE NOT THEM!"

Ok, again...the reality of our symbolic structure is that symbols are only defined in relation to other symbols.
WTF are you trying to say? "the reality of our symbolic structure "... There is nothing "symbolic" about the way we are, we are AMERICANS...

Constitutionally Speaking
04-03-2010, 08:48 PM
The Tea Party has become a large political force, and they strongly identify as conservative.

The Republicans are going to need the Tea Party support, but they also need the votes of the very large independent group who vote but are not as politically active.

Will the Republicans do better siding with 'moderates' and trying to gain a bigger tent, or will they do better siding with conservatives mobilizing the large Tea Party?


I think they'd do better appealing to moderates, because while moderates are likely to vote Democrat if they are displeased with Republicans, the majority of Tea Party members see the Democrats as the greater of 2 evils and will NOT vote Democrat.

This means they are at more risk of losing centrists by moving right, because Tea Party voters are (probably) going to vote for them anyway if they aim for the moderates.


Republicans never (or rarely) win when they run to the center. They almost always win when they run to the right.

Troll
04-03-2010, 09:14 PM
Republicans never (or rarely) win when they run to the center. They almost always win when they run to the right.

Historically that's been the case, but my opinion is that we're witnessing the process of that fact changing right before our eyes.

In this decade, 2010 - 2020, the United States will, for the first time, have more people riding the wagon than pulling it. It's Cloward-Piven and Idiocracy all rolled into one.


Does it help Republicans to move further right or aim for centrists?

To those of you who think (like Sean Hannity) that we're going to get a "re-vitalized Republican party" or some other such drivel, I guarantee you this: You think today's Republicans bear no resemblance to the Republicans of the 1980s? By 2020, you'll be begging what's left of the Republicans for a return to "George Bush conservatism".

The moochers are having 4 babies for every one baby the producers are having, and when they get to voting age, the Republican Party will cease to functionally exist if it already hasn't.

To answer the question, it will, in the future, help Republicans to move towards the center - see also: 1994 - present. Anyone here who thinks we're going to vote our way out of this mess, I have some $20,000 Nintendo games to sell you.

Rockntractor
04-03-2010, 09:27 PM
Historically that's been the case, but my opinion is that we're witnessing the process of that fact changing right before our eyes.

In this decade, 2010 - 2020, the United States will, for the first time, have more people riding the wagon than pulling it. It's Cloward-Piven and Idiocracy all rolled into one.



To those of you who think (like Sean Hannity) that we're going to get a "re-vitalized Republican party" or some other such drivel, I guarantee you this: You think today's Republicans bear no resemblance to the Republicans of the 1980s? By 2020, you'll be begging what's left of the Republicans for a return to "George Bush conservatism".

The moochers are having 4 babies for every one baby the producers are having, and when they get to voting age, the Republican Party will cease to functionally exist if it already hasn't.

To answer the question, it will, in the future, help Republicans to move towards the center - see also: 1994 - present. Anyone here who thinks we're going to vote our way out of this mess, I have some $20,000 Nintendo games to sell you.

We will get to the point where there will be more carts than there are mules to pull them and things will have to change.

Apache
04-03-2010, 09:34 PM
We will get to the point where there will be more carts than there are mules to pull them and things will have to change.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that part of what the Tea Party is about, preventing that very thing from happening?

Rockntractor
04-03-2010, 09:38 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that part of what the Tea Party is about, preventing that very thing from happening?

I appreciate what they are doing but I'm afraid we are way to late to the fight. It is kind of like an out of control drunk, we will have to crash and burn before this country wakes up!

Chuck58
04-03-2010, 09:52 PM
I appreciate what they are doing but I'm afraid we are way to late to the fight. It is kind of like an out of control drunk, we will have to crash and burn before this country wakes up!

Maybe......maybe if we can take at least one of the houses of Congress in November, crashing and burning might be averted. I'd like to think we can, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

I've almost been laughed off a couple of forums for saying this, but personally I think we're as close as we've been since 1775 to Revolution. Jefferson said it was a necessary event every century or so. We're overdue.

Rockntractor
04-03-2010, 10:01 PM
Maybe......maybe if we can take at least one of the houses of Congress in November, crashing and burning might be averted. I'd like to think we can, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

I've almost been laughed off a couple of forums for saying this, but personally I think we're as close as we've been since 1775 to Revolution. Jefferson said it was a necessary event every century or so. We're overdue.
I don't think that most have a heart for what is needed. We have had so much for so long and failed to appreciate it. We didn't stop and think of what we needed to do to keep it. We were to busy living our lives and raising families and working.

Kay
04-03-2010, 10:04 PM
The moochers are having 4 babies for every one baby the producers are having, and when they get to voting age, the Republican Party will cease to functionally exist if it already hasn't.

That's exactly what I've been saying for years! We (the producers) got where with both spouses working we only would have 1 - 2 kids a family. Meantime they (moochers) were having 6 or 7 a family. Welfare gave an incentive to have more (kids = $), plus throw in all the illegals' babies we let be citizens at birth.

I'm afraid that is what is hitting us know. It was about in the 70's with the women's revolution when y'all made us all start working outside the home that we got behind in kid production. Now that generation of kids from the 70s - 90s are voting age, and this last election the welfare babies took over. I don't see us ever catching back up.

Apache
04-03-2010, 10:09 PM
I appreciate what they are doing but I'm afraid we are way to late to the fight. It is kind of like an out of control drunk, we will have to crash and burn before this country wakes up!

I think we may have hit the brakes too late to save the hood crumple, but I don't think they'll call for the jaws of life...

Rockntractor
04-03-2010, 10:13 PM
I think we may have hit the brakes too late to save the hood crumple, but I don't think they'll call for the jaws of life...

If by some miracle the supreme court does what is right and puts the brakes on the health care grab, we might have a chance. If not it proves that all branches are subject to the executive branch and for all practical purposes we will be living in a dictatorship, whether we want to admit it or not!

Chuck58
04-03-2010, 10:33 PM
If by some miracle the supreme court does what is right and puts the brakes on the health care grab, we might have a chance. If not it proves that all branches are subject to the executive branch and for all practical purposes we will be living in a dictatorship, whether we want to admit it or not!

My feeling exactly.

Are the states so used to feeding at the Fed trough, and being bribed to surrender their sovereignty, that they'll roll over and take it?

Something has got to happen to stop these beings on Capitol Hill. I cannot believe that this nation will go down without much more than a whimper.

PoliCon
04-03-2010, 11:32 PM
Scozafazza, thank you, that was the one I was trying to remember. Yeah the RNC backed the wrong one, they backed a freakin' Dem with (R) camo! Now honestly, what kind of difference is that? Given a bit more time the conservative people-backed candidate would've won, and I think the RNC knows this...

And if there had been just a little more time - the dem would have lost - and either way the seat is only in dems hands until this fall. Do you think he'll get reelected? I don't.

PoliCon
04-03-2010, 11:41 PM
X=X is an empty gesture, the reality of our symbolic structure is that symbols are only defined in relation to other symbols. We never "are who we are", that's an infantile narcissistic fantasy (in a psychoanalytic sense).

No - X=X is basic reality. X=/=Y or Z or A or B or C or D or E . . . . X only can ever equal X because all other numbers are . . . .













FUCKING DIFFERENT YOU SHIT FOR BRAINED FUCKTARD.
http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa15/Cats_are_Snakes/Cat%20Macros/Response%20Macros/fucktard.jpg

And it's not narcissistic to know who you are and to feel no need what ever to compare yourself to other to justify your actions.

PoliCon
04-03-2010, 11:45 PM
We will get to the point where there will be more carts than there are mules to pull them and things will have to change.

Yup. Then it's time for the mules to stand up and fight back.

PoliCon
04-03-2010, 11:46 PM
I appreciate what they are doing but I'm afraid we are way to late to the fight. It is kind of like an out of control drunk, we will have to crash and burn before this country wakes up!

Honestly - 10 years ago I'm betting the dems were thinking the exact same thing.

PoliCon
04-03-2010, 11:47 PM
Maybe......maybe if we can take at least one of the houses of Congress in November, crashing and burning might be averted. I'd like to think we can, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

I've almost been laughed off a couple of forums for saying this, but personally I think we're as close as we've been since 1775 to Revolution. Jefferson said it was a necessary event every century or so. We're overdue.

If we take the house - we can starve these government programs out of existence.

Rockntractor
04-03-2010, 11:53 PM
Honestly - 10 years ago I'm betting the dems were thinking the exact same thing.

Are you kidding! You of all people should have noticed how they infiltrated our schools and won the hearts and minds of our children. our number one mistake, underestimating liberals!

PoliCon
04-03-2010, 11:55 PM
Are you kidding! You of all people should have noticed how they infiltrated our schools and won the hearts and minds of our children. our number one mistake, underestimating liberals!

They did that over 100 years ago - and remember - despite their best efforts we've still elected more republicans than democrats to the presidency.

Rockntractor
04-03-2010, 11:56 PM
They did that over 100 years ago - and remember - despite their best efforts we've still elected more republicans than democrats to the presidency.
I am becoming less and less inclined to call a lot of our republican presidents conservatives.

PoliCon
04-04-2010, 12:00 AM
I am becoming less and less inclined to call a lot of our republican presidents conservatives.

point taken. But my point is - 10 year ago people were saying that the democratic party was finished. Bush in the White House and the GOP in control of both houses of Congress. Remember?

Rockntractor
04-04-2010, 12:02 AM
point taken. But my point is - 10 year ago people were saying that the democratic party was finished. Bush in the White House and the GOP in control of both houses of Congress. Remember?
I never thought that for one minute, I have watched political correctness and the so called environmentalism creep in and gradually take control of everything.

PoliCon
04-04-2010, 12:07 AM
I never thought that for one minute, I have watched political correctness and the so called environmentalism creep in and gradually take control of everything.

I'm not saying I bought it. I'm not buying that conservatism is dead either. The pendulum is still swinging.

Rockntractor
04-04-2010, 12:11 AM
I'm not saying I bought it. I'm not buying that conservatism is dead either. The pendulum is still swinging.
It isn't dead but intelligent people who hold it as their philosophy are in the minority right now and unless we can convince our children otherwise, they will continue to change the advantage to the progressives side!

Swampfox
04-04-2010, 01:52 AM
The Republicans would do well to adhere to the Constitution and actually practice limited government for a change. They should also stay away from divisive social issues that turn off moderates.

Wei Wu Wei
04-04-2010, 04:09 AM
That's exactly what I've been saying for years! We (the producers) got where with both spouses working we only would have 1 - 2 kids a family. Meantime they (moochers) were having 6 or 7 a family. Welfare gave an incentive to have more (kids = $), plus throw in all the illegals' babies we let be citizens at birth.

I'm afraid that is what is hitting us know. It was about in the 70's with the women's revolution when y'all made us all start working outside the home that we got behind in kid production. Now that generation of kids from the 70s - 90s are voting age, and this last election the welfare babies took over. I don't see us ever catching back up.

Except that people on welfare almost never vote in fact the the less income you earn the less likely you are to participate at all and also participate in fewer ways.

lacarnut
04-04-2010, 05:48 AM
Except that people on welfare almost never vote in fact the the less income you earn the less likely you are to participate at all and also participate in fewer ways.

You have a problem with that; I do not. People that do not own a home should not be allowed to vote to increase my property taxes.

PoliCon
04-04-2010, 08:28 AM
It isn't dead but intelligent people who hold it as their philosophy are in the minority right now and unless we can convince our children otherwise, they will continue to change the advantage to the progressives side!

Remember - we have children. They have abortions. ;)

Kay
04-04-2010, 11:20 AM
Except that people on welfare almost never vote in fact the the less income you earn the less likely you are to participate at all and also participate in fewer ways.

Except that democrats are known for picking them up by the bus loads and driving them to the polls, telling them who to vote for, then giving them a pack of cigs for doing it. Acorn and all that. :mad:

AmPat
04-05-2010, 10:19 AM
Does it help Republicans to move further right or aim for centrists?Let's see, hmmmmm. It has worked out so well for them to be progressive lite, why not?:rolleyes:
If this GOP wants to survive, it has two cycles left to change from progressive lite to CONSERVATIVE or it is finished.