PDA

View Full Version : With more Dem congressmen retiring, why exactly should people vote Republican?



Wei Wu Wei
04-09-2010, 05:55 PM
It seems the main goal behind voting Republican is to remove the Democrats who voted for Obama's policies. Many of these democrats are comfortably safe in their districts, where their constituents agree with their votes. Other democrats are now retiring.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT PARTY! - this is what the tea party always says

If the Dems who voted for health care are retiring, then a vote for a Republican is no longer a vote to kick out that Democrat.

So what's the reason for voting Republican again?

Is it conservative values? Let's not forget that a very large number of Republican congressmen were Bush-Era representatives, voted for massive unpaid spending throughout his term and supported TARP.


Whenever I point out that these Republicans are totally anti-conservative, people tell me "well it's more important to kick out the Democrats who voted for Obama's policies", well, if that is true, and they are retiring anyway, then you just lost your reason for supporting a Bush-era Republican.

So, why should people vote for Republicans (who voted for Bush's horrendous spending policies and TARP) if the Democrats who voted for healthcare are retiring on their own?

Jfor
04-09-2010, 05:58 PM
Who here is saying vote Republican? If they are not conservative, then why vote for them?

Apache
04-09-2010, 06:05 PM
It seems the main goal behind voting Republican is to remove the Democrats who voted for Obama's policies. Many of these democrats are comfortably safe in their districts, where their constituents agree with their votes. Other democrats are now retiring.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT PARTY! - this is what the tea party always says

If the Dems who voted for health care are retiring, then a vote for a Republican is no longer a vote to kick out that Democrat.

So what's the reason for voting Republican again?

Is it conservative values? Let's not forget that a very large number of Republican congressmen were Bush-Era representatives, voted for massive unpaid spending throughout his term and supported TARP.


Whenever I point out that these Republicans are totally anti-conservative, people tell me "well it's more important to kick out the Democrats who voted for Obama's policies", well, if that is true, and they are retiring anyway, then you just lost your reason for supporting a Bush-era Republican.

So, why should people vote for Republicans (who voted for Bush's horrendous spending policies and TARP) if the Democrats who voted for healthcare are retiring on their own?

My God man! Get some help, please!

Megaguns91
04-09-2010, 06:13 PM
Stop posting pointless threads.


This is CONSERVATIVE underground. Not the REPUBLICAN underground.

Articulate_Ape
04-09-2010, 06:13 PM
My God man! Get some help, please!

Yeah, really.

Rockntractor
04-09-2010, 06:24 PM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/StupidPeople.jpg?t=1270851805

Wei Wu Wei
04-09-2010, 06:52 PM
Stop posting pointless threads.


This is CONSERVATIVE underground. Not the REPUBLICAN underground.

The Tea Party (a CONSERVATIVE) movement, has been very explicit in stating that they will support the Republican party rather than make a third party.

When asked why they support Republicans they say:

To get rid of incumbent Democrats - well the ones who voted on this are retiring, so that's no valid

To keep conservatives in congress - actually MANY of the Rep congressmen are Bush-era republicans who are NOT conservative and who supported his spending measures. Unless the old Bush-Era Republicans are ousted by the Tea Party, then this "reason" is total BS.

So if the "liberal democrats who voted for health care" are retiring on their own, and a very large segment of the Republican party is totally anti-Conservative, why exactly are conservatives like the Tea Party going to vote Republican?

Jfor
04-09-2010, 06:54 PM
The Tea Party (a CONSERVATIVE) movement, has been very explicit in stating that they will support the Republican party rather than make a third party.

When asked why they support Republicans they say:

To get rid of incumbent Democrats - well the ones who voted on this are retiring, so that's no valid

To keep conservatives in congress - actually MANY of the Rep congressmen are Bush-era republicans who are NOT conservative and who supported his spending measures. Unless the old Bush-Era Republicans are ousted by the Tea Party, then this "reason" is total BS.

So if the "liberal democrats who voted for health care" are retiring on their own, and a very large segment of the Republican party is totally anti-Conservative, why exactly are conservatives like the Tea Party going to vote Republican?


Where oh where are you seeing this? I have not once seen ANY TEA party member say that will support ANY Republican over a third party candidate. New York's special election anyone? The Republican there was NOT supported by TEA party members. Once again, your ignorance on the matter astounds me even though I now it shouldn't.

Rockntractor
04-09-2010, 06:56 PM
The Tea Party (a CONSERVATIVE) movement, has been very explicit in stating that they will support the Republican party rather than make a third party.

When asked why they support Republicans they say:

To get rid of incumbent Democrats - well the ones who voted on this are retiring, so that's no valid

To keep conservatives in congress - actually MANY of the Rep congressmen are Bush-era republicans who are NOT conservative and who supported his spending measures. Unless the old Bush-Era Republicans are ousted by the Tea Party, then this "reason" is total BS.

So if the "liberal democrats who voted for health care" are retiring on their own, and a very large segment of the Republican party is totally anti-Conservative, why exactly are conservatives like the Tea Party going to vote Republican?

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/Stupid-People-Trick-2.jpg?t=1270853730

Articulate_Ape
04-09-2010, 06:59 PM
A little metaphor for what is coming at the Left now that America has woken up to their program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMV8tugFVNw

PoliCon
04-09-2010, 07:19 PM
I think it's time to ban this fucktard from making threads.

Milly
04-09-2010, 07:37 PM
I think it's time to ban this fucktard from making threads.

Maybe they could just be forwarded to the 'Humor' column.

Personally, I find arguing with wee wee useful in terms of clarifying my own thoughts. If I can explain my position to HIM, I can explain it to anybody.

Not that he ever listens. :(

Wei Wu Wei
04-09-2010, 08:07 PM
Where oh where are you seeing this? I have not once seen ANY TEA party member say that will support ANY Republican over a third party candidate. New York's special election anyone? The Republican there was NOT supported by TEA party members. Once again, your ignorance on the matter astounds me even though I now it shouldn't.

The Tea PArty is deliberately NOT running a third party because they are simply aligning themselves with Republicans. The Republicans, in the last decade, have been totally anti-conservative in tea party terms.

Why are the Tea Party supporting an anti-conservative republican party (Granted, some republicans have strong tea party support, but most of the incumbent republicans are Bush-era Republicans)?

The old reason was "TO GET THE DEMOCRATS OUT", but if these democrats who voted for stimulus bills and the health bill retire on their own, then that's not a good reason to vote Republican if you are a conservative.

Wei Wu Wei
04-09-2010, 08:10 PM
Maybe they could just be forwarded to the 'Humor' column.

Personally, I find arguing with wee wee useful in terms of clarifying my own thoughts. If I can explain my position to HIM, I can explain it to anybody.

Not that he ever listens. :(

Sorry, I love ot hear refreshing thoughts from conservatives who are thoughtful, mature, and reasonable, you guys remind me that I do not know what I think I know and I love you all for that. Most of the time it just gets drowned out by all of the childishness from the meth-head wingnuts who have nothing to post except hatred (I notice a lot of people here have lots of anger in their hearts).

I'm glad you appreciate my own posting for similar reasons I enjoy yours.

Chuck58
04-09-2010, 08:14 PM
The Tea Party (a CONSERVATIVE) movement, has been very explicit in stating that they will support the Republican party rather than make a third party.

When asked why they support Republicans they say:

To get rid of incumbent Democrats - well the ones who voted on this are retiring, so that's no valid

To keep conservatives in congress - actually MANY of the Rep congressmen are Bush-era republicans who are NOT conservative and who supported his spending measures. Unless the old Bush-Era Republicans are ousted by the Tea Party, then this "reason" is total BS.

So if the "liberal democrats who voted for health care" are retiring on their own, and a very large segment of the Republican party is totally anti-Conservative, why exactly are conservatives like the Tea Party going to vote Republican?

Who is 'they?' I'm a member of the TEA party, and nobody tells me who to support. None of the members I'm acquainted with are going to be told to vote Republican or any other party. We investigate the candidates and make our choices based on what we've learned.

This is what the political parties don't seem to understand. We aren't going to be led, and we're well aware that the Republicans are sucking up to us. If the Republican candidates pandering to us now don't have a record to prove they do what they say, forget them. I'll go elsewhere.

Milly
04-09-2010, 08:21 PM
The Tea PArty is deliberately NOT running a third party because they are simply aligning themselves with Republicans. The Republicans, in the last decade, have been totally anti-conservative in tea party terms.

We are not running as a third party because we hope the Republicans can be returned to their historic roots vis-a-vis conservatism.

This is the reason the primaries are so important this year. In my home state of Indiana, the good ol' boy Republican machine has brought in a carpetbagger in the person of Dan Coats, who is just about as establishment as people get.

Conservatives don't like him because he's a lobbyist and a Bush-era Republican. We have several good conservative candidates in the primaries and we're working to get one of them nominated.

That said, if Coats wins the primary I'll probably vote for him. Not because I like Coats, but because I despise Brad Ellsworth, the Democrat.

There are LOTS of us who learned some important lessons about third parties from the Perot campaign.

PoliCon
04-09-2010, 08:28 PM
The TEA party is about getting fiscally conservative constitutionally minded people elected. Republicans are closer to that than democrats. What more is there to say?

Wei Wu Wei
04-09-2010, 08:30 PM
SO I know what they say : Cut Taxes, Cut Spending, Reduce the Deficit

How exactly do conservatives see this happening?

Some spending cannot be cut, entitelment programs are the first thing on the budget list and it's not going away, same with medicare and so on. Those alone cannot be cut and take a HUGE portion of our budget. Which non-entitelment expenditures do conservatives support cutting? How much money could be saved?

Cutting taxes, another thread showed that the middle class already pays little to no taxes, especially now that Obama implimented tax cuts. Remember that a good portion of the stimulus package was tax cuts, why were conservatives opposed to those?

Cutting tax on the rich? as many point out, they contribute the lion's share of government revenue, is it a good idea to cut these taxes?

If we cut the governments revenue, and entitelement programs cannot be cut and defense is never cut, what on Earth could we cut to get back to deficit neutral?

Wei Wu Wei
04-09-2010, 08:32 PM
There are other factors in place too, our economy has restructured. We are no longer a manufactoring economy and computers and the internet are totally changing how the service sector operates. The old rules may not apply anymore when the economic landscape is different.

Just how rules about the economy changed after the industrial revolution, just how rules about the economy changed after the great depression, the information revolution is also changing the landscape and rules of the economy

Constitutionally Speaking
04-09-2010, 08:38 PM
It seems the main goal behind voting Republican is to remove the Democrats who voted for Obama's policies. Many of these democrats are comfortably safe in their districts, where their constituents agree with their votes. Other democrats are now retiring.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT PARTY! - this is what the tea party always says

If the Dems who voted for health care are retiring, then a vote for a Republican is no longer a vote to kick out that Democrat.

So what's the reason for voting Republican again?

Is it conservative values? Let's not forget that a very large number of Republican congressmen were Bush-Era representatives, voted for massive unpaid spending throughout his term and supported TARP.


Whenever I point out that these Republicans are totally anti-conservative, people tell me "well it's more important to kick out the Democrats who voted for Obama's policies", well, if that is true, and they are retiring anyway, then you just lost your reason for supporting a Bush-era Republican.

So, why should people vote for Republicans (who voted for Bush's horrendous spending policies and TARP) if the Democrats who voted for healthcare are retiring on their own?


Because the Republicans will vote to overturn Obamacare.

Chuck58
04-09-2010, 08:41 PM
Give education back to the States, where it belongs and eliminate the DEA. There's a nice start, around 65 billion dollars. I can think of several other agencies to get rid of that would save tens upon tens of billions more.

How many billions in pork are in this budget? Go over it with a fine toothed comb and veto every bit of it.

Gingersnap
04-09-2010, 08:47 PM
You seem to be obsessed (and uninformed) about what we think, how we are organized, how we'll vote, etc.

Milly is correct: we are seeking to return conservative values to a viable political party. From our point of view, blue dog Democrats simply want to implement the hard left agenda in a more common sense and structured way. Bipartisan Republicans also want to implement the hard left agenda in a more common sense and even more structured way. We don't like this and we would prefer to vote for candidates who are fiscally conservative, have a high view of the Constitution, and value personal liberty.

Obviously, we can't hope that the Democrats will partner with us on these objectives. It's possible that new Republicans will join us. It's possible that some incumbent Republicans will change to save their skins.

Therefore, the best bet in terms of voting is too vote for Libertarians locally and to vote for certain Republicans in wider elections.

How is this not obvious to you? :confused:

Wei Wu Wei
04-09-2010, 08:47 PM
Because the Republicans will vote to overturn Obamacare.

1. The whole point of the thread is "why overturn 'Obamacare' now? In 2014 it comes into full effect and that is also a congressional election year. If it's as bad as everyone says, Republicans can be voted in and then it can be overturned ONCE WE REAL FACTS about it.

2. It's possible that Democrats keep congress. Republicans may take the majority of one, or maybe even both houses, but Obama can and will simply veto a measure to overturn it.

Jfor
04-09-2010, 08:50 PM
1. The whole point of the thread is "why overturn 'Obamacare' now? In 2014 it comes into full effect and that is also a congressional election year. If it's as bad as everyone says, Republicans can be voted in and then it can be overturned ONCE WE REAL FACTS about it.

2. It's possible that Democrats keep congress. Republicans may take the majority of one, or maybe even both houses, but Obama can and will simply veto a measure to overturn it.

BECAUSE IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Wei Wu Wei
04-09-2010, 08:54 PM
You seem to be obsessed (and uninformed) about what we think, how we are organized, how we'll vote, etc.

It's why I come here to get my preconceptions hammered out by the more thoughtful posters :)


Milly is correct: we are seeking to return conservative values to a viable political party. From our point of view, blue dog Democrats simply want to implement the hard left agenda in a more common sense and structured way. Bipartisan Republicans also want to implement the hard left agenda in a more common sense and even more structured way. We don't like this and we would prefer to vote for candidates who are fiscally conservative, have a high view of the Constitution, and value personal liberty.

Why are ideologies not to be questioned? From an ideological standpoint, I am STRONGLY against this health care bill, I was very upset about it passing, but it has passed. I am willing to suspend my ideology for the sake of pragmatism and see how this pans out. No ideology is correct, not yours, not mine, not anyones. While they serve as guidance (and structure our reality), it's going to take a real debate about what we believe, and why we believe it, and that means we need to question our own ideologies. If we only have hard Left and hard Right forces fighting, we end up in stalemate and we all lose.




Obviously, we can't hope that the Democrats will partner with us on these objectives. It's possible that new Republicans will join us. It's possible that some incumbent Republicans will change to save their skins.

Therefore, the best bet in terms of voting is too vote for Libertarians locally and to vote for certain Republicans in wider elections.

How is this not obvious to you? :confused:

that makes sense, but I feel total allegiance to ideology at the expense of functional solutions is a real danger.

malloc
04-09-2010, 08:54 PM
BECAUSE IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

+1 QFT!

I for one, don't want to give the government even the slightest chance at telling me what I have to spend my money on, what has to be included in my policy whether I want it or not, and who I'm allowed to purchase it from. No thank you Barry. No thank you Pelosi. No thank you Reid. The warm, fuzzy, drive us bankrupt streak in these idiots has clashed with my can't-be-arsed libertarian streak.

Chuck58
04-09-2010, 08:55 PM
BECAUSE IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL


That's an utterly foreign concept to wee wee.

You see, they believe the Constitution means what they want it to mean. Or, it's obsolete and should be rewritten in modern terms and concepts.

As for us, we will simply obey, work and pay taxes to support their agenda.

Jfor
04-09-2010, 08:59 PM
It's why I come here to get my preconceptions hammered out by the more thoughtful posters :)



Why are ideologies not to be questioned? From an ideological standpoint, I am STRONGLY against this health care bill, I was very upset about it passing, but it has passed. I am willing to suspend my ideology for the sake of pragmatism and see how this pans out. No ideology is correct, not yours, not mine, not anyones. While they serve as guidance (and structure our reality), it's going to take a real debate about what we believe, and why we believe it, and that means we need to question our own ideologies. If we only have hard Left and hard Right forces fighting, we end up in stalemate and we all lose.





that makes sense, but I feel total allegiance to ideology at the expense of functional solutions is a real danger.

You have very very poor understanding of the Constitution if you don't realize that its main purpose is to limit what federal government can do. The commerce clause was designed to regulate interstate trade. you don't go to a doctor for commercial purposes so why do think the commerce clause applies?

Milly
04-09-2010, 08:59 PM
SO I know what they say : Cut Taxes, Cut Spending, Reduce the Deficit

How exactly do conservatives see this happening?

I'll attempt a simplistic answer (just for fun).

For one, it's time to start 'means testing' for Social Security. If a person has a million or so in retirement funds, I see no reason for them to receive more in SS benefits than they put in, plus interest. An alternative (or possible adjunct) would be no caps on what one pays in to SS. The wealthy pay much less as a percentage of income as the rest of us do.

Second, freeze spending. Congress is the only place I know of where a freeze is portrayed as cut.
If you freeze spending for 2011 at 2010 levels, the government will have to make some of the same hard choices as businesses do when revenues fall.

Next, start whittling down the desparity between the median income in the private sector and the median income in the government sector. That a bureaucrat earns more than the people s/he is hired to serve is beyond unfair.

Send Congress home. In this age of instantaneous communications they sould be able to do most - if not all - of their business from their home constituancies. This would have the added benefit of making it harder for lobbyists to lobby, since they'd have to travel.

That's just a few off the top of my head. Give me a day or two and I'll come up with a bunch more.

Rockntractor
04-09-2010, 09:00 PM
Modern progressives view the constitution just like they view the bible and they interpret it the same way.

malloc
04-09-2010, 09:07 PM
Here Wei, I'll try to help you out, you don't even have to read.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5085838350268647159#

Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class


You might want to watch this on YouTube since it's a playlist and I'm not sure how that will work embedded in the forum.

When you get an extra few hours, watch it, it's interesting and enjoyable, and very, very informative. Our Constitution is truly a marvel in modern thinking, and you should learn as much as you can about it.

Milly
04-09-2010, 09:08 PM
No ideology is correct, not yours, not mine, not anyones.

In other words, you don't believe in objective truth?

Rockntractor
04-09-2010, 09:12 PM
In other words, you don't believe in objective truth?
In other words if you slapped him along side the head with a two by four it would only be painful if he perceived it that way!

Milly
04-09-2010, 09:18 PM
In other words if you slapped him along side the head with a two by four it would only be painful if he perceived it that way!

So it would seem.

Discussing things with Wee Wee always reminds me of a quote from the book 'Sphere' : "Why do you ask, when you already know the answer?"

Depressing, really.

Rockntractor
04-09-2010, 09:20 PM
So it would seem.

Discussing things with Wee Wee always reminds me of a quote from the book 'Sphere' : "Why do you ask, when you already know the answer?"

Depressing, really.
You answer for awhile and then when you realize the futility of it you just post pictures.

Milly
04-09-2010, 09:23 PM
You answer for awhile and then when you realize the futility of it you just post pictures.

You always find the best pictures, too. Love them fruitcakes.

Gingersnap
04-09-2010, 09:24 PM
Why are ideologies not to be questioned? From an ideological standpoint, I am STRONGLY against this health care bill, I was very upset about it passing, but it has passed. I am willing to suspend my ideology for the sake of pragmatism and see how this pans out.

Ideologies are subject to question. The trick is defining them. "Conservatism" to my mind is simply a better bet in terms of long-range strategy. While I have deep reservations about many of the ideologies and philosophies that underpin contemporary democratic governments, I see basic conservatism as a better choice.

Conservatives don't always have the answer nor do we always have the ideal solutions but I believe we do less harm while we're experimenting. This is a critical value for people who follow history/politics/social issues.

There are no provisions in this bill that fit what I wanted to see in terms of health care reform (and I want reform). Since This bill doesn't address my concerns and since I can foresee at least some of the unintended consequences (and I don't want them), it makes sense for me pressure my actual and potential representatives to reject or change it.

From a conservative (or Libertarian) view, taking a wait-and-see attitude about a measure that already has well known drawbacks in other situations doesn't make sense.

PoliCon
04-09-2010, 09:29 PM
You answer for awhile and then when you realize the futility of it you just post pictures.

Or you use him for stress release :cool:

Sonnabend
04-10-2010, 09:50 AM
Many of these democrats are comfortably safe in their districts, where their constituents agree with their votes. Other democrats are now retiring.Many of them are running like hell, knowing full well the shitstorm that is about to fall on their heads. The ones in the "comfortable" districts are going to have some bad nights ahead...trust me, an angry populace is about to teach them humility in SPADES.

Stupak carried his votes forward, took one look at the results and ran faster than Pelosi the day the Republicans threw that "impeachment" sheet onto the floor for a vote. Many Dems are not standing for re election because trhey are well aware that NONE of them are in "safe seats" any more.

It is true that most of the ObamaCare packages wont kick in until 2014..what IS real is that the tax increases are starting NOW. For Pelosi and her cadre, that light at the end of the tunnel is a 300 ton express train.

Republican, by the way, does NOT equal conservative.

No taxation without representation, violation of state's rights....where have he heard this before...hm? Wu, here's a phrase you better keep uppermost in your mind.

Vox populi, vox dei..the voice of the people is the voice of God.

And they are PISSED........

NJCardFan
04-10-2010, 11:06 AM
So it would seem.

Discussing things with Wee Wee always reminds me of a quote from the book 'Sphere' : "Why do you ask, when you already know the answer?"

Depressing, really.
One of my favorite books. I've read it 3 times and it took me a grand total of maybe a week to read it those 3 times. Too bad the movie crapped all over the book(as did Timeline).

That said, this thread exposed WeeWee as the liar and troll that he is. This is the same person who says they listen to Rush and read conservative books yet has no clue of what conservatism or the Tea Parties are. None. I for one believe that this person should be banned from this forum because all they want to do is sound off like an idiot. Not discuss but to get flamed. This is why I think this person is a sock puppet.

Rockntractor
04-10-2010, 11:21 AM
One of my favorite books. I've read it 3 times and it took me a grand total of maybe a week to read it those 3 times. Too bad the movie crapped all over the book(as did Timeline).

That said, this thread exposed WeeWee as the liar and troll that he is. This is the same person who says they listen to Rush and read conservative books yet has no clue of what conservatism or the Tea Parties are. None. I for one believe that this person should be banned from this forum because all they want to do is sound off like an idiot. Not discuss but to get flamed. This is why I think this person is a sock puppet.

He works for Acorn or whatever their new name is.

Zathras
04-10-2010, 11:28 AM
BECAUSE IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

And they're going to start taxing us this year for that program that will not kick in till 2014....of course, if you want to give your money to the government Wee Wee, go right ahead. Me. I'm keeping it as long as possible.