Thread: "Old 'Snake Head' Carville 'Hisses' ."

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 38 of 38
  1. #31  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Pleasant Valley
    Posts
    639
    Quote Originally Posted by BadCat View Post
    Well, this is supposedly a Conservative board, would you expect something different?
    Don't know. Are Odysseus and Marinejcksn liberals as well?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #32  
    Super Moderator BadCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    In your dreams
    Posts
    15,600
    Quote Originally Posted by Water Closet View Post
    Don't know. Are Odysseus and Marinejcksn liberals as well?
    Not from what I've seen of their posts.
    You have to remember, we had shit to pick from in terms of candidates. It was "who sucks less" for all the candidates the R's had up.

    rm -rf obama*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #33  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Pleasant Valley
    Posts
    639
    Quote Originally Posted by BadCat View Post
    Not from what I've seen of their posts.
    You have to remember, we had shit to pick from in terms of candidates. It was "who sucks less" for all the candidates the R's had up.
    I didn't get the impression from either one of their posts that they only supported Rudy because everyone else was "shit."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #34  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    . I also recall that mine was a singularly lonely position here, and given your libertarian leanings, I'd have thought that Rudy would have been a lock for you. But, since he wasn't, I'm curious: Who was your first choice for the nomination in 2008?
    As a right winger, I would have voted for Rudy because it was oblivious to me that Obama would be a disaster. As much as it pains me, I would vote for another RINO rather than a socialist and tax raiser like the O.

    CW was for McCain before he was against him which happened when Palin was picked. Him along with Rockefeller Repubs went bat shit crazy and decided not to support McCain. Very narrow minded in my opinion because the few ounces of conservative principals in their blood have now been shit canned. Him and his ilk can kiss lower taxes and less protection from terrorism goodbye. More government intervention is on its way in a grand scale. Obama is going to make FDR & LBJ look like pikers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #35  
    Super Moderator BadCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    In your dreams
    Posts
    15,600
    Even worse, Hussien is going to make Carter look like a GREAT president.

    rm -rf obama*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #36  
    Senior Member marinejcksn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Penn State
    Posts
    1,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Water Closet View Post
    Don't know. Are Odysseus and Marinejcksn liberals as well?
    I'm a liberal in the classical definition of the word...does that count? :p
    "Don't vote. It only encourages the bastards." -PJ O'Roarke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #37  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Water Closet View Post
    Don't know. Are Odysseus and Marinejcksn liberals as well?
    You wanna say that out in the parking lot, Pilgrim? :mad:
    I'm originally from NYC, and I saw how liberals governed, and nothing about Giuliani's record was liberal. The most critically conservative thing about Rudy Giuliani is that, whatever his personal feelings on an issue, he follows the law as written and intended. As a result, he governs as conservatively as Reagan did. Examples: He is the only mayor of NYC that I know of who actually cut taxes and spending. Not slowed the rate of growth, but actually made cuts. He reduced the welfare roles from over a million to under six-hundred-thousand. He reinvigorated the NYPD and backed them up as he unleashed them on criminals, but he also had zero tolerance for corruption or lawlessness on the force. He presided over the first decline in abortions in NYC since Roe v. Wade. He supported freedom of association when the Ancient Order of Hibernians were under attack by gay activists to be featured in the Saint Patrick's Day Parade. He opposed government funding of garbage masquerading as art (without actually resorting to censorship, as his detractors claimed). He refused money from a Saudi prince after 9/11 after that prince made derogatory remarks about the United States and he told Yassir Arafat that while he may have the run of the UN, he didn't have the run of Lincoln Center and terrorists were not welcome. He actually enforced standards of public conduct on the homeless and other nuisances and got rid of the squeegee pests who extorted change in return for smearing dirt on car windows. He confronted unions that were strangling the city's economy and forced them to do the jobs that they were paid to do instead of what they felt like doing. And he did all of this with an overwelmingly Democratic city council that made the current congress look like the Roman senate under Cato the Elder. Anyone who saw his speech at the Republican National Convention can attest to his patriotism and his ability to articulate it.
    Quote Originally Posted by marinejcksn View Post
    I'm a liberal in the classical definition of the word...does that count? :p
    Nope. When classical liberals were liberals, today's liberals would have been calling themselves progressives, socialists, Marxists or anarchists (and, prior to WWII, fascists). When those terms became toxic, they started calling themselves "liberals in a hurry" and then just liberals, and the classical liberals had to choose between that and calling themselves conservatives, which had a very different meaning, since there was no real conservative party in America as we understand the term, and especially as the term was understood in Britain. The British Conservative Party was actually the Tory Party, a monarchist party that opposed the Whigs, which were more reform-minded. The Whigs party supported the Protestant succession and were supported by the nouveau riche industrial interests of the early industrial revolution, while the Tories supported the Stuart claims and drew support from the landed interests and the British Crown. Essentially, it was a conflict between absolute monarchists (Tories) and constitutional monarchists (Whigs). When Robert Peel proposed conserving what worked and reforming what didn't, the term "conservative" was coined. That's a very different political landscape than existed in the United States, where the entire spectrum was pretty much classically liberal and the big debate was between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, who eventually became the Democrats. The Federalists eventually were replaced by the American Whigs, whose lack of a position on slavery ended up relegating them to third party status after the founding of the abolitionist radical party known as the Republicans.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #38  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    41,097
    I liked Rudy to. I just wish he would have taken his campaigning a little more seriously.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •