kallend 1,623
Recommended Posts
rushmc 18
Quote1- I call for the GOP not to 'Bork' President-elect Obama's Cabinet nominations. A President should be able to nominate the Cabinet of his choice. Don't you want a non-Bork-esque nomination process for President-elect Obama, John?
2- I call for a floor vote for all judicial nominees - just as I did under President Bush.
3- I want workers to retain the right to a secret ballot when voting for unionization in the workplace. Do you not respect that right,
4- I desire freedom of speech on the air-waves. Should advertisers be forced to pay for programming content with which they disagree, Sir John? Would you think the ACLU would agree, Sir John?
5- I don't believe achievement should be punished. Do you, Sir Kallend?
6- Do you believe that more government in gov't schools would be a good thing? Given their smashing success as compared with other nations?
7- Please, dear Kallend, enlighten us on how nuclear power and drilling for oil on our own lands would be a bad thing. Quite eager to hear your thoughts, old boy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I removed some of the comentary but I still wonder, If I would support these points for the Pres elect is that a bad thing?
Since you have selective memory
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
TheAnvil 0
You're spoiling his attempt to redirect the thread so he can avoid such questions! 
Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
rushmc 18
QuoteYou're spoiling his attempt to redirect the thread so he can avoid such questions!
Sorry
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
kallend 1,623
QuoteQuote1- I call for the GOP not to 'Bork' President-elect Obama's Cabinet nominations. A President should be able to nominate the Cabinet of his choice. Don't you want a non-Bork-esque nomination process for President-elect Obama, John?
2- I call for a floor vote for all judicial nominees - just as I did under President Bush.
3- I want workers to retain the right to a secret ballot when voting for unionization in the workplace. Do you not respect that right,
4- I desire freedom of speech on the air-waves. Should advertisers be forced to pay for programming content with which they disagree, Sir John? Would you think the ACLU would agree, Sir John?
5- I don't believe achievement should be punished. Do you, Sir Kallend?
6- Do you believe that more government in gov't schools would be a good thing? Given their smashing success as compared with other nations?
7- Please, dear Kallend, enlighten us on how nuclear power and drilling for oil on our own lands would be a bad thing. Quite eager to hear your thoughts, old boy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I removed some of the comentary but I still wonder, If I would support these points for the Pres elect is that a bad thing?
Since you have selective memory
I already commented on those - the GOP shouldn't be concentrating on thwarting the expressed will of the electorate - it should be concentrating on fixing its own serious problems.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rushmc 18
QuoteQuoteQuote1- I call for the GOP not to 'Bork' President-elect Obama's Cabinet nominations. A President should be able to nominate the Cabinet of his choice. Don't you want a non-Bork-esque nomination process for President-elect Obama, John?
2- I call for a floor vote for all judicial nominees - just as I did under President Bush.
3- I want workers to retain the right to a secret ballot when voting for unionization in the workplace. Do you not respect that right,
4- I desire freedom of speech on the air-waves. Should advertisers be forced to pay for programming content with which they disagree, Sir John? Would you think the ACLU would agree, Sir John?
5- I don't believe achievement should be punished. Do you, Sir Kallend?
6- Do you believe that more government in gov't schools would be a good thing? Given their smashing success as compared with other nations?
7- Please, dear Kallend, enlighten us on how nuclear power and drilling for oil on our own lands would be a bad thing. Quite eager to hear your thoughts, old boy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I removed some of the comentary but I still wonder, If I would support these points for the Pres elect is that a bad thing?
Since you have selective memory
I already commented on those - the GOP shouldn't be concentrating on thwarting the expressed will of the electorate - it should be concentrating on fixing its own serious problems.
Well good for you. I guess we can expect the same support from you when the next
Republican Admin gets into office.
That will be a nice change from you and this admin.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
TheAnvil 0
A 'I can't comment on those issues because it forces me to face certain realities about my positions I am not prepared to deal with at this time' would have been a much more accurate answer.
Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
Amazon 7
QuoteA 'I can't comment on those issues because it forces me to face certain realities about my positions I am not prepared to deal with at this time' would have been a much more accurate answer.
Well at this time you could just suggest that since the Republican Party is pretty much dead and has become the rePUBICan party... it might be more in line with your current trend to just name the party the Evangelical Party and get it over with.
I always equated the Republican Party as the party of Lincoln.. fiscal responsibility and socialy conservative. Now they are certainly ultra-conservative , ultra fiscally irresponsible, and ultra morally bankrupt.
It has shifted so far from the middle of the road in most of the country that it is no longer viable to keep using newspeak to fool people into voting for fear and things that most people abhore.
kallend 1,623
QuoteA 'I can't comment on those issues because it forces me to face certain realities about my positions I am not prepared to deal with at this time' would have been a much more accurate answer.
Reality is that a majority of the electorate voted for Obama, and not for McCain. Reality is that the Dems have a majority in both parts of Congress. That's a reality I can face with equanimity.
You and rush, OTOH, seem to be having a really hard time dealing with that reality.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
TheAnvil 0
Yep! Obama is the President Elect and the DemoKKKrats have a majority in both the House and the Senate. Disliking the aforementioned isn't going to make them go away. Never stated otherwise.
How about answering my queries...
Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
TheAnvil 0
Dead? With 48% of the vote in an economic downturn as the incumbent party with an unpopular President in office?
Dead?
In your dreams alone.
Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
rushmc 18
QuoteQuoteA 'I can't comment on those issues because it forces me to face certain realities about my positions I am not prepared to deal with at this time' would have been a much more accurate answer.
Reality is that a majority of the electorate voted for Obama, and not for McCain. Reality is that the Dems have a majority in both parts of Congress. That's a reality I can face with equanimity.
You and rush, OTOH, seem to be having a really hard time dealing with that reality.
Not at all sir. look at some of my other posts.
But, I let you drag me off topic yet again.
I vow to do better
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
I can appriciate conservative values(fiscal responsibility,small efficient government) as much as anyone however the Republican party of late doesn't much resemble those traits and characteristics anymore.
With the amount of money spent and new government institutions created by the current administration it is so laughable that the Republicans could paint a picture of the Democrats doing any worse, and do it with a straight face. But that is what they did. And apparently they did it with quite a bit of success because as you noted they achieved 48% of the vote.
In my opinion they did it by capitalizing on paranoia and outright lying. Unfortunately a large number of people succumbed to the pressure and voted out of fear instead of taking a look at who might benefit themselves, their families and the nation.
Giving a larger tax break to very weathy people and businesses does not benefit the people. Creating bigger government does not benefit the people. Taking on additional debt in the form of loans from other nations translating into a weaker US dollar does not benefit the people.
Additionally, values based legislation does not put food on the table. It does not pay the bills, and it doesn't create jobs.
The 48% of those who voted Republican can't all have come from the few who actually would have/have benefited from these policies. So it stands to reason that while a substantial number of people voted Republican, it may not have been in their best interests despite what they were told.
The Republican party is not dead as the evidence shows and will continue to be a force as long as they can get large groups of people to essentially vote against themselves. The alternative would be to actually uphold the values and fundamentals of the party and get shit done.
With the amount of money spent and new government institutions created by the current administration it is so laughable that the Republicans could paint a picture of the Democrats doing any worse, and do it with a straight face. But that is what they did. And apparently they did it with quite a bit of success because as you noted they achieved 48% of the vote.
In my opinion they did it by capitalizing on paranoia and outright lying. Unfortunately a large number of people succumbed to the pressure and voted out of fear instead of taking a look at who might benefit themselves, their families and the nation.
Giving a larger tax break to very weathy people and businesses does not benefit the people. Creating bigger government does not benefit the people. Taking on additional debt in the form of loans from other nations translating into a weaker US dollar does not benefit the people.
Additionally, values based legislation does not put food on the table. It does not pay the bills, and it doesn't create jobs.
The 48% of those who voted Republican can't all have come from the few who actually would have/have benefited from these policies. So it stands to reason that while a substantial number of people voted Republican, it may not have been in their best interests despite what they were told.
The Republican party is not dead as the evidence shows and will continue to be a force as long as they can get large groups of people to essentially vote against themselves. The alternative would be to actually uphold the values and fundamentals of the party and get shit done.
Someday Never Comes
QuoteThe alternative would be to actually uphold the values and fundamentals of the party and get shit done.
The question is: what are those values supposed to be?
Look up Barry Goldwater & see how disappointed he came to be with the Republican party & why.
Right now the Republicans are asking what went wrong. And NOT agreeing about the answer at all.
The super social-conservative & hyper religious types are saying they need someone more hard to the Right.
The more libertarian-leaning and moderate Republicans (who say, emphasize reducing government spending rather than religious values) disagree with the above, pointing out that in order to win elections you have to not just capture the "Republican Base", you have to get the people in the middle.
So the Republican party is all over the map right now.
McCain was a moderate Republican & had the advantage that he could reach the Great Middle. But then he chose Palin as a running mate, which was a deliberate act of tokenism & political pandering to the religious/social conservatives.
So the social conservatives/religious Republicans are now saying that Palin was great & Mccain sucked, and the moderate Republicans are saying that Palin was a bad choice.
The Republican party needs to decide what it wants to be.
Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
TomAiello 25
I think the Republican alliance is made up of at least three groups (actually there's like a dozen more, but for simplicity):
1) Religious Conservatives (Sarah Palin)
2) Anti-Statist Libertarians (Ron Paul, Barry Goldwater)
3) Neo-Con Foreign Policy Hawks (Dick Cheney)
During the Bush years, I think that the third group was ascendant, controlling the platform and direction of the party. Occasional tokens were handed out to the other two groups (especially the first), but by and large the important thing to the party power brokers (around the President) was the foreign agenda. I think that it wasn't clear when Bush originally ran how he was going to fit into the groups (mostly he's a #1 in domestic policy and a #3 in foreign policy), but 9/11 made foreign policy very important, and he ran into the arms of that wing of the party.
McCain is generally in the 2nd and 3rd groupings (not the first). He selected Palin because (a) she brought in the third group in the traditional alliance, and (b) she was young and pretty, to counter some of Obama's charismatic energy.
What I'd like to see the GOP do now is step back to Goldwater, and put the ant-statist agenda front and center. That works well for the party, because as a minority opposition they're likely to be opposed to the works of the state (controlled by their political opponents) anyway. It also addresses the major downfall of the party in this electoral cycle (the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan) because the ant-statists are generally opposed to foreign adventures, at the very least because they involve massive growth of the state infrastructure.
Admittedly, the fact that I'm in group #2, and view the religious right with skepticism and distrust, and the foreign policy hawks with downright opposition, may have something to do with that view. I'm hoping that we see a shake up in the GOP, with the anti-statist view emerging as the dominant unifying force, backed by religious conservatives (who, faced with a liberal government will hopefully fall back to "just leave me alone"), and leaving the foreign policy hawks as the ones' crying in the wilderness (because, after all, without the executive branch, they're pretty much unemployed).
1) Religious Conservatives (Sarah Palin)
2) Anti-Statist Libertarians (Ron Paul, Barry Goldwater)
3) Neo-Con Foreign Policy Hawks (Dick Cheney)
During the Bush years, I think that the third group was ascendant, controlling the platform and direction of the party. Occasional tokens were handed out to the other two groups (especially the first), but by and large the important thing to the party power brokers (around the President) was the foreign agenda. I think that it wasn't clear when Bush originally ran how he was going to fit into the groups (mostly he's a #1 in domestic policy and a #3 in foreign policy), but 9/11 made foreign policy very important, and he ran into the arms of that wing of the party.
McCain is generally in the 2nd and 3rd groupings (not the first). He selected Palin because (a) she brought in the third group in the traditional alliance, and (b) she was young and pretty, to counter some of Obama's charismatic energy.
What I'd like to see the GOP do now is step back to Goldwater, and put the ant-statist agenda front and center. That works well for the party, because as a minority opposition they're likely to be opposed to the works of the state (controlled by their political opponents) anyway. It also addresses the major downfall of the party in this electoral cycle (the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan) because the ant-statists are generally opposed to foreign adventures, at the very least because they involve massive growth of the state infrastructure.
Admittedly, the fact that I'm in group #2, and view the religious right with skepticism and distrust, and the foreign policy hawks with downright opposition, may have something to do with that view. I'm hoping that we see a shake up in the GOP, with the anti-statist view emerging as the dominant unifying force, backed by religious conservatives (who, faced with a liberal government will hopefully fall back to "just leave me alone"), and leaving the foreign policy hawks as the ones' crying in the wilderness (because, after all, without the executive branch, they're pretty much unemployed).
SkyDekker 1,122
QuoteWealth is earned - not distributed. Deal with it.
I couldn't agree more. Than why does the US keep borrowing money from countries where the wealth is being earned? Why go to China, where the money is being earned, to borrow money for adventures that are not turning a profit?
To me that is the same as wellfare, but on a global scale.
mnealtx 0
So, what happened in 2004-2005, when Canada's external debt went from 1.9 billion (ranked 120th) to 570 billion (ranked 5th)? Who was THAT borrowed from, pray tell?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Essentially the values and fundamentals of the party are what they used to do(keep government spending in check, keep government only as big as it needs to be).
These days they just say they uphold those values and turn and do the opposite.
These days they just say they uphold those values and turn and do the opposite.
Someday Never Comes
I don't see any question marks in your statement above except something about calling him "comrad", which is really just an insult..
OTOH, I asked a real question and you can't answer it.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites