The Endless Cycle Continues

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by repent

straight Republican here.

I have no use for these "conservative" democrats that try to appeal to a broad range of ppl.

if you are really consverative, than get with the right party.

Repent

And that party would be?

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

And that party would be?

Republican.

I admire Repent's vehement opinion. Unfortunately, most people don't have the nuts to actually SAY what many Americans are thinking.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

Republican.

I admire Repent's vehement opinion. Unfortunately, most people don't have the nuts to actually SAY what many Americans are thinking.

I'm assuming those "many Americans" didn't vote yesterday?

Cajun, "conservative" and "Republican" are now not synonymous. If you want to indicate to me how the Republicans exhibited fiscal discipline, effective defense stragtegies and aversion to nation-building, a commitment to small government, and a respect for privacy over the past six years, please do so. I think, if you do the research, you'll find an vastly increased debt, a mess in Iraq, a bloated Federal government and an attempt to legislate family decisions. Since most of your political opinions seem to come from your dad, believe me when I tell you these are not your father's Republicans. They might call themselves elephants, but they voted like pigs at the trough.

I'm not criticizing conservativism as a platform, and certainly not your political views if you are, indeed, a conservative; I'm just saying the Republican party that was, until yesterday, in power, is not the party of Goldwater. Don't get fooled by team colors and cheering-- look at what the party is voting for and decide if it is what you believe. In other words, keep an eye on 'em!

Honestly, this'll be good for the Republicans-- they'll have to regroup and maybe actually get back to conservatism. Unless they are planning to become the party of the Christian Fundamentalists. In which case, my dear elephants, I'll hope a conservative party springs up for you all.

Cajun, if big government, borrow and spend, nation building and government regulation of morality is what you want, that's fine; it's what you want. I'm just saying don't tell yourself that's what conservatism is, because it isn't.

Though, if that is what you want, then you are most definitely a Republican, as the party stands today.

Not meaning to attack; just trying to clarify.

For that matter, there are oodles of Democrats who aren't "liberal." Party names and political theories are not always hand-in-hand.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I'm assuming those "many Americans" didn't vote yesterday?

Cajun, "conservative" and "Republican" are now not synonymous. If you want to indicate to me how the Republicans exhibited fiscal discipline, effective defense stragtegies and aversion to nation-building, a commitment to small government, and a respect for privacy over the past six years, please do so. I think, if you do the research, you'll find an vastly increased debt, a mess in Iraq, a bloated Federal government and an attempt to legislate family decisions. Since most of your political opinions seem to come from your dad, believe me when I tell you these are not your father's Republicans. They might call themselves elephants, but they voted like pigs at the trough.

I'm not criticizing conservativism as a platform, and certainly not your political views if you are, indeed, a conservative; I'm just saying the Republican party that was, until yesterday, in power, is not the party of Goldwater. Don't get fooled by team colors and cheering-- look at what the party is voting for and decide if it is what you believe. In other words, keep an eye on 'em!

Honestly, this'll be good for the Republicans-- they'll have to regroup and maybe actually get back to conservatism. Unless they are planning to become the party of the Christian Fundamentalists. In which case, my dear elephants, I'll hope a conservative party springs up for you all.

Cajun, if big government, borrow and spend, nation building and government regulation of morality is what you want, that's fine; it's what you want. I'm just saying don't tell yourself that's what conservatism is, because it isn't.

Though, if that is what you want, then you are most definitely a Republican, as the party stands today.

Not meaning to attack; just trying to clarify.

For that matter, there are oodles of Democrats who aren't "liberal." Party names and political theories are not always hand-in-hand.

Genuine,

If I had to choose a party in which to vote (which I did ) that would be considered MORE conservative, which party do you think that would be?

A.) Republican
B.) Democrat

Would you choose A if you were a conservative? DING DING DING! Although the original Republican party is fading and will probably be nothing but a distant memory, I'll STILL vote Republican because that party is IN FACT more traditionally conservative than the Democratic party. This country is a laughingstock to the rest of the world right now, believe me...

It won't be too long before we're run by socialism. I just hope it doesn't happen in my lifetime.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

Genuine,

If I had to choose a party in which to vote (which I did ) that would be considered MORE conservative, which party do you think that would be?

A.) Republican
B.) Democrat

Would you choose A if you were a conservative? DING DING DING! Although the original Republican party is fading and will probably be nothing but a distant memory, I'll STILL vote Republican because that party is IN FACT more traditionally conservative than the Democratic party. This country is a laughingstock to the rest of the world right now, believe me...

It won't be too long before we're run by socialism. I just hope it doesn't happen in my lifetime.

But there is a big difference between "considered" and "actually is." I can "consider" Chug Bud to be the greatest race horse ever to set foot on a track, but that doesn't mean she (she?) was. In fact, I'm pretty sure Chug Bud wasn't.

Again, if we're discussing fiscal conservatism (the bedrock of conservatism, I believe), or size of federal government (another bedrock), and you're looking at the past six years, I have to disagree with you about the Republicans. Spending increased enormously over the past six years (Bush didn't veto a single spending bill) and federal government grew in size.

There's a basic fallacy in the idea that voting for your party, even when they're doing a bad job, is preferable to voting for the other party, which is that if you continue to put the people doing a bad job back in office, they have no motivation to change- no motivation to break from the borrow-and-spend mentality, no motivation to shrink the federal government, no motivation to veto bridges-to-nowhere. However, knock them out of power, and they have to regroup and figure out how to win votes next time around. It happens on both sides-- remember the Reagan Democrats? (Of course you don't; you're too young. )

The country is not going to go socialist-- take some time to read some books on the Great Depression and you'll see a time when the country really was in danger of becoming Socialist. Different times. Don't worry.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

But there is a big difference between "considered" and "actually is." I can "consider" Chug Bud to be the greatest race horse ever to set foot on a track, but that doesn't mean she (she?) was. In fact, I'm pretty sure Chug Bud wasn't.

Again, if we're discussing fiscal conservatism (the bedrock of conservatism, I believe), or size of federal government (another bedrock), and you're looking at the past six years, I have to disagree with you about the Republicans. Spending increased enormously over the past six years (Bush didn't veto a single spending bill) and federal government grew in size.

There's a basic fallacy in the idea that voting for your party, even when they're doing a bad job, is preferable to voting for the other party, which is that if you continue to put the people doing a bad job back in office, they have no motivation to change- no motivation to break from the borrow-and-spend mentality, no motivation to shrink the federal government, no motivation to veto bridges-to-nowhere. However, knock them out of power, and they have to regroup and figure out how to win votes next time around. It happens on both sides-- remember the Reagan Democrats? (Of course you don't; you're too young. )

The country is not going to go socialist-- take some time to read some books on the Great Depression and you'll see a time when the country really was in danger of becoming Socialist. Different times. Don't worry.

This country is going down the shiathole and I seriously believe that. I'm not going to post about my political opinions anymore... it gets tough to talk about it PERIOD and I don't want anyone to think that I don't respect their opinions regarding the direction in which this country is headed, because I do. I will respectfully disagree with you and hope that this all works out.

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

This country is going down the shiathole and I seriously believe that. I'm not going to post about my political opinions anymore... it gets tough to talk about it PERIOD and I don't want anyone to think that I don't respect their opinions regarding the direction in which this country is headed, because I do. I will respectfully disagree with you and hope that this all works out.

This country is still good. Don't let some of the liberal elitists that post here get you down. They are NY elitists that think they know everything. You know they like looking at abstract art that looks like it took two minutes to throw together by some homeless person, but to them the people that question them are just not cultured. Then they tell us that only simple people could like NASCAR and it is just watching cars running around in a circle. Let me tell you, I have been to both and NASCAR is great, and these elitists are full of crap.

These elitists are the same ones who tell everyone how they believe in fairness and equality and the Republicans are bad people, but then they live in coops where they try to keep certain types of people out, or they go around bragging about parties they were invited to and telling everyone how great they are because they got invited to an invitation only party.

Liberal elitists are destroying America.

[Assttodixie]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

This country is going down the shiathole and I seriously believe that. I'm not going to post about my political opinions anymore... it gets tough to talk about it PERIOD and I don't want anyone to think that I don't respect their opinions regarding the direction in which this country is headed, because I do. I will respectfully disagree with you and hope that this all works out.

No, it gets tough to talk about because you have no idea what you are talking about. Dont try to talk around it. What Genuine Risk typed clearly went right over your little head. What she typed, even the most ardent republican would agree with at this point.

Just to give you a slight clue, because its evident you dont have one, the traditional "republican" began to die as soon as Reagan sold out to the religious right. That deal with the devil (oxymoron i know) has yielded these wonderful neo cons that have run our country so well over the last decade.

Now, if you need a definition for "neo con", just google it. w...w...w....dot....g...o...o...g..l...e...dot...c ...o...m.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

Republican.

I admire Repent's vehement opinion. Unfortunately, most people don't have the nuts to actually SAY what many Americans are thinking.

I knew which party he was implying was the conservative party. I posed the question simply because Republicans don't much act like conservatives anymore in my opinion. They turned into the party of fiscal non-restraint with some social conservativism thrown in. They lost their way and will need to re-group under new management.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

I knew which party he was implying was the conservative party. I posed the question simply because Republicans don't much act like conservatives anymore in my opinion. They turned into the party of fiscal non-restraint with some social conservativism thrown in. They lost their way and will need to re-group under new management.

My displeasure at the Republicans is that they stopped standing for what they originally stood for! I realize the economic budget is out-of-whack but that can be explained by Homeland security,War, and tried-for improvements,some of which worked and some that didn't! I would love for there to be a viable 3 party system, and I don't like term limits,mainly because if a person is doing a good job-why change? But until we do have #3 in place,people must vote something in the 2 parties...I'm not real fond of voting in protest...I don't think it helps anything.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

My displeasure at the Republicans is that they stopped standing for what they originally stood for! I realize the economic budget is out-of-whack but that can be explained by Homeland security,War, and tried-for improvements,some of which worked and some that didn't! I would love for there to be a viable 3 party system, and I don't like term limits,mainly because if a person is doing a good job-why change? But until we do have #3 in place,people must vote something in the 2 parties...I'm not real fond of voting in protest...I don't think it helps anything.

What do you define as a protest vote?
Isn't every vote a protest vote of some sort?

What is a three party system? I'm not aware of any regulations on the number of parties. I think its a myth that we currently have a two party system. A viable third party will never just be delivered to our doorstep.

[timmgirvan]

From the top: 1) protest vote is a vote for anything other than R or D. The rest just aren't viable for getting YOUR message out. 2) I don't think so normally,but given the frenzy of the past few months,that might not be far off. 3)I concur that we'll probably never see a 3rd party to stand up and be an answer for the Dems/Reps. Well..not in my lifetime!

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

From the top: 1) protest vote is a vote for anything other than R or D. The rest just aren't viable for getting YOUR message out. 2) I don't think so normally,but given the frenzy of the past few months,that might not be far off. 3)I concur that we'll probably never see a 3rd party to stand up and be an answer for the Dems/Reps. Well..not in my lifetime!

I'm saying that the voting for other parties right now IS the message. Not that they are going to win an start changing things for the better. The non R or D vote itself is the message. Anyway this is my theory.

I see not much hope of ever breaking out of the cycle that Rupert described if everyone keeps putting all the marbles in with the two parties.