Jump to content
Rex Kickass

The Republican Thread

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 06:47 PM)
wait a minute....

 

is this the Republican thread? nevermind :lol:

 

I do have a solution to the GOP mess; evangelicals have been threatening to vote Democrat if all their demands are not met, so you guys (the Democrats) can have them. They cost more votes than they bring in now-a-days. And they can start destroying the Democrats from within like they did to the GOP

You know what's ironic? Blacks are generally social conservatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 05:48 PM)
You know what's ironic? Blacks are generally social conservatives.

 

yea i know.

 

i agree with a lot of social conservative issues, but i don't think they should be legislated. it's just not a major political concern of mine, far behind economic conservative issues. the GOP obviously doesn't care about being economic conservatives.

Edited by mr_genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Survey of 1,000 Republican Likely Voters

 

Conducted November 5, 2008

 

By Rasmussen Reports

 

1* I know it’s a long way off, but if you had your choice for the next Republican nominee for President would you choose Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty or Charlie Crist?

 

64% Palin

11% Romney

12% Huckabee

4% Jindal

1% Pawlenty

2% Crist

6% Not sure

There's your baseline. Go forth from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Palin is the 2012 nominee, I will vote Obama, unless he does a poor job these 4 years, in which case I won't vote at all as a move of protest. I can't stand her. By the way, mr genius couldn't be more right in saying that evangelicals have destroyed the GOP.

 

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 04:26 PM)
I am that way too... socially liberal (or liberatarian, however you want to define it), fiscally conservative and generally in favor of smaller government and free market policies. But I'm usually more willing to compromise for the latter against the former... I will not vote for someone who, for example, openly supports things like Proposition 8, and I'm also turned off by hawkish rhetoric even though I'm not a pacifist. Which usually pushes me a lttle to the left. I'm sure the GOP is aware of all the voters like us, there are a few on this board even, but they can't do anything about it b/c the social conservatives have so much influence.

 

I pretty much agree with this, except I lean to the right instead of the left for some reason. However, the explination in this post is precisely why I would never vote for Sarah Palin for President. To be honest, I'd have a hard time voting for Jindal with as socially conservative as he is, although he's a lot more reasonable than Palin in other categories at least.

Edited by whitesoxfan101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just like that dissent is no longer the highest form of partiotism, but rather a jailable offense. A guy is arrested for wearing a McCain/palin tshirt at an Obama rally. Gotta love the crown reactions as well. And in the City of brotherly Love. yeah. Everyone there cheering this should be ashamed of themselves. Reverse the situations and the cries of fascism would be running from the front pages of the NY Times and every liberal blog in the country. but I guess it is ok, since it was a Republican who was the victim here.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94N1TkuLWss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reports are showing the federal budget will be 1 trillion in the red next year. I know a lot of people do not see this as a concern, but these numbers are staggering and very dangerous.

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3496c848-ae91-11...0077b07658.html

 

US President-elect Barack Obama intends to push a comprehensive programme of social and economic reform beyond an immediate emergency stimulus package, Rahm Emanuel, the next White House chief of staff, indicated on Sunday.

 

Mr Emanuel brushed aside concerns that an Obama administration would risk taking on too much when it takes office in January. He said Mr Obama saw the financial meltdown as an historic opportunity to deliver the large-scale investments that Democrats had promised for years.

 

 

Tackling the meltdown would not entail delays in plans for far-reaching energy, healthcare and education reforms when all three were also in crisis, he said. “These are crises you can no longer afford to postpone [addressing].”

 

It looks like we are going to take on even more spending; sort of a 'spend our way out of this' approach. Unless, of course Obama plans on cutting spending with his reforms (which is unlikely). 1 trillion deficit could actually be a conservative number, as it could go higher with big increases in spending.

Edited by mr_genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Palin is going to have to change her public persona if she plans on getting the nod in four years. She should disappear for 2 years nationally, get rid of the youbetchas and speak slower and more distinctly. You can bet she'll get coached big time. She won't come close to saying anything stupid next tiime.

If there's a total remake of her public persona she may stand a chance.

Personally as a lifelong Republican I can't stand her. I hate to say I didn't vote this year because I refused to vote for McCain with her on the ticket. I don't really like Obama's stances on several issues and I feared if I went in there I'd vote for Obama as a protest of Palin. So I took the chicken way out and didn't vote.

Edited by greg775

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 9, 2008 -> 03:07 PM)
And just like that dissent is no longer the highest form of partiotism, but rather a jailable offense. A guy is arrested for wearing a McCain/palin tshirt at an Obama rally. Gotta love the crown reactions as well. And in the City of brotherly Love. yeah. Everyone there cheering this should be ashamed of themselves. Reverse the situations and the cries of fascism would be running from the front pages of the NY Times and every liberal blog in the country. but I guess it is ok, since it was a Republican who was the victim here.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94N1TkuLWss

 

The video didn't make it to youtube until after the election, and nobody really cares about a story like this once the election is over. It's a story if that video is posted November 1st, but not November 7th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Nov 9, 2008 -> 11:11 PM)
The video didn't make it to youtube until after the election, and nobody really cares about a story like this once the election is over. It's a story if that video is posted November 1st, but not November 7th.

 

That is a f***ing disgrace!!!! Regardless of the date, it never should have happened. I guess it would be ok to go around and arrest everybody that has a McCain-Palin sign in their yard or bumper sticker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (YASNY @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 08:40 AM)
That is a f***ing disgrace!!!! Regardless of the date, it never should have happened. I guess it would be ok to go around and arrest everybody that has a McCain-Palin sign in their yard or bumper sticker.

I'm sure they have lists, so don't go too far. And hide your guns, stockpile ammo now, and closeout your 401k before they take that as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 9, 2008 -> 05:07 PM)
Reports are showing the federal budget will be 1 trillion in the red next year. I know a lot of people do not see this as a concern, but these numbers are staggering and very dangerous.

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3496c848-ae91-11...0077b07658.html

 

 

 

It looks like we are going to take on even more spending; sort of a 'spend our way out of this' approach. Unless, of course Obama plans on cutting spending with his reforms (which is unlikely). 1 trillion deficit could actually be a conservative number, as it could go higher with big increases in spending.

 

In other words, more of the same. We have to do it, or so the conservatives tell me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 07:39 AM)
In other words, more of the same. We have to do it, or so the conservatives tell me.

 

 

When businesses fall on hard times they cut staff. Why do govt's not follow that logical path?

 

 

Also, today's Trib says Illinois may run an $800+ million deficit next year. I am waiting to hear how they will fix that. Also, how long before dipsh** Stroger says the revenue from his genius sales tax increase is not matching their estimates? And how many of his familyand friend will he lay off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I saw this headline on CNN.com:

 

Conservatives didn't lose election, GOP did

 

I clicked the link, thinking I was going to read another laughable social conservative telling us that McCain lost because he was too moderate, blah blah blah.

 

Turns out, I assumed wrong, which is why I am posting it here in the GOP forum. This is actually a fairly soild (if a bit superficial) editorial by SC's GOP governor. He says what is missing is what he considers the core conservative values: small government and individual freedoms.

 

Bravo, governor. You get it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 07:39 AM)
In other words, more of the same. We have to do it, or so the conservatives tell me.

 

I guess it comes down to your definition of what a conservative is. A neo-con big government, big spender will of course care nothing about a $20 trillion national debt. They will also support earmarks, bribes, wasteful spending, pretty much anything as far a spending. It's way low on their list of concerns.

 

I at least understand and can respect the view point that possibly 1 trillion was neccessary or so was needed to save the financial system (even though I have a series reservations with how the bailout structure was set up). But the neo-con takes it way past that, and not everyone who supports a bank bailout is a neo-con. Endless spending; 1 or 2 or 9 trillion annual deficit is fine with a neo-con, but certainly not anyone whom accurately considers themself a conservative.

Edited by mr_genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (juddling @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 11:30 AM)
Funniest Obama headline ever......too funny

 

 

 

ummm....Earth to CBS News.......he did that a LONG time ago.......

 

 

:lolhitting :lolhitting

 

You know, I really do believe that they actually are that damn stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (juddling @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 11:30 AM)
Funniest Obama headline ever......too funny

 

 

 

ummm....Earth to CBS News.......he did that a LONG time ago.......

 

 

:lolhitting :lolhitting

 

What's left? A reacharound?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 11:42 AM)
I guess it comes down to your definition of what a conservative is. A neo-con big government, big spender will of course care nothing about a $20 trillion national debt. They will also support earmarks, bribes, wasteful spending, pretty much anything as far a spending. It's way low on their list of concerns.

 

I at least understand and can respect the view point that possibly 1 trillion was neccessary or so was needed to save the financial system (even though I have a series reservations with how the bailout structure was set up). But the neo-con takes it way past that, and not everyone who supports a bank bailout is a neo-con. Endless spending; 1 or 2 or 9 trillion annual deficit is fine with a neo-con, but certainly not anyone whom accurately considers themself a conservative.

 

Perhaps the crux of the debate becomes, if we have to spend that money to keep the economy on track, does it matter what we spend it on. For example, if we buy 3,000,000 uniforms for Troops, helping the textile industry, does it matter if they get worn or not? I keep hearing how the government has to keep spending, in fact they need to increase spending while cutting taxes, but unlike early in the New Deal, I don't see massive public works packages, or something that at least looks like an investment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 12:09 PM)
Perhaps the crux of the debate becomes, if we have to spend that money to keep the economy on track, does it matter what we spend it on. For example, if we buy 3,000,000 uniforms for Troops, helping the textile industry, does it matter if they get worn or not? I keep hearing how the government has to keep spending, in fact they need to increase spending while cutting taxes, but unlike early in the New Deal, I don't see massive public works packages, or something that at least looks like an investment.

 

We also don't have 25% unemployment. Well, not yet anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 10:09 AM)
Perhaps the crux of the debate becomes, if we have to spend that money to keep the economy on track, does it matter what we spend it on. For example, if we buy 3,000,000 uniforms for Troops, helping the textile industry, does it matter if they get worn or not? I keep hearing how the government has to keep spending, in fact they need to increase spending while cutting taxes, but unlike early in the New Deal, I don't see massive public works packages, or something that at least looks like an investment.

There's an important thing to understand that's different with the early new deal though. The Early new deal wasn't financed in a Keynesian stimulus type way. They actually paid for all those public works programs through tax increases and other maneuvers like switching from the gold standard.

 

A massive program to build wind and solar energy plants though, might be a wonderful public works investment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 01:05 PM)
There's an important thing to understand that's different with the early new deal though. The Early new deal wasn't financed in a Keynesian stimulus type way. They actually paid for all those public works programs through tax increases and other maneuvers like switching from the gold standard.

 

A massive program to build wind and solar energy plants though, might be a wonderful public works investment.

 

Good qualifier there. The problem is because of the shortsighted permanent status of these programs we are STILL paying for it today 75 years later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (juddling @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 11:30 AM)
Funniest Obama headline ever......too funny

 

 

 

ummm....Earth to CBS News.......he did that a LONG time ago.......

 

 

:lolhitting :lolhitting

 

Wow, thats just amazing.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 12:47 PM)
I'm sure they have lists, so don't go too far. And hide your guns, stockpile ammo now, and closeout your 401k before they take that as well.

So who's your favorite South Park character?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×