• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bobby Jindal: GOP Should 'Stop Being The Stupid Party'

nah....nice try. The Patriot act is pretty big government, Telling women how to used their bodies is big government, telling people who they can and can't marry is pretty big government. Don't try to twist this, Conservatives talk all the time about small government when it comes to guns, financial, economics, and etc. However, they want big government in censorship, military, tax credits for the rich, birth control and I could keep going.

Laughable emotional platitudes detected
 
Wouldn't it be true that government over reach and intrusion is a common small-government conservative's definition of "big government"? Let's consider recent developments. The Affordable Care Act. The two common complaints boiled down to intrusion and overreach.

This doesn't preclude the possibility for big government conservatives. If I were to be considered in any way conservative, I'm more from this realm. We've had them since the Adams and Hamiltonian years.

Traditionalists can easily be small-government conservatives, but see little to no problem with maintaining what they view as social cohesion. I'm not really of their sort, but it isn't unheard of (in fact it's rather common).

complaining about big government and NOT focusing on the sheer size, in terms of people and budgets AND over reach/intrusion is somewhat missing the point. A smaller government won't have the time or budget or manpiwer to do much more than the business it has to do to keep the nation working properly except when such intrusion or over reach is deemed necessary. Really necessary.

And I don't know any Conservative who wants to strip away from our citizens the benefit programs they've pad into and come to expect.

As far as the affordable care act, it was enacted by a BIG government.
 
Towards a nation of freedom and equality.

How the hell will get there if we there is Big Government? We can't have both Liberty and Big Government. You can try all the wishful, "do Big Govt correctly" stuff all, but in reality they cannot coexist. Period.
 
How the hell will get there if we there is Big Government? We can't have both Liberty and Big Government. You can try all the wishful, "do Big Govt correctly" stuff all, but in reality they cannot coexist. Period.

You keep saying that, but you have yet to explain why that is. If you don't know, that's fine, but at least be honest with yourself in admitting so. You said big government doesn't work toward liberty and freedom several times now, now, instead of repeating the mantra, actually explain why that is.
 
You keep saying that, but you have yet to explain why that is. If you don't know, that's fine, but at least be honest with yourself in admitting so. You said big government doesn't work toward liberty and freedom several times now, now, instead of repeating the mantra, actually explain why that is.

Perhaps a good example is DOEd, education is not a federal power (check the Constitution), there are no federal schools (except the service academies). The purpose of DOEd is largely, if not entirely, income redistribution (after skimming a bit) and forcing the states to do things that they otherwise would (or may) not do. Once a federal dept., agency or program is started, it grows and assumes much more power (gradually) than it was ever initially intended to have. It gains "supporters" that benefit from it, that support politicians to protect the status quo and add more benefits that they "need".

Another example is the federal Agriculture department, it started as a means to assure that we, as a nation, produce a balanced, safe and steady food supply for internal consumption and export. It has since, morphed into, or evolved to spend 80% of its "budget" simply giving away free food via SNAP. This, of course, did not happen overnight or even "on purpose" yet it is a fact.
 
Last edited:
Jindal is an insider. Look what the tea party did in the 2010 election. I believe the issue was the conservative base stayed away. We never had a choice. Vote between the one punch kid and his left, or the father of nationalized health care. So he he wants them to look more like the democrats? Wow thats novel why not just vote for the dems and save ourselves the trouble.
 
I disagree. If you would have read what I posted, I said that there's nothing wrong with big government, as long as it's utilized properly.

The sad truth is that the majority of GOP voters, who are mostly White poor working class folk, do not want a free market where no one gets handouts, because, after all, they're poor, and all poor people want handouts.

The only different between the lower-middle class GOP voter and a cafe liberal is that the former doesn't like to admit that he wants a handout. Saying he likes a welfare-free government makes him feel proud, but when he gets to the polls, ultimately, his pocketbook will do the talking.

Then the natural questions is: well, if these working-class GOP voters desperately want handouts, why do they keep voting the party that claims to want to deny handouts to the poor?

The reason is that these working-class GOP folk believe that the Dems will take some of the handouts that are supposed to belong to White people like them and give it to Latinos, Blacks, gays, etc. In other words, their fear is that they will lose welfare benefits to people of color.

So, in a nutshell, the right wing--which consists predominantly of uneducated, working class people, is almost just as much for welfare for the poor as the cafe liberals in the Democratic Party. They just want all the welfare checks for them, i. e. White people, as opposed to "minorities."
 
Perhaps a good example is DOEd, education is not a federal power (check the Constitution), there are no federal schools (except the service academies). The purpose of DOEd is largely, if not entirely, income redistribution (after skimming a bit) and forcing the states to do things that they otherwise would (or may) not do. Once a federal dept., agency or program is started, it grows and assumes much more power (gradually) than it was ever initially intended to have. It gains "supporters" that benefit from it, that support politicians to protect the status quo and add more benefits that they "need".

Another example is the federal Agriculture department, it started as a means to assure that we, as a nation, produce a balanced, safe and steady food supply for internal consumption and export. It has since, morphed into, or evolved to spend 80% of its "budget" simply giving away free food via SNAP. This, of course, did not happen overnight or even "on purpose" yet it is a fact.

I'll address the DOE first. Our public school systems are in the crapper. Whether this is because of federal government involvement, or in spite of it, I don't know. Regardless, something has to be done, and it's obvious the states aren't going to do anything about, maybe because they can't, or maybe because they won't. But if something is wrong amongst a majority of the states, sometimes federal involvement could be seen to be necessary, if only for a time.

As far as the DOA, I think this is somewhat unfortunate that so much is not going to actual agriculture, but this by no means means SNAP is a bad idea. I agree that 80% is too much, so that should be cut back, but I don't think that it should be done away with completely, since the economy is such that there are many people who have to choose between bills and groceries. But, since we do have the food stamp program, the amount of money going to SNAP seems to be a bit much.
 
Jindal is an insider. Look what the tea party did in the 2010 election. I believe the issue was the conservative base stayed away. We never had a choice. Vote between the one punch kid and his left, or the father of nationalized health care. So he he wants them to look more like the democrats? Wow thats novel why not just vote for the dems and save ourselves the trouble.

Of course Jindal is an insider. If he goes outside, the tea party nutjobs will beat him senseless due to his ethnicity.
 
The sad truth is that the majority of GOP voters, who are mostly White poor working class folk, do not want a free market where no one gets handouts, because, after all, they're poor, and all poor people want handouts.

The only different between the lower-middle class GOP voter and a cafe liberal is that the former doesn't like to admit that he wants a handout. Saying he likes a welfare-free government makes him feel proud, but when he gets to the polls, ultimately, his pocketbook will do the talking.

Then the natural questions is: well, if these working-class GOP voters desperately want handouts, why do they keep voting the party that claims to want to deny handouts to the poor?

The reason is that these working-class GOP folk believe that the Dems will take some of the handouts that are supposed to belong to White people like them and give it to Latinos, Blacks, gays, etc. In other words, their fear is that they will lose welfare benefits to people of color.

So, in a nutshell, the right wing--which consists predominantly of uneducated, working class people, is almost just as much for welfare for the poor as the cafe liberals in the Democratic Party. They just want all the welfare checks for them, i. e. White people, as opposed to "minorities."

This may be true. Slight racist tendencies still run through red states, and that's not just a blanket statement. Nearly all of my friends and family still hold to racist tendencies. So I can see this being the case. Also, pride is another characteristic that people in red states have traditionally grown up with, again, this is firsthand knowledge. So, I can see this actually being the case. I've thought for some time that there are those who vote Republican who are voting against their interests.
 
Of course Jindal is an insider. If he goes outside, the tea party nutjobs will beat him senseless due to his ethnicity.

Awe thats sweet and so typical of you libs. Honestly the inclusion card ? We cant, make this **** up fast enough to stay ahead of you people. So now were bigoted toward a "Specter Republican"! Since your so concerned- you take him. And while your at it take the lame stream republican party. They're all starting to look more like your bunch anyway.
 
I'll address the DOE first. Our public school systems are in the crapper. Whether this is because of federal government involvement, or in spite of it, I don't know. Regardless, something has to be done, and it's obvious the states aren't going to do anything about, maybe because they can't, or maybe because they won't. But if something is wrong amongst a majority of the states, sometimes federal involvement could be seen to be necessary, if only for a time.

As far as the DOA, I think this is somewhat unfortunate that so much is not going to actual agriculture, but this by no means means SNAP is a bad idea. I agree that 80% is too much, so that should be cut back, but I don't think that it should be done away with completely, since the economy is such that there are many people who have to choose between bills and groceries. But, since we do have the food stamp program, the amount of money going to SNAP seems to be a bit much.

What? So even if federal programs do not work, are not based on any Constitutional power, they should be continued because they MIGHT help some people? You have been duped into the thinking that "good intentions" or "importance of an issue" make it into a federal responsibility. In no way do I see one national plan as better than each state trying its own ideas, that is 49 more chances to discover what works well. The biggest drawback to a federal take over is that, like education, when it fails to improve things, but spends much more money, we all suffer both ways yet have no real local/state input to getting anything changed.

Chicago Teachers Union Demands 30 Percent Pay Raise

The School Staffing Surge: Decades of Employment Growth in America

Media Myth Debunked: Class Sizes Have Dropped 40 Percent Since 1960 | NewsBusters.org

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1679/MR1679.ch3.pdf
 
Awe thats sweet and so typical of you libs. Honestly the inclusion card ? We cant, make this **** up fast enough to stay ahead of you people. So now were bigoted toward a "Specter Republican"! Since your so concerned- you take him.

If Jindal decides to abandon his support for the GOP practice of running up multi-billion dollar deficits to start and/or take sides in wars (i. e. funding Israel), and his support for pro-religious, anti-1st Amendment educational proposals, we--the Libertarian Party--would be delighted to have him.

Makes sense--as an educated man with dark skin whose father is Indian, on a national level, Jindal is totally unelectable in his own party, where the bulk of voters are White, racist, and uneducated.
 
Last edited:
If Jindal decides to abandon his support for the GOP practice of running up multi-billion dollar deficits to start and/or take sides in wars (i. e. funding Israel), and his support for pro-religious, anti-1st Amendment educational proposals, we--the Libertarian Party--would be delighted to have him.

Makes sense--as an educated man with dark skin whose father is Indian, on a national level, Jindal is totally unelectable in his own party, where the bulk of voters are White, racist, and uneducated.

I meant Liberal in my earlier post. Your social leanings and their bias proceed you. You have to make an argument out of race to be divisive and give legitimacy to your nanny statist philosophy that - the state exists to right the wrongs of whom ever you see as a victim. So now we can add Scott Brown too if you'd like. Another victim of us angry white males.
 
Last edited:
What? So even if federal programs do not work, are not based on any Constitutional power, they should be continued because they MIGHT help some people? You have been duped into the thinking that "good intentions" or "importance of an issue" make it into a federal responsibility. In no way do I see one national plan as better than each state trying its own ideas, that is 49 more chances to discover what works well. The biggest drawback to a federal take over is that, like education, when it fails to improve things, but spends much more money, we all suffer both ways yet have no real local/state input to getting anything changed.

Chicago Teachers Union Demands 30 Percent Pay Raise

The School Staffing Surge: Decades of Employment Growth in America

Media Myth Debunked: Class Sizes Have Dropped 40 Percent Since 1960 | NewsBusters.org

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1679/MR1679.ch3.pdf

I haven't been duped. I believe that some things are a federal issue, or can become one, because I believe as a nation, we stand together or we fall together.
 
I haven't been duped. I believe that some things are a federal issue, or can become one, because I believe as a nation, we stand together or we fall together.

So the Constitution is now merely a suggestion of minmum federal powers, no amendments are needed, just the political will of a slim majority of 535 (s)elected people to make everything "important" into a federal power. This is the driving factor for the growing secession movement.
 
So the Constitution is now merely a suggestion of minmum federal powers, no amendments are needed, just the political will of a slim majority of 535 (s)elected people to make everything "important" into a federal power. This is the driving factor for the growing secession movement.

The Constitution was never meant to be the maximum, but only the minimum, that's why it can be amended. If it was the be-all-end-all, there wouldn't be a reason to amend it.
 
The Constitution was never meant to be the maximum, but only the minimum, that's why it can be amended. If it was the be-all-end-all, there wouldn't be a reason to amend it.

You are going in circles here. You consider the DOEd to be a legitimate "new" federal power without any Constitutional action at all, simply becuase it is "important" and "not bad" in your opinion, yet the Constitution does not assign (enumerate) education as a federal power. We are now supposed to believe that federal taxation of U.S. citizens (and businesses) for NOT buying a specific commercial product/service is a "logical extension" of the federal power to "tax the people based on their income from all sources". Stretching the truth, far enough, eventually makes it into a lie.
 
I meant Liberal in my earlier post. Your social leanings and their bias proceed you.

Education and demographic awareness is not a bias :rolleyes:

You have to make an argument out of race to be divisive and give legitimacy to your nanny statist philosophy

The argument for race is true. The bulk of GOP voters, i. e. those in the red states, are bigots.

As for a "nanny state" philosophy, the pro-censorship, bedroom-policing, federal-gay-marriage-ban party has made its identity very clear, and it's not the blue one.

that - the state exists to right the wrongs of whom ever you see as a victim.

The victimization mentality was found mostly on the right in the 2012 election--it was the poor working class GOP voters who were blaming their government, i. e. Obama for not giving them jobs.

So now we can add Scott Brown too if you'd like. Another victim of us angry white males.

MA consists of mostly educated white males, not angry ones. That's why the state went blue on Nov. 6., and Scott Brown was previously elected not by AWMs but by independents who rightfully recognized that his 2010 opponent Coakley was a sorry excuse for a leader.

The psychology of the AWM, OTOH, was already described in my post in this thread. . .

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...top-being-stupid-party-14.html#post1061161814
 
Seems like all the bright young things of the Republican party are jumping ship. First Chris Christie and now Jindal. I wonder when Rubio is going to throw the Tea Party under the bus?
 
The Constitution was never meant to be the maximum, but only the minimum, that's why it can be amended. If it was the be-all-end-all, there wouldn't be a reason to amend it.

The 10th amendment suggests that it is indeed the maximum.
 
Back
Top Bottom