Thread: Are republican moderates becoming an endangered species?

Originally Posted by presluc

If we as a nation pull together we move forward, if we pull seperately we don't move.

United we stand divided.... WELL LOOK AROUND.

Well this is one of those nifty things to say, but not really good in practice. The idealist view that we can ultimately achieve some sort of utopia, if everyone would just gather around the camp fire and sing flower power songs from the 60s, which is a nice thought but not how life works.

In the real world, if there are 10 people on the planet, you are going to have someone with a differing view. Thus I would suggest that unity in policy and opinion shouldn't even be tried for, because it's not possible. The only way to come to a unified opinion of society, is by squelching and intimidating opposing views out of existence.

This is why the left is so quick to control the media, and why left in the past has uniformly resorted to violence. Because at some point the left will always realize that they can't get exactly what they want, so long as people have the option to oppose them. Hugo Chevaz and his armed citizen militias. What's the point of that? Well... to stop people from opposing Chavez. After the last election, protests broke out over blatant irregularities in the reported votes. Snipers shot several protestors, and the protests broke up. Leftists win again.

Originally Posted by presluc

Just one second there rightwinger,in answer to your post being a typical Republican and stateing that you agree with the John Birch society and what they stand for is disagreeing with the majority of the American people that's fact.

Good. I have a long standing 'truism' I live by that says "If everyone believes it, it's wrong". In other words, I almost automatically go against conventional wisdom. Of the ones I can prove, I have yet to be wrong. On those I can't, I'm pretty confident.

Nevertheless, I'm more interested in what is best for the country, not what is supported by majority opinion.

Second of all Clinton left office Surplus, Bush left office DEBT.

It was cloudy all day today. I blame Obama. Correlation is not causation.

As for "NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND" it was introduced by Bush.
Perhaps if Kennedy had been president it would have worked Bush was president it didn't.

Have I mentioned how ignorant the left is lately? Oh... no I haven't because right now I don't need to.

So far I've heard the right wing call Bush a leftist, a neocon and back to Republican.
Just out of curiosity how does Bush a Republican get to be a neocon?
What he ducks in a men's room to change, maybe a telephone booth?

There is no united opinion of Bush from the right. The idea that the right goes around with a universal standardized opinion of Bush, is largely idiocy. I've met those on the right, who think Bush was divine. Others that he was crazy. Others that he was socialist. Others that he was brilliant, and those that said we was stupid. The right isn't a monolithic group.

The problem that many on the left fail to comprehend, is that individuals are not Capitalist and Socialist. Policies are. A policies is either in favor of greater freedom, greater capitalism, and greater free-market. Or it is greater government control, more restrictive, and more socialist.

As such, you can look at one Bush policy, and see he more free-market, and then look at another policy, and see he is more socialist. The ultimate view of the individual, can easily be swayed by what aspects the individual values most.

As for him being a neocon, well... Again, this looks like another case where people pull out their ideological label maker, and start slapping labels on everything. I've heard now about a half dozen difference definitions of what a 'neocon' is. I've actually started flame wars between fruity people who had differing views on what the term meant, and I just sat there and laughed at them. Is Bush a neocon? I don't know, and frankly I don't care.

Clinton NAFTA??? FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS these were bad ideas I questioned them and others right and left.

Well look.... you talk about the good economy under Clinton. Right? What economic policies did he pass? He reformed welfare, kicked women and children out on the street, and he signed NAFTA. If you look at everything Clinton passed over his 8 years, and look at specifically what economic policies he passed.... that's its. Those were his two main things.

And the economy was good. Right? Now either you learn from what he did, and realize that cutting government spending, and putting people to work, while at the same time offering free trade of goods is a good thing.... or shut up about his great economy.

Really, if you are not going to learn from the policies that made the 90s economy stable, then shut up about how great they were. You can't sit there like an idiot, saying the economy was good but all those policies that made it good are bad, because you have no credibility.

Bottom line in 2000 America had a surplus Bush took office 8 yrs later America is 3 trillion in debt

How much more in debt are we now, and how many years has Obama been in office?

we had iou's to a dozen differant countries including a leftist country named China, we were at war with two nations and the corporations had their hand out 3 months before he leaves. Leaving America broke with nothing to look foward to but budget cuts, less exports, less tax revenue, and printing more money.
Bush bad, DAMN RIGHT,if it would have been Clinton or Kennedy you would have the same response.in fact if Obama doesn't do something possitive soon it's gonna be OBAMA BAD.

First, the wars were necessary. Second, America was broke long before Bush was in office. Third, other countries were loaning us money long before Bush was in office. Fourth, Corporations always have their hands out, so do the American Public. Fifth, Bush didn't cut the budget. Obama grew the budget. That's why it needs cut so much. Sixth.... less tax revenue? I doubt that is true, but if it is.... GREAT. Less money in dirty political paws, the better for everyone.

And no, if it has been Clinton or Kennedy, most of the left here would be giving excuses. In 1998 when Clinton wanted to go into Iraq, the left excused it constantly. Of course Clinton was an absolute wimp, and only fired missiles into Iraq, but otherwise did nothing.

I'd hardly call this Democratic administration RHINOS, maybe lame ass spineless chicken, maybe not that cause some chickens fight.
The Republican. the Libertarian and the Tea Party has been using the Democrats including Obama has a punching bag with no response.

I meant a Republican that acted, voted, and talked like a Democrat, but pretended to be Republican. RINO = Republican In Name Only.

Originally Posted by Sparkles

I've heard now about a half dozen difference definitions of what a 'neocon' is. I've actually started flame wars between fruity people who had differing views on what the term meant, and I just sat there and laughed at them.

Mostly because they quite literally have no clue what they are talking about when it comes to that subject. That's fairly common, however. Most people who use the term, including columnists and reporters, really haven't thought about the term all that much nor have studied it for any length of time.

Originally Posted by Sparkles

Well this is one of those nifty things to say, but not really good in practice. The idealist view that we can ultimately achieve some sort of utopia, if everyone would just gather around the camp fire and sing flower power songs from the 60s, which is a nice thought but not how life works.

In the real world, if there are 10 people on the planet, you are going to have someone with a differing view. Thus I would suggest that unity in policy and opinion shouldn't even be tried for, because it's not possible. The only way to come to a unified opinion of society, is by squelching and intimidating opposing views out of existence.

This is why the left is so quick to control the media, and why left in the past has uniformly resorted to violence. Because at some point the left will always realize that they can't get exactly what they want, so long as people have the option to oppose them. Hugo Chevaz and his armed citizen militias. What's the point of that? Well... to stop people from opposing Chavez. After the last election, protests broke out over blatant irregularities in the reported votes. Snipers shot several protestors, and the protests broke up. Leftists win again.



Good. I have a long standing 'truism' I live by that says "If everyone believes it, it's wrong". In other words, I almost automatically go against conventional wisdom. Of the ones I can prove, I have yet to be wrong. On those I can't, I'm pretty confident.

Nevertheless, I'm more interested in what is best for the country, not what is supported by majority opinion.



It was cloudy all day today. I blame Obama. Correlation is not causation.



Have I mentioned how ignorant the left is lately? Oh... no I haven't because right now I don't need to.



There is no united opinion of Bush from the right. The idea that the right goes around with a universal standardized opinion of Bush, is largely idiocy. I've met those on the right, who think Bush was divine. Others that he was crazy. Others that he was socialist. Others that he was brilliant, and those that said we was stupid. The right isn't a monolithic group.

The problem that many on the left fail to comprehend, is that individuals are not Capitalist and Socialist. Policies are. A policies is either in favor of greater freedom, greater capitalism, and greater free-market. Or it is greater government control, more restrictive, and more socialist.

As such, you can look at one Bush policy, and see he more free-market, and then look at another policy, and see he is more socialist. The ultimate view of the individual, can easily be swayed by what aspects the individual values most.

As for him being a neocon, well... Again, this looks like another case where people pull out their ideological label maker, and start slapping labels on everything. I've heard now about a half dozen difference definitions of what a 'neocon' is. I've actually started flame wars between fruity people who had differing views on what the term meant, and I just sat there and laughed at them. Is Bush a neocon? I don't know, and frankly I don't care.



Well look.... you talk about the good economy under Clinton. Right? What economic policies did he pass? He reformed welfare, kicked women and children out on the street, and he signed NAFTA. If you look at everything Clinton passed over his 8 years, and look at specifically what economic policies he passed.... that's its. Those were his two main things.

And the economy was good. Right? Now either you learn from what he did, and realize that cutting government spending, and putting people to work, while at the same time offering free trade of goods is a good thing.... or shut up about his great economy.

Really, if you are not going to learn from the policies that made the 90s economy stable, then shut up about how great they were. You can't sit there like an idiot, saying the economy was good but all those policies that made it good are bad, because you have no credibility.



How much more in debt are we now, and how many years has Obama been in office?



First, the wars were necessary. Second, America was broke long before Bush was in office. Third, other countries were loaning us money long before Bush was in office. Fourth, Corporations always have their hands out, so do the American Public. Fifth, Bush didn't cut the budget. Obama grew the budget. That's why it needs cut so much. Sixth.... less tax revenue? I doubt that is true, but if it is.... GREAT. Less money in dirty political paws, the better for everyone.

And no, if it has been Clinton or Kennedy, most of the left here would be giving excuses. In 1998 when Clinton wanted to go into Iraq, the left excused it constantly. Of course Clinton was an absolute wimp, and only fired missiles into Iraq, but otherwise did nothing.



I meant a Republican that acted, voted, and talked like a Democrat, but pretended to be Republican. RINO = Republican In Name Only.

UMM? Read your post man, wwho's making excuses for who?
I make no excuses for Clinton's dumbass Nafta plan or free trade plan under a Republican Congress by the way.
I make no excuses for a wimp ass President Obama and the rest of the weak Democratic party.

However as you say you like tolaugh things off, but numbers do not lie.
2000= SURPLUS, that's after Nafta, after the Free trade bill, after 8 years of Republican Congress
20O8 = TRILLION +DEBT that's after 6 years of a Republican White House, Republican administration, Republican Congress.
Iraq so what happened to the WMDS were they found NO
What happened to the smoking gun was it found NO
What happened to the Mushroom cloud was it found to be stopped NO
In fact the scarist thing about Iraq before the invasion was a far slob waving around a rifle and the only thing he was capable of shooting off was his mouth.
That old phrase "that man tried to kill my daddy" was just .. not only dumb but stupid.
Katrina? "doin a heck of job Brownie?" please did this guy ever check anything
Port Security why not give it to Dubai? I mean sure they deal with the terrorist we are at war with but I trust them" I mean come on???

Perhaps you don't like my veiws very well, lets take a look at some right wing veiws from the era.
How about this dity from Tom Ridge in charge of Homeland Security.
"IN CASE OF BIOLOGICAL ATTACT USE DUCT TAPE ON WINDOWS"
How about this little ditty,
"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" President G.W.Bush

This is my all time favorite
"AMERICA'S ECONOMY IS STRONG John McCain September 2008, he supported the bailouts in October 2008

Originally Posted by Fiddytree

Mostly because they quite literally have no clue what they are talking about when it comes to that subject. That's fairly common, however. Most people who use the term, including columnists and reporters, really haven't thought about the term all that much nor have studied it for any length of time.

Maybe thats because Bush was the prototype.

Originally Posted by Sparkles

See, now this is why I join these forums. Before you mentioned it, I had never heard of the John Birch Society. Now that I've looked them up, I may actually have found a group I completely agree with! I'm ecstatic! I greatly appreciate this information. I'll have to look into more detail about what all they believe, but it looks good so far. Best to you sir!



Yup, I would have to agree with most of what is said here. For me, the end came with Bob Dole. He was about has left wing as Obama is today. Then they were shocked he failed horribly against Clinton. Well... duh.... The point of having an alternative is to have..... an alternative? Instead they gave me a bad photo copy, and said vote for him!

Worse, when a compromised non-conservative Republican is elected, then what happens is, that compromised non-conservative Republican passes bad leftist socialist policies.

Then those policies fail, what does the public, and specifically the left, do? Well you hear leftist on here screaming about how such and such a policies failed under Bush. Do they say "oh maybe our ideology is a failure? Maybe our policies are bad?" No they never do that. They simply blame Bush because he's a 'Republican'.

Doesn't matter that Bush passed the exact policies they would have supported if anyone else had proposed them. No no no, the reason it didn't work is because of Bush. Take No Child Left Behind. Who wrote that? Ted Kennedy. A huge leftist. Did anyone scream maybe government run schools doesn't work? No. It wasn't that... is was Bush. If Kennedy had been president and pushed that law, the leftists would have been worshiping the ground he walked on no matter what effect the policy had.

Medicare Part D. Government funded pills. In any other situation, the left would have been clamoring for that. But BUSH!!! Bush did it, so it was horrible. But it was over spending! Really? And Medicare hasn't had $60 Billion a year in fraud for over a decade? Well.... yeah but.... BUSH! BUSH BAD!!! BUSH HORRIBLE!

Again, if anyone else had done it, the left would have been slobbering all over themselves to kiss his feet. But because it was Bush, an evil Republican... they screamed.

So yes... Most of the right-wing is pretty fed up with the pathetic wannabe Democrat RINOs that walk around trying to say they are different while supporting the same exact bad policies the left does.

Well, the only requiremet - other than possessing a general paranoia about everything - is that, before you go to bed every night, you have to check and make sure there's no Commies hiding under your bed! I'm pretty sure you can handle that.

Glad to be of service! I think it's important we know where all of you folks are when the day comes!

Originally Posted by Wiggen

Well, the only requiremet - other than possessing a general paranoia about everything - is that, before you go to bed every night, you have to check and make sure there's no Commies hiding under your bed! I'm pretty sure you can handle that.

Glad to be of service! I think it's important we know where all of you folks are when the day comes!

LOL, THE FEAR COLOR FOR TODAY IS .... WAIT A MINUTE WHERE DID i PUT THAT CHART?!!!
BUY DUCT TAPE NOW. LOL,LOL,LOL

Originally Posted by presluc

I make no excuses for Clinton's dumbass Nafta plan or free trade plan under a Republican Congress by the way.

Um... NAFTA doesn't need an excuse. Or are you suggesting it caused huge problems which wiped out the economy in the 90s?
Or was the economy pretty good, and NAFTA was just another example that free-trade works?

The left constantly says that the economy was good under Clinton. Well.... what economic policies did he pass? Welfare Reform and NAFTA.
So either those policies were good, and resulted in a good economy, or Clinton didn't have a good economy. Which is it?

See what you are showing me, is that you are a worthless political hack. You are more interested in trying to assign blame, and slapping a label on things, than you are in doing what is best for the economy. Here you are spouting off about how great Clinton was because of the economy, but then deriding the policies which account for the state of the economy.

I, on the other hand, am more interested in the policies. A good policy, is a good policy no matter who does it. I didn't like Clinton. Thought he was just and adulterous scum bag that ran around making a fool of himself.
german_float_clinton.jpg

Nevertheless, he had good economic policy. Cut government spending, free-trade, cutting welfare. All positive things that led to economic growth. Granted all those things were Republican issues, that he ultimately passed and got credit for, but a good policy is a good policy, no matter who passes it. If Obama passes similar policies, I'd support those policies too.

2000= SURPLUS, that's after Nafta, after the Free trade bill, after 8 years of Republican Congress

Agreed.

20O8 = TRILLION +DEBT that's after 6 years of a Republican White House, Republican administration, Republican Congress.

True or False:
After a democrat with a democrat congress, we have a much higher debt and deficit.

Iraq so what happened to the WMDS were they found NO
What happened to the smoking gun was it found NO
What happened to the Mushroom cloud was it found to be stopped NO

You don't see the idiocy of this? The purpose was to prevent Saddam from getting to that point. The only possible way to prove us right by your logic, is for someone from an alternate futures, time travels back to the present, and warns us that in their alternate future, we didn't stop Saddam, and he passed off weapons to terrorist who attacked the US.

Now since we don't live your fantasy moron world, we have to go by the information we have at the time. The facts are, the information pointed to a problem with Saddam.

Now perhaps you would rather have a Chamberlain, trying to appease the crazies of our world, but history has shown that is an idiots gamble. I fully support the attack on Iraq, and the removal of Saddam. It was necessary actions, and Bush is a good man for standing up for what he believes was right for the country, regardless of what the "la la la" fingers-in-their-ears, left says.

The 2012 election may be the one that gives control of the GOP back to moderate conservatives - I predict a lot of extremely conservative members of the Senate and House are going to get sent home. I'm praying the GOP puts up some moderate candidates to oppose (and replace) them in the primaries. A Dem Senate, House and president is not more healthy than a GOP Senate, House and president.

Originally Posted by Frolicking Dinosaurs

The 2012 election may be the one that gives control of the GOP back to moderate conservatives - I predict a lot of extremely conservative members of the Senate and House are going to get sent home. I'm praying the GOP puts up some moderate candidates to oppose (and replace) them in the primaries. A Dem Senate, House and president is not more healthy than a GOP Senate, House and president.

I don't understand this concept. Why? What do you think is good about moderate conservative? A moderate, by definition is one the compromises on what they believe to be true. If they compromise, you might as well not have them.

The people who compromised with Hitler accomplished what? The people who compromised with Stalin on East Berlin, accomplished what? Do you ever hear about the Great Moderates of History?

No, because they suck. They were worthless and useless. They did nothing of value for their country or people. Why would you want that kind of spineless person, representing you? What do you hope they'll not accomplish?

I think the left uses moderate Republican more as a weapon, than what they really want.

What do Republican moderate leaders believe in? That's not very diffiult, nearly everyone that has been nominated by the Republican party has been "moderate" republicans. What it do they all have in common? All of them are very pro military, much more than the average GOP voter. They tend to not care about social issues. They are not very concerned about spending, just look at Bush who increased spending. They certainly do not care about deficits or civil liberties. They also tend to be quite corrupt, and can be bought by special interests.

Is this really what we want? Much of the complaints from the left is about their non-conservative opinions or actions. Maybe the establishment is unpopular. Not so much because they are too moderate, but because they are out of touch with the average GOP voter.