• 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!

GOP needs to face facts as to why they lost last fall.

Oh please, enough with the cliches. And your redneck origination's are your problem, not mine so keep it to yourself.

The reality is Obama came in after 6 trillion was washed out of the market due to the Democrat mandated Sub-Prime bubble and passed one of the most expensive, most destructive and draconian laws in our history. ObamaCare.

Then the stimulus and "shovel ready" jobs. He just gave his public sector buddies billions and spent billions on now bankrupt green energy companies.

Now our Central bank is injecting massive amounts of Capital into the market, creating a asset bubble, falsely inflating the value of bonds and injecting a inflationary time bomb in the next economy that doesn't have a incompetent running it.

The BEST your ideology can do is borrow and print and brag about a 3.1 % GDP that was almost a Federal Spending with borrowed dollars. Obama spent 900 billion last quarter, and the economy shrunk.

Investors are running to the safest investment vehicle they can, falsely inflated Bonds JUST to protect their principle. Banks are holding on to trillions in bonds, consumer confidence is declining and Obama is driving this Country toward the cliff. Basically emulating the policies that took down Spain, Italy, Greece. Borrowing to pay massive pubic sector debts.

Almost 9 million jobs are GONE, a fact you never mention when you guys claim "job increases" or "jobs created". And your policy on immigration is to bring in another twenty million people to compete with the Americans that have been suffering from chronic joblessness.

Spending on entitlements has exploded under your President. 1 and 6 in poverty, almost 50 million on food assistance.

The best you guys have is lies and borrowing and lies and spending.

Good luck with all of this. Your ideology is a failure.

The reason entitlement spending has gone thru the roof is the fact that fatcats have sent millions of jobs overseas and when someone tries to hold them accountable the right goes to bat for them while bashing those who need help because of it. If my idealology was such a failure then how come the presedent kicked old Mitts butt so bad? The American people spoke and your side lost and all your FOX news excuses don't mean a thing. The GOP needs to change their ways or they risk being a minority party for decades.
 
When you social views are still in the 1950's and your party has swung to the right of Gengas Khan QUOTE]

Do you know how stupid of a statement that is ?

It's the Democrat Party that has moved to the fringe of the left, not the GOP.

Just look at how many liberal Democrats who left the Democrat Party during the late 60's and throughout the 1970's. Most came under the GOP tent when the fringe of the political left gained control of the Democrat Party. They identified themselves as "The New Left" and hid behind the label as being liberals and when they dirtied that label they hide under the label as being progressives when actually they are extreme leftist.

I haven't seen the Republican Party moving to the political right. Can't name one Republican who wants to abolish our "Republic" and replace it with a monarchy or adopt the former European aristocracy society of the past. That's right wing !

Remember back in 2002 when Nancy Pelosi became the Minority Whip in Congress and it was the Democrats in Congress who said that Pelosi was to radical of a leftist ?

I was listening to some just released tapes of JFK and he sounds like a conservative Republican today. Actually he sounded like your typical Democrat back in the early 60's. Last night Texas Rep. Charlie Wilson (D) was brought up. (Same Charlie Wilson as the movie "Charlie Wilson's War") He was one of the old Democrats who didn't leave the Democrat Party, hoping that uninformed voters would just stop electing Democrat candidates who are part of the "New Left" to political office.

Look at the nanny state, it was liberal/Democrat legislation in states like California where citizens have lost personal freedoms and are told how to live their lives. It wasn't any Republican legislation that took away the personal freedoms we use to have.

It's not the Republican Party that has moved to the right, it's the Democrat Party who have moved to the fringe of the left.

BTW: All of those liberals who left the Democrat Party during the late 60's and 70's were labeled by the "New Left" as neo-cons.

Do your own research.

Give me a break. The wingnuts have taken over the GOP and you know it. When a anti drug idiot like Oren Hatch is not conservative enough you have swung to far too the right. When Richard Lugar was not conservative enough then you have swung too far to the right. Even Ronald Reagan would not be conservative enough for these right wing idiots. When abortion doctors get shot in Kansas by Jesus freaks the party has swung to far too the right. When pro chioce GOP members can't get elected in red states the party has swung too far to the right. When Chris Cristie the most popular GOP member in the country gets snubbed at CPAC while inviting the wicked witch of the north Sarah Palan the party has swung too far to the right and will never win the whitehouse that way.
 
Why do you guys keep talking about Genghis Kahn? He lives down the street from me. He has one of those Dont Tread on Me flags hanging out front.

Does he have a AK-47 or a AR-15 also?
 
It' none of your damn business for whom I voted, or if I even did. As to your comments on my being liberal leaning, I would suggest you read about the foundations of Liberalism and the associated economic and social policies that were put forth. If your response is to simply attack rather than debate, stop responding to my posts...

Even if you are a liberal you live in a red state so your vote means nothing if you indead did vote did the president because the far right rules in the bible belt and the southeast.
 
Give me a break. The wingnuts have taken over the GOP and you know it..

What I do know, no one right now is in control of the GOP.

I do know that the conservative base lost control of the RNC / GOP by 2000. From 2000 to 2010 the neoconservatives controlled the GOP even though the majority of Republican voters were conservative. In 2010 the conservative base thought they were going to regain control of the GOP but it looks like they didn't. Today nobody is in control.

Ronald Reagan was a moderate Republican but he surrounded himself with many neoconservatives.

Now if you don't know who the neoconservatives are and the history of the neoconservative movement, research it. Neoconservatives are liberals. But unlike the liberals with in the Democrat Party, they don't look at themselves as being internationalist but as Americans. Research It.

The neoconservative movement was born when the radical left of the fringe gained control of the DNC / Democrat Party. These radical leftist at first called themselves "The New Left." This is when many liberals who were not internationalist but Americans left the Democrat Party and many went under the GOP tent because these liberal.s had the same goal as Republicans, to stop Communist expansion in the world while the "New Left" sided with the Soviet Union and other internationalist socialist. Research it.

It's the Democrat Party that moved way over to the left. Research it.




<" United States New Left:
New Left thinkers in the U.S. were influenced by the Vietnam War and the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Like the British New Left, they recognized problems in the communism of the Soviet Union, but unlike the British New Left, they did not turn to Trotskyism or social democracy. Some in the U.S. New Left argued that since the Soviet Union could no longer be considered the world center for proletarian revolution, new revolutionary Communist thinkers had to be substituted in its place, such as Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro.[18] Todd Gitlin in The Whole World Is Watching in describing the movement's influences stated, "The New Left, again, refused the self-discipline of explicit programmatic statement until too late - until, that is, the Marxist-Leninist sects filled the vacuum with dogmas, with clarity on the cheap." [19]

Other elements of the U.S. New Left were anarchist and looked to libertarian socialist traditions of American radicalism, the Industrial Workers of the World and union militancy. This group coalesced around the historical journal Radical America. American Autonomist Marxism was also a child of this stream, for instance in the thought of Harry Cleaver. Murray Bookchin was also part of the anarchist stream of the New Left, as were the Yippies.[20]

The U.S. New Left drew inspiration from black radicalism, particularly the Black Power movement and the more explicitly Maoist and militant Black Panther Party. The Panthers in turn influenced other similar militant groups, like the Young Lords, the Brown Berets and the American Indian Movement. The New Left was also inspired by SNCC, Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee. Students immersed themselves into poor communities building up support with the locals.[21] The New Left sought to be a broad based, grass roots movement.[22]

The Vietnam war conducted by liberal President Lyndon Johnson was a special target across the worldwide New Left. Johnson and his top officials became unwelcome on American campuses. The anti-war movement escalated the rhetorical heat, as violence broke out on both sides. The climax came at the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

It could be argued that the New Left's most successful legacy was the rebirth of feminism.[23] As the leaders of the New Left were largely white men, women reacted to the lack of progressive gender politics with their own social intellectual movement.[24] Ultimately though the New Left disintegrated, largely because members of the SDS dissatisfied with the pace of change, incorporated violent tendencies towards social transformation. After 1969, the New Left degenerated into radicals and moderate factions, and that same year, the Weathermen, a surviving faction of SDS, attempted to launch a guerrilla war in an incident known as the "Days of Rage." Finally, in 1970 three members of the Weathermen blew themselves up in a Greenwich Village brownstone trying to make a bomb out of a stick of dynamite and an alarm clock.[25]

The New Left was also marked by the invention of the modern environmentalist movement, which clashed with the Old Left's disregard for the environment in favor of preserving the jobs of union workers. Environmentalism also gave rise to various other social justice movements such as the environmental justice movement, which aims to prevent the toxification of the environment of minority and disadvantaged communities.

Students for a Democratic Society ... "< continue reading -> New Left - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neoconservatism is a branch of American conservatism that includes endorsement of political individualism, free markets and the assertive promotion of democracy, and American national interest in international affairs including by military means.[1][2] The term "neoconservative" (sometimes shortened to "neocon") was first used to describe American communist intellectuals who criticized Soviet ideology. From the 1930s to the early 1950s, many conservatives were strong non-interventionists and the Old Right committed to the concept of anti-imperialism until the late 1960s when neoconservatives began to endorse interventionism in opposition to the USSR.[2][3][4][5]...

Through the 1950s and early 1960s the future neoconservatives had endorsed the American Civil Rights Movement, racial integration, and Martin Luther King, Jr..[17] From the 1950s to the 1960s, there was general endorsement among liberals for military action to prevent a communist victory in Vietnam.[18]

Neoconservatism was initiated by the repudiation of coalition politics by the American New Left: Black Power, which denounced coalition-politics and racial integration as "selling out" and "Uncle Tomism" and which frequently generated anti-semitic slogans; "anti-anticommunism", which seemed indifferent to the fate of South Vietnam, and which during the late 1960s included substantial endorsement of Marxist Leninist politics; and the "new politics" of the New left, which considered students and alienated minorities as the main agents of social change (replacing the majority of the population and labor activists).[19] Irving Kristol edited the journal The Public Interest (1965–2005), featuring economists and political scientists, which emphasized ways that government planning in the liberal state had produced unintended harmful consequences.[20]

Norman Podhoretz's magazine Commentary of the American Jewish Committee, originally a journal of liberalism, became a major publication for neoconservatives during the 1970s. Commentary published an article by Jeane Kirkpatrick, an early and prototypical neoconservative, albeit not a New Yorker. ... continue reading ->Through the 1950s and early 1960s the future neoconservatives had endorsed the American Civil Rights Movement, racial integration, and Martin Luther King, Jr..[17] From the 1950s to the 1960s, there was general endorsement among liberals for military action to prevent a communist victory in Vietnam.[18]

Neoconservatism was initiated by the repudiation of coalition politics by the American New Left: Black Power, which denounced coalition-politics and racial integration as "selling out" and "Uncle Tomism" and which frequently generated anti-semitic slogans; "anti-anticommunism", which seemed indifferent to the fate of South Vietnam, and which during the late 1960s included substantial endorsement of Marxist Leninist politics; and the "new politics" of the New left, which considered students and alienated minorities as the main agents of social change (replacing the majority of the population and labor activists).[19] Irving Kristol edited the journal The Public Interest (1965–2005), featuring economists and political scientists, which emphasized ways that government planning in the liberal state had produced unintended harmful consequences.[20]

Norman Podhoretz's magazine Commentary of the American Jewish Committee, originally a journal of liberalism, became a major publication for neoconservatives during the 1970s. Commentary published an article by Jeane Kirkpatrick, an early and prototypical neoconservative, albeit not a New Yorker. ... continue reading -> Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


American Conservatives:
>" The meaning of "conservatism" in America has little in common with the way the word is used elsewhere. As Ribuffo (2011) notes, "what Americans now call conservatism much of the world calls liberalism or neoliberalism

While the conservative tradition has played a major role in American politics and culture since the American Revolution, the organized conservative movement has played a key role in politics only since the 1950s, especially among Republicans and Southern Democrats.[1] Historian Gregory Schneider identifies several constants in American conservatism: respect for tradition, support of republicanism, "the rule of law and the Christian religion", and a defense of "Western civilization from the challenges of modernist culture and totalitarian governments".[2]

The history of American conservatism has been marked by tensions and competing ideologies. Fiscal conservatives and Libertarians favor small government, low taxes, limited regulation, and free enterprise. Social conservatives see traditional social values as threatened by secularism; they tend to support school prayer and capital punishment and oppose abortion and the legalization of same-sex marriage.[3] Neoconservatives want to expand American ideals throughout the world and show a strong support for Israel.[4] Paleoconservatives advocate restrictions on immigration, non-interventionist foreign policy, and stand in opposition to multiculturalism.[5] Most conservatives prefer Republicans over Democrats, and most factions support strong foreign policy, military, and support for Israel. The conservative movement of the 1950s attempted to bring together these divergent strands, stressing the need for unity to prevent the spread of "Godless Communism". ... "< continue reading -> Conservatism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
What I do know, no one right now is in control of the GOP.

I do know that the conservative base lost control of the RNC / GOP by 2000. From 2000 to 2010 the neoconservatives controlled the GOP even though the majority of Republican voters were conservative. In 2010 the conservative base thought they were going to regain control of the GOP but it looks like they didn't. Today nobody is in control.

Ronald Reagan was a moderate Republican but he surrounded himself with many neoconservatives.

Now if you don't know who the neoconservatives are and the history of the neoconservative movement, research it. Neoconservatives are liberals. But unlike the liberals with in the Democrat Party, they don't look at themselves as being internationalist but as Americans. Research It.

The neoconservative movement was born when the radical left of the fringe gained control of the DNC / Democrat Party. These radical leftist at first called themselves "The New Left." This is when many liberals who were not internationalist but Americans left the Democrat Party and many went under the GOP tent because these liberal.s had the same goal as Republicans, to stop Communist expansion in the world while the "New Left" sided with the Soviet Union and other internationalist socialist. Research it.

It's the Democrat Party that moved way over to the left. Research it.




<" United States New Left:
New Left thinkers in the U.S. were influenced by the Vietnam War and the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Like the British New Left, they recognized problems in the communism of the Soviet Union, but unlike the British New Left, they did not turn to Trotskyism or social democracy. Some in the U.S. New Left argued that since the Soviet Union could no longer be considered the world center for proletarian revolution, new revolutionary Communist thinkers had to be substituted in its place, such as Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro.[18] Todd Gitlin in The Whole World Is Watching in describing the movement's influences stated, "The New Left, again, refused the self-discipline of explicit programmatic statement until too late - until, that is, the Marxist-Leninist sects filled the vacuum with dogmas, with clarity on the cheap." [19]

Other elements of the U.S. New Left were anarchist and looked to libertarian socialist traditions of American radicalism, the Industrial Workers of the World and union militancy. This group coalesced around the historical journal Radical America. American Autonomist Marxism was also a child of this stream, for instance in the thought of Harry Cleaver. Murray Bookchin was also part of the anarchist stream of the New Left, as were the Yippies.[20]

The U.S. New Left drew inspiration from black radicalism, particularly the Black Power movement and the more explicitly Maoist and militant Black Panther Party. The Panthers in turn influenced other similar militant groups, like the Young Lords, the Brown Berets and the American Indian Movement. The New Left was also inspired by SNCC, Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee. Students immersed themselves into poor communities building up support with the locals.[21] The New Left sought to be a broad based, grass roots movement.[22]

The Vietnam war conducted by liberal President Lyndon Johnson was a special target across the worldwide New Left. Johnson and his top officials became unwelcome on American campuses. The anti-war movement escalated the rhetorical heat, as violence broke out on both sides. The climax came at the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

It could be argued that the New Left's most successful legacy was the rebirth of feminism.[23] As the leaders of the New Left were largely white men, women reacted to the lack of progressive gender politics with their own social intellectual movement.[24] Ultimately though the New Left disintegrated, largely because members of the SDS dissatisfied with the pace of change, incorporated violent tendencies towards social transformation. After 1969, the New Left degenerated into radicals and moderate factions, and that same year, the Weathermen, a surviving faction of SDS, attempted to launch a guerrilla war in an incident known as the "Days of Rage." Finally, in 1970 three members of the Weathermen blew themselves up in a Greenwich Village brownstone trying to make a bomb out of a stick of dynamite and an alarm clock.[25]

The New Left was also marked by the invention of the modern environmentalist movement, which clashed with the Old Left's disregard for the environment in favor of preserving the jobs of union workers. Environmentalism also gave rise to various other social justice movements such as the environmental justice movement, which aims to prevent the toxification of the environment of minority and disadvantaged communities.

Students for a Democratic Society ... "< continue reading -> New Left - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neoconservatism is a branch of American conservatism that includes endorsement of political individualism, free markets and the assertive promotion of democracy, and American national interest in international affairs including by military means.[1][2] The term "neoconservative" (sometimes shortened to "neocon") was first used to describe American communist intellectuals who criticized Soviet ideology. From the 1930s to the early 1950s, many conservatives were strong non-interventionists and the Old Right committed to the concept of anti-imperialism until the late 1960s when neoconservatives began to endorse interventionism in opposition to the USSR.[2][3][4][5]...

Through the 1950s and early 1960s the future neoconservatives had endorsed the American Civil Rights Movement, racial integration, and Martin Luther King, Jr..[17] From the 1950s to the 1960s, there was general endorsement among liberals for military action to prevent a communist victory in Vietnam.[18]

Neoconservatism was initiated by the repudiation of coalition politics by the American New Left: Black Power, which denounced coalition-politics and racial integration as "selling out" and "Uncle Tomism" and which frequently generated anti-semitic slogans; "anti-anticommunism", which seemed indifferent to the fate of South Vietnam, and which during the late 1960s included substantial endorsement of Marxist Leninist politics; and the "new politics" of the New left, which considered students and alienated minorities as the main agents of social change (replacing the majority of the population and labor activists).[19] Irving Kristol edited the journal The Public Interest (1965–2005), featuring economists and political scientists, which emphasized ways that government planning in the liberal state had produced unintended harmful consequences.[20]

Norman Podhoretz's magazine Commentary of the American Jewish Committee, originally a journal of liberalism, became a major publication for neoconservatives during the 1970s. Commentary published an article by Jeane Kirkpatrick, an early and prototypical neoconservative, albeit not a New Yorker. ... continue reading ->Through the 1950s and early 1960s the future neoconservatives had endorsed the American Civil Rights Movement, racial integration, and Martin Luther King, Jr..[17] From the 1950s to the 1960s, there was general endorsement among liberals for military action to prevent a communist victory in Vietnam.[18]

Neoconservatism was initiated by the repudiation of coalition politics by the American New Left: Black Power, which denounced coalition-politics and racial integration as "selling out" and "Uncle Tomism" and which frequently generated anti-semitic slogans; "anti-anticommunism", which seemed indifferent to the fate of South Vietnam, and which during the late 1960s included substantial endorsement of Marxist Leninist politics; and the "new politics" of the New left, which considered students and alienated minorities as the main agents of social change (replacing the majority of the population and labor activists).[19] Irving Kristol edited the journal The Public Interest (1965–2005), featuring economists and political scientists, which emphasized ways that government planning in the liberal state had produced unintended harmful consequences.[20]

Norman Podhoretz's magazine Commentary of the American Jewish Committee, originally a journal of liberalism, became a major publication for neoconservatives during the 1970s. Commentary published an article by Jeane Kirkpatrick, an early and prototypical neoconservative, albeit not a New Yorker. ... continue reading -> Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


American Conservatives:
>" The meaning of "conservatism" in America has little in common with the way the word is used elsewhere. As Ribuffo (2011) notes, "what Americans now call conservatism much of the world calls liberalism or neoliberalism

While the conservative tradition has played a major role in American politics and culture since the American Revolution, the organized conservative movement has played a key role in politics only since the 1950s, especially among Republicans and Southern Democrats.[1] Historian Gregory Schneider identifies several constants in American conservatism: respect for tradition, support of republicanism, "the rule of law and the Christian religion", and a defense of "Western civilization from the challenges of modernist culture and totalitarian governments".[2]

The history of American conservatism has been marked by tensions and competing ideologies. Fiscal conservatives and Libertarians favor small government, low taxes, limited regulation, and free enterprise. Social conservatives see traditional social values as threatened by secularism; they tend to support school prayer and capital punishment and oppose abortion and the legalization of same-sex marriage.[3] Neoconservatives want to expand American ideals throughout the world and show a strong support for Israel.[4] Paleoconservatives advocate restrictions on immigration, non-interventionist foreign policy, and stand in opposition to multiculturalism.[5] Most conservatives prefer Republicans over Democrats, and most factions support strong foreign policy, military, and support for Israel. The conservative movement of the 1950s attempted to bring together these divergent strands, stressing the need for unity to prevent the spread of "Godless Communism". ... "< continue reading -> Conservatism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Great facts my friend. I must say however. No far right winger has ever one the whitehouse. In fact most of the far right wingers where dixicrats in the south who hated honest Abe. The GOP did not swing to the far right until they gained control of the bible belt and the south. This nation will not stand for a social conservative as president.
 
Re: GOP needs to face facts as to why they lost last fall

We lost because the America is full of illegal immigrants that must go to their counties, silly activists and ecologists that are against the most powerful and right thing, free market. Also, we have lots of gays, like Obama himself. Our presidents that is a Muslim. How can we have a person for president that is Muslim. Muslims are a big threat to America, they are terrorists. Terrorists must spent their rest of their lives in Guantanamo Bay or be killed. Liberals are sinners who hate Lord Jesus Christ and the Bible. They are communist. Nobody who has a little bit of brain can agree with Obama Care. The best president ever was Bush. If all presidents were like him America would be perfect.
 
Re: GOP needs to face facts as to why they lost last fall

This is just beautiful. Thanks.
We lost because the America is full of illegal immigrants that must go to their counties, silly activists and ecologists that are against the most powerful and right thing, free market. Also, we have lots of gays, like Obama himself. Our presidents that is a Muslim. How can we have a person for president that is Muslim. Muslims are a big threat to America, they are terrorists. Terrorists must spent their rest of their lives in Guantanamo Bay or be killed. Liberals are sinners who hate Lord Jesus Christ and the Bible. They are communist. Nobody who has a little bit of brain can agree with Obama Care. The best president ever was Bush. If all presidents were like him America would be perfect.
 
Re: GOP needs to face facts as to why they lost last fall

We lost because the America is full of illegal immigrants that must go to their counties, silly activists and ecologists that are against the most powerful and right thing, free market. Also, we have lots of gays, like Obama himself. Our presidents that is a Muslim. How can we have a person for president that is Muslim. Muslims are a big threat to America, they are terrorists. Terrorists must spent their rest of their lives in Guantanamo Bay or be killed. Liberals are sinners who hate Lord Jesus Christ and the Bible. They are communist. Nobody who has a little bit of brain can agree with Obama Care. The best president ever was Bush. If all presidents were like him America would be perfect.

I lol'd in RL.
 
Re: GOP needs to face facts as to why they lost last fall

FOX has a nice-looking FOX as anchor of FOX report who is now in Apache's leg chair..
She gave a decent report on the BART strike and two dead in tragic accident..
Now she has 3 pundits spinning away on the shutdown .
 
Fenton-
Hi. I'm a student who has grown up in an extremely liberal area (suburbs of Washington, D.C.) and have adopted the political views of my parents and surroundings, as many people do. I don't feel like I'm exposed to conservative ideology, and am uncomfortable rejecting it without such exposure. (I've talked to a few other conservative posters on this site and others and have been pleased with the eye-opening results.)

I just read George Lakoff's "Moral Politics" where he refers to liberal thinking as a 'nurturing family' mentality- "respecting individual autonomy and personal worth are linked to compassion, forgiveness and forms of justice based on fairness, equity and restitution. On the right side is the "Strict Father" morality. Here we have the notion that people will behave morally only under the surveillance of, and the promise of threat and reward from, an authoritarian father figure, agents or agencies of government or religion. In this model of human nature, there is no natural goodness in people, only tendencies toward evil that must be curbed by strict behavior-modification practices."

Do you think this is fair? Do you believe that society should be a sink-or-swim model where self-preservation takes precedence over group wellness? How can we be a prosperous nation if those who 'sink' aren't given any chances to rise again? Or do they deserve to be at the bottom?
Anyway, just trying to understand a mentality, not start an argument.

Thanks!
 
When you social views are still in the 1950's and your party has swung to the right of Gengas Khan and you accuse victoms of this recession of being takers instead of blaming your rich buddies who really caused this mess you are going to lose. Do not blame voter fraud or anythig else. Bad ideas means losing. Bottom line.

What exactly did the GOP lose in the Fall? The didn't have the WH nor the Senate and that didn't change. They controlled the House and that didn't change. Seems like you have selective reasoning and logic but as usual you post threads that you know will do nothing but create rabid comments on both sides.
 
Fenton-
Hi. I'm a student who has grown up in an extremely liberal area (suburbs of Washington, D.C.) and have adopted the political views of my parents and surroundings, as many people do. I don't feel like I'm exposed to conservative ideology, and am uncomfortable rejecting it without such exposure. (I've talked to a few other conservative posters on this site and others and have been pleased with the eye-opening results.)

I just read George Lakoff's "Moral Politics" where he refers to liberal thinking as a 'nurturing family' mentality- "respecting individual autonomy and personal worth are linked to compassion, forgiveness and forms of justice based on fairness, equity and restitution. On the right side is the "Strict Father" morality. Here we have the notion that people will behave morally only under the surveillance of, and the promise of threat and reward from, an authoritarian father figure, agents or agencies of government or religion. In this model of human nature, there is no natural goodness in people, only tendencies toward evil that must be curbed by strict behavior-modification practices."

Do you think this is fair? Do you believe that society should be a sink-or-swim model where self-preservation takes precedence over group wellness? How can we be a prosperous nation if those who 'sink' aren't given any chances to rise again? Or do they deserve to be at the bottom?
Anyway, just trying to understand a mentality, not start an argument.

Thanks!

Looks like a very similar post to me yesterday, doing a school project?
 
The reason entitlement spending has gone thru the roof is the fact that fatcats have sent millions of jobs overseas and when someone tries to hold them accountable the right goes to bat for them while bashing those who need help because of it. If my idealology was such a failure then how come the presedent kicked old Mitts butt so bad? The American people spoke and your side lost and all your FOX news excuses don't mean a thing. The GOP needs to change their ways or they risk being a minority party for decades.

I have read a lot of your posts and not once have I seen a projected solution to the economic problems we have today. I am certain that liberalism had nothing to do with the lost jobs overseas because you see private business always makes more money and hires more people when they are penalized for generating better results. They can always go out to the backyard and take money off the money tree to pay for the increased costs of regulations and higher taxes because we wouldn't them hurting the poor by increasing their prices, now would we?
 
Conservative-
No, just trying to get at least three concise responses to the same question to add to a personal document. I'm fascinated by this nation's political divide, since I spend half my time here and half abroad where the circumstances are very different. Yours remains the most eye-opening I've yet seen!
 
Please list compromises by President Obama.

I'd like to answer that Maggie..

1. Obamacare was a huge compromise for Obama and democrats. He had to sell that big time to the democrat party because they wanted Medicare for all.. a single payer. Obama compromised a ton.. and that's why Obamacare mirrors Romneycare. Whether republicans are willing to admit the truth or not.. Obamacare is full of tons of republican ideas that we supported for years.

2. He compromised on the GM bailout.. in the initial proposal (after Bush's that initiated the bailout) the union would have been in a much better position, but Obama forced them to take larger cuts than they had initially been willing to do.

3. He compromised on the Bush tax cuts. The democrats had the votes to pass a new bill that would have extended the tax cuts for all those making under 250,000 dollars, while raising the taxes on the wealthiest 2-5 %. The republican minority at the time, was threatening to filibuster and make EVERYONES taxes go up. Obama compromised and convinced the democrats to go along and pass the bush tax cuts for everyone rather than risk having taxes go up on everyone and hurt the economy.
(I would say that this is where unfortunately we republicans got the idea of holding the economy hostage)

4. He has supported numerous budget proposals from bi partisan committees most notably the results from the gang of six which included Tom Coburn, Mike Simpson, and Saxby Chambliss all republicans. T

5. He compromised on the sequester.. the sequester itself was a compromise to avoid default...

Those are just a few that come to mind.
 
I just think the majority of the electorate are very short on information. Dumb. Not the sharpest pencil in the drawer, easily entertained, gullible.

If only they listened to Rush Limbaugh...imagine how truly informed they would be.
 
I'd like to answer that Maggie..

1. Obamacare was a huge compromise for Obama and democrats. He had to sell that big time to the democrat party because they wanted Medicare for all.. a single payer. Obama compromised a ton.. and that's why Obamacare mirrors Romneycare. Whether republicans are willing to admit the truth or not.. Obamacare is full of tons of republican ideas that we supported for years.

2. He compromised on the GM bailout.. in the initial proposal (after Bush's that initiated the bailout) the union would have been in a much better position, but Obama forced them to take larger cuts than they had initially been willing to do.

3. He compromised on the Bush tax cuts. The democrats had the votes to pass a new bill that would have extended the tax cuts for all those making under 250,000 dollars, while raising the taxes on the wealthiest 2-5 %. The republican minority at the time, was threatening to filibuster and make EVERYONES taxes go up. Obama compromised and convinced the democrats to go along and pass the bush tax cuts for everyone rather than risk having taxes go up on everyone and hurt the economy.
(I would say that this is where unfortunately we republicans got the idea of holding the economy hostage)

4. He has supported numerous budget proposals from bi partisan committees most notably the results from the gang of six which included Tom Coburn, Mike Simpson, and Saxby Chambliss all republicans. T

5. He compromised on the sequester.. the sequester itself was a compromise to avoid default...

Those are just a few that come to mind.

^^ Great post. Thank you.
 
Back
Top Bottom