Time for a full apology yet?
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
I hope that when a real Democrat gets elected instead of a faux democrat like Obama, she will have enough balls to go after Bush and his band of war criminals.
So do I, btw. I'm really disgusted by these people acquiring power by promising the spectacle of a party far more concerned in protecting the nation from republicans than from terrorists but than getting away with doing absolutely nothing of the sort. I want to see republican blood, damnit!!!
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I want to see republican blood, damnit!!!
I'm truly confused. I thought I understood you to wish for the demise of the Republican Party so a new Conservative Power Party could arise from the ashes. (CPP has such a nice ring to it, don't you think?) I thought I was the one who wanted the Republicans to win back seats in 2010 whereas you were hoping for a total victory by the Dems. I'll defend to your death your right to be inconsistent, but was I wrong? Am I wrong now? :confused:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I want to see republican blood, damnit!!!
I'm truly confused. I thought I understood you to wish for the demise of the Republican Party so a new Conservative Power Party could arise from the ashes. (CPP has such a nice ring to it, don't you think?) I thought I was the one who wanted the Republicans to win back seats in 2010 whereas you were hoping for a total victory by the Dems. I'll defend to your death your right to be inconsistent, but was I wrong? Am I wrong now? :confused:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
I thought I understood you to wish for the demise of the Republican Party so a new Conservative Power Party could arise from the ashes.
I'm for whatever works. The republican party is of no significance to me at all. Unless our form of government is entirely over turned over the next four years, there is no way a single party can maintain power without imploding. If you kill one party, you kill both parties. An entire political realignment would occur. On the other hand, rebuilding the republican party from the ground up while we have the opportunity, obligating it to adher to true conservative principles while the opposition wreaks havoc with the country works just as well also. If there was any hope that collectivist economics or diplomacy actually worked, I would be a little worred, but they won't. Requiring the dems to act on their hatred and take out a few now insignificant republicans would only aide the conservative effort.
Oakman wrote:
I thought I was the one who wanted the Republicans to win back seats in 2010 whereas you were hoping for a total victory by the Dems. I'll defend to your death your right to be inconsistent, but was I wrong? Am I wrong now?
It depends on what they have to do to win. Moveing to the center would be the worst thing they could do. Waiting for the center to move to them is the best option, and should be what we wait for whether its 2010 or 3010.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:01 PM
-
Oakman wrote:
I thought I understood you to wish for the demise of the Republican Party so a new Conservative Power Party could arise from the ashes.
I'm for whatever works. The republican party is of no significance to me at all. Unless our form of government is entirely over turned over the next four years, there is no way a single party can maintain power without imploding. If you kill one party, you kill both parties. An entire political realignment would occur. On the other hand, rebuilding the republican party from the ground up while we have the opportunity, obligating it to adher to true conservative principles while the opposition wreaks havoc with the country works just as well also. If there was any hope that collectivist economics or diplomacy actually worked, I would be a little worred, but they won't. Requiring the dems to act on their hatred and take out a few now insignificant republicans would only aide the conservative effort.
Oakman wrote:
I thought I was the one who wanted the Republicans to win back seats in 2010 whereas you were hoping for a total victory by the Dems. I'll defend to your death your right to be inconsistent, but was I wrong? Am I wrong now?
It depends on what they have to do to win. Moveing to the center would be the worst thing they could do. Waiting for the center to move to them is the best option, and should be what we wait for whether its 2010 or 3010.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:01 PM
Okay, glad to see you haven't changed your spots. For a moment I thought maybe you were grappling with the political realities of 2009.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Oakman wrote:
I thought I understood you to wish for the demise of the Republican Party so a new Conservative Power Party could arise from the ashes.
I'm for whatever works. The republican party is of no significance to me at all. Unless our form of government is entirely over turned over the next four years, there is no way a single party can maintain power without imploding. If you kill one party, you kill both parties. An entire political realignment would occur. On the other hand, rebuilding the republican party from the ground up while we have the opportunity, obligating it to adher to true conservative principles while the opposition wreaks havoc with the country works just as well also. If there was any hope that collectivist economics or diplomacy actually worked, I would be a little worred, but they won't. Requiring the dems to act on their hatred and take out a few now insignificant republicans would only aide the conservative effort.
Oakman wrote:
I thought I was the one who wanted the Republicans to win back seats in 2010 whereas you were hoping for a total victory by the Dems. I'll defend to your death your right to be inconsistent, but was I wrong? Am I wrong now?
It depends on what they have to do to win. Moveing to the center would be the worst thing they could do. Waiting for the center to move to them is the best option, and should be what we wait for whether its 2010 or 3010.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:01 PM
Political wilderness works wonders. By visiting that place you become more focused on grass roots views and eventually you will achieve electoral success because (partially) you have become invigorated, plus, most incumbent administrations have the knack of becoming unpopular usually accompanied by stale policies. And generally more so the longer they are the governing party. As long as this political wilderness is not a protracted affair, perhaps a 2 or 3 term wilderness is manageable (around 8 to 12 years), anything longer could result in the political death of the political party.
-
Political wilderness works wonders. By visiting that place you become more focused on grass roots views and eventually you will achieve electoral success because (partially) you have become invigorated, plus, most incumbent administrations have the knack of becoming unpopular usually accompanied by stale policies. And generally more so the longer they are the governing party. As long as this political wilderness is not a protracted affair, perhaps a 2 or 3 term wilderness is manageable (around 8 to 12 years), anything longer could result in the political death of the political party.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Political wilderness works wonders
Unless you starve to death. America has seen two major parties (The Federalists and the Whigs) head off into the wilderness and never come out. I agree with Stan that the Republicans need to get back to their roots. Unfortunately, unlike Stan, I have a pretty good idea of what those roots were and what they were not. Historically the Republicans stood for as little government as possible. They were not racists: the Democrats, who depended on the "solid south" to keep them viable, were the bigots. Republicans believed in low taxes on the middle class - they weren't all that worried about what tax the large nationals and nascent internation corporations paid, in part because they understood the difference between a fictious person, and a real one - and the clever bookkeeping most corporation indulged in when they reported earnings anyway. Republicans believed in live and let live. There were plenty of 'em who thought the ten commandments trumped any secular law, and plenty that really didn't take any religion into account in their dailey lives. And each group realised that the other group was necessary. Republicans were, as I remember them, the ultimate pragmatists. Their hearts, in 52, belonged to Taft the conservative, but their votes went to Eisenhower, the liberal. These days Neaderthals like Rush want to turn the Republicans into a bunch of ideologs. Candidates don't need to have a chance of winning elections, they just have to spew out the right catch-phrases. They can't simply oppose Democrats, they have to hate liberals with poisonous venom. And, of course, most of all, they have to be eager to kiss Rush's hairy backside with the fervor of Sean Hannity.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Political wilderness works wonders
Unless you starve to death. America has seen two major parties (The Federalists and the Whigs) head off into the wilderness and never come out. I agree with Stan that the Republicans need to get back to their roots. Unfortunately, unlike Stan, I have a pretty good idea of what those roots were and what they were not. Historically the Republicans stood for as little government as possible. They were not racists: the Democrats, who depended on the "solid south" to keep them viable, were the bigots. Republicans believed in low taxes on the middle class - they weren't all that worried about what tax the large nationals and nascent internation corporations paid, in part because they understood the difference between a fictious person, and a real one - and the clever bookkeeping most corporation indulged in when they reported earnings anyway. Republicans believed in live and let live. There were plenty of 'em who thought the ten commandments trumped any secular law, and plenty that really didn't take any religion into account in their dailey lives. And each group realised that the other group was necessary. Republicans were, as I remember them, the ultimate pragmatists. Their hearts, in 52, belonged to Taft the conservative, but their votes went to Eisenhower, the liberal. These days Neaderthals like Rush want to turn the Republicans into a bunch of ideologs. Candidates don't need to have a chance of winning elections, they just have to spew out the right catch-phrases. They can't simply oppose Democrats, they have to hate liberals with poisonous venom. And, of course, most of all, they have to be eager to kiss Rush's hairy backside with the fervor of Sean Hannity.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Jon, the republicans were never a libertarian party. The democrats were never a libertarian party. The US has never been a libertarian country. You can rant and rave about that all you like, but the facts remain. The republicans have become the home of so called 'social conservatives' (ie - traditional American civilization ) because the democrats have been on a 50 year jihad against it. The republicans are going to continue to give a home to that completely valid, normal and wholesome sector of our society or they are simply going to cease to exist. We social conservatives can, and will, destroy the republicans, than we will destroy the democrats, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop us simply because we have the only actual workable political idealogy around. The rest of you can play your silly games for as long as you like, we will be patiently waiting for you to return home when you're done.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Jon, the republicans were never a libertarian party. The democrats were never a libertarian party. The US has never been a libertarian country. You can rant and rave about that all you like, but the facts remain. The republicans have become the home of so called 'social conservatives' (ie - traditional American civilization ) because the democrats have been on a 50 year jihad against it. The republicans are going to continue to give a home to that completely valid, normal and wholesome sector of our society or they are simply going to cease to exist. We social conservatives can, and will, destroy the republicans, than we will destroy the democrats, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop us simply because we have the only actual workable political idealogy around. The rest of you can play your silly games for as long as you like, we will be patiently waiting for you to return home when you're done.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Jon, the republicans were never a libertarian party.
never, once, have I claimed otherwise. Because you cannot counter what I do say is no reason to attribute to me things I don't say and don't believe.
Stan Shannon wrote:
We social conservatives can, and will, destroy the republicans
No, ultimately, you'll fail and will be rejected by the Republicans as you were rejected by the Democrats. You'll need to found the Dixiecrat party, call it what you will, that's what it will be. If you're smart you'll continue to suck up to Wall Street since you'll need funding, and then you'll have the money you need to be the party of big-government social conservatism, eager to tell everyone what to do and who to hate.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Political wilderness works wonders
Unless you starve to death. America has seen two major parties (The Federalists and the Whigs) head off into the wilderness and never come out. I agree with Stan that the Republicans need to get back to their roots. Unfortunately, unlike Stan, I have a pretty good idea of what those roots were and what they were not. Historically the Republicans stood for as little government as possible. They were not racists: the Democrats, who depended on the "solid south" to keep them viable, were the bigots. Republicans believed in low taxes on the middle class - they weren't all that worried about what tax the large nationals and nascent internation corporations paid, in part because they understood the difference between a fictious person, and a real one - and the clever bookkeeping most corporation indulged in when they reported earnings anyway. Republicans believed in live and let live. There were plenty of 'em who thought the ten commandments trumped any secular law, and plenty that really didn't take any religion into account in their dailey lives. And each group realised that the other group was necessary. Republicans were, as I remember them, the ultimate pragmatists. Their hearts, in 52, belonged to Taft the conservative, but their votes went to Eisenhower, the liberal. These days Neaderthals like Rush want to turn the Republicans into a bunch of ideologs. Candidates don't need to have a chance of winning elections, they just have to spew out the right catch-phrases. They can't simply oppose Democrats, they have to hate liberals with poisonous venom. And, of course, most of all, they have to be eager to kiss Rush's hairy backside with the fervor of Sean Hannity.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Unless you starve to death. America has seen two major parties (The Federalists and the Whigs) head off into the wilderness and never come out
Yes, this is why I put a time limit on effective wilderness else death of that political party could well be mourned.
Oakman wrote:
Republicans need to get back to their roots.
Again, yes, as I wrote, they will need to go back to their grass roots. They will need to once again find themselves. That doesn't mean waiting for the political perspectives to change to the extent that it then agrees with whatever your current ideology happens to be (if you wait for the political perspectives to move so that they agree with your present stance, you could spend a generation or more in the wilderness). You need to move your own goalposts to wherever the HERE and NOW location of the political perspective happens to be, then you will have cause to be confident in an earlier return to National Administration. In other words, change or die.
-
Oakman wrote:
Unless you starve to death. America has seen two major parties (The Federalists and the Whigs) head off into the wilderness and never come out
Yes, this is why I put a time limit on effective wilderness else death of that political party could well be mourned.
Oakman wrote:
Republicans need to get back to their roots.
Again, yes, as I wrote, they will need to go back to their grass roots. They will need to once again find themselves. That doesn't mean waiting for the political perspectives to change to the extent that it then agrees with whatever your current ideology happens to be (if you wait for the political perspectives to move so that they agree with your present stance, you could spend a generation or more in the wilderness). You need to move your own goalposts to wherever the HERE and NOW location of the political perspective happens to be, then you will have cause to be confident in an earlier return to National Administration. In other words, change or die.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Yes, this is why I put a time limit on effective wilderness else death of that political party could well be mourned.
Both the federalists and the whigs were immediately replaced with new political alignments. We continued to be a two party system. That actually speaks both to my point and to the inhernet stability of the American federalists system.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
You need to move your own goalposts to wherever the HERE and NOW location of the political perspective happens to be, then you will have cause to be confident in an earlier return to National Administration. In other words, change or die.
That is only valid if the change is viable. Advancing your goal posts over the edge of a cliff to keep up with the opposition is hardly an affective strategy.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Yes, this is why I put a time limit on effective wilderness else death of that political party could well be mourned.
Both the federalists and the whigs were immediately replaced with new political alignments. We continued to be a two party system. That actually speaks both to my point and to the inhernet stability of the American federalists system.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
You need to move your own goalposts to wherever the HERE and NOW location of the political perspective happens to be, then you will have cause to be confident in an earlier return to National Administration. In other words, change or die.
That is only valid if the change is viable. Advancing your goal posts over the edge of a cliff to keep up with the opposition is hardly an affective strategy.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
to keep up with the opposition
No Stan, not that, but, keeping up with what the voting public want (that's what I meant by "political perspective"), as they are the people you need to satisfy. If the opposition is offering the voting public what they want, then whatever your offerings are, they have to match or even excel those even if it does leave a slight distasteful aroma in your nostrils. Always remember Stan, politics needs to serve you, and not the other way around.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
to keep up with the opposition
No Stan, not that, but, keeping up with what the voting public want (that's what I meant by "political perspective"), as they are the people you need to satisfy. If the opposition is offering the voting public what they want, then whatever your offerings are, they have to match or even excel those even if it does leave a slight distasteful aroma in your nostrils. Always remember Stan, politics needs to serve you, and not the other way around.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
keeping up with what the voting public want
And what does the voting public want? A voting public that wants socialism and hedonism should have it. But there should also be an alternative that once the consequencies of socialism and hedonism become ever more obvious to ever more people, is also available for them to vote for. What you are really arguing for is the abandonment of those alternatives so that the only possible alternative is ever more socialism and hedonism. Well, sorry, but you aren't going to get it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.