They don't make Republican consevatives like they used to

[Oldstyle]

It's time for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to take that walk off into the sunset. I don't know if you caught Pelosi's presser yesterday but she looked like she was about to have a complete nervous breakdown.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's time for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to take that walk off into the sunset. I don't know if you caught Pelosi's presser yesterday but she looked like she was about to have a complete nervous breakdown.

That she remained House minority leader after the 2010 drubbing is testament to the thin level of talent the Democrats have. A vigorous healthy party would have fired her ass.

 

[Oldstyle]

Not to go off topic here...but could anyone explain to me how Pelosi ended up as Speaker in the first place? Surely there must have been some other Democrat with more on the ball then San Fran Nan?

 

[toxicmedia]

The election was neither a referendum nor any surprise given the percentage of voters that were Republican VS Democratic.

The GOP strategists that purport the Obama referendum are doing so for electioneering purposes for the 2016 presidential race, and you bought it hook, line, and sinker...without one original thought of your own

The thing that should scare Democrats, Toxic is the number of Hispanics that didn't show up to vote for Democrats this time around. Large chunks of the Democratic base simply didn't seem to care. Part of the problem from where I'm sitting is that faux issues like a GOP "war on women" simply didn't work this election cycle. Then you've got young people who are tired of catchy slogans and want jobs.

If Democrats were scared, they would have showed up to vote, Latinos included, and it was too much for the average low information lefties to show up. But...the 2016 presidential race is the GOP's to lose.

If the GOP indulges low information righties, and spends the next two years sending Obama inflammatory legislation that doesn't create middle class jobs, or attempts to repeal Obamacare, they will pave the way for Hillary.

On the other hand...if the GOP sends productive legislation to the white house, and Obama signs it, and it produces positive results before November 2016...that will help the Democrats as much as it does Republicans.

What will likely happen, is that Republicans will ONLY send legislation to Obama that they know he won't sign, or they know it won't produce anything positive, since positive results will be a "wash" for the GOP in 2016. That way they can still accuse Obama of obstructionism, while appearing to start doing their jobs.

The GOP won't allow anything good to happen until they win back the presidency.

The "war on women" is only an issue if the Republicans do anything to legitimize it. Women voters don't vote Democratic if they perceive the GOP candidate to be a chauvinist, as much as they vote against the Republican in question. If the GOP makes an issue with gay marriage/abortion/contraception, this time around, Hillary will win.

Young people want jobs, but the GOP can't afford those jobs being created before 2016 for electioneering purposes, and they won't create legislation that will cause them to be.

I'm sorry, Toxic but I think your "take" on what the GOP faces is way off base!

The GOP won this last election in a landslide only because the American electorate has grown tired of our Government being dysfunctional for the past four years. It's FINALLY become impossible to ignore that the major cause of that disfunction was a US Senate controlled by Democrats and overseen by Harry Reid that wouldn't even bring House bills to the floor for debate let alone passage. Nothing was getting done to improve the economy because you had a Senate Majority Leader who was incapable of compromise. So the Democrats in the Senate have been voted out of office and Republicans have been voted in. What that MEANS is that the American voter wants to see legislation passed by Congress to address the economy and jobs. They voted for GOP control of the House and now they have voted for GOP control of the Senate. The message is painfully clear.

Which brings us to Barack Obama...

What you're seeing right now from the President with his announcment that he's going to go ahead with an Executive Action to essentially grant amnesty to millions of illegals, is a declaration that he is deliberately going to make the country suffer through another two years of political dysfunction, with him vetoing the bulk of legislation sent to him by the Congress and using Executive Actions to press forward with a liberal agenda that the voters have expressed no interest in. Not only is he willing to take us that way...he's DELIBERATELY CHOSEN to do so!

The GOP led Congress has no choice but to pass comprehensive immigration reform before 2016 or they will have no chance of taking the Oval Office. They understand that. So does Barack Obama. He understands that if the GOP DOES pass immigration reform and that issue is taken off the books for 2016 that the Democrats won't have the Hispanic voting block locked up. So he's rushing to do an Executive Action NOW on an issue that the GOP would have to address once they take control of the Senate...an issue that he and his fellow Democrats failed to address when they controlled the House, the Senate and the White House! So if it was an issue that could be put on the "back burner" then...if it was an issue that could be delayed until after the midterm elections this year...why is it suddenly something that has to be done IMMEDIATELY?

The answer to that is obvious...Barack Obama has made a political calculation that it is better for Democrats to blow up our government for the next two years than it is to let Republicans pass legislation that either fixes things...or forces him to veto what they send him. Barack Obama is doing what he's doing because he WANTS the GOP to waste their time either trying to impeach him or waste their time shutting down the government.

In the meantime...the millions of Americans who have suffered through the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression will continue to suffer.

What I take away from your post, is an affirmation that the GOP's current strategy is working on you, and anyone else who believes what your media of choice has told you.

I'm not trying to delegitimize your opinion, and the GOP holds focus groups and tests groups to see what is important to you, and then they tell you THAT.

The spin comes in when GOP politicians and pundits tell you they're going to to THAT, get elected, and don't do THAT, and blame the previous administration, or the party out of power, for keeping them from doing THAT.

It works the same on both sides, only now MSNBC and Fox are in the tank for their side, and too many people get their opinions confirmed by those networks, without any well presented opposition arguments.

With all due respect, Toxic...I listen to the President on this issue and can only shake my head. Why the rush to do this now? If it was that crucial then why wasn't this done when Democrats controlled everything? Why wasn't it done with EA by Obama three years ago? Why not last year? Why not this Fall?

Forgive me while I back track a bit here.

I don't think the GOP will produce legislation to address the economy and jobs. I don't thin they can afford any of that to happen before they take back the white house in 2016. To complicate that even more...I'm not sure the congress or the white house even has a way to create jobs using legislation. People like Bill Gates and the Koch Brothers create jobs. Granted they can push the economy around + or - 10% or so depending on how smart, or stupid, their plans are.

And that burnout case Obama...my understanding is that his executive orders are rumored to NOT include amnesty. But let's think about that...amnesty or not, it won't affect how many illegals remain in the US. I think that is another example of a political football. Obama gets to woo Latinos with it, and Republicans get to characterize Obama as a tyrant who's shredding the constitution. But nothing really changes in the US either way, except how people vote.

I cannot imagine the GOP producing any immigration reform before 2016, because, while it might help them in 2016 with Latinos, would infuriate an already fractured base. Far righties (Tea Partiers) would splinter off with all manner of vote killing 3rd party candidates. I'll be amazed if it happens.

As I said...the GOP will not send anything that improves the economy to Obama before he's out. They will not send anything to Hillary either if she wins. That's why I'm voting Republican in 2016 no matter who it is.

 

[toxicmedia]

They don't make Republican conservatives, PERIOD.

Jeff Flake isnt a conservative? Scott Walker isnt a conservative? Ted Cruz isnt a conservative? I dont think the word means what you think it means.

It doesn't mean what it used to mean, and Democrat doesn't mean what it used to.

You've got to be able to distinguish "conservative" from Republican, and "liberal" from Democrat.

Segregation era Democrats bear little resemblence to post Reagan Democrats.

And the Party of Lincoln through Rockefeller Republicans bears little resemblence to Tea Party Republicans.

The people I quoted in the OP were all fiscal conservatives...but NOT evangelicals.

That whole ilk was an unfortunate side effect of Reagan having to cultivate votes out of the bible belt. Much to the dismay of moderate and conservative Republicans like Goldwater, and Eisenhower would have hated that too.

Thus the concept:

They don't make conservatives the way they used to.

And still some dillweeds are arguing with that

Goldwater was a moderate?

conservative Republicans like Goldwater

You may have misread my post. And did you just show me an LBJ campaign add as proof Goldwater was a conservative? My argument is that you're not a conservative, you're either a Tea Party Republican, or an evangelical Republican. That's the only flavors the GOP comes in now.

Furthermore...Goldwater would be run off by the GOP today because he wasn't opposed to gay marriage, or gays in the military. He hated evangelical conservatives, and he loved to make deals with Democratic senators on the hill.

 

[toxicmedia]

Not to go off topic here...but could anyone explain to me how Pelosi ended up as Speaker in the first place? Surely there must have been some other Democrat with more on the ball then San Fran Nan?

I'm not sure how she got that job. Her district butts up against mine, and she's a white wine liberal, but then her district includes San Francisco.

 

[toxicmedia]

These guys would be drummed out of the GOP is they said things like this today.

Indeed they would. However, the problem with extremist positions is they do not work and eventually the people pushing those positions show up as failures. McArthy was once one of the most powerful men in the country but he crashed and burned because his entire purpose was to push ideology rather than results. The party will come back to a rational position once the ideologues demonstrate their utter inability to deliver on any of their promises.

That is my hope.

Right now the GOP is like the nagging back seat driver on a long cross country road tip. And those folks always make wrong turns of their own when they're behind the wheel. Fox News and Reince Preibus's boys must be busy gearing up for their inevitable shift from government opposition to propaganda ministry for the regime.

I for one can't wait.

You misread the tea leaves. Since time immemorial when extreme political movements have gained control of government policy, they have generally failed and blamed it on the "counter-revolutionaries". The Stalinist language for this is more colorful, but the right-wing juntas have done the same thing.

The first target will be the Democratic minority in the Senate. They will be blamed for obstruction, which will no longer be a bulwark of liberty against the tyranny of a majority, as it was when Democrats controlled the Senate, but an impediment to implementing the righteous will of the people. The key debate here will be whether to change the rules of the Senate to allow for more legislation to be subject to simple majority vote on closure.

The second target will be the president. The veto will be thwarting the will of the people. The idea of amending the Constitution to lower the supermajority needed to override a veto may be floated. And of course, no appointments can be approved because no "suitable" nominations are being made.

The key is that the real battle will not be between Republicans and Democrats, but between defenders of the institution (which I am pretty sure will include the Speaker and the Senate Majority leader) and the ideological firebrands. It will make for good theater for those with a sense of irony.

Everything posted here is a Harry Reid tactic.

You do realize that he will be out of power soon, right?

Not following your point...where you talking to me? or both of us? or just him?

 

[toxicmedia]

They don't make Republican conservatives, PERIOD.

Jeff Flake isnt a conservative? Scott Walker isnt a conservative? Ted Cruz isnt a conservative? I dont think the word means what you think it means.

Liberal Dictionary:
==============================================
True conservative - liberal
Moderate - liberal
Mainstream - liberal
Pragmatic - liberal

Ugh......it's simple

Republicans = Tea Partiers and white evangelicals

Democrats = white wine liberals, and minorities.

 

[toxicmedia]

It's time for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to take that walk off into the sunset. I don't know if you caught Pelosi's presser yesterday but she looked like she was about to have a complete nervous breakdown.

You'll get no argument from me.

 

[bripat9643]

They don't make Republican conservatives, PERIOD.

Jeff Flake isnt a conservative? Scott Walker isnt a conservative? Ted Cruz isnt a conservative? I dont think the word means what you think it means.

Liberal Dictionary:
==============================================
True conservative - liberal
Moderate - liberal
Mainstream - liberal
Pragmatic - liberal

Ugh......it's simple

Republicans = Tea Partiers and white evangelicals

Democrats = white wine liberals, and minorities.

Simple definitions for simple minds.

Obviously my point went right over your head.

 

[toxicmedia]

They don't make Republican conservatives, PERIOD.

Jeff Flake isnt a conservative? Scott Walker isnt a conservative? Ted Cruz isnt a conservative? I dont think the word means what you think it means.

Liberal Dictionary:
==============================================
True conservative - liberal
Moderate - liberal
Mainstream - liberal
Pragmatic - liberal

Ugh......it's simple

Republicans = Tea Partiers and white evangelicals

Democrats = white wine liberals, and minorities.

Simple definitions for simple minds.

Obviously my point went right over your head.

You're a moron.

The words "conservative" and "liberal" have dictionary definitions, and Tea Partiers or evangelical Republicans don't fit that definition. Nor do they bear any resemblance to conservatives or neoconservatives

 

[Darkwind]

These guys would be drummed out of the GOP is they said things like this today.

Indeed they would. However, the problem with extremist positions is they do not work and eventually the people pushing those positions show up as failures. McArthy was once one of the most powerful men in the country but he crashed and burned because his entire purpose was to push ideology rather than results. The party will come back to a rational position once the ideologues demonstrate their utter inability to deliver on any of their promises.

That is my hope.

Right now the GOP is like the nagging back seat driver on a long cross country road tip. And those folks always make wrong turns of their own when they're behind the wheel. Fox News and Reince Preibus's boys must be busy gearing up for their inevitable shift from government opposition to propaganda ministry for the regime.

I for one can't wait.

You misread the tea leaves. Since time immemorial when extreme political movements have gained control of government policy, they have generally failed and blamed it on the "counter-revolutionaries". The Stalinist language for this is more colorful, but the right-wing juntas have done the same thing.

The first target will be the Democratic minority in the Senate. They will be blamed for obstruction, which will no longer be a bulwark of liberty against the tyranny of a majority, as it was when Democrats controlled the Senate, but an impediment to implementing the righteous will of the people. The key debate here will be whether to change the rules of the Senate to allow for more legislation to be subject to simple majority vote on closure.

The second target will be the president. The veto will be thwarting the will of the people. The idea of amending the Constitution to lower the supermajority needed to override a veto may be floated. And of course, no appointments can be approved because no "suitable" nominations are being made.

The key is that the real battle will not be between Republicans and Democrats, but between defenders of the institution (which I am pretty sure will include the Speaker and the Senate Majority leader) and the ideological firebrands. It will make for good theater for those with a sense of irony.

Everything posted here is a Harry Reid tactic.

You do realize that he will be out of power soon, right?

Not following your point...where you talking to me? or both of us? or just him?

What is so hard to understand? Everything he posted is exactly what the Democrats have been doing for the past 6 years.

He now thinks that the Republicans are going to do this and that means its bad, while ignoring the behavior of the Democrats.

Following a conversation isn't all that difficult to do.

 

[Darkwind]

They don't make Republican conservatives, PERIOD.

Jeff Flake isnt a conservative? Scott Walker isnt a conservative? Ted Cruz isnt a conservative? I dont think the word means what you think it means.

Liberal Dictionary:
==============================================
True conservative - liberal
Moderate - liberal
Mainstream - liberal
Pragmatic - liberal

Ugh......it's simple

Republicans = Tea Partiers and white evangelicals

Democrats = white wine liberals, and minorities.

Simple definitions for simple minds.

Obviously my point went right over your head.

You're a moron.

The words "conservative" and "liberal" have dictionary definitions, and Tea Partiers or evangelical Republicans don't fit that definition. Nor do they bear any resemblance to conservatives or neoconservatives

Then you're the idiot. The T.E.A. party stands for limited governmen spending. The very definition of conservative.

 

[bripat9643]

They don't make Republican conservatives, PERIOD.

Jeff Flake isnt a conservative? Scott Walker isnt a conservative? Ted Cruz isnt a conservative? I dont think the word means what you think it means.

Liberal Dictionary:
==============================================
True conservative - liberal
Moderate - liberal
Mainstream - liberal
Pragmatic - liberal

Ugh......it's simple

Republicans = Tea Partiers and white evangelicals

Democrats = white wine liberals, and minorities.

Simple definitions for simple minds.

Obviously my point went right over your head.

You're a moron.

The words "conservative" and "liberal" have dictionary definitions, and Tea Partiers or evangelical Republicans don't fit that definition. Nor do they bear any resemblance to conservatives or neoconservatives

Liberals have their own dictionary. You're naive if you believe they apply the same meanings to words that normal people use. The point of liberal speech is to deceive, not communicate.

 

[Oldstyle]

The thing that should scare Democrats, Toxic is the number of Hispanics that didn't show up to vote for Democrats this time around. Large chunks of the Democratic base simply didn't seem to care. Part of the problem from where I'm sitting is that faux issues like a GOP "war on women" simply didn't work this election cycle. Then you've got young people who are tired of catchy slogans and want jobs.

If Democrats were scared, they would have showed up to vote, Latinos included, and it was too much for the average low information lefties to show up. But...the 2016 presidential race is the GOP's to lose.

If the GOP indulges low information righties, and spends the next two years sending Obama inflammatory legislation that doesn't create middle class jobs, or attempts to repeal Obamacare, they will pave the way for Hillary.

On the other hand...if the GOP sends productive legislation to the white house, and Obama signs it, and it produces positive results before November 2016...that will help the Democrats as much as it does Republicans.

What will likely happen, is that Republicans will ONLY send legislation to Obama that they know he won't sign, or they know it won't produce anything positive, since positive results will be a "wash" for the GOP in 2016. That way they can still accuse Obama of obstructionism, while appearing to start doing their jobs.

The GOP won't allow anything good to happen until they win back the presidency.

The "war on women" is only an issue if the Republicans do anything to legitimize it. Women voters don't vote Democratic if they perceive the GOP candidate to be a chauvinist, as much as they vote against the Republican in question. If the GOP makes an issue with gay marriage/abortion/contraception, this time around, Hillary will win.

Young people want jobs, but the GOP can't afford those jobs being created before 2016 for electioneering purposes, and they won't create legislation that will cause them to be.

I'm sorry, Toxic but I think your "take" on what the GOP faces is way off base!

The GOP won this last election in a landslide only because the American electorate has grown tired of our Government being dysfunctional for the past four years. It's FINALLY become impossible to ignore that the major cause of that disfunction was a US Senate controlled by Democrats and overseen by Harry Reid that wouldn't even bring House bills to the floor for debate let alone passage. Nothing was getting done to improve the economy because you had a Senate Majority Leader who was incapable of compromise. So the Democrats in the Senate have been voted out of office and Republicans have been voted in. What that MEANS is that the American voter wants to see legislation passed by Congress to address the economy and jobs. They voted for GOP control of the House and now they have voted for GOP control of the Senate. The message is painfully clear.

Which brings us to Barack Obama...

What you're seeing right now from the President with his announcment that he's going to go ahead with an Executive Action to essentially grant amnesty to millions of illegals, is a declaration that he is deliberately going to make the country suffer through another two years of political dysfunction, with him vetoing the bulk of legislation sent to him by the Congress and using Executive Actions to press forward with a liberal agenda that the voters have expressed no interest in. Not only is he willing to take us that way...he's DELIBERATELY CHOSEN to do so!

The GOP led Congress has no choice but to pass comprehensive immigration reform before 2016 or they will have no chance of taking the Oval Office. They understand that. So does Barack Obama. He understands that if the GOP DOES pass immigration reform and that issue is taken off the books for 2016 that the Democrats won't have the Hispanic voting block locked up. So he's rushing to do an Executive Action NOW on an issue that the GOP would have to address once they take control of the Senate...an issue that he and his fellow Democrats failed to address when they controlled the House, the Senate and the White House! So if it was an issue that could be put on the "back burner" then...if it was an issue that could be delayed until after the midterm elections this year...why is it suddenly something that has to be done IMMEDIATELY?

The answer to that is obvious...Barack Obama has made a political calculation that it is better for Democrats to blow up our government for the next two years than it is to let Republicans pass legislation that either fixes things...or forces him to veto what they send him. Barack Obama is doing what he's doing because he WANTS the GOP to waste their time either trying to impeach him or waste their time shutting down the government.

In the meantime...the millions of Americans who have suffered through the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression will continue to suffer.

What I take away from your post, is an affirmation that the GOP's current strategy is working on you, and anyone else who believes what your media of choice has told you.

I'm not trying to delegitimize your opinion, and the GOP holds focus groups and tests groups to see what is important to you, and then they tell you THAT.

The spin comes in when GOP politicians and pundits tell you they're going to to THAT, get elected, and don't do THAT, and blame the previous administration, or the party out of power, for keeping them from doing THAT.

It works the same on both sides, only now MSNBC and Fox are in the tank for their side, and too many people get their opinions confirmed by those networks, without any well presented opposition arguments.

With all due respect, Toxic...I listen to the President on this issue and can only shake my head. Why the rush to do this now? If it was that crucial then why wasn't this done when Democrats controlled everything? Why wasn't it done with EA by Obama three years ago? Why not last year? Why not this Fall?

Forgive me while I back track a bit here.

I don't think the GOP will produce legislation to address the economy and jobs. I don't thin they can afford any of that to happen before they take back the white house in 2016. To complicate that even more...I'm not sure the congress or the white house even has a way to create jobs using legislation. People like Bill Gates and the Koch Brothers create jobs. Granted they can push the economy around + or - 10% or so depending on how smart, or stupid, their plans are.

And that burnout case Obama...my understanding is that his executive orders are rumored to NOT include amnesty. But let's think about that...amnesty or not, it won't affect how many illegals remain in the US. I think that is another example of a political football. Obama gets to woo Latinos with it, and Republicans get to characterize Obama as a tyrant who's shredding the constitution. But nothing really changes in the US either way, except how people vote.

I cannot imagine the GOP producing any immigration reform before 2016, because, while it might help them in 2016 with Latinos, would infuriate an already fractured base. Far righties (Tea Partiers) would splinter off with all manner of vote killing 3rd party candidates. I'll be amazed if it happens.

As I said...the GOP will not send anything that improves the economy to Obama before he's out. They will not send anything to Hillary either if she wins. That's why I'm voting Republican in 2016 no matter who it is.

I think you've completely misjudged what the GOP has to do in the next two years, Toxic. They appear to finally understand that the electorate sees them in only a SLIGHTLY better light than the Democrats when it comes to the economy and jobs but only because the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party was so absolutely abysmal at stimulating the economy or at creating jobs. This is the GOP's shot to prove to the voters that THEY are the answer to putting people back to work and putting more money in the average American's pockets. If they come through on those things then they will be tough for even a Hillary Clinton to beat. If they don't then they will start to bleed seats back to the Democrats.

What you're seeing from Obama is a deliberate political calculation that essentially blowing up the government rather than letting the GOP have their opportunity to turn things around is better for the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

 

[Carla_Danger]

These guys would be drummed out of the GOP is they said things like this today.

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed - different plans have to be made. And the kernal here is the acknowlegement of defeat.
William F Buckley

Freedom is an indivisible word. If we want to enjoy it, and fight for it, we must be prepared to extend it to everyone, whether they are rich or poor, whether they agree with us or not, no matter what their race or the color of their skin
Wendell Willkie

Theodore Roosevelt was a decent Republican.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

These guys would be drummed out of the GOP is they said things like this today.

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed - different plans have to be made. And the kernal here is the acknowlegement of defeat.
William F Buckley

Freedom is an indivisible word. If we want to enjoy it, and fight for it, we must be prepared to extend it to everyone, whether they are rich or poor, whether they agree with us or not, no matter what their race or the color of their skin
Wendell Willkie

True.

Before the advent of the bane of social conservatism, most republicans respected individual liberty and sought responsible governance.

Today they have contempt for individual liberty and have become reckless and irresponsible.

 

[bripat9643]

These guys would be drummed out of the GOP is they said things like this today.

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed - different plans have to be made. And the kernal here is the acknowlegement of defeat.
William F Buckley

Freedom is an indivisible word. If we want to enjoy it, and fight for it, we must be prepared to extend it to everyone, whether they are rich or poor, whether they agree with us or not, no matter what their race or the color of their skin
Wendell Willkie

True.

Before the advent of the bane of social conservatism, most republicans respected individual liberty and sought responsible governance.

Today they have contempt for individual liberty and have become reckless and irresponsible.

So what do Social Security, Medicare and welfare have to do with individual liberty? They are the exact opposite of individual liberty.

 

[BluesLegend]

Liberals have their own dictionary. You're naive if you believe they apply the same meanings to words that normal people use. The point of liberal speech is to deceive, not communicate.

Liberals lying has spiraled out of control, they really have reached the creepy stage.

 

[AntiParty]

These guys would be drummed out of the GOP is they said things like this today.

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed - different plans have to be made. And the kernal here is the acknowlegement of defeat.
William F Buckley

Freedom is an indivisible word. If we want to enjoy it, and fight for it, we must be prepared to extend it to everyone, whether they are rich or poor, whether they agree with us or not, no matter what their race or the color of their skin
Wendell Willkie

LOL!

The First Lady made a statement to the American people not long ago that they should drink 1 more glass of water each day. Her statement was met with a multi-media war machine attacking her as a tyrannical being trying to CONTROL the American people. They stated that Science was not on her side! As it turned out those particular media sources were not good at science, facts or politics. Still aren't.

They tried to paint her as a dictator that wanted to raise the suggested number of glasses of water when in fact she never even mentioned the # of glasses.

She simply noticed the # of Americans with dehydration and lead by example and the idiots painted her as Hitler.