What is going on with the Republican party?

[Dr.House]

Biden would have beaten McCain.

Not buying it...

You just hate Obama

I hate no man or woman...

I hate Marxism, though...

 

[nodoginnafight]

I hate no man or woman...

Your posts suggest otherwise, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are unwilling to extend to others .....

 

[nodoginnafight]

Quote: Originally Posted by nodoginnafight
Biden would have beaten McCain.
Not buying it...

Doesn't matter who buys what - NO Republican was going to win in 2008

 

[Dr.House]

I hate no man or woman...

Your posts suggest otherwise, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are unwilling to extend to others .....

My posts show a strong opposition to Marxism and socialism and those who want it to prosper... Opposition != hate...

 

[JimH52]

A concept that will sail over the heads of many brain-dead democratics...

But a concept that will keep the moderates and independents voting against you ....

Pandering to the moderates and independents was tried (McLame) and it failed miserably... Turns out they don't want someone middle-of-the-road... They want someone who'll stand for something and not be a "friend to all"...

The GOP will do well if they find a conservative candidate that believes in a more right-leaning direction... Unafraid to profess those beliefs...

Left-leaning moderates tend to vote for left-leaning candidates anyway, so when one as flaming leftist as Barry Hussein entered the ring, the choice was obvious... Now we're all seeing how much of a mistake that was...

Listen to what you are saying. You are saying that the GOP needs to remain the party of "exclusion." That hasn't work very well in the past, has it? Moderates and Independents will either save or doom the GOP. It is really left up to the RNC.

If you want right wing leaners who agree on all the GOP talking points, that is what you will get. You will win the battle but lose the war.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If you want right wing leaners who agree on all the GOP talking points, that is what you will get. You will win the battle but lose the war.

I was a registered Republican for most of my adult life. Attended more Lincoln Day Dinners than I care to count. But that is exactly how they lost me - pandering to the radical right. Apparently they lost a whole lot of others like me as well.

BTW - I don't like pandering to the radical left any better

 

[Dr.House]

But a concept that will keep the moderates and independents voting against you ....

Pandering to the moderates and independents was tried (McLame) and it failed miserably... Turns out they don't want someone middle-of-the-road... They want someone who'll stand for something and not be a "friend to all"...

The GOP will do well if they find a conservative candidate that believes in a more right-leaning direction... Unafraid to profess those beliefs...

Left-leaning moderates tend to vote for left-leaning candidates anyway, so when one as flaming leftist as Barry Hussein entered the ring, the choice was obvious... Now we're all seeing how much of a mistake that was...

Listen to what you are saying. You are saying that the GOP needs to remain the party of "exclusion." That hasn't work very well in the past, has it? Moderates and Independents will either save or doom the GOP. It is really left up to the RNC.

If you want right wing leaners who agree on all the GOP talking points, that is what you will get. You will win the battle but lose the war.

If you concentrate on what I actually said and not what you wanted me to say, it would make more sense to you...

 

[nodoginnafight]

If you concentrate on what I actually said and not what you wanted me to say, it would make more sense to you...

Didn't for me

 

[JimH52]

This sounds like "exclusion" to me...

The GOP will do well if they find a conservative candidate that believes in a more right-leaning direction... Unafraid to profess those beliefs...

 

[nodoginnafight]

This sounds like "exclusion" to me...

To be fair - political parties are instruments of exclusion by definition. They are - theoretically anyway - organizations devoted to a certain set of political principles. People who don't adhere to those principles will not find a happy home in that party.

All well and good.

And if the Republican Party wants to remain the party of the 27% of Americans who belong to the radical right, then they have every right to do that. They will never be able to play a significant role in public policy that way - but it's THEIR CLUB, they can do what they want.

 

[Intense]

This sounds like "exclusion" to me...

To be fair - political parties are instruments of exclusion by definition. They are - theoretically anyway - organizations devoted to a certain set of political principles. People who don't adhere to those principles will not find a happy home in that party.

All well and good.

And if the Republican Party wants to remain the party of the 27% of Americans who belong to the radical right, then they have every right to do that. They will never be able to play a significant role in public policy that way - but it's THEIR CLUB, they can do what they want.

Conservatism, represents those that subscribe to Government by the Consent of the Governed. That translates to enumerated Powers, expansion only by consent. The Individual, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, the treasure to be protected.

Liberalism, has adopted State ism, like Alexander Hamilton, the Government is the Treasure, which we need to save us from ourselves. Our Political contribution limited to our keepers, on election day, our meditation, compliance to obeying the law. Free to agree, to repeat, to draw within the lines. There is Privilege, Relative and Arbitrary Justice here that is above question or criticism. There is a class system.

Personally I see two enemies to The Constitution.

First, because it is most damaging, by nature of It's Power, which becomes absolute, is the Tyranny of The State.

Second is the Partnership with Government and Giant Corporate interest, which results in the Oligarchy State, where by Contract, Monopoly, and unfair Trade practices we are all manipulated and controlled. Government will also run cover for Corporate screw-ups, while appearing to serve Justice. My personal belief is that the bottom line , too often takes preference to honorable resolution, joint loss the focus over corrective action.

Companies we can sometimes fight, or refuse to do business with, Government can effectively do what it wills. That makes Government Tyranny the bigger threat.

What is your first response to the term "New Government Mandate"?

A). Dirty Word.
B). Compliance.

I submit that The Very Term is more viewed as an offense.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Conservatism, represents those that subscribe to Government by the Consent of the Governed.

This is incorrect. Conservatism describes a political phgilosophy that is committed to maintaining the staus quo.

Liberalism, has adopted State ism, like Alexander Hamilton, the Government is the Treasure, which we need to save us from ourselves.

This is also incorrect - Liberalism describes a political philosophy that is committed to enacting change.

Some folks have tried to re-define these terms to suit their own political agenda. But it is very dishonest. As is all attempts to define someone else's position for them.

 

[Dr.House]

If you concentrate on what I actually said and not what you wanted me to say, it would make more sense to you...

Didn't for me

I'm not surprised...

The blind never see... The deaf never hear...


It would be cool if you could figure out how to use the quote button so that people know who you are quoting... If you need help, ask...

 

[Intense]

Conservatism, represents those that subscribe to Government by the Consent of the Governed.

This is incorrect. Conservatism describes a political phgilosophy that is committed to maintaining the staus quo.

Liberalism, has adopted State ism, like Alexander Hamilton, the Government is the Treasure, which we need to save us from ourselves.

This is also incorrect - Liberalism describes a political philosophy that is committed to enacting change.

Some folks have tried to re-define these terms to suit their own political agenda. But it is very dishonest. As is all attempts to define someone else's position for them.

Dogma.
We disagree on both points.

What is change? You act like Lib's coined it and own it?
Maybe you own change for the sake of change? Change without Purpose or Direction? Change without Insight or understanding of consequence, or unintended damage? Your intentions are no excuse for wrong action or incompetence.

From the perspective of Conservatism, You want change? Justify, show Cause, map out the plan and refine it. Check and recheck. Amend, adjust, adapt. The Construct by definition should serve the purpose for it's being.

These are my personal perspectives? what are yours?

 

[bodecea]

This sounds like "exclusion" to me...

To be fair - political parties are instruments of exclusion by definition. They are - theoretically anyway - organizations devoted to a certain set of political principles. People who don't adhere to those principles will not find a happy home in that party.

All well and good.

And if the Republican Party wants to remain the party of the 27% of Americans who belong to the radical right, then they have every right to do that. They will never be able to play a significant role in public policy that way - but it's THEIR CLUB, they can do what they want.

Conservatism, represents those that subscribe to Government by the Consent of the Governed. That translates to enumerated Powers, expansion only by consent. The Individual, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, the treasure to be protected.

Liberalism, has adopted State ism, like Alexander Hamilton, the Government is the Treasure, which we need to save us from ourselves. Our Political contribution limited to our keepers, on election day, our meditation, compliance to obeying the law. Free to agree, to repeat, to draw within the lines. There is Privilege, Relative and Arbitrary Justice here that is above question or criticism. There is a class system.

Personally I see two enemies to The Constitution.

First, because it is most damaging, by nature of It's Power, which becomes absolute, is the Tyranny of The State.

Second is the Partnership with Government and Giant Corporate interest, which results in the Oligarchy State, where by Contract, Monopoly, and unfair Trade practices we are all manipulated and controlled. Government will also run cover for Corporate screw-ups, while appearing to serve Justice. My personal belief is that the bottom line , too often takes preference to honorable resolution, joint loss the focus over corrective action.

Companies we can sometimes fight, or refuse to do business with, Government can effectively do what it wills. That makes Government Tyranny the bigger threat.

What is your first response to the term "New Government Mandate"?

A). Dirty Word.
B). Compliance.

I submit that The Very Term is more viewed as an offense.

Interesting historical revisionism. Hamilton was the ultra Conservative of his day.

 

[Intense]

To be fair - political parties are instruments of exclusion by definition. They are - theoretically anyway - organizations devoted to a certain set of political principles. People who don't adhere to those principles will not find a happy home in that party.

All well and good.

And if the Republican Party wants to remain the party of the 27% of Americans who belong to the radical right, then they have every right to do that. They will never be able to play a significant role in public policy that way - but it's THEIR CLUB, they can do what they want.

Conservatism, represents those that subscribe to Government by the Consent of the Governed. That translates to enumerated Powers, expansion only by consent. The Individual, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, the treasure to be protected.

Liberalism, has adopted State ism, like Alexander Hamilton, the Government is the Treasure, which we need to save us from ourselves. Our Political contribution limited to our keepers, on election day, our meditation, compliance to obeying the law. Free to agree, to repeat, to draw within the lines. There is Privilege, Relative and Arbitrary Justice here that is above question or criticism. There is a class system.

Personally I see two enemies to The Constitution.

First, because it is most damaging, by nature of It's Power, which becomes absolute, is the Tyranny of The State.

Second is the Partnership with Government and Giant Corporate interest, which results in the Oligarchy State, where by Contract, Monopoly, and unfair Trade practices we are all manipulated and controlled. Government will also run cover for Corporate screw-ups, while appearing to serve Justice. My personal belief is that the bottom line , too often takes preference to honorable resolution, joint loss the focus over corrective action.

Companies we can sometimes fight, or refuse to do business with, Government can effectively do what it wills. That makes Government Tyranny the bigger threat.

What is your first response to the term "New Government Mandate"?

A). Dirty Word.
B). Compliance.

I submit that The Very Term is more viewed as an offense.

Interesting historical revisionism. Hamilton was the ultra Conservative of his day.

Hamilton was an Imperialist, that feared the Populace. He Corrupted both Washington's and Adam's administrations. He corroborated with the British against the US by leaking information to them. He corrupted the wording of the Constitution, He was responsible for The Alien and Sedition Acts, He was an adversary of both Jefferson and Madison.

I don't blame you for your education, so don't take it personal.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Hamilton was an Imperialist, that feared the Populace. He Corrupted both Washington's and Adam's administrations. He corroborated with the British against the US by leaking information to them. He corrupted the wording of the Constitution, He was responsible for The Alien and Sedition Acts, He was an adversary of both Jefferson and Madison.

I don't blame you for your education, so don't take it personal.

Actually since Hamilton supported the status quo - British rule - he was mostly certainly a conservative.

Trying to imply that someone who doesn't accept your attempt to re-define terms somehow suffers from inadequate education is extremely dishonest. In fact, it provokes a lot more question about YOUR education than anyone else's.

 

[Intense]

We did not live under British Rule at the Time. We were under the Articles of Confederation. We were a Sovereign Nation. You are starting to scare me. Read up, get some background.

Personally there is little about him Hamilton respect. He lived the belief that the end justified the means, he was an addict for power, for it's own sake, Big on Taxing anything he could get away with. He reversed himself on the meaning of 3 key Principles, after getting the Constitution Ratified. One of which was Enumerated Powers. Funny that he was against the Bill of Rights, claiming that they were unnecessary, and then later reversed his position on Enumerated Powers. Scoundrel, Schemer, Putz.

 

[Intense]

Hamilton was an Imperialist, that feared the Populace. He Corrupted both Washington's and Adam's administrations. He corroborated with the British against the US by leaking information to them. He corrupted the wording of the Constitution, He was responsible for The Alien and Sedition Acts, He was an adversary of both Jefferson and Madison.

I don't blame you for your education, so don't take it personal.

Actually since Hamilton supported the status quo - British rule - he was mostly certainly a conservative.

Trying to imply that someone who doesn't accept your attempt to re-define terms somehow suffers from inadequate education is extremely dishonest. In fact, it provokes a lot more question about YOUR education than anyone else's.

You are mis characterizing what I said. Our Education was and is lacking by design. Your understanding and your facts about Hamilton are minimal at best. He hit a nerve with me and I did my homework. Bottom line is He was a Stateist. Obama is a Stateist. DNC is Statist. Centralized Government Control.

 

[bodecea]

Conservatism, represents those that subscribe to Government by the Consent of the Governed. That translates to enumerated Powers, expansion only by consent. The Individual, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, the treasure to be protected.

Liberalism, has adopted State ism, like Alexander Hamilton, the Government is the Treasure, which we need to save us from ourselves. Our Political contribution limited to our keepers, on election day, our meditation, compliance to obeying the law. Free to agree, to repeat, to draw within the lines. There is Privilege, Relative and Arbitrary Justice here that is above question or criticism. There is a class system.

Personally I see two enemies to The Constitution.

First, because it is most damaging, by nature of It's Power, which becomes absolute, is the Tyranny of The State.

Second is the Partnership with Government and Giant Corporate interest, which results in the Oligarchy State, where by Contract, Monopoly, and unfair Trade practices we are all manipulated and controlled. Government will also run cover for Corporate screw-ups, while appearing to serve Justice. My personal belief is that the bottom line , too often takes preference to honorable resolution, joint loss the focus over corrective action.

Companies we can sometimes fight, or refuse to do business with, Government can effectively do what it wills. That makes Government Tyranny the bigger threat.

What is your first response to the term "New Government Mandate"?

A). Dirty Word.
B). Compliance.

I submit that The Very Term is more viewed as an offense.

Interesting historical revisionism. Hamilton was the ultra Conservative of his day.

Hamilton was an Imperialist, that feared the Populace. He Corrupted both Washington's and Adam's administrations. He corroborated with the British against the US by leaking information to them. He corrupted the wording of the Constitution, He was responsible for The Alien and Sedition Acts, He was an adversary of both Jefferson and Madison.

I don't blame you for your education, so don't take it personal.

Thank you for backing up my assertion of Hamilton being a conservative. In that time and age, don't get more Conservative than the Brits. (aka Tories)