Welcome to the USSA

The only thing more repulsive than this President's administration is the fact the Republican party is in bed with him out of pure fear.

REALLY?

Then where does the "party of NO!" routine come from?

Current Republican strategy appears to be to oppose
everything in the hopes in the hopes that everything goes sour.

Then they can do the White Knight act and get another turn at the trough in 2010 or 2012.

(I added a/c to my Flame suite tonight!)
 
Last edited:
Dude, my resolution is to contribute dollar for dollar my increases in taxes. For every dollar my taxes go up, I contribute the same amount to the republican party.
 
Calm down captains! So we hit a rogue wave in 2009. All we need to do is repair any damage in 2010, and set sail for Home in 2012. If Europeans can do it so can we.
 
Who ever said that Bush was a conservative?

Calm down captains! So we hit a rogue wave in 2009. All we need to do is repair any damage in 2010, and set sail for Home in 2012. If Europeans can do it so can we.

Elreyos; You are assuming that we get a set of suitable Republican candidates in 2010 and 2012. As Frank points out, the Republicans don't always put conservatives into office. President Bush originally campaigned against many of the policies he advocated in office.
 
Are there any true conservatives here? Anyone? Bueller?

Look - if you define a "conservative" as "somebody who dislikes or complains about liberals and/or democrats", then we got a million of those. But if you define a conservative as somebody who adheres to a certain set of conservative principals, then I haven't met many of them in the last 10 years.

Conservatives would never go for "borrow and spend" (Bush doubled national debt), or for nation building (i.e. Iraq), or big-government state run health programs (i.e. Prescription drug program), or local intrusion by federal government (i.e. No child left behind), or farm subsidies (up to 50% of Ethanol production was subsidized under Bush), or socialization of our government (i.e. Bush passed the first $700 Billion stimulus), or big government in general (i.e. Bush increased US budget by 50%), or liberal activist judges (i.e. Harriet Meyers was a close call).

And one more thing - did anybody notice the source of that article? It was from the New York Times which I thought no true conservative would ever believe in? I guess it's convenient to pick and choose when you want to believe in a certain principal, but I believe in these no matter who's in office.

I've been waiting over 20 years for a real conservative president. Obama and Bush have different styles - but they're both big government, big spending presidents and they are both to blame for the problems in America today.


Very well said! :smt038
 
Elreyos; You are assuming that we get a set of suitable Republican candidates in 2010 and 2012. As Frank points out, the Republicans don't always put conservatives into office. President Bush originally campaigned against many of the policies he advocated in office.
True, but this time the path is clear. The Republicans must stick to the fundamentals. None of that middle ground stuff that cost them the election. Remember Obama was loosing ground in the late summer. The more he spoke the more trouble he got into. In fact he was trailing until the financial crisis hit. If Mckain (spelling?) hadn't lost his mind things mite have turned out differently. I'm not saying McKain was the right guy, he wasn't but I don't think he would be trying to destroy capitilism. Mckain should have gone on the attack instead of trying to be Mr. nice guy. Obama is repeating his performance. The Right must hold him accountable and not let up.
 
[We] are merely sheep at the beck and call of the sheepherders who have pit you to take sides while they play the blame game to keep you occupied

Unfortunately, there's truth in that.

The answer to 99% of all questions is 'money' You need votes to get elected, but you need money to get your message to the voters. Money is not free, so most of the legislation that is passed goes to support the donors of the political parties. To make things even more complicated, most corporations will contribute to BOTH political parties in order to increase their odds. That's why don't see a lot of difference in the two parties.

Sure they get voter support with these "kitchen table" issues (i.e. guns, taxes, global warming, torture, gays, etc), but the vast majority of their time and the legislation goes to support the political donors, and NOT to the issues that voters like us care about. I think you'd have to make some changes to the way the political system works before you see government responding to the people.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, there's truth in that.

The answer to 99% of all questions is 'money' You need votes to get elected, but you need money to get your message to the voters. Money is not free, so most of the legislation that is passed goes to support the donors of the political parties. To make things even more complicated, most corporations will contribute to BOTH political parties in order to increase their odds. That's why don't see a lot of difference in the two parties.

Sure they get voter support with these "kitchen table" issues (i.e. guns, taxes, global warming, torture, gays, etc), but the vast majority of their time and the legislation goes to support the political donors, and NOT to the issues that voters like us care about. I think you'd have to make some changes to the way the political system works before you see government responding to the people.

That is one half of the answer the other is that the politicians pander to those making lower incomes, the ones on the dole, etc. and most of them buy into it, "something for nothing," and soon to be the 12 million illegal aliens who will be given voter rights, Social Security benefits even though they have not paid a dime into it, be eligible fro IRS tax refunds, many without having paid any taxes either and also eligible for unearned income tax credit. A form of vote buying no matter how you slice it. So if one third of the populace does not vote, then you only need to obtain 50% of the remaining 2/3'rds. to get elected. :huh:

This could be changed, but I doubt it will, if for no other reason then this;

Purposeful ignorance and mental laziness, the world's two most deadly maladies, at least stupid people have a defense which the others cannot say they have.
 
3star.gif
ThumbsUp.gif
ThumbsDwn.gif
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.
as5.gif
Abraham Lincoln quotes (American 16th US President (1861-65)


Some believe this quote means violently, some believe at the ballot box, I believe the latter!
 
This country is being ran by a bunch of idiots. If you do not like capitolism than move. It is simple as that. We do not need a president to go halfway across the globe to apologize for the US. This truely shows how arrogant this man is. If you ask me, him and his democratic congress are the true terrorist of this country.
 
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.


Some believe this quote means violently, some believe at the ballot box, I believe the latter!

Revolutionary refers to armed revolution, just as was done in the revolutionary war. This maps quite closely to many Jeffersonian quotes along the same lines. Furthermore you can't overthrow the form of this government via a ballot. Even reforming it via a Constitutional Convention is in the Constitution, therefore he would have had no reason to make a distinction between constitutional right or revolutionary right as they would be the same.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
112,945
Messages
1,422,737
Members
60,928
Latest member
rkaleda
Back
Top