asian malaysian
Avatar Kyoshi
Let me hear you say this ship is bananas! B-A-NA-N-A-S!
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by asian malaysian on Oct 7, 2008 20:11:40 GMT -5
I support conservative ideals and I think that right now Obama sounds more conservative than McCain. I have never agreed with Obama's stand on the war and doubt that I ever will but there are greater issues in Obama's vision on what America stands for as a nation and the kind of leadership it must show that I do agree with and support.
|
|
The Blue Chibi
Cabbage Merchant
you cannot push the river... nor can you hold it back
Posts: 4,130
|
Post by The Blue Chibi on Oct 15, 2008 14:26:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Lt. Dan on Oct 16, 2008 8:00:23 GMT -5
I feel bad for all you people who support conservative ideals regarding the war and the economy, because while conservatism may be based upon perfectly legitimate interpretations of the constitution, your party was hijacked by the most disgusting kind of people imaginable. Are you referring to people like Bush, Cheney etc. or average Republican people like me? I believe he is referring to the fact that the republican party has been overrun with conservatives whose main focus is imposing their religious fundamentalist beliefs on others. This is a monumental blunder that the republicans brought upon themselves when they started trying to win elections, rather than promoting policy. It has watered down and forfeited the principals that the republican party really stands for.
|
|
historyman12
Fugitive Iroh
IS IT JULY 14TH YET?
Posts: 4,822
|
Post by historyman12 on Oct 16, 2008 18:19:10 GMT -5
I feel bad for all you people who support conservative ideals regarding the war and the economy, because while conservatism may be based upon perfectly legitimate interpretations of the constitution, your party was hijacked by the most disgusting kind of people imaginable. Are you referring to people like Bush, Cheney etc. or average Republican people like me? I believe he is referring to the fact that the republican party has been overrun with conservatives whose main focus is imposing their religious fundamentalist beliefs on others. This is a monumental blunder that the republicans brought upon themselves when they started trying to win elections, rather than promoting policy. It has watered down and forfeited the principals that the republican party really stands for. The Republican party was overrun by conservatives...I see. Not like that's ever happened before, in the history of the Republican party. And intend on forcing their beliefs on others? Sir, if politics and government is not about the propagation of one set of beliefs, then it is nothing. Republicans are also trying to win elections. This revelation is truly Earth shattering. I thought all Republicans followed McCain's model, but they had all failed. And to the apparent accusation that the Republican party isn't promoting their ideas...that really leaves me speechless. And to say that the Republican party must always stand for what it once stood for, is preposterous. While I am, of course, not decrying the end of slavery and segregation, I simply find ridiculous the insinuation that the Republican party doesn't "truly" stand for what clearly and obviously does.
|
|
|
Post by luthien on Oct 16, 2008 22:02:03 GMT -5
Which is...? I think what both Kaneda and Lt. Dan have said, much more articulately than I, is that the Republican party right now is suffering an identity crisis. And Lt. Dan made it perfectly clear that the problem was conservatives trying to foist their *religious* beliefs on others - which is absolutely *not* what any politics, at least in America, should ever be about. No state-endorsed religion, remember?
|
|
|
Post by username on Oct 16, 2008 23:03:56 GMT -5
I have no problem with people saying "deregulate the economy" or whatever, but ultimately it's the republican party that gets mad at Obama for criticizing people shouting "kill him" and such, and the republican party that consistently stoops to mudslinging and appealing to the lowest common denominator of US citizens. And don't say "all politicians act ____," I certainly have problems with the democrats, but none of those problems go to the extremes the conservatives have gone to.
|
|
|
Post by Lt. Dan on Oct 16, 2008 23:08:47 GMT -5
That's nice. Try to bring a little more substance to the table next time. My post is backed by the fact that the republicans figured out that image won them elections, not policy. They figured this out during Regan's tenure. The general public couldn't tell you much about Regan's directives, but they liked him. They liked his image. The republican party now soley relies on providing lip service to win their elections. Lip service that plays right into the hands of fundamentalists and "Joe Six Pack" that don't have the slightest clue about what the real republican ideals are: unobtrusive government and a (modified!) free market economy. Religion and your 'right' to cheap gasoline have nothing to do with it. If you are a smart fundamentalist (lol, oxymoron?) or "Plummer Joe" then you should actually feel insulted that they played you to gain the swing vote to win elections. They are not the republican party anymore, and they really could care less about what your needs are. It all revolves around a sense of entitlement. Now, I am not naive enough to believe that the democrats don't rely on lip service. Of course they do. They just underestimated the importance of having a shiny bauble that people want versus having someone with a legitimate agenda.
|
|
|
Post by username on Oct 16, 2008 23:33:01 GMT -5
Now, I am not naive enough to believe that the democrats don't rely on lip service. Of course they do. They just underestimated the importance of having a shiny bauble that people want versus having someone with a legitimate agenda. inb4 Obama is more style over substance than McCain. From watching the debates I was able to get a much better understanding of Obama's policies than McCain's, whose propositions seemed rather vague and repetitive for someone running on the experience platform.
|
|
historyman12
Fugitive Iroh
IS IT JULY 14TH YET?
Posts: 4,822
|
Post by historyman12 on Oct 17, 2008 17:28:58 GMT -5
Which is...? I think what both Kaneda and Lt. Dan have said, much more articulately than I, is that the Republican party right now is suffering an identity crisis. And Lt. Dan made it perfectly clear that the problem was conservatives trying to foist their *religious* beliefs on others - which is absolutely *not* what any politics, at least in America, should ever be about. No state-endorsed religion, remember? In response to the "which is...?" I'll state what seems to be the answer. 1. The Republican party used to be quite Libertarian, and it has now taken on an (obviously) conservative meaning. It's been this way since the 1930's. 2. On the subject of religion, the First Amendment states only: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. When translated into modern day English, it sounds (noticeably less poetic) like this: Congress will not establish any state religion, nor prohibit any kind of religious worship, Congress will not limit freedom of the press, or the right of peaceful gathering and protest. @lt. Dan: Thank you for the beautiful summary of my remarks.
|
|
|
Post by luthien on Oct 17, 2008 18:36:48 GMT -5
Which is...? I think what both Kaneda and Lt. Dan have said, much more articulately than I, is that the Republican party right now is suffering an identity crisis. And Lt. Dan made it perfectly clear that the problem was conservatives trying to foist their *religious* beliefs on others - which is absolutely *not* what any politics, at least in America, should ever be about. No state-endorsed religion, remember? In response to the "which is...?" I'll state what seems to be the answer. 1. The Republican party used to be quite Libertarian, and it has now taken on an (obviously) conservative meaning. It's been this way since the 1930's. 2. On the subject of religion, the First Amendment states only: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. When translated into modern day English, it sounds (noticeably less poetic) like this: Congress will not establish any state religion, nor prohibit any kind of religious worship, Congress will not limit freedom of the press, or the right of peaceful gathering and protest. @lt. Dan: Thank you for the beautiful summary of my remarks. I know the Republican party has espoused conservative ideals for decades now, but you can't say they've been fiscally conservative lately, which is one of the big selling points the party had with moderates. Republicans have been spending money just as much as Democrats, and it's hurt their street cred, so to speak. And their so-called social conservatism is just that - lip service, to win elections. It's not a conviction if you don't follow through (not that I would want them to follow through with them, mind you, but still). As for the statement about religion - isn't that pretty much what I said? I said, "No state-endorsed religion," which is what you spent two paragraphs explaining. I think I've got it. Also - Lt. Dan was very respectful to you, no need to be so snarky back to him. And from my perspective, he wasn't reiterating your points chapter and verse, so it's not fair at all to dismiss his very articulate argument that way.
|
|
historyman12
Fugitive Iroh
IS IT JULY 14TH YET?
Posts: 4,822
|
Post by historyman12 on Oct 17, 2008 19:48:26 GMT -5
In response to the "which is...?" I'll state what seems to be the answer. 1. The Republican party used to be quite Libertarian, and it has now taken on an (obviously) conservative meaning. It's been this way since the 1930's. 2. On the subject of religion, the First Amendment states only: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. When translated into modern day English, it sounds (noticeably less poetic) like this: Congress will not establish any state religion, nor prohibit any kind of religious worship, Congress will not limit freedom of the press, or the right of peaceful gathering and protest. @lt. Dan: Thank you for the beautiful summary of my remarks. I know the Republican party has espoused conservative ideals for decades now, but you can't say they've been fiscally conservative lately, which is one of the big selling points the party had with moderates. Republicans have been spending money just as much as Democrats, and it's hurt their street cred, so to speak. And their so-called social conservatism is just that - lip service, to win elections. It's not a conviction if you don't follow through (not that I would want them to follow through with them, mind you, but still). As for the statement about religion - isn't that pretty much what I said? I said, "No state-endorsed religion," which is what you spent two paragraphs explaining. I think I've got it. Also - Lt. Dan was very respectful to you, no need to be so snarky back to him. And from my perspective, he wasn't reiterating your points chapter and verse, so it's not fair at all to dismiss his very articulate argument that way. Social conservatism is lip service now? Did I miss something? And yes, the Republican Party hasn't been particularly fiscally conservative of late, but McCain has promised a spending freeze. And I'm not entirely sure translating my argument as "Blah blah blah" is particularly respectful.
|
|
|
Post by luthien on Oct 17, 2008 21:14:23 GMT -5
Social conservatism is largely lip service, as far as I'm concerned. The Republicans talk about it a lot during election years, but when they're over and done with, that stuff is the first to get brushed aside. President Bush made a lot of promises to the Christian Right as a candidate, but did little to fulfill those promises once in office. Which is pretty standard going, as far as politics goes, but still - it's a bait and switch that I'm surprised people haven't caught onto yet.
As for the spending freeze, that sounds nice - but with wars on two fronts, and a still-faltering economy, exactly how is that going to work? The money has to come from somewhere...
|
|
|
Post by username on Oct 17, 2008 22:12:50 GMT -5
Come to think of it, from the conservatives, all I've been picking up on lately is "OBAMA WANTS TO TAX ALL THE POOR PEOPLE MAKING A QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR." And "lol Obama what r u fining people for not doing ur commie health care" thing in the 2nd debate. And then him asking it again in the 3rd debate. Because he's old and senile.
|
|
|
Post by Lt. Dan on Oct 18, 2008 0:39:30 GMT -5
Just for the record, I quoted you with "blah..." historyman because your post did not make any compelling arguments and was quite condescending. Unlike you, I remember both parties going back to Jimmy Carter, and the republicans have changed over the years (for the worse).
To condense my debatable point down in case I was too wordy: The republican's have almost completely lost focus in promoting candidates who represent republican ideals. They only want to win the vote. Luthien has pretty much covered the rest...
|
|
historyman12
Fugitive Iroh
IS IT JULY 14TH YET?
Posts: 4,822
|
Post by historyman12 on Oct 18, 2008 10:15:45 GMT -5
Social conservatism is largely lip service, as far as I'm concerned. The Republicans talk about it a lot during election years, but when they're over and done with, that stuff is the first to get brushed aside. President Bush made a lot of promises to the Christian Right as a candidate, but did little to fulfill those promises once in office. Which is pretty standard going, as far as politics goes, but still - it's a bait and switch that I'm surprised people haven't caught onto yet. As for the spending freeze, that sounds nice - but with wars on two fronts, and a still-faltering economy, exactly how is that going to work? The money has to come from somewhere... Well, it's actually rather hard to get many things promised done. For example, the oft promised abortion ban requires a very painstaking process. Bush (as an example) was, however able to pass a partial abortion ban, and the Supreme Court to overturn the DC gun ban. The spending freeze will also be temporary and will be used to help eliminate wasteful programs. @kaneda: Many small businesses do gross over $250,000 per year, and I believe that in several industries, such as housing and lumber, the cutoff for a small business is in the millions. And I honestly cannot understand this sentence: "lol Obama what r u fining people for not doing ur commie health care" @lt. Dan: The Republican party is generally viewed to have begun it's neoconservative shift with Barry Goldwater, and largely completed it with Reagan, elected in 1980 against Carter.
|
|