Current state of the GOP

[techs]

Funny the Republicans want to shrink government to the size where it just fits into my bedroom.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Nope, not angry at all. But atleast you woke up and actually read my post.

So, specifically how has the republican party become too socially liberal? I still see no answer. I get that you say they are, but I see no examples, or details or any info at all to back that up.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Nope, not angry at all. But atleast you woke up and actually read my post.

So, specifically how has the republican party become too socially liberal? I still see no answer. I get that you say they are, but I see no examples, or details or any info at all to back that up.

I've already answered that like I've stated.

lue for you - Yes, Bush and too many in the GOP have been too liberal on ALL fronts. FAR too many RINOs and spineless GOP members held sway in the GOP. Bush, the RINOs and the liberals haven't met any spending they haven't supported in the past 8 years. They've also given into the liberal views socially as they haven't pushed these ideals because they wanted to be too "nice" and thus didn't stand up for their core beliefs. They allowed the liberals to set the premise of too many discussions and didn't challenge those premises when they were dead wrong.

So to dumb it down for you(and others) - they were too liberal by default since they did not stand up for Conservative ideals nor challenge many liberal premises. Accepting fringe liberal premises is dangerous as once it's assumed it's many time too late.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Nope, not angry at all. But atleast you woke up and actually read my post.

So, specifically how has the republican party become too socially liberal? I still see no answer. I get that you say they are, but I see no examples, or details or any info at all to back that up.

I've already answered that like I've stated.

lue for you - Yes, Bush and too many in the GOP have been too liberal on ALL fronts. FAR too many RINOs and spineless GOP members held sway in the GOP. Bush, the RINOs and the liberals haven't met any spending they haven't supported in the past 8 years. They've also given into the liberal views socially as they haven't pushed these ideals because they wanted to be too "nice" and thus didn't stand up for their core beliefs. They allowed the liberals to set the premise of too many discussions and didn't challenge those premises when they were dead wrong.

So to dumb it down for you(and others) - they were too liberal by default since they did not stand up for Conservative ideals nor challenge many liberal premises. Accepting fringe liberal premises is dangerous as once it's assumed it's many time too late.

Yes, I read that, thanks for "dumbing it down" for me [/rolls eyes]... Here is the point you seem to be missing. You mentioned "too liberal", but there were no specifics... Being "too liberal" is a label. Pointing out steps, votes, or descisions that were made that are too liberal is a specific..

"they've also given into the liberal views socially as they haven't pushed these ideals because they wanted to be too nice" - What did they give in to, and what didnt' they push?

"they were too liberal by default since they did not stand up for Conservative ideals nor challenge many liberal premises" - What did they do that was too liberal by default? What did they not stand up for and what did they not challenge?

Are you not understanding the question, do you not know what specific means, or are you just avoiding answering? I have seen enough of youyr posts to know you are an intelligent person, so I have to assume you are avoiding.

 

[Red Dawn]

Bump for merge

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Nope, not angry at all. But atleast you woke up and actually read my post.

So, specifically how has the republican party become too socially liberal? I still see no answer. I get that you say they are, but I see no examples, or details or any info at all to back that up.

I've already answered that like I've stated.

lue for you - Yes, Bush and too many in the GOP have been too liberal on ALL fronts. FAR too many RINOs and spineless GOP members held sway in the GOP. Bush, the RINOs and the liberals haven't met any spending they haven't supported in the past 8 years. They've also given into the liberal views socially as they haven't pushed these ideals because they wanted to be too "nice" and thus didn't stand up for their core beliefs. They allowed the liberals to set the premise of too many discussions and didn't challenge those premises when they were dead wrong.

So to dumb it down for you(and others) - they were too liberal by default since they did not stand up for Conservative ideals nor challenge many liberal premises. Accepting fringe liberal premises is dangerous as once it's assumed it's many time too late.

Yes, I read that, thanks for "dumbing it down" for me [/rolls eyes]... Here is the point you seem to be missing. You mentioned "too liberal", but there were no specifics... Being "too liberal" is a label. Pointing out steps, votes, or descisions that were made that are too liberal is a specific..

"they've also given into the liberal views socially as they haven't pushed these ideals because they wanted to be too nice" - What did they give in to, and what didnt' they push?

"they were too liberal by default since they did not stand up for Conservative ideals nor challenge many liberal premises" - What did they do that was too liberal by default? What did they not stand up for and what did they not challenge?

Are you not understanding the question, do you not know what specific means, or are you just avoiding answering? I have seen enough of youyr posts to know you are an intelligent person, so I have to assume you are avoiding.

READ what I posted. Take it all together as it was written. Then read the dumbed down version(which still might not be dumbed down enough for the likes of you). It's all there if you'd actually look and try to read/comprehend.

Sheesh. You can whine about "specifics" if you wish but it doesn't change my statements. I didn't state they were specifically liberal on XYZ - which would invite you asking me specifically about what. So basically you are asking for something I never made an argument for.

Now please...please actually try to read what I've posted instead of ASSuming like you people tend to do here.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Bump for merge

:roll: merge a troll thread into another thread...


If you have a complaint about the moderation post in PFI or PM Derek, anymore complaints in this forum could result in your posting privileges being suspended.

Anandtech Senior Moderator
Red Dawn

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Nope, not angry at all. But atleast you woke up and actually read my post.

So, specifically how has the republican party become too socially liberal? I still see no answer. I get that you say they are, but I see no examples, or details or any info at all to back that up.

I've already answered that like I've stated.

lue for you - Yes, Bush and too many in the GOP have been too liberal on ALL fronts. FAR too many RINOs and spineless GOP members held sway in the GOP. Bush, the RINOs and the liberals haven't met any spending they haven't supported in the past 8 years. They've also given into the liberal views socially as they haven't pushed these ideals because they wanted to be too "nice" and thus didn't stand up for their core beliefs. They allowed the liberals to set the premise of too many discussions and didn't challenge those premises when they were dead wrong.

So to dumb it down for you(and others) - they were too liberal by default since they did not stand up for Conservative ideals nor challenge many liberal premises. Accepting fringe liberal premises is dangerous as once it's assumed it's many time too late.

Yes, I read that, thanks for "dumbing it down" for me [/rolls eyes]... Here is the point you seem to be missing. You mentioned "too liberal", but there were no specifics... Being "too liberal" is a label. Pointing out steps, votes, or descisions that were made that are too liberal is a specific..

"they've also given into the liberal views socially as they haven't pushed these ideals because they wanted to be too nice" - What did they give in to, and what didnt' they push?

"they were too liberal by default since they did not stand up for Conservative ideals nor challenge many liberal premises" - What did they do that was too liberal by default? What did they not stand up for and what did they not challenge?

Are you not understanding the question, do you not know what specific means, or are you just avoiding answering? I have seen enough of youyr posts to know you are an intelligent person, so I have to assume you are avoiding.

READ what I posted. Take it all together as it was written. Then read the dumbed down version(which still might not be dumbed down enough for the likes of you). It's all there if you'd actually look and try to read/comprehend.

Sheesh. You can whine about "specifics" if you wish but it doesn't change my statements. I didn't state they were specifically liberal on XYZ - which would invite you asking me specifically about what. So basically you are asking for something I never made an argument for.

Now please...please actually try to read what I've posted instead of ASSuming like you people tend to do here.

DAmn, dood, I read it, several times now. I dont see, and am not aware of ANY instances where the republican party have been socially liberal (outside of senators having sex in mens bathrooms and flirting with male pages haha) I see zero evidence of this "socially liberal" GOP and I am asking you for examples.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Nope, not angry at all. But atleast you woke up and actually read my post.

So, specifically how has the republican party become too socially liberal? I still see no answer. I get that you say they are, but I see no examples, or details or any info at all to back that up.

I've already answered that like I've stated.

lue for you - Yes, Bush and too many in the GOP have been too liberal on ALL fronts. FAR too many RINOs and spineless GOP members held sway in the GOP. Bush, the RINOs and the liberals haven't met any spending they haven't supported in the past 8 years. They've also given into the liberal views socially as they haven't pushed these ideals because they wanted to be too "nice" and thus didn't stand up for their core beliefs. They allowed the liberals to set the premise of too many discussions and didn't challenge those premises when they were dead wrong.

So to dumb it down for you(and others) - they were too liberal by default since they did not stand up for Conservative ideals nor challenge many liberal premises. Accepting fringe liberal premises is dangerous as once it's assumed it's many time too late.

Yes, I read that, thanks for "dumbing it down" for me [/rolls eyes]... Here is the point you seem to be missing. You mentioned "too liberal", but there were no specifics... Being "too liberal" is a label. Pointing out steps, votes, or descisions that were made that are too liberal is a specific..

"they've also given into the liberal views socially as they haven't pushed these ideals because they wanted to be too nice" - What did they give in to, and what didnt' they push?

"they were too liberal by default since they did not stand up for Conservative ideals nor challenge many liberal premises" - What did they do that was too liberal by default? What did they not stand up for and what did they not challenge?

Are you not understanding the question, do you not know what specific means, or are you just avoiding answering? I have seen enough of youyr posts to know you are an intelligent person, so I have to assume you are avoiding.

READ what I posted. Take it all together as it was written. Then read the dumbed down version(which still might not be dumbed down enough for the likes of you). It's all there if you'd actually look and try to read/comprehend.

Sheesh. You can whine about "specifics" if you wish but it doesn't change my statements. I didn't state they were specifically liberal on XYZ - which would invite you asking me specifically about what. So basically you are asking for something I never made an argument for.

Now please...please actually try to read what I've posted instead of ASSuming like you people tend to do here.

DAmn, dood, I read it, several times now. I dont see, and am not aware of ANY instances where the republican party have been socially liberal (outside of senators having sex in mens bathrooms and flirting with male pages haha) I see zero evidence of this "socially liberal" GOP and I am asking you for examples.

That's because you're looking for something that I never claimed. Read my post - especially the WHOLE bolded part and then both of the dumbed down versions.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

That's because you're looking for something that I never claimed. Read my post - especially the WHOLE bolded part and then both of the dumbed down versions.

YEs, I read it even the bold part, then I quoted a question from the bold part and you didnt answer... "

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
"they've also given into the liberal views socially as they haven't pushed these ideals because they wanted to be too nice" -

What did they give in to, and what didn't they push? I still see no examples.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

That's because you're looking for something that I never claimed. Read my post - especially the WHOLE bolded part and then both of the dumbed down versions.

YEs, I read it even the bold part, then I quoted a question from the bold part and you didnt answer... "

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
"they've also given into the liberal views socially as they haven't pushed these ideals because they wanted to be too nice" -

What did they give in to, and what didn't they push? I still see no examples.

You need to read...

They've also given into the liberal views socially as they haven't pushed these ideals because they wanted to be too "nice" and thus didn't stand up for their core beliefs. They allowed the liberals to set the premise of too many discussions and didn't challenge those premises when they were dead wrong.

So to dumb it down for you(and others) - they were too liberal by default since they did not stand up for Conservative ideals nor challenge many liberal premises. Accepting fringe liberal premises is dangerous as once it's assumed it's many time too late.

 

[Jschmuck2]

Wow - you're slipping.

Specifically - and I'd like specifics here - what liberal views, socially, have they given in to?

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

That's because you're looking for something that I never claimed. Read my post - especially the WHOLE bolded part and then both of the dumbed down versions.

YEs, I read it even the bold part, then I quoted a question from the bold part and you didnt answer... "

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
"they've also given into the liberal views socially as they haven't pushed these ideals because they wanted to be too nice" -

What did they give in to, and what didn't they push? I still see no examples.

You need to read...

They've also given into the liberal views socially as they haven't pushed these ideals because they wanted to be too "nice" and thus didn't stand up for their core beliefs. They allowed the liberals to set the premise of too many discussions and didn't challenge those premises when they were dead wrong.

So to dumb it down for you(and others) - they were too liberal by default since they did not stand up for Conservative ideals nor challenge many liberal premises. Accepting fringe liberal premises is dangerous as once it's assumed it's many time too late.

What is wrong with you? I read that, and even asked you questions on it. Let me try and make this easier for you.

1. What liberal views did they give in to?
2. What didnt they push to be too nice?
3. What did they not challenge?
4. What Fringe liberal premises did they accept.

Please dont bother to answer "read my post" again. I read it and you clearly did not answer anything. Please answer any or all of questions 1 through 4 ... If you can.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

That's because you're looking for something that I never claimed. Read my post - especially the WHOLE bolded part and then both of the dumbed down versions.

YEs, I read it even the bold part, then I quoted a question from the bold part and you didnt answer... "

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
"they've also given into the liberal views socially as they haven't pushed these ideals because they wanted to be too nice" -

What did they give in to, and what didn't they push? I still see no examples.

You need to read...

They've also given into the liberal views socially as they haven't pushed these ideals because they wanted to be too "nice" and thus didn't stand up for their core beliefs. They allowed the liberals to set the premise of too many discussions and didn't challenge those premises when they were dead wrong.

So to dumb it down for you(and others) - they were too liberal by default since they did not stand up for Conservative ideals nor challenge many liberal premises. Accepting fringe liberal premises is dangerous as once it's assumed it's many time too late.

What is wrong with you? I read that, and even asked you questions on it. Let me try and make this easier for you.

1. What liberal views did they give in to?
2. What didnt they push to be too nice?
3. What did they not challenge?
4. What Fringe liberal premises did they accept.

Please dont bother to answer "read my post" again. I read it and you clearly did not answer anything. Please answer any or all of questions 1 through 4 ... If you can.

:laugh: I've already addressed this. Just because YOU don't understand what I've posted doesn't mean I need to answer your irrelevant questions. Again, nowhere did I say they specifically adopted liberal views - if you'd have actually read what I posted - they failed to challenge too many premises of liberals - which is defaults things to liberal if they put out the premise. Sheesh.

I swear you libs don't read what I post and just ASSume. It happens on the McCain thing and almost anything where I discuss Conservatism. It's like you just shut off your mind and go into lib bot mode where certain assumptions are made and you never wake up and realize you were way off base.

Meh... try reading my posts one more time without your blinders on. You might get it someday if you keep trying.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Wow - you're slipping.

Specifically - and I'd like specifics here - what liberal views, socially, have they given in to?

Then find someone who made those assertions - I did not make the assertion they adopted specific liberal views - which you'd realize if you'd have read my posts.

 

[Jschmuck2]

So you asserted that they adopted "general" liberal views?

Which is what you meant, when you said:

They've also given into the liberal views socially

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

:laugh: I've already addressed this. Just because YOU don't understand what I've posted doesn't mean I need to answer your irrelevant questions. Again, nowhere did I say they specifically adopted liberal views - if you'd have actually read what I posted - they failed to challenge too many premises of liberals - which is defaults things to liberal if they put out the premise. Sheesh.

I swear you libs don't read what I post and just ASSume. It happens on the McCain thing and almost anything where I discuss Conservatism. It's like you just shut off your mind and go into lib bot mode where certain assumptions are made and you never wake up and realize you were way off base.

Meh... try reading my posts one more time without your blinders on. You might get it someday if you keep trying.

Ya, OK. Your definition of addressed is different than mine. You are making a general statement "too liberal" and cant come up with any specifics or facts to back it up.

Whatever. I give up.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
So you asserted that they adopted "general" liberal views?

No. Generally they didn't stick to Conservative ideals and thus allowed the liberal premises to take hold. My whole post was a generality - not saying specifically they adopted liberal views, but you people don't understand that and ASSume I was talking specifically. You people need to read my whole posts instead of trying to pull one portion out and trying to run with it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

:laugh: I've already addressed this. Just because YOU don't understand what I've posted doesn't mean I need to answer your irrelevant questions. Again, nowhere did I say they specifically adopted liberal views - if you'd have actually read what I posted - they failed to challenge too many premises of liberals - which is defaults things to liberal if they put out the premise. Sheesh.

I swear you libs don't read what I post and just ASSume. It happens on the McCain thing and almost anything where I discuss Conservatism. It's like you just shut off your mind and go into lib bot mode where certain assumptions are made and you never wake up and realize you were way off base.

Meh... try reading my posts one more time without your blinders on. You might get it someday if you keep trying.

Ya, OK. Your definition of addressed is different than mine. You are making a general statement "too liberal" and cant come up with any specifics or facts to back it up.

Whatever. I give up.

I suppose it would be when you try to take one setence out of my statement and toss the rest of it. But just because you try to take one sentence and run doesn't mean I haven't addressed my statements. You just twisted the context by stripping the rest. I have fully addressed my comments yet here we sit with 2 of you trying to suggest I provide specifics to back up assertions that weren't made.

 

[Jschmuck2]

Alright - what "liberal premises," socially, have taken hold?

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

:laugh: I've already addressed this. Just because YOU don't understand what I've posted doesn't mean I need to answer your irrelevant questions. Again, nowhere did I say they specifically adopted liberal views - if you'd have actually read what I posted - they failed to challenge too many premises of liberals - which is defaults things to liberal if they put out the premise. Sheesh.

I swear you libs don't read what I post and just ASSume. It happens on the McCain thing and almost anything where I discuss Conservatism. It's like you just shut off your mind and go into lib bot mode where certain assumptions are made and you never wake up and realize you were way off base.

Meh... try reading my posts one more time without your blinders on. You might get it someday if you keep trying.

Ya, OK. Your definition of addressed is different than mine. You are making a general statement "too liberal" and cant come up with any specifics or facts to back it up.

Whatever. I give up.

I suppose it would be when you try to take one setence out of my statement and toss the rest of it. But just because you try to take one sentence and run doesn't mean I haven't addressed my statements. You just twisted the context by stripping the rest. I have fully addressed my comments yet here we sit with 2 of you trying to suggest I provide specifics to back up assertions that weren't made.

I will say this... You have done a marvelous job talking in circles and avoiding the issues... A truly great modern day republican =)

 

[jman19]

Interesting, the GOP has given in to "liberal" ideals yet CAD can't name a single one. Mind boggling.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Alright - what "liberal premises," socially, have taken hold?

Again, my statements were not specific - because the statement was general. You people don't seem to understand that.

But just to appease you who are too slow(or just really that ignorant) to understand my statements - One good example is stem cell research. Everyone assumes the GOP is against it when that is demonstrably false. The GOP did not challenge the premise the libs and media put out there and thus they will always be clubbed with the issue by people who are ignorant.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jman19
Interesting, the GOP has given in to "liberal" ideals yet CAD can't name a single one. Mind boggling.

Interesting - jman19 comes in yapping but obviously hasn't read the thread.


What is with you libs?

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jman19
Interesting, the GOP has given in to "liberal" ideals yet CAD can't name a single one. Mind boggling.

Interesting - jman19 comes in yapping but obviously hasn't read the thread.


What is with you libs?

Um, you admitted in the post directly above this one that you were only using generalities until you gave an example in that post.