For true conservatives disenchanted with the GOP

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ElFenix

if overall taxes go up, that's a tax raise. the way this stuff all filters through and the way "rich" people are usually smart with their money, i wouldn't be shocked if a lot of the tax raise "on the rich" was paid for by the average person.

If, if, if. Where did Obama say anything other than he would reduce taxes for 95% of working families?

that's the legal burden. it's what makes good talking points and headlines. but it's not reality. the economic burden is reality. it's whose bull actually ends up being gored in the end. unfortunately it's far too complex to analyze with 100% certainty and, in any event, is too complex a concept to air on the evening news. the economic burden is what i'm talking about, and, as i said, and as i've explained many times, often the economic burden hits the average joe regardless of where the legal burden falls.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: QED
Yes, obviously the best answer to free-spending Rebublicans is to vote in a free-spending AND tax-raising Obama.

One party wants to spend and spend.

The other party wants to tax and spend.

Which is more fiscally responsible?

Neither. Spend within their means like everybody else does in this country. If at the current tax rate we generate 2.5 trillion in tax revenues, the size of the govt should be 2.5 trillion. Why should govt grow faster than the economy?

You can't have it both ways. You want your big gov't? Fine, then you have to pay for it.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jonks
By your reasoning, if Buckley thought Obama was better right now for the country than McCain, he'd no longer be a conservative, correct?

He wouldn't think that. He wouldn't be stuck in the 2 choice mindset like this author or others that claim to be Conservative. Supporting Liberalism is not an answer to lack of Conservatism.

This author is Buckley's progeny and he supports Obama, for whatever reason. I'm sure he's pro-life, pro-small government, pro-god/family-values, etc. But right now he thinks Obama is a better choice for the country. You claim his entire worldview as a conservative is negated by this decision. If Wick could possibly support Obama, I'm giving you that it's possible Buckley could too. If that were the case, would the founder of the conservative movement no longer be a conservative because of this one decision?

Uhh... hello? Nowhere did I say he was no longer a Conservative so take your strawman BS elsewhere.

Consider actually reading what I post instead of ASSuming.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Conservatism to Conservatives is Buckley, Goldwater, etc type of Conservatism(Modern Conservatism). That type of Conservative would never vote for/support BHO.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No shit. ANY "true conservative" the OP describes should be nowhere close to embracing BHO.

You claim above, no "Buckley conservative" or "true conservative" could support/vote for Obama.

The author is a "Buckley conservative" and supports Obama.

The author is a "True conservative" and supports Obama.

You then (angrily) claim you never said the author was not a conservative, after stating in your first post that the author is one who merely "claims to be a conservative."

Your logic has me thoroughly confused sir.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think the article did get it right. The idea that the nanny state is bad is gone within the majority of the republican party. We now have two big govt parties with different social values.

I agree that the article is more right than wrong.

There are some things a like about Obama... I just can't stand the horseshit flowing from his supporters mouths like a fire hose. Makes it real hard to accept the guy knowing this is his base.

 

[Squisher]

The writer of the article and many of the things said in this thread seem to be speaking directly to me. I don't think I've ever had as hard of a time making up my mind about a presidential election as I do now.

The GOP has turned their back on me. Do I bank on McCain being a maverick or Obama being pragmatist?

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: QED

Yes, obviously the best answer... to vote in a free-spending AND tax-raising Obama.

Obama says he'll CUT taxes for 95% of American working families. The only people asserting that Obama will raise taxes on anyone but the wealthy are blowing smoke out of their ass.

Please prove your assertion, or please STFU.

Letting the GWB tax cuts expire is, effectively, an increase in taxes.

In his acceptance speech, he reeled off a littany of new government programs that will cost billions of dollars. That money has to come from somewhere, so he is either going to increase our deficit spending, or he has to grow the US taxpayer's burden. Either option is not good for an economy in trouble-- no matter how you distribute it.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: QED

Yes, obviously the best answer... to vote in a free-spending AND tax-raising Obama.

Obama says he'll CUT taxes for 95% of American working families. The only people asserting that Obama will raise taxes on anyone but the wealthy are blowing smoke out of their ass.

Please prove your assertion, or please STFU.

Letting the GWB tax cuts expire is, effectively, an increase in taxes.

In his acceptance speech, he reeled off a littany of new government programs that will cost billions of dollars. That money has to come from somewhere, so he is either going to increase our deficit spending, or he has to grow the US taxpayer's burden. Either option is not good for an economy in trouble-- no matter how you distribute it.

Or he could just use the $10B a month from Iraq once the troops are pulled out ...

 

[Ferocious]

nice article

:thumbsup:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jonks
By your reasoning, if Buckley thought Obama was better right now for the country than McCain, he'd no longer be a conservative, correct?

He wouldn't think that. He wouldn't be stuck in the 2 choice mindset like this author or others that claim to be Conservative. Supporting Liberalism is not an answer to lack of Conservatism.

This author is Buckley's progeny and he supports Obama, for whatever reason. I'm sure he's pro-life, pro-small government, pro-god/family-values, etc. But right now he thinks Obama is a better choice for the country. You claim his entire worldview as a conservative is negated by this decision. If Wick could possibly support Obama, I'm giving you that it's possible Buckley could too. If that were the case, would the founder of the conservative movement no longer be a conservative because of this one decision?

Uhh... hello? Nowhere did I say he was no longer a Conservative so take your strawman BS elsewhere.

Consider actually reading what I post instead of ASSuming.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Conservatism to Conservatives is Buckley, Goldwater, etc type of Conservatism(Modern Conservatism). That type of Conservative would never vote for/support BHO.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No shit. ANY "true conservative" the OP describes should be nowhere close to embracing BHO.

You claim above, no "Buckley conservative" or "true conservative" could support/vote for Obama.

The author is a "Buckley conservative" and supports Obama.

The author is a "True conservative" and supports Obama.

You then (angrily) claim you never said the author was not a conservative, after stating in your first post that the author is one who merely "claims to be a conservative."

Your logic has me thoroughly confused sir.

That's because you can't read and process what I've stated. You see little bites of what I stated and then put them through the 2 party prism.

The problem with the author is he didn't learn from Buckley or forgot to understand an important thing about Conservatism.

Read "The Unmaking of a Mayor".
Buckley was a great advocate of the two party system except when there was no clear Conservative choice.

So again, I think this author is dead wrong and has himself lost his way if he supports the opposite side of his ideology because his nose is bent out of shape. In 1965 Buckley himself showed what needs to happen when one's nose is out of shape.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The article, for those of you too brain dead to comprehend what you read or too lazy to actually do so, made a case for Obama based on a character assessment by the author that Obama is deeply pragmatic by nature. The author feels it is critical at the juncture in our history, despite political differences he has with Obama, that Obama be elected over the deeply impractical McSame.

Instead of intelligent reactions, all we get is Bot Spew from the imbecilic Knee-Jerks.

I think one beauty of the article is that it found a way to argue its point among the indoctrinated political culture - so many of his readers have knee-jerk reaction to buzzwords that he would fall on deaf ears, even be seen as a 'traitor', if he praised Obama for many things, such as compassion or as rational.

But pragmatic is one of those words not yet part of the cult members' conditioning. It could well be - there have been periods where it's a 'bad word', for good reason actually.

But it's a word he can use to argue for Obama that his followers are able to listen to, at least possibly. It's a 'non-partisan' word today.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: loki8481
guess I should have clarified, how can we have change for the *better* if we're always voting for whatever we view as the lesser evil like the author seems to be doing.

The mistake you make here is to assume change can be for the better. If the only two candidates that can win will both bring change for the worst you are required by logic, good judgment, and integrity to vote for the least worst change. The alternative is to waste your vote on somebody who can't win or vote for the worst candidate. Either way you deprive the better candidate a vote that could help him win. You are either going to vote your ego or vote to do the least damage to your country. That should be a no brainer, but human beings are amazingly illogical and love to spite their own face.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The article, for those of you too brain dead to comprehend what you read or too lazy to actually do so, made a case for Obama based on a character assessment by the author that Obama is deeply pragmatic by nature. The author feels it is critical at the juncture in our history, despite political differences he has with Obama, that Obama be elected over the deeply impractical McSame.

Well summarized, and why I an voting Obama as well. I just trust the guy to make competent, rational decisions more than I would McCain. His reckless campaign is proof of his complete lack of judgement and pragmatism.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
The point Moonbeam, is that the two government parties are not going to change the course of this nation and work in the interests of the people. They will continue to bend us over and work for themselves.

If Obama was going to bring change, they wouldn?t like him, he wouldn?t have been fast tracked to the Presidency at such a young age. They would fear, hate, and despise him. Being the poster boy of a government party means positive change is the last thing you?re going to bring.

The point, in fact, is that none of this matters even if in fact you can't possibly know if you're right. These are only assumptions you make. But the fact is that Obama is a community organizer and they have different ways of bringing change, change from the ground up, so if anybody is going to bring real change it will be Obama.

That's not to say he will. It's to say that only he has any chance at all. This fact causes you to deny he has any chance because if he does your vote for a third party will be a vote for McSame. The Democrats will have a once in a life time chance to bring change and if they don't they are done. All your theories about how corrupt and power hungry they are means only one thing. They will change to survive or they will be out. If the morons voting in the election vote for McSame, all politicians everywhere will know they don't have to change.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Squisher
The GOP has turned their back on me. Do I bank on McCain being a maverick or Obama being pragmatist?

You can bank on Obama being a socialist and McCain being a centrist who is hell bent on working with socialists to pass their legislation, albeit with a few strings attached.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
The point Moonbeam, is that the two government parties are not going to change the course of this nation and work in the interests of the people. They will continue to bend us over and work for themselves.

If Obama was going to bring change, they wouldn?t like him, he wouldn?t have been fast tracked to the Presidency at such a young age. They would fear, hate, and despise him. Being the poster boy of a government party means positive change is the last thing you?re going to bring.

The point, in fact, is that none of this matters even if in fact you can't possibly know if you're right. These are only assumptions you make. But the fact is that Obama is a community organizer and they have different ways of bringing change, change from the ground up, so if anybody is going to bring real change it will be Obama.

That's not to say he will. It's to say that only he has any chance at all. This fact causes you to deny he has any chance because if he does your vote for a third party will be a vote for McSame. The Democrats will have a once in a life time chance to bring change and if they don't they are done. All your theories about how corrupt and power hungry they are means only one thing. They will change to survive or they will be out. If the morons voting in the election vote for McSame, all politicians everywhere will know they don't have to change.

Excuse me but rational people don't want the democrat version of "once in a life time" change. The last one gave us the SS scam and never ending growth of government. So I and other rational people say no thanks to what you people are selling.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
The point Moonbeam, is that the two government parties are not going to change the course of this nation and work in the interests of the people. They will continue to bend us over and work for themselves.

If Obama was going to bring change, they wouldn?t like him, he wouldn?t have been fast tracked to the Presidency at such a young age. They would fear, hate, and despise him. Being the poster boy of a government party means positive change is the last thing you?re going to bring.

The point, in fact, is that none of this matters even if in fact you can't possibly know if you're right. These are only assumptions you make. But the fact is that Obama is a community organizer and they have different ways of bringing change, change from the ground up, so if anybody is going to bring real change it will be Obama.

That's not to say he will. It's to say that only he has any chance at all. This fact causes you to deny he has any chance because if he does your vote for a third party will be a vote for McSame. The Democrats will have a once in a life time chance to bring change and if they don't they are done. All your theories about how corrupt and power hungry they are means only one thing. They will change to survive or they will be out. If the morons voting in the election vote for McSame, all politicians everywhere will know they don't have to change.

Excuse me but rational people don't want the democrat version of "once in a life time" change. The last one gave us the SS scam and never ending growth of government. So I and other rational people say no thanks to what you people are selling.

Right, rational people, want 8 more years of the same disaster as the last 8. That's why you're a flag and I'm a clown. What you call rational I call psycho and visa versa.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: QED

Letting the GWB tax cuts expire is, effectively, an increase in taxes.

... for the top few percent of households, just as he said he would do. He also said, explicitly, he would CUT taxes for everyone else.

YOU and a bunch of lying Republicans keep saying Obama would raise everyone's taxes. You still haven't shown where Obama or Biden said they would. :roll:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Squisher
The GOP has turned their back on me. Do I bank on McCain being a maverick or Obama being pragmatist?

You can bank on Obama being a socialist and McCain being a centrist who is hell bent on working with socialists to pass their legislation, albeit with a few strings attached.

Except that's not what it looks like as Obama has run to the moderate middle while McCain has completely abandoned it in favor of the extreme far right.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
The point Moonbeam, is that the two government parties are not going to change the course of this nation and work in the interests of the people. They will continue to bend us over and work for themselves.

If Obama was going to bring change, they wouldn?t like him, he wouldn?t have been fast tracked to the Presidency at such a young age. They would fear, hate, and despise him. Being the poster boy of a government party means positive change is the last thing you?re going to bring.

The point, in fact, is that none of this matters even if in fact you can't possibly know if you're right. These are only assumptions you make. But the fact is that Obama is a community organizer and they have different ways of bringing change, change from the ground up, so if anybody is going to bring real change it will be Obama.

That's not to say he will. It's to say that only he has any chance at all. This fact causes you to deny he has any chance because if he does your vote for a third party will be a vote for McSame. The Democrats will have a once in a life time chance to bring change and if they don't they are done. All your theories about how corrupt and power hungry they are means only one thing. They will change to survive or they will be out. If the morons voting in the election vote for McSame, all politicians everywhere will know they don't have to change.

Excuse me but rational people don't want the democrat version of "once in a life time" change. The last one gave us the SS scam and never ending growth of government. So I and other rational people say no thanks to what you people are selling.

Right, rational people, want 8 more years of the same disaster as the last 8. That's why you're a flag and I'm a clown. What you call rational I call psycho and visa versa.

And where did I say people wanted 8 more years of the same? Oh that's right, I didn't. You have any more false BS to spew?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: QED

Letting the GWB tax cuts expire is, effectively, an increase in taxes.

... for the top few percent of households, just as he said he would do. He also said, explicitly, he would CUT taxes for everyone else.

YOU and a bunch of lying Republicans keep saying Obama would raise everyone's taxes. You still haven't shown where Obama or Biden said they would. :roll:

Wrong wrong wrong. Everyone who pays taxes will pay more if the tax-cuts are allowed to expire by BHO. In fact, some people who pay no income taxes now will start paying them again.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Goldwater was a true conservative, and a man who would be regarded as a liberal Republican today (if he even made it into the party at all). He abhorred the influence of religion in politics, and in the Republican Party in particular. He shared conservative values of national defense, lower taxes and a hands-off government.

He would be speaking out against the Bush administration if he were alive today. To say that Goldwater's words could be Bush's credo is false and without merit. Barry Goldwater would have had nothing to do with the current Republican Party.

Todays 21st century Republicans and Conservatism are about as closely related as a fish and a bicycle, but it's a helluva lot easier to just lob labels around than it is to examine the strange fruit that has blossomed as we posture and strut and thumb our noses at one another.

Todays 21st century Conservatives harbour a sense of perpetual persecution, precisely because they are always being challenged and left behind by the changes in society. They see the natural processes of adaption and improvement as assaults, and they respond to such onslaughts by clumping together into defensive herds. Once ensconced, they then proceed to rally behind whoever is "on their side", even if only nominally, because to do otherwise is to show weakness to the circling wolves. That they will embrace the very wolves they fear, provided such wolves are carefully disguised, is merely a by-product of this instinct.

We've got what we deserve and only we can throw it off. It is not Conservative in nature. It is merely criminal.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: QED

Letting the GWB tax cuts expire is, effectively, an increase in taxes.

... for the top few percent of households, just as he said he would do. He also said, explicitly, he would CUT taxes for everyone else.

YOU and a bunch of lying Republicans keep saying Obama would raise everyone's taxes. You still haven't shown where Obama or Biden said they would. :roll:

Wrong wrong wrong. Everyone who pays taxes will pay more if the tax-cuts are allowed to expire by BHO. In fact, some people who pay no income taxes now will start paying them again.

Wrong wrong wrong. Those 'tax cuts' are all *borrowed* money, so all that money plus interest has to be paid back *in taxes*.

So repealing those cuts means *less taxes* for the nation. Some - especially the rich - will pay more now, but America will pay lower taxes total.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think the article did get it right. The idea that the nanny state is bad is gone within the majority of the republican party. We now have two big govt parties with different social values.

I agree that the article is more right than wrong.

There are some things a like about Obama... I just can't stand the horseshit flowing from his supporters mouths like a fire hose. Makes it real hard to accept the guy knowing this is his base.

If you're going to judge internet supporters, at least be fair and look at McCain's "base." There's whacko extremists on both sides and emotions are pretty high this time around.

But Genx is right, we now have two big govt parties with different social values. The problem with that is that it makes the Republicans the more authoritarian of the 2 parties.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: QED

Letting the GWB tax cuts expire is, effectively, an increase in taxes.

... for the top few percent of households, just as he said he would do. He also said, explicitly, he would CUT taxes for everyone else.

YOU and a bunch of lying Republicans keep saying Obama would raise everyone's taxes. You still haven't shown where Obama or Biden said they would. :roll:

Wrong wrong wrong. Everyone who pays taxes will pay more if the tax-cuts are allowed to expire by BHO. In fact, some people who pay no income taxes now will start paying them again.

Wrong wrong wrong. Those 'tax cuts' are all *borrowed* money, so all that money plus interest has to be paid back *in taxes*.

So repealing those cuts means *less taxes* for the nation. Some - especially the rich - will pay more now, but America will pay lower taxes total.

:roll: More of the same disinformation from a lib.
The budget and revenue are not a fixed sized pie. Also, tax-cuts are not borrowed. Spending causes borrowing. We've been over this time and time again and you people still continue with the BS.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
The point Moonbeam, is that the two government parties are not going to change the course of this nation and work in the interests of the people. They will continue to bend us over and work for themselves.

If Obama was going to bring change, they wouldn?t like him, he wouldn?t have been fast tracked to the Presidency at such a young age. They would fear, hate, and despise him. Being the poster boy of a government party means positive change is the last thing you?re going to bring.

The point, in fact, is that none of this matters even if in fact you can't possibly know if you're right. These are only assumptions you make. But the fact is that Obama is a community organizer and they have different ways of bringing change, change from the ground up, so if anybody is going to bring real change it will be Obama.

That's not to say he will. It's to say that only he has any chance at all. This fact causes you to deny he has any chance because if he does your vote for a third party will be a vote for McSame. The Democrats will have a once in a life time chance to bring change and if they don't they are done. All your theories about how corrupt and power hungry they are means only one thing. They will change to survive or they will be out. If the morons voting in the election vote for McSame, all politicians everywhere will know they don't have to change.

Excuse me but rational people don't want the democrat version of "once in a life time" change. The last one gave us the SS scam and never ending growth of government. So I and other rational people say no thanks to what you people are selling.

Right, rational people, want 8 more years of the same disaster as the last 8. That's why you're a flag and I'm a clown. What you call rational I call psycho and visa versa.

And where did I say people wanted 8 more years of the same? Oh that's right, I didn't. You have any more false BS to spew?

You didn't have to. You said you don't want the only change that is possible so you automatically vote for 8 more years.