Has anybody noticed the absurd fact that the Republicans

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,455
5,027
126
to save us from financial disaster while at the same time claiming they favor small government?

How can Republicans claim to favor small government when it is only the tremendous power the government actually has, presumably the result of those evil Democrats, that enables the government to successfully intervene in the market. How is it they take credit for something on the one hand, they blame the Democrats for on the other.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Remember that line about Bush being a "uniter"?
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
85
91
First we must all save ourselves. Once ourselves are saved we can then see that the selves no longer needing saving. But what will saving cost the saviors?

and what Child of Wonder said.

 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
to save us from financial disaster while at the same time claiming they favor small government?

How can Republicans claim to favor small government when it is only the tremendous power the government actually has, presumably the result of those evil Democrats, that enables the government to successfully intervene in the market. How is it they take credit for something on the one hand, they blame the Democrats for on the other.
The Republicans run brilliant campaigns. No one is better than them.

The sad part is, they are the representation of real world behavior. Honesty and integrity get you only so far. But cunning and bending the rules gets you more ahead in the game.


They are the kings of the 'ignore' tactic and you see this on P&N from their hackery all the time. You ask them a question, and if they feel pinned down, they simply ignore it and continue on rambling forward with their agenda.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
to save us from financial disaster while at the same time claiming they favor small government?
It's quite a paradox. They're treading water as hard as they can, now, to try to stop the hemmoraging caused by their lack of oversight and lax enforcement of existing regulations and their continued push to welcome more foxes into the henhouse by further reducing needed oversight and regulation.

Congress has been lax. Republicans were in control for the first six years, and they still have enough power to block any meaningful legislation that would have stopped the rape of the American taxpayer by our "leading" financial institutions.

The administration has been worse. A President with any integrity would have stopped the criminality, instead of being first in line at the feeding trough.

They've been fattening their own wallets with money from Wall Street while screwing the American economic pooch at our expense. Now, the disgraced financial execs are running off with their fat golden parachutes and again, we're left holding the bag. :thumbsdown: :|
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: child of wonder
Answer: all politicians are corrupt.
Maybe, but Republicans are more hypocritical when it comes to big government.

That said, I actually saw a Republican organization giving tests of where people stood on the political spectrum (or diamond as it were). To the credit of the Republicans, they admitted that both McCain and Obama were big statists.

The problem is that the Republicans talk about how they hate big government so they are the hypocrites.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Has anybody noticed the absurd fact that the Republicans have used the massive power of a huge government state to....
You attempt to find irony where there is none, or perhaps try to create it. I leave the intentions up to you.

But yes, we conservatives can finish your above sentence for you:

"Has anybody noticed the absurd fact that the Republicans have used the massive power of a huge government state to" defend our nations from foreign aggressors, to create roads/highways/bridges and other infrastructure, to resove disputes between the states etc.

Without agreeing that this particular bailout is proper/improper, we do believe that the federal government DOES have a role, but micro-managing our personal lives with the power of the federal governemt as so many want done is not the right role.

Swing and a miss, my friend. The federal government has a role, but not every role, and there's nothing absurd about it all.

Fern
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,270
11,220
136
Partisanship is and always has been a cover for political corruption. The Republican party has excelled in this regard with a vast propaganda network. By falling back on moral issues and instilling an irrational fear about the opposition party, they have established a base that will vote straight ticket regardless of what the party actually does contrary to its stated goals.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,376
126
Politicians are by and large : corrupt.

Power corrupts.

Republicans, by superior usage of propaganda and so forth, have had more years in power of recent times, and so can be held responsible for most of the idiocy that our government perpetrates.

That said, I'd fully expect a full swing if the tables are turned. Democrats dominating the offices of the land for a while would only reveal more idiocy and corruption in the end.

Maybe we should just program a big computer AI system to manage the government, and leave stupid fucking humans out of the day-to-day.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: child of wonder
Answer: all politicians are corrupt.
The problem is that the Republicans talk about how they hate big government so they are the hypocrites.
Yea, the Republicans have got to have some geniuses in their PR department. This whole perception how they're for "small government" isn't reality but an illusion.
 

retrospooty

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2002
2,031
74
86
traditional reps believe in small govt, and being fiscaly responsibe... The party was taken over by the religious right and that changed.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,376
126
Originally posted by: retrospooty
traditional reps believe in small govt, and being fiscaly responsibe... The party was taken over by the religious right and that changed.
Well, that's true, but you left out the merging of the Republicans with major corporate/media interests.

Special interest groups, PACs, etc, have long been the bane of our political system.

I think it could be better put this way :

Traditional (ie; Paleo-) conservatives believe in small gov't/fiscal responsibility.

The current Republican and Democratic parties are FAR from that. But ironically, the Republicans, who publicly espouse such policies, are even worse than the Democrats on these issues. Look at the 2000-2006 years of budget/spending (Republican Pres+Congress) for a good idea of how 'conservative' modern Republicans really are with our nation's checkbook.
 

Butterbean

Banned
Oct 12, 2006
918
1
0
Bush and a lot of his people may be Republicans but they are not conservatives. For a long time in C20, the Republicans were lead by country clubbers who tended to represent managment over workers on some issues (the two parties were still very close on many things), It was Reagan who united conservative factions (and remember there is a Conservative Party) with Republican factions (Keep in mind on the other side there is a Liberal Party as well as a Democratic one). The country-clubbers have not been that comfy with the conservatives. Pappa Bush appealed to both camps at one time but lost a lot of conservatives with his tax pledge gaff - hence losing the elction to Bubba because Perot took away so mnay conservative voters.

Bush Jr looked like he was Republican who was conservative but it turned out to be not the case - by a long shot. This is why his approval is so low even among his supporters. They dont hate him like the resentment based Democrats but they realize he does not often represent conservative ideas. The "compassionate conservatism" Bushies touted in 2000 was a give away. Seeing things like Bush's New Freedom initiative where teens would be perfunctorily screened for "suicidal urgess" were other give aways. Such programs were set up by drug makers and their academic shills. No conservative person would go along with that.

Illegal immigration is of course another thing conservatives wouldn't go along with
and thats where Bush really lost his base. He gets accussed of doing it to keep cheap labor around and that may be an element but Bush also wants to keep the churches viable. They were dying off but the illegals have been a massive series of refreshes for the churches. Bush actually lufs his little Mexican friends,

People were saying the Republican "brand" was over but they confuse the peoples desires with the desires of the oligarchy that resides at the top of Rep party - the desires are not the same. A lot of Republicans and Conservatives see Bush as having almost ruined the party and I think they are right. However dont mistake other Republicans unhappiness with Bush as a rejection of his "conservatism" - it's his pseudo-conservatism they lament.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
to save us from financial disaster while at the same time claiming they favor small government?

How can Republicans claim to favor small government when it is only the tremendous power the government actually has, presumably the result of those evil Democrats, that enables the government to successfully intervene in the market. How is it they take credit for something on the one hand, they blame the Democrats for on the other.


When did that happen?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,455
5,027
126
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Politicians are by and large : corrupt.

Power corrupts.

Republicans, by superior usage of propaganda and so forth, have had more years in power of recent times, and so can be held responsible for most of the idiocy that our government perpetrates.

That said, I'd fully expect a full swing if the tables are turned. Democrats dominating the offices of the land for a while would only reveal more idiocy and corruption in the end.

Maybe we should just program a big computer AI system to manage the government, and leave stupid fucking humans out of the day-to-day.
I think we get the government we deserve in two ways. 1. We know nothing so we vote for idiots. 2. We are idiots so we see people who are not as if they were.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,455
5,027
126
Originally posted by: Butterbean
Bush and a lot of his people may be Republicans but they are not conservatives. For a long time in C20, the Republicans were lead by country clubbers who tended to represent managment over workers on some issues (the two parties were still very close on many things), It was Reagan who united conservative factions (and remember there is a Conservative Party) with Republican factions (Keep in mind on the other side there is a Liberal Party as well as a Democratic one). The country-clubbers have not been that comfy with the conservatives. Pappa Bush appealed to both camps at one time but lost a lot of conservatives with his tax pledge gaff - hence losing the elction to Bubba because Perot took away so mnay conservative voters.

Bush Jr looked like he was Republican who was conservative but it turned out to be not the case - by a long shot. This is why his approval is so low even among his supporters. They dont hate him like the resentment based Democrats but they realize he does not often represent conservative ideas. The "compassionate conservatism" Bushies touted in 2000 was a give away. Seeing things like Bush's New Freedom initiative where teens would be perfunctorily screened for "suicidal urgess" were other give aways. Such programs were set up by drug makers and their academic shills. No conservative person would go along with that.

Illegal immigration is of course another thing conservatives wouldn't go along with
and thats where Bush really lost his base. He gets accussed of doing it to keep cheap labor around and that may be an element but Bush also wants to keep the churches viable. They were dying off but the illegals have been a massive series of refreshes for the churches. Bush actually lufs his little Mexican friends,

People were saying the Republican "brand" was over but they confuse the peoples desires with the desires of the oligarchy that resides at the top of Rep party - the desires are not the same. A lot of Republicans and Conservatives see Bush as having almost ruined the party and I think they are right. However dont mistake other Republicans unhappiness with Bush as a rejection of his "conservatism" - it's his pseudo-conservatism they lament.
I understand the implications of what you say here with regard to my OP and think you make a good case. You would need to be challenged on another front, the fallacies in conservative values.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,455
5,027
126
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
to save us from financial disaster while at the same time claiming they favor small government?

How can Republicans claim to favor small government when it is only the tremendous power the government actually has, presumably the result of those evil Democrats, that enables the government to successfully intervene in the market. How is it they take credit for something on the one hand, they blame the Democrats for on the other.


When did that happen?
You deny the Bush bailout has saved the world?
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Butterbean
Bush and a lot of his people may be Republicans but they are not conservatives. For a long time in C20, the Republicans were lead by country clubbers who tended to represent managment over workers on some issues (the two parties were still very close on many things), It was Reagan who united conservative factions (and remember there is a Conservative Party) with Republican factions (Keep in mind on the other side there is a Liberal Party as well as a Democratic one). The country-clubbers have not been that comfy with the conservatives. Pappa Bush appealed to both camps at one time but lost a lot of conservatives with his tax pledge gaff - hence losing the elction to Bubba because Perot took away so mnay conservative voters.

Bush Jr looked like he was Republican who was conservative but it turned out to be not the case - by a long shot. This is why his approval is so low even among his supporters. They dont hate him like the resentment based Democrats but they realize he does not often represent conservative ideas. The "compassionate conservatism" Bushies touted in 2000 was a give away. Seeing things like Bush's New Freedom initiative where teens would be perfunctorily screened for "suicidal urgess" were other give aways. Such programs were set up by drug makers and their academic shills. No conservative person would go along with that.

Illegal immigration is of course another thing conservatives wouldn't go along with
and thats where Bush really lost his base. He gets accussed of doing it to keep cheap labor around and that may be an element but Bush also wants to keep the churches viable. They were dying off but the illegals have been a massive series of refreshes for the churches. Bush actually lufs his little Mexican friends,

People were saying the Republican "brand" was over but they confuse the peoples desires with the desires of the oligarchy that resides at the top of Rep party - the desires are not the same. A lot of Republicans and Conservatives see Bush as having almost ruined the party and I think they are right. However dont mistake other Republicans unhappiness with Bush as a rejection of his "conservatism" - it's his pseudo-conservatism they lament.
I thought the problem is that all mainstream Republicans are secretly gay and therefore true conservatives hate and despise them for pushing their gay agenda? You're right in the sense that "compassionate conservatism" is clearly neither and the compassionate part is a dead-giveaway of homosexual urges.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY