Really, too bad flip flopping only loses you votes and is not a crime otherwise a lot of P&Nr's would be locked up.
GoPackGo
Diamond Member
- Oct 10, 2003
- 6,453
- 525
- 126
1. Replace the income tax with a sales tax.
2. Eliminate all paycheck withholding
3. Legalize marijuana. Send meth and crack dealers to gitmo. Release non - violent marijuana convicts from jail...wipe the slate clean for them...non-violent also means no robberies or burglaries.
4. National Healthcare
2. Eliminate all paycheck withholding
3. Legalize marijuana. Send meth and crack dealers to gitmo. Release non - violent marijuana convicts from jail...wipe the slate clean for them...non-violent also means no robberies or burglaries.
4. National Healthcare
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
Arkaign
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,377
- 126
Heh, well that was one of the selling points, at least
If you want to talk about how they really felt about it, that's debatable. I think at least some of the Republicans at the time believed it. But who can really know? All that matters in the end is that they failed utterly and completely on that issue.
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
Gooberlx2
Lifer
- May 4, 2001
- 15,381
- 6
- 91
Agreed! They so need to end this futile "war on drugs". Legalize marijuana, standardize and process it, sell it in liquor store and tax the hell out of it. Not only will they stop wasting money on this futile effort but they can have so much to gain from it. In addition, it'll seriously eat away at any revenues many of the drug lords would have been making in the first place, driving them elsewhere...and hopefully much of the crime they bring too.
Top Ten Republicans values:
Tax unemployment benefits (Regan), because those who are down can afford to pay more
Corporate welfare to big oil and other companies that don?t need it
Play to their ?base? by bashing the gays and pork barrel give-a-ways to ?faith based? organizations
Keep the minimum wage down, the little guy doesn?t need it anyway
No plan for health care means many go without
Eliminate the inheritance tax so Paris Hilton can buy more shoes
Capital gains tax cut so douchebag daytraders pay at a lower rate than I do on MY EARNED income (no offence to any daytraders on the forum)
Progressive income tax cuts mean $100 for me and $100,000 for the top cats
Tons of money to defense contractors that Cheney used to work for, but our troops are left without adequate armour
Deny all of the above by hiding behind the flag and 9/11
Tax unemployment benefits (Regan), because those who are down can afford to pay more
Corporate welfare to big oil and other companies that don?t need it
Play to their ?base? by bashing the gays and pork barrel give-a-ways to ?faith based? organizations
Keep the minimum wage down, the little guy doesn?t need it anyway
No plan for health care means many go without
Eliminate the inheritance tax so Paris Hilton can buy more shoes
Capital gains tax cut so douchebag daytraders pay at a lower rate than I do on MY EARNED income (no offence to any daytraders on the forum)
Progressive income tax cuts mean $100 for me and $100,000 for the top cats
Tons of money to defense contractors that Cheney used to work for, but our troops are left without adequate armour
Deny all of the above by hiding behind the flag and 9/11
Cost + Program -- why should a company have to worry about making a profit? Just give them more money!
Gee, if we ever HAVE a "conservative revolution" I'll let you know how it goes. But what we had was about 5 minutes of "conservative" and then several years of fundamentalists who people like Goldwater and Reagan would fail to recognize. Our revolutionary righties didn't really subscribe to the more "extreme" conservative ideas so much as they totally reinvented what conservativeness meant. For example, "small government" now meant government pushing Christianity on everyone and deciding that Brad and Kevin couldn't get married...oh yeah, and warrantless wiretapping and the President calling himself "The Decider".
Perhaps that "5 minutes" figure is unfair, I'd say we probably had real conservatives right up until 9/11...when they decided the best way to fight against freedom-hating religious fundies from the Middle East was to become freedom-hating religious fundies from America.
Perhaps that "5 minutes" figure is unfair, I'd say we probably had real conservatives right up until 9/11...when they decided the best way to fight against freedom-hating religious fundies from the Middle East was to become freedom-hating religious fundies from America.
DefDC
Golden Member
- Aug 28, 2003
- 1,858
- 1
- 81
Well said. I'm definitely left of center, but I was always surprised that my supposedly "conservative" friends weren't spitting fire. After 2000, I said, "Well, it's put-up or shut-up time for the Republicans". And, they pretty much did that I thought they would. But, I'll give a benefit of the doubt that this was a bad bunch.
It always struck me uneasy that my conservative friends would say ignorant things like,"We shouldn't have pussyfooted around. Iraq should have been glass years ago..."
Hmmm.. Wholesale destruction with no care of collateral damage, just to prove a point... Sound like anyone you know? Great guys.... Let's just become EXACTLY what we are fighting....
And don't get me wrong. It's not the war angle. I'm still pissed that we're fighting in BOTH Iraq AND Afghanistan.
Being a person that associates more with the Republican Party than the Democratic party first let me say that is is the Ultra liberal leadership in the Democratic Party that I dislike the most. If it was more centrist it may be seen as representing mainstream America, and traditional family values.
I think Bush as a president is not a very good leader and some of his ideas are bad for America.
First he claims to be both for building a Fence and Amnesty for Mexican and other people who have illegally immigrated to the USA.
Second is that he started this war in Iraq. I think he may have had good intentions, but I thought it was doomed for failure from day 1. I will not call him a liar because I think that is unfair and not true.
Third is that under President Clinton there was tougher policing of illegal hiring of undocumented workers than under president Bush. I dont agree that we need undocumented workers. I think this is caused by the greed of some companies who are unwilling to pay a real wage. People want to work, and people like getting paid, but they still have to have enough to live on. I look at undocumented workers as a kind of slave labor force that is being mistreated and abused by their corporate masters. I say go after the employers and throw their employers in jail.
As a Republican, I am against what I describe as War Hawks that are too eager to take this country to war. We dont have to fight an all-out war and take over countries to fight terrorism. It is impossible to have a nice war. War is hell, and we should not go to war to be nice. Our enemies in muslim countries will not respect us if we do. War should be a last resort and congress should not vote for funds for military action unless they declare war and are willing to give the President full War-time powers. Either declare war or we have no conflicts.
I think Bush as a president is not a very good leader and some of his ideas are bad for America.
First he claims to be both for building a Fence and Amnesty for Mexican and other people who have illegally immigrated to the USA.
Second is that he started this war in Iraq. I think he may have had good intentions, but I thought it was doomed for failure from day 1. I will not call him a liar because I think that is unfair and not true.
Third is that under President Clinton there was tougher policing of illegal hiring of undocumented workers than under president Bush. I dont agree that we need undocumented workers. I think this is caused by the greed of some companies who are unwilling to pay a real wage. People want to work, and people like getting paid, but they still have to have enough to live on. I look at undocumented workers as a kind of slave labor force that is being mistreated and abused by their corporate masters. I say go after the employers and throw their employers in jail.
As a Republican, I am against what I describe as War Hawks that are too eager to take this country to war. We dont have to fight an all-out war and take over countries to fight terrorism. It is impossible to have a nice war. War is hell, and we should not go to war to be nice. Our enemies in muslim countries will not respect us if we do. War should be a last resort and congress should not vote for funds for military action unless they declare war and are willing to give the President full War-time powers. Either declare war or we have no conflicts.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
Why do so many people throw out the "Yeah, slavery was great!" argument anytime somebody yearns for yesterday?
You know, not everything was bad back then. You can keep what was good and fix what was bad. Progress doesn't mean you have to throw everything out. Slavery was a bad thing. Being able to leave your door unlocked at night was a good thing. You're as bad as the people you mock in seeing the world in black and white.
Welfare reform was a disaster. Notice the increase in the homeless population in our cities.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0831/p02s01-usec.html
Percentage of Americans in poverty grew for the fourth straight year, the US Census Bureau reported Tuesday.
Despite a year in which the US economy added jobs, the percentage of Americans living in poverty grew from 12.5 to 12.7 percent last year - the fourth straight year it's risen.
That increase, reported in the much-anticipated annual Census Bureau study Tuesday, surprised many analysts who had expected the number to drop along with unemployment.
The US has made fewer strides in reducing poverty, critics say, than other industrialized nations. England, for example, has been cited for successfully reducing child poverty. "[Prime Minister] Tony Blair did in the UK in 1999 what President [Lyndon] Johnson did here in 1964, that is to say, 'We are going to make fighting poverty a priority,'" says Dr. Danziger.
David Brady, a sociology professor at Duke University, says that part of the problem is that the poverty level itself is far too low - that many above the threshold still do not have the means to make ends meet. He says no president has had the incentive to acknowledge that the level is too low, and the American public has not demanded accountability. "We don't care enough about the poor"
Originally posted by: Vic
Not to mention that back in those "good ol' days," the racist slave-owning wife-beaters were the Democrats.
Plantations are still there in the form of the modern welfare state.
Unsurprisingly the masters are represented by the same party.
Progressive indeed.
Yeah what a disaster, it went down after Welfare reform and is still lower than it was before the reform.
btw this is linked from the page you present.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0721/p09s02-coop.html?s=widep
Welfare "reform" was enacted during the biggest non-war boom ever in this country.
Of course poverty rates were decreasing then.
Welfare reform was pushed through a Republican congress and a weak president.
How about we reform social security and military retirements, etc..
The only reason this occurred is because the poor have no lobby. This was a terrible thing to do to the poorest in America. The amount spent on welfare is peanuts in this economy, the interest on the debt is far greater.
Of course poverty rates were decreasing then.
Welfare reform was pushed through a Republican congress and a weak president.
How about we reform social security and military retirements, etc..
The only reason this occurred is because the poor have no lobby. This was a terrible thing to do to the poorest in America. The amount spent on welfare is peanuts in this economy, the interest on the debt is far greater.
They went from C+ under Clinton to F under Bush. The were doing a passing job under Clinton, but then Bush was elected and well they threw caution to the wind.
If you look at how the Republican party is organized, it is itself a failure of conservative principles.
What are the RNC, NRSC, NRCC and the other committees? They are centralized bodies which collect money from the members to redistribute to poorer Republican challengers, embattled incumbents and to run national campaigns.
Conservative principles should be at odds with this type of centralized welfare no? Shouldn't each Republican candidate or incumbent stand on their own two feet? Raise their own funds and run their own GOTV operations? Why centralize to a national body the function of collecting voter data and hiring staff to call voters, run mailers and do door knocking of chosen demographics?
All of this is very in line with liberal governance philosophy. You centralize for the economies of scale. You redistribute wealth to aid the disadvantaged in order to promote the greater good. Having one overwhelming victory by a republican is fine, but since he can clearly spare some funding and still win (albeit with a decreased margin), his funds could help 2 others win who would otherwise be uncompetitive. Thus, the Republicans redistribute wealth.
No, this convinces me that talk of smaller government and crap about teaching people to fish instead of giving them fish is largely cynical tools to exploit voters. If they really believed these techniques were the superior way to govern, they would run their own party along those lines.
There comes a time when you have to stop judging a political movement by what it claims to stand for and start judging it by what it ACTUALLY DOES when it has power - and the point where you do that? When it obtains power and you have a track record to analyze. And you use that as your basis because any other basis is really just a denial of reality - to talk about how we need to elect 'conservative Republicans' to acheive, say, smaller government, and then they get elected, and government only grows, I think proves that conservative Republicans don't shrink government. I think the only ones left who do shrink government are Libertarians, and they don't win elections.
George Bush is the epitome of conservatism, because like conservatism itself he is a myth created entirely by the power of marketing. Conservative today is not a philosophy, it as a brand. A brand that has built a fiercely loyal following by the most intensive and successful marketing campaign ever, spanning decades and costing billions of dollars. The result is that if people like something, then it must be conservative or the result of conservatism. If people don't like something then it must be liberal or the result of liberalism. Only a small minority of people understand that actual conservatism is authoritarian and about preserving and improving the status quo for the benefit of the wealthiest and most powerful vested interests, almost always at everyone else's expense. The fact that the American revolution itself was the result of radical liberalism overturning the existing conservative order is not something most Americans today are aware of or capable of comprehending.
I'm not convinced that the election results are really indicative of a rejection of the conservative brand as much as irritation with the particular bums in power for letting Bush jr. mismanage a war while they diddled pages and vacationed on Abramof's credit card. The brand may be tarnished a bit, but their loyalty runs deep and many of their storylines and myths (like the media's 'liberal bias', a contradiction in terms if there ever was one) are so pervasive that they have become conventional wisdom and even many self proclaimed liberals and progressives believe them. It is going to take more than a few years to reverse that. We have an opportunity to start, but it's far from over.
What are the RNC, NRSC, NRCC and the other committees? They are centralized bodies which collect money from the members to redistribute to poorer Republican challengers, embattled incumbents and to run national campaigns.
Conservative principles should be at odds with this type of centralized welfare no? Shouldn't each Republican candidate or incumbent stand on their own two feet? Raise their own funds and run their own GOTV operations? Why centralize to a national body the function of collecting voter data and hiring staff to call voters, run mailers and do door knocking of chosen demographics?
All of this is very in line with liberal governance philosophy. You centralize for the economies of scale. You redistribute wealth to aid the disadvantaged in order to promote the greater good. Having one overwhelming victory by a republican is fine, but since he can clearly spare some funding and still win (albeit with a decreased margin), his funds could help 2 others win who would otherwise be uncompetitive. Thus, the Republicans redistribute wealth.
No, this convinces me that talk of smaller government and crap about teaching people to fish instead of giving them fish is largely cynical tools to exploit voters. If they really believed these techniques were the superior way to govern, they would run their own party along those lines.
There comes a time when you have to stop judging a political movement by what it claims to stand for and start judging it by what it ACTUALLY DOES when it has power - and the point where you do that? When it obtains power and you have a track record to analyze. And you use that as your basis because any other basis is really just a denial of reality - to talk about how we need to elect 'conservative Republicans' to acheive, say, smaller government, and then they get elected, and government only grows, I think proves that conservative Republicans don't shrink government. I think the only ones left who do shrink government are Libertarians, and they don't win elections.
George Bush is the epitome of conservatism, because like conservatism itself he is a myth created entirely by the power of marketing. Conservative today is not a philosophy, it as a brand. A brand that has built a fiercely loyal following by the most intensive and successful marketing campaign ever, spanning decades and costing billions of dollars. The result is that if people like something, then it must be conservative or the result of conservatism. If people don't like something then it must be liberal or the result of liberalism. Only a small minority of people understand that actual conservatism is authoritarian and about preserving and improving the status quo for the benefit of the wealthiest and most powerful vested interests, almost always at everyone else's expense. The fact that the American revolution itself was the result of radical liberalism overturning the existing conservative order is not something most Americans today are aware of or capable of comprehending.
I'm not convinced that the election results are really indicative of a rejection of the conservative brand as much as irritation with the particular bums in power for letting Bush jr. mismanage a war while they diddled pages and vacationed on Abramof's credit card. The brand may be tarnished a bit, but their loyalty runs deep and many of their storylines and myths (like the media's 'liberal bias', a contradiction in terms if there ever was one) are so pervasive that they have become conventional wisdom and even many self proclaimed liberals and progressives believe them. It is going to take more than a few years to reverse that. We have an opportunity to start, but it's far from over.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter