Revolt on the Right

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Take back the party

Here's another one who's fed up with the dem-lite party.

Doug Hoffman is an asshole social conseravtive and therefore would NEVER get my vote. Why can't the Republicans or even the Conservatives divorce themselves from the idiotic social issues that alienate independents and moderate liberals like myself? In doing so, they'd certainly get a lot of support from the Ron Paulbots and libertarians everywhere.

You aren't a Conservative and you aren't/weren't part of the GOP. The goal is not to attract Democrats and liberals. That sort of thinking is what brought the neocons to power.

That sort of thinking loses the independent vote, Cad. Did you forget I'm a registered independent?

Yeah, there are a lot who register "indepedent" but in reality are Democrats or Republican. I see it with people here in Iowa all the time. "independents" are the biggest block of registered voters in iowa - one can't tell me that most of them aren't one or the other -they just like to outwardly present as "independent".
Now if one had a specific reason(ideological or otherwise) to be "independent" -that's fine but most of us here know those people are few and far between.

And again, if the GOP has to become dem-lite to get "independents" like you - then they should pass on your support. Core Ideals should not be compromised just to "win".

Like I said, if the GOP could divorce themselves from social conservative BS issues, perhaps I could find myself supporting them on fiscal issues more often. I guess if you want to marginalize yourself over idiotic issues like gay rights, abortion, etc., more power to you?

 

[Carmen813]

As I said earlier, I don't think the issue is either party. The parties are merely the result of the people who vote. Previous stats suggest that 60% of eligible voters will NOT vote in the 2010 elections. That is what needs to change.

A lot of conservatives gave up showing up because of the actions Republicans took when in power. That is why the party has moved farther to the fringe.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Nowhere did I say those things. Nice try though.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by "liberals" when you said, "The goal is not to attract Democrats and liberals. That sort of thinking is what brought the neocons to power."

I don't like the words "liberal" and "conservative" being used without their preceding "social" or "fiscal."

Believe it or not I actually agree with much of what you said...except about the ultra rich. Take the ten richest Americans for example:

Bill Gates: political donations pretty split.
Warren Buffett: almost exclusively Democrat.
Larry Ellison: pretty split.
Michael Bloomberg: pretty split.
Waltons (4 of them) almost exclusively GOP
Charles Koch: Almost 100% GOP
David Koch: Almost 100% GOP

Interesting. More interesting is who makes up the wealthy in the senate (2008):

1. John Kerry (does not include the Heinz fortune)
2. Jane Harman
3. Darrell Issa
4. Jay Rockefeller
5. Robin Hayes
6. Vern Buchanan
7. Frank Lautenberg
8. Dianne Feinstein
9. Edward Kennedy (RIP)
10. Gordon Smith

So. 6/10 are Democrats.

The thing thats impossible for you to admit, is that the GOP isnt the party of the rich anymore. In fact, if you look at it honestly, both parties are very well represented. So pretty much any post you make talking about the GOP protecting the rich, GOP is the party of the rich, etc, is pure bullshit. Im not pointing fingers at the Democrats here, in fact quite the opposite. Im glad there are those in government protecting Americans assets; however, when people like you keep spouting lies about this subject when the evidence so clearly disagrees with you, you really make yourself look foolish.

In fact, if you look at data published by the IRS, Democrats control the majority of the wealthiest districts. Pelosi's for example. If you would like more just google "democrats party of the rich" and you will find all the hard data you want. For example, in 2002 those who gave $1 million or more, Democrats out numbered the GOP by 12:1. Or that in the 2000 POTUS election Kerry only won one county in Wyoming....oddly enough the county that houses Jackson Hole.



So the next time you want to blow your hot air about income inequality and plutocracy, you had better include your beloved Democrats. BOTH parties are parties of the rich.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Take back the party

Here's another one who's fed up with the dem-lite party.

Doug Hoffman is an asshole social conseravtive and therefore would NEVER get my vote. Why can't the Republicans or even the Conservatives divorce themselves from the idiotic social issues that alienate independents and moderate liberals like myself? In doing so, they'd certainly get a lot of support from the Ron Paulbots and libertarians everywhere.

You aren't a Conservative and you aren't/weren't part of the GOP. The goal is not to attract Democrats and liberals. That sort of thinking is what brought the neocons to power.

That sort of thinking loses the independent vote, Cad. Did you forget I'm a registered independent?

Yeah, there are a lot who register "indepedent" but in reality are Democrats or Republican. I see it with people here in Iowa all the time. "independents" are the biggest block of registered voters in iowa - one can't tell me that most of them aren't one or the other -they just like to outwardly present as "independent".
Now if one had a specific reason(ideological or otherwise) to be "independent" -that's fine but most of us here know those people are few and far between.

And again, if the GOP has to become dem-lite to get "independents" like you - then they should pass on your support. Core Ideals should not be compromised just to "win".

Like I said, if the GOP could divorce themselves from social conservative BS issues, perhaps I could find myself supporting them on fiscal issues more often. I guess if you want to marginalize yourself over idiotic issues like gay rights, abortion, etc., more power to you?

The GOP isn't going to rid themselves of the social cons any more than your dem party is going to rid itself of the fiscal libs(read socialists). While you claim you might support the GOP then it really doesn't matter because no matter what they do you'll find something to whine about. Hell, the social cons haven't been in power at all in the GOP the last decade. Just look at what they've allowed to happen. If that's being "socially conservative" then it seems your definition is a bit out of whack. VERY little came out of the GOP majority for social cons. About the only thing I can even remotely link to them is the school voucher programs - but there was some social lib support to that as well IIRC.

lol, I love how you and your types ASSume I'm some fringe right social con. Just because I point out the flaws in your thinking doesn't mean I'm supporting them. If it were up to me there would be no need to classify "social" or "fiscal" - it would be Constitutional or not regarding Federal politics. The problem is that each side wants their dogma to be pushed on the masses. The religious want their style to be the default and the others want their style to be the default. If either were looking at how the framers founded the gov't they'd see that the Fed is no place for them to be trying to push their agenda since the Fed is supposed to have only limited power. Unfortunately both have bastardized our system to the point where the Feds have more power than Constitutionally allowable and thus begins the fight for control.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Lots of words...

You keep using the word liberal. I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

[Jhhnn]

You need a source if you're putting up numbers, blackangst1.

And you're cherry-picking, anyway, going to the top ten. How about the Forbes 400? How about the top top 13,000 tax filers, the top .01% of incomes in this country?

You also fail to mention that some of America's wealthiest citizens finance the thinktanks of the Right through their "charitable foundations". And that's to a much larger tune than their political contributions. There's really no competition on the other side of the spectrum...

Obviously, there are wealthy democrats... the Right usually refers to them derisively as "Limousine Liberals" when inciting the dittoheads, palinites and teabaggers...

Upper class conservatives of the time openly called Roosevelt a "traitor to his class". I doubt they've changed much over the years...

And if repubs don't favor the wealthy, then why did the lion's share of the Bush taxcuts go to the top 1%, and even more importantly to the top .1%?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
You need a source if you're putting up numbers, blackangst1.

And you're cherry-picking, anyway, going to the top ten. How about the Forbes 400? How about the top top 13,000 tax filers, the top .01% of incomes in this country?

You also fail to mention that some of America's wealthiest citizens finance the thinktanks of the Right through their "charitable foundations". And that's to a much larger tune than their political contributions. There's really no competition on the other side of the spectrum...

Obviously, there are wealthy democrats... the Right usually refers to them derisively as "Limousine Liberals" when inciting the dittoheads, palinites and teabaggers...

Upper class conservatives of the time openly called Roosevelt a "traitor to his class". I doubt they've changed much over the years...

And if repubs don't favor the wealthy, then why did the lion's share of the Bush taxcuts go to the top 1%, and even more importantly to the top .1%?

How about it? It was what I could put together in 30 mins. If it would matter to you (it wouldnt) I could do that entire list. Ive read enough to know the outcome. If Im so wrong why dont you google what I mentioned then tear up the facts? Ive proven my point, all youve done is say "oh yeah? But what about...."

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
You need a source if you're putting up numbers, blackangst1.

And you're cherry-picking, anyway, going to the top ten. How about the Forbes 400? How about the top top 13,000 tax filers, the top .01% of incomes in this country?

You also fail to mention that some of America's wealthiest citizens finance the thinktanks of the Right through their "charitable foundations". And that's to a much larger tune than their political contributions. There's really no competition on the other side of the spectrum...

Obviously, there are wealthy democrats... the Right usually refers to them derisively as "Limousine Liberals" when inciting the dittoheads, palinites and teabaggers...

Upper class conservatives of the time openly called Roosevelt a "traitor to his class". I doubt they've changed much over the years...

And if repubs don't favor the wealthy, then why did the lion's share of the Bush taxcuts go to the top 1%, and even more importantly to the top .1%?

How about it? It was what I could put together in 30 mins. If it would matter to you (it wouldnt) I could do that entire list. Ive read enough to know the outcome. If Im so wrong why dont you google what I mentioned then tear up the facts? Ive proven my point, all youve done is say "oh yeah? But what about...."

Your "facts" are meaningless in a larger context, blackangst1. Give it up.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
You need a source if you're putting up numbers, blackangst1.

And you're cherry-picking, anyway, going to the top ten. How about the Forbes 400? How about the top top 13,000 tax filers, the top .01% of incomes in this country?

You also fail to mention that some of America's wealthiest citizens finance the thinktanks of the Right through their "charitable foundations". And that's to a much larger tune than their political contributions. There's really no competition on the other side of the spectrum...

Obviously, there are wealthy democrats... the Right usually refers to them derisively as "Limousine Liberals" when inciting the dittoheads, palinites and teabaggers...

Upper class conservatives of the time openly called Roosevelt a "traitor to his class". I doubt they've changed much over the years...

And if repubs don't favor the wealthy, then why did the lion's share of the Bush taxcuts go to the top 1%, and even more importantly to the top .1%?

How about it? It was what I could put together in 30 mins. If it would matter to you (it wouldnt) I could do that entire list. Ive read enough to know the outcome. If Im so wrong why dont you google what I mentioned then tear up the facts? Ive proven my point, all youve done is say "oh yeah? But what about...."

Your "facts" are meaningless in a larger context, blackangst1. Give it up.

WTF does that mean? Craig clearly stated (more than in this thread) the GOP is the party of the rich who protect the rich, and I presented my case of why it isnt true. You need to give it up. Unless you can post something that refutes my facts as wrong. Make an effort if Im so wrong. Start at www.google.com and search democrat party of the rich and you'll get all the info you need.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
You need a source if you're putting up numbers, blackangst1.

And you're cherry-picking, anyway, going to the top ten. How about the Forbes 400? How about the top top 13,000 tax filers, the top .01% of incomes in this country?

You also fail to mention that some of America's wealthiest citizens finance the thinktanks of the Right through their "charitable foundations". And that's to a much larger tune than their political contributions. There's really no competition on the other side of the spectrum...

Obviously, there are wealthy democrats... the Right usually refers to them derisively as "Limousine Liberals" when inciting the dittoheads, palinites and teabaggers...

Upper class conservatives of the time openly called Roosevelt a "traitor to his class". I doubt they've changed much over the years...

And if repubs don't favor the wealthy, then why did the lion's share of the Bush taxcuts go to the top 1%, and even more importantly to the top .1%?

How about it? It was what I could put together in 30 mins. If it would matter to you (it wouldnt) I could do that entire list. Ive read enough to know the outcome. If Im so wrong why dont you google what I mentioned then tear up the facts? Ive proven my point, all youve done is say "oh yeah? But what about...."

Your "facts" are meaningless in a larger context, blackangst1. Give it up.

WTF does that mean? Craig clearly stated (more than in this thread) the GOP is the party of the rich who protect the rich, and I presented my case of why it isnt true. You need to give it up. Unless you can post something that refutes my facts as wrong. Make an effort if Im so wrong. Start at www.google.com and search democrat party of the rich and you'll get all the info you need.

Don't you get it yet, blackangst1???? Facts are meaningless when you have an agenda.

In the "larger" context, if reality could be imagined differently, if history could be re-written, if the Eagles can be stopped on their way to Super Bowl XLIV... Just like well-known caricature Dan Rather sez, (Damn the truth, the documents...) "could have been created in the '70s." Right, Jhhnn? You go, boy!

Thanks for making me laugh over my lemon almond poppy cake!

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234
Lots of words...

You keep using the word liberal. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Inconceivable!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Where were they?

They were here, sitting on their couches, eating Big Macs and watching Nascar.

The straw that broke the camel's back was a black man getting elected President, and his party controlling Congress. The nutters couldn't handle that.

So true!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: PJABBER
Many of the lefty posters here at P&N confuse conservatives, libertarians and classical liberals with Republicans.

That's funny. No one here is confusing the righty posters here, the only hard part is figuring out who you guys are from account to account. It's hard to tell the reborn pabsters from the corbetts from the heartsurgons. That's the only confusion...

Don't forget BarryButterBeanSotero.

heeee....thx for reminding us...rofl

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: PJABBER
Many of the lefty posters here at P&N confuse conservatives, libertarians and classical liberals with Republicans.

That's funny. No one here is confusing the righty posters here, the only hard part is figuring out who you guys are from account to account. It's hard to tell the reborn pabsters from the corbetts from the heartsurgons. That's the only confusion...

Don't forget BarryButterBeanSotero.

heeee....thx for reminding us...rofl

Waste of time, the constant mis-identification of posters is. All reasonable participants to this forum wish, cease and desist, you would. With us, the Force is! Hmmmmmm.