• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why are their so many liberals in the Republican Party?

A

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Romney is a neocon (Rockefeller Republican), the Bush family is all Rockefeller Republicans, Huckabee's anti-secular, but at the same time he's a Rockefeller Republican (foreign interventionist and economic progressive), John Boehner and Paul are fiscal progressives, and most Republicans voted against Dr. Paul's sanctity of Life Act.

Basically, there were only 5, at most, Republican Presidents who could be construed as Conservative in any way--Reagan, McKinley, Harding, Coolidge, and Taft. Starting with Hoover, every Republican President has been picked by the Left Wing of the Republican Party, maybe with the exception of Reagan.

Contrast that with many conservative Democrat Presidents (Andrew Jackson, M Van Buren, Stephen Grover Cleveland, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan) and three conservative Democratic-Republicans (Jefferson, Madison, and JQ Adams, the latter two of whom were Constitutional Conservatives), Also, Stephen A Douglas and Samuel J Tilden were conservative/classically liberal Democrats.

The Republic and the Republican Party are headed further in the direction of modern liberalism. Why?

I'm a true conservative, because I'm an anarchist, and anarchy eventually eliminates the chaos which comes from modernly liberal tyranny. Order never comes from government. Anarchy may or may not create order, but it sure as hell is more conservative than government, because you're governed by God when you're not governed by government.
 
There.

And there is no rule that a Republican has to be extreme conservative.
Republican is a PARTY, which can do whatever it wants.
Liberal is an ideal, which can become the direction ANY party wishes to head in, regardless of their history.

Did you not learn this in junior high?
 
Reagan talked conservative, but grew government, tripled the deficit, and raised taxes 12 times (IIRC). Hardly a conservative.
 
How is a Anarchist ruled by a god providing order? You are not an anarchist you are a free market fundie and admitted fascist. There is no such thing as a right wing capitalist anarchist. Nor does anarchy mean chaos in political science. It means bottom up something you hate. Democracy.

Whoever taught you this crap is a very lost person.
Your confusion is simple. To a fascist everyone looks like a commie..duh.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TheRedUnderURBed said:
How is a Anarchist ruled by a god providing order? You are not an anarchist you are a free market fundie and admitted fascist. There is no such thing as a right wing capitalist anarchist. Nor does anarchy mean chaos in political science. It means bottom up something you hate. Democracy.

Whoever taught you this crap is a very lost person.
Your confusion is simple. To a fascist everyone looks like a commie..duh.
Click to expand...
I'm no fascist, as fascists are anti-market and pro-war; I'm antiwar and promarket. Individual liberty is on the right, on the left is collectivism.

And I know that Anarchy does not mean chaos in political science. I said it eventually clears out chaos because it takes a little bit of time for the newly free society to adjust from the state.
 
soundforbjt said:
Reagan talked conservative, but grew government, tripled the deficit, and raised taxes 12 times (IIRC). Hardly a conservative.
Click to expand...
True, which is why I said "maybe with the exception of Reagan".

The only reason I included Reagan at all was because I expected to get a few replies that were the opposite of what you said.
 
soundforbjt said:
Reagan talked conservative, but grew government, tripled the deficit, and raised taxes 12 times (IIRC). Hardly a conservative.
Click to expand...

Most of the money he spent was on the DoD and he scared the crap out of the Arabs by not compromising with them. He also canned all the air traffic controllers and told public schools to suck it up.

Liberals would have done the exact opposite in those situations.
 
Anarchist420 said:
Romney is a neocon (Rockefeller Republican), the Bush family is all Rockefeller Republicans, Huckabee's anti-secular, but at the same time he's a Rockefeller Republican (foreign interventionist and economic progressive), John Boehner and Paul are fiscal progressives, and most Republicans voted against Dr. Paul's sanctity of Life Act.

Basically, there were only 5, at most, Republican Presidents who could be construed as Conservative in any way--Reagan, McKinley, Harding, Coolidge, and Taft. Starting with Hoover, every Republican President has been picked by the Left Wing of the Republican Party, maybe with the exception of Reagan.

Contrast that with many conservative Democrat Presidents (Andrew Jackson, M Van Buren, Stephen Grover Cleveland, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan) and three conservative Democratic-Republicans (Jefferson, Madison, and JQ Adams, the latter two of whom were Constitutional Conservatives), Also, Stephen A Douglas and Samuel J Tilden were conservative/classically liberal Democrats.

The Republic and the Republican Party are headed further in the direction of modern liberalism. Why?

I'm a true conservative, because I'm an anarchist, and anarchy eventually eliminates the chaos which comes from modernly liberal tyranny. Order never comes from government. Anarchy may or may not create order, but it sure as hell is more conservative than government, because you're governed by God when you're not governed by government.
Click to expand...

If you actually knew anything about real history/political history, you would know that the Republican party stated a liberal orginization. The revisionist clap trap you spew on a regular basic is beyond ignorant.
 
soundforbjt said:
Reagan talked conservative, but grew government, tripled the deficit, and raised taxes 12 times (IIRC). Hardly a conservative.
Click to expand...

"Big government" does not mean liberal.

This sort of confusion causes a lot of people to vote like idiots for Republicans.

You can have all kinds of government spending that's Republican, and not liberal.

Our best 'government efficiency' projects have taken place under Democrats - in the 60's, the 90's, even the Truman commission in WWII that led him to get VP.

'Starve the Beast' overspending is a *right-wing* project. Its entire purpose is to defeat democracy by making the people's priorities fiscally impossible, forcing a sort of societal restructuring where people have to 'get used to less' while the rich are doing just fine - it forces reductions in the size of government, while the financiers are paid tax dollars in interest, anoter redistribution of wealth to the top.

It's the simplistic notion like 'big government = liberal' that lets the crooks win.

Liberals defend SOME government programs that the right likes to attack - you know, reducing poverty in retirement, medical care. That's not the same as 'big government'.

And we want some big government. It took 'big government' to put a man on the moon or to win WWII or to cut poverty or provide public education.

Too many people are confused between bad Republican 'big government' that's so much about fundamentalist social agendas and corrupt spending (like corporate subsidies and allowing big banks to blackmail the economy for big bailouts), and good government that can stand up for the people to powerful interests.
 
WildHorse said:
And the answer is,

so MANY when at college or in that phase of their lives, back then BOUGHT INTO the strident propoganda of the lefties,

NOW a slightly (EVER so slightly) more enlightened age is dawning over the mentalities of people all over this Gaia Earth,

and WE S E E, we truly PERCEIVE, what an utter shitload of contrived vile crap the radical lefties like Barry (Barack) and carpetbagger Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton spew.

Meanwhile, as they determinedly pursue their AGENDA of tearing down the USA (fueled by YOUR taxes), our economy RIP !
Click to expand...

rofl
 
Craig234 said:
"Big government" does not mean liberal.

This sort of confusion causes a lot of people to vote like idiots for Republicans.

You can have all kinds of government spending that's Republican, and not liberal.

Our best 'government efficiency' projects have taken place under Democrats - in the 60's, the 90's, even the Truman commission in WWII that led him to get VP.

'Starve the Beast' overspending is a *right-wing* project. Its entire purpose is to defeat democracy by making the people's priorities fiscally impossible, forcing a sort of societal restructuring where people have to 'get used to less' while the rich are doing just fine - it forces reductions in the size of government, while the financiers are paid tax dollars in interest, anoter redistribution of wealth to the top.

It's the simplistic notion like 'big government = liberal' that lets the crooks win.

Liberals defend SOME government programs that the right likes to attack - you know, reducing poverty in retirement, medical care. That's not the same as 'big government'.

And we want some big government. It took 'big government' to put a man on the moon or to win WWII or to cut poverty or provide public education.

Too many people are confused between bad Republican 'big government' that's so much about fundamentalist social agendas and corrupt spending (like corporate subsidies and allowing big banks to blackmail the economy for big bailouts), and good government that can stand up for the people to powerful interests.
Click to expand...
Any government is big government. Both parties are guilty of that. And the Republicans care just as much as the Democrats to not slash welfare benefits.

Monster_Munch said:
Didn't the US economy crash under Bush though? You can't really blame Obama and Clinton for that.
Click to expand...
It actually is Clinton's fault, because he repealed Glass-Stegall, the only good part of the New Deal. Clinton deserves most of the blame, although Bush and Obama deserve a lot of blame too, for not letting the market correct itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top