The Rebirth of the Republican Party (Congress, Iraq, arsenal, illegal)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LML, you need to pace yourself with your posts. They're so good, I can't rep you enough
I completely agree by the way. I probably consider myself a "Republican in exile" My family has proudly voted Republican for at least a century, and I too am saddened to see the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Reagan on the brink of a cliff. I'm ashamed that they're resorting these tactics of fear and defamation just to maintain power. History tells me that when a party gets to that point, that they need to go, for the good of everybody.
At this point I cannot vote for them. And while I hope Obama will be a great president, I also know that healthy democracies require more than one party. If the Republicans clean up their act and ditch the neo-cons, and become the party you said it used to be, I'd gladly come back..but now I have to step away.
I admire your integrity. The Neocons have hijacked the Republican Party. I was actually supporting Kucinich as the nominee, but alas, he did not prevail. I find him to be a true patriot. I will be voting for Obama as I see what the so called Republican Party's agenda is and it is totally anti-Amercian, contrary to what ignorant or unenlightened individulals choose to believe. I'll confess that it has always irritated me that a Green Party candidate never gathered enough steam or had the star quality to run a really serious campaign because with the way it stands right now...we have to kick the fossil fuel habit because it reallly is black greasy heroin. Doing that will lead to so many pro-American ideals. Job creation, Amercian manufacturing, energy independence, clean air and water and an example for the rest of the world. This is somethiing that we will never get from a Neocon, right wing, religious fanatic government.
I felt Kucinich was the most honest of the Dem candidates. He may have been pretty far to the left, but he was honest, upfront, and unapologetic for his views, which gained a lot of my respect.
I cannot trust Obama because his voting record and short history as a politician do not support what he has been running on. I cannot support McCain because he seems to be another RINO. The tax issue is the only place I seem to feel remotely close to McCain's views, and after that, there isn't much left. Palin seemed like a great addition initially. And while I don't think she is nearly as bad as the far left nuts think, nor does she deserve the pure vile hatred from the left, when you remove all the rhetoric from her and the right and all the hate from the left, you have an inexperienced woman who has some good "ideas" in some areas that she hasn't proven she can implement, and a good bit of cluelessness on things she does not need to be clueless on. If the GOP runs her in 2012, she better be 100 times better at talking and interviewing.
In general, I would either like to see the RINO's and extremes of the right removed, or a new party, either the constitutionalist or libertarians, take over the second major party. I know it doesn't seem likely, but there have been parties before that were uprooted and disposed of because their views went to far one direction. I think both the Dems and Reps need some uprooting and disposal within their groups if the are going to remain intact and promote the ideas our founding fathers laid the groundwork for. But it seems too much like the Reps and Dems don't mind undermining the constitution to give more power to the govt and take power away from the people.
Kind of funny because even though Kucinich's politics are vastly different than mine, I also happen to admire the guy for sticking to his convictions and principles. One of the few classical liberals left lurking in Washington.
The idea of keeping the government smaller is for many reasons, one that the smaller the government is the more efficiently and non intrusively it can run. The United States Constitution clearly lays out the role of government and government should operate strictly within those bounds. Smaller government also means less bureaucracy, red tape and lower cost to operate so thus less money is needed in taxes to function.
Missing from the discussion about the size of government is the size of the population that government is supposed to serve. The population of the US has increased 100 fold over the last 200 years. We can not just say "we want small government" without taking into account the population growth that has occurred over the last 200 years. A town of 500 people may be adequately served by 5 police officers and one school. But a megalopolis of 3 million people will not be.
This is one thing that the small government advocates have failed to consider. They keep harping about the need to keep government small, but there is no intellectual effort on their part to explain what the appropriate size of govenment should be, given a particular population size. "Keep government small" has become a nice but empty campaign slogan.
Sounds like a discussion of the pros (according to Dems) of the Democratic Party. The Republican Party is not going to change it's core beliefs (including the importance of religion, family, individualism (as opposed to dependence on the government, capitalism, etc.) if they lose this election. This thread is so calculated it's laughable.
Sounds like a discussion of the pros (according to Dems) of the Democratic Party. The Republican Party is not going to change it's core beliefs (including the importance of religion, family, individualism (as opposed to dependence on the government, capitalism, etc.) if they lose this election. This thread is so calculated it's laughable.
Since you refuse to answer a simple question about what you feel it means to be conservative, I can only extrapolate that it is likely you do not know or you would share it with us. Then again, perhaps your purpose here is for entirely different reasons that to discuss.
Since you refuse to answer a simple question about what you feel it means to be conservative, I can only extrapolate that it is likely you do not know or you would share it with us. Then again, perhaps your purpose here is for entirely different reasons that to discuss.
No, it is not that I do not know what it means to be a conservative, au contraire, I AM a conservative so I know very well. I don't have to prove that to you, when it is so obvious what this thread is about. I don't do long winded posts about the history of conservatism. The bottom line which addresses the OP, it that the core beliefs are not going to be thrown out if McCain loses this election. I know the Otrons would like to think that. But the Republican party has dignity... and we do not give up on our "Americanism" as someone in this thread mentioned, if we lose.
Missing from the discussion about the size of government is the size of the population that government is supposed to serve. The population of the US has increased 100 fold over the last 200 years. We can not just say "we want small government" without taking into account the population growth that has occurred over the last 200 years. A town of 500 people may be adequately served by 5 police officers and one school. But a megalopolis of 3 million people will not be.
This is one thing that the small government advocates have failed to consider. They keep harping about the need to keep government small, but there is no intellectual effort on their part to explain what the appropriate size of govenment should be, given a particular population size. "Keep government small" has become a nice but empty campaign slogan.
ndfmnlf, I don't believe anyone is advocating that we shrink government down to 1900 level's of governmental employees. Of course population has expanded and in many areas this requires more people to tackle functionary governmental positions. This does not mean the Federal government needs to expand its agencies, like adding a "Department of Homeland Security", when there were already agencies in place that could manage such things.
When the people come to rely more an more upon the government to provide for them the services that in the past they themselves were responsible for, then yes the government needs to expand to accommodate this. Now folks can argue over the merits of these two approaches but the size of government is very much related to how many services and functions the people wish to have the government manage instead of doing it themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by njchick
No, it is not that I do not know what it means to be a conservative, au contraire, I AM a conservative so I know very well. I don't have to prove that to you, when it is so obvious what this thread is about. I don't do long winded posts about the history of conservatism. The bottom line which addresses the OP, it that the core beliefs are not going to be thrown out if McCain loses this election. I know the Otrons would like to think that. But the Republican party has dignity... and we do not give up on our "Americanism" as someone in this thread mentioned, if we lose.
You can just as easily claim to be an Oak tree and still not know anything about wood. YOU made it a point to drop by this thread discussion to accuse everyone of not knowing what a conservative is, yet you don't offer up any opinions of you own, just accusations. To begin with, it is clear that there are many here who are not conservatives just asking a question that many people, including conservatives are asking. What you are doing is basically trolling here in an otherwise pretty reasonable and measured discussion for this forum of late.
As a former Republican, who also believes we need at least 2 vibrant political parties, I think the current Republican party has to suffer a massive defeat to have any chance of reforming itself.
The election defeat of 2006 obviously did nothing to change their ways... it will take a blowout to do that...
It is a shame to see what the party has morfed into... it has become the party of the rich and business and lobbyists - everyone else is inconsequential in their way of thinking. They use the religious right and their wedge issues to get in power - then turn their back on the working class - big time...
I'll never forget a few years ago - there was a recording of Bush speaking to one of his $5,000 a plate fund raisers... He says: " People in the media would call you the 'elites' of the world. I call you 'my base' ".
That stuck with me - because it confirmed the worst that I had feared about the man - that he only uses the middle class to get elected, and then works against them to enrich himself and his family once the election is over.....
I personally cannot see myself ever voting Republican again - I just don't trust them any longer...
I think an Obama victory will herald in a generation of minority party status for the Republicans...
Missing from the discussion about the size of government is the size of the population that government is supposed to serve. The population of the US has increased 100 fold over the last 200 years. We can not just say "we want small government" without taking into account the population growth that has occurred over the last 200 years. A town of 500 people may be adequately served by 5 police officers and one school. But a megalopolis of 3 million people will not be.
This is one thing that the small government advocates have failed to consider. They keep harping about the need to keep government small, but there is no intellectual effort on their part to explain what the appropriate size of govenment should be, given a particular population size. "Keep government small" has become a nice but empty campaign slogan.
To partly address your concerns, in 1910 the total fed/state/local government spending was about 8% of total US GDP - today it is about 36%. So today's government is about 4.5 time larger than it was 100 years ago. Of course many of the programs in place today (social security, Medicare, etc) represent a tectonic shift in the way that our government interacts with the governed, and our use of the military to play world policeman is totally different today, so this GDP comparison has kind of an apples/oranges look to it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
