• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Republican Party Needs Major Change

A

Anonymous

Guest
ff said:
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
OldTimer




http://www.ontheissues.org/quizeng/xPartyMatch/start.asp

try taking the test and switching your views on Abortion, and gay rights... then see if your still a republican... or even independant..

Steve- I don't think you'll ever find where I said I was a Republican....I'm an Independent- Conservative on some issues, liberal/populist on others, and libertarian on others....And unlike Soapweed- I don't have a party I bow to that tells me what I'm supposed to stand for-I make those decision myself and the way I want to--not the party way :wink:

Actually my views on both abortion and gay rights is a Libertarian and the old conservative stance- the old conservatives that believed in states rights-- the Federalist stance-that decisions such as this should not be Federal decisions--they should be left up to the individual persons, the local communities, and the states....I think thats where they should still be....

If every homosexual in the country wants to move to California and California says thats OK, they can come there and have gay marriages-- thats fine and dandy with me....California can have them...I don't think its an issue where we as a Federal government or a President should be sticking our nose in telling California they can't do it....Same with abortion....

So are you a "Fredhead"? :lol:

Don't know what a Fredhead is :???: Actually I don't label myself anyway except as an independent thinking US citizen who doesn't march to the drumbeat of any party-- or idolize any political figure-- as I think of these folks as my (the US citizens) employees who we allow and expect to represent us....

I think much of the problems this country has, have came about because of too much "partisan" BS and this labeling of everybody...
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
loomixguy said:
You can moan and whine all you want, but I wish someone would enlighten all of us just how much better off we would be today with a lib president and/or congress.

Had Gore been elected in 2000, could he have stopped the 9/11 attacks that the libs blame W for? With Algore at the controls, would we have been attacked again? Could Algore have prevented Katrina? WithAlgore at the helm, would you try to tell me that gas and diesel would probably cost less than a dollar/gallon now, even though China and India have an even more insatiable appetite for fuel the we here in the US do? And tell me just exactly what Pelosi, Boxer and Company have done for me in the past year, cause I'd like to know.

All you liberal bedwetters better be careful what you wish for, cause you damn well just might get it, and it scares the hell out of me to think how much worse things could be today if there had been a lib in the Oval office for the past seven years. Anybody who lived through the Carter years should be able to relate.

What Gore would have done is simply speculation. But we can infer from what he did as part of the prior administration as to what might have been accomplished.

Would Al Qaeda have attacked? We have no way of knowing, but I think the entire country was behind going after Bin Laden, so there is a VERY good chance that had Bin Laden attacked us he would have gone into Afghanistan after him. But remember, under Clinton we were in a "hot pursuit" mode on Bin Laden anyway. That would have continued under Gore. Would Gore have gone into Iraq? I doubt it. Gore was well aware of the Iraqi quagmire......he actually listened to the former President Bush after Desert Storm......and Iraq was effectively contained with the no-fly zones and the food for oil.....and yes, there were some contraband making it's way into it, and there were problems, but they were manageable problems.

As the economy was obviously heading into a depression in 2000, Gore would have initiated some substantial tax cuts. But the tax cuts would have been for middle America rather than the wealthiest 1%. Remember, Gore had been part of the administration that had balanced the budget.....he would not have willingly put us into serious debt to give rich folks a tax cut. Although he was a free trade proponent, I seriously doubt he would have authorized tax deductions for moving jobs overseas. Only an economic moron would have allowed that (like dubya).

Again, in looking at the past record, Katrina and Rita would both have hit just like it did. The difference would have been the competency of FEMA's response to that crisis. A "good old boy" who contributed lots of money to the campaign would not have been appointed to head FEMA. There would have been no "brownie."

Would gas and Diesel still have been under a dollar? I doubt it, but by not taking out Saddam, the chances are we would not be looking for $4.00 a gallon fuel by summer, like AAA is saying. Further, with his focus on minimizing fossil fuel consumption, it is probable that we would have had substantially more funding of alternate energy sources. Research would have produced better and cleaner energy, faster if we had not had our energy policy dictated by big oil and Enron.

If you hadn't noticed, until the Democrats get a solid majority, they are still tied to the Presidents agenda. They have done what they could do......they have blocked many of the excesses of the administration. This time next year, when a decent president takes office, and there is a filibuster proof senate, you can expect to see a lot of changes........and I think that most of them will for the good of the nation.
 

passin thru

Well-known member
Would Al Qaeda have attacked? We have no way of knowing

In the same vein, if Bush had set on his hands you have no way of knowing that we would not have had more attacks on us and crippled us permanently. Taking into consideration their MO, they would have and even escalated their attacks.
All we know is that radical islam is after us and has been after us long before Bush showed up.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Oldtimer said:
ff said:
Oldtimer said:
Steve- I don't think you'll ever find where I said I was a Republican....I'm an Independent- Conservative on some issues, liberal/populist on others, and libertarian on others....And unlike Soapweed- I don't have a party I bow to that tells me what I'm supposed to stand for-I make those decision myself and the way I want to--not the party way :wink:

Actually my views on both abortion and gay rights is a Libertarian and the old conservative stance- the old conservatives that believed in states rights-- the Federalist stance-that decisions such as this should not be Federal decisions--they should be left up to the individual persons, the local communities, and the states....I think thats where they should still be....

If every homosexual in the country wants to move to California and California says thats OK, they can come there and have gay marriages-- thats fine and dandy with me....California can have them...I don't think its an issue where we as a Federal government or a President should be sticking our nose in telling California they can't do it....Same with abortion....

So are you a "Fredhead"? :lol:

Don't know what a Fredhead is :???: Actually I don't label myself anyway except as an independent thinking US citizen who doesn't march to the drumbeat of any party-- or idolize any political figure-- as I think of these folks as my (the US citizens) employees who we allow and expect to represent us....

I think much of the problems this country has, have came about because of too much "partisan" BS and this labeling of everybody...

Those supporting Fred Thompson are sometimes called "Fredheads." He holds many of the same views as you: states should have more authority to decide on abortion, gay marriage, etc.

The problem comes when a pair is married in CA and moves to MT. Can MT then refuse to recognize their marriage? Or if SD passes a law to prosecute women who have abortions. If she goes out of state to have it, can she be prosecuted when she comes back to SD?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ff said:
Oldtimer said:
ff said:
So are you a "Fredhead"? :lol:

Don't know what a Fredhead is :???: Actually I don't label myself anyway except as an independent thinking US citizen who doesn't march to the drumbeat of any party-- or idolize any political figure-- as I think of these folks as my (the US citizens) employees who we allow and expect to represent us....

I think much of the problems this country has, have came about because of too much "partisan" BS and this labeling of everybody...

Those supporting Fred Thompson are sometimes called "Fredheads." He holds many of the same views as you: states should have more authority to decide on abortion, gay marriage, etc.

The problem comes when a pair is married in CA and moves to MT. Can MT then refuse to recognize their marriage?
Yep-- they should be able to if thats what their legislature has decided- and we have....
Or if SD passes a law to prosecute women who have abortions. If she goes out of state to have it, can she be prosecuted when she comes back to SD?
I don't know how they could over something that doesn't happen within their jurisdiction...States can't expand their jurisdiction into other areas...
[/b]
 

Steve

Well-known member
title:
"Republican Party Needs Major Change"

OldTimer
Steve- I don't think you'll ever find where I said I was a Republican....I'm an Independent- Conservative on some issues, liberal/populist on others, and libertarian on others.

What I can't understand is why "non" Republicans seem so concerned about the Republican party?


I would find that as a republican taking advice from a democrat, or even a liberal/populist wouldn't do me much good as their intent wouldn't be to help as much as to promote their own agenda...
 

Steve

Well-known member
OldTimer
Actually my views on both abortion and gay rights is a Libertarian and the old conservative stance- the old conservatives that believed in states rights-- the Federalist stance-that decisions such as this should not be Federal decisions--they should be left up to the individual persons, the local communities, and the states....I think thats where they should still be....

I agree that the decisions should be left to the states... but I also feel that I shouldn't be taxed to fund those decisions..

The conservative position coupled with the supreme court decision keeps the fed out of the debate...

The liberal position would force me to fund thier aganda.. and that I have a problem with..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
title:
"Republican Party Needs Major Change"

OldTimer
Steve- I don't think you'll ever find where I said I was a Republican....I'm an Independent- Conservative on some issues, liberal/populist on others, and libertarian on others.

What I can't understand is why "non" Republicans seem so concerned about the Republican party?

Like I've said many times before on here-- I think total control by one party is dangerous(we see what happened when GW had it :roll: :( :mad: )...I'd prefer the checks and balances of having at least one house of Congress being controlled by the party not controlling the White House....

But it appears with the divison and breakdown of the Repubs- the Dems will have total control.... And with the free run GW gave them by allowing 20+ million illegal immigrants and multi million legal immigrants in the country, which they will draw into the Democrat folds as soon as they get the chance- they may have run of the country for some time to come.....



I would find that as a republican taking advice from a democrat, or even a liberal/populist wouldn't do me much good as their intent wouldn't be to help as much as to promote their own agenda...
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
What Gore would have done is simply speculation. But we can infer from what he did as part of the prior administration as to what might have been accomplished.

Would Al Qaeda have attacked? We have no way of knowing, but I think the entire country was behind going after Bin Laden, so there is a VERY good chance that had Bin Laden attacked us he would have gone into Afghanistan after him. But remember, under Clinton we were in a "hot pursuit" mode on Bin Laden anyway. That would have continued under Gore.

As the economy was obviously heading into a depression in 2000, Gore would have initiated some substantial tax cuts. But the tax cuts would have been for middle America rather than the wealthiest 1%. Remember, Gore had been part of the administration that had balanced the budget.....he would not have willingly put us into serious debt to give rich folks a tax cut.

Would gas and Diesel still have been under a dollar? I doubt it, but by not taking out Saddam, the chances are we would not be looking for $4.00 a gallon fuel by summer, like AAA is saying.

Clinton in "hot pursuit" mode after OBL? Your hero let him slip through his fingers THREE TIMES. That's "hot pursuit"?

A Lib initiating tax cuts? You are in fantasy land.

With China and India's hunger for fuel, you think oil would still be cheaper with Barack Hussein, I mean Saddam Hussein, alive and in power?!?! What possible difference could Saddam's life or death mean for world oil prices?

You are delusional at best. At worst, a Frenchman at heart.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
ff said:
backhoeboogie said:
It is a matter for voting for the lessor of evils, as I have previously said.

That's a really sad attitude. I can happily say that I'll support any of the top three Democratic candidates. I like some better than others, but think they are all smart and capable. Are they perfect? No. But neither am I and don't demand that from my candidates.

ff, the saddest attitudes you will ever see are right here in this forum.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
backhoeboogie said:
ff said:
backhoeboogie said:
It is a matter for voting for the lessor of evils, as I have previously said.

That's a really sad attitude. I can happily say that I'll support any of the top three Democratic candidates. I like some better than others, but think they are all smart and capable. Are they perfect? No. But neither am I and don't demand that from my candidates.

ff, the saddest attitudes you will ever see are right here in this forum.
:agree:
 

Tex

Well-known member
loomixguy said:
Goodpasture said:
What Gore would have done is simply speculation. But we can infer from what he did as part of the prior administration as to what might have been accomplished.

Would Al Qaeda have attacked? We have no way of knowing, but I think the entire country was behind going after Bin Laden, so there is a VERY good chance that had Bin Laden attacked us he would have gone into Afghanistan after him. But remember, under Clinton we were in a "hot pursuit" mode on Bin Laden anyway. That would have continued under Gore.

As the economy was obviously heading into a depression in 2000, Gore would have initiated some substantial tax cuts. But the tax cuts would have been for middle America rather than the wealthiest 1%. Remember, Gore had been part of the administration that had balanced the budget.....he would not have willingly put us into serious debt to give rich folks a tax cut.

Would gas and Diesel still have been under a dollar? I doubt it, but by not taking out Saddam, the chances are we would not be looking for $4.00 a gallon fuel by summer, like AAA is saying.

Clinton in "hot pursuit" mode after OBL? Your hero let him slip through his fingers THREE TIMES. That's "hot pursuit"?

A Lib initiating tax cuts? You are in fantasy land.

With China and India's hunger for fuel, you think oil would still be cheaper with Barack Hussein, I mean Saddam Hussein, alive and in power?!?! What possible difference could Saddam's life or death mean for world oil prices?

You are delusional at best. At worst, a Frenchman at heart.

I am all for tax cuts. We have a bureaucracy that is not doing its job efficiently and effectively. Half of them should be fired, but who would politicians use to sell out the public interest if we didn't have bad bureaucrats? Every oversight committee hearing I see shows how bad it has been under this republican leadership that controls the political appointments to the agencies (I will comment on democrats the same way if they do the same thing-- it is a bipartisan critique of politicians, not just a party).

I am not for cutting taxes and devaluing the dollar adding even more public IOUs just to let politicians pander to the public.

That is exactly what cutting taxes while not cutting spending does.

Some people just are not smart enough to see it.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Steve said:
Tex
That is exactly what cutting taxes while not cutting spending does.

Maybe you could explain how raiseing taxes and congress spending even more reduces the deficit?

I don't want to even pretend to do that, steve. I never said it.

Perhaps you would like to carry on that argument with yourself.

You might even win it. :lol:
 

Latest posts

Top