Kane is an American citizen now ?
Kane is an American citizen now ?
You know, you're right. I can't remember if he did finally get citizenship or not.
Ok, so Lewk and maybe Veldan Rath are the only two people on here who are registered Republicans and at all likely to respond to anything GGT says or asks. There may be some among lurkers but somehow I don't see any lurkers abandoning that to try and explain things to her right now.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
And for those who tend to lean Republican, but aren't registered as Republican.....it's worthwhile to ask why not?
For anyone active in the GOP, that should be a hot topic, especially during the primary season. I imagine it still is...but can't for the life of me find anyone who wants to kick out The Crazies that pin the GOP to anti-Sharia law, anti-abortion, anti-Planned Parenthood, anti-same sex marriage, anti-gays in the military, or Birtherism.
What the hell is wrong with the new GOP? It's nothing like the old GOP, that much is sure.
Gee, sorry I didn't realize that this forum had such strict ideological members, where no one felt comfortable talking about The Others in their lives, or the In-Between times of their own opinions. Too personal, too anecdotal? Both my parents were Republicans, one an avid Goldwater fan. Many of my friends are Republicans, and don't feel threatened by this kind of discussion.Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Why does this forum take such a different stance?
Okay, let me redact my question about understanding what the GOP is all about. You don't have to be a registered Republican to comment.
You're the one who started posting about me being a Republican *all the many statements to the contrary over the last ten years notwithstanding* because I'd dared to make comments that were merely in the direction of reply to the question, and made it absolutely and explicitly clear that what you wanted were replies from registered Republicans. You've said it multiple times in the last few days, at least one of them in the last 12 hours. MAKE UP YOUR FREAKING MIND.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
FFS, calm down, Fuzzy. I wanted people who thought of themselves as Republicans, or identified with Republicans, to explain the damn GOP. From the inside, so to speak. Not to be confused with someone who identifies more with Democrats, explaining the "other party" as they see it, from the outside.
I figured, initially, that meant registered Republicans but have since changed my mind, after reading replies in this thread. Is that okay with you? Am I allowed to redact my questions after learning they were posited poorly?
You said "I redact" at the end of the post AFTER you yelled at us for doing what you'd told us to do earlier. If you're changing your mind then why are you acting like a fucking harpy about our replies made before you said you were changing your mind?FFS, calm down, Fuzzy. I wanted people who thought of themselves as Republicans, or identified with Republicans, to explain the damn GOP. From the inside, so to speak. Not to be confused with someone who identifies more with Democrats, explaining the "other party" as they see it, from the outside.
I figured, initially, that meant registered Republicans but have since changed my mind, after reading replies in this thread. Is that okay with you? Am I allowed to redact my questions after learning they were posited poorly?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I'm not "yelling" at anyone. Sorry, but you gave an explanation of the GOP's double standards, by saying it's understandable as a large group, without any explanation for that
Because like you the GOP is incredibly hypocritical. Unlike you, as a mass-organization it's actually understandable and even semi-rational for it to be so two-faced .
I didn't say "double standard". That is NOT what two-faced means.
A mass-organization's "views" are an amalgamation of the views of all of its members. If 10 members think A and 10 other members think a mutually-exclusive B, then the group thinks both of them, despite there being no way to reconcile them. An individual can always choose to jettison views which don't fit with other things s/he thinks. A group can't do that. Particularly not a political party, which is a type of organization which doesn't choose who its members are. The individuals are the ones who decide if they're in the organization, not any "leadership" or other group of members.
This isn't something you should need explained. It's glaringly obvious.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
You're right, let's kick those crazy anti-abortion Republicans out of office.And for those who tend to lean Republican, but aren't registered as Republican.....it's worthwhile to ask why not?
For anyone active in the GOP, that should be a hot topic, especially during the primary season. I imagine it still is...but can't for the life of me find anyone who wants to kick out The Crazies that pin the GOP to anti-Sharia law, anti-abortion, anti-Planned Parenthood, anti-same sex marriage, anti-gays in the military, or Birtherism.
What the hell is wrong with the new GOP? It's nothing like the old GOP, that much is sure.
Another attempt! If the GOP wanted to "recruit" a new member, or encourage someone to register as a Republican, how would they go about doing that?
How would they explain what "being" a Republican means?
Would they ask a registrant the same kinds of questions being asked of the candidates? Could they explain the contradictions?
<<Are you Christian, 'non-Christian' Mormon, pro-life, anti-abortion, anti-Planned Parenthood, anti-science, anti-evolution, pro-creatsionism, anti-gay marriage and anti-gay military? Do you also believe in a hands-off limited government?>>
The GOP doesn't "recruit" members. The GOP isn't a person. Individuals, cliques, and other more cohesive groups within the GOP do the recruiting. And even they tend to recruit by using what they think potential recruits want to hear rather than what the recruiters think.Another attempt! If the GOP wanted to "recruit" a new member, or encourage someone to register as a Republican, how would they go about doing that?
How would they explain what "being" a Republican means?
Would they ask a registrant the same kinds of questions being asked of the candidates? Could they explain the contradictions?
<<Are you Christian, 'non-Christian' Mormon, pro-life, anti-abortion, anti-Planned Parenthood, anti-science, anti-evolution, pro-creatsionism, anti-gay marriage and anti-gay military? Do you also believe in a hands-off limited government?>>
You're trying to treat parties like singular entities and you need to stop. They're not and you CAN'T COMPREHEND THEM with that sort of perspective. It advocates small government and leaving people alone at the same time as it's pushing interference in their lives because it's NOT a singular entity, because some people within it want the first and others want the second and so it's attempting to follow BOTH.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
You think Veldan, really? I'm pretty sure you're wrong on that.
As to me, not registered to vote. Even if I could or was registered, I wouldn't register as a Republican unless I lived in a district with a prominent libertarian running as an (R). (Like Paul or Paul or even Barr, etc.) Since the "conservative revolution" fizzled out and the party isn't about small government anymore... well, why?
It's secretly manipulated and controlled by the insidious j00s you see everywhere else. Oh, you don't like that term, right.
The GOP is an invention that's wholly controlled and used by the math quants and accountants and bankers and nano-second traders [...] to steal the common American's gold or whatever it is you always say that group is doing, to answer your question in terms you can accept and understand.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Actually I'm a registered R, due to being lazy. I changed from I to R so I could vote in the primary for governor 6 years ago. And left it that way. (cut down on the political junk mail too...)
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Bump.
Seems that "today's" Republican party is so fractured and flailing, that radical extremists (Santorum, Gingrich) might lead their lemmings over the cliff. Maybe that's not such a bad thing, if it means the old establishment power brokers can't pick their choice and force it upon party voters.
If this separates social conservatives from fiscal conservatives in a cleansing process.....and ultimately restores the definition and image of "conservative", that might be another plus. There was a time when being conservative didn't come with today's hyperbolic language or heavy baggage. The extremists within the GOP changed all that. But why? When did moderation and pragmatism within the GOP lose its voice, or become dirty deeds?
Did you get this from the over the top rant in this week's New Yorker, by the increasingly over the top Hendrick Hertzberg?
After ten months of ruthless culling, has the Republican “base”—an excitable, overlapping assortment of Fox News friends, Limbaugh dittoheads, Tea Party animals, war whoopers, nativists, Christianist fundamentalists, Ã* la carte Catholics (anti-abortion, yes; anti-torture, no), anti-Rooseveltians (Franklin and Theodore), global-warming denialists, post-Confederate white Southrons, creationists, birthers, market idolaters, Europe demonizers, and gun fetishists—finally found its John Connor, a lone hero equipped to terminate the Party establishment’s officially designated cyborg? So it seemed as of February 7th, the night Rick Santorum came out of nowhere to hit his trifecta, trouncing Mitt Romney in Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado.
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/talk/commen...talk_hertzberg
Nope, I don't read the New Yorker very often. But the pendulum swinging more toward conservatism, especially by Republicans (but also Democrats), has been discussed in political news for years now. When McCain was running for office with Palin as his VP, the running "joke" was that even Reagan himself wouldn't be considered conservative enough to be a Reagan Republican. Being moderate or centrist doesn't get people elected anymore, not since compromise and negotiation became dirty words.
I didn't read your link, Dread, but the quote has some validity. Appealing to the "base" of the GOP means catering to the Fox, Beck and Limbaugh crowd with some "crazy" stuff---like trying to outlaw Sharia Law.It's gotten worse since 2010 when Tea Party and uber-conservatives have hamstrung the process, filibustered most everything, and paralyzed legislating. Republican Governors (WI, OH, IN, NV...) have angered their constituents by going hard right on issues, when they ran as 'moderates or centrists'. WI is trying a recall, for example. Now Olympia Snowe (Republican Senator from Maine) has announced she's retiring...citing the exhaustive work it takes to legislate toward the center, and how dysfunction governing has become.
The crap going on now in the Republican presidential nominating process is more of the same. Seriously, whodathunk a severely conservative like Santorum would still be standing? Saying JFK's speech on separation of church and state made him puke; that college academia is a group of elites trying to indoctrinate students, kill their religious faith, and President Obama is a snob; 'radical environmentalists' are somehow conspiring to make scientists into fakes; that Satan has targeted the US for destruction....not to mention the dangers of birth control should give states the right to ban contraception, gays shouldn't serve in the military let alone have marriage rights (that's just "man-on-dog, see).
The statements and policy proposals get more outrageous by the day, and crowds actually cheer that shit.Gingrich says Obama has "the most dangerous foreign policy of any president evar!" and Romney is being pulled hard right just to keep ahead of the dogandpony show. Claiming he should be elected to save the soul of our nation. Yeah, 'every' politician says outrageous things now and then to a specific crowd of voters, but this is crazy over-the-top WTF stuff. Surely you've noticed.
You do realize that the primary elections tend to be heavily skewed by the hard core base of a party?
In any event the Republican party (at least in recent history) has always had two different sides to it.
Social Conservatives - Anti-abortion Anti-gay Anti-prostitution Anti-drugs Anti-gambling. Pro family values.
Fiscal Conservatives - Less taxes. Less regulation. Less wealth redistribution. Less spending.
Santorum is hardcore social conservative. He's not a fiscal conservative. He's a big government conservative (a term I despise but sadly its a valid term).
Romney is a fiscal conservative. He's in favor of less taxes, less regulation and he knows the impact of regulation thanks to his private sector work.
That's what the Republican conflict is about. And yes there is tons of bleed over. A lot of folks who hate abortion also hate regulation and people who hate taxes can also be against legalizing drugs. This is why there is such a battle going on. Oh add to the fact that Romney is a bit of a flip-flopper which makes him difficult to trust.
Today's GOP doesn't have a base. That's why social conservatives are able to drag fiscal conservatives into the abyss. Have a look at the Blunt Amendment....putting "religious or moral" objections to healthcare into a transportation bill. That's nuts.
Also, I heard about this web site tonight. We are more polarized, and trending more conservative, complete with graphs:
http://voteview.com/political_polarization.asp
Another bump.*Holy crap, it's been almost a year?!*
Today's Republican Party is.....
trying to "re-brand" itself. They truly believe their principles would be more "popular" if they just had better messaging and marketing. The public just doesn't understand them, see.
The RNC held a retreat to teach Republicans how NOT to speak about women, rape, birth control, abortion...minorities, immigrants...makers vs takers, etc.
Meanwhile, Republican led state legislatures continue to draft bills that are offensive to minorities, women, immigrants, etc. Several even considered changing electoral college rules to exploit gerry-mandering until the next census in 2020.
Now Karl Rove has announced a new PAC to create distance between the 'main' (R) party, the Tea Party faction, and religious/social conservative extremists. And Eric Cantor is giving speeches that sound like they were written by Democrats.
Today's Republican Party is.....a complete mess.
And this makes you sad because? :P
The party does need an internal war. They need to get their shit together.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
trying to piece together whats spread across this board, but lets see I can remember this correctly...
that would require putting the tea party and other "compromise is treason" members in their place, but...
thats getting harder to do because the early stages of acquiring a public office position, primaries and whatnot, are controlled disproportionately by the people who support the tea party mindset.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Support for the Tea Party has plummeted. They're no longer as dominant as they used to be.
Hope is the denial of reality
Huh, radicals and extremists are impacting primaries? Say it ain't so.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
I won't say it's a mess but it is confused. Parties, like the politicians they support, display egotist tendencies. They never really think they're going to lose. They can rationalize and come up with explanations when they lose once, but when they lose a second time they have a terrible time making sense of it. You saw the exact same thing out of the Democratic Party after the 2002 off-term and 2004 presidential election, spearheaded by Howard Dean when he took over the national party chair. And in the end they didn't really change things. They adapted to effective GOP electioneering tactics and they rode out the GOP national security advantage and took advantage of public weariness with the Republican party.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
if you can address this without the tude, it was an honest observation.
you say the party needs to get its shit together, but i don't see a path to that when what the party/nation needs doesn't align with what gets its members elected within the party.
sorta comes to what littlefuzzy just said. instead of changing the party, they want to change how the game is played, such as their recent extreme redistricting efforts
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I'm sorry, forgot you were the only one with the license to be rude.
The primaries (thus the candidates running in them) have been been ruled by the nuts on both sides for some time. Jesus we still let Iowa (IOWA!!) impact the races to start off.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Yeah, it's only the GOP that plays the redistricting game.
Hope is the denial of reality
yeah... this is not what I said. but nice tryYeah, it's only the GOP that plays the redistricting game.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Then why say it? How is redistricting anything outside of the norm?
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote