|
|
Post by TW on Nov 4, 2009 8:41:39 GMT -5
Tolerance, intolerance. Strong on issues, too strong on issues. The fact is, the Republicans who paraded into upstate NY cost the Republicans a seat in the House because of their antics. Refusing to accept any form of compromise on issues, they paraded what was a hardline religious message, and got themselves taken out at the polls. This is exactly what cost the Republicans a chance at the White House. It's time to get rid of these radicals who are hurting the party. When a moderately conservative Republican is treated like this, rest assured there has to be a lot of changes made in the party, and Palin isn't on the list of those who can fix it. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/03/AR2009110304357.html?hpid=topnews |
|
|
|
Post by amoeba15 on Nov 4, 2009 12:20:24 GMT -5
Leading national Republicans, most notably former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, injected themselves into the race to back Hoffman and blast Scozzafava. In the process, the race turned into a proxy battle for broader questions about the direction of the Republican Party, and the momentum seemed to be irresistibly propelling Hoffman to Washington.   Well at least Palin and other Republican leaders are good for something. Yup, the Bushwhacker Republicans and the Borg simply do not get it. 
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Nov 4, 2009 14:26:46 GMT -5
The guy was a complete moron. A rich accountant. I understand he didn't even live in the district. He said he'd move back into it, if he was elected.  How nice for the people. Imagine. Hasn't been a Democrat elected from that area since the Civil War. Now they have one, thanks to Palin & Pawlenty. Two of the stalwarts in the Borg empire. |
|
|
|
Post by amoeba15 on Nov 4, 2009 14:37:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by gopackgo2000 on Nov 4, 2009 19:03:33 GMT -5
Tolerance, intolerance. Strong on issues, too strong on issues. The fact is, the Republicans who paraded into upstate NY cost the Republicans a seat in the House because of their antics. Refusing to accept any form of compromise on issues, they paraded what was a hardline religious message, and got themselves taken out at the polls. This is exactly what cost the Republicans a chance at the White House. It's time to get rid of these radicals who are hurting the party. When a [glow=red,2,300]moderately conservative Republican[/glow] is treated like this, rest assured there has to be a lot of changes made in the party, and Palin isn't on the list of those who can fix it. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/03/AR2009110304357.html?hpid=topnews Moderately Conservative? Really? She was endorsed by ACORN...she was a liberal calling herself a Republican!!! You make me laugh!! Go look at the difference in the amount of money spent by the totally unknown accountant and Owens... |
|
|
|
Post by TW on Nov 4, 2009 19:07:13 GMT -5
Everyone who doesn't toe the line on the far-far-right is a liberal in the eyes of the neo/religious.
|
|
|
|
Post by gopackgo2000 on Nov 4, 2009 19:47:48 GMT -5
Everyone who doesn't toe the line on the far-far-right is a liberal in the eyes of the neo/religious. Again labeling TW...I have to admit something though that I would like you to help me understand...I have heard the term "neo" and "neocon" but I honestly don't know what they mean...Fill me in...Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Nov 4, 2009 21:30:01 GMT -5
neo = new.
And Scazabawawa was Pinko trying to sneak by as a Republican.
|
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Nov 4, 2009 21:32:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by packerfanfran on Nov 4, 2009 21:37:28 GMT -5
Yada yada yada  |
|
|
|
Post by TW on Nov 4, 2009 21:42:35 GMT -5
GPG2000,
I'm glad you asked. I'll give you the definition here from Merriam-Webster, but I'll take it one step further for you through history.
The root of the movement comes from the southern states that were once known as the "solid south Democrats." When Kennedy and Johnson came along and pushed civil rights, these people started to flock towards the right. Much of their roots came from the strong Christian elements of the south, and they were in fact hawks, even when they were Democrats.
Eventually, they gained control of the Party, because of the successes the Democrats had with Clinton. They were able to push true conservatives aside.
And by the way, they only follow Christian beliefs to a point. They're the same people who sat in the White House, and laughed at religious leaders after they came to visit Bush.
And you are not a neo. You're a conservative libertarian. I'm a true conservative, who refuses to accept neo control of the Republican Party.
Here's Merriam-Webster's statement:
Main Entry: neo·con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: \ˌnē-ō-kən-ˈsər-və-tiv\
Function: noun
Date: 1952
1 : a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2 : a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means
— neo·con·ser·va·tism \-və-ˌti-zəm\ noun
— neoconservative adjective
|
|
|
|
Post by gopackgo2000 on Nov 6, 2009 14:22:16 GMT -5
GPG2000, I'm glad you asked. I'll give you the definition here from Merriam-Webster, but I'll take it one step further for you through history. The root of the movement comes from the southern states that were once known as the "solid south Democrats." When Kennedy and Johnson came along and pushed civil rights, these people started to flock towards the right. Much of their roots came from the strong Christian elements of the south, and they were in fact hawks, even when they were Democrats. Eventually, they gained control of the Party, because of the successes the Democrats had with Clinton. They were able to push true conservatives aside. And by the way, they only follow Christian beliefs to a point. They're the same people who sat in the White House, and laughed at religious leaders after they came to visit Bush. And you are not a neo. You're a conservative libertarian. I'm a true conservative, who refuses to accept neo control of the Republican Party. Here's Merriam-Webster's statement: Main Entry: neo·con·ser·va·tive Pronunciation: \ˌnē-ō-kən-ˈsər-və-tiv\ Function: noun Date: 1952 1 : a former liberal espousing political conservatism 2 : a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means — neo·con·ser·va·tism \-və-ˌti-zəm\ noun — neoconservative adjective Thanks! That makes more sense and no I am not one of those! I am not sure that I am a Libertarian...I do go back and forth between some Libertarian views and Conservative views. Locally many of "our Republicans" are more conservative than Neocon. Much of the party leadership, however, is more liberal than its constituants. Our last "Republican" mayor was such a liberal in Republican clothing. It is pretty sad actually. Too much local coruption just like the national party!! |
|
|
|
Post by gopackgo2000 on Nov 6, 2009 14:24:40 GMT -5
Oh and I would say that they don't "follow" Christian values...they use them for politicial gain. Abortion is a perfect example of this!
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Nov 6, 2009 15:08:21 GMT -5
Now you're on the same page as I am. They use the Christian values aspect strictly to get votes, and laugh behind the backs of real conservatives.
I saw this coming some time ago, and that's exactly why I walked away from the party. I won't be back until the neos are gone, because they still control the purse strings and the right-wing media.
They also seem to still enjoy using character assassination through innuendo to silence the opposition.
Their first real push for discrediting someone came a decade ago, when they started the misinformation attacks, and unfounded innuendo, to destroy the character and person of John McCain. They used their methods quite well to get Bush elected, and as most of us know, he was a neo puppet.
Where do you think this "communist conspiracy" crap is coming from that's directed at the Obama White House? It's them, and they don't need to use facts when innuendo is enough.
It's like the campaign out east in reference to discrediting a candidate. They had people cold canvassing people and asking them if they'd vote for "Mr. X," if wasn't beating his wife any longer.
They didn't say he was doing it, they alluded to it, and it was a big campaign issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by gopackgo2000 on Nov 6, 2009 16:52:56 GMT -5
Now you're on the same page as I am. They use the Christian values aspect strictly to get votes, and laugh behind the backs of real conservatives. I saw this coming some time ago, and that's exactly why I walked away from the party. I won't be back until the neos are gone, because they still control the purse strings and the right-wing media. They also seem to still enjoy using character assassination through innuendo to silence the opposition. Their first real push for discrediting someone came a decade ago, when they started the misinformation attacks, and unfounded innuendo, to destroy the character and person of John McCain. They used their methods quite well to get Bush elected, and as most of us know, he was a neo puppet. Where do you think this [glow=red,2,300]"communist conspiracy" crap is coming from that's directed at the Obama White House?[/glow] It's them, and they don't need to use facts when innuendo is enough. It's like the campaign out east in reference to discrediting a candidate. They had people cold canvassing people and asking them if they'd vote for "Mr. X," if wasn't beating his wife any longer. They didn't say he was doing it, they alluded to it, and it was a big campaign issue. As you research my previous post that you said you would respond to later I think you will see there is a lot more there than crazy theories based on fuzzy evidence....Appointees stating that they believe in Mao and understand that the free market is a joke....it all seems very communist to me. |
|
How nice for the people.
