Best post in months, sorry I can't rep you
As God Is My Witness, Ted Cruz Is Reading Sam I Am
- Thread starter Mayhem
- Start date
Best post in months, sorry I can't rep you
I have been a McCain supporters for years, he lost my vote when he signed that nut job as his running mate because a heartbeat away from the presidency was too much to take
IDK about this Ted Cruz Character, everyone should look up the definition of controlled opposition
Mariahxxx
Verified Performer
McCain would be too trigger happy with the military. when he said we would be in Iraq indefinitely that scared the **** out of a lot of people. his Banghazi theatrics haven't helped either. but Palin was the nail in his coffin. but I believe he's a good man at heart and has done a lot of very good things as a senator, which is where he belongs.
and there is NOTHING more sickening than going along to go along. I feel pity for people who feel loyalty to some party so they won't see a different side to an issue even when it is blatantly relevant. People like Hannity and Rush make the Sheep terrified to think otherwise.
and there is NOTHING more sickening than going along to go along. I feel pity for people who feel loyalty to some party so they won't see a different side to an issue even when it is blatantly relevant. People like Hannity and Rush make the Sheep terrified to think otherwise.
that's why the president has a cabinet of people that he trusts and believes and to advise him when he's being a dumbass
That's true, but when your Vice Presidential pick is Palin, what does that say about possible cabinet appointees?
I would trust McCain as a SecDef - which gives him no real power on paper - but nothing higher than that. Certainly not President. He would be like Bush 2.5 and get us into all sorts of trouble that would be mismanaged by Defense think-tanks making policies just like the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts were. He'd probably also sign off on a draft to support those new conflicts given his statements during the last two conflicts that he supported with great praise and enthusiasm.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Interesting logic. So one can determine the "backbone" of a person by the amount of public support that his radical or fringe group gets? I guess that means that people who are dues paying members to the Communist Party USA are brave, brave souls? :dunno: Maybe so. But in my book, they're simply flakes. And like the TEA Party, I believe they're bad for the republic.
So you don't like it when others tell you what to believe... but you buy into an ideology which tells others what to believe? Wasn't South Carolina the state where some "real Republicans" (as opposed to those dirty, stinkin' RINOs) tried to make candidates sign a Purity Pledge before they could appear on the ballot? I don't know dude. Sounds kind of like a politicized version of Star Trek from a long time ago. The Borg Queen claimed that "group think" and being part of a collective hive was... er... fun. I think she was lying. I saw her lip twitch.
RINOs are bad. They have thought for themselves. This is wrong. They must be destroyed. We are TEA Party. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
I am in North Carolina not Mouth Carolina. Please direct me to the legislation where the GOP is directing thought. I get the impression that you are not used to being challenged on your positions. It would be a lot easier to be a moderate I guess but I feel too strongly about my positions to just take the middle road. No one is telling me what faction of the Republican party that I should align myself with and the most insulting of your comments are that if you are partisan that you are blindly following the conservatives or the progressives for that matter because you aren't thinking for yourself. Ideology is in most of our DNA. The most curious of human beings are those like you who seem to think partisanship is a bad thing. I don't want to be insulting to you Rey but I would much rather engage in debate with a left wing ideologue than an independent any day of the week because at least have convictions and opposing views are what opens dialogue. You will never reach any meaningful discussion with a moderate because they offer nothing to the discussion other than both major political parties are bad for America. To me that is nothing but a cop out.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Sorry about that. Not sure why I had you in South Carolina, when I know we've talked about you being in North Carolina before. But even though it's not your state of residence, the point still stands. Increasingly, your folks are increasingly demanding a devotion to party or ideology, more so than a devotion to the republic. And as many times as I've said it, you surely know how I feel about that. So if you find it difficult to engage with me, because I do not base my beliefs on what some collective hive has told me I am allowed to believe (and still remain a "good member" of the collective), far from taking that as an insult - I take that as a great compliment. Thank you. :hatsoff:
I agree, it probably is easier to shoot the **** with someone if you already know what they're going to read from their script - I mean, all you have to do is pick the position opposite your own. How hard is that? And if you're both ideologues (you on the right and them on the left), then it's like a Redskins fan arguing with a Cowboys fan, or whatever your sports team of choice is. In politics, these childish "debates" have been reduced to Team Red arguing with Team Blue about whether 2+2=5 or 2+2=22. You seem to be upset because people like me call bullshit on both of you. What would you expect me to do once I have determined that you are both wrong? Why do you folks have such an incredible need to live in a bifurcated world??? I don't get it. I'm not wired in such a way that I can comprehend that. And because none of you use your heads, only your hearts, that is precisely why nothing gets accomplished. What you call being a moderate or an independent is what others call being a pragmatist. In my working life, Fortune 500 companies hire me, and people like me, for the very fact that we do not have sacred cows, rather we make data driven decisions. Our proposed solutions are typically supported by data, not emotion or ideology. We follow no ideology. We follow a methodology. I don't know the most effective solution until I have worked through that methodology. You partisan folks too often grab the option (not necessarily a solution) that best fits your ideology and then try to back your way into how you got there. I find that to be intellectually disingenuous, irrational and illogical.
So if we were discussing various issues, BC, you would likely find that my positions on each issue would be based on whatever information or data I had available to me on that issue, and whatever my analysis (formal or informal) led me to believe was the correct or most effective solution. Pick one or more and we'll try it: abortion, *** control, the Fed, tax reform, foreign policy and aid, education reform, healthcare reform, **** laws, immigration reform, etc. Some of my positions might be seen by partisans to be left wing, right wing or libertarian. I don't lose ***** worrying about those silly labels though. From the way it sounds, you would feel obliged to follow your GOP/TEA party script and you would convince yourself that your mandated position was right & proper (because you don't want to be a RINO like Corker and not take the approved position, right?), whether the data showed that it was right & proper or not. Lying to others is one thing, but lying to yourself will eventually lead to your destruction.
Since you believe that being an ideologue is somehow programmed into our DNA (not sure if you're being literal or figurative there - but it's not true either way) and that's the normal way to be, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that. Thinking for oneself is a cop out? It saddens me that you believe that. George Washington, Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, Abraham Lincoln and Rey C. (man, ol' Rey is in pretty darn good company, eh?
) believe that those who place their loyalty to the republic over loyalty to a party or movement are the people who will protect and preserve the republic. Those who just like to sit around and read from a collective script, while they ***** up more ways to protect their own sacred cows, while conditions worsen, are the people who weaken the republic. Sustaining this (or any) republic requires people who are capable of independent thought - not chanting drones who follow the herd. I understand the realities of modern American politics, where you have to make deals and join hands with people you may not care for from time to time. So the way I see it, if Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill could put their partisan differences aside and come to terms when the nation needed them to, then these lesser men and women should certainly be able to do the same... for the good of the republic.
Posts like Rey's and your agreement with it knowing your political leanings helps to prove my point. And Reagan working with the likes of Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill while helping push through some of his policies, it didn't earn him enough political capital and goodwill that Democrats didn't throw ideological temper tantrums like in the Bork proceedings. If Rey's reasoned and respected postings displayed one iota of criticism of the left as they do constantly of the right you wouldn't be so ready to heap praise upon him. As for my bifurcated world is concerned, sorry but is how I am wired. I experience in every aspect of life. Right and wrong , guilty and innocent, paper and plastic. With some things there is no middle ground or case to be made for trifurcation.
Rattrap
Doesn't feed trolls and would appreciate it if you
Your point? Everything you said Premium Link Upgrade is pretty much the perfect embodiment of what is wrong with American politics. Our political gridlock, our worthless Congress, our stream of **** Presidential candidates - these are your fault (along with those that think like you...who are unfortunately in the majority).
As for this:
The truth is: the scales aren't even. Republicans have more to criticize. You will reject this off-hand, but it's pretty clear: both parties pursue disastrous fiscal policies. Both parties have shat on our rights. Both parties have presided over ill-fated foreign interventions. Not one to tie, though, Republicans pull ahead by consistently pursuing abhorrent religiously-based social policy. And putting candidates/officials on TV that appear embarrassingly stupid (as another active thread about Rey's favorite woman currently demonstrates).
More to criticize. An Oregonian living abroad with hopes that the United States will someday become a place you could once again live in isn't exactly making the case that you are not partisan yourself especially when I know that Oregon isn't exactly a strong hold of conservative voters. But keep telling yourself that you are reasonable and unbiased all the while saying that conservatives are the ones with more kinks in their armor and the dems are just a little rusty.
Rattrap
Doesn't feed trolls and would appreciate it if you
You're mixing and matching your terms, which is misrepresenting what I've said. Conservatives ≠ Republicans (not even getting into the types of conservatism...one of which I support, the other which needs to appropriately left behind in the former century it belongs). I also never said I was unbiased - or even that I didn't lean left. Leaning left or right ≠ partisan. As partisan literally means "a firm adherent to a party", I do not qualify.
That you bring up Oregon really only showcases Rey's point - you seem to be ********* or unable to accept a stance free from a party platform or a stereotypical regional bias. Don't get me wrong - of course where I grew up influences me. But if you address me on what you think Oregonians think (or liberals or Democrats or conservatives, etc., etc.) you're showing a rather narrow, lazy perspective. For a long time I wouldn't think it of you, but given these repeated sentiments (along with a very similar broadly-painted comment you made about an Athiest's position - what you think they think), I'm starting to reconsider.
Let me bring up another - perhaps the most important - reason why Republicans have more to criticize: they don't follow their own platform. They conserve fuck-all. They say they are for smaller government, yet they always deliver bigger government. Democrats say they are for bigger government - and they deliver bigger government. There's a little honesty there, even if they are dishonest in all the details. However, I do not support bigger government. So why the hell would I vote for it?
Better question: do you support bigger government? And if not, why the hell are you voting for it?
First I have said this before and I will say it again, I could care less if my opinions earn me respect from liberals or moderates or independents or if they don't. Whether you think I am narrow minded will never be cause for a sleepless night. Now that we have that out of the way, yes Oregon politics is extremely liberal as is all of the northwest. You act as if I am picking on you. I am only saying that I know where you are coming from and your thinking has obviously been affected by growing up there just as someone from Alabama has been influenced by growing up there. As for the big government republicans, every one of the GOP congress members that are against Obamacare the 80 or so are the tried and true small government repubs. and their voting record reflects that. So don't hand me that tired line about big government repubs when the real conservatives try to hold their feet to the fire and all you do is demonize them. like is happening now
The one comment needs to be clarified from someone who has lived there for more years than I should have. The liberalism of the Pacific NW ends at the Cascade Mountains. The moment you hit the summit of whatever pass you're driving east over, and are pointed downhill, you are in uber-Conservative territory. In all fairness, when it comes to Washington State, if everyone in the Seattle/Tacoma area votes blue, and the entire rest of the state votes red, blue wins. The same thing more or less applies to Oregon in its own way.
I'm not trying to refute anything BC is trying to say; I'm not really making any point whatsoever. I'm just clarifying the politics of the Pacific NW. The central and eastern regions of both states are solidly Republican and Tea Party.
Yes just like the Adirondacks consist of the majority of NY conseruatives. But you will never see either of those states send a conservative senator to D.C. ever again.
Rattrap
Doesn't feed trolls and would appreciate it if you
Might you point me in the direction of these small-government Republicans? I would like to have a look at them.
Yeah, it's exactly the same with Oregon; Portland is solidly blue, and with 2.5 million people in its metro area out of the state's population of 4 million, it's easy to see why the state is solidly blue.
Similar threads
