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.
I agree with you. I'm not looking at him as black face. Just thought maybe he could break from the backwards Republican Party that fights progress and take the small government / personal responsibility stance to fix those problems.
Have you read the missives posted by Republicans on these boards? Did you watch the Republicans lined up to see Palin? If you are hoping for a Republican Party with fresh ideas, or innovative approaches to the problems confronting this country, hope that neurosurgeons find a way to perform brain transplants.
So I just watched Michael Steele on D.L. Hughley and I saw a glimmer of hope in the Republican brand.
So often, it is the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters who mix entertainment and radicalism to foster division and rage against the "evil liberals" over erroneous issues like homosexuality and abortion and government investment in anything beyond war.
Rush and Ann Coulter are conservatives first. Conservatism is not "radicalism". Our founders were conservatives, as conservative as those you deride. What is it about liberty and freedom that you don't agree with?
Liberals want to limit your freedom and liberty. They want control over your life. Conservativs want government out of the way, so that liberty and freedom for all, and along with it, prosperity, can increase, not decrease.
Further, I do not consider imorality and the killing of babies an "erroneous issue". Why do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
So often it is the Republican Convention full of white people guffawing as they mock presidential candidate Obama who graduated from an Ivy League university and then, in a very Christian act, went to work in inner cities where factories were closing and neighborhoods were failing.
The Republican Party is home to many fine black Americans, like Clarence Thomas, and Ken Blackwell, not to mention, Condolezza Rice, or Alan Keyes, and conservatives like Thomas Sowell, and Walter E. Williams. I'm sure there are many others as well.
It matters little where Obama went to school. I couldn't care less what kind of University he went to. He is an elitist, socialist, Chicago thug scum bag, who was working for ACORN and going around threatening banks (under the provisions of the CRA) to force them to make risky loans in poor neighborhoods, to people who couldn't afford them, which is what got us into the mess we are currently in. Obama and his ilk, and the Deomocrats in Congress who have been running this scam are the problem.
His work "in inner cities" was not motivated by any Christian altruism. His work was motivated by his socialist beliefs. And his association and work with Bill Ayers to indoctrinate school children with the ideas of socialism could hardly be classified as Christian oriented.
He spent 20 years listening to black liberation theology preached by a racist black preacher. This is not Christianity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
Yet, in Steele's articulation of ideas, for the first time I saw what a strong and principled Republican Party that really focuses in on individual worth and leaves all bigotry and wealth obsession behind could do in the inner cities through fostering small businesses if they ever opened their eyes to it.
Kind of like Michelle Obama "for the first time in [her] life" being proud of her country?
Sorry. I'm not buying your line. Republicans have never been bigots, and we are not obsessed with wealth either. And our eyes have always been open to "fostering small business". But the Democrats are currently the enemy of small busness, and big business as well. The are standing in the way of business with unreasonable and out of control regulation and taxation, which is getting more intrusive under Obama.
Wealth creation is a right. It is part of what America is: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness — That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it ..." And here we have the purpose of government clearly spelled out. It is to secure our unalienable rights, not limit them.
We have currently a government that is trampling and limiting those rights. It is time to take our government back from these socialists. They are our servants. We are not theirs. They are there to see that freedom and liberty continues unimpeaded.
No, I do not think that Michael Steele is the future of the Republican Party. At the moment, I see no leader for the Republican Party. Personally, I think the Republican Party is in its death throes. Only with the emergence of a moderate, well-educated representative will the Party be able to disengage from its insane "base" and rebuild to be the party of true conservatives.
It is the "moderates", the RINO's, who have put the Republican Party in the state that it is currently in, and therefor "moderates" (RINO's) will not lead Republicans in any return to power.
What will return Republicans to power is a return to the principles that lead Ronald Reagan to victory, and gave us the gains we experienced in 1994, under the leadership of Newt Gingrich, and a few others who were the architects of the "Contract with America".
The Party is by no means in it's "death throes" (you wish).
The conservative base is over 60% of Americans, according to an annual poll, the outcome of which has been consistent for as many years as the poll has been taken, that the majority of Americans consider themselves at least "somewhat conservative", and a large percentage "very conservative". And we are hardly "insane", thank you very much.
There seems to be a contradiction in your claim that it will take a "moderate" to "disengage" the party from it's "insane" base and rebuild to be the party of "true conservatives". What is your definition of "conservatism"? Please don't use the term "neo-con" in your answer, as that is simply a cliche term and has no meaning.
Last edited by nononsenseguy; 03-01-2009 at 07:14 AM..
"What will return Republicans to power is a return to the principles that lead Ronald Reagan to victory, and gave us the gains we experienced in 1994, under the leadership of Newt Gingrich, and a few others who were the architects of the "Contract with America"."
That reminded me of the overblown prose used to describe Kim Il Song.
"Our great patriotic leader, blaise, blaise, blaise...
I agree with you. I'm not looking at him as black face. Just thought maybe he could break from the backwards Republican Party that fights progress and take the small government / personal responsibility stance to fix those problems.
Actually, statisically, the U.S. always runs best with a Democratic president and a Republican opposition. So, perhaps we shouldn't shake things up too much.
Anyway - if Kootr likes the guy, then perhaps I was mislead.
It is the "moderates", the RINO's, who have put the Republican Party in the state that it is currently in, and therefor "moderates" (RINO's) will not lead Republicans in any return to power.
What will return Republicans to power is a return to the principles that lead Ronald Reagan to victory, and gave us the gains we experienced in 1994, under the leadership of Newt Gingrich, and a few others who were the architects of the "Contract with America".
The Party is by no means in it's "death throes" (you wish).
The conservative base is over 60% of Americans, according to an annual poll, the outcome of which has been consistent for as many years as the poll has been taken, that the majority of Americans consider themselves at least "somewhat conservative", and a large percentage "very conservative". And we are hardly "insane", thank you very much.
There seems to be a contradiction in your claim that it will take a "moderate" to "disengage" the party from it's "insane" base and rebuild to be the party of "true conservatives". What is your definition of "conservatism"? Please don't use the term "neo-con" in your answer, as that is simply a cliche term and has no meaning.
John McCain is a good example of a RINO. McCain would have made a terrible President...yet far better than the scumbag idiot fraud Obama will.
... the backwards Republican Party that fights progress and take the small government / personal responsibility stance to fix those problems.
Is trashing the Constitution and substituting a socialist form of government as the liberals are doing "progress" in your view? I see that as backwards. We know it fails.
Conservatives seek to continue and preserve the liberty and freedom that our founders created for us in a form of government that has made us the richest, most productive nation with the highest standard of living of any country in the world in the history of man.
Liberals seek to destroy that. Why? Why would we want what you are selling? Look what it is doing to us.
We have out of control debt. We have out of control regulation and taxation that is driving businesses out of the country or into bankruptcy, and selling out to the government "devil" to rescue them on the backs of the taxpayer, and businesses that are successful.
Is this what you call "progress"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
Actually, statisically, the U.S. always runs best with a Democratic president and a Republican opposition.
According to whom/what? Pure unadulterated nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
So, perhaps we shouldn't shake things up too much.
Anyway - if Kootr likes the guy, then perhaps I was mislead.
John McCain is a good example of a RINO. McCain would have made a terrible President...yet far better than the scumbag idiot fraud Obama will.
I tried to make that point with my sister, a Christian, who said she was voting for Obama because she "just [couldn't] stand John McCain". She didn't beleive the things she was by that time hearing about Obama and his socialist beliefs and background. She, like many others, I'm afraid, thought it was just lies and negative campaigning.
Now, she's whining about their losses in their retirement investments.
Rush and Ann Coulter are conservatives first. Conservatism is not "radicalism". Our founders were conservatives, as conservative as those you deride. What is it about liberty and freedom that you don't agree with?
You've really drunk the kool aid. The founding fathers were extremely progressive and had to fight the conservatives that wanted to remain separate colonies under British rule. Liberalism today is different, but rooted in the same value of moving society toward a "more perfect union". The problem with liberalism today is that it uses government to solve to many problems. But, in the end, it's still necessary to protect us and free us from our concept of self-interest that hardly extends beyond our individual selves. That's a very low level of consciousness.
Liberals actually fight - and sometimes die - for freedom and liberty. It was because of liberals that slavery ended, women were able to vote, blacks were considered equal citizens under the law, and (soon) homosexuals will be considered the same. Liberals give freedom to those who do not have it.
Throughout history, liberals have supported the wars that made sense for furthering the freedom of humanity - Revolutionary War, Civil War, World War II.
Quote:
Further, I do not consider imorality and the killing of babies an "erroneous issue". Why do you?
Erroneous only because abortion is the only issue that conservatives seem to concern themselves with in regards to protecting life. You want to be pro-life? Stop destroying the ecosystems that sustain all life. Stop being led into any war at the drop of a hat. Stop demanding food be produced with pesticides that create a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico thousands of miles wide every year and start being PRO-LIFE.
Quote:
It matters little where Obama went to school. I couldn't care less what kind of University he went to. He is an elitist, socialist, Chicago thug scum bag, who was working for ACORN and going around threatening banks (under the provisions of the CRA) to force them to make risky loans in poor neighborhoods, to people who couldn't afford them, which is what got us into the mess we are currently in. Obama and his ilk, and the Deomocrats in Congress who have been running this scam are the problem.
His work "in inner cities" was not motivated by any Christian altruism. His work was motivated by his socialist beliefs. And his association and work with Bill Ayers to indoctrinate school children with the ideas of socialism could hardly be classified as Christian oriented.
... haha. You mean that work on the board of a staunch conservative's foundation? Yeah. Nice try.
Michelle Obama said it was the first time she was "REALLY proud". Your propaganda machine leaves that word out and changes the entire meaning. I'd say it's fair for someone living in a country with slavery and institutional bigotry up until about 50 years ago to make a statement like that.
Oh my. The more I read of your rant, the more it's obviously just every cliche Hannity talking point. You've put yourself in a box and can't see outside of it. MIght as well as be one of those rising and falling yesterday on every word of Limbaugh.
They're wrong. You're right. They're oppressive. You love freedom. blah blah blah. See the necessity of both sides and see the grey area between your extremism and the extremism you hate.
Who does Michael Steele now represent?
Republicans -- the party of immature, voraciously rapacious, depraved, despotic, doughy white, cowardly, angry troglodytes, bigots, racists, perverts, xenophobes, pedophiles, murderers, war criminals, homophobes, misogynists, self-righteous hypocrites, self-hating women, fetid wombs, preeminent whiners and consummate chronic liars.
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.
