Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-25-2009, 09:59 AM
 
2,229 posts, read 1,678,285 times
Reputation: 623

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east View Post
Fresh from their defeat in the NY 23rd Congressional District, the RNC is happily at work crafting their latest fantasy and sticking Ronald Reagan's name all over it, as if that confers sacred status and certain vote getting. Amazing for its stupidity. Simply amazing. The RNC comes up with it's version of "Back to the Future" starring Ronald Reagan's memory. Truth is, neither Reagan nor the idiot G. W. Bush would pass the GOP Purity Pledge, that's the twisted beauty of this latest execrable piece of GOP hypocrisy.

Item #1 of the GOP Purity Pledge calls for GOP candidates to support: "Smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes." Reagan FAILED on all four legs of this lame elephantine joke. The idiot Bush failed outright on all four, though he cut taxes in 2001, he did it with red ink and the deficits he left are a form of higher tax in that we're gonna pay that bill later and pay double for it by the time all the interest on that debt is added to the principal.

Item #5 of the GOP Purity Pledge calls for GOP candidates to support: "Legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants." Hell, it was a massive FAIL by Reagan who gladly gave amnesty to 6M illegals in 1986. I recall the lines of people that went clear around the local INS office as people lined up to apply for amnesty. The idiot Bush did nothing but turn a blind eye to the problem.

Source, MSNBC. Click to see all ten planks in the GOP stupidity pledge. These GOP guys haven't a clue. None. A race to the bottom.

Your entire post is dripping of hatred toward the GOP. Your inability to be objective clouds rational thought. Pure desire to stand on the sideline of the side you represent cheering loudly without ever watching the match.

The intentions and principles of this pledge are what should be focused on, not some drawn out hypocrisy you need to correlate in order to continue cheering. These principles are exactly what citizens have clearly made apparent and a priority to our representatives.

Previous administrations implemenation of these policies, or lack there of, are sourounded by subjective reasoning for those times... not the current.

Your opinions are partisan beyond recognition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-25-2009, 10:25 AM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,230 posts, read 17,785,132 times
Reputation: 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcsldcd View Post
All I have to say is watch and see. America is waking up and standing up to the demise of America at the hands of left wingers.
Hold on to that dream. All those voters that showed up last year, will return in full force. Along with a lot of new entries. They have seen what can happen when they vote. The 2010 elections, maybe not so much. Their disgust of Congress is well seated and deservedly so. But in 2012, watch out! You will be checking behind every tree you see, for those pesky "commies". You may even have to start checking under your bed as well. There are scary times ahead for you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2009, 10:31 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,732,328 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Keegan View Post
I think our elected representatives to Congress should be loyal to their constituents as well as to the ideals of the party that suported them. You see some sort of disconnect there, while I do not. If, while running for office, a candidate gains the support of a party by claiming to support that party's platform and ideals, then it's not a conflict at all to infer that the people who voted him into office want him to support that platform and those ideals. If the voters disagreed with that platform and those ideals, they wouldn't have elected him. If, once elected, he turns away from those positions, then he is abandoning his party as well as the constituents. In that case, why should the party continue to support him financially, instead of seeking someone who does in fact support their platform?
The candidate doesn't gain the support of a party, though. The candidate registers as a member of that party because he agrees with that party more than another party. It can be a margin of 51% to 49%. It can be a margin of 79% to 21%. The voters don't vote for the party, they vote for the candidate. There has been a dramatic shift over the past eighty years, where once voting straight-ticket was seen as the patriotic and right thing to do, but most voters, almost all voters, state that they vote based on a particular issue or they vote based on the individual candidate. People just don't agree with any political party 100%. And the growth of people identifying themselves as Independents bears that out.

The party has never had the power to require an elected official to agree with the party 80% of the time, and it shouldn't have that power. Because most people don't agree with a political party more than about 75% of the time. I'm sure there will be a bunch of GOP members clamoring that that's not true, but political analysts who've actually studied party identification will tell you that people are inclined to go along with their party on various issues, but will almost always clarify their own personal opinions as distinct from the party position.

I understand your argument, but it presumes that party identification rests on agreement with the party positions 80% or more of the time. If the GOP thinks that purifying the party is a good thing, then by all means, go ahead. Just remember, that purifying invariably means making the party smaller. You'll end up with more loyal members, only the number of members will be smaller.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2009, 10:36 AM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,230 posts, read 17,785,132 times
Reputation: 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
The candidate doesn't gain the support of a party, though. The candidate registers as a member of that party because he agrees with that party more than another party. It can be a margin of 51% to 49%. It can be a margin of 79% to 21%. The voters don't vote for the party, they vote for the candidate. There has been a dramatic shift over the past eighty years, where once voting straight-ticket was seen as the patriotic and right thing to do, but most voters, almost all voters, state that they vote based on a particular issue or they vote based on the individual candidate. People just don't agree with any political party 100%. And the growth of people identifying themselves as Independents bears that out.

The party has never had the power to require an elected official to agree with the party 80% of the time, and it shouldn't have that power. Because most people don't agree with a political party more than about 75% of the time. I'm sure there will be a bunch of GOP members clamoring that that's not true, but political analysts who've actually studied party identification will tell you that people are inclined to go along with their party on various issues, but will almost always clarify their own personal opinions as distinct from the party position.

I understand your argument, but it presumes that party identification rests on agreement with the party positions 80% or more of the time. If the GOP thinks that purifying the party is a good thing, then by all means, go ahead. Just remember, that purifying invariably means making the party smaller. You'll end up with more loyal members, only the number of members will be smaller.
Thank you for a sane, rational and most probably, correct, assessment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2009, 10:50 AM
 
Location: Home, Home on the Front Range
25,826 posts, read 20,600,139 times
Reputation: 14818
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
Not really, those who find these 10 listed items to be objectionable are the same posters who have discussed in multiple threads their disdain for Republicans. I can tell you that Republicans in California would generally support those items.

That isn't the target audience, even though they are the posters generally participating in this thread discussion. The RNC isn't interested in persuading those folks to support their candidates, rather they want to reactivate their base and a chunk of the independent voters.
The issue isn't that anyone finds the 10 listed items objectionable. The issue is that the list is being put forth in the name of Reagan, who wouldn't/didn't pass the test and yet, the 'purgers' and their defenders do not see the irony in this endeavor. How do you rally around an icon that that has no more basis in reality than the platform advanced by a certain Minnesota congresswoman?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2009, 10:56 AM
 
366 posts, read 295,624 times
Reputation: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boompa View Post
And back to ths subject. The Loyalty Oath the WingNuts will be taking to Rush Limburger

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2009, 11:13 AM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,380,292 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu View Post
Your entire post is dripping of hatred toward the GOP. Your inability to be objective clouds rational thought.
What leads you to believe that an objective analysis would not lead to hatred of the Republican Party? Have you not been around since say 1994? Have you not seen what Republicans have done to the place?

Meanwhile, here's the thing for all you rightwing rah-rah types. You're past the midpoint now. You've tried to get by on the way up the hill by playing the Party of No and simply opposing everything that came along. From here on in though, people are going to start wanting to know not what you are against, but what you are FOR. What are YOUR plans? What do YOU actually intend to do about things? Better be good. After all, the last time we listened to any of your ideas -- TRAIN WRECK in Iraq...TRAIN WRECK in New Orleans...TRAIN WRECK in the economy. Meanwhile, you don't have any answers to that question. As the Republican Listening Tour concluded last Spring, the Republican Party simply doesn't have any policies or ideas that are a fit in the 21st century. Ronald Reagan...Contract with America...that's not what people want to hear, and you people flat out don't have anything else to offer...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2009, 11:33 AM
 
366 posts, read 295,624 times
Reputation: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
What leads you to believe that an objective analysis would not lead to hatred of the Republican Party? Have you not been around since say 1994? Have you not seen what Republicans have done to the place?

Meanwhile, here's the thing for all you rightwing rah-rah types. You're past the midpoint now. You've tried to get by on the way up the hill by playing the Party of No and simply opposing everything that came along. From here on in though, people are going to start wanting to know not what you are against, but what you are FOR. What are YOUR plans? What do YOU actually intend to do about things? Better be good. After all, the last time we listened to any of your ideas -- TRAIN WRECK in Iraq...TRAIN WRECK in New Orleans...TRAIN WRECK in the economy. Meanwhile, you don't have any answers to that question. As the Republican Listening Tour concluded last Spring, the Republican Party simply doesn't have any policies or ideas that are a fit in the 21st century. Ronald Reagan...Contract with America...that's not what people want to hear, and you people flat out don't have anything else to offer...
Unlike you, I believe that BOTH parties have wrecked the place. I believe that makes me a little more objective than you.

What have the Democrats done to make things better? I believe both parties are nothing more than two sides of the same coin.

I don't see the current administration, with both a majority in the house and senate making much of a difference other than offering to put their hands in tax paying citizens pockets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2009, 12:00 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,732,328 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by free_food View Post
Unlike you, I believe that BOTH parties have wrecked the place. I believe that makes me a little more objective than you.

What have the Democrats done to make things better? I believe both parties are nothing more than two sides of the same coin.

I don't see the current administration, with both a majority in the house and senate making much of a difference other than offering to put their hands in tax paying citizens pockets.
While you have a point, it doesn't really address the thread. Should parties require candidates to pledge loyalty to the party? The party is not part of the government. Parties are private organizations that perform a public function. Do we really want our elected officials pledging fealty to private organizations?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2009, 12:10 PM
 
Location: Arizona
13,778 posts, read 9,611,054 times
Reputation: 7485
I do find it ironic that nowhere in those 10 points does it mention support for the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top