Why I am not a Republican

[Winehole23]

I'm sorry, were we talking about them?

And what makes are you so sure the Cons ution Party wasn't at the *tea parties*? Seems like they're much in the same vein to me.

[Nbadan]

It doesn't exist as a viable part of the GOP - yes....

[Winehole23]

No. It exists as an independent political party. Do you want me to post the wiki?

[Winehole23]

The primary function of government, the conservatives say, is to keep the peace: by repelling foreign enemies, by maintaining the bed of justice domestically. When government goes much beyond this end, it falls into difficulty, not being contrived for the management of the whole of life. Thus far, indeed libertarian and conservative hold something in common. But the libertarians, rashly hurrying to an opposite extreme, would deprive government of effective power to undertake the common defense or to restrain the passionate and the unjust.

I suppose this might be relevant to the Ashcroft thread.

[Wild Cobra]

The verdict seems to be nobody buys it, WC. Your self-representation is evidently wrong.

Coffeetime.

And at one time, most people thought the earth was flat.

[Winehole23]

And at one time, most people thought the earth was flat.

So now you're Copernicus?

[Wild Cobra]

So now you're Copernicus?

No, I'm just trying to be nice in pointing out your stupidity, and others.

[Winehole23]

Well, thanks for being so nice about it. Restraint becomes you, WC.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, thanks for being so nice about it. Restraint becomes you, WC.

I was until you made more snide remarks.

Honestly, must I be either democrat or republican? Why an either or? I'm sorry, but that mentality really bothers me.

Is defending republicans against unwarranted attacks enough to make me republican? There is so much out right slander against republicans on this board, why should I voice my honest disagreements about them? Is it because I seldom join in when they are wrong that I am a republican?

Buy a clue. I'm not going to help kick them when they are unfairly kicked already. Bring up accurate, reasonable things about republicans, and stop the slander, and I'll criticize them too. I just won;t help with the bull that you are willing to.

[Winehole23]

Honestly, must I be either democrat or republican? Why an either or? I'm sorry, but that mentality really bothers me.

You don't have to pick. But sometimes it seems like you have a secret thing for the GOP, the way you police ideological purity for it.

Is defending republicans against unwarranted attacks enough to make me republican? There is so much out right slander against republicans on this board, why should I voice my honest disagreements about them? Is it because I seldom join in when they are wrong that I am a republican?

Great. Take up your cudgels against those who slander the GOP. I agree that doesn't make you a party member, but it does make it appear that you have taken their part. It goes to partiality.

Buy a clue. I'm not going to help kick them when they are unfairly kicked already. Bring up accurate, reasonable things about republicans, and stop the slander, and I'll criticize them too. I just won;t help with the bull that you are willing to.

You do not care for or admire the GOP, yet you protect them from the slanders of their adversaries. Why?

[SpurNation]

Yeah, but that's not the same group throwing around the Cons ution, like they really cared for it during Bush, at these Teabagger rallies...

How much do we really know regarding Huesein's (non) or involvement with 9/11?

How much did Clinton NOT make public even though we were being attacked at every corner of the world. How much was the first attack on the world trade center NOT a clue as to what was being intended by these radical groups?

How far would you have let it go before doing something about it?

Was not loosing almost 3,000 innocent lives on our own soil not enough?

Bush argueably was not the perfect person to run this country....but he was the perfect person to protect this nation from physical aggression.

Time to move on and hope which ever president that's in office can lead this nation back to prosperity and not to a world adherence agenda.

[Cry Havoc]

I was until you made more snide remarks.

Honestly, must I be either democrat or republican? Why an either or? I'm sorry, but that mentality really bothers me.

Is defending republicans against unwarranted attacks enough to make me republican? There is so much out right slander against republicans on this board, why should I voice my honest disagreements about them? Is it because I seldom join in when they are wrong that I am a republican?

Buy a clue. I'm not going to help kick them when they are unfairly kicked already. Bring up accurate, reasonable things about republicans, and stop the slander, and I'll criticize them too. I just won;t help with the bull that you are willing to.

Because the right-wingers haven't made any egregious, idiotic attacks against democrats on this board.... right? Do you not remember the iPod thread?

[Wild Cobra]

You don't have to pick. But sometimes it seems like you have a secret thing for the GOP, the way you police ideological purity for it.

I do no such thing. You have a selective memory to believe that.

Great. Take up your cudgels against those who slander the GOP. I agree that doesn't make you a party member, but it does make it appear that you have taken their part. It goes to partiality.

And I assume you haven't noticed the dimes I stood up for democrats. Sure, it's rare, but I do at times.

You do not care for or admire the GOP, yet you protect them from the slanders of their adversaries. Why?

Because I despise slander, and those who slander. A mistake is one thing, but look at how much the republicans repeatedly get slandered. People believe it, and look who's president now. I didn't want McCain to be president either, but he was the lesser of two evils.

[Wild Cobra]

Because the right-wingers haven't made any egregious, idiotic attacks against democrats on this board.... right? Do you not remember the iPod thread?

I don't recall reading the iPod thread.

Do the politicians repeat the slander of the right wingers who slander?

I only see democrat politicians eager to use the slanderous quotes of others.

[Winehole23]

I do no such thing. You have a selective memory to believe that.

Perhaps. You don't complain about RINO's?

And I assume you haven't noticed the dimes I stood up for democrats. Sure, it's rare, but I do at times.

I don't know what this proves, but I don't doubt it.

Because I despise slander, and those who slander. A mistake is one thing, but look at how much the republicans repeatedly get slandered.

Bull . It's your part time job. You slander anyone who disagrees with you. As a matter of course, almost. Carelessly and without remorse. And your contention that the slander comes only from one side of the aisle betrays, ah, selective attention.

People believe it, and look who's president now. I didn't want McCain to be president either, but he was the lesser of two evils.

Hoisting up the GOP as the lesser of two evils. Is partiality. Not quite partisanship, but a near neighbor.

[LnGrrrR]

True or False: If the Republican party would take a more libertarian view on social issues like abortion and same sex marriage they would be better off for it. The new stance on abortion, "we think you'll burn in , but it's your choice". The new stance on same sex marriage, "we think you'll burn in , but it's not an issue the federal government should concern itself with".

Just curious what people's positions are on this. I'm not asking whether or not that would make you personally more prone to vote for or against republicans. But whether or not you think this would make the republican party more appealing to the masses, thus improving their chances at winning elections.

That would go a long way towards getting my vote; however, the warrantless wiretapping/torture/state secrets thing would still stall me at the polls. Plus I think overall they'd lose more people than they'd get.

[LnGrrrR]

I was until you made more snide remarks.

Honestly, must I be either democrat or republican? Why an either or? I'm sorry, but that mentality really bothers me.

Is defending republicans against unwarranted attacks enough to make me republican? There is so much out right slander against republicans on this board, why should I voice my honest disagreements about them? Is it because I seldom join in when they are wrong that I am a republican?

Buy a clue. I'm not going to help kick them when they are unfairly kicked already. Bring up accurate, reasonable things about republicans, and stop the slander, and I'll criticize them too. I just won;t help with the bull that you are willing to.

I'd say it's your tendency to selectively choose which sources you trust, and which you don't. It's that bias that leads me to side you with the Republicans. Rarely do you assume the best of a Democratic politician but you're quick to provide outs to Republican politicians. You're a master of the ad hominem.

[LnGrrrR]

You do not care for or admire the GOP, yet you protect them from the slanders of their adversaries. Why?

This is the reason why no one thinks Marcus Bryant is a Republican; because he (forcefully) voices his distaste for both parties. Also, ice cream, sunshine, and rainbows.

[LnGrrrR]

How much do we really know regarding Huesein's (non) or involvement with 9/11?

How much do we REALLY know about Bush's involvement with 9/11? This is the same sort of logic you're using.

How far would you have let it go before doing something about it?

Yes, because one attack on us justifies the use of any means to stop the next one, right?

Time to move on and hope which ever president that's in office can lead this nation back to prosperity and not to a world adherence agenda.

Why "go it alone" if we can gather allies to help us?

[SpurNation]

How much do we REALLY know about Bush's involvement with 9/11? This is the same sort of logic you're using.

At the time we all were looking at who might have been involved with attacking the world trade towers. Which by definition was an act of war on this nation.

Perhaps it was a great opportunity for Bush to indoctrinate his own agenda regarding Iraq...I don't know...but seems like it were as of today.

But other than WMD's the reports do verify that Sadam was actively helping those who were the one's making act's of war on the United States.

Yes, because one attack on us justifies the use of any means to stop the next one, right?

I wouldn't say "any means". But...what would you have done?

Why "go it alone" if we can gather allies to help us?

Totally agree with this. And the United States did have allied support in Iraq as well as UN troops in Afghanistan. If our allies had doubts about the underlying reports would they have made the commitments they made?

[LnGrrrR]

At the time we all were looking at who might have been involved with attacking the world trade towers. Which by definition was an act of war on this nation.

Yes, and the people attacking us weren't related to Saddam.

Saddam might have been actively helping people who wanted to attack the United States (though you'd have to provide a link for me to know exactly what you're talking about), but he wasn't involved in 9/11. That's a key fact.

I wouldn't say "any means". But...what would you have done?

Probably sent black ops teams after Osama, try to capture him and bring him to justice; failing that, shoot him. I don't think I would've used it as an excuse to help out Iraq get rid of its dictator. Iraq and Iran were counter to each other, and kept each other in check, plus, I don't feel the United States job is to police other nations. Finally, the belief that by ins uting a democracy will make us safer in the States: I'm dubious to the actual validity of this claim, but only time will tell it seems. However, that assumption also assumes that aggressions would be taken out on us rather than their centuries-long internecine rivalries.

Totally agree with this. And the United States did have allied support in Iraq as well as UN troops in Afghanistan. If our allies had doubts about the underlying reports would they have made the commitments they made?

We had two decent allies, IIRC. UK and Australia. The rest of the nations that were supporting us in Iraq were mostly symbolic. We certainly lifted the majority of the weight.

[Winehole23]

In Afghanistan we have a joke about the ISAF. It stands for I Saw Americans Fight.

[ElNono]

LOL, this thread delivers.

The OP is perhaps one of the biggest GOP apologist in this board.
Quick to jump to conclusions when the Democrats are accused of , trusting ANY source in the process, while subjecting any GOP attacks to a higher information standard.
Even when the reports are accurate, then he pulls the RINO apology.

WC, your modus operandi is getting old. If you want to pass as something other than a partisan hack you need to do a lot better than that.

[101A]

I'd not be swayed if the GOP changed it's window dressing. There's little doubt it is trying now to capture the independents who bolted last year. Some of them will come back, mostly of their own accord. Others, like me, see the problem as being more ins utional than ideological.

Corporate interests have captured the politicians and the process, regardless of party affiliation. If conservatism (liberty, traditional republicanism) is to thrive and prevail in any substantive sense, IMO it will be as opponents of the current system. Unfortunately for rock-ribbed conservatives, all the nutbags have enrolled under this banner. Differentiation will be a problem, and any anti-system movement marginalizes its own effectiveness by placing itself outside of the fecal duopoly of R's and D's.

Unfortunately, yes. Pea-brained and johnny come lately libertarians will (by and large) put themselves in harness to the GOP, who will continue to do lip service to libertarian and republican ideals, while working actively against the substance of these ideals. Those who resist the establishmentarian bridle will continue to to be called crackpots.

I hope I'm wrong about this, but I'm not too sanguine about third party chances or the revival of libertarianism. It's more nominal than substantive in the hands of the GOP. An electoral ruse. No more.

On topic, I think the ruse has decent chances for electoral success in the face of a continuing recession, runaway spending and a failing war in Afghanistan. As I expressed above, I also think this bodes ill for libertarianism per se. The GOP will continue to own libertarian ideology without working for its goals.

For those of you wondering what a good post looks like ^^^^ should be bookmarked.