The real conservative scandal

Status
Not open for further replies.
"I’m not accusing Perry of wanting to do any of these things because I don’t believe he has given them a moment of thought. And that’s the problem for conservatives. Their movement has been overtaken by a quite literally mindless opposition to government. Perry, correctly, thought he had a winning sound bite, had he managed to blurt it out, because if you just say you want to scrap government departments (and three is a nice, round number), many conservatives will cheer without asking questions."

Absolutely correct. Mindless cheering and jeering is all they seem to be doing nowadays.
 
Beowulf said:
"I’m not accusing Perry of wanting to do any of these things because I don’t believe he has given them a moment of thought. And that’s the problem for conservatives. Their movement has been overtaken by a quite literally mindless opposition to government. Perry, correctly, thought he had a winning sound bite, had he managed to blurt it out, because if you just say you want to scrap government departments (and three is a nice, round number), many conservatives will cheer without asking questions."

Absolutely correct. Mindless cheering and jeering is all they seem to be doing nowadays.
Click to expand...

Agree completely. That is what is so disturbing.
 
Beowulf said:
"I’m not accusing Perry of wanting to do any of these things because I don’t believe he has given them a moment of thought. And that’s the problem for conservatives. Their movement has been overtaken by a quite literally mindless opposition to government. Perry, correctly, thought he had a winning sound bite, had he managed to blurt it out, because if you just say you want to scrap government departments (and three is a nice, round number), many conservatives will cheer without asking questions."

Absolutely correct. Mindless cheering and jeering is all they seem to be doing nowadays.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the mindless jingoism too as well.
 
Yup the keyword here is mindless. I also worry the Right is losing it sanity as well.
 
Yay! A republican bashing thread .... by a known liberal.

Wow ... who else is totally shocked by this?
 
Steinhauer said:
Yay! A republican bashing thread .... by a known liberal.

Wow ... who else is totally shocked by this?
Click to expand...

Better double check. The author is a writer from the RIGHT.:lol: As usual, you have either failed to read, or don't comprehend what you are reading.
 
jillio said:
Better double check. The author is a writer from the RIGHT.:lol: As usual, you have either failed to read, or don't comprehend what you are reading.
Click to expand...

Nawww, he just graduated to lying to himself now. :lol:
 
Speaking of the sensible Right, there's an independent party called the [url="http://www.modernwhig.org]Modern Whigs[/url] party. It leans to the right but not the hard right. Apparently someone got fed up with the wingnuts in GOP and founded this party. if had to chose between the Republicans and Modern Whigs, I'd pick the Whigs.
 
Last edited:
deafskeptic said:
Speaking of the sensible Right, there's an independent party called the [url="http://www.modernwhig.org]Modern Whigs[/url] party. It leans to the right but not the hard right. Apparently someone got fed up with the wingnuts in GOP and founded this party. if had to chose between the Republicans and Modern Whigs, I'd pick the Whigs.
Click to expand...

As would I, DS.
 
deafskeptic said:
Speaking of the sensible Right, there's an independent party called the [url="http://www.modernwhig.org]Modern Whigs[/url] party. It leans to the right but not the hard right. Apparently someone got fed up with the wingnuts in GOP and founded this party. if had to chose between the Republicans and Modern Whigs, I'd pick the Whigs.
Click to expand...

What's ironic is that the original Whigs lost out in the early 1800's because they would not take a firm stand against slavery. The Whigs fell apart and the Republican Party was born to take a firm stand against slavery. The Democrat Party, at the time, was for slavery.

Later, the Republican Party presented obstacles to the Civil Rights movement, while the Democrats supported the Civil Rights movement.

Even more ironic, as recently as the Vietnam War, the Democrat Party was the "pro-war" party. We got involved in Vietnam because of President Kennedy. President Johnson escalated our involvement there. Both of these guys were Democrats. President Nixon tapered the war off and was moving towards ending it. President Ford actually ended the Vietnam war in total. These guys were Republicans.

Today, it is the Republican Party that is considered to be the "pro-war" party. And it is apparently President Obama (a Democrat) who is moving towards ending our wars.

In truth, though, both parties are warlike, in their own way. Every president since President FDR has involved the U.S. in some war or conflict of some sort.

So really, this smacks of bureaucratic policy rather than political ideology. ;)

And now the Whigs are resurrected. :laugh2:

Politics really is stranger than fiction!
 
jillio said:
Better double check. The author is a writer from the RIGHT.:lol: As usual, you have either failed to read, or don't comprehend what you are reading.
Click to expand...

I think that you should be professor in high school level reading course and teach him to how to read.
 
DeafBadger said:
What's ironic is that the original Whigs lost out in the early 1800's because they would not take a firm stand against slavery. The Whigs fell apart and the Republican Party was born to take a firm stand against slavery. The Democrat Party, at the time, was for slavery.

Later, the Republican Party presented obstacles to the Civil Rights movement, while the Democrats supported the Civil Rights movement.

Even more ironic, as recently as the Vietnam War, the Democrat Party was the "pro-war" party. We got involved in Vietnam because of President Kennedy. President Johnson escalated our involvement there. Both of these guys were Democrats. President Nixon tapered the war off and was moving towards ending it. President Ford actually ended the Vietnam war in total. These guys were Republicans.

Today, it is the Republican Party that is considered to be the "pro-war" party. And it is apparently President Obama (a Democrat) who is moving towards ending our wars.

In truth, though, both parties are warlike, in their own way. Every president since President FDR has involved the U.S. in some war, conflict of some sort.

So really, this smacks of bureaucratic policy rather than political ideology. ;)

And now the Whigs are resurrected. :laugh2:
Click to expand...

I would have been a Republican in the 1860s or maybe 1930s despite some reservations about some of the GOP platform. More likely, I'd have been an independent in the 1930s.

Party ideologies change over the time. I think that it's possible that the Republicans may go the way of the Whigs in the 19th century if it doesn't change the current course it's on. I also think it's possible that the current Democratic party could die out too but they show more signs of being responsive to the people. We will see.
 
DeafBadger said:
What's ironic is that the original Whigs lost out in the early 1800's because they would not take a firm stand against slavery. The Whigs fell apart and the Republican Party was born to take a firm stand against slavery. The Democrat Party, at the time, was for slavery.

Later, the Republican Party presented obstacles to the Civil Rights movement, while the Democrats supported the Civil Rights movement.

Even more ironic, as recently as the Vietnam War, the Democrat Party was the "pro-war" party. We got involved in Vietnam because of President Kennedy. President Johnson escalated our involvement there. Both of these guys were Democrats. President Nixon tapered the war off and was moving towards ending it. President Ford actually ended the Vietnam war in total. These guys were Republicans.

Today, it is the Republican Party that is considered to be the "pro-war" party. And it is apparently President Obama (a Democrat) who is moving towards ending our wars.

In truth, though, both parties are warlike, in their own way. Every president since President FDR has involved the U.S. in some war or conflict of some sort.

So really, this smacks of bureaucratic policy rather than political ideology. ;)

And now the Whigs are resurrected. :laugh2:
Click to expand...

How refreshing. A post from someone that actually knows political history.:giggle:
 
Steinhauer said:
Yay! A republican bashing thread .... by a known liberal.

Wow ... who else is totally shocked by this?
Click to expand...
Waiting for you to start presenting Democrats that had affairs. Gotta follow the script. Everyone has their role.

Places....and....ACTION!

ndlrol.jpg
 
I'm surprised the Tea party did not become an official part and run a presidential candidate themselves. Or is that what Cain is hoping to do? Win the White house then change his party affiliation. :hmm:
 
Cheetah said:
I'm surprised the Tea party did not become an official part and run a presidential candidate themselves. Or is that what Cain is hoping to do? Win the White house then change his party affiliation. :hmm:
Click to expand...

I think Cain was their baby. Oh, well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top