mainejeff wrote:It's funny how religious/social conservatives and gays are both unhappy with the Republican and Democratic parties respectively. Funny thing is........if the Republicans dropped their religious based social ideology and the Democrats embraced religion........both groups could switch teams.
Wrong.CID1990 wrote:Four words:mainejeff wrote:
I'm just using the language of the Republican minions.........
Easiest
Photo
Shop
Ever.
No offense Jon, but this is as good as it will get with being liberal....Dem Pres, Dem supermajority, and you still can't get you're issues heard effectively.dbackjon wrote:And saying **** you to one of your more reliable bases doesn't either.TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
we've argued about this before... and I'll say it again, temper tantrums rarely help your cause...
If DADT and DOMA can't get repealed with the current majorities, then what is the point of voting Democratic?
You can make snide remarks all you want, but when the Dems lose majorities because of it, you won't be laughing. Maybe then when you regain power, you will actually treat us with respect, instead of pissing on us like the Democratic Party is currently doing.
it appears the dems have decided to treat the "bundles of sticks" in the same manner as the blacks..... lip service every four years....then ignore themASUG8 wrote:No offense Jon, but this is as good as it will get with being liberal....Dem Pres, Dem supermajority, and you still can't get you're issues heard effectively.dbackjon wrote:
And saying **** you to one of your more reliable bases doesn't either.
If DADT and DOMA can't get repealed with the current majorities, then what is the point of voting Democratic?
You can make snide remarks all you want, but when the Dems lose majorities because of it, you won't be laughing. Maybe then when you regain power, you will actually treat us with respect, instead of pissing on us like the Democratic Party is currently doing.
You hit the proverbial nail on the head. One might not agree with conservatives or their ideas on governance, but at least they know how to get things done. The Democratic Party couldn't govern its way out of a paper bag. Part of the problem is that the Democratic Party is much more wedded to their whacko fringe than the Republican Party is wedded to its own whacko fringe.ASUG8 wrote:No offense Jon, but this is as good as it will get with being liberal....Dem Pres, Dem supermajority, and you still can't get you're issues heard effectively.dbackjon wrote:
And saying **** you to one of your more reliable bases doesn't either.
If DADT and DOMA can't get repealed with the current majorities, then what is the point of voting Democratic?
You can make snide remarks all you want, but when the Dems lose majorities because of it, you won't be laughing. Maybe then when you regain power, you will actually treat us with respect, instead of pissing on us like the Democratic Party is currently doing.
Wow. I don't know about THAT statement. I feel almost abandoned by the "party line". It's WAY further right than i'm comfortable with.CID1990 wrote: Part of the problem is that the Democratic Party is much more wedded to their whacko fringe than the Republican Party is wedded to its own whacko fringe.
Your instincts serve you well young Skywalker, the dark side has turned shark jumping into multiple shark jumping in just the last eight months.AZGrizFan wrote:Wow. I don't know about THAT statement. I feel almost abandoned by the "party line". It's WAY further right than i'm comfortable with.CID1990 wrote: Part of the problem is that the Democratic Party is much more wedded to their whacko fringe than the Republican Party is wedded to its own whacko fringe.
I can't imagine that the middle 80% of the country is comfortable with EITHER party right about now.Wedgebuster wrote:Your instincts serve you well young Skywalker, the dark side has turned shark jumping into multiple shark jumping in just the last eight months.AZGrizFan wrote:
Wow. I don't know about THAT statement. I feel almost abandoned by the "party line". It's WAY further right than i'm comfortable with.
New world records are being set in every arena by all sides, daily.
The repubs have their problems, but this isn't one of them. The right does not have its version of George Soros. They might have someone with his bark but certainly not his money. The birthers have been barking and even the Limbaughs and Hannitys don't take them seriously for a second. Social issues have been off the radar since before the 2008 campaign and no republicans have been talking about them. The repub congressional leadership is not as hard right as Nanci Pelosi is left.AZGrizFan wrote:Wow. I don't know about THAT statement. I feel almost abandoned by the "party line". It's WAY further right than i'm comfortable with.CID1990 wrote: Part of the problem is that the Democratic Party is much more wedded to their whacko fringe than the Republican Party is wedded to its own whacko fringe.
Pwns wrote:The repubs have their problems, but this isn't one of them. The right does not have its version of George Soros. They might have someone with his bark but certainly not his money. The birthers have been barking and even the Limbaughs and Hannitys don't take them seriously for a second. Social issues have been off the radar since before the 2008 campaign and no republicans have been talking about them. The repub congressional leadership is not as hard right as Nanci Pelosi is left.AZGrizFan wrote:
Wow. I don't know about THAT statement. I feel almost abandoned by the "party line". It's WAY further right than i'm comfortable with.
The biggest problem with the republicans is that they are busy complaining to come up with ideas. The repubs need to come up with good plans for energy independence, healthcare reform, and not just b*tch about the donk plans. Yeah, I know the donk plans suck. But come up with something better.
I feel the same way as you, especially in fiscal terms, but that the party is too far left. That being said, I have never had even the smallest worry that the Falwells and the McVeigh types would ever hold any kind of substantive sway among conservatives. Maybe one day they will run the Republican Party, but being a conservative and being a Republican are not the same thing. Even more so now than before. In fact, I'd say that the emergence of a new Whig-like party could happen in the next few years if the Republican Party continues to drift away from the real conservative base. OF COURSE the Republican Party panders on occasion to groups like the Birthers. They are still the fringe. Just because a Republican pays lip service to them means nothing; no more than a Dem paying lip service to the hardcore socialists every four years who vote ultimately for Nader.AZGrizFan wrote:Wow. I don't know about THAT statement. I feel almost abandoned by the "party line". It's WAY further right than i'm comfortable with.CID1990 wrote: Part of the problem is that the Democratic Party is much more wedded to their whacko fringe than the Republican Party is wedded to its own whacko fringe.
You mean the guy that endorsed Hillary Clinton for 2008? Soros is the guy that has basically said "we're going to take the democratic party back". He and his cronies are the reason for Obama's grandstanding about closing down Guantanamo in the campaign season, which is an issue that most dems don't want to push. He's a a player - Scaife is just a bugaboo much like Rupert Murdoch.TwinTownBisonFan wrote:1. meet Richard Mellon Scaife - who was Soros before Soros was Soros... (the right VASTLY overstates Soros, both his wealth, and his influence... he's a boogyman)
Who cares if they have been silent on it. It's not like there were many dems condemning talks from leftist fringe groups about a supposed "stolen elections" in 2000 and 2004.TwinTownBisonFan wrote:2. the birthers are given plenty of right-wing love and had, until recently, a number of their elected officials quietly condoning it - until the dems held their feet to the fire about their double talk...
You're right about Palin, but really, how much of a factor were the social issues in the election? I don't know if anyone has tried to quantify this but I didn't hear nearly as much as about social issues from McCain as I did from Bush in 2004. The social issues have fallen off of the radar due to the recession and a host of other issues that have supplanted them. Repubs won't be able to demagogue with the social issues for the forseeable future and they haven't been trying.TwinTownBisonFan wrote:3. Social issues are all the GOP has left - why do you think they went with Palin on the ticket? to appease hard-right social conservatives (and for the wow factor of a female candidate)
You're telling me the dems aren't doing some arm-twisting to the blue-dogs with the issue of the public option in the healthcare bill? Or with the stimulus bill? And using Specter as an example of a moderate republican - give me a break. The blue-dogs are more conservative than he is. In Specter's mind wanting a 12-figure budget deficit instead of a 13-figure one is too far right.TwinTownBisonFan wrote:4. Repub congressional leadership before 2006 (when they lost the majority) sure as HELL was as far right, in fact further right than Pelosi left... the Dem caucus has a very real and vibrant moderate wing - the GOP spent 5 years flushing ALL the moderates out of their party. (Linc Chaffee, Arlen Specter, hell they ran a guy to the RIGHT or Rick Santorum) no, no... social conservatism isn't just alive and well - it has become the BASE of the modern GOP - they control the party - not the libertarians, not the neo-cons, not the paleo-cons... the evanga-nutters.
