|
|
| Author |
Message |
45degreeN King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
  Posts: 2313 Location: Salem Oregon
|
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I agree but there is no logical reason why they might not exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Pondering Lion King
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
  Posts: 1263
|
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't want to go to lengthy here...but in response to P#s points...
When the Republican party was formed, a major plank in their platform was that they'd abolish slavery. MLK Jr was a registered Republican. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
P1234567890 Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
  Posts: 6772 Location: Toronto, Canada
|
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pondering wrote: | I don't want to go to lengthy here...but in response to P#s points...
When the Republican party was formed, a major plank in their platform was that they'd abolish slavery. MLK Jr was a registered Republican. |
If you're talking about the Republican party of Lincoln's time, then you certainly aren't talking about the Republican party of today.
In any case, why are you bringing the Republican party into this? I'm talking about social conservatives, and not political parties, and it is objectively true that social conservatives were against freeing slaves, against women's suffrage, against the civil rights movement, and against gay rights. American social conservatives have been on the wrong side of pretty much every major issue in your nation's history, and it certainly isn't their doing that your country is so strong and free. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
45degreeN King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
  Posts: 2313 Location: Salem Oregon
|
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pondering probably equated the republican party of today with the Neo-cons who think they are an original manifestation of conservatism. While working diligently for the New Roman (I mean American) empire they are hardly conservative in the foreign relations arena where they are military interventionists in every possible way.
We really need to get back to W.F. Buckley's form of conservatism to identify a modern and genuine form of conservatism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RevJP Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
     Posts: 6661 Location: USA
|
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | We really need to get back to W.F. Buckley's form of conservatism to identify a modern and genuine form of conservatism. | isn't this a non-sequitur? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
P1234567890 Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
  Posts: 6772 Location: Toronto, Canada
|
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
The terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' don't even make any sense.
Modern conservatives in America are completely liberal when it comes to plundering the environment for profit, going to war, giving out corporate welfare, ignoring the Geneva Conventions, rolling back civil rights, etc., etc.
Similarly, liberals are conservative on the environment, more conservative on going to war, etc., etc.
The terminology is just stupid. People should stop using the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal'. We should call them 'the people trying to wreck the country', and 'the ineffectual fools who don't seem to be able to stop them'. Those are much more accurate descriptions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pondering Lion King
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
  Posts: 1263
|
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | We should call them 'the people trying to wreck the country', | or...democrats
| P1234567890 wrote: |
and 'the ineffectual fools who don't seem to be able to stop them'. |
I'm not sure I understand your point as this seems to be a double negative...either way, it's a matter of perspective...I would claim that Dems are trying to wreck the country with their anti-American socialist agenda...you would claim it is the Repubs that are trashing the Constitution... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
45degreeN King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
  Posts: 2313 Location: Salem Oregon
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P123's point is an old one.. the limitations of labels, and the inability to paint things black and white. As long as we retain the context then we can continue to communicate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RevJP Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
     Posts: 6661 Location: USA
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | the limitations of labels, and the inability to paint things black and white. | Isn't this the underlying nature of almost every post in this forum? The desire to label and strictly classify something in order to deride it?
Seems to me that few of the posts in this forum deal with the truth of the matter but instead paint specific, unrealistic pictures of those or that at which one wants to throw stones. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pete Grizzly Bear
Joined: 31 May 2006
  Posts: 744 Location: Arlington Hts., Il. USA
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Who will be McCain's running mate?
If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, you can bet that Condolezza Rice will be McCain's choice for VP. Well, regardless, she'll be the choice, since she is black and a female, the Republicans will have covered both bases. That's all that counts in the next election. It is all that counts for getting votes.
Domestic, and foreign policy? Forget it, black and female voters is where it's at.
If McCain wins, and dies in office, we'll have a first in both departments, a black, female President. If McCain doesn't die, She'll still be the next Prez. Mcain, at his age, can't possibly have a chance of being relected to a second term. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
45degreeN King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
  Posts: 2313 Location: Salem Oregon
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Condolezza Rice has denied she is interested, but still anything is possible given this years election. It would be a big step DOWN for her. She started out as an operative in the National security field and used that experience while she was a Secretary of State. None of that prepares her for the 'do nothing' slot as VP. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
P1234567890 Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
  Posts: 6772 Location: Toronto, Canada
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You're neglecting to calculate one teeny tiny little variable: She's completely unelectable because her name has forever been tarnished by her role in the Bush administration.
No way in hell is America going to elect anyone who even remotely resembles a Neocon this time around. Choosing her as a running mate would be political suicide. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pete Grizzly Bear
Joined: 31 May 2006
  Posts: 744 Location: Arlington Hts., Il. USA
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's the road to the White house, and voters have very short memories. Most young voters, black, white, male and female, will decide who is elected, and they don't have a clue about the real issues.
The big sticker for Republicans will be the economic trend between now and election time.
On the other hand, the Democrats may (will) come up with the same kind of ticket. Obama/Clinton, and that will be a real fiasco. Either way, this country is going down the toilet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
P1234567890 Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
  Posts: 6772 Location: Toronto, Canada
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pete wrote: | | It's the road to the White house, and voters have very short memories. |
Not THAT short!
| Pete wrote: |
Obama/Clinton, and that will be a real fiasco. Either way, this country is going down the toilet. |
I agree that your country is screwed right now, but not because of the NEXT president... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
45degreeN King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
  Posts: 2313 Location: Salem Oregon
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
McCain in his attempt to retain his core of conservatives just might ask Condi to join him. I'm sure he wont see it as disastrous as you see it.
He seems to be going back and forth from his own 'non' position on issues to the NEO con hoping to secure his base yet keeping true to the compromiser he is on most issues. Aside from his war stance there just isn't any there there, he is not an ideologue like Bush/Rove and if you take the war away from his position he is a nothing |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|