Fingon Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Imo, Obama becoming president is the best thing that could happen to the GOP. His drunken-sailor spending has brought the party away from the high spending of the bush years, and back to the fiscal responsibility of yesteryear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Imo, Obama becoming president is the best thing that could happen to the GOP. His drunken-sailor spending has brought the party away from the high spending of the bush years, and back to the fiscal responsibility of yesteryear. It's an act just like it was before Bush 43's election. After gaining power they went spending nuts and if they gain power again they'll go spending nuts. Each party has to disagree with the other party just because they have to. If the majority of Republicans agreed 100% with Obama's budget, I'm not saying they did I said if, they would have to find something to bicker about or it's seen as bowing to the other party. Most of the people have a view that their party is always right and the other is always wrong and if there isn't bickering then their guy isn't doing his job. Government spending will always increase under every party because people say they want budget cuts but not in their districts. They think other people's districts should get budget cuts. Most of the time if a member of the house doesn't come through on money for special projects in their district they have a much harder time winning again. If a Senator doesn't try to get a new road built then forget about getting money from road contractors for your campaign and the people who that road would have saved five minutes of commuter time will probably be against you too. The system always has and always will run on who can grab the most pork and run with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Today's Mallard Fillmore accurately sums up my feelings... http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/mallard.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Imo, Obama becoming president is the best thing that could happen to the GOP. His drunken-sailor spending has brought the party away from the high spending of the bush years, and back to the fiscal responsibility of yesteryear. Until they get into power again...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Today's Mallard Fillmore accurately sums up my feelings... http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/mallard.asp Jackpot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Today's Mallard Fillmore accurately sums up my feelings... http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/mallard.asp The main difference between parties are social issues now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Imo, Obama becoming president is the best thing that could happen to the GOP. His drunken-sailor spending has brought the party away from the high spending of the bush years, and back to the fiscal responsibility of yesteryear. Forget it. The U.S. inexorably is moving to one-party government. There is a complete generation of voters, cultivated by leftists, that are increasingly dependent upon the State. It's over. Folks that saved up, put down 20% for their mortgage have the government leg lifted upon them. It's bad behavior that gets rewarded, because there's where the preponderance of votes come from. Success, good sense is punished. Crummy behavior is rewarded by free money extracted from those that tried to do right, who acted responsibly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Forget it. The U.S. inexorably is moving to one-party government. There is a complete generation of voters, cultivated by leftists, that are increasingly dependent upon the State. It's over. Folks that saved up, put down 20% for their mortgage have the government leg lifted upon them. It's bad behavior that gets rewarded, because there's where the preponderance of votes come from. Success, good sense is punished. Crummy behavior is rewarded by free money extracted from those that tried to do right, who acted responsibly. Well the only answer then is leave now, while you still can. Or we'll have you singing KumBayAh before you know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Imo, Obama becoming president is the best thing that could happen to the GOP. His drunken-sailor spending has brought the party away from the high spending of the bush years, and back to the fiscal responsibility of yesteryear. Truth of the matter is that both parties have proven to be irresponsible when it comes to deficits and spending. The need for campaign contributions and to get reelected has distorted the actions of both parties. Term limits and line item veto would go a long way towards correcting the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Well the only answer then is leave now, while you still can. Or we'll have you singing KumBayAh before you know it. You've always had a tough time facing reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Imo, Obama becoming president is the best thing that could happen to the GOP. His drunken-sailor spending has brought the party away from the high spending of the bush years, and back to the fiscal responsibility of yesteryear. Bush's spending has nothing to do with Neoconservativism. Neoconservativism is a philosophical approach to foreign policy, with very little to say about economics. There is nothing incompatible between neoconservativism and fiscal discipline. The neocons were not running the budget in Bush's administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Bush's spending has nothing to do with Neoconservativism. Neoconservativism is a philosophical approach to foreign policy, with very little to say about economics. There is nothing incompatible between neoconservativism and fiscal discipline. The neocons were not running the budget in Bush's administration. Technically true. But one could argue that the largest chunk of Bush's budget busting, the Iraq war, was a direct result of that neocon approach to foreign policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Each party has to disagree with the other party just because they have to. Correct. Which precisely sums up the entire Democratic Party's phony opposition(I voted for it before I voted against it) to the Iraq War. It was always about betting on/hoping for trouble and then gaining power because of it, they just got smoked in 2002, what did they have to lose? Only an idiot can't see that or a PHONY! that tries to pretend like it really is about some abstract moral issue. Moving on...I would love to take a survey of how many self described liberals could accurately define the word: "neoconservative", what caused the movement to occur, and SPECIFICALLY who neoconservatives were BEFORE they were neocons. I almost guarantee that you might find 5% who know the answer to those questions. The reason all the babbling idiots parrot the word Neocon all the time is because knowledgeable Democrats know that Neocons are really old-school Liberal Democrats, who either decided Democrats were candy asses when it came to the USSR, or, since many Neocons are Jews, decided that the Democrats would not support Israel. Bill Clinton, tried and failed to keep these guys in the party(remember the old "I would fight in a trench in Isreal" line? Well they didn't believe it either), and the Dems have been making them into boogey-men ever since they left. But MOST importantly, being a neocon changes none of their LIBERAL views on government spending or domestic policy. NeoCon? Think Joe Lieberman. However, the Reagan Republican has little in common with any Neocon, before or after they flipped parties. Reagan, and Jimmy Carter's utter ineptitude, is what got them to flip in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan_in_raleigh Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I would like for someone in the party to stand up and proudly announce they are a fiscal conservative. Problem is there are not any more left they started spending like crazy in the 80's and took the entire country with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Technically true. But one could argue that the largest chunk of Bush's budget busting, the Iraq war, was a direct result of that neocon approach to foreign policy. If you want to conclude that the belief in the importance of actively intervening in the world to make it a better place neccessarily leads to budget busting and disasterous outcomes in the aftermath of wars, then fine. We'll go back to the days of realpolitik and the coddling of usefull dictators. I suspect most people object to neoconservatism only because of association with Bush and the mess his administartion made of the Iraq aftermath, not because of what it actaully means. Obama could engage in the same sort of thing and people would herald it as a new chapter in american involvement with the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Imo, Obama becoming president is the best thing that could happen to the GOP. His drunken-sailor spending has brought the party away from the high spending of the bush years, and back to the fiscal responsibility of yesteryear. Your party head says the GOP party is going to be "off the hook." Steele: GOP needs 'hip-hop' makeover ”There was underlying concerns we had become too regionalized and the party needed to reach beyond our comfort” zones, he said, citing defeats in such states as Virginia and North Carolina. “We need messengers to really capture that region - young, Hispanic, black, a cross section ... We want to convey that the modern-day GOP looks like the conservative party that stands on principles. But we want to apply them to urban-surburban hip-hop settings.” But, he elaborated with a laugh, “we need to uptick our image with everyone, including one-armed midgets.” Will white evangelicals, Texas oilmen and Toby Keith republicans be able to "reach beyond [their] comfort zones" and embrace the new, urban "hip-hop" GOP par-tay? Never mind that this sounds like the plot of a horribly envisioned straight-to-DVD movie, I can say in all honesty I am looking forward to see how this unfolds. EDIT: Just saw the new thread, PastaJoe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Your party head says the GOP party is going to be "off the hook."Steele: GOP needs 'hip-hop' makeover Will white evangelicals, Texas oilmen and Toby Keith republicans be able to "reach beyond [their] comfort zones" and embrace the new, urban "hip-hop" GOP par-tay? Never mind that this sounds like the plot of a horribly envisioned straight-to-DVD movie, I can say in all honesty I am looking forward to see how this unfolds. EDIT: Just saw the new thread, PastaJoe. Toby Keith is a registered Democrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Toby Keith is a registered Democrat. And the PPP is run by "independents." There is no way the Toby Keith/Ronald Reagan Democrats are going to stomach or support an "urban" GOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 The main difference between parties are social issues now. True! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan_in_raleigh Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 True! And probably 80% of america is against the fridge aspects of both parties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts