Conservative Media on Clinton

[Serenity Now]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/13/watch-right-wing-media-praise-hillary-clinton/203258

Made me chuckle.

[olevetonahill]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/13/watch-right-wing-media-praise-hillary-clinton/203258

Made me chuckle.

And your point?

[Serenity Now]

To try to share the chuckle. That's all. It's funny. If you can't laugh at that then you're taking your fauxnews too seriously. If you have to have a serious point on every thread/post this place would dry up.

[olevetonahill]

To try to share the chuckle. That's all. It's funny. If you can't laugh at that then you're taking your fauxnews too seriously.
If you have to have a serious point on every thread/post this place would dry up.

You must have me confused with some one else again. I listened to maybe less than a minute. dint seem worth the effort

[Turd_Ferguson]

Yes, and then she went forth and stepped on her tittys...

[dwarthog]

It seems the point is that conservative news sites can be and are complimentary to progressive politicians whereas the same consideration is not afforded conservative politicians who are routinely excoriated when being discussed on various "progressive" news outlets .

Thanks for pointing that out.

[Serenity Now]

It seems the point is that conservative news sites can be and are complimentary to progressive politicians whereas the same consideration is not afforded conservative politicians who are routinely excoriated when being discussed on various "progressive" news outlets .

Thanks for pointing that out.

Correct Mr. O'Rielly. Now you can go on about the "war on Christians". [rolls eyes]

[Turd_Ferguson]

Correct Mr. O'Rielly. Now you can go on about the "war on Christians". [rolls eyes]

Great job Ms. Maddow. Now you can go on about how all libs know everything and are never perceived as the giant *****'s they are. [rolls eyes]

[badger]

A lot of the current Hillary criticism is on the email scandal, which was unveiled publicly after a lot of those Fox News compliments.

In a nutshell, Hillary got dealt a great poker hand in life, but always at the wrong time. She has pocket queens when her opponent has pocket aces. She's gotten to be secretary of state, first lady of Arkansas and the U.S., when what she really wants is to be president.

It ain't gonna happen, and it's too bad she can't be satisfied with her many life's accomplishment and live with that disappointment. But, God bless her for trying and not giving up.

[dwarthog]

Correct Mr. O'Rielly. Now you can go on about the "war on Christians". [rolls eyes]

That's it? That's all you got?

[Serenity Now]

That's it? That's all you got?

I thought it was funny (entertaining) not funny (gotcha). You guys are missing 8th.

[dwarthog]

I thought it was funny (entertaining) not funny (gotcha). You guys are missing 8th.

Guess I failed to see the humor involved. Wouldn't be the 1st time.

[SoonerorLater]

I thought it was funny (entertaining) not funny (gotcha). You guys are missing 8th.

8th was an idiot. One time in his typical dense fashion he dismissed a source out of hand as "rightwing nuts" because the writer's use of a pseudonym. The irony of this just completely escaped him.

[East Coast Bias]

I chuckled the other day hearing Limbaugh refer to her as "Nurse Cratchett". They are all piling on right now, but the left did the same to Paul and Cruz when they announced.

[Serenity Now]

I chuckled the other day hearing Limbaugh refer to her as "Nurse Cratchett". They are all piling on right now, but the left did the same to Paul and Cruz when they announced.

Agreed. It's nice to know that we can spend such time on her eyewear as she orders a burrito bowl at Chipotle.

Tyler Durden, if I remember right from his cut/paste. That was curious to me as I was very new here then. I didn't realize that any straying from the herd would result in "punishment". I learned. I just think some of this group needs to stretch their minds out of some comfort zones. I can certainly admit that I need to sometimes. I also think that the devil needs some representation in absentia at times. To quote the great Alinsky, "if you think you've got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated." :)

[BetterSoonerThanLater]

the conservaitve media seems to be much more poilte to Hillary than the Libs were to the likes of Romney..and the scandles that HIllary has been implicated in are more numerous than Romey.

Benghazi
whitewater
clinton foundation
Emails
ok with Adultery if it furthers her career (my opinion of course, but its funny that she is all for womens rights, strengths, and indpendence, but stood by her husband after affairs so that she could further her career.)
Chipotle ( not really a scandal, but goes to her personality)
Mrs. Weiner
Claiming to be dead broke after leaving the White House
etc.

She brings this on herself. she thinks she is invincible, and that it doesn't make any difference.

Just' sayin'. if she's is the best candidate the Dems have, then thats terrible. Furthermore, if the American people fall for her Bull**** and elect her president, then the American people get what they deserve.

[okie52]

Agreed. It's nice to know that we can spend such time on her eyewear as she orders a burrito bowl at Chipotle.

Tyler Durden, if I remember right from his cut/paste. That was curious to me as I was very new here then. I didn't realize that any straying from the herd would result in "punishment". I learned. I just think some of this group needs to stretch their minds out of some comfort zones. I can certainly admit that I need to sometimes. I also think that the devil needs some representation in absentia at times. To quote the great Alinsky, "if you think you've got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated." :)

Tyler Durden was a favorite although almost always directed towards Sooner in Tampa (I think).

I'm waxing nostalgic for the good ole days...Maybe 8th could return on every 8th of the month as a visitor for a day. I know the board would enthusiastically support it.

[olevetonahill]

Tyler Durden was a favorite although almost always directed towards Sooner in Tampa (I think).

I'm waxing nostalgic for the good ole days...Maybe 8th could return on every 8th of the month as a visitor for a day. I know the board would enthusiastically support it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR7i8PfWK68

[SicEmBaylor]

To try to share the chuckle. That's all. It's funny. If you can't laugh at that then you're taking your fauxnews too seriously. If you have to have a serious point on every thread/post this place would dry up.

Fox News is a cesspool of idiocy; however, I want to make one thing clear -- there really aren't any true conservatives on Fox News. Fox News is full of right-wing nationalists, but they aren't actually conservatives. The problem is that conservatives and right-wing nationalists have so many points of commonality that it's often difficult or impossible to distinguish between the two. Make no mistake, the two trace their roots and origins from two different political and philosophical traditions.

I'm really tired of guys like Hannity being called 'conservative.' Hannity is not a conservative, and it's doubtful Hannity could even manage to spell 'conservative' if you held a gun to his head. Actually, holding a gun to his head wouldn't be much of a threat -- a bullet couldn't possibly do any noticeable damage.

[okie52]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR7i8PfWK68

Heh heh

[Serenity Now]

Heh heh

Made me chuckle as well. The 8th of every month? I like it. Bring out the gimp!

[okie52]

Amnesty on the 8th for 8th!!!

[olevetonahill]

Fox News is a cesspool of idiocy; however, I want to make one thing clear -- there really aren't any true conservatives on Fox News. Fox News is full of right-wing nationalists, but they aren't actually conservatives. The problem is that conservatives and right-wing nationalists have so many points of commonality that it's often difficult or impossible to distinguish between the two. Make no mistake, the two trace their roots and origins from two different political and philosophical traditions.


I'm really tired of guys like Hannity being called 'conservative.' Hannity is not a conservative, and it's doubtful Hannity could even manage to spell 'conservative' if you held a gun to his head. Actually, holding a gun to his head wouldn't be much of a threat -- a bullet couldn't possibly do any noticeable damage.
Or Gals trying to tell me that their viewpoint MATTERS. Holy shat Batman. every ****in Politician has an AGENDA. None of them really GAF about the common Man.

****in Professional politicians and their shills suck donkey dicks , as well as any and all lobbyist

[champions77]

Fox News is a cesspool of idiocy; however, I want to make one thing clear -- there really aren't any true conservatives on Fox News. Fox News is full of right-wing nationalists, but they aren't actually conservatives. The problem is that conservatives and right-wing nationalists have so many points of commonality that it's often difficult or impossible to distinguish between the two. Make no mistake, the two trace their roots and origins from two different political and philosophical traditions.

I'm really tired of guys like Hannity being called 'conservative.' Hannity is not a conservative, and it's doubtful Hannity could even manage to spell 'conservative' if you held a gun to his head. Actually, holding a gun to his head wouldn't be much of a threat -- a bullet couldn't possibly do any noticeable damage.

So that begs the question, what is your definition of a "conservative"? Hannity is attacked unrelentingly by the left, so if you asked them, I would have to guess that they feel he is a conservative. The verbiage you use to describe him are of the same degree of acrimony that you see from the left. I know you are no leftist.

Does his stance on having a strong military and the fact that he would be considered a "hawk" make him something besides a "conservative" in your mind? What positions has he taken in the past make him so detestable to you and disqualify him as a conservative?

[SicEmBaylor]

So that begs the question, what is your definition of a "conservative"? Hannity is attacked unrelentingly by the left, so if you asked them, I would have to guess that they feel he is a conservative. The verbiage you use to describe him are of the same degree of acrimony that you see from the left. I know you are no leftist.

Does his stance on having a strong military and the fact that he would be considered a "hawk" make him something besides a "conservative" in your mind? What positions has he taken in the past make him so detestable to you and disqualify him as a conservative?

That's a very good question.

Actual conservatism traces its roots back to the Jeffersonian/southern agrarian tradition represented, in its modern form, by what is called 'traditional conservatism' (which appears to be an oxymoron but it definitely is not) or sometimes called the 'old right.' I prefer the term 'paleoconservative.' It's a philosophy centered around preserving traditional American political (Declaration/Constitution) and social (western European heritage) institutions. To that end, traditional conservatism values *de-centralization* and *regionalism* rather than *centralization* and *nationalism*. The idea is that your family, local community, state, and geographical region are the most important political sub-divisions with paramount power residing with the individual state or reserved to the individual (as per the Constitution). It actually resembles a quasi-libertarian philosophy in its emphasis for individual liberty and hostility toward government/national state EXCEPT when that libertarianesque philosophy conflicts with preserving western European heritage and identity. Traditional conservatism is distrustful of and hostile toward globalization which means, in practical terms, traditional conservatives oppose open-ended free trade agreements such as NAFTA. A traditional conservative would seek to preserve American jobs and industry that become a casualty to globalization. Traditional conservatism is also opposed to foreign interventionism and the sort of Wilsonian/Trotskian foreign policy that is en-vogue on both sides of the aisle. Note: non-interventionism is NOT the same thing as isolationism. Non-interventionism was the default conservative position for most of its history. Only recently has that changed.

-----

On the other hand, you have right-wing nationalists. Now, our right-wing nationalists resemble nationalists everywhere else in the world. They emphasize increasing the power of the national state/government. To that end, they support policies which bolster the government's/nation's power whether it be domestically, internationally, or both. That's not to say they support policies which always make the government itself stronger -- they support policies which make the national *state* stronger...as in the entity itself not necessarily the government of that national state. This is the case with our nationalists. They support policies that expand the power and prestige of the country itself -- the Untied States as an entity. Now, of course, many people are going to think that's wonderful. The problem is that those policies often come at the expense of liberty and are often extra-constitutional or flat out unconstitutional which is why you have so many Republicans who support un-constitutional laws that subvert the spirit and letter of the document. Hannity is an example of a nationalist. He supports increasing the power and prestige of the United States at whatever cost whether it be fundamental civil liberties here at home, a loss of constitutional state power, or the wasting of trillions in foreign wars and interventionism. Nationalists support a strong military and question the patriotism of anyone who doesn't while a traditional conservative values national defense but is considerably more distrustful of a strong military as agents of and representative of the power of the state.

As I said, in many cases, nationalist goals and traditional conservative goals are indistinguishable. You have to dig pretty deep to find the differences. It's sort of like neanderthals vs. modern humans co-existing side by side. If neanderthals had lived, they may have become virtually indistinguishable from modern humans....but the two have very different origins.

[SicEmBaylor]

If you want two real world examples of the differences between a traditional conservative and a nationalist/neoconservative then look no further than these two men: Pat Buchanan is the unofficial spokesman for traditional/paleoconservatism while Bill Kristol is at the apex of the nationalist/neoconservative movement. Now, both men consider themselves to be 'conservative' but the two couldn't be more different in what that conservatism looks like. Most people look at the differences between the two as simply fluctuations in policy positions between two individual men, but it most certainly is not -- those differences represent major philosophical differences.

Take a look at two 'conservative' magazines as well: The American Conservative (traditional conservatism) and the Weekly Standard or National Review (right-wing nationalism, especially the former). Read those two enough side-by-side and you start to better understand the differences.

[SoonerProphet]

Sean Hannity was for the massive surveillance state before he was against it.

[SicEmBaylor]

Sean Hannity was for the massive surveillance state before he was against it.

Honest to God, I've never heard Hannity utter a single insightful, note worthy, or original thought. I used to listen to his radio show quite a bit, but I just had to stop. Fox News isn't even remotely watchable -- the entire network is uber cringe worthy.

...and don't get me started on Mark Levin. I'm going to chunk my shoe at him if I ever see him in person.

[okie52]

Sean Hannity threw jeb a bunch of softballs at the Conservative convention (CPAC). Really disgusting.

[SicEmBaylor]

Sean Hannity threw jeb a bunch of softballs at the Conservative convention (CPAC). Really disgusting.

I'd like to throw a softball at Hannity.

[SoonerProphet]

So that begs the question, what is your definition of a "conservative"?

Fiscal responsibility, foreign policy realism and pragmatism, and staunch protection of civil liberties. Neither party delivers on these.

[SicEmBaylor]

Fiscal responsibility, foreign policy realism and pragmatism, and staunch protection of civil liberties. Neither party delivers on these.

http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0262/2091/products/winnerwinner_chocolate_1024x1024.jpg?v=1422473084

[Serenity Now]

O'Rielly on the radio is not horrible - high praise indeed.

It is also fun to watch him and Jon Stewart spar. You can tell that they like each other but disagree. We could use more of that in our culture.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Honest to God, I've never heard Hannity utter a single insightful, note worthy, or original thought. I used to listen to his radio show quite a bit, but I just had to stop. Fox News isn't even remotely watchable -- the entire network is uber cringe worthy.

...and don't get me started on Mark Levin. I'm going to chunk my shoe at him if I ever see him in person.

Okay, now you're just being a **** ball. What you call a conservative is at least on the same side of these guys compass. I'll admit, I don't like Hannity because he's a talking head that repeats himself over and over, but when you start putting all these guy's in the same boat, they are all after the same thing. LESS Government, States Rights, ETC...You're not gonna get the country going in the direction you want in one election. You're gonna have to vote peeps in that will START to get it going in the right direction and hopefully, over several terms, it get's to where we need it. Stop acting like it's an end all be all for every election. Let's get somebody like Rand or Scott in there that can start changing the direction...:)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Okay, now you're just being a **** ball. What you call a conservative is at least on the same side of these guys compass. I'll admit, I don't like Hannity because he's a talking head that repeats himself over and over, but when you start putting all these guy's in the same boat, they are all after the same thing. LESS Government, States Rights, ETC...You're not gonna get the country going in the direction you want in one election. You're gonna have to vote peeps in that will START to get it going in the right direction and hopefully, over several terms, it get's to where we need it. Stop acting like it's an end all be all for every election. Let's get somebody like Rand or Scott in there that can start changing the direction...:)SO MANY people don't understand this. Leftists, and Libertarians both seem to be driven by their dislike of foreign presence of the US military. That would include 3rd party guys like Sicem.

[badger]

if she's is the best candidate the Dems have, then thats terrible

No matter who each party nominates, the candidate will get at least 40 percent of the vote, guaranteed. Some people will always vote Democrats, some people will always vote Republican, and I'd put each side at about 40, regardless of who the candidate is.

Is Hillary Clinton a candidate that can grab any part of the remaining 20 percent? No, and that's why Dems won't pick her, unless she's the only one that runs

[SicEmBaylor]

SO MANY people don't understand this. Leftists, and Libertarians both seem to be driven by their dislike of foreign presence of the US military. That would include 3rd party guys like Sicem.

Your new name is 'Jon Snow.'

[champions77]

Honest to God, I've never heard Hannity utter a single insightful, note worthy, or original thought. I used to listen to his radio show quite a bit, but I just had to stop. Fox News isn't even remotely watchable -- the entire network is uber cringe worthy.

...and don't get me started on Mark Levin. I'm going to chunk my shoe at him if I ever see him in person.

Don't look now but you have a lot more in common with Hannity's brand of conservatism than you do with these socialists you find in today's Democratic Party. At least I hope you do. You seem to have a lot bigger problem with some conservatives than you do these leftists that would like the Federal government to be even more intrusive, more controlling, more involved, ultimately to have complete control of our lives, from the womb to the tomb. 90% tax rates, Cap and Tax, jack booted EPA thugs locking down farms over the rumor of the death of an endangered rat being killed, and illegals streaming across the border, notwithstanding the crime, diseases and additional costs to educate, imprison and provide health care to each and every one, driving cities and communities to the brink of bankruptcy.

Expanding the welfare state is job one of these statist that want to circumvent the Constitution at every opportunity. BHO's efforts in this area, with record numbers now receiving federal government benefits and his unlawful revisions of Constitution Law provides a road map for future socialist to follow.

So no, I am not going to beat up Sean Hannity like you. He has taken on these leftists enough that he receives death threats on a daily basis from them.

SicEm you have an odd manner in which if someone is not near 100% to your liking, then they are demonized as thrown out with the trash. And I can promise you, that your boogie man Sean Hannity has a lot more in common with Pat Buchanan, then 98% of those now residing in the Socialist Party, I mean the Democratic Party. Seems to me you should have a much bigger problem with the likes of Ed Shultz or that little Boy Rachel Madow.

Of course after you made that ridiculous statement a few weeks back that we should respect Iran because they are a sovereign nation, and should not be concerned with them until they begin firing nuclear missiles in our direction is one for the ages. That brand of thinking really discredits your ilk in the Paleo-Conservative movement.

[SoonerProphet]

SicEm you have an odd manner in which if someone is not near 100% to your liking, then they are demonized as thrown out with the trash.

Yeah, cause hacks like Hannity and Limbaugh would never do such a thing. Hypocrites.

[Soonerjeepman]

What I don't like about the conservative talk show guys...and I'm conservative...is they don't allow discussion. They rarely (when I listen) allow anyone with a different view to be heard. I'm like let them speak..THEN disagree and show them the truth...but they just shout them down...ugh.

Let the facts do the talking.

[okie52]

What I don't like about the conservative talk show guys...and I'm conservative...is they don't allow discussion. They rarely (when I listen) allow anyone with a different view to be heard. I'm like let them speak..THEN disagree and show them the truth...but they just shout them down...ugh.

Let the facts do the talking.

Very true.

[Serenity Now]

What I don't like about the conservative talk show guys...and I'm conservative...is they don't allow discussion. They rarely (when I listen) allow anyone with a different view to be heard. I'm like let them speak..THEN disagree and show them the truth...but they just shout them down...ugh.

Let the facts do the talking.

Agree. I like to go back and forth. I've got about 5,000 on a horn board. OU boards are boring to me. I blended in at hornfans once my skin got thicker.

[champions77]

52 you used to post on Hornfans.com. You still over there shaking things up?

[okie52]

Haven't been over there in a long time since it got embarrassing to say I was from OU. I don't think I ever got on any board but the football board.

[SicEmBaylor]

Don't look now but you have a lot more in common with Hannity's brand of conservatism than you do with these socialists you find in today's Democratic Party. At least I hope you do. You seem to have a lot bigger problem with some conservatives than you do these leftists that would like the Federal government to be even more intrusive, more controlling, more involved, ultimately to have complete control of our lives, from the womb to the tomb. 90% tax rates, Cap and Tax, jack booted EPA thugs locking down farms over the rumor of the death of an endangered rat being killed, and illegals streaming across the border, notwithstanding the crime, diseases and additional costs to educate, imprison and provide health care to each and every one, driving cities and communities to the brink of bankruptcy.
What's funny about what you said is that conservatives, such as Hannity, believe in government power just as much as those socialists (and we need to be clear here -- this is such a broad term it easily applies to many on both sides of the aisle) do. The only difference is where that government power is applied and how that power is exercised. The difference between neoconservatives and liberals is not a question of underlying philosophy; the difference is one of policy not philosophy. Both progressives and neoconservatives fundamentally accept the supremacy of the Federal government, and both believe in wielding that power to achieve certain ends. I absolutely reject that from the inner-most core of my being.

Secondly, I don't like this "us vs. them" dynamic. I detest that way of thinking. I'm not on anyone's 'team', and I'm not going to accept the fact that my place is as a cheerleader for 'Team A' simply because I don't like 'Team B.' Do I have more problems with so-called conservatives than I do progressives? Absolutely! Adding my voice to the chorus of those bitching about the left isn't going to accomplish a damned thing so long as there are so many on our own side who are just as big a problem when it comes to bad policy, expanding the size and scope of government, limiting civil/individual liberties, and violating the Constitution. I can't blame a wolf for being a wolf, but I sure as hell blame a wolf dressed in sheep's clothing. There need to be people willing to call out those on our own 'side', and we should all hold them accountable. I'm not a leftist, and I'm not a Democrat. Trying to change who they are or influence their side of the aisle is something of a waste of time.


Expanding the welfare state is job one of these statist that want to circumvent the Constitution at every opportunity.
Sort of like one of the cornerstones of the Bush legacy was the largest expansion of an entitlement program since the Great Society? Or creating an entirely new cabinet-level Federal agency? Do you see what I mean? This nonsense that liberals are the only people who grow government is absolute bull****.


So no, I am not going to beat up Sean Hannity like you. He has taken on these leftists enough that he receives death threats on a daily basis from them.
Hannity hasn't done a damned thing. His analysis is shallow, pedestrian, and obvious. His attacks amount to nothing more than bumper-sticker sloganeering. He absolutely positively is incapable of understanding nuanced positions; in fact, this is what drives me the most crazy about Hannity. There is nothing about Hannity that anyone should admire. He's on the air depriving some poor village of its idiot. I don't like Limbaugh either, but at least Limbaugh is original and coherent and, frankly, interesting. Hannity is a court jester, and I'm ashamed he fancies himself a conservative.


SicEm you have an odd manner in which if someone is not near 100% to your liking, then they are demonized as thrown out with the trash. And I can promise you, that your boogie man Sean Hannity has a lot more in common with Pat Buchanan, then 98% of those now residing in the Socialist Party, I mean the Democratic Party. Seems to me you should have a much bigger problem with the likes of Ed Shultz or that little Boy Rachel Madow.

That is 100% demonstrably false. As I stated in my Rand Paul thread, I have never expected someone to agree with me 100% of the time. Even candidates I've worked for have never come close to that percentage. In fact, what I expect is very simple -- I expect someone to demonstrate a commitment to truly reducing the size and scope of government and expanding individual/civil liberties. Lots of Republicans give lip service to both, but very few believe it and even fewer have put any real effort into faking it. Sean Hannity's beliefs come at the expense of civil liberties, state power, and the Constitution of the United States. But Hannity is really beside the point since Hannity isn't running for office. However, this is precisely the reason I refused to vote for McCain, the reason I refused to vote for Romney, and it's the reason I won't vote for someone like Bush or Rubio if they are nominated.

Does Hannity have more in common with Buchanan than the left? Absolutely. I never suggested otherwise. But that's entirely beside the point. I don't dislike Hannity because he agrees or disagrees with the left; I dislike Hannity because the man is just dumber than a sack of nails. He is seen as a spokesman for conservatism, and I find that very troubling.


Of course after you made that ridiculous statement a few weeks back that we should respect Iran because they are a sovereign nation,
Yes...respecting sovereign nations....what a ridiculous statement. The ridiculous statement you just made is what's ridiculous, and statements like that are precisely the reason that I hate nationalists and neocons.

and should not be concerned with them until they begin firing nuclear missiles in our direction is one for the ages. That brand of thinking really discredits your ilk in the Paleo-Conservative movement.
Yes...not starting wars or conflicts with nations that aren't at war with us is just so insane. Frankly, I find your world view to be dangerous and scary as hell. It means never-ending wars, it means trillions in taxpayer funds, it means a national security state that threatens our liberty, it means needing a government large enough to support such ventures, it means being the policemen of the world for eternity.

Iran is a country with a GDP around that of Idaho. We're the f'n United States of America. This bull**** about convincing everyone that Iran is going to destroy the world is such hyperbole nonsense that it's a staggering divorce from all reality. It's nothing but fear mongering meant to perpetuate the national security state that the internationalists/globalists have been creating since 9/11.

[champions77]

What's funny about what you said is that conservatives, such as Hannity, believe in government power just as much as those socialists (and we need to be clear here -- this is such a broad term it easily applies to many on both sides of the aisle) do. The only difference is where that government power is applied and how that power is exercised. The difference between neoconservatives and liberals is not a question of underlying philosophy; the difference is one of policy not philosophy. Both progressives and neoconservatives fundamentally accept the supremacy of the Federal government, and both believe in wielding that power to achieve certain ends. I absolutely reject that from the inner-most core of my being.

Secondly, I don't like this "us vs. them" dynamic. I detest that way of thinking. I'm not on anyone's 'team', and I'm not going to accept the fact that my place is as a cheerleader for 'Team A' simply because I don't like 'Team B.' Do I have more problems with so-called conservatives than I do progressives? Absolutely! Adding my voice to the chorus of those bitching about the left isn't going to accomplish a damned thing so long as there are so many on our own side who are just as big a problem when it comes to bad policy, expanding the size and scope of government, limiting civil/individual liberties, and violating the Constitution. I can't blame a wolf for being a wolf, but I sure as hell blame a wolf dressed in sheep's clothing. There need to be people willing to call out those on our own 'side', and we should all hold them accountable. I'm not a leftist, and I'm not a Democrat. Trying to change who they are or influence their side of the aisle is something of a waste of time.


Sort of like one of the cornerstones of the Bush legacy was the largest expansion of an entitlement program since the Great Society? Or creating an entirely new cabinet-level Federal agency? Do you see what I mean? This nonsense that liberals are the only people who grow government is absolute bull****.


Hannity hasn't done a damned thing. His analysis is shallow, pedestrian, and obvious. His attacks amount to nothing more than bumper-sticker sloganeering. He absolutely positively is incapable of understanding nuanced positions; in fact, this is what drives me the most crazy about Hannity. There is nothing about Hannity that anyone should admire. He's on the air depriving some poor village of its idiot. I don't like Limbaugh either, but at least Limbaugh is original and coherent and, frankly, interesting. Hannity is a court jester, and I'm ashamed he fancies himself a conservative.



That is 100% demonstrably false. As I stated in my Rand Paul thread, I have never expected someone to agree with me 100% of the time. Even candidates I've worked for have never come close to that percentage. In fact, what I expect is very simple -- I expect someone to demonstrate a commitment to truly reducing the size and scope of government and expanding individual/civil liberties. Lots of Republicans give lip service to both, but very few believe it and even fewer have put any real effort into faking it. Sean Hannity's beliefs come at the expense of civil liberties, state power, and the Constitution of the United States. But Hannity is really beside the point since Hannity isn't running for office. However, this is precisely the reason I refused to vote for McCain, the reason I refused to vote for Romney, and it's the reason I won't vote for someone like Bush or Rubio if they are nominated.

Does Hannity have more in common with Buchanan than the left? Absolutely. I never suggested otherwise. But that's entirely beside the point. I don't dislike Hannity because he agrees or disagrees with the left; I dislike Hannity because the man is just dumber than a sack of nails. He is seen as a spokesman for conservatism, and I find that very troubling.


Yes...respecting sovereign nations....what a ridiculous statement. The ridiculous statement you just made is what's ridiculous, and statements like that are precisely the reason that I hate nationalists and neocons.

Yes...not starting wars or conflicts with nations that aren't at war with us is just so insane. Frankly, I find your world view to be dangerous and scary as hell. It means never-ending wars, it means trillions in taxpayer funds, it means a national security state that threatens our liberty, it means needing a government large enough to support such ventures, it means being the policemen of the world for eternity.

Iran is a country with a GDP around that of Idaho. We're the f'n United States of America. This bull**** about convincing everyone that Iran is going to destroy the world is such hyperbole nonsense that it's a staggering divorce from all reality. It's nothing but fear mongering meant to perpetuate the national security state that the internationalists/globalists have been creating since 9/11.

I'm scary? Someone that convinces himself that Iran can be trusted, and that they are not a risk to us, all the while they have been developing Long Range Ballistic missiles at the same time manufacturing components for a nuclear bomb, and have been the main perpetuators of terrorism around the globe for the last 20 plus years, and who we should not worry about Until the MISSILES are in the air destined for the US, and have for as long as I can remember advocated Death to Israel and the US? Why and how you have convinced yourself that if not for us, they would be peace loving folks, and can be trusted, despite overwhelming intell that says just the opposite.....is really beyond comprehension.

[SoonerProphet]

despite overwhelming intell that says just the opposite.....is really beyond comprehension.

That is news to me. Most intel I've heard about has stated they abandoned a weapons program in 2003. Our own NIE have stated as much.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I'm scary? Someone that convinces himself that Iran can be trusted, and that they are not a risk to us, all the while they have been developing Long Range Ballistic missiles at the same time manufacturing components for a nuclear bomb, and have been the main perpetuators of terrorism around the globe for the last 20 plus years, and who we should not worry about Until the MISSILES are in the air destined for the US, and have for as long as I can remember advocated Death to Israel and the US? Why and how you have convinced yourself that if not for us, they would be peace loving folks, and can be trusted, despite overwhelming intell that says just the opposite.....is really beyond comprehension. More and more, day by day, poor Sicem is becoming as out there goofy as the Full-on Libz.

[SicEmBaylor]

I'm scary? Someone that convinces himself that Iran can be trusted,
I never said Iran could be trusted. Trust is irrelevant. We don't trust many nations we routinely do business with. The fact that we may not trust Iran isn't an indictment with war as a punishment.

and that they are not a risk to us, all the while they have been developing Long Range Ballistic missiles at the same time manufacturing components for a nuclear bomb, and have been the main perpetuators of terrorism around the globe for the last 20 plus years,
Pakistan has nukes, and they're only slightly less crazy than Iran. Iran has not attacked the United States. Iran is not going to attack the United States. Attacking the United States would be the death of Iran. You may think their national leadership is ready to meet Allah, but I assure you they are as concerned for their own preservation as anyone else. Their bluster is for internal consumption.

and who we should not worry about Until the MISSILES are in the air destined for the US, and have for as long as I can remember advocated Death to Israel and the US?
This is the most paranoid crap I've ever read. Iran is not going to start launching ICBMs at the United States, and they don't even have the technology to send ICBMs to the United States. But, yes, I don't believe in starting a war with a sovereign nation unless we've been attacked. Your world view is built on the lunatic premise that everyone is to be feared and anyone who is feared should be eliminated. It's a scary proposition, and you are oblivious to the fact that such a robust policy abroad *requires* a robust and centralized government here at home. One begets the other; the two are linked.

Why and how you have convinced yourself that if not for us, they would be peace loving folks, and can be trusted, despite overwhelming intell that says just the opposite.....is really beyond comprehension.

I never said they would be peace loving folks. I said they aren't going to attack the United States, and this propaganda that has folks like you believing they're just chomping-at-the-bit to press the 'red button' and send the bombs flyin' is absolute and total nonsense. Iran is not going to nuke the United States of America.

Khrushchev banged his shoe on the podium at the UN and vowed to 'bury' the United States. That was a much much larger threat than anything Iran has said or done. We still did business with the Soviet Union. We still had diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. We never bombed the Soviet Union. We never went to war with the Soviet Union.

[Serenity Now]

That is news to me. Most intel I've heard about has stated they abandoned a weapons program in 2003. Our own NIE have stated as much.
You and your silly facts.

[Serenity Now]

Sicem. Very well stated.

You fear merchants buying into this should learn from history. Remember bibi's wise predictions from almost 20 years ago that they were just a year away.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Sicem. Very well stated.

You fear merchants buying into this should learn from history. Remember bibi's wise predictions from almost 20 years ago that they were just a year away.

You're a ****'n moran.

[Serenity Now]

I critique people who are touting war who were wrong 12 years ago and 20 years ago and I'm the ****ing moran? Me thinks the smeller's the feller.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I critique people who are touting war who were wrong 12 years ago and 20 years ago and I'm the ****ing moran? Me thinks the smeller's the feller.

Yes, because I'm sure you've lived in Israel the last twenty years and you have all the intel that Bibi has...

[Serenity Now]

Yes, because I'm sure you've lived in Israel the last twenty years and you have all the intel that Bibi has...No. He said they were less than a year away when my 18 year old was still wearing diapers. He said it again a few months ago and you fear merchants are all a Flutter. Hindsight. Use it.

[dwarthog]

No. He said they were less than a year away when my 18 year old was still wearing diapers. He said it again a few months ago and you fear merchants are all a Flutter. Hindsight. Use it.

I think you mean. Hindsight. Selectively use it.

[Serenity Now]

I think you mean. Hindsight. Selectively use it.
I'm 48. Obama is the first dem president I ever voted for. I use hindsight to learn from my mistakes. You fear merchants don't.

[dwarthog]

I'm 48. Obama is the first dem president I ever voted for. I use hindsight to learn from my mistakes. You fear merchants don't.

You're kind of sensitive for some reason.

My "correction" was generic in nature with regards to folks in general having great hindsight when it suits their need or purpose, while conveniently avoiding the truth found in hindsight when it doesn't support their position or goal.

Lighten up Francis...

[champions77]

I never said Iran could be trusted. Trust is irrelevant. We don't trust many nations we routinely do business with. The fact that we may not trust Iran isn't an indictment with war as a punishment.

Pakistan has nukes, and they're only slightly less crazy than Iran. Iran has not attacked the United States. Iran is not going to attack the United States. Attacking the United States would be the death of Iran. You may think their national leadership is ready to meet Allah, but I assure you they are as concerned for their own preservation as anyone else. Their bluster is for internal consumption.

This is the most paranoid crap I've ever read. Iran is not going to start launching ICBMs at the United States, and they don't even have the technology to send ICBMs to the United States. But, yes, I don't believe in starting a war with a sovereign nation unless we've been attacked. Your world view is built on the lunatic premise that everyone is to be feared and anyone who is feared should be eliminated. It's a scary proposition, and you are oblivious to the fact that such a robust policy abroad *requires* a robust and centralized government here at home. One begets the other; the two are linked.


I never said they would be peace loving folks. I said they aren't going to attack the United States, and this propaganda that has folks like you believing they're just chomping-at-the-bit to press the 'red button' and send the bombs flyin' is absolute and total nonsense. Iran is not going to nuke the United States of America.

Khrushchev banged his shoe on the podium at the UN and vowed to 'bury' the United States. That was a much much larger threat than anything Iran has said or done. We still did business with the Soviet Union. We still had diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. We never bombed the Soviet Union. We never went to war with the Soviet Union.

"Everyone should be feared?" Never stated that. But I do take notice of countries who are developing ways to make nuclear weapons while shouting death to America every other day. You continue to state that they wouldn't do that because it would lead to their death. Wow, so does strapping a bomb on your chest and walking into a school bus or flying airplanes into buildings. Lots of those lunatics can't wait to die. 72 virgins await.
You have a lot of confidence in this Administration for some reason. I think you have such a passion to avert war, which is not a bad thing, it overruns your common sense on how to get there. Showing weakness does not usually motivate despots to enter into binding agreements, at least binding agreements that they intend to honor. This Administration has shown weakness from the very start. Historically, regimes step up their aggressiveness during these times.

Iran has a track record on Agreements, and their past histories have to play a role in how we go about entering into any agreement with them. What were unacceptable and deal killers to this Administration in 2013 is now acceptable.
So yes, I am skeptical of it all, on both sides. If it was only so easy as you seem to think.

[FaninAma]

Fox News is a cesspool of idiocy; however, I want to make one thing clear -- there really aren't any true conservatives on Fox News. Fox News is full of right-wing nationalists, but they aren't actually conservatives. The problem is that conservatives and right-wing nationalists have so many points of commonality that it's often difficult or impossible to distinguish between the two. Make no mistake, the two trace their roots and origins from two different political and philosophical traditions.

I'm really tired of guys like Hannity being called 'conservative.' Hannity is not a conservative, and it's doubtful Hannity could even manage to spell 'conservative' if you held a gun to his head. Actually, holding a gun to his head wouldn't be much of a threat -- a bullet couldn't possibly do any noticeable damage.

I don't buy RLIMC's opinion you have to walk lock step with the GOP party but your position of criticizing every politician and media out let that doesn't espouse the libertarian philosophy in totality is a sure fire way to become and stay a mionority party in this nation. You criticize Hannity but he has been very critical of the GOP establishment and supportive of Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Sometimes I think you like being a Lone Wolf contrarian because its part of your persona. That's cool but don't be such a purist that you allow idiots like Obama and Hillary to fill the void and win elections over somebody you agree with on 85% of the issues. I am not talking about Jeb or the establishment GOP.

[champions77]

I don't buy RLIMC's opinion you have to walk lock step with the GOP party but your position of criticizing every politician and media out let that doesn't espouse the libertarian philosophy in totality is a sure fire way to become and stay a mionority party in this nation. You criticize Hannity but he has been very critical of the GOP establishment and supportive of Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Sometimes I think you like being a Lone Wolf contrarian because its part of your persona. That's cool but don't be such a purist that you allow idiots like Obama and Hillary to fill win elections over somebody you agree with on 855 of the issues. I am not talking about Jeb or the establishment GOP.

But it makes him feel better, a man of true convictions. It you notice, the reason most of his acrimony is directed to the GOP is that he finds himself in the same camp with the far left as to going to war and asserting ourselves in foreign affairs. I will agree with SicEm to the extent that we have involved ourselves needlessly in areas abroad that we should have stayed out of, there is no question about that. A more thought out and reasoned approach would have been the better route. A President (JFK) was assassinated because he was going to pull out the troops from Viet Nam, and in doing so the billions spent in the defense industry would not have occurred.

[Serenity Now]

I'm sure we were all happy with that vote for H. Ross Perot.

My interpretation of the Iran deal was as such. There were two options. 1. Hawk Option: Continue down current path without cooperating or extending any olive branch despite the fact that we are currently cooperating with them in Iraq. Possibly bomb them if they show evidence of bomb capabilities (ref. Bibi, Cotton, Kristol, et al). Basically, create a self-fulfilling prophecy of what we fear and push them further away.

2. Engage in diplomacy. Who could have imagined out military working in conjunction with them in Iraq but a few years ago? This will allow us more insight into their capabilities of whether or not they ACTUALLY can make a bomb and will open up their young, progressive populace to a world that COULD be a settling factor in that part of the world. The Iranian people are not the mullahs and the theocracy just like the Americans aren't Louie Gohmert. This may actually allow them to slowly change their own regime. I guess the downside of this is that they'd still do what they're doing in #1. That's why, I think, there is the ability to know what's going on with those things.

[Serenity Now]

I will agree with SicEm to the extent that we have involved ourselves needlessly in areas abroad that we should have stayed out of, there is no question about that. A more thought out and reasoned approach would have been the better route. A President (JFK) was assassinated because he was going to pull out the troops from Viet Nam, and in doing so the billions spent in the defense industry would not have occurred.Then why not try diplomacy? Lord knows we've not tried that.

[champions77]

Then why not try diplomacy? Lord knows we've not tried that.
Never said diplomacy is not the best way to go. But again, I feel very uneasy about the two entities conducting the negotiations. We have a history on both, especially the Mullahs. Obama has continued to revise the critical areas of the negotiations, where what was once a deal killer, is now ok. This sends a message of weakness to the Iranians.

For me, I would have left the negotiations after they did their little military exercise, destroying the mock up US aircraft carrier. Of course since it all started, they've thrown out their obligatory "Death to America, and Death to Israel" mantra. Is this the actions of a country negotiating in good faith? if so, they have a very strange way of showing it. I really struggle to see all of the almost admiration for the Iranians that you see, mostly from the left. In view of their past, we have to proceed very cautiously with these people. I truly believe they see an agreement with us as a window of opportunity to even speed up their dastardly plans. Again, I do not see their actions as that of a country intent on peace and goodwill in the region. I just don't.

[FaninAma]

But it makes him feel better, a man of true convictions. It you notice, the reason most of his acrimony is directed to the GOP is that he finds himself in the same camp with the far left as to going to war and asserting ourselves in foreign affairs. I will agree with SicEm to the extent that we have involved ourselves needlessly in areas abroad that we should have stayed out of, there is no question about that. A more thought out and reasoned approach would have been the better route. A President (JFK) was assassinated because he was going to pull out the troops from Viet Nam, and in doing so the billions spent in the defense industry would not have occurred.

I actually think he was assasinated because he was going to kill the Federal Reserve.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I don't buy RLIMC's opinion you have to walk lock step with the GOP party but your position of criticizing every politician and media out let that doesn't espouse the libertarian philosophy in totality is a sure fire way to become and stay a mionority party in this nation. You criticize Hannity but he has been very critical of the GOP establishment and supportive of Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Sometimes I think you like being a Lone Wolf contrarian because its part of your persona. That's cool but don't be such a purist that you allow idiots like Obama and Hillary to fill win elections over somebody you agree with on 855 of the issues. I am not talking about Jeb or the establishment GOP.Getting republicans elected instead of democrats is not being in lock step with the republican party. It simply is the means for keeping the worst people from winning elections. It is a BEGINNING of being able to try to improve government. Lots of work will be needed from that point, to get better people in office. But, as long as the democrats continue to believe and behave as they do, there is little to no chance of turning the country around from the train wreck that is likely to happen.

[FaninAma]

Sean Hannity was for the massive surveillance state before he was against it.

Sort of like Obama hated the deficit before he didn't mind it so much? Or how Obama supported The DOMA before he didn't? Or how he said he didn't have the authority to unilaterally change immigration laws before he did? I think Obama's own position on the surveillance state in this country has, shall we say, "evolved" since he was elected POTUS. And i won't even get into his pledge to be the most transparrent administration in history.

The one thing Obama has not flipped and flopped on is his committment to help grow the control the federal government exerts over our lives.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Bear also pledged to take down the coal industry. He meant that,too.

[champions77]

I actually think he was assasinated because he was going to kill the Federal Reserve.

You are right. He was also going to do that. The International Bankers couldn't have that. They worked their tail off to get it passed in the first place, and JFK was going to end it. The Mafia hated RFK with a passion. The Kennedys had a lot of folks "hating 'em"

[SoonerProphet]

Sort of like Obama hated the deficit before he didn't mind it so much? Or how Obama supported The DOMA before he didn't? Or how he said he didn't have the authority to unilaterally change immigration laws before he did? I think Obama's own position on the surveillance state in this country has, shall we say, "evolved" since he was elected POTUS. And i won't even get into his pledge to be the most transparrent administration in history.

The one thing Obama has not flipped and flopped on is his committment to help grow the control the federal government exerts over our lives.

And your point is what exactly, he is a Dem, that is what they do. The GOP should be about limited government and we both know that is not the case.

[champions77]

And your point is what exactly, he is a Dem, that is what they do. The GOP should be about limited government and we both know that is not the case.

You mean Democratic Lite? The GOP needs to grow a pair. They talk like good conservatives at home, get to Washington and act like Democrats. They too are culpable for a good deal of the mess in DC. Having said that, I will always vote for the GOP compared to the Dems, who are owned lock, stock and barrel by the hard left. I think if we can get some leadership in the GOP that can communicate the message, and stand on principles, then we have a chance as a country.

The left wing media still influences millions of people. And they will always accentuate anything positive by the Dems in most cases, and just not report the stories of anything negative about the Dems. The little reporting they did on Benghazi, Fast and Furious and the IRS was shameful. They don't concern themselves with trivial matters like objectivity and professionalism anymore. That's why FOX News even came into being is they recognized a market for the other side of the political spectrum that was not being served.

[SicEmBaylor]

I don't buy RLIMC's opinion you have to walk lock step with the GOP party but your position of criticizing every politician and media out let that doesn't espouse the libertarian philosophy in totality is a sure fire way to become and stay a mionority party in this nation.
I don't criticize them for not espousing a libertarian point of view. I'm not a libertarian. What I take issue with is their re-branding of conservatism into something it is not and never was. That is the issue I have, and they've gotten by with it because there are too few voices out there saying otherwise. Fox News is not representative of traditional conservatism. Sean Hannity is not representative of traditional conservatism. I don't know care what they are so long as they are honest about who and what they are.

You criticize Hannity but he has been very critical of the GOP establishment and supportive of Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.
If you cared to read what I posted, I make it quite clear this isn't about any particular position Hannity holds or any particular politician Hannity supports or doesn't support (however, I haven't forgot the way he routinely spoke of Ron Paul). Let's also remember that this vapid moron just told Pat Buchanan, "You sound like a Democrat." Sean Hannity can call himself whatever he pleases, but I call him an idiot.

Sometimes I think you like being a Lone Wolf contrarian because its part of your persona.
Again, and I've said this so many times it makes my fingers hurt, there is no point in adding my voice to the chorus of millions who bitch and complain about progressives. I consider neoconservatism to be as big a threat to the country as progressivism. I can't do anything about progressives, but I can do something about convincing conservatives not to blindly support false prophets. I'm not a religious man, but isn't there something in the Bible about Satan disguising himself as a prophet or angel from God?

That's cool but don't be such a purist that you allow idiots like Obama and Hillary to fill the void and win elections over somebody you agree with on 85% of the issues. I am not talking about Jeb or the establishment GOP.

I'm not trying to be purposely snarky when I say this, but I really do grow tired of saying the same thing over and over and over again. I responded to this same sort of statement/question in this thread, and I brought the issue up (in detail) on my Rand Paul thread. I absolutely DO NOT expect to agree with a politician 100% of the time. I have yet to work for a candidate that I agreed with 100%. Frankly, finding someone I agreed with 80% of the time would be a miracle. Here is what I expect, and it is not and should not be considered too high a bar for a Republican candidate: I expect them to, on the whole, demonstrate a commitment to truly reducing the size and scope of government while expanding individual liberty. John McCain neither cares about reducing the size of government nor expanding liberty (in fact, he was down right hostile to both) -- he did not get my vote. Mitt Romney neither cared about reducing the size of government (except modest reductions in the rate of growth) nor in expanding liberty -- he did not get my vote.

I will *not* vote for a candidate that doesn't demonstrate, on the whole, a commitment to constitutional liberty and reducing the size of government. I thought that's why we were Republicans. Too many of you people are so caught up in the "us vs. them" game that you'll support almost anyone with an (R) next to their name, because you've deluded yourselves into believing they are always inherently better than a Democrat. It's fanboyism is what it is.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You mean Democratic Lite? The GOP needs to grow a pair. They talk like good conservatives at home, get to Washington and act like Democrats. They too are culpable for a good deal of the mess in DC. Having said that, I will always vote for the GOP compared to the Dems, who are owned lock, stock and barrel by the hard left. I think if we can get some leadership in the GOP that can communicate the message, and stand on principles, then we have a chance as a country.

The left wing media still influences millions of people. And they will always accentuate anything positive by the Dems in most cases, and just not report the stories of anything negative about the Dems. The little reporting they did on Benghazi, Fast and Furious and the IRS was shameful. They don't concern themselves with trivial matters like objectivity and professionalism anymore. That's why FOX News even came into being is they recognized a market for the other side of the political spectrum that was not being served.Exactly.

[SicEmBaylor]

You mean Democratic Lite? The GOP needs to grow a pair. They talk like good conservatives at home, get to Washington and act like Democrats. They too are culpable for a good deal of the mess in DC. Having said that, I will always vote for the GOP compared to the Dems, who are owned lock, stock and barrel by the hard left. I think if we can get some leadership in the GOP that can communicate the message, and stand on principles, then we have a chance as a country.
Here is the problem. And I say this as a political campaign consultant, the *only* thing the party understands is defeat at the ballot box. When you continue to always vote for the Republican then the Republican party learns nothing from that -- especially in primaries. The reason we have some better conservative options this Presidential cycle is due entirely to the fact that Romney and McCain's brand of Republicanism was trounced at the ballot box. It's like that saying about the United States and war -- we're always preparing for the last one. That's true in politics as well. You cannot continue to blindly vote (R) like that. It's bad for the party and it's bad for the country. Furthermore, many of those Republicans are no more conservative than their Democratic colleagues, so I don't know the degree to which you believe the country and the party benefit from electing them.

[SicEmBaylor]

And your point is what exactly, he is a Dem, that is what they do. The GOP should be about limited government and we both know that is not the case.

Exactly.

[SoonerorLater]

Here is the problem. And I say this as a political campaign consultant, the *only* thing the party understands is defeat at the ballot box. When you continue to always vote for the Republican then the Republican party learns nothing from that -- especially in primaries. The reason we have some better conservative options this Presidential cycle is due entirely to the fact that Romney and McCain's brand of Republicanism was trounced at the ballot box. It's like that saying about the United States and war -- we're always preparing for the last one. That's true in politics as well. You cannot continue to blindly vote (R) like that. It's bad for the party and it's bad for the country. Furthermore, many of those Republicans are no more conservative than their Democratic colleagues, so I don't know the degree to which you believe the country and the party benefit from electing them.

What you are saying is purely philosophically driven. It is not pragmatic. The reality of politics in the USA is that in the vast majority of elections we have two realistic candidates with a chance to win, Republican and Democrat. Not sure what the percentage is but probably in the high 90-some percent area. Of those two choices, Republicans will tend to vote more conservative than Democrats over a large number of votes. Not always but more often than Democrats. Both parties continue to go down roads that we as a nation have no business going down.

Voting for an alt candidate or making a protest vote for a candidate with no chance to win is an abdication. A conservative voting for any of the also-ran candidates or not voting at all is a defacto 1/2 vote for the democratic candidate.

If all conservatives were to do what you suggest we would have Democratic super-majorities in both houses and a Democrat President.

[Turd_Ferguson]

What you are saying is purely philosophically driven. It is not pragmatic. The reality of politics in the USA is that in the vast majority of elections we have two realistic candidates with a chance to win, Republican and Democrat. Not sure what the percentage is but probably in the high 90-some percent area. Of those two choices, Republicans will tend to vote more conservative than Democrats over a large number of votes. Not always but more often than Democrats. Both parties continue to go down roads that we as a nation have no business going down.

Voting for an alt candidate or making a protest vote for a candidate with no chance to win is an abdication. A conservative voting for any of the also-ran candidates or not voting at all is a defacto 1/2 vote for the democratic candidate.

If all conservatives were to do what you suggest we would have Democratic super-majorities in both houses and a Democrat President.

Word.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

What you are saying is purely philosophically driven. It is not pragmatic. The reality of politics in the USA is that in the vast majority of elections we have two realistic candidates with a chance to win, Republican and Democrat. Not sure what the percentage is but probably in the high 90-some percent area. Of those two choices, Republicans will tend to vote more conservative than Democrats over a large number of votes. Not always but more often than Democrats. Both parties continue to go down roads that we as a nation have no business going down.

Voting for an alt candidate or making a protest vote for a candidate with no chance to win is an abdication. A conservative voting for any of the also-ran candidates or not voting at all is a defacto 1/2 vote for the democratic candidate.

If all conservatives were to do what you suggest we would have Democratic super-majorities in both houses and a Democrat President.Pure logic, and based upon mathematical reality. This is NOT difficult to apply...but, seems it is for too many of us.

[SicEmBaylor]

But it makes him feel better, a man of true convictions. It you notice, the reason most of his acrimony is directed to the GOP is that he finds himself in the same camp with the far left as to going to war and asserting ourselves in foreign affairs.

You don't learn or listen very well. Any overlap with my position and the far-left is incidental, and any commonality comes from *vastly* different ideological beliefs (arriving at the same conclusion for different reasons). The far-left are internationalists/globalists. The reason they don't want the United States asserting itself aggressively internationally is because they view the United States as a threat, and they don't want American influence abroad. That couldn't be more different than what I believe.

The reason my acrimony is directed at the Republican Party is that the Republican pretends to be a limited-government/pro-liberty party while it is, in fact, a big-government/anti-liberty party. The Democratic Party is open about the fact they are a big government/anti-liberty party.

[SicEmBaylor]

What you are saying is purely philosophically driven. It is not pragmatic.
No. My position is coldly rational. It's the same rational theory behind disciplining children instead of giving them everything they want. Do you produce better kids when they misbehave by continuing to reward them? Or do you put them in the corner for awhile until they've learned their lesson?

The reality of politics in the USA is that in the vast majority of elections we have two realistic candidates with a chance to win, Republican and Democrat. Not sure what the percentage is but probably in the high 90-some percent area. Of those two choices, Republicans will tend to vote more conservative than Democrats over a large number of votes. Not always but more often than Democrats. Both parties continue to go down roads that we as a nation have no business going down.
This circular logic produces a self-fulfilling prophecy. We can't get a viable alternative to the Republican Party if everyone keeps voting Republican, and if everyone keeps voting Republican there will never be a viable alternative. Keep in mind, we're sitting here talking as if this is only an issue within the Republican Party -- I assure you there are plenty on the left as equally discontent with the Democratic Party who would and do vote Green.


Voting for an alt candidate or making a protest vote for a candidate with no chance to win is an abdication.
An abdication? An abdication of what, precisely? One's civic duty? I find that highly insulting and down right infuriating. No. No, sir. Voting for candidates who share my principles and not rewarding those who don't with a vote is not abdicating my civic responsibility. Let me pull a handful of our Founding Fathers from the grave and tell them, "Look, this guy right here is telling me that voting for a candidate who shares my principles rather than automatically voting for my party is an abdication of my civic duty." Let's see what they say.


A conservative voting for any of the also-ran candidates or not voting at all is a defacto 1/2 vote for the democratic candidate.
No. It absolutely is not. If a Republican candidate is ****ty enough that I, and others, have to vote for a 3rd-party (or independent) alternative leading to the Democrat winning then that's entirely the fault of the ****ty *** Republican. And, that being the case, what the hell difference does it make if a Republican that ****ty is in office or a Democrat? Very little.


If all conservatives were to do what you suggest we would have Democratic super-majorities in both houses and a Democrat President.

Out of curiosity, what specifically is it that you think I'm suggesting here with all of this? In a nutshell?

[TAFBSooner]

You don't learn or listen very well. Any overlap with my position and the far-left is incidental, and any commonality comes from *vastly* different ideological beliefs (arriving at the same conclusion for different reasons). The far-left are internationalists/globalists. The reason they don't want the United States asserting itself aggressively internationally is because they view the United States as a threat, and they don't want American influence abroad. That couldn't be more different than what I believe.

What is your opinion on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and its North Atlantic counterpart?

For the rest of you, what do you make of the fact that Obama is aligned with the Congressional Republicans on this issue? (Except for a minority of R's which won't vote to "give him a victory" even when the trade pact will help their big business allies?)

[SicEmBaylor]

What is your opinion on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and its North Atlantic counterpart?

Let me start off by saying that I oppose region-based free-trade agreements as a threat and violation of our sovereignty, and it prevents the United States from implementing targeted and limited tariffs at critical moments for US industry and agriculture. That's not to say that I don't support some free-trade agreements so long as they are on an individual nation-by-nation basis and have sunset provisions (for both trade partners). They must also be with nations who have economies similar and comparable to our own with similar labor standards, environmental regulations, wages, etc.

TPP scares the bejesus out of me. It isn't *just* a free-trade agreement; it also comes with a myriad of regulations that signatories must supposedly comply with. I don't trust several of the partners to fulfill those requirements since doing so would make it impossible for them to be competitive in the sort of market that the TPP is trying to create, and I have little or no expectation that the terms of the deal will be strictly enforced in those nations. Hell, I don't even know what the mechanism is for enforcement with the TPP....sanctions, maybe? Take Vietnam, for example, it's hard for me to see them fully implementing the labor union requirements when that would undermine the communist system. That aside, it's everything we don't yet know about the TPP that scares me. I'm afraid the Chamber-of-Commerce wing of the Party has found a willing ally in Obama.

Now, TAFTA is a bit different. Europe, by and large, has all of those requirements I listed above before I'd support a free-trade agreement. American workers have a reasonable expectation of competing against workers in Germany, and American industry doesn't have to fight against regulatory and statutory laws that don't exist with their trading partners. I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think the TAFTA framework is as broad or deep in scope. So, I oppose TAFTA just a bit less than TPP.

In general, however, I detest globalization. It's happening and won't stop, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

EDIT: Having said all of that, I wouldn't be caught dead at a G8 protest. ;)

[SoonerorLater]

No. My position is coldly rational. It's the same rational theory behind disciplining children instead of giving them everything they want. Do you produce better kids when they misbehave by continuing to reward them? Or do you put them in the corner for awhile until they've learned their lesson?

This circular logic produces a self-fulfilling prophecy. We can't get a viable alternative to the Republican Party if everyone keeps voting Republican, and if everyone keeps voting Republican there will never be a viable alternative. Keep in mind, we're sitting here talking as if this is only an issue within the Republican Party -- I assure you there are plenty on the left as equally discontent with the Democratic Party who would and do vote Green.


An abdication? An abdication of what, precisely? One's civic duty? I find that highly insulting and down right infuriating. No. No, sir. Voting for candidates who share my principles and not rewarding those who don't with a vote is not abdicating my civic responsibility. Let me pull a handful of our Founding Fathers from the grave and tell them, "Look, this guy right here is telling me that voting for a candidate who shares my principles rather than automatically voting for my party is an abdication of my civic duty." Let's see what they say.


No. It absolutely is not. If a Republican candidate is ****ty enough that I, and others, have to vote for a 3rd-party (or independent) alternative leading to the Democrat winning then that's entirely the fault of the ****ty *** Republican. And, that being the case, what the hell difference does it make if a Republican that ****ty is in office or a Democrat? Very little.



Out of curiosity, what specifically is it that you think I'm suggesting here with all of this? In a nutshell?

I was going to answer these point by point but the thought of it just makes my fingers tired. The bottom line is if you are not helping the Republican Party then by extension you are helping the Democratic Party. And yes, despite the fact that the Republicans are not all they should be, they are the better alternative.

An alt party vote is almost always a waste. If it's reformation you are seeking a better tactic would be to pressure these candidates into the Republican fold where their candidacy might yield some fruit. This is something a guy like Ron Paul understood. Not sure why you don't.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I was going to answer these point by point but the thought of it just makes my fingers tired. The bottom line is if you are not helping the Republican Party then by extension you are helping the Democratic Party. And yes, despite the fact that the Republicans are not all they should be, they are the better alternative.

An alt party vote is almost always a waste. If it's reformation you are seeking a better tactic would be to pressure these candidates into the Republican fold where their candidacy might yield some fruit. This is something a guy like Ron Paul understood. Not sure why you don't.I keep saying the same til I'm blue in the face, but Sicem always acts like it doesn't seem reasonable to him. I believe his position on foreign entanglements and international military presence are more important to him than the domestic unlawfulness of the democrats, and is why he is quicker to criticize that than he is the abhorrent behavior of the dems. Many, if not most of the Libertarians here behave in the same way as Sicem.

[SicEmBaylor]

I keep saying the same til I'm blue in the face, but Sicem always acts like it doesn't seem reasonable to him.
I've said it isn't a lot of things, but I've never said it doesn't seem reasonable. I can see the reason in it despite the fact that it's flat out wrong.

I believe his position on foreign entanglements and international military presence are more important to him than the domestic unlawfulness of the democrats,
And I have told you, on numerous occasions, that domestics are (without a doubt) the primary concern for me. Why do you think I bring up states' rights so much? What you fail to understand is that there is a correlation to big government abroad and big government at home. The two are not separate disjointed entities. You cannot have the kind of aggressive international presence (and all the wars and conflicts that go along with it) without having big government at home. The two are linked. I bring up foreign policy a lot because it's one way that I've desparately tried to illustrate to you the fact that there is little difference between a moderate Republican in the White House and a Democrat -- both parties agree on foreign policy in principle. The only difference between the two sides is the implementation of that policy. The point being this: It's nonsense to say that a Republican is demonstrably better in that situation when there is so little difference between the two sides. Add to that fact that a moderate Republican isn't going to be demonstrably better than a Democrat on domestic affairs either, and you're talking about a very small marginal benefit to voting for a Republican. Sorry, I won't sell out my principles for a very modest (supposedly) benefit by electing a ****ty Republican. Not going to happen. Again, I use foreign policy to demonstrate this fact but it certainly doesn't mean foreign policy is more important than domestic affairs.

why he is quicker to criticize that than he is the abhorrent behavior of the dems.
You either don't understand English, you don't bother to read what I write, or you think I'm lying when I've addressed why I do this a thousand times.

Many, if not most of the Libertarians here behave in the same way as Sicem.
Many? Who here is a libertarian? The closest thing on this board to a libertarian is myself and Fan and neither of us are libertarians.

[SicEmBaylor]

I was going to answer these point by point but the thought of it just makes my fingers tired. The bottom line is if you are not helping the Republican Party then by extension you are helping the Democratic Party. And yes, despite the fact that the Republicans are not all they should be, they are the better alternative.

An alt party vote is almost always a waste. If it's reformation you are seeking a better tactic would be to pressure these candidates into the Republican fold where their candidacy might yield some fruit. This is something a guy like Ron Paul understood. Not sure why you don't.

Ron Paul ran for President as a Libertarian...

As for working within a party and finding like-minded candidates, that's why I work within the Republican Party. That's why I personally have worked to recruit candidates to do exactly as you speak. That's why I show up to the meetings. That's why I spent ten years in a conservative advocacy group working to elect conservatives, working on legislative ratings, recruiting candidates, endorsing candidates, and even doing a little bit of lobbying work. I assure you -- I do exactly that.

But, at the end of the day, if I walk into a voting booth and I'm confronted with the choice between voting for a very ****ty Republican or a Democrat, I'll either abstain or choose a 3rd party candidate if (on the whole) they share my convictions. End of story. Earn my vote or don't -- I don't give it away for free just because a jackass attaches an (R) by their name.

[Eielson]

As I always state as a disclaimer before I post, I don't know **** about politics. I only post in here because I feel 90% of posters seem to be in the same boat.

...but I think voting is the bottom line, and I don't think there is any better way to get a party's attention than through the way you vote. Short term, yes, it's essentially "throwing away" your vote, but that's not necessarily the case long term. If the Republicans marched out an awful candidate in 2016, and 15% of Republicans responded by abstaining/voting for an alternate party, that would certainly lead to a landslide victory for the Democrats. In 2020, however, you can bet there would be major changes in the Republican party.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

As I always state as a disclaimer before I post, I don't know **** about politics. I only post in here because I feel 90% of posters seem to be in the same boat.

...but I think voting is the bottom line, and I don't think there is any better way to get a party's attention than through the way you vote. Short term, yes, it's essentially "throwing away" your vote, but that's not necessarily the case long term. If the Republicans marched out an awful candidate in 2016, and 15% of Republicans responded by abstaining/voting for an alternate party, that would certainly lead to a landslide victory for the Democrats. In 2020, however, you can bet there would be major changes in the Republican party.How has that philsophy worked so far? haha...actually it's not funny at all. It's given us Bear twice now, and look at the incalculable damage he's done already. If we get another democrat elected in 2016, the major damage could be too hard to peaceably correct.

[SicEmBaylor]

As I always state as a disclaimer before I post, I don't know **** about politics. I only post in here because I feel 90% of posters seem to be in the same boat.

...but I think voting is the bottom line, and I don't think there is any better way to get a party's attention than through the way you vote. Short term, yes, it's essentially "throwing away" your vote, but that's not necessarily the case long term. If the Republicans marched out an awful candidate in 2016, and 15% of Republicans responded by abstaining/voting for an alternate party, that would certainly lead to a landslide victory for the Democrats. In 2020, however, you can bet there would be major changes in the Republican party.

This is 100% right. You eat the short term cost for long-term gain.

[SicEmBaylor]

How has that philsophy worked so far?
It hasn't really been tried.

haha...actually it's not funny at all. It's given us Bear twice now, and look at the incalculable damage he's done already. If we get another democrat elected in 2016, the major damage could be too hard to peaceably correct.
No. What gave us Obama are two incredibly terrible Republican candidates who ran terrible campaigns that the American people rejected because, well, they suck.

1)No Republican on Earth was going to win the 2008 election lest of all John McCain who is a certifiable lunatic.
2)Romney was absolutely tone deaf to middle class Americans -- his campaign shot itself in the foot more than once and those gaffes led to a perceived image that he was out of touch.

3rd party voting had absolutely ZILCH to do with Obama winning. Absolutely zilch. The numbers were not enough to have made the difference. Barr only got less than half a million votes spread out over 50 states; Gary Johnson got 1.2. None were close enough in swing states to have made the difference. Don't you have a PoliSci degree? You should know that, right?

[SicEmBaylor]

2008 results:

Ohio: 2,940,000 votes, Obama; 2,677,000 votes, McCain; 20,000 votes, Barr
Difference between Obama-McCain=263,000 votes..............Barr only got 20,000 votes still leaving a deficit of 260,000 votes for McCain.

Florida: 4,300,000 votes, Obama; 4,000,000, McCain; 17,000, Barr
Difference between Obama-McCain=300,000 votes.............Barr only got 17,000 votes leaving a deficit of 283,000 votes for McCain

2012:
Ohio: 2,827,000 votes, Obama; 2,661,000, Romney; 49,500, Gary Johnson
Difference between Obama-Romney=166,000 votes........Johnson only got 49,500 leaving a deficit of 116,500 votes for Romney.

Florida: 4,237,000 votes, Obama; 4,163,000 votes, Romney; 45,000, Gary Johnson
Difference between Obama-Romney=74,000..............Gary Johnson got 45,000 leaving a deficit of 29,000 votes for Romney.


----------------

Long story short, this myth that McCain and Romney lost the election because conservatives voted 3rd party is absolute nonsense.

TL/DR: RLIMC is full of pig ****.

[Eielson]

How has that philsophy worked so far? haha...actually it's not funny at all. It's given us Bear twice now, and look at the incalculable damage he's done already. If we get another democrat elected in 2016, the major damage could be too hard to peaceably correct.

If I'm not mistaken, all of the third party candidates combined received about 1.5% of the overall vote. Even if we assume all of those would have otherwise been republican votes, I don't think that made a difference.

[SoonerorLater]

This is 100% right. You eat the short term cost for long-term gain.

There is no long term gain by this strategy. No "pie in the sky in sky in the great bye 'n bye". As I said Republican losses will not cause some epiphany that 'we need to get more conservative'. If anything it will tend to make the platform more populist to undercut the democrats at their own game.

All of this being said I believe we are on an almost irreversible course to complete statism. Over the next few decades it will exacerbated by macro trends that are largely beyond our control.

[SicEmBaylor]

There is no long term gain by this strategy. No "pie in the sky in sky in the great bye 'n bye". As I said Republican losses will not cause some epiphany that 'we need to get more conservative'. If anything it will tend to make the platform more populist to undercut the democrats at their own game.
I've worked on platforms in TX and OK. That is not how it works at all. That's not how any of that works. In fact, I got 4 new planks into the county platform -- two of which were adopted by the state. It absolutely makes the grassroots 'tighten up' the platform. Platforms are created from the bottom up -- amendments are brought up at the precinct level which then go to the county platform committees which also may propose its own -- those planks are then voted on at the county convention -- those county platforms then go to the state level where the same thing happens...they review changes on the county level and may adopt/propose their own....then the national committee does the same based, largely, on state platforms around the country. I assure you that platforms get tighter when elections are lost. It is not the other way around.


All of this being said I believe we are on an almost irreversible course to complete statism. Over the next few decades it will exacerbated by macro trends that are largely beyond our control.
Then for God's sake stop voting for statists! McCain is the absolute definition of a statist as was Romney (to a somewhat lesser degree). You do realize that there are statists on both sides which is the entire reason, on a real fundamental level, I'm sitting here having this argument...right? If there weren't statists in the GOP then I wouldn't be having this argument.

[SicEmBaylor]

However, having said all of that, the platforms are largely useless and meaningless. There is no requirement whatsoever that binds Republicans to its tenants and most don't. Most don't even bother to read the damned things.

[Eielson]

There is no long term gain by this strategy.

Well...that's one opinion.

I guess we'll see how things end up, but if we go McCain --> Romney --> Paul, then I think losing did the Republican party some good.

If we'd followed up 8 years of GW with 8 years of McCain, I think the Democrats could have won the 2016 election with a cadaver.

[SicEmBaylor]

Well...that's one opinion.

I guess we'll see how things end up, but if we go McCain --> Romney --> Paul, then I think losing did the Republican party some good.

If we'd followed up 8 years of GW with 8 years of McCain, I think the Democrats could have won the 2016 election with a cadaver.

Make no mistake, the party is split into two camps. Back in 2012, I wrote that long-*** winded post about the coming civil war for the heart and mind of the Republican Party. There's the establishment wing (mostly neocons and the Wall Street crowd) and then you have the liberty/grassroots wing of the party. The former is going to be represented this election by Paul and Cruz, respectively. Then you have guys somewhere between the two camps like Walker, Huck, Perry, etc -- then you have the outright establishment guys like Bush and Christie.

God help us if someone like Bush is the nominee, and by us I mean "America."

But the takeaway here is that losing three straight Presidential elections has finally resulted in two liberty/conservative candidates having a better than not chance at the nomination. That hasn't been true for a very very long time. If McCain and Romney had won those two elections then the Republican Party would continue to throw its support behind the same sort of establishment/statist candidates that they because why change if it's working, electorally speaking?

The only reason we're getting better GOP candidates is because the GOP lost.

[SoonerorLater]

I've worked on platforms in TX and OK. That is not how it works at all. That's not how any of that works. In fact, I got 4 new planks into the county platform -- two of which were adopted by the state. It absolutely makes the grassroots 'tighten up' the platform. Platforms are created from the bottom up -- amendments are brought up at the precinct level which then go to the county platform committees which also may propose its own -- those planks are then voted on at the county convention -- those county platforms then go to the state level where the same thing happens...they review changes on the county level and may adopt/propose their own....then the national committee does the same based, largely, on state platforms around the country. I assure you that platforms get tighter when elections are lost. It is not the other way around.

That well may be true for Oklahoma but there really isn't a candidate that is going to be dismissed by the voters here for being too darn conservative. Not so in other areas. There are (R) senators and reps from the northeast particularly, who I will go out on a limb and say you would not find to be real conservatives, who simply can't be elected as real conservatives.

I would counter that the Democratic party is far for more statist which is exactly why people need to stamp the ticket (R). Not because they are always going to get a good guy but they don't give numbers to Democrats who are worse.

[SicEmBaylor]

That well may be true for Oklahoma but there really isn't a candidate that is going to be dismissed by the voters here for being too darn conservative. Not so in other areas. There are (R) senators and reps from the northeast particularly, who I will go out on a limb and say you would not find to be real conservatives, who simply can't be elected as real conservatives.
If they aren't conservative why are you so interested in voting for them? What are they offering that is so appealing that leads you to believe they are infinitely better than a Democrat? Olympia Snowe? Let me tell you -- if you walk into the voting booth and Snowe is on your ballot along with a Democrat and a third-party guy who is genuinely conservative/liberty-oriented and you vote for Snow then let me be blunt -- f'k you.


I would counter that the Democratic party is far for more statist which is exactly why people need to stamp the ticket (R). Not because they are always going to get a good guy but they don't give numbers to Democrats who are worse.

The Democrats are no more statist than the Republicans -- they're simply statist in different ways. I don't endorse one any more than I endorse the other in that regard.

As for the fact that there are more moderate/liberal states with GOP platforms not quite as conservative as ours, that's absolutely true. The way to appeal to moderates is by pushing the very message I've been pushing here -- limited-government/individual liberty. There is an opportunity to appeal to a large swath of moderates out there who are more socially liberal; however, please mind the difference between 'social liberalism' and 'social libertarianism', the two have a lot of commonality but they are not the same. In any case, this is exactly the reason supporting Ron Paul is so damned important. He has a chance to appeal to those moderates who reject the Republican Party because of its statist-stance on social issues.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

If I'm not mistaken, all of the third party candidates combined received about 1.5% of the overall vote. Even if we assume all of those would have otherwise been republican votes, I don't think that made a difference.Is there a reason I have to waste my time reminding of those who sat home on their voting hands as well as those who voted 3rd party? IOW, bullsh*t. I don't really believe you are that stupid.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

That well may be true for Oklahoma but there really isn't a candidate that is going to be dismissed by the voters here for being too darn conservative. Not so in other areas. There are (R) senators and reps from the northeast particularly, who I will go out on a limb and say you would not find to be real conservatives, who simply can't be elected as real conservatives.

I would counter that the Democratic party is far for more statist which is exactly why people need to stamp the ticket (R). Not because they are always going to get a good guy but they don't give numbers to Democrats who are worse.Sicem, Eielson, and other koolaiders just won't admit that they are voting unwisely. Why do we waste our time talking about this?

[SoonerorLater]

If they aren't conservative why are you so interested in voting for them? What are they offering that is so appealing that leads you to believe they are infinitely better than a Democrat? Olympia Snowe? Let me tell you -- if you walk into the voting booth and Snowe is on your ballot along with a Democrat and a third-party guy who is genuinely conservative/liberty-oriented and you vote for Snow then let me be blunt -- f'k you.

If I am a citizen of Maine the reason I am interested in voting for them is because they are NOT a Democrat. If they are elected as an (R) it helps keep the majority which dictates committee assignments etc. If they are elected as an (R) their drawbacks can be diminished and they can still be useful. Additionally whoever they are running against is almost certain to be as bad or worse.

It's all about party politics and I say this as a guy who HATES party politics. In our political climate nothing else matters other than acquisition of power. Nothing. In the foreseeable future the only entities which will be power players are Democrats or Republicans. That's it. Not Libertarians, not Independents not the Green Party. Voting 'for the man' is a noble but largely ineffectual idea.

[SoonerorLater]

Sicem, Eielson, and other koolaiders just won't admit that they are voting unwisely. Why do we waste our time talking about this?

In the hopes one day they will arise and be enlightened......nah, never mind, your probably right.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

If I am a citizen of Maine the reason I am interested in voting for them is because they are NOT a Democrat. If they are elected as an (R) it helps keep the majority which dictates committee assignments etc. If they are elected as an (R) their drawbacks can be diminished and they can still be useful. Additionally whoever they are running against is almost certain to be as bad or worse.

It's all about party politics and I say this as a guy who HATES party politics. In our political climate nothing else matters other than acquisition of power. Nothing. In the foreseeable future the only entities which will be power players are Democrats or Republicans. That's it. Not Libertarians, not Independents not the Green Party. Voting 'for the man'(who is not a republican) is a noble but largely COUNTERPRODUCTIVE idea.sadly

[Eielson]

Is there a reason I have to waste my time reminding of those who sat home on their voting hands as well as those who voted 3rd party? IOW, bullsh*t. I don't really believe you are that stupid.

You think that if Obama forced everybody to vote that it would favor the Republicans? I, for one, don't believe that to be the case.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You think that if Obama forced everybody to vote that it would favor the Republicans? I, for one, don't believe that to be the case.Well, ain't that dandy! Let me clear it up for you: "those conservatives who sat home on their voting hands"

[SicEmBaylor]

Is there a reason I have to waste my time reminding of those who sat home on their voting hands as well as those who voted 3rd party? IOW, bullsh*t. I don't really believe you are that stupid.

I just demonstrated how you don't know what the hell you are talking about by picking out two representative and key swing states in the 2008 and 2012 elections, and I demonstrated quite clearly how 3rd party libertarian votes did NOT cost either McCain or Romney the election. I don't know what you paid for that Political Science degree, but you need to ask Boren for your money back -- or they need to ask for their diploma back....either work.

Let me copy what you couldn't be bothered to read just a few posts up:

2008 results:

Ohio: 2,940,000 votes, Obama; 2,677,000 votes, McCain; 20,000 votes, Barr
Difference between Obama-McCain=263,000 votes..............Barr only got 20,000 votes still leaving a deficit of 260,000 votes for McCain.

Florida: 4,300,000 votes, Obama; 4,000,000, McCain; 17,000, Barr
Difference between Obama-McCain=300,000 votes.............Barr only got 17,000 votes leaving a deficit of 283,000 votes for McCain

2012:
Ohio: 2,827,000 votes, Obama; 2,661,000, Romney; 49,500, Gary Johnson
Difference between Obama-Romney=166,000 votes........Johnson only got 49,500 leaving a deficit of 116,500 votes for Romney.

Florida: 4,237,000 votes, Obama; 4,163,000 votes, Romney; 45,000, Gary Johnson
Difference between Obama-Romney=74,000..............Gary Johnson got 45,000 leaving a deficit of 29,000 votes for Romney.


TL/DR: RLIMC doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

[SicEmBaylor]

Sicem, Eielson, and other koolaiders just won't admit that they are voting unwisely. Why do we waste our time talking about this?

I don't think you understand what that term means.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Quote Originally Posted by RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
Sicem, Eielson, and other koolaiders just won't admit that they are voting unwisely. Why do we waste our time talking about this?
In the hopes one day they will arise and be enlightened......nah, never mind, your probably right.Unfortunately for America, too few figure it out, and especially now with all the new illegals who will somehow vote. And, that's without addressing the subject of other types of voter fraud.

Sadly, my signature probably still holds true.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I don't think you understand what that term means.Oh, stop it! We are all wasting our time here.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I just demonstrated how you don't know what the hell you are talking about by picking out two representative and key swing states in the 2008 and 2012 elections, and I demonstrated quite clearly how 3rd party libertarian votes did NOT cost either McCain or Romney the election. I don't know what you paid for that Political Science degree, but you need to ask Boren for your money back -- or they need to ask for their diploma back....either work.

Let me copy what you couldn't be bothered to read just a few posts up:

2008 results:

Ohio: 2,940,000 votes, Obama; 2,677,000 votes, McCain; 20,000 votes, Barr
Difference between Obama-McCain=263,000 votes..............Barr only got 20,000 votes still leaving a deficit of 260,000 votes for McCain.

Florida: 4,300,000 votes, Obama; 4,000,000, McCain; 17,000, Barr
Difference between Obama-McCain=300,000 votes.............Barr only got 17,000 votes leaving a deficit of 283,000 votes for McCain

2012:
Ohio: 2,827,000 votes, Obama; 2,661,000, Romney; 49,500, Gary Johnson
Difference between Obama-Romney=166,000 votes........Johnson only got 49,500 leaving a deficit of 116,500 votes for Romney.

Florida: 4,237,000 votes, Obama; 4,163,000 votes, Romney; 45,000, Gary Johnson
Difference between Obama-Romney=74,000..............Gary Johnson got 45,000 leaving a deficit of 29,000 votes for Romney.


TL/DR: RLIMC doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.see post 106 & 109

[Eielson]

Well, ain't that dandy! Let me clear it up for you: "those conservatives who sat home on their voting hands"

Well yeah...if every Republican voted Republican, and no Democrats ever voted, the Republicans would win every election by a landslide. I don't see where you're going with this, though.

I've admitted, and continue to admit, that staying at home and not voting isn't as effective as voting for a third party candidate.

[SicEmBaylor]

Quote Originally Posted by RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
Sicem, Eielson, and other koolaiders just won't admit that they are voting unwisely. Why do we waste our time talking about this?Unfortunately for America, too few figure it out, and especially now with all the new illegals who will somehow vote. And, that's without addressing the subject of other types of voter fraud.

Sadly, my signature probably still holds true.

Your way has been the only way for decades. How's that working out for the country or conservatism? If your way worked, we wouldn't be having this converstaion right now. How about we try an alternative...you know...maybe for ****s and giggles?

[SicEmBaylor]

Well yeah...if every Republican voted Republican, and no Democrats ever voted, the Republicans would win every election by a landslide. I don't see where you're going with this, though.

I've admitted, and continue to admit, that staying at home and not voting isn't as effective as voting for a third party candidate.

If that many Republicans choose not to vote for a Republican candidate that it swings the election then I maintain there has to be something very seriously wrong with that particular Republican candidate; however, as I've shown, that was not the reason Obama won in either 2008 or 2012. He won because the American people had no interest in Romney and even less interest in McCain. They both ran incredibly bad campaigns purely from a technical point of view (especially McCain), and Romney allowed his gaffes to define who he is in the mind of the public.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I've admitted, and continue to admit, that staying at home and not voting isn't as effective as voting for a third party candidate.You should admit the truth, that you apparently think the effect of the two is different.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Skeletor or Tara VanDerveer?

[Eielson]

You should admit the truth, that you apparently think the effect of the two is different.

You just can't grasp big-picture concepts, can you?

But yes, I think there is a difference in "throwing away" your vote, and not even voting in the first place. It's a lot easier to dismiss somebody that doesn't vote at all as a bad American citizen, and pretend as if there isn't an issue with the candidate or the party. It's much more noticeable if 3rd party candidates were to get 15% of the popular vote than if 15% of the country didn't vote at all.

At the end of the day, though, losing elections is the biggest thing, so I think both tactics can have an effect.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You just can't grasp big-picture concepts, can you?

But yes, I think there is a difference in "throwing away" your vote, and not even voting in the first place. It's a lot easier to dismiss somebody that doesn't vote at all as a bad American citizen, and pretend as if there isn't an issue with the candidate or the party. It's much more noticeable if 3rd party candidates were to get 15% of the popular vote than if 15% of the country didn't vote at all.

At the end of the day, though, losing elections is the biggest thing, so I think both tactics can have an effect.so, VanDerveer?

[Eielson]

so, VanDerveer?

If we had Republican candidates that were as good politically as those two are at coaching women's basketball, then I would gladly pick one, and wouldn't hold out for Geno. I'm not going to hire Bill Callaghan just because he's better than John Blake, though.

[SicEmBaylor]

I've always enjoyed peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. I'm 32 years old, and I still love a great PB&J. I'm picky though..

It has to be very fresh thin white bread (preferably Rainbow), Peter Pan Peanut Butter (creamy or whipped will suffice), and Welch's grape jelly. All of that -- specifically. Just the right ratio of PB to jelly is incredibly important. I've found that the best mix is something close to 2/3 PB and 1/3 jelly. I want just enough jelly to 'lubricate' the throat because too much peanut butter makes it difficult to chew and eat. Sometimes I cut them into squares and other times I do triangles -- I never know which until start cutting....live for the moment, I say. As a kid, I liked to sometimes put Nacho Cheese Doritos inside the PBJ for some cheesy-crunch which is a practice I continue to this day.

You're never too old for a good PB&J.

[hawaii 5-0]

Let's do some figurin'........

Republican Congress

Republican Supreme Court

Republican President (?)

Now could someone pleeze explain how that Checks & Balances thing works.

Sounds more like a Death Spiral.


5-0

[Serenity Now]

I don't think you understand what that term means.
The irony of "Rush Limbaugh is my clone" referring to "koolaiders" as a pejorative is lost on him.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The irony of "Rush Limbaugh is my clone" referring to "koolaiders" as a pejorative is lost on him.You apparently don't understand the meaning of my user name here, so it's not surprising for you to say something like that.:acne:

[Turd_Ferguson]

You apparently don't understand the meaning of my user name here, so it's not surprising for you to say something like that.:acne:

SN has really let a bunch of us down as an 8th's/troll replacement. Hell, I think 8th could probably whoop his *** in a fistacuffs.

[Serenity Now]

You apparently don't understand the meaning of my user name here, so it's not surprising for you to say something like Ithat.:acne:
I was really thinking more about the sour koolaide that you drink poured by your GOP overlords.

[SicEmBaylor]

"Drinking the Kool-Aid", in political lexicon, refers to someone who completely fails to think for themselves instead opting to subscribe to whatever the 'group think' consensus is. It's in reference to the mindlessness of the Jones Cult who 'drank the Kool-Aid' just because he said to.

I'm a lot of things, a Kool-Aid drinker isn't one of them.


(although I do enjoy an ice cold glass of Kool-Aid in the summer)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

"Drinking the Kool-Aid", in political lexicon, refers to someone who completely fails to think for themselves instead opting to subscribe to whatever the 'group think' consensus is. It's in reference to the mindlessness of the Jones Cult who 'drank the Kool-Aid' just because he said to.

I'm a lot of things, a Kool-Aid drinker isn't one of them.


(although I do enjoy an ice cold glass of Kool-Aid in the summer)Pretty confident most everyone here knew/knows what the term means, in relation to political lexicon.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I was really thinking more about the sour koolaide that you drink poured by your GOP overlords.That's so effing silly, you'll have to do better than that in future posts.

[Eielson]

Pretty confident most everyone here knew/knows what the term means, in relation to political lexicon.

Then you understand why it is that you're actually the Kool-Aid drinker?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Then you understand why it is that you're actually the Kool-Aid drinker?Holy Mack, you have the same problem Serenity does!

[Serenity Now]

That's so effing silly, you'll have to do better than that in future posts.
You're the biggest right wing koolaider that there is here.

Your homage to that one arsehole is simply the cherry on the top of the banana split.

You trying to disavow your love of that windbag would look as silly as me trying to say that I think Seinfeld is trivial and not funny.

[SicEmBaylor]

Holy Mack, you have the same problem Serenity does!

If by "problem" you mean the ability "reason" and make "sense" then, yes, I suppose.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Of course! Serenity's ability to reason and make sense is that problem I spoke of.

So Sicem, you obviously would prefer Skeletor?!

[SicEmBaylor]

Of course! Serenity's ability to reason and make sense is that problem I spoke of.

So Sicem, you obviously would prefer Skeletor?!

I don't know who skeletor is supposed to be. I said he has the ability to reason and make sense; I didn't say I agree with him. One can be reasonable and make a compelling argument without agreeing.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I don't know who skeletor is supposed to be. If you're going to lie, why not at least be comical about it?

[SicEmBaylor]

If you're going to lie, why not at least be comical about it?

I honest to God do not know who you are referring to as Skeletor.

[Eielson]

So Democrats and Republicans alike are drinking the same kool-aid, and we're nominating a women's basketball coach?

I will not proceed until I get a PB&J, and there better not be more than 1/3 jelly on it.

[Soonerjeepman]

Just to add a little fuel to the fire...for the libs!

It's rather coincidental that all these happen...so many "suicides" or single person accidents....

47 deaths associated with Clintons...yes, snopes calls it false, and I don't necessarily believe Clintons did any of it...but as I said, very curious connections.

http://partypolitical.blogspot.com/2007/10/deaths-associated-with-clinton-family.html

[SoonerorLater]

Just to add a little fuel to the fire...for the libs!

It's rather coincidental that all these happen...so many "suicides" or single person accidents....

47 deaths associated with Clintons...yes, snopes calls it false, and I don't necessarily believe Clintons did any of it...but as I said, very curious connections.

http://partypolitical.blogspot.com/2007/10/deaths-associated-with-clinton-family.html

Probably just coincidental.

[Serenity Now]

Just to add a little fuel to the fire...for the libs!

It's rather coincidental that all these happen...so many "suicides" or single person accidents....

47 deaths associated with Clintons...yes, snopes calls it false, and I don't necessarily believe Clintons did any of it...but as I said, very curious connections.

http://partypolitical.blogspot.com/2007/10/deaths-associated-with-clinton-family.html

I bought into that crap 20ish years ago. That was my excuse to vote for H. Ross Perot. That and "Gridlock!" Who didn't love Stockdale? At that time I said, "we'll see about these things as the truth will come out at some point." That hasn't happened. Or, it's all trumped up crap.

I also seem to remember that the loudest voice I heard about this at the time was on the Art Bell radio show when I was in grad school commuting from eastern Oklahoma to OKC in my SWEET '85 Buick. I've since loved listening to those crackpots when driving the kids back from Six Flags in the wee hours of the morning. The same guy talks about the shadow people, contrails/chemtrails and a new world order. He had all the details about the Mena, AR airport and all of the drugs that the Clinton's were bringing in along with all of the deaths.

What I think is more likely is that George H. W. Bush took a trip in October before the 1980 election to negotiate with Iran to DELAY the release of the hostages until after the election and until Reagan took office. I came across that in a JFK book I was reading some time ago. Hostages were released minutes after Reagan's inauguration. Then, just a few short years later Reagan gets into Iran-Contra. Coincidence?

[REDREX]

Let's do some figurin'........

Republican Congress

Republican Supreme Court

Republican President (?)

Now could someone pleeze explain how that Checks & Balances thing works.

Sounds more like a Death Spiral.


5-0
Well lets see ---How did the Dem president ---Dem House and 60 votes in a Dem Senate do ?-----Hard to be worse than what they produced

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Well lets see ---How did the Dem president ---Dem House and 60 votes in a Dem Senate do ?-----Hard to be worse than what they producedObearcare

[SicEmBaylor]

https://scontent-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/10632827_475060282645628_8356698438687635534_n.jpg ?oh=7b0af9b3b3ecb685a8f9ba083d041521&oe=55D33EFD

[Serenity Now]

I loved the tea partiers who wanted to make sure that no one touched their Medicare.

I think the tea party was meant to be a smaller government movement. It evolved into something much larger and unhealthier. I think it helped create the chasm that you detailed earlier between the conservatives and the nationalists.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5a2LR2DWx2E

from the crown jewel album "Today" by the New Christy Minstrels. Many of their best alltime songs came from this album, soundtrack for the movie "Advance to the Rear". 1963 or '64

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JANJjgicHQ

[Eielson]

This conversation was heated, but intelligent, for a while...which was a nice change of pace here. Now it's just idiotic.

[SicEmBaylor]

This conversation was heated, but intelligent, for a while...which was a nice change of pace here. Now it's just idiotic.

You jumped the shark when you started discussing peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, sir. Please keep it on-topic and high brow next time.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

This conversation was heated, but intelligent, for a while...which was a nice change of pace here. Now it's just idiotic.Your side was the only intelligent side. The one that advocates punishing the American people for not having a top notch conservative candidate as the nominee.

[Eielson]

Your side was the only intelligent side. The one that advocates punishing the American people for not having a top notch conservative candidate as the nominee.

I think you're confusing "top-notch" with "clearly better than awful."

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Pfffffft! haha




absolutely no doubt Bear was a better choice than the idjut Romney.

[Serenity Now]

Pfffffft! haha




absolutely no doubt Bear was a better choice than the idjut Romney.
So, then who did you vote for?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

So, then who did you vote for?on top of all your other issues, you don't understand sarcasm?