Thread: So...who here is STILL proud to be a Democrat?

Originally Posted by zraver

In some perhaps many ways yes but they are also a political group.

Exactly my point.

Not exoneratign anyone, just keeping things in perspective.

No, actually, I think you're NOT keeping things in perspective.

You shouldn't talk about the far right religious fringers that way.

You know dam' well I wasn't. Because I see no parallel from 'the far right religious fringers' to ACORN, and if you DO, then mate, you've utterly lost ANY claim to any perspective.

See, I'm not down on 'em for being antithetical to everything I believe in as an American. I'm down on 'em for being criminals. You don't like the religious right? Hey, me neither, but you can't make the claim that what they're doing is anything that isn't totally acceptable political activity. You have a hard-on for 'em because they struggle for an end that you don't support (and seem to fear).

NOT. THE. SAME. THING. AT. ALL.

If all ACORN was doing was getting involved in politics, I'd work to defeat them politically. As the reality is, though, I'd rather see them imprisoned.

Perhaps the greatest killer of man by mans hand over time is religion.

You aren't even CLOSE. ANTI-religion is FAR bloodier, by orders of magnitude. Look it up, and that smear is rank bigotry on your part.

This country is full of people who would happily embrace an inquisition.

Define 'full of'. You can't possibly believe that there's anything but a handful of cranks that would ever even passively accept that, much less any group that would participate in it. You're a lunatic if you stand behind that. Absolutely unsupportable.

We know this because they did so in the past. Anyone who was not a WASP was subjected to things that can only be described as evil and un-American.

And it's your position, then, that the majority of modern Americans are fully prepared to wipe out Indians, enslave blacks, disenfranchise women, and carry out an Inquisition against non-Prods, are you telling me that, based on American history? You believe that America is a single election away from widespread and majority-supported official suppression of religious minorities?

PLEASE emigrate immediately. You may be in danger, you know. The life you save may be your own.

Friggin' idiot.

ACORN is far less dangerous than the Far Right.

Define 'Far Right'. Because I see no difference. ACORN is a gang of fascists-in-waiting. And NO conservative wants to do anything of the sort of power-grab that ACORN contemplates. If by 'Far Right' you refer to Nazis and that bunch of powerless misfits, there is no 'Far Right', practically speaking. But ACORN stands to rake in $8 BILLION tax dollars to continue their work against the interests of all Americans, everywhere.

You, sir, are completely unhinged if you really believe what you wrote.

No political ideloogy wants to share power. Do you think the Republicans look at electiosn and think, gee well have a great governing coalition?

I know for a dam' FACT that Republicans have no design on SEIZING political power. They use legitimate means and acceptable methods to ammass power, and the relaity is that every single Republican accepts that there will ALWAYS be an opposition, and it is NOT contemplated that the other political antities will be suppressed, whatever your lurid fantasies may otherwise inform you.

Given the recent history of the Republican part you can see why political affiliation is falling on both sides.

Given BOTH parties, I can see that. You were kinda making my point for me, there.

Then who would govern?

And ACORN-free political class that would have to use legitmate means and acceptable methods, and not the Alinksyite tactics from a political crime syndicate.

Originally Posted by rj1

Bluesman, now you're acting like the blacks in my city that when I say I won't vote for their guy because I think the other guy is better, call me a racist.

Well, are you a racist?

There are a lot of intelligent "conservative females" in the Republican Party, Kay Bailey Hutchinson for example who will most likely run for Governor of Texas in 2010, and although I thought she was a horrible senator for my state because she never did anything in her 6 years, Elizabeth Dole. Sarah Palin wasn't one of them.

You're very wrong. She was a very successful governor. As a matter of fact, she was the only one of the four that had ANY executive experience at all. And she ran the table in her state. So, essentially, you bought what the MSM sold you, and took it on faith that what was claimed about her intelligence was correct. Says more about your intelligence than hers.

Sorry, the presidency of the United States is too important to allow an idiot be in charge.

Oh, I agree with you there. But we got one, anyway.

And if THAT is your criteria, how the hell could you vote for the DOUBLE-idiot ticket? JOE BIDEN is SMARTER than PALIN? You're grossly mis-informed if you believe that. That is the dumbest man that ever sat in the Senate, and the record is clear on that. No shortage of examples.

That is why it is the goal of both parties to nominate the best candidates they can, no one can say with a straight face in public around a table full of people Palin was the best vice presidential choice McCain could make, and if they do make that claim, that person is an idiot.

Screw you, punk. I make that claim RIGHT NOW, because whatever she cost him by being his running mate, she was the only thing about that trainwreck of a campaign that I had ANY enthusiasm for, and I'm about as rock-ribbed a Republican as the party dam' well has. She brought a LOT of firepower to the campaign, and as a keen observer of the whole mess, it was THE bright spot. All other aspects were horrible and bleak, and if you want to talk about the Republican base's reaction to the entire '08 debacle, the only thing that kept it as close as it was, was Sarah Palin.

YOU are the idiot.

My personal opinion was McCain got forced to pick her by people in the party that didn't like him (which is a sizable portion of the Republican Party, especially the type of people that become delegates who are the true diehard koolaid drinkers), cause remember that he was originally thinking of picking Tom Ridge, who his party did not like because he was pro-choice.

If Ridge or Romney or any 'machine' politician that was compatible with that old bastard had been picked, Obama would've won by 35 percentage points and carried 45 states. You're talking out your ass.

I wanted NOTHING to do with McCain, and you can look back through my posts if you want that confirmed. It was ONLY when Palin came aboard that I was even motivated to get my absentee ballot. You really have NO IDEA how deep my antipathy for McCain and the rest of the RINO crew is, and if I had not seen a REAL conservative on the ticket, I was prepared to sit it out and let the country burn itself to ash for the next four years, until it got some sense knocked back into it.

As it is, I'm GLAD the Republicans got their asses handed to 'em, and have the chance to experience a little time-out, out there in the political wilderness. I noticed it has done wonders for party discipline and to focus their minds. So, we're going to fight from the position of disadvantage for awhile until the McCains and the Ridges figure out WHY there is a GOP in the first place.

That weak-ass 'win from the center' crap is why we lost twice. Have strong principles and stick to 'em like you got balls as big as Palin's, or we will SIT IT OUT, and let the Dems beat the whole faithless crew like rented mules, and it would serve 'em right.

Originally Posted by calass

thank you...other than the fact that palin did not seem very clever,the social conservative movement turns off a lot of the independent voters.romney could have won mccain the wh.

wrong.

blues,

Have strong principles and stick to 'em like you got balls as big as Palin's,

the question is WHICH principles. the social conservatism which sarah palin embraces is absolutely inethical to the founding principles of conservatism/Republicanism, ie small government, state rights, intellectual rigority, anti-populism, individual initiative, and incrementalism.

dale i believe once mentioned that he could never support huckabee for much of the same reasons-- what distinguishes palin from huckabee, other than that she is a better politico? can you show me which policy papers or articles she has written that support the conservative principles above?

Originally Posted by Bluesman

That weak-ass 'win from the center' crap is why we lost twice. Have strong principles and stick to 'em like you got balls as big as Palin's, or we will SIT IT OUT, and let the Dems beat the whole faithless crew like rented mules, and it would serve 'em right.

I really hope she runs in 2012. Its gonna be amazing!